
The Yale Problem Begins in High School - frostmatthew
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/
======
jseliger
I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and
attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty
interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy.
They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no
sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about
accusations of indifference or insensitivity (which are themselves as good as
convictions). There is a strong economic and career incentive for
administrators to take _everything_ seriously and to keep their heads down as
much as possible.

Brew this up and one gets a majority of students who are reasonable but a
small minority who drive all the discourse.

I don't teach at Yale and have never taught at Yale or schools with similar
cultures, so I can't speak to the environment there, but William Deresiewicz
did, and his book _Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and
the Way to a Meaningful Life_ came out of that and I recommend it. His book _A
Jane Austen Education_ ([http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-
how-six-n...](http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-how-six-
novels-taught-me-about-love/)) is also very good, even for someone like me who
does not love Jane Austen.

 _Edit:_ Also, almost all of the censorship calls and nasty behavior /
comments came from students on the left. Vox's "I'm a liberal professor, and
my liberal students terrify me" ([http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-
professor-afraid](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-
afraid)) is congruent with my experiences.

~~~
nickbauman
The problem with "balancing viewpoints" argument is that it isn't based on a
critical ethos and so it cannot progress on the basis of logos. You can have a
"balanced viewpoint" and still have debates about _" whether the moon is made
of the body of Vince Foster or not."_ There are certain ideas that just don't
belong in a university setting because they are _bunk_ and this has nothing to
do with diversity of opinion.

It similar to the bogus _fair and balanced_ media argument. News reporting is
about reporting the facts _as they lead logically_ so that if anyone would
perform the work of the journalist they would arrive at _similar conclusions_
regardless of their perspective or polity. It's very much like the scientific
method. Focusing on opinion diversity is a red herring.

~~~
frotak
You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely.

The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his
anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the
economic collapse was caused by poor black people":

"I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that
assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest,
and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear
things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you
don't think it was, how could it have been?"

In other words - in the case of "bunk" it can be summarily dismissed with a
proper basis. Which is entirely different from vilifying and personally
attacking a person for their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual
harm to anyone else. People can have bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be
completely harmless no matter how much you might find them distasteful.

Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and
experiences to bear on a subject.

It works in the hard sciences:
[https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-
math-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math-
problem/)

Why shouldn't it similarly be applied in areas of morality, ethics, social
science, etc?

~~~
snowwrestler
I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the argument,
although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of course.

To really understand an argument, one has to start with its subject. Are we
talking about viewpoints or people? What the blog post author focuses on is
people:

> Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the
> right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how discourse is conducted and
should be conducted. _People_ are not on the right politically, conservative,
or Republican. People are people, and each might hold or articulate viewpoints
or opinions that are on the right politically or conservative. They might be a
member of the Republican Party. All of these are elective and potentially
temporary.

The whole point of discourse is that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can
change. So to start by framing those as elements of identity needing
protection, feeds directly into a framework for discussion that is conflicted.
If a discussion must validate and protect all viewpoints (conservative or
liberal), then what is going to be discussed?

IMO the right way to approach this situation is to explore the potential
consequences of voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are far less scary
than teenagers might suppose. We should focus on how to give each individual
student the mental tools to effectively evaluate arguments, and to manage
their anxiety about going against perceived social norms.

Teaching kids to be brave in speaking up against prevailing opinion can help
create positive outcomes throughout their lives. We _want_ citizens who will
speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face
trouble.

~~~
sanderjd
> We want citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they
> know they will face trouble.

I thought your comment was really good, but I don't think this conclusion is
_quite_ right. The problem is that lots of different people "know" that lots
of different things are "right". In my life experience (read: I have no data
on this), we don't seem to have the problem that not enough people will "speak
up for what they know is right" because they fear trouble, we instead have the
problem that not enough people are willing to challenge themselves on what
they "know" is "right".

