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 -
I don't remember which college it was — it has to have been years ago that I read about it, probably on campusreform.org — but I do remember reading about a school that disbanded its 'DEI office' (I don't think that acronym was in broad currency yet then, so it was called something else), redistributed its budget, let go of its staff, etc. What then happened was that each individual department opened up their own separate office, out of their own budgets. So you had a DEI office for the English department, a DEI office for the history department, a DEI office for the engineering department, a DEI office for the math department… and, as a result, the school ended up spending more money and having more people work on "diversity." Note how many of the DCCE's programs are being redistributed to "overlapping" activities — why not start doing all the DEI stuff out of those?
And even if that doesn't happen, then the individual professors can keep up promoting the ideology instead, without the "remaining DCCE activities." After all, this doesn't do anything about the massive ideological slant of the college faculty (of pretty much all college faculties in America except the explicitly right-wing ones like Liberty and Hillsdale). Does this really change anything beyond a little less money going to DEI and a few less DEI commissars?
That is, assuming they actually are letting a significant number go. After all, beyond our weepy student, do we have any evidence that "all the staff members… are just going to be gone"?
Because they could just be making this big, dramatic show of "complying" (at least on the surface, per my earlier arguments) with SB17 — despite, as you note, having the funds to resist doing so — knuckling over to those evil, anti-intellectual (because stupid) Republicans who are attacking them for no reason other than that those politicians think they have a left-wing bias, when really, it's that reality has a left-wing bias, and this is just Scopes 2.0 — slack-jawed bible-thumping morons trying to prevent professors from teaching truths that these close-minded, superstitious bigots refuse to accept — so as to generate a backlash, starting with big-budget donors, alumni, media, and on to broader academia, to produce a backlash against those politicians and to get the bill overturned. After which, everyone gets transferred back to the restored DEI office.
And all this is before larger-scale authorities get involved. Expect UTA's position in the college rankings to plummet to the likes of Liberty, Phoenix, and Grand Canyon. The accrediting bodies could start reviewing their accreditation… or just withdraw it. The Department of Education can declare their students ineligible for Federal financial aid. The Federal government could enact overriding legislation. SCOTUS could strike the bill down as a violation of academic freedom, and thus free speech.
This is nothing. Its material effects are likely to be minimal, and it will almost certainly end up reversed (and then some) by the inevitable backlash. In the end, UTA is going to wind up even further Left.
Why would you expect a backlash? Affirmative action is consistently highly unpopular with the general public, bringing it back doesn’t have the chance for much public sympathy. UTA’s best odds for maintaining their DEI system is to stall for time.
I'm not expecting a backlash from the general public, I'm expecting an elite backlash — wealthy, politically-connected donors; major media figures; esteemed academics; etc.
"Public sympathy" is irrelevant, because most people are powerless peasants whose opinions don't matter. It's elite opinion that matters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link