The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Encouraging Debate, Not Settling It": Bret Stephens Interviews Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier
A very interesting exchange in the Autumn 2024 Sapir Journal; a short excerpt, just to give a flavor of the whole thing:
We've seen the same data, and I've been very concerned about the drop in approval and trust in higher education. The decline has been larger among people on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but it's across the board, from the Left and the Right. My sense is that it comes from two concerns. From the progressive side, the concern is that highly selective universities are perpetuating inequality. And the concern from the Right is that we're woke factories….
The question of the politicization of higher education has come into stark relief after what we've seen last year: the conflict in the Middle East and the drama on campus. These developments have elevated into the public consciousness concerns that have been present for years. They now are front and center, much more serious, and they require a course correction by many universities….
If you look back, there were three pillars of how a university thought about its role in society.
If you look at the University of Chicago, one pillar was this commitment to free speech that goes back to the founding and then through a whole variety of presidents, reaffirmed, most recently, by the 2015 report, often referred to as the Chicago Principles. Universities need to be places for open debate.
Pillar two is what we call institutional neutrality, which means that the university will not get involved, will not take positions, on controversial political and social issues that bear no direct relevance to the university's mission. The University of Chicago's formulation of this policy was the Kalven Report from 1967, which so eloquently articulates that when the university formulates a party line on any issue, it creates a chilling effect for faculty and students to engage in debate and discourse.
And the third pillar, less appreciated but important, is a commitment to reason, to respect, to using arguments and evidence. Discourse and debate at the university shouldn't be about shouting. That's a more cultural aspect. All three have eroded, and they have eroded over the past 10 years in significant fashion. Now we see the consequences of that.
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
Okay, but there is the problem
There are things above debate and because we don't know them we argue about things that we needn't argue about.
2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-12/2-of-3-americans-wouldnt-pass-us-citizenship-test
"rom the progressive side, the concern is that highly selective universities are perpetuating inequality. And the concern from the Right is that we're woke factories…."
Both sides think the universities are woke factories. The left think they're not meeting their production quota.
Telepathically generated liberal agenda again.
Another helpful riposte from our resident riposte wunderkind.
Sarc's point was quite clear (and accurate, IMO). I take it that you, however, disagreed?
I wasn't pretending to be wise and helpful.
I see. So really you were praising Sarc and are jealous of his role.
santamonica811 18 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Sarc's point was quite clear (and accurate, IMO)."
Of course you agreed with Gas0 - You live in the same woke echo chamber that Gas0 resides in.
No telepathy was involved. This has been the far left's plan for decades: the "long march through the institutions". Gaslight0 is, as usual, in full denialist mode.
More evidences conspiratorial assertions.
Still living in denial, I see.
Not that I'm complaining. The longer that folks like you ignore the grievances of others the more they get turned off by your malignant indifference.
Brett is not the kind of person that needs to be indulged lest liberals lose his vote.
I note you skipped over the utter lack of evidence he had for his claim.
Evidence? You, have never provided any evidence of anything, suddenly want evidence?
Not rising to that bait.
Deflection noted.
Tu quoque may be a fallacy, but your insistence that people provide unreasonable levels of proof while you simultaneously offer essentially nothing in return is legendary.
Any evidence.
My current threshold is any evidence for Brett's assertion. That isn't the same as proof, but Brett (and you, and Don) have failed to meet even this lowest of bars.
If that's unreasonable, maybe you should rethink the assertion.
No, I don't think I'll be rethinking anything because I'm getting real tired of your antics. Being "pithy" is no excuse for poisoning the well.
The Old Sarcastr0 was much better, tyler. I literally mean that. I've said more than once...bring back the Old Sarcastr0. The Old Sarcastr0 was funny, not just pithy.
https://citizensandscholars.org/resource/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/
National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test
A typically anodyne snark.
Brett just pooped out a conspiracy theory. I pointed it out.
You have a real objectivity issue when it comes to me.
"You have a real objectivity issue when it comes to me."
And Sarcastro is totally objective about his own comments.
Interesting that Sarcastro objects to Brett's characterization of the liberal complaint about the universities , but not to Diermeier's.
From the progressive side, the concern is that highly selective universities are perpetuating inequality.
Brett's characterization paints liberals as cynical. Diermeier paints them as insane.
What could universities possibly be for but to try to build on the academically gifted's gifts, putting them even further ahead - in the area of their talents - than the less gifted ?
Why do pro football teams hire already excellent young footballers and try to make them better ? Why don't they hire weedy clutzes and train them ?
To complain that putting special effort into educating the already academically gifted widens academic inequality is nuts. That's the whole point. If you're not trying to do that, why have universities at all ?
Or maybe there a lot of good universities that have a lot of gifted people and it’s useless credentialism why we pick from like 5 elite universities when we want a real smart guy.
Leaving talent in the table is bad policy. No DEI about it.
