site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34937 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

New from me: In Defense of the New College Takeover, also published with my bosses' permission over at Blocked & Reported. In light of the recent news that Ron DeSantis appointed Chris Rufo and a number of other conservatives to the board of hyper-progressive New College of Florida, I felt compelled to write a response to criticisms of the move from a number of people in the "heterodox" sphere, including my own bosses. The full piece is quite long, so I'll quote the third section below (with some edits for brevity), in which I make the case for serious diversity of thought not only within institutions, but between them:

Many people I respect worry about the idea of one institutional bias being replaced by another sort of institutional bias in universities, and embrace the idea that every university should be a joyous hodgepodge of intellectual curiosity with no loyalty, implicit or explicit, to any one creed. This stance, more or less, is held by all those I cite in my intro as critics of this move: my employers, Young, Pinker, Haidt, and other principled and careful thinkers whose stances I take seriously.

I like and respect their position. Is it too impertinent, though, to say they might be wrong?

Before you crucify me, allow me to introduce another set of thinkers I respect: [Bryan Caplan, Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok, and Robin Hanson].

Those of you who have heard of these men before already likely know what they have in common: they are all professors of economics at George Mason University. This is not a coincidence. Rather, it is the direct result of a conscious choice by George Mason, more than 50 years ago, to zig where other universities zagged, snapping up brilliant free-market economists while their ideas were unpopular in the broader academic market. Fittingly for an economics department, they found and exploited an niche that was undervalued by academia writ large, and were rewarded with a string of brilliant economists, including Nobel Prize winners, and a culture of contrarianism and intellectual curiosity that persists to the present.

The existence of the GMU economics department is a boon to academic and intellectual culture, and has provided serious benefits to me personally, even though I have never attended and most likely will never attend George Mason University, even though I stubbornly and resolutely reject many tenets of the libertarianism of so many of its finest thinkers. It did not spring up by chance. It sprang up out of a conscious, ideologically influenced decision to provide an alternative to the culture embraced by the great majority of universities around it.

In short, universities do not exist in isolation. Jonathan Haidt is absolutely correct about the value of viewpoint diversity in academia. Nobody, sincere or not, well-meaning or not, is free of bias. Nor should people be free of bias—or, in other words, they ought to have clear values. Much more important is to be aware of and explicit about their biases, and to open their work to examination by those with contrary biases. I’ve written before about the value of wrong opinions. If you more-or-less agree with something, it’s easy to brush over shared assumptions and nod along without close examination. Only those motivated to disagree are likely to put in the time and effort to give any intellectual work the serious critique it deserves.

What applies to individuals applies to institutions. Every institution has values: some implicit, some explicit. Every university department, and every university, evolves an overarching culture. When I dream of diversity in academia, I do not dream of a diversity that sees every university aiming to achieve a perfect 50/50 balance of people who fall on the left or the right of the American political spectrum. I do not dream of a diversity in which every economics department offers the same mix of Keynsian, Chicago, and Austrian economics. I dream of diversity between institutions: one in which George Mason economists argue with Harvard critical race theorists, where Chicago Law and Berkeley Law hash out serious disagreements, where to attend one university means to be immersed in its particular culture, with a range of cultures on offer between different universities that is as wide as productively possible.

This feels obvious and pressing in education, the domain I feel strongest about. It’s not as simple as progressive versus conservative in that domain—it rarely is. But schools of education are subject to a range of fads, struggling to adopt the lessons of cognitive science. The most well-publicized example recently has been the question of “The Reading Wars,” a fierce dispute between phonics and whole-language approaches. Other debates and forgotten episodes include “discovery learning” versus direct instruction, the spread of “learning styles” even as its evidence base crumbled, and the school district that threw unimaginable money at education problems with minimal effect. To dive into all of these properly would deserve an article of its own, but each question interacts with ideology in sometimes subtle ways, and our best instincts can lead us astray in a domain where what works is often, maddeningly, what feels worst. The field has been dominated like few others by progressives with progressive instincts, and many of its missteps are in precisely the places where those instincts lead intuition astray.

