
The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed - jseliger
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/04/the-end-of-being-a-duke-professor-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-higher-education/
======
yarg
More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions of
free-thought. It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone
can convey a counter argument to any given point of view, the mere presence of
a point of view contrary to the modern anti-liberal left world view - even if
purely rhetorical - breaches the safe space contract and justifies censuring
or even punishment.

It will only lead to a greater chilling effect as time goes on, and whereas
great universities once taught the ability to critically consider the
available information, they are rapidly reaching the point where they only
serve to push people towards grossly limited and increasingly dogmatic world
views.

In an increasingly polarised society it terrifies me that both of the the left
and the right seem to consider liberty an enemy.

~~~
batty_alex
> More and more this safe space bullshit is infiltrating the former bastions
> of free-thought.

Responding to an article about Duke with this conclusion is rich. Duke is a
hyper-wealthy institution that is hardly apolitical. Their neatly-manicured
campus right next to impoverished portions of Durham and their decision to
destroy a decades-long battle for light-rail by changing their mind last-
minute doesn't strike me as an example to hold up for your argument.

Duke isn't some bastion of progressivism - is what I'm trying to say here.

(veered off track a little, but this hits close to home - sorry)

Also, what "safe space bullshit" are you referring to? Seriously, the article
is pretty loose with the details.

> It is a disturbing trend where it no longer matters if someone can convey a
> counter argument to any given point of view

We're not really getting the whole story from the article, but I'm guessing
there were some lines crossed. Generally, these sorts of things don't just
happen overnight.

> It will only lead to a greater chilling effect ... they are rapidly reaching
> the point where they only serve to push people towards grossly limited and
> increasingly dogmatic world views.

This isn't actually happening. I'm sure it seems, logically, that it would
happen. But people also have their own minds and make their own decisions.
Universities aren't brainwashing anyone - I promise. You dropped Occam's
Razor.

> In an increasingly polarised society it terrifies me that both of the the
> left and the right seem to consider liberty an enemy.

It's not as polarized as the internet and pundits would make it seem. Talking
to folks face-to-face, you can find some common ground - even if they're on
the opposite end of whatever spectrum.

You seem a bit anxious about this whole ordeal. The world isn't that
frightening and people are pretty nice.

~~~
yostrovs
The people that fired a great professor, it sounds like, are not pretty nice.

------
Shivetya
Welcome to the Heckler's Veto becoming the norm of higher education if not
corporate life. This is the method of choice in almost all instances of issues
surrounding race, religion, and orientation, now.

Look at Intersectionality[1] for clues to why the situation has gotten out of
hand. In essence there are so many levels of grievance. In effect, unless you
are part of the class of people your right to discuss or raise an issue is
called into question and by default denied.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality)

~~~
ordinaryperson
While I agree and sympathize with Professor Charney's on one level, on another
the real problem (IMHO) is the lack of legit opportunities in Higher Ed.

In the corporate world people are fired or let go for silly reasons or non-
reasons all the time: that's at-will employment. But for people in most fields
they just find another job and move on; the problem here is there aren't many
opportunities to teach at a prestigious university, at least not at anything
resembling a living wage.

Years ago I was working for this one tech company who terminated a guy in his
late 50s who'd been there over 30 years. I ran into him crying in the bathroom
-- he asked me at his age, what was he going to do?

Two wrongs don't make a right -- but making people unfireable (tenure) doesn't
seem fair either.

Hope Professor Charney finds another gig but I don't know if it's the outrage
he presents it as here.

~~~
yostrovs
Maybe there's not enough academic jobs because too many people try to obtain
them. And the reason there's too many is because of false advertising of what
academic life is really like. Who would really want to be a professor given
what this professor is going through? And he probably didn't earn much. In the
media, though, a professor is always presented with respect. It's a professor!
So kids get the wrong idea. They don't realize the professor is a bitch of the
administration.

~~~
davemp
AFAIK professors are routinely at the top of job satisfaction surveys.

~~~
asleori239k
I think this varies a bit from place to place and is misleading in some ways.

I was a tenured professor who left academics for two reasons, the
administrative nightmares of the university and department (to put it one
way), and unrelated family reasons.

The year before I left they did a survey of faculty satisfaction at the
university I was at, and found that, although about 2/3-3/4 of faculty
reported that they were generally satisfied with their jobs, about 1/2-2/3
seriously wanted to leave (following an actual trend of faculty leaving in
exodus). So these satisfaction surveys can be misleading and paradoxical,
because the stresses are like that: you're acutely aware of the freedom and
security you have, but also have very little recourse if things go awry.

