RUTHFULLY YOURS

The campaign against free speech on American campuses rolls on, steadily decreasing the domain of permissible ideas. But the case of Paul Griffiths, a professor at Duke Divinity School, is something new. The defense of liberty of thought and discussion itself has been transformed into a career-ending transgression.

The case was brought to light in late April when Rod Dreher of the American Conservative published a series of email exchanges. It started Feb. 6, when Anathea Portier-Young, another Divinity School professor, distributed a facultywide email. “On behalf of the Faculty Diversity and Inclusion Standing Committee,” she wrote, “I strongly urge you to participate in the Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training planned for March 4 and 5.” Ms. Portier-Young promised colleagues that the weekend program would be “transformative, powerful, and life-changing.”

Ms. Portier-Young, an Old Testament scholar with expertise in “constructions of identity, gender, and ethnicity, and traditions of violence and nonviolence,” approvingly quoted the Racial Equity Institute’s guiding ideas: “‘Racism is a fierce, ever-present, challenging force, one which has structured the thinking, behavior, and actions of individuals and institutions since the beginning of U.S. history.’ ” She also included the institute’s call to political action: “ ‘To understand racism and effectively begin dismantling it requires an equally fierce, consistent, and committed effort.’ ”

Late in the afternoon of the same day, Mr. Griffiths replied in a facultywide email. Noting that Ms. Portier-Young had “made her ideological commitments clear,” he stated that he would “do the same, in the interests of free exchange.”

Mr. Griffiths, a professor of Catholic theology, was good to his word. “I exhort you not to attend this training,” he wrote. “There’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty,” he continued, and it would reflect “illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies” and be “definitively anti-intellectual.” He noted that “(re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history.”

He then entreated the faculty to rededicate themselves to their scholarly and pedagogical mission: “Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it.”

That evening, Dean Elaine Heath entered the fray. Announcing in her own facultywide email that she was “looking forward to participating in the REI training” and that she was “proud that we are hosting it at Duke Divinity School,” Ms. Heath—also a professor of missional and pastoral theology—expressed confidence that the sessions would improve the school’s “intellectual strength, spiritual vitality, and moral authority.”

Having sided firmly with Ms. Portier-Young, the dean proceeded to outline rules of acceptable discourse in facultywide email exchanges. “It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements—including arguments ad hominem—in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.”

Yet Mr. Griffiths’s three-paragraph, 228-word email made no disparaging statement about any individual, much less expressed bigotry of any sort. Unless—in accordance with the illiberal spirit that has taken root on our campuses—one equates unsparing criticism of ideas with attacks on a person and redefines “bigotry” to mean deviation from the progressive party line. CONTINUE AT SITE

The National Review ran a short piece, which, at first, I thought was a satirical piece by Katherine Timpf in the spirit of the Harvard Crimson, “U-Arizona is hiring-students-to tattle on others for ‘bias-incidents.’”

The University of Arizona is hiring students to be “social-justice activists,” [SJAs] and the job description demands that they “report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff.”

In other words: These kids are being paid to tattle on other kids for anything they might consider to be a microaggression, and any students who gets these jobs should probably identify themselves so that other students will know to never invite them to their parties.

According to the university’s website, the official title of the position is “social-justice activist,” and it pays $10 per hour. They can expect to work about 15 hours per week, which, as the Daily Caller notes, means that they will be making roughly $600 per month to behave like self-righteous, meddling nightmares.

Before I blinked twice and realized Miss Timpf was reporting a fact, and wasn’t trying to be humorous, I wondered if the $600 a month stipend would go to reducing a student’s federal and/or state college loan, which will typically run in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, depending on the campus.

But, no, Miss Timpf was dead serious.

The SJA would not act as an ombudsman to negotiate resolutions between triggered emotionally hurt students and steely-eyed truth tellers. Nor would he act as a blockwart, which was a Nazi rank below gauleiter. He would be, frankly, a paid, contemptible snitch. His job would be to turn in and stamp out individuals, not whole populations.

The University website, “Social Justice Advocates Recruitment Information,” informs us:

The Social Justice Advocates (SJA) Position is one that is grounded in the multicultural competency framework and allows student staff to gain the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary to work effectively with students and residents across cultures and identities. The position calls for an understanding of social identity groups, experiences, histories, and practices as it relates to everyday life and life at the University of Arizona.

The position also aims to increase understanding of one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding and acceptance of differences. Finally, this position intends to increase a student staff member’s ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences and confront diversely insensitive behavior.

It’s hard not to wonder if the Butler University bookstore will have the class supplies needed for a fall course called “Trumpism & U.S. Democracy”—gas masks, Maalox to counteract chemical agents, cobblestones of a nice throwing weight?

