
Free Expression of Professors and Its Prudential Limits - worldvoyageur
https://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2020/08/free-expression-of-professors-and-its.html
======
rajekas
The crucial line in the 1914 report was 'the university is, indeed, likely
always to exercise a certain form of conservative influence.'

Not conservative in the political sense as I read it but in the sense of being
slow moving, of having a sense of history and tradition, honoring both. And a
place where creativity as well as radicalism is tempered with caution.

I don't think that's compatible either with 'disruptive innovation' or with
'cancel culture' both of which strike me as two aspects of the same
phenomenon. Or with 'publish or perish' for that matter.

------
foolinaround
FTA : "The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking
unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the
teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to
examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has
sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any
definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or
university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to
looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any
conclusion upon controverted issues."

The above is even more important in schools, where teachers impose their
ideology on even younger students, who have no concept of multiple opinions.
This can only be called brainwashing.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
I mean the 1619 project is education as indoctrination and it's making it's
way into curriculum.

The aim isn't to educate (i.e. teach _how_ to think, explore knowledge, form
and examine arguments, etc.; not _what_ to think) but form opinion and install
ideology.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
By simply saying "The aim isn't to educate [...] but form opinion and install
ideology" you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, which is to make
an unsubstantiated claim and expect others to believe it. Aim higher.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Can you elaborate on your concern? The authors of the 1619 project agree that
it's not a neutral historical review - the lead author has consistently said
that it's "reframing history", "using history and reporting to make an
argument", "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative". It's
infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every fact
they reference.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
My 'concern' was clear. He was doing what he accused others of doing.

> The authors of the 1619 project agree that it's not a neutral historical
> review

cite?

> "reframing history"

I'm not sure what that means but link, please?

> "using history and reporting to make an argument"

What's your objection to that? Should they have used bluster and lies instead
- what do you want? (and cite for that quote, pls)

> "explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative"

If the national narrative was wrong then that's reasonable (and cite, pls)

> It's infeasible to expect commenters to provide detailed citations for every
> fact they reference.

Perhaps, but some backup is necessary for verification.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Respectfully, your questions can be easily answered by reading the 1619
project. For example, every article within the project contains the following
insert, describing it as an activist effort and containing the quote about
"reframing history":

> The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine
> that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of
> American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the
> consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very
> center of our national narrative.

If you want a specific link,
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/blac...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-
history-american-democracy.html) was the first article, but as I mentioned
this insert is present in all the others.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
You're presuming I'm american. I'm a brit and only heard about the 1619
project an hour ago here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24262679).

Regarding the quote, I don't entirely see the problem. I mean the consequences
of slavery have not been fully appreciated (are they taught in US schools in
depth?).

> "the contributions of black Americans"

In your view, have such contributions by black americans been fully
recognised? Because if they are the 1619 project is redundant, if they have
not then perhaps 1619 has a valid purpose.

From what you've posted, the 1619 project may be flawed but it doesn't come
across as "indoctrination and "install[ing] ideology" as the original poster
said in the above link.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
Nikole Hannah Jones (the creator) has been pretty explicit about wanting to
"control the narrative." It's activism masquerading as history, regardless of
whether they claim it to be otherwise.

[https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?...](https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1287744904526012417?s=20)

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
This is why I like links (upvoted because of that). To quote in full

"The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and
therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself. One group has monopolized
this for too long in order to create this myth of exceptionalism. If their
version is true, what do they have to fear of 1619?"

Not quite what you said. Interesting, and needs a better statement of
precisely what she's trying to do, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as
underhand as you imply.

"I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of
journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and,
therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the
present as it is the past."

Again, she needs to be very clear of her intent, but it seems it's about un-
erasing an unpleasant past, recognising it which I presume is hoped to prevent
such things happening again.

I see that you haven't answered my questions BTW.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
"The fight here is about who gets to control the national narrative, and
therefore, the nation’s shared memory of itself."

First - she claims it's not history but clearly the entire "conversation" is
about history. And history as it's practiced nowadays isn't really about
controlling narratives - this is how social justice views it (vague notions -
that are intentionally selected to be impossible to prove, so as to evade the
necessity of producing evidence - of the system, oppression, "centering",
etc.). It's about rigorous academic work reviewed and debated among peers, not
hashing out social justice in classrooms.

> un-erasing an unpleasant past

It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities elevated
at the NYT and not the broader academic community.

It'd be great if they could actually demonstrate that history is erased.
Historians would love to hear about it and chances are they'd have already
known about it. That'd be a juicy opportunity for scholarship, but again I
have low hopes because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing
original, creative content but waging a tweet war.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
> this is how social justice views it

I don't know exactly what she means, and you are presuming a) that you do and
b) that it is something deceitful. If you can't do facts, attack the person.

> It's illuminating that "un-erasing" is coming from edgy personalities
> elevated at the NYT and not the broader academic community

Again, you're throwing dirt. I'm damn sure eg. the trail of tears is well
documented by academics but is it covered much in schools? Is slavery?

> because a NYT personality probably isn't likely producing original, creative
> content but waging a tweet war

That's a descent to mud slinging. I'm not impressed.

Again, I see that you haven't answered my questions. Why not?

------
hirundo
"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the
dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and
concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to
think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the
conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is
at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real
liberty of the individual"

"An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university."

