- teachers' letters
- pension analyses
- ed reform
- college adjuncts
- fair taxation
- fair solutions
- charter schools
- DB v. DC
- poisoning children
- Pharma Greed
- Standing Rock
- zorn v. brown
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
The Professor Watchlist: "A Sign of the Amazing stupidity of the Post-Truth Era"--Sophia A. McClennen
“…[M]aking America whiter ‘again’ is not the only thing we need to fear with a Trump administration. Only two days after the alt-right convention in D.C., Turning Point USA launched Professor Watchlist, a website designed to call out college professors who ‘discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.’
“…Trump’s inability to handle any sort of critique and his bullying of reporters and the media all suggest that we are about to enter an era of censorship, threats to free speech and other forms of suppressing dissent. When the ‘liberal’ media come under attack it generally isn’t long before the ‘tenured radicals’ come under fire, too.
“Turning Point’s founder and executive director Charlie Kirk wrote a blog to explain that the purpose of the list was to expose professors who are out of line: ‘Throughout the next 120 days, Turning Point USA will be running ads to make sure students, faculty, and administrators see that these professors made the Professor Watchlist.’ The 22-year-old closes his post with the chilling phrase: ‘We believe these people need to be exposed.’
“Each listing on the site — 200 professors so far — includes a photo. Clearly the website is less about documenting issues and more about public shaming and potentially targeting. The watch list is a sign of the right’s new McCarthyism. But it’s also a sign of the amazing stupidity of the post-truth era.
“Today’s McCarthyism combines the red scare witch hunts of the 1950s with the 1980s attacks on multiculturalism of the culture wars and the post-9/11 loyalty tests. But Trump-era McCarthyism has further added the novelty of cyberbullying and a post-truth, fake news lack of connection to reality...
“The problem with the list — besides its more than obvious McCarthyist witch-hunt tactics — is that it’s really stupid. It makes claims that have no basis in reality. It exaggerates. It creates crisis where there is none. And worst of all, it promises to increase conflict rather than improve it.
“In fact, one of the greatest ironies of the list is that it proves that Kirk really should consider going to college. Apparently he has taken some college-level courses, but they clearly haven’t taught him some really basic critical reasoning skills. If he had studied history, logic, evidence and reasoning, his list might be less idiotic…
“Kirk’s list is based on flimsy information that simply doesn’t support his claims that there is a problem of left-wing professors discriminating against conservative students… Kirk apparently can ignore this history, probably because he hasn’t studied it in college. But he even forgets the precedent set by his own sources. Much of his site directly references a number of the already existing resources that police liberal faculty. For instance, many of the faculty on Kirk’s list also appear on David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks. Horowitz leveraged the post-9/11 culture of fear to launch his ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ and claim that college students were indoctrinated by left-leaning faculty. He later published ‘The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Professors,’ which argued that many U.S. professors were anti-American.
“Kirk doesn’t only forget history and his sources. He also doesn’t seem to understand that there is a difference between what a faculty member does in the classroom and his or her extramural speech, social media posts and research. As Jensen explained in his piece about the list, much of the ‘proof’ offered of faculty bias does not come from classroom encounters. In fact very little of it does. Instead Kirk’s list cites tweets, essays, books, blogs, published op-eds and other off-campus activity as evidence of faculty discriminating against students in the classroom.
“And Kirk fails to appreciate the fact that faculty are citizens, too. They can tweet and post articles on Facebook and write op-eds. They can express political beliefs, rant about racism and express dismay at the election of Donald Trump on their own time. As the University of Illinois had to learn after it rescinded a job offer to Steven Salaita in response to some of his tweets, extramural speech can’t be taken to stand in for classroom behavior.
“There is no necessary correlation between classroom conduct and the actions of a private citizen. Most of the list’s examples have nothing whatsoever to do with a faculty member in the classroom. This makes it a perfect example of McCarthyism in the post-truth era. But the stupidity doesn’t end there. Kirk joins a long line of hysterical conservatives who freak out that faculty members are indoctrinating students, but there is no evidence to back up any of their worries. In fact all the research on student political beliefs and college show that faculty do not influence their students at all. A 2008 article in The Guardian ran down a series of studies, all of which concluded that faculty members are not indoctrinating anyone.
“Matthew Woessner, a conservative faculty member who has conducted some of this research explained, ‘There is no evidence that a professor or lecturer’s views instigate political change among students.’ Instead, the research shows that when students engage with faculty, their views moderate. If students lean more left or right over the course of college it is typically a result of student activities and peer interaction.
“In other research Woessner further found that Republicans and conservatives, while vastly outnumbered in academia, ‘were, for the most part, successful, happy, and prosperous. Fewer than two percent of faculty (Republican or Democratic) reported being the victims of unfair treatment based on their politics.’ While this data reflects faculty not student attitudes it does show that ideas of bias against conservatives in academia is also exaggerated.
“Other research shows that if there are political biases in the classroom, they come from students and are directed at professors. In a 2006 study by Woessner and his wife, they found ‘that when students perceive a gap between their political views and those of their instructor, students express less interest in the material, are inclined to look less favorably on the course, and tend to offer the instructor a lower course evaluation.’