Unless you like how all our Justices but one come from Harvard of Yale?
There we go " a real smart guy" !! Proof you don't have a finger on what is happening
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/
Many more women in college than males, many more graduationg than male, many more advancing in the professions.
That added to the demographic cliff makes it most like that that smart guy IS A GIRL
In 2011, men constituted 47% of the four-year college population; in 2023, that number was 42%, and some measures show it lower. In absolute numbers, that’s at least 1.0M fewer men in the ~15M UG college enrollment mix, essentially all in four-year schools.
"Unless you like how all our Justices but one come from Harvard of Yale?"
In the 235 year history of the Court, how many years has that been true?
It's a passing fad, one that ended with ACB.
How is that a passing fad? Upon Chief Justice Rehnquist's death, John Paul Stevens became the only member of the Court not to have attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Amy Coney Bear It is the only such current member. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia, but first attended Harvard Law School.)
IN THE 235 YEAR HISTORY....
I need to correct myself. There was a brief period after Rehnquist's death when Sandra O'Connor, who graduated from Stanford, remained on the Supreme Court. So Stevens's time as the only justice not to have attended law school a Harvard or Yale began with the confirmation of Alito to succeed O'Connor.
AND THE FIRST 200 YEARS???????????
1. That, even if valid, would be a complaint about the prestige of the swankiest universities not their “highly selective” intake
2. But in any event that would not be a complaint about the highly selective universities, but about how “we” - the pickers - pick, using brands
3. When picking a judge we should not be looking for a “real smart guy” (or gal) anyway. We should be looking for an adequately smart guy or gal with a judicial temperament rather than Napoleonic self esteem. No reason to believe the most academically selective universities select for humility.
4. There’s more to universities than training future judges. The private sector of things hires according to its expectation of profit. It doesn’t care squat about whether you went to Hahvahd. The slums of Bombay will do fine.
Well, to be woke factories, of course.
It all comes down to the left's view that nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside of politics. There is no separate peace, if you're not with them you're against them. If you're not doing *enough* for them, you're working against them.
So, literally, for the left the problem isn't that the universities are woke factories, it's that they're not meeting their production quotas. Being selective about admissions plays into this, because you can only indoctrinate the students you admit... The universities could indoctrinate more people if they lowered the standards for admission to the ground, and just devoted ALL their efforts, instead of just some, to indoctrination.
to be woke factories, of course.
Of course. Literally!
It all comes down to the left's view that nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside of politics.
This post is you, positing that nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside of politics.
The evidence the left thinks this is ignored while you provide exact proof this is you. You think this.
Oh horseshit, Brett.
Not long ago you were, laughably, complaining about people not taking their opponents at face value, but attributing all sorts of hidden nefarious motives and conspiracies to them.
The fact is you were not, but might as well have been, describing yourself. That's all you do.
Is it horseshit, though?
What's the ideological composition of university faculty? Pretty pronounced in one direction. The best expression was at Stanford Law when Judge Duncan attempted to give a lecture awhile back.
And more generally, what are university faculty doing (aside from supporting occasional on-campus hamas rallies)? They tend not to promote open inquiry.
I would like to see the Chicago Principles guide debate at the University. There is room to hear all viewpoints, and university students should be exposed to as many different viewpoints as possible, in a respectful, thoughtful manner. That isn't happening today. You probably think the same way I do, on this.
No one is impressed with your gaslighting, or that of Sarcastr0. It's very clear what the modern American and European left are about. No amount of ascribing good motives to manifestly bad people will change that.
Only bad people think that half of Americans are bad people.
Most of them are just ignorant.
Liberalism is a movement of ill informed people with good intentions, led by well informed people with ill intentions.
- Hey, don't "liberals" "think [and regularly say!] that [conservatives] are bad people"?
- Tell me, Randal, what sort of person would say that Trump-voters "are being willfully ignorant"? An ignorant one, right?
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/03/nobody-was-tricked-into-voting-for-trump-why-the-disinformation-panic-is-over/?comments=true#comment-10855935
Hey, don't "liberals" "think [and regularly say!] that [conservatives] are bad people"?
No.
As to charges of ignorance, did you read Dixie's comment right above yours? Lol, you guys are too much!
No, that is false on two counts...
Most parents want at least that their kids can read, write, and do 'rithmetic. At the very least. Do you have kids?
AND , with growing up being a time of developing an independecne and inner life, parents want things discussed that are important. Not indoctrinated but discussed. DO YOU HAVE KIDS ?
Look around, there are more and more politicians with no children and they are among the worst Macron, Merkel, and the like
DO YOU HAVE KIDS? You miss the tree and the forest with what you say
Goob goob gooooooob!
Congratulations to SimonP for posting his most coherent comment in months (perhaps years).
Wednesday’s Simon P :
“ what happens when you extend a hand to one's political opponents, only to find them consistently slapping it away?
