Manifesto for a new university in Austin

[apl68]

I don't recognize most of the names above, and I suspect that few outside of certain bubbles do.  At any rate, it's evident that minds are already all made up all around about this new venture.  One of the reasons why I don't expect it to succeed in the long run.  It seems to be defined primarily by what it is against, not so much by what it is for.  Things started with that kind of attitude don't usually last.  Most people aren't really inspired by negative creeds, and those who disagree with them are so firmly set against them that there's no chance they'll ever come around to supporting them or engaging with them in good faith.  If there's no inspiration from within, and no recognition from without of even the possibility of good-faith engagement, then the venture doesn't have much going for it.

[mahagonny]

Being negative about what is happening in higher ed today is not negative; it's positive. Our universities were founded with the belief that the USA is a good nation of mostly good people, but most of them no longer have this belief, and many of them overtly fight it. And basically believe the republican party is the party of people who want to oppress. This is radical compared with what most Americans believe. Where there is a void it will be filled. Don't know what to say about whether the school will succeed. It's fun to speculate of course but I'll leave that to others. The people on this forum thought Hillary was going to win. All you have to do lately is read almost any left-leaning news outlet and you can see many are denying that their ideas are unpopular. 'Messaging problem' (which the democrats now admit to) doesn't always mean you aren't communicating. Sometimes your problem is that you are.

[marshwiggle]

I don't recognize most of the names above, and I suspect that few outside of certain bubbles do.  At any rate, it's evident that minds are already all made up all around about this new venture.  One of the reasons why I don't expect it to succeed in the long run.  It seems to be defined primarily by what it is against, not so much by what it is for. 

But that's just it; it's for free speech and diversity of thought. It's not against any specific point of view; it's against supressing speech on any specific side of an argument.



The biggest challenge by far will be financial. Especially without government funding, they'll either have to get huge donations or else have tuition only payable by the elite.

Relative to that, I'd guess even accreditation is a pretty small hurdle.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Mahagonny is all for cancel culture when it is someone he doesn't like, such as NHJ. And when the canceler is one of his heroes (BW) it is nbd. Almost like he doesn't actually have any principles...

Well, I guess for some people, hate is a principle.

Just a few days ago Mahagonny praised cancel culture:

I could name some professors who should be kicked out. Academic freedom should not, for example, protect someone who disseminates a video of herself stating antisocial things like 'we need to take these MF'ers out [white people].' And this isn't just Flobunk College in a remote town. It's a big name university. Rutgers, I believe. When Weiss, or whomever it is, states 'it's time for a university with some standards' it's not too far-fetched of a claim.

He is not opposed to cancel culture, he just doesn't like it when people from his side are "cancelled."

[mahagonny]

Mahagonny is all for cancel culture when it is someone he doesn't like, such as NHJ. And when the canceler is one of his heroes (BW) it is nbd. Almost like he doesn't actually have any principles...

Well, I guess for some people, hate is a principle.

Just a few days ago Mahagonny praised cancel culture:

I could name some professors who should be kicked out. Academic freedom should not, for example, protect someone who disseminates a video of herself stating antisocial things like 'we need to take these MF'ers out [white people].' And this isn't just Flobunk College in a remote town. It's a big name university. Rutgers, I believe. When Weiss, or whomever it is, states 'it's time for a university with some standards' it's not too far-fetched of a claim.

He is not opposed to cancel culture, he just doesn't like it when people from his side are "cancelled."

If you think it's OK for a professor to state in a public forum and then the internet "White people are committed to being villains. We gotta take these motherfuckers out" then go ahead and make your statement. I won't cancel you. The black community has a high rate of homicide. Britney Cooper was the enlightened soul who gave us this advice.

'On September 21, Cooper was speaking at an event titled 'Unpacking The Attacks On Critical Race Theory'. There, she made controversial statements such as "Critical Race Theory is just the proper teaching of American history", "I wouldn't be mad at the black people who want to get them back", and "white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate." Cooper also said, "The thing I want to say to you is, 'We got to take these motherf***ers out' but like we can't say that."'

https://meaww.com/brittney-cooper-rutgers-prof-racist-rant-comments-white-people-villains-reactions

And the lie and the irony are, of course, you can say that, and she did, and the video is still around being seen. An example of something you can't say is 'the n-word.'

[Wahoo Redux]

It's the problem with censorship in our conception: you either have to let people vent their views, no matter how controversial and offensive they are, or you have to restrain everyone's point of view, no matter how angry that makes some people-----I think that is the point, mahagonny. 

Most people would agree with this is theory, but not in practice, so I will give you that.

