A lot of the letters to the old Ethicist column struck me as what I'd retroactively term humblebrags.
― five six and (man alive), Wednesday, 4 March 2015 16:20 (nine years ago) link
I went looking for this and didn't find it
sorry JRN, I was thinking of this passage: It’s a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative.
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 16:51 (nine years ago) link
last sentence is utter garbage
One thing that's going on here is a clash of intuition/experience about how the word "fact" is used. Sometimes I use it in reference to things that no one is a position to prove, it seems natural to me, and no one objects. Other people do this too. I guess that's less true in your experience.
Another thing I've been reluctant to go into is what "prove" means in this context. Very few things can be proven in the strict sense, and the less strict you want to be about proof, the blurrier status of fact becomes on your view, the more satisfying a rhetorical-force-not-meaning explanation of the connection between fact and "proof" becomes.
I think you could come up with a plausible fact/opinion distinction suitable for second-graders that would please McBrayer really easily. You could say facts are things that are true, and opinions are beliefs that we can't prove (we can agree that second graders don't need to get into the vagaries of what exactly "prove" means). Then you could give examples that would track the common sense distinction without asking the kids to classify moral claims as opinions (and opinions as non-facts). That would do the trick.
I don't see McBrayer suggesting that children should be taught that moral facts are just like scientific facts. It seems to me like he's saying (1) that kids shouldn't be taught that moral beliefs belong to the realm of opinion where opinion is thought of as strictly distinct from fact and (2) the latter approach is especially confusing when the same institution is trying to inculcate certain moral values in its students.
In other words, it's not that thoroughgoing moral realism should be part of the grade school curriculum, but rather that a confusing distinction that biases kids against that kind of realism shouldn't be a part of the grade school curriculum.
It hadn't actually occurred to me that McBrayer might be a religiously-motivated philosopher when I first read this. Looking at his website now, it seems that's probably true. But there are plenty of atheist moral realist philosophers, and I encounter those more often than the religious kind. That might explain why I didn't have the allergic reaction to the article that some others did. Moral realism is a hard sort of view to defend, but then I think every view is hard to defend.
― JRN, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:13 (nine years ago) link
I'm not gonna get into this but Οὖτις, whether "proof is required for facts" is a pretty widely-debated philosophical point; I guess "garbage" is just ILX hyperbole but at any rate it's not obviously wrongheaded to think that something can be true but could never be proved (by an agent of our cognitive type at least; let's leave gods out of this). A classic example is whatever is happening on the other side of a black hole: we can never verify it one way or the other, so does that mean that there's no fact of the matter of what's happening over there?
ah fuck why I am getting into this
― droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:16 (nine years ago) link
lollllll
― j., Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:20 (nine years ago) link
xxp I agree that "if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative" is a bad inference. But the first part of that passage distinguishes truth from proof, not truth from fact.
― JRN, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:21 (nine years ago) link
What is this thread about exactly?
― jmm, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:21 (nine years ago) link
creeps
― ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:23 (nine years ago) link
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1310-liberals-are-stifling-intellectual-diversity-on-campus
― ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), Wednesday, 4 March 2015 17:28 (nine years ago) link
the terrific Sarah Jaffe:
Being offended is not in itself political. “What is political,” Cross writes, is the way that racist ideas contribute to systemic violence, the way transphobic language acts as “the spearpoint of violence against trans women, used to justify it and all but ensure such crimes will be repeated.” We are not talking about offense. We are talking about actual harm and lost life.As Sara Ahmed points out, making arguments turn on hurt feelings is an excellent way to cover up the actual mechanisms of power at work.hat we've seen too often lately is the feelings of one or a small group of people being substituted for an actual understanding of harm and of power. And the people whose feelings get aired in public and taken seriously are often those who already have a level of power to begin with.For women in particular, the ways we have been limited in public discourse and action have shaped the very writing and actions we take to challenge sexist structures. As Mary Beard noted in The London Review of Books, women historically were allowed to speak publicly on two subjects: “First … as victims and as martyrs—usually to preface their own death,” and “second … women could legitimately rise up to speak—to defend their homes, their children, their husbands or the interests of other women.”We can either detail our own victimhood, or we can speak about the victimhood of other women. (It is unfortunate that Beard, who makes this point so well, signed on to a letter in The Guardian which itself is an excellent example of feelings-as-politics.)We see this in what Phoebe Maltz Bovy calls “feelings journalism”: writers “making an argument based on what they imagine someone else is thinking, what they feel may be another person’s feelings.” The offspring of the personal essay, feelings