A theory on the college campus issues.

[Forty Two]

it's more like "professors these days..."

Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, Althusser...

iin the 60s, they were counterculture. Free love. Experimentation. Drugs. Sex. Rock n Roll.

Baader-Meinhof. Red Brigade. Black Panthers. Weather Underground. Japanese Red Army...

Indeed, you make the point. These groups were counterculture, and they weren't looking to enlist college administrations and/or the State to enact rules and regulations to govern them more strictly. These groups were revolutionary. You picked very extreme groups, but those are extreme representations of exactly what I'm talking about. Bring it back closer to the middle, and you will see a whole movement in the 1960s and 70s to eliminate administrative rules and regulations over conduct and culture, thoughts and words. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 60s-213450

You are too young to remember the sixties and seventies. That's OK. Not OK is that you pretend knowing stuff you so obviously have not bothered researching. I bet you never even read up on Aldo Moro, Hanns-Martin Schleyer or the amount of support for violent radicals at that time.

I'm not going to debate whether I know more than you or you know more than me. We don't know each other. Your impertinence to declare what you know about me is irrelevant to the discussion. However, when you talk about the violent radicals at the time, you make my point. I never said that the radical protesters of the 60s weren't violent. They were. But, when Abbie Hoffman and the gang held violent protests in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention, they were doing so with a different goal in mind. It didn't make it right. But, at least they were acting AGAINST the State, with a view to stopping a war. Today, they act in an effort to get the State to work as their tool, to silence their opposition. Today they demand school administrations and the state enact laws to limit individual freedom.

The Youtube clips, articles and comments you regale us with do not amount to evidence that freedom, happiness and the American Way is threatened.

Freedom is definitely threatened by laws and regulations which limits the freedom of speech. That's by definition. Happiness is subjective and some people would, indeed, be happier with less freedom. And, i never mentioned the American Way.

They are evidence of unorganised, demented students, teachers and rioters lashing out blindly and without any coordination.

Many of these protests are very coordinated, also involving paid protesters.

They are even less of a threat than the left-wing activists of yore, and look at what happened with them. They were not destroyed by the guardians of civic ideals. Support for them never reached - never even looked like reaching - the critical mass necessary to create a new order, so they just melted away.

Not the point I was making.

Your pompous, sanctimonious tirades are nothing more than the ignorant, emotional outbursts of a panicked, hysterical rightwinger. You are standing on a soap box made of hot air, simultaneously resembling the bloke pictured below.

Sounds like something hit a nerve. Tirades. LOL. This thread was a very calm, serious presentation of one theory advanced by one writer/commentator who had a theory as to why we see a distinction between the college campuses of the last few years, and previous generations. This is not something that is noticed only by a small number of people or only by the right wing. People all over the political spectrum have noticed this.

Your reaction to this - hostile - attacking me personally, instead of simply engaging in the discussion, etc. is emblematic, I think, of a major issue in our western culture today. Some people can't address an issue on its merits. Some people can't entertain a notion without agreeing with it. Some people make every discussion a personal fight. Why can't you just dismantle the points made in the OP? I clearly noted whose points they were, and they were not mine. It was simply one theory advanced on the college campus issues. Maybe it's wrong. So what? Most arguments are wrong. They still can be interesting to discuss.

"How is it possible that today's academic Left has supported rather than protested campus speech codes as well as the grotesque surveillance and over-regulation of student life? American colleges have abandoned their educational mission and become government colonies, ruled by officious bureaucrats enforcing federal dictates. This despotic imperialism has no place in a modern democracy." Camille Paglia, From the Introduction to Free Women, Free Men, Paglia, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group (2017)

Here is Eric Posner writing in Slate - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ected.html - Posner addresses the situation from a different angle, saying that things have changed on college campuses -- now college students ARE children, he says. They are immature. They need protection. So he supports the speech codes, and such.... Posner's is a radically different theory on what's going on on college campuses than Haigt's in the OP.

There are several different theories I've seen proposed. One is psychological, where college students today have a declining mental resilience, which I think dovetails with Eric Posner's theory.

Some see a political shift, where the Enlightenment liberalism is in decline, and a progressive leftism is on the rise, such that freedom of speech is not seen as necessarily taking priority over a person's subjective feelings.

[Scot Dutchy]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

Fairly clueless comment. The cost of housing and education are more relatively now than then, and jobs are more scarce.

