Seeking input on my lecture I’m scheduled to give a brief 5-minute lecture for the University of Antwerp. The topic is: Do Critical Race Theory/identity politics/transgender ideology/wokeism etc. pose a danger for free speech and the scientific method?
A difference is clear. The Christian conservative university is clear and transparent in their mission, it’s probably in their name. Other universities are not, they claim to be without bias, which is not true. Free speech can exist in different spheres perfectly if institutions are upfront about who they are. A very liberal professor who chooses to teach at a Christian is probably a very uncommon event.
These are some terrific comments. Thank you. My issue is with the word count. I'm already on the cusp of exceeding the count, so I need to be very careful. I like the idea of moving the bottom part of the lecture—the meat— up front. (I also don't like the last part as much as the first part.)
Woke Academics beleive/push CRT&Racial Justice are prerequisit to Common Good. Unfortunately history shown it is path to common bad. To quote philosopher's N.Berdyaev words written in 1922 upon leaving USSR
“Freedom is the right to inequality. Equality (if it is understood in a broader sense than purely formal legal equality) and freedom are incompatible things. By their nature, people are not equal, equality can be achieved only by violence, and this will always be equalization at the bottom level.
Equalizing the poor with the rich is possible only by taking away from the rich his wealth. It is possible to equate the weak with the strong only by taking away from the strong his strength.
It is possible to equate the stupid with the clever only by turning the mind from an advantage into a disadvantage.
A society of universal equality is a society of the poor, the weak and the stupid based on violence "
Yan
P.S. I doubt "equality of outcome" Racial Justice proponents ever read or considered his works , yet he was speaking from experience. If you find it [possible to fit Berdyaev's 99 years old "discoverey" in your talk it will make IMHO your point of Racial Justice falsehood premise stronger
a family member who attended PSU sent me a screenshot of a questionnaire they sent him. One of the questions was "do you think there are too many/too few of" and it listed various ethnic groups at PSU. One can only draw conclusions about what the endgame is here.
So a couple of quick critiques - first, the occasional typo of mis-spelling Dr. Abbot's name. Minor issue, but I'm always nitpicky. Second, it's one thing if a university is explicit in its orientation, but what if it's not? I think that's a fair thing to also consider here since universities seem increasingly squishy regarding what they are oriented towards. A great piece overall!
One thought is if racial justice is the highest priority, how is what is considered justice adjudicated? How do we know anything is achieved without some priority given to truth?
I don't think you've really expressed the danger very well. I am probably the most receptive audience you're going to find, but at the end of the lecture I thought "Well, if I don't like the organization's mission, I should just not work there or go to school there. Where is the danger?"
I agree that every university, college, or school should have Truth (in the scientific, evidence-based sense) as their highest priority. I am deeply disturbed by the current popularity of judging people by traits that they have no control over and which have little relevance to their content of their character or quality of their reasoning. I understand this is a brief lecture, but I think it doesn't have much impact, especially when some CRT proponents are arguing that there are different kinds of "truth".
I think it takes you too long to get to what I think is the main point (or at least what impacted me the most):
"When an organization’s highest priority is not truth, it starts with the conclusion first and works backward in service of the conclusion. When an organization’s highest priority is truth, it does not start with the conclusion first and work backward in service of the conclusion."
I would state that in the introduction. It would help people to track what you are saying as you are saying it.
Also, I've never heard the term "accept by fiat." Can you say that more plainly? Perhaps "For the sake of argument, accept..."
Your draft is excellent at laying out how a university's mission statement is a reflection of/statement on the direction that discourse should be allowed to take on that campus. Your draft does not, however, specifically speak to the topic title you've stated (Do CRT/identity politics/transgender ideology/wokeism etc). There's no mention of the "scientific method" or "free speech" or any of the woke ideologies listed in the topic title. It's only somewhat implied by the point you seem to be making. The speech is clear and well argued around university mission statements, it just doesn't match the title. Perhaps this isn't important at this point. I mention this in the case that it is. All the best!
My philosophical comment to this article: Can you have true racial justice “without” truth (free speech)?
I understand the dichotomy you outline in your piece: priority of racial justice versus priority of truth. However, Im pondering whether they could actually "not" be dichotomous (mutually exclusive) in terms of true racial justice.
A university whose highest priority was racial justice could conceivably strengthen its racial justice mission (make itself more and more racially just) by debating free speech challenges. Surviving the challenges could in turn further strengthen its position and/or have that position be further honed. So in essence wouldn't a university that is genuine in its quest for racial justice also be truth focussed?
