As a former university academic, it saddens and sickens me that the current crop of administrators see their job as protecting the most fragile rather than encouraging open inquiry. I consistently received outstanding student evaluations from the vast majority of my students with a few terrible ones every semester. Now, the malcontents would be encouraged to invent an excuse to have me fired and undoubtedly cowardly administrators would agree.
I’m so glad I am no longer in academia, but now I don’t know if I want my grandchildren to pursue higher education.
“David Everett, associate vice president for inclusive excellence”
Orwellian little eff I am sure. But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM), so little David is just being a good compliant comrade of the collective.
Why would anyone with talent want to be a professor today?
"But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM)"
Any assertion that "the Democrats" support the kind of thing that just happened at Hamline University is absurd.
That's similar to stating that all Republicans approve of the crowd that staged an insurrection at the Capital building.
Any such assertions are reductive, and as such they do more to confuse than to clarify the complex reality that we actually live in.
Can you, in fact, name even one prominent democrat leader, politician, or columnist who has expressed support for the admin at Hamline University? Conservatives and Liberals alike (from the NYT, to the WP, the Atlantic, Reason, Slate, Chronicle of Higher Education, PEN, and even the uber left dailykos) have near universally condemned Hamline's actions in this case.
I think it takes an unshakably pre-conceived notion to in any way take actual note of what's going on right now and then somehow come away saying that the sad events at Hamline are supported by Democrats.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that we do not really have a sufficient political/cultural vocabulary to more accurately describe those administrators at Hamline. Some terms that might apply: ideologues, Leftists, Far Left extremists, or perhaps even identitarians.
But "Democrats" in general? That is simply an absurd assertion.
Sir, your political party, and the average voter that supports it, has moved far away from the core ideological principles that sustained it. It is not favorable to the working class. It is not supportive of liberal principles. I live in a liberal college town... 82% voted for Joe Biden in the last election. About the same ratio voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I have lived here 40+ years and count many liberal Democrats as friends. You might just be the exception to what they have become, but they tacitly and explicitly support the identity politics agenda. And although they claim to wring their hands over cancel culture, they don't really oppose it because they know it benefits their politics.
There is not enough direct opposition and outrage coming from the Democrats to get my agreement that we should consider them "not all the same". The party moves as a collective.
First, your grandfather that sounds like a conservative Democrat from the Greatest Generation would not today, or at least should not today, support the Democrat party as it is.
Democrats today rarely step out of the party line. Unanimous voting in the House for Hakeem Jeffries even though he had been a blatant and vocal election denier. I get this constant criticism from my left friends for generalizing, yet they vote party line every time. And today that party line is connected to the globalist corporatist uniparty and the radical social justice agenda. They say they reject cancel culture, and yet vote for the politicians that promote it. They say they reject war, yet vote for the politicians that get us involved in wars. They say they reject authoritarianism, yet vote for the politicians that implement the most authoritarian and draconian policies. They say they are for the poor and working class, yet vote for the politicians that implement policies that hurt the poor and working class. They say they are for law and order, yet vote for the politicians that dismantle law and order. They say they are for supporting children, yet vote for politicians that push policies that are terrible for children.
I just don't find any truly moderate Democrats today that vote in any way that backs their claim of being moderate.
You can see the polls on opinion s of Democrats on topics like freedom of speech, and other topics and all of it has drifted way left radical and away from the traditional views of Democrats.
"You live in a college town. How many of your friends work at the college? Do you understand the effect of shunning, and of unemployment? Can they afford outrage?"
I don't understand these questions. The town is about 70k people. It is filled with old retirees of the university and students. The old retirees block significant new development with a city ordinance that requires a majority vote. The cost of housing is very high. The university pay and benefits are best in the region. Many of the academics and administrators that retire are millionaires. But they are progressive in that they have adopted the the modern Democrat platform of social justice excess, global warming cult hysteria, COVID hysteria, support for war, support for globalism, support for open borders, support for policies that destroy small business at the benefit of the large corporations, etc... They are nothing like your grandfather.
Thanks for the clarification. The TR time was interesting related to the GOP... another candidate that split the party like Trump. Resulted in a terrible 8 years of Wilson. Then again Perot gave us the terrible 8 years of Clinton... and it was all down hill from there.