journalism substitutes reporting on facts, systems, even asking people about their situation, with an emotional appeal. It takes up the victimhood of others, without even asking them if they consider themselves victims.As Maltz Bovy notes, feelings journalism arose from economic constraints on the media industry; budget cutbacks and the accelerated 24-hour news cycle online lead to a demand for content that simply can't be filled by costly reporting. It is itself a structural issue. The feelings evoked by such pieces drive the clicks that pay the bills, and the writers themselves are usually underpaid (or unpaid).Whatever the cause, though, the result has been an individualizing of political issues, a narrowing of our understanding. As I wrote in For Love or Money, a chapbook I co-authored with Melissa Gira Grant, “When we center our own feelings about something that’s happening to someone else, we lose all potential for solidarity.”What we end up with instead is a politics of pity and charity; endless articles in newspapers and magazines about the abject misery of the poor and handwringing about what “we” should do about it. Gira Grant argues in For Love or Money that tears become a substitute for the hard work of political organizing. “Weeping, from a safe distance. Weeping that somehow isn’t also read as a form of objectification.”As for the people who are the objects of all this feeling, well, their voices continue to simply be wiped out of the conversation. Sydette Harry brings up the example of Janay Rice, whose wishes after the video of her then-fiancé assaulting her made news were continually ignored. The NFL, which employs Rice’s now-husband, hired “domestic violence advisers” but, Harry writes, “This major step to ‘address issues’ still hinges on making a Black woman’s personal affairs heartbreakingly public and assuring that no one who represents her voice—which has asked for very different things than advocacy—will be heard.”
As Sara Ahmed points out, making arguments turn on hurt feelings is an excellent way to cover up the actual mechanisms of power at work.
hat we've seen too often lately is the feelings of one or a small group of people being substituted for an actual understanding of harm and of power. And the people whose feelings get aired in public and taken seriously are often those who already have a level of power to begin with.
For women in particular, the ways we have been limited in public discourse and action have shaped the very writing and actions we take to challenge sexist structures. As Mary Beard noted in The London Review of Books, women historically were allowed to speak publicly on two subjects: “First … as victims and as martyrs—usually to preface their own death,” and “second … women could legitimately rise up to speak—to defend their homes, their children, their husbands or the interests of other women.”
We can either detail our own victimhood, or we can speak about the victimhood of other women. (It is unfortunate that Beard, who makes this point so well, signed on to a letter in The Guardian which itself is an excellent example of feelings-as-politics.)
We see this in what Phoebe Maltz Bovy calls “feelings journalism”: writers “making an argument based on what they imagine someone else is thinking, what they feel may be another person’s feelings.” The offspring of the personal essay, feelings journalism substitutes reporting on facts, systems, even asking people about their situation, with an emotional appeal. It takes up the victimhood of others, without even asking them if they consider themselves victims.
As Maltz Bovy notes, feelings journalism arose from economic constraints on the media industry; budget cutbacks and the accelerated 24-hour news cycle online lead to a demand for content that simply can't be filled by costly reporting. It is itself a structural issue. The feelings evoked by such pieces drive the clicks that pay the bills, and the writers themselves are usually underpaid (or unpaid).
Whatever the cause, though, the result has been an individualizing of political issues, a narrowing of our understanding. As I wrote in For Love or Money, a chapbook I co-authored with Melissa Gira Grant, “When we center our own feelings about something that’s happening to someone else, we lose all potential for solidarity.”
What we end up with instead is a politics of pity and charity; endless articles in newspapers and magazines about the abject misery of the poor and handwringing about what “we” should do about it. Gira Grant argues in For Love or Money that tears become a substitute for the hard work of political organizing. “Weeping, from a safe distance. Weeping that somehow isn’t also read as a form of objectification.”
As for the people who are the objects of all this feeling, well, their voices continue to simply be wiped out of the conversation. Sydette Harry brings up the example of Janay Rice, whose wishes after the video of her then-fiancé assaulting her made news were continually ignored. The NFL, which employs Rice’s now-husband, hired “domestic violence advisers” but, Harry writes, “This major step to ‘address issues’ still hinges on making a Black woman’s personal affairs heartbreakingly public and assuring that no one who represents her voice—which has asked for very different things than advocacy—will be heard.”
http://www.damemagazine.com/2015/03/02/are-we-mistaking-feelings-politics
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 March 2015 19:41 (nine years ago) link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/
on the expelled oklahoma frat students
― j., Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:42 (nine years ago) link
is expulsion a first amendment issue? huh.
― post you had fecund thoughts about (darraghmac), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:53 (nine years ago) link
public university = state funding
― Mordy, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:55 (nine years ago) link
yeah idk surely there's room for rules of comportment in any such institution that needn't be held to constutional level challenge?
