Category: Academic Bullshit

End of Academic freedom in the US

analyza how anti-zionist speech is suppresed in us colleges, amounting to an end to academic freedom

ChatGPT said:

Here’s an analysis of how anti‑Zionist speech on U.S. college campuses is increasingly suppressed, and why many argue this amounts to a serious curtailment of academic freedom:

1. Administrative & Governmental Pressure

  • Columbia University: In July 2025, over 70 students were suspended or expelled for participating in pro‑Palestinian protests. The Trump administration had frozen hundreds of millions in federal grants, pushing Columbia to adopt policies equating criticism of Zionism with antisemitism, and to sever ties with the student group CUAD. Critics argue this chilling effect undermines campus dissent and inquiry ZNetwork+15Reuters+15Reddit+15.
  • Harvard University: The administration rescinded or restricted campus protests, revoked visas for international student activists, and canceled a planned special issue on Palestine in its educational journal. External pressure and fear of federal retaliation contributed to what contributors called a violation of academic independence and editorial autonomy The GuardianThe AtlanticThe Guardian.

2. Policy Changes & Codes of Conduct

  • Several universities—including NYU, Columbia, UCLA, Indiana, and the University of California system—have updated policies to classify criticism of Zionism or support for BDS as harassment or hate speech. In some cases, Zionists are treated as a protected group, effectively banning anti‑Zionist perspectives Reddit.
  • Policies now often prohibit encampments, outdoor signs, overnight protests, or require registration of participants—disproportionately impacting pro‑Palestinian activism Inside Higher Ed+11Wikipedia+11The Washington Post+11.

3. Faculty and Staff Retaliation

  • Tenured and untenured faculty: Many report self‑censoring to avoid repercussions when teaching or speaking about Israel-Palestine—especially assistant professors (98%) in Middle East Studies ameu.org+1US Academic Boycott+1. In one case, a tenured professor was reportedly fired over an Instagram post protesting Zionism WikipediaReddit.
  • High-profile incidents: Professor Terri Ginsberg faced contract non-renewal for criticizing Israeli policy; Steven Salaita had a tenured job offer rescinded following pro‑Palestinian tweets—and later won a legal settlement Reddit+8US Academic Boycott+8Wikipedia+8.
  • Several courses explicitly promoting anti‑Zionist resistance have been flagged as political indoctrination, potentially violating university policy on the limits of political partisanship in teaching jamesgmartin.center+9JCSA+9US Academic Boycott+9.

4. Broader Cultural and Financial Influences

  • Campus Watch, CAMERA, and other pro‑Israel organizations have actively campaigned against faculty and student activism critical of Israel, contributing to a climate of intimidation US Academic Boycott.
  • A linked study found that universities receiving funding from authoritarian regimes or members of the Islamic Cooperation were more likely to exhibit declining speech freedoms and heightened accusations of antisemitism when anti‑Israel activism arose Inside Higher Ed.

5. Concept of the “Palestine Exception”

  • Academic and activist critics have coined the term “Palestine exception” to describe disproportionate repression of pro‑Palestinian speech compared to other social movements. Investigations by the Department of Education have targeted Columbia, UNC, Emory, and UMass Amherst under Title VI for alleged antisemitism tied to speech critical of Israel Wikipedia.
  • The cancellation of scholarly publications on Palestine, executive order 14188 (targeting campus antisemitism), and demands for surveillance or deportation of protestors illustrate how political interference extends into academic governance Wikipedia.

Summary

  • Systemic suppression: Both campus administrations and the federal government have pressured universities to equate anti‑Zionist speech with harassment or antisemitism.
  • Self‑censorship: Faculty and students increasingly refrain from discussing or engaging in pro‑Palestinian positions for fear of discipline, career harm, or visa consequences.
  • Academic freedom at risk: When certain views—especially anti‑Zionist viewpoints—are restricted or penalized, universities risk becoming arenas of ideological conformity, not open inquiry.
  • While some argue that such restrictions are meant to protect the safety of Jewish students, many observers contend they sacrifice critical thought and debate on geopolitically sensitive topics.

