Peter Boghossian: Portland State Censors Censorship Video. What to Expect Now . . .

Portland State University Professor Peter Boghossian has linked to a video that warns of actions by Portland State University to hide a public PSU video in which outrageous actions of censorship are being proposed by employees of PSU, including professors. Those proposed outrageous actions are described here in writing. Here's an excerpt from this written report:

The resolution then makes a series of sleights of hand, describing the sharing and commentary on the course slides in various dark tones, using words like “intimidation.” For example: “When faculty become active in, or even endorse or tacitly support, public campaigns calling for the intimidation of individual colleagues they disagree with, or with an entire faculty they disagree with, they are undermining academic freedom.” Thus, in a single sentence, the resolution imposes a gag order on criticisms of a university’s professors, programs, teaching, and research - - criticism which is itself the heart of academic freedom -- as an abuse of academic freedom. The resolution then affirms the new description of normal criticism as “bullying” and “cynical abuse” stating: “As Faculty, we must be thoughtful in our exercise of academic freedom and guard against its cynical abuse that can take the form of bullying and intimidation.”

The resolution, in redefining normal debate and criticism, as acts of “intimidation” and “bullying”, falls afoul not just of common sense but of constitutional protections and normal workplace employment law, especially for a public university where faculty governance and academic freedom are core principles subject to state laws. Nor does it contemplate the implications the resolution would have if applied to Woke Studies professors who regularly engage in such “intimidation” of their unWoke colleagues.

The resolution was presented for discussion and approval at a Portland State faculty senate meeting of March 1, 2021. Even by the standards of the contemporary academy, the live- streaming faculty senate “debate” on the resolution was notable in making painfully clear the disappearance of viewpoint diversity on campus and the emergence of a new racial justice activism animating taxpayer-funded universities. The meeting was live-streamed and then uploaded for public viewing on YouTube (the relevant half-hour section is from minutes 34:25 to 1:03:25).

PSU has now taken down the above video, so we can no longer see this public meeting of a public university.

Boghossian ends his Tweet by pointing to yesterday's video created by Aaron Kindsvatter, the most recent college professor to blow the whistle on oppressive Woke policies imposed by an American university (University of Vermont).  It is impossible to overlook the similarity of Kindsvatter's complaints to the complaints of Jodi Shaw, who has been forced out of Smith College due to the hostile work environment Shaw experienced at Smith.

Boghossian ends his Tweet thread with this comment: "Soon there will be dozens of these, then hundreds, then thousands."

I agree. The tide is starting to turn.

Continue ReadingPeter Boghossian: Portland State Censors Censorship Video. What to Expect Now . . .

Nervous University of Vermont Professor Speaks Out, Concerned About Critical Race Theory on Campus.

Professor Aaron Kindsvatter created this YouTube video to share his concerns about Woke ideology spreading across campus at the University of Vermont, where he works. He is not convinced that the way to fight racism is with more racism. Making this video was outside of Kindsvatter's comfort zone, as you can see when you watch the video.  The points he is raising are common sense, however, which is why critical race advocates refuse to expose their ideology to public debate.

Have you had enough of this Woke bullshit yet? Where are you going to draw your line? When will you stop giving ground and announce "Enough"? We're starting to turn this ship around. It's time for all kind-hearted thoughtful people to stand up and be counted.

Continue ReadingNervous University of Vermont Professor Speaks Out, Concerned About Critical Race Theory on Campus.

Michelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate

At the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg dishonestly proclaims the following:

But the right, for all its chest-beating about the value of entertaining dangerous notions, is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory. It wants to eradicate them from public institutions. “

Fallacy Number One occurs in Goldberg's first three words. Goldberg knows full well CRT's critics include a large diverse group of people that includes conservatives and moderates, but that is not all. Opponents of CRT also include enormous numbers of people who consider themselves to be liberal on numerous issues. These many liberals fiercely oppose the CRT centerpiece: "fighting racism" by simplistically classifying people by color.  Goldberg and her favorite type of social justice warriors seem not to understand basic psychology and U.S. history. Classifying people by color is so incredibly off-the-mark, inefficient, hurtful and nationally dysfunctional that the U.S. fought an entire Civil War to end it, enacted a comprehensive set of civil rights laws to prosecute it and designated a National Holiday in honor of Martin Luther King in order to move forward with functional and kind-hearted ways to judge each other: by evaluating each others' content of character. The idea of moving past skin color as a way to judge each other was originally a liberal idea and this are now embraced by people across the entire political spectrum.