As jobs go there is a lot of flexibility in some ways as a tenured professor
(time, schedule), but absolutely none in other ways. It's difficult to move
(although not impossible) and if you do you have very little choice in terms
of geography or location. If you have family, you might be asking them to make
huge sacrifices for you if they have better opportunities elsewhere, or can't
move to be near you. Increasingly you're at the whims of fads in the field and
among students: if you step back from doing what everyone else is doing for a
bit, you get labeled as decreasing in productivity (note that I'm not talking
about doing nothing, just referring to the fact that it's easy to churn out
more papers or grants on things that are currently part of a trend, and where
you can share work and credit; as a result, if papers or grant counts are your
products, you will necessarily be less productive if you try something off the
beaten path); if you challenge students (as did the author of the piece did)
you get pushback from them. Increasingly I felt like academics was/is becoming
full of bullshit in a way that no one wants to admit. It's fine to work in a
field full of bullshit; the problems are when people lie to themselves and the
public about it. The incentives are not to produce good, solid, insightful,
replicable work, it seems to be to attract attention and entertain the maximal
number of students.

My sense as a senior professor was that people in the same field in the non-
academic sector were making significantly more money, and had more
flexibility. So although they had to worry more about losing their job, if a
department starting falling apart, or other conflicts arose, it was much
easier to leave and move on to somewhere else where they wanted to be. Tenure
is great if you're at a good institution, or if it works out for your family.
If you're at a bad institution, or things go sour, and it's not good for your
family, it is horrible.

~~~
ordinaryperson
Great feedback. Can you tell us more about your decision to leave? Besides the
family stuff, what kind of "administrative nightmares" were you dealing with?

~~~
asleori239k
A lot of the administration problems had to do with internal communication
problems in the department and university, and severe budget shortfalls (in
part due to state politics). You could say it was climate or culture as well,
but to me the primary issues were communication problems, mostly due to
personal, private interactions superceding formal, transparent, public
processes and discussion, coupled with a failure of people in administrative
positions to recognize what was happening and respond appropriately. Where I
was at, the atmosphere went from one of mutual respect and encouragement when
I started, to one where there was constant mutual hostility and distrust,
fueled by these sorts of "shadow" power structures that don't communicate with
one another. My experiences by the end were kind of similar to what was
described in the piece that's the focus of this thread, but involving
different groups of faculty rather than faculty and students, and with
_everything_ , not just teaching.

I think if family considerations had not entered the picture I still probably
would have stayed, or at least would have stayed long enough to leave for
another university, but with the ongoing problems in the university and
department, it was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back.

~~~
ordinaryperson
Interesting. Corporate America has been a similar experience for me but it's
obviously you're much less emotionally and personally invested in each
corporate opportunity. Thanks for sharing.

~~~
asleori239k
Yeah I would never suggest human failings somehow are unique to academics,
unfortunately. I guess in life there's no perfect solutions sometimes; there's
the constant tension of security and flexibility.

------
rland
I have read probably 4 or 5 of these articles, written by professors/teachers,
claiming to have been punished for their speech.

2 common threads about them. The first is that they rarely discuss specifics
about what positions or what opinions got them censured. The second is that
the comments section is typically full of drive by commenters who aren't
responding to the content of the post in particular but to the idea that a
professor might be censured for [their view].

I think its fair to say that everyone believes that universities ought to be
places where it's possible to explore radical ideas. But sometimes, things are
just wrong. If a professor teaches a load of students that the Sun orbits the
earth, they're going to be censured, and nobody would be surprised.

I can't say anything to respond to this particular post, because I have no
idea what this guy in particular is even being censured for -- whether the
idea itself has value enough to discuss. The fact that some students believe
so is certainly not a high enough standard.

~~~
akhilcacharya
I share your observations and raise it with another one - has anybody noticed
that these sorts of things only happen at elite institutions? I never hear
about this sort of thing (about “chilled free speech”) at my alma mater

~~~
arcturus17
You didn't follow the Evergreen scandal [1]?