Further Context

  • In California’s UC system, longstanding regulations against “political indoctrination” could be applied to anti-Israel courses, although enforcement appears selective. Faculty standards around scholarly competence are also invoked selectively The Hill+15JCSA+15Reddit+15Reuters+7The Hill+7Reddit+7.
  • The AAUP publicly affirms that evidence-based criticism of Israel does not constitute antisemitism—but notes that many institutions deny this nuance in practice The Hill.

Related news on campus speech suppression

Columbia disciplines dozens of students for pro-Palestinian library protest

Reuters

Columbia disciplines dozens of students for pro-Palestinian library protest

Yesterday

Revealed: Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication

The Guardian

Revealed: Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication

2 days ago

Trump administration investigating Harvard's visa program eligibility

The Guardian

Trump administration investigating Harvard’s visa program eligibility

Today

SourcesAttach

Search

Why John Mearsheimer was wrong about the Russian invasion of Ukraine

john mearsheimer was wrong about Nato bring the cause of the russian invasion of ukraine, and he was wrong about the inevitability of russian victory. evaluate

ChatGPT said:

John Mearsheimer’s arguments about the causes of the Russia-Ukraine war and the likely outcomes have sparked intense debate. He’s a prominent realist scholar, and his views reflect a specific theoretical lens, but many analysts and historians argue that he was wrong—both about the causes of the war and its likely trajectory. Here’s an evaluation of both claims:

1. Mearsheimer’s Argument: NATO Expansion as the Primary Cause

What He Said:

  • Mearsheimer argued that NATO’s eastward expansion (particularly the 2008 Bucharest Summit statement that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO”) was perceived by Russia as an existential threat.
  • He claimed the West’s attempt to integrate Ukraine into Western institutions (NATO, the EU) provoked a defensive response from Russia.
  • According to him, the invasion was a rational response by Russia to preserve its sphere of influence.

Why This View Is Challenged:

  • Oversimplification: Critics argue that Mearsheimer overstates NATO’s role and ignores other significant causes, such as Russian imperial ambitions, domestic politics, and Putin’s ideology (e.g. denial of Ukrainian nationhood).
  • Ukraine’s Agency: Mearsheimer tends to frame Ukraine as a pawn in a great-power game, ignoring the agency of Ukrainians who chose the EU path over Russian influence in events like the 2014 Euromaidan revolution.
  • Lack of Immediacy: Ukraine was nowhere near NATO membership in 2022. The invasion wasn’t timed to prevent imminent accession but rather came after years of domestic evolution in Ukraine away from Russia.
  • Pattern of Russian Behavior: Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea in 2014. These actions point to a broader imperial strategy rather than reactive self-defense.

Evaluation:

Mearsheimer’s argument about NATO being the cause of the war is not supported by the full range of evidence. While NATO expansion may have contributed to Russian perceptions of threat, it was likely a factor, not the root cause. The invasion seems more aligned with revanchist and imperial motivations, and Mearsheimer underestimates the ideological and authoritarian drivers in Putin’s regime.

2. Mearsheimer’s Predictions About the War

What He Predicted:

  • Mearsheimer predicted that Ukraine would be devastated, and Russia would likely win due to overwhelming military superiority.
  • He warned that Western military support would only prolong the suffering, without changing the ultimate outcome.

Why This View Hasn’t Held Up:

  • Ukrainian Resistance: Ukrainian military and civilian resistance was far stronger than anticipated.
  • Russian Military Failures: Russia suffered from poor logistics, morale, intelligence, and strategy. Initial objectives like taking Kyiv failed.
  • Western Support: Western aid—both military and economic—has significantly strengthened Ukraine’s position and degraded Russian capabilities.
  • Not a Clear Victory: As of mid-2025, there is no clear Russian victory. The front lines are relatively static. Russia has not conquered Ukraine or achieved its maximalist aims.

Evaluation:

Mearsheimer misjudged both Russia’s military effectiveness and Ukraine’s resilience, as well as the West’s willingness to commit long-term aid. His predictions reflected a realist assumption that material capabilities dictate outcomes—but the war has demonstrated that morale, leadership, innovation, and alliances matter just as much.

