I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
Cool, if you feel that way then go face them. Don't force professors to stand in the firing line in your stead.
> Not sharing course outlines is not going to help make this problem better.
It would make finding targets more difficult than just doing a ctrl-f, which obviously would make the problem better just by making it harder to find professors to harass.
A friend of mine was harassed by these sorts of groups for their teaching. They received death threats, hardcore pornography, and gore in their inbox from these chuds. The trigger was the availability of their course material online.
I see what you are saying, but not publishing the materials is not going to solve the problem. That's because the people who are attacking the professors will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Remember, the attackers are not a few oddballs. The are members of a vast MAGA movement that has enough member to elect the present president and that encourages this sort of behavior. And they have tons of money behind them.
> will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Not really, they don't have sufficient time budget and a network of agents to do that as comprehensively as with a simple "google search" some bureaucrat/activist can perform in a few minutes
I've heard for years that this sort of cancel culture doesn't exist or isn't a problem, and it's just the consequences of engaging in unpopular speech. Xkcd "showing you the door" and all that.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
Telling the history of your country about how you enslaved, murdered and tortured are considered "grievance narratives" by the current administration. Declaring scientists public enemy because they don't follow your politics.
Do they also teach about Comanche slave raids and other intra-native wars, and the native American treatment of prisoners of war and slaves, putting European conquerors in context as just another warring 'tribe', just a more successful one? Or do they teach a one-sided morality play version of history?
What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?
College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."
The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans.
I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either.
So you've got a few options.
You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint.
You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke."
You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right.
Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?
While this has some valid points, constructively addressing these issues is clearly not the political thrust of the destructionists who wish to simplistically downplay the history rather than framing it in a more productive manner.
Also the condemnation of "treats political disagreement as moral evil" landed harder back before the other tribe decided to embrace the dynamic and fortify their political stances with blatant immoral evil.
From a European perspective this response and your other comments ranting about "pronouns" and "Marxist ideology" makes me think you're either a troll parroting bizarre US political memes or, if serious, you're the one indoctrinated in a radical ideology. Either way, I suggest closing the browser and talking to people in real life.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
Boards of Regents consistently suck shit. The rather famous "put your body upon the gears" speech was about the Berkeley Board. Leftists largely hate the boards of both public and private universities. They are often megarich people with minimal understanding of pedagogy or even university administration.
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
If we squint our eyes we can vaguely consider that at this point, university is on the path of becoming a mere extension of the regular k-12 education system.
In that case, we can simplify things by applying the same educational standards across the entirety of the k-16 system.
No double standards allowed!
Joking aside, it would be worth restoring tenure and explicitly strengthening it as a safeguard against outrage-driven firings.
Expanding the definition of misconduct to equate controversial speech with a “hostile environment” is unconscionable.
Absolutely, we should surveil Trump and his MAGA team anywhere they are whether in the White House or their houses 24x7 using the best high powered cameras, mics, sensors we have. It's simply due diligence.
What bothers me is that the Left is quick to shout "fascism!" but cannot see their own soft, creeping totalitarianism. Don't think gender operations are a healthy thing? That's not an option, it's either "celebrate!" or "hate speech". And then places like Canada and the UK enshrine this into law.
If you make the opposing opinion illegal (the US has not, but the trend is obviously there), don't be surprised if people with the opposing opinion do something about it. The current administration is a hacked mess, of course, but the universities got themselves into it with things like requiring "diversity statements". What if you want to be a professor but you don't think that implementing progressive diversity is important? Too bad, no choice. If a private Christian or a Muslim university requires a statement of faith, well, it's kind of in the name. But a State-funded university that requires a "statement of faith" implementing a progressive political policy, seems like a clear overreach.
I am not defending the Trump administration, which may very well contain fascist elements. But don't go crying "fascist!" and ignore the other side's self-righteous totalitarianism.
Could you point to any center-right policy (what Americans call "the left") that attempts to force straight people to submit and go through gender operations?
See, that's the core difference. One side wants to leave people free to do as they please. The other side wants to control what the first does.
Yes, there are exceptions, on both sides. But they're this, exceptions.
I personally favor the features of "Ur-Fascism" by Umberto Eco:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. action for action’s sake
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to a frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot
8. the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
9. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
10. contempt for the weak
11. everybody is educated to become a hero
12. machismo - both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality,[...] Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons
It's not the federal government's job to police ideology. That's the stuff of Communist China's cultural revolution. There's nothing stopping people from creating their own university teaching "correct" ideology. The US has no shortage of well-resourced individuals and organizations spanning the entire spectrum of political viewpoints.
That has been going since forever. McCarthy is just one blatant example, it happened in the 20s, and 30s, and 40s 50s and 60s and 70s and all the way to today.
I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
So, that sounds fine in theory.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
Not sharing course outlines is not going to help make this problem better. Better to face those groups head on than hide.
> Better to face those groups head on than hide.
Cool, if you feel that way then go face them. Don't force professors to stand in the firing line in your stead.
> Not sharing course outlines is not going to help make this problem better.
It would make finding targets more difficult than just doing a ctrl-f, which obviously would make the problem better just by making it harder to find professors to harass.
Why should professors face death threats head on? What are they going to do differently besides self censor?
It observably does make it better.
A friend of mine was harassed by these sorts of groups for their teaching. They received death threats, hardcore pornography, and gore in their inbox from these chuds. The trigger was the availability of their course material online.
I see what you are saying, but not publishing the materials is not going to solve the problem. That's because the people who are attacking the professors will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Remember, the attackers are not a few oddballs. The are members of a vast MAGA movement that has enough member to elect the present president and that encourages this sort of behavior. And they have tons of money behind them.
