I am not sure how I am supposed to get your identity from you providing a few published examples.
The UNC Chapel Hill case is a bad example as Nikole Hannah-Jones engaged in divisive political activism in her role instead of academic rigor and is the brains behind major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project. Someone like her that teach students what to think instead of how should not get tenure, and does not meet the academic rigor to teach.
Calls for academic freedom has been used to subvert university resources from academic pursuits to political activism. This was never the intention behind protections of academic freedom and is a corruption of the academic pursuit.
> major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project
You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees with established ones, but that's almost the point of academic research: Find where established beliefs are flawed. Especially on sensitive topics, that may result in an angry reaction and division; that shouldn't stop people from publishing, and that's what tenure protects.
Nothing about the conservative response to the 1619 Project seems distinguished from that kind of reaction, or from the reactionary response to most attempts to address racism.
> Someone like her that teach students what to think instead of how should not get tenure, and does not meet the academic rigor to teach.
What basis do you have for saying she teaches in that manner? All professors have their own research, their own point of view, and they teach it. If you've taken a liberal arts college class, you will recall that you are expected to be able to handle that and think critically about it.
> Calls for academic freedom has been used to subvert university resources from academic pursuits to political activism.
What distinguishes those things? Who decides? Just because it has happened at some time in some place, is that evidence that it's happening now? Should we eliminate all academic freedom?
> You may believe the 1619 Project is a "major indoctrination effort" and that it lacks "academic rigor", but that's not established fact at all. Many people think highly of it and of her work - including her potential UNC professional colleagues, who wanted her there in a tenured job at an excellent university. It does represent a point of view that disagrees with established ones, but that's almost the point of academic research: Find where established beliefs are flawed. Especially on sensitive topics, that may result in an angry reaction and division; that shouldn't stop people from publishing, and that's what tenure protects.
If the intention of the 1619 Project was merely to use rigorous historical methods to expand the purview of the historical record in accordance with the useful-sounding aspects of truthful claims that have been suppressed, as some insist, it would be a valuable, if not necessary, contribution.
However, the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). This it seeks to achieve by calling into doubt the American metanarrative and establishing alongside it, if not in place of it, the critical race Theoretical metanarrative instead: that the United States is indelibly racist and has been since its origins. This includes undermining trust in the liberal ideas of individualism and human universality, wherein people are judged by the contents of their character and recognized for their common humanity, and forwarding identity-group thinking that is more useful for (radical) identity politics.
The fact that so many professors at UNC shares a critical consciousness is a sign of how far gone that university is from its original liberal vision of truth-finding in favor of identity politics.
> What distinguishes those things? Who decides? Just because it has happened at some time in some place, is that evidence that it's happening now? Should we eliminate all academic freedom?
If an academic is engaging in critical consciousness, basically creating meta-narratives to further a radical political activist goal instead of truth-finding, it should be treated the same as an academic that mainly teaches baptism of Christianity in history class and produce a revisionist meta-narrative to further baptism. Such a person would not receive academic freedom protections.
> the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize).
Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?
Practically speaking, the idea behind the 1619 project is to make it impossible to think of the American Revolution or Founding without also thinking of slavery and a tendentiously, unnecessarily exaggerated notion of its significance both then and ever since, up to the present moment (where critical race Theorists say it, in effect, is still going on in many respects). This is achieved by forcing everyone who encounters the 1619 Project into a polarizing debate that isn’t interested in truth or falsity but instead which side of the politics of “oppression” and “liberation from oppression” one is willing to take.
As critical theories are self-critical only in accepting critiques from critical theories (all other criticism is deemed an application of hegemonic power), it is not possible to defeat a critical theory with matters of facts. They can only be problematized more severely, which, while it defeats the specific critical theory, ultimately replaces it with a stronger critical theory. The most obvious way to undermine the 1619 Project in specific, then, is not to argue about matters of historical fact around the events of 1619, 1776, 1863, or any such period; it’s to point out that it erases the earlier and more severe suffering of American indigenous people who were genuinely enslaved and subjected to genocide by the Spanish starting almost a century earlier.