It’s a legitimate question, considering that the School of Communication class was originally billed as planning to “discuss, and possibly engage in, strategies for resistance” to Trump’s “sexism, white supremacy, xenophobia, nativism, and imperialism,” according to the 57-word course description by Professor Ann Savage. A revised description issued after parents got wind of the course and complained moderates the language, but clearly leaves open the possibility of protest attendance and participation.
How exactly does one grade participation in a protest? Do broken civilian car windows count less than those of police cars? Does being arrested on national media count more than on local newscasts? And is there extra credit for being tased?
Some People Love the Idea

When the course came to light during Butler’s graduation week this month, response was quick on social media, today’s venue of choice for the airing of grievances.

“We have a daughter who is getting ready to graduate from Butler on Saturday,” one mother posted on the Butler Facebook page. “We used to be proud to tell people that fact…We don’t pay you THOUSANDS of dollars to teach our children to act out when things don’t go their way. Are you going to teach them to throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get the job they want?”

But as ever, other parents demonstrated their willingness to stand with disorder, another check writer posting: “Proud Bulldog mom. Proud of President (James) Danko. Proud of the community at Butler. Proud of Dr. Savage. Proud that bulldogs don’t back down in the face of criticism. Proud to send you another $57,000 for another year of education for my oldest daughter.”

It was an unusual outburst for this quiet liberal arts school of just over 4,000 undergraduates nestled among ivy-covered brick bungalows near the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

The university quickly took down the initial course description, posting a much-altered version. Gone were references to Trump’s campaign boorishness and plans to take part in protests. Now the class is expected to explore “the rise of Donald Trump as a political and social phenomenon,” and “instill disciplinary diversity” by hosting guest lectures from other Butler faculty. Note that “disciplinary diversity” is not necessarily the same as actual diversity.
Same Academic Decrepitude, Different Day

University Provost Kathryn Morris said in a release that the course “falls under the auspices of academic freedom,” as would a course supporting the president. Students would never be forced to demonstrate, she wrote. But neither will they be chained to their desks. Students might visit “ongoing responses to Trump’s presidency and campaign” as “participant observers.”

This seems to leave room for some vigorous class activities, possibly qualifying for Physical Education credit. Butler is saying participation is voluntary, but wasn’t that model rejected in the case of school prayer? Something about kids feeling ostracized and marginalized. Besides, the university seems to be suggesting the real problem was how the course was described, not what the kids will be doing. The school plans to “review its practice of accepting preliminary course descriptions.”

It’s funny how the social justice jihadis never realize how outrageously racist they sound to those outside of their own bubble.

The latest example comes from the University of Hawaii, where a math professor has informed all of her white male colleagues that they should quit. All in the name of social justice, of course:

Not to alarm you, but I probably want you to quit your job, or at least take a demotion. Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else. If you are a white cis man (meaning you identify as male and you were assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power. That’s right, please quit. Too difficult? Well, as a first step, at least get off your hiring committee, your curriculum committee, and make sure you’re replaced by a woman of color or trans person. Don’t have any in your department? HOW SHOCKING.

Remember that you live in a world where people don’t succeed in a vacuum; most success happens on the backs of others who did not consent. You have no idea how successful you would have been if you were still you, but with an additional marginalization (not white, or not male, or not cis gender, or with a disability, etc).

Right now, I want to talk about gender equality because the fact that women aren’t actually a demographic minority makes certain arguments easier, but please know that actual solutions require women of color and trans people. Remember having white cis women run the world is no kind of solution.

Piper Harron, an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii, is apparently only in a temporary position. This probably contributes to the Princeton graduate’s resentment at the hiring process.

In her bio on the American Mathematical Society’s blog where this screed was posted, she notes:

Piper Harron tried really hard to play by the rules of society and academia, but she failed. Not only did she fail, but she was miserable and found that playing by the rules wouldn’t even keep her safe.

It seems she chalks her failure up to being either a woman or a minority — it’s hard to keep up on which is a bigger hindrance these days. It doesn’t matter, because either way her failure simply has to be because of white men. It can’t be her fault in any way.

While she’s right by saying it’s impossible to know for sure that successful people would be just as successful if they were black or a woman, the converse is also true, but she’s absolutely sure that she would be more successful.

From a supposed mathematician, maybe her poor grasp of logic is what’s hindered her career? CONTINUE AT SITE

Earlier this week, this column noted the offensive online posts of June Chu, Dean of Yale University’s Pierson College. This morning, Pierson Head Stephen Davis sent the following email to students and faculty:

Dear Pierson community,

I am writing to let you know that Dean Chu has been placed on leave and will not be participating in Commencement activities or working with students through the end of this academic year. In the meantime, Elaine Lincoln will be coordinating with Dean Mark Schenker in the Yale College Dean’s Office to make sure that your academic needs are properly addressed.