Right now, the most serious shortage I see in the broader culture of academia is that of serious traditionalist conservative intellectuals and universities. Liberals are well-represented. Libertarians make their showing, and not a half-bad one at that. Heaven knows there are plenty of Marxists. But conservatives have fled the Academy and the Academy has fled conservatives. In the social sciences and humanities—the domains I find most compelling—serious conservative thought is almost wholly absent, and with that absence comes real loss, especially for those who disagree with conservatism. Hiring conservative professors in overwhelmingly liberal humanities departments is part of the solution, but another serious part—and a responsibility that can only fall on conservatives themselves—is the cultivation of more intellectually serious humanities and social sciences departments, alongside liberal arts colleges, with sincere commitments to presenting conservative thought. [...]

Bluntly, I cannot picture a world where New College shifts to being dominated by conservatives. What I can picture, and what I hope for, is a world where it shifts to being open to conservatives, where young people eager to study the great works of history and to embrace a liberal arts education can do so in an environment that does not demand rigid adherence to progressive tenets. Perhaps that 12 to one ratio among faculty can shrink to, say, four to one. Stranger things have happened.

The answer to bias isn’t only a different kind of bias. But in an ecosystem where virtually every liberal arts college is overwhelmingly biased in much the same way, having a few to sing the counter-melody can help.

Not a disagreement with you, but is this an effective move for conservative 'cultural power', i.e. rufo's goals? BYU is raised below as a successful religious conservative-leaning institution, with a student body of 30k undergraduates (or GMU's 20k) compared to New College's 600. Even if New College is a success, that extra 600 will mean nothing - it won't matter much unless it serves as a template for a (much) larger wave of public university takeovers ... which it probably won't. And a return to a more intellectually open or centrist university culture won't be that effective in rufo's goal of beating the left absent better non-woke ideas, given those better universities in the past gave us the current 'woke' ones.

Sorry, minor nitpick, but I wouldn't include all of GMU in any list of conservative universities. I attended GMU and majored in Economics. The Econ department and law school were libertarian anomalies within a rather normal university that was mostly very liberal.

There were constantly left leaning groups trying to oust the GMU econ department. UnKoch My Campus was one of the more well known ones. But there were also attempts by other departments to take control of GMU econ department. One such instance was the faculty trying to create a rule where they would have oversight into other department's hiring practices. It likely would have failed to take control even if it was passed. Walter Williams had control of GMU econ financials and set it up in such a way that it was almost entirely independent from the wider university.

As a result of that minor nitpick I do think that this is an effective move for conservative cultural power. It is often the most obviously non-leftist educational institutions that get attacked the hardest. But there is a limit to attention spans and anger about a thing that doesn't actually effect you. New College has the potential to be a lightning rod for discontent, but other more moderate changes could be slipped in at institutions across the state and not receive as much push-back.

Yeah, was wrong on GMU, thanks. But there are other christian colleges with 10k+ student bodies, many of which have 'christian' or 'baptist' in the name and are fighting with their students over 'how okay are we with gay students' instead of 'should we purge the nonwoke' that I don't think it matters.

The problem for conservatives is I'd bet the 2022 BYU class is more liberal than the same 22-year olds from the same communities who didn't go to BYU, at least in heavily Mormon areas. For what counts as 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' today, simply going to college, current college, even in a fairly mehly woke large state school, it's a machine where you meet up with lots of people doing wacky things you might not be comfortable with, turns you into a cringy normie center-left liberal, and this is true of left-wingers who show up to college as well

It’s an appealing sentiment. I’d like to see academia operate more as the proverbial marketplace of ideas; compare Scott’s observations on colleges looking for one-sided trade-offs. Do DeSantis and Rufo actually have a chance to bring this about?

Institutions who don’t overlook the niche of vaguely principled young conservatives should get competent students for cheap. All else equal, students should accept less of a scholarship to go somewhere that doesn’t hate their guts. But as usual, all else is not equal.

Political theater is not conducive to maintaining an institution’s reputation. As long as conservative wins are framed as “owning the libs,” the spoils can’t retain their prestige. Not when they’ve been owned.

The long march through the institutions was insulated from that sort of feedback. Vastly increased college attendance limited employers’ ability to devalue schools. The overall level of information available was much lower. And there was no standout political figure crowing about his hand in each takeover.

Every press release by DeSantis is an excuse for supporters to rally. To exult in his theatrics, to cheer for “based Chris Rufo.” It’s great for the lib-owning narrative and, most likely, his presidential campaign. New College may even benefit. But it only hurts the link between New College and elite jobs that conservatives would need to exploit. DeSantis cannot, will not, cash in his popularity for a lasting conservative presence in academia. Not by “owning” a school or three.

