University of Oregon Division of Equity and Inclusion Hard at Work Protecting Us from Dangerous Tweet Comments

The University of Oregon's Division of Equity and Inclusion is hard at work protecting us from wrong-think. This time, the professor who needs to quit expressing improper thoughts is Bruce Gilley.  The following excerpt is from a press release issued by the Institute for Free Speech:

Portland, OR – A local university professor filed a federal lawsuit on August 11 against an officer in the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion for blocking him from the division’s official Twitter account.

“Apparently, the state’s flagship university has a concept of inclusion that does not include tolerance for differing viewpoints. When a government employee uses a Twitter account for official business, they are legally obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of those who respond,” said Del Kolde, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech.

Oregon resident and Portland State University Professor Bruce Gilley filed the lawsuit after being blocked by the division’s official Twitter account, @UOEquity, for seemingly no reason other than his viewpoint. Gilley had quote-tweeted a message from @UOEquity promoting a “Racism Interrupter” and chimed in with his own: “all men are created equal.” That, apparently, was enough to earn a block from the account’s manager.

“Nothing could better illustrate the problems with diversity ideology than a state university that bans a member of the public for quoting our Declaration of Independence. This lawsuit is necessary to defend our freedom of speech and the rule of law,” said Professor Gilley.

Gilley is no stranger to controversy. He often says what he believes, which is getting to be a scarce commodity in some departments of far too many American universities. Gilley has also fending off slipshod and illiberal attacks upon his balanced discussion of the pros and cons of colonialism (his original article was titled "The Case for Colonialism.”)

Here is Gilley's thesis:

Research that is careful in conceptualizing and measuring controls, that establishes a feasible counterfactual, that includes multiple dimensions of costs and benefits weighted in some justified way, and that adheres to basic epistemic virtues often finds that at least some if not many or most episodes of Western colonialism were a net benefit, as the literature review by Juan and Pierskalla shows. Such works have found evidence for significant social, economic, and political gains under colonialism: expanded education, improved public health, the abolition of slavery, widened employment opportunities, improved administration, the creation of basic infrastructure, female rights, enfranchisement of untouchable or historically excluded communities, fair taxation, access to capital, the generation of historical and cultural knowledge, and national identity formation, to mention just a few dimensions.

I recommend reading Gilley's entire article, but here is his summary of the types of responses he received from highly educated modern day academics:

I find that my critics mostly misread my article, used citations they had not read or understood, failed to adhere to basic social scientific principles, and imposed their own interpretations on data without noting the possibility of alternatives. I note that a failure to adhere to academic standards, the main charge levelled against my paper, is rife among those who have levelled such charges. The use of their critiques to impose professional penalties and punishments on me as a scholar bespeaks the fundamental problems of ideological monoculture and illiberal censorship in academia today. I conclude that the problems of most research on the colonial past since roughly 1960 are so deep-rooted that nothing short of a complete rewriting of colonial history under appropriate scientific conditions will suffice in most cases.

Meanwhile, in a nearby state, a shitstorm ensued after Professor Stuart Regis refused to follow the University of Washington's directive to add a proper land acknowledgement on his computer science class syllabus:

When Professor Stuart Reges challenged the University of Washington’s position on land acknowledgements, administrators punished him, undermining his academic freedom. Today, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Reges sued the university to vindicate his First Amendment right to express his opinion — even if it differs from the party line.

Colleges increasingly promote land acknowledgment statements that recognize indigenous ties to the land on which a college sits. On a list of syllabus “best practices,” UW’s computer science department encourages professors to include such a statement and suggests using language developed by the university’s diversity office “to acknowledge that our campus sits on occupied land.” The fact that the statement could be adapted seemed clear — until Reges wrote one that administrators did not like . . .

On Dec. 8, 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and on Jan. 3, he included a modified version of UW’s example statement in his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor.

Continue ReadingUniversity of Oregon Division of Equity and Inclusion Hard at Work Protecting Us from Dangerous Tweet Comments

Jonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Wokeness is a form of "De-Tot," Decentralized Totalitarianism. Jonathan Haidt discussed this phenomenon with Melissa Chen and Angel Eduardo at FAIR:

So, you know, I, perhaps like many in the audience, have lost money. I was going to say investing in cryptocurrencies, but I'll just say gambling and speculating. And one of the things that's kind of fun about, it's just learning about the blockchain and decentralized finance and realizing that the technology makes it possible to have all kinds of things without anybody in charge.

Many have observed this began in 2015. So I co-founded Heterodox Academy with some other social scientists. Some of our members from Eastern Europe were saying, this is just like what we had in the communist countries: the fear of speaking up the witch trials, the purity spirals.

