Analytics Posted November 30, 2022 Posted November 30, 2022 32 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: The bishop of a student ward I was in once said that he was sure every member of that ward would willingly die for the Church. Given that, he wanted to know why it was impossible for us to show up to meetings on time?
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 3 hours ago, Snodgrassian said: I loved my previous employer. I wanted to spend the coming years building it. But management maid some really bad strategic decisions that severely impacted the entire company. I had many colleagues quit before the reduction in force, it stung but we moved on and adapted. The reduction in force, though a longterm strategic move, showed the entire workforce how little power we had. Look at Twitter. Employees who thought they had leverage are gone, and the platform is still up and running. I will be very surprised if everything is still working normally in a few months. I know two people who just left Twitter. One explained to me how it keeps running when things fail and he is pretty sure that the built-in adjustments are handling everything okay for now but the failsafes will only hold so long. As they keep pushing new code out I think they are going to miss a lot of the institutional knowledge they had. Plus the current climate is incredibly toxic. Virtually everyone who can leave has left. The nonsensical directives drove both of my friends out. When the new owner wanted code samples of what they did that week they quit. Unless you are familiar with the systems code is interacting with it is very difficult to tell good code from bad. Plus he asked for everyone to send printouts of the code which is usually an absolute no no. You don’t want physical copies of your code to exist. It is a massive security risk. I heard they rescinded that part a few hours later and told everyone to shred the printouts. Meanwhile the owner is spending his time trolling. The whole point of the staff reductions was to make the platform more profitable but the recent changes that let anyone buy verification has led to advertisers running so any gains they may have had from cutting payroll were more than made up for by roughly half their primary revenue stream running for the hills. 2
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I would die for the church, but not work for it. I have wanted to kill some of their employees. I am looking at you Facilities Management. You worthless wastes of tithing funds. 1
Teancum Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: To you, who have no experience with the problems, Huh? I have NO experience with problems? What in the world are you talking about? 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: nor any desire to try to help solve them. You are out of line. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Did you think that church was NOT run by humans? Duh... 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The purpose of being here is to learn how to SOLVE these discrepancies now, not after we are trying to run Zion. The Lord is a teacher and we are preparing to run a world wide theocracy, like it or not. Did you not know that? You are being rather rude and disparaging. Not worth and answer.
OGHoosier Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 9 hours ago, Analytics said: Did anybody read the following editorial in the Deseret News a few days ago? What is the Chicago Trifecta and how can it restore academic freedom? | Opinion - Deseret News It says: "America is blessed with two broad categories of universities: religiously affiliated and non-sectarian. Both make important contributions to the education of America’s young people. "All public universities and many private universities — including Princeton University, where I teach — are non-sectarian. Their primary mission is not to promote a particular set of doctrines. It is to provide a forum in which faculty and students representing a vast range of religious, political and moral opinions can engage each other fruitfully in the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. A robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential to that mission. "Unfortunately, academic freedom and freedom of speech are rapidly declining in leading non-sectarian academic institutions, including universities, professional societies, journals and funding agencies. "Researchers whose findings challenge the narratives that have become dominant on campuses find it increasingly hard to get published, funded, hired or promoted. They, and teachers who question prevailing orthodoxies, are harassed in person and online, ostracized, subjected to opaque university disciplinary procedures, fired or “cancelled” by other means." Apparently, the primary purpose of BYU is to "promote a particular set of doctrines" and is not "the pursuit of truth," and therefore "a robust culture of free speech and academic freedom" is not conductive to its particular mission. Seriously. If you should be free to "challenge the narratives" at non-sectarian schools, why shouldn't you be free to do likewise at religious schools? > reads article about how non-sectarian universities are unable to avoid getting dragged into the swamp of metaphysical creeds > concludes that BYU is bad for being straightforward about its metaphysical creeds Value-neutrality was such a sweet dream. Anyways, you commit an analytical error in believing that the "pursuit of truth" is incompatible with "promoting a particular set of doctrines." They are not contradictory insofar as the doctrines preached are preached in earnest belief. There's nothing wrong with getting like-minded people together to explore the ramifications of their beliefs with regard to the world, and I see no reason why the institution of the university is above that. In practical terms it's clearly not, much to Dr. George's chagrin. We may as well drop the pretenses. I'm sure you'll respond with some variety of Steven Pinker quote and a word or two in praise of methodological skepticism, but you may as well save your finger joints. In all seriousness, I've given up on skepticism. Just read too many Twitter threads wherein bloodless rationalists ask whether or not one can oppose bestiality without being a vegan. Skepticism is a variant of pathological hyperleftbrainism because the human organism was not built to operate that way and some truths cannot be proved. Can't wait to get my copy of McGilchrist's The Matter with Things so I can just respond in kind. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 6 hours ago, Arthur Vandelay said: I must admit I too was taken back a bit by your statement that you would die for the Church. Die for the Lord? Die for God? Die for you wife and children? That makes total sense. But dying for a human-run institution that could, potentially, be under condemnation of the Lord? Perhaps your loyalties are just a bit off target? Nope. Spiritual experience says where I am is, for now, after only 43 years, is where I belong. Been Catholic, Communist atheist, Buddhist, almost B'hai, nearly finished philosophy masters from CUNY Queens College and UCLA, lived on Washinton Square in NYC for 3 years, soaking up NYU philos discussions, and now here for 43 years, getting womped by the spirit nearly daily. In fact, I nearly died today from carbon monoxide while driving an old car with the windows up, but God saved me. I just go where The Boss tells me to go. Nah, my loyalties are just fine, thanks. 3
