Matt Taibbi offers a peek into the workings of the brain of a prominent member of the media elite. These people are threatened by the fact that there are some real-life independent journalists who vigorously investigate stories (including stories about the corruption of the media elite) and who zealously follow the facts where they lead. I suspect they are also jealous that these real journalists are doing what these elites only pretend to do and they cannot hide this fraud from their own friends and family. They are jealous to the point of a self-loathing that has bloomed into Nietzschean ressentiment. That's my analysis. Even though I am not a professional psychiatrist, I don't think I'm far off.
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."
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.
A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.
I am thinking of MLK's words, week by week, as I watch the moral rot of Critical Race Theory (CRT) spread through our sense-making institutions: our colleges, media outlets and government bodies. And more recently, we can see this at Amazon and Ebay and in the censorship policies of huge social media corporations that attempt to control what we share with each other.
The sad irony is that what is now passing as a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement is the opposite of the Civil Rights Movement. The Woke movement demands that we judge each other's character and legal rights by irrelevant characteristics, not by the content of our character.
It's time to stand up and publicly declare that this Woke ideology, this Woke religion, is a fraud. Critical Race Theory divides us and spreads suspicion and hatred. Critical Race Theory attacks the central teachings of Martin Luther King.
It might be uncomfortable for you to stand up to state these obvious things publicly, but there are many important reasons to summon the courage to speak up. Who do you want to see when you look in the mirror in the morning? Do you see a person who is courageous or do you see a person who is afraid to speak truth to a misguided mob? Are you willing to sit in silence while that mob smears the teachings of Martin Luther King, a man whose ideas are so treasured that we set aside a national holiday in his honor?
It's a sad day when it is no longer acceptable to publicly ask the same good faith questions that any reasonable person would (and should) ask in private when fascinating new data becomes available on the topic of LGBT. Glenn Greenwald explains exactly why he was interested new Gallop Polling data. The backlash against him for asking his common-sense questions is baffling. Greenwald introduces his video:
To explore the dynamics of this strain of mob conduct, address some of the good faith criticisms from yesterday, examine the substantive questions I believe are raised by this new polling data, and emphasize what I did and did not say about these questions yesterday, I recorded the video below, roughly 40 minutes in length.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