Sorry for all the scare quotes, but my point is that the entire idea that
people can know that things are right, and then speak up for those things, is
off-base. Certainly, it's a good thing to have a sense for what you think is
right, and to be able to speak up for those things, but it's a much better and
much harder thing to be open to being convinced that you are incorrect. That's
what I don't see much of in our society, and what all schools, and
universities in particular, should do a better of imparting to their students!
Instead of teaching people to better manage their anxiety about speaking
against perceived social norms, we would be better off improving peoples'
skills of hearing things they disagree with, and of structuring their own
arguments such that they don't drown out that disagreement (for instance, the
all too familiar tactic of yelling and/or ranting continuously).

~~~
sanderjd
Replying to myself, because I've found that my comment ended up supporting the
original article, at least in part, which I didn't particularly like or find
myself nodding along to.

I guess where I find that I agree with the author is that we could all use to
do a better job of really _listening_ to different opinions. But where the
author was targeting that advice at the "victims" who shouldn't shout down
their "oppressors", in my experience it is more often the case that people
with brash opinions that tend to offend people are the ones who "know they are
right" and are unlikely to really hear the other side.

But I suppose there is plenty of closed-mindedness, lack of charity, and
stubbornness to go around!

------
lumberjack
These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what
should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or
for rights like free speech.

I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left
leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are
simply more elitist than they are anything else.

They don't really stand for equality because they do not possess the
humbleness to bring themselves to the level of the common person. They believe
themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to the common Joe. And
yet they want to dupe the common Joe into thinking that they will safeguard
his interests while at the same time thinking so poorly of him!

~~~
BurningFrog
The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are
winning.

~~~
marcoperaza
This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer
is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this
movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with
them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got
Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing
a bunch of young men of a vicious gang rape. No one wants to be next.

~~~
gaius
See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals)

~~~
MollyR
Wow thank you for this link.

Its interesting to see where these horrible tactics come from.

It certainly frightening to see things like rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze
it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate
the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt
faster than institutions.

This is horrifying to see codified, and what I assume being practiced on
purpose, like what those yale students did to their professor, or at least
tried too.

~~~
gaius
Yep once you know "the rules" you can easily analyze all these protests or
incidents.

~~~
diydsp
I am strangely relieved that their perception of power is this basic:

“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power
is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build
power from flesh and blood.

------
tosseraccount
Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to
the majority side in a California proposition.

It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

~~~
dragonwriter
The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that
you can't speak freely.

Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized
(quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech
acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to
hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization
(such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from
the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation
(the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting
the corporation, even if it _wasn 't_ resulting from your speech acts.)

~~~
DrJokepu
This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing.
It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not
abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a
free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or
voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply
irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to
tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a
> fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice

Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting
opinion or voice.

There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) _displeasure_ with an
opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not.

And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities
include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to
do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation
faces, _whether or not_ your own speech acts are the _source_ of that PR
problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.

~~~
ElComradio
The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain
opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that
basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would
probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit
afterwards.

~~~
nkassis
I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference
between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone
for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was
fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a
group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either
way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.

~~~
ElComradio
Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal
AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at
all.

In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's
claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be
legal) and not for being a gay person.

------
richard_mcp
I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights
movement" stuff until I saw the author was Jonathan Haidt. I had the honor to
take Psyc 101 with Prof. Haidt years ago at the University of Virginia. He was
a wonderful teacher who expected the best out of his students. He struck me as
a very intelligent man who had put a lot of thought into both what he taught
as well as his opinions. When he bring up his own beliefs in class he was very
open to letting others voice dissenting opinions. More importantly, he always
seemed willing to consider alternative views.

I know this is all anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in his opinions and pay
attention when he says something.

Unrelated, but he gave a great Ted talk in 2008 about the difference between
liberals and conservatives:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind)

~~~
id
So it doesn't matter what is being said as long as it is coming from the right
person?

~~~
Tarrosion
Or more charitably, the grandparent comment author found a way to do the
admirable (and for almost all of us, all-too-rare) task of reevaluating with
renewed respect something previously dismissed.

------
Nickersf
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers has done some interesting research, and given many
eye opening talks regarding this matter. Reading this article made my morning.
It's time we step back and reevaluate the way we are raising the youth. This
war on boys is wrong, and could have disastrous effects on our society in the
future.

~~~
dudul
Agreed. It is baffling to me that nobody seems to seriously consider that this
war on men/boys is what creates this weird and uncomfortable social dynamic.
Masculinity is not something to be feared or ashamed of, teaching that is what
creates dysfunctional men.

~~~
kod
No, social norms that

    
    
      - you're not allowed to show emotion (unless it's anger)
      - you must get all of your emotional needs met through first your mother, and then your girlfriend / wife
    

are what creates dysfunctional men.

~~~
Retric
As a tall, large framed man, I often get very strong negative reactions when I
am physically fit. And I mean fit not weightlifting bulk. Keeping short hair
and a clean shave while swimming regularly is a very utilitarian choice, but
you get even stronger negative reactions. The way out? Growing long hair
transformed rather negative skin head connotations with a far more teasing
Fabio.

Our culture really looks down on the strong male archetype.

PS: Don't believe me? Try growing a natural aka full beard.

