“I talked to and argued with groups from academia, from the media, from the financial community, from the foundation world, from you name it. I was appalled at what I found. There was an unbelievable degree of intellectual homogeneity, of acceptance of a standard set of views complete with cliche answers to every objection, of smug self-satisfaction at belonging to an in-group.” -
Academia has long since become an echo chamber. From undergraduate education through graduate training through postdoctoral research through faculty, one is rewarded for agreeing with the consensus in a superficially novel way, and punished for contradiction. Truth doesn't really come into it.
The result is that the institution has lost the ability to introspect, and therefore to course correct. To be called racist is to be cancelled; to critique is to be called racist; therefore no critique is acceptable. There isn't really much that can be done at this point, other than to let things play out. Intellectuals with talent and ability will drift away. What's left behind will collapse under the weight of cultish incompetence and public disinterest.
As an aside, surprised James Watson wasn't mentioned. His was probably the first and most prestigious scalp to be claimed by the woke mob. Every scientist in the world saw it. If someone of Watson's eminence could have his career and life destroyed for an offhand statement about the genetic origins of racial IQ differences, no one was safe. Thus the cowardice of scientists in the face of the mob, and the emboldened aggression of those political operators who have at this point largely consolidated their control over the culture of academic science.
Good compilation of many examples. I was nodding my head often in agreement until I got to the last paragraph. The last two sentences are "Such an introspection will be difficult, but it must take place before any course correction if there is any desire to restore public trust. Otherwise, it is time for the rise of new institutions that can earn the trust of the public and continue the mission of truth-seeking." As to the first of the two, the author's essay is just such introspection: the author is a researcher scientist at an academic institution and the essay is good introspection. I would agree that more is needed and that trust is vitally important to functioning of institutions in society. The last sentence's proposal is either A) throwing the baby out with the bath water, or maybe more accurately, B) cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What sort of institution is the author imagining to rise in order to earn the public trust and seek truth? Think tanks? Corporations? Nonprofits? Go-Fund-me campaigns? Webinars? Or is the author imagining new universities?
Why not fix what's perceived as wrong in the current ones?
Or is this a reductio-ad-absurdum argument? That is, is the last sentence so absurd that we are to re-assess its premise and find it wanting: that indeed universities MUST do the hard introspection, because the "otherwise..." is absurdly impractical.
I would encourage the author and the readers not to dismiss the effects listed that are other than introspection: they are important contributors also.
As a fellow HxA member, I encourage the author to exercise some introspection also about the concept of a telos for the university, which her essay cites, the one written by the founder of HxA. It sounds grand, the telos, but by analogy think of a university or a single human, and ask yourself if each has to have a single telos, as J. Haight has argued. Maybe the telos of a human is to reproduce? Oh really?! A human can walk and chew gum at the same time: eating is as important as breathing for the long term health and functioning of a human. Likewise, universities can seek truth and do other important things like teaching and service. I won't write here a full rebuttal essay on the concept of the telos of the university, but having given it much thought over the years, I am more and more convinced that the concept of a single telos of the university is a concept that is unhelpful and incorrect.
Last year I was interviewed by a high school student over Zoom, and I waxed philosophical about how Trust is Foundational to Truth. The interview is 30 min long, but here I queue it up so that the couple minutes following, I address the fallout of the general breakdown in trust of institutions: https://youtu.be/me0Et3MwIZ4?si=WxK9Xz9diSZ51VuA&t=1341
"Without looking inward at what problems exist, academia may make no course correction at all, or any course correction will make things worse."
"Academia" is an umbrella term at best, or really a generalization encompassing all sorts of schools and teachers (which I'm sure we all know)—but my point is no one wakes up wondering how their actions will affect "academia" just as no business person wonders how they'll affect the overall "economy" and I don't step outside wondering what my life or deeds says about the "human race".
