Been thinking this morning about whether there is a tension between critiques of the concept cultural appropriation (eg all cultures appropriate, adapt, evolve) and moderate nationalist @epkaufm-esque arguments against immigration (eg US culture is changing too fast/too much).
These positions don’t have to be in tension, but in practice I think they often are. Both turn (at least in part) on the idea of “feeling at home”, on the claim that one has a right to feel part of a community, or even the right to have one’s community persist over time.
I’m not saying these things are equally just, equally right, etc. And to put my cards in the table, while I have qualified sympathy for cul. app. concerns, I have zero for cultural nationalism. Still, I’m interested in whether, to a certain extent, these distinct ideas rhyme.
Ok, maybe “zero” is too strong. I’ve read too much Charles Taylor for that, the consequence of a misspent youth in Montreal. But very, very little sympathy, and certainly none for state coercion on a culture’s behalf.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
New legislative session, new assault on academic freedom and campus free speech.
In Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi, GOP reps have introduced bills that punish public schools and universities for teaching anything from the 1619 Project.
These laws are vaguely written, but that's by design. For example, the Iowa bill would withhold funding from any school that utilizes "in whole or in part" the 1619 Project "or any similarly developed curriculum". Gee, I wonder what that means.
It's clear the issue isn't over the Project's factual accuracy, but rather its interpretation of the past. Hence, the MS and AR bills accuse it of promoting “a racially divisive and revisionist account" and the IA bill cites the state's interest in creating "patriotic citizens".
I’m going to break my rule of no longer retweeting this asshat because these needs to be exposed and called out. You don’t blame Jews for anti-Semitism.
Holy hell. Look how this Orban shill wastes precisely zero time climbing into the anti-Semitic mud with Lindsay, so great is his partisan hatred for the Left.
Re. The Tablet article on California's proposed Ethnic Studies curriculum, I really do think there's much less there than meets the eye. At least it pertains to Jews and Judaism. Read the sample lessons (Appendix A: pp. 485-514) and see for yourself.
Most of the "objectionable" stuff discussed in The Tablet was either stripped out after the 2nd draft or is irrelevant (the past statements of the curriculum's authors). Meanwhile, the 3rd draft DOES include information on campus anti-Semitism and hate crimes against Jews.
The main point of contention, at least in regards to Jews, is the claim that some Ashkenazi Jews possess white privilege because they can pass as white, and that they non-Ashkenazi Jews don't because they can't. Make of that what you will.
I regret to inform you that he is right. Obviously it's great that Trump is off Twitter, but watching multiple platforms flex their muscle in unison like this is terrifying and will absolutely be used to crush someone or something you care about.
I am not on board for this. I really want to be, but this feels like a terrible development, one that will absolutely be used someday against those trying to unionize Big Tech, expose industry wrongdoing, or threaten its political interests.
But dammit. Look at this. This is why we're in the position that we need private governments to solve the problem: because our public one was either unwilling or unable to act on its own.
Every time I post a new study showing that university indoctrination does not happen (and there's usually one every 2-3 months), I get the same stubbornly dismissive range of responses. People just don't want to believe it. They refuse.
I don't have a long thread on this. I'm just very frustrated by the phenomenon, especially since it typically comes from people who've built their online personas around being fact-driven, hyper rational skeptics.
Most of them just say "Well, that wasn't my experience," or "Oh, academic proves academics are great, how persuasive! HAHA", which I get. A few also make vague science-esque sounds about sample size, constructs, control groups, etc. But there's never any substance to it.
New from me: Drawing on a survey of 20K+ students from 55 universities, @RealClearEd and @TheFIREorg have ranked schools according to how healthy the free speech climate is on campus. Unfortunately, its design has a strong anti-liberal bias.
Quick summary: In the survey, students are assigned a Tolerance Score, which is supposed to measure how tolerant they are of controversial speakers. And one of the major findings is that conservatives score much higher on Tolerance than liberals.
But there's a problem.
Here's the question used to measure tolerance. See if you can spot where things go wrong.