Arthur Vandelay Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Nah, my loyalties are just fine, thanks. You would die for humans who are under condemnation for neglecting the Book of Mormon. You cray-cray
Kenngo1969 Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, Arthur Vandelay said: You would die for humans who are under condemnation for neglecting the Book of Mormon. You cray-cray Poor form, that, Mr. "Vandelay." Poor form. I'm quite sure Brother Bukowski will be here still, long after you've lost interest and moved on. I apologize for, and repent of, that brief bit of board nannying. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress. Edited December 1, 2022 by Kenngo1969 2
Eschaton Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 10 hours ago, OGHoosier said: > reads article about how non-sectarian universities are unable to avoid getting dragged into the swamp of metaphysical creeds > concludes that BYU is bad for being straightforward about its metaphysical creeds Value-neutrality was such a sweet dream. Anyways, you commit an analytical error in believing that the "pursuit of truth" is incompatible with "promoting a particular set of doctrines." They are not contradictory insofar as the doctrines preached are preached in earnest belief. There's nothing wrong with getting like-minded people together to explore the ramifications of their beliefs with regard to the world, and I see no reason why the institution of the university is above that. In practical terms it's clearly not, much to Dr. George's chagrin. We may as well drop the pretenses. I'm sure you'll respond with some variety of Steven Pinker quote and a word or two in praise of methodological skepticism, but you may as well save your finger joints. In all seriousness, I've given up on skepticism. Just read too many Twitter threads wherein bloodless rationalists ask whether or not one can oppose bestiality without being a vegan. Skepticism is a variant of pathological hyperleftbrainism because the human organism was not built to operate that way and some truths cannot be proved. Can't wait to get my copy of McGilchrist's The Matter with Things so I can just respond in kind. Sounds like you're pretty skeptical about skepticism.
Popular Post Analytics Posted December 1, 2022 Popular Post Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, OGHoosier said: > reads article about how non-sectarian universities are unable to avoid getting dragged into the swamp of metaphysical creeds > concludes that BYU is bad for being straightforward about its metaphysical creeds Value-neutrality was such a sweet dream. The question is whether "a robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential" to "the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge." The Deseret News editorial claims it is. 10 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Anyways, you commit an analytical error in believing that the "pursuit of truth" is incompatible with "promoting a particular set of doctrines." They are not contradictory insofar as the doctrines preached are preached in earnest belief. Somebody can be earnest about something they are wrong about. The question is about whether a productive pursuit of truth can happen in an environment where contrary opinions aren't allowed. 10 hours ago, OGHoosier said: There's nothing wrong with getting like-minded people together to explore the ramifications of their beliefs with regard to the world... I agree with that. However, it has an extraordinarily chilling effect on that stated goal if you are threatened with being fired or expelled if your thoughts or words happen to diverge from the approved, orthodox position of the University. 10 hours ago, OGHoosier said: I'm sure you'll respond with some variety of Steven Pinker quote and a word or two in praise of methodological skepticism... This issue has nothing to do with that. A trendy issue in conservative circles right now is the accusation that liberal colleges and universities are hypocritically betraying their own liberal values by "cancelling" voices that challenge their views. A few examples include: What is the Chicago Trifecta and how can it restore academic freedom? | Opinion - Deseret News Cancel culture: How ‘woke’ universities are causing the problem | Opinion - Deseret News What's The Matter With KU Law? - The American Conservative Elon Musk declares ‘cancel culture needs to be canceled,' Twitter users cheer: 'Free all the banned accounts' | Fox News A Conference Says Academic Freedom Is in Danger. Critics Say the Event Is Part of the Problem. (chronicle.com) It goes on and on and on. Anyway, my point is simply to note that these two professors were probably fired from BYU-I for not being orthodox enough in what they think or speak. From a legal perspective, that's fine. But this behavior by the university contradicts the values of academic freedom that were being promoted in the Deseret News. My point is also that it is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to be zealously in favor of academic freedom, to hold non-sectarian schools to a high standard, to hold religious schools to a much lower standard, and yet still be a devoutly religious Christian who champions schools that are unapologetically opposed to academic freedom within their walls and to be so beloved by them that they receive honorary doctorates from them. But hey. If you don't happen to see any value in academic freedom anyway, I congratulate you for your consistency. Edited December 1, 2022 by Analytics 5
