University of Chicago loyalty oaths? Newsweek

[polly_mer]

https://www.newsweek.com/university-chicago-requiring-loyalty-oaths-its-faculty-opinion-1532685

[dismalist]

It's McCartyism, of course. What is little realized is that McCarty's visions were not government policy or government imposed, but rather free choice to accept, including especially by some universities.

I have little problem with this so long as the ability of other universities to compete is safeguarded.

Charlie Darwin will take care of all things. :-)

[financeguy]

Whenever I saw I Chicago resume in the past, I always thought very highly of the education the person must have attained since the institution has had a reputation for being fact/evidence driven and less susceptible to fashion that other similarly ranked schools. I remember hearing Sowell talk about his time as an Econ Ph.D. student and how the general attitude on campus varied so widely from his experience at Harvard where things were "assumed to be true because we fine men all believed it, but at Chicago you better have some evidence and be prepared to defend your views."

Obviously any English department will be more susceptible to fluff no matter where housed than any science field. This is after all the discipline that brought Critical Theory into prominence in the 80s by totally abdicating the study of the actual discipline for a politically advantageous field-wide tangent. But Chicago? Isn't their brand the "hard ass, no fun, just the facts, we read the primary source" school? I am not an expert in the field of English but to be honest if you would have shown me this and asked where it came from I would have assumed Berkeley, Brown, Duke, or anywhere other than Chicago.

[Hegemony]

I don't see how this is a loyalty oath. Departments and institutions issue statements all the time. They don't sit faculty down and require them to sign onto them individually, much less requiring an actual oath. (The exception is some religious colleges, which do require a statement of adherence to various items of faith.) So although Dershowitz and others, including some UC English Department faculty, may not subscribe to the ideas in the statement, the university is not requiring anyone to make a "loyalty oath."  True, if people don't agree with the statement, and say so vociferously, they may run into conflict. That's true of a lot of opinions in academia: "The university insists we're excellent, but I actually think we're mediocre," "The university claims we value every student, but we don't have time to value every student apart from taking their tuition payments," "Our department claims that a knowledge of X is fundamental to a well-rounded understanding of the world, but even though I teach X, lots of people don't know anything about X and their lives are fine anyway." And so on.

[Caracal]

I saw that Dershowitz wrote the article and stopped right there. Not really interested in trying to parse through various lies and half truths to figure out what is actually happening.

[polly_mer]

I don't see how this is a loyalty oath. Departments and institutions issue statements all the time.

I agree with financeguy that this isn't the kind of statement I expected from Chicago and is more like the unsupported assertions of what 'good' people must say this week to be on the acceptable list that are more typical of activist places like Berkeley or Madison.

This is waaaaaaaay beyond 'racism is bad' or 'what happened to Breona Taylor never should have happened, so we support changes to police policies'.

[apl68]

Links to the department's actual statement?  The quotes look ominous, but it would be good to see the whole context.

[writingprof]

I saw that Dershowitz wrote the article and stopped right there. Not really interested in trying to parse through various lies and half truths to figure out what is actually happening.

My god, this is intellectual laziness.  But congratulations on turning tribalism into a full-fledged lifestyle.

[financeguy]

One thing that Dershowitz proves that I'd mentioned in another thread. Other minority groups are fed up with the woke patrol. (I'm referring to his comments on Jews specifically here.) Don't assume that Jews, Asians, Hispanics or anyone else wants to necessarily jump on the Burn Loot Murder train. They have their own individual and group identities beyond being "a minority." That said, Dershowitz has a mee too allegation from someone with a financial motive, so whatever reasoning he has must be at least flawed but preferably silenced entirely.

[polly_mer]

Links to the department's actual statement?  The quotes look ominous, but it would be good to see the whole context.

https://english.uchicago.edu/ and scroll to Faculty Statement (July 2020).

What strikes me is the occasional inclusion of the word "Indigenous" in lists, but exactly zero mention of useful actions or even listing of the problems there.  This is very much wokeness where the only race that matters is African American.


I also don't see a call to useful actions like outreach to provide better neighborhood schools/clinics/support mechanisms, better infrastructure like electricity and running water to the reservations, and real subsidies for rent and post-secondary education that leads direct better employment.

This is academic posturing that will harm academics who aren't good competitors in the woke Olympics while doing little to help the African Americans in the least supported neighborhoods,

[Parasaurolophus]

It's hardly a loyalty oath. And yes, Dershowitz has an awful lot of strikes against him (not least the Epstein ones, but that's not all of them either).

The department's statement may go against university policy, according to which IIRC they're not supposed to speak out on social or political issues as one entity (they can do so as individual faculty members).

But the real issue, to my mind, is whether their admissions policy change is likely to accomplish their goals. I suspect not, and while I see nothing wrong with themed admissions cycles in principle, I suspect they don't work out so well in practice. I also suspect they'd do a better job of achieving their goals if, instead of themed admissions, they simply committed to only admitting students from certain minority groups (though of course they may not be allowed to do so).

[Hegemony]

I also don't see a call to useful actions like outreach to provide better neighborhood schools/clinics/support mechanisms, better infrastructure like electricity and running water to the reservations, and real subsidies for rent and post-secondary education that leads direct better employment.

This is academic posturing that will harm academics who aren't good competitors in the woke Olympics while doing little to help the African Americans in the least supported neighborhoods,

Literary people are about literature. I'm even somewhat glad that they aren't marching into the activist groups with the same assurance that they have all the answers as they display in the world of literary criticism. But seeing as their purview is literary criticism, that's what they're determined to change. As the majority of academic/literary jobs in the next few years are going to be in this field, it's actually a good response to the market, as well as a corrective to past wrongs. But I don't think the way they're going about it will impress anyone who's not already of the same mindset.

[Caracal]

I saw that Dershowitz wrote the article and stopped right there. Not really interested in trying to parse through various lies and half truths to figure out what is actually happening.

My god, this is intellectual laziness.  But congratulations on turning tribalism into a full-fledged lifestyle.

There are lots of serious people of good will who write lots of things. Dershowitz is not one of them. He's an opportunistic poser willing to do anything that will get him attention. I don't have to agree with people to read things they write, but why am I supposed to want to read some account of some weird thing going on at an English department from a person who is almost certainly distorting the events to fit whatever narrative he is currently pedaling.

[writingprof]

There are lots of serious people of good will who write lots of things. Dershowitz is not one of them. He's an opportunistic poser willing to do anything that will get him attention. I don't have to agree with people to read things they write, but why am I supposed to want to read some account of some weird thing going on at an English department from a person who is almost certainly distorting the events to fit whatever narrative he is currently pedaling.

But surely Newsweek's vaunted fact-checking apparatus would . . . ugh.  I suppose I see your point.

[mamselle]

It's McCartyism, of course. What is little realized is that McCarty's visions were not government policy or government imposed, but rather free choice to accept, including especially by some universities.

I have little problem with this so long as the ability of other universities to compete is safeguarded.

Charlie Darwin will take care of all things. :-)

McCartyism?

Do you mean "McCarthyism" or is there someone named McCarty I don't know about...

M. (confused....)