
A Tale of Two Columbia Classes - jseliger
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2018/01/29/a-tale-of-two-columbia-classes/
======
phyller
A very close friend of mine recently received a master's degree in Philosophy
at Columbia. She definitely did not fit the mold of many students who were
there, being a conservative and an active duty pilot in the military who was
preparing to teach at an academy. She found many people and professors to be
open minded and mostly fair. However she experienced a few professors of the
type described here, where the authority of the professor was used in ad
hominem attacks on disfavored groups. Voicing any dissent was greeted with
scorn and disgust.

One of the interesting things, at least about the graduate program, is that
you can take many credits as "R credits", meaning you don't get graded. You
have to show up and submit research papers, but they don't get graded. The
idea, I think, is to focus on the learning and not focus on getting an A. I
think this can also give the students the ability to disagree with vindictive
professors without getting their academic career derailed. I think this really
works to provide more intellectual freedom to students at Columbia, and my
friend had a good experience there.

~~~
jseliger
_She found many people and professors to be open minded and mostly fair.
However she experienced a few professors of the type described here, where the
authority of the professor was used in ad hominem attacks on disfavored
groups. Voicing any dissent was greeted with scorn and disgust._

I went to grad school in English at the University of Arizona and my
experience was similar. The same is true of students; people regularly ask me
about those crazy students on campus, not realizing that the ones who make the
news are the exception: [https://jakeseliger.com/2017/04/24/ninety-five-
percent-of-pe...](https://jakeseliger.com/2017/04/24/ninety-five-percent-of-
people-are-fine-but-its-that-last-five-percent/)

Most profs are open minded and fair, but the ones who are't yield the best,
juiciest, and most absurd soundbites.

------
nostromo
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

> When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is,
> don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles.

I've noticed this in the work environment lately. It's _palpable_. People are
_afraid_ of saying the wrong thing.

Everyone is basically taking pg's approach, and sitting quietly. It's sad. I
don't know what to do about it.

But, man, is it a relief when you're getting a beer with a close friend and
can explore some good-natured heterodoxy. That sort of interesting
conversation is getting rarer and rarer in public.

When I was young, it was the political right that would shut down heterodox
opinions, like flag burning or atheism or same-sex couples on TV. But
strangely enough, I feel more free to talk openly around my political right
friends today. It's strange that "liberalism" in America today feels so
illiberal.

~~~
Firebrand
It seems like you’re just complaining about not being able to have the same
conversations with your co-workers that you could at a bar with your friend,
after a beer or two.

~~~
barsonme
I dunno, I feel similarly.

Like, I have strongly-held beliefs that span "both sides." But (as an example)
I'm much more comfortable talking with a conservative about why I think the
death penalty is wrong than I am with a liberal about why I think abortion is
wrong.

From my perspective, many younger (or newer, basically under-30) conservatives
have been moderating* some of their views, particularly social views like
reforming the justice system, race relations, etc. (I mean, just the other
night my SO and I were talking about how a significant number of the College
Republican state chairs were openly gay. That wouldn't have happened 10 years
ago!) And with this exploration comes the welcoming of different viewpoints.

Unfortunately, I see the reverse with liberals of the same age group. And,
sure, generalizations suck because everybody will say, "That doesn't apply to
my group of friends!" But, I do want to put up a W in the "openness" column
for liberals. It's just difficult to do when talking about certain subjects
feels like dancing across a minefield.

*: Yes, the alt-right has been steadily moving in the opposite direction, but they're a very vocal minority that have been steadily fading.

~~~
danso
> _I 'm much more comfortable talking with a conservative about why I think
> the death penalty is wrong than I am with a liberal about why I think
> abortion is wrong._

I don't think that's a good comparison for weighing the relative intolerance
of a political group.

Support of the death penalty is not as uniform among conservatives as abortion
is for liberals. Nor does it have as strong of legal support -- states can
outright ban the death penalty, they can't ban abortions and have difficulty
not having restrictions overturned by the Supreme Court. Most importantly, the
death penalty is an administrative action, whereas abortions are seen as
personal health decisions.