OGHoosier Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Eschaton said: Sounds like you're pretty skeptical about skepticism. Heh, you could say that. I suppose I think the defining ethos of skepticism is "believe only that which is demonstrated" and I believe there are truths which cannot ever be demonstrated (Gödel), as well as truths which cannot be demonstrated until they are committed to (Kierkegaard). It seems to me that skepticism is focused more on avoiding error than coming into truth; it's oriented towards avoiding being "taken" or "hoodwinked" and is willing to sacrifice the prospect of some potential truths in order to do so. But I am not so afraid of being wrong. Why fear the inevitable? I am certainly wrong about some things, and in so being I find myself in good company - the entire rest of the human race. It is not such a bad thing to be wrong. I'm coming to see "truth" as more a function of worldview consistency than any form of probability or demonstrability. And likewise, I am coming to agree with Blaise Pascal that the ultimate discoveries which rationality enables are the limits of rationality. This view has been formed by interaction with the work of two fairly exemplary scholars, Iain McGilchrist and Gerd Gigerenzer. A (woefully) brief video introducing McGilchrist's thesis can be found here: The basic gist is that there are well-established differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain - they are differences of process. The left brain is the fleshy instantiation of a proof: it is methodical, step-by-step, literal, and legalistic. The right brain is, in contrast, capable of the 30,000 feet view, comfortable with interpretive leaps and smoothing pointy data into more comprehensive world-portraits. McGilchrist's essential finding is that the right brain is by just about every measure wiser. It is properly the master and the left brain the lieutenant. The left brain is very good at "how" questions - how something came to be or how something is to be done. It is awful at "what" questions because it can only deal in atomized details - it misses the forest for the trees and refuses to accept that it's missing something. The lieutenant has delusions of grandeur and questionably loyalty. Gigerenzer's work is in human cognition. Specifically, he is in conversation with he heuristics and biases paradigm of Kahneman and Tversky (much to the chagrin of all parties). Kahneman and Tversky made their bones demonstrating how human beings are irrational in predictable ways. Gigerenzer counters that this "irrationality" is a product of putting people into specifically controlled laboratory settings that do not mirror the bounds on rationality present in the real world. When you remove people from laboratory settings and put them in much more uncertain real-world conditions, the heuristics and biases begin to deliver effective results - they get us serviceable answers most of the time and do so FAR more efficiently than doing all the probability calculations would. Human cognition is "irrational" because it doesn't go step-by-step like a proof. Without that "irrationality", however, we would be far less functional. This circles back around to McGilchrist and skepticism. One of the critical advantages the left-brain has is that it controls language - the progressive encoding of the world directly correlates with and reinforces left-brain processes. Here in the rationalist, "marketplace of ideas" West, "reason" has been functionally conflated with "persuasive language". If you cannot argue the point, in what respect can it be said to be true? (The impoverishment of the English language when it comes to concepts of "knowledge" is also implicated here.) This is the fundamental conceit of skepticism - that which cannot be argued cannot be true, "truth" is a function of argumentative adeptness. This is nothing less than the apotheosis of the left brain. I don't think that's right. I don't think the acquisition of truth is dependent on an orderly procession of propositions - that concept is not in keeping with how human cognition actually seems to work. By believing that it is, we get a world that is far advanced in material prosperity and in rankings of "happiness" (defined by language, of course, to which the actual experience must be subjected) but is simultaneously more afflicted than ever with mental illness, in which nihilism is rampant, in which suicide is advertised by fashion houses and the moral order is routinely deconstructed by the "learned" in their ivory IP addresses. To be sure, there are many additional contributors to the problem, but skepticism has not helped and frankly seems powerless to oppose these evils. I am an anti-skeptic. Without restoring the right brain, without accepting the reality of the ineffable, we are doomed. Skepticism can go where it properly belongs - to hell. Incidentally, all this has actually reinforced my commitment to religion. I see the numinous, mystical experience of religion as a powerful counter to left-brain hegemony - for those who are willing to overthrow it. It is an invitation to accept a new Master whose ways are not our ways, and come into harmony with what we are. It calls us to put down the methodology of the left and embrace faith - fortifying the right brain. And, as I go on, I find these basic principles sown throughout the Book of Mormon in particular - rather unexpected for Joseph Smith, who seemed to embrace common-sense epistemology and was otherwise big on legalism. I see the spiritual experiences of myself and my ancestors which have delivered knowledge, and I have reflected that the divine nature of such experience isn't provable after the manner of the left brain, but insisting on that provability would very much destroy the knowledge gained. I do not believe because I can prove my beliefs are true - I believe because I can't. And that has made all the difference.
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) Error Edited December 1, 2022 by mfbukowski
OGHoosier Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Right on, Mr. Rorty👍👍😉 Taking on a buddy-cop role to Rortyism was not on my 2022 bingo card.
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Taking on a buddy-cop role to Rortyism was not on my 2022 bingo card. Hey, glad you saw it... I was just going to fix it. Your prose flows like a mighty river or sumptin lak dat. Heavy, dude! The only problem is you make me use my dictionary too much. Postmodernism is the best thing that ever happened to religion but religion sees it as an enemy. Whatcha gonna do? Edited December 1, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
OGHoosier Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Your prose flows like a mighty river or sumptin lak dat. Heavy, dude! The only problem is you make me use my dictionary too much. Oh gosh dang it I'm starting to sound like McDowell.
