A common plaint emanating from the right wing is that American colleges and universities are hotbeds of radical left-wing dogma. I have in past times dismissed such accusations as overwrought. Yes, education pushes people leftwards, but that’s merely a reflection of how far out of touch with reality the right is. Yes, some of the people at universities are pretty far to the left, but that’s all part of the natural mix of differing opinions that we expect from an intellectually diverse community.
However, two experiences in the last few months have demonstrated to me that the far left has indeed gained control of some educational institutions. The first comes from a friend of mine whose anonymity I wish to protect; I must therefore be vague in my presentation of the tale. This person is senior professor at a small college, and has taught thousands of students over the decades, is intensely dedicated to their success, and well-loved by the students. Perhaps “kindly old professor” is the best short characterization of this person.
Recently the college brought in a new department chairperson with a political agenda. The chair announced that the department would be henceforth be emphasizing issues of social and racial justice. This agenda is of only secondary applicability to the fundamental role played by the department. Nevertheless, the department chair begain altering course syllabi to reflect this new orientation. In the process, many of the primary goals that we would expect of such a department were pushed aside. In effect, the department is now most correctly termed the “Department of Social and Racial Justice” in lieu of its original function.
My professor friend is certainly not opposed to the importance of social and racial justice; that was a secondary part of the academic program — but it was a subset of a larger program. The problem is that the larger program has been junked in favor of this subset.
The second experience is my own, so I will be provide the specifics. I had been participating in discussions on The Conversation, a website devoted to informed discussion of various scientific and political issues. This website has a high standard of erudition and commentary. Commentators are required to use their real names and standards of civility are strictly enforced. All in all, a great place for serious discussion.
However, some weeks back Senator Elizabeth Warren published the results of her DNA test demonstrating that, contrary to the lies of Mr. Trump, she really does have some Native American ancestry. I was pleased by that finding; it would, I thought, put an end to one little bit on nonsense emanating from Mr. Trump. But no, a new and even more ridiculous bit of nonsense arose, coming from Native Americans who criticized Ms. Warren for announcing the results of her DNA tests. Their complaints made no sense; they had nothing to do with the issue. Instead, they sprang from a knee-jerk opposition to the application of genetics to anything about Native Americans.
Two academics wrote an essay explaining their point of view. Their basic point was that Native Americans don’t believe in genetics as a way of determining who constitutes a member of their tribe. Instead, they rely on a vague notion of kinship that is derived from social relationships, not genetic ones. That in itself is fine with me, but it had nothing whatever to do with Ms. Warren, who made no claims to belonging to any tribe.
But the real surprise came when I posted this comment denigrating the article:
A quote from the original article:
The distinction might seem hypercritical to most, but to the sovereign tribal nations of the United States it’s an important one.It is definitely hypercritical to me. I see no merit in the objections to Ms. Warren’s actions. She had been accused of falsely claiming that she had a Native American genetic component. She provided solid evidence that her statement was correct. The criticisms leveled against her are idiotic.
I vehemently condemn that anti-rationalism expressed in this article and promulgated by some Native American groups. The strategy of sanctifying ignorance is part of a conservative mentality that keeps Native Americans trapped in the culture of the past. I don’t mind people making a conscious decision to live the ancient ways, with their short life expectancies, poor nutrition, wretched living conditions, and lack of education, but I reprehend any person imposing such evil conditions upon children. If Native American children were raised ethically, they would choose the lifestyle of Western Civilization, to which billions of other people the world over aspire.
Much to my surprise, the authors of the article removed my comment. I was astounded; it broke no rules and was certainly civil in spirit and content. The second paragraph voiced some strong opinions, but there was nothing intrinsically objectionable to those statements. I wrote a comment announcing to other readers that my comment had been removed, and stating my objections to that removal. In particular, I accused the moderator of removing the comment because he disagreed with its political content. The author responded by writing that it wasn’t a matter of political disagreement, it was that my comment was guilty of “perpetuating discriminatory content”.
I posted a response, suggesting a proper debate of the issue, but at this point another moderator intervened and pointed out that I should take my complaint to the dispute resolution mechanism that The Conversation had in place. I therefore wrote a brief statement of my protest and requested a correction.
They never responded to my protest. They did not even acknowledge it.
Needless to say, I no longer participate in discussions on The Conversation. I have given up on humanity’s ability to engage in rational discussion. It just isn’t possible. Even academics will twist reality to conform to their political prejudices.
