3 ms·

I think Scott's take here is fair because he acknowledges that most of the Ivy League did (and largely still does) have huge problems with adequately protecting

I think Scott's take here is fair because he acknowledges that most of the Ivy League did (and largely still does) have huge problems with adequately protecting Jewish students and perspectives, and more broadly, intellectual viewpoint diversity of any kind. And prior administrations did push regulatory and funding requirements and policies to support DEI and other hot point issues to an extent that was clearly agenda biased. But, as Scott observes, unfortunately the current administration has gone far beyond trying to correct those excesses to a more neutral or balanced median and is, instead, doing the same things (and much worse) that "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. That makes the current administration just as wrong as the prior ones were. Only now we're hearing much more about it because the current agenda-driven biases are ones that >85% of academia doesn't hold themselves.

ks2048 2y ago
> and is, instead, doing the same things "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. Below, is copied from an NYT article [https://archive.ph/ONxlX https://archive.ph/ONxlX]. Which of these did previous administrations do? === Some of the actions that the Trump administration demanded of Harvard were: * Conducting plagiarism checks on all current and prospective faculty members. * Sharing all its hiring data with the Trump administration, and subjecting itself to audits of its hiring while “reforms are being implemented,” at least through 2028. * Providing all admissions data to the federal government, including information on both rejected and admitted applicants, sorted by race, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests. * Immediately shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion. * Overhauling academic programs that the Trump administration says have “egregious records on antisemitism,” including placing certain departments and programs under an external audit. The list includes the Divinity School, the Graduate School of Education, the School of Public Health and the Medical School, among many others.
- mrandish 2y ago
  I've edited my post to add "doing the same things (and much worse)" which I should have put originally because I think it's true that the current administration is coming up with "all-new and improved" ways to bring pressure. To be fair, a defender of the current administration (which I'm obviously not) might point out that "the other guy" administration was pushing an agenda bias on people who broadly agreed with the direction, while the current administration is pushing against strong bias the other direction - so more pressure is justified. While I agree any moves away from the preferred extreme and back toward the middle (and beyond), will meet with resistance from the institution's partisan majority and encounter 'malicious compliance' at best, that still doesn't morally justify bias in the other direction. Eventually, someone needs to have the courage to step up and not play the "Retaliate and Escalate" move on their turn with Power Boost (that's the two years where one party holds control of the executive and congress, which, lately, each side gets approximately every 6-8 years (there is one "Lose Turn" card in the deck but it's rare). Missing in all that is, of course, the best long-term strategy would be to reverse only to a relatively neutral position and take the moral high-ground of saying that the government shouldn't push agenda positions and try to get the center to rally around you. Basically, really try to be neutral. Protect all viewpoints equally and favor none. No negative biases but also no affirmative action. Previous jihads against one direction don't justify crusades in response. That kind of reasoning was how we got 'affirmative action' in response to OG institutional racism. Now the current administration is justifying going to extremes with the same flawed reasoning of "correcting sins of the past". For example, "shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion" is just as wrong as demanding all departments force everyone to sign DEI pledges or that all students take a DEI class. To me, the real enemy here is government compelling private universities to "always do" or "never do" (forbid or require) any specific thing about any of these culture war topics. At some point, we need to learn from and remember the past but otherwise decide it's time to let the past go. The current moment would have been a good time to plant a bold flag for no systemic institutional biases for or against any culture war agenda-driven "correction". But the current administration seems set on continuing what looks to be a never-ending culture war. Perhaps the most stupid thing is both sides continue to act like anything which can be accomplished by presidential fiat can't just as easily be undone by presidential fiat. Day one of the next Democrat administration they'll undo most of this and when they get their next turn with Power Boost they'll undo all of it. If the past is any measure, they'll also use all the "New and Improved" methods this administration is coming up with to push in the other direction (just as Trump is using every technique for presidential expansion Obama 'innovated').
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
The idea that Jewish students are in danger at Harvard is just as absurd as the idea that Canada is to blame for the US' fentanyl problem. Harvard is probably one of the least antisemitic places on Earth. Scott Aaronson has perpetuated the false claims about Harvard and other university campuses being antisemitic, because he is unable to separate hatred of Jews from opposition to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. If you've been told all your life that people hate Israel because they hate the Jews, it's very difficult to break out of that and realize that the Palestinians have been horribly mistreated and have enormous, legitimate grievances against Israel. But now fake claims of antisemitism are being used as a cudgel to end academic freedom in the US, and suddenly Aaronson and others who share his beliefs are in a difficult situation. They helped create the conditions for Trump's assault on academia.

