I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students (although that is certainly a problem, and a part of this story, that I could write at length about). Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea. In large part, I think this is true because as a society we are to a large distinguish between criticisms of a policy with criticisms of the stated goal of the policy. [1]. This led to a policy where it is possible for a single person (although in this case it was 2) to initiate the entire inquiry [2]. In a system as large as a university, you have to be prepared for such entities.
[1] More cynically, policymakers want to be seen as doing something, and do not care sufficiently what it is that they are actual doing.
[2] The author did acknowledge this nature of the problem.
> I don't think the main problem here is our infatalizing students [...] Rather, it seems that the main problem is that we enacted policies with good intentions without considering whether the policies themselves were a good idea.
This is the problem with governing in general and is why trying to over-regulate students lives (i.e. "infantilize" them) is such a bad idea. The folly of those who think they can engineer a better society put millions to death in the 20th century. It's kept billions in poverty through today. No one is being killed for their opinions at American colleges, but speaking from first hand experience as a recent graduate, freedom of speech is suffering.
Excellent points! I'd also note that these kinds of policies often have to start out with a hair trigger due to the fundamental asymmetry between the parties; the more powerful have many avenues to shut down the weak, so the weak need large-caliber cannon to take on systemic discrimination.
But when the systems begin to balance out -- not many universities maintain anti-feminist or pro-racist cultures, though I can name a few that do -- then those same powers are easily abused, simply because there aren't significant targets to go after. So, minor figures, often on the same political side as the aggrieved, are attacked using laws that are the equivalent of using grapeshot to kill a goldfish.
Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal."
But, seriously, young people. What the hell? (And get off my lawn!)
> Unfortunately, as you point out, it's hard to reform those laws, because when you have people who want to repeal progress entirely, it's hard to distinguish (and, practically, there might not be any difference) between "reform" and "repeal."
As somebody who often takes the "reform" side I'd say it's not an accidental misunderstanding when people think I'm saying "repeal". FWICT it stems from a deep and fundamental disrespect for the views of others. It's a common pattern: the default response to someone being critical of any social justice movement is an accusation of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. Honestly it's why I try to only discuss these things anonymously on the internet where it isn't so risky.
While I generally agree with your statements, it is important to note that in this case, the article's author has been arguing that any "fundamental asymmetries" between students and faculty are largely illusory, and such hair-trigger policies are detrimental for all parties in the long run, regardless of the policy lending any pressure to the cultural or legal "balance" within the institute.
It takes just a tiny bit of epistemic humility to understand why due process is good and star chambers are bad. It goes way beyond infantilization, you have have to train people counter to the history of Western civilization to make them reject these things. The fact that universities are embracing it should be a giant societal red flag.
Exactly. The issue is not the politics or even the personalities involved. After all, these are perennial sources of conflict abd yet they don't invariably produce the awful results seen here.
What does produce these results is terrible governance. The "system" described here is a case study in how not to handle dispute resolution.
I lay blame squarely at the feet of the demonstrably overpaid "leadership" at Northwestern who allowed these procedures to take root in the first place.
That only works if this issue is isolated to NWU, but it isn't. Members of the social justice movement using claims of victimhood to stifle free speech is a national and in some cases international problem.
Since the political beliefs involved are common across cases they becomes a prime suspect. Bureaucracy exists in many of the cases as well, but it's only one tool that this group uses to further their agenda.
Sorry, not buying that. Just because the sentiments involve extend beyond Northwestern does not mean the Northwestern needs to accept - and indeed, support - an egregiously flawed system for resolving conflicts.
This is a basic sanitation issue. If you run your university that badly, problems like this are a mathematical certainty. The specific set of grievances is immaterial. If it's not one, it will be another.
The problem is not what they believe. The problem the obviously abusive and amoral approach the people in question have taken in acting on those beliefs.
I'll add one more thing and then let it go because (respectfully) I don't think we're going to agree. Only ideology could make someone cling to a measurably harmful idea and insist it's still actually a good idea.
I think you're absolutely right about the negative power that ideology can have in terms of getting (some) people to say that the ends justify means, no matter how atrocious. However, I wouldn't say it's the only thing that can cause people to defend the indefensible.
Indeed, for some, ideology itself in the means to an end, and these people can be quite flexible about how seriously they take it depending on how well it supports their more fundamental goal, which is raw dominance.
But since you asked, no, there's no moral equivalence here. The reason why people who get raped, abused, etc. are not responsible for the crimes and assaults committed by others because they have a basic right to walk around freely and securely.
However, governments (or people charged with the responsibility for governance) don't have the same right to operate without being targeted by assholes. That's because a major part of their job is dealing with assholes. It is literally what they get paid to do. So unlike people (who are generally not paid to deal with rape threats or worse), the people who are paid to deal with assholes cannot accept their giant salaries then turn around and say "hey, we're subjected a bunch of toxic assholes."
This is about as unreasonable as a divorce lawyer getting upset because of exposure to people having distressingly sharp conflicts over irreconcilable differences. Seriously, if you have a problem taking out the trash, don't accept work in waste management.
Professors are supposed to challenge the thought processes of their students so this is more like a trash collector facing lawsuits for dealing with trash in a way that makes a few people angry. It does students no favors to coddle them throughout college instead of preparing them for the real world where nobody cares if it's inconvenient for them to deal with other people's opinions. College is meant to prepare people for the real world.
It's not awful for me to point out that I see people who are the victims of morally wrong actions being blamed for what's happening to them. Who's doing the blaming just makes it ironic.
Recently read an article from a femnist Harvard prof, which defines this contention as feminists not managing the transition between an Advocacy (victimization) standpoint, and Governance (legitimacy).
[1] More cynically, policymakers want to be seen as doing something, and do not care sufficiently what it is that they are actual doing.
[2] The author did acknowledge this nature of the problem.