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

HannahT said:

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). upfront about it. They were not.

Click to expand...

Go to his you tube website if you want more depth on what he is talking about when he talks about post-modernism.

iluvatar5150 said:

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

Click to expand...

Jordan Peterson does not strike me being far right at all. For example, he states that abortion is wrong, but goes on to say that just because something is wrong does not mean that it ought to be illegal. He notes the real differences of weight between the effect that pregnancy has on women vs men, and also notes that even if marriage is the solution, how impossible a solution that is, unless people start getting married very young in our society.
He is above all a scientist, and he first came into the public eye because government law was making it impossible for him to teach about gender while remaining true to the scientific research on the topic. He describes himself as a classical liberal, but like most professors he tends more to the liberal than to the conservative end of the political sphere going by the way that people normally use those terms today.

ianb321red said:

I guess the unknown is whether, once identified, will prospective students actually want to such courses?

Click to expand...

I think Peterson's site will stimulate curiosity about the courses he targets, and could actually persuade rather than dissuade students to enroll in them. By drawing attention to those courses, students are more likely to investigate them on their own and determine whether they could offer value to their educational pursuits. They could discover that a course maligned by Peterson actually had positive reviews from students who've taken it, and be more compelled to experience it for themselves, especially if it fulfilled a requirement. Breitbart had an article this summer deriding a new course at my college, which sparked interest that lead to more students inquiring about and discussing it.

I don't know how much utility Peterson's site would provide, especially since at many colleges the publicly viewable course descriptions differ from what's posted on internal sites only accessible to those within the college community. For example, at my school, nearly all the courses taught by high-profile professors have vague descriptions on the public site, but are detailed on our internal catalogue. The most commonly taken courses are often taught by a variety of professors, and generally have a generic description; each professor tailors the synopsis for their own class. We have a personalized course-planning and exploration site that enables us to create academic blueprints and design our class schedules each quarter, using metrics in collaboration with the course descriptions. It utilizes a large dataset of student enrollment, performance and course evaluation data to provide us with information important to decision-making, like the average number of hours students spend per week on work for that course, when and why students took it (to fulfill general education requirements, for their major, their minor, coterm, enrichment, etc), the drop rate, course sequencing and cognate courses, grade distribution, student feedback from multiple quarters, faculty evaluations, and how the course fits into career pathways. When you put your schedule together, it tells you which requirements you'll be fulfilling by taking them, and the estimated number of out-of-class hours you'll be spending working on your courses that quarter. The creators of the system plan to bring it to other colleges in the near future. The information on it is likely to be far more useful to most students than what Peterson could post on his site about a course.

I'm not from America so I don't know the details, but apparently this is from an American textbook, and also this. So there does seem to be something significantly wrong going on in American educational institutions. If Jordan Peterson is planning to point out extremist ideological content taught as science, then it's a good thing, in my opinion.

Ana the Ist said:

Because a psychologist doesn't have anything meaningful to say about those various fields?

Click to expand...

No more so than any other amateur.

*Starlight* said:

I'm not from America so I don't know the details, but apparently this is from an American textbook, and also this. So there does seem to be something significantly wrong going on in American educational institutions. If Jordan Peterson is planning to point out extremist ideological content taught as science, then it's a good thing, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Key word: apparently.

Stanfordella said:

I think Peterson's site will stimulate curiosity about the courses he targets, and could actually persuade rather than dissuade students to enroll in them. By drawing attention to those courses, students are more likely to investigate them on their own and determine whether they could offer value to their educational pursuits. They could discover that a course maligned by Peterson actually had positive reviews from students who've taken it, and be more compelled to experience it for themselves, especially if it fulfilled a requirement. Breitbart had an article this summer deriding a new course at my college, which sparked interest that lead to more students inquiring about and discussing it.

Click to expand...

lol Then I guess people on campus have an issue with the website EVEN being talked about then. If they don't feel it is a threat to enrollment? I'm not sure what else it could be. Social Media makes things an open book today. So do websites. Their over the top, melodramatic response isn't going to help them.

I mean they (staff, professors, etc) claim it creates a 'climate of fear and intimidation', and "a serious case of harassment, fostering unsafe work and study conditions for students, faculty, and staff. … [We] take the potential threat posed by this website as a serious occupational safety and harassment issue."