Anything that can be dismissed as political grandstanding will be. His influence over the state curriculum is much more promising; employers cannot dismiss the entire state of Florida. Even so, every gain made by his personal campaign comes at some risk to the broader goal.

But it only hurts the link between New College and elite jobs that conservatives would need to exploit.

You cannot make New College (or any college) more friendly to or even tolerant of conservatives without harming the link between the college and those elite jobs which right now exclude conservatives. Making a college more tolerant of conservatives ipso facto makes it less suitable for recruiting into those jobs.

True.

But advertising your takeover for political points has to be the fastest (legal) way to destroy that reputation. DeSantis is attaching his high-profile, intentionally controversial face to the subject. I believe that a more subtle approach would deal much less damage to the link, because the marginal elite job is going to be less closed.

Do hillsdale university graduates have any difficulty finding employment?

BYU is Mormon AF and soft-republican. It has some of the best employment outcomes in the US.

I don’t actually know. None of its notable graduates seem familiar, but that’s not saying much.

There’s also the question of supply. I grew up relatively close to Bob Jones University. It’s best known for exporting theologians and evangelists, who aren’t exactly competing in the same markets as secular schools.

I tried to compare salaries as a proxy for ease of employment. BJU business: $31K, nursing $59K. U of Charleston, one of the best private schools in West Virginia: business $43K, nursing $59K. There aren’t a lot of public schools at this size; I grabbed Minot State in North Dakota. Business $38K, nursing $63K. Larger public schools like Clemson looked similar ($41K, $57K); elite schools didn’t post nearly as much info. I couldn’t find numbers for Hillsdale.

I’d conclude that the demand for a BJU-trained business degree is slightly lower, while nursing is apparently the same everywhere. Overall employment results are going to be heavily influenced by the kind of jobs sought, which are going to be different between religious schools and secular ones. But this is not great evidence either way.

Hiring conservative professors in overwhelmingly liberal humanities departments is part of the solution, but another serious part—and a responsibility that can only fall on conservatives themselves—is the cultivation of more intellectually serious humanities and social sciences departments, alongside liberal arts colleges, with sincere commitments to presenting conservative thought.

How does this responsibility "fall on conservatives themselves?" Conservatives (of the type that I think you mean: classically liberal American Constitutional conservatives) hold as one of their values the free and robust exchange of ideas. They are already there. Progressives hold as their primary value the exclusion of these types of Conservatives from institutions and the toxification of all of their ideas -- and they've been successful! Without a change of heart or voluntary surrender from Progressives, what can Conservatives do except embrace conflict theory, take back institutions by force and block the entryists, forsaking the very mistake theory that you and I wish to have restored?

This move from DeSantis/Rufo is an example of conflict theory in action, one that my article explicitly defends.

I do not mean only classical liberals, and what I am talking about is orthogonal to the free and robust exchange of ideas. A group can support their exchange all they want, but if nobody within it is willing to devote their study and their careers to the ideas themselves, that support only goes so far. To better explain what I mean, I'll use the example of police: if progressives want an institution that aligns with their values, at some point some of them actually have to bite the bullet and become police officers. If conservatives want a serious foothold in the humanities and social sciences, some have to bite the bullet, study, and make arguments within those disciplines.

Obviously, this cannot happen in environments where progressives take over and shut them out. But assume an academic institution that genuinely holds, as one of its values, the free and robust exchange of ideas, is hiring. What will be the proportion of progressives to conservatives among highly qualified people who apply for a humanities post? Conservative intellectuals talk a great deal about preserving and valuing intellectual heritage, but for all of that, it is (broadly speaking) liberals and progressives who take serious interest in these topics day to day.

I strictly oppose the freezing-out of conservatives in these institutions. Whether that happens or not, though, conservatives themselves have a great deal of building to do if they value the humanities, social sciences, and liberal arts more broadly. The most open-minded opponent is still not going to push your ideas for you. You need to bend down, get your hands dirty, and do some gardening for yourself.