Brittney Cooper was on the job and representing Rutgers in an online conference when she allowed her top to blow----and there have been professors who have been fired for saying much, much less.  If Cooper were another color, it is ridiculous to argue that the response all around would not be very different.

Then again, Cooper's family has a much different history with this country then does my family.

And the conservatives needed a cause du jour to make their adherents angry----so they latched onto CRT.

[mahagonny]

Is it OK to incite violence and racial hatred and then complain that you might get 'canceled' for it? It's a yes or no question.

ETA:

It's the problem with censorship in our conception: you either have to let people vent their views, no matter how controversial and offensive they are, or you have to restrain everyone's point of view, no matter how angry that makes some people-----I think that is the point, mahagonny. 

Most people would agree with this is theory, but not in practice, so I will give you that.

Brittney Cooper was on the job and representing Rutgers in an online conference when she allowed her top to blow----and there have been professors who have been fired for saying much, much less.  If Cooper were another color, it is ridiculous to argue that the response all around would not be very different.

Then again, Cooper's family has a much different history with this country then does my family.

And the conservatives needed a cause du jour to make their adherents angry----so they latched onto CRT.

She's got a much better job  than you have, makes a lot more money, can get away with saying things you can't. and God knows what fanatical drivel she's 'teaching.'

'Progressives' always want talk about the past, to deflect attention away from how non-racist the USA is today. 'This thought process has roots that go way back....' etc.

[mahagonny]

And the conservatives needed a cause du jour to make their adherents angry----so they latched onto CRT.

That and the fact that the public thinks that elected democrats believe parents and republicans of voting age are deplorables who shouldn't have a relationship with public school faculty and administration, other than paying for it, and the teacher's unions are there to oppose parents because they have been told these things in plain English. Which are new concepts that seemed to have sprung out of nowhere, and why the public is angry and the republican candidates have the sense to capitalize on that anger, logically because it blends with their view about the importance of family in maintaining our society, which means they would be doing their job to get elected and oppose what these democrats want, on behalf of the majority, who have legally elected them. But whine about it if you like. It's not hurting us.
ETA: And McAuliffe was even clueless enough to get Randi Weingarten to endorse him, which likely cost him additional votes.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Mahagonny is all for cancel culture when it is someone he doesn't like, such as NHJ. And when the canceler is one of his heroes (BW) it is nbd. Almost like he doesn't actually have any principles...

Well, I guess for some people, hate is a principle.

Just a few days ago Mahagonny praised cancel culture:

I could name some professors who should be kicked out. Academic freedom should not, for example, protect someone who disseminates a video of herself stating antisocial things like 'we need to take these MF'ers out [white people].' And this isn't just Flobunk College in a remote town. It's a big name university. Rutgers, I believe. When Weiss, or whomever it is, states 'it's time for a university with some standards' it's not too far-fetched of a claim.

He is not opposed to cancel culture, he just doesn't like it when people from his side are "cancelled."

If you think it's OK for a professor to state in a public forum and then the internet "White people are committed to being villains. We gotta take these motherfuckers out" then go ahead and make your statement. I won't cancel you. The black community has a high rate of homicide. Britney Cooper was the enlightened soul who gave us this advice.

'On September 21, Cooper was speaking at an event titled 'Unpacking The Attacks On Critical Race Theory'. There, she made controversial statements such as "Critical Race Theory is just the proper teaching of American history", "I wouldn't be mad at the black people who want to get them back", and "white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate." Cooper also said, "The thing I want to say to you is, 'We got to take these motherf***ers out' but like we can't say that."'

https://meaww.com/brittney-cooper-rutgers-prof-racist-rant-comments-white-people-villains-reactions

And the lie and the irony are, of course, you can say that, and she did, and the video is still around being seen. An example of something you can't say is 'the n-word.'

I just think you're inconsistent (I'm being generous with my choice of words): When your side says crazy things and get called out it is cancel culture, but when the other side says crazy things they deserve to be fired. You say BW is a great hero because she calls out cancel culture, but you look the other way when she calls for people that she disagrees with to be cancelled.

Either be in favor of people being held accountable for their words, or don't, but pick a position or we will continue to not take your crying and complaining seriously.

[quasihumanist]

Our universities were founded with the belief that the USA is a good nation of mostly good people, but most of them no longer have this belief, and many of them overtly fight it.

This is so not true.  Most of our universities and our country was founded on "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)  During the 18th century, public days of humiliation and fasting were a common occurrence.  We were founded on the belief that we are all in need of improvement (and grace).