(eye rolls) I mentioned a website that ranks professors yesterday, and I didn't know the name of it. So, I asked my college kids! One of them is named 'rate a professor' which of course makes sense, but I guess there are others.

If these classes that he is griping about - women's studies, Ethnic/Racial Studies, etc are such awesome and popular classes AFTER someone criticizes them? They need to stop with the drama queen antics. It drives people to their courses. I mean they get what they want here! Enrollment spurt!

I'm NOT doubting the reaction you speak of at ALL! I can see that happening. It makes perfect sense.

Yet, their reaction is he is 'alt right', etc? Discussion/Criticism of the course creates fear? His use of the metaphor 'indoctrination cult' creates humor to me, because their reaction to this IS very similar to cults. Professors and places of learning should use a bit more rational approach. Their reaction instead will spark curiosity, and not always in a good way! They could get some more enrollment, and other students may avoid the classes because they need someone a bit more down to earth in response to life's happenings.

TLK Valentine said:

Key word: apparently.

Click to expand...

So these scans are fake? If yes, then Peterson simply won't find any examples of extremist ideologies promoted in classes.

*Starlight* said:

I'm not from America so I don't know the details, but apparently this is from an American textbook, and also this. So there does seem to be something significantly wrong going on in American educational institutions. If Jordan Peterson is planning to point out extremist ideological content taught as science, then it's a good thing, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

TLK Valentine said:

Key word: apparently.

Click to expand...

(Shrugs) Yet, you hear the quotes from these books parroted frequently. You hear it from professors and students.

HannahT said:

(Shrugs) Yet, you hear the quotes from these books parroted frequently. You hear it from professors and students.

Click to expand...

But I never hear which books... or which schools are using them.

You'd think anyone who's going to take a snapshot of a passage would be kind enough to take a second one of the cover.

elliott95 said:

Jordan Peterson does not strike me being far right at all. For example, he states that abortion is wrong, but goes on to say that just because something is wrong does not mean that it ought to be illegal. He notes the real differences of weight between the effect that pregnancy has on women vs men, and also notes that even if marriage is the solution, how impossible a solution that is, unless people start getting married very young in our society.
He is above all a scientist, and he first came into the public eye because government law was making it impossible for him to teach about gender while remaining true to the scientific research on the topic. He describes himself as a classical liberal, but like most professors he tends more to the liberal than to the conservative end of the political sphere going by the way that people normally use those terms today.

Click to expand...

Remember the atmosphere today! Just mentioning that he feels abortion is wrong? It doesn't matter about the other aspects of WHY he does - just that he uttered that? He 'hates' women, and doesn't believe in their reproductive rights.

Being labeled 'alt right' is just part of it. Jumping to conclusions without listening to the whole thought? It's the thing to do today.

I would even go as far as saying their approach is why people can't have 'discussions' that everyone calls for. Lack of listening skills, and realizing disagreements doesn't mean 'hate'? If you can't even agree on that you can't get very far.

*Starlight* said:

So these scans are fake?

Click to expand...

Much as I respect the inherent accuracy and reliability of anything and everything found on the internet, I would prefer a citation to go with the screenshot -- or am I the only teacher who still teaches proper MLA formatting?

If yes, then Peterson simply won't find any examples of extremist ideologies promoted in classes.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that extremist ideologies on both sides of the spectrum exist in the academic profession... just as I know that Peterson will find what he's looking for... no less, no more.

TLK Valentine said:

But I never hear which books... or which schools are using them.

You'd think anyone who's going to take a snapshot of a passage would be kind enough to take a second one of the cover.

Click to expand...

I googled for the statements from the image, and found out that they come from the textbook Sociology by John Macionis. If you google for "when men stare at women, they are claiming social dominance" you can even find a PDF with the relevant chapter, but I'm not sure if would be allowed to link it here.

HannahT said:

Remember the atmosphere today! Just mentioning that he feels abortion is wrong? It doesn't matter about the other aspects of WHY he does - just that he uttered that? He 'hates' women, and doesn't believe in their reproductive rights.

Being labeled 'alt right' is just part of it. Jumping to conclusions without listening to the whole thought? It's the thing to do today.

I would even go as far as saying their approach is why people can't have 'discussions' that everyone calls for. Lack of listening skills, and realizing disagreements doesn't mean 'hate'? If you can't even agree on that you can't get very far.

Click to expand...

