The San Diego Reader, circulation around a hundred thousand, published this letter to the editor in a prominent page four position on May 15, 2012, :
No Insights Wanted
The conference at USD described in “Catfish, Tulsa, Nazis, Jefferson — Civility” (City Lights, May 10) seemed to get no further engaging the issue of Political Civility than the one I attended at UCSD a few weeks earlier. It was sponsored by a consortium of departments, importing guest speakers from top-tier universities in this country and Europe in an attempt to elevate objective science over partisan rhetoric. I understood the liberal bias of this era’s public universities, but had hoped that a conference dedicated to transcending this in political life would achieve such purity, at least in this setting.
While there have been no reports or transcripts of the presentations, I personally got a great deal out of attending the three-day event. Beyond the objective presentations, I discerned a clear subtext of the content that reflected values attributed to the left. Ironically, only a few weeks after the conference, and after I created a website based on it, a major report, “Virulent Incivility, the Academic Challenge,” was released by an association of conservative academics on the liberal bias of the University of California, exactly the issue I had attempted to engage.
I sent a critique of the analysis to their director of communication who invited me to write an article on it, as she concurred with many of my points. But, after many attempts, I was struck by the realization of the same conundrum facing both the USD and the UCSD conferences. I could not express any insights on this issue of partisanship without political self-identification, without which the message is meaningless.
My goal is to push for a space where knowledge is untainted by values, no matter how convinced its academic advocates may be of their worth.
You can read more about the UCSD conference, along with my interactions with the participants, on my personal website: AlRodbell.com.
Al Rodbell
Encinita
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
National Association of Scholars, on left bias in UC system
Working paper on critique of report by a conservative group, National Association of Scholars, NSA. The 87 page pdf page report is at this link, A Crisis of Confidence, The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California, April 2012.
The format of this review will be my comments in italics, before and after excerpted text referenced to PDF pagination.
The introduction sections, covering the purpose and theory of higher education, is consistent with many of my own views expressed elsewhere on this website. It expands on the inherent incompatibility between the goals of the political and the academic arenas. One arena, the political, is to obfuscate and to indoctrinate; while the academic is to inform, and explicate, allowing individuals to seek his or her own personal conclusions. This analysis of the report will describe the main points, and explore whether their prescriptions for change, both explicit as recommendations, and implied in their choice of examples and terminology will achieve this desired result.
A concise summary of the introductory phase is this.
8/87
But all the instincts of radical activists go in the opposite direction. Their natural tendency is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they seek. Accordingly, they don’t look at the past and see accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead a story of bigotry, inequality, and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside. Political radicals are interested in the utopian future and their never-ending attempts to achieve it, not in the cultural past that must be overcome to get them there.
The use of the term "radical activist" is excessively adversarial. It also too narrowly defines the source of their stated problem as emanating from the few who meet this description rather than those who quietly reflect these values and subtly communicate them to students.
--------
Here the report enumerates and describes he many self described Marxists in the CA university system.
29/87
In their constant efforts to expand the frontiers of knowledge, academic thinkers must continually rethink and reevaluate everything as they come to terms with new evidence, new discoveries, and new theories. Sometimes new developments can make them see everything they thought they knew in a different way. All of this sounds a very long way from the temperament of people who cling to an obsolescent political theory and refuse to reevaluate it no matter how badly it turned out to work when subjected to an extensive test in the real world. This is why those extraordinary numbers are so important. To surround oneself with grossly disproportionate numbers of people who share a congenial political standpoint just as that standpoint is decisively failing the test of experience looks very much like a way of insulating oneself from the lessons of experience, and a means of avoiding rethinking, reevaluating, and responding to new developments. But that is tantamount to a refusal to be an academic. An academy that contains substantial numbers of people who do not think and behave as academics must do is in serious trouble.
---------------------
John Stuart Mill, an important nineteenth century thinker widely respected among liberals is cited extensively.
31/87
Mill made another interesting remark about the need of both left and right for each other: “it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.” This remark is the key to the rise of political radicalism to dominance on the campuses. Where there are no right-of-center voices to keep the left healthy, the result is a much more extreme political culture. Political monocultures will inevitably degenerate into incoherence. The noted liberal scholar Cass Sunstein, in a recent article entitled “The Law of Group Polarization,”(24) has gathered together an impressive array of findings in social sychology to document Mill’s point that groups heavily dominated by one political perspective, whether left or right, will over time become increasingly extreme. This implies that one-party departments are ultimately as bad for those that they include as for those that they exclude. As elements of a college campus they will be an intellectual catastrophe.
----------
The following touches on a cogent point, one that I have been exploring myself, as I describe in the comments after this excerpt.
35/87
....... the frank admission by Cary Nelson, the AAUP’s (American Assoc. of University Professors) present leader, that political criteria in hiring “are clearly fair when deciding whether or not to hire a faculty member in the first place. You have a right not to hire someone whose views you consider reprehensible.” It seems safe to assume that for campus activists, “reprehensible” will be anything to the right of center. Once again, the present AAUP violates the clear sense of its own classic statements of principle. Vince Carroll displays a more realistic awareness of the problem posed by an academy where left-of-center faculty “don’t merely dominate the faculty, they essentially are the faculty.” Carroll concludes: “One has to wonder, however, about the self-correcting ability of an academic culture so in-bred that it reflects only half of the political spectrum. What arguments will be overlooked? What lines of inquiry ignored?”
The report hits the nail on the head here in the description of those rejected for an academic career by the current president of the professors organization. He does not say that the applicant's views are wrong, or simplistic, but "reprehensible." The use of this word, this moral loathing is the crux of the distinction between the left bias and that of the right. Reprehensibility is akin to revulsion, a visceral reaction that controls the organism that needs no further rational justification. A paraphrase would be "these people make me sick." It simply demands rejection, and is justified by the perception alone. And so an academic candidate who takes any position that could impede the goals of minorities is not to be evaluated, his position more carefully considered because it goes against the consensus, but to be condemned prima face. This may be an effective long term political strategy, but it is antithetical to the essential values of a university.
----------------
Next is a long list of book assignments from various departments across the UC campuses, with the following conclusion
56/87
We can generalize about all of these choices: they are all political; they are all written from the same radical perspective; they all concern the same small group of endlessly-repeated politically correct themes; no opposing points of view that could spark realistic debate are ever offered; and they have emotional appeal but not the intellectual complexity of an academic treatment. None require of the student what is often called “deep reading” – reading that requires continuous thought and processing of complex ideas, as opposed to the rapid absorption of a single message that continues unchanged throughout the book. This is a sad loss of an opportunity to introduce the students to ideas and writing that are complex enough to challenge them, ideas that they will not already find in ordinary, everyday politics. Once more, ideology crowds out education.