Over the past several months, I have tried to have several respectful discussions with political conservatives on matters where we disagree. Time and time again, after engaging with them as adults, I find that, at the root of so many of their beliefs, there's just - "I don't like it." No real explanation remaining, no felt obligation to offer one. At the root of things, for them, it's just about grabbing power and forcing their views on others.”
Sunday’s Simon P :
“Goob goob gooooooob!”
🙂
Of all the hatreds the Right has to keep up with schools/learning is the most bizarre to me.
A nonstop crusade to dismantle public schools, teachers, libraries and their contents, universities and, lately, the idea of higher education at all.
I think it boils down to the thought that if kids, blacks and women get exposed to ideas outside of the strictures of church or home, their apt to get uppity/independent/vote differently...and that dog don't hunt for the white male. And it certainly retards the goal of returning to the 1870's.
It actually seems to boil down to the thought that if kids are exposed to ideas they disagree with, they will be psychologically a nd ideologically damaged.
This retards progress towards the mid-21st century.
See how that works?
Don, the Left lacks the courage of its convictions.
WTF does that mean?
Exactly what it says.
The Left is not convinced that it is correct and hence can not tolerate divergent viewpoints. By contrast, the Right is convinced it is correct and thus can tolerate people who are wrong being wrong.
You think the Right tolerates divergent videwpoints? Lolol... only one side of this debate is actually banning viewpoints that it doesn't like from schools.
I don't see Kinsey's _Joy of Sex_ in elementary school libraries. (I don't even know if that book exists, but I don't see heterosexual books either.)
Nor do I see any of the "God Hates Fags" literature in elementary school libraries. What you describe as "banning viewpoints" is actually creating a demilitarized zone, and if you want your child to know the joys of "fisting", you can teach it to him.
I'm thinking more of the CRT and DEI bans, but yes, also the gay bans and drag bans now that you mention it.
CRT and DEI are banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And there you have it, folks. A complete 180 in under an hour and three comments.
Putting all the Black kids in the back of the schoolbus is also banned...
Keep digging, Ed. Here, let me give you a shovel: how is being made to sit at the back of the bus a "viewpoint" exactly?
Randal & most other leftists cant see the distinct difference in opposing books which are not age appropriate in elementary school liabraries and actually banning of books.
though maybe they do see the difference, yet want to be intentionally dishonest by characterize it as "banning " so that they can claim moral superiority.
a) I said "banning from schools" b) this post is about the freedom of thought in the educational context c) the drag bans aren't so limited
Typical Joe, wrong in three simultaneous ways.
You are the one bring up banning books.
As a typcial leftist - you cant see where you are delusionally wrong
Ohio teacher forced to resign after refusing to use students’ pronouns, lawsuit says
Also, it's one thing to tolerate divergent viewpoints, it's another to pay people to teach them.
Refusing to use a person's pronouns can be harassment. Imagine your teacher insisted on calling you "fag" or "cracker" or "retard" instead of "tiny pianist." They might be accurate, but that's not the point.
Whether the case you cite is in fact an example of harassment I neither know nor care.
" Imagine your teacher insisted on calling you "fag" or "cracker" or "retard" instead of "tiny pianist."
So now you're in favor of banning viewpoints?
Complete 180 in less than 1!
Bzzzt. Nice try though.
The viewpoints can be discussed, even potentially taught if that makes any sense.
Harassment, though, isn't a viewpoint.
I am glad to know that someone other than Ed was reading that exchange however, so thank you for the honor.
We should put trannies back into the mental hospitals WHERE THEY BELONG...
They are crazy, lock them up.
"Harassment, though, isn't a viewpoint."
Offs. No, harassment isn't a viewpoint. But it can be accomplished by expressing a viewpoint, as in your example above.
"Harassment" isn't a magic word that turns expression of a viewpoint into something else.
No, harassment isn't a viewpoint. But it can be accomplished by expressing a viewpoint, as in your example above.
Yeah, that's what I said. So banning harrassment isn't banning a viewpoint. It's just banning a particular way of expressing any number of unrelated viewpoints.
"We should put trannies back into the mental hospitals WHERE THEY BELONG..."
Uh, labeling members of disfavored groups as mentally ill and institutionalizing them has quite a sordid history, Dr. Ed.
How would the kids know those are ideas they disagree with unless they get to hear about them first? They get to hear about the bible in OK and LA whether they want to or not, yes?
When one considers the extent of the Leftist puke they get, a little bit of Bible won't hurt them.
"When one considers the extent of the Leftist puke they get, a little bit of Bible won't hurt them."
I'm not so sure about that. Yahweh, as depicted in the Old Testament, is the most heinous villain in all of literature -- a practitioner of mass murder (including killing infants) on multiple occasions.
He put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, causing the poor infant to suffer for a week before dying. The Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tenth Plague did not exempt the babies from the carnage.
