mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Higher Education Watch
On Campus, It’s Marx vs. Mill
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Gary Hemminger

    This article hits the nail right on the head. You have the social justice warriors who think that diversity is great, as long as it is the diversity of identity. Political diversity…not so good. It is hard to believe that there is even an argument for truth vs. social justice. Truth should win that one hands down.

    Insanity seems to be running our institutions, our media, our entertainment, our art, our politics.

    Insanity is believing that Open Borders, building walls, sanctuary cities, and deporting all illegal aliens are sound immigration policies.
    Insanity is believing that we can switch our entire energy system to renewable resources right now
    Insanity is believing that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as president will be the end of everything we hold dear in the US
    Insanity is believing that Iran and Syria will follow their word
    Insanity is a president who claims he is going to “stop the seas from rising.”

    Are there no sane leaders left? Will they say anything and do anything to keep power? Will no one actually be accountable to make our leaders accountable?

  • Beauceron

    Oh, c’mon.
    Are we seriously going to pretend this is even a battle at this point? I mean, I don’t see anyone on campus demonstrating for truth movements.University administrators even willing to stand up and say they support free speech and open inquiry are few and far between– those that are actually going to do more than just give the idea lip service are even thinner on the ground. The Left have won. Social Justice is the rule on college campuses– indeed it’s spreading from the campus, metastasizing if you will, into corporate boardrooms and media. The company I work for has special committees and meetings for every group you can imagine– except whites, males, heteros and Christians of course. Nothing in the world will help your career more than dark skin. If you’re gay on top of that– well, the world is your oyster.

    • ljgude

      Agree…..they will try just that sort of thing until it exhausts itself or blows up in their faces.

      • Beauceron

        I think the benefit of taking up the social justice sword, it that it is a blade that never grows dull. I disagree with the entire premise of this article on another point as well. The author– or the professor the article focuses on– argues that the academe is battling between “truth” and “Marx.” That battle was lost decades ago. What we are witnessing– and this is the tail end of it– is a changing of the guard from a class based Leftism, where academics focused on economic and social classes as their philosophical bedrock, to an identity based Leftism, where academics focus on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preferences.
        What you are– what color of skin you have, what ethnic group you belong to, what sort of genitals you have or are attracted to– are now the most important things about you. It affects what schools you will get into, whether there will be scholarship money, what job you might get, what promotions you will be offered, how you’re treated socially, etc. I didn’t like that attitude when this was promoted by rightwingers and benefitted whites, and I don’t like it now that it’s promoted by the Left and benefits People Of Color (said, of course, with appropriate awe and respect).

        • Jim__L

          The blade will grow dull. People will get sick of it. We already are.

          Keep up the good fight. =)

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Universities are supposed to be training their students in “Critical Thinking” which will help them to discover the “Truth” for themselves. Instead we have students being indoctrinated in Leftist Dogma, just like the schools in Communist Countries.

  • ljgude

    In the early 70s, I was standing in the library of the institution of higher education in which I taught staring out the window musing why was it that all of us had to have a cause, an social agenda, that motivated out teaching. What had happened to truth? Just a private thought that didn’t seem worth pursuing at the time. Little did I know……

  • LarryD

    And the history of Marxism is, it is always totalitarian in the end. It overthrows existing power structures and privilege because they are in the way of establishing its own. No one on the Left ever learns from the history of the French Revolution.

    • f1b0nacc1

      Those were just old white dudes….who can learn anything from them?

  • Boritz

    “Should universities prioritize the pursuit of social justice or the pursuit of truth?”

    Answer from Faber College:  Knowledge is good.

  • Fat_Man

    Haidt is wasting his time. It is far too late to do anything with the Universities other than defund them.

  • Frank Natoli

    the pursuit of social justice or the pursuit of truth.
    If social justice is not truth, then it must be a lie.

  • JR

    What we need is for more and more of these places to go bankrupt.

  • FriendlyGoat

    If Truth U had discovered and was disseminating Truth, there would be no universities but those modeled on Truth U. Seriously. The idea that academics all (or mostly) now insulate themselves in supposed falsehood on issues such as climate change, wealth divide, religions and their influences, war and peace, futurism with a growing world population, and PC considerations for all (all) segments of people and that they then have a yuugge conspiracy to peddle these supposed falsehoods to everyone else is beyond silly.

    What is one clue? When you have the social/political side which invented the concept of “blasphemy” in the religious context accusing its far-less-religious counterparts of enforcing “blasphemy” laws, you know you are being spun.

    What’s another clue? TAI put one in a sentence. “Meanwhile, partly in response to the total collapse of academic authority among conservatives, the center of gravity for right-wing ideas has moved toward the world of Drudge and Hannity and Breitbart.” What did this really say? Oh, yeah. It said that the center of gravity of modern political conservatism is so indefensible by any real academics that only the world of Drudge and Hannity and Breitbart believes in it enough to repeat it. Put Truth back in as a REQUIREMENT for conservative views and Truth U will spring up everywhere.