If you argue to someone that abortion is wrong, that person is likely to see
that an attack on abortion as a personal right. Whose personal right do you
threaten when you argue against the death penalty?

~~~
barsonme
They’re just what popped on my head. I could replace them with about a dozen
other things. Regardless, taking it as a personal attack is a huge part of the
issue. We should be able to discuss the efficacy (&c.) of ideas without waking
on eggshells.

------
poster123
From the article: "The other course is called Philosophy and Feminism, in
which we learn the core principles of intersectional feminism, queer theory,
and feminist epistemology."

Those aren't real intellectual disciplines, so naturally the professor
discourages debate.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Those aren't real intellectual disciplines, so naturally the professor
> discourages debate.

I think we should distinguish a topic from those paid to teach about it.

It seems to me that regardless of how silly we consider a particular set of
beliefs to be, we might gain useful knowledge by studying (with intellectual
rigour) why people hold those beliefs, how societies react to the ideas, etc.

But I'm sure it's equally possible for some areas of study to attract foolish
or undisciplined professors, and for that pattern to become self-sustaining.

------
tomkat0789
Yeah it's hard to imagine having good natured debates around social justice
topics in America these days. I once went to a museum event where the staff
dressed like renaissance scientists and humorously debated whether the
"celestial spheres" rotate around the earth or the sun. It's hard to imagine a
similar event about the more politicized subjects of our time.

Perhaps the question is: should we?

------
rdtsc
What is the point of a philosophy class if you can't debate or argue about
ideas being taught. It seems like it would be a great class for discussion.
Common, how can you read Foucault and not start a debate wondering what he
meant.

> She went on to swear at us in this guilt-inducing way a couple more times
> before the semester’s end.

Why is that ever ok? Why is the professor still teaching there? What if they
have tenure. What does a professor have to do then to be kicked out. It would
seem like swearing at students in class would be a good reason.

> As hyperbolic as this might sound, voicing a strong pushback against any
> idea that the Professor favored was nearly unthinkable.

It suddenly dawned on me, as I was typing this, that it's actually a useful
class! It does teach a modern approach to discourse. That's exactly what is
popular and so it makes sense to teach it that way - shutting off debate and
discussion, swearing at people, demoralizing them, making them feel guilty,
punishing if they don't appear guilty enough, etc.

Looking back, I am sure this student would find this class was more memorable
and useful than the other one. They'll forget about Thomas Nagel but never
forget how they could not discuss Focault.

~~~
EthanHeilman
>What is the point of a philosophy class if you can't debate or argue about
ideas being taught. It seems like it would be a great class for discussion.
Common, how can you read Foucault and not start a debate wondering what he
meant.

... and people across the philosophical and political spectrum, especially
feminists, have critiques of Foucault. It seems irresponsible and deeply
insulting to treat a philosopher as beyond questioning.

------
throwcu2018
This is an interesting anecdote picking on one professor, but I can say as a
current student, Columbia does an outstanding job of admitting students from a
diverse background through the School of General Studies. I'm a student here
now, and I've made friends with several of the ex-military folks who make up
most of the population of the School of General Studies.

Just earlier tonight, I was chatting with a 35 year old former marine from
Mississippi who just completed his undergrad at Columbia and is running the
Columbia Republican Club (CUCR). Columbia has always given them the
opportunity to have speakers (Charles Murray, Mike Cernovich, Dinesh D'Souza
spoke last year, Scaramucci and Jordan Peterson are on deck this semester).
Security is always made available to them, and protestors, while permitted,
are not allowed to prevent the guest from speaking (unlike Middlebury or
Berkley). The events that I've attended are civil and the audience generally
acts according to what you would expect from an academic institution.

------
Firebrand
>But I also suspect that many students with little philosophy experience came
away with the impression that this class represented what philosophy is, and
that’s what disheartens me most.

Haven’t we all experienced a professor who was good in their field but
couldn’t teach well, or was too much of a hardass?

Faculty ratings and ratemyprofessor are there for a reason.

~~~
nlowell
I don't think this story is about a teacher who isn't good at "just" the
fundamental actions of teaching. It sounds like their actual skill and respect
for the material is lacking. If your math professor couldn't prove the basic
theorems he wanted you to memorize without referring to his authority, that,
to me, would be a sign not that he was bad at explaining but that he was
fundamentally unskilled in his field.

------
meri_dian
I've noticed the author's view is becoming more common, within the past year.

It's the inevitable reaction to extremism. I accept the existence of privilege
but I believe that militancy about it is counterproductive.

Using the state of black people in America as an example, certainly they have
higher poverty rates than whites because of slavery and continued
discrimination, but there are problems within the black community that must be
addressed by the community itself. Broken homes are a huge problem which
perpetuate poverty but within the privilege centric framework it's racist to
even mention this.

Of course slavery is ultimately to blame for all of this, but focusing on it
will not undo it.