------------
Next, is the section that begins to undermine the conclusions of the observations and descriptions of the bias that the report documents.
52/87
An illustrative example is a teach-in that took place on April 24, 2006 at UC Santa Cruz. The title of the event was “The War on Terror,” but it was largely about the war in Iraq. As the publicity for the event announced, an extraordinary number of campus agencies sponsored the event: Major funding for the teach-in has been provided by the Offices of the Chancellor, Executive Vice Chancellor, and Student Affairs, with additional contributions from the Anthropology Department, Center for Cultural Studies, Center for Justice, Tolerance and Community (CJTC), College Nine, College...
That level of institutional funding could only be justified if this were an educational event, rather than an anti-war rally. Any academic teacher knows what an educational event on the war in Iraq would look like. It would start with an exposition of the case for the war, and follow that with an exposition of the case against the war. To ensure a first-rate educational event, the organizer would seek out speakers who could be relied on to make the best possible cases for and against. Following these initial presentations would be a series of
speakers commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the two cases, after which audience questions to the speakers would be invited. Done well, this would make a splendid contribution to
a deeper understanding of the subject.
This section is deeply problematic. There was no "exposition of the case for the war" for a cogent reason, if it exists it is not in the public domain. The coalition lead by neo-con Republicans in the administration and endorsed by many Democrats can only be understood by a Realpolitik that is not acknowledged by any respected academic or public figure. The invasion of Iraq was justified as the projection of American power as the hegemon of a post cold war world (see Project for a new American Century). If this were presented, it would have been just another anti war argument, yet it is the only viable explanation.
The NSA writers of this report have an obligation to actually describe what an explanation that supports this war would be. As was known then, and confirmed now, the evidence for existence of WMD was spurious and such information was willfully ignored. The expectation of American control of a "liberated" Iraq was equally unfounded. The harsh reality of our war in Iraq, reasonably anticipated before our entry and confirmed during our occupation and after, is that any explanation of the dynamics of our entry only further condemn the actions of those responsible for it. A balanced argument can not be created unless such an argument actually exists.
While this may not be a justification for university to treat an anti war rally as a teach in, this example is one that shows that some of the described liberal excess is a reaction to the mythologies of the right. It is the inclusion of this part of the analysis, the interplay of conservative and liberal forces that is necessary to complete this picture of the existing academic bias. While this absence does not negate many points of this report, it shows that this is not a comprehensive study of the this vital subject- rather being somewhat of a polemic, exactly the main accusation against the liberals who control the current academic agenda.
-------------
The report makes an extensive argument that the current politicized environment, because it elevates indoctrination over academics, is most harmful to current minorities:
72/87
Arum and Roksa give us further evidence of the damage that is being done here. We know that African-American students enter higher education with lower Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) scores than their white counterparts. But Arum and Roksa found that “During their first two years of college, white students gained 41 CLA points, while African-American students gained only 7 points…. As a consequence, the gap between African-American and white students increased over time.”72 Initial inequalities ought to have moderated but instead have been exacerbated. This is a horrifying result, one that should cause everyone to think hard about how it has happened.
Another dimension to this problem emerges when Arum and Roksa report that while students on average study only 12 hours per week outside of their classes, African-Americans study even less – two hours less. They also take courses with more than minimal writing requirements at a rate one third less than white students. Why should a group that knows it has to catch up put in less, not more effort than others, and take less, not more demanding classes? There may be many factors at work, but one is clear: they are targets of the demoralizing message of politically radical professors.73
-----------------
This segment refuses to address other possible causes of the lack of increase in performance over time in college by African American students. Yes, the other causes are more difficult to deal with, implicating deep intractable cultural or intellectual attributes, the discussion of which is eschewed by liberals--- and as reflected here, also by conservatives. This is a fundamental conundrum for American universities, one that has been a contentious issue from the earliest post WWII period when the very concept of race, including its academic study was first conflated with "racism" and continues to this very day. This report by esteemed scholars of the right, seems to prefer to use this divisive subject as a political football to castigate their political opponents, rather than honestly discussing the issue, as their ideal true scholars are charged with doing.
------------------
There are other segments when this often realistic analysis is flawed, as shown here:
That faction has been able to remake the campus history curriculum in a way designed to instill in students its own low opinion of the country. Any reasonably thorough survey of American history and institutions would turn up events that do not represent our nation’s finest hour, but it would also find much that is admirable and even inspiring. A survey that ignored the negative factors in the nation’s history would be unrealistic, but it is just as unrealistic to ignore what is positive.
Historiography does not do "admirable" or "inspiring" as historical data, but perhaps as the perception that is fostered by nationalist movements. This is the stuff of propaganda, no better when celebratory than cynical. The writers of this article betray their own bias with snippets such as this.
There have been two prongs to the strategy to conceal anything that might be encouraging. First, required survey courses in U.S. history have been largely abolished; and second, the optional courses that remain have concentrated on those aspects of national history that promote the radical activists’ negative attitudes. In this way much of the basic knowledge of how U.S. history unfolded is withheld, for the simple reason that it would make the country look better than radical activists want it to look.
Here the writers of this report have veered into "The Simpsons" territory, when they did a parody of such an assistant professor of history who wowed over Marge for a while, until he was uncovered as the simpleton that he was, as understood by the program's vast audience. In this eighty seven pages of decrying poor writing, the group responsible for this report missed that one element of effective polemic is restraint, that overstating an argument will destroy it. I won't let that happen in this case, as there are legitimate points being made. But to advocated cheerleading as in this section, weakens the argument for correcting the actual problems of lack of intellectual stimulation caused by a predominance of a single partisan view.
In spite of the serious flaws, and maybe because of them, this is an important report. Its solutions, more imposition of rules by the California State Regents over hiring and subject matter appears unrealistic, and given the subtext of the report, if successful, would only lead to a swing of the pendulum towards another bias. The challenge of this report was to illustrate an ideal of non partisan education, which seemed to be attempted for a while by focusing on objective research.. I heard later the voice of another contingent of this committee formed document trying to make points that, by being politically colored, damaged the central argument.
Yet, to ignore the central premises of the first part of the report, the pernicious effect of a university with a social agenda advanced by a dominant culture, from administrators to department heads to professors, would be an over reaction to its defects. Attention should be paid. There need be more rigor, more dedication to values that, while not exemplified in this report, were well articulated. It should be the beginning of a serious dialog.
