The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Worthy Open Letter Defending Liberalism in the Academy from its Opponents on the Left
I tend to be a bit skeptical of the value of open letters, and I rarely sign them, partly for that reason, and partly because I rarely agree wholeheartedly with the entire letter.
That said, I signed the one below (as did co-Conspirator Randy Barnett, among other luminaries), and you can add your signature here if you are so inclined. (Note, this letter is a project of David Bernstein of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values. This is not me, though we cause at least as much confusion as the two Ilyas. Making matters worse, we both published books last year, and our mutual editor at Post Hill press is … another David Bernstein.)
An Open Letter from Jewish Scholars about Today's Intellectual Environment
*THIS LETTER IS FOR JEWISH SCHOLARS AND FRIENDS IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD
Dear Friends,
We, the undersigned Jewish scholars and academics, are concerned about the current ideological environment in the US and elsewhere and the increasingly censorious culture in many institutions of higher learning. Although we are acutely aware of the illiberalism and threats to academic freedom emanating from the political right, and in no way downplay these dangers, in this letter we focus our attention on, and express our deep concern about, a dangerously intolerant ideology on the political left that has taken hold in academia.
We firmly believe that the purpose of education is to teach students how to think, not what to think. A liberal education, by definition, should present students with different approaches to important questions so they can appreciate the complexity of issues and at the same time attempt to formulate their own opinions. Too often, however, universities and campus communities have veered away from their core missions and have propagated—among both faculty and students—a set of moral and intellectual attitudes that restrict critical inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and intellectual openness. We regard such inquiry and openness as bedrocks of any liberal, democratic society. As taught in the Ethics of Our Fathers, "Who is wise? He who learns from every person, as it is said: 'From all who taught me have I gained understanding.'"
Moreover, the suppression of unpopular opinions impinges on society's ability to address problems. What happens in academia rarely stays in academia. Shutting down scholarly inquiry ultimately limits the range of popular discussion on social issues, including sensitive topics such as race and gender identity, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, for intellectual and political leaders to formulate sound policy, promote advances in science, and resolve social tensions. Good scholarship, which cannot thrive if it is blinkered by ideological demands, bureaucratic restrictions, and groupthink, can and must inform the public conversation.
The ascendency of an ideology that reduces people to "oppressed" and "oppressors" and categorizes individuals into monolithic group identities poses a particular threat to the Jewish people. In this stark, neo-Manichean worldview, Jews are frequently grouped with the privileged, and Israel is dogmatically singled out as an oppressor-state–a shallow dichotomy that foments new variants of antisemitism and reinforces old ones.
As scholars, we stand for the principles of free inquiry in our educational institutions. As Jewish scholars, we remind the Jewish community and others of the dangers of any ideology that diminishes the free exchange of ideas. Instead, we encourage leaders and educators to stand up for our deeply held liberal principles and our own tradition of "argument for the sake of heaven."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The ascendency of an ideology that reduces people to 'oppressed' and 'oppressors' and categorizes individuals into monolithic group identities poses a particular threat to the Jewish people."
Translation: There's a danger of classifying groups into 'oppressed' or 'oppressor' categories because it could adversely affect an 'oppressed' group.
WTF!
Or is this like saying, "You can't call us Oppressed! Only we can call us Oppressed!!!"
You understand the difference between acknowledging that groups can be targeted in particular contexts, and classifying groups as “oppressors” or “oppressed” as a blanket rule? Oops, I guess you don’t.
To take a relevant analogy, I think everyone acknowledges that employees/workers can be exploited. But that's different than saying that inherently, as a class, "capitalists" (ie employers) are exploiteres, and workers are "exploited," by the very nature of things
You understand there's a difference between oppressed and exploited?
Oops, I guess you don't and you're just moving goalposts and didn't address my point.
It’s an analogy.
That’s quite an embarrassing failure of reading comprehension.
‘classifying groups’
Ah, getting mad because the status quo in an, eg, historically massively racist country has evolved to favour one group of people – whether they want it to or not, to be sure, and not without exceptions often down to class, but still.
‘But that’s different than saying that inherently, as a class, “capitalists” (ie employers) are exploiteres, and workers are “exploited,” by the very nature of things’
I mean, it’s literally true. It’s an inherently exploiter/exploited relationship. There’s no getting round it. Some of those relationships can be fairer and more equal than others, and in theory they could ALL be fair and equitable and everything would be fine, but they’re all fundamentally that. It’s why people had to get beaten, starved, hung and shot to get weekends and health insurance. It's why people work two or three jobs and still struggle to make rent.
Yes, that's what Marxists believe, which is why i used that analogy, because CRT and related ideologies have their roots in Marxist manners of thinking. But it's clearly not true that employers always exploit employees. To take an obvious example, Stephen Curry gets paid $48 million a year.
Man passionate about defending capitalist ideology rejects ideological discussions among non-capitalists.
I think you'll find lots of people who aren't Marxists believe it, too, especially those working three jobs and still struggling to pay rent, and the people who pay them those wages while receiving huge CEO salaries believe it, too.
'But it’s clearly not true that employers always exploit employees'
It absolutely is. The remuneration they offer is better for some, worse for most, but it's still exploitation. That's why thay call them 'human resources,' just in case you didn't pick up the rest of the subtle hints.
'because CRT and related ideologies'
CRT is an elective course offered by some law schools. As an ideology it's as invented as the right-wing concepts of 'socialism,' 'Marxism,' and 'wokism.' Not to say it hasn't since been adopted positively by some people in other disciplines, but it remains primarily a right-wing shibboleth. So in that sense it does have roots in 'Marxism.'
‘It absolutely is’.
Based ONLY upon a Marxist conception of ‘exploitation’, not the common conception and usage of the term, and hence ideological.
The irony here is delicious, you fucking imbecile.
'CRT is an elective course offered by some law schools. As an ideology it’s as invented as the right-wing concepts of ‘socialism,’ ‘Marxism,’ and ‘wokism.’ Not to say it hasn’t since been adopted positively by some people in other disciplines, but it remains primarily a right-wing shibboleth. So in that sense it does have roots in ‘Marxism.’.'
Thanks, too, for demonstrating that you know absolutely NOTHING about actual CRT legal scholarship.
'not the common conception and usage of the term'
Yeah. That's how everyone understands it. As employers exploiting workers.
'Thanks, too, for demonstrating that you know absolutely NOTHING about actual CRT legal scholarship.'
Proves my point.
Meaningless retorts, Nige. Good work. It proves only that you're an uneducated fool.
Consider the putative necessity claim regarding exploitation. How can that necessarily be the case? ONLY via a labour theory of value. For, otherwise, under an ordinary conception, any given employer can/could pay an employee fair wages, let alone abundant wages (and give stock options, etc) that more than fully rewards the latter.
