NFT: New Yorker piece on Oberlin and campus activism

you push for as much as you can, no matter how ridiculous the demands are or how they would deny rights to others.

What's needed is some backbone in college presidents. Problem is they have to deal with faculty who are also pushing for as much as they can with scholarship now a secondary consideration.

while they might admire or empathize with the activism, some are undoubtedly terrified (and have said so) that they will somehow run afoul of the activists themselves.

In comment 12972019 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

while they might admire or empathize with the activism, some are undoubtedly terrified (and have said so) that they will somehow run afoul of the activists themselves.

It's Oberlin. Hard to be sympathetic to the kinds of people who breed this fascism of sensitivity. Let them realize what's its like for everyone else.

THe link below is maybe relevant to this thread and our ongoing discussion (and gripe-sessions) about SJW's.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12972019 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

while they might admire or empathize with the activism, some are undoubtedly terrified (and have said so) that they will somehow run afoul of the activists themselves.

I'm sure for some that's true, for others it probably inspires them to try to outdemand the students.

I was on campus after 9/11. I penned a newspaper column, we organized speakers, we were relatively politically active. And while we were threatened once or twice and berated on occasion, while a grade or two might have been less than performance warranted, nothing more serious happened. People protested our events and dominated the Q&A with BS but nobody physically attacked anyone, there were no serious calls to discipline us. Would that be the case today?

for the faculty. Without knowing the specific people at Oberlin in faculty positions, my opinion is that faculty in general overwhelmingly support this.

In comment 12972071 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

I was on campus after 9/11. I penned a newspaper column, we organized speakers, we were relatively politically active. And while we were threatened once or twice and berated on occasion, while a grade or two might have been less than performance warranted, nothing more serious happened. People protested our events and dominated the Q&A with BS but nobody physically attacked anyone, there were no serious calls to discipline us. Would that be the case today?

What was his/her response? These days I would not be surprised if the stage was stormed, the microphone seized (or attempted to be seized with anyone trying to prevent it sent to the dean) and nonnegotiable demands on the president for your immediate expulsing from the university.

.

has some of the highlights with examples of the more excessive responses to non-accepted views in the academy.
Link - ( New Window )

and the school now faces severe budget shortfalls. Classic.

As with many topics, the pendulum for social justice, forced diversity, etc may have swung too far. What was first exposing and properly adjusting institutional deficiencies has no devolved into militarism and trolling for the sake of trolling.

I do wonder what the impact of the changing American demographics mean to the future of these movements and perceived injustice. In twenty years who will be seeking safe spaces?

as the equivalent of internet trolls, which is what a lot of our counterparts these days are doing. Apparently.

We had a big debate over whether or not to bring Ann Coulter to campus, who was a celebrity at that time but didn't have anywhere near the level of notoriety she does now. Thankfully we resolved that in the negative, though we did invite Dinesh D'Souza.

But this stuff is on a different level. It's one thing to protest, it's another thing to aggressively suppress speech.

but watch it, I can't tell if the interviewer is trolling him or not, but I don't understand this line of thinking.
UC Irvine President interview about banning the American Flag - ( New Window )

In comment 12972045 Moondawg said:

Quote:

In comment 12972019 Dunedin81 said: Quote: while they might admire or empathize with the activism, some are undoubtedly terrified (and have said so) that they will somehow run afoul of the activists themselves. It's Oberlin. Hard to be sympathetic to the kinds of people who breed this fascism of sensitivity. Let them realize what's its like for everyone else. THe link below is maybe relevant to this thread and our ongoing discussion (and gripe-sessions) about SJW's. Link - ( New Window )

And the President of DePaul, through his response to the event and during his travels through Normandy, compared those protesting to the heroes that perished on those beaches in WWII without directly apologizing to the the gentleman that was accosted. You almost cannot make this up.

The BLM girl who rushed the stage is the daughter of a high ranking official in.....the Chicago Police Department.

In comment 12972096 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But this stuff is on a different level. It's one thing to protest, it's another thing to aggressively suppress speech.