Yahweh and his Chosen People were also huge fans of genocide, including the mass slaughter of infants and children. All quotations here are from the original Revised Standard Version.
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you." Deuteronomy 20:16-17.
Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” I Samuel 15:1-3 (emphasis added)
"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 (emphasis added)
"Then they utterly destroyed all in the city [of Jericho,] both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword." Joshua 6:21
"And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.' Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. And the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining[.]" Deuteronomy 2:31-34
"So the LORD our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people; and we smote him until no survivor was left to him. And we took all his cities at that time--there was not a city which we did not take from them--sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, destroying every city, men, women, and children." Deuteronomy 3:3-6
"And Joshua took Makke'dah on that day, and smote it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed every person in it, he left none remaining; and he did to the king of Makke'dah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua passed on from Makke'dah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah, and fought against Libnah; and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining. And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish. Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it. Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king. So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:28-40
O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalms 137:8-9
On a somewhat related note, do folks who sing "Rock-a-bye Baby" as a lullaby think of the actual lyrics? How is a story about a baby falling from the top of a tree supposed to comfort an infant?
It actually seems to boil down to the thought that if kids are exposed to ideas they disagree with, they will be psychologically a nd ideologically damaged.
Not "ideas they disagree with." Just overt racism, sexism, and antisemitism directed against them by peers and faculty.
You seem sensitive when it comes to the "psychologically and ideologically damaged" Jewish snowflakes. Do you reserve that sensitivity just for Jews? If so, you're a bigot. If not, then you're just as woke as the people you're complaining about.
I welcome Randal to the ranks of the right-wing reactionaries.
I personally think they're all snowflakes. The left expaned "racism" far too broadly to be taken seriously in exactly the same way that Don, the ADL, and others here have expanded "antisemitism" to the point that it no longer passes the giggle test.
But I think under a reasonable definition of racism, sexism, and antisemitism, the left has the better argument. There has to be some limit on that kind of harassment in the context of shared environments like universities and workplaces.
"There has to be some limit on that kind of harassment in the context of shared environments like universities and workplaces."
Put it that way, I guess I must be on the left, since I agree with your statement. Of course it might turn out that we differ on some minor details of interpretation, but *as written* it sounds great.
Yay! I love agreeing to agree.
We may disagree on the meaning of words like "some" and "that kind of harassment."
I stand with the ADL and the government of Israel and call out de facto anti-semitism on campus when I see it.
So not just antisemitism, but also de-facto antisemitism...what is the difference?
I know you do Don. You certainly wouldn't want those little Jews to be "exposed to ideas they disagree with!" The "psychological and ideological damage" would be unbearable.
Randal & Sarcastro
- you continually expose yourselfs as true anti-semites
People around here know you're wrong about everything, Joe, so you honor me with your words.
Randal
you repetitively make anti-semite comments, then you claim you support Israel.
virtually All your comments are anti-smite.
Yes, In your leftist delusional mind, I am always wrong, yet most every thing I have written that is disputed by the left has turned out to be correct.
I can't speak for Don. I want Jewish students to receive the same level of protection that other students get. That's it. (But apparently that's too much to ask of our "enlightened" universities.)
Wonderful! Welcome to the woke left.
NOt at all. And you misstate your own premise !!!
Even you would find certain things to expose an older child to that you would never expose a younger to. Admit it. And you love the word 'seems' --how can you drum up that Genghish Khan attitude out of 'it seems" 🙂
IS this a fact allergy?
Anyway, if what you said had any merit it woudl be self-contradicting If exposure to Ideas they disagree with is damaging, the first exposure is all that needs to be opposed, right.
Exposing 6-year olds to Dylan Mulvaney type perverts might just ruin a whole life. you equate damage that is non-physical, you think a soul bruise is like a physical one, you walk it off.
YOU DON"T HAVE KIDS. Now that is a fair bet
Thank you for making my point -- higher education is dead and the only solution is to cut off the funding.
You write about the 1870s without mentioning what part of a VERY diverse country you are talking about which merely indicates your total ignorance. Let's take New York City -- it already had the 9th Avenue Line (opened 1868) and there were no illegal aliens lighting women on fire inside the cars.
We had FAMILIES in the 1870s and that was a good thing. We had COMMUNITIES in the 1870s in a way we don't now.
And we didn't have institutions of higher education destroying the country.
I chose the 1870's instead of the 1840's because in the 70's Jim Crow/and Prisons were in full swing to reestablish slavery at a low simmer, and the Union was out of the picture. Women couldn't vote. It was one of the best times for you, Dr. Ed
Hobie, in Massachusetts circa 1840, the most important thing on the ballot was if the town minister would be rehired for another year or fired. The women met after church and decided how their husbands would vote. In a public town meeting with their wives sitting next to them -- and if she wasn't there, she'd still hear how he voted.
