> 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.

As I said in response elsewhere, these claims really need some support or they are just bytes on the Internet.

I guess I also have to repeat here as well then.

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.

> I showed you ...

Here's another way to think about evidence: All you showed me was your thinking; you didn't show me anything from the 1619 Project.

Your points have intriguing points, but as written here, all they are now is points about you, not about the world.

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.