1/ Ever wonder why Universities produce so much wokeness?
The answer is 'Activist Scholars': woke professors who have decided that the goal of a University is to ideologically indoctrinate students and spread activist propaganda.
They admit this, and I have receipts
A Thread🧵
2/ See, the problem is NOT merely that some professors have blind-spots that need to be corrected by having lots of other professors with different views. That issue is important, but that is not what I am talking about.
Activists Scholars are an entirely different problem.
3/ The Scholar Activist sees their job to do activism in the classroom including using their classroom in the University to train more woke activists
This Paper by Kia M. Q. Hall is about activities for training Black Lives Matter activists in the classroom.
4/ You see, the Scholar Activist does not even attempt to teach from neutral ground. They have an ideology, and use their classroom to train students to become activists on behalf of that ideology.
Here Deborah Lowry suggests a way to teach that "supports student-activists":
5/ This isn't bias and blind-spots, this is activists deciding the classroom is a place for them to teach and train activists to agitate on behalf of woke ideology.
But it goes further; many of these professors explicitly admit they no longer care about telling the truth...
6/ Here, Kelly Oliver says the quiet part out loud.
She says feminist theories do NOT have to be true or false...they have to be STRATEGIC. The truth does not matter, strategy does.
This is because, she says, feminism has to be revolutionary; and she means *REVOLUTIONARY*
7/ Not to be outdone, professor Joan Scott tells us that they seek a theory that will be relevant for political practice, and Sociologist Raewyn Connell seeks a theory of Gender that takes politics into account.
8/ These professors are saying, very explicitly, that they are publishing in academic journals, and teaching in University classrooms, a set academic theories which exist ENTIRELY for the purpose of doing woke activist politics.
This isn't bias, it's indoctrination.
9/ You see the fruit of this sort of activist training in the situation that occurred at Evergreen State college when student activists took over the Campus.
Here, students tell the faculty of the college they just took over they learned their activism FROM THAT SAME FACULTY.
10/ The faculty of evergreen turned their students into activists, who turned around and used their activist training to take over the college and demand the already woke college become even more woke.
Woke professors caught in a feedback loop of wokeness of their own creation
11/ I hope thus far you have seen that there is a good sized segment of the University that has decided that rather then pursue truth and seek to be a neutral in the classroom as possible, they are going to pursue politics, and use the classroom to indoctrinate the students.
12/ So how did they manage to do that?
To understand that you need to understand what tenure.
Tenure means that a professor can be terminated only for cause under extraordinary circumstances. It is almost impossible to fired once as a professor if you have tenure.
13/ Woke academics who have gotten tenure, use their positions to help as many other woke people get tenure as possible.
Here, Henry Giroux explains how he helped **100** people get tenure, and how he sees doing so as being an important "political intervention."
14/ This means a couple of things.
The first is that these professors can publish woke papers in academic journals, which makes their ideology look legitimate. This is like laundering money, except in this case the thing being laundered is activist ideology.
The second is....
15/ A professor with tenure is nearly impossible to fire. Even if they get caught teaching activist ideology they can't be fired, and that means they are free to propagandize and indoctrinate without fear of being fired.
Are we beginning to see what's happening here?
16/ The woke are taking over Universities by helping each other get tenure, so they can keep indoctrinating students in the classrooms while publishing their woke ideology in journals so it gets treated like real science, scholarship, and knowledge.
17/ What gets left out by the woke is the truth, because the woke are not interested in trying to find out and teach about how the world really is.
Here, Kelly Oliver talks about how to divorce science from nature, so that feminists can take over science with feminist ideology.
18/ They are telling us what they are doing, and they are being clear about it. They mean what they say, and they say what they mean.
We need to take these people at face value and start believing us when they tell us who they are and what they are doing.
19/ There are no easy answers here but we can start by showing people what is going on and sharing this information widely. Then we can start figuring out a strategy to counter wokeness in the University.
let's get to work
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reason the trans-movement is so nihilistic, violent, and unhinged is because it is postmodern, and the postmodern intellectual solvent it uses to dissolve the distinction between male and female also dissolves the distinction between good and evil.
The postmodern ideology of the transgender activists believes all values of any kind (moral, social, scientific, and epistemic) are just social constructs that have been constructed in alignment with the interests of the dominant ideology or ruling class.
so...
On this view the legitimacy of a given set of values is not a matter of fact, it depends on the interests of the people evaluating those values. As such the values of a society are a determined by which group has the power to embed it's interests in the social value structure...
People who celebrate the murder of their political opponents are not participating in the marketplace of ideas, they are encouraging deadly political violence by building a permission structure to legitimize and justify the murder of those they disagree with.
My freedom of speech means I get to clearly and succintly explain to the whole world that if you call for the assassination of your rivals this is not free speech, it is a direct incitement to political violence.
John Stewart Mill gave a famous example where he said that if someone claims corn dealers are starvering the poor this can be allowed if circulated through the press, but is not allowed when shouted in front of an excited mob assembled outside the house of a corn dealer....
1/ The Radical Left has used political violence to advance their cause for decades. What's new is the progressive left's professional class building a permission structure to justify the use of political violence
It's called Assassination Culture, and we need to talk about it
🧵
2/ To understand what's happening, you need to understand that the line between progressive-left professional class and radical left has been blurred. The extremist radical left and the socially progressive "bluesky left" are increasingly intertwined both socially and politically
3/ This is because many of the extremist radical from the 60's and 70' who advocated for, and participated in, the use of political violence have been welcomed into the mainstream institutions that are run by the progressive left professional class.
Look at the number of pro-athletes posting condolences about Charlie Kirk, and you'll see what a huge cultural figure he was.
He wasn't just famous in conservative circles, his clips debating college students were a loadbearing pillar of online political pop-culture
His willingness to calmly and politely debate all comers on any issue (at the very moment when cancel culture was strongest and people were afraid to say what they think) made him a sort of lovable internet folkhero.
He was an indelible piece of the online landscape.
Charlie was not quarantined to the "conservative ghetto" of online content; he broke contain and became a mainstream cultural figure.
Charlie became the cultural symbol of free debate, free speech, and settling differences in public with words
What he is describing here is the deconstruction of America as an ideal. The goal is to destroy America by subverting the conception of America as a force for good which sustains American confidence, and attacking the founding narrative from which America derives it's legitimacy.
They will try to redefine America in a way which subverts the legitimacy of America as a national project. They want to erase the current American narrative, and replace it with a new one which grants them the right to inherit America's wealth, power, prestige, and influence.
They will attack America the same way they attacked Universities: by undermining legitimacy, authority, and self-confidence by asserting that the whole project is just racism, colonialism, and oppression in disguise.
2/ on racist resentment against white people and racialist identity politics, complete with the racist stereotyping.
This shows a continuity of thinking over a period of a decade, and there has been no take back, or explanation for the disgustingly racist tweets she made.
3/ Chris said he didn't care if she was fired, the point was to use her posts to force the New Yorker to choose between equal enforcement of bans on hiring racists who make racist content, or to be explicit that racism against Jews and whites is allowed...