Manifesto for a new university in Austin

[marshwiggle]

Succeed in what? I don't actually understand what value they will be bringing to students, beyond offering them controversial hot takes on social issues - hot takes that they already hear all the time through the media.

Is that the new term for any idea that is not the generally accepted view on a topic? I guess Copernicus wasn't doing anything beyond offering controversial hot takes on astronomy, and Darwin wasn't doing anything beyond offering controversial hot takes on the animal kingdom. It's crazy that they got so much recognition for something so trivial.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Succeed in what? I don't actually understand what value they will be bringing to students, beyond offering them controversial hot takes on social issues - hot takes that they already hear all the time through the media.

Is that the new term for any idea that is not the generally accepted view on a topic? I guess Copernicus wasn't doing anything beyond offering controversial hot takes on astronomy, and Darwin wasn't doing anything beyond offering controversial hot takes on the animal kingdom. It's crazy that they got so much recognition for something so trivial.

You think the next Copernicus is going to come out of Bari Weiss's think tank? Lol, ok.

And if you can actually show any evidence that important scholarship is being held back by cancel culture in universities then I'd love to see it. Instead what I hear from critics of higher education is: X controversial speaker was disinvited because of their perspective on Y. Now I'm not in favor of disinviting legitimate scientists or even controversial bomb throwers that were invited through student groups (or whoever), but that criticism is not at all connected to research faculty, postdocs, and phd students are doing in biology, science, engineering, astronomy, etc.

So again, what exactly is the value provided by this "university," aside from giving famous people who are already in the media all the time another platform to insist that there are only two genders (or whatever)?

[ciao_yall]

How curious. Seems like a strange time to be starting a new university. Won't they need to get accreditation from some organization? Higher ed institutions are not known for acting swiftly.

Given what they've told us about themselves thus far, I would think if they can get students without accreditation, then accreditation, not them, has lost some of its standing. It's probably left biased anyway, judging by some of the race-baiting d-bags who have tenure now at places like Princeton, Rutgers, Boston University, and probably a bunch of places in California. Of course the most of tenure culture will be trashing them, but will that hurt?

Accreditation is required to be eligible for Federal Financial Aid. A job or graduate school might require a degree from an accredited institution. Unaccredited units often won't transfer if the student decides to finish their degree elsewhere.

It's hard to get students without accreditation. I wouldn't recommend students attend an unaccredited school.

Of course. All of that is part of the sickness and corruption of today's higher education that Weiss, et al, identify.

Because... assuring a school isn't a diploma mill is sickness and corruption. Okay. Makes sense. (Slowly backs away...)

[whynotbc]

How curious. Seems like a strange time to be starting a new university. Won't they need to get accreditation from some organization? Higher ed institutions are not known for acting swiftly.

Given what they've told us about themselves thus far, I would think if they can get students without accreditation, then accreditation, not them, has lost some of its standing. It's probably left biased anyway, judging by some of the race-baiting d-bags who have tenure now at places like Princeton, Rutgers, Boston University, and probably a bunch of places in California. Of course the most of tenure culture will be trashing them, but will that hurt?

Accreditation is required to be eligible for Federal Financial Aid. A job or graduate school might require a degree from an accredited institution. Unaccredited units often won't transfer if the student decides to finish their degree elsewhere.

It's hard to get students without accreditation. I wouldn't recommend students attend an unaccredited school.

According to their FAQ they don't plan to accept public funding, so no Federal Financial Aid is the plan.
"UATX has no plans to accept public funding. But we are researching the effect of public funding on students and on research grants."

[artalot]

Whatever else, their plan to not accept public funding (including financial aid, Pell grants, etc.) means that this will be an opportunity open only to wealthy students. It can't be a place where all viewpoints are aired because it will not be accessible to all student. They are self-selecting so they don't have to deal with accreditation, have a Title IX office, etc.
So it will just a place for rich kids to spout off about Ayn Rand and Karl Marx. Doesn't sound revolutionary to me.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is obviously a grift. I'm astonished that some of you don't seem to see that.

[Puget]

Whatever else, their plan to not accept public funding (including financial aid, Pell grants, etc.) means that this will be an opportunity open only to wealthy students. It can't be a place where all viewpoints are aired because it will not be accessible to all student. They are self-selecting so they don't have to deal with accreditation, have a Title IX office, etc.
So it will just a place for rich kids to spout off about Ayn Rand and Karl Marx. Doesn't sound revolutionary to me.

So, an unaccredited humanities program for the wealthy-- sounds like a glorified finishing school for the conservative trust fund set. Not sure what the market for that will be. I'd place money on it never opening, or opening and then quickly folding.

[marshwiggle]

And if you can actually show any evidence that important scholarship is being held back by cancel culture in universities then I'd love to see it. Instead what I hear from critics of higher education is: X controversial speaker was disinvited because of their perspective on Y. Now I'm not in favor of disinviting legitimate scientists or even controversial bomb throwers that were invited through student groups (or whoever), but that criticism is not at all connected to research faculty, postdocs, and phd students are doing in biology, science, engineering, astronomy, etc.

From Wikipedia:

Kenneth J. Zucker  is an American-Canadian psychologist and sexologist. He was named editor-in-chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001. He was psychologist-in-chief at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and head of its Gender Identity Service until its closure in December 2015.

Zucker collaborated with Susan Bradley, collecting clinical and research data over a period of twenty years and became an international authority on gender dysphoria in children (GDC) and adolescents. In 2007, Zucker was chosen to be a member of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions, and in 2008 he was named chair of the American Psychiatric Association workgroup on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" for the 2012 edition of the DSM-5. He previously served on workgroups for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.

