patrick.net

Universities used to be places that taught student HOW to think, not WHAT to think according to a stifling, narrow political agenda.

If students actually knew how to think, they would at some point realize they have been had.

Are students happy to go in debt to learn this?
Why is there no push back? students? parents? professors?

Heraclitusstudent says

Are students happy to go in debt to learn this?
Why is there no push back? students? parents? professors?

students - they are clueless
parents - delusional, they think Universities are the same as they were in 1980's
professors - they are marginalized, most courses are taught by powerless adjuncts who can be fired at a whim of administrations; tenured ones too busy to chase grants (if they are in real sciences); and profs in general are somewhat crazy and mis-adjusted to surrounding realities if they are good scientists

Heraclitusstudent says

Are students happy to go in debt to learn this?
Why is there no push back? students? parents? professors?

Have you seen what has happened to any professor that has tried to challenge this? You are immediately excommunicated and tarred and feathered.

theoakman says

Have you seen what has happened to any professor that has tried to challenge this? You are immediately excommunicated and tarred and feathered.

Like this Lady, who holds both an MD and JD. The Admin and the SJWs are constantly trying to fire her, for talking about the benefits of 40s-50s "Bourgeois Culture", wanting to ban "Oppression Language" in classrooms as an impediment to learning (you have to provide facts, not claim offense), etc.

Wax has a bachelor’s degree from Yale College, a medical degree from Harvard, and a law degree from Columbia. But none of those was enough to exempt her from being on the receiving end of a full-fledged campaign to get her fired. Nor was arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Justice Department, but that’s beside the point.

Wax doesn’t fear being called racist, sexist, or xenophobic, probably because she’s been called many of those names before. Instead of retreating to the safety of her tenure when things get tough, she doubles down—demanding debate, evidence, and accountability.

Students and colleagues alike have attacked Wax for making the apparently offensive case that traditional marriage values lead to better results for children, and for putting forth the radical argument that many of the country’s problems are a symptom of the breakdown of the “bourgeois culture” (the 1940s and ’50s way of life).

In making that argument, Wax addressed the fact that things weren’t perfect back then, but like clockwork, her critics called her “racist and classist” anyway.

The straw that really broke the camel’s back, however, happened when student activists searching for dirt on Wax unearthed a 2017 podcast interview she did with economist and Brown University professor Glenn Loury.

In the interview, Wax said this when addressing the issue of affirmative action: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of [my] class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half. I can think of one or two students who scored in the first half of my required first-year Civil Procedure course.”

Grades at the University of Pennsylvania are name-blind (meaning the instructor covers up students’ names prior to grading), so Wax says it’d be impossible to discriminate.

Critics jumped on her statement, interpreting it to mean “Amy Wax said black students can’t excel in law school.” Eventually, the University of Pennsylvania Law School relieved Wax of her teaching duties for first-year law students.

In a Nov. 8 speech at The Heritage Foundation, Wax talked about the fallout of her politically incorrect statements in depth, and put forth tangible ideas about how to counter a radical, identity-based grievance culture that’s now rampant in university life.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/21/professor-thinks-banning-these-words-would-fix-free-speech-on-college-campuses/

So I typed in the statement above. One of the earlier links produced the following:

"Science as a Social Construct
R. E. Wyllys
Introduction

"This lesson discusses some of the ideas associated with the question of whether science may be viewed as a social construct, or may even be, in fact, merely a social construct. Since some of the other lessons in LIS 386.13 tend to take the point of view that science is largely a social construct, this lesson concentrates on arguments against that point of view. I trust that most of you will immediately grasp an implication of the previous sentence—viz., that it is quite possible to argue both for that point of view and against it. Further, I trust that you will realize that an additional implication is that conclusive evidence—evidence that would definitely settle the argument one way or the other—is lacking."

https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~l38613dw/website_spring_03/readings/ScienceSocialConstruct.html

This lesson concentrates on arguments against that point of view. Odds are that the screen shot in the OP was an intro to get students thinking. You really need to start questioning the shtuff that the right wing propagandists are feeding you.

LastMan says

shtuff that the right wing propagandists are feeding you.

this originates here: https://twitter.com/Alec_Ksiazek/status/918511763326406657
in comments, Neil deGrasse Tyson argues against this idiocy.
You have not been at university social science departments lately, right wing imaginations do not soar as high as creativity of diversity professors

d6rb, there is still no context for the OP. Was it stating a fact, or a challenge for arguments against the point of view? Tyson is weighing in on what is posted without questioning the motive behind the post.

I'll add this, why assume the OP screen shot has anything to do with the left? Perhaps this is a thought experiment that has no political motivation. I suggest that there may be an excessively strong tendency to assume that every aspect of humanity and human behavior has to be motivated by either left or right wing agendas.

LastMan says

I'll add this, why assume the OP screen shot has anything to do with the left? Perhaps this is a thought experiment that has no political motivation. I suggest that there may be an excessively strong tendency to assume that every aspect of humanity and human behavior has to be motivated by either left or right wing agendas.

The track record of idiot part of left is quite strong, so I tend to believe these types of things unless they are proven wrong. These days, just yelling "MEN!BAD!RAPE!RACISM!" will get you published in reputable social sciences journals. See https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/10/06/another-set-of-fake-papers-takes-aim-at-social-sciences-nether-regions

d6rB says

The track record of idiot part of left is quite strong, so I tend to believe these types of things unless they are proven wrong.

Rightist Science?

LastMan says

d6rB says

The track record of idiot part of left is quite strong, so I tend to believe these types of things unless they are proven wrong.

Rightist Science?

Science should be neither L or R, but a search for objective truth. Idiocy of right is less visible, since their stupidity is less acceptable in media and so it is much muzzled.

See this by writers of hoax papers themselves: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/