    • Tom

      Given that your first paragraph is a strawman, your second paragraph doesn’t understand that religion doesn’t have to have a god, and your third paragraph ignores the Huffington Post, the DailyKos, et. al., your first and last sentences bear no resemblance to reality.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Sounds like Drudge, Hannity and Breitbart to me. Insufficient substance to elicit the desired conclusions and support—–except inside the asylum. This is why university people are not following you or them.

        Start with a basic tenant of conservatism: “If you cut high end taxes significantly and cut government spending simultaneously by the same dollar amount in order to afford the tax cuts, then the result in society will be a net increase in living-wage jobs.” This is what conservative academics should be proving beyond a shadow of a doubt at Truth U. They don’t because they can’t. If they could, their institutions would not be leaning left.

        • Tom

          Yes, FG, we’re aware that you believe that decreasing the amount of money people will get via economic activity will somehow cause them to engage in more of it. Frankly, you’ve been lying to yourself for decades.

          As to Berkeley–why would you expect people whose livelihoods are both dependent on government largesse and insulated from the consequences of taxation on the economy to produce such studies? That’s as ludicrous as expecting the Koch brothers to fund a study that was expected to show that higher tax rates will actually benefit the economy.

          • FriendlyGoat

            1) To your first paragraph, we do not now have nor have we ever had any shortage of people willing to engage in economic activity because taxes are too high. Ask the stars of Shark Tank. They will invest in anything that “works” on a pre-tax basis. So will everyone else and they have been all through the 20th century at any tax rate schedule.

            2) Berkeley can just as easily be Truth U as any other place. It is not just “left because it is left”. It is a state institution which would be as far right as any other if—–IF—–the right-side Truth actually penciled out.

          • Tom

            1. To your first paragraph, I say hogwash. The industrial investment that occurred during the 1950s occurred at a period when America dominated the world economic scene. Also, you’re seriously using a reality show as evidence? And you have problems with Breitbart.

            2 and 3. The fact that you seem to regard incentive structures as only relevant when discussing the evils of right wingers says a lot more about you than it does about the actual situation.

            The fact of the matter is that more government is not the automatic benefit to society that your ilk claim it is. If jobs don’t provide value commensurate to their cost, they are not of benefit, over the long term, to anyone.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Tom, I got your number, okay? All you can say is “hogwash”. You’re wet behind the ears and full of yourself—–almost never contributing anything either true or useful.

          • Tom

            How remarkable. I regard you in much the same light, except with the excuse of being set in your ways instead of inexperienced.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, you do. Except you don’t know what “ways” are yet.

          • Tom

            Yes, yes, I’ll get off the sidewalk in front of your house now.

          • FriendlyGoat

            If you knew what a sidewalk is for and about, you would have been briskly walking by on your way to somewhere important, greeting and well-wishing all those you met. If I had seen you on the sidewalk for the 30 seconds it takes to pass any house, I might have been tempted to think you the nicest guy in the world. But, alas, the loitering, lingering, needling, pestering just ruins sidewalk life.

          • Tom

            Well, I was more referring to your reaction being reminiscent of “get off my lawn.” Then I realized that if I was on your lawn, I would be trespassing.
            Instead, you chose to yell snide remarks from your house when some people were strolling by having a conversation. I yelled back. Then you got huffy because I dared to respond in a manner that was not entirely agreeable.
            If you understood that when one gives one must also be willing to take, I would take your criticism of my maturity much more seriously.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Do you have ANY understanding of who was yelling at who in this thread? As is usually the case in my experience here, a decent original comment brings out a pack of jackals who do the yelling AT ME.

            LOOK above, Tom. LOOK at the record. LOOK at the BS you are shoveling about “strolling by having a conversation”. The correct analogy is that you are a punk who threw a rock through my front window because you don’t have anything else to do and nobody taught you any manners. You and your twisted sniveling is a prime example of how I have come to believe conservatism is synonymous with lying jackasses.

          • Tom

            Oh please. Spare me the melodrama. Your comments manage to be original on this site because you’re one of the few leftists who comes here. In the broad context of the present political discourse they’re a regurgitation of leftist thought regarding just about everything.
            The true analogy doesn’t involve a rock through your window. The true analogy is that you went to a bar, heard a political conversation going on that you disagreed with, proceeded to insult everyone there, then got all offended when people actually dared to respond instead of being cowed by your intellect and wit.
            And you think I’m a sniveler. Your lack of self-awareness is incredible.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Sidewalk, remember? Not bar. You are living your own melodrama and it gets more fanciful all the time.

            I have had enough sense to stay out of bars my whole life. The people here are not supposed to be like them (aka drunk)—-but if you want to liken yourself to one of the proverbial fools on stools, well, I’ll chalk it up to your tendency to be silly.

          • Tom

            You would be surprised by how many people in bars aren’t drunk and are capable of carrying on a rational conversation. Given your snobbery, that wouldn’t be hard, but that’s not my problem.
            And anyone who regards my comments as a “brick through the window” has no room to complain about melodrama.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, remember that sidewalk where you (yes above) INITIATED the encounter in front of my house on what you called my sidewalk? You weren’t walking by, you weren’t in some polite conversation that I interrupted, you were trying to shatter (a glass-related word) my comment for no particular reason. I think it’s like a rock through the window, but don’t quote me on “brick”—-oddly I never mentioned brick and you upgraded to brick as a telling slip of where I already know your attitude resides.