Bret Weinstein, who is as progressive as they come, was driven out of the
university because he ventured to say that having a day where whites were to
be excluded from attending school was a bad idea.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests)

~~~
akhilcacharya
I see your point but Evergreen isn't exactly a mainstream institution for this
sort of thing.

------
neilv
I haven't figured out a good opinion on the controversies of trigger warnings
and safe spaces. It might be a brief pendulum swing. I think that we all could
stand to show more sensitivity to everyone else, and I don't know whether that
would be enough.

But I've never met any 12th-grader who is so knowledgeable and wise that frosh
year at a proper college shouldn't shake up their developing mind, and
challenge much of what they thought they knew -- about the world, themselves,
and even thinking itself.

(College is _not_ a place to party and practice your whiteboarding theatre
until you can get a FAANG job, knowing not much more than you did in high
school.)

Whether it's in the humanities, social sciences, quantum physics, or even
functional programming: if students are not surprised and uncomfortable at
times, I'd think they're not learning enough.

~~~
labster
Part of the thing about the safe space movement at universities is that it's
happening at just about the same time that universities have just about
completed their transition from educational institutions into corporations. If
you think about them as any other corporation, they are just doing their best
to keep the customers coming.

Would you want to pay money to faculty who challenges the consumer's
assumptions, or do you want to build a strong lifestyle brand, which in turn
drives future "donations", sports income. Every other corporation is giving us
information tailored to our desires, so why would a university want to risk
the corporate enterprise on antagonistic professors with differing opinions?
That just devalues the brand.

Note that the OP has been a "professor" at Duke for 20 years, but has
essentially no job security. He's basically an independent contractor in the
gig economy. That's kinda common in the community college level, but it looks
like it's finally made its way to the elite schools too. We used to have
secretaries for professors, but now the colleges have secretaries for the
deputy assistant administrators.

So to me the trigger warning, safe space culture wars are only a symptom of
the problem that our universities have become mirrors of the large
corporations.

~~~
neilv
I don't know about the particular case in the article, but I thought the
tradition of tenure was partly to permit professors to pursue currently-
unpopular ideas, like perhaps this person was doing at Duke. I didn't know a
prominent university would have a non-tenure-track professor teaching for 20
years. What is that hefty tuition paying for?

I've talked with some tenured professors who hire adjuncts, and they feel bad
about the situation, but those individual professors had no say over it.
Perhaps if entire faculties came together and petitioned, at least at the
wealthier places, universities might spring for all instructors being tenure-
track professors (assisted by grad students).

------
wpasc
I believe HN has both right and left leaning individuals, but I wonder if most
people would condemn the practice of professors being ousted from schools for
daring to challenge their students' "safe space" notions and microagressing
them?

This is not an isolated event and universities skew heavily in one direction
politically. Is it universally agreeable that the end of healthy debate in
college is a really, really bad thing?

~~~
pjc50
I think there is a large amount of misunderstanding (and misinformation) about
what safe spaces and trigger warnings are actually all about. They have also
been subject to a certain amount of .. inflation? But the core ideas are
important.

"Trigger" originally referred specifically to PTSD. There is a small number of
students, such as women who have experienced sexual assault, for whom the
subject is more than merely upsetting, it causes flashbacks and significant
risk to short term mental health. They asked that they not be exposed to this
material _without warning_. (Not that the material not be taught, nor even
that it not be taught to them, but that they be informed in advance about the
course content in order to mentally prepare for it)

> healthy debate

Healthy debate for whom? Do we need a debate about what constitutes a healthy
and effective debate? Do we need to consider the validity of different modes
of interaction? "Traditional" debate assumes a sort of weightlessness, that
the issues involved are at a distance from the people having the debate. For
things like sexual assault or abortion, or the racialisation of intelligence,
it's people's actual experiences - well, for people other than the traditional
professor class.

> microagressing them

Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where
pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about
punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-
handed, remember.

~~~
gdfasfklshg4
>> microagressing them

> Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools,
> where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about
> punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-
> handed, remember.

Can you provide some context to justify comparing microagressions with beating
people with sticks?

~~~
claudiawerner
Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of
speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-
speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of
speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech
causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind
of regulation on speech; there is no evidence showing that speech "invariably
causes less harm [than non-speech]". Several have argued this to be the case
in the context of hate speech or pornography - it's conceivable their
arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most
discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take
into account microaggressions - which, as the researchers have noted, may not
always be conscious[2].