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said: Oh gosh dang it I'm starting to sound like McDowell. It could be worse. At least you get the stuff. LOVED that video. The right-left stuff has evolved, thank God. In the 60's it was strict and infallible. Drove me away, but the comeback seems much better
OGHoosier Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Postmodernism is the best thing that ever happened to religion but religion sees it as an enemy. Whatcha gonna do? Religion treats it as an enemy but that may change. These days I mostly see resistance to postmodernism take the form of natural law arguments, which are often pressed into service in the culture war debates - natural law arguments about abortion, gay marriage, etc. That said, they haven't really worked and it's possible that their clear defeat will motivate religious thinkers to move away from that philosophical school and towards postmodernism. Catholicism might struggle with that because natural law theory has been baked into their theology for centuries, but Orthodox, Protestants, and ourselves might be able to make that jump. Plus the Catholics are tough and smart, they'll figure something out. Edit: I would amend my statement to say that, given the evidence of you and I, the Church can make that jump, the only question is whether or not it will. I am optimistic. Edited December 1, 2022 by OGHoosier 2
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 3 hours ago, Analytics said: My point is also that it is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to be zealously in favor of academic freedom, to hold non-sectarian schools to a high standard, to hold religious schools to a much lower standard, and yet still be a devoutly religious Christian who champions schools that are unapologetically opposed to academic freedom within their walls and to be so beloved by them that they receive honorary doctorates from them. But hey. If you don't happen to see any value in academic freedom anyway, I congratulate you for your consistency. The epitome of kindness and balanced and impartial prose. When I grow up I want to be just like YOU
mfbukowski Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, OGHoosier said: Religion treats it as an enemy but that may change. These days I mostly see resistance to postmodernism take the form of natural law arguments, which are often pressed into service in the culture war debates - natural law arguments about abortion, gay marriage, etc. That said, they haven't really worked and it's possible that their clear defeat will motivate religious thinkers to move away from that philosophical school and towards postmodernism. Catholicism might struggle with that because natural law theory has been baked into their theology for centuries, but Orthodox, Protestants, and ourselves might be able to make that jump. Plus the Catholics are tough and smart, they'll figure something out. Plus the newer generations get "your reality" vs " my reality" and St. Oprah, fortunately or unfortunately Everything cuts two ways. Dialectics Plus these logical positivists here are much more rigid than any "true believers" I have seen. Sola scriptura where science is scripture Edited December 1, 2022 by mfbukowski
smac97 Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 4 hours ago, Analytics said: The question is whether "a robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential" to "the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge." The Deseret News editorial claims it is. I agree with that sentiment. Nevertheless, "academic freedom" can become a pretext to obscure objectives other than "the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge." Exhibit A: Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College. Quite a bit of effort to paint this verdict as a threat to "academic freedom" (see, e.g., here and here). Others, however, saw things differently: Quote The media elite and left-wing colleges desperately wanted to make the Gibson’s Brothers Inc. v. Oberlin Oberlin College case about “academic freedom.” Anybody who actually read the facts (brought to many of us through the incomparable work of Legal Insurrection‘s William Jacobson) knew that was utter horseshit. Oberlin’s defenders tried — through the pages of The New York Times and other usual suspects — that the college was unfairly being punished for students’ speech. But those weren’t the facts: A jury learned that Oberlin administrators helped the defamatory fliers to be made with Oberlin-owned equipment; Oberlin staff participated in handing out the flyers; and worse yet, Oberlin officials attempted to prevent a local news photographer from recording the scene. The speech at issue was Oberlin’s as much as the students’. Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute’s director of education policy studies revisited the case in Forbes a few days ago, and the headline really says it all: “Oberlin Defamed A Bakery Rather Than Hold A Shoplifter Accountable. It’s Now $36 Million Poorer.” Hess paints the background first: “When the incident first occurred, because the shoplifters were black, the Oberlin community quickly accused Gibson’s of racism and discrimination in a series of high-profile attacks. Gibson’s and the college had a longstanding relationship, students regularly frequented the bakery, and there had been no prior suggestion that the owners or employees were racist. All of that context was conveniently ignored.” And why did Oberlin avoid using common sense? Hess explains quite simply: “Why did Oberlin defame a longtime partner rather than simply confront three students who’d engaged in misconduct? One former administrator wondered if Oberlin was simply fearful of angering students, musing, “A freshman from an East Coast big city might come to Oberlin and find there is little for a social justice warrior to do in a small town like this, so they get frustrated and make issues like this shoplifting thing bigger than it should be, and the school follows along.” Truly, the inmates are running the asylum. Having followed the case closely, one legal sidenote of interest continues to bug me. Laughably, in motion practice, Oberlin’s defense lawyers tried to argue that being called a racist was not defamatory. This ought to blow any wokist’s mind. The president of the college even admitted under oath that “being called a racist was possibly the worst thing you can say about someone.” Odder yet, I can’t find any use by the defense of Ohio’s “innocent construction” rule. Ohio is one of the few states with a rule in civil law that if a statement can be interpreted in an innocuous way, then