-------------------
-------------------
The criticism and response of this report is emblematic of the culture clash that is reflected throughout our society, the political dialogue that determines elections that change our legal climate as well as what happens ion our universities. I will be writing more on this issue, including my contacts with the group, NAS, that wrote it and the responses from the U.C.
The following is an essay that describes why I take a personal interest in this issue.
The introduction sections, covering the purpose and theory of higher education, is consistent with many of my own views expressed elsewhere on this website. It expands on the inherent incompatibility between the goals of the political and the academic arenas. One arena, the political, is to obfuscate and to indoctrinate; while the academic is to inform, and explicate, allowing individuals to seek his or her own personal conclusions. This analysis of the report will describe the main points, and explore whether their prescriptions for change, both explicit as recommendations, and implied in their choice of examples and terminology will achieve this desired result.
A concise summary of the introductory phase is this.
8/87
But all the instincts of radical activists go in the opposite direction. Their natural tendency is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they seek. Accordingly, they don’t look at the past and see accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead a story of bigotry, inequality, and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside. Political radicals are interested in the utopian future and their never-ending attempts to achieve it, not in the cultural past that must be overcome to get them there.
The use of the term "radical activist" is excessively adversarial. It also too narrowly defines the source of their stated problem as emanating from the few who meet this description rather than those who quietly reflect these values and subtly communicate them to students.
--------
Here the report enumerates and describes he many self described Marxists in the CA university system.
29/87
In their constant efforts to expand the frontiers of knowledge, academic thinkers must continually rethink and reevaluate everything as they come to terms with new evidence, new discoveries, and new theories. Sometimes new developments can make them see everything they thought they knew in a different way. All of this sounds a very long way from the temperament of people who cling to an obsolescent political theory and refuse to reevaluate it no matter how badly it turned out to work when subjected to an extensive test in the real world. This is why those extraordinary numbers are so important. To surround oneself with grossly disproportionate numbers of people who share a congenial political standpoint just as that standpoint is decisively failing the test of experience looks very much like a way of insulating oneself from the lessons of experience, and a means of avoiding rethinking, reevaluating, and responding to new developments. But that is tantamount to a refusal to be an academic. An academy that contains substantial numbers of people who do not think and behave as academics must do is in serious trouble.
---------------------
John Stuart Mill, an important nineteenth century thinker widely respected among liberals is cited extensively.
31/87
Mill made another interesting remark about the need of both left and right for each other: “it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.” This remark is the key to the rise of political radicalism to dominance on the campuses. Where there are no right-of-center voices to keep the left healthy, the result is a much more extreme political culture. Political monocultures will inevitably degenerate into incoherence. The noted liberal scholar Cass Sunstein, in a recent article entitled “The Law of Group Polarization,”(24) has gathered together an impressive array of findings in social sychology to document Mill’s point that groups heavily dominated by one political perspective, whether left or right, will over time become increasingly extreme. This implies that one-party departments are ultimately as bad for those that they include as for those that they exclude. As elements of a college campus they will be an intellectual catastrophe.
----------
The following touches on a cogent point, one that I have been exploring myself, as I describe in the comments after this excerpt.
35/87
....... the frank admission by Cary Nelson, the AAUP’s (American Assoc. of University Professors) present leader, that political criteria in hiring “are clearly fair when deciding whether or not to hire a faculty member in the first place. You have a right not to hire someone whose views you consider reprehensible.” It seems safe to assume that for campus activists, “reprehensible” will be anything to the right of center. Once again, the present AAUP violates the clear sense of its own classic statements of principle. Vince Carroll displays a more realistic awareness of the problem posed by an academy where left-of-center faculty “don’t merely dominate the faculty, they essentially are the faculty.” Carroll concludes: “One has to wonder, however, about the self-correcting ability of an academic culture so in-bred that it reflects only half of the political spectrum. What arguments will be overlooked? What lines of inquiry ignored?”
The report hits the nail on the head here in the description of those rejected for an academic career by the current president of the professors organization. He does not say that the applicant's views are wrong, or simplistic, but "reprehensible." The use of this word, this moral loathing is the crux of the distinction between the left bias and that of the right. Reprehensibility is akin to revulsion, a visceral reaction that controls the organism that needs no further rational justification. A paraphrase would be "these people make me sick." It simply demands rejection, and is justified by the perception alone. And so an academic candidate who takes any position that could impede the goals of minorities is not to be evaluated, his position more carefully considered because it goes against the consensus, but to be condemned prima face. This may be an effective long term political strategy, but it is antithetical to the essential values of a university.
----------------
Next is a long list of book assignments from various departments across the UC campuses, with the following conclusion
56/87
We can generalize about all of these choices: they are all political; they are all written from the same radical perspective; they all concern the same small group of endlessly-repeated politically correct themes; no opposing points of view that could spark realistic debate are ever offered; and they have emotional appeal but not the intellectual complexity of an academic treatment. None require of the student what is often called “deep reading” – reading that requires continuous thought and processing of complex ideas, as opposed to the rapid absorption of a single message that continues unchanged throughout the book. This is a sad loss of an opportunity to introduce the students to ideas and writing that are complex enough to challenge them, ideas that they will not already find in ordinary, everyday politics. Once more, ideology crowds out education.
------------
Next, is the section that begins to undermine the conclusions of the observations and descriptions of the bias that the report documents.
52/87
An illustrative example is a teach-in that took place on April 24, 2006 at UC Santa Cruz. The title of the event was “The War on Terror,” but it was largely about the war in Iraq. As the publicity for the event announced, an extraordinary number of campus agencies sponsored the event: Major funding for the teach-in has been provided by the Offices of the Chancellor, Executive Vice Chancellor, and Student Affairs, with additional contributions from the Anthropology Department, Center for Cultural Studies, Center for Justice, Tolerance and Community (CJTC), College Nine, College...
That level of institutional funding could only be justified if this were an educational event, rather than an anti-war rally. Any academic teacher knows what an educational event on the war in Iraq would look like. It would start with an exposition of the case for the war, and follow that with an exposition of the case against the war. To ensure a first-rate educational event, the organizer would seek out speakers who could be relied on to make the best possible cases for and against. Following these initial presentations would be a series of
speakers commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the two cases, after which audience questions to the speakers would be invited. Done well, this would make a splendid contribution to
a deeper understanding of the subject.
This section is deeply problematic. There was no "exposition of the case for the war" for a cogent reason, if it exists it is not in the public domain. The coalition lead by neo-con Republicans in the administration and endorsed by many Democrats can only be understood by a Realpolitik that is not acknowledged by any respected academic or public figure. The invasion of Iraq was justified as the projection of American power as the hegemon of a post cold war world (see Project for a new American Century). If this were presented, it would have been just another anti war argument, yet it is the only viable explanation.