Clueless comment? How many kids over 30 are still living with mum and dad? How many have degrees which are completely useless in today's markets. A degree in knitting will not get you far. We dont have proper tradesmen any more and people wonder why so many immigrants are coming in? Well a clue; proper trades are still being taught in plenty of countries
Dont make me weep please. The poor wee things cant survive without mum and dad. Well I did as did million others. More idiots are getting into places of education where they dont belong thanks to mum and dad. Just because your child/idiot went to an expensive school does not give him a god given right to a six figure salary.

[Brian Peacock]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

The Hotel Mamapapa chain is doing a roaring trade at the moment because there's little spare capacity in housing stock and wage growth has fallen well below prices.

Parents 'get them into uni' by paying for it. Not like the olden days, when all this was fields, and you had your fees paid by local or central government and a grant to cover your living expenses. Most students are working in the service industry to cover their living costs.

The reason they 'do some Mickey Mouse degree' is because the unis offer them - it's the principles of free market economics applied to education - the more choice you have the freer you are, apparently. But it has meant that the standard of curricula and teaching is driven down, course structures become based around tickbox modules accessed online, lectures become powerpoint presentations and tutorials become emails. When you make an institutions funding dependent on its pass and attendance rates then the institution will do everything to make sure that the pass rate is high, and not necessarily by raising standards but lowering them to catch more passes, and by diversifying their courses to catch more students. None of this can be laid at the feet of the students themselves.

If parents resent helping their kids out then I'm sure they let the little tikes know eh?

The trouble with old people these days is that they have no self-respect, expecting to live in the hotel of son daughter, supported by the bank of son and daughter blah blah blah.....

[Brian Peacock]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

The Hotel Mamapapa chain is doing a roaring trade at the moment because there's little spare capacity in housing stock and wage growth has fallen well below prices.

Parents 'get them into uni' by paying for it. Not like the olden days, when all this was fields, and you had your fees paid by local or central government and a grant to cover your living expenses. Most students are working in the service industry to cover their living costs. In the UK, those who are renting spend on average 60% of their income on housing costs, for the bottom quintile of the renting population that goes up to 80%.

The reason they 'do some Mickey Mouse degree' is because the unis offer them - it's the principles of free market economics applied to education - the more choice you have the freer you are, apparently. But it has meant that the standard of curricula and teaching is driven down, course structures become based around tickbox modules accessed online, lectures become powerpoint presentations and tutorials become emails. When you make an institutions funding dependent on its pass and attendance rates then the institution will do everything to make sure that the pass rate is high, and not necessarily by raising standards but lowering them to catch more passes, and by diversifying their courses to catch more students. None of this can be laid at the feet of the students themselves.

If parents resent helping their kids out then I'm sure they let the little tikes know eh?

The trouble with old people these days is that they have no self-respect, expecting to live in the hotel of son daughter, supported by the bank of son and daughter blah blah blah.....

[Forty Two]

'They' are all like, you know... they they they... they.... they....

Come on man - spit it out. Stop describing what you think 'they' are like and pin down your core thesis - for chrissakes and the love of Dog already.

Everyone here, including you, refers to groups of people, communities, classes, etc., by plural pronouns. The difference is, when you don't like the topic, you start pretending that nobody can be referred to in terms of a group. Then it's "everybody's different" and there is no such thing as a "they." Well, if you'll start doing that in your own posts, and never, ever, refer to a group of people as a whole, then I'll do the same. Until then, I'll refer to the college students I'm talking about as a they. Everybody knows that not every single member of a given group behaves according to the generalization. That doesn't invalidate generalizations. I wish it did -- if it automatically invalidated generalizations, then feminists would have to stop referring to "women" as a cohesive group or class, and progressives would have to stop referring to "marginalized groups" and such. I'd be happy to play by that rule, if everybody else will...

The reality is, we can make generalizations about groups, and that's the backbone of most political and social commentary. So, piss off with the faux obtuseness.

So I guess you're not prepared to pin down your core thesis then?

I did pin down my core thesis. What is it that you don't understand? This OP noted a theory on the college campus issues. Listen to the argument. The thesis is there. He makes a very clear argument. If you listened to it, you should be able to respond as follows: The OP argues X, and I disagree because: __________________ and fill in your response.

You've let us know who you don't like and what you don't like about them, but is there actually a point beyond the 'I really don't like that'?

That has nothing to do with this thread, really. I may have responded to some of your and others diversions, but the thread is about the OP. Address it. Who I do or don't like is beside the point.

What threat do the 'professoriat' (a term coined to denote and encompass the entire teaching body of an institution with deliberate political overtones) actually pose beyond their presumed political incorrectness (in the original sense)?