These university employees are state workers with pensions and healthcare covered. They retire in their early 60s generally... some in their late 50s. Yes, they are a tyranny of the majority in my town.
But they all move the same politically. They don't opine nor vote out of line from the Democrat collective.
I have lymphoma and so I can scoff at Covid hysteria. Immune compromised while in treatment, caught COVID after being jabbed and boosted. Like most people that caught it, I got the sniffles for a few days and was fine. Everybody is entitled to their own fear and fear response, just not projecting it on others... especially when it damages the lives of young and healthy people. I don't know how people feel entitled telling other people how to live their lives in fear of a virus.
I fully agree. The despicable statement and actions of the administration are appalling on many levels. They would not think for a second (rightly) to give Christian students veto power over everything that gets shown in art class, not even something like Piss Christ, as the author notes. That alone is grounds for a class action law suit against the university. How inconvenient for the woke that their double standards run directly afoul of civil rights law.
I am not sure that being offended occasionally is a bad thing especially in college where individuals are presumed to be adults. It can be a valuable learning experience for the individuals involved. For example being able to judge whether the action was intended to be offensive and then responding accordingly. In this instance, however, Hamline University still has a lot to learn.
It is not simply the blatant disregard for the principle of free speech (which is common to all mindsets driven by religious thought -- be it faith-based or secular ideology based, it does not matter). It is that the arguments on which the ban rests, like Professor Khalid points out, are deeply, obscenely DISCRIMINATORY.
It is not just a logical fallacy to assume that one subset of a group represents the whole: it implies the concept best expressed as: "All of them are the same". It imposes on the group a reductive identity determined by the prejudices of the authority that pronounces the statement, whether or not reinforced by vocal advocates of specific interests within the same group.
Racism is the mental attitude that attributes the same character to large groups of people based on vague phenotypes: is racist to assume that all black/coloured/white people (and subcategories thereof) think, feel and behave the same. It is racist whatever the colour of the skin of the speaker.
Religious intolerance is the mental attitude that considers religious beliefs different from one's own evil and to be eliminated, and discriminates people on this basis. Part of the discrimination is the assumption that the very same beliefs are embraced fully by any adherent of said religion.
In the specific case, what Hamline University has done is painting all Muslims with a broad brush, which is shockingly dismissive of Islam while pretending to be respectful. (I am highly critic of Islam -- as well as of Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion Abrahamic or not -- but even when you consider an attitude to be negative, it is a wise course to know and understand it).
Specific interest groups within these wider groups push, loudly, for their own purposes... it is a struggle for of power, and Critical <Name> Theory folks should have read their Foucault better (if even they know where their power rigmaroles come from). Groups are painted with very broad brushes, but who reaps the (temporary) victory are not the broad groups, but individual activists or subgroups that push their own agendas.
The entire Human Rights established regulations are being increasingly hijacked by groups that are bent on silencing dissent using the vague concept of "harm", discrimination and "-phobia".
From many parts they are also deeply conservative and illiberal groups, which happens mostly outside of the West but increasingly here as well, pointedly starting with religion.
Make no mistake. All of these are strategies, conscious or not, that go in the direction of an illiberal society where undesired thought is suppressed. It is not a matter of Left or Right -- this tendency has always existed in both camps. It is a matter of dreaming a society where what is different is NOT allowed to exist. Dreams of this kind are always built on good intentions, a sense of guilt and a sense that what is other than you diminishes what you are.
Let us all look at ourselves and count the number of unwarranted generalisation we make every day, driven by anger. ALL OF THEM, we say. ALL OF THEM. EVIL. WRONG. ENEMY.
And with this attitude, we all go to hell. All together.
It's very odd. The very people that think it's fine to introduce elementary children to complex sexual and gender ideas believe university students should have "safe spaces" and trigger warnings.
Great article! Everyone, please join FIRE's email campaign here for this very issue: https://p2a.co/gw8pumy
Thanks for your eloquent defense of free speech on campus.
Fully agree; when will colleges finally stand up to these absurdly fragile students ; she even pre warned them but this student stayed. Disgraceful
Thank you.
