"First, instructing faculty to presume their students are traumatized and then plan their classes around it, substituting reactive, political conversation over the subject students are there to learn and breeding contempt for the idea that formal knowledge matters."
Well said. And I wish this had been discussed more before the 2016- spasm of assuming students are "traumatized" by every election, court judgment, or foreign event.
As a free speech advocate I've been conflicted, both by some of the appalling statements made by various faculty members at different institutions celebrating Hamas, and the predictable demands that these people be fired.
And after a decade of seeing people lose jobs on campus for such things as saying "all lives matter" or clumsily phrasing an email, can academia (writ large) really send the message that saying "I'm exhilarated by mass murder" is ok?
It is a problem that these views are coming out, obviously from people who feel that campuses are an ok place to express them. A view they've been led to by, as you point out, the progessive-left message of official messaging. They're not saying this stuff expecting to get canned, but to get a round of applause. Because they've been saying it, for years, and got pats on the back.
I'd love it if institutions (and professional organizations) did stay neutral. Like you, I don't appreciate messages being sent out that I didn't get to read before they went up on the website, but are presumed to speak for me.
Possibly the most insidious effect of social media in all this is the message that "silence is violence". It's a moronic worldview, but one that many people took on board (or were harassed into going along with).
This is such a great comment, Katrina--thank you so much. And I agree, I think firing people for making extreme statements is completely wrong on every level. I also think we have gotten to this place by increments: there is part of me that wants to write a book (or a long essay) on the history of politics in the classroom.
"First, instructing faculty to presume their students are traumatized and then plan their classes around it, substituting reactive, political conversation over the subject students are there to learn and breeding contempt for the idea that formal knowledge matters."
Well said. And I wish this had been discussed more before the 2016- spasm of assuming students are "traumatized" by every election, court judgment, or foreign event.
As a free speech advocate I've been conflicted, both by some of the appalling statements made by various faculty members at different institutions celebrating Hamas, and the predictable demands that these people be fired.
And after a decade of seeing people lose jobs on campus for such things as saying "all lives matter" or clumsily phrasing an email, can academia (writ large) really send the message that saying "I'm exhilarated by mass murder" is ok?
It is a problem that these views are coming out, obviously from people who feel that campuses are an ok place to express them. A view they've been led to by, as you point out, the progessive-left message of official messaging. They're not saying this stuff expecting to get canned, but to get a round of applause. Because they've been saying it, for years, and got pats on the back.
I'd love it if institutions (and professional organizations) did stay neutral. Like you, I don't appreciate messages being sent out that I didn't get to read before they went up on the website, but are presumed to speak for me.
Possibly the most insidious effect of social media in all this is the message that "silence is violence". It's a moronic worldview, but one that many people took on board (or were harassed into going along with).
This is such a great comment, Katrina--thank you so much. And I agree, I think firing people for making extreme statements is completely wrong on every level. I also think we have gotten to this place by increments: there is part of me that wants to write a book (or a long essay) on the history of politics in the classroom.