Did you bother to watch the video? He explains that.

Are they corrupting the young or merely indulging them; are they organised and motivated, and if so to what end; or are they simply to be distrusted and denounced as 'intellectuals' in the politically pejorative sense? C'mon. Throw us a bone.

If you watched the video, you'd see what he was talking about. He refers to several fuses which were burning simultaneously, and which intersected in about 2015. One of them, he says, is "academic trends" (which he refers to as "the professoriat"). He says, the professoriat has leaned left traditionally, for many decades, but then from the early 90s to the late 90s there was what he calls "the big shift" (for which he says they have good data). As the "greatest generation" (referring to the world war 2 generation) retired, and in the 90s the academia/professoriat goes from "leaning" left to "very solidly left." So, you lose intellectual diversity there, and we saw a wave of faculty driven PC measures. He then refers to the ideological shift of ideas to a newer notion of "power/privilege/oppression" (which I've referenced before as the adoption of post-modernism nested in a bed of Marxist thought) -- in the video they refer to the post-modernist Michel Foucoult and the power/privilege/oppression theory to describe that same fuse. The post-modernist views of guys like Foucoult are very influential in modern activisim and modern academia/the professoriat. It's the ironic bedrock of their ideologies, which involves eschewing any concept of truth, any fixed human nature, any universal concept of justice or rights, and an adoption of social constructionism. Another fuse referenced is the psychological angle - which is where the ideas of microaggression and victimhood from a psychological standpoint originated. These fuses came together in the last few years.

Haidt then goes on to suggest that the "big surprise" what people did not expect- was that it was the students demanding the regulation, and not just the faculty, professoriat and academic administrations. We'd expect the "State" (the college, administration, professoriat, by analogy) to want to exert the control, but here we have the students leading the charge - give us safety -- give us protection -- shut them down - shut them up. So the argument is that the various fuses Haidt discussed met and the marked change seems to him to be that the students themselves are now demanding the rules the would once have fought against...in the past, the students wanted to break free of the rules and the establishment and the State, etc., but now they want rules to stop him or her from saying X, Y or Z.

There is more in the video, as he dovetails in the rise of social media and the Facebook generation -- he points out that the first kids who grew up in the age of Facebook and such just graduated college in and around 2015 (say, they were 10 years old in 2006, they're 20 in 2016), and these students have been very different than the previous generation before, who did not grow up in the immediacy of social media, with the immediate mob mentality.

About 5 minutes in, Haidt makes the claim that those kids of the Facebook era, have been raised in a moral world that has different pillars than those people born in, say, the 1960s. The children born in the 1960s were raised with the idea that liberty and freedom were very important concepts, with the idea that there was the "free world" (First World) and the "not free world" (Second World). Haidt points out that the data he has seen shows "diversity and inclusion" concepts on the rise in terms of what people think is important, and liberty and freedom are secondary to that, and diversity really means a few different groups, not overall ideological diversity, diversity of opinion, etc.

It's interesting that at about 6.5 minutes in, Haidt acknowledges pretty much what Scot Dutchy pointed out. Scot Dutchy said that this stuff doesn't happen on Continental European campuses, like in the Netherlands, because the universities are not isolated campuses, separate from the community or city at large. And, Haidt makes exactly that point - he says we do not see this at colleges with lots of commuter students, colleges set in part of the general community/city, because there are far more influences from the society at large. Where this is most happening is at the big residential university campuses where a self-contained moral universe emerges.

This is nothing to do with "corrupting the youth" allegations, and had you paid the slightest attention to the arguments Haidt was actually presenting, you would have known that.

Generalisation are, well, general in nature. They're the broadest of broad categories by definition, but you're generalising from the particular, a form of fallacy which cites a novel example of something-or-other and then applies it as a typifying generality. That's why I picked up on your incessant theys and thems.

I'm not doing any of that. What particular have I generalized from?

[pErvinalia]

@42 your argument hinges on the premise that more freedom than what they had in the 60's is a good thing. That may be so, but you have to first show that your premises are true for your conclusion to be true.

[pErvinalia]

Nothing new under the sun. Every generation think they are different to the last. Now even more so. Not a backbone to be found anywhere now. Living in the hotel of mum and dad. Supported by the bank of mum and dad. Scared shit to go into the world (it is a big bad place says mum). They want mum and dad to get them into uni so that they can do some mickey mouse degree and then complain they cant get 'work' which of course is an anathema to them. Bugger the exams.

