5 ms·

Unimpressive; the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009, and he worries that someone will make anothe

Unimpressive; the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009, and he worries that someone will make another one one day (though it seems kind of telling that they haven't..?) and it will go differently. Why not get someone who's actually been harmed by this change in culture to write about that?

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Uncynical answer: because finding someone who's actually been harmed is difficult. Cynical answer: because anyone actually harmed will be told to check their privilege. Suspicious, realistic answer: because authority figures are always more scared of disruptions to their power than is warranted by actual conditions.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Unimpressive; the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009 > the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009, and he worries that someone will make another one one day On top of that, also, the groundless complaint that went nowhere in 2009 was from a student accusing the professor of "communistical sympathies" for not validating right-wing talking points on the housing crisis, and the result is that the professor is especially scared of his liberal students.
ksenzee 11y ago
The important point here is that he's changing his curriculum to avoid provocative works, so he doesn't get in trouble. If that becomes a widespread practice, we'll have a serious problem in higher education.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The important point here is that he's changing his curriculum to avoid provocative works, so he doesn't get in trouble. I think that the rather spurious grounds that he identifies for the fear motivating those changes is also important, particularly, it is important in identifying the source of the problem -- which is not, contrary to the headline, his liberal students, or even his students more generally.
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    No they are the other liberal students that got his colleagues in trouble. He's trying to avoid that so he can continue his career. But unfortunately he's stifled by a bunch of cry baby children who wish to take things away from everyone because feelingz.
bamboo_7 11y ago
I think the deeper point isn't just that it will go differently now, but that he has had to adjust his material and teaching style in fear of that bad reaction ruining his career. He points to a few examples of professors who were fired because of a single student's complaint and where universities have removed activities in deference to this outspoken social justice. The shame is that the discussions which should challenge and enrich a student's mind are now being silenced and therein lies to the harm.
- BlackAura 11y ago
  So the university being paranoid about being sued is the students' fault? > being silenced Nobody is being silenced by the students. What the students want is for professors to stop being assholes towards anyone that's not just like them, and are (correctly) pointing out various kinds of systemic bias, subjective opinions masquerading as objectivity, and instances where you have material that is disturbing or emotionally difficult for absolutely no good reason other than "it doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either". When confronted with that, this professor's response is basically denial, writing off these complaints as irrelevant, trivial, or "pandering" (ignorant of how much society in general panders to his own perspective). So, given that bringing this up directly will result in either being ignored, or being belittled or insulted, and the conversation shut down immediately... students don't actually have any choice but to complain. At that point, the university overreacts because they're paranoid about being sued. Which is part of a larger cultural issue that has nothing at all to do with the students. Funny that student activism that happened decades ago is considered a good thing (now), but activism by today's students is considered to be some kind of scary monster that threatens the whole of society...
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    If anyone wants to get inside a liberal's mind, you got one right here, BlackAura I'd bet money you are. Weasel words are present and everything. The young liberal-speak of concepts of 'systemic bias' and 'societal pandering' and of course the students as victims who 'have no choice' but to complain Everyone is going to have an example of some bad professor. But if you're in college seeing a systemic bias, you've gone into it thinking that ahead of time, or somebody planted the idea and no surprise young students are impressionable as all get-out. You'll find a good deal of variation among educators. The only systemic bias you'll find across a whole campus (or more with the administration) is an almost