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

#211

Post by nradov » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #192

nradov wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The author has attempted to show rationally that speech is not fundamentally different from physical conduct. You are simply asserting that it is. That's not very convincing.

If that was what the author was attempting then she totally failed at it and wasted everyone's time. Rationality doesn't get you anywhere when your starting assumptions are wrong or lack support from fundamental, universal principles. Garbage in / garbage out.

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

#212

Post by ordinaryperson » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

asleori239k wrote: post #201

davemp wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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?

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

#213

Post by DuskStar » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #185

tomp wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

When did asking where someone is from become rudeness? It's an icebreaker question...

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

#214

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 5:23 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.

> there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was.

The article says it started from a "discussion" in a classroom settings

---

First, the complaint of a handful of students concerning the events of a single class in which we discussed racism at Duke

---

I guess it could have a been a visual display, a movie, soundbite? "Hearing" might not have been precise but not sure if splitting hairs helps the topic here. "Exposed to" maybe would be more general...

Also note that the harm was also "alleged" harm. They don't actually assert the student was harmed:

> Professor Charney’s tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some

But maybe that's enough. Overall I think it's a private school so they can have a lot of leeway in who they hire and fire. So barring some negative PR, which they can probably get around, they are free to fire him. Speaking of PR though, they probably learned a valuable lesson of not including the real reason for firing in any written form in the future. It should be something like "cultural incompatibility" or "restructuring".

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

#215

Post by claudiawerner » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #211

claudiawerner wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author has attempted to show rationally that speech is not fundamentally different from physical conduct. You are simply asserting that it is. That's not very convincing.

If that was what the author was attempting then she totally failed at it and wasted everyone's time. Rationality doesn't get you anywhere when your starting assumptions are wrong or lack support from fundamental, universal principles. Garbage in / garbage out.

Which starting assumptions are wrong? Which fundamental, universal principles were ignored?

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

#216

Post by gumby » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #159

gumby wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read his work: that religion is as epistemologically valid as the physical sciences. I assume this is why he was dismissed from the tenure track early in his career there.

That's not what he said at all. From the paper linked above: https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bia... Statement 1 of the "open to experience" section of a popular personality test is the following: >1. I believe that we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. (Agree: Openness score goes down) He claimed this introduced a political bias, stating: >Statement 1 refl…

This is how I interpret his statement “Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded?”

And in fact it’s a false dichotomy as the term “authority” in religious contexts (catholic and Protestant Christianity, non-orthodox Judaism, hinduism, Islam and Buddhism at least and likely others)has an assertive meaning utterly different from the same term used for scientists (not that such a term is particularly used in the sciences anyway)

I don’t know enough to say whether dropping his contract might be legit or not, I was simply answering the op question.

Given how conservative his employer is, there are quite likely more problems than he alluded to.

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

#217

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #213

jessaustin wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

When did asking where someone is from become rudeness? It's an icebreaker question...

That has always been rude, but is especially so in today's political context. Immigrants of color know that lots of people in Western nations don't want them around. Random interrogations from random white people don't help them feel better about it.

Rudeness isn't the end of the world, but we should still try to avoid it. I don't get pissed off when adults ask me about or make stupid jokes in light of my obvious physical handicap, but I would still prefer that they not do that. Young children get a free pass, because I don't expect them to know any better.

The whole concept of "icebreaker" seems dubious. If you don't feel comfortable around strangers, that's your thing. It's silly to assume that anyone treasures your company enough that they want to become familiar.

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

#218

Post by apta » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #152

mmmBacon wrote: post #24

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.

> Doesn’t matter if you actually harmed someone. > What matters now is whether someone feels you as doing harm Can you briefly explain what you believe the differences between those statements are, as I can very easily imagine a position where I would say that those are arguably the same.

I'm not OP, but an example is people feeling "triggered" because they don't like what they're hearing, even if it is the truth and backed up by evidence, and they in return cannot back up their view.

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

#219

Post by scruple » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #140

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

Why don't people fight fire with fire? If grievance culture is the name of the game then surely this is where we're headed.

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

#220

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 8:38 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #209

jessaustin wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Special category"? This implies that all is forbidden unless specifically allowed. That is a recipe for an authoritarian hellscape. We don't live in that world. Violence is the special category, because some is allowed and some is not.

That's not the case; if speech is considered an action like any other, it can be regulated like any other action. The implication is not that actions are forbidden unless they are specifically allowed. You aren't specifically allowed to eat fries or post comments on HN - yet you do so anyway. And you would, rightly, resist a law which says you can't, just as you'd resist a law which contravenes a constitutional right…

OK you finally confused me enough that I had to click through your link and read. I was somewhat disconcerted that the first thing I read was "please don't distribute this link publicly" (was that ironic?). Later on when discussing the crux of this thread (is there a significant difference between speech and other physical actions?), the author dropped an "[as] I’ve argued in previous work..." on us. There is reference to the mind-body problem, and there is some teasing about apparent contradictions perceived in random writings about speech, but no actual argument on this particular topic exists at this link.

Like much contemporary philosophy, this whole thing misses the forest for the trees. Toward the end the author quoted Schauer thus:

The ache, it seems to me, is caused by the fact that although the answer to ‘Must speech be special?’ is probably ‘Yes’, the answer to ‘Is speech special?’ is probably ‘No’.”

Can we just accept this as a compromise? Truth is less important than practice. Authorities at every level seek constantly to police the acceptable boundaries of public thought. They do this for their own interest. The justice system is not and cannot be perfect, especially in defending the public from that policing. A special status for speech is an important bulwark against authoritarianism.