Identity politics has always contained within it the seeds of this sort of outrage (PCU was about as prescient as Idiocracy). And in some ways it is extremely funny. But in others it is terrifying, because like it or these activists will eventually aspire to leadership roles in party politics, in interest groups and elsewhere. They'll moderate somewhat, but the idea that some of these ideas would really take root elsewhere is frightening.

In comment 12972096 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But this stuff is on a different level. It's one thing to protest, it's another thing to aggressively suppress speech.

To me, it is an example of how powerfully Marxism has won the cultural war in America, even as it has spectacularly lost the economic "war" in most of the world.

For Marx, rational discourse is unhelpful. Consciousness does not determine men's being; being determines consciousness. That is, it is folly to try to discuss things on the macro level of values. People's way of thinking changes by economic reconditioning.

Most philosophical argument is merely the clash of class values and is of no value. Indeed, it is an impediment to the kind of change that is required by his vision.

In other words, opposition to critical thinking is a feature, not a bug, of the SJW movement.And the fact that it has so deeply pervaded the American educational establishment is remarkable.

I'm in the humanities. I can't speak for the hard sciences, where, I bet, it's not really an issue.

is a deep feature of human psyche. And in a more "scientific" age, it persists. The worst thing is that people have such hubris and stridency about their purity and values that they are incapable of serious introspection and healthy self-doubt. I've seen it in both religious folks and in humanistic progressives on campus. Same psychology, different setting.

its approaching fascism.

Quote:

“Because I’m dealing with having been arrested on campus, or having to deal with the things that my family are going through because of larger systems—having to deal with all of that, I can’t produce the work that they want me to do. But I understand the material, and I can give it to you in different ways. There’s professors who have openly been, like, ‘Yeah, instead of, you know, writing out this midterm, come in to my office hours, and you can just speak it,’ right? But that’s not institutionalized. I have to find that professor.”

Some of them have to actually go LOOK for professors that won't require them to take written exams. Can you imagine how utterly exhausting that must be? And people say kids aren't resilient these days.

In comment 12972096 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But this stuff is on a different level. It's one thing to protest, it's another thing to aggressively suppress speech.

But back then, except perhaps for 1968-1970, THEY were the ones worried about violence. Now they are the ones COMMITTING the violence (and expecting immunity).

This is certainly in your area of expertise, not mine, but it certainly seems that man truly is generally hardwired to religious thought. When they reject the concept of deities, they substitute something else - Marxism, Gaia worship-style environmentalism, identity politics, etc. They have their own dogma, their own commandments and sins, their own ethics and morality, all based on their chosen religion. They root our heresy with all the zeal of a 14th century inquisitor.

.

In comment 12972120 Moondawg said:

Quote:

is a deep feature of human psyche. And in a more "scientific" age, it persists. The worst thing is that people have such hubris and stridency about their purity and values that they are incapable of serious introspection and healthy self-doubt. I've seen it in both religious folks and in humanistic progressives on campus. Same psychology, different setting.

The virtue signaling and public shaming that every now and again consumes Twitter and the internet is part and parcel of this. Someone says something, often something quite bad and deserving of disapprobation, and everyone piles on, trying to top each other in denouncing this particular heel. BBI has done it from time to time too.

We recognize it in this context because as non-initiates it all looks ridiculous to us (as my friend is fond of saying, "I reject your premise"), so we are some measure of amused and horrified to see them play 'can you top this' with identity politics and denunciations of speech, but where we don't reject the premise, where we understand and are involved in it, we can participate or at least put up with these sorts of witch hunts.

This is separate but related from the topic at hand - the politicization of everything in contemporary American life is utterly corrosive. Politics should be its own sphere within society. It shouldn't blanket and consume every aspect of daily life, to the point where mundane decisions are made based on political considerations.

In comment 12972140 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

This is certainly in your area of expertise, not mine, but it certainly seems that man truly is generally hardwired to religious thought. When they reject the concept of deities, they substitute something else - Marxism, Gaia worship-style environmentalism, identity politics, etc. They have their own dogma, their own commandments and sins, their own ethics and morality, all based on their chosen religion. They root our heresy with all the zeal of a 14th century inquisitor.

