What is your opinion of the allegedly anonymous letter from a UCB History prof?

[ScaredAdjunct]

I specialize in a part of history wherein what you said tragically happened.

OK, given that, I understand your point in posting better, and rescind my projected opinion above (NB: things like that do happen here from time to time),

(I also refute the proferred affirmation of its accuracy by the poster at 20:28:16.)

OP: Is your moniker tied to the situation itself?

As in, are you feeling threatened in some particular way by the letter's contents or existence?

I'm sorry if that's the case. That's a very hard thing to deal with.

M.

Well, yes, I've been feeling the authoritarian campus culture for several years time already, but after reading the letter, I strongly, strongly feel an ideological shit storm is coming—the accepted orthodoxy industry-wide. Like many of you already said, there're flaws in the arguments, no doubt, but the letter is right about that there's no room for discussion these days. Last semester, I taught a diversity topic. I suggested two perspectives for the students to compare and contrast with some supporting materials. One perspective is a historical revisionist perspective. One is an extremely progressive, orthodox perspective. As it turned out, the majority of the students understood the topic as your regular wokest Tumblr users and hated the contrary historical evidence. I noticed the language students used was spiteful and their assertions didn't even make sense (think something like "we have to ban so-and-so from ever writing those things again" while so-and-so is an American, like everyone else, with the first amendment right).  Last night, I limited the past students to only some of my course materials on our LMS because I am honestly scared one day some overzealous students would retrieve the historical evidence I taught and destroy my life if even a tenured professor dared not sign a letter of dissent. 

I am so relieved I don't have to teach the same class again. I don't ever want to teach controversies anymore. Adjuncts have no academic freedom, and never will. We shouldn't have to risk our teaching evaluations, reputation and personal safety during tumultuous times if we have no hope of getting tenure. This applies especially to adjuncts under the historically teaching-evaluation-devalued categories, e.g., women, nonwhite, unattractive, speaking with an accent, etc.

Someone please tell me I'm just being paranoid. 

[ScaredAdjunct]

The letter is well written, and it certainly would be dangerous for somone to own, but unless UCB History has a bunch of faculty members of colour, it would be too easy for the writer to be outed if it were actually someone from that department. I'd guess from some nearby department, faculty, or institution to get a degree or two more of safety.

It definitely sounds like an academic though.

Even if the letter isn't real, the condemning of it by the UCB History Department is almost certainly from the tenured faculty, who may not even know what the untenured or never-to-be-tenured teaching faculty think of the situation, yet purport to speak for them. If that is the case then the department does not value diversity of opinion as they aren't making use of the diversity they already have. Adjuncts are slightly less liberal than the tenured by the way.

You are the only person I hear even hinting that adjuncts are a part of a department. I have adjuncted in different places and have never been a part of the conversation. That said, my tenured bosses are all very lovely people. It's just that we are invisible and ephemeral. 

[Katrina Gulliver]

As others have noted, there's no way it's from a TT/Tenured prof at Berkeley history. There are only a couple of African American profs in the dept: too short a list to plausibly maintain anonymity.
My best guesses: adjunct/postdoc/grad student at UCB; history prof NOT at UCB, but at a similar institution.

[downer]

I am so relieved I don't have to teach the same class again. I don't ever want to teach controversies anymore. Adjuncts have no academic freedom, and never will. We shouldn't have to risk our teaching evaluations, reputation and personal safety during tumultuous times if we have no hope of getting tenure. This applies especially to adjuncts under the historically teaching-evaluation-devalued categories, e.g., women, nonwhite, unattractive, speaking with an accent, etc.

Someone please tell me I'm just being paranoid.

You do certainly sound paranoid. You are scared of your students. You don't say anything about concerns expressed by the administration or dept chair regarding your teaching.

I work as an adjunct these days. I teach controversial topics in all of my courses. I get students to read and discuss opinions that people find problematic. Sometimes students have strong reactions, though it is surprisingly rare. Most of them just want to get the grade they want. I've never had any pushback from a chair or dean about anything on my syllabus.