And there's not a chance in HELL you've actually read, let alone understood, Crenshaw, Delgado, Williams, Roithmayr, etc, let alone have any understanding of where their theory really comes from.
Although he pretends he's not a paid Russian Internet troll, he does admit he's not an American. Why on earth would he think he knows anything about what is taught in American schools?
This is one of your more brilliant observations, Nieporent. MUST one be in the USA in order to read CRT scholarship, or any other (pseudo-)scholarship produced in the USA?
Since you love mindless trolling, perhaps you should work for the Russian government -- unless you already do, that is.
Apedad, read the Nuremburg Laws sometime.
What a remarkably asinine comment. From you I expect better.
The point is, that the liberal tradition is to treat people as individuals, and judge them by their actions and character ("the content of their character") not their group affiliation. The anti-liberal tradition is to judge someone by their group, and their group is often a result of birth and ethnicity, not choice. Jews have been on the negative receiving end of the latter for centuries.
Of late, the left-wing has adopted the anti-liberal attitude. "Whites" and "Whiteness" are used as negative epithets. Anyone with white skin is now guilty of the sins of all white people from the dawn of time, or at least since Columbus.
Ditto for Jews, except we cannot use that term, so we say Zionist. Of course, it does not matter what the person's political persuasion is, if he is Jewish, or has a Jewish sounding name, then he is suspect. At least that is the prevailing view on many campuses. You can do your own Google search.
So, yeah, Jews have a particular interest in reinforcing the liberal tradition of judging people as individuals, not as group members, particularly ethnic group members.
Other than with respect to Israel in general and in the occupied territories in particular?
When one ethnic group tries to attack and wipe out a second ethnic group, then they should not be surprised that the same ethnic group defends itself and prevents the first ethnic group from carrying out its plans.
The UN resolutions are clear: Israel is to give up territory in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty within its own territory and peace. The Palestinian Arabs have consistently said no to this deal. Ergo, they remain occupied. Too bad, losing wars, especially genocidal wars, has consequences.
Meanwhile, in Israel, ethnic Arab citizens vote, sit in the national parliament, and on the Supreme Court. In some Arab countries, in contrast, it is a capital crime to sell land to a Jew.
So, under the circumstances, Israel has nothing to be ashamed of.
America, is not Israel, and has not been the subject of the same kinds of attacks, ethnic based, or not. Bernstein is speaking about what should take place in America, specifically American academia.
So, sorry, your obnoxious snark does not impress. Go back to your broken-record rants about clingers.
Israel has plenty to be ashamed of. The situation resembles -- and is worse than -- the United States with respect to Trump.
Most Americans do not support right-wing belligerence -- let alone superstition-drenched, immoral, violent right-wing belligerence -- at home. That anyone expects the American mainstream to be willing to subsidize such deplorable right-wingery anywhere else is inexplicable.
Israel seems determined to learn this the hard way, with a consequence of learning how it will do without the American political, military, and economic skirts it has been operating behind for decades. I hope the Israelis who have been taking to the streets in opposition to authoritarian, superstitious, right-wing assholes prevail, but if they don't I hope my country stops enabling Netanyahu, Ben-Givr, and Israel's other brutal, deluded, right-wing assholes.
I would ditch the Saudis at the same moment Israel is cut loose. No group of violent, immoral right-wing religious kooks is better than another.
'Most Americans do not support right-wing belligerence — let alone superstition-drenched, immoral, violent right-wing belligerence — at home'.
Of course you do, AIDS. You just call it today anti-oppression, resistance, etc. - especially when perpetrated in the Global South. Hell, your 'liberal' media won't even label what's happening 'terrorism' anymore -- including what's EXPLICITLY being done in West Africa or SE Asia in the name of religious authoritarianism!
Hell, your whole mandate is to try to normalize Islam in the West...
And of course you don't like the Israeli courts: starting in the 1980s, they emulated what you American blue teamer jurists do: totally make shit up out of cloth to advance your politics of the moment. (The architects of that scheme even wrote a book about doing so around 2008-9.) Literally no other Western country jurists, irrespective of where they fall on the political aisle, would tolerate what your two countries' highest courts do.
And, NO, you will not ditch the Saudis: you are now DESPERATE to keep them, and the rest of the Gulf, on your side rather than have them join team China. This is because you wish to continue to control the world's energy supply and you also don't want hundreds of millions of Muslims to join team China. (You'll most likely fail, though.)
*of course you like the Israeli courts
White is not widely used as a negative epithet.
I don’t like the term systemic racism for structural inequalities, but you go one step further and I don’t think you have the right of it.
You obviously never went to an Intergrated Pubic Screw-el, because "White" is frequently used as an epithet (The Colored Peoples call it a "Dis") usually followed by "Boy" (The Irony, a Race that for centuries suffered the indignity of being called "Boy" calls the ancestors of their former oppressors (maybe on my dad's side, don't think there were many Black Slaves in Upper Silesia on my Mom's side)
Showing my age, but "Cracker" wasn't widely used, except among the Crackers, there was even a Triple A baseball team in Atlanta called the "Crackers" right up until the Braves moved to town in 1966.
In the 70's it was more often "Honkey" although that was mostly for Adult Honkeys, i.e. the Teachers.
"Jive Turkey" was multi-cultural and N-words were probably called that more than the White-boys.
Frank
‘White is not widely used as a negative epithet’.
Your blanket denial means nothing. (‘Male’ is also being used this way these days too.)
Furthermore, concept essentialism vis-a-vis ‘whiteness’ is expressly endorsed by CRT. Do you think Delgado didn’t know exactly what he meant?
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
Can you give examples of conservative views that should be censored, and examples of conservative views that should not beyond the two you provided?
Are there any leftist views that should be censored?
Nobody should be "censored" in the sense of being locked up for free speech. That doesn't mean that someone who makes a cruel, stupid or offensive argument can't be called out on it.
Speaker 1: I think blacks should all be shipped off to Africa.
Speaker 2: I think you're a complete and total idiot whose views aren't entitled to anything other than scorn and ridicule.
Speaker 1: You're censoring me!
Speaker 2: No I'm not. I'm exercising my free speech rights, just as you're exercising yours. My free speech rights, by the way, also include encouraging others not to give you a platform so long as I don't use force or threats to accomplish that.
That’s a silly analogy. Your speaker 1 is dumber than a box of rocks.
Don’t minimize the current effort to stifle speech by comparing it to this exaggeration.
Do you agree that people who say stupid things can be called out on it? And do you agree that asking someone not to provide someone else with a platform, so long as there's no force or threats involved, is generally also free speech? If so, then we're mostly in agreement.
How about “Men can become women”?
"Men can become women" and "Men cannot become women" are both ideological statements.
I think whether either statement is ideological depends on how you unpack it and define your terms.