This strikes me as true. We are "metaphysical animals." I think I just made that up. But by nature we strive for an ultimate good that we think of as grounding morality, and maybe even reality itself.

This is why thinkers like Eric Vogelin spoke of Marx and others as neo-Gnostics. They had the same religious impulse, but directed it toward historical enlightenment (in a horizontal direction through time) and not religious enlightenment (in a vertical escape from time.) But both sets saw themselves as the anointed, and uniquely capable of sorting out the elect from the damned. Lenin did this, of course, with the kinds of brutality that is the final product of such hubris.

I'm not anti-ultimate goal, but human beings are sure confident in themselves when they are posessed of it.

Everybody should read John Locke's discussion of fanaticism in his Essay, the part "On Enthusiasm." Linked below.


Link - ( New Window )

always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait.

[and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.]

In comment 12972166 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

This is separate but related from the topic at hand - the politicization of everything in contemporary American life is utterly corrosive. Politics should be its own sphere within society. It shouldn't blanket and consume every aspect of daily life, to the point where mundane decisions are made based on political considerations.

+1.

In comment 12972230 Deej said:

Quote:

always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.]

I thought we were talking about university campuses, not all of society.

actually have real shit to care about...

In comment 12972230 Deej said:

Quote:

always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.]

The fact that the spoiled, entitled little shits happen to include people who aren't white (appearance or identification) men (biology or identification) doesn't make them something other than spoiled, entitled little shits. Once you buy that they are somehow more noble in their quest to silence or bully others into submission by virtue of a particular ascriptive characteristic or self-identification you're effectively enabling them.

In comment 12972230 Deej said:

Quote:

always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.]

How many anti-LGBT speeches and assemblies are being disrupted? Any? Rather, the it's free speech rights of anyone and any group that does not strictly adhere to the BLM/Occupy orthodoxy that is under attack.

Is your belief in free speech selective?

students.

In comment 12972260 kicker said:

Quote:

students.

Figured you meant "economists" by "our!"

A black leftist speaker or, say, an official from the National Council of La Raza comes to a campus to give a talk, and two white College Republicans do exactly what the two clowns at DePaul did. Think things would have played out a bit differently?

In comment 12972252 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12972230 Deej said: Quote: always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.] The fact that the spoiled, entitled little shits happen to include people who aren't white (appearance or identification) men (biology or identification) doesn't make them something other than spoiled, entitled little shits. Once you buy that they are somehow more noble in their quest to silence or bully others into submission by virtue of a particular ascriptive characteristic or self-identification you're effectively enabling them.

I think you paint with too broad a brush. Some of the complaints/positions have a lot of merit. Some dont. Some tactics are just fine, whereas some I think go too far.

and not going to allow a nice conversation with a student to substitute for an exam? Check your privilege, man.

I know people like to make jokes, but I don't hear that at all on the campus. In fact, a well known biology professor, halfway through the quarter, hands students a "yes" or a "no".

"No" means there is no calculable way for you to pass the class, and you should focus your energies elsewhere. I'm considering it.

We hear of grade inflation, but that's pretty common for a variety of reasons.

In comment 12972254 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 12972230 Deej said: Quote: always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.] How many anti-LGBT speeches and assemblies are being disrupted? Any? Rather, the it's free speech rights of anyone and any group that does not strictly adhere to the BLM/Occupy orthodoxy that is under attack. Is your belief in free speech selective?

Oh noes, a speech is disrupted. Will the Republic survive?

In comment 12972252 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12972230 Deej said: Quote: always insisting on where other people go to the bathroom and protecting the religious liberties of corporations over the medical needs of actual people. Oh, wait. Well at least we can comfort ourselves that minorities and LGBT people are making up the repression. It's not like a big swath of the white majority is currently, opening in the "we need to take back our country" camp. Oh, wait. [and for the record, I've been critical here of some of what is going on at campuses. Trigger warnings, the Emory "pain" etc.] The fact that the spoiled, entitled little shits happen to include people who aren't white (appearance or identification) men (biology or identification) doesn't make them something other than spoiled, entitled little shits. Once you buy that they are somehow more noble in their quest to silence or bully others into submission by virtue of a particular ascriptive characteristic or self-identification you're effectively enabling them.

