"ecosystems" are full of predators and prey - perhaps that isn't the best metaphor.
Thinking more about the points overall, I suggest there needs to be a way of capturing the distinction between, e.g. Holocaust-Deniers have the right to speak as invited speakers to events if the organizers invite them (i.e. free-speech), versus the History Department should have Holocaust-Deniers as professors as part of "viewpoint diversity" (i.e. right-wing lunatic take-over).
It's more along the lines of lying wolves claiming to be sweet little lambs.
C'mon, folks, say something like "Anti-vaccine lunacy deserves no respect.".
The fact that nobody seems willing to grant any limit at all to right-wing insanity, and instead seems completely fixated on tribal left-bashing, is a very strong practical argument that the AAUP article is actually correct.
The Federal government has had a role in vaccinations literally going back to the American Revolution, where George Washington implemented a smallpox vaccination mandate for his troops. It's a fascinating bit of history.
You can't do it. You can't say something like "Anti-vaccine lunacy deserves no respect.". You keep trying to deflect. That shows what this is all about.
The federal government policies with employees and the military are different from laws requiring action by ordinary citizens. Congress and the Supreme Court had to bend over backwards to justify Obama care mandating health plans.
It does seem odd that there are no examples of excluded ideas that this *is* supposed to be about provided. Anyway I dont think asking people to self identify as "conservative" (or liberal) is particularly meaningful unless you also ask them to define it and analyze that qualitatively. One could also suggest that conservative professors appearing at double the rate of conservative administrators actually suggests there might be a hiring bias in their favor.
I think mostly the collectivists object to the chaos. Any self organizing system, like a market or an ecology, requires a certain amount of chaos to function.
Personally, I think the collectivists in question:
a) are snowflakes who can’t take their feeling s being hurt, but mostly,
b) find it too difficult to win the reasoned argument and prefer to shut down the opposition, because
c) they as so morally certain that their position is the only virtuous one and therefore they deserve total political power, and having to win the argument risks their ability to attain political power.
If the AAUP says there is nothing to fix, that means change is massively overdue! Anything they say, it's fair to assume the opposite is true. They are a corrupt organization.
I often think about the great Mike Duncan podcast series, "Revolutions". A recurring theme across 300 years of revolutions from the English Civil War to the Russian Revolution is: there's some injustice in the system as pointed out by both moderate reformers and radical types that want to overthrow the system -> ruling group obstinately refuses to reform the system -> frustration builds, radicals gain power, system overthrown -> (mostly) bad stuff. Apropos of nothing...
It goes unrecognized that it is Trump who is largely the moderate reformer here on the issue of DEI and free speech. E.g. with cutting off funding to these organizations that have openly, explicitly discriminated on the basis of race.
No doubt this is because he mixes in some extreme, mirror-the-opposition stuff with his moderate reforms, and leftists and sorta-centrists with TDS focus exclusively on thatextreme stuff he does.
[To be clear, I disagree with that ~30% of extreme stuff he’s done.]
You are welcome to disagree with all sorts of Trump policies, and to find him personally distasteful and onerous.
But TDS means you reflexively are against anything that Orange Man Bad is for, merely because he is for it.
Which in practice on policy would make you decidedly not a centrist on most policy matters; it would put you out of the mainstream on about 70%-75% of issues.
Just to be pedantic about it, if centrism can be defined as having a mix of left and right opinions (not just being in the center on every issue), two centrists could have 0% overlap. For instance, a person with liberal views on social issues and the welfare state, but who favors free trade and free markets as well as a more interventionist foreign policy would code as a liberal centrist. However, they’d be further from Trump on every issue that the median voter or even a certain kind of more solidly liberal person.
Anyways, I’d be curious to hear your explanation on both why you think Trump is a moderate reformer on education and on why you think he’s in the mainstream on 70-75% of issues. On the former, it seems his administration is doing a number of radical things, hence the ire of FIRE. On the latter, per Nate Silver’s polling averages he’s underwater on all major issue groups (https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin).
First, to be pedantic about it, opinions are *not* merely binary [left or right], but at minimum can be coded [left, centrist, right]. This partly matters here, but is not my sole point. Otherwise, sure you could theoretically claim two people are each centrist whose views are opposite about everything.