That's not to say that there is no progressive 'groupthink' in some academic circles. I do have opinions that I have to be careful about expressing, say on Facebook, because it could cause problems for me, or at least get me into scuffles. I generally think that worries about academic freedom are overblown. All sorts of opinions get expressed in academic circles, both on the right and left (if those labels mean anything these days), and while there is some risk in expressing some opinions, that's part of the point. You have to be ready to get into a fight and to choose sides if you want to get into those debates. Often I prefer to have an easy life.

UCB may be a special case -- it does have a particularly strong reputation of progressivism. I don't know if that letter is real or not, but is is plausible enough. It seems that the author wants to express unpopular opinions without having a fight about it. That's not how it works with unpopular opinions.

[mahagonny]

I am so relieved I don't have to teach the same class again. I don't ever want to teach controversies anymore. Adjuncts have no academic freedom, and never will. We shouldn't have to risk our teaching evaluations, reputation and personal safety during tumultuous times if we have no hope of getting tenure. This applies especially to adjuncts under the historically teaching-evaluation-devalued categories, e.g., women, nonwhite, unattractive, speaking with an accent, etc.

Someone please tell me I'm just being paranoid.

You do certainly sound paranoid. You are scared of your students. You don't say anything about concerns expressed by the administration or dept chair regarding your teaching.

I work as an adjunct these days. I teach controversial topics in all of my courses. I get students to read and discuss opinions that people find problematic. Sometimes students have strong reactions, though it is surprisingly rare. Most of them just want to get the grade they want. I've never had any pushback from a chair or dean about anything on my syllabus.

That's not to say that there is no progressive 'groupthink' in some academic circles. I do have opinions that I have to be careful about expressing, say on Facebook, because it could cause problems for me, or at least get me into scuffles. I generally think that worries about academic freedom are overblown. All sorts of opinions get expressed in academic circles, both on the right and left (if those labels mean anything these days), and while there is some risk in expressing some opinions, that's part of the point. You have to be ready to get into a fight and to choose sides if you want to get into those debates. Often I prefer to have an easy life.

UCB may be a special case -- it does have a particularly strong reputation of progressivism. I don't know if that letter is real or not, but is is plausible enough. It seems that the author wants to express unpopular opinions without having a fight about it. That's not how it works with unpopular opinions.

For example, in my experience you can have unpopular opinions as an adjunct , express them and let the students see who you are, and there can be tenured people who hate what you represent intellectually or artistically (even with a smattering of understanding it), and then enjoy keeping you around, as it fortifies their status as special people to be able to snipe behind your back to their students, their colleagues and even the press, with the comfort of  never having to face you in a meeting. So if that's the situation, be yourself.

You are the only person I hear even hinting that adjuncts are a part of a department. I have adjuncted in different places and have never been a part of the conversation. That said, my tenured bosses are all very lovely people. It's just that we are invisible and ephemeral.

Well, they're lovely people who waste their opportunity to learn from you. Which is normal in academia, and gives lie to their seeing themselves as interested in diversity.

[marshwiggle]

That's not to say that there is no progressive 'groupthink' in some academic circles. I do have opinions that I have to be careful about expressing, say on Facebook, because it could cause problems for me, or at least get me into scuffles. I generally think that worries about academic freedom are overblown. All sorts of opinions get expressed in academic circles, both on the right and left (if those labels mean anything these days), and while there is some risk in expressing some opinions, that's part of the point. You have to be ready to get into a fight and to choose sides if you want to get into those debates. Often I prefer to have an easy life.

UCB may be a special case -- it does have a particularly strong reputation of progressivism. I don't know if that letter is real or not, but is is plausible enough. It seems that the author wants to express unpopular opinions without having a fight about it. That's not how it works with unpopular opinions.

The difference in many discussions these days, is that, even in academia, they are not "academic". It is traditional for academics to argue about theories, interpretations of facts, methods, etc., but the underlying debate is really about who is the most competent professionally. In the current climate, the culture within academia has shifted so that the underlying debate is about the character of the person expressing the idea. So it's not the kind of opposition that says "you haven't been careful enough in your thinking"; rather it says "Only a bad person would say such a thing."

That's what makes it a toxic environment.