People respond to immediate personal incentives in their lives and environments, and to get to my point: in most of academia and culture now throughout the West, all incentives point toward always publicly obeying and propagating the Social Justice faith (while a million sharp-edged punishments await those who dissent), and this goes for both True Believers and for those who need to pretend to be True Believers for either career or personal reasons. (I don't work in academia but in culture, and I can tell you the same exact dynamics and the same total ideological capture exist in TV, movies, art galleries and museums, documentaries, theater, etc.)
The best books that I think illustrate our moment are Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails", which introduced the concept of cognitive dissonance and showed that once someone has committed themselves body and soul to a faith or belief, they will say and do anything not to have to admit that their sacred belief was mistaken or foolish—even up to death or injury or penury.
And also, Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" which shows how a certain group or a leader and their backers will refuse to change their minds, will make the gravest errors, if all incentives in the moment make it impossible to dissent and make obedience the coin of the realm.
In ideological-captured America, we have reached a similar situation and these things usually play out the same way: there will simply be no overthrowing or replacing the Social Justice faith among our cultural and academia class (that ship sailed many years ago), the capture is way too complete, these people will just have to create enough wreckage until some higher force steps in to end it.
In our case it probably won't be a dictator (though that's possible), but most likely a major war or depression that finally reveals Social Justice to be both a massive lie and a massive failure, similar to what ultimately undid the Soviet Union.
A couple minor quibbles. 1) The question about genocide was in the form of "why do you beat your wife?" since the claim that particular groups were calling for genocide was unverified. And I believe, false. 2) I am curious if FIRE's decision to rank Harvard last was based on anything. It certainly deserved to be ranked near the bottom, but I didn't see any evidence in the FIRE report that would clearly place it below Penn et al.
Your essay has sparked some good comments. A few of which mention some new universities. It is amazing and daunting to me to imagine starting a new university. Not just a new campus of an existing university, but a whole new one. Like most new businesses, these new universities are likely to fail - just in the sense that many previous attempts have been rare and generally not long lived. An example of that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_University . I recall a past President of the American Astronomical Society was associated with Quest - as President of it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Helfand who was a heterodox thinker and doer. The story of Quest might be worth reading for anyone thinking of getting involved in a new university. Why did it close its doors in 2023 after 16 years? Ran out of money.
If the situations you are describing were “politically reversed,” wouldn’t they be described as bigotry?
Academia has long since become an echo chamber. From undergraduate education through graduate training through postdoctoral research through faculty, one is rewarded for agreeing with the consensus in a superficially novel way, and punished for contradiction. Truth doesn't really come into it.
The result is that the institution has lost the ability to introspect, and therefore to course correct. To be called racist is to be cancelled; to critique is to be called racist; therefore no critique is acceptable. There isn't really much that can be done at this point, other than to let things play out. Intellectuals with talent and ability will drift away. What's left behind will collapse under the weight of cultish incompetence and public disinterest.
As an aside, surprised James Watson wasn't mentioned. His was probably the first and most prestigious scalp to be claimed by the woke mob. Every scientist in the world saw it. If someone of Watson's eminence could have his career and life destroyed for an offhand statement about the genetic origins of racial IQ differences, no one was safe. Thus the cowardice of scientists in the face of the mob, and the emboldened aggression of those political operators who have at this point largely consolidated their control over the culture of academic science.
Excellent! A terrific compendium of the chaos that the woke left has created in academia. And a warning to mend your ways or ...
Excellent! Thanks!
Good compilation of many examples. I was nodding my head often in agreement until I got to the last paragraph. The last two sentences are "Such an introspection will be difficult, but it must take place before any course correction if there is any desire to restore public trust. Otherwise, it is time for the rise of new institutions that can earn the trust of the public and continue the mission of truth-seeking." As to the first of the two, the author's essay is just such introspection: the author is a researcher scientist at an academic institution and the essay is good introspection. I would agree that more is needed and that trust is vitally important to functioning of institutions in society. The last sentence's proposal is either A) throwing the baby out with the bath water, or maybe more accurately, B) cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What sort of institution is the author imagining to rise in order to earn the public trust and seek truth? Think tanks? Corporations? Nonprofits? Go-Fund-me campaigns? Webinars? Or is the author imagining new universities?
Why not fix what's perceived as wrong in the current ones?
