This is a copy of all of my communications with academic participants of this conference. As of March 31, there has been two responses-removed to separate posts. List begins with most recent with oldest at the end
Sheila Jasanoff
Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies
Harvard Kennedy School
Dear Dr. Jasanoff
When I left the final session of the conference, I promised a review on my website. It's not been easy for reasons I'll describe. But, I've started it here. Virulent Partisanship-The Academic Challenge
I was there as a member of the public, not a part of the academic community. My attempt now is to embrace both the challenges and the advantages of this status of outsider to use this conference as a window on the larger area of STS, or Science Studies. As the head of this department at one of the worlds premier universities, I would not be imposing on your time if I did not believe that my experience is a case study of the very issues you have spent your career investigating, the connection between scientific knowledge and public policy.
What STS studies should find interesting is how it was a single individual who did more research, expended more effort contacting legislators, and wrote more about the excesses of a counterproductive law than any academic institution in California. It should interest you how this university, an aggregation of the skills to confront such excesses, did not engage this issue at all. If interested, here's a summary of my effort.
While I have received a cordial response to my follow ups, including the full transcript of the keynote address, from Dr. Hamlin, other than that there has been no responses from the UCSD faculty members that I have contacted. (copies here) The dynamics of group boundaries, or the "not invented here" effect is well known, yet it is antithetical to the very goal of promulgation of the products of academic research that is your field of study.
This conference was funded by and open to the public, yet other than a blog with no content, there is no follow up, no record of presentations, and no constructive analysis.
Did this assemblage of scholars make inroads in addressing the central issue?
Did they even engage the question- and if not, why?
Was there evidence of tacit partisanship that inherently negates effectively exploring the process of incivility among political groups?
As you know, one byproduct of our current Kulturkamph is that language itself has become identifiers of one's allegiance. If there is an idiom of value free exploration of socio-political issues, it is difficult to locate, There are think tanks whose goal is to end political incivility, but their solution to vanquish the other side. Is the liberal university simply a covert version of such think tanks; and if so does this explain the lack of clout it has over the vital issues of our day?
Thank you for reading, and I would be delighted to correspond with you on this issue.
Regards
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA
------------
Political Civility and Scientific Objectivity-gong forward
Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:34 AM
"Christopher Hamlin" <Christopher.S.Hamlin.1@nd.edu>
Cc:
"noreskes@ucsd.edu" <noreskes@ucsd.edu>, "tgolan@ucsd.edu" <tgolan@ucsd.edu>
Chistopher Hamlin
Copied to Tal Golan and Naomi Oreskes
Professor Hamlin
Many thanks for you simple kind words of appreciation for my participation
I read your speech carefully, and I believe we share many approaches this issue. Conant's 1943 Atlantic article had no inkling of the social revolutions, demands of women and blacks for equality, that would define the last half of the twentieth century. This social revolution is handled poorly by STS studies, as the effect of the left's demanding that science be in the service of ending these inequalities has violated the Mertonian Norms, with unexamined consequences.
This conference was difficult for me, as the pleasure of the intellectual stimulation rekindled the regret that I never completed my doctorate in Social Psychology many years ago. It was being close to the banquet, but not really being an invited guest. So, I have to separate how much of my motivation to make a contribution to this searing issue of hyper partisanship is pure, and not tainted by my trying to affirm my academic chops through the back door.
We do have a defined higher education procedure, that while imparting an approach to mastering complex material, is also a social club, one where culturally liberal values are a unifying element. It came out in subtle, but clear, ways during the conference. This would not be a problem, except for the failure of the conference at even getting near addressing the most pressing challenge of virulent partisanship overshadowing objective science.
My efforts to continue this conversation with Tal and Naomi have not been acknowledged by them. Among scholars, from Karl Mannheim to your own writing, there is an understanding of the value of perceptions that are only available from those outside of the orbit of a given "estate" including academia. There is this multidisciplinary blog* on the subject of the conference, a seeming attempt to continue addressing these goals beyond a given event. Emblematic of the degree of engagement on this issue, you will note it is empty.
Productive engagement on this issue is something I would want to participate in; but to even begin, I would need cooperation by access to the conference presentations such as you provided to me.
Regards
Al Rodbell
* http://humctr.ucsd.edu/polciv/2012/01/
---------------
As of 3/21/12 this is the only response from any of the participants of the conference
RE: Your Keynote Address at UCSD Conference
Monday, March 19, 2012 11:11 AM
From:
"Christopher Hamlin" <Christopher.S.Hamlin.1@nd.edu>
"alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com" <alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com>
Message contains attachments
1 File (1974KB)
Political Civility and Scientific Objectivitya.docx
Enjoyed your participation.
This is pretty close to the delivered text; but I’d appreciate a heads up if you plan to quote anything, and would be happy to explain further. The Conant quotes in the middle were on a handout I used.