The NSA writers of this report have an obligation to actually describe what an explanation that supports this war would be. As was known then, and confirmed now, the evidence for existence of WMD was spurious and such information was willfully ignored. The expectation of American control of a "liberated" Iraq was equally unfounded. The harsh reality of our war in Iraq, reasonably anticipated before our entry and confirmed during our occupation and after, is that any explanation of the dynamics of our entry only further condemn the actions of those responsible for it. A balanced argument can not be created unless such an argument actually exists.
While this may not be a justification for university to treat an anti war rally as a teach in, this example is one that shows that some of the described liberal excess is a reaction to the mythologies of the right. It is the inclusion of this part of the analysis, the interplay of conservative and liberal forces that is necessary to complete this picture of the existing academic bias. While this absence does not negate many points of this report, it shows that this is not a comprehensive study of the this vital subject- rather being somewhat of a polemic, exactly the main accusation against the liberals who control the current academic agenda.
-------------
The report makes an extensive argument that the current politicized environment, because it elevates indoctrination over academics, is most harmful to current minorities:
72/87
Arum and Roksa give us further evidence of the damage that is being done here. We know that African-American students enter higher education with lower Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) scores than their white counterparts. But Arum and Roksa found that “During their first two years of college, white students gained 41 CLA points, while African-American students gained only 7 points…. As a consequence, the gap between African-American and white students increased over time.”72 Initial inequalities ought to have moderated but instead have been exacerbated. This is a horrifying result, one that should cause everyone to think hard about how it has happened.
Another dimension to this problem emerges when Arum and Roksa report that while students on average study only 12 hours per week outside of their classes, African-Americans study even less – two hours less. They also take courses with more than minimal writing requirements at a rate one third less than white students. Why should a group that knows it has to catch up put in less, not more effort than others, and take less, not more demanding classes? There may be many factors at work, but one is clear: they are targets of the demoralizing message of politically radical professors.73
-----------------
This segment refuses to address other possible causes of the lack of increase in performance over time in college by African American students. Yes, the other causes are more difficult to deal with, implicating deep intractable cultural or intellectual attributes, the discussion of which is eschewed by liberals--- and as reflected here, also by conservatives. This is a fundamental conundrum for American universities, one that has been a contentious issue from the earliest post WWII period when the very concept of race, including its academic study was first conflated with "racism" and continues to this very day. This report by esteemed scholars of the right, seems to prefer to use this divisive subject as a political football to castigate their political opponents, rather than honestly discussing the issue, as their ideal true scholars are charged with doing.
------------------
There are other segments when this often realistic analysis is flawed, as shown here:
That faction has been able to remake the campus history curriculum in a way designed to instill in students its own low opinion of the country. Any reasonably thorough survey of American history and institutions would turn up events that do not represent our nation’s finest hour, but it would also find much that is admirable and even inspiring. A survey that ignored the negative factors in the nation’s history would be unrealistic, but it is just as unrealistic to ignore what is positive.
Historiography does not do "admirable" or "inspiring" as historical data, but perhaps as the perception that is fostered by nationalist movements. This is the stuff of propaganda, no better when celebratory than cynical. The writers of this article betray their own bias with snippets such as this.
There have been two prongs to the strategy to conceal anything that might be encouraging. First, required survey courses in U.S. history have been largely abolished; and second, the optional courses that remain have concentrated on those aspects of national history that promote the radical activists’ negative attitudes. In this way much of the basic knowledge of how U.S. history unfolded is withheld, for the simple reason that it would make the country look better than radical activists want it to look.
Here the writers of this report have veered into "The Simpsons" territory, when they did a parody of such an assistant professor of history who wowed over Marge for a while, until he was uncovered as the simpleton that he was, as understood by the program's vast audience. In this eighty seven pages of decrying poor writing, the group responsible for this report missed that one element of effective polemic is restraint, that overstating an argument will destroy it. I won't let that happen in this case, as there are legitimate points being made. But to advocated cheerleading as in this section, weakens the argument for correcting the actual problems of lack of intellectual stimulation caused by a predominance of a single partisan view.
In spite of the serious flaws, and maybe because of them, this is an important report. Its solutions, more imposition of rules by the California State Regents over hiring and subject matter appears unrealistic, and given the subtext of the report, if successful, would only lead to a swing of the pendulum towards another bias. The challenge of this report was to illustrate an ideal of non partisan education, which seemed to be attempted for a while by focusing on objective research.. I heard later the voice of another contingent of this committee formed document trying to make points that, by being politically colored, damaged the central argument.
Yet, to ignore the central premises of the first part of the report, the pernicious effect of a university with a social agenda advanced by a dominant culture, from administrators to department heads to professors, would be an over reaction to its defects. Attention should be paid. There need be more rigor, more dedication to values that, while not exemplified in this report, were well articulated. It should be the beginning of a serious dialog.
-------------------
-------------------
The criticism and response of this report is emblematic of the culture clash that is reflected throughout our society, the political dialogue that determines elections that change our legal climate as well as what happens ion our universities. I will be writing more on this issue, including my contacts with the group, NAS, that wrote it and the responses from the U.C.
The following is an essay that describes why I take a personal interest in this issue.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Epistemic or Moral Communities
"Epistemic" is a word I first heard at this conference. It was used frequently, and sometimes unclearly, and after extensive research found that it relates to knowledge, understanding. This makes little sense as an adjective for "theory" as all theories are about knowledge. This explains my personal motivation for reviewing this conference, and its attempt to address Political Civility. I will attempt to illustrate that this department, and from this sample of distinguished academics in this field, is closer to being something other than their self defined, "epistemic community" but rather a different kind of community that is inherently inimical to the discovery and expansion of knowledge.
This is quoted from this essay by Jonathan Haidt in Science. The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology
A moral community has a set of shared norms about how members ought to behave, combined with means for imposing costs on violators and/or channeling benefits to cooperators. A big step in modeling the evolution of such communities is the extension of reciprocal altruism by “indirect reciprocity” (31) in which virtue pays by improving one's reputation, which elicits later cooperation from others. Reputation is a powerful force for strengthening and enlarging moral communities.
There is no better example of this than an academic discipline or department. While it does not describe "how members ought to behave" it does prescribe the contours, the limits of the values that can be shared among members. Haidt goes on to explore other types of communities, in this case religious.