[mahagonny]

Colleagues, (sorry if this has been discussed; I don't see it) the following letter is circulated on Twitter, allegedly from a UCB History prof. I am not familiar with Tom Sowell's work, and Wilfred Reilly's interview on Fox News makes me very uncomfortable, but regardless of the letter's choice of quotations, I'm afraid the orthodoxy it addresses is very real as in the mob lynchings and cancel culture online and offline. Your thoughts (especially from the historians)?  Is it written by someone like Candace Owens or is it possibly real?

Not Candace Owens. She does not creep around. She likes to be conspicuous. And while I don't agree with everything she says and writes I don't think she'd lie about something like that.

[mahagonny]

I read about the first half of it, then started to glaze over. The writer does not know their social science on the topics they're talking about: for example, you wouldn't sincerely go on about differences in crime rates between racial groups without knowing that these differences are mainly attributable to economic resources, and thus racism really is the root of the problem (there is a vast literature in the social sciences and history on how White folks have plundered Black folks in the United States). It's a garbage argument, though I am uncomfortable with (presumably tenured) academics being fired for speaking their minds.

Wow, first time I've ever seen white capitalized.

[mahagonny]

I read about the first half of it, then started to glaze over. The writer does not know their social science on the topics they're talking about: for example, you wouldn't sincerely go on about differences in crime rates between racial groups without knowing that these differences are mainly attributable to economic resources, and thus racism really is the root of the problem (there is a vast literature in the social sciences and history on how White folks have plundered Black folks in the United States). It's a garbage argument, though I am uncomfortable with (presumably tenured) academics being fired for speaking their minds.

Wow, first time I've ever seen white capitalized.

The difference in many discussions these days, is that, even in academia, they are not "academic". It is traditional for academics to argue about theories, interpretations of facts, methods, etc., but the underlying debate is really about who is the most competent professionally

right, that's why someone dismisses the writer....'they don't know their social science.' Whereas they are making the same points that Glenn Loury or John McWhorter would.

[writingprof]

(I also refute the proferred affirmation of its accuracy by the poster at 20:28:16.)

This is a reference to me, in case anyone's wondering.  Because I am Voldemort*, Mamselle cannot say my name.

*a character in the Harry Potter series by cancelled transphobic author J. K. Rowling

[pigou]

My take is that the writer misses that the purpose of these communications is performative, not deliberative.

Universities (and companies) love the sociological perspective of inequality. If we're all part of a racist/supremacist system, then none of us are at fault -- even the perpetrators! And not being at fault means you can't get sued. But broadly, this is the easiest one to (pretend to) address: send out emails validating some ideological positions and pledging to do something unspecified in the future. Perhaps organize a panel that will be staffed by people of color and women, burdening them with yet another non-promotable task. Costs pretty much nothing (nobody who values their time will attend). Probably won't even have an open bar reception after.

Recognizing individual-level factors gets tricky. At the level of "unconscious bias" it's again fine -- which is why unconscious bias training has taken off everywhere. If it's just a thing of human nature, you can't get sued over it. It's worse because you actually have to pay for it. But the latest round we've been mandated to do consists entirely of watching videos. I couldn't tell you what the videos are about, because everyone I've talked to just played them on mute in the background while doing actual work. But some consulting company is getting paid and so the annual email can announce that something was done. (And we can all act surprised when the climate surveys find no improvement! Despite all those efforts! I guess it's a systemic problem and we're helpless!)

Recognizing individual contributions? Pretty much out. We're comfortable discussing how POC college-graduates earn less than Whites and Asians, but we stay superficially at "racism." Selecting into different majors? Selecting into different industries (non-profit vs. finance, say)? That gets uncomfortably close to blaming the victim. And, more importantly, it might actually cost money to do something about why this self-selection occurs. What a shock(!) that inequality in educational resources starting from pre-K and persisting through K-12 end up affecting earnings after graduation!! (But let's not take money from our fancy suburban school district. And definitely let's not accept people from failing school districts into ours.)

