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.
Was the grading rubric's scoring criteria such that biblical inerrancy merited a 0? If so, why have you not provided that? If not, what is the confusion?
It's a rather standard practice in teaching environments that scores are generally a cumulation of different aspects. Are you unfamiliar with it?
And? What about this merits a 0% according to the assignment rubric?
Why not?
Why is this not consistent with a punitive, discriminatory intent by someone who would have reason to believe their response would be posted on social media, and thus might want to coach their response to garner sympathy/support/credulity from people like yourself?
Why not by what grading rubric?
Who is her audience supposed to be?
If her audience is supposed to be the sort of graduate student who would assign a 0 over personal offense, then this indeed might be a failure on her part. On the other hand, if her graduate student grader was not supposed to be that sort of graduate student, then it was the graduate student who failed her.
What, in your view, is suspiciously unjustified about this, as opposed to straightforwardly unjustified? Is your opinion that the state legislature should at least have taken a few more days / weeks to take notice, absent some sort of duplicitous informing of the media? Would a more honest or sincere media have buried the story?
Petty tyrants being exposed and taken down has been a popular format for millennia. What more is required?
Well, you've provided no objective grounds by which she objectively deserved a 0, but you seem to be taking offense that there's pushback. I don't see why there's any need for a steelman for the pro-Fulnecky position, when the position that seems far less justified is the anti-Fulnecky stance.
A woman voluntarily in an institution of higher learning is apparently arbitrarily and excessively punished for her dissent in a fashion you have taken greater offense to the objection of than to the punishment itself... and you take this case as evidence that red-tribers have 'abandoned' higher education?
As well they should, since they are a considerable part of the population base paying a considerable part of the expense. Any institution that depends on consistent taxpayer support in social, legal, and other forms is well advised to self-regulate itself to maintain that support, and not to antagonize large parts of the electorate to the degree that they withdraw or even invert those critical factors against the institution.
To try and address as many of your pointed rhetorical questions as possible in one fell swoop, my view is that Fulnecky should have known better than to submit an assignment with this sort of argumentation, especially as a junior. The methods used in the field of academic psychology are specific and any deviation from them, especially a major one like this, requires some justification. Learning to work in a field involves learning to speak its language, to participate in the academic community. Perhaps other professors have let it slide but I do not fault this instructor for not doing so. The rubric, especially for such a small potatoes assignment like this, need not state every single possibility nor are there really objective criteria. Plenty of professors give out zeroes for less, and my quickly jotted belief that she deserves "some points" is just because I hate to see any student get a zero for an assignment they at least submitted. They hurt. But that doesn't mean a 0 wasn't deserved.
I am speaking of this event as suspicious because there are ways it could have been handled other than immediately rushing to a political advocacy group. Most universities have mechanisms for reporting or investigating grading issues. I find it questionable that Fulnecky didn't, say, send an email, offer to discuss it in office hours, or speak to the U of O's office of institutional standards, or whatever they call it there.
They were not rhetorical. Sharp, yes, but not rhetorical. Your answers, please, because your comments below avoided rather than answered them.
By what standard?
This is not a rhetorical question- this is a crux of the issue. If there is no agreed upon or mutually acceptable standard by which Fulnecky should be judged, there is no reason to not dismiss or act against those who would try to impose one at the expense of her or others who might find themselves at odds with it. There is no scissor statement involved with opposing a who-whom abuse, nor
Again, by what standard?
You have not made the argument that her methods would self-evidently fail in the field, let alone by the standards of the course work. You have assumed a conclusion without justifying it, and used that to blame a victim by no clear standard.
For a third time- by what standard?
Whether you do not fault the graduate student may only an indication of your inclination to side with politically favorable punishments along a who-whom axis. A way to demonstrate against that is a consistent standard, and to not arbitrarily punish people for violating the standards you wish were established but do not violate standards that are established.
For someone to break a rule, there must actually be a rule.
It does and there are, or else it is not a rubric nor a reason to detract points.
Please identify the plenty of professors at the university in question who do. American universities are notorious for their grade inflation, not their grade negation.
It absolutely does, unless there is a standard by which a 0 would have been deserved.
Would they have been as effective, timely, and as deterring against future political prejudice as going to a political advocacy group who could be trusted to not bury it?
Is there a non-motivated reason to believe that is a good question to have?
By your own account, Fulnecky was subject to an arbitrary retaliation by the official representative of that institution, who in turn felt confident enough in her position to do so and provide a publicly-releasable justification. That institution in turn would have many incentives to try to downplay, hide, and otherwise minimize any public awareness of the incident, as demonstrated by many other downplays/dismissals/etc. over the last quarter century.
It may well be in an abuser's interest to have the institution they are a part of investigate itself, and even in the interest of those more sympathetic of the abuser than the abused, but there is no obligation of a target of abuse to put the abuser's interests above their own.
Unfortunately, I don't have the bandwidth or time to argue in the didactic, premise-driven way you'd like me to. Let's use the "reasonable person" standard here. Do you think the final paragraph of the essay is reasonably in accordance with the standards of writing in undergraduate academic psychology? My answer is no. If you share your thoughts on that paragraph, perhaps we can inch closer to a shared vocabulary here.
