As a society, we are already paying the price for this lopsided influence on our most educated young people. I attended a STEM school so did not see this as much in my generation, but it's clear that this has been ongoing for decades. Perhaps it is the last price of the Vietnam War.
There is no such thing as center and right, except in the dyadic mindset of the Leftist, who styles himself as "us" to all the rest, "them." We who are not Leftists must not succumb to the mindset that classifies our views in their terms, placed into their boxes.
Every human being is a unique individual. There is no linear scale from left to right where individuals can be pegged into herds for easy analysis and manipulation, because there are as many worldviews as there are people. Individuals can and do associate with like-minded people, but in billions of combinations susceptible to few, if any, characterization that matters. Leftists can not abide by complexity. They do not see individuals. We do.
There was no left, center and right to the founders of our great country, because the scourge of Marx had not yet arrived here. In the present day, Americans who are not Leftists ought to understand the vitiated shorthand of this dichotomy and abandon its usage once and for all.
Check out the American Library Association. President Sam Helmick (they/them) is focused on "banned books" and intellectual freedom, meaning that she wants Gender Queer shoved in kids' faces in every public library. The ALA also changed the name of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award because of her work includes “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values.” Does FIRE condone this? More details here: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/sam-helmick-they-them-american-library-association
Also, why didn't FIRE defend Douglass Mackey when he was persecuted by the Biden administration over a meme?
Sadly, this analysis is very much on point. Too often, we have let the loudest, most intransigent voices (among both faculty and students) dominate the conversations, set policies, and establish norms on campus. But I have found that my students, particularly the ones entering college in the last couple years, are hungry for an education that challenges them rather than one that simply reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. I had one student in my Southern history class this semester who said it was “refreshing” to read a wide variety of primary sources, rather than just ones that toed a particular ideological line.
You are right on the money, both about the situation and about why it is a problem. The idea that universities are indoctrination factories, while titillating, has little evidence backing it. No, it is the narrowing of what constitutes permissible inquiry that is the problem, and it is a far more subtle problem. By shaping what questions are asked and what data is published, you control knowledge itself. Paper by paper, reality begins to take on a liberal bias, if I may twist the popular saying. Nor is any grand conspiracy needed; it occurs largely by the rational action of the majority, prodded along in the right direction by the ideological minority. Who needs indoctrination when all available evidence points in the direction you favor? Best of all, the problem is defined by absence, so it is nearly impossible to detect, much like post-publication censorship gets orders of magnitude more attention than informal pre-publication censorship.
This is an interesting adaptation of a grading method. The TAMU v Berkeley and Duke v Columbia spreads pass basic sniff test. Good piece. What does this quote mean?
“More like, Bernie Sanders-but-peer-reviewed-by-a-room-full-of-people-snapping progressive.” Misspelled word? Or if I don’t get it means I’m left of Ho Chi Minh?
As a society, we are already paying the price for this lopsided influence on our most educated young people. I attended a STEM school so did not see this as much in my generation, but it's clear that this has been ongoing for decades. Perhaps it is the last price of the Vietnam War.
There is no such thing as center and right, except in the dyadic mindset of the Leftist, who styles himself as "us" to all the rest, "them." We who are not Leftists must not succumb to the mindset that classifies our views in their terms, placed into their boxes.
Every human being is a unique individual. There is no linear scale from left to right where individuals can be pegged into herds for easy analysis and manipulation, because there are as many worldviews as there are people. Individuals can and do associate with like-minded people, but in billions of combinations susceptible to few, if any, characterization that matters. Leftists can not abide by complexity. They do not see individuals. We do.
There was no left, center and right to the founders of our great country, because the scourge of Marx had not yet arrived here. In the present day, Americans who are not Leftists ought to understand the vitiated shorthand of this dichotomy and abandon its usage once and for all.
Check out the American Library Association. President Sam Helmick (they/them) is focused on "banned books" and intellectual freedom, meaning that she wants Gender Queer shoved in kids' faces in every public library. The ALA also changed the name of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award because of her work includes “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values.” Does FIRE condone this? More details here: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/sam-helmick-they-them-american-library-association
Also, why didn't FIRE defend Douglass Mackey when he was persecuted by the Biden administration over a meme?
Sadly, this analysis is very much on point. Too often, we have let the loudest, most intransigent voices (among both faculty and students) dominate the conversations, set policies, and establish norms on campus. But I have found that my students, particularly the ones entering college in the last couple years, are hungry for an education that challenges them rather than one that simply reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. I had one student in my Southern history class this semester who said it was “refreshing” to read a wide variety of primary sources, rather than just ones that toed a particular ideological line.
You are right on the money, both about the situation and about why it is a problem. The idea that universities are indoctrination factories, while titillating, has little evidence backing it. No, it is the narrowing of what constitutes permissible inquiry that is the problem, and it is a far more subtle problem. By shaping what questions are asked and what data is published, you control knowledge itself. Paper by paper, reality begins to take on a liberal bias, if I may twist the popular saying. Nor is any grand conspiracy needed; it occurs largely by the rational action of the majority, prodded along in the right direction by the ideological minority. Who needs indoctrination when all available evidence points in the direction you favor? Best of all, the problem is defined by absence, so it is nearly impossible to detect, much like post-publication censorship gets orders of magnitude more attention than informal pre-publication censorship.
This is an interesting adaptation of a grading method. The TAMU v Berkeley and Duke v Columbia spreads pass basic sniff test. Good piece. What does this quote mean?
“More like, Bernie Sanders-but-peer-reviewed-by-a-room-full-of-people-snapping progressive.” Misspelled word? Or if I don’t get it means I’m left of Ho Chi Minh?