←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
456 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | 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(3): >>43576940 #>>43577707 #>>43593503 #
jhbadger ◴[04 Apr 25 00:06 UTC] No.43576940[source]▶
That's how society progresses though. Before 1865, slavery was mainstream and abolitionists were weird radical crazies. Before 1965, "Jim Crow" laws that said non-whites had to use different bathrooms and drinking fountains were mainstream, and people who opposed them were seen as unreasonable.
replies(1): >>43576990 #
lmm ◴[04 Apr 25 00:16 UTC] No.43576990[source]▶
And back in the 1960s a planned economy was normal and reasonable, and many progressives openly called for normalisation of sex with teenagers. Sometimes shifts in attitudes are progress. Sometimes they're just a random walk. Sometimes the left is right, sometimes the right is.
replies(2): >>43577761 #>>43591003 #
1. jhbadger ◴[05 Apr 25 05:23 UTC] No.43591003[source]▶
I'm not sure either of those are particularly progressive -- the current president seems to be a fan of tariffs, a form of planned economy popular in the 19th century (and condemned by most economists since, who favor free trade). And child brides are a common feature of many right-wing religious groups, argued on the grounds that that people (particularly female) traditionally married in their teen years.