KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Antisemitism is not uncommon in most places in the US. There are some great places now where it's become more rare than before, but don't delude yourself, there's still an army of haters out there.

I just realized that the guy I quoted can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, so he's come up with opinions more convenient to his argument that he can write in for me.

SparkPeople posted:

Oh he's totally lashing out at a phantom, a lot of tenured professors in Political Science are. The field has tried to move into objectivity and comprehensive theory building since the 1970s (look at any publications back then, and note the incredible amount of effort put into analysis to maintain objectivity, particularly when it comes to case study analysis), but the recent cross over of sociology and gender studies have allowed Critical Theory and Post Modernism to become a mainstream method of analysis, stagnating a lot of work under the 'guise of creating a dialogue.

McAdams' publications and coursework focus on public policy, electoral analysis, and conspiracy debunking. His type of work is being sidelined for critical publications that create a dialogue, but don't get anything done. After reading his blog post I personally think he was using the incident as a jumping stone to criticize the current direction of Academia. I sympathize with his feelings, but he's absolutely wrong and unprofessional for taking a secret recording and using it.

Obdicut posted:

You're welcome. But seriously, if you were aware of the 'irony', then why say it in the first place? Bizarre anecdotal speculation isn't ever really worthwhile. If you look at course catalogs, journal publications, or any other data measure, there's really a very small amount of postmodernism in modern academia. Foucalt holds strong, most others are on the cutting room floor.

Poizen Jam posted:

Spark, I think you're really discounting the value of critical theory and post-positivism however. Going back to my previous comment, we can only use empirical evidence to justify or measure the effectiveness of a program after we decide on and state our goals. Before I started my PhD, I was a policy analyst for the Government of NL as well as the Primary Healthcare Research Unit, so I'm familiar with your gripes. Public policy research and empirical evidence are indeed incredibly important, but we have to make sure we're not putting the cart before the horse so to speak- we'll always need a sobering debate whether the direction of public policy is indeed the right direction. I think the opinion of post-positivists and critical theory thinkers is we need to step back and place more emphasis on this part of the process, even in the realm of political science and related fields. I think it's a worthwhile goal.

Empiricism can't decide whether the goal of the justice system ought to be 'retributive punishment for criminals', or 'make society safer'. It can tell us a lot about whether we're achieving those goals effectively and efficiently, however.

Main Paineframe posted:

Really? I didn't get that impression at all, not even a little bit. The terms he used in the blog post almost exclusively focused on political ideology (LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS) rather than academic analysis, and his later blog posts back that up. I really don't see how you're reading a criticism of academic styles from blog posts like "Message from the Liberals: Shut Up" and "How Do We Deal With Students Who Don't Accept 'Social Justice' Indoctrination?". Combined with some of his other unrelated blog posts, like "More Feminist Fascism In Academia", "Global Warming Alarmism: A Blast from the Past", " Missive From Provost: More Gay Indoctrination For Students, More Reeducation?", and " Environmental Naziism: Punish Politicians Who Don’t Accept Global Warming", not to mention his charming article about how horrible anti-harassment training is, I find it far more likely that he's just a really conservative shitheel, as opposed to this being some super meta criticism of academic dialogue style.

Poizen Jam posted:

Welp- I'm just about willing to disregard any point he may have had. Goddamn, that's an impressive resume of hate. Good job bringing that to light, Paineframe.

quote:

A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.

She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.

The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, and for a while, Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.

So far, this is the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.

But then things deteriorated.

Certain Opinions Banned
Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage? The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.

Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.

She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then invited the student to drop the class.

Which the student is doing.

Shutting People Up
Abbate, of course, was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed “offensive” and need to be shut up.

As Charles Krauthammer explained:

quote:

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Of course, only certain groups have the privilege of shutting up debate. Things thought to be “offensive” to gays, blacks, women and so on must be stifled. Further, it’s not considered necessary to actually find out what the group really thinks. “Women” are supposed to feel warred upon when somebody opposes abortion, but in he real world men and women are equally likely to oppose abortion.

The same is true of Obama’s contraception mandate.

But in the politically correct world of academia, one is supposed to assume that all victim groups think the same way as leftist professors.

The “Offended” Card
Groups not favored by leftist professors, of course, can be freely attacked, and their views (or supposed views) ridiculed. Christians and Muslims are not allowed to be “offended” by pro-gay comments.