I am very aware that when I last wrote to you on Saturday morning, it was to ask you to partner with me in envisioning a way forward—to carve out space for grace—in the aftermath of Dean Chu’s email to the college apologizing for two Yelp reviews in which she had used inappropriate and unacceptable language pertaining to matters of class and race. I did so even though I found the views she expressed to be deeply harmful to our community fabric. I did so because I was convinced that her apology was genuine, because I believed that those posts were not representative of her and of the good work I had seen Dean Chu do in her capacity as dean, and because I still had hope for the possibility of envisioning a path toward healing and reconciliation.

Today I am grieving because I no longer can envision such a way forward. When I wrote to you on Saturday morning, it was with the understanding—and under assurance from Dean Chu, an assurance given to me and to others—that she had posted only two troubling reviews on social media. On Saturday evening, I found out that she was in fact responsible for multiple reprehensible posts, enough to represent a more widespread pattern. The additional posts that surfaced compounded the harm of the initial two, and they also further damaged my trust and confidence in Dean Chu’s accountability to me and ability to lead the students of Pierson College.

Let me be clear. No one, especially those in trusted positions of educating young people, should denigrate or stereotype others, and that extends to any form of discrimination based on class, race, religion, age, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Yale unequivocally values respect for all. This is simply to reaffirm what I wrote to you on Saturday: what holds us together is our collective effort to ensure that every single person in our midst is valued beyond measure. This is true not only in Pierson and across the university, but most emphatically throughout the city of New Haven and in every locale beyond.

This collective effort takes hard work. We work and strive every day to fulfill our basic social imperative: to honor and embrace those who are different from us. It also takes trust. We seek to forgive, but there are also consequences to our actions, and discerning when trust has been broken is one of the most difficult and painful kinds of labor.

And so, I write you today with a different kind of request: to join me in the equally important labor of rebuilding the trust that holds us together. Jenny and I are available to you 24/7, and we remain committed to making Pierson a place where this is possible.

Peace,

Dr. D

Now we know how far a politically correct Ivy league administrator has to go to face official discipline, and this column expects that Ms. Chu will not be returning to her position as a residential college dean at Yale. Conservatives may be tempted to celebrate, but as noted on Monday this column thinks that people on Yale’s campus and elsewhere should try to be more forgiving of comments that offend them.

And of course what campuses like Yale need more than tolerance for insulting Yelp reviews is tolerance for ideas that are hardly offensive at all but simply deviate from today’s trendy extreme of progressive leftism. It’s not clear that Ms. Chu’s leave, which is effective immediately, will make the campus any more welcoming of alternative viewpoints. There’s a joke about the limited, phony diversity sought by schools like Yale: They want people who look different but think the same.

This column recently noted cause for optimism in a campus survey showing Yale students believe in free speech. Now the grown-ups need to support those who try to exercise it. Along those lines, Yale has an opportunity to restructure the leadership of Pierson College in a way that will send an unequivocal signal that the university stands for robust and healthy intellectual discourse. Pierson Head Stephen Davis seems to be a well-meaning fellow but he might be a better fit taking over Ms. Chu’s job as dean and reporting to a new head of the residential college. Your correspondent humbly suggests that Yale should pay whatever portion of its roughly $25 billion endowment is required to persuade liberal Democrat Erika Christakis to run Pierson. Yale should also promise to support free speech as much as she does. CONTINUE AT SITE

Nancy Geduld is a member of the Class of 2017.https://bowdoinorient.com/2017/05/05/fearfulness-not-fearlessness-fostering-discourse-at-bowdoin/

By now, we’ve probably all heard about the recent events that unfolded at Middlebury when Charles Murray was invited to speak or the violent protests that arose when Milo Yiannopoulos was asked to speak at UC Berkeley. The issue of free and open discourse is now inextricably linked to college campuses and debated by the intellectuals that inhabit them. At Bowdoin, the inability for students to acknowledge the validity of opinions that do not align with their own signals a failure in an important aspect of our education.

Official statements from Bowdoin leaders on open discourse and intellectual tolerance directly contradict the reality of the academic environment here. President Rose, in his inaugural address, criticized academic intolerance. He pledged to uphold tenets of intellectual freedom at Bowdoin, and called upon us—students and faculty—to engage in the practice of “intellectual fearlessness.” It is up to us, he proclaimed, to create a campus safe enough to encourage the college’s mission of “full-throated intellectual discovery and discourse—which is most decidedly uncomfortable and unsafe.” How well have we achieved this goal of fostering an ideal academic environment? I say not well at all.