~~~
thomnottom
As someone with a full beard, a father who wears a full beard, and several
friends with full beards, what is the problem with them?

~~~
Retric
For one thing it lowers the bar before people think your indigent. Depending
on industry it can often make it harder to find a job. On the whole it's
generally viewed as a low status symbol.

Granted this is mostly from the east coast of the US (DC). And having a styled
bearded seems to make a large difference.

~~~
thomnottom
All I can say is that I and my friends in the NYC and Philly region working
(mostly) in pharmaceutical and financial industries do not generally
experience this. But obviously that would be anecdotal.

~~~
moistgorilla
> financial

Isn't finance the place where being clean shaven is almost necessary if you
want to succeed?

~~~
remarkEon
-> almost necessary

Required. I'm in graduate school right now and you won't get a call back for
2nd rounds if you have a beard. It's some sort of irrational proxy for
discipline.

------
mariodiana
> Alumni should take it into account before writing any more checks.

This is the key takeaway for anyone interested in getting this nonsense to
stop.

------
econnors
As a student at Dartmouth, I find this article to be extremely accurate and
representative of the culture I've encountered amongst the protests here and
(through conversations with friends) at other places across the country. As a
white male, my friends and I are too intimidated by the Black Lives Matter
protesters and their actions to try to initiate any sort of discussion on the
matter in fear that we'll only provoke more anger and protest.

~~~
flopto
If people are angry about X and you go up to them and try to tell them how
much you like/support X, isn't that what you'd expect? To make people want to
engage you in a thoughtful discussion, it's important to demonstrate humility
and open-mindedness to their opinions.

~~~
remarkEon
I recently tried to engage a BLM protester about the issues, hoping to have a
thoughtful discussion about some policies and ways forward to improve the
situation. 3 paragraphs latter, I was being told that my white privilege
should exclude me from even participating in the discussion, let alone
informing decisions about policy - ostensibly because I do not have a shared
experience of discrimination.

Disclaimer: I'm a white male from the midwest.

------
lanny
While I agree with most of the article, the author tries to politicize it at
points, which I think is a mistake. This is not an issue of liberals trying to
silence opposition, indeed when we see the most vehement efforts at shaming
differing views the language is not ideological but personal: "X was hurtful"
"He/she felt threatened".

I'm a true blue leftist not long out of a famously liberal liberal university
and I would have raised my hands on the eggshells questions. I vividly recall
a student proposing a test on candidates' general positions at polls and being
literally shouted down before he could finish speaking. Despite its ugly
history in the US it's not of liberals vs conservatives, at least not in the
way we use those terms in the US.

We have a problem with limiting discourse in schools but trying to shoehorn it
into the usual political framework frankly alienates those of us in the left
who are having to choose between apologizing for zealots on our side of the
spectrum or aligning with groups that seem to inevitably take on repulsive
undertones of intolerance and a whole other host of positions that have
nothing to do with our own beyond being marginalized by the same extremely
vocal group.

------
1812Overture
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is that this sort of walking on
eggshells culture tends to build higher walls around the privileged and
powerful group. How often do you think these privileged rich white boys go on
to become employers and refuse to higher someone from an out group
(consciously or unconsciously) due to fear that the slightest misinterpreted
off hand remark could bring hell down on them, but if they hire the other
privileged white guy they can comfortably be themselves without risk.

I think even if you have the most leftist SJW views and objectives, you have
to see this as counter productive.

~~~
vlehto
I'm pretty sure some leftist SJW really can't see this as counter productive.
It's not just employment, this shit cuts through everything. I can't imagine
how this crowd could side with the white supremacists knowingly.

But then there is Slavoj Zizek, who agrees with you and me.
[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg)

------
purplerabbit
Thank you so much for posting this. It articulated a lot of the angst I was
feeling in college that I felt like I couldn't express without sounding
insensitive or offensive.

~~~
fleitz
Sometimes it's best to be insensitive and offensive.

------
waylandsmithers
This drove me out of the humanities completely when I was in college. The
topic of discussion in a class freshman year was whether natural selection
still or ever applied to humans. I said no, because decisions on how many kids
you have tends to vary from culture to culture, and I mentioned specifically
Catholicism and the 1 child law in China. And I was called racist.

Never got accused of being racist in Calc.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
What does the 'one child' law have to do with natural selection, and how does
your answer relate to the prior 50 years of life in China.

