I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me

[Pointedstick]

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/col ... sor-afraid

Things have changed since I started teaching. The vibe is different. I wish there were a less blunt way to put this, but my students sometimes scare me — particularly the liberal ones.

Not, like, in a person-by-person sense, but students in general. The student-teacher dynamic has been reenvisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best.

[...]

I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.  That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either.

[...]

Instead of focusing on the rightness or wrongness (or even acceptability) of the materials we reviewed in class, the complaint would center solely on how my teaching affected the student's emotional state. As I cannot speak to the emotions of my students, I could not mount a defense about the acceptability of my instruction. And if I responded in any way other than apologizing and changing the materials we reviewed in class, professional consequences would likely follow.

I wrote about this fear on my blog, and while the response was mostly positive, some liberals called me paranoid, or expressed doubt about why any teacher would nix the particular texts I listed. I guarantee you that these people do not work in higher education, or if they do they are at least two decades removed from the job search. The academic job market is brutal. Teachers who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty members have no right to due process before being dismissed, and there's a mile-long line of applicants eager to take their place. And as writer and academic Freddie DeBoer writes, they don't even have to be formally fired — they can just not get rehired. In this type of environment, boat-rocking isn't just dangerous, it's suicidal, and so teachers limit their lessons to things they know won't upset anybody.

[...]

The current student-teacher dynamic has been shaped by a large confluence of factors, and perhaps the most important of these is the manner in which cultural studies and social justice writers have comported themselves in popular media. I have a great deal of respect for both of these fields, but their manifestations online, their desire to democratize complex fields of study by making them as digestible as a TGIF sitcom, has led to adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice. The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed's current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.

This new understanding of social justice politics resembles what University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed Jr. calls a politics of personal testimony, in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means through which social issues are understood and discussed. Reed derides this sort of political approach as essentially being a non-politics, a discourse that "is focused much more on taxonomy than politics [which] emphasizes the names by which we should call some strains of inequality [ ... ] over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them." Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, usually through semantics and empty gestures, than with actually working to effect change.

[...]

This sort of misplaced extremism is not confined to Twitter and the comments sections of liberal blogs. It was born in the more extreme and nihilistic corners of academic theory, and its watered-down manifestations on social media have severe real-world implications. In another instance, two female professors of library science publically outed and shamed a male colleague they accused of being creepy at conferences, going so far as to openly celebrate the prospect of ruining his career. I don't doubt that some men are creepy at conferences — they are. And for all I know, this guy might be an A-level creep. But part of the female professors' shtick was the strong insistence that harassment victims should never be asked for proof, that an enunciation of an accusation is all it should ever take to secure a guilty verdict. The identity of the victims overrides the identity of the harasser, and that's all the proof they need.

This is terrifying. No one will ever accept that. And if that becomes a salient part of liberal politics, liberals are going to suffer tremendous electoral defeat.

Read the whole thing.

[Libertarian666]

This is just another nail in the coffin of the "education-industrial complex". 

[dragoncar]

I don't see what liberalness has to do with anything.  Young liberals and conservatives can both complain when they don't get their way.  He doesn't explain this part very well either.

[MachineGhost]

I thought this thoughtcrime censorship in academia had been going on a lot longer than 2009.  Oh wait, now its liberals getting offended, not just conservatives.

[Pointedstick]

I was also struck by the recency, Desert. I graduated from a loony left liberal arts school in 2009 and almost none of this stuff was going on. But looking back, I can see the seeds of it. Back then, most of the hypersensitivity was directed at other students, not the faculty. I tried to avoid as much of the pro-thoughtcrime population as I could.

[MediumTex]

2009 seems like yesterday.

For me, that article highlights how fragile the minds of our young people are.  Even if they can perform complex tasks, they seem to have a sense of entitlement and self-importance that undermines their ability to withstand any kind of mental trauma or adversity.

What colleges need to start offering are classes that help develop mental survival skills, which seems like the exact opposite of what they are actually doing.  Here are a few suggestions for new classes to help address this gap in their course offerings:

"Pre-death penalty rituals in modern western countries"
"The economics of being a single parent with a chronic illness"
"What doesn't kill you usually makes you weaker--A reality check"
"Cannibalism: Always wrong?"
"A fresh look at ritualistic suicide in Samurai culture"

[MachineGhost]

Since this seems to be about Generation Z and maybe the very last dredges of the Millennial generation, I think we are finally witnessing the most negative effects of "always a winner" overparenting and the inadequate pickup of socialization cues (due to using the Internet to communicate).  Essentially, no one is battle-hardened emotionally anymore.

