Can we get a "leftwing bullshit" tag?

[zadok-allen.livejournal.com]

Comments

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

So, which bit of the admittedly unbalanced view of Jefferson is "bullshit"?

Was he a slave-owner?
Was he a philanderer?

The kid not wanting to talk about his report and using whoever excuses he can find is exclusively left-wing? Or that fact that he uses supposedly "left-wing" excuses. Excepting I see nothing about workers, capital, the bourgeoisie, or the apparatus of revolution: merely a wish to distance himself from racism.

Is anti-racism "left-wing"? Well in that case it seems the majority of folk in the developed world must be "left-wing": because it seems that most civilised folk subscribe to the notion that racism is a bad thing. No matter whether we accept privilege; elitism of other kinds; or economic advantage due to capital, inheritance, or whatever.

You see, to my mind, your criticism crosses the boundaries you set up for yourself. Especially as I would describe myself as a conservative of a kind.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

I think he was referring to the last two panels. The idea is fleshed out in the most recent strip:

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

And again the kid (Binkley) uses crappy excuses which are being satirised by the cartoonist (Berkley Breathed). Or am I reading it wrongly? The "left-wing" aspect of the bullshit is questionable, given that it is commonplace now to question ones privilege, that is unless one is truly racist, sexist, homophobic, and completely off the scale of current political debate: and even now, the Overton window on political opinions on government and economics has moved so far to the right that folk like me, who are conservative of a Macmillanite variety (or in US terms Eisenhower-era Republicans) find themselves to the left of the Democratic Party.

I see no place in modern civilised society of any political hue for racism, sexism, or homophobia: but that could be just me...and maybe all those opposed to most aspects of fundamentalist Islam or Christian thinking.

Bill the cat in a storm trooper helmet is pretty impressive though.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

I think it may be the lack of US context for you. In the last two years or so, there has been a fairly significant blowback against liberals, particularly on college campuses, who use terms like "trigger", "safe space", etc. as reasons to censor. In this case, for instance, it is absolutely important for children to learn about Jefferson (the good and the bad), and refusing to learn, for instance, the importance of the Declaration of Independence because the person who wrote it owned slaves is exactly the sort of left-wing hand wringing which has led to this blowback.

A couple of examples:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/)

Now, as a college professor, I can say that I've never seen anything like the incidents at Yale and Missouri which served to start recent debate on this topic, and I'd guess that the actual incidents of censorship are few and far between. But this is a pretty good example of "leftwing bullshit", if you were looking for one.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I am aware of the stupidity of youth, tangentially and anecdotally of course, as those years for me are so far in my rear-view mirror as to be ancient history. However, it seems to me that Berkley Breathed is satirising such extreme attitudes, and actually such attitudes need satirising. But I regard them as "privileged" youthful stupidity rather than being left-wing, or even "liberal". The liberalism of Jeremy Bentham, or the Marxism or socialism of the revolutionary seem far removed from these particular ideas.

And if the blowback from these ideas leads to making racism, sexism, or homophobia respectable, well...that needs sorting too.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

Oh, we absolutely need to begin by acknowledging that Bentham's definition of liberal is no longer what that word means. The terminology has changed. But these are absolutely modern liberal ideals (namely, that those who are being oppressed have the right to fight back against those oppressing them).

The good news about this whole situation (other than the fact that it is likely WAY overblown, and isn't really happening with the regularity that is claimed), is that the people at the forefront of the fight against it tend to be people who want to use the language and ideas of hate as learning tools to prevent it in the future. As always, communication will set us free.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

True, language changes. But fighting back against oppression is regarded as liberal? Ye gods. I'm a liberal: despite being an elitist, an aristo, a monarchist, and someone who is perfectly happy with inherited wealth.

Blimey, I learn something new about myself daily.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

"Fight back" as opposed to "work within the system" represents a pretty clear delineation between modern definitions of liberal and conservative in my mind. :)

Granted, I say that as an elitist conservative fascist....so YMMV.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I was born sixteen years after the end of WWII, and I'm a Brit. Fighting back is in my nature, as is working within the system when the system is properly ordered and morally acceptable.

I'm what used to be called a "High Tory". I believe in society. I think that alongside privilege come duty and responsibility, especially to those less able or well-off than myself.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

The main reason I am a conservative is I believe completely in an internal locus of control. People are capable of becoming something if they make good decisions and put in the effort required. Those who are unhappy with their lot, as a general rule, are unwilling to do so. As such, I believe in helping others get started, but expecting them to take it from there.

The great thing about privilege is it allows me to help those who need to get started. As a college professor, my best day is when one of my students from a poor background tells me that I inspired them to put in the work and finish their degree, and now they landed a great job. My money tends to go to education programs for younger kids from poor backgrounds, in hopes of getting them in a position where they can do the same.