Final Assessment:

Mearsheimer brought a valuable but limited lens to analyzing the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His realism rightly emphasized great-power politics and spheres of influence, but his conclusions were undermined by:

  • Underestimation of ideology (especially Putin’s nationalist-imperialist vision),
  • Neglect of smaller-state agency (Ukraine’s domestic trajectory),
  • Overconfidence in Russian strength, and
  • Misjudgment of Western cohesion.

In both cause and consequence, Mearsheimer was wrong in key ways, though not necessarily due to bad faith—rather, due to the constraints and blind spots of his theoretical approach.

Would you like a comparison with other IR scholars’ takes, such as Anne Applebaum, Timothy Snyder, or Stephen Kotkin?

You said:

yes

ChatGPT said:

Great — here’s a comparative overview of how other leading thinkers, especially Anne Applebaum, Timothy Snyder, and Stephen Kotkin, diverge from Mearsheimer’s views on both the causes of the war and the trajectory/outcome. These scholars approach the issue from very different frameworks—historical, ideological, and geopolitical—and they provide a strong counterpoint to Mearsheimer’s realist analysis.

1. Anne Applebaum – Historian and journalist (Atlantic, Yale fellow), focus on authoritarianism and post-Soviet space

On the Causes of the War:

  • Core Thesis: Russia invaded Ukraine not because of NATO but because Ukraine’s success as a democracy threatened the ideological legitimacy of Putin’s authoritarian regime.
  • Applebaum stresses that Putin fears a democratic Ukraine on Russia’s border more than a NATO-aligned one. A free, Western-looking Ukraine could inspire Russians to demand the same.
  • She sees the war as a classic authoritarian reaction to internal weakness, not external pressure.

On Mearsheimer:

  • Applebaum has openly criticized Mearsheimer’s arguments as naïve, dismissing the idea that Putin was reacting to NATO encroachment in good faith.
  • She sees his view as a form of “academic Kremlinology” that strips away the importance of values, democracy, and internal politics.

2. Timothy Snyder – Yale historian, specialist in Eastern Europe, author of “Bloodlands” and “The Road to Unfreedom”

On the Causes of the War:

  • Snyder views the invasion as driven by Putin’s fascist-adjacent ideology, which includes the denial of Ukraine’s right to exist.
  • He emphasizes that Russian propaganda and doctrine promote the idea of a “Russian World” and that Ukraine is an artificial state.
  • He also points to Russia’s 2019 national security policy which explicitly names Ukrainian independence as a threat to Russian identity.

On NATO:

  • Snyder argues that NATO is not the cause but the excuse—used to justify aggression after the fact.
  • He notes that countries like Finland joined NATO only after the invasion, suggesting that NATO expansion is a response to Russian aggression, not a trigger for it.

On Mearsheimer:

  • Snyder has strongly criticized Mearsheimer’s “realism” as morally and factually flawed, comparing it to appeasement logic from the 1930s.
  • He accuses Mearsheimer of engaging in deterministic thinking that denies Ukrainians their agency and over-legitimizes Russian fear narratives.

3. Stephen Kotkin – Princeton and Hoover Institution, leading historian of Russia and Stalin

On the Causes:

  • Kotkin blends realist and ideological interpretations.
  • He agrees that Russia is a declining power trying to punch above its weight and fears the erosion of its influence—but he also emphasizes Putin’s imperial ideology and the dysfunction of a personalized autocracy.
  • He’s nuanced: NATO didn’t “cause” the war, but Western passivity post-Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014) emboldened Putin.

On Mearsheimer:

  • Kotkin is respectful but critical. He acknowledges that Mearsheimer’s realism helps us see why states say they act, but it fails to explain why they actually act, especially in authoritarian regimes where ideology can trump cost-benefit logic.
  • He also notes that Russia had non-violent options to respond to NATO—like diplomacy or soft power—but chose invasion, which realism doesn’t predict well.