------
ps4fanboy
HN suffers from this problem, and I have found it increasing over time.
Sometimes I am afraid to upvote certain stories or comments as I fear the
hidden moderators can see what people are voting on and punish them
accordingly. I know that this is irrational but still those feelings creep in.
Every time the hate mob takes someone down professionally and the more
ridiculous the circumstances the more people self censor. The silent majority
is the biggest political and social problem of our time. People forget that
far left political movements have been just as bloody and hateful as far
right. This stuff is dangerous.

~~~
steve-howard
I've never liked appeals to a "silent majority" because it groups everyone who
doesn't make their voice heard into a vague group that's assumed to be on the
same page. I'm generally silent on these issues, for example, but my stance
isn't as simple as "I disagree with those stupid college kids" or "all of you
people are so privileged and ignorant."

You definitely got at the thrust of the issue, though. I don't really want to
present an opinion that's going to trigger an avalanche of hate that might not
even relate to what I'm saying. I don't post the vast majority of the comments
I start typing.

~~~
ps4fanboy
Sorry I didnt mean to suggest that the silent majority has the same views more
that the majority is silent, and I wanted to link that maybe they are silent
because of the climate of going after people so aggressively for having the
wrong brand (problematic) of views/beliefs.

I prefer a society where people can be challenged on their beliefs, when
people refuse to have a rational discussion using logic and real facts they
are exposing themselves for what they are, hateful.

------
holmak
The concept presented here of "seeking justice by appeal to the majority"
reminds me of the Twitter phenomenon in which people learned that the only way
to get customer service from Google/Ubisoft/Bank of America/(insert giant
faceless company) was to tweet a grievance publicly. It seems to work well, at
least in a few high-profile cases. At least, it worked a few times when
private requests failed. Perhaps people are learning by example?

The old-fashioned ("culture of honor/dignity"?) style of one-on-one
negotiation is often futile when you are dealing with a company.

~~~
CM30
Well yes, they're learning by example. People are getting fired or ostracised
by mobs on sites like Twitter based on things like this. It's an unfortunate
pattern where instead of countering arguments or having a debate, a lot of
people (especially in these SJW groups) tend to try and destroy someone's
livelihood instead.

And because a lot of companies seem to care more about their 'reputation' then
any sort of principles, you end up in a situation where people are too scared
to talk out in case a social media mob destroys their life.

~~~
thelastguy
It's the classic witch hunt mob.

Girl A: I like apples. Girl B: I don't like what you're saying. Hey everybody,
she's a witch!

Mob deals out punishment.

You can clearly see that the mob is being played, being used like a pawn, by
Girl B. The mob doesn't actually benefit form this. Girl B benefits from this
because she got rid of her competitor.

The same way those students protesting are being used by the person at the
top. The students don't actually benefits. Meanwhile, the person calling the
mob to action is actually the person that benefits (law suit settlement,
patronage, donations, government funding, etc).

------
leroy_masochist
For a while now I've thought that 4-year residential college is a dying model.
Here's how I view the value proposition of college and how it is being
replaced by tech:

* Validation of raw talent by a third party (admissions office) --> can be done by technology today in ways impossible 10 years ago and hard to imagine 30 years ago

* Socialization around other people in the top decile (or higher) of book-smarts --> can largely be done by online communities (not a full replacement for interpersonal interaction but better than what was available before)

* Access to top-tier employers who didn't have time to look through every candidate out there, so economized their recruiting efforts at places where smart young people are concentrated --> this model made largely obsolete by internet

* Access to lots of obscure books at college library --> made completely obsolete by internet

* Access to great lectures --> made obsolete by internet / MOOCs

* Access to a diversity of opinions, the exposure to which will make you a better and more informed person --> these days only applicable if you come from a very sheltered conservative background....otherwise college just reinforces existing biases

If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a
testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else),
at this point I'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a
fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or
hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging,
over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution. They just seem more
and more like indoctrination mills that crank out entitled little whiners.

//grumpy old man rant over

~~~
enjo
_If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a
testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else),
at this point I 'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a
fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or
hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging,
over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution._

I reach the exact opposite conclusion. Give me a student who has spent four
years learning how to learn. Someone who has had forced exposure to a whole
lot of different disciplines. Who was forced to study things they don't much
care about, because the value in doing so is so high.

Spending four years pursuing a passion, or working on a boat.. is.. great I
suppose. But a well-rounded college graduate is something the tech crowd
really doesn't value enough these days.

~~~
leroy_masochist
I actually agree strongly with your point, I just think that the pursuits
named above are better at teaching people how to learn than many colleges are
these days.

