I wonder to what extent autism spectrum disorders underlie the behaviors of the campus protesters. Like Greta Thunberg's relentless and at times senseless positions, they are fed by an insatiable urge to hyperfocus on a target with an anti-social bent. I certainly see this with the activism in Seattle over the last 10 years. The internet helps these people communicate and organize easily and they seem to have massive time on their hands as well to organize, stack meetings, print propaganda, buy costumes, etc. It's just a hunch about the connection to autism spectrum disorders, but my anecdotal experience supports the theory. It's already proven that people with autism spectrum disorders are more susceptible to radicalization. Maybe this is more of that.
Up to now, I had thought of the average strident student activist as the offspring of a liberal or progressive upper middle class family in which well educated and accomplished parents expose their bright children at an early age to debates about politics and current events and inculcate their kids with critical thinking skills. When they apply for college, they impress the admissions committee with their history of outspoken activism for progressive causes.
"Elite" campuses, where student activists find kindred spirits and have the leisure time to devote to activism, are ideal places for these young activists. Also, in addition to finding outlets for their zeal for social justice, the kids may escalate their activism to gain status among their peers and to improve their chances of hooking up. They cultivate a reputation for badassery in pursuit of their activist objectives. There's nothing like turning out in black bloc to make a youngster from New Jersey feel like he's on the front lines in the antiwar protests at Columbia.
A subtype is the BIPOC student who pursues the endless opportunities on campus to participate in ready-made racial and ethnic grievance culture.
The protests of the 60s and early 70s in response to the Vietnam War went from merely protesting the government's position on the war to eventually vilifying the soldiers who were sent there by the government, many of whom were minority or lower socioeconomic groups. To me, this is unacceptable.
Much in the way that the current protests went from protesting the Israeli government's ( I feel correct) response to a heinous terrorist attack, to attacking Jews in general, and attacking not just our government's position (whatever that is, I'm still not sure) to attacking our very country.
I see several things in all this. I think many of these protesters are upper class kids who need a "cause" to rally around and really have no idea about the history of Israel and the Middle East. There are others who are likely of Middle East/Palestinian origin who are protesting on behalf of their fellow people. I also believe there are some entities pulling the strings on many of these protests and that they are not necessarily "grass roots".
For those who wish to protest peacefully with signs and rallies and stay out of the way of students attending classes and do not harass students who may be Jewish or support Israel, then have at it.
Destroying property, disrupting classes and student attendance, and making violent threats are unacceptable. And double standards should be avoided. How long would it take a rally by the Proud Boys or some White Supremacy group to be shut down by the campus administration.
Much like the BLM protests which I also believe were influenced by outside sources, the right to protest peacefully despite one's disagreement with the protestors should be honored. However, once those protests devolve into violence and destruction, they need to be immediately terminated and arrests made.
This carefully crafted, profoundly thoughtful, and elegantly written essay leaves us with the same old question. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
I am consoled by the fact that David Bromwich is thinking about and writing about this great problem in our society. Yet, these campgrounds are constructed on an identity built on the demonization of others. The human chains are symbolic less of keeping out than keeping in. Self love, as is so often the case, is built on lies about those who are in most respects indistinguishable from the group. Recognizing this is a mortal threat, thus the chain. This type of group identity is fragile and the links between members are necessary to keep everyone bound in hatred. Creating the desire to leave the echo chamber requires changing the motivation, which is like persuading an alcoholic or drug addict to to quit. Difficult, since all substance abusers need their fellows to stay addicted or face a crisis themselves. Mr. Bromwich’s essay is a worthy contribution towards breaking the chain.
How widespread and influential is the "New Encampment Culture" among the approximately 5300 colleges and universities in the United States? The media have their own ideas about what constitutes an elite college or university. However, most college students will never attend what the media consider to be an elite college or university, but will go on to be responsible citizens and have productive careers. Further, we are still a capitalistic society in which delivering a product or service efficiently and effectively from the private sector remains valued. I may be wrong but I suspect that many of the so-called elite educational institutions are not preparing their students for functioning in the private sector, which, of course (somewhat voluntarily), supports the public sector and NGO organizations.
The flaw in so much of this criticism is that it is looking at a small number of students and assuming that they represent the broader mindset. Yes, survey data does suggest that college students are more liberal than the general population. It has been this way a long time. But a handfull of people in tents or signing silly and insensitive statements do not speak for anyone other than themselves.
