Free speech is reserved for the lemmings. By the way 2/3 vs 42% does not appear to be equivalent, unless there is a "new" math with which i have no familiarity.
We have a problem in this country with acknowledging responsibility and apologizing for the harms inflicted by the United States on indigenous and formerly enslaved people. Part of the way that Germany recovered from the horrors of the holocaust was to acknowledge its responsibility for the Nazis, apologize to the Jews and pay reparations. If the United States -- as a people through its government -- did the same with respect to slavery and its treatment of indigenous people, we might start to heal some of the rifts which are currently tearing us apart.
Land acknowledgement statements are a step in the right direction. I wholly agree that they are not terribly meaningful because there is no real substance behind them -- the schools are not giving the land back or making some sort of reparations for now occupying that land. And Professor Reges’ opinion that such statements are “performative” is certainly true. But acknowledging the history of the land and, implicitly, the responsibility of the United States in taking that land away from indigenous peoples is still a small step towards acknowledging U.S. guilt for its treatment of those people. And that is a good thing. Professor Reges may disagree and has the right to argue that such statements should be resisted, but making a snarky attempt at satire -- when no statement at all was required of him -- on the syllabus for a university course offering is hardly the proper forum for his opinions. He could have objected to the requested land acknowledgement statement by arguing to the administration that such statements are performative and meaningless and raised the issue for proper debate. Instead he chose to belittle the position taken by the university on this issue, and for that he could, and should, be subject to discipline. I’m not sure where in FIRE’s understanding of free speech there is any guaranty that you get to dump on your employer’s requirements for preparing a document for public consumption without there being any consequences. So the issue really is, can a university discipline a professor for adding a statement to a syllabus that directly undermines the university’s position on land acknowledgement statements in such syllabi. I’m having a hard time finding any aspect of academic freedom that would support the professor’s action.
I wonder how well the land acknowledgment thing would play out if we started to use it when we talk about Israel. “Jerusalem belonged to the the tribe of Judah for 1000 years before they were forcibly removed.” Or, “this mosque (Dome of the Rock) is on a site that was revered as holy by the Israeli people for more than 2,000 years before Islam even existed.”
Something tells me normal “land acknowledgers” would not be a fan…
Listening to Greenwald on a "Reason" Gillespie interview right now, every time I drive! He has made a big impression. Very intelligent, independent thinker.
I will check out the Rubin Report.
People have a range of values on some issues yet on most we fall in the middle of a Bell curve, not a dumbbell curve with two peaks at each end. It is very disturbing that we are being IMO cynically divided in a partisan way. Divide and conquer. We -are- being conquered, from within our own ranks.
In its conviction and blindness to its own hateful spirit, woke indoctrination reminds me strongly of the much more consequential Nazi indoctrination preceding the horrific death camps, of Soviet indoctrination of its citizens to accept internal repression. That the woke message has intentionally metastasized from feminist and black studies academic backwaters to infiltrate government, teaching colleges to k-12, almost all colleges and universities, corporations, charities, even now some churches, is deeply concerning. It is so successful because it co-opts premises with which almost all Americans agree, that racial and sex orientation discrimination is not compatible with our values.
The pendulum may swing back. The higher it rises in one direction, though, the more force it acquires (mg).
I can spend only so much time reading and commenting. Contributing money goes only so far. The time has come for effective action, including public speaking out as Greenwald does, and I ponder my next step.
This article is marred by its false equivalency nod in one of its opening paragraphs. There simply isn't a Right-wing version of the nasty culture of cancellation. It is owned by the Left, and failure to identify this is one reason why it isn't being unravelled nearly fast enough.
I appreciated the article, but wanted to add a note of support to lillia, Pemulis dmz and the other readers commenting on the issue of “balance” and whether Bari and the other writers on this substack are sometimes over committed to a false equivalency. I don’t think the point is that the “Right” can’t be critiqued. It can and should be. It’s the context of where the dangers are largely coming from at this point in our history, and where the power is. The Left has captured all major institutions. The Left owns most of the media, which constantly amplifies its critiques, often vastly exaggerated, of the dangers from the Right. The Left seems intent on making dissent very painful for people, if not actually criminalizing it. And as the article shows they have the power to do so throughout academia. So it can get disheartening when a source like Common Sense feels obligated to insist on “balance” and how the problem is coming from both sides. I felt that as well in the otherwise excellent round table on election denial. (And if we were living through the McCarthy red scare era of the 1950’s I would feel the focus should be on the dangers of the right.)
I wouldn't. McCarthy was confirmed to be right, something a lot of us already knew, when we got to see the KGB files. You seem to be peddling a demonstrably false narrative yourself.
Messrs Lukianoff and Bleisch essentially underscore that , were Socrates alive today, he’d again be forced to drink the hemlock . That group think and speak comes from the Left and the Right is hardly news. The natural state of Sapiens is not freedom and free thinking. Were it otherwise, the two major American political parties would long ago have been relegated to history’s dust bin …
To be fair, Professor Reges was being a dick for no good reason with his childish "under the labor theory . . ." response. But, academic freedom protects such dickitude, and I support this lawsuit 100 percent.