That, more or less, is what I'm getting at. It applies to me no less than to conservatives; many of the ideas I would like to see flourish are currently struggling, and that's not going to change unless people like me make it change. So it goes.

assume an academic institution that genuinely holds, as one of its values, the free and robust exchange of ideas, is hiring. What will be the proportion of progressives to conservatives among highly qualified people who apply for a humanities post? Conservative intellectuals talk a great deal about preserving and valuing intellectual heritage, but for all of that, it is (broadly speaking) liberals and progressives who take serious interest in these topics day to day.

I'm not sure you're looking at this dynamic in its full context. There are a lot of Conservative scholars. They all work for think tanks or conservative press, or have normal jobs and do their thinking as a hobby. Why don't they apply for jobs at colleges and major media outlets, instead? Those markets have been largely closed to them, with a few exceptions, by a progressive stranglehold on hiring.

The problem with the conservative temperament is not that conservatives are naturally anti-intellectual (broadly; they are anti-a-certain-type-of-currently-dominant-'intellectual') or unambitious, but there is a practicality that often overpowers idealism: "If I need to work to feed my family, why would I waste my time applying to 99% of Universities, who will not hire me, when there are more immediately productive avenues for my efforts?"

Yes, I don’t understand quite what Trace means by “the cultivation of more intellectually serious humanities and social sciences departments”. Cultivation sounds like grassroots, bottom up. Conservatives certainly can’t improve the intellectual seriousness of these departments from the top down. I’d say that’s a bigger responsibility, for those in charge.

So what can conservatives do for cultivation? Hillsdale and GMU, I guess. But aren’t they already doing this? What’s the actual prescription here?

Conservative universities exist and by do not get particularly used by American conservatives as part of their intellectual backing.

Conservative universities exist

Right, that's why I mentioned Hillsdale (and GMU, though less so)

do not get particularly used by American conservatives as part of their intellectual backing.

That's news to me. I think (e.g.) Hillsdale and GMU are part of the conservative intellectual backing.

Those of you who have heard of these men before already likely know what they have in common: they are all professors of economics at George Mason University. This is not a coincidence. Rather, it is the direct result of a conscious choice by George Mason, more than 50 years ago, to zig where other universities zagged, snapping up brilliant free-market economists while their ideas were unpopular in the broader academic market. Fittingly for an economics department, they found and exploited an niche that was undervalued by academia writ large, and were rewarded with a string of brilliant economists, including Nobel Prize winners, and a culture of contrarianism and intellectual curiosity that persists to the present.

The existence of the GMU economics department is a boon to academic and intellectual culture, and has provided serious benefits to me personally, even though I have never attended and most likely will never attend George Mason University, even though I stubbornly and resolutely reject many tenets of the libertarianism of so many of its finest thinkers. It did not spring up by chance. It sprang up out of a conscious, ideologically influenced decision to provide an alternative to the culture embraced by the great majority of universities around it.

Has there ever been a putatively left-wing economics department at any university? I think GMU is trying to copy the success of the Chicago School or models itself after it , which was/is a huge success. Neoclassical economic positions are more likely to attract funding and prestige compared to more heterodox alternatives. Many Nobel Prizes in economics were downstream of the ideas conceived or popularized by the Chicago School.

I dream of diversity between institutions: one in which George Mason economists argue with Harvard critical race theorists, where Chicago Law and Berkeley Law hash out serious disagreements, where to attend one university means to be immersed in its particular culture, with a range of cultures on offer between different universities that is as wide as productively possible.

This seems as productive as having mechanical engineers debate CRT. In the first example you're talking across fields/domains, whereas the law example is across the same domain. Diversity of viewpoints should not mean having to shoehorn diversity where it's unproductive.

Amherst's economics department is fairly infamous for being left-wing/Marxist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/inside-the-offbeat-economics-department-that-debunked-reinhart-rogoff/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

The University of Utah's econ department has been called Marxist pretty often. I mean UofU's raison d'etre is to be the anti-BYU so it kind of makes sense:

https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2018/04/16/us-economics-department-marxist-or-diverse/

Has there ever been a putatively left-wing economics department at any university?

You must be asking specifically about the US right? Because there's still a bunch of Marxians around in Europe and since they are "heterodox" they tend to to the exact same thing described here.

I suppose if you could ask Mises he would say that all economics departments are left wing, including his own.

To be honest, diversity in bias versus unbiased institutions is an irrelevant question here; new college of Florida can be overseen by conservative political appointees, or it can have an extremely strong progressive bias, and there is no alternative.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats