Now that so many people seem to care about viewpoint discrimination in academia, let's talk about it.
It's common, unethical, intellectually dishonest, & betrays the whole purpose of a university.
And it almost always runs one way: against those seen as not 'progressive.'
🧵1/
It's common, unethical, intellectually dishonest, & betrays the whole purpose of a university.
And it almost always runs one way: against those seen as not 'progressive.'
🧵1/
Yes, it can go the other way, as NHJ's case may suggest.
But that's far less common & usually involves forces *external* to academia (trustees, politicians).
Faculty & elites will *strongly* protest, rally in defense, write think-pieces, & make the victim a cause célèbre. 2/
But that's far less common & usually involves forces *external* to academia (trustees, politicians).
Faculty & elites will *strongly* protest, rally in defense, write think-pieces, & make the victim a cause célèbre. 2/
But these days, the most effective enforcers of viewpoint discrimination are militantly 'progressive' and *internal* to academia: the faculty. 3/
All it takes is 1 or 2 ideologically corrupt faculty to:
- Deny doctoral admission
- Blackball a job candidate
- Derail a tenure case.
It happens all the time. 4/
- Deny doctoral admission
- Blackball a job candidate
- Derail a tenure case.
It happens all the time. 4/
The winnowing begins at PhD admissions.
It's easiest to defeat the 'enemy' by not even letting them in the room.
They'll try to block admission of an excellent but non-conformist candidate.
Failing that, they'll try to block progress & badmouth her in the field. 5/
It's easiest to defeat the 'enemy' by not even letting them in the room.
They'll try to block admission of an excellent but non-conformist candidate.
Failing that, they'll try to block progress & badmouth her in the field. 5/
Hiring comes next.
First, it is essential that the job description keep the ideological nonconformist from even having a shot. 6/
First, it is essential that the job description keep the ideological nonconformist from even having a shot. 6/
This is easy to do
Working with admin, they keep open-minded faculty off the search committee.
And if someone proposes the 'wrong' language or focus, they publicly attack or privately say: "Those sort of people don't belong here. By the way, when is your tenure decision?" 7/
Working with admin, they keep open-minded faculty off the search committee.
And if someone proposes the 'wrong' language or focus, they publicly attack or privately say: "Those sort of people don't belong here. By the way, when is your tenure decision?" 7/
If a heterodox finalist somehow emerges, the corrupt will tank the visit.
They'll ask politically loaded questions, say they felt unsafe, or talk about 'culture' or 'fit.'
In a case I know of, the candidate was repeatedly asked to renounce Catholic teaching on sexuality.
8/
They'll ask politically loaded questions, say they felt unsafe, or talk about 'culture' or 'fit.'
In a case I know of, the candidate was repeatedly asked to renounce Catholic teaching on sexuality.
8/
Denying tenure is the easiest.
If the non-conformist gets the job, that's the move.
If her scholarship is anything less than clearly the strongest in memory, that's enough.
Still, they'll put fellow ideologues on the tenure referee list to game it.
Even one 'no' will do. 9/
If the non-conformist gets the job, that's the move.
If her scholarship is anything less than clearly the strongest in memory, that's enough.
Still, they'll put fellow ideologues on the tenure referee list to game it.
Even one 'no' will do. 9/
But the person will have to have been a truly exceptional scholar to have gotten the job despite their efforts.
The vector of attack will be teaching & 'fit.'
They'll build a false narrative around 'harm,' 'insensitivity,' 'intercultural competence,' 'inclusivity', etc. 10/
The vector of attack will be teaching & 'fit.'
They'll build a false narrative around 'harm,' 'insensitivity,' 'intercultural competence,' 'inclusivity', etc. 10/
Students will have felt 'unsafe & unwelcome.'
She was 'defensive' when confronted in class for 'centering whiteness' by lecturing on John Brown.
She didn't deploy 'trauma-informed pedagogy' in the Lolita seminar.
Discussing closed borders created a 'non-inclusive classroom.' 11/
She was 'defensive' when confronted in class for 'centering whiteness' by lecturing on John Brown.
She didn't deploy 'trauma-informed pedagogy' in the Lolita seminar.
Discussing closed borders created a 'non-inclusive classroom.' 11/
She will be denied tenure, her career & livelihood destroyed.
It happens all the time.
And here's the deal.
Will faculty rally around her?
Will elites & NYT take up her cause?
Will her name be a hashtag? Her story be known?
12/
It happens all the time.
And here's the deal.
Will faculty rally around her?
Will elites & NYT take up her cause?
Will her name be a hashtag? Her story be known?
12/
She'll need to spend well over $30,000 & years in court. Even then, she'll likely lose. No one will know or care.
So, take viewpoint discrimination seriously.
But be real about how & to whom it usually happens.
They're rarely famous, powerful, & still employed at NYT.
/fin
So, take viewpoint discrimination seriously.
But be real about how & to whom it usually happens.
They're rarely famous, powerful, & still employed at NYT.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