~~~
virmundi
I've never seen a clear answer about what a cis white male is supposed to do
about their privilege. Should they give all their money to the poor? Should
they shoot themselves to remove the blight of the Western World, it's
democracy, relative tolerance, and ability to reflect upon itself and improve?
Should they just say, "You're right and I'm thankful"? The regressive-left
makes no sense in their stance.

~~~
geofft
I'm not sure if I count as a member of the regressive left, but I'll try to
give a clear answer anyway: be aware of it. The usual phrase is "check your
privilege," not "eliminate your privilege" or even "use your privilege". Be
aware that there are things that others perceive as hardships that aren't
hardships to you, or approaches to life that you can take that others can't
take without social (or legal) penalty, or whatever, and show some compassion
- certainly do not say "Well, if I could do it, why couldn't you." You are
slightly more likely to get the benefit of the doubt from potential employers,
or police who find you in a place they don't like, or conservative religious-
political leaders suggesting policies, or whatever, than you would if you
weren't a cis white man. You also don't have the life experience of _not_
being a cis white men, which certainly doesn't mean that you can't understand
other people, it just means you can't extrapolate your own experiences and
reconstruct what life is like for them from first principles. That's it.

If you want to give all your money to the poor, great, don't let me stop you.
If you want to improve Western civilization and make life better for the poor
(and the rich too, perhaps), also great, don't let me stop you either. If you
want to improve Western civilization for people who look like you but not for
others, well, at least stop for a second and realize that's what you're doing
before you do it. (And if you continue nonetheless, there's probably room for
criticism, but that criticism is not fundamentally about how you merely _have_
privilege.)

~~~
virmundi
I'm replying to you since you have the longest reply (and it's thought out
too). The regressive left is the SJW that tells the Norwegians they can't use
their own letters because Nazi decided to co-op their culture back in the day
[1]. You have individuals like Gazi [2] running around saying that white
people need to pay reparations even though most white people in the country
descend from immigrants that arrived after the civil war therefore they never
owned slaves. We've gotten to the point that some on the regressive left don't
think that it's even possible for a white man to empathize or even understand
the language used to describe their situations. If enough feel like
communication has broken down to this level, they have and will call for war.

My problem is that people that say, "check your privilege" use it to shut down
dialogue. We're getting into identity politics. This never, ever ends well for
anyone.

I'm all for compassion. I'm not for the hypocrisy of using race and guilt as
cudgels against supposed political enemies. I'm not for college campuses
insulating themselves with their own group think to the point that it's an
arrest-able offense to hand out the Constitution, the very document that
defines that we are all equal in the sight of the law, to students on
Constitution Day by a student of the college [3]. I absolutely abhor the
continued press for ignorance about the very historical facts at hand in which
the white man, and only the white man, was to blame or profited from slavery
[4].

1 - [https://sputniknews.com/europe/201801311061237928-norway-
naz...](https://sputniknews.com/europe/201801311061237928-norway-nazi-
attacking-viking/) 2 -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tanz1IxVpVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tanz1IxVpVA)
3 - [http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/21/students-arrested-
constitu...](http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/21/students-arrested-
constitutions-michigan) 4 -
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppzevg/hey-v12n5](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppzevg/hey-v12n5)

~~~
geofft
> _The regressive left is the SJW that tells the Norwegians they can 't use
> their own letters because Nazi decided to co-op their culture back in the
> day [1]._

Ehhhh. I'm of Indian descent, and I am perfectly comfortable with the modern
inability to use the swastika in international contexts, where you don't have
a culture where people expect the pre-Nazi meaning of the swastika. "They
banned an up-arrow" just ... doesn't seem like something worth getting upset
about? Presumably if the logo accidentally looked like a penis, they'd change
that too, but that's hardly a sign of identity politics or anything.

> You have individuals like Gazi [2] running around saying that white people
> need to pay reparations even though most white people in the country descend
> from immigrants that arrived after the civil war therefore they never owned
> slaves.

I have no idea who this person is, or how genuine they are. Every political
viewpoint has extremists and trolls and uninformed folks (I don't know if this
person fits in one of these categories, but I certainly don't know that they
_don 't_), and many of those people are on YouTube. A much better case for
reparations, which includes arguments about why white people who arrived in
the US after slavery still benefited unfairly from organized oppression of
black people, can be found in, say, Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for
Reparations:" [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-
cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-
reparations/361631/)

> _it 's an arrest-able offense to hand out the Constitution, the very
> document that defines that we are all equal in the sight of the law, to
> students on Constitution Day by a student of the college [3]_

As far as I can tell from the reporting, these students were protesting a
"free speech zone" policy on campus, right? I'm certainly not about to endorse
"free speech zones," but it seems pretty clear that the motivation for the
arrest was not that they were handing out Constitutions, they simply chose to
hand out Constitutions because they knew they'd get favorable news headlines
like this.

> _I absolutely abhor the continued press for ignorance about the very
> historical facts at hand in which the white man, and only the white man, was
> to blame or profited from slavery [4]._

The fact that your source is from VICE, which is regularly accused (possibly
correctly!) of being left-biased, doesn't do much to convince me that these
facts are being hidden on the left. Certainly I've never heard anyone on the
left make a reasoned argument that only white men were to blame or ever
profited from any slavery in history.

