U of T profs alarmed by Jordan Peterson's plan to target classes he calls 'indoctrination cults'

[HannahT]

"Sociology, that's corrupt. Anthropology, that's corrupt. English literature, that's corrupt. Maybe the worse offenders are the faculties of education."

Whatta maroon.

I was curious about this man. So I started to click some of the links. They had a program in which they paraphrased what he said/meant.

he said that these are part of what he says the post-modern Neo-Marxist agenda — ethnic studies, racial studies, women's studies — and said that this kind of ideology has corrupted sociology, anthropology, English Literature, faculties of education and the faculties of law that are taught in universities.

So, it seems that these areas of study are corrupted by what he calls post-modern Neo-Marxist agenda (whatever that is). It seems he is saying that an ideology is seeping these areas, and I guess twisting them out of shape.

Who knows how precise this discussion is on the man in question. I'm always Leary of those that claim opposing viewpoints are 'violent', etc. That does seem to be thing today. People get scared of opposing opinions, and do get all whackadoddle over them. In the past you KNEW when viewpoints were actual violent, and downright evil. Everyone could see it. Today? Not so much.

I know there has been questions about the types of classes that colleges have been introducing within the last 10+ years now. If you like that type of content? No biggie. It's when you graduate with certain degrees, and then find out there is no market for that line of study that is the issue. I hold the colleges responsible for that, and also students that don't investigate to make sure there is a market for it.

I would have to look into the professor in question before making up my mind. You can tell by most of the literature posted so far they already made up their minds which direction they were going. It wasn't very balanced, but did give little hits here and there of their opposition. WHICH is fine as long as you are upfront about it. They were not.

 

[redleghunter]

So, it seems that these areas of study are corrupted by what he calls post-modern Neo-Marxist agenda (whatever that is). It seems he is saying that an ideology is seeping these areas, and I guess twisting them out of shape.

He's basically saying 'the jig is up' and the ensuing exposure is making some very uncomfortable and others down right incredulous. Which you would expect from those who now know 'the jig is up.'

 

[Rion]

I was curious about this man. So I started to click some of the links. They had a program in which they paraphrased what he said/meant.



So, it seems that these areas of study are corrupted by what he calls post-modern Neo-Marxist agenda (whatever that is). It seems he is saying that an ideology is seeping these areas, and I guess twisting them out of shape.

Who knows how precise this discussion is on the man in question. I'm always Leary of those that claim opposing viewpoints are 'violent', etc. That does seem to be thing today. People get scared of opposing opinions, and do get all whackadoddle over them. In the past you KNEW when viewpoints were actual violent, and downright evil. Everyone could see it. Today? Not so much.

I know there has been questions about the types of classes that colleges have been introducing within the last 10+ years now. If you like that type of content? No biggie. It's when you graduate with certain degrees, and then find out there is no market for that line of study that is the issue. I hold the colleges responsible for that, and also students that don't investigate to make sure there is a market for it.

I would have to look into the professor in question before making up my mind. You can tell by most of the literature posted so far they already made up their minds which direction they were going. It wasn't very balanced, but did give little hits here and there of their opposition. WHICH is fine as long as you are upfront about it. They were not.

Post modernism is the rejection of the idea that you can know the truth, etc. etc.

https://www.equip.org/article/the-postmodern-challenge/

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sounds like the classes are being targeted because they've drifted away from the accepted ideology.

Do sociology and anthropology need ideologies guiding them? I could see the difference for English literature...

 

[redleghunter]

Do sociology and anthropology need ideologies guiding them?

Yet apparently there are.

I could see the difference for English literature...

A fresh approach to English Lit is to actually study and enjoy it within the historical context good or bad or indifferent. Instead of applying some 21st century post-modern theme to it. Let Shakespeare be Shakespeare.

 

[HannahT]

Okay. The transcript I linked to claimed he never clearly defines the term he used. I have seen a couple of videos - short clips - that he did. LINK here for example.

 

[Rion]

Okay. The transcript I linked to claimed he never clearly defines the term he used. I have seen a couple of videos - short clips - that he did. LINK here for example.

That's more... where the mindset tends to lead.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Peterson, who rose to fame in right-wing circles after his outspoken refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, says he wants to use artificial intelligence to scour university curriculums for what he "calls post-modern neo-Marxist course content."

I would like to know what algorithm he plans on using for this...

Well...he gives a little glimpse into it...
In a speech posted to his YouTube page on July 9, Peterson elaborates on what type of courses he aims to target with the website.

"Women's studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups, man, those things have to go and the faster they go the better," he said. "It would have been better if they had never been part of the university to begin with as far as I can tell."