But since you asked for a list, here are a number of Trump positions that align with 70%+ of the population:
- Ban on transgender chemical or surgical procedures for minors
- Biological males should not be allowed to compete in womens'/girls' sports
- Halting illegal immigration
- Deporting illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes
- Opposition to defunding the police
- Increase domestic oil and gas production
- Require voter ID for elections
- Oppose sanctuary cities
- Europe should pay more for its own defense
- Late term abortions should be illegal
- State bans on abortion at 10 weeks or less are "too harsh"
Other than the last one, of course, Democrat policy is the opposite of Trump here on each of these - in practice if not in literal language.
Although they at least now *claim* to no longer be for "defund the police", and the point about Europe has to do with the "horror" of the threat to pull out of NATO unless Europe paid more.
There are other positions I could mention where clear majorities of the country support Trump's position (e.g. lower taxes, support for Israel, opposition to "net zero carbon by 2050" and "carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035") and many others, but since I cannot claim with confidence that it is 70%, given how far left the median Dem voter has moved, then even though all of these are also clearly "centrist" positions, I have not included them on the above list.
If you have full-blown TDS you are opposed to all of the above, save the <= 10 week abortions one. And so not reasonably characterized as a centrist. 😏
[The "Trump is a 'moderate' reformer on education" response will have to wait for another time...]
Thanks for the response! I’m pleased to report I do not have full-blown TDS as I am not opposed to all of the above. I would characterize Trump’s positions, the Dems positions, and the state of public opinion somewhat differently on certain issues, but we’re not going to solve American politics in this thread so happy to agree to disagree.
I’d be interested in your Trump as moderate education reformer take as that’s not one I’ve heard.
P.S. Typo -- it's "Fasco-casting", not "fashcasting", per Lukianoff's essay, which you linked:
'Fasco-casting is the name I’ve given to the tactic of labeling people “conservative,” a “right winger,” “far right,” “fascist,” or, my new favorite, “neo-confederate,” whether they actually are these things or not . . . .'
It feels to me like the academy wants the public’s tax dollars, without the public scrutiny that comes with that in every other context. Sorry, but the public is not going to give you a blank check to just write and research whatever you want. And frankly, at times the AAUP (and others like it) act as though they are entitled to respect, while doing pretty damn near everything they can to light that respect on fire
These professors apparently can’t differentiate between Conservative and Fascist . That doesn’t seem like a recipe for reform or even tolerance . And the students ultimately reflect that design . It leads to them becoming what they claim to fear. It would be interesting to poll these students and ask if they fell free to speak their mind in class or on campus .
Left-wing ideology in the academy is severe and cemented. Left-wing ideologues in the academy brook no dissent. Ergo, left-wing ideology is a religion. To honor the principle of non-establishment, public funding (federal, state, local) of the academy is non-constitutional and should cease.
No need to micromanage 'viewpoint diversity', just stop funding the religious fanatics who masquerade as 'progressives'.
It would be simpler and less partisan looking to end federal student loan guarantees, and make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. No sane private lender would fund a grievance studies degree. The insane private lenders would go out of business.
I’d settle for the ‘’skin in the game” that the university in question had to provide 50% of the loan, and was responsible for 100% (so all of the federal taxpayer’s risk) if the loan defaulted.
Agreed, if there is no federal subsidy in the first place.
My point is that if you want any federal subsidy, there needs to be skin in the game for the individual university.
If the university wants to try to offload that “skin” to a private insurer, that would be, as you indicate, a private transaction between consenting adults.
Actually, an established church was what they in those days called churches supported by taxes. A number of the colonies had churches supported by taxes at that time. They just weren’t the Church of England.
The _federal_ government is forbidden an established church.
Antidisestablishmentarianism is the movement _against_ abolishing an established church.
That would be the argument which the Supreme Court would uphold, however, so it's a fairly moot point. It's easy to see why: if the government puts its thumb on the scale, then the ban on an established religion is effectively hollow.
For most of our history it was customary to begin any public event with a prayer. Towards the end the prayers became ecumenical. The evangelical atheists sued to end the practice.
Recent SCOTUS rulings have partially reversed this, but not completely.
Though I’d argue this is not nearly the same as outlawing federal funding going to a religious institution, if for a non-religious purpose and the money goes to other similar secular organizations.
But my prior comment was likely a bit strong. I am not a SCOTUS scholar, and it could surely be that liberal SCOTUSes in the 1950s-1970s did in fact make such a ruling or rulings.
I for one think that Cornell University needs a little governmental intervention to bring us back to the truth seeking mission--even understanding that there is a slippery slope between a little intervention and goverment overreach. I also understand that government intervention during the Obama administration got us to where we are. I guess that I would welcome a little of the hair of the dog that bit us.
