Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[mahagonny]

b]Oh yeah, that conservative news dynasty really has us by the short ones, doesn't it? LOL
[/b]

The book deals and speaking engagements happen because listeners are drawn to the message. But you don't have to be interested in them if it's not worth your time.

You don't think there is a conservative news ecosystem (including the Murdoch owned outlets, which are as close to a dynasty as we have in American media) that pumps up the cancel culture and "college is brainwashing our kids with scary ideas" narratives?

[/quote]

Endangered species, more like, but Murdoch and company can keep going as long as it's still a free country. But it's left center biased NPR that gets our tax money, and the shifting-further-and-further left liberals by and large own not only the news outlets but professional sports, Hollywood, teachers' unions and now public school administration, of course our beloved academia, where most of the stupidest woke ideas began, and upper echelons of the military. The reason 'conservative' opinion pieces get published is mostly not Murdoch but the fact that people like to read them because they have the ring of truth to these readers, and they appreciate reading what they believe they may not say aloud for fear of being called a bigot.
Left center biased Newsweek are not dumb. they know how to sell magazines:
https://www.newsweek.com/winning-cold-civil-war-opinion-1625148

If I say 'show me the evidence that there is systemic racism or white supremacy and then I'll believe there is' then am I a conservative? I thought asking for evidence was what critical thinkers do. Academia is its own problem.

In two videos — one of which has since been deleted by YouTube — Benjamin repeatedly used the n-word. He said a YouTuber and the alt-right were "*******" and "acting like [N-word] in showing him disrespect because "white people are supposed to be polite".

I don't use the word, don't like it. Haven't watched these videos. However, for a little perspective, let's consider: there has been no campaign to eliminate the 'n' word from currency in American English. What there has been is a popular sonic entertainment genre that increases the frequency of use by individuals self-identified as black. This entertainment is then sold to people who identify as whites who accept that they may not use the word, while hearing it passive aggressively attributes racism to them.

Since I'm in his discipline, I'm comfortable observing that he has no publications in any real outlets. The closest he comes are two pedagogical pubs in legitimate but very lower-tier journals. If research counts at all in tenure at PSU, then he had zero chance of getting it.

Hannah-Jones doesn't measure up by these criteria either and gets hired not as a promising up-and-comer but at full tenured professor with her own program. Publishing a book that has been pointedly debunked by esteemed historians should be a red flag.

[Sun_Worshiper]

b]Oh yeah, that conservative news dynasty really has us by the short ones, doesn't it? LOL
[/b]

The book deals and speaking engagements happen because listeners are drawn to the message. But you don't have to be interested in them if it's not worth your time.

You don't think there is a conservative news ecosystem (including the Murdoch owned outlets, which are as close to a dynasty as we have in American media) that pumps up the cancel culture and "college is brainwashing our kids with scary ideas" narratives?

Endangered species, more like, but Murdoch and company can keep going as long as it's still a free country. But it's left center biased NPR that gets our tax money, and the shifting-further-and-further left liberals by and large own not only the news outlets but professional sports, Hollywood, teachers' unions and now public school administration, of course our beloved academia, where most of the stupidest woke ideas began, and upper echelons of the military. The reason 'conservative' opinion pieces get published is mostly not Murdoch but the fact that people like to read them because they have the ring of truth to these readers, and they appreciate reading what they believe they may not say aloud for fear of being called a bigot.
Left center biased Newsweek are not dumb. they know how to sell magazines:
https://www.newsweek.com/winning-cold-civil-war-opinion-1625148

If I say 'show me the evidence that there is systemic racism or white supremacy and then I'll believe there is' then am I a conservative? I thought asking for evidence was what critical thinkers do. Academia is its own problem.

Great so we agree that there is a right wing ecosystem (and also apparently that the Portland State guy is a clown).

And the bolded must be a response to someone else, since it is not remotely related to my post that you quoted. But sure, asking for evidence is good. Of course, if you are actually curious about the evidence for systemic racism you could explore the vast empirical literature on this topic.

[jimbogumbo]

You asked Wahoo for evidence of Benjamin's hate speech, and Wahoo did. The fact that you don't use the epithet is irrelevant. And, Benjamin is definitely not a part of the "a little perspective" you supplied.

[Sun_Worshiper]

You asked Wahoo for evidence of Benjamin's hate speech, and Wahoo did. The fact that you don't use the epithet is irrelevant. And, Benjamin is definitely not a part of the "a little perspective" you supplied.

He doesn't care about evidence and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway, just regurgitates right wing talking points.

[Wahoo Redux]

Hannah-Jones doesn't measure up by these criteria either and gets hired not as a promising up-and-comer but at full tenured professor with her own program.

Except for that piddling little Pulitzer and years at the top of the journalism game.

[dismalist]

Hannah-Jones doesn't measure up by these criteria either and gets hired not as a promising up-and-comer but at full tenured professor with her own program.

Except for that piddling little Pulitzer and years at the top of the journalism game.

We need more diversity -- in colleges! Hire who one likes. See if students pay. :-)

[FishProf]

Just because YOU don't understand why something was done, or why someone thinks differently from YOU, that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are stupid.

People have reasons for what they do.  Imagining the most nefarious reasons doesn't bring you closer to understanding them, or them you.  Well, maybe we do understand you (and it isn't good).