He goes on to say...

"Sociology, that's corrupt. Anthropology, that's corrupt. English literature, that's corrupt. Maybe the worse offenders are the faculties of education."


Aside from glaring double-standard where he's going after Sociology, Gender Studies, and Anthropology as being indoctrination cults...meanwhile he's a professor of Clinical Psychology...anyone need a refill on irony?

He's failed to provide any supporting info as to why he feels things like English Literature, Anthropology, and Sociology are "Marxist". I would hope, as a professor, he wouldn't be stooping to the low level of taking the "Everything I don't like is communism" position...but I fear that's what he's doing. (unless someone can provide the specifics to quantify his claim, then I'll be happy to retract my statement).

It seems like he's one of those guys where he thinks that:
"leading someone to a conclusion that matches my own is 'education', but giving them info that could lead them to a conclusion that differs from mine is 'indoctrination'"

...which is one of the most arrogant positions an educator could take. It operates on the premise that "free thought and critical thinking should lead to a conclusion that matches my own...if you come to any other conclusion, you must just be gullible and got tricked into it".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Okay. The transcript I linked to claimed he never clearly defines the term he used. I have seen a couple of videos - short clips - that he did. LINK here for example.

I saw the video and it seems to bring up another point of irony:

His definition of radical post-modern neo marxist: "A person who holds the position that human beings can be molded into anything that I want to make them into"

...says the clinical psychologist (at profession that specializes in trying to alter behavior) in the video who's currently trying to mold students into something he wants by attempting to limit which classes are and aren't available to them.

 

[keith99]

A fresh approach to English Lit is to actually study and enjoy it within the historical context good or bad or indifferent. Instead of applying some 21st century post-modern theme to it. Let Shakespeare be Shakespeare.

But that is hardly a new thing. C.S. Lewis made a serious proposal that when it came to literature British Schoolboys should only be tested to confirm that they had actually read the material because of the layers of interpreting what others had said about things overshadowed the actual literature in question.

To put a time frame on that it happens that Lewis dies within hours of President Kennedy.

 

[HannahT]

I was interested in learning more about him, and I found another video in which he goes into more detail about the term in question. LINK

Part of the Transcript:

Postmodernist thought is predicated on the idea that the ideals of modernism -- so those would, in some sense, be Enlightenment ideals -- the ideals of rational discourse and objectivity and, say, scientific inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas, and the marketplace of ideas, and even the idea of, say, liberal education itself (which is a core value of the universities) . . . that's all to be dispensed with because there are no overarching truths. That's the postmodernist stance. There are no overarching truths. Everything is up for grabs.

Now, of course, that's an internally contradictory philosophy because it leaves you no direction for action. But the postmodernists deal with that by allowing their philosophy to be nested inside of a Marxist doctrine. And so all the postmodernists, the French postmodernists, were Marxists to begin with. And so when their postmodernism provides them with no direction because it CAN'T, they just revert to the idea that it's oppressor against oppressed. They define that by whatever categorical structure is handy at the time. I mean it can be race, it can be ethnicity, it can be language, it can be gender, it can be sex . . . And the problem with that is that it can be any number of indefinite other things as well. So the oppressor vs. oppressed narrative is one that isn't questioned by postmodernists because they're basically Marxists as well, even though that can't really exist as an overarching narrative from the postmodern perspective.

 

[redleghunter]

I was interested in learning more about him, and I found another video in which he goes into more detail about the term in question. LINK

Part of the Transcript:

Postmodernist thought is predicated on the idea that the ideals of modernism -- so those would, in some sense, be Enlightenment ideals -- the ideals of rational discourse and objectivity and, say, scientific inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas, and the marketplace of ideas, and even the idea of, say, liberal education itself (which is a core value of the universities) . . . that's all to be dispensed with because there are no overarching truths. That's the postmodernist stance. There are no overarching truths. Everything is up for grabs.

Now, of course, that's an internally contradictory philosophy because it leaves you no direction for action. But the postmodernists deal with that by allowing their philosophy to be nested inside of a Marxist doctrine. And so all the postmodernists, the French postmodernists, were Marxists to begin with. And so when their postmodernism provides them with no direction because it CAN'T, they just revert to the idea that it's oppressor against oppressed. They define that by whatever categorical structure is handy at the time. I mean it can be race, it can be ethnicity, it can be language, it can be gender, it can be sex . . . And the problem with that is that it can be any number of indefinite other things as well. So the oppressor vs. oppressed narrative is one that isn't questioned by postmodernists because they're basically Marxists as well, even though that can't really exist as an overarching narrative from the postmodern perspective.