Question, sorry for only finding this now… but regarding “ When an organization’s highest priority is truth, it does not start with the conclusion first and work backward in service of the conclusion.” what if the stated truth is unfalsifiable? I seen a lot of this… done a lot of this. I like the idea that truth is a commitment rather than a conclusion. But… that is not how I’ve lived or what I’ve seen play out. Instead, truth is a conclusion… because you then use it to make decisions. As an older person, I’m getting more comfortable with uncertainty, probabilities as opposed to absolutes. That’s more doable on an individual basis. But in business and public sector, as well as academia, seems like leaders saying: this our current version of what’s true, pending more info, we have x level of certainty so we’ll decide x y z, and make those policy. Isn’t this why a lot of folks seem to dislike agnostics?
If Pfizer said, we are totally not sure about x y z, but take the vaccine anyway… well, that’s sort of what folks are currently upset about. We all have to trust when science - represented by a corporation says: 95% efficacy for x months. Long term effects? We don’t know, we can’t know… but we don’t talk about that.
You can’t be agnostic about a treatment, that leads to hesitancy, which gets you labelled anti vaccine, anti science, anti truth. It can end your career.
Seems like committing to truth for the vaccine issue would be - I’m going to get the vaccine and hope for the best OR I’m going to skip it for now and wait for more data. But it seems like we aren’t going to have that option. Indeed, in certain jobs, you currently do not have any option.
The other thing is - people have become committed to their version of the truth… I can’t commit to truth… Too many times what I thought was true, became false. Then I decided to commit to evidence, and in its absence or insufficiency, hope.
What frightens me is how we must commit to a given version of the truth that is unfalsifiable or, complicated in way that it can be proven or falsified over time, given scope, and presuming goodwill, with mechanisms to mitigate corruption.
Another way of saying what you mean that might be helpful: good teaching will come from “a mind well-made rather than well-filled.” - Montaigne. The CRT/woke gang is focused on filling minds not making them. That is their stupidity in a nutshell. The threat to free speech and science follows as the night the day.
University wokism has messaged those who've never held power and told them they now have it. Having no experience in power, they don't know how to use it. So they manifest it in primeval ways by turning on those whom they see as their suppressor - the straight white man. He's still too powerful to destroy, but, he can be made jump. Destroy his property. Deface his symbols such as statues. Guilt the true source of his power - his language. First police it, then usurp its rules. Make straight white male jump. Make him address you, a singularity, as they/them, etc.; make him violate all that he holds dear. His groveling becomes intoxicating as excess power always does. The slide into ridiculous and insanity only stops when... who knows any more!
A difference is clear. The Christian conservative university is clear and transparent in their mission, it’s probably in their name. Other universities are not, they claim to be without bias, which is not true. Free speech can exist in different spheres perfectly if institutions are upfront about who they are. A very liberal professor who chooses to teach at a Christian is probably a very uncommon event.
These are some terrific comments. Thank you. My issue is with the word count. I'm already on the cusp of exceeding the count, so I need to be very careful. I like the idea of moving the bottom part of the lecture—the meat— up front. (I also don't like the last part as much as the first part.)
Woke Academics beleive/push CRT&Racial Justice are prerequisit to Common Good. Unfortunately history shown it is path to common bad. To quote philosopher's N.Berdyaev words written in 1922 upon leaving USSR
“Freedom is the right to inequality. Equality (if it is understood in a broader sense than purely formal legal equality) and freedom are incompatible things. By their nature, people are not equal, equality can be achieved only by violence, and this will always be equalization at the bottom level.
Equalizing the poor with the rich is possible only by taking away from the rich his wealth. It is possible to equate the weak with the strong only by taking away from the strong his strength.
It is possible to equate the stupid with the clever only by turning the mind from an advantage into a disadvantage.
A society of universal equality is a society of the poor, the weak and the stupid based on violence "
Yan
P.S. I doubt "equality of outcome" Racial Justice proponents ever read or considered his works , yet he was speaking from experience. If you find it [possible to fit Berdyaev's 99 years old "discoverey" in your talk it will make IMHO your point of Racial Justice falsehood premise stronger
a family member who attended PSU sent me a screenshot of a questionnaire they sent him. One of the questions was "do you think there are too many/too few of" and it listed various ethnic groups at PSU. One can only draw conclusions about what the endgame is here.
So a couple of quick critiques - first, the occasional typo of mis-spelling Dr. Abbot's name. Minor issue, but I'm always nitpicky. Second, it's one thing if a university is explicit in its orientation, but what if it's not? I think that's a fair thing to also consider here since universities seem increasingly squishy regarding what they are oriented towards. A great piece overall!
It would probably be useful to contrast Portland State’s new priorities with their old mission statement
One thought is if racial justice is the highest priority, how is what is considered justice adjudicated? How do we know anything is achieved without some priority given to truth?
Here another strategy for fighting the baddies.
Woke Self-Defense 101
Fight Wokeness & Be the Life of the Party
https://yourunclepedro.substack.com/p/woke-self-defense-101
I don't think you've really expressed the danger very well. I am probably the most receptive audience you're going to find, but at the end of the lecture I thought "Well, if I don't like the organization's mission, I should just not work there or go to school there. Where is the danger?"