If the government can reach a consent decree with Ferguson, MO over its police department in the wake of the proven demonstrably false “hands up, don’t shoot” case, I see no reason why there cannot be a similar one with each and every one of these academic institutions who repeatedly brazenly violated anti-discrimination laws over the years (to be clear, viewpoint discrimination is usually not against the law, but refusing to hire a white male decidedly is).
Separately, could you tell us about the specific government interventions here under Obama to which you are referring?
Marcusean repressive tolerance, plain and simple. The Marxian if not Marxist method of declaring certain ideas to be anathema, and subsequently "fascist" because they aren't Marxist.
A very brief summary of Siraganian's points:
We who control universities are the only people smart enough to know truth, so everyone else stay away.
But we are useful, so continue to pay us.
That attitude doesn't seem to be working too well in the halls of legislatures, where the checks are written. A little humility is in order.
Perhaps an “ecosystem of ideas” might be more persuasive than a “marketplace of ideas”.
A certain faction hates markets. They also probably hate ecosystems, but they will deny it.
An *echo*-system of ideas is what the AAUP defends.
That crack might get a cheap laugh from the peanut gallery in a debate. Think carefully before you deploy it.
"ecosystems" are full of predators and prey - perhaps that isn't the best metaphor.
Thinking more about the points overall, I suggest there needs to be a way of capturing the distinction between, e.g. Holocaust-Deniers have the right to speak as invited speakers to events if the organizers invite them (i.e. free-speech), versus the History Department should have Holocaust-Deniers as professors as part of "viewpoint diversity" (i.e. right-wing lunatic take-over).
The woke see dissenters as wolves…
It's more along the lines of lying wolves claiming to be sweet little lambs.
C'mon, folks, say something like "Anti-vaccine lunacy deserves no respect.".
The fact that nobody seems willing to grant any limit at all to right-wing insanity, and instead seems completely fixated on tribal left-bashing, is a very strong practical argument that the AAUP article is actually correct.
More importantly, vaccination should not be a federal issue. Police powers properly belong to the state and local governments.
The Federal government has had a role in vaccinations literally going back to the American Revolution, where George Washington implemented a smallpox vaccination mandate for his troops. It's a fascinating bit of history.
https://www.history.com/articles/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war
You can't do it. You can't say something like "Anti-vaccine lunacy deserves no respect.". You keep trying to deflect. That shows what this is all about.
The federal government policies with employees and the military are different from laws requiring action by ordinary citizens. Congress and the Supreme Court had to bend over backwards to justify Obama care mandating health plans.
It does seem odd that there are no examples of excluded ideas that this *is* supposed to be about provided. Anyway I dont think asking people to self identify as "conservative" (or liberal) is particularly meaningful unless you also ask them to define it and analyze that qualitatively. One could also suggest that conservative professors appearing at double the rate of conservative administrators actually suggests there might be a hiring bias in their favor.
Who is the wolf, and who is the shepherd?
I think mostly the collectivists object to the chaos. Any self organizing system, like a market or an ecology, requires a certain amount of chaos to function.
Personally, I think the collectivists in question:
a) are snowflakes who can’t take their feeling s being hurt, but mostly,
b) find it too difficult to win the reasoned argument and prefer to shut down the opposition, because
c) they as so morally certain that their position is the only virtuous one and therefore they deserve total political power, and having to win the argument risks their ability to attain political power.
Just my two bits.
If the AAUP says there is nothing to fix, that means change is massively overdue! Anything they say, it's fair to assume the opposite is true. They are a corrupt organization.
I often think about the great Mike Duncan podcast series, "Revolutions". A recurring theme across 300 years of revolutions from the English Civil War to the Russian Revolution is: there's some injustice in the system as pointed out by both moderate reformers and radical types that want to overthrow the system -> ruling group obstinately refuses to reform the system -> frustration builds, radicals gain power, system overthrown -> (mostly) bad stuff. Apropos of nothing...
Well stated.
It goes unrecognized that it is Trump who is largely the moderate reformer here on the issue of DEI and free speech. E.g. with cutting off funding to these organizations that have openly, explicitly discriminated on the basis of race.
No doubt this is because he mixes in some extreme, mirror-the-opposition stuff with his moderate reforms, and leftists and sorta-centrists with TDS focus exclusively on thatextreme stuff he does.
[To be clear, I disagree with that ~30% of extreme stuff he’s done.]