So women couldn't vote?!?
Oh, could they vote?
Hobie, exactly how many men do you think voted differently from what their wife told them to do?
And it actually was a FAMILY vote anyway, before 1870 there were property requirements for voting.
Is that your 21st century measure of equality? How a woman could have voted if she were allowed to independently vote back in the 1800's? Sigh...do you have anything else, Ed? My time is precious.
Go to a town meeting today -- most married couples either vote the same way or abstain.
Yes… long before 1870. By 1870 those qualifications had been gone for decades.
Well, then, you won't mind if high schools and colleges teach about slavery, and Jim Crow, and suffrage, yes? I'm sure you didn't approve of DeSantis' prohibition on all that
Hobie, you lie. That's not what he prohibited and he was very clear on that.
What DeSantis prohibition? Please be specific.
Florida's Anti-CRT law.
" 760.10 Unlawful employment practices.—
(8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts."
Torn from the pages of Mein Kamf, obviously.
Further down you'll find:
"1003.42 Required instruction.—
(f) The history of the United States, including the period of discovery, early colonies, the War for Independence, the Civil War, the expansion of the United States to its present boundaries, the world wars, and the civil rights movement to the present. ..."
So teaching about the civil rights movement is actually mandatory in Florida, not banned.
You like censorship, when you it’s in service of your tribe.
See, total lack of engagement with the actual text of the law.
These are all things that never happened, yes.
Perhaps your public school didn't teach you that public schools are relatively recent, and were established with the express purpose of indoctrinating immigrant children in ways their immigrant parents did not approve of. Papists, foreign languages, that kind of immoral stuff.
Massachusetts has required them since 1647 -- the purpose was to teach children how to read.
The fight with the Paptists was in the 19th Century with James G. Blaine.
I can detect dishonest posters and that includes you. Presumable you are an adult and have cared for this issue for years -- and yet you say THe most bizarre to me" Is that an elative or a true superlative, in either case it is stupid and pompous. To think these are all white males marks you as a hate-filled moron.
The molst vocal opponents in my neighborhood , work, and social meetings are " Women and often non-white women.
Not knowing what you were saying "Blacks and women" you went full racist and anti-trans while thinking you were making a case against the RIghts. So who defines "BLACK" -- you ? --and do you mean to say that born female is nothing but trans to female now that is real female.
Always you racists fall into that trap. You attack racism by invoking the need for Nazi rules to define legally and authoritatively who is really Black and who is really a woman.
Remember, Homer Plessy was whiter than Madonna but legally Black
To the extent normies still support higher education, it's because it gives them and their children a chance to learn *accurate and useful information* which will help them move up in life. I'm thinking here in terms of STEM, not literary theory.
Of course, one important life skill, for a person and for the country as a whole, is how to engage in civilized discourse about public affairs. But who expects to get effective training in that sort of thing out of a university? There are better, and *much* cheaper, ways to get such training - for example Toastmasters, or jury service.
Eventually the Right will figure out that the meritocracy they're so insistent uoon is the elite woke factory that they so despise.
At that point they'll realize that meritocracy will never benefit them and they'll revert to base zero-sum tribalism. You already see it around the edges of these comments and within MAGA.
Poor Brett. His mixed-race family will be non grata under MAGA.
Ain't gonna happen.
All my life I have been passed over because I was male or White or Protestant or heterosexual or born here or (and now) not sexually confused.
ALL I want is to be treated the same as everyone else...
Hahaha that's not why you've been passed over, Ed.
When it is in writing?
Based on all your hateful, violent posts, I doubt all your physical deformities were the reason you were passed over as garbage collector or any other position
I can't say that I have ever applied to be a garbage collector.
I *did* drive a school bus? Does that count? 🙂
"The question of the politicization of higher education has come into stark relief after what we've seen last year: the conflict in the Middle East and the drama on campus."
This is reflective of the problem -- there are TWO SIDES to the conflict in the Middle East and only one side had been permitted to come out into stark relief.
We haven't seen any Nuke Gaza rallies, we haven't seen students physically assaulted for wearing keffiyehs (or afraid to wear them), we haven't seen Muslim-free Zones being enforced while campus police nonchalantly watch.
It's all been ONE SIDED...
If Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey leaned any further to the Left, she'd fall over -- and even she had enough of the illegal trespasses in Boston, Cambridge, and Amherst.
But again, it was ALL FROM ONE SIDE in a dispute that does have two sides. Which is why I continue to say NUKE GAZA because nothing shy of that is the equal of "from the river to the sea" -- not that the little darlings chanting that know WHICH river or WHAT sea, let alone could find either on a map, but whatever.
And that's the problem in academia -- to paraphrase Justice Scalia, the Left fights freeform while the Right is expected to follow the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. And this half-arsed fool of a Chancellor doesn't even realize that...
