kalm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:28 pm
UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:48 pm
Why not both what?
No, I am not suggesting that it's impossible to teach "teach accurate history without encouraging victim hood." Quite the opposite, I would argue that encouraging victimhood interferes with teaching accurate history.
Sorry…my poor wording.
We agree then. It’s ok to teach history. Victimhood does not need to be a part of the curriculum.
So are we actually teaching victimhood as part of the curriculum? And how so?
We're teaching victimhood when we teach CRT without context and in-depth discussion. It might be appropriate for a high school AP class but it is not appropriate for an elementary or middle school class. And to be honest, based on some of the protests that occur at colleges and universities, I'm not sure all college students or professors can handle the context and open debate.
That discussion should allow people to express their opinions and learn from each other. Unfortunately certain opinions that would contribute to the discussion and learning are not welcome. Look what happened to
Professor Dorian Abbott at MIT.
Dr. Dorian Abbot, a geophysical sciences associate professor at the University of Chicago, was slated to deliver the John Carlson Lecture, which is billed by MIT as an annual lecture meant to communicate "exciting new results in climate science to the general public," in light of his research on climate change. But MIT retracted his invitation, not because of the content of his planned lecture, but instead after activists and MIT academics took issue with Abbot's past comments arguing academic evaluations should be based on merit, not on race or ethnic identity.
"I am a professor who just had a prestigious public science lecture at MIT cancelled because of an outrage mob on Twitter," Abbot wrote. "This is not a partisan issue. Anyone who is interested in the pursuit of truth and in promoting a healthy and functioning society has a stake in this debate. Speaking out now may seem risky. But the cost of remaining silent is far steeper."
Why the Latest Campus Cancellation Is Different
But there is more to this story than meets the eye. For although most outlets have covered Abbot’s disinvitation as but the latest example of an illiberal culture on campus, it is qualitatively different from other recent instances in which invitations have been rescinded—and suggests that the scope of censorship is continuing to morph and expand.
...
Back in August, Abbot and a colleague criticized affirmative action and other ways to give candidates for admission or employment a leg up on the basis of their ethnic or racial identity in Newsweek. In their place, Abbot advocated what he calls a Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) framework in which applicants would be “treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone.” This, Abbot emphasized, would also entail “an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants.”
...
Even so, it is patently absurd to cancel a lecture on climate change because of Abbot’s article in Newsweek. If every cringeworthy analogy to the Third Reich were grounds for canceling talks, hundreds of professors—and thousands of op-ed columnists—would no longer be welcome on campus.