I am convinced that the discourse that exists on Bowdoin’s campus does not even slightly resemble the ideal image our President paints for us. Bowdoin’s academic climate more closely resembles one of intellectual fearfulness, rather than fearlessness, of rampant close mindedness rather than active intellectual discovery. The intellectual environment here represents a new form of orthodoxy, one that presents its notion of virtue and quickly dismisses anything contradictory. Currently, Bowdoin’s culture re-inscribes what students, faculty and administrators already know and believe, rendering open discourse obsolete. Rose asserts that at its core, a liberal arts education is about leaning into discomfort. We are here to be challenged and to work to uncover the truth in all disciplines. Yet, many of Bowdoin’s students are confident they have already found it. They possess the keys to the truth, and those who challenge their idea of the truth, or, even worse, actively oppose it, are not only ignorant, they are immoral.

Bowdoin’s administration clearly recognizes there is a striking lack of differing opinions and honest debate here. The apparent lack of discourse undoubtedly drives Rose’s calls for intellectual fearlessness, and the organization of campus events with outside speakers does indeed succeed in sparking moments of conversation. However, real change will only occur in the classroom, with the support of Bowdoin’s faculty.

The campus climate following the presidential election is a fitting example of the intellectual fearfulness that prevails at Bowdoin. A large majority of students were devastated by the results, and in many classes, professors needed to decide how to best proceed. Some professors ended classes early; others allowed for class debate. For instance, in a government class on Political Parties in the United States, a professor fed students a variety of questions that attempted to get at the heart of the surprising conservative victory: ‘How could the liberal candidate have lost?’ ‘What sorts of theories could explain the conservative candidate’s extraordinary momentum?’ ‘Where do we go from here?’

It was in this class that I realized how dangerously one-sided discourse is here. One student pinned the election’s shocking results on the votes of uneducated, ‘white-trash,’ racist Americans. Another student conjured up a strikingly elitist explanation involving a divergence of ‘shared-truths.’ Those who voted for the president-elect, he argued, just did not understand the ‘correct’ truth about today’s world (a truth that is, to this student, ostensibly universal). And so, by voting for such a candidate, they, in fact, demonstrated that they do not understand reality; they live within a false truth. Fittingly, during this discussion, one student sporting a “Make America Great Again Hat” sat silently.

In response to my classmates’ hypotheses, I suggested that perhaps we needed to look beyond simple stereotypes and labels in attempting to explain the shocking results of this election. Name-calling, I argued, would not help us understand what took place and how to best move forward. Apparently, the professor found this suggestion so profound that he later emailed me thanking me for having the courage to speak up and challenge my classmates—for embodying the “intellectual fearlessness” Rose so often praises.

Why was I lauded as courageous for simply suggesting that we look beyond the easy answer—in challenging the echo chambers of news, politics and, evidently, academia, that we live in today? Is it brave to merely acknowledge that a viewpoint has a fundamental right to exist, even if you do not agree with it? To attempt to understand from where that perspective comes? To acknowledge that someone else’s beliefs contain an inherent value? I believe Bowdoin has failed in its mission to challenge us to do these very things.

Intellectual fearfulness will have far-reaching consequences, if we allow it to prevail on Bowdoin’s campus, for the policing of political opinions now functions as a modern form of orthodoxy. In dismissing those with opposing views as ignorant and immoral, in asserting that we already possess “the truth,” and in turning political debates into moral ones, we don’t just fail to be intellectually fearless: we fail to demonstrate any intellect at all. There is work to be done, and it is only in the classroom, with the support of professors, that we can foster a genuine academic environment and begin to demonstrate real intellect.

A new online course instructs math teachers how to incorporate social-justice ideology into their lessons by discussing how mathematics has historically been used to oppress people.

The class — titled “Teaching Social Justice Through Secondary Mathematics” — was developed by Teach for America and is being offered through edX, according to an article in Campus Reform.

“Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?” the course overview asks. “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.”

The idea behind the class is that many students are into the whole social-justice thing and that “setting the mathematics within a specially-developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both the data and social justice concerns.”

According to Campus Reform, the class identifies five principles of “intersectional mathematics,” including “mathematical ethics:”

Mathematical ethics recognizes that, for centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool. Does one’s IQ fall on the lower half of the bell curve? Mathematics tells us that individual is intellectually lacking. Mathematics formulae also differentiate between the classifications of a war or a genocide and have even been used to trick indigenous people out of land and property.

Now, I personally never enjoyed math in school. In fact, in first grade, I got into huge trouble for standing on a chair and starting a “No More Math! No More Math!” chant in the classroom. Honestly, I just wish I had had access to this information at the time. My “No More Math!” chant landed me in the principal’s office, but perhaps if I had tweaked it a little bit to, say, “For Centuries, Mathematics Has Been Used as a Dehumanizing Tool!” I may have had more success.