So if one professor is a Marxist/capitalist, they are an asset. If all
professors are either one, it is a liability to the mission of the university
as a refuge of heterogeneous thought.

Yet if we select professors based only on their idiosyncratic opinions we're
as likely to fill the roster with well spoken insane people as with strong
independent thinkers.

I'd prefer to attend a university filled with insane but unique teachers --
who are otherwise competent in their fields -- than with a homogeneous mass
who I happen to agree with. Sure, strong independent thinkers would be better,
but if I could pick just one...

~~~
whatshisface
It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of humanities
tunnel vision. In science, 99% of everything one person says will be agreed on
by anyone else who knows what they're talking about. Even in cases where the
truth is not yet known, among reasonable people you are more likely to find
"they both agree that it could go either way," than "the two sides are each
convinced the other is completely wrong."

~~~
mdifrgechd
That may be true for introductory level material bu t in my experience is not
true at all of research in the hard sciences. Where actual advances in the
state of the art are involved, there are debates about everything from the
best approach to the interpretation of results. Science as consensus is an
oversimplification used by people who don't want to hear other opinions.

~~~
whatshisface
The debate only happens over a tiny fraction of all claims, and reasonable
people don't believe that fraction until it joins the high-confidence whole.
The phenomenon of disjoint ideologies does not exist in science. In the
humanities, you have things like how Analytic philosophers will reject
_everything_ ever written by a Continental philosopher. In contrast, while
there is such a thing as an analytic chemist there is no such thing as a
Continental chemist. ;)

~~~
hummmmm
It sounds like you might be looking at this with a little bit of hard-
sciences, logocentric tunnel vision. In humanities, 99% of all claims one
makes will be actively contemplated, to see if the argument holds. Even in
cases where the truth seems totally certain, among reasonable people you are
more likely to find "we should remain skeptical, critical, and open-minded
about unverified truth claims" than "yep, that thing that seems certainly,
definitely true is completely true."

~~~
whatshisface
I'm aware that reasonable humanities people don't really believe anything, but
it cannot be denied that ideological adherents exist. In fact, there are a lot
of them and they write a lot. A great deal of work happens within ideological
camps (like "marxism" or "analytic philosophy") which are not valued at all to
people outside of them. _Within_ the camp, arguments are compared, but outside
of it they are seen as having no merit. Using my example again, most analytic
philosophers would find Foucault's writings totally uncompelling, to the point
of seeing them as epistemically equivalent to blank paper. The only place you
see that in science is with the so-called "crackpots," but they are actually
wrong.

~~~
TeaDrunk
I don't see this as that different compared to multiple opinions of how
alzhimers functions or the multiple competing theories of many many fields of
physics. There are even whole studies of mathematics that are derided by other
mathematicians as illegitimate.

~~~
whatshisface
Your scientific examples are relatively small debates occurring on the edge of
knowledge. All biologists agree on the citric acid cycle and thousands of
other known biological mechanisms. All physicists agree on the standard model
and general relativity, along with classical mechanics, thermodynamics,
etcetera. Your math example is closer to the humanities situation, but because
choice of axioms is a philosophical question, it is actually a _part_ of the
humanities situation.

Two chemists arguing over a reaction mechanism are about as different as two
Trotskyists arguing over Trotsky. The difference between Friedmanites and
Trotskyists, on the other hand, has absolutely no analogue in science, because
it is far larger.

~~~
TeaDrunk
> Your scientific examples are relatively small debates occurring on the edge
> of knowledge

One of my examples was physics. Physics most distinctly is not having small
debates on some edge of knowledge. This is similar for alzheimer's research.
Fundamental functionings that the field rely on are still under deabte.

~~~
whatshisface
Don't let the label "fundamental" mislead you - String theory has no impact on
our understanding of classical mechanics, because we already know classical
mechanics. It is actually classical mechanics that influences string theory,
because the microscopic theories have to conform to what is already known
about the macroscopic world. The fundamental is not the foundational.

~~~
TeaDrunk
This is arguing semantics in the way that is being described as a humanities
behavior in order to justify how science doesn't have the same or similar
discussions.

~~~
whatshisface
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "humanities bad science good rah rah rah,"
this very conversation is a humanities conversation, and I clearly like the
humanities enough to participate in it. All I am saying is that the phenomenon
of "ideological camps," where virtually everything said by one camp is
incomprehensible to or considered loony by every other camp, exists in the
humanities but not in science.

String theory and loop quantum gravity are different theories, but they are
not ideological camps, because the methods and conclusions of the researchers
of one are all totally acceptable to researchers of the other. Likewise,
believers in every proposed Alzheimers mechanism will agree with each other on
the existence of proteins, prions, DNA, and metabolism.

------
xhkkffbf
All of these apologies for setting limits always assume that someone wise will
make wise decisions about where to draw the line. The world, though, may not
have enough wise people to go around.

~~~
whatshisface
Interestingly, the limit the original article was talking about was limiting
partisanship and superficiality, which is especially ironic given the issue
today. (Remember the really dumb attempt to "cancel" Pinker?) If the original
supporters of limits were around today to enforce their limits, they would
spend most of their energy on the very same people that are calling for limits
today.

~~~
jessaustin
Whether there was ever a serious attempt to "cancel Pinker" or not, his
acquaintance with and support of Epstein is notable as an occasion on which
Pinker has later admitted being wrong about something.