> will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Not really, they don't have sufficient time budget and a network of agents to do that as comprehensively as with a simple "google search" some bureaucrat/activist can perform in a few minutes
> And they have tons of money behind them.
Sure, and each dollar has plenty competing uses
I've heard for years that this sort of cancel culture doesn't exist or isn't a problem, and it's just the consequences of engaging in unpopular speech. Xkcd "showing you the door" and all that.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
[flagged]
Telling the history of your country about how you enslaved, murdered and tortured are considered "grievance narratives" by the current administration. Declaring scientists public enemy because they don't follow your politics.
Do they also teach about Comanche slave raids and other intra-native wars, and the native American treatment of prisoners of war and slaves, putting European conquerors in context as just another warring 'tribe', just a more successful one? Or do they teach a one-sided morality play version of history?
What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?
College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."
[flagged]
I am not sure what you want.
The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans.
I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either.
So you've got a few options.
You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint.
You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke."
You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right.
Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?
[flagged]
While this has some valid points, constructively addressing these issues is clearly not the political thrust of the destructionists who wish to simplistically downplay the history rather than framing it in a more productive manner.
Also the condemnation of "treats political disagreement as moral evil" landed harder back before the other tribe decided to embrace the dynamic and fortify their political stances with blatant immoral evil.
From a European perspective this response and your other comments ranting about "pronouns" and "Marxist ideology" makes me think you're either a troll parroting bizarre US political memes or, if serious, you're the one indoctrinated in a radical ideology. Either way, I suggest closing the browser and talking to people in real life.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
Boards of Regents consistently suck shit. The rather famous "put your body upon the gears" speech was about the Berkeley Board. Leftists largely hate the boards of both public and private universities. They are often megarich people with minimal understanding of pedagogy or even university administration.
Nobody (roughly) is choosing the university to go to based on the syllabus. They choose it based on cost, exclusivity, and networking considerations.
Everyone I know chose based on quality of education (for which syllabus is an important signal) and cost. This is various STEM-related fields.
The "exclusivity" and "networking considerations" stop mattering if you not looking into Ivy League.. and most people don't go there.
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
McCarthyism wasn't long before that time
That was in the early 1950s, as far as we were concerned that was a different era—one long gone.
If we squint our eyes we can vaguely consider that at this point, university is on the path of becoming a mere extension of the regular k-12 education system.
In that case, we can simplify things by applying the same educational standards across the entirety of the k-16 system.
No double standards allowed!
Joking aside, it would be worth restoring tenure and explicitly strengthening it as a safeguard against outrage-driven firings.
Expanding the definition of misconduct to equate controversial speech with a “hostile environment” is unconscionable.
https://archive.is/HJa8N
Surveillance of publicly funded activity is due diligence.
Absolutely, we should surveil Trump and his MAGA team anywhere they are whether in the White House or their houses 24x7 using the best high powered cameras, mics, sensors we have. It's simply due diligence.
I disagree with respect to their private life. The professor and president have the same right to privacy as me or you outside of their public duties.
I think its important that everyone learn to recognize the 14 points of fascism.
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.ht...
In this case, we can recognize: "11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts".
What bothers me is that the Left is quick to shout "fascism!" but cannot see their own soft, creeping totalitarianism. Don't think gender operations are a healthy thing? That's not an option, it's either "celebrate!" or "hate speech". And then places like Canada and the UK enshrine this into law.
If you make the opposing opinion illegal (the US has not, but the trend is obviously there), don't be surprised if people with the opposing opinion do something about it. The current administration is a hacked mess, of course, but the universities got themselves into it with things like requiring "diversity statements". What if you want to be a professor but you don't think that implementing progressive diversity is important? Too bad, no choice. If a private Christian or a Muslim university requires a statement of faith, well, it's kind of in the name. But a State-funded university that requires a "statement of faith" implementing a progressive political policy, seems like a clear overreach.
I am not defending the Trump administration, which may very well contain fascist elements. But don't go crying "fascist!" and ignore the other side's self-righteous totalitarianism.
Could you point to any center-right policy (what Americans call "the left") that attempts to force straight people to submit and go through gender operations?
See, that's the core difference. One side wants to leave people free to do as they please. The other side wants to control what the first does.
Yes, there are exceptions, on both sides. But they're this, exceptions.
[dead]
I personally favor the features of "Ur-Fascism" by Umberto Eco:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. action for action’s sake
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to a frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot
8. the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
9. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
10. contempt for the weak
11. everybody is educated to become a hero
12. machismo - both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality,[...] Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons
13. selective populism
14. Newspeak
These are only his major points of his speach in 1995. The speach is at the moment available here: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
This reminds me of something I read about the STASI.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Whaddabout the military then? Same same problem.
If you are interested in removing bias, then hopefully you're interested in removing bias in the military too?
Law Enforcement, Churches, Prisons, Unionized workplaces, we have a lot of ideological correction ahead of us!
Pete Hegseth in particular is addressing those issues… :-)
It's not the federal government's job to police ideology. That's the stuff of Communist China's cultural revolution. There's nothing stopping people from creating their own university teaching "correct" ideology. The US has no shortage of well-resourced individuals and organizations spanning the entire spectrum of political viewpoints.
That has been going since forever. McCarthy is just one blatant example, it happened in the 20s, and 30s, and 40s 50s and 60s and 70s and all the way to today.
[flagged]
It does not look like you actually know what "far" means , either left or right.
[flagged]
The author of that cartoon posted an updated version of it:
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1966288413939659079
neither one is in the same county as the truth
If I were drawing the cartoon, I would have both sides extending outward.