Pathetic.  This is how America will end...  in a fit of PC because everyone is an emotional pussy.  I'm glad I'm not a business manager or teacher and will have to deal with all these incoming immature buffoons.

[dualstow]

Truly frightening.

If the meek shall inherit the earth, what about these self-absorbed self-entitled masses?

[moda0306]

I guess I haven't had much experience with the current 18-22 crowd that you would find in college, for the most part.  But to me, if I had to put a winner on "which generation is the most easily offended and sent off into an emotional rage by simply challenging their thinking a bit," it would have to be Boomers, followed by Gen X.  I am Gen Y.

It seems to me that the longer someone has had a certain view, and the more solidly nostalgic someone is on "the way it was," the more they let the part of their brain that allows things to be questioned hardens.  So this probably has less to do directly with the quality of generations, and more to do with the nature of the aging brain.  I also think it's a thing of not wanting to be questioned/challenged/one-upped by somebody half your age.

For instance, to me, young libertarian-minded folks can much-more-easily see the contradiction of libertarianism that doesn't reject the state outright than older libertarians, who have solidified long-ago that their way of looking at the Constitution, limited government, economics, etc is correct, and everything else be-damned.  They've so solidified their tribal mindset that nothing will change it, and they'll eventually fly off in a fit if you use logic with them for too long (though this also applies to libs and conservatives of older generations).

Ultimately, the cure to all this is an appreciation for the process of critical thinking (I think philosophy should be taught in high school)... College/Academia both helps and hurts this.  It's where I had my first philosophy class, but it's also where you're inundated with a liberal point-of-view that doesn't like when it is questioned.  However, I've found that people that don't go to college are quite often REALLY bad at critical thinking and logic.  They are really good at certain tasks, good with people, and might even make a lot of money, but they are stuck in their tribal mind-sets way too often.  Their only exposure to "liberalism," also, is the caricature that Faux News and conservative talk radio riles up inside of them, and the fact that some liberals DO fit that profile (just as some conservatives fit that caricature).  This isn't a left/right issue, as far as I can tell, and if it's a generational one, to me, boomers are on the losing end of it... though probably just because they're the "curmudgeons" of 2015.

[Pointedstick]

Most college grads--new and old--are stuck in tribal mindsets too. It's just a human thing. Admitting that something about your culture or mindset is wrong is incredibly hard.

[MediumTex]

As you all know, becoming a good writer requires a lot of effort.  In my sophomore year of college I had this young writing instructor from South Africa who was kind of an asshole, but he really pushed us to get better.  I had always been a pretty good writer (or so I thought), so I was a little surprised when he ripped the first few pieces I did for him to shreds.  After talking with him and thinking about his feedback, though, I saw that my writing had lots of room to improve, and I worked very hard to make it better and my later grades in his course improved a lot, but more importantly my writing improved a lot.

As the semester progressed I found out that a group of students were getting together to complain to the department head that this instructor was terrible and he did nothing but criticize the students.  They asked if I wanted to join them.  I declined, but the fact that they responded to adversity the way they did surprised me.  Looking back, getting that level of one on one time and feedback from an instructor in what was essentially English II was really impressive, though he probably lost his job for trying to make us better writers.

As I recall, there were some parents involved as well, and that's one thing I have never understood.  I wouldn't have gotten my parents involved in something like that for anything in the world.  It simply would have never crossed my mind.

[dualstow]

Very interesting, Med-Tex!

cf. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ing-badly/

[Ad Orientem]

Wow. Bumping this on my blog.

[Tyler]

I think it's less of a generational issue and more of an institutional issue.  This kind of destructive behavior is metastasizing in colleges precisely because it has been supported at the administrative level for decades.  That the malignancy is starting to attack the host is the interesting twist.

[moda0306]

Most college grads--new and old--are stuck in tribal mindsets too. It's just a human thing. Admitting that something about your culture or mindset is wrong is incredibly hard.

Unless you don't really have a culture you cling to, because you're only a few years removed from being separated from your parents and thrown into a diverse set of students who all think differently.

I'm not saying college students are better, as they're often immature, but their tribal mindsets usually focus on:

1) Other dudes wanting to drink and get laid
2) Other dudes that like the same sports teams

At least in my experience.  Older people have more "at stake" in their past... more to justify... more people who have wronged them and more who have helped them.  To me, they have the more tribal tendencies... though young folks are more naturally immaturely aggressive, so that makes up for some lack of deep-seated emotional connection to a tribe.

