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 -
Tenure is a bit of a strange institution, and honestly seems a bit useless in today's world. Why bother firing a professor when you can just allow students/activists to harass them in the classroom, at their houses, or in all online spaces? Some professors probably wish the university would fire them just so their would be a valid target for a lawsuit. Unless you have Robin Hanson levels of not giving a fuck (he has survived at least three attempted cancellations that I know of), tenure isn't much of a protection.
I actually think all the various leftist dominated fields are the source of the problem. I don't think banning them all will fix the problem. The activists already exist in large numbers in fields that wont get banned, like English departments. And the power of these departments comes through Gen-Ed requirements. That is the only way they can plausibly justify the size of their departments.
I would like to see state legislatures take a more interesting approach to handicapping university activists:
Destroy the traditional 4 year degree. Force universities to offer a-la-carte options for education. A "general education" degree for gen eds. None of which can be required to take classes in a specific college within the university. Allow testing out of entry level classes. Make it possible to speedrun an engineering degree in a year or two.
Many universities have switched from relying on endowments to relying on tuition and housing payments from existing students.
Politically make it about protecting students from predatory practices by universities. After all, its a business model that relies on getting gullible teenagers to buy a product via peer pressure, and then makes them spend a decade of their life (one of the best decades of their life) paying it off.
Of course tenure is useful. It is a carrot for academics to accept lower pay and general disrespect for that sweet promise of making it to the top. It is also one of the big incentives for research output. Without tenure, I expect academia would be much less popular.
Cancellation, especially in academic contexts, is overrated. The median tenure-track professor has no expectation of attracting a Twitter mob. He or she does expect to be dragged out of the lab every semester or two for an undergrad class. In this much more common situation, tenure is actually useful.
It is a very odd incentive structure. Show us you can produce lots of research, and we will reward you with a position where you ... don't have to produce anything. The lazy ones that need tenue shouldn't get it. The high producers that should get it, don't need it. The other case where you might want it controversy. But you just pointed out that this isn't a concern for most professors.
On the employer’s side, the work required to get tenure is supposed to prove motivation and skill. Less micromanagement is needed for the high performers.
On the employee’s side, reducing management and bureaucracy is an obvious reward. But it’s also a signal that you are trusted or at least valuable enough to earn such a concession.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is actually a problem or that odd at all. If you demonstrate that you're someone who can and does do a lot of high quality research, you get given more trust and a position that lets you really focus and work on something even if it doesn't lead to commercial viability within half a year. That, along with the ability to go against social trends without losing livelihood, is my working understanding of the reasons behind tenure - and I think they're pretty good, all things considered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Might this be a good thing? I've heard for ages that there is massive oversupply for academic positions.
I'm not sure if the PhD market is in equilibrium or not. I could believe that there's a weird lag, maybe due to the sunk cost of all that education, such that slashing supply would help. Or maybe not, and this is just a slight dulling of the American edge in higher education.
Either way, I'm really uncomfortable using that as a justification. Market intervention is one thing; an intervention that just so happens to backhand the political outgroup...It's inelegant at best.
As a worldly philosopher once said:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link