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.
Just as a significant faction of Republicans in Congress seem uninterested in actually practicing democracy, many of the partisan bodies that oversee public universities have little interest in being stewards of the institution itself.
They've come to dominate, and if necessary, destroy the higher ed institutions they're tasked with managing. This is not an exaggeration. Look at what happened in Wisconsin under Scott Walker and Robin Vos the state assembly speaker.
Conor Friedersdorf (who blocks me here) has written a fair minded piece on the NH-J situation that emphasizes first amendment protections for different viewpoints, which is all well and good and I agree with all of it, but this is not the actual battle that's happening.
High-minded pleas to respect diversity of viewpoints will not sway conservative ideologues who wish to stamp out voices like Nikole Hannah-Jones. The effort so many of them have put to stuff the 1619 Project back into the box is unbelievable.
Tthe 1619 Project is out and alive and having an impact, and in some ways, the efforts - including legislative ones - to stifle it only bring it more attention and make it stronger, but there is no ends those in power will not go to in these cases.
The UNC Board which refused to act on tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones knew that it would stir up this kind of negative attention and reflect poorly on the university, but they do not care. They only care about control.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been thinking about the differences between how Conor Friedersdorf and Adam Serwer, both writers at The Atlantic, approached the refusal of tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones by the UNC Board of Governors. They're good examples to help students see how writers make choices.
First, some disclosures. I think Friedersdorf is one of the lamest public writers on the Internet. Even when I agree with him, I wonder why he bothers writing. He blocks me here because I mocked him for not seeing the similarities between Jordan Petersen and The Secret.
Adam Serwer, on the other hand, is one of the most penetrating observers of America today. His coinage of "The cruelty is the point," in describing the Trumpist Republican Party is cemented in history.
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.
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.
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?