Mar 13, 2023·edited Mar 13, 2023Liked by Dorian Abbot
This is the best essay on this topic that I have ever read. And you're right, "Craven" is the real problem. I'm not for banning any paradigm of thought, be it postmodernism, Marxism, flat earthism or even common dumbassery. What I'm for is the freedom to be able to look those people in the eye and tell them exactly why they are full of poo, without being sent to a re-education camp. I'm never afraid to debate any of the woke, on a level playing field, on the merits of their ideals. You never have to be afraid when facts are on your side and you know what you are talking about. Reading this prompted a bit of a personal epiphany as well. I "self-censored" for decades. Now I know why I hated University social functions. Massive respect.
One trick the “Mr Woke” side has played quite well is arguing the “extreme” position of “Dr. Centrist” while not acknowledging that a mirrored extreme position on the other side is even plausible. An average academic would view a laptop decal of Trump (the “horror” of a President whose term had no new wars breaking out in the world) as much more extreme than a decal that of Karl Marx (whose ideas, as you mentioned, can be logically linked to many millions of deaths and ruined societies, with ongoing legacy). Because “Mr Woke” has not experienced any of the latter! And therein lies the trick.
Apparently the mission of some universities has mutated from “the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge” to “the transfer of power and wealth from white heterosexual men to women, people of color, and practitioners of gender dysphoria.” Dorian Abbot’s article expertly exposes why neither the universities nor society at large can afford to tolerate the militancy of those who stand to benefit from the mutation. It also demonstrates, by it’s very existence, how to begin to resist this malignant “revolution.”
Although I should add that in the social sciences, humanities, and law the problems go far deeper than personal/institutional politics and are built into the academic materials produced and the methods themselves. This puts anyone debating about various current affairs even from a centrist point of view in an unfair position, and it's not clear that this could be overcome with changed institutional arrangements or with various functionaries being more adamant about free speech protections.
I came through the graduate school a little more than 10 years ago. I don't know that there is a solution to fixing the system without competition. Even then instructors were Chinese PhD students that didn't speak a word of English. The problem with any system where we're fiddling and tweaking trying to optimize it, is that you reach a point where you've accomplished the maximum usefulness of the system and it cannot be further improved without something to test it against.
In the case of the university system and science, we end up with people in fields where there is no demand and little utility because we've made the university a place with an oversupply of students and not enough careers to push them into. The result is we create new areas of study like anthropoloy or gender studies so that we make "experts" in largely useless fields of study, and the career world must then create jobs to facilitate these experts in nothing useful. See DEI.
Idle hands and all that... send them to tech school and teach them to use their hands for solar power systems design and they won't have time for tweeting or lecturing people with social movements and programs about programs.
authored by Washington University Junior Jonah Sachs, broached the subject of self-censorship in the area of STEM work that might have implications for weaponry. This is a very different kind of self-censorship than Heterodox STEM essays normally confront; that is, self-censorship to avoid stepping on any social justice landmines leading to cancellation and career implosion.
This is an important topic, and one that STEM professionals have confronted for centuries. Social justice concerns hopefully will be fleeting and this peculiar moment in history will hopefully eventually fade into obscurity. But the struggles with the destructive potential of STEM results will probably be with us forever.
Since there is not much room available in the comments section on Substack, I took the liberty of writing a draft of an essay on the topic on Thinkspot, another essay venue online:
Perhaps in the future, with Dorian's approval, this could be refined into an essay for Heterodox STEM. I was going to email it to him, but then I figured I would just post the link here.
This is the best essay on this topic that I have ever read. And you're right, "Craven" is the real problem. I'm not for banning any paradigm of thought, be it postmodernism, Marxism, flat earthism or even common dumbassery. What I'm for is the freedom to be able to look those people in the eye and tell them exactly why they are full of poo, without being sent to a re-education camp. I'm never afraid to debate any of the woke, on a level playing field, on the merits of their ideals. You never have to be afraid when facts are on your side and you know what you are talking about. Reading this prompted a bit of a personal epiphany as well. I "self-censored" for decades. Now I know why I hated University social functions. Massive respect.
Rx: courage.
Everybody knows this.
Splendidly argued!
One trick the “Mr Woke” side has played quite well is arguing the “extreme” position of “Dr. Centrist” while not acknowledging that a mirrored extreme position on the other side is even plausible. An average academic would view a laptop decal of Trump (the “horror” of a President whose term had no new wars breaking out in the world) as much more extreme than a decal that of Karl Marx (whose ideas, as you mentioned, can be logically linked to many millions of deaths and ruined societies, with ongoing legacy). Because “Mr Woke” has not experienced any of the latter! And therein lies the trick.
Chicago Principles could not possibly describe what goes on in our local Uniformity-Factory on the hill.
Apparently the mission of some universities has mutated from “the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge” to “the transfer of power and wealth from white heterosexual men to women, people of color, and practitioners of gender dysphoria.” Dorian Abbot’s article expertly exposes why neither the universities nor society at large can afford to tolerate the militancy of those who stand to benefit from the mutation. It also demonstrates, by it’s very existence, how to begin to resist this malignant “revolution.”
Excellent post!
Although I should add that in the social sciences, humanities, and law the problems go far deeper than personal/institutional politics and are built into the academic materials produced and the methods themselves. This puts anyone debating about various current affairs even from a centrist point of view in an unfair position, and it's not clear that this could be overcome with changed institutional arrangements or with various functionaries being more adamant about free speech protections.
I came through the graduate school a little more than 10 years ago. I don't know that there is a solution to fixing the system without competition. Even then instructors were Chinese PhD students that didn't speak a word of English. The problem with any system where we're fiddling and tweaking trying to optimize it, is that you reach a point where you've accomplished the maximum usefulness of the system and it cannot be further improved without something to test it against.
In the case of the university system and science, we end up with people in fields where there is no demand and little utility because we've made the university a place with an oversupply of students and not enough careers to push them into. The result is we create new areas of study like anthropoloy or gender studies so that we make "experts" in largely useless fields of study, and the career world must then create jobs to facilitate these experts in nothing useful. See DEI.
Idle hands and all that... send them to tech school and teach them to use their hands for solar power systems design and they won't have time for tweeting or lecturing people with social movements and programs about programs.
Excellent work.
Excellent essay.
This is a fantastic essay. The most recent essay posted on Heterodox STEM,
Between Research and Responsibility: The Invention of Dynamite
https://hxstem.substack.com/p/between-research-and-responsibility
authored by Washington University Junior Jonah Sachs, broached the subject of self-censorship in the area of STEM work that might have implications for weaponry. This is a very different kind of self-censorship than Heterodox STEM essays normally confront; that is, self-censorship to avoid stepping on any social justice landmines leading to cancellation and career implosion.
This is an important topic, and one that STEM professionals have confronted for centuries. Social justice concerns hopefully will be fleeting and this peculiar moment in history will hopefully eventually fade into obscurity. But the struggles with the destructive potential of STEM results will probably be with us forever.
Since there is not much room available in the comments section on Substack, I took the liberty of writing a draft of an essay on the topic on Thinkspot, another essay venue online:
https://thinkspot.com/discourse/eKuE2W/post/octaveoctave/comments-on-the-essay-between-research-and-responsibility/mJt1YJm
Perhaps in the future, with Dorian's approval, this could be refined into an essay for Heterodox STEM. I was going to email it to him, but then I figured I would just post the link here.