Summary Comparison Table

ScholarCause of WarView on NATOView on Ukrainian AgencyView on Mearsheimer
MearsheimerNATO expansion threatened RussiaCentral causeDownplayed (Ukraine as pawn)The war is West’s fault
ApplebaumPutin feared a democratic UkraineNot causal, scapegoatStrong focus on Ukrainian democracySees Mearsheimer as dangerously wrong
SnyderImperial ideology and denial of Ukrainian identityPost-hoc justificationCentral to resistance and legitimacyHighly critical, sees moral blind spot
KotkinMix of power decline, imperial ambition, and authoritarianismContributing factor, not core causeRecognizes agency, especially post-2014Partially agrees, but sees key blind spots

Final Thought:

Mearsheimer’s predictions haven’t held up well, and his theory-centric approach misses the ideological and internal political dynamics that thinkers like Applebaum, Snyder, and Kotkin emphasize. The invasion of Ukraine is as much about Putin’s vision of Russian destiny and the fear of democracy as it is about geopolitics. The war also highlights the failure of Western accommodation after previous Russian aggressions—something these critics say Mearsheimer fails to grapple with.

Would you like a deeper dive into Putin’s ideology or how Ukrainian political evolution factors into this conflict?

How to distinguish difficulty in reading between lack in oneself and lack in the reading itself?

ChatGPT said:

Distinguishing whether difficulty in reading comes from a lack in oneself (like comprehension skills, attention, or background knowledge) or a lack in the reading material itself (like poor writing, complexity, or disorganization) can be tricky, but there are a few strategies you can use to make that distinction.

1. Assess Your Prior Knowledge and Background

  • Self: Do you have prior knowledge of the topic? If the material is on a subject you’re unfamiliar with, it can naturally be harder to read. For instance, technical or academic writing may be challenging if you haven’t been exposed to the necessary concepts.
  • Reading: If the text assumes too much background knowledge or uses obscure jargon, it might be too complex for someone without that specific knowledge.

2. Check Your Engagement Level

  • Self: Are you distracted or uninterested? Sometimes difficulty arises from a lack of focus or motivation, making it harder to process information.
  • Reading: If the text is dry, repetitive, or poorly structured, it might be challenging to stay engaged, leading to difficulties in understanding.

3. Difficulty with Specific Parts

  • Self: Are you having trouble with general comprehension, or is it specific phrases or sentences? Struggling with certain words or concepts may suggest a need for more vocabulary or background knowledge.
  • Reading: If entire sections or ideas are unclear, it could be an issue with how the text is written (e.g., confusing structure, ambiguous language).

4. Try Simplifying the Text

  • Self: Can you explain what you’ve read in your own words? If you can summarize it, even partially, it’s more likely a challenge with understanding, not the text itself.
  • Reading: If you try paraphrasing or breaking the text down into simpler parts and still struggle to grasp the main idea, then the text itself may be too convoluted or poorly written.

5. Read Similar Content

  • Self: If you read other materials on the same topic and have no trouble understanding them, then the issue might be more about the specific text you’re reading.
  • Reading: If you find similar difficulty across various texts (even in easier readings), this points more toward a need to work on your reading strategies or comprehension skills.

6. Consider the Author’s Style

  • Self: Is the style of the writing something you generally struggle with? Some readers find academic or highly formal writing difficult to navigate.
  • Reading: Some texts are intentionally dense, such as academic papers, legal documents, or philosophical works. They might not be well suited for everyone, especially if they lack clarity or are overly abstract.

7. Ask for Feedback

  • Self: If you’re unsure, discussing the material with someone else might give you a clearer perspective. A peer, tutor, or teacher can help you identify whether the difficulty is from the content or your comprehension.
  • Reading: Sometimes feedback on the quality of writing from others can give insight into whether the difficulty lies in the writing itself.

8. Use Additional Resources

  • Self: Are there external aids (like videos, articles, or summaries) that help make the text clearer? If supplemental materials make things clearer, your difficulty could be linked to comprehension or knowledge gaps.
  • Reading: If these resources don’t help, the issue might be that the text itself isn’t clear enough.

Signs the Difficulty is in Yourself:

  • You find the same difficulty in different types of reading material.
  • You struggle with focusing, summarizing, or retaining information.
  • You get frustrated with content that seems “easy” to others.
  • Your difficulties are related to comprehension, not the style or structure of the text.