"A man can never become a woman in any sense because to do so violates God's law" is an ideological statement.
"A man may become a woman in all respects by a declaration of gender identity because whether someone is a man or woman is determined solely by personal identity" is also an ideological statement.
"A biological man may adopt a female gender role and live as a woman in many respects but he cannot literally become a biological woman" is not an ideological statement. It’s a fact.
“A biological man may adopt a female gender role and live as a woman in many respects but he cannot literally become a biological woman” depends on how you define "biological woman." Is it the presence of an XX chromosome? Is it based on anatomy (and if so, what about someone who has had gender reassignment surgery)? Is someone's psychology part of their biology? Are sex and gender even biological concepts, or are they social constructs?
My purpose is not to answer any of those questions, but to show that it's not as clear cut a fact as you're assuming. At the end of the day you may or may not turn out to be right, but you're going to have to do better than just say "it's a fact". And your ideology will have a lot to do with your answer.
Yeah, we're not gonna agree on this. Whether or not sex is biological is not a tough question that needs to be grappled with. Sex is objectively determined by genetic and physical traits present at birth. I understand there are some people born with some but not all physical traits associated with their sex. And there are a small number of intersex individuals for whom genetic/physical traits of both sexes may be present. But those are extremely rare exceptions that don't disprove the rule that it is usually very easy to determine an individual's sex.
As far as sex being a "social construct," that puts us into deconstructionism and attacking the very idea of objective reality. After all, in a sense *everything* is a social construct. Like, the sun is a social construct. It's just a bunch of atoms smushed together that folks decided to give a name to. I guess in some sense that's true but I don't think it's a very helpful way of looking at the world.
QA I'll defer to you on deconstructionism vs postmodernism. I suspect you're right about my confusing the two. I just generally associate deconstructionism with the idea that there is no objective reality, and that all distinctions exist in language and are essentially political. To me that sounds like "deconstructing" but I could be wrong and it's not actually characteristic of "deconstructionism."
As far as sex being easily ascertainable by examining physiological and genetic traits present at birth, yes, I concede there are a tiny number exceptions for intersex individuals. For example genetic XY males who have androgen insensitivity have undescended testicles and may present with vaginas. I would defer to genetics and consider those folks as having the sex of "male" with some physical abnormalities but perhaps there's an argument they should be considered something else. In any case these are very rare exceptions that don't disprove the general rule that biological sex is clear-cut in the overwhelming majority of cases.
I'm not a deconstructionist and I believe in the existence of objective reality. All deconstructionists believe in objective reality, at least up to a point, or they'd be jumping off cliffs and ingesting cyanide. You have to believe in a certain amount of reality to simply function on a day to day basis. And I also agree with you that outliers do not undermine general rules.
That said, the problem with your "isn't it obvious" approach is that that same principle applied with equal force to those who believed in a geo-centric solar system. If you look into the sky, you can very clearly see that the sun isn't where it was an hour ago, and it sure looks like the sun is revolving around the earth. But of course that's an optical illusion based on where you happen to be standing.
I would encourage you to read the writings of biologists who disagree with you on sex being a binary since I strongly suspect you're unfamiliar with their arguments. You may still disagree, but at least you'll be in a better position to address their arguments if you know what those arguments are.
It so sad to see you pretend I haven't already explained this to you.
Sad and pathetic actually.
It is always true, regardless of a defect or mutation, that every human being is one of two kinds.
The kind that can produce gametes that are large.
And the kind that can produce gametes that are small.
This is always true. Genetic defects, secondary sex characteristics, surgeries, nor personal beliefs do not mutate the kind of person you with respect to gamete production.
Further, gamete production is not a spectrum. You are of the kind that produces large gametes, or of the kind that produces small gametes.
That's it. That's humanity.
Krychek - I appreciate your engagement and honest disagreement.
I did take a quick look for biologists arguing against the existence of binary sex. Funny thing – I couldn’t actually find any.
Plenty of sociologists and the like arguing against the existence of binary sex, but no biologists. If you know of some you can link I’m happy to check them out.
To be sure, there are screeds by biologists *criticizing* the concept of binary sex in humans. Calling it “misogynistic,” “transphobic” and whatnot, and including platitudes like “a simplistic male/female dichotomy fails to capture the diversity and richness of the human experience.”
But the thing is: those biologists didn’t actually argue that binary sex in humans isn’t real or fixed. They concede that there are consistent and predictable differences between women and men driven by the requirements of childbirth and lactation. And they concede that an individual who produces sperm cannot produce eggs and vice versa. So – whether they admit it or not, they’re saying that binary sex is real.
Your point about not taking an attitude of “it’s just obvious” and assuming that removes the need for examination and critical thought is well-taken. But there’s also Occam’s razor, which states that you don’t want to introduce extraneous complexity where it’s not needed to explain all available data. When the available data all point to there being two human sexes, male and female, arguing that that’s wrong because it doesn’t capture the “richness of human experience” is introducing needless complexity.
Of course. I do it on here frequently.
And yes again, although your qualifier moved this stuff out of the realm of reality. The complication on your second question came about when the government got involved.
Do you agree that the government shouldn’t be influencing handling of the speech of citizens while trying to give themselves a thin veneer of plausible deniability? Shouldn’t the government keep their hands completely off of speech?
I would agree in general that the government should keep its hands off speech; I'm reluctant to say "completely" since if I thought about it long enough I might be able to come up with an exception. But I'm not seeing a lot of government coercion on speech.
This thing with the Internet is blown completely out of proportion. The Biden administration asked platforms to exercise some responsibility, and I don't see the harm in that. That some read it as a threat says more about them than it does about anything the Biden administration did, particular since any attempt to actually regulate speech on the Internet would almost certainly result in a successful First Amendment lawsuit. It would be nice if the Internet platforms *would* behave more responsibly than they have in the past; just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should, or that it's wrong for the government to ask you nicely to do the right thing.
There is absolutely harm in that.
The FJB administration has no more business telling Internet web sites what they must remove than telling mosques which members they must excommunicate.
It is as simple as that.
If the Biden administration had actually done that you might have a point.
The guy who wanted to do #1 was the great Rail Splitter himself.
For all of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest faults, they certainly didn't want to send the Slaves back to Africa.
It started with Monroe -- the country of Liberia was founded for that purpose.
Speaker 1: The FDA previously required 10-15 years of testing to make the determination that a vaccine is safe and effective over the long term. I agree with that.
Speaker 2: You’re fired. And banned from the internet. Sorry, government said so.
ML, let us know when that actually happens.
Welcome back Mr. Krycheck. You've been in a coma for 4 years. There is a lot to catch up on and you'll get to that in due time...
I've seen a lot of conservative claims that that happened. I've not seen much evidence for it. Do you have a cite?