[0] [https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Bris...](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Brison-Free-Speech-Skepticism-Nov.-11-2018-copy.pdf)

[1]
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

[2] Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation,
dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

~~~
gdfasfklshg4
> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or
> college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the
> context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions

Terrifying

------
puranjay
A friend was let go from a teaching job at a prestigious college in my city
because she was - in the words of the administration - harsh and hostile to
students who had blatantly plagiarised their papers.

I guess when education becomes a business, you have to place the customers -
the students - satisfaction over, you know, the education

------
Aloha
"As to academic freedom, Professor Charney’s complaint argues that the
criticisms of his classroom performance, and thus the decision not to renew
his appointment, really had to do with his “radical free speech” approach, in
which he forced his students to discuss controversial viewpoints on hotly
contested issues of politics and public policy. The panel finds no evidence,
however, that anyone at Sanford objected to Professor Charney’s raising of any
particular issue, or expression of any particular viewpoint, in his classroom.
Indeed, Professor Charney stressed that he intentionally introduces
provocative views on all sides of issues and that students would have
difficulty determining his personal views.

The issue was not _what_ Professor Charney discussed but _how_ he handled
discussion of difficult and emotional issues with and among students.
Professor Charney perhaps could have made more effort to learn to manage
classroom discussion of difficult topics in a manner that would have left all
students feeling fully heard and respected."[1]

In short, not everyone felt warm and fuzzy when discussing difficult issues -
something which I believe to be a near impossibility - not when we live in a
world where even presenting a dissenting opinion can be considered offensive
-- indeed letting the discussion go where it may, would probably make many
people feel uncomfortable.

[1]
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrGaqKye_5hJxEAFYmTrzNYLJeX...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrGaqKye_5hJxEAFYmTrzNYLJeXVlnF7/view)

~~~
logjammin
It's hard to say for sure on this quote alone. On one hand, I could read it
the way you did -- I have my own qualms about what often feels like an arms
race about getting offended. On the other hand, though, if I'm trying to be
calm about this, I could also read it as pretty mundane bureaucrat-ese for
"look, this guy was just being an asshole and we don't want him back".

Being the free speech guy / gal in charge of a classroom is a risky endeavor
and requires the same amount of talent, calm, tact, neutrality, and wit that,
say, a standup comic needs when trying to get people to laugh at a tough
subject, and I can easily imagine an earnest but less than talented (in this
specific way) educator losing their cool in a room full of jacked up and
emotional undergrads debating Trump, abortion, I/P, pick your hot button
issue.

"Could've made students feel more fully heard" could indeed be "sensitive
undergrads whining", but it could also be "guy proclaims himself mischievous
contrarian view-challenger but reveals himself to be pedantic narcissist /
unhinged / aggressive / insert pretty unattractive trait or behavior here".

I see that emphasis on _how_ he handled it and I wonder if if isn't the
latter. Commanding a room is a difficult thing with way more art and god-given
ability involved than people think, especially when the emotion in said room
is running high. There's a reason diplomacy, marriage counseling, and the like
aren't easy.

Like I said, who knows from the quote, but I've been in both kinds of room as
a student. Neither would surprise me and I think we'd all do well to consider
both possibilities.

~~~
Aloha
I figured it was not the latter behavior, because it would have been caught 15
years ago, not just suddenly now.

------
mmmBacon
This is the world we live in now. Doesn’t matter if you _actually_ harmed
someone. What matters now is whether someone feels you as doing harm. The word
of the person who perceives harm is taken as fact and the accused has little
to no recourse or defense.

~~~
lowdose
Is this is a symptom of a very developed society in which abundance of wealth
creates the possibility where certain individuals will always find a way to
feel victimized?

~~~
mac01021
People throughout history have been prone to feel victimized. The Third Reich,
among other movements was built on this phenomenon.

------
TheOperator
I think there is something to the notion that there should be schools which
are inclusive to students who would struggle under teachers like this.

I just don't see why that school should be Duke University. I don't understand
why the most elite schools seem to be among the most likely to decide that
their students need protection from harm. Polarizing teachers seem like they
should be right in an elite universities wheelhouse.

~~~
Erik816
If you struggle with a teacher who respectfully challenges your views, you
don't belong at any college.

~~~
huehehue
I'd like to agree, but then we'd have an even larger uneducated and willfully
ignorant mass. Perhaps we could be more tactful, or find some way of easing
people into sensitive discussions. Quarantining those people, enticing as it
may seem, will just make things worse.

~~~
tomp
Is it still "education" if you're just confirming a person's preexisting
beliefs?

