I apologize. I realized my error almost immediately. Be nice if there was a grace period for editing a post like Twitter and iMessage have recently incorporated.
Social Justice Warriors are not the least bit embarrassed about canceling academic freedom or about punishing intellectual merit, as they fundamentally do not value the traditional core functions of academic institutions. As they see it, a university degree is a mere passport to privilege and a faculty appointment is a juicy sinecure with even more privileges, and they believe that all these privileges have not been doled out equitably. Likewise, they hold that teaching and research doesn't exist to pursue objective truths, but rather to _construct_ the "master narratives" that govern society. In other words, they see academia as little more than public relations spin writ large and a means for bilking the public.
It is not enough to affirm that academic freedom and intellectual merit are our ideals. What is urgently needed in this debate is a reminder of why universities exist in the first place. The purpose of education and research is to endow people with a greater capacity to think and act for themselves as autonomous individuals and to collaborate with each other in pursuit of truth.
The promotion of open, reasoned discourse and judgements of performance based on intellectual merit optimizes the personal growth of students and the quality of the scholarship produced by the faculty. It is our ideals that best equip those seeking to acquire and exercise intellectual skills, which in turn is indispensable to any struggle to improve the lot of mankind. It makes no sense to claim to fight privilege, etc. by turning faculty into privileged drones feasting on taxpayers while not having to produce anything of intellectual merit, nor to whine about unconscious cultural biases or misinformation corrupting society while leaving students unable to detect or address whatever falsehoods they encounter. Education and research only serve a useful purpose in the context of advancing the intellectual and moral autonomy of individuals.
Perhaps a congratulations on this statement is in order and we can trust that Mr. Cowen has good reasons for signing and not signing whatever he wants?
>the right of faculty and students to speak and write whatever they wish
There is no such right of the non-owners of private schools. They are there by permission, exactly like a guest in your home. The school owners may permit, require or forbid anything, rational or irrational, and then must face the judgments of faculty and students who may stay or leave.
Public schools have only conflicting and mindlessly changing privileges depending on which gang of mobocrats temporarily hold political power.
I'm not sure about the patriarchy and I'm not clear how Karen Vaughn is a member, but are you suggesting that white people shouldn't defend everyone's academic freedom? And are you suggesting a general principle that when a system benefits someone, that someone shouldn't defend it?
> general principle that when a system benefits someone, that someone shouldn't defend it?
Our cultural nihilism, shared by Left and Right, demands sacrifice. Profit and greed (personal ambition and achievement) are despised or barely tolerated. This is concretized in _Atlas Shrugged_.
I think that 'unfairly or inappropriately discriminating on the basis of race or sex' falls well within any reasonable definition of racism or sexism that one could summon.
Free speech/meritocracy are not discriminatory on the basis of race or sex. In retrospect I should've called Matt's accusation here spurious; frivolous over-esteems it.
Free will is the only defense of Free speech/meritocracy because of the claim by both Leftists and some? Rightists, eg, Hitler, that race causes ideas and IQ. Excellent vids on a radically new theory of free will at the Ayn Rand Institute and at HBTV. Also "Volitional Consciousness" by N. Branden in his _Psy. Self-Esteem_ uses a new/ancient theory of causality. Leftists hate the focused mind, thus the retreat into biology and pseudo-biology of the unfocused mind. Modern culture is caused by bad philosophy. Needs good philosophy for alternative. Nothing less fundamental will help.
Arbitrary law is required for dictatorship. Elitist, Rightist racism is unreasonable. Hidden, egalitarian, Leftist racism is reasonable. This is a reasonable post. Any attack on it is unreasonable. Im reasonable. My political enemies are unreasonable.
I'll translate: it's immoral to hire white people simply because they're white. It's not only moral but an urgent social duty to REFUSE to hire and promote certain white people, simply because they're white.
All hiring quotas and diversity goals lead to people being chosen based on their race (or other identity characteristic). This has nothing to do with competence and performance (and works against those considerations-if those quotas and policies resulted in the hiring of the most capable candidates then they would be, by definition, unnecessary).
The same idea can be applied to speech and ideas: it's immoral to teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially fit or superior. It's immoral to NOT teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially repressive and exploitative.
In reality both hiring practices are racially weighted and morally indefensible and both ideas about European history and whiteness are wrong. One only has to use a racially and ideologically neutral standard to see that they share the same flaws.