There is a sincere difference between that sort of help and the kind that traps people in their situation, and the reason I'm not a liberal is that I simply can't support such programs.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

these are absolutely modern liberal ideals (namely, that those who are being oppressed have the right to fight back against those oppressing them)

Where did you turn off your brain? Just sit back and take the oppression. Maybe your oppressor will use lube.

isn't really happening with the regularity that is claimed

No? But how will I hate lefties and liburuls tho?

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

See my response above.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I like how liberals and left wing are all defined by the safe space crowd. Hope that is not offensive. Quick, call me a regressive liberal or else you will have to introspect the myopia such labels cause.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

Conservatives are all defined by the anti-same sex marriage crowd.... Essentially, people get tarred with a broad brush regardless.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Well, when I meet a pro-same sex marriage conservative, I really try to not label them that way. Its the ones that are against it that I reserve those judgements for. Red team's record is what it is, and blue team hasn't always been perfect either.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

A few things.

In this case, for instance, it is absolutely important for children to learn about Jefferson (the good and the bad), and refusing to learn, for instance, the importance of the Declaration of Independence because the person who wrote it owned slaves is exactly the sort of left-wing hand wringing which has led to this blowback.

How do you know this? The "blowback" that's happening is full of this kind of reactionary reasoning - the "safe space" movement is demonstrably over-reaching because there are just some things you must be exposed to! It's rhetorically appealing, but it's not an argument; it doesn't demonstrate that people must learn about Thomas Jefferson, in this case. It's something said by supporters of an institutional status quo, to other supporters of the same status quo who share the same kind of educational background.

Personally, I'm a bit alarmed that it's so frequently said by members of a community that should be slightly more self-aware and critical than that. The perspective I take is this: the pedagogical canon is not, and should not be understood to be, given or fixed. The question of what should be included within the canon, and how something within it should be presented, is answered dialectically, by a community of scholars (which includes, importantly, students). The fact that so many professors feel that their students have no legitimate role in determining what or how they learn, and are instead responsible only for receiving some curriculum whose content need not be explained or justified, to my mind, demonstrates exactly why it's so important to take the "safe space" movement seriously. They're not just challenging a few offensive facts about historical figures, say; they're challenging the way they're being taught. And, given the way so many professors are reacting, I'd say it's about time.

The two articles you cite are not helpful, either. The latter piece was written by two people - the first famously "discovered" that conservatives have broader moral reasoning than liberals, and the second is associated with a group that sustains itself largely by publicizing and challenging "outrageous" cases of campus censorship. These are people with an agenda. And the first means - what, exactly? There are too many spurious assertions and leaps of logic for me to get into here, but in the end it's an anecdote-laced whinge.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

it doesn't demonstrate that people must learn about Thomas Jefferson, in this case.

You are correct. It would be better to put the argument this way:

It is absolutely essential that students in the US learn about the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps more importantly about the views of Locke and Rousseau which are distilled into it. This is essential because the document, and the government which sprang out of its creation, are important examples of revolution spawned by political thought. We cannot study such works without talking about the men who created them, including Thomas Jefferson. We need to learn about both their brilliance and their faults in order to truly understand the context in which that document, and that government, were created. If we choose not to learn about these things because they make us uncomfortable, we will lose out on seminal works of political science and history which influence our behavior in the US to this day.

The question of what should be included within the canon, and how something within it should be presented, is answered dialectically, by a community of scholars (which includes, importantly, students).

This is only true if all members of the community are prepared and knowledgeable about the subject. For instance, I absolutely listen to my students about what I will cover in the course as it relates to their preparation for a life in the professional world, because they have a well-developed understanding of much of what they need to learn in that area. However, when I teach management, I often choose course materials myself, because the students simply don't understand what they need to learn in that instance. If, for instance, they don't like learning about fundamental theories of motivation, I absolutely try to find a better way to get the material across to them, but I'm not going to remove it from the course.

The two articles you cite are not helpful, either.

If you don't like those, there are many, many more. Trust me, this particular situation has been beaten until dead, and then beaten some more over the last couple of years. Those two articles provide a decent overview of the concerns. Just look for articles on the Yale halloween costume scandal, and you'll get more info than you ever wanted.

However, as I said above, the problem is definitely overblown. There is certainly a kernel of truth in there about the tendency for college students to have a different stance on censorship than older adults do (a recent survey pointed out that 40% of young adults believe it is ok to censor speech that is offensive to minorities, for instance, citation below), but my experience is that for every case like the one at Yale, there are hundreds of cases where people on campus are permitted to speak their minds without fear of retribution.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/)

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It is absolutely essential that students in the US learn about the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps more importantly about the views of Locke and Rousseau which are distilled into it. This is essential because the document, and the government which sprang out of its creation, are important examples of revolution spawned by political thought.