Whatever the origins of religiosity, nearly all religions have culturally evolved complexes of practices, stories, and norms that work together to suppress the self and connect people to something beyond the self. Newberg (37) found that religious experiences often involve decreased activity in brain areas that maintain maps of the self's boundaries and position, consistent with widespread reports that mystical experiences involve feelings of merging with God or the universe. Studies of ritual, particularly those involving the sort of synchronized motor movements common in religious rites, indicate that such rituals serve to bind participants together in what is often reported to be an ecstatic state of union (38). Recent work on mirror neurons indicates that, whereas such neurons exist in other primates, they are much more numerous in human beings, and they serve to synchronize our feelings and movements with those of others around us (39). Whether people use their mirror neurons to feel another's pain, enjoy a synchronized dance, or bow in unison toward Mecca, it is clear that we are prepared, neurologically, psychologically, and culturally, to link our consciousness, our emotions, and our motor movements with those of other people.
Patriotism could be substituted for religion in the act of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I have studied the jurisprudence of this ritual beginning in 1941 up to the present day's pending appeals. " Studies of ritual, particularly those involving the sort of synchronized motor movements common in religious rites, indicate that such rituals serve to bind participants together in what is often reported to be an ecstatic state of union" Such an example of synchronized motor movements is placing the hand to the heart when this is recited. The concatenation of sounds are meaningless, not only to the five year olds who first repeat the words, but were to the Georgia State legislators, who recently passed a bill threating secession hours after affirming their pledge to "one nation indivisible."
Haidt is right in that the power of emotion, especially when potentiated by group fervor. This has another effect, one that turns the ecstatic state of union into an equally powerful hatred of he who fails to join in the ritual. It is an ugly dynamic to see in a lynch mob, or an old film of the Nuremberg volksprecht or to this eye, the mass recitation of this patriotic ritual in the halls of congress. And when I see a hint of it, albeit for noble causes, in a house of erudition, a sacred hall of unfettered knowledge, where only discovered truth is exalted, it is an atheistic sacrilege that I must resist.
The goal of my effort, perhaps to resonate with a few, is not joy, or even serenity, but quite the opposite, the engagement of diverse ideas, the sharing of experience and insights that has the capacity to transform individuals and societies.
This is quoted from this essay by Jonathan Haidt in Science. The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology
A moral community has a set of shared norms about how members ought to behave, combined with means for imposing costs on violators and/or channeling benefits to cooperators. A big step in modeling the evolution of such communities is the extension of reciprocal altruism by “indirect reciprocity” (31) in which virtue pays by improving one's reputation, which elicits later cooperation from others. Reputation is a powerful force for strengthening and enlarging moral communities.
There is no better example of this than an academic discipline or department. While it does not describe "how members ought to behave" it does prescribe the contours, the limits of the values that can be shared among members. Haidt goes on to explore other types of communities, in this case religious.
Whatever the origins of religiosity, nearly all religions have culturally evolved complexes of practices, stories, and norms that work together to suppress the self and connect people to something beyond the self. Newberg (37) found that religious experiences often involve decreased activity in brain areas that maintain maps of the self's boundaries and position, consistent with widespread reports that mystical experiences involve feelings of merging with God or the universe. Studies of ritual, particularly those involving the sort of synchronized motor movements common in religious rites, indicate that such rituals serve to bind participants together in what is often reported to be an ecstatic state of union (38). Recent work on mirror neurons indicates that, whereas such neurons exist in other primates, they are much more numerous in human beings, and they serve to synchronize our feelings and movements with those of others around us (39). Whether people use their mirror neurons to feel another's pain, enjoy a synchronized dance, or bow in unison toward Mecca, it is clear that we are prepared, neurologically, psychologically, and culturally, to link our consciousness, our emotions, and our motor movements with those of other people.
Patriotism could be substituted for religion in the act of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I have studied the jurisprudence of this ritual beginning in 1941 up to the present day's pending appeals. " Studies of ritual, particularly those involving the sort of synchronized motor movements common in religious rites, indicate that such rituals serve to bind participants together in what is often reported to be an ecstatic state of union" Such an example of synchronized motor movements is placing the hand to the heart when this is recited. The concatenation of sounds are meaningless, not only to the five year olds who first repeat the words, but were to the Georgia State legislators, who recently passed a bill threating secession hours after affirming their pledge to "one nation indivisible."
Haidt is right in that the power of emotion, especially when potentiated by group fervor. This has another effect, one that turns the ecstatic state of union into an equally powerful hatred of he who fails to join in the ritual. It is an ugly dynamic to see in a lynch mob, or an old film of the Nuremberg volksprecht or to this eye, the mass recitation of this patriotic ritual in the halls of congress. And when I see a hint of it, albeit for noble causes, in a house of erudition, a sacred hall of unfettered knowledge, where only discovered truth is exalted, it is an atheistic sacrilege that I must resist.
The goal of my effort, perhaps to resonate with a few, is not joy, or even serenity, but quite the opposite, the engagement of diverse ideas, the sharing of experience and insights that has the capacity to transform individuals and societies.
The Israeli George Zimmerman
April 15, 2012
"A resident from a different ethnic group with a strong desire to belong joins the homeowner association's civil guard in order to protect it from a series of break-ins. Armed with a gun that he has no idea how to use, even his own neighbors are uncomfortable with him lurking around the neighborhood-but don't want to confront him about it. Late one night he sees a group of young people hanging around, one with a defining article of clothing, a hoodie. He first tries to call the police on his cell phone. Then he leaves his car and walks towards him........The scene ends with a neighbor who had been looking out the window collapsing at the sound of a single gunshot"
This description is of a 2008 episode of "Arab Labor," a popular comedic television series in Israel. In this case the shooter was Amjad, an Arab journalist for a Hebrew newspaper who had moved into a Jewish high end condominium development in his attempt to belong; who not only became active in the homeowner's association but took on the challenge of protecting residents from the criminal element.
The worldwide popularity of this series is that it expresses deep truths about human nature, it's genius being to transform the often tragic universal conflicts of diverse ethnicities and races living together into a brilliant comedy. The final gunshot in the episode, unlike the tragedy in Florida, was Amjad's bumbling misfire, long after the kids had walked away when they saw him coming.
Last month I attended a conference at University of California San Diego on Political Civility in America that was organized by history professor Tal Golan, who was brought up in Israel where political incivility takes a different form. There the political divide is also one of territory; the intrapsychic is externalized, frequently going beyond our type of war of words to one with tanks and missiles-and vast carnage. While not part of the conference agenda, the message that I got from that event was the universal aspect of such conflicts, and how it just may be impossible to come to grips with them when focusing on your own country's version. Faced with the intransigence of finding consensual solutions, we join one side or the other, and then we focus our energies to vilify what has become the enemy. In Israel there is no illusion that the two sides can become a single unified nation, and the generations long challenge is how to disengage equitably and peacefully.