------
msie
I liked the following comment. The speaker himself is probably biased as to
what happened to him:

 _As a student of ‘centerville high school’ as well, I can assure you this
comment is completely true. While multiple questions were phrased as attacks
towards Haidt personally, many of them were completely rational. In response
to one question (about his annoyance towards people who are pushing women to
be in more stem positions) he stated a very vague position on how women, no
matter their environmental conditions in childhood, are still predisposed to
not be in stem positions (genetically). This was not the only ‘sketchy’ point
he made. The question about his condoning of rape, while completely
unnecessary, was founded on his insensitivity towards the subject (which
continued into many subjects, including race and gender). His careful picking
of data allowed his points to made clearly and succinctly in his mind.
Questions that were too long or that had follow ups were completely ignored.
In response to one of the first (albeit angry and unnecessary) questions,
Haidt’s response was to tell the audience that in order to fully look at an
argument, one had to look at both sides, something I (as someone who did
believe in a large amount of what Haidt was saying) had to scoff at. His
entire argument was founded on the idea that everyone being free to say
whatever they want is the best thing possible for American schools, while
being politically correct in all scenarios is the worst thing possible for
American schools. Obviously there are positive and negative aspects to both.
This completely contradicts his belief to look at both sides of an argument
dispassionately, not to mention being hard, as students who do care about
their education, to listen to. Haidt’s talk was difficult to listen to. Even
though I believe in almost all of his points (despite being part of many,
although not all, of the minority groups mentioned) his inability to speak to
us effectively (in a way that didn’t seem like he condoned rape) made it so
that his argument was not relayed to us clearly. His blatant misunderstanding
of his audience put him in the position to be attacked. One can say that he
did that on purpose, to prove his point about shaking those who do walk on
eggshells. But that doesn’t work. Telling defensive people their wrong doesn’t
work. Sorry._

------
at-fates-hands
The one thing that perplexes me more than anything is nobody ever thought free
speech allows us to monitor the people who have radical ideologies and ideas
that threaten our country. When you silence opposition simply because it
offends somebody or some group, you lose the opportunity to monitor these
people and their ideas.

I want to know if there's skinheads who want to start a race war or the black
panther party leader who advocates violence against non-whites. Sure it's
offensive to me, but I want to KNOW these people are out there and know what
they're thinking.

~~~
CM30
This is one of the reason governments and police forces aren't trying to
complete wipe terrorists groups and extremists off the internet. Because if
their posts are publically viewable, then it's easier to watch what they're up
to and stop anything dangerous occurring as a result. If they take them down,
then these people simply go 'underground' and becomes it a lot more difficult
to check whether they're planning anything.

Of course, there's also a downside (that a certain few people might be
inspired or encouraged by extremist content they see online), but it's better
for security to let such people give themselves away before anything can
happen.

------
alexandercrohde
Thank you for posting this article. I've often felt the "walking on eggshells"
phenomenon you describe, but I've never even felt able to call it out without
risking being labeled an "enemy" of a cause. Seems you found a great way to do
so.

------
balls187
South Park's Stunning and Brave did a great take down on this intolerance of
intolerance culture that is growing among US youth.

~~~
rglover
Came here to post this as it's hands down the most brilliant indictment of
this culture I've seen to date:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI)

------
bwanab
Prof. Haidt was also the co-author of this piece in The Atlantic Monthly:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-
luk...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-lukianoffs-
story/399359/)

------
Aqueous
as long the definition of the word 'safety' has been expanded to include
removing any risk of emotional distress from day-to-day life, we might as well
call the current campus climate 'unsafe' for anyone who doesn't hold the
prevailing views. i know i certainly didn't feel 'safe' to express the
occasional disagreement with the majority opinion while at wesleyan, even
though i was 99% in agreement with those prevailing views. i felt paranoid
about (either accidentally or deliberately) saying the wrong thing and
therefore provoking mob justice. 'walking on eggshells' was an understatement.
that paranoia felt more than justified when people who had expressed contrary
opinions were the subject of campus-wide mockery, derision, and ostracism.

being reflexively deferential to every conceivable sensitivity causes us to
disproportionately look out for the safety of some at the expense of the
overall atmosphere of civility, dignity, respect, and yes, 'safety,' of the
campus. it really hit home when recently Wesleyan's campus newspaper lost a
good portion of its funding because it dared to publish an op-ed criticizing
the Black Lives Matter movement on effectiveness grounds [1]. After all,
students no longer felt "safe" knowingly attending the same school as someone
who disagrees with them (rightly or wrongly). i am completely embarrassed.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-
flunk...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-
on-college-
campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html)

------
aikah
An excellent article. I hope people actually read it instead of dismissing it
because someone influential on twitter doesn't like the fact that it doesn't
fit a specific narrative. I'm glad academia is starting to wake up on that
very specific issue. Good luck to its author, he is going to need it, because
some people will be out eager to destroy his career.