― post you had fecund thoughts about (darraghmac), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:01 (nine years ago) link
YU had a big controversy a few years ago about allowing an LGBT club on campus. They didn't want to but were federally mandated bc they received fed money. They are otherwise a private institution so much more w a state university
― Mordy, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:02 (nine years ago) link
Last sentences of WAPO article show that argument hinges on just-because-U-receives-public-funding,-it's-an-arm-of-the-government. Argument is nonsense.
― Vic Perry, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:12 (nine years ago) link
You could also interpret the speech as a violation of the student conduct code of OU, which I actually looked up today bc I am ridiculous
http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studentlife/documents/AllCampusStudentCode.pdf
― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:59 (nine years ago) link
yeah i think the state funding thing is kind of far reaching to be used in WAPO 'expert's context.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:03 (nine years ago) link
xp why nonsense? i've personally seen it come up in other cases and was seemingly accepted. (nb it could be that the threat of the fed withdrawing funding was so severe that the universities complied even tho it might not have stood up in court)
― Mordy, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:04 (nine years ago) link
You unlicensed lawyers should really read the link he provided with the case citations:http://www.volokh.com/posts/1172536284.shtml
― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:13 (nine years ago) link
If it's "nonsense" then SCOTUS and its children have been on some nonsense for 30+ years
― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:14 (nine years ago) link
Volokh is a dick but he is in fact an expert
― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:15 (nine years ago) link
as an unlicensed lawyer i wont bother my arse but nice tude
― post you had fecund thoughts about (darraghmac), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:15 (nine years ago) link
http://studentactivism.net/2013/02/04/expelled-student-activist-wins-50k-court-judgment-against-university-president/
a similar case but on the righteous side
― j., Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:39 (nine years ago) link
As an administrator at a public university, I've seen similar speech vs conduct argument come up before (and faculty/staff aren't protected like students are). It's a legal muddle. My instinct tells me that these guys shouldn't have been expelled for speech b/c they uttered no fighting words but the use of the "hostile working environment" defense probably alludes to their student code of conduct, the bible for these institutions and mine.
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 March 2015 22:43 (nine years ago) link
Okay "nonsense" is a little strong. Sue me, lawyers.
― Vic Perry, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 23:27 (nine years ago) link
(I find what is protected and unprotected speech a bit strange). Maybe the U wouldn't have a good legal defense in this case. Maybe it was still a good idea to do what they did, considering all factors. Might be a trade-off.
― Vic Perry, Tuesday, 10 March 2015 23:51 (nine years ago) link
It feels really weird to me that you can sing happy songs about lynching black people, and not be expelled. Like, clearly that creates a 'hostile' environment? Also, allegedly, SAE Cornell killed a black student during a hazing ritual in 2011.
Basically, expell all frat-members.
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:00 (nine years ago) link
First Amendment, man, and a generation's worth of rulings.
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:02 (nine years ago) link
Also, allegedly, SAE Cornell killed a black student during a hazing ritual in 2011.
well I think this violates many amendments and laws
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:03 (nine years ago) link
Like I said, my instinct tends to embrace an absolutist embrace of the First Amendment: it'd make no sense to write an amendment protecting citizens from governments' infringement of speech if governments infringed on disgusting speech. But courts have carved exceptions, and many universities' "hate speech" codes haven't been challenged. But using a student code of conduct to punish students is another question.
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:07 (nine years ago) link
(I'm well aware btw that until the 1920s SCOTUS did not recognize that the Bill of Rights applied to the states)
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:08 (nine years ago) link
Well, it's not that they should be criminally prosecuted, but the idea that because the university is public, it should allow students to sing about lynching other students? That seems weird to me. That does not seem to be protecting students?
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:11 (nine years ago) link
How do they reconcile that song with their ridiculous "True Gentleman" creed?
― ©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:13 (nine years ago) link
Like, it feels like there must be some kind of Title IX-like loophole that would allow universities to expell students who sing about killing other students, regardless of first amendment.
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:15 (nine years ago) link
there is
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 00:30 (nine years ago) link
again, it has to do with creating a hostile learning environment
I don't know enough about US law, or care enough about these racist assholes, to have a firm opinion but surely there are disciplinary options in between "allowing students to sing about lynching other students" and expulsion.
― Minaj moron (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 11:17 (nine years ago) link
Flogging
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 13:03 (nine years ago) link
There we go. The sensible compromise.
― Minaj moron (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 13:07 (nine years ago) link
look at all these ilxor creepy liberals trying to suppress these students' free speech >:|
― een, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 17:08 (nine years ago) link
if we'd done better job they might still be enrolled lol
― A MOOC, what's a MOOC? (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 19:37 (nine years ago) link
wow, three different buffoons on the morning joe show blamed it on all the rap music. best dumb tv pundit stuff in a while, think I'll even watch the daily show & see if it gets covered.
