That being said, I think my favourite person talking about the issue from the perspective of faculty, rather than focusing on students, is Alice Dreger.
Dreger makes some really interesting points. I love the comments about the corporatization of universities, especially that universities no longer have football teams, but football teams have universities. That hits pretty close to home for a lot of major universities.
I also like her comments about universities protecting their brands. This is very true. Universities do have very specific brands and they have every right to protect that brand, or change that brand to appeal to the changes within their markets. Universities are expected to produce, so they must be very careful to make sure they are bringing in people that can produce and can contribute to the overall success of the university. To most people this is common sense. To many in academia, this is heretical to their way of thinking. This is the struggle that exists in academia - the battle between academics and the administration who run the university and keep the doors open.
Not much of what Dreger talks about is academic freedom, nor protected by academic freedom. The vast majority of her discussion are bullying tactics used by the arrogant worms that exist in all schools (field of study, not institution) who believe they know more than their peers, and want to maintain their position and power within their school. This is the same garbage that exists in all bodies which incorporate bureaucracies. Why should people expect academia to be different?
I do find it ironic that Dreger is dug up as evidence of such behaviors, when she has been accused of being front and center to some of these controversies, attacking others for expecting the enforcement of norms. Dreger is a very crass individual, very representative of the stereotypical feminazi which has been the strawman de jour to attack here, but is now a symbol of good. I think this fully supports the proverb, "the enemy of enemy is my friend." I also find, more often than not, that people who cry academic freedom are the ones who least understand what academic freedom is, and most often make transgressions against academic freedom. Before people use a defense, they should make sure they understand the terms and conditions of that defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Many in the sociology field are hostile to sociobiology and the very idea that human social behaviours can derive from our biological impulses the same way the social behaviours of ants and chimpanzees do. They seem to think it's a threat to recognizing that socialization and social structures play a part as well, as though the two influences are mutually exclusive. Edward O Wilson's On Human Nature apparently sparked quite a firestorm of controversy when it was published in 1978.
Any time a new theory is presented, especially one that challenges the foundations of the primary school of thought, there is going to be much scrutiny and push back. This is expected, and there is usually a period of overt and critical discussion about the new theory until full peer review can be completed and further support of the new theory can be established. Yes, politics enter the mix. As I referenced above, when there is bureaucracy there will be hierarchies and there will be people who want to maintain their power. That does not mean that ideas are suppressed, it means that new ideas just require a lot of work to gain acceptance.
It should also be noted that the activism happening in some schools (again field if inquiry, not institution) is being questioned my their main governing bodies. The expectations of complying with the standard practices and ethical behaviors must be reviewed and openly discussed from time-to-time. The American Sociological Association is actually going through this process, one that will ultimately be a reminder to all in the field of the expectations of the behavioral and ethical standards of the field of study. This is the nature of the beast, and the nature of human beings. Like any organism, these bodies fight to maintain homeostasis.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Haidt has talked about schools branding and promoting themselves on their primary value. So some schools can sell themselves as a place where students will be challenged, made uncomfortable, and exposed to free speech in the pursuit of truth, and others can sell themselves as place where students will be nurtured and supported in efforts to remake the world into a more equal place. Let the market meet the wants of different students.
Haidt has talked about schools branding and promoting themselves on their primary value. So some schools can sell themselves as a place where students will be challenged, made uncomfortable, and exposed to free speech in the pursuit of truth, and others can sell themselves as place where students will be nurtured and supported in efforts to remake the world into a more equal place. Let the market meet the wants of different students.
I think the market already is doing that. With female enrollment being higher than male enrollment I am not surprised to see things as they are since they will cater to the main demographic.
Haidt has talked about schools branding and promoting themselves on their primary value. So some schools can sell themselves as a place where students will be challenged, made uncomfortable, and exposed to free speech in the pursuit of truth, and others can sell themselves as place where students will be nurtured and supported in efforts to remake the world into a more equal place. Let the market meet the wants of different students.
