[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
October 6th, 2019
| October 6th, 2019 | |
|---|---|
| 10:29 am [Link] |
не место для политических дискуссий Хорошее https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic 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." ( Read more... ) Current Mood: |
sick| Previous Day | 2019/10/06 [Archive] |
Next Day |