As a sorta-centrist with TDS, we'll have to agree to disagree on Trump's role here!
Well, see, this is why I inserted “sorta-“.
You are welcome to disagree with all sorts of Trump policies, and to find him personally distasteful and onerous.
But TDS means you reflexively are against anything that Orange Man Bad is for, merely because he is for it.
Which in practice on policy would make you decidedly not a centrist on most policy matters; it would put you out of the mainstream on about 70%-75% of issues.
Just to be pedantic about it, if centrism can be defined as having a mix of left and right opinions (not just being in the center on every issue), two centrists could have 0% overlap. For instance, a person with liberal views on social issues and the welfare state, but who favors free trade and free markets as well as a more interventionist foreign policy would code as a liberal centrist. However, they’d be further from Trump on every issue that the median voter or even a certain kind of more solidly liberal person.
Anyways, I’d be curious to hear your explanation on both why you think Trump is a moderate reformer on education and on why you think he’s in the mainstream on 70-75% of issues. On the former, it seems his administration is doing a number of radical things, hence the ire of FIRE. On the latter, per Nate Silver’s polling averages he’s underwater on all major issue groups (https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin).
First, to be pedantic about it, opinions are *not* merely binary [left or right], but at minimum can be coded [left, centrist, right]. This partly matters here, but is not my sole point. Otherwise, sure you could theoretically claim two people are each centrist whose views are opposite about everything.
But since you asked for a list, here are a number of Trump positions that align with 70%+ of the population:
- Ban on transgender chemical or surgical procedures for minors
- Biological males should not be allowed to compete in womens'/girls' sports
- Halting illegal immigration
- Deporting illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes
- Opposition to defunding the police
- Increase domestic oil and gas production
- Require voter ID for elections
- Oppose sanctuary cities
- Europe should pay more for its own defense
- Late term abortions should be illegal
- State bans on abortion at 10 weeks or less are "too harsh"
Other than the last one, of course, Democrat policy is the opposite of Trump here on each of these - in practice if not in literal language.
Although they at least now *claim* to no longer be for "defund the police", and the point about Europe has to do with the "horror" of the threat to pull out of NATO unless Europe paid more.
There are other positions I could mention where clear majorities of the country support Trump's position (e.g. lower taxes, support for Israel, opposition to "net zero carbon by 2050" and "carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035") and many others, but since I cannot claim with confidence that it is 70%, given how far left the median Dem voter has moved, then even though all of these are also clearly "centrist" positions, I have not included them on the above list.
If you have full-blown TDS you are opposed to all of the above, save the <= 10 week abortions one. And so not reasonably characterized as a centrist. 😏
[The "Trump is a 'moderate' reformer on education" response will have to wait for another time...]
Thanks for the response! I’m pleased to report I do not have full-blown TDS as I am not opposed to all of the above. I would characterize Trump’s positions, the Dems positions, and the state of public opinion somewhat differently on certain issues, but we’re not going to solve American politics in this thread so happy to agree to disagree.
I’d be interested in your Trump as moderate education reformer take as that’s not one I’ve heard.
P.S. Typo -- it's "Fasco-casting", not "fashcasting", per Lukianoff's essay, which you linked:
'Fasco-casting is the name I’ve given to the tactic of labeling people “conservative,” a “right winger,” “far right,” “fascist,” or, my new favorite, “neo-confederate,” whether they actually are these things or not . . . .'
https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/towards-a-more-perfect-rhetorical
Huh. Not sure why that was what got linked, it got changed by popular vote: https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/is-the-efficient-rhetorical-fortress
I'll be sure to work fashcasting into the next argument I have with my PHD holding liberal-arts assistant professor cousin
Ah, the people have spoken!
😊
They do like their game https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/job-chapter-40?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
Best article.
It feels to me like the academy wants the public’s tax dollars, without the public scrutiny that comes with that in every other context. Sorry, but the public is not going to give you a blank check to just write and research whatever you want. And frankly, at times the AAUP (and others like it) act as though they are entitled to respect, while doing pretty damn near everything they can to light that respect on fire
They think we're too dumb to notice.
Today's sad excuse for a college education is why I've come up with the terms 'intellectual incest' and 'academic inbreeding'.
From the frontlines: No.
Not my own opinion. What I observe in my colleagues.
These professors apparently can’t differentiate between Conservative and Fascist . That doesn’t seem like a recipe for reform or even tolerance . And the students ultimately reflect that design . It leads to them becoming what they claim to fear. It would be interesting to poll these students and ask if they fell free to speak their mind in class or on campus .