Signs the Difficulty is in the Text:

  • The text uses overly complex, unclear language.
  • It’s poorly structured or disorganized.
  • It’s targeted at a much higher reading level than you’re accustomed to.
  • The text assumes knowledge you don’t have, leaving you feeling lost.

Being able to recognize these signs can help you target where the problem lies—whether you need to adjust your reading strategies or if it’s more about finding the right material suited to your level. What kind of texts do you typically struggle with?

You said:

connect this with mortimer adler’s how to read a book

ChatGPT said:

Great connection! Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book provides a structured approach to reading comprehension and understanding, and it directly ties into the distinction between difficulties in reading stemming from oneself versus the reading material itself. Adler presents different levels of reading and specific strategies that can help clarify whether the struggle lies within the reader’s own skills or the material itself.

Here’s how How to Read a Book connects to the points we just discussed:

1. The Four Levels of Reading (Basic, Inspectional, Analytical, Syntopical)

Adler emphasizes that reading is a skill that can be developed and varies depending on the complexity of the text. He identifies four levels of reading, each requiring different approaches:

  • Elementary Reading (Basic): This is the level where a reader is just starting to read and understand words and sentences. Struggling at this level is clearly a difficulty within the reader’s abilities, likely tied to vocabulary or basic comprehension. If you’re finding basic texts difficult, it might signal a need for strengthening foundational reading skills.
  • Inspectional Reading: This involves skimming the material to get the basic structure, key ideas, and arguments. Adler encourages inspectional reading when you don’t have time to read everything deeply. If you struggle with this level, it might suggest difficulty in identifying main ideas or skipping over unimportant sections. This difficulty could be due to either an insufficient grasp of the material (in terms of background knowledge) or poorly organized writing.
  • Analytical Reading: This is where you read to deeply understand the arguments, structure, and reasoning of the book. Adler outlines that analytical reading requires a more active approach, where the reader asks questions like: What is the author saying? What are their assumptions? Why do they say that? Difficulty at this level could signal either an issue with the reader’s critical thinking skills, unfamiliarity with the style of argumentation, or a poorly written text (e.g., ambiguous or overly complex arguments).
  • Syntopical Reading: This is the highest level of reading, where you compare and contrast multiple texts on a similar topic. This level assumes mastery of previous levels and requires the ability to synthesize different viewpoints. If you’re struggling here, it might suggest an issue in connecting ideas or finding patterns across readings. If the difficulty is widespread across many texts, it’s likely a gap in critical thinking or analytical skills. However, if it’s just with one specific text, it could point to the text being difficult to engage with at a deeper level.

2. The Role of the Reader’s Activity

Adler stresses that reading is an active process, and the reader plays a significant role in how effectively they comprehend a text. This means that personal effort and engagement are key factors. A lack of engagement or insufficient active reading strategies might cause difficulty, suggesting a gap in the reader’s ability to actively engage with a book.

  • Self: If the difficulty arises because you aren’t actively trying to engage with the material (e.g., not asking questions, not summarizing as you go), then it’s a matter of improving your reading habits.
  • Reading: If you’re using active reading strategies (like summarizing, questioning, or outlining) and still find the text confusing, the material itself may be poorly structured or written.

3. The Importance of Questioning the Text

Adler recommends asking specific questions about the text at various stages of reading. These questions are designed to help you understand the material and identify where the difficulty may lie. For example:

  • What is the book about as a whole?
  • What is being said in detail?
  • What is the author’s purpose?

This questioning process can help you determine whether your difficulty is with understanding the structure of the argument or understanding specific content. For instance, if you can’t follow the argument, it could suggest that the text is unclear or poorly organized. If you can’t summarize the content, it might point to a lack of comprehension on your part.

4. The Concept of “Active Reading” vs. “Passive Reading”

Adler outlines that good readers engage with the text actively by asking questions, making notes, and reflecting on what they’ve read. If you’re passively reading, you’re just consuming the content without fully processing it. This passivity can lead to misunderstanding or lack of retention, which is a problem with your approach to reading, not the text.

