The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed • Hacker News Board

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#181

Post by akhilcacharya » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #146

akhilcacharya wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s the other way around - people at elite schools are the most likely to complain and be listened to by their fellow elites, and that goes for the Professor here too. I didn’t hear about any incidents like this at my alma mater, which is 20 miles away from Duke, probably because the elites don’t care about what we have to say. It’s one of the many things that turns me off from the “campus war” meme.

>> people at elite schools are the most likely to complain and be listened to by their fellow elites You have no source for this and seem to have an anti-Duke bias based on your second statement. Why should we believe what you said?

I have more of an anti-elite bias than an anti-Duke bias.

I’d rather have a society that listens to the grievances of everyone than one that focuses exclusively on the top 1% at a very specific age.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#182

Post by imgabe » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

Ragnarork wrote: post #171

imgabe wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#183

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #113

rland wrote: post #18

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 ide…

In the student letter published to defend him, there's a couple of paragraphs that at least allude to what appears to have been the underlying controversy: https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/05/in-defense-of-... "Because of this, Professor Charney often takes on positions that are not his own in order to illustrate perspectives from across the spectrum. For example, in 2016 during the peak of the Allen buildi…

That second link doesn't flatter anyone at Duke. The former professor displays the unwavering certainty of the completely ignorant, but the whole process is capricious. If you want to administer a quiz, then administer a quiz. Duke can afford computer labs, or if not they can afford paper. ("Electronic Blue Book" salesmen wouldn't be kicking back those sweet bribes to administrators for paper quizzes, though...) This BS with hacking students' laptops so they theoretically can't search for answers using their browsers was certain to lead to a situation like that. Given the suspension rates described, it probably has done many times already. Presumably those students weren't wealthy enough to afford lawyers and multiple summer journeys to Duke in order to defend their innocence, so fuck them.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#184

Post by bluedevil2k » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

akhilcacharya wrote: post #181

bluedevil2k wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> people at elite schools are the most likely to complain and be listened to by their fellow elites You have no source for this and seem to have an anti-Duke bias based on your second statement. Why should we believe what you said?

I have more of an anti-elite bias than an anti-Duke bias. I’d rather have a society that listens to the grievances of everyone than one that focuses exclusively on the top 1% at a very specific age.

You do realize that not everyone that attends Duke is an elite, right? Some of my best friends were as middle class as you can get and were super smart kids who earned their way in. Your view on society is rather jaded as well, probably too influenced by the media and their far-left/far-right biases. In the US, society is definitely somewhere in the middle of "everyone" and "the 1%".

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#185

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #163

pjc50 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale - and they are at a very different scale, hence the "micro". But the intent to hurt is common. We can see even in this thread people talking about the need to "toughen" up students. Some people who think that any form of physical hurt would be completely unacceptable still seem to think that emotional hurt is completely fictional and it's totally OK…

> Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale No, you're comparing physical aggression with verbal aggression. Sure, the latter might hurt, but I think many (most?) people would agree that it's not just a difference "of scale". > But the intent to hurt is common. No, "microaggressions" are often accused even when there's no intent to hurt. E.g. asking a foreign-looking student "Where are you f…

We teach our children that it's fine to be curious, but not to be rude. People we meet do not owe us any form of entertainment. If we get to know them and in the course of discussion they are inspired to share some details of their origins then we'll learn those details. If not we can just read a book.

I admit that society has been impoverished when rudeness is reframed as "microaggression", but that doesn't excuse the rudeness.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#186

Post by huehehue » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #168

huehehue wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#187

Post by wil421 » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

mruts wrote: post #178

wil421 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the problem here is there aren't many opportunities to teach at a prestigious university, at least not at anything resembling a living wage. I’m not so sure about this. I went to a school that is not very well known outside my state/neighboring states. Even though it was the 2nd largest school in Georgia at the time. The teacher teaching HTML/CSS in dreamweaver was making $95k. 2 professor getting PhDs in security w…

Professors at prestigious institutions generally make less, not more than less-prestigious ones.

Got it, I reread OPs comment. I believe they meant you could find a job at one but not making a livable wage.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#188

Post by RugnirViking » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

edraferi wrote: post #3

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…

What do you think students do all day? I went from working as a programmer to going to university because I wanted to. I've found the world of university far more taxing and difficult than I ever found working.

Many, many people on my course dropped out in the first year. Over half! I really do feel like it's 'hard-nosed', as you say. Not only that, but I feel like it's not even uncommon.

Some people have suggested, and it might be true, that this is related to studying STEM subjects at uni, with a much easier sense of right or wrong. However, anecdotally, I know many people who are spending many many late nights and long weeks working on art or writing reports in other subjects as well.

In universities, you are encouraged to take work home, to practically be working all the time. Leisure time of course exists, but fully expect to feel or be made to feel guilty for taking that friday evening off to enjoy yourself, even far from any important deadline.

This isn't to say that you're wrong, but "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." seems like a pretty apt description of the way higher education works. I haven't seen anybody just cruising through life getting good grades in university in the way one might at high school, because unlike high school you literally don't get handed the majority of the learning required. You actually have to put in the hours for success, right now.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#189

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #172

nradov wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.

That's not true at all; threats, for instance, are not incitements to violence, yet they cause harm. Fraud can be speech, but it is harmful. One philosopher noted how in his profession, if someone broke his left leg, this would not even compare to the kind of harm he'd suffer if someone wrote an slanderous piece against him and published it in a big newspaper. "Whites only" signs can be said to cause harm. Put it thi…

Speech and violence are both expressive intentional action, therefore they are the same? This seems a very basic sort of logical error. (Perhaps affirming the consequent?)

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#190

Post by nradov » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #172

nradov wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.

That's not true at all; threats, for instance, are not incitements to violence, yet they cause harm. Fraud can be speech, but it is harmful. One philosopher noted how in his profession, if someone broke his left leg, this would not even compare to the kind of harm he'd suffer if someone wrote an slanderous piece against him and published it in a big newspaper. "Whites only" signs can be said to cause harm. Put it thi…

What you linked is not a good paper, it's pseudo-intellectual garbage dressed up with fancy words to intimidate the ignorant. Since speech is fundamentally different from physical conduct, the basic premise is invalid. Thus the argument is unworthy of serious consideration.