The reason for the asymmetry is that America and its institutions, including universities, are generally pro-Israel already. Israel is already totally destroying Gaza with our help. So protesters are protesting against the status quo.
It's the same reason there weren't a lot of pro-murdering-George-Floyd protests. You don't generally see protests for the status quo (except as sporadic counterprotests).
"It's the same reason there weren't a lot of pro-murdering-George-Floyd protests."
GEORGE FLOYD WAS NOT MURDERED -- HE DIED OF A FENTANYL OVERDOSE!!! "I can't breathe" IS A SYMPTOM OF FENTANYL OVERDOSE!!!
And what about the actual murder of Justine Damond, who was fatally shot by Officer Mohammed Noor, for no good reason?!? That would have been ignored but for the pressure of the Australian embassy as she was an AU citizen.
It's the status quo that is represented on college campi -- always has been that way.
I love it when you say "campi."
campi /kăm′pəs/
Plural form of campus
noun
The grounds and buildings of an institution, especially a college or other institution of learning, a hospital, or a corporation. The green upon or about which the buildings of an American college or university generally stand; the college-yard. The principal grounds of a college or school, between the buildings or within the main inclosure.
"the college campus"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
I am aware. Although I did try to find this exact entry to see how you may have edited it, and "campi" isn't in the online version. Do you have a link, or did you copy that out of a print copy or something?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=campi+definition&t=ffab&ia=web
Huh. DDG pulled that together from multiple sources. It's not clear where it got "campi" from. The entry it quotes and links to is "campus" (and the link nowhere mentions "campi").
It *is* the nominative plural of the Latin word "Campus", and at Princeton in 1774, when it was first used, I think they would have used the Latin nominative plural if they had occasion to do so.
All the dictionaries I found that do include it -- which isn't many -- call it out as "nonstandard." That's all I was getting at really. You're the only person I know who uses it. And it makes you sound... special.
Rush Limbough did too.
That's so ridiculous that one can only suggest you seek professional help, pronto.
"The reason for the asymmetry is that America and its institutions, including universities, are generally pro-Israel already."
See, this is what I meant about the left hating the universities for not being woke enough. What's meant here by pro-Israel, in terms of the universities, is not being sufficiently anti-Israel. Are they giving Israeli students cheaper tuition? Is there a special Israeli Student Union the other students can't use?
No, they're simply not being hostile enough towards Israel. That's what you mean by the universities being pro-Israel.
the left hating the universities for not being woke enough
Simultaneously woke factories and not woke enough.
Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
"Simultaneously woke factories and not woke enough."
Yes, like Republicans not liking Garland because he was a political hack using the DOJ to attack Biden's enemies, and Biden being pissed off at him because he didn't do it enough.
Like Comey catching hell from Republicans because he whitewashed Clinton, and catching hell from Democrats because he didn't use a bright enough shade of white, actually admitted she'd done some things wrong to not be prosecuted for.
The left isn't satisfied that the universities are generally in their corner, they want 100% buy in, total loyalty. Anything less gets you counted as a foe.
You've changed the baseline from an institution to individuals. These are not the same thing.
You are of the opinion that schools are not just Marxian woke factories, but literally have a conspiracy to hound out conservatives.
You've pegged the meter on schools being maximally leftist. Hard for you to put daylight between what you've written down about them and this 'not woke enough for the left' new narrative you are asserting with no support other than your gut.
The institution is made up of individuals whose outlook mirrors what Brett wrote about.
This is just Gaslight0 making asymmetric demands for rigor from his side versus the sane side.
No some around here is asymmetric at true or use of evidenceless conspiracies.
Plenty on the right don’t. But you and Brett and Joe Dallas and others I have muted are into it, and I call them out.
What's meant here by pro-Israel, in terms of the universities, is not being sufficiently anti-Israel.
No, that's not what is meant, Brett. American universities across the board have strong relationships with Israel, from research partnerships to exchange programs and resource sharing.
You think our universities have that kind of relationship, say, Iran? The Israel relationship is one of the friendliest within American academia.
Suck a lemon, Brett, for putting words in my mouth.
American universities have strong relationships with a lot of countries, including countries like China that they shouldn't.
You know what? The universities would have strong relationships with Gaza, if Gaza actually produced anything of academic interest, besides new forms of indoctrination into antisemitism.
Great, you should start an anti-China protest within academia to mirror the anti-Israel ones. That's the protestors' whole point -- that Israel is one of the countries American universities "shouldn't have strong relationships with."
Keep sucking that lemon.
The gazans are destroying themselves; they chose hamas.
No act justifies a response of genocide.
Every US Zionist of a probable perpetrator of genocide (18 U.S. Code § 1091) or of providing material support to terrorists (18 U.S. Code § 2339A).
For the integrity of the US legal system, every US Zionist including Biden, Blinken, Austin, and Mayorkas must be transferred to a detention camp to await trial.
