I just have one quibble each for our esteemed hosts:
Prof Loury sez in re the utter spinelessness of our academic admin class that "if they stuck to their guns and did refuse to cave—refused, for example, to implement equity-based hiring policies and instead hired whoever they judged to be the best candidate, regardless of race—they might find as much or more public support as they do approbation."
But people don't perform for or seek recognition from the general public but from their peer group and/or tribe. And the peer group of upscale professional academics is of course other upscale professional academics and also the general NYT/NPR liberal class that they live amongst and share a sacred worldview with. All of these people have essentially embraced a theology where Race Gender Sexuality is the new Holy Trinity (as we all know since John wrote a book about it) and expecting them to become heretics isn't just expecting them to face professional consequences but also social consequences (a la the Weinsteins or Cristakises) and possible career death, and not just for them but for their spouses and children also.
Crit Theory is simply the new sacred theology of American academia and expecting any of the leaders of these seminaries to denounce or renounce their faith is like expecting someone in the College of Cardinals to become a Satanist.
And Prof McWhorter wonders how there's one young black staffer "And yet we're gonna let that person decide whether or not the world experiences this piece because antiracism". But think about the enormous power this person is vested with. One bigotry accusation, one Twitter call-out, one anonymously circulated petition, and whoever's in the crosshairs is branded with the scarlet R (the blasphemy charge of our time) and there is no washing it off, no proof or argument to counter it.
Poof! They'll be destroyed, and just like in that Twilight Zone episode where the evil children can destroy any adult with one glance, all these people know that one misstep and today's Red Guard would happily destroy them, their careers, their futures.
Our culture has simply been captured by a cadre of fundamentalist zealots and there will be no restoration of sanity or comity until somehow they are dethroned.
I agree mostly with this. Professors do look to the their community of peers nationwide, or even worldwide rather than the physically present community. And yes one complaint from a SJW is often enough to derail someone’s career. Sometimes the NY Post or Fox News picks up the story but the vast majority of everyday cancellations do not see the light of day. Where I disagree is that CRT is now mainstream. I don’t see that. It is clearly dominating, but the true believers are still in a very small minority except for certain academic departments. Most people are just trying to cope.
I'm not sure i said that Crit Theory (not just CRT but the whole New Left corpus) was mainstream, just that it is the official ideology/theology of our ruling elite, most esp in academia and culture.
The True Believers (and I believe this is true for any movement) don't have to be numerically dominant to get their way, they just have to be committed to seizing and maintaing power and to making it difficult to dissent or oppose them without paying serious conseqences.
I think in most ideological takeovers the True Believers are never the majority, just the most zealous. And after them come the careerists and other opportunists, then the rest of us who (like you said) just want to live our lives.
My feeling is that the New Left has succeeded so well because they have positioned themselves as morally superior/unimpeachable (that is, by convincing people that disagreeing with them is "punching down" on the underdog Marginalized) but that is a whole different conversation I won't bore you w.
I see. I took your statement about not expecting leaders of academia to renounce their faith as meaning some large number of these people were true believers.
It is fascinating how totalitarian impulses are cloaked as being sensitive and caring, and therefore any criticism is easily turned back onto the critic as a monster. Many decades ago when I was an undergraduate I used to joke about “the tyranny of the warm and fuzzy” and loved calling out people who tried to control others under the guise of sensitivity. I always had ready listeners. Those days are long gone.
"It is fascinating how totalitarian impulses are cloaked as being sensitive and caring, and therefore any criticism is easily turned back onto the critic as a monster."
Protecting a house of cards requires such maneuvers.
I just have one quibble each for our esteemed hosts:
Prof Loury sez in re the utter spinelessness of our academic admin class that "if they stuck to their guns and did refuse to cave—refused, for example, to implement equity-based hiring policies and instead hired whoever they judged to be the best candidate, regardless of race—they might find as much or more public support as they do approbation."
But people don't perform for or seek recognition from the general public but from their peer group and/or tribe. And the peer group of upscale professional academics is of course other upscale professional academics and also the general NYT/NPR liberal class that they live amongst and share a sacred worldview with. All of these people have essentially embraced a theology where Race Gender Sexuality is the new Holy Trinity (as we all know since John wrote a book about it) and expecting them to become heretics isn't just expecting them to face professional consequences but also social consequences (a la the Weinsteins or Cristakises) and possible career death, and not just for them but for their spouses and children also.
Crit Theory is simply the new sacred theology of American academia and expecting any of the leaders of these seminaries to denounce or renounce their faith is like expecting someone in the College of Cardinals to become a Satanist.
And Prof McWhorter wonders how there's one young black staffer "And yet we're gonna let that person decide whether or not the world experiences this piece because antiracism". But think about the enormous power this person is vested with. One bigotry accusation, one Twitter call-out, one anonymously circulated petition, and whoever's in the crosshairs is branded with the scarlet R (the blasphemy charge of our time) and there is no washing it off, no proof or argument to counter it.
Poof! They'll be destroyed, and just like in that Twilight Zone episode where the evil children can destroy any adult with one glance, all these people know that one misstep and today's Red Guard would happily destroy them, their careers, their futures.
Our culture has simply been captured by a cadre of fundamentalist zealots and there will be no restoration of sanity or comity until somehow they are dethroned.
I agree mostly with this. Professors do look to the their community of peers nationwide, or even worldwide rather than the physically present community. And yes one complaint from a SJW is often enough to derail someone’s career. Sometimes the NY Post or Fox News picks up the story but the vast majority of everyday cancellations do not see the light of day. Where I disagree is that CRT is now mainstream. I don’t see that. It is clearly dominating, but the true believers are still in a very small minority except for certain academic departments. Most people are just trying to cope.
I'm not sure i said that Crit Theory (not just CRT but the whole New Left corpus) was mainstream, just that it is the official ideology/theology of our ruling elite, most esp in academia and culture.
The True Believers (and I believe this is true for any movement) don't have to be numerically dominant to get their way, they just have to be committed to seizing and maintaing power and to making it difficult to dissent or oppose them without paying serious conseqences.
I think in most ideological takeovers the True Believers are never the majority, just the most zealous. And after them come the careerists and other opportunists, then the rest of us who (like you said) just want to live our lives.
My feeling is that the New Left has succeeded so well because they have positioned themselves as morally superior/unimpeachable (that is, by convincing people that disagreeing with them is "punching down" on the underdog Marginalized) but that is a whole different conversation I won't bore you w.
I see. I took your statement about not expecting leaders of academia to renounce their faith as meaning some large number of these people were true believers.
It is fascinating how totalitarian impulses are cloaked as being sensitive and caring, and therefore any criticism is easily turned back onto the critic as a monster. Many decades ago when I was an undergraduate I used to joke about “the tyranny of the warm and fuzzy” and loved calling out people who tried to control others under the guise of sensitivity. I always had ready listeners. Those days are long gone.
"It is fascinating how totalitarian impulses are cloaked as being sensitive and caring, and therefore any criticism is easily turned back onto the critic as a monster."
Protecting a house of cards requires such maneuvers.