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

Goodbye, MIT

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#41

Post by romwell »

romwell wrote: post #31

Tsk tsk tsk if that ain't some rich assholes trying to cancel MIT over MIT doing something that doesn't align with the rich asshole's views on what's ethical. The "something" being not funding people who do shit that doesn't align with MIT's views on what's ethical. Is there a word for self-referential irony?

But wait, it gets better!

One of the authors makes a living from taxpayer-funded endeavors (NIH, FDA). I imagine that if, eventually, he does enough to piss off people who pay him (say, Black taxpayers) to lose his funding, he'd whine about being cancelled so loudly, we won't need SETI.

"Not on my dime!” goes both ways, huh.

The other author is ungooglable, so they either work for the gov, or don't have to work at all.

Poking aside, the questions to ask are:

* Who are the people these two chaps see as being hurt by MIT's so-called "wokeness"? I.e., whom are they trying to help with their withdrawal of funds?

* Who are the people MIT sees as behind hurt by the people they stopped working with? I.e. whom is MIT trying to help with their options?

* Whom do the actions of MIT / people "canceled" by MIT actually hurt? What's the impact?

The answer to these questions is left as an exercise to the reader, and will tell everything about the situation at hand.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#42

Post by 908B64B197 »

jimbob45 wrote: post #27
swader999 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada tried that. It didn't go so well. Probably the worst thing you can do for society.

Feel free to expand. As a US-based individual, I’m not likely to ever get the perspective of a Canadian on this topic.

The British and later Canadian (of British descent mostly) Administration had native children raised by the state. The end results are, well, let's just say it makes what's happening to the Uighur look not so bad in comparison. [0]

BTW these "schools" were still around when their current leader's father (Trudeau) was in office.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57592243

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#43

Post by paul_f »

doomrobo wrote: post #18

> MIT’s leadership apparently took umbrage at his statement of these simple facts: that George Floyd “had not lived a virtuous life” (based on his multiple criminal convictions) Surely the authors know that "statement of facts" has the ability to completely alter the interpretation of the rest of the content. Key questions are: why is this fact relevant in this context, what is the author conveying by bringing this i…

Counter that it was an inappropriate argument, don't fire the person who made it. Seems overkill at an institution that used to take pride in intellectual freedom.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

jollybean wrote: post #36
ipaddr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer and the future is kids will be raised by the state and given an equal playing field. This frees parents to work/spend and ensures the only advantage exists at the gene level. We can selectively breed those traits away . The problem is we sent kids to school in the first place and ask them to follow a system designed for the average student but not the most typical.

"The answer and the future is kids will be raised by the state and given an equal playing field." I read this as sarcasm, but I re-read it and am not so sure? I hope you're will to pay for that in blood because there will be war over it. We get that there's no such thing as a perfectly level playing field, but we're not going to allow children to be raised by the state to achieve what will be frankly in all likelihoo…

> I read this as sarcasm, but I re-read it and am not so sure?

I’ve seen both serious Marxist arguments for it and serious capitalist arguments for it (and also serious critiques of each of those camps that the other camp ultimately leads to that end!), among others, so while I don't think it is a good idea, it is not one I dismiss out of hand as a joke when I see it.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#45

Post by geofft »

jimbob45 wrote: post #27
swader999 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada tried that. It didn't go so well. Probably the worst thing you can do for society.

Feel free to expand. As a US-based individual, I’m not likely to ever get the perspective of a Canadian on this topic.

Probably a reference to the "residential school" system in Canada, which largely served as a way to extract indigenous kids from their nations and raise them instead in the culture of the people running the government, with parents fairly intentionally unable to visit their children. (Also they were in the news in recent months for the recent discoveries of mass graves.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...

(It does seem, as another commenter pointed out, that this isn't necessarily the only end result of state involvement in child-raising. In particular, it seems to me you can draw a qualitative difference between greater state education as a way to expand the experiences of children growing up and as a way to constrain those experiences.)