------
matthewowen
I have extremely mixed feelings about all of this.

On the one hand, I think the whole point of university is debate, discourse,
critical thought. The apparent trend away from liberalism is very distressing.

On the other, I sympathize with the notion that liberalism can often be a way
for the privileged to entrench their privilege, and that unprivileged voices
don't benefit from it equally. If you're black and you believe that black
americans are owed reparations, you probably can't say that freely without
expecting some negative repercussions in your future life: you'll be judged
and categorized, marked as "uppity". Liberalism doesn't exist in a vacuum: we
have to take into account other societal truths when we're evaluating its
effects.

I don't have a great handle on how to reconcile all of this.

------
ericjang
Meta: In the last few weeks I've noticed that articles about the recent
college protests trending up on HN, only to be flagged and vanish.

I'm struggling to understand why these articles should be flagged and removed,
rather than downvoted or debated in the comments. Thoughts?

------
thegayngler
I guess you could argue the up/down voting on this forum is a question of
group think or bulling type of behavior.

~~~
thelastguy
It's a type of group think. BUT, it is NOT a type of bullying. Bullying
requires that people shame/harass/doxx the op. Which they do not.

Compare to the universities, where students bullies other administrators to
fire other administrators for defending freedom of speech.

------
thucydides
This article Haidt links on the sociology of the new culture of victimhood is
very insightful: [http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-
come-...](http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/)

------
eecks
Does this stuff happen outside of America? It's all very crazy.

------
z3t4
The problem is that this also goes on in adulthood and even in board meetings.
Even if you have the majority on your side they will sit quietly and watch you
take a beating!

Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something
that is not "politically correct".

The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the
extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it
can become dangerous.

------
erikpukinskis
There's nothing wrong with what is being said here. Except that there are just
as many "climate" issues that woman and people of color have to face, if not
more. This person is cherry-picking discussions about race and gender and
saying "it's horrible that climate issues are making it difficult for these
white/male students from participating" but the same level of outcry doesn't
exist even though in almost every other field you can say the same kind of
thing: "it's horrible that climate issues in computer science are making it
difficult for these students of color" and the same people are silent.

And I realize I am doing a form of derailing right now, because the matter at
hand is white boys being heard. But we're actually talking about white boys
being heard during advanced discussions of race and gender. And honestly I
feel a little bit the same about it that I feel about girls being heard during
advanced discussions of parallel CPU architectures. I wish there were more
women who were in those discussions, but I don't think the solution is "just
let them participate even if what they say is totally ignorant".

Frankly, most white boys are not skilled enough to participate in discussions
about race and gender. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with
them, the pipeline is just letting us down completely. Most of us get almost
no education in race and gender, while girls and people of color get it for
free just because of their gender or race.

The solution in my mind is the same as the solution to getting more women and
other disenfranchised groups into computer science. Everyone just needs to
take a little bit of responsibility for the part of the pipeline that's one
step upstream from them. You can't just have boys who have never thought about
what colonialism actually feels like diving right into university-level gender
politics classes. But as a university professor I think you can support summer
programs for teenage boys to help them do really basic level gender analysis
stuff so that when they do get to college, they can actually participate
meaningfully with the girls, and not be seen as second-class citizens just
because they have less direct experience.

We shouldn't think of these boys as "bad gender theorists" we need to broaden
our understanding of what gender theory is, and make sure we are creating
opportunities for disenfranchised novices to get involved.

But this naive affirmative action approach OP is advocating, of "just make
sure the boys participate equally" is not taking the problem seriously. Proper
affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your
recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it.

~~~
thelastguy
>You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism
actually feels like

And now, you're just assuming that white boys have no empathy. Wow.

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for
your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it...

If everybody just stop fighting, there would be world peace. BUT, the reality
is, not everybody will stop fighting. And there is nothing we can do to change
that. We can make fighting illegal. BUT, nothing can change the reality. The
reality is, people will still fight.

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for
your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it...

I know of a way to solve the economic problem we're facing. If we just make
all CEOs of all companies competent...

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for
your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it

You may be responsibility in your recruitment process, but that doesn't mean
others will be.

>But if everybody just be more responsible in their recruitment process...

Again, if the world just stop fighting wars, there would be no wars.

But really, I don't see how that is an implementable solution. How are you
going to implement something like that? How are you going to implement "world-
stop-fighting-wars"? How are you going to implement "everyone-is-more-
responsible-when-recruiting"?