I agree that every university, college, or school should have Truth (in the scientific, evidence-based sense) as their highest priority. I am deeply disturbed by the current popularity of judging people by traits that they have no control over and which have little relevance to their content of their character or quality of their reasoning. I understand this is a brief lecture, but I think it doesn't have much impact, especially when some CRT proponents are arguing that there are different kinds of "truth".
I think it takes you too long to get to what I think is the main point (or at least what impacted me the most):
"When an organization’s highest priority is not truth, it starts with the conclusion first and works backward in service of the conclusion. When an organization’s highest priority is truth, it does not start with the conclusion first and work backward in service of the conclusion."
I would state that in the introduction. It would help people to track what you are saying as you are saying it.
Also, I've never heard the term "accept by fiat." Can you say that more plainly? Perhaps "For the sake of argument, accept..."
Your draft is excellent at laying out how a university's mission statement is a reflection of/statement on the direction that discourse should be allowed to take on that campus. Your draft does not, however, specifically speak to the topic title you've stated (Do CRT/identity politics/transgender ideology/wokeism etc). There's no mention of the "scientific method" or "free speech" or any of the woke ideologies listed in the topic title. It's only somewhat implied by the point you seem to be making. The speech is clear and well argued around university mission statements, it just doesn't match the title. Perhaps this isn't important at this point. I mention this in the case that it is. All the best!
Well done, Dr. Boghossian. When we scratch the surface, we find the agenda right here in plain sight. https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/neo-leninism-is-on-your-doorstep
Very important work you are doing!
My philosophical comment to this article: Can you have true racial justice “without” truth (free speech)?
I understand the dichotomy you outline in your piece: priority of racial justice versus priority of truth. However, Im pondering whether they could actually "not" be dichotomous (mutually exclusive) in terms of true racial justice.
A university whose highest priority was racial justice could conceivably strengthen its racial justice mission (make itself more and more racially just) by debating free speech challenges. Surviving the challenges could in turn further strengthen its position and/or have that position be further honed. So in essence wouldn't a university that is genuine in its quest for racial justice also be truth focussed?
Question, sorry for only finding this now… but regarding “ When an organization’s highest priority is truth, it does not start with the conclusion first and work backward in service of the conclusion.” what if the stated truth is unfalsifiable? I seen a lot of this… done a lot of this. I like the idea that truth is a commitment rather than a conclusion. But… that is not how I’ve lived or what I’ve seen play out. Instead, truth is a conclusion… because you then use it to make decisions. As an older person, I’m getting more comfortable with uncertainty, probabilities as opposed to absolutes. That’s more doable on an individual basis. But in business and public sector, as well as academia, seems like leaders saying: this our current version of what’s true, pending more info, we have x level of certainty so we’ll decide x y z, and make those policy. Isn’t this why a lot of folks seem to dislike agnostics?
If Pfizer said, we are totally not sure about x y z, but take the vaccine anyway… well, that’s sort of what folks are currently upset about. We all have to trust when science - represented by a corporation says: 95% efficacy for x months. Long term effects? We don’t know, we can’t know… but we don’t talk about that.
You can’t be agnostic about a treatment, that leads to hesitancy, which gets you labelled anti vaccine, anti science, anti truth. It can end your career.
Seems like committing to truth for the vaccine issue would be - I’m going to get the vaccine and hope for the best OR I’m going to skip it for now and wait for more data. But it seems like we aren’t going to have that option. Indeed, in certain jobs, you currently do not have any option.
The other thing is - people have become committed to their version of the truth… I can’t commit to truth… Too many times what I thought was true, became false. Then I decided to commit to evidence, and in its absence or insufficiency, hope.
What frightens me is how we must commit to a given version of the truth that is unfalsifiable or, complicated in way that it can be proven or falsified over time, given scope, and presuming goodwill, with mechanisms to mitigate corruption.
Another way of saying what you mean that might be helpful: good teaching will come from “a mind well-made rather than well-filled.” - Montaigne. The CRT/woke gang is focused on filling minds not making them. That is their stupidity in a nutshell. The threat to free speech and science follows as the night the day.
University wokism has messaged those who've never held power and told them they now have it. Having no experience in power, they don't know how to use it. So they manifest it in primeval ways by turning on those whom they see as their suppressor - the straight white man. He's still too powerful to destroy, but, he can be made jump. Destroy his property. Deface his symbols such as statues. Guilt the true source of his power - his language. First police it, then usurp its rules. Make straight white male jump. Make him address you, a singularity, as they/them, etc.; make him violate all that he holds dear. His groveling becomes intoxicating as excess power always does. The slide into ridiculous and insanity only stops when... who knows any more!