Remember, the guiding principle of science (and pursuit of knowledge in
general) is skepticism.

~~~
huehehue
That's not what I'm suggesting at all, we shouldn't coddle anyone. I'm
advocating for a system that can effectively handle pigheaded people so we
don't end up with more anti-vaxxers.

------
edraferi
It seems like there’s a gap in the market for a hard-nosed, teaching-first
university. A place full of passionate professors with high standards. A place
where high school valedictorians work their ass off for a B. A place where you
feel your best will never be good enough because the standards are
impossible... until, one day, you get an A. And that grade MEANS something.
And after four years, the students walk out into the wide world and kick ass
up and down the street.

Somebody get $100M and start recruiting all these great professors academia
can’t handle....

~~~
chongli
I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a brag, but here goes
anyway: this is University of Waterloo in a nutshell. I'm entering third year,
studying math, and every single one of my friends has gone from high 90s in
high school (multiple valedictorians) to struggling to keep an average in the
70s-80s range.

Anecdotally, one of my friends did a work term for the Dean of Science (and
pure mathematics professor) at another university (which shall remain
nameless) and she said the stuff we've been doing in first year isn't covered
until 3rd/4th year at that school. Heck, her old high school AP calculus
teacher couldn't do assignment 1 from our first year calc 1 course.

~~~
metaphor
Admittedly struggling to find the exception[1] that you speak of. Maybe I'm
looking at the wrong course?

The experience is effectively the same at any tier 1 university in the US.
Some even have special names[2].

[1] [https://www.studocu.com/en/course/university-of-
waterloo/cal...](https://www.studocu.com/en/course/university-of-
waterloo/calculus-1-for-honours-math/297397)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions_of_the_Georgia_Inst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions_of_the_Georgia_Institute_of_Technology#Getting_Out)

~~~
chongli
I only looked at a few of the assignments from your first link but they are
much easier than the one I wrote [1]. Perhaps my term was an outlier. Have a
look for yourself.

[1] [https://docdro.id/khG8VN7](https://docdro.id/khG8VN7)

------
imgabe
Who is raising these kids to believe that hearing something they disagree is
equivalent to "harm"? It must be my filter bubble, but I only ever hear about
people decrying this practice and never anyone supporting it. Where is it
coming from?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Did you read the article? From what I understand there’s not enough evidence
to make this conclusion.

~~~
imgabe
To make what conclusion? That some students believe that they are being
harmed? That language exactly is what is used in the article. Why do you think
it's not supported?

~~~
Ragnarork
Because you're stating that the "harm" that was reported is just "hearing
something they disagree with" when there's no evidence hinting at what the
"harm" actually was.

~~~
imgabe
What do we suppose it was? That he physically assaulted the students? That he
was verbally abusive and screamed at and belittled them? Neither of those are
consistent with him being a highly regarded professor for 20 years with
overwhelmingly positive student reviews. Neither of those would make any sense
in the context of one of the reviews from a student in the same class quoted
in the article:

> As a woman of color, I write to bring attention to an aspect of Charney’s
> teaching that will be as missed as much as it is needed in today’s political
> climate…The climate at Duke reflects the polarization of the country at
> large. Conversations are halted before they can even begin. Instead of
> listening, instead of understanding or trying to understand, people on both
> sides are combative and dismissive…Charney taught us how to have those
> conversations, how to navigate race relations, how to empathize.

So, there is ample evidence suggesting that the students who complained merely
heard something they found disagreeable and construed that as harm. Other
definitions of harm are not consistent with the evidence available.

------
ausbah
I feel like I'm always a bit disappointed whenever I see discussion around
topics like this. Whenever cases like this are brought up, I think they're
usually presented in a very one sided manner that is intent or pushing a
single perspective or agenda of sorts. So the subsequent discussion around the
topic becomes equally distorted.

I am not saying the professor in this article wasnt wrongly fired, but I wish
there was a bit more discretion in the comments because this article was a.) a
multi party account written by one person and b.) written to push a
perspective that puts him in a positive light. I think there may be more to
the story here.

------
WesternStar
I think the way to read the response of the Faculty Comittee is this. He was
an adjunct he hasn't earned the protection of academic freedom. He gets to
keep his job if he fulfills what we feel like is necessary to be a member of
our community. We feel like he's a negative experience for students and we
don't think his addition is worthwhile. I'm all for not indulging the
carebears but the message "You were allowed to stick around after you failed
because we thought we could use you and felt sorry for you. But we don't like
you and some of our students don't like you. Go find another job." That is not
a carebear handling of things if he wanted to have academic freedom he had a
right to get tenure. He's an adjunct he needs to act like it. This is very
much like Augusta where the don't have formal rules some things are simply
frowned upon and its your responsibility to understand the culture of the
club. It was his responsibility to understand the culture of the faculty in
his tenuous position. That is a very important lesson for him and for students
by his example.