Haidt actually built this whole argument from a false dichotomy of his own construction. He built the notion that universities and colleges must choose between two competing values - truth or social justice. As a social psychologist who studies morality, Haidt should know better than to build this frame.
The fight for social justice usually includes exposing the truth to harsh light of day. The two are not competing values, but complimentary values, both important to the expansion of understanding and establishment of equitable system where all people are viewed as equals. Attempting to paint this as a choice is just bad reasoning on the part of Dr. Haidt. He should likely go back and re-read his own book to refresh his memory on morality and reasoning.
I will enter into the discussion the fact that Haidt is making all of these assumptions off of a claim that "protesters at 80 universities made demands that their universities/colleges make greater comments toward social justice, often including mandatory courses and training for everyone in social justice perspectives and content." These are protesters, NOT the administrations making any sort of commitment to do so. I will also point out that those 80 universities are reflective of less that 2% of all colleges and universities in the United States. More colleges already enforce chastity or religious pledges for students and faculty. Seems an extreme position to be making these claims based on less than 2% of colleges being asked for these statements by a segment of their student body.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I think the market already is doing that. With female enrollment being higher than male enrollment I am not surprised to see things as they are since they will cater to the main demographic.
Care to explain your logic here?
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The fight for social justice usually includes exposing the truth to harsh light of day. The two are not competing values, but complimentary values, both important to the expansion of understanding and establishment of equitable system where all people are viewed as equals.
The truth is contestable. And to contest it, you need an environment where challenges and research won't be denounced on ideological grounds.
Today's social justice movement is built on several ideological assumptions:
The essential political identity of every citizen is their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Those identity groups are engaged in an unrelenting power struggle.
It’s the moral obligation of every decent person to strive for the equality of outcome for those identity groups across all aspects of social, cultural, and economic life.
The source of all disparities is systemic oppression by the dominant patriarchal, cis-gendered, white elite.
Any suggestion of other sources of disparity are morally unconscionable, and render the person making the suggestion a party to systemic oppression.
This issue is so vital, and the people affected by it so vulnerable, that traditional norms and values around free speech and open, challenging dialog must be abandoned.
Challenging these assumptions is not treated as intellectual debate, but as morally defective or hostile attacks.
#5 is key. In the search for truth, we uncover many aspects of human behaviour that make us uncomfortable or run contrary to our ideals - reality doesn't care how we feel. An example Haidt cites is the strong empirical correlation between single-parent homes and poverty. This truth is attacked when discussing the different outcomes of groups because A) it might make people feel bad (blaming the victim), and B) it's the kind of thing conservatives often raise. We also can't discuss the heritability of intelligence and temperament and the role they might play in intergenerational economic mobility for the same reason. And just ask James Damore how welcome we are to findings about innate population-level gender differences capability or preferences.
There are a host of other examples of empirical truths that are virtually taboo to introduce without arousing ferocious moral condemnation and accusations of oppression and malice. Which is why many observers have commented on how much today's social justice movement is like a kind of religion. It's why researchers like Steven Pinker, and the entire evolutionary psychology field, are attacked by identarian activists. Any explanation for different outcomes besides systemic oppression cannot be tolerated.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-11-2018 at 11:40 AM.
I'll try. I think university boards are choosing to create environments that are more like what the students want for the money. The primary demographic is female and we can see a swing towards issues that women often champion becoming fore front. This increases reputation and drives enrollment. It's about branding ultimately.
That's the gist of it. It's an interesting thing on a university campus I am a white straight male with autism spectrum disorder, the stereotype ultimate misogynist, but in reality this inclusion push that is going on in multiple area's is creating a more accessible world for me and I like it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Duruss For This Useful Post:
The latest Sam Harris podcast was Jonathan Haidt. I think they do a good job of discussing the issue with nuance. I was particularly compelled by the discussion on the difference in mode in identity politics between "Common Enemy" vs "Common Humanity" - the latter he argues is necessary and good.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
The truth is contestable. And to contest it, you need an environment where challenges and research won't be denounced on ideological grounds.