And by the way, the primary opposition to free speech at the moment is conservative. See, i.e., DeSantis v. Disney. And the people shutting down drag queen story hours.
That is absolutely not true.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/07/05/the-axis-of-unethical-conduct-really-and-truly-does-want-the-government-to-block-speech-and-can-no-longer-credibly-claim-that-it-doesnt/
I read the order; it's way overbroad and I'll be surprised if the Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court doesn't significantly modify it. The government has free speech rights too, and "urging" is core free speech.
It does not have free speech rights. Rights are a protection from what the government does. The government, by default, has zero rights.
It just has power.
This is silly.
Disney’s issue is not speech, as they are in no way regulated for their speech. They’re still producing racist, shitty product without a single speck on interference from the Florida government.
However, people ‘shutting down’ drag queen story hours is a free speech issue – just like shutting down or attacking anti-drag queen story hour protesters, or abortion protesters, or anti-racism protesters, or pro-racism protesters, or election protesters, oor firing people for using the ‘wrong’ pronouns, or vast private censorship efforts deliberately aimed at political opponents and their views… and that's before the "I'm offended" censorship bullshit over crap like the term "colored people".
The list of types of speech that Leftist idiots, politicians, corporate officers, and the organizations under their control have tried to shut down FAR exceeds anything the right is trying to suppress at this time.
Claiming otherwise is either massive ignorance or deliberate falsehood.
DeSantis has made it extremely clear that Disney's criticism of the don't say gay bill is why he's targeting them. He criticizes Disney's position in the same breath as he discusses the latest law specifically designed to make Disney's life hard.
Don't be a rube.
"The list of types of speech..." what and awful metric. A more subjective and hand wavy analysis would be hard to find.
Claiming otherwise is either massive ignorance or deliberate falsehood.
Agree with your take or Toranth will think less of you! Your takes are lazy and ignorant. Read up on the issues you opine about, so you don't fuck up like this again.
There is, and never was, a "Don't say gay" bill. Using lying epithets like that from the beginning shows exactly how dishonest you are.
Disney was opposing DeSantis by donating to opposition campaigns AND running their own opposition campaigns, in addition to stating intention to support the illegal discriminatory, racist policies (and worse versions) where ever they could, including in their own company and pet government.
When a subordinate government to the state openly rebels against the state, why are you surprised that it gets dissolved?
Please note that Disney, rather than the Reedy Creek Improvement District, has not been touched, much less punished in any way, by DeSantis and the Florida state government.
Of course, I'm not surprised you would support a undemocratic and blatantly unconstitutional corporate government, though - as long as they support the Left, you seem to be quite content.
Don't be an ignorant and lying asshole, Sarcastro. Basically impossible for you, but you could try occasionally.
And no, you don't get to defend K2's idiotic claims by simply ignoring criticism and counterevidence as "handwavy", especially when your stock-in-trade. When someone presents evidence you don't like, you love to claim it is 'vague', 'not complete', or lacks 'confounding factors'. However, you can never present any of these factors, or show any actual faults - in fact, you have the gall to demand others prove your position!
As I posted, there is a whole list of categories, with thousands of examples, where Leftists are pushing censorship. All your Gaslightro performances just reveal your own foolishness and dishonesty.
I'd ask you not to fuck up like this again, but then we'd never see any posts from you.
OK.
George Floyd got what he deserved, trannies are sexually deviant and should be locked up in psych wards, and the "me too" stuff is sour grapes from sluts who slept their way to success.
I am NOT saying that I believe that, merely that it is an opinion which can not be expressed today.
They get expressed in this blog's comment section with predictable regularity. So we see that the standard of 'cannot be expressed' is a flexible ones that covers things that can be said but specific people don't like.
You left out that Zelensky is just as bad (worse IMHO) than Pooty Poot, and the fact that he's still alive confirms that his being in power helps Roosh-a's prospects for Victory.
If Pooty-Poot was as Evil as they say he is, why didn't he Nuke Vilnius this week??? Because Roosh-uns play chess and you never use your Queen early in the game (17 months into a war is still "Early" how long did it take us to lose in Afghanistan)
Frank
I believe there should be an affirmative push for conservative perspectives in legal academia.
I also believe that a blind ‘all views are fine and good’ runs into quality control, paradox of tolerance, and marketability of the institution as issues.
One can be for open exchange of ideas, understanding that like everything else there is nuance to the practice, once the ideology must be implemented.
Is there a master list of approved perspectives on a government website somewhere I can review?
Maybe a CISA site or one of the other government agencies whose staff are actively managing America's Cognitive Infrastructure?
You are a racist antisemite asshole. I am pretty stoked to have you not teaching kids.
lol and you're a gaslighting liar.
I'm glad your kind chooses a lifestyle that doesn't have kids.
So we're even.
^^^ STILL has no idea what “gas-lighting” means. ^^^
A gas light is a white hot metal filament heated by gas -- it preceded electric lighting. When the pressure drops, it gets dimmer and that happens when you light additional lights.
A man was doing something evil up in his attic, lighting gas lights up there which dimmed the ones downstairs. He told his wife that she was crazy, that the gas lights were not dimming. Well she got a cop to witness the light dimming, he realized why and went upstairs and arrested the husband for something.
Yes, and I further understand that all gaslighting is now going to be banned by the government, to protect the environment.
If low-grade, conservative-controlled schools want to follow that course, their entitlement to do so should be strenuously defended.
But I see no reason for strong schools to engage in affirmative action for obsolete, bigoted, superstition-addled, ignorance.
Funny how they're all onboarding both CRT and Sharia scholars now, though, huh?
“(Note, this letter is a project of David Bernstein of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values. This is not me, though we cause at least as much confusion as the two Ilyas. Making matters worse, we both published books last year, and our mutual editor at Post Hill press is … another David Bernstein.)”
The British Army had this problem with Welsh soldiers. The Welsh have few surnames. For example, in Wellington’s army there were 16 surnames of Welsh representing 1094 soldiers. So, they would assign unique numbers to the ends of names.
Maybe you could start a David Bernstein registry, and number yourselves uniquely?
They can merge with the “Steve Cohen Society.”
"...Maybe you could start a David Bernstein registry, and number yourselves uniquely?..."
Hmmm...we Jews, with unique numbers? Maybe with the numbers tattooed on our arms, for easy and reliable identification? Can't see how that could go wrong. (Can I Godwin myself?)
The good news is that freedom is a force like gravity is a force: it may be hard to detect at the micro level, but its pull is inexorable at the macro level. There’s a reason we’re all talking about being “red-pilled” and not blue-pilled, and why it’s easy to rent a moving trailer in Florida, but not in California.
People want to be free.
One of the smallest big ideas of human history. I don’t believe history has a “side”, but it definitely does have a trajectory.
I suppose it’s true the colorblind can still tell the difference between black and white.