Again, it is not the matter of fact here that will overturn the 1619 Project (as being, itself, problematic). It is specifically that the 1619 Project did harm to indigenous peoples by erasing their allegedly earlier and more consequential suffering (Again, because it’s so difficult to remember about critical theories, truth and falsity do not matter in these analyses; it just has to be forwarded forcefully enough while appealing to the lived experience of suffering of subjugated indigenous people).
Critical theory projects like the 1619 project is therefore not a tool to improve our historical understanding, and is inherently in conflict with the liberal projects ways of finding truth.
You asked:
> Can you support that assertion? I got the sense of your position before; my question is, what makes it true?
I disagree for the reasons below that
> Well that is a convenient formulation for someone who disagrees and has no facts
Your question is inherently about how the claim of truth is made in the type of dialectic the 1619 project use. I showed you how critical theory projects like the 1619 project makes a claim and deals with truthiness. I made it specific to this project and how it inherently makes unfalsifiable claims as it builds upon “lived experiences” of convenient political activist utility.
I even showed you an example of how you overturn a claim in critical theory projects, with an example relevant to the 1619 project. This example makes it very clear how different this type of academic dialectic is from the liberal project.
As an example, you talk about people's motives; what evidence do you have of these motives? What evidence do you have for your claims that it is 'critical race theory' and for your characterizations of it?
At this point, the claims above are only words from a random person on the Internet. If we want to talk about truth and criticism, such claims are notoriously very weak.
IME, the focus by some political groups on 'critical race theory' is the same old rhetorical tactic of attacking the messenger and changing the subject from the issue:
In this case, the issue issue is racism in America's founding. You openly say you won't address the evidence, which seems to match that pattern.
You can as well as me google to see the myriad of critical social justice conferences and events she has contributed to. She is quite productive.
You can also see her calls for the critical social justice DEI solution when she calls for racial equity (as in redistribution based upon identity politics traits - not equality), inclusion (as in critical social justice activists of all identities must be given a platform with no critique by viewpoint opponents - not openness to different values being expressed) and calls for diverse voices to be heard (as in political activist voices with a critical consciousness - not viewpoint opponents).
Having a critical consciousness is about the process I described above, I never claimed I had to know what she felt. Deconstructing her words and going down the endless rabbit hole of claiming a “it quacks like a duck and walks like duck, it has ducklings, although it’s not necessarily a duck” then that might work on someone else, but not on me.
I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort.
Sorry, but with no evidence it's not meaningful to me - there is so much dis- and mis-information on the Internet that I think people are insane to trust it. Note that I did spend the time to ask you, because you seem to have thought it through. Nothing personal.
> I never claimed I had to know what she felt.
You did make claims about the project's motivations and about hers as a teacher (and maybe more - I don't remember).
> Deconstructing her words and going down the endless rabbit hole of claiming a “it quacks like a duck and walks like duck, it has ducklings, although it’s not necessarily a duck” then that might work on someone else, but not on me.
Maybe assume some good faith; nobody is trying to make something work on you. For the reasons I said above, I simply can't trust what I read on the Internet; I need evidence. Trusting people's claims on the Internet is a cliche for foolishness these days, and we know it does incredible harm in our world. I know you don't want to write a dissertation on HN, but maybe link to someone with credibility who already has.
> I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort.
She is the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice anti-racist projects, the 1619 project, which is the strongest argument I can think of that she is an adherent of and an important figure in that ideology.
With that as an established fact then in the context of a traditionally liberal creed organization like the ACLU or a liberal University, its relevant to detail how that ideology is in conflict with liberalism and why it is reasonable that a top ideologue of critical social justice is not given stewardship of a liberal position.