Fairly clueless comment. The cost of housing and education are more relatively now than then, and jobs are more scarce.

Clueless comment? How many kids over 30 are still living with mum and dad? How many have degrees which are completely useless in today's markets. A degree in knitting will not get you far. We dont have proper tradesmen any more and people wonder why so many immigrants are coming in? Well a clue; proper trades are still being taught in plenty of countries
Dont make me weep please. The poor wee things cant survive without mum and dad. Well I did as did million others. More idiots are getting into places of education where they dont belong thanks to mum and dad. Just because your child/idiot went to an expensive school does not give him a god given right to a six figure salary.

That singularly failed to address anything I said. Cost of living is way higher now than it was then, and jobs are more scarce overall.

[Brian Peacock]

@42. The 'professoriat' is a generalisation from the particular - the premise being that entire teaching bodies of universities are a single entity which the cited examples merely typify. Are your views fully and completely inline with those expressed the video? Is it speaking for you to such an extent that you need say nothing more about your own views on this?

[Scot Dutchy]

The trouble with old people these days is that they have no self-respect, expecting to live in the hotel of son daughter, supported by the bank of son and daughter blah blah blah.....

Well I dont definitely fall into that category.

[Forty Two]

@42 your argument hinges on the premise that more freedom than what they had in the 60's is a good thing. That may be so, but you have to first show that your premises are true for your conclusion to be true.

First, we're talking about Haidt's argument. Second, sure, that is part of the analysis. As Haidt pointed out, and I wrote this explicitly in my last post, the children born in the 60s prioritized liberty and freedom very highly, whereas today the data he refers to without citing in the video says (he says) that diversity and inclusion are now skyrocketing high, and liberty and freedom are low. Obviously, if a person is of the view that liberty and freedom are not quite as good as their proponents would argue, then one's concern over censorship or limits on freedom and liberty goes down.

Lastly, it is not a "premise" of the argument in the OP is a good thing. What he's doing is offering an explanation for how we got to where we are - why are the college kids behaving as they are, which seems to him different than previous generations. Why are they demanding less freedom and liberty than before? That's what he's getting at - that explanation is not "premised" on liberty and freedom being good or bad. That's a value judgment. One can agree with everything Haidt says in his argument and conclude that it's a GOOD thing that students are behaving that way because they're right about the value of diversity/inclusion and right about devaluing liberty and freedom. That's certainly a relevant discussion, but it isn't a premise of what Haidt is saying about his "fuses" which aligned to create the campus zeitgeist we see today.

[Forty Two]

@42. The 'professoriat' is a generalisation from the particular - the premise being that entire teaching bodies of universities are a single entity which the cited examples merely typify. Are your views fully and completely inline with those expressed the video? Is it speaking for you to such an extent that you need say nothing more about your own views on this?

Negative - Haidt explains this, and I even explained it in trying to write out what Haidt said in the video. By "professoriat" he explained that he is referring to the academic leanings on campus, which he explained went from overall "leaning left" to "very hard left" or overwhelmingly left. He did not say that "entire teaching bodies of universities" are all of the same viewpoints. He is talking about the overall dominance of the leftist thought. Saying "the professors lean left" doesn't mean they all lean left. It means that overall leftist thought prevails. when one says that there has been a shift from leaning left to very hard left, then the dominance is much greater. There would still be a minority of right or moderate views, but the overall is very much dominated by the left.

It's a lot like the tracking of election polls. When someone says that Virginia was leaning democrat, they don't mean the entire population is a single entity and they all believe one way, they are saying the population leans democrat. When they say California is very hard to the democratic side, they still aren't saying everyone is one block - they say that overall the POPULATION is overwhelmingly, largely democrat. There are still some republican voter, but not many. The same goes for the professoriat - Haidt is talking about the prevailing view among the population.

And, I have been having a bear of a time here just getting some of you to focus on what is being discussed in the OP, rather than sharing my own views of it. I posted Haidt's video for comment, and then hardly anyone commented on what Haidt said. it became yet another gang up on 42 thread, where everyone accuses me of various things, and makes it all about my views, when the thread was about an argument presented by a particular person. I still don't know why you have to always make it about me. Why not just say - if you're interested -- what you think about what Haidt said. "I agree with X because..." or "I disagree with X, because...." Maybe there is part of the argument you see merit to, maybe none of it. I don't know.

[pErvinalia]

@42 your argument hinges on the premise that more freedom than what they had in the 60's is a good thing. That may be so, but you have to first show that your premises are true for your conclusion to be true.

First, we're talking about Haidt's argument.