A US Zionist is too dangerous to be released on bail and is highly likely to flee if released,
The only problem I see is that Israel must kill more hamas members faster.
You're related to Misek, aren't you.
This is Jonathan Affleck / Joachim Martillo /a few other noms de plume.
1948 Genocide Convention is actually not stated in your terms at all.
"a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part."
Fifty-eight years ago at a prestigious Southern university it was clear to me that the humanities were largely taught by red diaper babies and that many of my classmates were attending, not to learn, but to defer participation in an unpopular war. Along the way, many of them fell in lockstep with the revisionist views of professors and scorned any opinion at variance with theirs or aligned with widely understood standards of the day. Of forty-four members of my class in a professional discipline, three actually practiced that profession after graduating. It is no surprise that conditions in academia have only deteriorated since that day. But it continues to baffle me that parents pay to send their children into the environment of today's universities.
Many aren't.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/01/03/ivies-in-crisis/
So you've been a grumpy partisan shit since 1967!
What a sad way to be.
Of forty-four members of my class in a professional discipline, three actually practiced that profession after graduating
This is what a free country looks like.
What part of "to defer participation in an unpopular war" did you not understand.
Student deferment is what ruined the mainline Protestant churches because while the deferment in general was only for undergraduate degrees, it also included graduate divinity degrees. So a lot of people who had already exhausted their undergrad deferments then went to divinity school because that also prevented them from getting drafted.
And in the late '70s we had a bunch of ministers who in some cases didn't even believe in God. I was involved in helping fire one of them, he was having an affair with the choir director, both were married except just not to each other. And there was more.
Korea was an unpopular war, Vietnam damn near destroyed the country. People talk about Jan 6th -- the 101st Airborne was bunking in the Whitehouse Basement -- for a reason...
It is also what a wasted four years looks like if the students were actually in a "professional discipline." But maybe the women in HomeEc, actually abandoned that "profession" and became business executives.
I doubt those years were wasted for most of them.
It's not some big failure that degree A is used for more than profession A.
Physics majors (not a professional degree but close) go into finance, consulting, AI, etc. Their degrees in those fields are a value add, not a waste.
We're not our grandparents, who were locked into a job in their 20s whether they liked it or not. That's a good thing. Both for people's happiness, and for productivity.
The low hanging fruit from depth of expertise has pretty well been exhausted. A nontraditional career path is the new sub-specialist degree degree.
We're not our grandparents, who were locked into a job in their 20s whether they liked it or not. That's a good thing. Both for people's happiness, and for productivity.
From that, I don't sense much insight into the experiences of male blue collar workers. I don't think this blog gets much input from rust belt proletarians—except maybe indirectly, via MAGA advocacy from non-proletarians.
But it is not evident to me that ordinary industrial workers in Binghamton, NY, for instance, or the mid-western rust belt, the southeastern furniture manufacturing regions, or the Pacific Northwest, feel either especially happy, or especially productive.
Appalachia, from Pennsylvania through Eastern Ohio, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, and Eastern Tennessee, likewise. Northern Maine may not count, only because folks there have mostly been unhappily stuck without career paths since at least the early 20th century.
Employment prospects for blue collar proletarians aren't looking so great across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, either. Happiness there seems to be down accordingly.
Sometimes I think pro-STEM mania happened because STEM remains just about the only way a low status male can get any job at all. And a lot of that comes with terrible career security after age about mid-40s, way too young to retire.
In the aggregate, maybe balance that happy protean career stuff against a downside that's been getting so insistent it seems remiss not to notice it. Even prosperous, educated Massachusetts features a former-industrial hinterland seething with resentments.
Sarcastr0, whatever you think explains all that, the resentful folks think policy choices explain it. They had decades to watch first-hand as those changes unfolded, with results just about matching what the policies chosen suggested would happen.
Now resentful, insecure, and less happy than you suppose, some folks you seem not to notice insist on different policies. I think a lot of them would be fine with locked-in-career paths, and hum-drum productivity. Happy even.
"Northern Maine may not count, only because folks there have mostly been unhappily stuck without career paths since at least the early 20th century. "
That's ignorant -- there were booms as late as the '80s.
And as to Massachusetts, only California, a much larger state, has more people leaving. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/massachusetts-is-ranked-the-2nd-worst-state-for-one-way-u-haul-movers-but-the-trend-is-reversing-state-says/ar-AA1wY2Z0
We are talking about Vanderbilt here, not West Texas Tech.
But I believe the cultural shift is pretty broad. Job tenure is down across the board. And anecdotally Millennials moving back home to seek a more fulfilling job is not class-barred.
As for blue collar education, associates degrees are vastly more available now and more connected to career opportunities than any time in modernity.
If you want to talk no college, that seems well off topic.
