Academics frightened by stifling regime on campus

[BovaryX]

There is an excellent article by John McWhorter about the threat to academic freedom on campus. He compares the humiliation ordeals suffered by dissenting academics as like struggle sessions from Maoist China. He also describes the quasi religious aspect of this political orthodoxy and makes the interesting point that some of its most fanatical adherents do not belong to the demographic group on whose behalf they are relentlessly offended.

To what extent would you worry about the following consequences?” To the hypothetical “My reputation would be tarnished,” 32.68 percent answered “very concerned” and 27.27 percent answered “extremely concerned.” To the hypothetical “My career would be hurt,” 24.75 percent answered “very concerned” and 28.68 percent answered “extremely concerned.” In other words, more than half the respondents consider expressing views beyond a certain consensus in an academic setting quite dangerous to their career trajectory. So no one should feign surprise or disbelief that academics write to me with great frequency to share their anxieties. In a three-week period early this summer, I counted some 150 of these messages. And what they reveal is a very rational culture of fear among those who dissent, even slightly, with the tenets of the woke left

I am not stereotyping all social science graduates. I have said that the massive expansion of tertiary education has caused myriad problems. I have said that queer theory and critical race theory has colonised social science departments. And that the fanatical authoritarians who dictate policy and language have not hatched from an egg. They are the product of their woeful education. If you want to dispute that? Fill your boots. But I should warn you that your penchant for sloppy political labels cuts no ice with me. Not one shard.

The massive expansion of tertiary education has caused a myriad of problems that extend beyond the social sciences I can assure you.

But as someone who is an actual social scientist, I don't see the same level of infiltration or colonisation as you do, especially with respect to CRT. And there are aspects of CRT that actually make sense, address racism and which are quite sane! And there are those of us working daily to inject gender critical theory (as it is called now - I simply bang on about old-fashioned second-wave feminism) and who have a network of colleagues doggedly doing the same. And yes, we are under attack from the more militant pomo QT people, and also under attack from the right. You know who some of these scholars are because you laud them when they do speak out in favour of GCF.

If you want to dispute that? Fill your boots. But I should warn you that your penchant for sloppy political labels cuts no ice with me. Not one shard

Oh please. That's just insulting. I clearly noted that you had taken the same position as a right-wing government on this issue and I get that?

But as someone who is an actual social scientist, I don't see the same level of infiltration or colonisation as you do

That's your opinion. You have demonstrated by your posts in this thread a penchant for labeling people as right wing for veering from a narrow range of acceptable opinion. I don't find that particularly impressive. It strikes me as indicative of an insularity you deny exists in the social sciences. But hey. We don't have to agree. And why should we?

You have demonstrated by your posts in this thread a penchant for labeling people as right-wing for veering from a narrow range of acceptable opinion

Except I haven't. I said, for the, what, third? time, that you are siding with the right on this one. I did not say you were right-wing. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I do seem, though, to have touched a nerve, because you seem unable to acknowledge this and you just keep attacking me.

Attacking you? You think being challenged in a debate is an attack? How bizarre. But somehow unsurprising. I have many opinions you would consider 'right wing.' If you think it's an insult? I couldn't care less.

If you call misrepresenting what someone has said for the sake of scoring points then yes, that is debate ... in your eyes.

But you do care less, don't you?

But the idea that people should only study subjects at university that will prepare for a job is a right-wing idea and will only result in people with a grounding in philosophy and history.

I suspect that a lot of this problem is to do with universities being businesses where the customer is always right rather than on the prevalence of social sciences.

You and I clearly have significant political differences. I am absolutely fine with that. I don't consider 'right wing' an insult. There are multiple issues on which I regard the left as bankrupt. Morally. Fiscally. Ideologically. I wonder if you even bothered to read the John McWhorter article about the existential threat to freedom of speech? Any thoughts on that?

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Interestingly, Australia is increasing funding for degrees which are likely to result in a job, while increasing the cost of other degrees. There are serious problems in academia. Something must be done to address the existential threat to freedom of speech, rigorous debate and fearless research in the institutions where these things should be sacrosanct. Not under relentless attack by authoritarian fanatics

I can't access the article. Are you saying this is good or bad?

I think it is an awful idea!

It is an awful idea.

We don't have to swing wildly towards academia as job training as a reaction to an academy over-taken by critical theories.

The humanities still matter. Baby, bathwater and all that.

I'm not sure that the right is a friend of women at all, let alone gender critical women or those of us who maintain an older second-wave stance.

But that's OK - to reiterate, all I said was that you happened to side with a right-wing government over a particular issue.

The article you posted didn't really resonate with me. Yes, I am somewhat afraid to speak up, but I'm more scared that I will lose my job over my caring responsibilities and the effect these have had on my ability to publish than anything else. And the 'social justice' stuff irritates me - it is a bit of a buzz word that I don't quite see on the ground here. Certainly, we are concerned with 'social justice' as a concept and idea, but there is still debate as to what this is and what it might mean. Evergreen College is a loooong way away.