As a former university academic, it saddens and sickens me that the current crop of administrators see their job as protecting the most fragile rather than encouraging open inquiry. I consistently received outstanding student evaluations from the vast majority of my students with a few terrible ones every semester. Now, the malcontents would be encouraged to invent an excuse to have me fired and undoubtedly cowardly administrators would agree.
I’m so glad I am no longer in academia, but now I don’t know if I want my grandchildren to pursue higher education.
“David Everett, associate vice president for inclusive excellence”
Orwellian little eff I am sure. But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM), so little David is just being a good compliant comrade of the collective.
Why would anyone with talent want to be a professor today?
Regarding this:
"But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM)"
Any assertion that "the Democrats" support the kind of thing that just happened at Hamline University is absurd.
That's similar to stating that all Republicans approve of the crowd that staged an insurrection at the Capital building.
Any such assertions are reductive, and as such they do more to confuse than to clarify the complex reality that we actually live in.
Can you, in fact, name even one prominent democrat leader, politician, or columnist who has expressed support for the admin at Hamline University? Conservatives and Liberals alike (from the NYT, to the WP, the Atlantic, Reason, Slate, Chronicle of Higher Education, PEN, and even the uber left dailykos) have near universally condemned Hamline's actions in this case.
I think it takes an unshakably pre-conceived notion to in any way take actual note of what's going on right now and then somehow come away saying that the sad events at Hamline are supported by Democrats.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that we do not really have a sufficient political/cultural vocabulary to more accurately describe those administrators at Hamline. Some terms that might apply: ideologues, Leftists, Far Left extremists, or perhaps even identitarians.
But "Democrats" in general? That is simply an absurd assertion.
Sir, your political party, and the average voter that supports it, has moved far away from the core ideological principles that sustained it. It is not favorable to the working class. It is not supportive of liberal principles. I live in a liberal college town... 82% voted for Joe Biden in the last election. About the same ratio voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I have lived here 40+ years and count many liberal Democrats as friends. You might just be the exception to what they have become, but they tacitly and explicitly support the identity politics agenda. And although they claim to wring their hands over cancel culture, they don't really oppose it because they know it benefits their politics.
There is not enough direct opposition and outrage coming from the Democrats to get my agreement that we should consider them "not all the same". The party moves as a collective.
Good post. Thanks.
First, your grandfather that sounds like a conservative Democrat from the Greatest Generation would not today, or at least should not today, support the Democrat party as it is.
Democrats today rarely step out of the party line. Unanimous voting in the House for Hakeem Jeffries even though he had been a blatant and vocal election denier. I get this constant criticism from my left friends for generalizing, yet they vote party line every time. And today that party line is connected to the globalist corporatist uniparty and the radical social justice agenda. They say they reject cancel culture, and yet vote for the politicians that promote it. They say they reject war, yet vote for the politicians that get us involved in wars. They say they reject authoritarianism, yet vote for the politicians that implement the most authoritarian and draconian policies. They say they are for the poor and working class, yet vote for the politicians that implement policies that hurt the poor and working class. They say they are for law and order, yet vote for the politicians that dismantle law and order. They say they are for supporting children, yet vote for politicians that push policies that are terrible for children.
I just don't find any truly moderate Democrats today that vote in any way that backs their claim of being moderate.
You can see the polls on opinion s of Democrats on topics like freedom of speech, and other topics and all of it has drifted way left radical and away from the traditional views of Democrats.
"You live in a college town. How many of your friends work at the college? Do you understand the effect of shunning, and of unemployment? Can they afford outrage?"
I don't understand these questions. The town is about 70k people. It is filled with old retirees of the university and students. The old retirees block significant new development with a city ordinance that requires a majority vote. The cost of housing is very high. The university pay and benefits are best in the region. Many of the academics and administrators that retire are millionaires. But they are progressive in that they have adopted the the modern Democrat platform of social justice excess, global warming cult hysteria, COVID hysteria, support for war, support for globalism, support for open borders, support for policies that destroy small business at the benefit of the large corporations, etc... They are nothing like your grandfather.
