←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
450 points pseudolus | 4 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sequoia ◴[03 Apr 25 13:52 UTC] No.43569673[source]▶
A lot of Americans support these attacks on universities. Why do people harbour this much animosity towards these institutions? Is there anything they could have done differently in the past decade or two to have broader sympathy now, or is people's ambivalence towards elite universities 100% irrational?
replies(25): >>43569757 #>>43569818 #>>43570019 #>>43570075 #>>43570155 #>>43570204 #>>43570446 #>>43570539 #>>43574782 #>>43574858 #>>43575315 #>>43575659 #>>43576210 #>>43576225 #>>43577611 #>>43577837 #>>43577843 #>>43578372 #>>43578566 #>>43579373 #>>43580638 #>>43581074 #>>43581904 #>>43584634 #>>43585161 #
bell-cot ◴[03 Apr 25 14:28 UTC] No.43570204[source]▶
There's a highly emotional Right-Left culture war going on in America. Many of our "flagship" universities conspicuously sided with the Left - at least on most of the "litmus test" issues. And where universities didn't do that, the Right found it advantageous to talk up the association & outrage anyway.

Any decent History Prof. could have explained to the U's that openly taking one side in long-term cultural wars was not a viable long-term strategy.

(Or, maybe that's why so many universities cut their History Dept's so brutally? Though "just shoot inconvenient messengers" is also not a viable long-term strategy.)

replies(3): >>43576294 #>>43577518 #>>43578316 #
mrtesthah ◴[03 Apr 25 22:35 UTC] No.43576294[source]▶
Billionaires shifted the overton window by pouring money into extreme right-wing media outlets and social media platforms. Every other existing institution now appears "left-wing" by comparison. That's not universities' fault.
replies(2): >>43576417 #>>43577089 #
lmm ◴[03 Apr 25 22:51 UTC] No.43576417[source]▶
Not true, at least on social issues, which is what the universities are getting burned for. Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.
replies(2): >>43576940 #>>43577707 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[04 Apr 25 02:27 UTC] No.43577707[source]▶
> Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

Such as?

replies(1): >>43577902 #
1. jibe ◴[04 Apr 25 02:57 UTC] No.43577902[source]▶
gay marriage?
replies(1): >>43577943 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[04 Apr 25 03:06 UTC] No.43577943[source]▶
Presumably you mean opposition to gay marriage?
replies(1): >>43578067 #
3. jibe ◴[04 Apr 25 03:32 UTC] No.43578067[source]▶
Yes, opposition to gay marriage was so mainstream that even Barack Obama campaigned supporting Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. Even in the Democratic primaries, as late as 2008, being pro gay marriage was seen as a liability.
replies(1): >>43583020 #
4. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[04 Apr 25 14:32 UTC] No.43583020{3}[source]▶
I don't know that it's painted as far right as much as conservative (which it is) and by some as bigoted.

The Overton Window moves. Upper marginal tax rates above 90% were not just a position but the actual law in USA during the 1960s, but now are seen here as "far left". Seatbelt requirements were initially felt to be over-intrusion by government, and are now seen by almost everyone as just common sense. And so on and so forth.