In a blog post five years ago I observed that it was fairly obvious that conservatives controlled public higher education and pleaded for them to take care of our institutions. They're failing. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
My blog post from 5 years ago covered incidents from Wisconsin, Louisiana, and the same board in North Carolina. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
Instead of dealing with these truly existential threats, we have groups like @HdxAcademy (now 5000 strong!) gnawing on the "problem" of "viewpoint diversity" as though our institutions aren't being crushed under the boot of reactionary political forces.
My point at the time of my original blog post five years ago and my post today is that these activist conservatives have no care for the overall health of the institution they're called to lead. It is identical to how the majority of republicans now operate in Congress.
They view institutions as "spoils" which can be seized and controlled through force, rather than as stewards of a mission beholden to stakeholders. It is difficult to destroy a flagship university, but if it's going to happen, this is how.
Does anyone think that the ideologues who run the UNC Board of Governors would hesitate to destroy an entire university system if the alternative was ceding control to their political opponents? I hope no one is that naive.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What's happening with Nikole Hannah-Jones at UNC is egregious, but by no means unique because conservatives control public higher education. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
I wrote the post below 5 years ago, before Trump was President, when he was barely a candidate. Even then conservatives were compromising the work of public higher ed with partisan actions. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
I find the Nikole Hannah-Jones story as framed as part of the cancel culture debate an utter distraction. We're talking about governing structures which make public higher ed playthings for ideologues in many states.
Remember, the truly principled get to decide who is and isn't being a hypocrite without bothering to inform oneself of publicly available information at the time because they know what's correct, and you don't.
Pay attention to what figures like this Christakis requires sober reflection v. what is worth blasting into the world uncritically. He's more than willing to hop on the latest ginned up Bari Weiss nonsense, but this case needs more investigation.
Notice what the most principled man in academia thinks is worth his time to better understand. There's articles at IHE & CHE, to glance at if he deems it worthy, but he's pretty sure Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't qualify for tenure because he would know.
The authors of The Coddling of the American Mind would beg to differ. They explicitly argue it is new to the point of new psychological pathology. I think they’re wrong, but this is the claim.
Haidt in particular argues that we have seen the "sudden emergence of a new moral culture" and even pinpoints the year he believes it's detectable.
The theory of a new moral culture that is at odds with a truth-seeking telos is at the heart of what has become anti-cancel culture rhetoric, that those calling for change are some combination of morally and psychologically defective.
The highlighted portion of the screenshot is what we call an unsupported assertion. Also, it's wrong on its face.
Elon Musk has never shown any discernible sense of humor. He appears to be actively challenged on irony, which is one of the key fulcrums for SNL sketch.
The idea that Musk's eccentricities only makes sense if those eccentricities are known at a sufficient specificity to be the object of comedy. I question this. Musk is famous, but he isn't particularly visible. People know his bio, not the person or persona directly.
Huh. Major figures in @HdxAcademy participating in a discussion on the potential "menace" of education schools. Is that the kind of framing of a debate that fits with the ethos of the organization? "Menace"?
If I may, sharing some of the precepts of the @HdxAcademy way. Precept 2: Be Intellectually Charitable. Perhaps by casting your fellow academics as a "menace?"
How about precept 4: Be Intellectually Humble. Can someone from @HdxAcademy, maybe @JonHaidt himself explain to me how the framing of this discussion demonstrates intellectual humility? Don't compare anyone to Stalin, but a "menace" because it's generic maybe, is ok?
Main thought is I’d rather have just about anyone else on the planet write about viewpoint diversity in academia, but maybe I’ll be surprised.
Even though I trust their motives are pure (from their perspectives) bad stuff has resulted when this guy and his ilk started training their particular sights on academia. Talking about this in a keynote tomorrow for the SIU-Carbondale school of education.
I also touch on it in Chapter 11 of Sustainable. Resilient. Free. Many of those who claim to be trying to uphold the values of the academy are serving to tear down the institutions, rather than build them up, and it's primarily in the interest of preserving status quo power.