On Academic Freedom | Hacker News Reader

On Academic Freedom

acoup.blog

40 pointsTomte12 comments

After having been an assistant professor for three years, I have given up on Academia. I quit to get a job in the industry. The big concerns were

* Academic freedom. So many restrictions on what one can say; from state institutions, from society, from the university administration, even from departmental politics.

* Bureaucracy. Academia becomes more and more a David Graeber style "bullshit job" every year. I spent almost a third of my time doing compliance paperwork or attending useless meetings.

* Answering to MBAs. The power structures in universities are almost completely out of whack. Administrators using their power to force nonsensical policies about teaching or research - things they understand little about - just so they can get some self-designed metrics up.

I haven't given up on academic stuff. I am writing a book, and in the future hope to publish papers, but as an industry researcher or an independent scientist.

That's funny. I don't work in academia. Never done so. I work for a private employer, and looking at your list I don't feel that it sounds that different:

* I can't say what I want either. I believe that just comes with working for somebody. * I also spend an insane amount of time in meetings and filing paperwork on requests for things that should just be easy. But because of paperwork anything gets drawn out * I work for a consulting firm. So lots of MBAs around. Sadly. No-one gets software. You know, the kind of people that 9 women can make a baby in 1 month. Also the same people who don't understand exception handling.

"It is the uncomfortable statements which require speech protections, which in turn means that free speech and academic freedom are in a sense always going to be unpopular."

That sums up the article.

His other main point is that between adjunct professors and teaching assistants, the fraction of people able to push back against the university administration has shrunk. This is true in workplaces generally. That jobs have become more precarious empowers management to make labor shut up.

>And I don’t mean that last statement facetiously; academic freedom and campus free speech are under attack. But what I want folks to understand is that academic freedom has always been under attack: it has always been so.

This article summarizes a view that can ascribed to Leo Strauss -- the idea that philosophy (which we can use here as a synonym for any rational endeavor) is often disjoint with political and cultural aims of a given moment. This poses a grave problem for philosophers, particularly if they enjoy, ehem, being alive.

Strauss argues that as such, philosophers must practice their craft carefully, and sometimes even surreptitiously. Hence overtly religious philosophers placing their actual, often impious ideas in the mouths of characters in their dialogues, characters that the philosopher appears to be critiquing.

Everyone has political views, and one of the privileges of a blog is you get to share them. Something I've noted over the years is that Devereaux is a pretty typical left-leaning academic who will come out to bat occasionally with some slightly radical interpretations. I enjoyed his take of January 6th to the fall of Athenian democracy [0] which has not aged particularly well since the investigations turned up nothing politically interesting and no new enemy to fight except some vague concept of the Republican party.

So this very mild pushback against diversity statements represents a really interesting position. There must be quite wide consensus on the idea that they are a bad idea if even Bret is willing to support the idea that "others will argue that this actually protects academic freedom since diversity statements can be little more than political litmus tests thinly disguised". Even though it is somewhat indirect. I would not have expected anything less from Bret than a full-throated support of diversity, equity and inclusion condemning its detractors.

[0] https://acoup.blog/2021/01/15/miscellanea-insurrections-anci...

"I generally support their goals, but what those activists are doing is a bit too weird and extreme" is a common pattern in political opinions. It's also an attitude competent activists try to cultivate. If activists don't push hard enough to make their supporters uncomfortable, they are not ambitious enough to be effective.

> even Bret is willing to support the idea that "others will argue that this actually protects academic freedom since diversity statements can be little more than political litmus tests thinly disguised."

No, you're wrong. You just took his statement out of context. He did not say he supports it; he only acknowledged the existence of that view. Specifically, his full statement was:

> "Controversy there is likely to be more complex,

> with some seeing this as a political infringement on the traditional prerogative whereby departments chose their members and thus an infringement on academic freedom;

> alternately others will argue that this actually protects academic freedom since diversity statements can be little more than political litmus tests thinly disguised."

Acknowledging opposing views is one of the key things you learn in academic and argumentative writing. It is not the same thing as support.

I think it's pretty disingenuous that you decided to remove the word "alternatively" in this accusation.

> Acknowledging opposing views is one of the key things you learn in academic and argumentative writing

That is the thing, isn't it? It isn't normal for Bret to use those skills when talking politics. In the 2016 era it would be much more in the vein to refuse to debate racism and condemn inequitable treatment. Possibly with a comparison to the fall of the golden age of the Islamists or the collapse of Rome as their tolerance for internal minorities wavered or something.

This represents a bit of a move in how I've seen Bret approaches culture war topics. He's supporting the view instead of denigrating it. He must be quite worried about the issue to take this position.

EDIT I typed up a response to a now-deleted comment. I'll include it here:

He literally says "For what it is worth, my own view is that too many universities use DEI paperwork as a lame replacement for the actual work of trying to reach a wider range of students".

We've got an academic posting on his blog that "others" think this is a political litmus test of, effectively, academics. Does he believe this conspiracy theory? Well it is complicated! He's just telling you what "others" think. He does think DEI is lame. He's doing a lot of work here to get these uncited "other" ideas into the conversation.

He is in the perfect position to call bullshit if this view was false, because these are allegedly a political litmus tests targeted at his community. The fact that he is putting that the ideas are lame and amplifying the idea that they might be political loyalty tests is a wildly supportive position for him given his usual approach to politics.

> The fact that he is putting that the ideas are lame and amplifying the idea that they might be political loyalty tests is a wildly supportive position for him given his usual approach to politics.

Sorry I deleted the original comment. Interesting take.

A simpler explanation is he's changed his mind. Or maybe he thinks that the hype for his original view has ended; he predicts that the opposition is gaining more support within the state government, the academic community, and the people; and he therefore is positioning himself closer to the opposition where there will be more future support.

> This represents a bit of a move in how I've seen Bret approaches culture war topics. He's supporting the view instead of denigrating it. He must be quite worried about the issue to take this position

I agree that even acknowledging that there's criticism of these initiatives (like mandatory DEI statements) is seen as an extreme reaction, especially in academia. Don't know anything about Bret in particular, but I liked his position, was pretty well rounded.

(FWIW, I wholeheartedly support the goals of DEI. But I think I just broke the taboo within DEI of acknowledging that it's taboo to acknowledge that some people have opposing viewpoints.)

Deleted comment

He literally says "For what it is worth, my own view is that too many universities use DEI paperwork as a lame replacement for the actual work of trying to reach a wider range of students"

He is in the perfect position to call bullshit if this view was false, because these are political litmus tests targeted at his community. What he should be saying is that "I'm an academic with X years experience and this just isn't how it works! These statements are an important plank in promoting minorities!". The fact that he is putting that the ideas are lame and amplifying the idea that they might be diversity statements is a wild position for him given his usual approach to politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com