,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Some useful things about this NYPost "end of universities" piece.
1. It makes clear that "free speech" is cover for ideological attacks on universities.
2. It makes clear that the targets are indeed ideologically defined (idpol, left).
3. It's terribly written and badly argued.
1. It makes clear that "free speech" is cover for ideological attacks on universities.
2. It makes clear that the targets are indeed ideologically defined (idpol, left).
3. It's terribly written and badly argued.
If you think you can learn more about history from a performative weeper than from reading history, this kind of argument is for you. If you think civilizations are clearly bounded and follow neat "logics", like games, then perhaps you won't think universities have much to offer.
If you're the kind of easy intellectual who's not into specifics and doesn't like to read too much, think too hard, or ask too many questions, then you'll feel right at home echoing knowing talking points about "grievance studies", "neoMarxism", "crybullies", and all the rest.
But if at some point you develop a genuine curiosity about the world and its past, you will need to take yourself and your questions a little more seriously than that. You'll need to get past facile and dismissive labels and big, simple pictures, and do some real, difficult work.
If you get to that point, you may find it less satisfying to dismiss others who've spent their time on this same kind of work, or to casually call (in the name of free speech!) for their fields and institutions to be abolished because you don't like some of the things they say.