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#46

Post by robbmorganf »

mrjangles wrote: post #34
robbmorganf wrote: post #20

> Third, intellectual ability and achievement are the principal requirements for admission as a student or faculty member to any university. This is the crux of the issue as I see it. The author sees achievement as a proxy for ability, and therefore achievement-meritocracy is the only acceptable system. By contrast, MIT sees ability as only one factor among many that create achievement. If one takes the further axiom…

See, here is the thing. What you said is completely true, some people grow up in a really shitty environment and the achievements of children needs to be compared with the achievements of those around them. However, without going into details, I have spent enough time at one of these ivy league universities to see first hand how it works it practice. The black people I met who benefited from these affirmative action…

I think income-diversity is a valid and very appropriate criticism of MIT and other schools. I agree that not enough able but poor students are admitted.

Without diminishing MIT's responsibility, I also think the rest of the education system needs to take responsibility for the same problem. In many cases, a very smart kid with low income is afforded poor secondary education, so if they were admitted to MIT, they might not have the preparation to thrive. MIT's disparate impact on low income kids is unacceptable, but the solution requires cooperation from high schools.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#47

Post by roenxi »

doomrobo wrote: post #18

> MIT’s leadership apparently took umbrage at his statement of these simple facts: that George Floyd “had not lived a virtuous life” (based on his multiple criminal convictions) Surely the authors know that "statement of facts" has the ability to completely alter the interpretation of the rest of the content. Key questions are: why is this fact relevant in this context, what is the author conveying by bringing this i…

A core purpose of a church is to identify and evaluate:

1. What a virtuous life is.

2. How to live one.

3. What examples exist of people who have lived one.

4. How practically achievable a virtuous life is.

The chaplain is doing his job here. He is supposed to identify that Floyd hasn't lived a virtuous life, but he is still part of a greater community and that a virtuous person would help Floyd live the best life he can.

> Non-white supremacists don't talk about the great replacement.

You bought it up.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#48

Post by romwell »

mrjangles wrote: post #37
romwell wrote: post #31

Tsk tsk tsk if that ain't some rich assholes trying to cancel MIT over MIT doing something that doesn't align with the rich asshole's views on what's ethical. The "something" being not funding people who do shit that doesn't align with MIT's views on what's ethical. Is there a word for self-referential irony?

"Canceling" is when you refuse to give someone the same respect and opportunities as you do every other human being on the planet. Deciding not to donate thousands of dollars of your own money to someone is not "canceling".

Did you read the article?

They specifically brought up the example of Chaplain being fired as "canceling".

Also, your definition needs doesn't match common usage, or what happens. Here's a better one:

Canceling (n.): holding a public person accountable for their actions by withdrawing monetary support.

This can be done by not extending a contract; by termination of employment, contract, or the privilege of access to particular public platforms from which they profit, if the funding is provided on a contractual basis; and - wait for it -

- by ceasing donations.

Which is what the authors are doing.

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#49

Post by molbioguy »

ipaddr wrote: post #12
sokoloff wrote: post #3

I feel genuinely conflicted about these topics. Part of me says “I agree with the letter authors completely. People should experience equal opportunity, equal Justice, and equal responsibility.” Another part of me says “that’s literally impossible (or incompatible) with different families raising their children with different circumstances.” Overall, I lean pretty strongly towards individual families raising their ch…

The answer and the future is kids will be raised by the state and given an equal playing field. This frees parents to work/spend and ensures the only advantage exists at the gene level. We can selectively breed those traits away . The problem is we sent kids to school in the first place and ask them to follow a system designed for the average student but not the most typical.

This is "Brave New World" (Aldous Huxley, 1931) in a nutshell!

Re: Goodbye, MIT

#50

Post by ergot_vacation »

How long can a country endure if it continues to cripple learning, muzzle truth and persecute some of its most talented and capable individuals in the name of childish, incoherent ideology? Not long.

The stage of history doesn't care how many followers you have on Twitter, or how many people's lives you can destroy in the name of your religion masquerading as science. In the coming years, the US MUST LEAD. It must shake the slop from itself and rise to the role of world leader again, not just with guns but with minds, because the battlefield of the future is a battlefield of the mind. If it does not rise, China or Russia will be glad to.

Either "wokeness" dies, or the US dies. It's that simple.

Post reply on HN