In your mind. To most people, truth is synonymous with fact, which is many times irrefutable. Unfortunately, in the current political environment, and post truth world, we find ourselves engaged with a perspective where facts don't matter and truth has become subjective. That is, unfortunately, an ugly truth.
If you really want to pick a fight and battle over something that should be egregious to all, maybe you should focus in on that fact. We can all have different opinions, but we should never be able to claim different facts.
Quote:
Today's social justice movement is built on several ideological assumptions:
The essential political identity of every citizen is their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Those identity groups are engaged in an unrelenting power struggle.
It’s the moral obligation of every decent person to strive for the equality of outcome for those identity groups across all aspects of social, cultural, and economic life.
The source of all disparities is systemic oppression by the dominant patriarchal, cis-gendered, white elite.
Any suggestion of other sources of disparity are morally unconscionable, and render the person making the suggestion a party to systemic oppression.
This issue is so vital, and the people affected by it so vulnerable, that traditional norms and values around free speech and open, challenging dialog must be abandoned.
Where did these supposed assumptions come from? There is but one assumption when it comes to social justice.
"All people are equal."
Period. No further qualification required. If you're looking for the rule to inform your interpretation of social justice, try on "treat others as you yourself would expect to be treated."
Quote:
Challenging these assumptions is not treated as intellectual debate, but as morally defective or hostile attacks.
Well, when you make assumptions and place qualifications on compliance, then yes, you are going to see people who those assumptions or qualifications impact seem hostile. Hence why your list of assumptions would get some people pissed off. You're already establishing loopholes allowing for your non-compliance based on your frame.
Quote:
#5 is key. In the search for truth, we uncover many aspects of human behaviour that make us uncomfortable or run contrary to your ideals - reality doesn't care how we feel. An example Haidt cites is the strong empirical correlation between single-parent homes and poverty. This truth is attacked when discussing the different outcomes of groups because A) it might make people feel bad (blaming the victim), and B) it's the kind of thing conservatives often raise. We also can't discuss the heritability of intelligence and temperament the role they might play in intergenerational economic mobility for the same reason.
Bull. Whether heredity plays a role in the development of intelligence is a question considered by a number of social sciences. To claim it isn't is either ignorance of the research or disingenuous while trying to establish a narrative. Trying to drag inter-generational economic mobility into the mix is a classic red herring meant to confound rather than narrow discussion. The two are not directly related. The later is systemic and based on social and legal means constructed by the very people who most greatly benefit from the mobility.
Quote:
There are a host of other examples of empirical truths that are virtually taboo to introduce without arousing ferocious moral condemnation and accusations of oppression and malice. Which is why many observers have commented on how much today's social justice movement is like a kind of religion. It's why researchers like Steven Pinker, and the entire evolutionary psychology field, are attacked by identarian activists. Any explanation for different outcomes besides systemic oppression cannot be tolerated.
Taboos are cultural. You should go back and re-read Haidt, as taboos greatly inform our morality and our reactions to things alien to us. You have adopted a certain perspective where you project and enforce your taboos on others. Hence all the rules for how you perceive social justice.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Taboos are cultural. You should go back and re-read Haidt, as taboos greatly inform our morality and our reactions to things alien to us. You have adopted a certain perspective where you project and enforce your taboos on others. Hence all the rules for how you perceive social justice.
Studies show loneliness correlates as strongly to negative health outcomes as obesity or smoking. Around a quarter of adults in North America report being lonely. For half of them, the loneliness is chronic.
In a possibly related finding, people in Vancouver and Toronto are the unhappiest in Canada.
Saguenay, Trois-Rivières, and St. John's report the most satisfaction with life.
I'd suggest they're related. Vancouver and Toronto are full of people who move away from their families and friends for work, and many end up being socially isolated. Meanwhile, the people who stay behind in places like Saguenay and St. John's maintain strong social networks.