"The Woke" is the employer who writes the professor's paycheck. The employer issued a statement of support for the people who once owned the land. The statement was silly and in my opinion unnecessary, but completely within the employer's right to issue.
As an employee of the university, the professor should have let the matter go, because the statement didn't direct him to do anything to anyone. Instead, he chose to ridicule his employer in a very public manner, and the employer got angry.
Academic freedom gave the professor the legal right to crap on his bosses, but it doesn't guarantee he can do it with zero payback. Bosses detest being made fun of in public for no good reason, and they got even.
No, he shouldn't be fired, and the lawsuit should make sure he gets his job back. But the professor should be enough of a grownup to know how to pick his battles.
I don't know what you do for a living, Celia, but if you ridiculed your bosses like that, would you expect them to ignore it? Mine wouldn't have.
I sometimes hear these performative statements about native Americans lands at the beginning of meetings I attend. These statements always sound so out of place, as they do not pertain to the meeting agenda and could be perceived as insulting. The statements sound like they are saying thank you for the land that we have taken from native Americans and then soiled with our modernity and pollutants. I freely admit that there is a lot here that I am likely ignorant of, but I just don’t understand who is benefiting from these performative statements. Do people feel better after saying them?
Seems like free speech has declined at UW in the last 20 years. In 2001 I entered an LLM program at UW. Most of the courses I was interested in were in anthropology and geography, which is about political space and not physical space. I was the oldest student in all my classes by far and found reason to express my more conservative points of view. On two occasions the professors told me at the end of the courses they were glad I took their course because the students were hearing a point of view that was never expressed. In fact the ignorance of these PhD candidates was appalling and sad, the product of our higher education system.
Great! I have repeatedly written to the president of my alma mater, Davidson College, with no response from Dr. Quillen.
I get a form “thank you” from the Alumni office. A group has pushed the Trustees to adopt a version of the Chicago principles, but under Dr. Quillen’s lead, they have refused to take it up. Hopefully, the new president will be more open minded but his resume does not suggest that.
I have talked to many in, and around my class year, that feel that free speech is compromised and a survey of students and faculty shows ~65% have felt that they could not speak freely on some topic(s).
Yet, large numbers of the same folks continue to contribute, so why would the college change course?
Free speech is reserved for the lemmings. By the way 2/3 vs 42% does not appear to be equivalent, unless there is a "new" math with which i have no familiarity.
It's the return of Dean Wormer.
We have a problem in this country with acknowledging responsibility and apologizing for the harms inflicted by the United States on indigenous and formerly enslaved people. Part of the way that Germany recovered from the horrors of the holocaust was to acknowledge its responsibility for the Nazis, apologize to the Jews and pay reparations. If the United States -- as a people through its government -- did the same with respect to slavery and its treatment of indigenous people, we might start to heal some of the rifts which are currently tearing us apart.
Land acknowledgement statements are a step in the right direction. I wholly agree that they are not terribly meaningful because there is no real substance behind them -- the schools are not giving the land back or making some sort of reparations for now occupying that land. And Professor Reges’ opinion that such statements are “performative” is certainly true. But acknowledging the history of the land and, implicitly, the responsibility of the United States in taking that land away from indigenous peoples is still a small step towards acknowledging U.S. guilt for its treatment of those people. And that is a good thing. Professor Reges may disagree and has the right to argue that such statements should be resisted, but making a snarky attempt at satire -- when no statement at all was required of him -- on the syllabus for a university course offering is hardly the proper forum for his opinions. He could have objected to the requested land acknowledgement statement by arguing to the administration that such statements are performative and meaningless and raised the issue for proper debate. Instead he chose to belittle the position taken by the university on this issue, and for that he could, and should, be subject to discipline. I’m not sure where in FIRE’s understanding of free speech there is any guaranty that you get to dump on your employer’s requirements for preparing a document for public consumption without there being any consequences. So the issue really is, can a university discipline a professor for adding a statement to a syllabus that directly undermines the university’s position on land acknowledgement statements in such syllabi. I’m having a hard time finding any aspect of academic freedom that would support the professor’s action.
I wonder how well the land acknowledgment thing would play out if we started to use it when we talk about Israel. “Jerusalem belonged to the the tribe of Judah for 1000 years before they were forcibly removed.” Or, “this mosque (Dome of the Rock) is on a site that was revered as holy by the Israeli people for more than 2,000 years before Islam even existed.”
Something tells me normal “land acknowledgers” would not be a fan…
Moved my reply. I think. More coffee.
Thanks for the correction. I do like to use correct terminology. Just the other day I confused gravity waves with gravitational waves.
Listening to Greenwald on a "Reason" Gillespie interview right now, every time I drive! He has made a big impression. Very intelligent, independent thinker.
I will check out the Rubin Report.
People have a range of values on some issues yet on most we fall in the middle of a Bell curve, not a dumbbell curve with two peaks at each end. It is very disturbing that we are being IMO cynically divided in a partisan way. Divide and conquer. We -are- being conquered, from within our own ranks.