that is the meaning which must be ascribed to it. (I litigated the same issue with success in the First Circuit where a libel plaintiff insisted that calling his store “trashy” meant it was literally strewn with garbage. The court did not buy it). Hess ends his Op/Ed with a cautionary note every educator ought to read: “Oberlin’s grown-ups had an obligation to teach students there are consequences for misconduct and to help ensure that justice was done. Instead, they found it more expedient to defame a community business and ravage the owners’ lives. Well, Oberlin is finally paying for that mistake. Campus officials, there and elsewhere, should take note.” And here (from 2019) : Quote For many who lament the shift from academics to activism across college campuses in the United States, Oberlin College in Ohio is the equivalent of the “China syndrome” during nuclear accidents, a point where chain reactions become impossible to stop or control. Oberlin students often find new issues to protest, even on one of the most liberal campuses in the world, like objections to serving sushi as cultural appropriation. As on other campuses across the country, these protests are encouraged by an array of faculty members and ever accommodating administrators. This week, however, the bill came due for Oberlin when a jury awarded over $11 million in damages to a family bakery for being defamed as racist by its college students and officials. That motion was later followed by a whopping $33 million punitive award. It is only the latest example of how faculty members and officials are driving their institutions toward financial and intellectual bankruptcy, thanks to their advocacy or acquiescence. ... Oberlin maintains in court filings that the son and grandson of the owners of Gibson’s Bakery “violently and unreasonably attacked” an unarmed student, but that is not how the police viewed it. Aladin was charged with robbery, which is a second degree felony, and Whettstone and Lawrence were charged with first degree misdemeanor assault. Police rejected claims of a racial motive and noted that, over a period of five years, 40 adults were arrested for shoplifting at Gibson’s Bakery, but only six were African American. It also is not how the court viewed it. When prosecutors cut a plea deal to reduce the charge to attempted theft, a local judge refused. He said the plea deal appeared to be the result of a permanent “economic sanction” by the college in which the victim had little choice but to relent. Ultimately, all three students pleaded guilty. The merits of the case did not seem to bother Oberlin officials or student protesters. Dean of students Meredith Raimondo reportedly joined the massive protests and even handed out a flier denouncing the bakery as a racist business. When some people contacted Oberlin to object that the students admitted guilt, special assistant to the president for community and government relations Tita Reed wrote that it did not change a “damn thing” for her. Reed also reportedly participated in the campus protests. Other faculty members encouraged students who denounced the bakery. The chairman of Africana studies posted, “Very proud of our students!” Oberlin barred purchases from the bakery, pending its investigation into whether this was “a pattern and not an isolated incident.” Raimondo also pressured Bon Appetit, a major contractor with the college, to cease business with the bakery. Reed even suggested that “once charges are dropped, orders will resume” and added that she was “baffled by their combined audacity and arrogance to assume the position of victim.” It would be a statement that came back to haunt the college, in seeking to avoid punitive damages by arguing that the financial loss was too great for a small school, a sentiment that escaped these officials in hammering a small bakery. Owner David Gibson had discussed the ruinous impact of the boycott with college president Marvin Krislov and Raimondo received little sympathy. He said the two officials demanded that the bakery not call police when students shoplifted for the first time. Gibson objected that his bakery loses a large amount of money to shoplifting and that the college was demanding the equivalent of a first time “shoplifter pass.” Not all Oberlin faculty members were silent in opposition to the boycott and protests. Theater professor Roger Copeland spoke publicly against the treatment of the bakery, but a livid vice president for communications Ben Jones responded to colleagues in a text message with an expletive against Copeland. Raimondo replied saying she would “unleash the students” if she was not convinced “this needs to be put behind us.” The Oberlin case creates a troubling precedent for other institutions in higher education. Students certainly have the right to protest, and their views of a business can be a matter of opinion. However, if colleges are subject to damages for protests, they could resume efforts to curtail free speech. But this case turned on the actions of key officials who were viewed by the jury as encouraging, if not leading, the attacks. The college will appeal and, at a minimum, the $33 million award will be reduced to a $22 million limit under state law. While this may have amounted to record punitive damages against a college for defamation, it is not that unique. Across the country, academics have caused lasting damage to their institutions by failing to stand up to, or actively supporting, extreme demands for speech codes, limits on academic freedom, and tenure changes. In Washington, Evergreen State College faculty members supported students who mobbed biology professor Bret Weinstein in a disturbing confrontation outside his office. The result was a significant $500,000 settlement with Weinstein and a major decline in applications. The University of Missouri experienced a similar meltdown on campus after assistant professor Melissa Click led attacks on a student journalist during heated protests in 2015. The university sought to accommodate protesters as applications plummeted and entire dorms were closed. Other colleges have been hit with damages from students denied basic due process rights after being accused of sexual assault or harassment. While such rulings are mounting across the country, officials continue to ignore them and refuse to allow minimal rights for accused students. An even greater cost of acquiescence can be seen in reduced academic quality. Students increasingly demand changes based solely on the race or gender of authors, like Yale University students objecting that a course on English classics only included white authors like William