I've long believed that we shouldn't support policies that keep people in economically stagnant parts of the country, and instead encourage migration to the places (pretty much a handful of cities) with high labour demand. I'm starting to reconsider that stance. Most people are more secure and happy with strong familial and social networks, especially at two stages of life - when they're raising young children and when they're elderly. The mobile nuclear family (or childless couple) has strong economic arguments in its favour. But we're starting to see the social cost of this model. Lack of childcare for children. Stressed families. Loneliness and depression among seniors. The health impacts of social isolation.
I think we're also starting to see a sea change around this. Half of my parents' friends picked up stakes in retirement to move closer to their grandchildren. The high cost of housing is driving millennials out of major cities. And to tie it into hockey, we just saw a top star turn down more term and money to be close to family, and one of the most successful executives in the NHL leave a top Stanley Cup contending team he built rather than move his family away from their social network.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-12-2018 at 09:49 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
The Up and Downtown Music Festival cancelled former Misfits singer Michale Graves’ scheduled Oct. 6 performance at The Temple nightclub on Wednesday, after discovering social media accounts under his name are promoting conspiracy theories and right-wing views.
Hours later, the Starlite Room — which owns and shares a building with The Temple — announced on its Facebook page that The Temple will host the show as planned on Oct. 6 at 8 p.m., but run it separate from the festival.
Owner and operator Tyson Boyd said in an emailed statement Thursday, on behalf of the venue’s ownership group, that the Starlite Room strives to be a welcoming place for all walks of life, and that can come with varying opinions and viewpoints.
“As a venue, we do not support the opinions of this artist, but feel they are only that, opinions. To act in intolerance toward any individuals with a difference of political opinion is an act against the democracy we so cherish in Canada,” the statement reads.
So they cancelled the performance as part of the festival but still allowing the artist to perform at the same venue, on the same night, on the same ticket, but just not part of the festival? Sounds like an attempt to drum up some publicity more than anything. To use terms from the artists ideological point of view, what a nothing burger.
...If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”..
...There is, however, plenty of additional support for the idea that the social views of most Americans are not nearly as neatly divided by age or race as is commonly believed. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, only 26 percent of black Americans consider themselves liberal. And in the More in Common study, nearly half of Latinos argued that “many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated,” while two in five African Americans agreed that “immigration nowadays is bad for America.”
The most telling result from the study his how homogeneous a group progressive activists are:
Quote:
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
So the culture war is essentially a war between a very small number of rich, educated whites and a someone larger number of less affluent, less educated whites. The former make up for their small numbers by their dominance of many academic, media, and cultural institutions. And the attitude of a great majority of people of all stripes is 'a pox on both their houses'.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I still don't get the logic of saying "identity politics is bad" and then promoting agendas centred around identity politics.
Who's saying identity politics is bad and then promoting agendas centred around identity politics?
The whole point of this article is pointing out that the people playing that kind of game are a small minority. The war between the 8 per cent and the 25 per cent is over stuff most people don't care about. The sooner we recognize that the sooner we can return to some semblance of political normalcy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
That article focuses on political correctness, which is a loaded and mostly pejorative term these days. Given that, and the fact that the survey didn't even define that term in its questions, it's not surprising that most people they talked to are critical of it.
I'd be more interested in a more granular analysis of what people are actually talking about. Do they think that not being able to call a mentally challenged person a ###### or not being able to call a homosexual person a fag without sounding like an idiot is a real problem? Or do they just dislike the vague idea of political correctness?
It's a lot like when the ACA was coming into effect. "Obamacare" was quite unpopular among a lot of segments of the population even if when you actually drilled down to the issues they supported most or all of its provisions, but the idea of it was unpalatable to them. There were even some people who supported the ACA but hated the idea of Obamacare without realizing they were the same thing.
If you actually read the report the article talks about it doesn't really focus on "political correctness" much at all. There is one question, apparently, that asks whether the respondents think political correctness is a problem. The vast majority of the questions are more generally about social attitudes.
Whatever you think the results indicate, I think it's a pretty interesting study.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