Fallacy Number Two. Goldbert states that "the right . . . is rarely interested in debating the tenets of critical race theory," citing to Christopher Rufo's statement: "“Critical race theory is a grave threat to the American way of life.”  Goldberg's claim is that critics of Critical Race Theory refuse to debate this issue. She makes this claim despite the fact that Rufo has been vigorously debating CRT on Twitter for the past year.  Further,

Rufo has also presented his views in the Wall Street Journal.  But perhaps Goldberg was referring to another prominent critic of Critical Race Theory, Glenn Loury? If so,

A longer version of Loury's statement is here:

And is Goldberg consciously ignoring this invitation by Coleman Hughes to debate Ibram X. Kendi? 

Or is Michelle Goldberg forgetting another (liberal) critic of CRT, John McWhorter who has shown that Ibram Kendi is incapable of honestly acknowledging McWhorter's precisely articulated critiques of Critical Race Theory?

If this is the kind of debate Goldberg seeks, bring on John McWhorter v. Ibram Kendi!

Goldberg is making her claim about the supposed refusal to debate while CRT's other rock star, Robin DiAngelo is busy grabbing exorbitant speaking fees for private events only.  DiAngelo has avoided any and all debates regarding her defective and destructive ideas.  In 2019, her speaking fees were $10,000-15,000.  And see here. How do I know that she has refused to debate her ideas in a public forum?  I invite you to run the following Google search: "robin diangelo debate."  You will not find any evidence that DiAngelo has ever subjected her ideas to public real-time scrutiny.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMichelle Goldberg’s False Claim that Opponents of Critical Race Theory are Refusing to Debate

Stop Being a Dupe: The Danger of Almost Completely Polarized “News” Media.

What happens when the Venn diagram of "news" coverage by outlets on the political Left and Right have almost no overlap? What happens when our "news" outlets become singularities, where people on the political Left rarely tune into Right-leaning "news" outlets and vice versa?  What happens when consumers of the "news" become too trusting, too obedient, too subservient to the carefully crafted political narratives of their favorite news outlets?  It is at that point that news consumers become dupes. Worse, they become agitated dupes who don't want to hear about their blind spots. People on both the political Left and Right insist that they are well informed merely because they get their "news" from the A, B, C outlets.  In the meantime, John Stuart Mill is spinning in his grave over our collective self-induced sickness.

This is the current state of news media and its most rapacious consumers. Matt Taibbi explains the main danger: the lack of informational course-correction. It is now common that blatant errors of fact take root and live on indefinitely. Here is an excerpt from Taibbi's latest article at TK, where he offers many examples (you will be pummeled with examples beginning at the 6-minute mark of Taibbi's video, below). You can find this article at Matt's Substack website. The title his article is "The Bombhole Era":

This technique of using the next bombshell story to push the last one down a memory-hole — call it Bombholing — needed a polarized audience to work. As surveys by organizations like the Pew Center showed, the different target demographics in Trump’s America increasingly did not communicate with one another. Democrats by 2020 were 91 percent of the New York Times audience and 95 percent of MSNBC’s, while Republicans were 93 percent of Fox viewers. When outlets overreached factually, it was possible, if not likely, that the original target audience would never learn the difference.

This reduced the incentive to be careful. Audiences devoured bombshells even when aware on a subconscious level that they might not hold up to scrutiny. If a story turned out to be incorrect, that was okay. News was now more about underlying narratives audiences felt were true and important. For conservatives, Trump was saving America from a conspiracy of elites. For “liberal” audiences, Trump was trying to assume dictatorial power, and the defenders of democracy were trying to stop him.

A symbiosis developed. Where audiences once punished media companies for mistakes, now they rewarded them for serving up the pure heroin of shaky, first-draft-like blockbusters.

In the above video, Taibbi explains that the "news" media now operates like a Ponzi scheme, promising yet failing to pay off. Here is a quote from the one-minute mark:

You've heard of a Ponzi scheme? You promise guaranteed returns using money from the new suckers to pay off the old ones and nobody ever finds out you are bankrupt all along. The bombshell era is a journalistic ponzi scheme you sell every scandal as the biggest ever you stoke audience expectations with words like "historic," "unprecedented," "treason," "Watergate," "concentration camp," "reichstag" and BOOM! You dismount into dramatic predictions before moving on to the next mania.

Continue ReadingStop Being a Dupe: The Danger of Almost Completely Polarized “News” Media.

Abigail Shrier Discusses the Fact-Checking of her Opinion on White House Transgender Policy

Apparently, one can have a false opinion these days. Abigail Shrier explains in this Tweet Thread.

For the fallout, consider Shrier's additional tweets on this thread, including the following:

Continue ReadingAbigail Shrier Discusses the Fact-Checking of her Opinion on White House Transgender Policy