"illiberalism and threats to academic freedom emanating from the political right"
Which the left has largely created -- don't overlook that...
Yes, we've noticed that everything regressive and reactionary in the right is not the right's fault, they are mere automatons responding to stimuli, not autonomous individuals with personal rsponsibility for their actions at all.
Professor Bernstein, looking forward to reading updates on this. I catch your blog posts on Times of Israel, also. There is another David Bernstein there, too.
This letter would be a lot more useful if it said something more concrete and to the point, like saying anti-zionism is not necessarily anti-semitic ideology, but anti-normalization is an anti-semitic tactic.
Dennis Prager says you're wrong: check out the PragerU video called "If You Hate Israel, You're No Friend of the Jews."
(I tried posting the link, but my comment keeps getting deleted.)
These accusations have made the consideration of a future binational, federated, constitutional state almost taboo.
There's also a distinction to be made between being anti-Zionist and "hating Israel."
Yeah, and they said opposing the war in Iraq was anti-American. Some people will say anything.
So why can Common-Law Harris, Senescent Joe, Ka-grungy Jackson Browne, constantly talk about "Peoples of Color"
but one Repubiclown Congressman (former Navy SEAL, so like with Bad Bad Leroy Brown I wouldn't call him anything in person except "Sir") Says "Colored People" instead and he's friggin Bull Conner (DemoKKKrat BTW)
Frank
After hearing that a Republican legislator used the term "colored people," I immediately thought:
'Prof. Volokh must be furious at Eli Crane for pulling his punches and refraining from using a vile racial slur. No way Prof. Volokh ever endorses that guy.'
Well, "Coach", I mean "Reverend"
there's a whole Association of Colored Peoples, it's even in the name of the Organization.
https://naacp.org/
Frank "Does "Pasty White" qualify as "Colored" ??"
You, Mr. Drackman, are the defender the Volokh Conspiracy wants and deserves.
Carry on, bitter clingers.
Until replacement.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. The letter is too full of platitudes and generalizations. Nice try, but this is, respectfully, a swing and a miss.
And name-checking Manichism is about as relevant as this Moloch gobbledygook
The strongest argument on behalf of signing this letter is the militant idiocy of the attacks on it in the comments section.
A letter is not required for permission to use the mute button.
The [other] David Bernstein is evidently a master of equivocation, as well, since the bulk of this letter states a number of unobjectionable things about a “liberal education” before sneaking in this backdoor to the old “opposing Zionism, the ideal of Israel as a Jewish state, and even most criticism of Israel’s human rights record is antisemitic” argument.
“All views should be discussed in the academy,” the letter states, “except for that one.”
That’s an extremely inventive approach interpretation of the single line about Israel: “Israel is dogmatically singled out as an oppressor-state”. In fact, one could go so far as say you entirely made it up.
google "oppressor-state"
definition "state of being oppressed"
used in a sentence, "the Lord - saw the oppression of Israel." 2Kings. 8
It’s not an “inventive” interpretation of the letter’s text. It’s a reasonable inference, based on the sort of weasel language you and your like-minded fellow travelers tend to use to attack leftist criticism of Israel.
Put it this way – do you deny that the letter is expressing concern with leftist critiques of Israel that (i) attempt to focus on the imperialist and ethno-nationalist legacy of Israel’s founding and current trajectory toward the annexation of the West Bank, (ii) question the legitimacy of a putatively “democratic” government with various de jure and de facto features designed to enshrine Jewish political, cultural, and religious supremacy, by disfranchising Israeli Arabs and imposing second-class citizenship on any Israeli non-Jews, or (iii) do not spend at least as much time focusing on the human rights records of neighboring Middle East states as they do on Israel’s? And do you deny that it’s becoming increasingly commonplace among your fellow-travelers to cast all of those criticisms as essentially “antisemitic,” as a transparent rhetorical technique to shift the Overton window in your favor, or that the open letter is insinuating much the same?
The authors of the open letter are alarmed by leftist academic discourse about Israel because what’s happening is this: people are taking a fresh look at American and Western hegemony in geopolitics, bringing a critical lens to the way that western military, economic, political, and social power has had a disastrous impact on the world. When you apply that lens to the situation in Israel, it leads to less-than-flattering conclusions that threaten the longstanding American bipartisan consensus in favor of unwavering support for Israel.
The only way the authors of the open letter appear to be capable of combatting this emerging discourse is to shut it down, by describing the criticism as “dogmatic” and "neo-Manichean" and insinuating that it is antisemitic, while ironically professing to be in favor of free and open discourse.
It’s an interesting case study, actually. One of the points that CRT/CLT scholars make about celebrated ideals like “free and open discourse” is that they often come embedded with a lot of background assumptions – imposed and maintained by those in power – that exclude disfavored groups and points of view. That’s exactly what the open letter is trying to do.
"Imperalist … legacy of Israel's founding" is something so stupid not even Dr. Ed could have come up with it.
Also: Israeli Arabs are not disenfranchised.
I suppose the entire history of the region for the last 4000 years or so could be described as imperialist, from the Mesopotamian kingdoms through the Ottoman Empire and the British.
"The only way the authors of the open letter appear to be capable of combatting this emerging discourse is to shut it down, by describing the criticism as “dogmatic” and “neo-Manichean” and insinuating that it is antisemitic, while ironically professing to be in favor of free and open discourse."
Is this not the way free speech in this country is designed to work? There is speech that the authors of this letter don't like, and they are combatting that speech with speech of their own. I would argue this form of "shutting down" is constitutionally permitted, indeed encouraged.
Yeah ... I also debated signing it. What is specifically Jewish about the letter?
mission to “challenge government encroachment upon liberty”
How awful. Challenging the "top men" and their intrusions upon liberty. Just awful. /s
I would think that almost no one supports "government encroachment on liberty," but it's good to know that you are in the extremist minority. Is your cup of tea fascism, communism, or theocracy?
Can you propose an argument similar to the one in the Letter that isn't ideological itself?
I’m not familiar with the organization, but I do note that there’s nothing hypocritical about someone involved in an advocacy organization arguing that universities should not attempt to ideologically indoctrinate students. It’s no more hypocritical than, say, an evangelical Christian pastor arguing that the government should not attempt
to religiously indoctrinate people.
While there are ideologies that entail that one should "challenge government encroachment upon liberty", that claim is not itself ideological. Indeed, a mission, a set of guiding principles, etc... is not necessarily ideological - indeed they may be anti-ideological. The difference between a non-ideological perspective and ideological one is a matter of scope. An ideology is a worldview that encompasses every sphere of life.
The opinion that government should not encroach upon liberty says nothing about how a household, church, or business should be run. Someone could believe that government should not encroach upon liberty, but be fine with a monarchial religion and a company run as an oligarchy. There is no logical inconsistency here because this person's views are not ideological. Similarly, the opinion that the government should seek to minimize unequal wealth among citizens is not necessary ideological. Marxism however is an ideology - one aspect of this ideology is that government should use its power to minimize inequality, but different paths can lead to that same conclusion.