------
l33tbro
My stock retort always is "Well, I find your narrow-mindedness offensive".
Questions, logical and calmly asked, also swiftly dismantle those flapping on
about misplaced social concerns.

Almost feel sorry for them, like these views are thinly-veiled insecurities
about some aspect of themselves or trauma experienced.

------
sremani
The Intolerance of the those crusading against Intolerance is funny until it
is not.

~~~
lexcorvus
It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd
on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous
logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance,"
and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.

~~~
nonsenselies
It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of
some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between
different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and
should be ignored.

~~~
lexcorvus
_ill-defined cohort_

The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of
all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."

 _all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored_

Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't
think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll _likely_ be met with vitriol"
implies that the converse—that you _won 't_ be met with vitriol—is also
possible.

~~~
nonsenselies
Pedantry is a poor defense.

~~~
lexcorvus
"Group X tends to do Y."

"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore
be ignored."

"I said none of those things. I said Group X _tends_ to do Y, which implies
that some members of the group _don 't_ do Y."

"Pedantry is a poor defense."

Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble
seeing it, here's a mirror: [http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-
Thought-ebook/d...](http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-
ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4)

------
pedro_delfino
Great post. We have the same thing in Brazil. But I am unsure with this
problem really starts in high school. Actually, I think this problem starts on
Facebook...

------
wcummings
I don't think college students being involved in radical politics and protests
against their school is a new trend.

~~~
avn2109
I didn't downvote you, but I think other people are because the article's
central thesis is that this social phenomenon is at its core neither radical
politics nor anti-school protests. Rather, the article claims that it's merely
a new coat of paint on the same old gang bullying/identity politics/being mean
to outsiders to increase one's own social status.

~~~
RodericDay
That's how those movements were portrayed back in the day, too.

~~~
wcummings
Exactly, this isn't the first time a progressive social cause has been called
"political correctness gone mad."

------
coreyp_1
This directly relates to us in tech. Specifically, there is a huge push to
reach out to women and girls in CS. I am not opposed to females in CS at all.
I will encourage males and females alike to pursue it, because I see CS as the
great equalizer; the only thing that matters is what you produce.

What I _can 't_ stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and
workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group,
then you are actively _not_ focusing on another. Given the dichotomy defined
by their stated purpose, they are actively dismissive of men (boys). That is
wrong.

I don't care about the men/women ratio. People will choose whatever path they
enjoy and want to work at. I do care very strongly, though, about treating
people equally.

If I say this publically, then I, too, will be ostracized. _That_ is why this
article is so very important!

~~~
astroalex
I might agree that "CS is the great equalizer" if everyone is given an equal
opportunity to pursue it. But I don't think they are. Boys are given the focus
by default: just watch any Hollywood movie with a "hacker" \-- are they a man
or a woman? I believe girls are taught from a young age that CS isn't for
them.

How many potentially brilliant female computer scientists are we missing out
on as a society because our media and culture barrages them with images of
male programmers? It's in my selfish interest as a white male to promote CS
among underrepresented groups -- because one of them might come up with the
next innovation that changes my life. But they don't get the chance, because
they're told they can't be programmers.

That's why I think outreach focused on young minorities & girls is important.

~~~
coreyp_1
What movies/tv shows are you watching? Try Supernatural. Try the old movies
from the 90's like Hackers and The Net. Even the Matrix. All of them featured
women hackers as well as men.

I was not given "the focus" by default. My Jr. High and High School did not
have a CS program at all. I taught myself how to program (Pascal and Assembly)
by READING BOOKS, because we lived in a rural area and dial-up internet is
slow!

Is it so wrong to believe that if I can do it, so can others, regardless of
their gender? Maybe I have a higher confidence in women than they do!

------
daveguy
It is strange to me that the SJW-callers seem to be the most vocal and active
group trying to bend speech and criticism to their own idea of "right".

------
peter303
Poorly written article. Title undefined until last paragraph.

------
zekkius
I find the underlying premise of this article and the claim that there is a
"war on boys" absurd. It's a old argument from the same old set of people who
have the same old intolerant (and dying) paradigm.

Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...

~~~
ccernaf
I'm pretty disappointed in the article and the comments, and how like Reddit
this website is turning out to be. I'm not going to make any judgements
(though I really really am), but this same article has been posted to 10
subreddits, among them such gems as: SJWsAtWork, ThisIsNotASafeSpace, sjsucks,
and sjwhate.