          • Tom

            Great, now you’re engaging in pop psychology. I really don’t see how shifting to a “brick” from a “rock’ is an upgrade, or particularly telling. I’m reminded of your attempted smear of f1bonacci.
            But, dude, you made a comment on an open forum. When I make comments, I anticipate pushback. (Never mind that I made it clear that my reference to your sidewalk was an allusion to the stereotypical old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn) It’s long past time that you got used to it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I didn’t attempt a smear on f1bonacc1. I confronted him directly with the odd reality that he was spending an inordinate number of daylight hours lecturing me while there is a presumption from his own disclosure that he is employed full time in an important day job. I also suggested that I know his bloviating would be an embarrassment in front of any real clients if he had those and they knew the off-the-wall things he was saying. If, per chance, I might have rattled him enough to scale back this comment-section addiction before it screws up his real life, I did him a favor. Same could be true of you for all I know.

          • Tom

            The problem was that you were, in fact, wrong on all counts. Not that that’s ever stopped you before, mind you.

          • Jim__L

            Clark Gable used to stop making movies when it stopped being worth his time because 90% of the income he would make from them was taxed away.

            If a company decides to do something on a pre-tax basis that is profitable, but on a post-tax basis shows a massive operating loss, it will stop doing that something, or it will go bankrupt.

            Does that clear up the “hogwash” problem? I admit, Tom’s choice to use that word wasn’t all that specific, but your counter-claim “no it isn’t” wasn’t all that specific either.

          • FriendlyGoat

            1) Who needed Clark Gable? Anyone can appear in movies and some of the no-names A) Needed a chance, and B) Were better entertainment than Clark Gable anyway.

            2) There is no such thing as something profitable on a pre-tax basis which turns into a massive operating loss on a post-tax basis unless you are speaking of certain tax shelter schemes where well-crafted deductions are taken for tax purposes but were not real outlays. Those are not activities companies hate, but rather activities companies love so that the supposed “loss” from some activities can be used to offset other taxable income.

          • Jim__L

            1) Millions of women worldwide needed Clark Gable, apparently.

            2) Depends on how you structure your taxes.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Both of your articles are just ridiculous and I explained why above—-and clearly. What is WRONG with you two that you are compelled to be pests EVERY darned day?

          • Jim__L

            1) You simply dodged this one. Arguing that second-stringers (e.g., Dana Andrews, go-to leading man during WWII when others were off fighting the war) could fill the theaters, and be remembered, like Gable is simply not born out by facts. (Andrews wasn’t bad, he did a workmanlike job in “Laura”, among others, but it’s Hogwash to claim that “anyone is replaceable” — no matter how devoutly you desire to replace them if they don’t want 90% of what they earn handed to the government to be squandered.)

            More taxes, less incentive for economic activity. Less incentive, less activity. It really is that simple.

            2) If you’re trying to start a new operation here in Silicon Valley and you’re looking for VC money — investors that expect that 95% of their bets will not pay off — you’d better be able to claim that your bet is going to pay off no less than 20x their investment. Slap taxes on that, and the required returns become 30x, 100x, 300x … and/or you’ve just destroyed the business plan for VCs, and all the innovation they support.

            As to the daily comments — if I may presume to speak for Tom as well as myself, we don’t really see any difference between your comments and the posts they react to. They are public. Either one may be disagreed with. Daily, if we please. It’s pretty much identical to the way that you please to comment here — disagreeing with many of the posts — daily.

            Playing the victim card to try to silence opposition really doesn’t wash outside of Lefty circles. It really makes you look like you’re supporting Marxist SJW’ing for the purposes of arrogating the discussion to yourself, rather than looking for any kind of Truth.

          • FriendlyGoat

            1) Clark Gable may have added something to studio profits, but he did not add anything necessary to ordinary people. The idea that taxes were too high for the “us” of those times to get Gable’s willingness to perform and that the “we” of those times NEEDED Gable and couldn’t do without him? It’s too ridiculous for words. Your own side today would be better off if George Soros’ taxes were so high that he might occasionally stop out-trading most people on the planet.

            2) In other times you have griped about the nature of Silicon Valley. Why you are worried about the welfare of the shark investment culture there baffles me. First of all, when your spiritual hat might be on, you would recognize that not everything driven by the love of money in the digital age is even desirable. When your logic hat might be on, you just admitted that 95% (your number) of business ideas there are half-baked without any introduction of taxation at all.

            BUT, remember, we are on this because you tried to smoke me on how income taxes turn profitable ventures into losses. “Smoke” is the nice word.

            3) You may always presume to speak for Tom and vice versa. Two peas in a pod. Always under-thinking the majors and over-thinking the minors.

  • Andrew Allison

    The right’s so-called “intellectual establishment” is as morally bankrupt as that on the left. Don’t you understand that Sanders and Trump are signals that people are waking up to the fact that there’s little to choose between them.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Obama was between them and would be cruising to a third term if such was allowed and he was so inclined to run again.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service