4 ms·

This push to force ideological “balance” on universities is incredibly dangerous. The pursuit of truth is difficult and has its pitfalls but it naturally leads

This push to force ideological “balance” on universities is incredibly dangerous. The pursuit of truth is difficult and has its pitfalls but it naturally leads to the dominance of certain viewpoints, which hopefully approximate the truth. What the Feds are doing here is just a hop skip and a jump from forcing universities to hire young Earth creationists alongside archaeologists, climate change deniers alongside climate scientists, etc. Universities and the research they do must inform politics, but the reverse risks destroying the research enterprise all together.

quotemstr 1y ago
[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 1y ago
  > Yet universities continue to push it, despite all evidence, because it flatters a certain worldview > So it is for many university programs There should be a 'marketplace of ideas' which absolutely does not mean that your ideas should be the only ones you identify in universities. It doesn't even mean that you should see your ideas in any university. Just that, if you make suasive statements, you will attract followers—and maybe you can go ahead and make your own university. The real problem that this sort of 'DEI-killed-all-intellectual-sophistication' arguments elide is that we're not educating our children (any of them, purple, green, or whatever race you wish), and instead are feeding them social media and other attention-grabbing things. On top of that, those of us who follow right-of-center media now have this continual push to believe even more far-fetched things daily. So how can you possibly imagine that right-of-center thinking will have a place in the marketplace if one element of being right-of-center is rejecting truth?
- patagurbon 1y ago
  > universities pushing restorative justice Universities? Can you point to a university whose explicit policy is restorative justice? That’s not how universities generally work. You’re probably taking issue with an individual department which naturally has a certain research and academic history. Are you prepared to cite the works prepared and researched by individuals at a university or lab which counter the research on restorative justice? If not then either it doesn’t exist and we’re operating on anecdata or it does exist and the research system is proceeding exactly as intended. You are also comparing the outcomes of policy to the work of scientists and philosophers without analyzing the specifics of imperfect policy meeting an imperfect world. Research and knowledge work in general is often wrong. That’s not the point. For decades large parts of the genome were believed to be garbage. That wasn’t amended by the government it was amended by researchers following the scientific process. The politicization of the process doesn’t speed it up, it simply introduces an outside malignant influence to an otherwise slow but steady process of inquiry.
Levitz 1y ago
A top-down exertion of ideological power like this is terrible, it can't be the case that universities are bullied into toeing the line of whoever is in power at the moment, that much should be evident. But surely it also can't be the case that colleges demand what are basically declarations of political allegiance in the form of DEI statements, institutional trust is nosediving and ideological capture is to blame in large part. I hope this push from the administration fails, but I also hope something changes because otherwise the result is going to be worse than if universities actually submitted to these demands.
- patagurbon 1y ago
  I am not in favor of mandated DEI statements outside of basic respect for students and colleagues, I’m not sure why that’s relevant or why you responded to me about it. Most universities have moved away from those.
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    > Most universities have moved away from those. Whatever the mechanism, they remain echo chambers and continue to present, as the only truth, systems of thought that diverge from objective reality and that poison the public discourse.
    - patagurbon 1y ago
      > whatever the mechanism Is straining to carry the rest of this sentence. I responded to an assertion that a policy by certain limited universities was attempted and deemed unfit by the natural process was still active. This is how institutions grow and evolve. > echo chambers Publish your papers, rebut the research. This is actively happening every day in every field of science. It is happening in everything from gender studies to particle physics. > poison the public discourse What on Earth are you talking about. What public discourse are you frequenting which is driven primarily by this boogeyman of the university system rather than the attention driven rat race of national fear politics.
bawolff 1y ago
I'm opossed to what trump is doing, its abhorent. But i still think its possible for academics to get into echo chambers. They are human just like the rest of us. Especially in fields not easily subject to direct experimental verification. I think its important not to put researchers on a pedestal as if they are above folly. (After all, the saying "science advanced one funeral at a time" didn't come from nowhere)
- patagurbon 1y ago
  Sure, that’s why I said the process is an approximation of truth and only then in the limit. This is known in the scientific, philosophical, and research communities. It is a reality that is only solved by the slow inexorable application of the scientific process and exchange of ideas, not by outside political influence. We should never put researchers on pedestals, but the process of science is the most prized accomplishment of humanity. It is a farcical weaponization of the slow and often backtracking nature of science by the anti-intellectuals of the world which we are witnessing now. Not a real crisis
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    I don't think it's the "process" of science that achieved much of anything. You could go back thousands of years ago, teach everybody the scientific method in excruciating detail and it's unlikely much of anything would change. And vice versa the researchers in modern times producing work that has basically 0 ability to be replicated or those overtly pursuing their own biases are equally well aware of the scientific method. It's actually somewhat hard to say what did change. Einstein, for instance, went to his grave rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics simply because he felt, solely due to his own personal biases, that the world must be deterministic and rational. His famous quotes like 'spooky action at a distance' or 'god doesn't play dice' were essentially sardonic mocking of the Copenhagen Interpretation, the interpretation we hold to be most accurate to this very day. That's not exactly the behavior of some guy able to step outside the normal ideological biases and bounds that constrains us all, to say the least. But nonetheless something did change. And similarly, in modern times I think it's very arguable that science has again regressed. Trust in science and scientists isn't declining because of Facebook or Trump or whatever. It's declining because politics and science have once again become deeply intertwined - like they have been for about 99.99% of humanity's entire history, the overwhelming majority of which we achieved essentially 0 from a scientific perspective.
nickpsecurity 1y ago
[flagged]
- grumio 1y ago
  > Their ratings are plummeting which shows their viewers are tired of what they're doing. Source?
nine_k 1y ago
The push to mandate an "ideological balance" is indeed a wrong move; allowing the state to determine such matters always leads to rot, examples abound. It sadly does not mean that universities are laser-focused on seeking truth, and are free from ideological biases, often very obvious. Regarding truth, one of the leading theories in humanities is that of Michel Foucault, which states that there cannot be any objective truth, and what is considered true is determined by power structures. I'm glad to see though that the four universities are making a stand, and value independence above whatever "federal benefits" the administration may offer. It's sad that these are only 4 out of 9.
- patagurbon 1y ago
  None of the other universities have agreed yet. What do you mean by laser focused? Do you have specific policies to address this? If not then this is a natural part of the unfocused nature of knowledge work, and the natural weakness of human organizations. University research and knowledge work in general is backtracking search, not gradient descent in a friendly loss landscape.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    > What do you mean by laser focused? I mean that universities, like any large organizations, are very not free from internal politics and peer pressure. Also, like any large group of people, they are subject to irrational but powerful phenomena like the intellectual fashion, or religious zeal (which does not take an established religion). These all are impediments on the way of truth-seeking, but are inevitable due to human nature.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  > are free from ideological biases, you're missing the point. Universities are free to have their own ideological biases. Some will certainly be biased in one direction. Others in another. Students aren't forced to go to a given university -- there any many to choose from. But when the gov forces its ideological biases on Universities, then it begins to remove choice for students. It might start with only a dozen, but if successful, it will push on others, until it becomes the de-facto requirement to get government funding. That is totalitarianism.