People ever since then have been using his metaphors like what's happening on campus, what's happening in the world is somehow like the totalitarian countries. But yet, there was no dictator. There was no totalitarian person or authority or office. I think what we have is you might call "De-Tot"  It's decentralized totalitarianism. The difference between totalitarian and a dictator is that a dictator tells you what he wants, and he'll kill you if you don't do it. But totalitarianism means it gets into the totality of your life. "We're going to control how you raise your kids what to think the food you eat, the science, everything, control everything."  That's very hard to do. It's only been tried a few times, certainly the Russians, the Chinese. Only a few countries have been tried to control everything of your life. And in a way this thing that we call wokeness has elements that are totalitarian, but there's no person. There's no authority. So what you have when everybody can record everybody, when everybody can shame everybody, you get human behavior reacting as if you were in a totalitarian country, but yet there's no totalitarian

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt Discusses “De-Tot”: Decentralized Totalitarianism

Why Tavistock Was Shut Down

This is a brand new insider's account about the closing of the British gender-affirming "treatment" center, Tavistock. Seventeen years after there initial complaints, the authorities finally act. How many hundreds of lawsuits are about to be filed for the damage done to vulnerable children at this "treatment" center in furtherance of gender ideology?

By the way, it's been almost a week since it was announced that Tavistock would be shut down because children are being harmed. Despite the significance of this shut-down and the fact that gender ideology is largely to blame, you won't find one word about the sudden closing of Tavistock in the New York Times, NPR, Washington Post or MSNBC.

Here's horrifying insider account of what has been happening at Tavistock for more than a decade. The article, written by a nurse named Sue Evans, was published at the Substack of Bari Weiss, Common Sense.

How Tavistock Came Tumbling Down. I was a nurse working on a team that recklessly prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to kids. I blew the whistle in 2005. Now the government is finally listening.

Continue ReadingWhy Tavistock Was Shut Down

The University Bias Against Working Class Students

At Heterodox Academy, Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of education and history at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that universities "need to pay attention to differences of class as well as of race, ethnicity, and gender."  He was recently interviewed on this point at Heterodox Out Loud.. He also wrote on this topic at the HxA blog. Here is an excerpt:

That’s not the kind of tale my student has heard very often in his classes, which focus heavily upon the inequities and bigotries of America. But there’s one bigotry they almost never address: the one against people like him. Immigrant and working-class students who rise up the economic ladder run counter to the dominant narrative about America at elite institutions like my own. So we tend to omit their stories, even as we admit more students who have lived them.

The irony here should be obvious. Our campaigns to diversify the student body aim to make the country more just, fair, and equitable. We want to help students from less advantaged backgrounds participate more fully in the bounty of America. But after they get to America, we tell them that the whole game is an elaborate hoax and that people with “privilege” always win it.

Let’s be clear: America is a radically unequal nation. As a wide swath of research confirms, it has become harder for poor and working-class people to own homes, access higher education, and increase their real wages. But it is not impossible. Suggesting otherwise denies the “lived experience” of our working-class and first-generation students, to quote a favorite academic buzz phrase. It makes them think that they don’t belong here, even though they do.

But don’t expect to hear much about that at your next faculty seminar about diversity, inclusion, and equity. There’s lots of talk about making less advantaged students feel at home, of course. Yet most of it focuses on material issues — like food insecurity and the cost of books — or on raising awareness about microaggressions and other slights racial and ethnic minorities suffer.

Continue ReadingThe University Bias Against Working Class Students

Banning and Pre-Banning Books

Pamela Paul is fearless in her writing. In her newest NYT article, she discusses the books that aren't: "There’s More Than One Way to Ban a Book." Here's an excerpt:

You can understand why the publishing world gets nervous. Consider what has happened to books that have gotten on the wrong side of illiberal scolds. On Goodreads, for example, vicious campaigns have circulated against authors for inadvertent offenses in novels that haven’t even been published yet. Sometimes the outcry doesn’t take place until after a book is in stores. Last year, a bunny in a children’s picture book got soot on his face by sticking his head into an oven to clean it — and the book was deemed racially insensitive by a single blogger. It was reprinted with the illustration redrawn. All this after the book received rave reviews and a New York Times/New York Public Library Best Illustrated Children’s Book Award.

In another instance, a white academic was denounced for cultural appropriation because trap feminism, the subject of her book “Bad and Boujee,” lay outside her own racial experience. The publisher subsequently withdrew the book. PEN America rightfully denounced the publisher’s decision, noting that it “detracts from public discourse and feeds into a climate where authors, editors and publishers are disincentivized to take risks.”

Books have always contained delicate and challenging material that rubs up against some readers’ sensitivities or deeply held beliefs. But which material upsets which people changes over time; many stories about interracial cooperation that were once hailed for their progressive values (“To Kill a Mockingbird,” “The Help”) are now criticized as “white savior” narratives. Yet these books can still be read, appreciated and debated — not only despite but also because of the offending material. Even if only to better understand where we started and how far we’ve come.

Continue ReadingBanning and Pre-Banning Books