Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) what, if anything, do big-time college athletics depts., and pro sports leagues, do, in the way of counseling out those athletes who are not going to stick long-term in the pros?

2) obviously we cannot actually compare being a grad student today, seeking a career as a professor, with one thirty years ago who was reading all the 'imminent professor shortage' stuff, but it does still remain the case that these young people have not really been given adequate information, are often being taught by aging professors who, stunningly, do not  seem to know contemporary realities either, and that they have been raised from a very young age to be schoolish, academic-oriented, and thus have been set on the 'professor' training path, often to the exclusion of more or less any other serious career options.

[mahagonny]

Random points:

1) what, if anything, do big-time college athletics depts., and pro sports leagues, do, in the way of counseling out those athletes who are not going to stick long-term in the pros?

2) obviously we cannot actually compare being a grad student today, seeking a career as a professor, with one thirty years ago who was reading all the 'imminent professor shortage' stuff, but it does still remain the case that these young people have not really been given adequate information, are often being taught by aging professors who, stunningly, do not  seem to know contemporary realities either, and that they have been raised from a very young age to be schoolish, academic-oriented, and thus have been set on the 'professor' training path, often to the exclusion of more or less any other serious career options.

The general theme here appears to be that higher education today exists mostly for the purpose of providing a good living to the people working in it who have landed the real jobs. To use an unpleasant word, a racket.

[kaysixteen]

Well, 'racket' may be a strong word, but there ain't no doubt that many aging professors have for, ahem, many years, not been exactly scrupulous adherents to the 9th commandment, when it comes to advising young adults about the academic career path and its prospects.

[mahagonny]

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It has been said of Ibram X. Kendi that instead of engaging with arguments his strategy is to stigmatize them. She took it to a whole new level, infantile lashing out. Shaking my head trying to figure out how a poorly socialized non-PHD zero peer reviewed writer gets her pick of tenure-on-arrival positions.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/24/nikole-hannah-jones-hates-you/

Well, 'racket' may be a strong word, but there ain't no doubt that many aging professors have for, ahem, many years, not been exactly scrupulous adherents to the 9th commandment, when it comes to advising young adults about the academic career path and its prospects.

Indeed.

[Diogenes]

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

[marshwiggle]

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

Not as a journalist, perhaps, but as someone hired for an academic post in some history-adjacent field, an accusation of being "anti-historical" is a serious criticism. (Especially if it's an accusation that is made by academics as well.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

[marshwiggle]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

[Sun_Worshiper]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

[marshwiggle]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

Glad you acknowledge that conservative outrage about "cancel culture" is a charade.

[marshwiggle]

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

Glad you acknowledge that conservative outrage about "cancel culture" is a charade.

As I've consistently stated, I'm a moderate. The extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are exasperating and dangerous.

[mahagonny]

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

If it's an absurd claim she should be able to explain how so. And since her 'groundbreaking work' was proposed as criteria for government grants, and changes to public school curriculum, she owes the public a strong defense of this basis for overhauling public education. Not to mention the lay public agrees with Megyn Kelly much more than with NHJ.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

The tenure committee did a crappy job assessing her scholarship because they got all excited about the potential added visibility to their school. It's the board who caved in to pressure. The white guilt bully.
There was no cancelling to begin with. She would have had five years at $180K per, and then tenure after that. Unless she made a total fool of herself in the meantime, which appears quite possible.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

If it's an absurd claim she should be able to explain how so. And since her 'groundbreaking work' was proposed as criteria for government grants, and changes to public school curriculum, she owes the public a strong defense of this basis for overhauling public education. Not to mention the lay public agrees with Megyn Kelly much more than with NHJ.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

The tenure committee did a crappy job assessing her scholarship because they got all excited about the potential added visibility to their school. It's the board who caved in to pressure. The white guilt bully.
There was no cancelling to begin with. She would have had five years at $180K per, and then tenure after that. Unless she made a total fool of herself in the meantime, which appears quite possible.

Lol. Mahagonny, what would you know about assessing someone for tenure or evaluating scholarship?

And feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

[dismalist]

I don't see what the hubub is about in cancellation and purportedly questionable hiring t or by institutions of higher learning -- so long as there is freedom of choice and competition. A speaker who is cancelled at college A may well be invited to speak at college B or C. A person denied tenure at college X may well receive it at college Y.

Classical liberalism allows just that, which may make the situation hopeless, however.

[Classical] Liberalism – it is well to recall today – is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet. It announces the determination to share existence with the enemy; more than that, with an enemy which is weak. It was incredible that the human species should have arrived at so noble an attitude, so paradoxical, so refined, so anti-natural. Hence it is not to be wondered that this same humanity should soon appear anxious to get rid of it. It is a discipline too difficult and complex to take firm root on earth.

--Ortega, 1932.