A university that chooses as part of its mission to ameliorate the wealth gap between rich and poor has not necessarily taken an ideological position. A university that makes a commitment to Marxism so that it seeks to minimize the wealth between rich and poor, but also insists that math be taught along Marxist principles, student organizations adhere to Marxist principles, etc... leads to scholarship blinkered by ideological demands. A commitment to the principles outlined in the Kalven report is not necessarily ideological - the university is home to faculty and students who should have the freedom to question everything - including the principles outlined in the Kalven report, but the University itself should restrict itself to ensuring the maximum possible amount of freedom for its members to explore intellectual pursuits.
There may be ideological universities, and they can have an important role to play in the broader higher-education landscape. I diverge from the letter in that I think a university committed to Mormonism, conservative evangelicalism, or judaism that thereby take some questions off the table for the institution can be useful. But I wouldn't trust scholarship on the validity of Mormon beliefs coming out of BYU even while criticism or constructive work on a topic could reveal blindspots of non-mormon institutions. As long as they are upfront about their commitments, more power to them. Public institutions should remain neutral on such matters though.
You can try to shine it up, but your opinion is still a steaming pile of lefty shit.
The point of the open letter is not "to complain about ideological work in academe." Rather, it is to complain about the adherents of one particular ideology stifling academic discussion / research that in any way challenges that ideology.
If you didn't get that, maybe it's you who are "too simple."
Surely you can see the difference between hundreds of professors writing papers that reflect their ideological sensibilities, and a dozen or so faculty committees and law journals deciding what should and should or should not be allowed.
For every David Bernstein writing books about the absurdities of US bureaucratic racial classifications, you have half a dozen others writing papers about how to reform universities so merit is a minor factor.
No, the sad part is that you see liberty as an ideology.
It's clear that David would prefer to debate a point you haven't made, but it's worth adding to your (actual) point that GMU's law school has taken a very intentionally ideological position on opening its halls to conservative scholars and judges. We had a whole hulllabaloo about it, not too long ago.
Excuse me, but the authors state very clearly what they’re “mad about” in the very next sentence:
“In this stark, neo-Manichean worldview, Jews are frequently grouped with the privileged, and Israel is dogmatically singled out as an oppressor-state–a shallow dichotomy that foments new variants of antisemitism and reinforces old ones.“
That’s because these Hebrews don’t want to talk about how Islam is an imperialist apartheid religio-legal order, founded by a warmongering illiterate pedophile.
In their stupidity and hypocrisy, these Jews don’t want to talk about the truth regarding their own historical oppression.
For the same reason why the left is going to be in for a wild ride when discussion of the following FINALLY enters into public discourse in the United States: Muhammad’s marriage to a nine-year-old child, his taking on a Jewess as a war trophy bride, the long-standing legal status of Dhimmitude, the Pact of Omar, the Islamic slave trade of Hindus and Black Africans, the Islamic conquests, systematic theft of holy sites, pervasive Islamic consanguinity and child marriage practices, etc.
I can’t wait to see what happens in and on American television, American courts (hopefully with blue team judges), and universities when this becomes widespread. The efforts to normalize Islam, and to condemn stating demonstrably true things as ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘Arab-phobic’ are going to come crashing down. (And if it takes the Jews down too, it’ll be two birds with one stone.)
He doesnt sound as someone whose dumb enough to substitute “Libertarian” for “liberty” in an argument.
They “challenge government encroachment upon liberty”. Not “libertarian”, whatever that would even mean. Calling me stupid when you don’t seem to understand the difference between those two words.
You see liberty itself as an ideology. One that seems to aggravate you, at least in this context.
Of course, you are also one of the posters on here that is consistently in support of government encroachment on liberty, so I suppose that explains your irritation with this.
There is a class of humans who have been groomed to be dependent. You can see that in America, there is a class of people who are generationally dependent and for the most part are perfectly fine with no social mobility and high dependence upon the government.
I, personally, believe it's epigenetic. That there is some genetic trait that enables one to prefer servitude, dependency, and serfdom, and generational indoctrination can cause this to be expressed in greater and greater magnitudes.
Some humans don't have it, others do. The humans who originally fled to America and founded this country probably do not have it. America was sort of self-selected to be free. Many Europeans and other races probably do.
As natural Americans become less and less and liberty seeking immigrants get overrun by welfare seeking ones you see America of 2023 instead of America of 1776.
However there's still a large swath of 1776 Americans left who haven't been bred out by the Marxists, Globalists, and other evil classes of people.
I want to be free. It used to be the case that most Americans wanted to be free. Today ... I don't know. Judging by the election results, more & more people prefer Obamaphones. Sad.
Staking claim to what liberty is and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to be against liberty is not an ideology. It’s MAGA bullshit.
Half of political philosophy in the modern era is defining what is liberty.
But liberty *is* an ideology, and not everyone subscribes to it, and you don't get to assume that it is or should be the default. It's actually issue by issue. Should I have the liberty to decide whether to drink chocolate milk? Absolutely (and marijuana too, for that matter.) Should I have the liberty to drive drunk, run a red light, and kill a pedestrian? Absolutely not. So it's not whether someone is for or against liberty; it's whether someone is for or against liberty as applied to any particular issue.
Everyone other than pure anarchists supports some governmental encroachment in liberty; the question is where that line should be drawn and not whether it exists.
Liberty IS an ideology! It doesn't fall from heaven like manna! Claiming your ideology is the One True Ideology Of Liberty is what's cracked.
If Queenie were an honest interlocutor, he/she would have also noted that one of the Liberty and Law Center's official pillars is "freedom of expression is foundational to individual liberty and democratic governance." You can have a point of view, but you can't impose it on others. Also, I would object to my law school taking any position on anything. The Center is a research organization with a particular point of view (liberty is good, free speech is good, the rule of law is good), funded privately, with, by the way, a strict commitment to the academic freedom of anyone we fund; it's not George Mason University, or the Scalia Law School, announcing that we have certain perspectives that we will use our resources not only to promote, but to suppress opposing perspectives, which is what is in fact happening elsehwere in the academy.
Queen substituted "libertarian" for "liberty" and then argued against the strawman.
Why didn't you see that?
Someone certainly has the freedom to say 'War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength." Or "Government Misinformation boards are Truth", its not MAGA bullshit to point out its bullshit.
'Staking claim to what liberty [and equality] is and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to be ['far right'] is not an ideology. It's [liberal and leftist, authoritarian, salami slicing] bullshit'.
Fixed it for you.
I’m not going to be drawn into your bullshit today. I beclown myself while you can’t acknowledge that liberty and libertarian are different words with different meanings.