5. Adler’s “Reading for Understanding” vs. “Reading for Information”

Adler also draws a distinction between reading for understanding (where you aim to grasp deep meaning and concepts) versus reading for information (where you only need to extract key facts). Difficulty in reading for understanding could point to a need for deeper engagement and more critical thinking skills. However, difficulty in reading for information might indicate issues with how the information is presented or with an overload of complexity in the text.

If you find it hard to switch between these two kinds of reading, it may suggest that either you need to improve your flexibility in reading or the text is overwhelming in its complexity and structure.

6. The Importance of the Text’s Structure and Writing Style

Adler emphasizes that a well-written book should be structured in such a way that it leads the reader step by step toward understanding. Poorly written books that lack clarity or organization can easily frustrate readers, even those who are highly skilled.

  • Self: If you’re struggling because you can’t make sense of a dense, disorganized text, it might not be your fault. You might need better strategies for tackling difficult books.
  • Reading: If you’re finding it difficult to read despite following Adler’s guidelines, the text itself might not be well-structured or sufficiently clear.

In Summary:

Adler’s framework gives you a toolkit for diagnosing your reading difficulties:

  • If the problem lies with you (the reader): Adler encourages active engagement, asking the right questions, and honing your critical reading skills. If you feel like you struggle with comprehension across many texts, improving your reading strategies at different levels will help.
  • If the problem lies with the text: It could be that the text is written in a way that doesn’t facilitate understanding. Adler recommends finding texts that are well-organized, clear in their argumentation, and suited to your current level of reading.

By following Adler’s approach, you can more easily discern whether the difficulty in reading is due to your own skills or the text itself, and tailor your strategy accordingly.

Would you like to explore how to apply Adler’s methods to a specific book or text you’re working with?

Publishing in Peer Reviewed Journals

I had 3 bad experiences with peer reviews. My article “beware of the handmaid scorned” examplifies the problem. An editor tried to engage me in a defense of the article. I refused, and it was published nonetheless. The polemic should have taken place publicly and the editors comments should have been published with my article. Refusal to publish because of disagreement with the substance of the article is not a suffficient reason. What do you think?

ChatGPT said:

​Your experience with the peer review process, particularly concerning your article “Beware of the Handmaid Scorned,” raises significant ethical considerations. The peer review system is designed to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly publications, but it is not without its flaws.​

1. Editorial Disagreement and Publication Ethics

Refusing to publish an article solely due to disagreement with its substance, without identifying methodological flaws or ethical issues, is generally considered inappropriate. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) emphasizes that editorial decisions should be based on the validity and quality of the work, not on subjective disagreements. ​

2. Transparency in Editorial Processes

Your suggestion that editorial comments should be published alongside the article aligns with the principles of transparency and open discourse. While not all journals practice open peer review, there is a growing movement towards greater transparency in the review process to foster accountability and constructive dialogue. ​

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors have a duty to manage conflicts of interest and ensure that the review process is fair and unbiased. Engaging authors in a private defense of their work, especially when the article is ultimately published, may undermine the objectivity of the review process. COPE provides guidelines to help editors navigate such situations ethically. ​Publication Ethics+4Publication Ethics+4Wikipedia+4

Conclusion

Your experience underscores the need for ongoing discussions about the ethics and transparency of the peer review process. Advocating for open dialogue and adherence to established ethical guidelines can help improve the integrity of scholarly publishing.​Publication Ethics+2WIRED+2Time+2

Favicon

Sources

4o

The Naive Views of Yuval Harari in Home Deus – First Criticism

The most egregious naive view of Harari is his view of ethics as a prescription to do whatever feels good. But I will put off a criticism of this for later. Here I want to say something about the title of his book: Homo Deus.

I realize that he is using this title for its – let us say – shock value. But though his intent is to argue for the possibility or even probability of enhancing human characteristics, such as physical and mental powers, and even the creation of human-like machines, the title is literally a contradiction in terms. Why? Because of our conception of God and gods. [See C. D. Broad, “The Validity of Belief in a Personal God”] Simply put, the ancient Greeks imagined the gods to be immortal, while humans are not. [See Robert Graves,The Greek Myths]

So, the title of Harari’s book conveys the view that a mortal can become an immortal, which is impossible for the following reason. Anything with parts can be destroyed. God, as conceived in the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions has no parts, while humans do. Only two things can be said to be indestructible: ultimate parts – if there are such – as studied by quantum mechanics. And the universe, if the conservation of energy is true. And this is why for Spinoza the universe is identified with God. Consequently, neither man nor any artificial intelligence can be a Deus.

