After being in academia for 34 years and finally forced to retire because I was no longer a good fit, I am glad to see things are finally getting better.
"The University of Austin was born in the crucible of debates over academic freedom — and took no shortage of criticism for its mission to build an institution dedicated to smashing the deadening intellectual binary that seems to hold our culture, including our universities, in thrall. "
Excellent expression of what should always be the mission of higher education. Kudos to UATX for forging (or perhaps reforging) a path to such thinking.
In your response to Larry Jameson's hopes for changing the culture at Penn, you countered that "the role of the institution is not simply to amplify but to see that the 'voices within' are polyphonic and that all are committed to the foundational conditions that foster truth-seeking, open inquiry, and civil discourse." While I agree that we certainly hope the inner voices are "all committed to the foundational conditions" you outline, doesn't experience inculcate--and leadership require--a certain wariness in us? Not a pre-emptive impulse to censor, but rather a dispassionate realization that some "voices" seek only to disrupt and destroy. If an institution's culture is sufficiently deep-rooted and shared among its members, even these destructive voices can be heard in a context of open inquiry. Still, they cannot be allowed to create a din in which false equivalency renders all opinions equally valid.
Of course, the need to walk this fine line while balancing competing positives on our shoulders is why those of us who have the privilege of leading in higher education get paid the big bucks.
The Ivy League institutions are rotten from within, from decades of training and then hiring professors and administrators that are radical progressives. Just like with the NYT and WaPo, they will only be reformed when the cancer is excised and a new, pluralistic cohort are running the show.
An environment of intellectual pluralism where opinion is warranted by evidence will not easily be created. Both students and teachers will first have to understand something of the evolution of our agency, of the biological basis of human cognitive abilities (and disabilities). Then they need some familiarity with the history of conflicting styles of thinking, and a particular familiarity with "the battle between the gods and the earth giants." Learn and teach how one style uses metaphysical assumptions, deduction, and either/or notions to cut theory from practice and justify some ideology, and how the other uses abduction in the process of finding better explanations.
I highly recommend that you teach Dewey's instrumentalism and the Toulmin model of argumentation. Basic reading: Steven L. Goldman's "Science Wars" and Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians."
After being in academia for 34 years and finally forced to retire because I was no longer a good fit, I am glad to see things are finally getting better.
My 7th grader will attend UATX in 2030
"The University of Austin was born in the crucible of debates over academic freedom — and took no shortage of criticism for its mission to build an institution dedicated to smashing the deadening intellectual binary that seems to hold our culture, including our universities, in thrall. "
If you're taking flak, you're over the target.
Excellent expression of what should always be the mission of higher education. Kudos to UATX for forging (or perhaps reforging) a path to such thinking.
In your response to Larry Jameson's hopes for changing the culture at Penn, you countered that "the role of the institution is not simply to amplify but to see that the 'voices within' are polyphonic and that all are committed to the foundational conditions that foster truth-seeking, open inquiry, and civil discourse." While I agree that we certainly hope the inner voices are "all committed to the foundational conditions" you outline, doesn't experience inculcate--and leadership require--a certain wariness in us? Not a pre-emptive impulse to censor, but rather a dispassionate realization that some "voices" seek only to disrupt and destroy. If an institution's culture is sufficiently deep-rooted and shared among its members, even these destructive voices can be heard in a context of open inquiry. Still, they cannot be allowed to create a din in which false equivalency renders all opinions equally valid.
Of course, the need to walk this fine line while balancing competing positives on our shoulders is why those of us who have the privilege of leading in higher education get paid the big bucks.
The Ivy League institutions are rotten from within, from decades of training and then hiring professors and administrators that are radical progressives. Just like with the NYT and WaPo, they will only be reformed when the cancer is excised and a new, pluralistic cohort are running the show.
An environment of intellectual pluralism where opinion is warranted by evidence will not easily be created. Both students and teachers will first have to understand something of the evolution of our agency, of the biological basis of human cognitive abilities (and disabilities). Then they need some familiarity with the history of conflicting styles of thinking, and a particular familiarity with "the battle between the gods and the earth giants." Learn and teach how one style uses metaphysical assumptions, deduction, and either/or notions to cut theory from practice and justify some ideology, and how the other uses abduction in the process of finding better explanations.
I highly recommend that you teach Dewey's instrumentalism and the Toulmin model of argumentation. Basic reading: Steven L. Goldman's "Science Wars" and Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians."
it's a beautiful thing
what I experienced in education in 70s and 80s and standing up to the ideological excesses of the last 20 years
Mr. Kanelos, are there any plans for future student housing?