So go ahead and fret about these guys complaining about government encroaching on libertarian. You can do that without me.
It is not an ideology. All of the philosophies that take it away are. Liberty is more of a state of existence.
And there’s a hell of a difference In acknowledging that we need to have roads and laws punishing crime and that kind of things. The liberty infringers on here cheer on things like speech suppression and taking away freedom of choice on all sorts of things. Opposing that crap is not a call for anarchy.
Your desire to lord over me with an iron fist, and my desire to not be lorded over, are not two equally arbitrary, and therefore equally valid, world views.
We know liberty isn't the default, however it is the default in America:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "
Some countries the founding principle is Social Justice, some its economic equality, others its the primacy and infallibility of the communist party.
Not here, here the founding principle is Liberty.
Bevis, your argument is essentially that whites don’t have a race, heterosexuals don’t have a sexual orientation, males don’t have a gender, and Christians don’t have a religion. Only those others have those things. Just as you claim liberty isn't an ideology; it's only other political viewpoints that are ideological.
Yes, liberty is an ideology; the “natural state of things” is anarchy, and civil society comes from clawing back lots and lots of things that are the natural state of things. I assume you wear clothes and live in a house and eat agricultural products, in which case you, too, recognize that the state of nature isn’t always a good thing.
Again, that line exists. Your quibble is where to draw it.
seeking/building shelter is in fact nature.
Same for protecting your body from elements, very natural.
Humans and the tools they use are just as much nature as apes that have never seen humans, or kangaroos.
How do you exclude humans from nature?
I don’t understand how you took my simple comment and drew a bunch of sectarian mishmash out of it.
Thank goodness our civilization prohibits us from having gas cooktops and forces us to buy only a certain type of very expensive light bulbs. It keeps us from touching the navigable waterway that appears in my yard for a few hours after a hard rain. If I put a little dirt in that low spot and then cooked dinner on a gas appliance we’d be on the verge of anarchy for sure.
"the “natural state of things” is anarchy,"
another of your ipse dixit's
Queen almathea : "It’s always interesting how many supremacists are mewling quislings"
Yesterday he was ranting about the Deep State preventing the truth from getting out on Chinese penis size. A few days back he was proudly bragging about how often he lies.
Never a dull moment with this guy.
It explains why some people who crave being dependent upon the State, like you, and why others prefer freedom and liberty, like me.
What's your explanation?
Poor little Lefty Turd.
Yep.
His position is that schools should teach students how to think, not what to think, and that students shouldn’t be indoctrinated in the classroom.
He’s not arguing that no one, anywhere, should ever try promote an ideological point of view.
My issue was with bevis lamenting liberty is an ideology QA is against.
I often don’t agree with QA despite our common ideology but she doesn’t come in defining everyone else as bad guys and declare moral victory.
I do agree with her that there is a bit of a two step going on in your posts between having an ideology and advocating for being non ideological. The alignment of interests is not something to finesse over.
Waitasecond. “Queenie”? Holy shit, how many other alts are you running here, prof? Just the one or are there any others you’d like to share? Might you be Frank Drackman? Or maybe you’re BCD really letting your freak flag fly?
Unless the Liberty and Law Center is on record with vivid objection to the practices of conservative-controlled schools, this is obvious and deplorable bullshit.
So much non ideology here.
How to get the shills riled up on this site:
All I gotta do is shoot in any one of those directions and I’m likely to hit a Nige, a grb, or Queen, a Sarcastr0, or a Randal.
Earlier you said criticizing regulations were State-Approved Conservative Ideas.
Now you're crying about it. lol, make up your mind
Sarcastr0 at least has a mind to make up. I'm told that whenever BCD speaks, God sometimes has to read it multiple times in an attempt to figure out what on earth BCD is talking about.
Haha you don’t even understand my issue BCD.
I think you may be getting worse at posting week by week.
As with most words, "nature" means different things in different contexts. I was using it in the sense of how things were before humans started to make changes.
It's like the old joke about the man living next to a vacant lot that was filled with weeds and litter. He got tired of looking at it so he cleaned it up and planted a beautiful flower garden. One of his neighbors said to him, "You and God certainly made a beautiful flower garden," to which the man responded, "You should have seen it when God had it to himself." Same principle.
And I will also note that if you are including anything humans do as within "nature" then communism and fascism are both states of nature as well.
Theocracy is not inherently illiberal -- Israel comes to immediate mind.
Do not forget that the Western Enlightenment came out of the Christian church, or that things like John Locke's individual right to life, liberty, and property were initially viewed as God-Given rights (e.g. "endowed by their creator" in our Declaration of Independence).
I'm not saying that a theocracy can become quite fascist, only that it (a) doesn't inherently have to be and that (b) all of our (small "l") liberal values come out of the Judeo/Christian tradition.
I for one think it’s awesome that you have completely walled yourself from receiving or hearing any news out of Florida for at least the past few years. And I’m sincerely hoping you’ll share your methods here. If not in these comments, maybe a weekend post?
I brought up a fine example yesterday on the Open Thread:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/13/thursday-open-thread-145/?comments=true#comment-10152448
Hey, maybe Queenie is that college professor?!
Every post Bevis makes has at least a two-step going on. I’ve even seen a couple featuring the Jitterbug.
There is nothing in the letter to remotely suggest that no academic center or individual academic may have a point of view.
Israel is not a theocracy.
Doctors and academics are being disciplined and blackballed for making statements such as “sex is determined by biology, not gender identity” and “there are biological differences between women and men.” If your position is that that’s not happening and it’s all just propaganda and paranoia you’re mistaken.
If they only "present" as women --- their bizarre need to play women's sports is all the more baffling. Ditto their bizarre need to use women's restrooms
I'll stick with genetics on that issue.
BCD has always reminded me of the women up on the Florida panhandle who were sitting in the doctor's waiting room. One of them said to the other, "Are you here to be X-rated?" to which the other one responded, "No, I'm here to be ultra-violated."
BCD is convinced that he's been ultra-violated.
I'm critical of the VA killing vets amd getting away with, so that means I love the State!!
lol
You may be right, but not the group of people you think.
Europeans lived for millenia under dictatorship, and evolved keeping their heads down. A few quasi-psychopaths, who don't care what others think of them, rise up every generation. Everyone else keeps their heads down, or got culled, ending their genes. China suffers this, too.
Anyway, just a theory someone should look into someday.
They are the depleted human residue that remains in America's conservative, poorly educated, can't-keep-up backwaters after generations on the losing end of bright flight (the smart, ambitious young people with character flee at high school graduation, never to return).
The people who stuck with dying industries and declining rural and southern towns against all evidence. Chose quick pocket money over education. Had children before ready to fund or lead a family, then sent those children to backwater religious schools.
