Valentina Azarova’s cancellation by UofT last year also generated massive pushback. Yet Cathy had no trouble treating that response as typical, and on that basis, playing down the Right’s threat to faculty free speech.
The same thing happened when Emily Wilder and NHJ were cancelled. The pushback was enormous, but was it typical? After all, they are very high profile!
Cathy says yes, so how bad can the danger really be?
Invariably? Invariably academics rally to their Leftwing colleague under fire? Tell that to Nathan Jun, whose life this past year was absolutely annihilated. What, beyond a few supportive tweets, has any pundit Left, Right, or Center done on his behalf?
Suppose I said that Shor’s soft landing suggests that lower profile “dissident” libs have nothing to fear from the woke Left. How would you respond? I hope you’d respond in a similar fashion to this.
NHJ, Azarova, Shor, and Wilder are all extremely high profile or were well known within their particular profession at the time of their cancellation. That ought to affect how you evaluate the meaning of their respective fates. But be consistent about it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Thus, if we today sometimes have the sense that the practice of arguing within the bounds set by public reason is a chain on us, that it ties us to one sovereign perspective designed to prevent real controversies from erupting, that it restrains us from drawing upon our own 1/n
particular judgments, sentiments, and consciences when debating public affairs, or that it rests on fragile assumptions about what we unanimously accept–if we sometimes have these frustrations, one thing we can find in the study of Hobbes and his successors is an explanation. 2/n
These sources of frustration are not incidental or accidental by-products of the discourse of public reason. They are the intentional results of a well-thought-out early modern program of political thought, a program that explicitly aimed to quell controversy by having us...3/n
No, *this* below is not honest framing. You have to be off-the-wall mind-blowingly naive to think that the parent (I'll link to her comments in a second) is genuinely upset about pornographic material.
First, here's the actual text at issue. It's a 400+ page book and this is the sum total of the "anal sex scene". Which if you actually read it is clearly not an anal sex scene.
Maybe Wokal figured that out on his own. It would explain why he deleted this tweet and abruptly shifted his argument.
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.
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.