“Of course it is a great irony that the right champions the classroom concerns of conservative students. Most of the time, the mantra of the right is to disparage the whiny, coddled college student. In yet another sign of Trump-era hypocrisy, when the whining is about attacks on conservatism, it is legitimate. If it is in relation to Black Lives Matter, students apparently need to get over it…
“…[A]ll campuses have protections for students who feel they are suffering bias or discrimination. As a Penn State spokeswoman interviewed about the watch list explained, ‘If students in a classroom believe that an instructor has acted beyond the limits of academic freedom, there are policies and procedures in place for seeking a faculty conference and mediation.’ The idea that students don’t have protections on campus is ludicrous as well.
“It is also clear that Kirk has never studied statistics because his list does not offer a statistically relevant sample. In 2013 there were 1.5 million faculty members at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Kirk’s list has found a whopping 200 folks that purportedly are a threat to conservative students. Assuming that the 2013 number of faculty has mostly held steady, Kirk’s database represents .013 percent of all the faculty in the nation. It is a textbook example of a data size that is irrelevant. It literally proves the point that this is a nonissue. But in the land of post-truth hysteria one example is all it takes to freak everyone out.
“So Kirk’s list is a sad, pathetic and seriously stupid sign of the sorts of concerns that occupy the minds of the rising new right. It is easy to joke about it — and many have. Shortly after the watch list was launched and Kirk called on students to submit tips, a new hashtag emerged on Twitter — #TrollProfessorWatchlist — and it included submissions of Harry Potter characters, a Trump University lecturer and Jesus Christ.
“The hashtag is a great way to push back on the inanity of the list, but it is a mistake to miss its dark, chilling side, too. What Kirk and others like him do is perpetuate a myth about the ‘dangers’ of higher education that facilitates attacks on the value and meaning of college education. Make no mistake: Behind Kirk’s vendetta is a desire to destroy public higher education and replace it with a neoliberal privatized model that looks a lot like Trump U.
“State funding for higher education is down about $10 billion since the recession. Today more than half of all faculty members are adjuncts, who often have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Some professors make less than 50 cents an hour and far too many find themselves on food stamps. As public funding has gone down, student tuition bills have gone up, leaving students carrying a debt burden of more $1 trillion. Nearly 4 out of 5 college students are working part-time while studying for their degrees, averaging 19 hours a week.
“That is the real scandal of higher education, not the trumped-up charges that faculty members are harassing conservative students. Maybe now that Kirk’s list has been outed as a baseless witch hunt, he will consider going back to school and learning from the very same professors he supposedly finds so frightening.”
Sophia A. McClennen is Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She writes on the intersections between culture, politics, and society. Her latest book, co-authored with Remy M. Maisel, is, Is Satire Saving Our Nation? Mockery and American Politics.
From Academic witch hunts are back: The new McCarthyism, a sign of the stupidity of the post-truth era by Sophia A. McClennen
Monday, December 5, 2016
“…What if we replace our allegiance to freedom with an allegiance to some version of national identity, of a fictionalized shared heritage, or an official national religion? What if we become a one party state, with a muted and cowed press, left with the formal procedures of democracy but little else? What obstacles will face those of us who seek to make America great again?
“We have grown accustomed to hyper-incarceration as a solution to our social problems. This is dangerous in a country that has only ever known what W.E.B. Du Bois called our ‘two systems of justice,’ one for our white citizens, and the other for our black citizens. When the president-elect randomly tweets, apropos nothing that burning the flag should lead to loss of citizenship, or a term in prison, he is signaling that it is the second system of justice that awaits those who dissent.
“Both previous administrations have defended an all-powerful security apparatus and severe punishment for its whistleblowers. In the face of legal protest, our police don the garments of our military. Too many members of the political class in the UK and USA have profited mightily from power. While it has not been to the extent of the world’s most notable authoritarians, it has been notable enough to ward off future alarm bells that should be headed. Charges of dynastic succession will ring hollow when it is recalled that in this election, the ‘smart money’ pit the son and brother of two former presidents against the wife of another.
“Suspicion of the press has mutated into the loss of truth; we lack a common reality. But when truth is gone, the press can no longer defend itself against charges of bias. Our deliberative bodies have long since collapsed, our representatives locked in combat, not cooperation. Politicians have placed fealty to Christian values explicitly over democratic ones, and have been rewarded for it at the ballot box. With this background, it is understandable that many Americans are sympathetic to the view that all politics is struggle between groups, with the façade of cooperation or honesty being only propaganda used to mask that reality. Convincing American citizens that the values of liberal democracy are not mere masks for political struggle between groups is the largest challenge we face.
“Illiberal nationalist parties have swept to power, or its doorstep, in healthy and prosperous European liberal democracies. Judging by Hungary and Poland, such parties have no incentive to be fair to their critics. Nor we should not expect them to be. Fairness is a liberal value. Illiberal nationalists view politics through the prism of war, and the legal system as a weapon.
“Plato predicted that democracy would end by the hand of a demagogue who stoked the fuel of the resentments caused by freedom’s disturbances of the ground of tradition. Faced with an enemy for whom political disagreement is war, the struggle to retain our liberal freedoms will be hard. We must resist the temptation to adopt their ethic; it is no way to defend our own. But the window of liberal democracy is closing, and the time for its vigorous defense is now.”
For the complete article, click here.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. He is the author of How Propaganda Works.