“These professors apparently can’t differentiate between Conservative and Fascist”.
They don’t need to.
Anyone opposed to the leftist social justice mission by definition is a fascist.
Academia has no need to be tolerant of opposing points of view when they have absolute faith that they - and their mission - are correct.
You are a fascist for suggesting otherwise.
Tell me if the following argument has flaws:
Left-wing ideology in the academy is severe and cemented. Left-wing ideologues in the academy brook no dissent. Ergo, left-wing ideology is a religion. To honor the principle of non-establishment, public funding (federal, state, local) of the academy is non-constitutional and should cease.
No need to micromanage 'viewpoint diversity', just stop funding the religious fanatics who masquerade as 'progressives'.
It would be simpler and less partisan looking to end federal student loan guarantees, and make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. No sane private lender would fund a grievance studies degree. The insane private lenders would go out of business.
I’d settle for the ‘’skin in the game” that the university in question had to provide 50% of the loan, and was responsible for 100% (so all of the federal taxpayer’s risk) if the loan defaulted.
I’d say that’s between the lender and the university.
Agreed, if there is no federal subsidy in the first place.
My point is that if you want any federal subsidy, there needs to be skin in the game for the individual university.
If the university wants to try to offload that “skin” to a private insurer, that would be, as you indicate, a private transaction between consenting adults.
One flaw in your argument is that the Establishment clause just says there cannot be government established religion.
It does NOT say that no government money can go to religious institutions.
It would be rich irony if this argument made by leftists that you use here was successfully used to eliminate their funding.
But it would not be a proper constitutional argument.
Actually, an established church was what they in those days called churches supported by taxes. A number of the colonies had churches supported by taxes at that time. They just weren’t the Church of England.
The _federal_ government is forbidden an established church.
Antidisestablishmentarianism is the movement _against_ abolishing an established church.
That would be the argument which the Supreme Court would uphold, however, so it's a fairly moot point. It's easy to see why: if the government puts its thumb on the scale, then the ban on an established religion is effectively hollow.
I don’t understand your point here.
In fact SCOTUS has never afaik upheld such an argument, and for sure many cases this century uphold the opposite.
For most of our history it was customary to begin any public event with a prayer. Towards the end the prayers became ecumenical. The evangelical atheists sued to end the practice.
Thanks.
Recent SCOTUS rulings have partially reversed this, but not completely.
Though I’d argue this is not nearly the same as outlawing federal funding going to a religious institution, if for a non-religious purpose and the money goes to other similar secular organizations.
But my prior comment was likely a bit strong. I am not a SCOTUS scholar, and it could surely be that liberal SCOTUSes in the 1950s-1970s did in fact make such a ruling or rulings.
I am leery of contracting with religious organizations to provide government services. It is quite likely to corrupt them.
The AAUP has jumped the shark. This is truly embarrassing.
bravo
Great post. Have restacked, along with several excerpts.
I for one think that Cornell University needs a little governmental intervention to bring us back to the truth seeking mission--even understanding that there is a slippery slope between a little intervention and goverment overreach. I also understand that government intervention during the Obama administration got us to where we are. I guess that I would welcome a little of the hair of the dog that bit us.
Thanks,
randy
I’m with you.
If the government can reach a consent decree with Ferguson, MO over its police department in the wake of the proven demonstrably false “hands up, don’t shoot” case, I see no reason why there cannot be a similar one with each and every one of these academic institutions who repeatedly brazenly violated anti-discrimination laws over the years (to be clear, viewpoint discrimination is usually not against the law, but refusing to hire a white male decidedly is).
Separately, could you tell us about the specific government interventions here under Obama to which you are referring?
Dear Andy G,
It was the Dear Colleague letter. You can read it here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf
Thanks,
randy
It was the Dear Colleague letter. You can read it here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf
academia where the only freedom is the freedom to hate jews
Not exactly true.
You are free to agree with all variants of woke / DEI / Critical Theory / intersectionality oppressor-oppressed ideology.
And you are *usually* free to say nothing about those parts of it you disagree with.
So if you think about it, you have every freedom there is, except the minor one of disagreeing with any aspect of leftist orthodoxy.
Actually, even that’s not quite true. You *are* allowed to disagree with leftist orthodoxy if you attack it form the left…
Marcusean repressive tolerance, plain and simple. The Marxian if not Marxist method of declaring certain ideas to be anathema, and subsequently "fascist" because they aren't Marxist.