The systemic white supremacism/racism narrative is somewhat undermined by the outcomes of Indians and East Asians. For similar reason, racial conflict between Black and Asian communities, for example, doesn't get much attention in the press. In fact, open discrimination against Asians is pretty socially acceptable. If the purpose of speech now were deliberative, all of this would be part of a broader conversation. But since the purpose is performative, it doesn't need to be: everyone's incentives are to keep the story simple and signal being on the "right" side of things. Complexity and ambiguity are bad, because without an obviously right side, you can't signal to everyone how you are on that right side.

Which is really just frustrating for two groups: those who want actual, real change and those who mistakenly believe the purpose is deliberative and who are worried because they don't see any deliberation. This writer may be the rare intersection of those two groups.

[ScaredAdjunct]

I am so relieved I don't have to teach the same class again. I don't ever want to teach controversies anymore. Adjuncts have no academic freedom, and never will. We shouldn't have to risk our teaching evaluations, reputation and personal safety during tumultuous times if we have no hope of getting tenure. This applies especially to adjuncts under the historically teaching-evaluation-devalued categories, e.g., women, nonwhite, unattractive, speaking with an accent, etc.

Someone please tell me I'm just being paranoid.

You do certainly sound paranoid. You are scared of your students. You don't say anything about concerns expressed by the administration or dept chair regarding your teaching.

I work as an adjunct these days. I teach controversial topics in all of my courses. I get students to read and discuss opinions that people find problematic. Sometimes students have strong reactions, though it is surprisingly rare. Most of them just want to get the grade they want. I've never had any pushback from a chair or dean about anything on my syllabus.

That's not to say that there is no progressive 'groupthink' in some academic circles. I do have opinions that I have to be careful about expressing, say on Facebook, because it could cause problems for me, or at least get me into scuffles. I generally think that worries about academic freedom are overblown. All sorts of opinions get expressed in academic circles, both on the right and left (if those labels mean anything these days), and while there is some risk in expressing some opinions, that's part of the point. You have to be ready to get into a fight and to choose sides if you want to get into those debates. Often I prefer to have an easy life.

UCB may be a special case -- it does have a particularly strong reputation of progressivism. I don't know if that letter is real or not, but is is plausible enough. It seems that the author wants to express unpopular opinions without having a fight about it. That's not how it works with unpopular opinions.

You can't expect everyone to fight if they are not on an equal footing. Of course I will play if I won't lose my job, reputation and safety, with teaching evaluations, for not being liked by orthodox students, female, nonwhite, unattractive, and speaking with an accent, etc., but I may. Expecting a lightweight boxer to be ready to get into a fight with a heavyweight boxer is not how it works with fair play.

I do work in a UCB equivalent in terms of progressivist undertakings. I have worked in a much more relaxed environment where nobody cares about anything other than credits and grades. That's when I enjoy being a professor, because I can actually do my job and help them get what they want (without worrying about losing everything for teaching a book or an article written by someone who has the audacity to challenge the norm). 

One interesting takeaway from my experience is that paradoxically, my progressive school is an elite school full of students from impressive cultural backgrounds, and my relaxed school is an ordinary (but good) school with mostly underprivileged young people working a full-time job while trying to maintain a 4.0 GPA whom the anti-racist movement is supposed to be about. If this kind of discursive dominance is not white supremacy, I don't know what is. 

[marshwiggle]

My take is that the writer misses that the purpose of these communications is performative, not deliberative.

Universities (and companies) love the sociological perspective of inequality. If we're all part of a racist/supremacist system, then none of us are at fault -- even the perpetrators! And not being at fault means you can't get sued. But broadly, this is the easiest one to (pretend to) address: send out emails validating some ideological positions and pledging to do something unspecified in the future. Perhaps organize a panel that will be staffed by people of color and women, burdening them with yet another non-promotable task. Costs pretty much nothing (nobody who values their time will attend). Probably won't even have an open bar reception after.

Don't they know what it takes to get buy-in?

(Answer at about 4:20.)

Recognizing individual-level factors gets tricky. At the level of "unconscious bias" it's again fine -- which is why unconscious bias training has taken off everywhere. If it's just a thing of human nature, you can't get sued over it. It's worse because you actually have to pay for it. But the latest round we've been mandated to do consists entirely of watching videos. I couldn't tell you what the videos are about, because everyone I've talked to just played them on mute in the background while doing actual work. But some consulting company is getting paid and so the annual email can announce that something was done. (And we can all act surprised when the climate surveys find no improvement! Despite all those efforts! I guess it's a systemic problem and we're helpless!)

