Once again, I want to draw attention to the plight of Nathan Jun, a philosophy prof at Midwestern State University who recently resigned his tenured position. The reason? Death threats.
For a full background on Jun, see this article from last year in the Chronicle. The gist is that during the height of the George Floyd protests, he took to his personal Facebook page to harshly criticized police. What followed was month after unremitting month of hell.
Local activists, rightwing politicians, and national media all got in on the act. Jun was personally doxxed, as was were his relatives. His house was vandalized (twice!) with swastikas. And yeah, lots and lots of death threats.
Through it all, @MSUTexas quite conspicuously failed to have Jun's back. Except perhaps for the purpose of planting a knife in it.
@MSUTexas Which is what prompted the resignation. Over the last year, Jun has grown severely depressed and has been hospitalized on multiple occasions for PTSD. But his university has essentially abandoned him.
@MSUTexas And not just his university. Whereas other academic resignations have attracted no end of comment, Jun's has been largely ignored. I am not the first to note this odd discrepancy.
@MSUTexas You can also donate to Jun's legal fund. I know that at an earlier stage in the process, @TheFIREorg had intervened on his behalf, but I don't know if that's still the case. Regardless, he will need financial support.
I'm entirely persuaded that Miller is an anti-Semite. I'm much less convinced that firing him wasn't a violation of academic freedom. Let me give a few quick words about why.
Last February, during a video conference on the UK Labour Party and (ironically) free speech, Miller described the criticism he's received from his own university's Jewish students and suggested that they were "pawns" of Israel.
Understandably, there was huge backlash. Denunciations in Parliament. Accusations of a hate crime. The whole sha-bang.
You tell me how this is supposed to work. Explain it to me like I'm a total, gibbering moron. Because I must be. The alternative is that an entire county school board has gone 100% off the deep end.
Obviously this is being aimed at @nhannahjones at the 1619 Project.
One more audit study relevant to this issue. Does intraracial discrimination exist in college admittance? For example, do some institutions screen for *a certain kind of black student*? Thornhill 2019 says yes.
@mattyglesias Researchers sent two emails a piece to white admittance officers at 500+ universities. All were purportedly from black high school seniors inquiring about the school. The question was whether the student would get a response.
@mattyglesias Here's the trick. The emails were divided into four different narratives: apolitical and racially neutral, political and racially neutral (e.g. "I care about the environment"), racially salient and focused on culture/unity, and racially salient and focused on racial justice.
Very interesting piece by @DavidAFrench, who argues that a principal cause of the right/left disparity among students at Harvard or Yale is the differing cultures of college prep among cons vs. libs.
“The right-wing campaign against racial equity discussion, however, eclipses by several degrees of magnitude left-wing censoriousness.”
“The power that the latter is able to mobilize is dramatically overborne by the power of the former, especially its demonstrated capacity to mobilize governmental authority in furtherance of its aims.”
Is it anti-conservative discrimination? Empirical study of the question is still quite sparse, but the available evidence suggests no. Results from two audit studies below.
Druckman and Shafranek (2020) sent an email, purportedly from an interested high school senior, to 1,500+ universities. The "student" was variously identified as black/white, politically engaged/unengaged, liberal/conservative. How would response from the universities differ?
Very little, at least across most treatment conditions. Neither race nor political ideology made any statistically significant difference on its own. In other words, there was no evidence that admissions officers were racially or politically biased.