[MediumTex]

Most college grads--new and old--are stuck in tribal mindsets too. It's just a human thing. Admitting that something about your culture or mindset is wrong is incredibly hard.

I think that's one more reason why respect for people with whom you disagree is so, so, so, so important.

Especially when a younger person is more knowledgeable than an older person, I think that the younger person really should go out of his way to be respectful toward the older person.

To me, exchanging ideas with people you disagree with is kind of like two boxers sparring.  You're not trying to hurt the other guy or even win, you're just trying to get a good workout and compare your technique to your opponent's.  If you find yourself getting angry at your sparring partner because his technique is different than yours, then you're probably not doing it right.

[moda0306]

Some of this probably goes hand-in-hand with the far more prevalent nature of questioning teachers' authority.  When my dad was a kid, he said half of his teachers would smack students around a bit, and some were terrifying.

If we are going to question an un-questioned authority, which I'd tend to support, I'd prefer we do it with logic and reason, but it appears emotion and disrespect is weaseling its way in as well.  Ugh.

[MediumTex]

Some of this probably goes hand-in-hand with the far more prevalent nature of questioning teachers' authority.  When my dad was a kid, he said half of his teachers would smack students around a bit, and some were terrifying.

If we are going to question an un-questioned authority, which I'd tend to support, I'd prefer we do it with logic and reason, but it appears emotion and disrespect is weaseling its way in as well.  Ugh.

I had some exceptionally poor teachers during my K-12 years, and I rebelled against the stifling stupidity I encountered in any way that I could, which mostly just created a lot of trouble for me.

I'm sure my annoyance just came across as a rebellious immature troublemaker, but the one thing that teachers would do that absolutely drove me crazy was shut down a discussion based on their authority when what they were saying was patently false.  I always tried to insulate myself from such enforced stupidity, but I always felt bad for my classmates who would glare at me for disrupting class over the trifling matter of whether something was true or not without realizing that what they were doing was the intellectual equivalent of picking up the pitchforks and torches without even knowing why.

I still get frustrated thinking about how much of my K-12 experience turned into the educational equivalent of a kit car project with poorly translated instructions printed on flimsy paper.  Although there were several outstanding teachers who encouraged, motivated and inspired me, there were a many many more who seemed to enjoy finding my intellectual and emotional vulnerabilities and stepping on them Pink Floyd-style.

I don't like to admit it, but if I am honest with myself I probably do owe all of those shit-eating dumbass sloppy excuses for educators a grudging thanks, though, because they made me tougher, more resilient and much more self-reliant.

[moda0306]

Most college grads--new and old--are stuck in tribal mindsets too. It's just a human thing. Admitting that something about your culture or mindset is wrong is incredibly hard.

I think that's one more reason why respect for people with whom you disagree is so, so, so, so important.

Especially when a younger person is more knowledgeable than an older person, I think that the younger person really should go out of his way to be respectful toward the older person.

To me, exchanging ideas with people you disagree with is kind of like two boxers sparring.  You're not trying to hurt the other guy or even win, you're just trying to get a good workout and compare your technique to your opponent's.  If you find yourself getting angry at your sparring partner because his technique is different than yours, then you're probably not doing it right.

I think that is fair. I find myself being much more respectful when debating older folks, or just simply choosing not to.

However, purely objectively, why should it go that direction?  If you're having a debate focused on logical premises and those premises ability to derive a conclusion, while it should stay civil, why should either party stray from logic to politeness, but more-so, why should one party do-so more than the other?

On a gut-feel level, I find disrespect of older folks to be very distasteful.  So I get where you're coming from.  But I hardly think "being rude to old people" is at the core of our problem.  And in a way it's not even being rude at all.  It's the use (or lack their of) of logic and reason, or at least showing an attempt to use it in good faith and consistently.  Rudeness is just a sub-symptom of letting emotions and tribalism rather than reason guide your opinions on an issue.

[MediumTex]

Most college grads--new and old--are stuck in tribal mindsets too. It's just a human thing. Admitting that something about your culture or mindset is wrong is incredibly hard.

I think that's one more reason why respect for people with whom you disagree is so, so, so, so important.

Especially when a younger person is more knowledgeable than an older person, I think that the younger person really should go out of his way to be respectful toward the older person.