quotemstr 1y ago

[flagged]

bonsai_spool 1y ago
> Yet universities continue to push it, despite all evidence, because it flatters a certain worldview > So it is for many university programs There should be a 'marketplace of ideas' which absolutely does not mean that your ideas should be the only ones you identify in universities. It doesn't even mean that you should see your ideas in any university. Just that, if you make suasive statements, you will attract followers—and maybe you can go ahead and make your own university. The real problem that this sort of 'DEI-killed-all-intellectual-sophistication' arguments elide is that we're not educating our children (any of them, purple, green, or whatever race you wish), and instead are feeding them social media and other attention-grabbing things. On top of that, those of us who follow right-of-center media now have this continual push to believe even more far-fetched things daily. So how can you possibly imagine that right-of-center thinking will have a place in the marketplace if one element of being right-of-center is rejecting truth?
patagurbon 1y ago
> universities pushing restorative justice Universities? Can you point to a university whose explicit policy is restorative justice? That’s not how universities generally work. You’re probably taking issue with an individual department which naturally has a certain research and academic history. Are you prepared to cite the works prepared and researched by individuals at a university or lab which counter the research on restorative justice? If not then either it doesn’t exist and we’re operating on anecdata or it does exist and the research system is proceeding exactly as intended. You are also comparing the outcomes of policy to the work of scientists and philosophers without analyzing the specifics of imperfect policy meeting an imperfect world. Research and knowledge work in general is often wrong. That’s not the point. For decades large parts of the genome were believed to be garbage. That wasn’t amended by the government it was amended by researchers following the scientific process. The politicization of the process doesn’t speed it up, it simply introduces an outside malignant influence to an otherwise slow but steady process of inquiry.