> it's immoral to teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially fit or superior.
Notice the intellectually sleazy package-deal of European civilization and 'whiteness.' How about one word for up and down or safe and unsafe or security and terror? Or Leftism and Nazism? Notice the hidden context: Aristotle's discovery of systematic logic and scientific method will not provide a better life than Hitler's explicit appeal to alleged racial intutions. Notice the hidden context: nothing is especially fit or superior for mans life because you should not focus your mind onto concrete reality and identify it and its relationship to your life. You should retreat into your emotions, and discover that, contra dizzy Joni Mitchell, we cannot get back to the Garden. Life requires the risk of focusing ones mind and the risk of failure. Leftists, who evade those risks, are filled w/a murderous rage ("What are you rebelling against? Whaddya got?") against mans life, against reality, against the mind, against themselves. This is nihilism, the hatred of values and their basis in reason. Conservatism, with its bloodshot eye on the Christian Dark Ages, is not a rational alternative. See _Atlas Shrugged_ for more.
...and benefits ANY faculty or student who wishes to express deeply-held and defensible views. If they were trying to defend their position they would be in favor of policies defending their ideas and suppressing others, or privileging members of THEIR group in hiring. This is an ideologically/racially/sexually neutral statement, and therefore consistent with principles that have given us the freest and most prosperous societies in human history. If you can find a few examples of intellectual repression and speech codes on important political social social issues or racially discriminatory hiring making society BETTER overall I'd be surprised. This isn't a defense of them. It's a defense of everyone.
As Ayn Rand has been vainly attempting to teach mainstream thinkers since _Atlas Shrugged_ in 1957, better for whom and for what? There is no mystical society above and beyond real individuals.
Where's Cowen?
Cowen is woke in some ways (and certainly not stridently anti-woke) so I'm not surprised he didn't sign.
Good question
Why didn’t Tyler Cowen sign it? How many others didn’t sign?
Because there is no "Tyler Cowan" on the faculty, though there is a "Tyler Cowen".
I apologize. I realized my error almost immediately. Be nice if there was a grace period for editing a post like Twitter and iMessage have recently incorporated.
What's this? Your bubble not quite thick enough Professor Caplan?
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu.html
Social Justice Warriors are not the least bit embarrassed about canceling academic freedom or about punishing intellectual merit, as they fundamentally do not value the traditional core functions of academic institutions. As they see it, a university degree is a mere passport to privilege and a faculty appointment is a juicy sinecure with even more privileges, and they believe that all these privileges have not been doled out equitably. Likewise, they hold that teaching and research doesn't exist to pursue objective truths, but rather to _construct_ the "master narratives" that govern society. In other words, they see academia as little more than public relations spin writ large and a means for bilking the public.
It is not enough to affirm that academic freedom and intellectual merit are our ideals. What is urgently needed in this debate is a reminder of why universities exist in the first place. The purpose of education and research is to endow people with a greater capacity to think and act for themselves as autonomous individuals and to collaborate with each other in pursuit of truth.
The promotion of open, reasoned discourse and judgements of performance based on intellectual merit optimizes the personal growth of students and the quality of the scholarship produced by the faculty. It is our ideals that best equip those seeking to acquire and exercise intellectual skills, which in turn is indispensable to any struggle to improve the lot of mankind. It makes no sense to claim to fight privilege, etc. by turning faculty into privileged drones feasting on taxpayers while not having to produce anything of intellectual merit, nor to whine about unconscious cultural biases or misinformation corrupting society while leaving students unable to detect or address whatever falsehoods they encounter. Education and research only serve a useful purpose in the context of advancing the intellectual and moral autonomy of individuals.
Perhaps a congratulations on this statement is in order and we can trust that Mr. Cowen has good reasons for signing and not signing whatever he wants?
Thank you for this. Keep fighting the good fight!
>the right of faculty and students to speak and write whatever they wish
There is no such right of the non-owners of private schools. They are there by permission, exactly like a guest in your home. The school owners may permit, require or forbid anything, rational or irrational, and then must face the judgments of faculty and students who may stay or leave.
Public schools have only conflicting and mindlessly changing privileges depending on which gang of mobocrats temporarily hold political power.
Full support for freedom! <3
Imagine that - members of the white patriarchy defending the system that benefits them.