Which really just begs the question. I've asked, "Why should we study Thomas Jefferson?" Your answer is: "His life is part of the context surrounding an important example of a revolution spawned by political thought." But it's not self-evidently the case that we ought to study that, either. It's also not even necessarily accurate to describe the American revolution as one "spawned by political thought" - there are contrary, economic explanations for that revolution. That it was inspired by political thought is, in fact, just part of the story we tell ourselves about our nation's roots. So, when you say,

We need to learn about both their brilliance and their faults in order to truly understand the context in which that document, and that government, were created. If we choose not to learn about these things because they make us uncomfortable, we will lose out on seminal works of political science and history which influence our behavior in the US to this day.

... all that you're essentially saying is that we study Thomas Jefferson because he's part of how we, in the modern US, construct and explain to ourselves our own identity; it's part of our national mythology. You take it for granted that we have these political-philosophical roots; you take it for granted that these political-philosophical roots have something to do with how we behave and understand ourselves today; you take it for granted that some flawed historical figures have special relevance to those roots. But that is all, in fact, just a modern reconstruction, a purely contemporary "tradition." So you're right that, assuming we buy into that "tradition", it's important to learn about Thomas Jefferson. But we can probe deeper than that and ask more critical questions about that tradition and Jefferson's role within it. Why is it so important for us to understand ourselves in this way? Does our modern thinking about rights and liberty genuinely derive from Locke and Rousseau? You haven't provided any reason for buying into that traditional way of thinking ourselves - besides simply positing that the traditional account is factually accurate.

This is only true if all members of the community are prepared and knowledgeable about the subject.

I don't see why I should agree that this is true. Novices to a subject are obviously not going to fully grasp how to learn it, but that doesn't mean they have no role, or only a receptive one, when it comes to their curriculum. When I am learning a new subject, I ask questions, engage critically, draw connections. They might be misplaced, or naive, or whatever, I'll concede, but a teacher who is unable to address them professionally and with maturity and respect is one who doesn't himself understand what he's doing. You have to be able to explain why Huckleberry Finn is on the syllabus or, if you can't, you should re-examine why you feel it's important to include it. To say that students have a role in the process isn't to give them the power to shape it unilaterally; it's simply to acknowledge that learning is a dialogue.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

For example: compare and contrast the French and American revolutions, and their subsequent infancy as democratic nations. The differences are overwhelmingly due to the different people involved in that process, and their concerns going in to the revolution. You can't study the American government (and yes, it is essential for students to study the American government) without learning why the founding fathers were so loathe to create a true democratic state, which you can't understand until you actually study Jefferson, et al. You can then look at the French example, which provides a sharp example of what a direct appeal to democracy means, including a great example of tyranny of the majority.

Essentially, you can't even make the arguments you are trying to make without knowing this information. You can't say "the founding fathers' impact on our systems is overblown" without studying who the founding fathers were and how our narrative about them has differed form the reality of their lives. In essence, you can't even make the argument you are trying to make in any coherent way without studying these things.

Novices to a subject are obviously not going to fully grasp how to learn it, but that doesn't mean they have no role, or only a receptive one, when it comes to their curriculum.

They absolutely need a say. But they don't KNOW what they need to learn about many subjects. You are a lawyer. How many first-year law students have any idea what they should be learning in, say, a class on contract law? What precedents should they be studying? What case briefs are important for them to know in order to properly prepare contracts? They have no clue. If that were not true, there would literally be no need for higher education of any kind. There is certainly a role for those who know more about a subject to choose the information that is important for students to know.

The funny thing is that I think you and I are absolutely on the same page here. I have been fighting constantly for more student input in business schools, because their voices are marginalized right now, and they shouldn't be. And communication with the students is required in order to best help them understand the material and present counter-examples and edge cases to the "established story". But, put simply, the students don't have the background to understand what should be a part of their curriculum.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

You can't say "the founding fathers' impact on our systems is overblown" without studying who the founding fathers were and how our narrative about them has differed form the reality of their lives. In essence, you can't even make the argument you are trying to make in any coherent way without studying these things.

I'm not trying to make that argument. My point is that your approach to the question takes a whole lot of things for granted, including how we evaluate political history and how we make sense of that political history to ourselves. Even here you continue to make some fairly traditional assumptions about relevant comparisons and contrasts, choosing to characterize the relevant difference between the American and French Revolutions as being about ideas and political philosophy (which serves how we traditionally understand our history and our "exceptionalism") rather than about the background conditions for those revolutions (colonial America was quite different from pre-revolutionary France).

