This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's yesterday's news at this point, but the recent University of Oklahoma essay controversy has continued to fester in my brain for the sheer incongruence of reactions. In case you haven't heard, Samantha Fulnecky, a junior studying Psychology, received a 0 for submitting an essay whose central argument was essentially a blunt appeal to Biblical inerrancy. While I find this a suspect choice in even most religious studies courses, the assignment tasked her with reviewing a journal article about the effects of social pressures on adolescent gender presentation and identification - hardly something the Bible addresses directly. In response, the graduate student instructor, who is trans, gave her a zero. Fulnecky, in her (apparent) indignance, complained to the local chapter of TPUSA that this is an act of religious discrimination, and sparks flew. And they've kept flying. Fulnecky received an honorary award from the Oklahoma state Congress and has been speaking about her situation on Fox News. The university has sided with Fulnecky, placing the instructor on indefinite administrative leave until...the situation blows over? It's unclear how much "investigation" this really requires, but it is clear that Fulnecky has won the battle.
I am more interested in the war. Conservative scuffles at universities seem dime-a-dozen at this point, which makes it all the more surprising that this one has climbed out of the Twitter pit to receive national attention. For one, the essay is not particularly high-quality. This is not a case where a student submitted a carefully argued theological analysis, but instead appealed to the most straightforward of scriptural arguments and didn't even cite the verses in question! While the resulting grade of 0 seems slightly punitive and I don't doubt it was motivated by some level of personal offense, the professor's response hardly could be considered discriminatory. I've heard some grumblings that the instructor gave this grade specifically because she is trans - so it hurt more, or something - but I think most cis psychology profs these days would have a similar reaction. I think Fulnecky deserved some points, but not many. She lacks one of the most foundational skills a college-level writer needs: adapting your ideas to your audience.
Speculation on Twitter is running wild, suggesting that Fulnecky intentionally submitted a poor essay to gain some conservative street-cred, that her lawyer mother is involved, and plenty of other mental gymnastics. I don't blame the gymnasts - this case has been elevated to levels that are suspiciously unjustified, in my view. The banal reason is that it's easy pickings for conservative commentators who are salivating for any story they can nut-pick to put on the evening news block. But is that really all it takes? Can a religious person do any wrong in the eyes of the New Right? I realize writing this that I sound completely incredulous that the media could blow up a story, but seeing it happen in real-time has been pretty mind boggling. Read the essay and let me know what you think. I don't want to be mistaken for consensus-building here, and I would welcome any and all steelmans for the pro-Fulnecky position. Maybe I've been cut by yet another scissor statement (in this case, essay).
This is further evidence to me that red-tribers have completely abandoned most institutes of higher education. It's no longer a question of "we must reform the universities and stop them from being ideologically possessed!" but "the universities are ideologically possessed and the only way out is avoidance/destruction." It doesn't help when college graduates seem to be fleeing the red tribe like it's got the plague - it's much easier to prop up a controversy when the remaining red tribers lack the personal experience to vet it properly. All this to say: I think universities are really going to have it rough under this administration. They've already been sued to hell and back. If the red tribe couldn't turn the university system around by playing nice, they're going to do it by force - social, legal, or otherwise.
The teacher's (or was a TA?) identity groups are not relevant. The most affluent white (cis) female liberal can still do "viewpoint discrimination" or whatever we call it these days. It is discriminatory because of disparate outcome, basically. An equally shitty essay with flipped political valence would obviously (obvious to me) get more points. The grade of 0 being punitive is simply what is meant by 'discrimination' in this context.
I think you're probably right that the student should know better. She likely did know better. I think it might have been bait. This is the equivalent of gay couples suing cakeshops or whatever. I mean this in the "this essay was obviously (to her) shitty."
You say that a college-level writer needs a skill of adapting ideas to the audience, which I kind of expected you to say some variant of (victim blaming), before I had finished reading your post. The purpose of this course is not to teach the students to suck up. It is not suck-up-writing 101 (or 201). If it was, the prompt would say, 'write an argument for the following position.'
You gesture towards the idea that someone (other than the teacher) did wrong here, but I don't see it. My only conclusion here is you think viewpoint discrimination is alright. That's fine, and there are probably principled reasons to think that, but indeed it would make for a short post.
This is an academic test for both the student and the TA: Can the student craft an argument, citing sources; and, Can the TA judge the student's work on its academic merits, regardless of the TA's own viewpoint on the subject matter. They both failed. If the TA had restricted their comments to the essay's academic (lack of) quality, I probably would have little issue with it, but to complain about the use of the word "demonic" from an emotional POV rather than an academic one shows this this TA is not intellectually or tempermentally cut-out for this role. I did repect that the TA, sensing their potential for bias, asked a colleague for a second opinion -- but even that colleague could not focus on the academic quality of the paper, starting with shock that a paper would argue in favor of bullying. That educator should be fired as well.
I think low level bullying is good. It helps enforce some degree of social standards. It helps people learn how to deal with difficult people. It makes people learn that they will survive.
I was bullied when I was a kid. I bullied kids when I was a kid. In both cases, it wasn’t a lot of bully (just general teasing and occasional light physical stuff).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that viewpoint discrimination is wrong AND that the essay is quite poor. The professor sounds mad AND certain impartial graders could still give the paper a zero. Separating these facts is a challenge, and I do not blame Fulnecky for her confusion and the lingering possibility of viewpoint discrimination. I don't disagree that a shitty progressive paper may slip by without major issue - that bias persists. It just does not absolve Fulnecky. I am mostly remiss that this situation has ascended to the level of a national spectacle when it could have been resolved with a simple procedure within the institution. I am upset that the first instinct was to cry foul and jump to punditry. There are multiple failure points here, and I am upset about the larger spectacle, as well. Perhaps I should suck it up.
I am not suggesting that Fulnecky needs to change her viewpoint or appease the professor outright. I am just suggesting that in an academic psychology class, it is worth speaking in a way that will be most comprehensible and reflect the standards of the field. The sentence "My prayer for the world and specifically for American society and youth is that they would not believe the lies being spread from Satan..." is meaningless to this professor, nor does it address the point of the assignment.
Again I think what you aren't understanding is that giving students who turn in a paper a 0 is simply not done in modern academia. Grade inflation is absolutely out of control.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link