Thanks

 

[KCfromNC]

He's failed to provide any supporting info as to why he feels things like English Literature, Anthropology, and Sociology are "Marxist". I would hope, as a professor, he wouldn't be stooping to the low level of taking the "Everything I don't like is communism" position...but I fear that's what he's doing.

More likely he's taking the "certain groups are easy to rile up using words like post-modern and Marxist, and that's good for my wallet" approach.

 

[HannahT]

He's failed to provide any supporting info as to why he feels things like English Literature, Anthropology, and Sociology are "Marxist". I would hope, as a professor, he wouldn't be stooping to the low level of taking the "Everything I don't like is communism" position...but I fear that's what he's doing. (unless someone can provide the specifics to quantify his claim, then I'll be happy to retract my statement).

Actually, he did in a couple of places. Although, some articles will deny that...lol its not that hard to find it. I didn't even know about the guy, and I googled and found it pretty quick. (shrugs)

I can also see why people don't like his opinions, but then again what's new! They just resort to the stand by name calling, etc. I guess that is better than debating his point of view WHICH today isn't so popular.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually, he did in a couple of places. Although, some articles will deny that...lol its not that hard to find it. I didn't even know about the guy, and I googled and found it pretty quick. (shrugs)

I can also see why people don't like his opinions, but then again what's new! They just resort to the stand by name calling, etc. I guess that is better than debating his point of view WHICH today isn't so popular.

I watched the video (and replied back about it in post #49)...I still feel like his reasoning is littered with irony and hypocrisy.

 

[HannahT]

I watched the video (and replied back about it in post #49)...I still feel like his reasoning is littered with irony and hypocrisy.

Yes, I saw your comment about how he is trying to limit the classes they can and can not take. I don't think that is the purpose of the website he is talking about. I mean the university is who makes that decision - not him. So, he really doesn't have that power. lol Especially, when the staff and schools are objecting to his POV. It's not like he can overpower them!

Professors even back in my day tried to tell you their worldview on things. My young adults in college know how they have to write papers for certain professors you MUST agree with or fail. That to me isn't a capable teacher, but the university isn't going to change the program due to that incapable nature either. They know its there, and don't change anything. I'm sure Tenure, etc has something to do with that as well.

They have websites in which you can rate professors. I suppose there is nothing wrong with rating classes that can be viewed as having an ideological bend to them. People have a choice to pay for them anyway, or take something else. He really doesn't have to power to force them to NOT attend.

I mean both sides of this are coming from their POV towards the world, and object to the other side. It would be a good debate, but sadly today people just can't handle that. They claim disagreement is violent, and is too scary. Although, I would BET if they got individuals that could debate without the emotional aspect of both sides? It would be interesting to watch.

I'm not endorsing him, because I don't know enough about him yet. Yet, I don't really see the irony or hypocrisy either. I just see a different POV.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Peterson, who rose to fame in right-wing circles after his outspoken refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, says he wants to use artificial intelligence to scour university curriculums for what he "calls post-modern neo-Marxist course content."

I would like to know what algorithm he plans on using for this...

Well...he gives a little glimpse into it...
In a speech posted to his YouTube page on July 9, Peterson elaborates on what type of courses he aims to target with the website.

"Women's studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups, man, those things have to go and the faster they go the better," he said. "It would have been better if they had never been part of the university to begin with as far as I can tell."

He goes on to say...

"Sociology, that's corrupt. Anthropology, that's corrupt. English literature, that's corrupt. Maybe the worse offenders are the faculties of education."


Aside from glaring double-standard where he's going after Sociology, Gender Studies, and Anthropology as being indoctrination cults...meanwhile he's a professor of Clinical Psychology...anyone need a refill on irony?

Yeah, clinical psychology is far from a hard science...sure...but it does at least take a scientific approach to results. It attempts to refine what "works" and discards what doesn't...at least it should when practiced correctly.

I can't say what his argument is with anthropology...but over the past ten years or so I've watched sociology go from being a halfway respectable field to an idiot's free for all. I don't know if post modernism is to blame...but it sure wouldn't surprise me.

He's failed to provide any supporting info as to why he feels things like English Literature, Anthropology, and Sociology are "Marxist". I would hope, as a professor, he wouldn't be stooping to the low level of taking the "Everything I don't like is communism" position...but I fear that's what he's doing. (unless someone can provide the specifics to quantify his claim, then I'll be happy to retract my statement).