(Muslims are a protected victim group in lots of other ways, but not this one.)

And it is a free fire zone where straight white males are concerned.

Student Seeks Redress
The student first complained to the office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and talked to an Associate Dean, one Suzanne Foster. Foster sent the student to the Chair of the Philosophy Department, saying that department chairs usually handle such cases. The chair, Nancy Show, pretty much blew off the issue.

Interestingly, both Snow and Foster have been involved in cases of politically correct attacks on free expression at Marquette.

Foster took offense when one of her colleagues referred to a dinner which happened to involve only female faculty as a “girls night out.” He was reprimanded by then department chair James South for “sexism,” but the reprimand was overturned by Marquette.

Snow, in a class on the “Philosophy of Crime and Punishment” tried to shut up a student who offered a response, from the perspective of police, to Snow’s comments about supposed “racial profiling.” The student said talk about racial profiling makes life hard for cops, since it may make minorities hostile and uncooperative.

Show tried to silence him, claiming “this is a diverse class.” This was an apparent reference to two black students in the class, who were, Snow assumed, likely offended on hearing that.

The majority of the class, contacted by The Marquette Warrior, felt the comments were reasonable and relevant, but Snow insisted that the student write an apology to the black students.

So how is a student to get vindication from University officials who hold the same intolerant views as Abbate?

Conclusion
Thus the student is dropping the class, and will have to take another Philosophy class in the future.

But this student is rather outspoken and assertive about his beliefs. That puts him among a small minority of Marquette students. How many students, especially in politically correct departments like Philosophy, simply stifle their disagreement, or worse yet get indoctrinated into the views of the instructor, since those are the only ideas allowed, and no alternative views are aired?

Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.

SparkPeople posted:

Second, I've never looked to critical theory for direction when it came to public policy goals because it is...critical of the idea of objectivity. Generally public policy tries to create the largest amount of social good in it's given areas. I don't think critical theory can ascertain whether or not it's right to give out the flu shot every year. For example the justice system's goal is to make society safer, and it does so by making sure criminals don't recommit crimes. This can be done by a) Killing every criminal or b) rehabilitating criminals. A is expensive, and yields less overall benefit to society than b) which does the same thing, but gives us citizens who participate economically (by working and paying taxes).

Obdicut posted:

Claiming the goal of the justice system is to make society safer is a huge, gigantic assumption, and is also not the least bit objective. Your criticisms aren't very coherent.

Why isn't the purpose of the justice system to establish what deviant behavior is and punish it when it goes beyond a certain limit? What do you mean by 'safer'? etc.


Basically, what Poizen is saying.

Jagchosis posted:

considering that schools pay up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for high profile speakers, particularly at commencement, and this money is coming from tuition students should have a say in whether or not they want their money to go to loving monsters like phyllis schaffly.

and no, theimmigrant, it is not different with state schools, because there is no first amendment right to pay people tens of thousands of dollars to spew bile. or to waste school resources to provide a stage for them to speak bile. this is not hard.

The Snark posted:

And better.

I am inclined to believe that while the justice system could potentially be used for the purpose of defining and punishing deviant behavior the problem is that 'deviant behavior' is a damned dangerous thing to make punishable legally. Deviant behavior can mean many things to many people, or only mean those things when they want it do.

Omi-Polari posted:

Not to dismiss racism or homophobia, but the barriers for when a slight becomes a cause are higher outside the campus than inside. I'm a gay twink boy and was driving in my cute import and some guy shouted at me "cocksucker!" And I was pissed about that for a few minutes, but the most you can do is shout back and tell the guy he's a prick and can go gently caress himself, and you go about your day.

Obdicut posted:

Again, your schtick is boring and stupid. If this is really your honest posting style than I'm sorry, I don't know what to say.

Defining deviant behavior is one of the standard models of criminology; it is one perspective to look at the purpose of the justice system. Whatever the justice system is intended to be, it is always also an instrument that defines deviance.

The Snark posted:

The guy is conservative and surely wrong on more than one point, but that doesn't mean he's entirely wrong.

SedanChair posted:

No, it super does.