> Maybe assume some good faith;
When you question if the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice projects is a critical social justice adherent I think its fair to question if you are arguing in good faith.
Teachers are employees, and freedom of speech has never been recognized in that context. For example, it would be kind of ridiculous if a science teacher was allowed to teach students flat earth theory because of freedom of speech. Outside of the classroom, which was the subject of the comment above, obviously it would be covered by the 1st amendment.
> Teachers are employees, and freedom of speech has never been recognized in that context.
In college, it certainly has and is recognized. Tenure, in particular, is at least partly designed to protect professors' ability to research and speak, free of censorship or influence.
> In college, it certainly has and is recognized. Tenure, in particular, is at least partly designed to protect professors' ability to research and speak, free of censorship or influence.
It is true that tenure is there to protect professors engaging in the liberal project on unpopular topics. However, many do not pass the bar to receive tenure.
Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 project is not engaging in the liberal project tenure seek to protect. I've said elsewhere in this thread that the goal the 1619 Project is not, and never was, to improve our historical understanding. Rather, its goal was always to perpetrate a critical historiography that muddles and besmirches it (i.e. problematize). This includes undermining trust in the liberal ideas of individualism and human universality, wherein people are judged by the contents of their character and recognized for their common humanity, and forwarding identity-group thinking that is more useful for (radical) identity politics.
She is therefore in direct opposition to the liberal mission of the universities, and she does not deserve to receive tenure protection to continue subverting resources intended to further the university liberal mission to what is useful for (radical) identity politics. Protecting the universities liberal environment agains activists like her is a necessary precondition for continuing the liberal project.
The problem with the kind of critical theory dialectic Nicole Hannah-Jones use is how the claim of truth is made. I showed you how critical theory projects like the 1619 project makes a claim and deals with truthiness. I made it specific to this project and how it inherently makes unfalsifiable claims as it builds upon “lived experiences” of convenient political activist utility.
I even showed you an example of how you overturn a claim in critical theory projects, with an example relevant to the 1619 project. This example makes it very clear how different this type of academic dialectic is from the liberal project.
Universities are traditionally stewards of the liberal project, although unfortunately at this points it’s been corrupted to further the Hegelian religion of critical social justice.
Considering that we are here talking about one of the biggest and most famous anti-racist critical social justice projects, you are again not arguing in good faith.
Are you are a critical social justice adherent and subscribe to its anti-racist (which means being a racist) doctrine? If so I think you should declare that.
If you share this ideology we do not share values as I believe in the liberal doctrine of truth seeking and believe skin color is not informative of anything but melanin level, which both are in direct opposition to this faith/ideology.
She is free to continue doing activism and even continue her indoctrination efforts, she just can't expect to subvert university resources under tenure to achieve her activist goals. Note however that she was still offered an untenured position.
The importance of the point that her 1619 Project is not a serious attempt at historical understanding but a project within critical race Theory is beyond calculability. This is because the standard approach to challenging the 1619 Project’s bogus claims and attempts to roll itself out into our society and educational system is to challenge its historical legitimacy, and this is unfortunately a necessary part of engaging with it. The trouble is, because the 1619 Project neither is history nor claims to be history, this necessary activity is ultimately severely limited in its purposed utility.
Letting political activism like this into the universities therefore makes it harder to continue the Universitys original mission of continuing the liberal project of real knowledge seeking and research. Not everyone is fit for research and teaching, and you do have to protect the liberal system from efforts such as this for them to remain centers of knowledge production and truth seeking.
The UNC Chapel Hill case is a bad example as Nikole Hannah-Jones engaged in divisive political activism in her role instead of academic rigor and is the brains behind major indoctrination efforts such as the 1619 project. Someone like her that teach students what to think instead of how should not get tenure, and does not meet the academic rigor to teach.
Calls for academic freedom has been used to subvert university resources from academic pursuits to political activism. This was never the intention behind protections of academic freedom and is a corruption of the academic pursuit.