~~~
maroonblazer
>but that's hardly a sign of identity politics or anything.

It's a sign that they can't make simple distinctions which in itself is
sophomoric.

>Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations:"

More than a few people are pointing out that Coates is less a part of the
solution and more part of the problem. Here's just one:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/ta-nehisi-
coates-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/ta-nehisi-coates-
whiteness-power.html)

------
thro1237
I have tried to read Foucault and could barely understand what he was trying
to say. May be most students are quiet because they don't know what to refute
:-)

------
lewis500
I believe there is self-selection in the professorship as to who teaches what,
and this explains this student's experience.

Feminism has (relatively) direct political and behavioral consequences, and so
the professors who teach it will tend to skew towards people who want those
policies and behaviors implemented.

By contrast, what is the agenda of someone who teaches Methods and Problems of
Philosophical Thought? Probably that field self-selects for people who don't
want, or believe they can, change the world too much in any particular way.
Rather, if you asked them why they got into the subject, they would probably
say it's inherently interesting, or that they like reading and argument, or
have some kind of vague idea about changing the world that lacks much salient
political or behavioral implication (e.g., "opening people's minds"). Thus,
they will encourage debate and want to make sure the students learn all the
ideas correctly (the ideas being what they find beautiful) moreso than
actually accept the ideas. After all, who cares if one of your philosophy
students goes on to law school thinking it's not impossible he's a brain in a
vat?

It would be interesting if the philosophy professors had to swap out who
taught what. But this is unlikely because of the division of labor and time
required to teach and do research---each would feel frustrated.

In my own field, transportation engineering, many professors often started out
like the first type of professor and wound up like the second. They go into
the field thinking they're going to help improve transit or get people to stop
driving less or design highways better. But after a while they realize the
decisions they impact are (i) extremely context-dependent (e.g., bus rapid
transit vs light rail), (ii) made by bureaucrats not the public (e.g.,
diverging diamond interchanges) or (iii) made politically/randomly without any
pretense of optimization whatsoever (e.g., Trump's infrastructure plan seems
to have been designed partly by an investor, Wilbur Ross, with no prior
interest in roads). At that point the professors become more interested than
they were in furthering knowledge for its own sake, which is all that's left
over to do and is also what will get you tenure. This leads to something of a
balancing act when they teach, whereby the professors want to teach the
students the big ideas without discouraging their enthusiasm.

------
tetrazine
Seems like this post has been killed, but here's another perspective anyway.

I'm a former student at a school functionally identical (and in many, many
ways culturally similar) to Columbia. Aside from my professional-focused
studies related to topics many HN readers would be familiar with, I'm a
serious philosophy student. I've taken classes in both of these academic
categories within philosophy that the author seems to be outlining. For what
it's worth, I do not fit the political or demographic mold of a person who
would stereotypically pursue the "progressive" branches of philosophy being
discussed and in many cases criticized here.

There are many classes with different teaching styles. Some present material
as dogma without affording critique, as in the feminist theory class the
author described. This is bad teaching, it is possibly even more common in
classes on feminist and similar theory. It's there in other areas of
philosophy, including mind-focused and analytic topics, but harder to
encounter until you're already deep in academia. I promise that there are
Plato scholars who act just as the professor in the article did.

There are those here that feel feminist, queer, and race-driven theory is not
serious "philosophy" or who will reduce it to cultural marxist or similar
terms. This is intellectually dishonest, and probably driven by odious people
you've met that espouse beliefs along the lines of Foucault or the Frankfurt
School. Yes, Foucault's supporters can be extremely annoying and unreasonable.
But there are real insights in many progressive philosophical works, some of
them evoking striking and existential moments of reflection, and proposing new
ways to live and see the world.

I urge readers here to attempt to look past the frustrations they might have
with feminists or progressives and try to find something valuable in these
works, because it really is there. I.e., when you hear people talk about
things like abolishing the police or that all women or people of colour are
violently oppressed, try not to react immediately to these phrases and see
what is really being said. Philosophy is often about getting to the very root
meaning of a term, or making subtle distinctions, or creating technical terms
out of everyday language. You may find that the people who have annoyed you
have bastardized the philosophers they espouse, or have at least failed to
communicate the meat of their work.

------
indescions_2018
Isn't it funny to think that by the end of this century. We may make actually
progress toward solving the problem. Of what it feels like to be a bat?

What is it like to be a bat? By Thomas Nagel

[https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf](https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf)

------
adamnemecek
Does this school of thought originate in the US? I realize it’s based on the
Frankfurt school but I’m not sure if it was always so militant.