The Snark posted:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.fi/

Those who haven't actually looked at the blog, like I didn't initially (That was my mistake having missed the link, and would have addressed it sooner had it not been for the probation.) would probably benefit from doing so rather than relying on others to interpret it for them.

The guy is conservative and surely wrong on more than one point, but that doesn't mean he's entirely wrong.

"Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally." He's not talking about Conservatives doing this, and there are people who are approaching controversial topics this way.

All in all, I would hope we could at least agree on the wise words of John Cleese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

The Snark posted:

Anyone who is wrong about anything is wrong about everything except cake baking maybe.

SedanChair posted:

No, conservatism specifically is an Amtrak ticket out of the World of Ideas.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

This is a guy who uses 'lesbian' as an insult, I don't think he has any serious points except

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

I don't know why you keep defending this guy and his actions. How does bullying a graduate student do anything other than try and marginalize and shun her, and destroy her personally and professionally? He might not be talking about conservatives doing this, but he's doing it to someone that has done nothing wrong. If he actually cared about the values he professes to care about he shouldn't have done anything here.

This is a guy who uses 'lesbian' as an insult, I don't think he has any serious points except

The Snark posted:

Yes, I suppose my schtick is out of fashion, creating imaginary quotes is all the rage. I think it's a bit late to join in and as a genuine tool of discussion it is a useless crutch that will make you look something like you've been huffing spraypaint outside of an echo chamber but what the hell.

"I believe the justice system should exist to purge deviants, specifically the ones who disagree with people for political or philosophical reasons- but not me because I'm always right when I disagree."

I'll work on it.

The Snark posted:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.fi/

Those who haven't actually looked at the blog, like I didn't initially (That was my mistake having missed the link, and would have addressed it sooner had it not been for the probation.) would probably benefit from doing so rather than relying on others to interpret it for them.

The guy is conservative and surely wrong on more than one point, but that doesn't mean he's entirely wrong.

"Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally." He's not talking about Conservatives doing this, and there are people who are approaching controversial topics this way.

All in all, I would hope we could at least agree on the wise words of John Cleese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

quote:

Further, there is a difference between letting some ideological bias show and creating a hostile learning environment for students who disagree with the professor. The latter is an abuse.

 A related issue is whether the professor feels free to offer all sorts of political opinions unrelated to the subject matter. The classic canons of academic freedom protect the right of a professor to say what he or she wants in the classroom only when discussing the course material, and expressing scholarly opinions. Stray irrelevant political observations are not protected.

Of course, this distinction is largely unenforceable, but it’s still the case that spewing stray political opinions is an abuse.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Seriously, even if Mr. Archie Bunker there has some kind of valuble ideas hidden somewhere in the heap of festering feces that is his mind there are certainly other non-total shitheel people who have the same ideas and can articulate them. So why shouldn't we dismiss the dude yelling about the homomarxist liberals? It's not like we're at risk of losing some kind of unique insights here.

The Snark posted:

Aha! A very good question! Because you COULD be wrong.

Main Paineframe posted:

Main Paineframe posted:

I'd argue that he seems quite happy to marginalize his opponents. Sure, he's all for the free speech rights of a professor who made a "flippant, innocent" comment in class about gunning down specific students he didn't like (all part of the political correctness conspiracy to punish the free speech out those who don't comply with leftist orthodoxy, you see), and he relies heavily on weasel words and sarcasm to cushion his statements, but he doesn't have any problem trying to quash speech he disagrees with. He's blogged about his efforts to block feminist and anti-Israel events and has successfully gotten the school to remove its sponsorship of those events. He also calls out teachers who say dare to criticize Israel in class. After all, let's look at what he wrote almost exactly one year ago when an Arab and Muslim Studies teacher criticized Israel and the Tea Party, and (in a separate incident) suggested that school vouchers and Scott Walker were both poo poo:

VitalSigns posted:

How come universities don't allow KKK rallies? Is it because liberals are afraid they could be wrong? Hmmm? Hmmmmmmmm?


Ahahahaha, of course. Of course.