The brilliance and the pleasure of "Arab Labor" is that it displays the common humanity of both of these groups that have been in mortal combat for three generations. In the face of this ancient hatred and its current lethal manifestations, we see camaraderie and even love that thrives across this divide. There is a message to be had here, a tool for addressing political conflict in all its forms. Let's make no mistake, the differences that lead to conflict within and among countries are real, are not to be explained or even joked away.
These issues, the division of land in Israel and of wealth in this country, may only be resolvable among those who cannot only argue against each other, but who also can laugh together. There must be a vision of a common humanity that gives the incentive that out of the wars, cultural or material, there can emerge something worth achieving, a community that can rise from the battleground. As the two episodes, one comedic in Jerusalem and the other tragic in Florida illustrate, the issues are universal; and addressing them a vital challenge for us all.
Al Rodbell
Here's the link to the scene that I describe on "Arab Labor"
"A resident from a different ethnic group with a strong desire to belong joins the homeowner association's civil guard in order to protect it from a series of break-ins. Armed with a gun that he has no idea how to use, even his own neighbors are uncomfortable with him lurking around the neighborhood-but don't want to confront him about it. Late one night he sees a group of young people hanging around, one with a defining article of clothing, a hoodie. He first tries to call the police on his cell phone. Then he leaves his car and walks towards him........The scene ends with a neighbor who had been looking out the window collapsing at the sound of a single gunshot"
This description is of a 2008 episode of "Arab Labor," a popular comedic television series in Israel. In this case the shooter was Amjad, an Arab journalist for a Hebrew newspaper who had moved into a Jewish high end condominium development in his attempt to belong; who not only became active in the homeowner's association but took on the challenge of protecting residents from the criminal element.
The worldwide popularity of this series is that it expresses deep truths about human nature, it's genius being to transform the often tragic universal conflicts of diverse ethnicities and races living together into a brilliant comedy. The final gunshot in the episode, unlike the tragedy in Florida, was Amjad's bumbling misfire, long after the kids had walked away when they saw him coming.
Last month I attended a conference at University of California San Diego on Political Civility in America that was organized by history professor Tal Golan, who was brought up in Israel where political incivility takes a different form. There the political divide is also one of territory; the intrapsychic is externalized, frequently going beyond our type of war of words to one with tanks and missiles-and vast carnage. While not part of the conference agenda, the message that I got from that event was the universal aspect of such conflicts, and how it just may be impossible to come to grips with them when focusing on your own country's version. Faced with the intransigence of finding consensual solutions, we join one side or the other, and then we focus our energies to vilify what has become the enemy. In Israel there is no illusion that the two sides can become a single unified nation, and the generations long challenge is how to disengage equitably and peacefully.
The brilliance and the pleasure of "Arab Labor" is that it displays the common humanity of both of these groups that have been in mortal combat for three generations. In the face of this ancient hatred and its current lethal manifestations, we see camaraderie and even love that thrives across this divide. There is a message to be had here, a tool for addressing political conflict in all its forms. Let's make no mistake, the differences that lead to conflict within and among countries are real, are not to be explained or even joked away.
These issues, the division of land in Israel and of wealth in this country, may only be resolvable among those who cannot only argue against each other, but who also can laugh together. There must be a vision of a common humanity that gives the incentive that out of the wars, cultural or material, there can emerge something worth achieving, a community that can rise from the battleground. As the two episodes, one comedic in Jerusalem and the other tragic in Florida illustrate, the issues are universal; and addressing them a vital challenge for us all.
Al Rodbell
Here's the link to the scene that I describe on "Arab Labor"
Thursday, March 22, 2012
The myths and fears underlying partisanship
The United States of 2012 can be viewed as two distinct political cultures that borders on tribalism, each with its own language, myths and fears. In the month since I've started this website, March 2012 has brought the response to a regulation mandating health insurance coverage of contraception, something that has been standard for decades among Catholic owned institutions, depicted as an assault on religion, with one young advocate called a slut, and worse, by the most prominent conservative spokesman, Rush Limbaugh. A few weeks later this was followed by publication of the killing of a young black man by a white person whose garb, a hoodie, has become a symbol of outrage at what the left is certain is a reprise of the lynching of black youth that went unpunished in the South during my own lifetime.
Jonathan Haidt explained it this way in an article in the N.Y. Times.
He starts with the left's "sacred myth"
He contrasts this with conservatives':
To extend on Haidt's thesis, cultural myths are always comprehensive with heroes and villains, and clear visions of what shall befall them if the enemy prevails. President Obama is routinely referred to as a socialist, with the connotation that only conservatives are thwarting his true goal of communism. They visualize the bloody slaughter that did occur after such revolutions in Russia of 1917, Cuba of 1959 or the earlier incarnation in France beginning in 1789. To allow the raising of taxes on the wealthy, no matter how small, is the beginning of confiscation of property, which once allowed in principle ends with the guillotine. So the most erudite pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, proclaim that an Obama second term would have "irreversible" consequences for this country. The probable nominee for the Republican party speaks of "taking out" the President, a word with violent connotations, only appropriate for someone who is being prevented from doing great harm.
What do liberals fear? It's illustrated in this essay that I wrote, Fox Flag Fascism. My particular slippery slope, as echoed by the many agreeing comments on this liberal blog, leads to Nazi Germany of 1938. For me the hand placed over the heart at patriotic occasions is the outstretched arm of obeisance to the symbol of the state, that while never more than a social convention, obtained lethal universal enforcement. So, I see adhering to peer pressure to stand solemnly for the national anthem as not unlike the right views the one percent increase in the tax rate for the wealthy, both a step to unspeakable societal disaster.
Acceptance of these two comprehensive non overlapping partisan myths are not limited to the uneducated. At this moment, the members of the Supreme Court are casting votes on which schemata, which sacred narrative, shall be used to evaluate the Affordable Healthcare Act. Technically they are in the process of "deliberation" but there's no evidence of this, as deliberation means consideration of others views in reaching a conclusion. Other than perhaps a single "swing" justice, what is occurring is a polling of which ideology has a majority of the nine votes, which will determine the fate of this most important domestic policy initiative in decades.
