Boston University history department advertises DEI commitment, hosts classes on ‘White Supremacist Thought’ and ‘Black Power’

iluvatar5150 said:

You assume that being more left isn’t more well-rounded than what they were when they came in.

Click to expand...

Are leftist viewpoints being critically challenged in any way in modern universities? Or is that "curbing of excesses" only happening in one direction?

Even the graduates themselves suggest that it's pretty one-sided.



Even Snopes (which would normally pounce on such a claim and rate it false if it was questionable) acknowledges this dynamic is occurring to a degree in the US university system.

Ironically enough, they note that the same dynamic doesn't seem to exist to the same degree in the British University systems.

ThatRobGuy said:

Are leftist viewpoints being critically challenged in any way in modern universities?

Click to expand...

Which leftist viewpoints? I don't imagine rent control would get much purchase in most economics departments or business schools; nor would "I must be able to pronounce the ingredients in my food" get far in a chemistry or biology department. Most historians I've interacted with are interested in the people acting within the context of their time, not in mapping contemporary ideas of propreity onto them.

ThatRobGuy said:

Or is that "curbing of excesses" only happening in one direction?

Even the graduates themselves suggest that it's pretty one-sided.

Most college graduates say college makes people more liberal

A recent YouGov poll asked more than 22,000 Americans their opinions on how a college education affects a person’s political ideology. Nearly half of Americans (47%) – including 56% of college graduates – say that going to college generally makes people more liberal, while only 6% say it makes...

yougov.com

Click to expand...

My question was why do you assume that becoming more left constitute becoming more well-rounded. You didn't answer that.

I think that, for a lot of incoming kids, particularly for those from conservative backgrounds, it can be. It certainly was for me.

iluvatar5150 said:

Which leftist viewpoints? I don't imagine rent control would get much purchase in most economics departments or business schools; nor would "I must be able to pronounce the ingredients in my food" get far in a chemistry or biology department. Most historians I've interacted with are interested in the people acting within the context of their time, not in mapping contemporary ideas of propreity onto them.

Click to expand...

The ones in the realm of trying to reduce everything to a "social construct" (as to imply that it should be scrapped) and that are exclusively critical to western ideas and norms by way of flagging them as an extension of colonialism.

iluvatar5150 said:

My question was why do you assume that becoming more left constitute becoming more well-rounded. You didn't answer that.

I think that, for a lot of incoming kids, particularly for those from conservative backgrounds, it can be. It certainly was for me.

Click to expand...

I depends on the starting point, if someone is coming from the far right, and it nudges them a little leftward then they're becoming a little more balanced out.

If a person is already center-left, and it pushes them even further left, then that's not rounding them out.

Just as an example:

If a person went in with a staunch conservative "tough on crime" position, and being exposed to certain progressive ideas, made them now more receptive to certain aspects of criminal justice reform or doing away with the death penalty, or softening punishments for non-violent drug offenses, then that person became more well-rounded.

However, if a person was already receptive to those things, goes in for 4 years, and then comes out with the idea of "well, our system of policing was based on white normative systems and is an outgrowth of white supremacist systems, so the only way to fix it is to abolish policing as we know it, and replace it with something that produces perfect equity", then that person didn't become more well rounded, they just got pushed even farther in the direction they were already leaning.

ThatRobGuy said:

The ones in the realm of trying to reduce everything to a "social construct" (as to imply that it should be scrapped) and that are exclusively critical to western ideas and norms by way of flagging them as an extension of colonialism.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty narrow set of ideas. "Leftist ideas" and university educations both cover a lot more ground than just pop sociology.

Referring back to the historians with whom I've interacted, I don't recall any who were "exclusively critical of western ideas." They generally take nuanced views of things that acknowledge everybody's flaws.

ThatRobGuy said:

I depends on the starting point, if someone is coming from the far right, and it nudges them a little leftward then they're becoming a little more balanced out.

If a person is already center-left, and it pushes them even further left, then that's not rounding them out.

Just as an example:

If a person went in with a staunch conservative "tough on crime" position, and being exposed to certain progressive ideas, made them now more receptive to certain aspects of criminal justice reform or doing away with the death penalty, or softening punishments for non-violent drug offenses, then that person became more well-rounded.

However, if a person was already receptive to those things, goes in for 4 years, and then comes out with the idea of "well, our system of policing was based on white normative systems and is an outgrowth of white supremacist systems, so the only way to fix it is to abolish policing as we know it, and replace it with something that produces perfect equity", then that person didn't become more well rounded, they just got pushed even farther in the direction they were already leaning.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but that's not the outcome your data requires. Your snopes link says, "48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican," Pew wrote of college-level education,". That's not a 50/50 split, but it's not far off. If college is pulling people to the left, it's either not pulling them very far or we're starting off more conservative than you think.