And yours:

However, when you talk about the violent radicals at the time, you make my point. I never said that the radical protesters of the 60s weren't violent. They were. But, when Abbie Hoffman and the gang held violent protests in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention, they were doing so with a different goal in mind. It didn't make it right. But, at least they were acting AGAINST the State, with a view to stopping a war. Today, they act in an effort to get the State to work as their tool, to silence their opposition. Today they demand school administrations and the state enact laws to limit individual freedom.

- http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1702533

Lastly, it is not a "premise" of the argument in the OP is a good thing.

But it is a premise of your argument.

[Forty Two]

@42 your argument hinges on the premise that more freedom than what they had in the 60's is a good thing. That may be so, but you have to first show that your premises are true for your conclusion to be true.

First, we're talking about Haidt's argument.

And yours:

However, when you talk about the violent radicals at the time, you make my point. I never said that the radical protesters of the 60s weren't violent. They were. But, when Abbie Hoffman and the gang held violent protests in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention, they were doing so with a different goal in mind. It didn't make it right. But, at least they were acting AGAINST the State, with a view to stopping a war. Today, they act in an effort to get the State to work as their tool, to silence their opposition. Today they demand school administrations and the state enact laws to limit individual freedom.

- http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1702533

Sure, I've definitely suggested that I see a different character among today's protesters and college students in general. Admitted.

Lastly, it is not a "premise" of the argument in the OP is a good thing.

But it is a premise of your argument.

No, it is a value judgment I make. However, I don't believe it is a "premise" of any argument I made. It's not a premise of the notion that college students today have a different priority or character than they did in the past. I think the facts show that they do have that difference. Whether it's good or bad is a value judgment. That being said, I do give it a negative value judgment, and I do place a positive value judgment on free speech, so to that extent I'll admit the allegation. But, I give it a positive value judgment based on various premises and arguments in its favor. I don't declare it good, and argue from that. I conclude it's good based on the facts and argument (which I'm not restating now, but if you'd like to discuss, again, the merits of freedom of speech and why it is "good" then I would suggest we start a new thread and begin again).

[pErvinalia]

Nah, it's a debate that there will never be a right answer for. It's always going to be a value call. But what a few of us are trying to say is that what is happening now is not functionally any different to what happened for every other generation in the past. It's cultural evolution. Sure, in the case of this minority of a minority of university students, the freedom pendulum has swung the other way.

[Forty Two]

Nah, it's a debate that there will never be a right answer for. It's always going to be a value call. But what a few of us are trying to say is that what is happening now is not functionally any different to what happened for every other generation in the past. It's cultural evolution. Sure, in the case of this minority of a minority of university students, the freedom pendulum has swung the other way.

I understand the argument, and I try to be wary of, the notion of being the old guy wagging his finger at the youth, who have no manners and no etiquette or ethic, etc.

What bothers me is that around 2001, I would have been more with you on this - "every generation thinks the younger generation are a bunch of losers..." - of course. As I said above, A Rebel Without A Cause, which was made in 1954-55, and predates even the Rock n Roll generation, shows that at that time, the trials and tribulation of the disaffected youth were talked about in this way. And, of course, there's Socrates getting convicted for corrupting the young, etc. So, I get it. I'm with you there.

What has gotten me, though, is that I really do see a marked difference. I put myself back in the 1980s - the me of the 1980s, attending college, and I think of something happening like at Yale and the Halloween costume fiasco, and the no-platforming protests of UC Berkeley and the Canadian universities, etc. And, I think of these things as rather bizarre and unthinkable, really, in the university setting. That would never have happened on my campus in the 1980s. The idea that the administration could specify or even "strongly recommend" a halloween costume, and take investigatory action on Halloween costume complaints would have been repugnant even to the most strident left-winger back then. And, "controversial" speakers were common - in fact, preferred. We all know what the milquetoast people have to say -- college is for the obscure, the radical, the reactionary, the unpopular, the scandalous -- test the limits.

Protest in my experience involved trying to achieve something -- stop a war --- stop government overreach and oppression -- until this latest round led by the progressive left, I had not known protests to be against other individuals rights to speak and write - i had never known protests against a professor teaching concepts or ideas in classrooms - I had never seen folks dragged before "diversity response teams" and/or closed ,Star chamber-like Title IX tribunals for publishing articles on political topics....

In short...I do see a characteristic difference today than in the previous generation. I must say that the number of polls or interviews I've seen where students are willing to do away with Freedom of Speech altogether is rather alarming, too.