I wonder to what extent autism spectrum disorders underlie the behaviors of the campus protesters. Like Greta Thunberg's relentless and at times senseless positions, they are fed by an insatiable urge to hyperfocus on a target with an anti-social bent. I certainly see this with the activism in Seattle over the last 10 years. The internet helps these people communicate and organize easily and they seem to have massive time on their hands as well to organize, stack meetings, print propaganda, buy costumes, etc. It's just a hunch about the connection to autism spectrum disorders, but my anecdotal experience supports the theory. It's already proven that people with autism spectrum disorders are more susceptible to radicalization. Maybe this is more of that.
Well many of those individuals get sucked into the Transgender world too, so there is that.
Excellent point!
Up to now, I had thought of the average strident student activist as the offspring of a liberal or progressive upper middle class family in which well educated and accomplished parents expose their bright children at an early age to debates about politics and current events and inculcate their kids with critical thinking skills. When they apply for college, they impress the admissions committee with their history of outspoken activism for progressive causes.
"Elite" campuses, where student activists find kindred spirits and have the leisure time to devote to activism, are ideal places for these young activists. Also, in addition to finding outlets for their zeal for social justice, the kids may escalate their activism to gain status among their peers and to improve their chances of hooking up. They cultivate a reputation for badassery in pursuit of their activist objectives. There's nothing like turning out in black bloc to make a youngster from New Jersey feel like he's on the front lines in the antiwar protests at Columbia.
A subtype is the BIPOC student who pursues the endless opportunities on campus to participate in ready-made racial and ethnic grievance culture.
The protests of the 60s and early 70s in response to the Vietnam War went from merely protesting the government's position on the war to eventually vilifying the soldiers who were sent there by the government, many of whom were minority or lower socioeconomic groups. To me, this is unacceptable.
Much in the way that the current protests went from protesting the Israeli government's ( I feel correct) response to a heinous terrorist attack, to attacking Jews in general, and attacking not just our government's position (whatever that is, I'm still not sure) to attacking our very country.
I see several things in all this. I think many of these protesters are upper class kids who need a "cause" to rally around and really have no idea about the history of Israel and the Middle East. There are others who are likely of Middle East/Palestinian origin who are protesting on behalf of their fellow people. I also believe there are some entities pulling the strings on many of these protests and that they are not necessarily "grass roots".
For those who wish to protest peacefully with signs and rallies and stay out of the way of students attending classes and do not harass students who may be Jewish or support Israel, then have at it.
Destroying property, disrupting classes and student attendance, and making violent threats are unacceptable. And double standards should be avoided. How long would it take a rally by the Proud Boys or some White Supremacy group to be shut down by the campus administration.
Much like the BLM protests which I also believe were influenced by outside sources, the right to protest peacefully despite one's disagreement with the protestors should be honored. However, once those protests devolve into violence and destruction, they need to be immediately terminated and arrests made.
This carefully crafted, profoundly thoughtful, and elegantly written essay leaves us with the same old question. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to want to change.
I am consoled by the fact that David Bromwich is thinking about and writing about this great problem in our society. Yet, these campgrounds are constructed on an identity built on the demonization of others. The human chains are symbolic less of keeping out than keeping in. Self love, as is so often the case, is built on lies about those who are in most respects indistinguishable from the group. Recognizing this is a mortal threat, thus the chain. This type of group identity is fragile and the links between members are necessary to keep everyone bound in hatred. Creating the desire to leave the echo chamber requires changing the motivation, which is like persuading an alcoholic or drug addict to to quit. Difficult, since all substance abusers need their fellows to stay addicted or face a crisis themselves. Mr. Bromwich’s essay is a worthy contribution towards breaking the chain.
I am enjoying the entire series.
How widespread and influential is the "New Encampment Culture" among the approximately 5300 colleges and universities in the United States? The media have their own ideas about what constitutes an elite college or university. However, most college students will never attend what the media consider to be an elite college or university, but will go on to be responsible citizens and have productive careers. Further, we are still a capitalistic society in which delivering a product or service efficiently and effectively from the private sector remains valued. I may be wrong but I suspect that many of the so-called elite educational institutions are not preparing their students for functioning in the private sector, which, of course (somewhat voluntarily), supports the public sector and NGO organizations.
The flaw in so much of this criticism is that it is looking at a small number of students and assuming that they represent the broader mindset. Yes, survey data does suggest that college students are more liberal than the general population. It has been this way a long time. But a handfull of people in tents or signing silly and insensitive statements do not speak for anyone other than themselves.