Now, the Pew survey they cite is from 2014, but that 5-point gap they cite is the same in 2023, though partisan identification has increased.

The obvious problem with interpreting data this way is that we're confusing correlation for causation. This survey doesn't ask when people went to college and it doesn't try to measure their views before attending and after attending. From where I sit, the GOP looks to be actively driving away anybody who works in a professional environment, which has a high correlation with college attendance. That's not the colleges turning people liberal.

iluvatar5150 said:

That's a pretty narrow set of ideas. "Leftist ideas" and university educations both cover a lot more ground than just pop sociology.

Referring back to the historians with whom I've interacted, I don't recall any who were "exclusively critical of western ideas." They generally take nuanced views of things that acknowledge everybody's flaws.



That's fine, but that's not the outcome your data requires. Your snopes link says, "48% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 43% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican," Pew wrote of college-level education,". That's not a 50/50 split, but it's not far off. If college is pulling people to the left, it's either not pulling them very far or we're starting off more conservative than you think.

Now, the Pew survey they cite is from 2014, but that 5-point gap they cite is the same in 2023, though partisan identification has increased.

The obvious problem with interpreting data this way is that we're confusing correlation for causation. This survey doesn't ask when people went to college and it doesn't try to measure their views before attending and after attending. From where I sit, the GOP looks to be actively driving away anybody who works in a professional environment, which has a high correlation with college attendance. That's not the colleges turning people liberal.

Click to expand...

To be careful not to conflate two concepts "making people more liberal" doesn't necessarily equate "turning republicans into democrats" in all or most cases.

A person aligning with Ted Cruz, and moving toward aligning with Larry Hogan
and
A person aligning with Gavin Newsom, and moving toward aligning with AOC

...both represent a shift leftward without a party affiliation change within the framework of our two-party system.

ThatRobGuy said:

To be careful not to conflate two concepts "making people more liberal" doesn't necessarily equate "turning republicans into democrats" in all or most cases.

A person aligning with Ted Cruz, and moving toward aligning with Larry Hogan
and
A person aligning with Gavin Newsom, and moving toward aligning with AOC

...both represent a shift leftward without a party affiliation change within the framework of our two-party system.

Click to expand...

Right, but there are going to be some number of people in the middle for whom the shift is enough to put them decidedly in the Dem camp when they were not there previously.

And there's still only a 5-point difference.

I'd also point out that the yougov poll merely asks what people think happens. It doesn't measure if college actually makes people more liberal.

ThatRobGuy said:

So... one of the selling points of a Liberal Arts education was supposed to be that it produced more well-rounded individuals as opposed to purely vocational training.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that the theory of OS design doesn't explain everything.

ThatRobGuy said:

If that's not happening anymore, then it undercuts the main selling point and is worthy of evaluation and critique.

If all it's accomplishing is producing people who are solidly left (and some aren't even employable), then what exactly is the value-added?


"it's not the way it used to be" is a valid complaint if the "new way" is worse, and doesn't produce better outcomes.

Click to expand...

Most college freshman are horribly naive and inexperienced in life. Many have little to no history with persons unlike themselves in religion, social status, race, ethnicity, etc. They know little of how the world works. Finding out these things can change them. I don't know how I would have characterized my politics when I left HS. There was so little I actually knew. The area I was from was very conservative and Republican, but we never discussed politics at the dinner table. When I was in college, sure I took a few social science classes and they informed some of my thinking (you'll hear some of it on this site when I speak of immigration history -- I am using what I learned in that class), but the vast majority of classes had nothing even remotely political in them. (And the few that did weren't being overtly political, they just touched on subjects that had political valence.) It was meeting other people, and reading the campus papers, and paying attention to local politics (I was a voter, now, after all) that changed my attitudes (or set them) from my collegiate experience.

Even with all of that alleged "leftist indoctrination" I left college a hard-bitten, anti-partisan, centrist who still has not registered with a political party and for a time tried to "balance" my ballot by ensuring I voted for some from each major party.

As they sometimes say -- reality has a liberal bias. It is no wonder the modern RW is anti-education because keeping the masses dumb, poor and angry is how they keep their base together.

Hans Blaster said:

Most college freshman are horribly naive and inexperienced in life. Many have little to no history with persons unlike themselves in religion, social status, race, ethnicity, etc. They know little of how the world works. Finding out these things can change them. I don't know how I would have characterized my politics when I left HS. There was so little I actually knew. The area I was from was very conservative and Republican, but we never discussed politics at the dinner table. When I was in college, sure I took a few social science classes and they informed some of my thinking (you'll hear some of it on this site when I speak of immigration history -- I am using what I learned in that class), but the vast majority of classes had nothing even remotely political in them. (And the few that did weren't being overtly political, they just touched on subjects that had political valence.) It was meeting other people, and reading the campus papers, and paying attention to local politics (I was a voter, now, after all) that changed my attitudes (or set them) from my collegiate experience.