[FishProf]

Damn.  That was supposed to be an aside.

Oh well, now I'll be linked to this thread forever.

[mahagonny]

Just because YOU don't understand why something was done, or why someone thinks differently from YOU, that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are stupid.

People have reasons for what they do.  Imagining the most nefarious reasons doesn't bring you closer to understanding them, or them you.  Well, maybe we do understand you (and it isn't good).

How does one get to be a spokesman for the fora?

[marshwiggle]

Just because YOU don't understand why something was done, or why someone thinks differently from YOU, that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are stupid.

People have reasons for what they do.  Imagining the most nefarious reasons doesn't bring you closer to understanding them, or them you.  Well, maybe we do understand you (and it isn't good).

This is absolutely correct, and applies to everyone on any side of any debate.

Hannah-Jones doesn't measure up by these criteria either and gets hired not as a promising up-and-comer but at full tenured professor with her own program.

Except for that piddling little Pulitzer and years at the top of the journalism game.

So should the same rules apply for Olympic medallists, Oscar (Emmy, Tony, Grammy, etc.) winners as well? What about billionaires? In other words, should non-academic achievements basically make academic requirements unnecessary? In all fields?

[Wahoo Redux]

So should the same rules apply for Olympic medallists, Oscar (Emmy, Tony, Grammy, etc.) winners as well? What about billionaires? In other words, should non-academic achievements basically make academic requirements unnecessary? In all fields?

Olympic medalists are routinely top college coaches.

If you can get an Emmy, Oscar, Tony or Grammy winning artist on your faculty, by all means do!

If you can get a billionaire to teach entrepreneurship, yes, yes, yes!!!

Hanna-Jones taught journalism.  She was a top journalist.

Honestly Marshy, THINK.

[mahagonny]

So should the same rules apply for Olympic medallists, Oscar (Emmy, Tony, Grammy, etc.) winners as well? What about billionaires? In other words, should non-academic achievements basically make academic requirements unnecessary? In all fields?

Olympic medalists are routinely top college coaches.

If you can get an Emmy, Oscar, Tony or Grammy winning artist on your faculty, by all means do!

If you can get a billionaire to teach entrepreneurship, yes, yes, yes!!!

Hanna-Jones taught journalism.  She was a top journalist.

Honestly Marshy, THINK.

I understand Marshy's question, and have a little bit to add. Why would a person who considers herself a shoe-in for tenure track appointment avoid publishing in top peer reviewed publications? One would think the Pulitzer award is another feather in one's hat when it is acquired in addition to jumping through the usual hoops.
Alternatively, publishing in top peer reviewed journals may come to be considered overrated.
If the only criterion is how many students can you draw, then that opens all kinds of doors for all kinds of people.

[marshwiggle]

So should the same rules apply for Olympic medallists, Oscar (Emmy, Tony, Grammy, etc.) winners as well? What about billionaires? In other words, should non-academic achievements basically make academic requirements unnecessary? In all fields?

Olympic medalists are routinely top college coaches.

If you can get an Emmy, Oscar, Tony or Grammy winning artist on your faculty, by all means do!

If you can get a billionaire to teach entrepreneurship, yes, yes, yes!!!

Hanna-Jones taught journalism.  She was a top journalist.

Honestly Marshy, THINK.

It's not about getting someone to teach a course; it's about giving a person who has not qualified academically a professional position which requires that qualification.

There are several ways that universities can recognize people:

• Honorary degrees
• Having them (as above) teach a course for which they are uniquely qualified
• Appointing them to a ceremonial post (such as Chancellor, or whatever it gets called at a given institution) who presides over important occasions such as convocation/graduation.

(There's also naming a building in their honour, but given what's lately been the trend with statues and named buildings, maybe not such a good idea...)

The point is that to make a person  a tenured professor is to make them responsible for academic functions within a university. Someone who raises millions of dollars for hospitals in a developing country may be honoured, but not with a license to practice medicine. Someone who gives advice on personal finances which helps many people will not be granted a professional accountant certification.

And from another angle, if a conservative institution made Jeff Bezos (or whatever billionaire you like) a tenured professor of finance, people on the left would claim that is is unwarranted on academic grounds. (And I would agree.)

Professional license to practice in a field should not be granted for ideological reasons to people who have not completed the required professional certification process. If you want to argue the process is entirely bogus, then that's a different discussion......

[mahagonny]

Professional license to practice in a field should not be granted for ideological reasons to people who have not completed the required professional certification process. If you want to argue the process is entirely bogus, then that's a different discussion......

It obviously is, because we have more tenured professors in the USA than ever before, and we have a culture war that the left, whose intolerant views are not held by the majority of citizens but are nonetheless buttressed everywhere you look, does not want to replace with peace, but to win. but that's another story from the Hannah-Jones travesty.

[little bongo]

I don't think "but Black folks use the n-word in their rappings and hip-hoppings" is an answer to any hate speech question. (I'm also pretty sure that's common knowledge.) As for awards, it's not much of a puzzle:
a) awards are splashy, rock-star things that many people look upon favorably, however:
b) are the awards a recognition of the kind of work you would want a teacher in that field to excel in?

That's it. I mean, if the answer to "b" is yes, and if everyone's amenable, then it's a win all around.

(I had to extrapolate some of the argument, as I ignore one of the participants.)