Those who insist that he is alt.right go on my ignore list. It is useless having honest discussions with this kind of person.

Related to this, few or no post-modernists take Peterson up on his offer for a debate. When truth is seen as nothing more than narrative, and narrative is power, it is far easier to label and dismiss those who challenge in order to control the narrative than to take part in rational and logical argument, which post-modernists do not believe in anyway.
It is not just poor listening skills. This is according to post-modernist ideology and strategy. It is planned behavior.

*Starlight* said:

I googled for the statements from the image, and found out that they come from the textbook Sociology by John Macionis. If you google for "when men stare at women, they are claiming social dominance" you can even find a PDF with the relevant chapter, but I'm not sure if would be allowed to link it here.

Click to expand...

Found the passage in context; funny how it says a lot more than that screenshot:

For most North Americans, eye contact encourages inter-
action. In conversations, women hold eye contact more than men.
But men have their own brand of eye contact: staring. When men
stare at women, they are claiming social dominance and defining
women as sexual objects. While it often shows pleasure, smiling can
also be a sign of trying to please someone or of submission. In a
male-dominated world, it is not surprising that women smile more
than men (Henley et al., 1992). Note, however, that most Aboriginal
cultures have quite different patterns of eye contact; for men and
women, staring is discourteous and eye contact is made only
fleetingly, perhaps in greeting or to check to see if someone else has
finished speaking.

How "extreme" is the ideology here?

TLK Valentine said:

Found the passage in context; funny how it says a lot more than that screenshot:

For most North Americans, eye contact encourages inter-
action. In conversations, women hold eye contact more than men.
But men have their own brand of eye contact: staring. When men
stare at women, they are claiming social dominance and defining
women as sexual objects. While it often shows pleasure, smiling can
also be a sign of trying to please someone or of submission. In a
male-dominated world, it is not surprising that women smile more
than men (Henley et al., 1992). Note, however, that most Aboriginal
cultures have quite different patterns of eye contact; for men and
women, staring is discourteous and eye contact is made only
fleetingly, perhaps in greeting or to check to see if someone else has
finished speaking.

How "extreme" is the ideology here?

Click to expand...

I think I still see it as a kind of extremist ideology. The idea that men commonly stare at women to claim dominance and define them as object is directly related to the creepy "men are oppressors of women" idea common among radical feminists, and that's an ideology that promotes conflict between people.

*Starlight* said:

I think I still see it as a kind of extremist ideology. The idea that men commonly stare at women to claim dominance and define them as object is directly related to the creepy "men are oppressors of women" idea common among radical feminists, and that's an ideology that promotes conflict between people.

Click to expand...

Yep. Especially since we aren't living in the Aboriginal culture. No doubt we have many differences between ideals for our culture and their's. Nothing wrong with it either.

essentialsaltes said:

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

Whatta maroon.

Click to expand...

The irony is that Peterson's own field has been pilloried by various mindsets. Some have decried psychology as corrupt, as indoctrination, or belittled it as ultra-liberal touchy-feely, anti-religious, yada, yada, yada. When I told my brother about having been invited to present research at the APA Conference in DC in August, he and his friends (all of whom were STEM majors) sort of went like . One friend said he hoped that didn't mean I was planning on declaring as a psych major because it's one of the "fuzziest of the fuzzies", and the others were basically in agreement. My brother did enthusiastically congratulate me, after I told him that no, I'm not switching to Psychology.

*Starlight* said:

I think I still see it as a kind of extremist ideology. The idea that men commonly stare at women to claim dominance and define them as object is directly related to the creepy "men are oppressors of women" idea common among radical feminists, and that's an ideology that promotes conflict between people.

Click to expand...

I didn't see the word "commonly" anywhere -- probably because you added it to promote your own ideology. As a man myself, I can honestly say that if I'm "staring" at a woman, my interests are more often than not lecherous. I see from your profile that you, too, are a man -- I happen to have a few friends of the homosexual persuasion who would volunteer (as a thought experiment)to stare at you (or by proxy, a recent photo of you, if you would kindly post one) and we can compare the responses from both them and yourself.

HannahT said:

Yep. Especially since we aren't living in the Aboriginal culture. No doubt we have many differences between ideals for our culture and their's. Nothing wrong with it either.

Click to expand...

Well, sociology is the study of all sorts of different cultures...