Levitz 1y ago

A top-down exertion of ideological power like this is terrible, it can't be the case that universities are bullied into toeing the line of whoever is in power at the moment, that much should be evident. But surely it also can't be the case that colleges demand what are basically declarations of political allegiance in the form of DEI statements, institutional trust is nosediving and ideological capture is to blame in large part. I hope this push from the administration fails, but I also hope something changes because otherwise the result is going to be worse than if universities actually submitted to these demands.

patagurbon 1y ago
I am not in favor of mandated DEI statements outside of basic respect for students and colleagues, I’m not sure why that’s relevant or why you responded to me about it. Most universities have moved away from those.
- quotemstr 1y ago
  > Most universities have moved away from those. Whatever the mechanism, they remain echo chambers and continue to present, as the only truth, systems of thought that diverge from objective reality and that poison the public discourse.
  - patagurbon 1y ago
    > whatever the mechanism Is straining to carry the rest of this sentence. I responded to an assertion that a policy by certain limited universities was attempted and deemed unfit by the natural process was still active. This is how institutions grow and evolve. > echo chambers Publish your papers, rebut the research. This is actively happening every day in every field of science. It is happening in everything from gender studies to particle physics. > poison the public discourse What on Earth are you talking about. What public discourse are you frequenting which is driven primarily by this boogeyman of the university system rather than the attention driven rat race of national fear politics.

bawolff 1y ago

I'm opossed to what trump is doing, its abhorent. But i still think its possible for academics to get into echo chambers. They are human just like the rest of us. Especially in fields not easily subject to direct experimental verification. I think its important not to put researchers on a pedestal as if they are above folly. (After all, the saying "science advanced one funeral at a time" didn't come from nowhere)

patagurbon 1y ago
Sure, that’s why I said the process is an approximation of truth and only then in the limit. This is known in the scientific, philosophical, and research communities. It is a reality that is only solved by the slow inexorable application of the scientific process and exchange of ideas, not by outside political influence. We should never put researchers on pedestals, but the process of science is the most prized accomplishment of humanity. It is a farcical weaponization of the slow and often backtracking nature of science by the anti-intellectuals of the world which we are witnessing now. Not a real crisis
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I don't think it's the "process" of science that achieved much of anything. You could go back thousands of years ago, teach everybody the scientific method in excruciating detail and it's unlikely much of anything would change. And vice versa the researchers in modern times producing work that has basically 0 ability to be replicated or those overtly pursuing their own biases are equally well aware of the scientific method. It's actually somewhat hard to say what did change. Einstein, for instance, went to his grave rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics simply because he felt, solely due to his own personal biases, that the world must be deterministic and rational. His famous quotes like 'spooky action at a distance' or 'god doesn't play dice' were essentially sardonic mocking of the Copenhagen Interpretation, the interpretation we hold to be most accurate to this very day. That's not exactly the behavior of some guy able to step outside the normal ideological biases and bounds that constrains us all, to say the least. But nonetheless something did change. And similarly, in modern times I think it's very arguable that science has again regressed. Trust in science and scientists isn't declining because of Facebook or Trump or whatever. It's declining because politics and science have once again become deeply intertwined - like they have been for about 99.99% of humanity's entire history, the overwhelming majority of which we achieved essentially 0 from a scientific perspective.

nickpsecurity 1y ago

[flagged]

grumio 1y ago
> Their ratings are plummeting which shows their viewers are tired of what they're doing. Source?

nine_k 1y ago

The push to mandate an "ideological balance" is indeed a wrong move; allowing the state to determine such matters always leads to rot, examples abound. It sadly does not mean that universities are laser-focused on seeking truth, and are free from ideological biases, often very obvious. Regarding truth, one of the leading theories in humanities is that of Michel Foucault, which states that there cannot be any objective truth, and what is considered true is determined by power structures. I'm glad to see though that the four universities are making a stand, and value independence above whatever "federal benefits" the administration may offer. It's sad that these are only 4 out of 9.

patagurbon 1y ago
None of the other universities have agreed yet. What do you mean by laser focused? Do you have specific policies to address this? If not then this is a natural part of the unfocused nature of knowledge work, and the natural weakness of human organizations. University research and knowledge work in general is backtracking search, not gradient descent in a friendly loss landscape.
- nine_k 1y ago
  > What do you mean by laser focused? I mean that universities, like any large organizations, are very not free from internal politics and peer pressure. Also, like any large group of people, they are subject to irrational but powerful phenomena like the intellectual fashion, or religious zeal (which does not take an established religion). These all are impediments on the way of truth-seeking, but are inevitable due to human nature.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
> are free from ideological biases, you're missing the point. Universities are free to have their own ideological biases. Some will certainly be biased in one direction. Others in another. Students aren't forced to go to a given university -- there any many to choose from. But when the gov forces its ideological biases on Universities, then it begins to remove choice for students. It might start with only a dozen, but if successful, it will push on others, until it becomes the de-facto requirement to get government funding. That is totalitarianism.