Thanks for the clarification. The TR time was interesting related to the GOP... another candidate that split the party like Trump. Resulted in a terrible 8 years of Wilson. Then again Perot gave us the terrible 8 years of Clinton... and it was all down hill from there.
These university employees are state workers with pensions and healthcare covered. They retire in their early 60s generally... some in their late 50s. Yes, they are a tyranny of the majority in my town.
But they all move the same politically. They don't opine nor vote out of line from the Democrat collective.
I have lymphoma and so I can scoff at Covid hysteria. Immune compromised while in treatment, caught COVID after being jabbed and boosted. Like most people that caught it, I got the sniffles for a few days and was fine. Everybody is entitled to their own fear and fear response, just not projecting it on others... especially when it damages the lives of young and healthy people. I don't know how people feel entitled telling other people how to live their lives in fear of a virus.
I fully agree. The despicable statement and actions of the administration are appalling on many levels. They would not think for a second (rightly) to give Christian students veto power over everything that gets shown in art class, not even something like Piss Christ, as the author notes. That alone is grounds for a class action law suit against the university. How inconvenient for the woke that their double standards run directly afoul of civil rights law.
I am not sure that being offended occasionally is a bad thing especially in college where individuals are presumed to be adults. It can be a valuable learning experience for the individuals involved. For example being able to judge whether the action was intended to be offensive and then responding accordingly. In this instance, however, Hamline University still has a lot to learn.
It is not simply the blatant disregard for the principle of free speech (which is common to all mindsets driven by religious thought -- be it faith-based or secular ideology based, it does not matter). It is that the arguments on which the ban rests, like Professor Khalid points out, are deeply, obscenely DISCRIMINATORY.
It is not just a logical fallacy to assume that one subset of a group represents the whole: it implies the concept best expressed as: "All of them are the same". It imposes on the group a reductive identity determined by the prejudices of the authority that pronounces the statement, whether or not reinforced by vocal advocates of specific interests within the same group.
Racism is the mental attitude that attributes the same character to large groups of people based on vague phenotypes: is racist to assume that all black/coloured/white people (and subcategories thereof) think, feel and behave the same. It is racist whatever the colour of the skin of the speaker.
Religious intolerance is the mental attitude that considers religious beliefs different from one's own evil and to be eliminated, and discriminates people on this basis. Part of the discrimination is the assumption that the very same beliefs are embraced fully by any adherent of said religion.
In the specific case, what Hamline University has done is painting all Muslims with a broad brush, which is shockingly dismissive of Islam while pretending to be respectful. (I am highly critic of Islam -- as well as of Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion Abrahamic or not -- but even when you consider an attitude to be negative, it is a wise course to know and understand it).
Specific interest groups within these wider groups push, loudly, for their own purposes... it is a struggle for of power, and Critical <Name> Theory folks should have read their Foucault better (if even they know where their power rigmaroles come from). Groups are painted with very broad brushes, but who reaps the (temporary) victory are not the broad groups, but individual activists or subgroups that push their own agendas.
The entire Human Rights established regulations are being increasingly hijacked by groups that are bent on silencing dissent using the vague concept of "harm", discrimination and "-phobia".
From many parts they are also deeply conservative and illiberal groups, which happens mostly outside of the West but increasingly here as well, pointedly starting with religion.
Make no mistake. All of these are strategies, conscious or not, that go in the direction of an illiberal society where undesired thought is suppressed. It is not a matter of Left or Right -- this tendency has always existed in both camps. It is a matter of dreaming a society where what is different is NOT allowed to exist. Dreams of this kind are always built on good intentions, a sense of guilt and a sense that what is other than you diminishes what you are.
Let us all look at ourselves and count the number of unwarranted generalisation we make every day, driven by anger. ALL OF THEM, we say. ALL OF THEM. EVIL. WRONG. ENEMY.
And with this attitude, we all go to hell. All together.
If you think this is bad, witness what is happening with Jordan Peterson and the Canadian College of Psychology.
It's very odd. The very people that think it's fine to introduce elementary children to complex sexual and gender ideas believe university students should have "safe spaces" and trigger warnings.
Freedom, diversity and openess are all important for all humans