Recognizing individual contributions? Pretty much out. We're comfortable discussing how POC college-graduates earn less than Whites and Asians, but we stay superficially at "racism." Selecting into different majors? Selecting into different industries (non-profit vs. finance, say)? That gets uncomfortably close to blaming the victim. And, more importantly, it might actually cost money to do something about why this self-selection occurs. What a shock(!) that inequality in educational resources starting from pre-K and persisting through K-12 end up affecting earnings after graduation!! (But let's not take money from our fancy suburban school district. And definitely let's not accept people from failing school districts into ours.)

The systemic white supremacism/racism narrative is somewhat undermined by the outcomes of Indians and East Asians.

Don't forget Nigerian Americans.

For similar reason, racial conflict between Black and Asian communities, for example, doesn't get much attention in the press. In fact, open discrimination against Asians is pretty socially acceptable. If the purpose of speech now were deliberative, all of this would be part of a broader conversation. But since the purpose is performative, it doesn't need to be: everyone's incentives are to keep the story simple and signal being on the "right" side of things. Complexity and ambiguity are bad, because without an obviously right side, you can't signal to everyone how you are on that right side.

Which is really just frustrating for two groups: those who want actual, real change and those who mistakenly believe the purpose is deliberative and who are worried because they don't see any deliberation. This writer may be the rare intersection of those two groups.

[downer]

One interesting takeaway from my experience is that paradoxically, my progressive school is an elite school full of students from impressive cultural backgrounds, and my relaxed school is an ordinary (but good) school with mostly underprivileged young people working a full-time job while trying to maintain a 4.0 GPA whom the anti-racist movement is supposed to be about. If this kind of discursive dominance is not white supremacy, I don't know what is.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but I see you use the phrase "white supremacy" to describe the place you are in. Maybe you are a BLM advocate.

What do you want? If you want to be able to advocate for your views, get a tenure-track job and then get tenure. Or better, get a non-academic job where they don't care about your political views, and advocate as freely as you want. But you seem to want to be able to advocate for unpopular views right now, when you have zero job security. That just seems like wishful thinking.

Of course, you could just set up a blog under a pseudonym and then write whatever you want. Or you can post here.

[ScaredAdjunct]

One interesting takeaway from my experience is that paradoxically, my progressive school is an elite school full of students from impressive cultural backgrounds, and my relaxed school is an ordinary (but good) school with mostly underprivileged young people working a full-time job while trying to maintain a 4.0 GPA whom the anti-racist movement is supposed to be about. If this kind of discursive dominance is not white supremacy, I don't know what is.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but I see you use the phrase "white supremacy" to describe the place you are in. Maybe you are a BLM advocate.

What do you want? If you want to be able to advocate for your views, get a tenure-track job and then get tenure. Or better, get a non-academic job where they don't care about your political views, and advocate as freely as you want. But you seem to want to be able to advocate for unpopular views right now, when you have zero job security. That just seems like wishful thinking.

Of course, you could just set up a blog under a pseudonym and then write whatever you want. Or you can post here.

What I meant was that ironically, an economically and culturally dominant group appropriating a movement supposedly serving the dominated groups further demonstrates white supremacy (despite the anti-white-supremacist assertion of the movement). I don't think my identifying white supremacy necessarily entails my position towards BLM. There have been many cultural positions against white supremacy. Some emerged long before the formation of BLM.

I thought this forum is about "perspectives relating to the state of higher education." I am discussing the orthodoxy in the academia partly resulted from the current academic employment systems (of adjunctification, hiring, promotion, etc.) (I'm sorry if it isn't clear; sometimes to circle down what I really want to say, it takes others' intelligent feedback, for which I'm very thankful.) Is it wishful thinking to discuss a systemic issue without personally being in an authoritative position to overcome it? Systematic issues are issues only resolvable by a lot of people. The idea of overcoming a systematic issue by an isolated participant sounds like an oxymoron.