Remember when Jeffrey Sachs argued that: 1. There is no free speech crisis on campus
& (sic) 2. The (nonexistent) free speech crisis was over?
No? (see below).
Thread 1/n
W/(dare I say it?) data that "disrupts" that narrative or (dare I say it?) a "close look at the evidence."
First, let's dispense with the "crisis" narrative. The term is both subjective and extreme. Has climate change turned the world into a flaming pit of Hell? Is Covid the worst plague humanity has ever seen?
No? So we're all good, right?
Sachs has also claimed "its not my fault, I did not provide the titles, the editors did it!" This is true, but so what? Why did the editors give it those titles? Because they believed the titles captured the thematic points of the articles.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recently posted data on scholars targeted for sanctions for expressing ideas. Here is a brief summary of the data.
IDK about "crisis" but "nothing to see here?" ENDED?
Looks like it has been picking up steam.
Then there is @epkaufm's report filled with over 100 tables worth of data. Here is the headline, but the report is publicly available. Summary here: cspicenter.org/reports/academ…
If you have not read it, you should consider doing so.
Here are just a few findings. Staggering numbers of faculty ("SSH staff" refers to social sciences & humanities faculty) and grads ENDORSE sanctioning colleagues for their ideas. Grads are the next generation.
It is going to get worse before it gets worse.
Iceberg model: The most severe threats are rare but built on much larger foundations of less severe threats.
What we have here is a full scale failure of academia, on politicized topics, to do anything other than become a vehicle for left activists. It is, in essence, a purge of those unwilling to toe left-activist sacred values and lines.
This is plausibly described as a slow-moving purge of nonleftists from the academy.
Shown here are two models attempting to capture how this works. Left, Kaufmann's model. Right, mine.
Think about it. Extremes are really a very small proportion of the population, typically under 10%.
But if (for all practical purposes) EVERYONE is on one side of the spectrum, even if there was no additional selection for extremists & activists, you would get FAR larger proportions of extremists and activists. Which, in academia, we do. Left, Gross's data. Right, Kaufmann's.
Why is this important? Recent work by independent teams has discovered that left wing authoritarianism is alive and well in the good old USofA.
Hell, if you follow academics at all, you can SEE behavioral manifestations of LWA, such as social vigilantism and attempts to shut people up for wrongthink. Meme on right was popular among academics on tw around the election.
And of course, what goes on academia rarely stays in academia. Long list of "cancellation" attacks here, many academics and many non-academics. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404…
As a result of these "nonexistent" threats that "ended" years ago, we have had a steady rise in self-censorship going back to the 1950s. persuasion.community/p/americans-ar…
Why? Because, over the last 2 decades, we traded in our culture of freedom and acceptance of differences for a cultural of social vigilantism and localized cultural authoritarianism. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Is all lost? I have no clue. I don't do the crystal ball thing.
I do suspect that things are going to get worse before they get worse.
BUT
A slew of new organizations are mobilizing against this rising American Authoritarianism. @Counter_Weight_ @fairforall_org @AFA_Alliance
and others that will be announced soon.
We are all figuring out how to do this "combating localized, non-govt forms of authoritarianism" thing.
It won't be easy and it won't be short. But it will be worth it.
Shall we "follow the science"? A short thread of sources on Things That Do Not Work* to Increase Social Justice:
Trigger Warnings
Diversity Trainings
Implicit Bias Trainings.
*=Tests of their effectiveness fail to show any.
1/n
Trigger Warnings Do Not Work.
and likely cause more harm than they prevent (which is not hard, because they prevent hardly any harm).
New post just promoted to Essential Read under Replication Crisis at Psych Today***: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
***They either censor/edit my stuff or love it. More love than censorship, so I can't complain too much.
BUT: 1/2
If you click the image, under key points, it says this:
"An experimental manipulation in the study altered many dependent variables, making it unclear if the results are due to mindset differences."
That is NOT me, an editor added it. It is AMUSINGLY wrong.
(need 1 more tw)
2/3
AND I CANNOT REVISE IT. (email to editorial staff is out). A manip that altered many DV's would be good. BUT its wrong. The experimental conditions manipulated a ton of things all at once, making it hard to attribute results to mindset (or anything else).
Read post for details.
"We share a refusal to see King’s dream extinguished."
You are invited to sign the Dream Coalition letter supporting the vision of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. (I have already). dreamcoalition828.com/letter/
THREAD, with further invitation, and excerpts.
You are invited to a livestream discussion:
Woke or Still Dreaming? A Dialogue on King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech, Social Justice Ideology, & the Future of Liberalism.
"dreamcoalition828.com
Sponsored by Institute for Liberal Values (ilvalues.org) & @FreeBlckThought
Why Some Social Scientists (& Natural Scientists Who Dabble in Social Sci) Who Embrace Empiricism, Skepticism, Falsification, & Ruling Out Alternative Explanations in Their Scholarship Jettison All That For Social Justice
Thread
1/n
DISCLAIMER: This thread is NOT about social scientists who prioritize activism/social justice/"disrupting" whatever they want to disrupt over truth. I write about that all the time (screenshots shown). This thread is NOT about those people.
This thread is about the others, such as: 1. Professors of Medicine denouncing papers reviewing evidence showing affirmative action is ineffective.
Can't make this up. Given that "microaggressions" are defined exclusively or heavily in terms of subjective perceptions held by alleged targets, Haverford can punish people based on accusations alone (if microaggression=perception then accusation=guilt).
Thread 1/n ending in END
"But Lee, this is just another one of your wild takes," I can hear them denouncing me already. Let's see.
How did Nadal (the researcher, not the tennis player) measure "microaggressions"?
Did he assess the behavior of racists? No.
Did he assess behavior of anyone? No.
He assessed people's perceptions of what constituted microaggressions. Here are items from his questionnaire:
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Nah. Just a social psychologists who knows where the skeletons are hidden and who has the skillsets to check under the hood to see how the sausage, whoops, I mean "consensus" is made.
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych The Sordid History of "Consensus" in Social Psychology
A Thread 1/n ending in END
A Priori: When IS social science credible?
This is when:
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Notice the absence of "Majority Vote." Scientific facts/truths are not established by "consensus."
Claims that "X should be believed because consensus" are social conformity moves, and should be a HUGE red flag that maybe "They do not have the evidence."