~~~
etrevino
He wasn't an adjunct. Some universities (or schools within universities) do
five year contracts now as an alternative approach to tenure.

~~~
richardhod
Precisely this. I find it appalling that an associate professor was not given
tenure, because that is normally a tenured position, particularly since he'd
been there 20 years

~~~
krull10
I think he was an Associate Professor of the Practice -- it's not a tenured
position, but more a longer-term teaching-type appointment. It generally
offers more job security and benefits than an adjunct might receive, but at
many universities such a position is not (and was never) on a tenure-track
line.

------
audace
My sister was one of the many students who signed multiple letters of defense.
She leans very much to the left end of the ideological spectrum but still had
nothing but amazing things to say. What a shame.

------
ggm
This "trigger warning" and "harm" thing.. I've been out of tertiary education
too long to understand it. I'm sure it's not only American but it feels like
an American crafted problem taken worldwide.

Future leaders in minority communities need to be able to defend themselves
but learning to do it by firing academics on negative feedback feels like the
wrong lesson. I'd rather they did it in a real ballot box, not in academia.
The guy may be a complete dick, but I don't get the feeling he's David Duke or
John Birch society stooge.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_" I'd rather they did it in a real ballot box, not in academia"_

You mentioned you're not american so please allow me as an american to educate
you on how minorities and voting work. Minorities are systematically targeted
in america to prevent voting. America, in fact, has a long and fairly recent
history of attempting to prevent minories from voting or to make their votes
literally worth less than others. The electoral college, for example, is a
system that allows rural white communities to by and large have votes that are
worth more than the votes of urbanites, which are often more diverse and have
more people of color. Areas with significant people of color voting
populations have historically had laws in place or new policies being pushed
to make it more difficult to vote (see: voting is on a weekday, voting booths
are hard to get to and lines are long due to lack of voting booth number, the
disallowance of mail in voting or the outright throwing away of mail in
votes.)

That is to say, this sentiment is all well and nice, and I agree with this
sentiment. But in America it is unrealistic to say minorities should stop
using what benefits they can and should continue operating under systems that
devalue them.

~~~
ggm
Thanks for the response.

------
mooreds
The issue with treating college like a normal good is that there are positive
externalities. So the customer (the student who is paying) doesn't capture all
the good that is provided. There's value in having an educated populace and in
inculcating common values. That value accrues to society as well as the
student.

That means that we can't compare paying for college to paying for a normal
good, say a car. If there was a way for drivers to give a car poor ratings and
that affected the car company negatively, that's great! The market works. But
college is about more than just skills transfer, and that's why having student
feedback is important but can't trump other considerations. That's also why
most universities have some state aid (either direct in terms of cash from the
treasury, or indirect in terms of being a non profit).

I don't know how to solve this, though.

~~~
SkyBelow
>say a car.

The issue with treating a car like a normal good is that there are positive
externalities. Sot he customer (the one buying the car) doesn't capture all
the good that is provided. There's value in having electric cars, cars which
have better MPG that pollute less, cars with safety features that prevent
crashes (even a single vehicle crash in a populated area massively slows down
traffic), cars with safety features that protect passengers who weren't the
customer, cars that are less likely to injure people who will have to depend
on government provided healthcare if injured.

I could apply this to a book, a video game, a tv, a computer, a smart phone,
an internet connection, a bicycle, clothing, food, and even housing.

------
stonogo
This whining conveniently omits his demotion ten years ago, as well as the
fact that a faculty vote was held on the matter.