It was you who raised the Australian issue by the way, not me - so in effect you did somewhat derail your own thread.

I mean, all that will happen is that working class students will be shut out of degrees like law, history, philosophy etc with those courses only available to more wealthy students. No thanks!

The article you posted didn't really resonate with me

That doesn't surprise me. I guess I did derail my own thread. I think that you and I have zero in common politically. And that's okay. As for the 'right?' In the UK, the Conservative produced two female PMs. The last Labour contender could not even define 'woman.'

I suspect it also has a sex/gender perspective. I haven't thought it through or read about it thoroughly, but it seems to me that those degrees that women/girls are more likely to do (because of sex or gender role conditioning) are mostly the ones that will cost more.

A while ago I found an article about all the unemployed STEMM grads - I so wish I could find it again!

As for the 'right?' In the UK, the Conservative produced two female PMs. The last Labour contender could not even define 'woman'

Yes Maggie was a wonderful role model for women :)! Remember her well. Loved Beatrix Campbell's Iron Ladies too! An excellent analysis.

I've just about forgiven TM for the passport scandal when she was Home Secretary.

"OK. So you are siding with the right on this one, at the same time as tarring the social sciences with one brush and making assumptions about who gets jobs and who does not."

Social sciences in higher education, have been responsible for the growth of various ideologies, which if allowed to grow, could IMHO lead to anarchy - gender politics, critical race theory, taking offence at everything.
I found this article today - "The Campus Grievance Industry"

thecritic.co.uk/the-campus-grievance-industry/

"I'm not sure that the right is a friend of women at all"

Why do we have to think of every view as "right" or "left", rather than right or wrong?
Have you heard of a "purity spiral"?
I really like Barossa Valley shiraz, but what if I found that Boris Johnson also liked the wine from that region, which obviously meant that I would have to stop drinking it.
What would that achieve? It would mean that I wouldn't get to enjoy my favourite wine and Boris Johnson would be totally unaware and unaffected by my decision.

Is that the magazine funded by Jeremy Hosking? I'm not surprised by that article if so. It is a right-wing, Conservative magazine and this is a right-wing view.

To be clear the above is an observation, not an attack.

I really like Barossa Valley shiraz, but what if I found that Boris Johnson also liked the wine from that region, which obviously meant that I would have to stop drinking it.
What would that achieve? It would mean that I wouldn't get to enjoy my favourite wine and Boris Johnson would be totally unaware and unaffected by my decision

Nothing. But this analogy does not make sense.

My point is that right-wing governments have not traditionally been friends of women.

Is that the magazine funded by Jeremy Hosking? I'm not surprised by that article if so. It is a right-wing, Conservative magazine and this is a right-wing view

So what? Does that mean the ideas are not valid? So any idea identified by you as 'on the right' can be dismissed by labeling it this instead of actually engaging with the arguments? As Andy says, the purity spiral is another epically bad idea. It seems particularly explicit on the left...

So what? Does that mean the ideas are not valid?

I didn't say they were not valid. I said that it was politically biased and that the ideas were not surprising because of that.

andy

Social sciences in higher education, have been responsible for the growth of various ideologies, which if allowed to grow, could IMHO lead to anarchy - gender politics, critical race theory

Quite so. I saw an interesting debate between two US professors who were discussing the political dominance of the left wing in academia. The ratio had always been skewed to the left, but now there are hardly any 'right wing' academics. That means that toxic views get no pushback, they are not challenged. One of the interesting aspects of the SJM is its adherents seem to believe that their opinion is the only one, there is no dissent tolerated and that they were given this opinion while perched on the very top of Mount Moral Highground. These are fanatical beliefs. Their proponents are zealots.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I suspect it also has a sex/gender perspective. I haven't thought it through or read about it thoroughly, but it seems to me that those degrees that women/girls are more likely to do (because of sex or gender role conditioning) are mostly the ones that will cost more.

A while ago I found an article about all the unemployed STEMM grads - I so wish I could find it again!

Actually nursing, social work, teaching and psychology have been exempted from the higher costs...they all skew heavily female.

Actually nursing, social work, teaching and psychology have been exempted from the higher costs...they all skew heavily female

Ah OK - I picked up teaching and nursing, but not the others.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Actually nursing, social work, teaching and psychology have been exempted from the higher costs...they all skew heavily female

Ah OK - I picked up teaching and nursing, but not the others.

Honestly, I wouldn't expect anyone in the UK to know about the tertiary shitshow in AU!

Critical theory etc is prob a third order issue here right now, after massive job losses, increasing costs for students and lack of international students due to Covid.

"Nothing. But this analogy does not make sense."

OK, very simple example coming up.
I will never buy anything which is blue, because Conservative party colour is blue.
Is that better?

Have you heard the expression - "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"?