Impotence of Ideas

There is a famous saying: The pen is mightier than the sword. It is a self-serving adage, giving intellectuals greater importance than they really have.

Ideas do have some power, but these are ideas which are promulgated by tradition and propaganda. But even such ideas are no match for the private ideas of a dictator who has at his disposal a sword — money, weapons, police, and soldiers.

A current example of the impotence of ideas is the worldwide protests against the Iraq War on Feb 15, 2003. Here is an article about this:

Paul Blumenthal, “The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened? Can anti-war protesters claim any success?” Huffpost, March 17, 209

And here is a video about the Iraq war protests around the world, Feb 15, 2003:

How a student mob took over Evergreen State College in 2017

Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heyting after refusing to leave the campus on the controversial “Day of Absence,” resigned with a settlement with Evergreen State College in 2017. Here is a three-part documentary about the affair:

Part 1:Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council

Part 2: Teaching to Transgress

Part 3: The Hunted Individual

After watching the three videos about what happened at Evergreen State College in 2017, I have made the following judgment. Although the focus is on the dismissal of Heather Heyting and Bret Weinstein from the college, it is more like a study of how a mob is allowed to take control of a college.

What Bret Weinstein did at Evergreen by not participating on the “Day of Absence” was equivalent to striking a match in standing conditions which caused the match to burn.

What were these standing conditions? A college is a business enterprise (corporation). It has a board of trustees, a CEO, managers, and workers. And it has a clientele — the students. Everyone who works at the college is relying on their job for a livelihood (self-preservation).

The culmination of a student mob taking over was initiated by the new President, George Bridges, who was hired in 2015. He introduced a policy statement for the college to recognizing a phenomenon called “Racism,” and a school policy formulated by an Equity Council to fight against this Racism. Part of this policy required a contractual yearly written self-evaluation of racism by each white faculty member. There was also a policy of requiring some kind of “equity” justification for hiring new teachers. This policy was voted on openly by the faculty senate. And the majority — probably out of fear for losing their jobs — voted in favor.

As events progressed, it was evident that the white faculty had to submit to the wishes of student mobs. In fact the students were allowed by the President to take control of speech. The main one was a censorship (by booing, disruption, and silencing) as based on the assumption that to criticallly examine racism is Racism. Students were also allowed by the President to take physical control of buildings to the extant that faculty were in effect hostages.

Evergreen also had a tradition of a “The Day of Absence” on which black students and faculty were encouraged not to attend the college. In 2017, this holiday was switched to asking white teachers to absent themselves from the college. One white teacher, Bret Weinstein, refused, and held a class on this day.

A group of students — both students of color and white — confronted him outside his classroom and clamored for his dismissal. And as time progressed, it became something like a lynching mob. And the security personnel were ordered by the the President to stand down. In consequence Bret Weinstein had to go into hiding. And finally a settlement was reached with Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying for their dismissal.

Comment: A school should be a place for the critical examination of everything, including the nature of what is called “racism.” And a critical discussion is not a free for all shouting. There must be some kind of procedural rules. In the case of Evergreen State College, the President made a fundamental mistake of taking an institutional stance against what he understood as “racism.” He further aggravated the situation by letting students control meetings, and not allowing security to intervene when necessary. This breakdown of institutional control has resulted in a drop of student enrollment and the failure of the college to currently find a successor President.

Practicing Safe Philosophy

In my last blog I wrote about political correctness. Here I want to reflect on the timidity of philosophers, and how they sacrifice their integrity for the sake of a job. Many years ago I wrote a piece which reflected my personal predicament of having accepted a teaching position at a women’s Catholic college. It is titled, Beware of the Handmaid Scorned, 1995. The predicament is that a fundamental problem of philosophy is whether there is a justification for any religious belief. And if one pursues this question too eagerly, one gets fired.