"Look some people are subhuman and just don't get rights! Now sack up and accept this red-white-and-blue truth missiles I'm laying on all you dykes and faggots who are a cancer eating away our proud nation!... Oh my God, a professor just criticized apartheid, I'm being abused, someone save me! Hostile learning environment!! "

Poizen Jam posted:

So Snark, do you think the cultural shift regarding how inappropriate it is to say 'fag' or 'friend of the family', and the subsequent shouting down and shaming of anyone stupid enough to openly express their bigotry, has played a role in creating environments and a culture where oppressed minorities can actually learn and express their own opinions? Because a lot of these changes came about specifically because of top-down policies like hate speech laws or speech codes at university.

VitalSigns posted:

Truly what a horrible dystopic liberal nightmare-world it would be if gay people could go about their lives without having abuse hurled at them in the street and having to fear it may be a prelude to violence. We must stop this by never ever requiring bigots who want to attend schools with other human beings to treat their classmates with respect and dignity, maybe the viewpoint that niggers and faggots are subhuman is a valuable insight that we'd all benefit from hearing all day every day on our way to class. You came to college to get your views that maybe we're all human beings with dignity challenged after all, right?

But idk, maybe I'm biased because as a teenager in Kansas and Oklahoma, anti-gay slurs from passing cars were often followed by flying cans and glass bottles.

The Snark posted:

Anyone who disagrees with my beliefs is pro, or even directly part of an extremist organization that is officially a hate group and responsible for uncounted deaths. Let me tell you what this awful person believes and how they themselves respond to criticism, which is entirely unlike how we right people would.

VitalSigns posted:

Oh no, see the KKK is a hate group that believes gays are subhuman while you see I am just an innocent well-meaning conservative who believes gays are subhuman.

The Snark posted:

Yes! And that is a good, nay, GREAT thing. HOWEVER, neither disagreement, criticism nor even mere whining is the equivalent of hate speech.

The Snark posted:

Let me tell you what this person really believes! It's JUST LIKE what the extremist hate group believes! My knowledge of this is divinely bestowed and beyond question.

The Snark posted:

See, it's the casual dismissal of any possible point I am taking issue with. Additionally the fact that he really isn't doing anything more than disagreeing and complaining. That's almost certainly not going to destroy her, there is no case for it. Hyperbole is what I have come to hate from either direction, I spend entirely too much time putting it down from people who are rather far right as well.

Also you say if he cared about the values he professes to care about he shouldn't have done anything, as if acting the way he has means he's faking concern for those values.

It's a strange claim to make. He might be defending them in a backwards fashion, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have values. People here have been upholding values in incredibly backward ways, but that doesn't mean they aren't sincere. Just that they suck in their approach.

Also there are plenty of people who would fit that comic just as spectacularly by swapping 'liberals' out with 'conservatives' and quite possibly 'X'.

Poizen Jam posted:

So Snark, do you think the cultural shift regarding how inappropriate it is to say 'fag' or 'friend of the family', and the subsequent shouting down and shaming of anyone stupid enough to openly express their bigotry, has played a role in creating environments and a culture where oppressed minorities can actually learn and express their own opinions? Because a lot of these changes came about specifically because of top-down policies like hate speech laws and speech codes at university.

I think it's naive to believe those top-down influences didn't have an effect in shifting the cultural overton window. And I strongly suspect without them, many bigots would have had free reign to continue expressing their bigotry, and as such it creates a culture where it's tacitly accepted and spreads more easily.

So from a practical standpoint, do you think they have had a positive effect? Or do you think unrestrained freedom and speech would have allowed us to get where we are?

quote:

"Defenders of speech codes will often invoke nightmare scenarios of minority students chased off campus by mobs of bigots shouting racial slurs. These hypothetical examples often include speech that is not constitutionally protected; such as true threats, stalking, or vandalism. In reality the way speech codes are implemented often bears no resemblance to such horror stories, many cases involve nothing more serious then mockery of the university or the administration.
Conjuring up scary scenarios to justify speech codes allows administrators to manipulate the emotions of goodhearted students, professors, and other administrators to support speech codes that have little to do with "hate speech".

When I was speaking at a conference of administrators several years ago one of them angerly asked me 'So there's nothing that can be done to prevent a students calling another the n-word?' This administrator saw anything short of punishment as doing nothing. My response was that political correctness as a cultural phenomenon has been incredibly successful; even back when I graduated from Stanford in 2000 anyone using a racial epithet would have been rightly vilified as a bigot. That is how change should come about in a free society, through cultural shifts, not coercion or enforced silence"