Настроение:	sick
Музыка:	Кенгуру - БАЛ КЕРОСИНОВЫХ ЛАМП
Entry tags:	censorship, sjw, usa

не место для политических дискуссий
Хорошее
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-09/free-speech-is-no-longer-safe-speech-at-today-s-elite-colleges
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-10/how-comfort-college-dogma-conquered-reason-and-evidence
про будущее американского высшего образования

ну типа, сейчас "прогрессивные" студенты и
молодые преподаватели убеждены, что свобода
слова это расизм, сексизм, и на кампусе
ей не место, а равно и каким-либо дебатам
о чем угодно, ибо дебаты дегуманизируют.

В 2003-м году тогдашний начальник партии жуликов
и воров Грызлов заявил, что "Государственная Дума это
не место для политических дискуссий". К нему
присоединяются американские гуманитарии, убежденные,
что и университет - тоже не место для дискуссий.

...At Williams College's bicentennial in 1993, Frederick
Rudolph, a beloved and esteemed professor of history at
the school, gave a speech in which he defined the three
eras of his and other elite colleges: the Christian
college, the gentlemen's college and the consumer's
college. Rudolph predicted that the consumer Williams
"will be moving on, making way for the as yet undefined
next era in the college's history."

Elite private education in America is on the cusp of this
new era. The controversies over free speech, safe spaces,
trigger warnings, microaggressions and the like are
symptoms of this shift. They are currently considered
controversies because the colleges are in transition, and
many do not realize that the old standards no longer
hold. Once the transition is complete, the "correct" side
of the controversies will become central to a school's
identity - just as faith was to the Christian college,
self-confidence was to the gentlemen's college, and alumni
devotion and achievement were to the consumer's college.

The Christian college, Rudolph wrote, was "defined by a
transcendent Christian purpose." The gentlemen's college
was characterized "by an almost obsessive cultivation of
gentlemanly values." The consumer's college was shaped "by
a zealous attention to the academic market and the student
as consumer."

What characterizes the comfort college? The slogan of the
comfort college is "diversity and inclusion." And just to
be clear: The presence of previously underrepresented
groups is vital, necessary and welcome. What's more,
insensitivity toward people's identities should be
self-censored, and social pressure to do so is a helpful
tool.

But another agenda, an agenda that runs counter to true
diversity and inclusion, has (often silently) accompanied
these positive changes. At some point along the way, this
laudable attention to the language of inclusion turned
from a psychologically realistic sensitivity into a harsh
and confrontational tribal marker. Much of comfort-college
language - "neurodiverse" versus "mentally ill,"
"minoritized" versus "minority" - simply identifies one as
a member of the woke tribe, and using the wrong term will
bring about social death.

...Williams College's long year of troubles intensified on
the first day of the spring semester. An assistant
professor of English sent an email to her students saying
she would not be teaching; she had gone on medical leave,
citing "a refusal to continue business as usual" in the
face of "the College's violent practices." In response,
students sent a letter to the trustees declaring that "We
hold the truth of discursive and institutional violence to
be self-evident."

Self-evident. Refusing to consider evidence goes against
the tenor of all three previous colleges. (Even the
Christian college studied arguments for the existence of
God.) We might at first dismiss this as (literal)
sophomoric bravado. However, in a meeting for faculty of
color called by the dean of the faculty, one professor
asked for evidence of "violent practices." Another
professor responded that "to ask for evidence of violent
practices is itself a violent practice."

The comfort college's acolytes make the figurative fallacy
literal. It is the arguer's genes that determine truth and
validity, not facts or reason. That is why, in the comfort
college, testimony has come to substitute for rational
argument. When students (and more and more faculty) demand
a new policy, their arguments often begin as (and rarely
go beyond) accounts of victimization; the account is
justification enough.

This ritual institutionalizes the denial of rational
justification. It corrupts the healthy multicultural idea,
built on Enlightenment universalism and cosmopolitanism,
that different perspectives matter, and that what one sees
often depends on where one stands - and that we are all
better off from listening to those who stand in different
places, who see the part of the truth that is blocked from
our particular vision. The liberal ideal of the pursuit of
knowledge is that by cooperating we all can see and
understand better. But identity politicians reject the
Enlightenment's hope of mutual understanding and reason's
path to get us there. In the fragmented comfort college,
the only tool is power - the power to enforce the dogma.

Some of American higher education's persuasive power has
come from the authority of reason. There were those who
were often appropriately skeptical, but for some of the
people some of the time, at least, colleges and
universities were considered to be the American
institutions best dedicated to the unprejudiced pursuit of
knowledge. Thus, even disheveled professors were listened
to, and reason and evidence had their roles. The far and
populist right has already abandoned its respect for
science, attributing climate-change science to a worldwide
liberal conspiracy. But now much of the public is seeing
that the comfort college values dogma more than knowledge,
that it is responsible to agendas, not to truth. The
comfort college, while rejecting all of President Donald
Trump's beliefs, has adopted his epistemological style.