Given that this polarization to the point of tribalism exists from the obscene slurs of talk radio to jurisprudential decisions of the highest court of the land, is it possible that academia can rise above this. My premise is that it not only can, but that it must. From my life experiences, and the UCSD conference that is the focus of this website, I conclude that the perspective of the liberal arts in public universities is of the left, and that this unexamined identification vitiates the capacity to productively pursue their stated academic goals.
My personal challenge is making this case without use of the language of the right, without anger or condemnation. It's a form of non-violent expression that attempts to show rather than force a group to do what is right. The first challenge is engagement, finding a way to get traction to reach the goals that I have the audacity to hope to achieve.
Jonathan Haidt explained it this way in an article in the N.Y. Times.
He starts with the left's "sacred myth"
“Once upon a time, the vast majority” of people suffered in societies that were “unjust, unhealthy, repressive and oppressive.” These societies were “reprehensible because of their deep-rooted inequality, exploitation and irrational traditionalism — all of which made life very unfair, unpleasant and short. But the noble human aspiration for autonomy, equality and prosperity struggled mightily against the forces of misery and oppression and eventually succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist, welfare societies.” Despite our progress, “there is much work to be done to dismantle the powerful vestiges of inequality, exploitation and repression.” This struggle, as Smith put it, “is the one mission truly worth dedicating one’s life to achieving.”
This is a heroic liberation narrative. For the American left, African-Americans, women and other victimized groups are the sacred objects at the center of the story. As liberals circle around these groups, they bond together and gain a sense of righteous common purpose.
He contrasts this with conservatives':
Once upon a time, America was a shining beacon. Then liberals came along and erected an enormous federal bureaucracy that handcuffed the invisible hand of the free market. They subverted our traditional American values and opposed God and faith at every step of the way.” For example, “instead of requiring that people work for a living, they siphoned money from hard-working Americans and gave it to Cadillac-driving drug addicts and welfare queens.” Instead of the “traditional American values of family, fidelity and personal responsibility, they preached promiscuity, premarital sex and the gay lifestyle” and instead of “projecting strength to those who would do evil around the world, they cut military budgets, disrespected our soldiers in uniform and burned our flag.” In response, “Americans decided to take their country back from those who sought to undermine it.”
To extend on Haidt's thesis, cultural myths are always comprehensive with heroes and villains, and clear visions of what shall befall them if the enemy prevails. President Obama is routinely referred to as a socialist, with the connotation that only conservatives are thwarting his true goal of communism. They visualize the bloody slaughter that did occur after such revolutions in Russia of 1917, Cuba of 1959 or the earlier incarnation in France beginning in 1789. To allow the raising of taxes on the wealthy, no matter how small, is the beginning of confiscation of property, which once allowed in principle ends with the guillotine. So the most erudite pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, proclaim that an Obama second term would have "irreversible" consequences for this country. The probable nominee for the Republican party speaks of "taking out" the President, a word with violent connotations, only appropriate for someone who is being prevented from doing great harm.
What do liberals fear? It's illustrated in this essay that I wrote, Fox Flag Fascism. My particular slippery slope, as echoed by the many agreeing comments on this liberal blog, leads to Nazi Germany of 1938. For me the hand placed over the heart at patriotic occasions is the outstretched arm of obeisance to the symbol of the state, that while never more than a social convention, obtained lethal universal enforcement. So, I see adhering to peer pressure to stand solemnly for the national anthem as not unlike the right views the one percent increase in the tax rate for the wealthy, both a step to unspeakable societal disaster.
Acceptance of these two comprehensive non overlapping partisan myths are not limited to the uneducated. At this moment, the members of the Supreme Court are casting votes on which schemata, which sacred narrative, shall be used to evaluate the Affordable Healthcare Act. Technically they are in the process of "deliberation" but there's no evidence of this, as deliberation means consideration of others views in reaching a conclusion. Other than perhaps a single "swing" justice, what is occurring is a polling of which ideology has a majority of the nine votes, which will determine the fate of this most important domestic policy initiative in decades.
Given that this polarization to the point of tribalism exists from the obscene slurs of talk radio to jurisprudential decisions of the highest court of the land, is it possible that academia can rise above this. My premise is that it not only can, but that it must. From my life experiences, and the UCSD conference that is the focus of this website, I conclude that the perspective of the liberal arts in public universities is of the left, and that this unexamined identification vitiates the capacity to productively pursue their stated academic goals.
My personal challenge is making this case without use of the language of the right, without anger or condemnation. It's a form of non-violent expression that attempts to show rather than force a group to do what is right. The first challenge is engagement, finding a way to get traction to reach the goals that I have the audacity to hope to achieve.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Why Education Matters-A Personal Story.
“STUDY: UC EDUCATION IS TOO LEFTIST”
I was taken aback when I caught this headline of the UCSD school paper, "The Guardian," last week. I thought that someone had stolen my thunder, pre-empted the personal project that I had started a few weeks previously after attending a conference entitled "Political Civility and Objective Science." I had come to the same conclusion as the report that was written by the California division of this organization entitled, “A Crisis of Confidence, The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California.” I decided that I would try to connect with the presenters, try to show them one person at a time the errors of their ways, I started my own website, Virulent Partisanship-The Academic Challenge, that has become a chronicle of my effort, including conversations with some of those who spoke at the conference.
I read the eighty seven pages of the study, “A Crisis of Confidence,” with great care, and wrote this extensive review. If this NSA report was sociology, my website is anthropology, participant research with personal observations of individual cases, with generalizations to the larger academic setting. While I had sent a notification that I would be attending as a critical observer to the chair of the first panel, this was not generally known to the presenters of this conference, scholars in the field of history, philosophy and sociology of science from premier institution of this country and Europe.
Education is important to me for several reasons, some admirable and others less so. To the degree that any academic setting deviates from its “ideal,” there is a loss of the vital endeavor of instilling those qualities of mind that many have tried to define. It’s easier to capture this ideal by the deviations from it- indoctrination, socialization, partisanship, credential mongering and the list goes on. “The Crisis of Confidence” report focused on the harm of partisan indoctrination, with one section on African Americans, whom as a group most need what higher education has to offer. This I could identify with, although not being of this race.
I had known more than most the pain of ignorance from a very early age. “What” I asked my Dad, “could that boy have done to have deserved such a terrible punishment.” There he was, his head bobbing between the waves, out there in the cold river alone with no one helping him. My Dad, a kind hearted good natured man who left school at fourteen to join the Army as a baker in WWI, seemed a bit amused, and somewhat frustrated, perhaps because such bad things could happen, and he just repeated, “it’s a boy.” emphasizing the word, and to me the child’s terrible fate. I accepted it as the way the world was. Of course not too much time passed, but too much time for a child, before I figured it out, that the boy that he said was out there was a buoy. I couldn’t hear the difference and my Dad didn’t understand homophones, so how could he explain that this had caused the misunderstanding.
