1. "In 2016, the Suzanne Rogers Fashion Institute (SRFI) opened with a $1 million donation from The Edward and Suzanne Rogers Foundation. . . . In past, the Rogers family has donated almost $34 million to various programs at Ryerson."
2. "On May 1, 2021, Suzanne Rogers, honorary patron of the Suzanne Rogers Fashion Institute, posted a photo of herself and her family with former U.S. president Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, as reported by Canadaland."
Despite the specificity of the rejection of the race report, the argument at play is more general and can be applied to other topics. My uni recently took a stand--in response to government directive, no less--that it will fully open and have face-to-face classes in September. 2/
I don't have to imagine it, I know that there is vigorous dissent amid faculty about this decision. What if I said: because the uni adopted this official stance towards opening, thereby accepting the nature of the pandemic as managed at that stage, this diminishes free speech. 3/
These days, reading drafts and commenting on them is time- and energy-consuming for me. There's burnout and loss of ability to focus at play. Also too much time sitting with screens looking at texts. So, I have to start from the premise that it costs me something to agree. 2/
My sense of equity in teaching dictates that if I agree to do it for one student, I have to present it as an offer for the other students as well. Not everyone thinks that way, others reward the initiative displayed by the students who request it. That's not my way, I guess. 3/
#EricKaufmann has some, what shall we call it--authoritarian?--idea for warning labels to be placed on some university courses. So students are foretold if they are to encounter material that anti-academic hacks indiscriminately call "CRT."
I, too, am eagerly awaiting the day when universities employ a syllabus inspektor to whom course materials must be submitted in time, and who will then put little red stamps beside course numbers where evidence of "CRT" subversiveness has been found.
Here is the top of the thread in which Kaufmann is responding. I put "CRT" in quotation marks because as soon as you're in a conversation where Chris Rufo is participating, you've got to distinguish his fever dream from the work of actual critical race scholars.
I have yet to be convinced that "cancel culture" is a workable concept. In the famous cases of cancellation from within academia, the public perception of cancellation comes often from the fact that there were very loud screams in social media networks: "this is cancel culture!"
The perception of cancellation is frequently not borne out when you look into the details of the actual cases. There were complaints. Administrators handled those complaints--perhaps imperfectly. If they didn't handle them perfectly, there is evidence of pushback.
Some complaints are dismissed, as they should be. Others have significant evidence behind them: an investigation ensues, and there will be a form of discipline. We will have to allow that sometimes universities rightfully terminate faculty, given evidence of serious misconduct.
K [sits quietly beside the old cenotaph, strokes her greying beard]
J [walks up confidently]: I hear this cenotaph is one of 70 that meet the criteria. It contains the cancellation, the intimidation, the mob letters, the petition!
K: Hello. Welcome. I have been here for a while. This cenotaph contains no such things. It has been thoroughly investigated. I have documented my own searches. Over there, in that box, are my notebooks. Have a look if you like. [returns to the posture of stroking her beard]
S [enters stage]: Ah! There have been more and more of these graves! Filled with dead bodies. Only efforts like the Harper's letter are slowing them down. It is not even about more graves and dead bodies, it is about the new culture of arbitrary mobs screaming for dead bodies!
A few days ago, in this thread on #EricKaufmann's #AcademicFreedom report, I thought I would let other points slide in favour of this point: that the upper end of this 7-18% of NA faculty who he says support academic freedom violations is inflated by bad survey design. 1/
But my mind gets stuck on certain issues sometimes and this time it kept reminding me of what I didn't elaborate. So here goes: the lower end of this figure of 7-18% of NA faculty is inflated, too, by the choices Kaufmann made in processing his survey results. Let me explain. 2/
Here are two of the questions that led to the 7% lower edge of that range. You'll note that half the participants were given option A and the other half option B (or so I presume). 3/
I would like to come to a place where those who keep espousing the principle of "only ever talk about the data, not about the people who handle it" change their tune, you know? Reputation matters. People who through past discussion have shown themselves more trustworthy. . .
. . . in their production of quantitative work and its interpretation tend to produce more trustworthy interpretations. It matters to know that and to talk about it.
This part is really important: “Mr. Galloway’s dismissal was also because of financial misconduct, dishonesty in the investigation of the complaint, alcohol consumption with students, and a previous instance of sexual relations with a student.”
Top of the report is a set of questions for which he received answers from 803 US scholars in social sciences & humanities. Here are questions 1-3 along with the graph representing the answers. In the report, the answer key is: 1. support, 2. oppose, 3. neither, 4. don't know. 2/
Participants were given 1 of 2 versions of each question with either students or admin campaigning. There is a difference between the two. We might question answers being lumped together into "students/the administration" as well as the very odd "find work elsewhere" phrasing. 3/
The question of whether academics who are Conservative/Republican-aligned in their political beliefs need more affirmative-action-style support to increase their numbers esp. within some research fields has been a hot one on Twitter lately. 1/
I watched this interview with #PeterBoghossian yesterday. He’s not the most mainstream character in this discussion; but he is working on his publicity and he is an active supporter of various organizations that push this idea. 2/
One point he made—I didn’t transcribe it—is that he thinks it’s hypocritical of the white president of his uni to make a statement against racism while not resigning his seat to hand it over to a BIPOC president. He also posted this recently. 3/
Below thread are my notes in #PeterBoghossian's words (marked with em-dash, sans commentary) from listening to this interview. I'll add only some comments (in square brackets) for issues pertinent to my work. 1/
-- Cognitive liberty is better than left, right dichotomies. Traditional categories don't apply. Two things:
-- 1) The cognitively liberal speak clearly & bluntly about evidence, discuss, converse without negative implication for truth-seeking. No reputational cost attached. 2/
-- 2) Correspondence theory of truth, there are truth and facts. There are better ways to move towards truth. 3/
University professor finds it mind-boggling that educational spaces are not public streets & squares and that those in charge of them have the mandate of safeguarding the educational mission, incl. by regulating offensive speech.
You say: “OK, where are you doing it? Show me. Send some links. I wanna see how you argued against racists yesterday. And against eugenicist the day before. Also against transphobes the day before that. Teach me your formidable arguments in action. Please. And thank you.” 2/
Would be cool if they could actually show me. So far, anyone I’ve asked hasn’t been able to offer anything. They’ve used the “we need to argue better against X!” demand as nothing more than a convenient shield for not facing up to racism/transphobia, others’ or their own. 3/