Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#121

Post by gohrt »

jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

It's more precise to say that the majority are apathetic than reasonable. Apathetic folks are just easier to deal with / ignore.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#122

Post by gohrt »

roymurdock wrote: post #96
tosseraccount wrote: post #13

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

As an individual you are free to say whatever you please. As the CEO of a large organization, you are not. You are the face and voice of an organization. You speak for its employees and you are accountable to its shareholders. You are held to a higher standard and your every word/action is scrutinized. If your shareholders are afraid that your speech/actions will hurt the bottom line of the company, you will be remov…

Yes, we know.

Profit != Justice

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#123

Post by ccernaf »

henshao wrote: post #95
ccernaf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified. My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page (Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then, when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was dishea…

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#124

Post by nickff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #78
nickff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you then also argue that the Hollywood blacklist was morally unassailable?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

I didn't argue that anything was morally unassailable. That freedom of speech includes freedom of speech criticizing others' speech acts does not mean that all speech is morally equal. Nor, in any case, was the Hollywood blacklist a speech act; it was a conspiracy in restraint of trade.

Do you think that this corporate executive will be hired in a similar role from which he was let go? If not, how is this functionally different from a blacklist (or "conspiracy in restraint of trade")?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#125

Post by gohrt »

kafkaesq wrote: post #100
tosseraccount wrote: post #13

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

Ugh. The Brendan Eich issue was about freedom of association -- in particular, the right of Mozilla employees and stakeholders not to be associated with the bigoted groups (and their hateful TV ads) Eich was supporting -- rather than freedom of speech. If you're still not clear as to the distinction, please see: https://xkcd.com/1357/

What about the freedom of Brendan Eich to associate with his employees and stakeholders who wanted a better web browser?

Note that Eich was NOT opposed by his employees. He was opposed by outside activists.

I don't see the current CEO of Mozilla resigning because they are meat-eaters, which, as a Firefox user, I find deeply offensive.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#126

Post by spinlock »

ffn wrote: post #103
kelukelugames wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ideas do they want to censor? Edit: I'm looking for specific examples. Otherwise we are just feigning outrage. I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public.

Well according to that Vox article about that liberal prof who got censored (and links therein) linked by the parent comment, the following things: 1. works of Edward Said 2. works of Mark Twain 3. works of Upton Sinclar 4. works of Maureen Tkacik 5. Ovid's Metamorphoses 6. The movie Avengers 7. Debates about abortion 8. Some "Afrobeat" band that had too many white people in it 9. Some male professor who was "creepy"…

I'm pretty sure Chris Rock self-censored and doesn't play colleges anymore. But, he still plays other venues.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#127

Post by nickbauman »

jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

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

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

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#128

Post by rthomas6 »

kelukelugames wrote: post #40
jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

Which ideas do they want to censor? Edit: I'm looking for specific examples. Otherwise we are just feigning outrage. I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public.

Here are some. Note that I do not necessarily believe these ideas, just that they are considered taboo to the point that they cannot be tolerated or seriously discussed in certain circles.

* The USA is a moral country.

* The USA is morally superior to most/all other countries.

* A specific member of an in-power "preferred" group can experience unjustified prejudice, oppression, and bullying from members of an out-of-power group.

* Men and women have some neurological differences.

* Some cultures are morally superior to other cultures.

* Christianity's values are moral.

* Conforming gender identities exist for more reasons than culturally enforced gender roles.

* Abortion involves the killing of a baby.

* Poor whites are not a privileged class.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#129

Post by gohrt »

richard_mcp wrote: post #45

I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff until I saw the author was Jonathan Haidt. I had the honor to take Psyc 101 with Prof. Haidt years ago at the University of Virginia. He was a wonderful teacher who expected the best out of his students. He struck me as a very intelligent man who had put a lot of thought into both what he taught as well as his opinions. When he br…

I hope this experience opened your eyes to the anti-pattern of 'lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff '

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#130

Post by redthrowaway »

lumberjack wrote: post #25

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

I think "vanguardist" is a better term than "elitist". "Elitist" connotes a passive enjoyment of privilege, whereas these people see themselves much more as the enlightened few bringing the orthodox[1] to the unwashed masses by any means necessary. They share far more in common with Communists who viewed it as their duty to shepherd the proletariat towards social consciousness than with the Oxbridge set who merely take what's "rightfully" theirs without a second thought.

[1] in the literal, etymological sense

Post reply on HN