Misha Verbitsky - October 6th, 2019

October 6th, 2019

October 6th, 2019
10:29 am


не место для политических дискуссий
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

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."

Read more... )

Current Mood: sick
Current Music: Кенгуру - БАЛ КЕРОСИНОВЫХ ЛАМП
Tags: , ,

Previous Day 2019/10/06
Next Day
:LENIN: Powered by LJ.Rossia.org