shocking and unrealistic unnecessary drive towards what might be called 'diversity' but really isn't. But if these SJWs / Liberals / feminists go in expecting some sort of bias, they are definitely going to find it. Just like once you buy a car, you see it everywhere on the road. > "ignored, belittled, insulted" More weasel words. Nothing that can be checked up on specifically, no particular victim or perpetrator. Just a thing that we're supposed to believe is ever present, rampant etc. >material that is disturbing or emotionally difficult for absolutely no good reason other than "it doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either" You've got the SJW bug for sure. You need a dose of realism. The obvious symptom is making wild assumptions about somebody else's frame of mind or purposely narrowing their intent and stating it on their behalf in order to justify any and all reaction over them. Add on to that getting mad that others aren't on your side. The reason society might be considering a lot of SJWs as scary is that they are young impressionable and have a lot of ignorant followers on twitter and will do anything and everything to weasel through a situation because their form of social justice must prevail. that includes, as we've seen in St. Louis and Baltimore, justifying illegal behavior for so-called systemic racism. the other scary thing about SJWs is they attack in many ways our most important right, freedom of speech. Like here you insist it's not being attacked but it is. It's playing the victim card and projecting somebody's intent knowing full well that your feelings hurt don't justify somebody getting a write up or being forced out of a position because of the way you claim to have suffered. The sad thing about all of it is it really doesn't get anyone anywhere. SJWs might get a statue taken down or a tradition removed, a speech cancelled, but they never really fix anything they just destroy things because they don't like them, so nobody else should either.
runamok 11y ago
Huh? He gives at least one example as to why he is concerned: > I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.
current_call 11y ago
Are we reading the same article? It isn't about him. He's complaining about general trends and he has several specific examples. As Judith Shulevitz wrote in the New York Times, these refusals can shut down discussion in genuinely contentious areas, such as when Oxford canceled an abortion debate. More often, they affect surprisingly minor matters, as when Hamsphire College disinvited an Afrobeat band because their lineup had too many white people in it. He [Chait] cites an anonymous professor who says that "she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma." Consider that tweet I linked to earlier, from critic and artist Zahira Kelly, in which she implies that the whole of scientific inquiry is somehow invalid because it has been conducted mostly by white males. In another instance, two female professors of library science publically outed and shamed a male colleague they accused of being creepy at conferences, going so far as to openly celebrate the prospect of ruining his career. By the way, you seem to be the sort of person that scares him. Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which "particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity." Why not get someone who's actually been harmed by this change in culture to write about that? -You
- cjbprime 11y ago
  > Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which "particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity." I see why you think I would do that, but when I say that I don't think his fears are justified by the evidence presented and we should seek better evidence of a problem (presumably from someone else), I'm doing the opposite of "elevating personal narrative and testimony".
  - current_call 11y ago
    But that's not what you said. You said someone "who's actually been harmed" should write about it. That would be elevating personal narrative and testimony.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Uncynical answer: because finding someone who's actually been harmed is difficult. Cynical answer: because anyone actually harmed will be told to check their privilege. Suspicious, realistic answer: because authority figures are always more scared of disruptions to their power than is warranted by actual conditions.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Unimpressive; the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009 > the worst he has is that someone made a groundless complaint that was handled perfectly well in 2009, and he worries that someone will make another one one day On top of that, also, the groundless complaint that went nowhere in 2009 was from a student accusing the professor of "communistical sympathies" for not validating right-wing talking points on the housing crisis, and the result is that the professor is especially scared of his liberal students.