C
----------------
Your Keynote Address at UCSD Conference
Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:57 AM
Christopher Hamlin Ph.D
Prof. Hamlin,
I attended the full event, but unfortunately missed your opening speech. If available, I would appreciate reading it, as I plan to write an essay on the conference, focusing on how well it addressed the central challenge of bridging the cultural-political divide.
Regards
Al Rodbell
--------------
The following was prompted by my discovery that Dr. Evans, a sociologist, has done work on the topic of this conference.
Political Civility
Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:01 AM
From:
"Al Rodbell" <alvrdb-brt@yahoo.com>
jhevans@ucsd.edu
:
tgolan@ucsd.edu
John Evans, Ph.D
Department of Sociolgy, UCSD
John,
Where you aware of the conference here two weeks ago, sponsored by the Science Studies department, entitled "Political Civility and Scientific Objectivity." I'm not affiliated with this university, and attended in the hope that it would substantively apply the tools of academic thinking to this critical issue of our country.
Well, if not addressing it, the conference did illustrate that the ubiquity of the cultural divide extends to premier academic institutions such as this one. There was no incivility, as other than me, there was no representation of the right wing culture, and I'm not really representative of that myself, as you could tell if you read this essay that I wrote that reflects our political divide as well as anything, Fox Flag Fascism.
Most of our society is politically bifurcated, as you explore in your work, yet the idea of the university is to transcend this, to be "value free" rather than a multisyllabic incarnation of what is shouted at political rallies.
You should have been at that conference, and stated that this was addressing Political Civility at all, and explained why. I tried . This is too important, perhaps vital, a question not to be seriously engaged by this university.
Regards
Al Rodbell
Note: Dr. Evans was aware of this conference, and was the moderator of one panel
---------------------
Political Civility conference
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:49 AM
"tgolan@ucsd.edu" <tgolan@ucsd.edu>
Cc:
"peter.weingart@uni-bielefeld.de" <peter.weingart@uni-bielefeld.de>
Tal Golan Ph.D
Department of History, UCSD
Tal - As representative of the Science Study consortium.
What a treat for me it was to be at the conference. But, while the content was fascinating, the hard part, the vital challenge of our day which is to restore political dialogue to something other that slinging projectiles of hate wasn't really addressed. I don't know whether you are familiar with the Soledad Mountain Cross controversy, only a few miles away from the UCSD campus, but invisible to the academics who could be examining it as a stark example of politics as warfare. Here's a letter that appeared in the Union Tribune yesterday that is a response to a demand from local congressmen that the White House seek Supreme Court intervention to overturn the existing ruling:
To the Editor:
The two local members of congress must never have read the decision of the ninth circuit court, or they would know that it is not the memorial that they found unconstitutional, but the Christian Cross that towers above it, for reasons consistent with a century of Supreme Court constitutional interpretation.
What they have mandated is not the work of secular warriors against religion, but a ruling that mandates a solution such as that agreed to by the unanimous vote of the Soledad Mountain Memorial Association that would have moved the cross down the hill to a church, where such symbols are appropriate, and to have created a different symbol for our unique diverse country.
It was ready to go, when politicians chose to take advantage of the juicy opportunity to turn such accommodation into the rallying cry of "Save Our Cross." It could be that the people of San Diego are tired of their game, and want a fair resolution that we all can live with.
What I didn't say in my letter is that it wasn't only politicians who were opportunists, but also the very paper that printed the letter, that continues to this day to foment this type of decisiveness. I struggle to make points such as this in many areas of public policy, something I can only do if I avoid becoming a member of any "epistemic community" that inherently must have an undefined political orientation. I tried to do this in my comment to Naomi Oreskes, and in a more extensive follow up email that she has not replied to. Please call this to her attention, with a request that she at the least acknowledge receipt, even if she does not want to engage me on the content. If we had established a dialogue I have a possible parameter driven structured approach to this issue that just may provide a context for civil scientific engagement. My contact with the major scientist whom she opposes is an opportunity for productive dialog that should not go unexplored.
The greatest of institutions are prone to the distortion of group dynamics. The N.Y. Times realized this a decade ago when they established the position of "public editor" to uncover the endemic blindness that was destroying this newspapers international legitimacy. Your department, your university seems to need the same type of intervention, as it would ultimately provide the intellectual robustness to be a more effective player in world events
Regards
Al Rodbell
------------------
My interaction with Professor Naomi Oreskes on her approach to Global Warming as both a popular writer and an academic began with this email sent to her.
http://virulentpartisanship.blogspot.com/2012/03/naomi-oreskes-and-fred-singer.html
It is in a separate section of this website since the Global Warming issue, a crucial one of our times, is illustrative of the academic dynamics I am attempting to explore.
No comments:
Post a Comment