Shakespeare. We are reaching a critical point in higher education in the United States where leaders are ceding control to a small group of activist students and faculty members. Too often, those challenges are met not with acts of conscience but with cowardice. Professors fear being labeled as either insensitive or racist for objecting to protests or changes on campus. Meanwhile, the costs mount with no reflection from administrators. Even with $44 million in total damages, Raimondo remains dean of students, and the college remains unapologetic. Oberlin was founded in 1833 on the belief that it is “peculiar in that which is good.” What happened at Gibson’s Bakery was neither good for Oberlin nor for higher education. And here (from 2016) : Quote A situation at Oberlin College in Ohio in which an assistant professor posted material on social media that the school’s Board of Trustees has termed “anti-Semitic and abhorrent” has raised anew the limits of “academic freedom.” What exactly is academic freedom? According to a primer on the website of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges: American higher education relies on the fundamental value of academic freedom. Academic freedom protects college and university faculty members from unreasonable constraints on their professional activities. It is a broad doctrine giving faculty great leeway in addressing their academic subjects, allowing them even to challenge conventional wisdom. Under principles of academic freedom, a faculty member may research any topic. He or she may raise difficult subjects in a classroom discussion or may publish a controversial research paper. The excellence of America’s higher education system rests on academic freedom. Challenging conventional wisdom is one thing; saying things that are historically inaccurate, inflammatory and racist is another. How much does academic freedom actually cover? If a history professor says something fundamentally wrong about a historical fact — such as misidentifying who staged the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — is that person’s views covered by academic freedom or is that a question of professional competence? What if a poetry professor says the same thing? Here’s a post that takes a broad look at this question. It was written by Inside Higher Ed reporter Colleen Flaherty, and first appeared on the website of Inside Higher Ed. I am republishing it with permission. By Colleen Flaherty One of the biggest privileges of being a professor — especially a tenured one — is having academic freedom. While the real protections offered under the principle vary from campus to campus, faculty work is at least founded on the idea that there’s room to express even unpopular ideas or beliefs. But are arguably unacademic opinions — inflammatory falsehoods that have no apparent basis in fact — also covered? A recent case at Oberlin College raises questions about whether all ideas are created equal when it comes to academic freedom. Earlier this year, several hundred students and alumni at Oberlin College expressed their concerns about what they described as escalating anti-Semitic rhetoric on campus, in an open letter to President Marvin Krislov and others. “As Oberlin students and alumni representing a diversity of views on Israel, we accept criticism of its leadership and policies,” the signatories wrote. “However, we do not believe Israel should be singled out for condemnation and we object to questioning its right to exist. We also abhor the tactics of Oberlin’s pro-[boycott, divestment and sanctions] student organizations that intimidate, threaten and coerce Jewish students, which we have seen and heard in numerous written and spoken reports.” ... For the American Association of University Professors, the distinction is one of disciplinary expertise and professional competence, said Hans-Joerg Tiede, associate secretary in the department of academic freedom, tenure and governance. If, for example, a physics professor declared on Twitter that the Sept. 11 attacks were a hoax, AAUP would advocate for the professor’s right to free speech in extramural utterances (it doesn’t distinguish between free speech in person or online). But if the physics professor declared that the world is flat, denying all scientific evidence to the contrary, that could call into question his or her professional fitness. “There’s a somewhat strange consequence that the less something relates to your discipline, the more protected you are on a general level,” Tiede said. “The closer something is to your area of expertise, you must in some sense be more careful that what you say doesn’t create concerns.” And here: Quote Academic freedom is the shield many in academia use to protect themselves from criticism. More specifically, they use it to keep their jobs when they endorse some of the evilest ideas in human history, such as communism. To them, academic freedom means they can hold whatever positions they want to hold, and those of us who aren’t slobbering, drooling Marxists are just going to have to come to terms with that. However, like in so many other instances, it seems there’s a double standard at play. After all, academic freedom only seems to be a one-way street. Administrations and faculties at University of California campuses are embroiled in a searing controversy over requirements that applicants for faculty positions and candidates for promotion prove their active support, without reservation, of what’s called “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Candidates must submit “DEI statements” that, under UC’s policies, determine whether they will be considered for employment or promotions, regardless of their academic credentials. While different campuses use slightly different “rubrics” for judging candidates on their DEI statements, they generally use a 1-to-5 scale to determine whether they should be allowed to advance. … The use of DEI statements began at UCLA four years ago and has become virtually universal since, sparking an intense debate in academic and legal circles over whether the UC system is, in effect, elevating political correctness over academic achievement and in doing so damaging the concept of academic freedom. To its supporters, DEI statements and other evaluations are necessary tools to ensure that the university system overcomes its historic imbalance in students and faculty that favors whites and Asians over Blacks and Latinos. But detractors see DEI statements as violating in spirit, if not in letter, university policies that prohibit using politics as a litmus test — policies that were introduced to counter Cold War-era efforts