These students can be totally insufferable, but to suggest that now free speech tout court is under threat is just as much an exaggeration as the claims of oppression issuing from dining hall food.

And I don't find it surprising that non-violent and political immature protests from enthusiastic but still developing kids is what provokes the moral furor of this board's resident intellectuals.

Wouldn't be news.

I'm sure there are protests about worthwhile events and injustices by college students.

I find the idea that opposing voices shouldn't even be heard dangerous. Shutting those events down as a source of pride is perplexing. Just don't go or offer a rebuttal in a separate venue. Or ask to have someone from your group debate the 'opponent'.

In comment 12972254 njm said:

Quote:

Is your belief in free speech selective?

To answer this question for real: I take a narrow view of free speech. I think it is a right vis a vis the government.

If you give a speech and I shout you down, your free speech right hasnt been infringed on, in my opinion. The battle place of ideas is nasty and unregulated. Some speakers shout over others. Some trade primarily/exclusively in lies. It is an unregulated sphere, by necessity. The hope is that the listener can cut through the garbage. E.g. Im more convinced by the person who decimates the original speaker with facts and argument, and less convinced by the one who just shouts louder. I dont condone showing up to events and shouting down speakers; but given the amount of hateful rhetoric coming from speakers/candidates I see on TV, nor do I condemn it.

on campuses about the diversification of curricula, the need for more representative faculty hiring, amendment of sexual harassment procedures, the pros and cons of graduate student unionization. None of these things, especially the civil and legal ways many students pursue these changes, is explosive enough to warrant exposure. The most absurd protests are since a) they make for more exciting news; b) are the most readily usable material for those already uncomfortable with change.

if it were you or those with whom you identify that were being suppressed. Then, we'd hear words like "chilling effect."

I've said this before, but one of the most powerful administrators in my university told me plainly that she saw the function of her office as "combating conservative thought." And since I teach logic including fallacies like threat of force, students often complain to me about professors who care more about making students think certain things, then helping them learn to be better thinkers.

The concept of free speech is not entirely contained within the First Amendment. There are plenty of things that can suppress speech without running afoul of the 1A.

critical thinking in varied modes and contexts is in decline, and that's a failure.

And it's not a left/right thing. It just happens to be the case that the left has more power in most US campuses. But it's functionally akin to the way religious authority stifled critical thinking in the past.

Both are enemies to genuine philosophical growth and intellectual autonomy.

I don't care for the tool whose speech was disrupted at DePaul, but I have trouble excusing the behavior of people who are so utterly hostile to those with whom they disagree, sometimes violently so, people who are imperative to administrators and everyone else. Enthusiasm is admirable I guess, but one can be enthusiastic without being insufferable and especially without being violent.

In comment 12972284 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

on campuses about the diversification of curricula, the need for more representative faculty hiring, amendment of sexual harassment procedures, the pros and cons of graduate student unionization. None of these things, especially the civil and legal ways many students pursue these changes, is explosive enough to warrant exposure. The most absurd protests are since a) they make for more exciting news; b) are the most readily usable material for those already uncomfortable with change.

It's not just about being uncomfortable with change, it's about parents who fund education and alumni who have their own stake in the matter (the value of their degrees, their own role in funding education) asserting their views as stakeholders. Both have an interest in maintaining and increasing the value of a degree, and the parents who fund their children's education have an interest in seeing their children emerge with marketable job skills.

passion for what they perceive as justice, and even when some demands are ridiculous I try to keep my own self-righteousness in check.

I keep in mind that at the same time we have more supposedly mature adults who have no sympathy for (or respect and recognition for) the causes these kids celebrate, and are similarly black and white in their thinking.

A ton of pretty shallow thinking, as I see it.

go to class, take the tests, etc. Activism, or anything else, comes second. Their priorities are backwards. Where are the parents? If this was my kid I would stop paying for this crap.