To me, exchanging ideas with people you disagree with is kind of like two boxers sparring.  You're not trying to hurt the other guy or even win, you're just trying to get a good workout and compare your technique to your opponent's.  If you find yourself getting angry at your sparring partner because his technique is different than yours, then you're probably not doing it right.

I think that is fair. I find myself being much more respectful when debating older folks, or just simply choosing not to.

However, purely objectively, why should it go that direction?  If you're having a debate focused on logical premises and those premises ability to derive a conclusion, while it should stay civil, why should either party stray from logic to politeness, but more-so, why should one party do-so more than the other?

On a gut-feel level, I find disrespect of older folks to be very distasteful.  So I get where you're coming from.  But I hardly think "being rude to old people" is at the core of our problem.  And in a way it's not even being rude at all.  It's the use (or lack their of) of logic and reason, or at least showing an attempt to use it in good faith and consistently.  Rudeness is just a sub-symptom of letting emotions and tribalism rather than reason guide your opinions on an issue.

I just think that respect is a core principle that makes civilization work, but it has especially useful applications when the young are dealing with the old.

For example, let's say that today's boxing champion is talking about a past champion and starts running him down and challenging him to a fight.  That to me is the worst kind of disrespect because it trivializes everything the former champion ever did just because he can no longer do some of it due to his age.

[WiseOne]

Ironically, while I also see how the university's recent policies treat students as if they are made of glass and do indeed make it scary to deal with students, academic life for faculty and graduate-level students remains as rough and tumble as ever.

Few pre-doctoral students get to venture into this world, but those that do are pretty grown-up and the bit about taking offense at every imagined slight doesn't seem to come up.  Lab meetings, peer review, and questions at talks are all pretty close to MT's boxing analogy, so I guess that scares away those who aren't terribly interested in putting in more than the minimum required effort to graduate.  That, and union rules making it impossible to hire summer students.

[Libertarian666]

I was also struck by the recency, Desert. I graduated from a loony left liberal arts school in 2009 and almost none of this stuff was going on. But looking back, I can see the seeds of it. Back then, most of the hypersensitivity was directed at other students, not the faculty. I tried to avoid as much of the pro-thoughtcrime population as I could.

Wow.  I would have assumed that by 2009, we would have hit a peak in leftist thought in universities.  Way back in the late 80's and early 90's, it was already pretty strong.  I  mean, unless one attended Texas A&M or something.  I remember having a disgruntled ex-CIA guy as a guest speaker in my excellent class on just war theory.  He told us horrifying stories about the terrible things the CIA was doing throughout the world in our names.  I was fairly libertarian at the time, so it wasn't too annoying or surprising.  But my professor loved my essay defending the killing of civilians in just war, so there is that.  I bet that wouldn't happen today.

I don't think we have quite reached "peak leftism" yet. If Hillary is elected, that will probably do it.

[Benko]

I don't think we have quite reached "peak leftism" yet. If Hillary is elected, that will probably do it.

"I don't think we have quite reached "peak leftism" yet"

+1. 

Alcoholics I gather at least sometimes have to hit bottom before they turn around, and I view this the same way. If 4 years of O didn't cure people of this, why would 8 of her?
The unions are still supporting her and immigration ain't going to do anything to help their members.  Yes, perhaps to get more union members.  54% of Jews still support a very anti-Isreal president*, blacks still support a president who wants to import cheap labor (which will hurt them).

Imagine PS (or anyone) telling PS's spanking story from the other thread to a group of lefties.


*http://www.gallup.com/poll/182366/obama ... rrows.aspx

[Libertarian666]

I don't think we have quite reached "peak leftism" yet. If Hillary is elected, that will probably do it.

"I don't think we have quite reached "peak leftism" yet"

+1. 

Alcoholics I gather at least sometimes have to hit bottom before they turn around, and I view this the same way. If 4 years of O didn't cure people of this, why would 8 of her?
The unions are still supporting her and immigration ain't going to do anything to help their members.  Yes, perhaps to get more union members.  54% of Jews still support a very anti-Isreal president*, blacks still support a president who wants to import cheap labor (which will hurt them).

Imagine PS (or anyone) telling PS's spanking story from the other thread to a group of lefties.


*http://www.gallup.com/poll/182366/obama ... rrows.aspx

You're probably right; my timing is usually way too early. I would have thought 4 years of Obama would have been enough for people to want a change.  And maybe they would have, just not that one. :-(

[bedraggled]

THis topic has gone viral as mentioned in the June 19 Economist.