[dismalist]

Our universities were founded with the belief that the USA is a good nation of mostly good people, but most of them no longer have this belief, and many of them overtly fight it.

This is so not true.  Most of our universities and our country was founded on "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)  During the 18th century, public days of humiliation and fasting were a common occurrence.  We were founded on the belief that we are all in need of improvement (and grace).

That is absolutely correct, quasi. The modern university is the German research university, conceived by Billy von Humboldt in the early 1800's in Berlin, in then Prussia.

In America, Hopkins thinks it was the first imitator, but that is surely meaningless. There were different types of foundings and adaptations here, research universities in all but name, before Hopkins.

It might be said that many US colleges and universities are reverting to the religious bent you identify from the search for truth dear to Humboldt's heart and mind.

That such return to atavism is at all possible shows that the substance of much of the university is largely useless, having become a mere signalling device. To spell it out, if the content of the degree doesn't matter, it's perfectly rational to dumb it down [way down], turn it into a country club, and include those who might be excluded were there standards. There is no comprehensible reason to exclude anybody from university under these circumstances.

Given the resistance of cleverly entrenched forces in existing institutions, the only way to improve the situation for, may I say, dissenters, is to re-enliven the practice of searching for the truth.

And, nobody will be forced to attend the U of Austin.

[mahagonny]

Either be in favor of people being held accountable for their words, or don't, but pick a position or we will continue to not take your crying and complaining seriously.
[/quote]

I'm not concerned with getting you to take me seriously. I am expressing myself and reading stuff. Everything's fine.

It is not that we need to let people talk crazy without getting them fired in order to be even-handed. It's that the crazy is the new democratic party. Like when Pres. Biden says 'our biggest terrorist threat is from domestic white supremacists.'
Keep it up, and we'll keep winning elections :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

She's got a much better job  than you have, makes a lot more money, can get away with saying things you can't. and God knows what fanatical drivel she's 'teaching.'

I stopped reading your posts and responding, buddy, because you seem to have gone over a cliff.  I suspect it has something to do with Donald Trump's loss...I don't know, however, and what could I do about it anyway?

But be fair.  Cooper is well qualified to teach in her subject.  Her classes look really cool.  And the examination of African-American culture is one of the most important topics in higher education; the effects of dealing with race and gender, good and bad, are prime drivers in North American society, particularly AA concerns.  We have no pocket equipped to really examine and discuss these subjects other than academia.  It's too bad when we screw it up.  Cooper really screwed it up.  Her personal resentments exploded----yet as a guy whose personal resentments are frothing over constantly, mahagonny, you might understand her a bit.

She should still be fired (can white students be comfortable in her classes?) but she was discussing the spate of racially motivated murders of unarmed AA men, which should make any rational, moral person of any race furious.

Nevertheless, the meager coverage of Cooper's outrage and the deafening silence here when Cooper was brought up is quite telling.

[mahagonny]

I don't see a person losing their cool in that video. I just see a trashy person who's having a love affair with their own hate talking the way that kind of person does.
This is what Shelby Steele talks about so well. The white American having lost the moral confidence to judge any black behavior, all because he's so afraid of being thought racist. As for me, ever since I stopped being white, I say what I think  :-)

Our universities were founded with the belief that the USA is a good nation of mostly good people, but most of them no longer have this belief, and many of them overtly fight it.

This is so not true.  Most of our universities and our country was founded on "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)  During the 18th century, public days of humiliation and fasting were a common occurrence.  We were founded on the belief that we are all in need of improvement (and grace).

Patriotism is out of style in campus life. Wokeism has swept through. It's a religion without forgiveness. It's not about self-improvement and it is not accepted as a positive ideal. It is acquiesced to by an intimidated group identified as 'privileged.' It's an ultimatum, a cult. 'Vote for our cool people or you're a bigot.' the people who lead the way are the most materialistic, the most privileged of all. Inconsistencies don't matter.

[quasihumanist]

I think your perception that Christianity is incompatible with the search for truth shows just how much a certain ultra-Pietist attitude has (with the encouragement of its adherents) overtaken our perceptions of Christianity.  A good deal of literary studies and classics has its roots in trying to come to grips with the Bible, and the whole point was to allow and promote less dogmatic interpretations.  It's not an accident that Harvard was an early center of Unitarianism; it's where they were led by their search for truth.

But - yes - generally speaking I'm more interested in the Scottish/early American model for higher education than the German one.  In part that's because I'm more interested in the Puritan model of democracy where we govern ourselves directly than the Lutheran model of democracy where we choose experts to govern us.  In turn that means prioritizing making everyone a philosopher rather than creating a cadre of experts.