Exercising free speech is one thing. Challenging student views is fine. Using
a required course as a trolling arena and being a pain in the ass to work with
is, huge surprise, a great way not to get your contract renewed.

~~~
cf141q5325
>Using a required course as a trolling arena

This is actually the most important point of this case in my opinion. Dont
screw over students by going off topic in mandatory courses. Stick to the
course material, your ego is not more important then putting an entire course
of students at a disadvantage. Mandatory courses are mandatory for a reason,
its so the students learn the basic foundation of their field of study. You
dont get academic freedom on your mandatory lectures, as your day doesnt
consist of only mandatory lectures. Create an elective course on the topic if
its interessting to you. Profs who do this are the perfect example for why
tenure is a problematic idea. Getting rid of a Professor who is sabotaging
required courses is a monstrous task and generations of students have to
suffer under the ego of one person.

------
rnernento
There seems to be a tremendous opportunity in higher education right now.
Costs are out of control, administrative positions like this will eventually
result in lower quality education and likely less successful graduates. An
institute that truly values and teaches critical thinking while minimizing
costs could change the world.

------
matthewmcg
To me, a much more disturbing trend in higher education is allowing wealthy
donors to set the ideological agendas of universities. The James G. Martin
Center, despite its “.Center “domain name is a far-right think tank funded by
the ultra conservative Pope family of North Carolina. You may know them from
their bankrolling of the disenfranchisement and gerrymandering efforts in that
state.

You always hear from these folks how their ideas are being suppressed etc. But
they have a very powerful platform.

------
bsder
This is what happens when you don't have tenure.

At this point, the only solution is to start demanding that all teachers at
universities either have tenure or don't teach.

------
rdtsc
> Unfortunately, a growing number of university students equate being made
> uncomfortable in the classroom with being “harmed.”

University is a place of learning as they say. An important thing to learn is
how to exert power over those around you. One way of doing that is to leverage
the irrationality of large institutions in your favor.

Large institutions, including whole countries, buy into different ideologies
at different times. And so, to exert power over someone you just have to
denounce them as not falling in line with the current ideology. You can then
bet on the system "crushing" them so to speak without you lifting a finger.

In a communist totalitarian country, if you didn't like your neighbor's
haircut, just tell the police they engaged in propaganda against the workers'
party, and there is a good change their livelihood could get considerably
worse. It just takes one phone call.

Want ruin someone's life in US today? Call child protective services and tell
them you saw their kids playing unsupervised outside and you're "very worried"
and hang up. Then watch them get house and work visits for quite a while.

Going back to the article at hand, I suspect there is a similar process
happening in some of these cases. For every student actually feeling harmed by
a professor like this, there is a student who realizes they can claim they are
harmed, and then they can both eliminate the professor, and gain social
standing points for "standing up" and "fighting against the system". Two birds
with one stone so to speak. That is indeed a very important and valuable
lesson to learn.

> Last April, I was informed that my contract would expire in one year—and was
> then assigned to teach two classes of the very same required Sanford course,
> one in the fall and one this spring, in which I supposedly had a tendency to
> harm students. If Sanford actually believed their own rhetoric, they would
> be guilty of knowingly endangering their students.

This is beautiful. Pure ideology at work. You can tell because of the
ridiculous contradiction at play. Everyone in the game knows that the
professor didn't harm anyone, otherwise why the heck would they ask him to
teach another class. But they also know that they will suffer a similar fate
if they don't fall in line.

------
vincent-toups
"I got fired therefor the sky is falling."

------
GrryDucape
I wonder if Mike Nifong's prodigy was one of the complaining students. Keep
your head up Professor, there are plenty of us in your corner! Let's petition
Coach K to speak up on your behalf and see if the school has the balls to fire
him too...

------
rdlecler1
We have a couple of generations that haven’t been exposed to the horrors of a
dictatorship. History must repeat itself. In the meantime, Duke and other such
institutions will loose their appeal to those with deep and independent
curiosity and to the parents who guide their children down that path. History
will not favor these institutions.

~~~
bluedevil2k
You're claiming schools like Harvard, Princeton and Duke will become less
appealing to students? That's pretty crazy and not at all in sync with the
where the money is going. Look at the endowments of these schools, do the
billions of dollars make it look like they're less appealing.

------
Causality1
Academia is full of cowards. It has been for decades, probably since private
companies overtook them as the center of the research world back in the 70s.

------
elamje
This commentary is a subset of what is happening in the world. Free speech is
not under attack as an alarmist might conclude, but is rather under review.
Unfortunately , the review is being held and judged by mainstream media which
tends to go the way that the author describes Sanford.

At the end of the day, our social norms will be pulled towards the most
sensitive people rather than the intellectually challenging ones.

~~~
maxxxxx
“the most sensitive people ”

A lot of these people are actually very insensitive to others.

