We Can't Wait for Universities to Fix Themselves. So We're Starting a New One | Hacker News Reader

We Can't Wait for Universities to Fix Themselves. So We're Starting a New One

bariweiss.substack.com

57 pointsthemgt23 comments

While this draws from mostly right-leaning concerns about higher education[0] despite claiming itself more open, I get the sentiment.

However, costs usually rank higher among concerns but they are not addressed that much in the article. I’d be interested to see how that will be addressed. New school might spend less on amenities and focus on accreditation, but professors still need to be paid competitively to attract and retain talent, and they will have to fight the uphill battle of falling state support[1].

[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-gro... [1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-r...

There are additional incentives other than monetary when it comes to the culture wars. I know some who have left lucrative lifestyles for something that is more meaningful for them.

Buying land or paying landlords, however, requires money, and a decent amount of it in Austin.

There's a difference between supporting beliefs that differ from the mainstream and supporting people's freedom to form their own beliefs, and the second of these is much harder. One can't help but wonder how tolerant this crew will be of faculty or students who depart from their opinions.

It might be worth noting that the biggest affront against academic freedom recently has not been from the supposedly ubiquitous leftist conspiracy but professors in Florida being blocked from testifying as expert witnesses on a voting-rights case, because the facts don't suit the decidedly non-leftist establishment there.

I'm not sure why there's this assumption that this is some right-wing anti-woke initiative. It includes supporters like Nadine Strossen, longtime head of the ACLU, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Larry Summers who served under Clinton and Obama administrations, etc.

Haidt e.g. is frequent collaborator/partner with Greg Lukianoff who's the president of FIRE, which been actively involved in the Florida professor case:

https://www.thefire.org/in-letter-to-university-of-florida-f...

What reason do you have to think this assembled group of supporters wouldn't intend to actually be tolerant of divergent viewpoints and speech?

> What reason do you have

The document itself. Look at who/what it cites or supports. For example:

* Eric Kaufman at CSPI (three cites for two documents) rails about "left-wing authoritarianism" and "far left activists" while Weiss's own accompanying text specifically mentions "discrimination against right-leaning scholars".

* Challey Institute, whose founder is a pretty major Republican operative - https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=robert...

* FIRE Institute might have been involved in the Florida case, but also on the top of their "about" page are gems like "Under the guise of “nondiscrimination” policies" and non-specific complaints about diversity training.

* Dorian Abbot and Peter Boghossian are specifically right wing martyrs. Kathleen Stock describes herself as a "gender critical feminist" or what many in the trans community would call a TERF

* Weiss oddly does not mention the Florida case, even though it's highly topical (but it involves suppression by the right wing)

The concern with supporting one political faction - not freedom itself - is obvious to anyone who actually reads the OP instead of reflexively taking sides.

Sohrab Ahmari spelled out his views on "being tolerant of divergent viewpoints" quite clearly — he's not a fan: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-d...

"Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty."

And, lest you think that he intends to pursue a different course at this "University", or that the above does not represent the University's vision, here's what he wrote today: https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1457712410438119427

"I told the founders that, standing in the ancient tradition of Catholic education, I don’t, in fact, believe that the university can or should enshrine mere free speech or free inquiry as its highest ideal. I was pleasantly surprised when they replied, “That’s why we want you.”"

I'm not sure why there's this assumption that this is some right-wing anti-woke initiative.

Here’s one of the HN submissions about this initiative: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29157445

The title of the article is - but interestingly not visible in the article itself but rather when you bookmark - “Niall Ferguson: America’s Woke Universities Need to be Replaced”.

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...

Give me a break.

From what I’ve passively observed about Bari Weiss, she’s all over the map. I’m also inclined to allow people to be young and change their minds and grow into their real values or beliefs without holding their feet to the fire about anything they’ve ever said.

Even at my most charitable, though, I’m skeptical of anyone talking about pursuing truth. It’s interesting they mention Plato. What I gleaned from The Republic at a young age, and I still believe, is that the nature of truth is tricky, truth is elusive. I’ve seen that pinning down a consensus on truth is practically impossible even when everyone is coming from a position of good faith.

There is definitely a problem with universities, and a big part of our population at large, that abandons free speech and thought.

What do you view as the problem of universities?

Not the parent, but if I were to spitball an idea, it's that the vast majority of the population of a university is young, and does not have much world experience of their own, or enough peers with such experience in the world. Even if the people leading an idea are actually informed and experienced, the people following them may not be and are only emotionally charged on the idea. And since it's only emotionally charged, they have no way to discuss the idea except with emotions.

Delivering on “antifragile” isn’t a bad idea. A student body that finds itself traumatized by utterances of others won’t hold up well to the real world that is full of conflict and unpleasant reality.

I'm attracted to the notion of discussing the undiscussable, but how many times will they allow open discussion about "The Holocaust was a Hoax!", "The Earth is Flat!", and similar quackery?

If they are searching for truth, what shoulders will they stand on or will they start from the very beginnings? What will count as truth, and whose word will count? Will everyone need to fly into space to realize the world is round? Or, will one person landing on the moon prove it can be done and was done?

Or, do they hope enough quacks will be convinced of accepted truths to put an end to all the nonsense? Maybe they'll discuss more interesting, nuanced topics which would be interesting to me as an observer.

This is, unfortunately, the left's view of the undiscussable: ignorant quackery.

But a real heterodox environment can foster discussion on real ways the current consensus is lacking.

Like whether reopening schools last Fall was a good idea, as many Republican states did. (I think it was.)

Or whether challenge trials for the vaccines should be allowed. (Could have saved thousands of lives.)

Or discussion of how Covid originated. If you remember, this truly was undiscussable last year.

We should never be so confident that we hush up alternative ideas. We make a better society by seeking out how the status quo can be wrong.

Why is academic freedom seen as political balance when conservatives discuss it?

Perhaps I'm unaware of liberals using the same approach.

I view academic freedom as the freedom to look into questions or hold alternate viewpoints that are supportable. Regardless of affiliation, IMO political beliefs aren't typically data driven, and when the data goes the wrong way people tend to exercise apologetics instead of intellectual honesty.

I fear this will create another echo chamber, of students having controversial opinions on certain topics such as gender studies, evolutionary psychology etc. Also a stigma with going to this university might be too strong. Imagine being a young male student and telling people at the party you are attending this university. I am pretty sure in the future it would be like telling people you vote for Donald Trump.

If I were to choose university in the USA I would select one from the FIRE list [0] that are certified pro-freedom of speech / research but don't have such a big stigma. University of Chicago might be good, altough I am not based in USA so I don't know if there is stigma I'm describing connected to UoC

[0] https://rankings.thefire.org/rank

University of Chicago is a very selective school. You don't just choose University of Chicago and then get to go to University of Chicago.

> Universities are the places where society does its thinking, where the habits and mores of our citizens are shaped.

This sounds a lot more like a hypothetical ideal than a statement of fact.

Uh yeah. It's aspirational and why they're starting a university.

If it's aspirational, I would have suggested replacing "are" with "ought to be."

I see no Hume-ian distinction here with is/ought. The context seems pretty clear. But regardless, perhaps for some the verbiage could be clearer with adding the kludge of "ought to be."

I made my original comment because despite the context I'd read up to that sentence, my gut reaction was "that definitely doesn't sound right."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com