to weed out faculty members with leftist tendencies by forcing them to take loyalty oaths. And yes, it is a violation of the very academic freedom they preach about when it’s one of theirs in the crosshairs. ... Understand, I think academic freedom is actually important. Academics should be free to research, discover, and discuss without fear of losing their jobs. Without that, advancement stagnates, and it does so across the board. Where I have a problem is when people think that they should be deserving of academic freedom while their ideological opposites shouldn’t. Opposing gun rights is seen as an unmitigated good, but opposing affirmative action is worthy of losing tenure, to give an example. That’s not how academic freedom is supposed to work, but it simply is what it is, unfortunate. That’s how it works in practice and there’s almost no chance of anyone outside academia changing it. "Academic freedom" has, in many instances, become a pretext to sociopolitical activism, professors inculcating students with their (the professors') personal opinions, etc. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Somebody can be earnest about something they are wrong about. The question is about whether a productive pursuit of truth can happen in an environment where contrary opinions aren't allowed. "A productive pursuit of truth" regarding . . . what? Why should a college pay an English professor to spout personal sociopolitical opinions in class? "Contrary opinions" about . . . what? 4 hours ago, Analytics said: I agree with that. However, it has an extraordinarily chilling effect on that stated goal if you are threatened with being fired or expelled if your thoughts or words happen to diverge from the approved, orthodox position of the University. For non-sectarian colleges and universities, I think this is broadly correct. 4 hours ago, Analytics said: A trendy issue in conservative circles right now is the accusation that liberal colleges and universities are hypocritically betraying their own liberal values by "cancelling" voices that challenge their views. A few examples include: What is the Chicago Trifecta and how can it restore academic freedom? | Opinion - Deseret News Cancel culture: How ‘woke’ universities are causing the problem | Opinion - Deseret News What's The Matter With KU Law? - The American Conservative Elon Musk declares ‘cancel culture needs to be canceled,' Twitter users cheer: 'Free all the banned accounts' | Fox News A Conference Says Academic Freedom Is in Danger. Critics Say the Event Is Part of the Problem. (chronicle.com) It goes on and on and on. Do you think the accusation has any merit? A few more: Academic Freedom Alliance Calls For An End To Required Faculty Diversity Statements ("Statement says forced pledges of conformity “threaten to impose a suffocating orthodoxy”) ‘Cannot impose political viewpoints’: SDSU faculty rescind mandatory land acknowledgement policy ("Professors at San Diego State University recently voted to rescind a two-year-old policy that required them to put a Native American land acknowledgement on their syllabi.") Georgetown Law's actions against Ilya Shapiro lack credibility Violent Middlebury protesters injure professor, force invited speaker to flee lecture hall I thought this article included some pretty astute observations: Academic freedom has limits inside the classroom, law professor says Quote An associate teaching professor in University of Washington’s School of Law told the campus paper that professors only have First Amendment rights in their private capacities, not in the classroom. ... “The university is the one that holds the First Amendment,” Professor Theodore Myhre (pictured) told The Daily. The student newspaper wrote a follow-up article about the controversy surrounding Professor Stuart Reges’ refusal to use the university’s land acknowledgement statement on his syllabus. “Its participants — the people who are part of the university — actually don’t hold the First Amendment right,” Myhre stated. “You do in your private capacity, but you do not hold it in your role as a member of the university community.” “The faculty is not squashing free speech,” the law professor told the newspaper. “The faculty is actually trying to protect and empower the learning environment to be productive and effective.” University officials, the professor said, can limit speech that could “disrupt the learning environment.” He expanded on his comments to The Fix. He said: A public university holds the first amendment free speech right and grants back to members of its community through its faculty code and student conduct code academic freedom. So when members of the university are acting within their university capacity, that is the structure. They can exercise academic freedom within the limits of the relevant code. An example of a limit to academic freedom is when an impermissible disruption of the learning environment occurs during class–that kind of disruption wouldn’t be protected by academic freedom policies. He said universities can place limits on academic freedom when it comes to the syllabus or textbook selection. This is why he believes Professor Reges can be limited in how he presents the land acknowledgement. “The faculty member has discretion as to how to deliver the material provided that the manner and method of teaching don’t violate the faculty code,” Professor Myrhe said in his email. “Usually, faculty choose their own texts and often create their own syllabus which includes several required provisions—but that isn’t a right so much as a common practice.” “First amendment and academic freedom cases occurred throughout the 20th century all over the country, especially during the very conservative 1950s and the McCarthy era,” the law professor told The Fix. “The structure discussed emerged from all those cases.” He said he wants more people to understand how the law operates, whether they agree with it. “[I]t’s important to me that folks understand law, especially since it’s not usually taught in primary and secondary education,” he said. “No matter one’s opinion on whether the law is right or wrong as a policy statement, it’s important to understand how it works.” Thoughts? 