Or is this a reductio-ad-absurdum argument? That is, is the last sentence so absurd that we are to re-assess its premise and find it wanting: that indeed universities MUST do the hard introspection, because the "otherwise..." is absurdly impractical.
I would encourage the author and the readers not to dismiss the effects listed that are other than introspection: they are important contributors also.
As a fellow HxA member, I encourage the author to exercise some introspection also about the concept of a telos for the university, which her essay cites, the one written by the founder of HxA. It sounds grand, the telos, but by analogy think of a university or a single human, and ask yourself if each has to have a single telos, as J. Haight has argued. Maybe the telos of a human is to reproduce? Oh really?! A human can walk and chew gum at the same time: eating is as important as breathing for the long term health and functioning of a human. Likewise, universities can seek truth and do other important things like teaching and service. I won't write here a full rebuttal essay on the concept of the telos of the university, but having given it much thought over the years, I am more and more convinced that the concept of a single telos of the university is a concept that is unhelpful and incorrect.
Last year I was interviewed by a high school student over Zoom, and I waxed philosophical about how Trust is Foundational to Truth. The interview is 30 min long, but here I queue it up so that the couple minutes following, I address the fallout of the general breakdown in trust of institutions: https://youtu.be/me0Et3MwIZ4?si=WxK9Xz9diSZ51VuA&t=1341
"Without looking inward at what problems exist, academia may make no course correction at all, or any course correction will make things worse."
"Academia" is an umbrella term at best, or really a generalization encompassing all sorts of schools and teachers (which I'm sure we all know)—but my point is no one wakes up wondering how their actions will affect "academia" just as no business person wonders how they'll affect the overall "economy" and I don't step outside wondering what my life or deeds says about the "human race".
People respond to immediate personal incentives in their lives and environments, and to get to my point: in most of academia and culture now throughout the West, all incentives point toward always publicly obeying and propagating the Social Justice faith (while a million sharp-edged punishments await those who dissent), and this goes for both True Believers and for those who need to pretend to be True Believers for either career or personal reasons. (I don't work in academia but in culture, and I can tell you the same exact dynamics and the same total ideological capture exist in TV, movies, art galleries and museums, documentaries, theater, etc.)
The best books that I think illustrate our moment are Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails", which introduced the concept of cognitive dissonance and showed that once someone has committed themselves body and soul to a faith or belief, they will say and do anything not to have to admit that their sacred belief was mistaken or foolish—even up to death or injury or penury.
And also, Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" which shows how a certain group or a leader and their backers will refuse to change their minds, will make the gravest errors, if all incentives in the moment make it impossible to dissent and make obedience the coin of the realm.
In ideological-captured America, we have reached a similar situation and these things usually play out the same way: there will simply be no overthrowing or replacing the Social Justice faith among our cultural and academia class (that ship sailed many years ago), the capture is way too complete, these people will just have to create enough wreckage until some higher force steps in to end it.
In our case it probably won't be a dictator (though that's possible), but most likely a major war or depression that finally reveals Social Justice to be both a massive lie and a massive failure, similar to what ultimately undid the Soviet Union.
Thanks for this!! Excellent!!
A couple minor quibbles. 1) The question about genocide was in the form of "why do you beat your wife?" since the claim that particular groups were calling for genocide was unverified. And I believe, false. 2) I am curious if FIRE's decision to rank Harvard last was based on anything. It certainly deserved to be ranked near the bottom, but I didn't see any evidence in the FIRE report that would clearly place it below Penn et al.
Your essay has sparked some good comments. A few of which mention some new universities. It is amazing and daunting to me to imagine starting a new university. Not just a new campus of an existing university, but a whole new one. Like most new businesses, these new universities are likely to fail - just in the sense that many previous attempts have been rare and generally not long lived. An example of that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_University . I recall a past President of the American Astronomical Society was associated with Quest - as President of it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Helfand who was a heterodox thinker and doer. The story of Quest might be worth reading for anyone thinking of getting involved in a new university. Why did it close its doors in 2023 after 16 years? Ran out of money.