The people who see street pills, guns, faith healers, racism, tobacco, sketchy disability claims, homophobia, televangelists, cheap 30-packs, antisemitism, hatred of immigrants, more guns, Islamophobia, Donald J. Trump, lottery tickets, white nationalism, energy drinks, misogyny, Fox News, white supremacy, and Volokh Conspiracy-style conservatism as solutions to their largely self-inflicted problems and desolate lives.
The people who are subsidized -- through taxation and government, and the charity of better Americans -- by educated, reasoning, modern, mainstream Americans.
America's culture war casualties. Republicans. Conservatives.
From this blog about a month ago. There are others.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/08/academic-freedom-alliance-statement-on-mayo-clinic/
The disciplinary letter from the Mayo Clinic references two statements to the media. The first was a statement the doctor made criticizing NIH policy on COVID-19 treatment guidelines. The second was a statement that there is a gap in sports performance between women and men and this gap is primarily due to biology. The Mayo Clinic's letter characterizes the latter comment as "inflammatory."
As far as it being a private organization, so are most universities. The Mayo Clinic is a recognized academic institution that has adopted a policy on academic freedom, so to me it looks germane to this discussion.
Sounds like some right-wingers are worried that our strongest research and teaching institutions -- operated by and for the liberal-libertarian mainstream -- may come to resemble campuses controlled by conservatives, who turns just about every campus they get their hands on into fourth-tier (or worse), dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching, loyalty oath-collecting, statement of faith-issuing, speech code-imposing, censorship-shackled schools that practice strenuous viewpoint-driven discrimination in everything from hiring and admissions to discipline and research.
Right-wingers' proposed solution, of course, includes having our better schools emulate our shittiest schools by hiring more movement conservatives.
Carry on, clingers.
mis-post deleted
C'mon Man!!!! I thought EV was asking peoples to be kinder/gentler, you're just becoming more Ass-hole-er
This is how you KNOW that AIDS doesn't know anything about modern unis. They're operated by liberals at the top, but the faculty are post-liberal left, New Left anti-liberals.
Now, one might say that American 'liberals' aren't in fact liberal. This is true too.
However, that doesn't impact the fact that the unis have been hijacked by totalitarians who are opposed to genuine knowledge production and the challenging of ideas, rather than ideology propagation and the control over discourse (a la Foucault's notion of episteme, following Kuhn).
It is not groundless fear, but demonstrable fact that the American left is turning all American institutions of higher learning into 'dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching, loyalty oath-collecting [eg, DEI statements], statement of faith-issuing, speech code-imposing, censorship-shackled school[s].
This, whilst faced with the demographic cliff, rampant grade inflation (rendering American transcripts incredible), and the unsustainability of the preponderance of the country's institutions. America's 'better' unis, moreover, increasingly hire based on identity and not talent, leading to a long-term re-calibration of the country's hierarchy of institutions and, for the first time, a brain drain out of the United States.
The solution, of course, is twofold. First, let those institutions flounder, whilst protecting science, free academic inquiry, the pursuit of excellence, and honest scholarship and teaching in moderate and conservative universities.
Second, expose to the masses what those leftists actually do in the unis. Show the people what they are REALLY up to these days. As with the left generally, there's no cost, and thus no deterrent for their actions. Accordingly, a severe one should be imposed.
Believe that if you want. You certainly believe much crazier things.
You're the moron who thinks that "challenging scholarship that is “blinkered by ideological demands” is somehow inconsistent with challeng[ing] government encroachment upon liberty”. Because of reasons.
I"m Drackman, Frank Drackman, Double Ought Ought, Licensed to ill. I mean "cure the" ill.
and I'm Batman
Frank
People have been referring to that account using "Queenie" for years. Historically, it's been used as a name or a diminutive for "Queen" since at least the 19th century, including in popular media ranging from Blackadder to Fantatsic Beasts.
Are you sure you want to devolve to fake-account conspiracy theories and insults based on that?
Wow, thats almost as funny as when I first heard it in 1985.
What still cracks me up is the little old black men/women (ever notice they start to look the same at a certain age?) who come in to get some "Testes"
"What brings you in today?"
"Oh, I just need to get some Testes"
Frank
Krychek why are you pretending you don't know the difference between a man ans a woman when I explained it too you already?
No, moron, the difference IS NOT that one is ideological and the other not. The difference, as you know perfectly well but choose to obscure, is between expression and repression.
Just like it always will.
That means I love the State!!!
lmao retard
When the volume of bigotry at the Volokh Conspiracy diminishes even slightly, I will consider a suggestion that Prof. Volokh is interested in improvement at this blog.
I must have missed the part where bevis engaged with QA’s substantive post.
The difference is that ideology is not especially popular or prevalent in academia and that's just SO UNFAIR.
'however it is the default in America:'
Eesh.
'and evolved keeping their heads down'
They evolved parliamentary democracies. Liberty is a cultural and political construct, not a genetic one, and not some sort of beautiful abstract spirit, but a messy muddy reality.
The people who think getting an obamaphone makes a person less free is a person who has contempt for other people who expect governments to help or benefit the people who elected them. These people are usually already comfortable and secure within the existing staus quo, and see helping others as a threat to that staus quo.
... yet.
"Doing scholarship/teaching that aims to challenge government encroachment on liberty is ideological. "
No more so than doing scholarship/teaching that aims to justify government encroachment on liberty, a popular genre these days in academia.
Kazinski, do you suppose there is nothing ideological in the notion of meritocracy? Or that meritocracy is any part of American constitutionalism? If so, please explain who the constitution empowers to define merit.
Krayt, do you think it would make sense to reject all theories of government and call that liberty?
Not sure where you are getting this idea that "deology is not especially popular or prevalent in academia", but it most certainly is, at least in the Western World.
You believe ideological monocultures, as universities by any measure are, just happen naturally. That's almost cute.
Q:
How do the white, male, right-wing law professors who operate this blog attract such a remarkable concentration of racists, antisemites, Islamophobes, xenophobes, misogynists, and superstitious gay-bashers, producing a blog marked most prominently by its everyday, multifaceted bigotry?
A:
By design.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly, obsolete conservative thinking could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland : "How do the white, male, right-wing law professors who operate this blog attract .... antisemites ...."
Which reminds me: A couple of days back, BravoCharlieDelta was on about Jews calling for "White Genocide" and looking to destroy the holy state of matrimony. This was part of a long list of ranting snipes against non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual targets. For the record, Jews were the only ones he targeted twice.
One form of ideology not being prevalent doth not a monoculture make. So, it's not being repressed at all? Good news, I'm sure.
Liar: it's your raison d'être.
So is lying, mind you.
I guess when one is posting from Moscow, all one can do is repeat Tucker Carlson talking points.
Did you see Somin's face when you fucked your wife this week?