In its conviction and blindness to its own hateful spirit, woke indoctrination reminds me strongly of the much more consequential Nazi indoctrination preceding the horrific death camps, of Soviet indoctrination of its citizens to accept internal repression. That the woke message has intentionally metastasized from feminist and black studies academic backwaters to infiltrate government, teaching colleges to k-12, almost all colleges and universities, corporations, charities, even now some churches, is deeply concerning. It is so successful because it co-opts premises with which almost all Americans agree, that racial and sex orientation discrimination is not compatible with our values.
The pendulum may swing back. The higher it rises in one direction, though, the more force it acquires (mg).
I can spend only so much time reading and commenting. Contributing money goes only so far. The time has come for effective action, including public speaking out as Greenwald does, and I ponder my next step.
Thanks, all, for excellent comments.
This article is marred by its false equivalency nod in one of its opening paragraphs. There simply isn't a Right-wing version of the nasty culture of cancellation. It is owned by the Left, and failure to identify this is one reason why it isn't being unravelled nearly fast enough.
I appreciated the article, but wanted to add a note of support to lillia, Pemulis dmz and the other readers commenting on the issue of “balance” and whether Bari and the other writers on this substack are sometimes over committed to a false equivalency. I don’t think the point is that the “Right” can’t be critiqued. It can and should be. It’s the context of where the dangers are largely coming from at this point in our history, and where the power is. The Left has captured all major institutions. The Left owns most of the media, which constantly amplifies its critiques, often vastly exaggerated, of the dangers from the Right. The Left seems intent on making dissent very painful for people, if not actually criminalizing it. And as the article shows they have the power to do so throughout academia. So it can get disheartening when a source like Common Sense feels obligated to insist on “balance” and how the problem is coming from both sides. I felt that as well in the otherwise excellent round table on election denial. (And if we were living through the McCarthy red scare era of the 1950’s I would feel the focus should be on the dangers of the right.)
I wouldn't. McCarthy was confirmed to be right, something a lot of us already knew, when we got to see the KGB files. You seem to be peddling a demonstrably false narrative yourself.
Messrs Lukianoff and Bleisch essentially underscore that , were Socrates alive today, he’d again be forced to drink the hemlock . That group think and speak comes from the Left and the Right is hardly news. The natural state of Sapiens is not freedom and free thinking. Were it otherwise, the two major American political parties would long ago have been relegated to history’s dust bin …
To be fair, Professor Reges was being a dick for no good reason with his childish "under the labor theory . . ." response. But, academic freedom protects such dickitude, and I support this lawsuit 100 percent.
I would say that he had a very good reason: refusal to comply with the dictates of the Woke.
"The Woke" is the employer who writes the professor's paycheck. The employer issued a statement of support for the people who once owned the land. The statement was silly and in my opinion unnecessary, but completely within the employer's right to issue.
As an employee of the university, the professor should have let the matter go, because the statement didn't direct him to do anything to anyone. Instead, he chose to ridicule his employer in a very public manner, and the employer got angry.
Academic freedom gave the professor the legal right to crap on his bosses, but it doesn't guarantee he can do it with zero payback. Bosses detest being made fun of in public for no good reason, and they got even.
No, he shouldn't be fired, and the lawsuit should make sure he gets his job back. But the professor should be enough of a grownup to know how to pick his battles.
I don't know what you do for a living, Celia, but if you ridiculed your bosses like that, would you expect them to ignore it? Mine wouldn't have.
Thank you Professor Reges! We didn't have our daughter apply to U of W or other schools like it that are so extreme in their group think views.
Amen
I sometimes hear these performative statements about native Americans lands at the beginning of meetings I attend. These statements always sound so out of place, as they do not pertain to the meeting agenda and could be perceived as insulting. The statements sound like they are saying thank you for the land that we have taken from native Americans and then soiled with our modernity and pollutants. I freely admit that there is a lot here that I am likely ignorant of, but I just don’t understand who is benefiting from these performative statements. Do people feel better after saying them?
Seems like free speech has declined at UW in the last 20 years. In 2001 I entered an LLM program at UW. Most of the courses I was interested in were in anthropology and geography, which is about political space and not physical space. I was the oldest student in all my classes by far and found reason to express my more conservative points of view. On two occasions the professors told me at the end of the courses they were glad I took their course because the students were hearing a point of view that was never expressed. In fact the ignorance of these PhD candidates was appalling and sad, the product of our higher education system.
Great! I have repeatedly written to the president of my alma mater, Davidson College, with no response from Dr. Quillen.
I get a form “thank you” from the Alumni office. A group has pushed the Trustees to adopt a version of the Chicago principles, but under Dr. Quillen’s lead, they have refused to take it up. Hopefully, the new president will be more open minded but his resume does not suggest that.
I have talked to many in, and around my class year, that feel that free speech is compromised and a survey of students and faculty shows ~65% have felt that they could not speak freely on some topic(s).
Yet, large numbers of the same folks continue to contribute, so why would the college change course?
At a “liberal arts college”? Very sad.
The Principles that Chicago itself abandened a couple of years ago.