~~~
bmelton
Not affiliated (except that I follow him on Twitter), but the author, Jonathan
Haidt, is one of America's pre-eminent social psychologists. He is (or at
least was) a liberal who has engaged in some very serious social psychology
that gives massive insight into how people tick, especially where those ticks
are related to or concerning political party affiliations.

If the idea is to dismiss him as an anti-SJW, or anti-free speech, then I
would posit that you're simply inclined to dismiss no matter what. If the
complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW
crowd, that's hardly his fault.

He may not be right, or he may not have done appropriate research, or he may
be based (his own studies would suggest that it's inevitable that he is), but
any dismissal predicated in part on that he's trolling is almost certainly
knee-jerk.

~~~
ccernaf
I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified.

My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his
work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly
his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page
(Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then,
when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was
disheartening.

My distaste really came from comments like these, on the main page: "My white
male sons are now 30 and 28. I’m so happy they escaped public high school
relatively unscathed, but I could see the beginnings of the nonsense, led by a
faculty of activist females and male eunuchs. Public schooling in this country
may have begun with noble intent; kids are now truly being inculcated rather
than educated." and "You state this like it is an article of faith that women
would be totally rad in STEM if only men would stop holding them back. What
makes this “sketchy”? There is an abundance of evidence that men and women are
different and think differently. There is almost no evidence that women will
change that position based on upbringing." and then on hnews itself:
"#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging." (though
it was downvoted).

It would be great to have a conversation with Dr. Haidt, but I was turned off
by how both Heterodox and Hacker News turned into "amen" forums. There were
two students who posted on Heterodox, and they had some interesting points,
some of which disagreed with Dr. Haidt.

~~~
henshao
The commentators are self selecting - if they strongly agree, they comment,
which they have. You're still trying to dismiss the article based on people
having opinions different than yours, rather than critiquing the article
itself.

~~~
ccernaf
Would you agree with me in saying that the comments are at least
disappointing?

In terms of the article itself, I agreed with this part, "High schools and
colleges that lack viewpoint diversity should make it their top priority"
which seems like a pretty progressive viewpoint. Let's make sure everybody's
voice is heard, and let's make sure that voices that are usually silenced
outside the classroom have equal footing inside. But a sentence later, bam -
"Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out non-
leftist faculty."

I'm not sure how exactly that flows, and that's what led me to be
disappointed. Moreover, the idea that students and faculty are living in
"fear" and we have to accommodate their fears is also just a tad hypocritical.

I also have a problem with victimhood culture being a thing, but that's a
whole different argument.

~~~
bmelton
> "Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out
> non-leftist faculty."

Any argument that can be made in favor of cultural diversity should
necessarily extend to left-right diversity as well.

FWIW, as I stated earlier, Haidt is leftist. Perhaps less so now than 7-8
years ago, but he is indeed a leftist, but one who appreciates that non-
leftists are not evil, but who have different gradients of right/wrong, and
different associations with which to be entrenched.

If you want children to have freedom of thought, then you should try to
accurately present a range of ideas to students wherever possible. Students
learn that 2+2=4, at least in some small part, because teachers say that it
does. They later learn how and why 2+2=4, which mitigates the need for teacher
acceptance as canon, but regardless, they learn that teachers ideas are to be
given weight at the least, and that their expressions, even not necessarily
strictly academic ones, are right.

Would you find fault with your children's education if every teacher were a
Rush Limbaugh clone, or would you prefer them be exposed to a variety of
thoughts and given the tools and knowledge to inform themselves and form their
own viewpoints? If the answer is the latter, then you should reject the notion
of your children being subscribed to any narrow ideological view, and adding
non-leftist ideologies can only broaden it.

Edit: And yes, I would agree that if the comments are as you say they are,
that is disappointing. I caught this article shortly after it was posted, and
there weren't any other comments at the time, so I thankfully did not have
those comments color my opinion of the article itself.

------
genericresponse
Just for everyone's awareness, there is a broad astroturf and professional
political push that has been happening for over a year by FIRE, a right
leaning think tank. This is a concerted effort to bring controversy around
campus free speech into the news.

My perception is that this is an effort to weaken student's ability to speak
freely, but is coded as a "free speech" issue. Similar to how many churches
coded marriage equality as trampling on their freedom of religion.

Just to remind everyone how free speech works: You are free to say whatever
you want. I am free to choose to speak out against you or even pull my support
from you if I disagree with what you say. My freedom extends to let me voice
my opposition to you just as loudly as you voice your opinions. That is not
censorship.

~~~
nerfhammer
I don't think Jonathan Haidt is an astroturfer.