I'm not sure about the patriarchy and I'm not clear how Karen Vaughn is a member, but are you suggesting that white people shouldn't defend everyone's academic freedom? And are you suggesting a general principle that when a system benefits someone, that someone shouldn't defend it?
> general principle that when a system benefits someone, that someone shouldn't defend it?
Our cultural nihilism, shared by Left and Right, demands sacrifice. Profit and greed (personal ambition and achievement) are despised or barely tolerated. This is concretized in _Atlas Shrugged_.
On top of David's point, one should note not all the signers are white.
Imagine that, a racist sexist using frivolous accusations of racism and sexism to deflect his own racism and sexism.
I think that 'unfairly or inappropriately discriminating on the basis of race or sex' falls well within any reasonable definition of racism or sexism that one could summon.
Free speech/meritocracy are not discriminatory on the basis of race or sex. In retrospect I should've called Matt's accusation here spurious; frivolous over-esteems it.
Free will is the only defense of Free speech/meritocracy because of the claim by both Leftists and some? Rightists, eg, Hitler, that race causes ideas and IQ. Excellent vids on a radically new theory of free will at the Ayn Rand Institute and at HBTV. Also "Volitional Consciousness" by N. Branden in his _Psy. Self-Esteem_ uses a new/ancient theory of causality. Leftists hate the focused mind, thus the retreat into biology and pseudo-biology of the unfocused mind. Modern culture is caused by bad philosophy. Needs good philosophy for alternative. Nothing less fundamental will help.
> reasonable definition
Arbitrary law is required for dictatorship. Elitist, Rightist racism is unreasonable. Hidden, egalitarian, Leftist racism is reasonable. This is a reasonable post. Any attack on it is unreasonable. Im reasonable. My political enemies are unreasonable.
Nice buzzwords
I'll translate: it's immoral to hire white people simply because they're white. It's not only moral but an urgent social duty to REFUSE to hire and promote certain white people, simply because they're white.
All hiring quotas and diversity goals lead to people being chosen based on their race (or other identity characteristic). This has nothing to do with competence and performance (and works against those considerations-if those quotas and policies resulted in the hiring of the most capable candidates then they would be, by definition, unnecessary).
The same idea can be applied to speech and ideas: it's immoral to teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially fit or superior. It's immoral to NOT teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially repressive and exploitative.
In reality both hiring practices are racially weighted and morally indefensible and both ideas about European history and whiteness are wrong. One only has to use a racially and ideologically neutral standard to see that they share the same flaws.
Identity is individual, not collective, a product of the chosen moral character that terrifies racists w/its moral responsibility.
> it's immoral to teach that the history of European civilization or 'whiteness' is especially fit or superior.
Notice the intellectually sleazy package-deal of European civilization and 'whiteness.' How about one word for up and down or safe and unsafe or security and terror? Or Leftism and Nazism? Notice the hidden context: Aristotle's discovery of systematic logic and scientific method will not provide a better life than Hitler's explicit appeal to alleged racial intutions. Notice the hidden context: nothing is especially fit or superior for mans life because you should not focus your mind onto concrete reality and identify it and its relationship to your life. You should retreat into your emotions, and discover that, contra dizzy Joni Mitchell, we cannot get back to the Garden. Life requires the risk of focusing ones mind and the risk of failure. Leftists, who evade those risks, are filled w/a murderous rage ("What are you rebelling against? Whaddya got?") against mans life, against reality, against the mind, against themselves. This is nihilism, the hatred of values and their basis in reason. Conservatism, with its bloodshot eye on the Christian Dark Ages, is not a rational alternative. See _Atlas Shrugged_ for more.
...and benefits ANY faculty or student who wishes to express deeply-held and defensible views. If they were trying to defend their position they would be in favor of policies defending their ideas and suppressing others, or privileging members of THEIR group in hiring. This is an ideologically/racially/sexually neutral statement, and therefore consistent with principles that have given us the freest and most prosperous societies in human history. If you can find a few examples of intellectual repression and speech codes on important political social social issues or racially discriminatory hiring making society BETTER overall I'd be surprised. This isn't a defense of them. It's a defense of everyone.
> making society BETTER overall
As Ayn Rand has been vainly attempting to teach mainstream thinkers since _Atlas Shrugged_ in 1957, better for whom and for what? There is no mystical society above and beyond real individuals.
Nazi racism is immoral. Communist/nihilist racism is a moral duty.