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 -
The University of Oklahoma has reached a resolution regarding a student's claim of religious discrimination. University of Oklahoma junior Samantha Fulnecky received a 0/25 on a psychology essay in which she responded to an assigned article about gender norms with arguments based largely on her Christian beliefs and references to the Bible. Her trans instructor said the paper failed to meet the assignment criteria, did not engage with the source material or empirical evidence, and described parts of it as offensive. Fulnecky filed an appeal and a complaint claiming religious discrimination.
A post about the situation was made here a few weeks ago.
OU conducted a review and concluded the grading was “arbitrary.” They ruled that the failing grade would not count toward Fulnecky’s final course grade and the graduate instructor who graded the paper was placed on administrative leave and removed from instructional duties. This claim was also reviewed by the Provost who agreed with the ruling.
The online reaction isn't surprising, and it serves as another example of a litmus test that the progressive left has failed. I will say in the reactionaries' defense that the paper is not well-written, so at first glance anyone who reads it will think, "Yeah, that's a shit paper and a zero is well deserved." Once you dig beneath the surface though, that explanation collapses. It looks more like poorly written papers were routinely given full credit throughout the semester, which establishes that writing quality was not exactly being enforced as a decisive standard. Multiple Reddit threads are slamming OUs integrity or making comments about how they shouldcrowd fund attorneys. Of course almost all of them intentionally avoid the central point which is that the grading was clearly inconsistent. Once that's established, the additional CW context becomes relevant. A trans instructor giving a zero grade to a paper critical of gender ideology doesn’t prove bias, but let's be real here.
This whole thing is depressing. Writing like that should practically get you removed from a liberal arts course. The student admitted in interviews that she never read the article.
None of that matters to any outcomes here and it's depressing. The University can't, in good faith, defend giving a zero to a paper that deserves a "come see me in office hours."
This is the best evidence I've seen so far that the University system needs to be torn down.
As the OP from last time, I think after all the discussion my view has settled alongside yours. This case represents a failure on multiple levels and puts serious egg on OUs face. I don't blame them for acting swiftly and I think canning the instructor, while perhaps disproportionate, was advantageous for them optics-wise instead of admitting their academic standards have withered into dust. Especially as their funding is controlled by a Red legislature and Red constituents.
It goes without saying that Fulnecky is not a figure that I think should be venerated in any regard, much less as a martyr. As you said, recent interviews have been quite revealing. She happened to submit a garbage paper to an overzealous instructor and capitalized as she saw fit.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, you're hypothetically in a liberal arts course to learn how to write better.
Seems to me that the paper deserved a D (it engaged at least tangentially with the idea of the assignment, and she didn't turn in a drool stained piece of A2...) I really do think that if the TA had indeed given it a 60 and a "see me after class" Fulnecky wouldn't have had a leg to stand on .
Very much agreed with your latter point, it would've saved everyone involved a whole lot of trouble.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once again I’m reminding you that this is the university of Oklahoma and the student in question is backed by the local TPUSA chapter.
Could you elaborate?
I think the claim here is that red state public universities might lean left, but they're ultimately responsible to red state government in ways that prevent them from going full blue partisan, lest the legislature take away their
toysfunding, or the governor replace their board of trustees. Just because this could happen in Oklahoma doesn't mean the vibe in, say, UC schools or the Ivy League has changed.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Failed? This is but a small hiccup amidst decades of winning. I suppose when we're so accustomed to one side winning, even a minor stumble can feel like a crushing defeat.
It reminds me of sports highlight shitposts. "Progressives SCRAMBLE to inbound the ball after Conservatives sink a DAGGER two to cut the lead to 36!"
This is hardly "problem solved" for conservatives, anymore than killing one bed bug means you've solved your infestation problem. One such instructor down, who knows how many to go.
However, the outcome aligns well with what I wrote in that linked thread. Fulnecky's assignment submission was hardly some stroke of genius, but was far from deserving of a 0 given typical OU-tier university grading standards, especially in those types of courses, especially for those types of assignments. Someone whose grading rubric consists of idpol and feelings should not be grading at all.
Sadly, I tend to agree with this. Going forward, who will have more fear in their hearts: (1) College students who wish to write papers criticizing progressive gender ideology; or (2) instructors who wish to give failing grades to such papers?
Seems to me it's pretty likely that this instructor will enjoy an improved chances of being given full time tenure track employment by some other university. Or will end up in some cushy research job at a Soros-funded NGO.
At the same time, most conservative college students will correctly realize that this student got very lucky by (1) having an instructor who was stupid enough to retaliate without a fig leaf of plausible deniability; and (2) having a university administration which was willing to be fair-minded about the situation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link