It seems like he's one of those guys where he thinks that:
"leading someone to a conclusion that matches my own is 'education', but giving them info that could lead them to a conclusion that differs from mine is 'indoctrination'"

...which is one of the most arrogant positions an educator could take. It operates on the premise that "free thought and critical thinking should lead to a conclusion that matches my own...if you come to any other conclusion, you must just be gullible and got tricked into it".

Are those actual quotes of his? Or just your interpretation of his position?

Frankly, I think post-modernism should be taught just long enough for people to understand that it's garbage. 2+2=4...and that's a truth regardless of subjective experience or perspective. To teach people otherwise gives them nothing except a convenient excuse to examine their own positions critically. Post modernism had a relatively big start (after all, it's easy to take a position that openly dismisses anything you don't already believe in as "relative") but it was fairly quickly dismantled and shown to be hollow. I find it a little disturbing that so many students still try to approach any issues through a post modernist lens. It's not teaching people how to think critically...it just teaches students to dismiss arguments they disagree with....and I've seen this in action.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I saw your comment about how he is trying to limit the classes they can and can not take. I don't think that is the purpose of the website he is talking about. I mean the university is who makes that decision - not him. So, he really doesn't have that power. lol Especially, when the staff and schools are objecting to his POV. It's not like he can overpower them!

Professors even back in my day tried to tell you their worldview on things. My young adults in college know how they have to write papers for certain professors you MUST agree with or fail. That to me isn't a capable teacher, but the university isn't going to change the program due to that incapable nature either. They know its there, and don't change anything. I'm sure Tenure, etc has something to do with that as well.

They have websites in which you can rate professors. I suppose there is nothing wrong with rating classes that can be viewed as having an ideological bend to them. People have a choice to pay for them anyway, or take something else. He really doesn't have to power to force them to NOT attend.

I mean both sides of this are coming from their POV towards the world, and object to the other side. It would be a good debate, but sadly today people just can't handle that. They claim disagreement is violent, and is too scary. Although, I would BET if they got individuals that could debate without the emotional aspect of both sides? It would be interesting to watch.

I'm not endorsing him, because I don't know enough about him yet. Yet, I don't really see the irony or hypocrisy either. I just see a different POV.

I don't really see any harm to what he's doing...if all he wants is to inform students that "Hey...this class is loaded with a lot of post-modernism or neo-marxism (whatever that is)". A good teacher should be able to try and examine the validity of as many different viewpoints as possible...not just dismiss them offhand.

I remember a middle east studies class I had during my college years. It was a smaller, higher level class for political science and for some reason the professor was gone and we had his student professor teaching the class. We only had maybe a dozen students, and it was very conversational...with everyone in a circle discussing all sorts of political facets of each middle east state.

I'll never forget that when he asked us for our opinions on the role Islam played into the political system in Libya (maybe Jordan, can't remember) I proposed that it appeared to be primarily for consensus building. That leaders proposed their policies through the lens of what they believed Islam taught...and then used this to disseminate a "correct" political agenda to the masses...he looked at me like I was smoking crack right there in the middle of the class.

He then chastised me for my wrong opinion...gave some explanation of the "correct" answer...then asked if anyone else agreed with me. Only one student did...and it was the student born and raised in Libya. He didn't even acknowledge that...instead deciding to move onto another topic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't really see any harm to what he's doing...if all he wants is to inform students that "Hey...this class is loaded with a lot of post-modernism or neo-marxism (whatever that is)". A good teacher should be able to try and examine the validity of as many different viewpoints as possible...not just dismiss them offhand.

$20 says its primary function is going to be to serve to enable the far/alt-right to continue whining about liberal universities.

 

[Gene2memE]

"I'm hoping that over about a five-year period a concerted effort could be made to knock the enrolment down in postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes by 75 per cent across the West. So our plan initially is to cut off the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults."

It's like right-wing buzzword bingo.

Postmodern
Neo-Marxist
Cult
The West
Incotrination

Combine, shake and you too can release your own mutually contradictory statements.

For the record, the origin of post-modernism was, in part, a Western intellectual critique of Marxism and has little, if anything to do with neo-Marxism (or Communism, or Socialism). Dr Peterson's arguments to the converse are generally ridiculed by all those outside of far/alt-right circles, particularly those that are actively publishing/teaching about post-Modernism (see, for example, Fredric Jameson on the subject).

I think Dr Peterson just wants to wave the 'Cultural Marxism' brush around as much as possible, and doesn't really understand care to differentiate his ideas thoroughly in his eagerness to tar his intellectual opponents. Also, the intellectual/revolutionary left - and no, the two are not synonymous - ditched Marxism for postmodernism in the 1980s, and I think that Dr Peterson just wants to keep ragging on 'the other side' for being different.