I'm not sure I've seen stats indicating STEM mania is not actually that strong, we just have a lot of STEMLords on this here website. I would guess that it's the creative fields that see more folks dipping in. Novelist, stand-up comedian, etc. Again, not as class barred as they once were.
Sarcastr0 — Okay, confine it to college degrees.
A new-minted white male BA with stellar credentials, but a low-status, no-influence family background is already practically a pariah. Suitable mainly for time-clock-style, low-wage jobs with no career path, and dead end prospects. In short, suitable for a kind of job the tech-centric economic takeover has been multiplying. Is flight from that what you had in mind with your mysterious, "Millennials moving back home to seek a more fulfilling job?"
An economy featuring too much concentration, too much tech, and too much outsourcing, is recognizably an economy built by policies to favor those results. Everyone can see this economy depends on plans to ignore systematically whatever classes of people get harmed in the process.
These developments have not been acts of nature. Nothing but greed forced political disregard of adverse economic consequences for tens of millions. So, unsurprisingly, the nation struggles against political backlash. Because alert politicians typically take the lead, political backlash often peaks ahead of the worst of a real crisis. The worst of this one is likely still to come.
That's before your dismissive comment with regard to people without college degrees, who of course remain the majority.
You know what comes next? A realization that when you outsource, and automate, and hold down American wages, and lay people off sooner, that dries up income for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They all go bankrupt quicker, while the number of folks who need that support explodes even faster than the resulting profits.
Thus, that realization will dawn as an explosive political crisis years in advance of the moment of actual fiscal collapse. Keep this up, and not too long hence, American politicians will announce that survival of the safety net is no longer a policy question; its destruction already happened, while the politicians were fighting over other issues.
Does this nation look to you as if it is prepared now to turn on a dime, and start confiscating enough profits to hand out permanent subsistence benefits to people destined to starve without them?
Or do you think the nation will take the Ronald Reagan view, and continue to sell a sunny upside too many folks already realize is long-since gone for them.
Stephen,
I agree with the trust of your post. Happy New Year.
"I think a lot of them would be fine with locked-in-career paths, and hum-drum productivity. Happy even."
*If* that's true (though Sarcastr0 will probably come along any time now to rebuke you for mind-reading /sarc), then it's because working an unfulfilling job is better than not working at all.
"working an unfulfilling job is better than not working at all"
My stomach approves this message.
You both act as if it is up tot he worker but it isn't.
And I think this was stated in the 50'S
Technological society leads to increasing numbers of people who cannot adapt to the inhuman rhythm of modern life with its emphasis on specialization. A class of people is growing up who are unexploitable because they are not worth employing even for the minimum wage. Technological progress makes whole categories of people useless without making it possible to support them with the wealth produced by the progress.
Jacques Ellul
I am a teacher, IT IS ALL TRUE
I was an Engineer graduate of Valparaiso University 1982. I was displaced in 2007. I now drive a forklift for a major carrier making 80k/year after moving from Michigan to Phoenix. I'm not the only one by a long shot. I've been commenting here since 2010. Rarely but I do read daily.
I agree that physicists who becomes quants have not wasted their degree. Instead they make use of what they learned to analyze data, to create models and assess then on a daily basis.
Now analyze the person who does a BA in ethnics studies or in history. They are unlikely to gain an economic benefit EXCEPt for the prejudice of hiring managers in discounting the intelligence of those without a college degree.
Then do lawyers; most do not work in big law, or are not in-house counsel, but I suspect do use their legal training if nt daily, then very frequently.
Now go back to sociology BAs, payoffs after college is far from clear.
First, we have wandered from Yogis_dad who had a point about professional degrees.
Second neither you nor I know where social scientists end up (even excluding economics).
Speculatively, they probably develop communications skills. Politics. Writing fiction or nonfiction.
Later today I may check that NSF annual survey of where PhDs end up.
Not really probative but interesting.
Social science PhDs:
Employment rate: 96.7% (compared with average for S&E of 93.7%)
Out-of-field rate: 5.9% (average of 4.1 for all S&E)
Median earnings: 75,000 (average of 78,000 for all S&E)
Source: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20245/stem-pathways-degree-attainment-and-training-of-workers-in-stem#employment-outcomes-for-recent-graduates
That data is flawed -- those without good jobs don't advertise it.
It's all self reported data.
We have the SS numbers, how about take IRS reported earnings?
Quants are of course not as you imagine https://crr.bc.edu/nobel-winners-are-unsure-investors/
Can anyone think of those 2 Nobel Prize winners who used their theory on Wall Street and lost all their money
"When Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016, dozens of university officials put out statements on the issue, but this time around, only a few have. Public opinion of the American higher education system has reached new lows, and the Trump administration has said it will take a scalpel to higher education."
https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/31/higher-education-leaders-finally-start-to-realize-their-entire-industry-is-worthless/
There isn't yet a Trump administration to issue a statement, unless you mean something from his previous term.