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 -
There seems to be a small movement by Republican lawmakers to put legal pressure on the excesses of woke universities.
The STEM Scott writes about several bills up for consideration in the Texas state senate:
Florida is considering a similar bill, HB 999, that would place restrictions on DEI-related initiatives and majors at public universities. Already the effects are being felt at SLACs like the New College:
I'm in a bit of an odd place with regards to these issues. I don't fit neatly onto the woke "how dare you attack our most hallowed and sacred institutions!" side, nor the anti-woke "stop teaching this pinko commie crap to our kids!" side.
I really do have an almost naive faith in free speech for all, even for my worst enemies. Despite being an avowed rightist, I not only want leftists to be able to speak, but I want them to be platformed! I want to help you get the word out! I think our public life really should play host to a diversity of viewpoints. I think the university should be a hothouse of strange and controversial ideas. By all means, keep teaching CRT and women's studies and black studies and whatever else you want. I know that leftists don't extend the same courtesy to me, but that doesn't invalidate the fundamental point that I should extend that courtesy to them. Even just beyond extending formal charity to my political outgroup, I actually enjoy a lot of this type of scholarship and I find value in it, I like Marxist literary criticism and the obscurantist mid-20th century French guys and German phenomenology and all the rest of it, and I think it should continue to be taught and studied on its own merits, even if I don't necessarily agree with the politics.
But! It really is hard sometimes. When things like this happen, when a book chapter that was, by all accounts, a completely anodyne explication of the official party ideology, whose only crime was that it didn't go far enough in advocating the abolition of all gendered pronouns, is met with public humiliation and a tarnishing of the reputation of the author... it does make my blood boil and it's hard to maintain my principles. It makes me want to go "ok, yeah screw it, ban all liberal arts programs at universities, I don't care, whatever, I just want these people to lose." I'm on their side on a lot of the key object-level issues and I still want them to lose! That's why I constantly feel like I'm of two minds on these questions.
In spite of all the problems with the modern university, I still think it's important that we have at least one institution that acts as a countervailing force to utilitarian profit-maximizing techbroism. The university as it stands now leaves a lot to be desired. But if the choice is between the university we have now, or nothing, I'll stick with the university.
I don't have an opinion on tenure, and I lean on the side of thinking that legislation ought not to interfere with the operations of even public universities to the extent of banning it. Likewise, I'm not sure that legislation ought to specifically compel firings of professors spreading odious views, including "belief that any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other race, sex, ethnicity, or belief." As described by Aaronson, the professor would have to at least attempt to "compel" this belief, but that could mean something as innocuous as stating it in class and winking, for all I know. I don't know if setting the precedent for such legislative micromanaging causes more harm than good.
But for SB17, as described by Aaronson:
seems like a very straightforward implementation of the first amendment religion clause. DEI is clearly a religion, a specifically and openly faith-based worldview with certain morals that follow downstream of that faith, and much like how public universities ought not push Christianity or Islam on its faculty or students, it ought not push DEI on them either. The devil's in the details, I suppose, since public universities certainly can make accommodations for religions including having services, and maybe this law might go too far. I would think that such a specific law wouldn't even be required, though, since the Constitution already covers this.
Public universities are creatures of the state. Why should the legislature not supervise them?
Part of what makes a University a University and not something else is a degree of self-government. An institution that teaches a 13-16th grade curriculum determined by the politicians and/or bureaucrats in the sponsoring Education Ministry may be doing something valuable, but it isn't continuing the tradition that began with those communities of scholars in Paris, Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge in the High Middle Ages.
FWIW, I don't think that the legislature abolishing tenure (something that happened long ago in the UK without causing serious problems) or regulating non-classroom DEI initiatives gets close to the point where it turns a public University into a Even Higher School. But (for example) a law prohibiting the teaching of books by paedophiles would be pushing the boundary.
SB16 seems different, in that if it is enforced as written, it prevents the University teaching that correct social, political or religious beliefs are superior to incorrect ones. An organisation where the curriculum is subject to government sanitisation to remove controversial topics is not a University.
What's "correct social, political or religious beliefs"?
Anyway, let's imagine a fantastical situation. A group of Nazi scientists (and I mean hardcore Nazis with all accompanying beliefs) from parallel universe gets into today's America and by some means (e.g. by temporarily hiding their beliefs) manages to take over a small Higher Education institution (still bearing the title of University because it's good for PR) in some state. They proceed with a program to find smart youth of proper Aryan background and indoctrinate them and educate them in sciences (let's assume they are really good scientists) and thus make sure only devoted Aryan scientists fully on board with Nazi ideology can be professors in this establishment. They teach all the usual scientific stuff, but with a Nazi bent, and also have a variety of more specific courses, like how Jews are evil, how homosexuality is ruinous for civilization, how to scientifically figure out people's worth depending on their genetics, which genetical defects can be cured and which should be exterminated, maybe the history of Aryan races and Aryan culture, maybe even a course on Nitzche and Wagner (with some appropriate bent of course), etc.
Now, let's say they are not particularly hiding it, and the citizens of the state discover they have a full blown Nazi University in the middle of the state, supported by their tax dollars, participating in career fairs, inviting their schoolchildren to campus tours, publishing their own newspaper (with appropriate graphics of course), holding their big celebration on April 20 each year, and so on, you get the picture. Do you think the good people of this state would say "well, it's a University, and they are technically not doing anything against the law - sure, the stuff they are teaching sounds vile to us, but we can't subject them to governmental sanitization, that wouldn't be University anymore!" Or, do you think they'd grab torches and pitchforks and would demand to raze it all to the ground, and would destroy any politician that would object to that? Or would they do something in between - like find any legal means, however tortured and far-reaching, to destroy this outlet without technically violating the law and committing outright violence, maybe?
And if you think people would not tolerate a Nazi University - what set of principles would you propose that would be consistent with that, but also with your ideal of a University as something completely and utterly independent and subject to no outside control whatsoever?
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