I think going to the institutional office would be effective in getting the grade changed, or at least bring more clarity and consistency, yes. I suppose I have trust in that sort of thing. It would be corrective to the extent that the graduate student would be more responsible going forward and likely illustrate to Fulnecky where her writing could improve.
Unreasonable and arbitrary standards are usually trotted out for convenience, true.
Sure. My answer is 'you have not provided an established standard by which it is not in accordance.' It is also exceedingly unreasonable to use a position of authority to formally punish people for something that is not against the rules. The actual material of the paragraph is immaterial- if it is not forbidden, it is unreasonable to punish it as if it were forbidden.
Why should you think that, given the plethora of examples of the American culture war in universities including open discrimination by institutional offices against red-tribe-coded faculty and students?
Should neutral observers believe your trust in that sort of thing is warranted or indicative of good judgement, given the last decades of American culture war observations and admissions in American academia?
Why do you believe the graduate student would be more responsible going forward under a course of action with a long and contemporary history of American academic institutions discriminating in favor of the graduate student's preferences and practices?
Are you making a positive claim that academic evaluations do not, or ought not, incorporate normative expectations of domain relevancy? This feels like an untenable position; can you point to another equivalent domain of human interaction where such a positive claim would be supported? I can't imagine a high school calculus teacher accepting "because my mom told me so" as an acceptable answer in a proof whether or not the syllabus explicitly stipulated mathematical reasoning as a grading requirement. Most people don't begin asking a stranger on the street for directions with an explicit enumeration of acceptable sources of knowledge yet would be unnerved if informed the source came from a dream.
In any case, virtually every university student handbook will identify the purpose of education and grades as being for the purpose of learning. This doesn't mean just in a generalized sense but also in the specifics of learning a topic. Unless otherwise stated, calculus class is offered with the intention of teaching students calculus. This is usually identified under a section like "Academic Integrity" because it clarifies exactly this question: this is not a free for all. It might just be easier to look at OU's Academic Integrity language:
https://studenthandbook.ouhsc.edu/hbSections.aspx?ID=430
Arguing about the biblical implications of a psychological claim does not provide any evidence of the students learning or growth in the field of psychology and consequently does not satisfy the academic integrity requirements of the university.
Students are obligated to read, understand, and agree to the terms in the handbook every year by the way.
No. I am making the claim I actually made. Since you quoted it, I'll spare you the re-citation.
Welcome to the Motte, by the way. I am flattered you made your first comment of this account to engage with me in particular. I look forward to your long and consistent posting record going forward.
The point I did make on it being unreasonable to punish people for a standard not established? Trivially- as should you.
If you want to make any appeal to normative expectations, a bedrock principle of conflict resolution and the application of rules is an odd one to feign ignorance of.
Possibly you cannot imagine it because these are non-equivalent scenarios deliberately framed to be ridiculous. There is a reason you start with a scenario in which there is an objective correct position to have such that a deviation is a failure, just as there is a reason that neither scenario reflects the format of an open-ended position-agnostic assignment that is grading for structure.
The later does not follow from the former, particularly when the former rests on false premises.
By its nature, being able to argue about the biblical implications of a psychological claim already demonstrates that the student has learned enough about the psychological claim to link it to a major social / cultural / societal effect influencing the psychology of billions of people. This, in turn, demonstrates growth in the field of psychology, as someone without such growth would not have been able to identify, apply, and discuss the link.
You may dismiss the link, you may deny the link, but growth in understanding in the field of psychology does not depend on your approval of the link.
Hence why the graduate grader appealed to other factors to justify their arbitrary decision to ignore the rubric they were supposed to grade by. A standard which they agree to apply every time they agree to take on the course and issue it to their students.
I am as familiar with the practice of searching for another excuse to justify the abuse as you. I am also familiar with its limitations towards the misdeeds of the adjudicator.
A more fruitful response would have attempted to delineate some difference between the claim you intended and the claim as it reads. I quoted you directly
The "punishment" you're referring to in this context is the assigned grade, and this line is a quote response to the question
Making you appear to be responding to the notion that standards exist beyond those explicitly outlined among some set of specifically delineated "rules" (most likely the formal rubric). In other words this is a positive assertion that
If this is not what you intend, you should be more clear.
You're welcome to make an argument.
This is confused on a few counts. First, comprehending the implications of a conclusion implies no necessary understanding of the arguments which lead to the conclusion. These are two wholly distinct domains of knowledge. Second, the issue in this case is not identifying the existence of "biblical implications of a psychological claim" but rather making a claim about psychology on the basis of biblical premises. Biblical evidence is not itself scientific in nature and consequently does not form a rational basis for scientific claims.
The student shouldn't have been given a zero my prior is strongly in favor of the position that the grader's decision to award no points rather than whatever the rubrik assigned was politically motivated.
However, if you are rejecting the question
On the basis that such considerations would constitute an "unreasonable" application of authority to "formally punish people for something that is not against the rules."
Then you're incorrect both in general and in these particulars.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link