Zucker's views and therapeutic approach have attracted criticism from several advocates and mental health professionals. Citing a review by two adolescent psychiatrists stating that CAMH was out of step with current best practices for transgender youth, CAMH fired Zucker and closed the clinic.

and then

They later apologized to Zucker and paid him a financial settlement after one of the complaints in the review was found to be false.

Nope, cancel culture never affects science research. Or any researcher with any serious academic credentials or status.

So again, what exactly is the value provided by this "university," aside from giving famous people who are already in the media all the time another platform to insist that there are only two genders (or whatever)?

Yeah,  it certainly all comes down to claims that there are only two genders (or whatever).

[downer]

Why couldn't they still have scholarship students?

Since a large portion of higher ed is a grift, this should fit right in.

[Sun_Worshiper]

And if you can actually show any evidence that important scholarship is being held back by cancel culture in universities then I'd love to see it. Instead what I hear from critics of higher education is: X controversial speaker was disinvited because of their perspective on Y. Now I'm not in favor of disinviting legitimate scientists or even controversial bomb throwers that were invited through student groups (or whoever), but that criticism is not at all connected to research faculty, postdocs, and phd students are doing in biology, science, engineering, astronomy, etc.

From Wikipedia:

Kenneth J. Zucker  is an American-Canadian psychologist and sexologist. He was named editor-in-chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001. He was psychologist-in-chief at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and head of its Gender Identity Service until its closure in December 2015.

Zucker collaborated with Susan Bradley, collecting clinical and research data over a period of twenty years and became an international authority on gender dysphoria in children (GDC) and adolescents. In 2007, Zucker was chosen to be a member of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions, and in 2008 he was named chair of the American Psychiatric Association workgroup on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" for the 2012 edition of the DSM-5. He previously served on workgroups for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.

Zucker's views and therapeutic approach have attracted criticism from several advocates and mental health professionals. Citing a review by two adolescent psychiatrists stating that CAMH was out of step with current best practices for transgender youth, CAMH fired Zucker and closed the clinic.

and then

They later apologized to Zucker and paid him a financial settlement after one of the complaints in the review was found to be false.

Nope, cancel culture never affects science research. Or any researcher with any serious academic credentials or status.

So again, what exactly is the value provided by this "university," aside from giving famous people who are already in the media all the time another platform to insist that there are only two genders (or whatever)?

Yeah,  it certainly all comes down to claims that there are only two genders (or whatever).

Fair enough, you have identified one data point. Of course, you can't infer much of anything from a single data point, as it could be an outlier, but I'll look forward to checking out the rest of your dataset.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is obviously a grift. I'm astonished that some of you don't seem to see that.

I suspect it is an earnest and unnecessary attempt by political zealots to, in their view, level the playing field-----I mean, it is not like rightwing pundits don't already have plenty of outlets for their views.

It is simply stupid and hilarious, and it is doomed, which makes it even more hilarious.

[Parasaurolophus]

Whatever else, their plan to not accept public funding (including financial aid, Pell grants, etc.) means that this will be an opportunity open only to wealthy students. It can't be a place where all viewpoints are aired because it will not be accessible to all student. They are self-selecting so they don't have to deal with accreditation, have a Title IX office, etc.
So it will just a place for rich kids to spout off about Ayn Rand and Karl Marx. Doesn't sound revolutionary to me.

So, an unaccredited humanities program for the wealthy-- sounds like a glorified finishing school for the conservative trust fund set. Not sure what the market for that will be. I'd place money on it never opening, or opening and then quickly folding.

Nono, it's an unaccredited entrepreneurship program!



FWIW:

• Sohrab Amari is a theocratic fascist.
• Joshua Katz has «a long history of sexual harassing students.
• E. Gordon Gee was previously president or chancellor of West Virginia University (x2--he's currently there), Ohio State University (x2), Vanderbilt, Brown, and Colorado. His MO was to rake in donations, jack up tuition, privatizing parking and other services, and then spending enormous amounts of that money on himself (including $64 000 in bow ties, a $2mil salary, $7.7mil in travel and stuff, a free mansion, $900k in parties at that mansion) and on increasing senior admin by 30% and jacking their salaries by 63% to the half-million range.
• Boghossian has produced no scholarship (Abbot, Stone, Stock, Pinker, and Loury are at least real scholars).

And it goes on and on, but those are some nice lowlights.

But where's Jordan Peterson, you ask? Lobster grifters don't need to piggyback (lobsterback?) on crayfish to get their grift. He's doing just fine all on his own, thank you very much.

[marshwiggle]

This is obviously a grift. I'm astonished that some of you don't seem to see that.

I suspect it is an earnest and unnecessary attempt by political zealots to, in their view, level the playing field-----I mean, it is not like rightwing pundits don't already have plenty of outlets for their views.

The fact that you see the issues as entirely political, with no basis for true academic discussion, makes your disdain understandable. When the activists on any issue can get it framed as entirely political, where there is no reason for academic research or debate, then they have won.

It is odd, to say the least, for academics to argue that no further research is needed or even desirable, on just about any topic.

[dismalist]

The fact that you see the issues as entirely political, with no basis for true academic discussion, makes your disdain understandable. When the activists on any issue can get it framed as entirely political, where there is no reason for academic research or debate, then they have won.

It is odd, to say the least, for academics to argue that no further research is needed or even desirable, on just about any topic.

It's worse than that: It is argued that because I don't want to consume x, it must be fake or evil. Hence, you shall not have it either. Well, people differ in their tastes, and they have agency.

If one doesn't like the new college one needn't work there or send one's kids there.

[Wahoo Redux]

The fact that you see the issues as entirely political, with no basis for true academic discussion, makes your disdain understandable.

This nascent comedy of errors is entirely political, Marshy.

As I posted before, you are truehearted and guileless fella.