The neighborhood kids played ball on an empty field with the Capitol dome visible in the distance, and many of their parents worked for something that it represented called the government. But, it was a long time before I had an idea what this thing was. I knew what a postman or a baker did, but had no idea what so many people were doing at this Government thing. Not only didn’t my parents have the ability to explain the concept, neither did the families of those working class kids I played with. There were no computers to find answers, we didn’t have an encyclopedia, or any other book in the house.
Knowledge, what schools are charged with providing, was for me what food is to a starving emaciated person. It still is; and so when I feel that it is not being done as well as possible, it is personal, not so much for me anymore, but for others like I was so many years ago. Moral conundrums that confound others, such as whether hard truths should be suppressed in the name of advancing a given social end, no matter on what side of the political spectrum; for me brings up the welling pain of memory of being deprived, of not only not knowing, but having no access to knowledge.
I can’t be angry at my Dad, as he gave me all he had to give. But I can be angry at others, those born into a world of learning who would distort reality to advance their own conception of a better world; whether it’s William Buckley and his successors who would deprive students of the understanding of human behavior that explains religions, or of Stephen J. Gould who would deny the reality of racial differences that are part of the amoral processes of evolution.
There are other painful truths besides those that Buckley, Gould and others still with us today would rather not face. One is the ubiquitous irresistible need to belong to a community, physical or epistemic, be it of Christians or atheists, conservatives or liberals, cosmopolitan or provincial--but to belong. It is an imperative that demolishes reason itself, warning the members away from expressing, and to be safer still, knowing, anything that would damage the needed group identity.
By never belonging, never having the pleasures of camaraderie that is shared among those who have lived this life of knowledge, to be among the professoriate, there are things that I am able to see, to understand, to articulate without the fear of losing an identity that I do not have.
So, I will continue to write on my blog, to express my thoughts, without the pleasures. or the constraints of belonging that I saw among the participants of the UCSD conference. I also recognized the same group dynamics underlying the report of this esteemed group on the liberal mindset of the UC system, Transcending this very human quality of group identity is difficult; the only question is whether it is possible at all.
I was taken aback when I caught this headline of the UCSD school paper, "The Guardian," last week. I thought that someone had stolen my thunder, pre-empted the personal project that I had started a few weeks previously after attending a conference entitled "Political Civility and Objective Science." I had come to the same conclusion as the report that was written by the California division of this organization entitled, “A Crisis of Confidence, The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California.” I decided that I would try to connect with the presenters, try to show them one person at a time the errors of their ways, I started my own website, Virulent Partisanship-The Academic Challenge, that has become a chronicle of my effort, including conversations with some of those who spoke at the conference.
I read the eighty seven pages of the study, “A Crisis of Confidence,” with great care, and wrote this extensive review. If this NSA report was sociology, my website is anthropology, participant research with personal observations of individual cases, with generalizations to the larger academic setting. While I had sent a notification that I would be attending as a critical observer to the chair of the first panel, this was not generally known to the presenters of this conference, scholars in the field of history, philosophy and sociology of science from premier institution of this country and Europe.
Education is important to me for several reasons, some admirable and others less so. To the degree that any academic setting deviates from its “ideal,” there is a loss of the vital endeavor of instilling those qualities of mind that many have tried to define. It’s easier to capture this ideal by the deviations from it- indoctrination, socialization, partisanship, credential mongering and the list goes on. “The Crisis of Confidence” report focused on the harm of partisan indoctrination, with one section on African Americans, whom as a group most need what higher education has to offer. This I could identify with, although not being of this race.
I had known more than most the pain of ignorance from a very early age. “What” I asked my Dad, “could that boy have done to have deserved such a terrible punishment.” There he was, his head bobbing between the waves, out there in the cold river alone with no one helping him. My Dad, a kind hearted good natured man who left school at fourteen to join the Army as a baker in WWI, seemed a bit amused, and somewhat frustrated, perhaps because such bad things could happen, and he just repeated, “it’s a boy.” emphasizing the word, and to me the child’s terrible fate. I accepted it as the way the world was. Of course not too much time passed, but too much time for a child, before I figured it out, that the boy that he said was out there was a buoy. I couldn’t hear the difference and my Dad didn’t understand homophones, so how could he explain that this had caused the misunderstanding.
The neighborhood kids played ball on an empty field with the Capitol dome visible in the distance, and many of their parents worked for something that it represented called the government. But, it was a long time before I had an idea what this thing was. I knew what a postman or a baker did, but had no idea what so many people were doing at this Government thing. Not only didn’t my parents have the ability to explain the concept, neither did the families of those working class kids I played with. There were no computers to find answers, we didn’t have an encyclopedia, or any other book in the house.
Knowledge, what schools are charged with providing, was for me what food is to a starving emaciated person. It still is; and so when I feel that it is not being done as well as possible, it is personal, not so much for me anymore, but for others like I was so many years ago. Moral conundrums that confound others, such as whether hard truths should be suppressed in the name of advancing a given social end, no matter on what side of the political spectrum; for me brings up the welling pain of memory of being deprived, of not only not knowing, but having no access to knowledge.
I can’t be angry at my Dad, as he gave me all he had to give. But I can be angry at others, those born into a world of learning who would distort reality to advance their own conception of a better world; whether it’s William Buckley and his successors who would deprive students of the understanding of human behavior that explains religions, or of Stephen J. Gould who would deny the reality of racial differences that are part of the amoral processes of evolution.
There are other painful truths besides those that Buckley, Gould and others still with us today would rather not face. One is the ubiquitous irresistible need to belong to a community, physical or epistemic, be it of Christians or atheists, conservatives or liberals, cosmopolitan or provincial--but to belong. It is an imperative that demolishes reason itself, warning the members away from expressing, and to be safer still, knowing, anything that would damage the needed group identity.
By never belonging, never having the pleasures of camaraderie that is shared among those who have lived this life of knowledge, to be among the professoriate, there are things that I am able to see, to understand, to articulate without the fear of losing an identity that I do not have.
So, I will continue to write on my blog, to express my thoughts, without the pleasures. or the constraints of belonging that I saw among the participants of the UCSD conference. I also recognized the same group dynamics underlying the report of this esteemed group on the liberal mindset of the UC system, Transcending this very human quality of group identity is difficult; the only question is whether it is possible at all.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
conversations with participants
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)