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Anyway, my point is simply to note that these two professors were probably fired from BYU-I for not being orthodox enough in what they think or speak. From a legal perspective, that's fine. But this behavior by the university contradicts the values of academic freedom that were being promoted in the Deseret News. How so? From that article: Quote America is blessed with two broad categories of universities: religiously affiliated and non-sectarian. Both make important contributions to the education of America’s young people. The entirety of the article in the Deseret News speaks to non-sectarian colleges/universities. Are you suggesting that BYU-I is "non-sectarian?" Quote All public universities and many private universities — including Princeton University, where I teach — are non-sectarian. Their primary mission is not to promote a particular set of doctrines. It is to provide a forum in which faculty and students representing a vast range of religious, political and moral opinions can engage each other fruitfully in the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. A robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential to that mission. "Non-sectarian." "Their primary mission is not to promote a particular set of doctrines." Are you suggesting that BYU-I is not supposed to be "promot{ing} a particular set of doctrines?" Quote Unfortunately, academic freedom and freedom of speech are rapidly declining in leading non-sectarian academic institutions, including universities, professional societies, journals and funding agencies. ... Universities and professional organizations are instead racing into institutional political and ideological activism. Departments and other university units, despite representing themselves as non-sectarian, make public statements of political views, thus effectively branding as heretics — and even bigots — members who may question those causes. Above you suggest that "two professors were probably fired from BYU-I for not being orthodox enough in what they think or speak." "What they think or speak" about what? Quote What can be done? Non-sectarian universities, academic associations, journals and national academies can and should adopt the “Chicago Trifecta,” consisting of the Chicago Principles of free speech, the Kalven Report requirement of institutional neutrality on political and social matters and the Shils report making academic achievement and promise the sole basis for hiring and promotion. ... Non-sectarian universities, to be true to their missions, should commit to all students, faculty and employees that they will not punish or sanction free expression. Again, what sort of university do you think BYU-I is? Sectarian or non-sectarian? If you concede, as I think you must, that it falls into the former category, why are you suggesting that the DNews article - which expressly spoke about non-sectarian universities needing to "adopt the 'Chicago Trifecta'" - creates some sort of problem for BYU-I? 4 hours ago, Analytics said: My point is also that it is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to be zealously in favor of academic freedom, to hold non-sectarian schools to a high standard, to hold religious schools to a much lower standard, Yawn. The DNews article posits - correctly, I think - that "non-sectarian" universities are situated quite differently from sectarian ones. That is, the latter type is by design intended to "promote a particular set of doctrines," whereas the former type is not so designed. Again "academic freedom" needs to be understood in context. The sectarian v. non-sectarian distinction matters a lot. A lot. Avoiding use of that term as a pretext to - as one of the above articles put it - sociopolitical activism (and suppression of opposing viewpoints) by "activist students and faculty members." 4 hours ago, Analytics said: and yet still be a devoutly religious Christian who champions schools that are unapologetically opposed to academic freedom within their walls and to be so beloved by them that they receive honorary doctorates from them. What is this "unapologetically opposed to academic freedom" thing? What are you saying here? 4 hours ago, Analytics said: But hey. If you don't happen to see any value in academic freedom anyway, I congratulate you for your consistency. Do you see the potential for "academic freedom" to be conceptually misappropriated? Do you see a distinction - at least as far as religious/moral issues - in sectarian v. non-sectarian universities? Thanks, -Smac
Nofear Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 There is indeed some thought about truth 7 hours ago, Analytics said: The question is whether "a robust culture of free speech and academic freedom is essential" to "the pursuit of truth and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge." There is indeed much commentary on that topic, in large part championed by Jonathon Haidt. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/one-telos-truth-or-social-justice-2/ Some commentary that reflects somewhat on Haidt's perspective as it applies to BYU(s). https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/truth-justice-and-the-byu-way/
MrShorty Posted December 1, 2022 Posted December 1, 2022 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Postmodernism is the best thing that ever happened to religion but religion sees it as an enemy. An interesting assertion, and obviously solidly off the main point of the OP. According to Wikipedia's entry on postmodernism, postmodernism leans very heavily towards moral relativism, which would seem to me to be a very hard sell to a church/people that claim to have some ideas about eternal truth and/or absolute morality. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. In some ways, some of my own questions about the church and truth and morality could possibly be explained and/or understood best in terms that God's truth/morality is relative to time and place and circumstance. But I have been too conditioned in my lifetime in the church to also believe that there is absolute, eternal truth to be known and sought after. That sort of thing is not easily dismissed.
Popular Post Buckeye Posted December 2, 2022 Popular Post Posted December 2, 2022 23 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have wanted to kill some of their employees. I am looking at you Facilities Management. You worthless wastes of tithing funds. I work with FM a lot in my stake calling. My group certainly isn’t perfect but they work their butts off, are relatively underpaid, and absolutely under appreciated. My stake would suffer immensely if we had to manage facilities on our own. 5
bluebell Posted December 2, 2022 Posted December 2, 2022 On 11/30/2022 at 5:08 PM, The Nehor said: I have wanted to kill some of their employees. I am looking at you Facilities Management. You worthless wastes of tithing funds. Some are better than others. It seems like our building currently has "others". 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now