Thread by @biblioracle

Just received a very special invitation to the Heterodox Academy conference where I can hear people such as David Brooks and Steven Pinker speak, which is great, because I feel like I never hear from those guys anymore. All for the low cost of $250.

Imagine hearing Steven Pinker, a guy whose work is highly invested in his own rather cloistered orthodoxy, lecture about the value of heterodoxy. I can't imagine a worse representative of the putative ideals of the organization. On the other hand, Pinker is a prominent academic.

I mean, I read the mission statement of the Heterodox academy and think, "I feel like I'm generally down with that," and then I see their keynote speakers and wonder exactly where I'm getting the heterodoxy because David Brooks ain't it.

I could probably squeeze out a credential through my Inside Higher Ed gig, but it would also cost me a weekend in NYC. Thinking of viewpoint diversity, I'm wondering where the contingent academic labor is being represented?

Hold on, there is an attendee listed as "adjunct professor." Oops, turns out he's a former director of Citi. The bios for the attendees are mostly empty, but if you do any googling you'll see lots of endowed this and that. events.blackthorn.io/0bChaC6/2019-h…

I will grant that most of these people are serious and well-meaning, but the HA in general and this event in specific has nothing to do with promoting viewpoint diversity. It is a backlash against trends that have (slightly) diminished the hegemony of their viewpoints.

That this isn't blindingly obvious is sort of baffling to me. That they're taken seriously is a legacy of the power of signaling via credential, but many of the featured people on the conference list have shown their asses repeatedly in public, and yet they maintain influence.

HA is engaged in a turf war. Its language is high minded and principled, but the upshot is not to protect ideas, but to prevent figures representing the previous status quo from being replaced. Considering the academia this thinking has gotten us, what's the harm of revolution?

Let us not forget that the "Pearl Harbor" (if you will) of the movement was students yelling at a tenured professor in public on an elite U. campus. This was the bridge too far. Never mind that we later found out that students were correct about the hostile campus atmosphere.

If universities can't be safe spaces for tenured professors from getting yelled at by students, where would we be?

In a truly heterodox academy we would be laughing at the shit these folks are trying to pull, but the power of elite credentials is real. I could name a few dozen people they could invite who would bring truly heterodox viewpoints to the discussion, but they aren't in the club.

Got myself a little more worked up about this than I intended. Oh well.

I see the Heterodox Academy crowd in similar terms to @AnandWrites view of plutocrats in Winners Take All. The plutocrats know that the tide is coming for them and their days are numbered so they'll embrace the values of equality and opportunity, as long as they stay on top.

HA is all for inclusion, but we absolutely must preserve these bedrock values which will be delineated and adjudicated by those who agree with the HA. It's clever to call yourself heterodox when you're trying to protect an orthodoxy.