Even with all of that alleged "leftist indoctrination" I left college a hard-bitten, anti-partisan, centrist who still has not registered with a political party and for a time tried to "balance" my ballot by ensuring I voted for some from each major party.

As they sometimes say -- reality has a liberal bias. It is no wonder the modern RW is anti-education because keeping the masses dumb, poor and angry is how they keep their base together.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you probably graduated around the same time I did.



...back when "mixed" was the biggest piece of the pie.

And to your last bit, the areas where actual reality has a liberal bias would be few and far between. More of it would fall into the category of "person with a degree has opinion X, so we'll treat that as fact because they've got the credentials".

Outside of the hard sciences, many of the other fields don't really deal in realities, they deal in viewpoints and perspectives.

As far as "keeping them dumb, poor, and angry", any time I've seen any angry protests pertaining to economics, the participants didn't strike me as right-wingers. Unless the people with Rainbow hair, keffiyehs, and hammer & sickle signs, screeching at the top of their lungs about "eat the rich" are a different kind of right-winger I'm unfamiliar with.

I think the reality of USA history (and the history of empires/colonies generally) would absolutely be enough to radicalize thoughtful people. But I dont want education to therefore skimp on reality.

Whats needed is some kind of understanding about the practical downsides of radicalism. Huge well justified changes (aka revolutions) have often resulted in total disaster. And we should teach how and why this happened - alongside teaching about positive change brought about through diligent action and sacrifice.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm assuming you probably graduated around the same time I did.

Click to expand...

That is not my recollection.

ThatRobGuy said:

View attachment 380206

...back when "mixed" was the biggest piece of the pie.

Click to expand...

I went from undergraduate to second post-doc who owned this house between two of your bars and there is an awful lot of fluctuation between them. The trends aren't that obvious and the two flavors of conservative (the thing college supposedly kills) never get that high in *any* demographic for *any* year. (The highest for total conservative was 30% for three of the demographics and 32% for the other. It looks like education didn't affect the amount of conservatives.)

ThatRobGuy said:

And to your last bit, the areas where actual reality has a liberal bias would be few and far between. More of it would fall into the category of "person with a degree has opinion X, so we'll treat that as fact because they've got the credentials".

Outside of the hard sciences, many of the other fields don't really deal in realities, they deal in viewpoints and perspectives.

Click to expand...

No, Rob, other fields have actual facts and deal in reality. I learned multi-variate data reduction in a geography class analyzing census tract data. When we say reality has a liberal bias, what we are really saying is that the liberals are the ones who actually know the demographic data, the correlations to poverty, bad health outcomes, etc., and the conservatives do their very best to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the data that tells a different story than the "racism is gone, anyone can make it today" pollyannish tale they spin.

ThatRobGuy said:

As far as "keeping them dumb, poor, and angry", any time I've seen any angry protests pertaining to economics, the participants didn't strike me as right-wingers.

Click to expand...

The RW propagandists certainly push false economic narratives onto the ones they keep ignorant: immigrants are taking your jobs; AA is taking your opportunity (instead of facing their own lack of qualification) and most recently every Trumpian lie about tariffs. Every time I hear some RWer shouting angrily about something it is either hate or they are just plain ignorant of the facts they are complaining about. (Some of the hate is also from bad facts, too.)

ThatRobGuy said:

Unless the people with Rainbow hair, keffiyehs, and hammer & sickle signs, screeching at the top of their lungs about

Click to expand...

Oh, noes! They have a different position on economics than you do. Do you think it's possible they might actually know some things about economics?

ThatRobGuy said:

"eat the rich" are a different kind of right-winger I'm unfamiliar with.

Click to expand...

"It's the only thing they're very good for." (And if you didn't learn that in college, then no, we didn't graduate at about the same time.)

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm assuming you probably graduated around the same time I did.

View attachment 380206

...back when "mixed" was the biggest piece of the pie.

Click to expand...

According to that chart, "mixed" is still the biggest piece of the pie for everybody without a graduate degree.

ThatRobGuy said:

And to your last bit, the areas where actual reality has a liberal bias would be few and far between. More of it would fall into the category of "person with a degree has opinion X, so we'll treat that as fact because they've got the credentials".

Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying that? Who are you hanging out with or watching that makes such a simple-minded connection between "went to college" and "must be correct"?