ksenzee 11y ago

The important point here is that he's changing his curriculum to avoid provocative works, so he doesn't get in trouble. If that becomes a widespread practice, we'll have a serious problem in higher education.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The important point here is that he's changing his curriculum to avoid provocative works, so he doesn't get in trouble. I think that the rather spurious grounds that he identifies for the fear motivating those changes is also important, particularly, it is important in identifying the source of the problem -- which is not, contrary to the headline, his liberal students, or even his students more generally.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  No they are the other liberal students that got his colleagues in trouble. He's trying to avoid that so he can continue his career. But unfortunately he's stifled by a bunch of cry baby children who wish to take things away from everyone because feelingz.

bamboo_7 11y ago

I think the deeper point isn't just that it will go differently now, but that he has had to adjust his material and teaching style in fear of that bad reaction ruining his career. He points to a few examples of professors who were fired because of a single student's complaint and where universities have removed activities in deference to this outspoken social justice. The shame is that the discussions which should challenge and enrich a student's mind are now being silenced and therein lies to the harm.

BlackAura 11y ago
So the university being paranoid about being sued is the students' fault? > being silenced Nobody is being silenced by the students. What the students want is for professors to stop being assholes towards anyone that's not just like them, and are (correctly) pointing out various kinds of systemic bias, subjective opinions masquerading as objectivity, and instances where you have material that is disturbing or emotionally difficult for absolutely no good reason other than "it doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either". When confronted with that, this professor's response is basically denial, writing off these complaints as irrelevant, trivial, or "pandering" (ignorant of how much society in general panders to his own perspective). So, given that bringing this up directly will result in either being ignored, or being belittled or insulted, and the conversation shut down immediately... students don't actually have any choice but to complain. At that point, the university overreacts because they're paranoid about being sued. Which is part of a larger cultural issue that has nothing at all to do with the students. Funny that student activism that happened decades ago is considered a good thing (now), but activism by today's students is considered to be some kind of scary monster that threatens the whole of society...
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  If anyone wants to get inside a liberal's mind, you got one right here, BlackAura I'd bet money you are. Weasel words are present and everything. The young liberal-speak of concepts of 'systemic bias' and 'societal pandering' and of course the students as victims who 'have no choice' but to complain Everyone is going to have an example of some bad professor. But if you're in college seeing a systemic bias, you've gone into it thinking that ahead of time, or somebody planted the idea and no surprise young students are impressionable as all get-out. You'll find a good deal of variation among educators. The only systemic bias you'll find across a whole campus (or more with the administration) is an almost shocking and unrealistic unnecessary drive towards what might be called 'diversity' but really isn't. But if these SJWs / Liberals / feminists go in expecting some sort of bias, they are definitely going to find it. Just like once you buy a car, you see it everywhere on the road. > "ignored, belittled, insulted" More weasel words. Nothing that can be checked up on specifically, no particular victim or perpetrator. Just a thing that we're supposed to believe is ever present, rampant etc. >material that is disturbing or emotionally difficult for absolutely no good reason other than "it doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either" You've got the SJW bug for sure. You need a dose of realism. The obvious symptom is making wild assumptions about somebody else's frame of mind or purposely narrowing their intent and stating it on their behalf in order to justify any and all reaction over them. Add on to that getting mad that others aren't on your side. The reason society might be considering a lot of SJWs as scary is that they are young impressionable and have a lot of ignorant followers on twitter and will do anything and everything to weasel through a situation because their form of social justice must prevail. that includes, as we've seen in St. Louis and Baltimore, justifying illegal behavior for so-called systemic racism. the other scary thing about SJWs is they attack in many ways our most important right, freedom of speech. Like here you insist it's not being attacked but it is. It's playing the victim card and projecting somebody's intent knowing full well that your feelings hurt don't justify somebody getting a write up or being forced out of a position because of the way you claim to have suffered. The sad thing about all of it is it really doesn't get anyone anywhere. SJWs might get a statue taken down or a tradition removed, a speech cancelled, but they never really fix anything they just destroy things because they don't like them, so nobody else should either.

runamok 11y ago

Huh? He gives at least one example as to why he is concerned: > I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.

current_call 11y ago

Are we reading the same article? It isn't about him. He's complaining about general trends and he has several specific examples. As Judith Shulevitz wrote in the New York Times, these refusals can shut down discussion in genuinely contentious areas, such as when Oxford canceled an abortion debate. More often, they affect surprisingly minor matters, as when Hamsphire College disinvited an Afrobeat band because their lineup had too many white people in it. He [Chait] cites an anonymous professor who says that "she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma." Consider that tweet I linked to earlier, from critic and artist Zahira Kelly, in which she implies that the whole of scientific inquiry is somehow invalid because it has been conducted mostly by white males. In another instance, two female professors of library science publically outed and shamed a male colleague they accused of being creepy at conferences, going so far as to openly celebrate the prospect of ruining his career. By the way, you seem to be the sort of person that scares him. Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which "particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity." Why not get someone who's actually been harmed by this change in culture to write about that? -You

cjbprime 11y ago
> Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which "particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity." I see why you think I would do that, but when I say that I don't think his fears are justified by the evidence presented and we should seek better evidence of a problem (presumably from someone else), I'm doing the opposite of "elevating personal narrative and testimony".
- current_call 11y ago
  But that's not what you said. You said someone "who's actually been harmed" should write about it. That would be elevating personal narrative and testimony.