― Vic Perry, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 21:21 (nine years ago) link
Often people blame 'the culture' without considering that 'the culture' they are talking about might just be something they themselves are making up on the news.
― ©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 22:02 (nine years ago) link
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-calling-academic-freedom-stanley-fish
At this point in his career, Fish is as much a legal theorist as he is an English professor (he’s been teaching in law schools since the mid-1980s), and it’s his contention in his latest book that “[ a ]cademic freedom is rhetorically strong but legally weak. Indeed, it is not at all clear that academic freedom has any substantial presence in the law.” But Versions of Academic Freedom is not, as one might expect, an attempt to strengthen the legal standing of the concept; Fish’s project is less about finding a new way to defend academic freedom than it is about defining and debunking what most working professors seem to think “academic freedom” means. On what grounds do claims for academic freedom rest? Why is it a good thing and what would academic life look like without it?In search of an answer, Fish identifies five schools of academic freedom, “plotted on a continuum that goes from right to left.” (It’s worth pointing out that this ideological framing is Fish’s; I would argue that there are left and right versions of all of the positions he describes.) At the conservative end of the spectrum, we have the “It’s just a job” school (Fish’s own position), which holds that, “[ r ]ather than being a vocation or holy calling, higher education is a service that offers knowledge and skills to students who wish to receive them.” Thus, “academics are not free in any special sense to do anything but their jobs.” Second is the “For the common good” school—the mainstream position in the American academy today—which insists that academic freedom has special value to a democratic society; Fish traces it back to a founding document, the American Association of University Professors’ 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure (drafted by Arthur O. Lovejoy and John Dewey, among others). Third is the “Academic exceptionalism or uncommon beings” school, which essentially treats academics as an elite class with special privileges. Fourth is the “Academic freedom as critique” school, which finds the real value of the academy in the “ruthless criticism of everything that exists”; fifth, and most radical, is the “Academic freedom as revolution” school, which travels further down the same road by advocating not only the critique but the abolition of existing social structures.
In search of an answer, Fish identifies five schools of academic freedom, “plotted on a continuum that goes from right to left.” (It’s worth pointing out that this ideological framing is Fish’s; I would argue that there are left and right versions of all of the positions he describes.) At the conservative end of the spectrum, we have the “It’s just a job” school (Fish’s own position), which holds that, “[ r ]ather than being a vocation or holy calling, higher education is a service that offers knowledge and skills to students who wish to receive them.” Thus, “academics are not free in any special sense to do anything but their jobs.” Second is the “For the common good” school—the mainstream position in the American academy today—which insists that academic freedom has special value to a democratic society; Fish traces it back to a founding document, the American Association of University Professors’ 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure (drafted by Arthur O. Lovejoy and John Dewey, among others). Third is the “Academic exceptionalism or uncommon beings” school, which essentially treats academics as an elite class with special privileges. Fourth is the “Academic freedom as critique” school, which finds the real value of the academy in the “ruthless criticism of everything that exists”; fifth, and most radical, is the “Academic freedom as revolution” school, which travels further down the same road by advocating not only the critique but the abolition of existing social structures.
― j., Thursday, 12 March 2015 17:17 (nine years ago) link
http://features.columbiaspectator.com/eye/2015/03/12/left-and-lefter/
“Left and Lefter: What does it mean to be a liberal activist at Columbia?”
― drash, Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:37 (nine years ago) link
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/berkeley-bans-intifada
actually, a hashtag, 'dintifada'
― j., Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:43 (nine years ago) link
Following up on Daniel Mael’s claim that Sumayyah Din promoted “the murder of innocent men, women and children as part of her campaign platform,” I asked Din if she had any plans to inflict violence on campus. Haha, no. I can confidently say I have no plans to inflict any violence towards any groups on campus. I would never want to carry or condone any message of violence or hatred. In fact, my campaign is themed with a central dogma of love, solidarity, and unity.
Haha, no. I can confidently say I have no plans to inflict any violence towards any groups on campus. I would never want to carry or condone any message of violence or hatred. In fact, my campaign is themed with a central dogma of love, solidarity, and unity.
haha, no. lol college
― j., Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:46 (nine years ago) link
There seems to be a big back and forth in the UC system between the Israeli divestment crowd and the jews.. and since these kids are in lol college it gets really stupid
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-allegations-of-anti-israel-sentiments-rock-uc-campuses--20150307-story.html
― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 12 March 2015 20:50 (nine years ago) link