I am not interested in debating Thomas Jefferson's status within the traditional way of thinking; that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to do is to draw your attention to the nature of the rhetoric and argument that you're using - in particular, its highly contingent character. You are speaking, throughout, as an educated American who expects to be understood by other educated Americans who believe the same kinds of things about our country. When I asked you, "Why Thomas Jefferson?" you explained, "Because he's important in our history." When I asked you, "Why does that matter?" you explained, "Because it explains the differences between these two revolutions." Those are persuasive answers for someone who believes, as you do, certain things about the US and the significance of its philosophical roots. But it doesn't explain, to someone outside of that tradition or capable of thinking outside of it, anything. They're just conclusory assertions piled atop one another.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

At some point, there's no bottom to the mud. You're championing a point of view that is simply impossible, namely providing context about something with no underlying assumptions. It doesn't happen. I'm perfectly comfortable using underlying assumptions that fall back on centuries of historical and political thought and study. I understand that I must be willing to defend those positions (and am perfectly able to do so), but you're presenting an alternative that is "All of this stuff is wrong" that has no basis in actual social science or historical research.

So, my questions for you would be "Why not Thomas Jefferson?" What reasoning can you come up with which would justify not teaching about him in a class on American History?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

You are a lawyer. How many first-year law students have any idea what they should be learning in, say, a class on contract law?

This is perhaps not a fair example, because I can already say that many 1Ls can and will have a good idea of what they should be learning in contract law. They will, at the same time, be in a position where they can meaningfully engage the professor on the curriculum.

First, most of them will understand that they need to understand contract law for their respective bar exams, so many of them will want and expect to be taught accordingly.

Second, law students have access to a wide array of study materials that they routinely use to supplement their class assignments. These materials will lead them to expect certain subjects to be touched on and may raise issues for them that they'll want to address in class.

Third, law students (in the US) are all college graduates, and so will generally be more mature students with developed expectations on what their classroom experiences should be like.

More specifically, a law student entering a contract class may have a background in economics that will equip them to evaluate contract law from an economic perspective; a law student with a background in gender or race theory might be interested in understanding contract law from a critical theoretical perspective; a law student who has worked between undergrad and law school might have their own practical experiences they would like to understand better through the lens of abstract legal study. And so on.

Fourth, core classes like contract law tend, as a matter of tradition, to have a lot of unnecessary precedents on the curriculum. Professors tend to require students to read old, canonical works that have little relevance to modern law or practice, just because that's what they were taught. This both helps to illustrate the highly contingent nature of curricula as well as where even novice law students might have a legitimate basis for challenging what they're taught. Walking in on day one, a 1L might not be able to say, "Well, I know that I don't need to know this stupid ancient case." But they absolutely can say, "I don't understand why we're reading this case; how is it relevant?" And the professor needs to be able to respond.

So, to sum up, I feel like I can say quite confidently that 1Ls in contract law will have a very good sense of what they should be learning there, and I would extrapolate from their case to a lot of the kinds of classes students are likely to take while at university.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

If you don't like those, there are many, many more. Trust me, this particular situation has been beaten until dead, and then beaten some more over the last couple of years.

I realize that academics love nothing more than to write about themselves and their difficult lives, and have little better to do than to find ways to make their personal issues seem like a national crisis. It's a hell of a lot easier than research and academic writing. That doesn't mean they correctly understand the issue, or that my reading more of their whinges is going to convince me that they have a point. The bulk of material on the subject, in my view, just affirms that there's a systemic problem in higher education - and it's not that students are calling for trigger warnings. It's that academia has become stuffed with a whole lot of white-bread, unoriginal, self-indulgent former grad students who lack intelligence, talent, and critical ability.

Re-reading that first piece - the "liberal professor" who's afraid of his students - I was struck by how the argument ran. The professor defended the extreme actions he had taken to defend himself on the grounds that it was necessary to protect his job. If he unintentionally prompted the wrong kind of complaint, he argued, he would find himself unemployed. But for some reason he blames the social justice movement for this, rather than his own tenuous employment arrangement or the economics that brought it about. There are too many people competing for non-tenure jobs, and they're too easy to replace, so... there's something wrong with opinionated students? It's kind of a shocking oversight and, again, one reflecting the deeper problem in academia.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

We have two opposed forces in the university system which are both dangerous to learning and critical thought. The first, and absolutely most powerful, is the institutional forces that try to make the university profitable, and work constantly to stomp down any factor which reduces that profitability (this is where we get stifling of reports of sexual assault on campus and the transition to adjunct professors for many courses, etc.).

The second, which is certainly less powerful but does exist, is the rejection of ideas and viewpoints because they are offensive or challenging. In a university setting, the entire POINT is to intellectually challenge students by presenting viewpoints which are anathema to them. Even ideas which are objectively reprehensible have to be discussed in order to dissect them and show why they are wrong. By the way, this occurs on both sides of the political divide: evolutionary theory has faced just as much opposition as discussion of sexual assault. Much as the problems above, this is detrimental to the creation of students who can reason for themselves.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You are safe to confront your privilege, but its hard.