In secular colleges and universities, there are analogous perilous pursuits. Well, we know that in the United States there was a Red Scare, with two periods: the First Red Scare (1918-1920), followed by a Second Red Scare (1947-1957), also know as McCartyism. These Red Scares led to loss of jobs, imprisonment, and deportations.

In 1967, Noam Chomsky published an article, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,”, which is “to speak the truth and expose lies” of governments.

But for a political philosopher there is a more fundamental question: Is any form of a centralized government, i.e., a State, legitimate?

A political philosopher can evade this question by simply doing a sort of literary analysis of some historical political philosopher, and refrain from giving their own considered answer. As an example of this evasion, I came across a video by Tamar Gendler, Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, and Chair of the Philosophy Department, Yale University, whose video exemplifies this safe academic approach. Her lecture is titled: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Politics.

Both Rawls and Nozick assume the kind of liberal democracy we have in the United States, and their disagreement is over policies of such a government. Rawls is for a welfare state. Nozick is against a welfare state. But the fundamental question which was raised by Rousseau as to the legitimacy of a State is side-stepped.

Instead of beginning with Rawls or Nozick, I think it is more appropriate (though not as safe) to begin with Robert Paul Wolff’s In Defense of Anarchism (1970),

Here is a 2008 audio interview with Wolff on anarchism: Doing without a ruler: in defense of anarchism

Political Correctness in Academia

Academics — just as policeman, soldiers, politicians — will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. If they stray, they get fired or are denied tenure, as illustrated below.

I became aware of this censorship in academia by sheer accident in 1973. I was heading towards Key West in my VW camping bus, and on the way I stopped by the University of Florida where I came across a news item that a philosopher was in court fighting his firing. I had forgotten his name, but I do remember that he was a Marxist who spoke his mind in an unvarnished fashion. I stayed to listen to the testimony of the president and others. But I did not stay to find out the outcome of these hearings. But searching the internet, I have found out that the philosopher was Kenneth A. Megill, who appealed a denial of tenure by President Stephen C. O’Connell. I found the following court ruling: Dr. Kenneth A. MEGILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the STATE OF FLORIDA et al., Defendants-Appellees.

I remember other such cases. The one that sticks in my mind was the dismissal of Saul Kripke. At the time I heard of this, I was — let us say — bewildered: Saul Kripke??? Again, scouring the internet, I found this informative piece: Israel Shenker, “Rockefeller University Hit by Storm Over Tenure,” Sept. 26, 1976. Reading the piece, I discover that a whole group of other eminent philosophers had to find employment elsewhere.

Other cases of professors being fired — the euphemism is non-reappointment — or denied tenure which come to mind, are that of Howard Zinn who was dismissed from Spelman College in 1963 for supporting student protests as an act of insubordination.

The case of Norman Finkelstein was especially disconcerting to me, and I wrote a big analytical piece about it: Norman Finkelstein, DePaul, and U.S. Academia: Reductio Ad Absurdum of Centralized Universities, July 23, 2007.

There is a short clip of me here, identified as Philosophy Teacher, Wright College, Chicago, offering my two bits :

Professor Finkelstein’s DePaul Farwell, Sept. 5. 2007:

Below is a full-documentary about Norman Finkelstein:

American Radical: The trials of Norman Finkelstein [2009]

Ward Churchill, a tenured professor, was fired from the University of Colorado in 2007 on alleged plagiarism charges but really for claiming in an article and a book that the 9/11/2001 attack against the World Trade Center was — to use Chalmers Johnson’s CIA word — a “blowback” for the U.S. policies in the Middle East. Churchill took the wrongfull dismissal case to a court, and won; but was not reinstated. The controversial article was “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,”, Sept. 12, 2001, and the book was On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality, 2003.

Below is Megyn Kelly’s commentary and interview with Ward Churchill in 2014.

There is also the case of David Graeber whose contract was not renewed at Yale. Below is a link to an interview with Graeber about this affair.

Joshua Frank, “David Graeber is Gone: Revisiting His Wrongful Termination from Yale,” Counterpunch, September 4, 2020.

The whole issue of censorship in America has recently been put on film: No Safe Spaces