As I've noted before, my wife works in elite higher ed. We met in Boston. Most of JHU's academic (i.e. non-medical) campuses and facilities are within walking distance from my house. There was a couple years where, of the 4-person production team I led at church, I was the only one who didn't have a doctorate (two PhD's, one MD). When I lived in Boston, I used to joke that I should get a Masters just to fit in. I've been drowning in highly-credentialed people for the last 20 years.

Nobody talks like that. The only people I can even imagine talking like that are folks on the outside who don't work around highly-credentialed "experts" all day.

ThatRobGuy said:

Outside of the hard sciences, many of the other fields don't really deal in realities, they deal in viewpoints and perspectives.

Click to expand...

Reality skews technocratic, which has become more and more synonymous with "liberal" as the right has retreated into dogma.

ThatRobGuy said:

As far as "keeping them dumb, poor, and angry", any time I've seen any angry protests pertaining to economics, the participants didn't strike me as right-wingers.

Click to expand...

That's because the right has convinced them to focus on culture war stuff.

Hans Blaster said:

No, Rob, other fields have actual facts and deal in reality. I learned multi-variate data reduction in a geography class analyzing census tract data. When we say reality has a liberal bias, what we are really saying is that the liberals are the ones who actually know the demographic data, the correlations to poverty, bad health outcomes, etc., and the conservatives do their very best to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the data that tells a different story than the "racism is gone, anyone can make it today" pollyannish tale they spin.

Click to expand...

Which is more detached from reality.

Someone suggesting "racism is gone, anyone can make it" (which isn't exactly the assertion I've heard from the right wing, it's more like "we need to stop constantly focusing on race and move on")
Or
The polar opposite that's espoused by the younger left-wingers? (You know, the stuff about how having to show a drivers license to vote is "Jim Crow 2.0", and portrayals that imply that cops are just out there shooting unarmed minorities left & right)

ThatRobGuy said:

Which is more detached from reality.

Click to expand...

What's detached from reality is your steady stream of strawmen.

ThatRobGuy said:

Someone suggesting "racism is gone, anyone can make it" (which isn't exactly the assertion I've heard from the right wing, it's more like "we need to stop constantly focusing on race and move on")

Click to expand...

Oh? Because I've heard that exact assertion loads of times. Granted, it's less common now - it probably died down once the internet made certain facts more well known. But it's definitely a thing.

ThatRobGuy said:

Or
The polar opposite that's espoused by the younger left-wingers? (You know, the stuff about how having to show a drivers license to vote is "Jim Crow 2.0", and portrayals that imply that cops are just out there shooting unarmed minorities left & right)

Click to expand...

Ok, so you're comparing a tempered, charitable version of the right's rhetoric and comparing that to a rather extreme version of the left's rhetoric.

iluvatar5150 said:

Why do you keep saying that? Who are you hanging out with or watching that makes such a simple-minded connection between "went to college" and "must be correct"?

As I've noted before, my wife works in elite higher ed. We met in Boston. Most of JHU's academic (i.e. non-medical) campuses and facilities are within walking distance from my house. There was a couple years where, of the 4-person production team I led at church, I was the only one who didn't have a doctorate (two PhD's, one MD). When I lived in Boston, I used to joke that I should get a Masters just to fit in. I've been drowning in highly-credentialed people for the last 20 years.

Nobody talks like that. The only people I can even imagine talking like that are folks on the outside who don't work around highly-credentialed "experts" all day.

Click to expand...

Have you not seen the dozens of replies I've gotten on here from people saying (in snarky tone) "Oh, and where did you get your degree in XYZ?!?" when discussing subjective social issues?

iluvatar5150 said:

That's because the right has convinced them to focus on culture war stuff.

Click to expand...

How so? Pretty sure the left did a pretty good job of starting a few of those battles in the "culture war"

iluvatar5150 said:

Ok, so you're comparing a tempered, charitable version of the right's rhetoric and comparing that to a rather extreme version of the left's rhetoric.

Click to expand...

How is that an "extreme" portrayal of their rhetoric?

It was by no means a "fringe" talking point.

Biden himself (and several other high ranking democrats) used the "Jim Crow 2.0" line to describe voter id laws, and the Defund the Police stuff was certainly parroted back by several members of congress. (and even implemented by prominent blue city mayors throughout the country)

ThatRobGuy said:

Which is more detached from reality.

Someone suggesting "racism is gone, anyone can make it" (which isn't exactly the assertion I've heard from the right wing, it's more like "we need to stop constantly focusing on race and move on")
Or
The polar opposite that's espoused by the younger left-wingers? (You know, the stuff about how having to show a drivers license to vote is "Jim Crow 2.0", and portrayals that imply that cops are just out there shooting unarmed minorities left & right)

Click to expand...

I'm not going to rate your strawmen for flammability. You are just dodging the counters to your claims.