ks2048 2y ago

> and is, instead, doing the same things "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. Below, is copied from an NYT article [https://archive.ph/ONxlX https://archive.ph/ONxlX]. Which of these did previous administrations do? === Some of the actions that the Trump administration demanded of Harvard were: * Conducting plagiarism checks on all current and prospective faculty members. * Sharing all its hiring data with the Trump administration, and subjecting itself to audits of its hiring while “reforms are being implemented,” at least through 2028. * Providing all admissions data to the federal government, including information on both rejected and admitted applicants, sorted by race, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests. * Immediately shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion. * Overhauling academic programs that the Trump administration says have “egregious records on antisemitism,” including placing certain departments and programs under an external audit. The list includes the Divinity School, the Graduate School of Education, the School of Public Health and the Medical School, among many others.

mrandish 2y ago
I've edited my post to add "doing the same things (and much worse)" which I should have put originally because I think it's true that the current administration is coming up with "all-new and improved" ways to bring pressure. To be fair, a defender of the current administration (which I'm obviously not) might point out that "the other guy" administration was pushing an agenda bias on people who broadly agreed with the direction, while the current administration is pushing against strong bias the other direction - so more pressure is justified. While I agree any moves away from the preferred extreme and back toward the middle (and beyond), will meet with resistance from the institution's partisan majority and encounter 'malicious compliance' at best, that still doesn't morally justify bias in the other direction. Eventually, someone needs to have the courage to step up and not play the "Retaliate and Escalate" move on their turn with Power Boost (that's the two years where one party holds control of the executive and congress, which, lately, each side gets approximately every 6-8 years (there is one "Lose Turn" card in the deck but it's rare). Missing in all that is, of course, the best long-term strategy would be to reverse only to a relatively neutral position and take the moral high-ground of saying that the government shouldn't push agenda positions and try to get the center to rally around you. Basically, really try to be neutral. Protect all viewpoints equally and favor none. No negative biases but also no affirmative action. Previous jihads against one direction don't justify crusades in response. That kind of reasoning was how we got 'affirmative action' in response to OG institutional racism. Now the current administration is justifying going to extremes with the same flawed reasoning of "correcting sins of the past". For example, "shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion" is just as wrong as demanding all departments force everyone to sign DEI pledges or that all students take a DEI class. To me, the real enemy here is government compelling private universities to "always do" or "never do" (forbid or require) any specific thing about any of these culture war topics. At some point, we need to learn from and remember the past but otherwise decide it's time to let the past go. The current moment would have been a good time to plant a bold flag for no systemic institutional biases for or against any culture war agenda-driven "correction". But the current administration seems set on continuing what looks to be a never-ending culture war. Perhaps the most stupid thing is both sides continue to act like anything which can be accomplished by presidential fiat can't just as easily be undone by presidential fiat. Day one of the next Democrat administration they'll undo most of this and when they get their next turn with Power Boost they'll undo all of it. If the past is any measure, they'll also use all the "New and Improved" methods this administration is coming up with to push in the other direction (just as Trump is using every technique for presidential expansion Obama 'innovated').

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

The idea that Jewish students are in danger at Harvard is just as absurd as the idea that Canada is to blame for the US' fentanyl problem. Harvard is probably one of the least antisemitic places on Earth. Scott Aaronson has perpetuated the false claims about Harvard and other university campuses being antisemitic, because he is unable to separate hatred of Jews from opposition to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. If you've been told all your life that people hate Israel because they hate the Jews, it's very difficult to break out of that and realize that the Palestinians have been horribly mistreated and have enormous, legitimate grievances against Israel. But now fake claims of antisemitism are being used as a cudgel to end academic freedom in the US, and suddenly Aaronson and others who share his beliefs are in a difficult situation. They helped create the conditions for Trump's assault on academia.