Ban "social justice" in education?

[urasim]

Don't bann "social justice" courses. But make at least make sure they are based on fact.

If you watched the video on the petition that's what he's advocating for. Lots of people in this thread ignore this.. Dunno why!

[Thage]

As others have mentioned, don't ban them. Frankly, institutions of learning shouldn't be banning any course of study when it could be made to adhere to more stringent academic standards and studied from an academic point of view instead. As another poster mentioned, you can learn almost everything about the Soviet Union down to what Lenin liked to soak his corn flakes in every morning, and while individual professors are almost certainly going to try to steer the lectures to fit their agenda (even extremely smart people are prone to the countless cognitive biases as the rest of us), the course material itself can still be highly informative from an academic standpoint. Ditto for feminist studies and other social justice-related courses.

The trick is to subject them to the same level of scrutiny and peer-review as any other form of academia. And just like any other form of academia, right or wrong the answer is never to ban it and bury it. Many psychology courses today still discuss and teach about lobotomies, despite the grey legal status of lobotomies in many countries, because the ethical quandary inherent warrants study as does the effect the practice had, and its historical significance, and phrenology despite its status as being long-debunked because of its historical significance. There's valuable lessons to be learned from social justice movements that go too far, as well as the counter-movements that sometimes end up just as bad as that which they set out against, especially given human nature and the long-standing tendency for both populist and elitist movements to eventually be corrupted by extreme elements.

[Vynny]

You can separate it this way in gender/feminists studies as well. Not all professors teaching them will do that; most will try to push their agenda in some way. Same way, studying ideologies liked by the professors, you are likely to be attempted to be somewhat converted into them. I mean, my first university professor in history was a communist fan - you can imagine how it reflected on the way he talked about the last century, praising Soviet Union and other similar systems.

No one suggests banning history courses, because it is assumed that students are smart enough to make their own judgement, and even if some of them are swayed by biased courses and personalities, in the end they can gain a lot of useful knowledge from these courses. Gender/feminist studies are no different. Just need to take a proper course and do your own work, rather than taking one of those trash courses that are used as a platform for hateful propaganda.

So we should just allow courses like

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-an...FeaturedCourse

where the whole point is to get people to look at reality through an ideological lens? I mean come on, how do you not understand how there is a huge difference between a crackpot teacher coloring an academic study relating to an ideology with his bias and a class explicitly meant to make you participate in an ideology. How can you not see the difference between a Sunday school and a religious studies class. How can you not acknowledge that there is a difference between a few unprofessional professors using their bias to preach their ideology in a related course and a body of work that is meant to teach you how to follow the ideology with widespread availability in colleges around the USA?

To put is simply:

Feminism is an ideology. To teach feminist theory is to teach an ideology. Feminist theory is different from history because it is not just a springboard to many different possible ideologies, but the backbone of the ideology itself. Here's a definition of feminist theory from a feminist theory course. "Feminist Theory is an outgrowth of the general movement to empower women worldwide. Feminism can be defined as a recognition and critique of male supremacy combined with efforts to change it." They start at the assumption that we live in a male supremacist world and move on from there.

History is a broad subject that can touch on many different ideologies. The risk of a bunch of people getting indoctrinated into an ideology with history as a springboard is really low because of the fact that there are so many that it has a diluting effect. On top of that, the academic rigor of history courses helps to ensure that any indoctrination is second to the actual history being taught.

Do you see the difference between a feminist theory course and a history course? How history courses can segway into preaching, but feminist theory is literally teaching the ideology of feminism?

[xChurch]

I feel like opinions on social justice issues should be formed on their own, not by schools who imply theirs is the right side of any argument is if it's always black and white.

[May90]

So we should just allow courses like

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-an...FeaturedCourse

where the whole point is to get people to look at reality through an ideological lens? I mean come on, how do you not understand how there is a huge difference between a crackpot teacher coloring an academic study relating to an ideology with his bias and a class explicitly meant to make you participate in an ideology. How can you not see the difference between a Sunday school and a religious studies class. How can you not acknowledge that there is a difference between a few unprofessional professors using their bias to preach their ideology in a related course and a body of work that is meant to teach you how to follow the ideology with widespread availability in colleges around the USA?

To put is simply:

Feminism is an ideology. To teach feminist theory is to teach an ideology. Feminist theory is different from history because it is not just a springboard to many different possible ideologies, but the backbone of the ideology itself. Here's a definition of feminist theory from a feminist theory course. "Feminist Theory is an outgrowth of the general movement to empower women worldwide. Feminism can be defined as a recognition and critique of male supremacy combined with efforts to change it." They start at the assumption that we live in a male supremacist world and move on from there.

History is a broad subject that can touch on many different ideologies. The risk of a bunch of people getting indoctrinated into an ideology with history as a springboard is really low because of the fact that there are so many that it has a diluting effect. On top of that, the academic rigor of history courses helps to ensure that any indoctrination is second to the actual history being taught.

Do you see the difference between a feminist theory course and a history course? How history courses can segway into preaching, but feminist theory is literally teaching the ideology of feminism?

Yes, we should allow these courses. Students not willing to waste their time taking them have the ability to choose a proper program not including such courses as core courses. Which is basically how it is nowadays in, pretty much, all universities. No one is forcing you to take a class brainwashing you into hating on a group of people. But such course are in some demand among certain people, so it is only right to provide them with opportunity.

You can take a history course on Nazi ideology, and you will essentially be taught the ideology of nazism. Doesn't mean they will try to convert you into Nazi. But they might try that, depending on the course outline and on the instructor. Again, you should decide for yourself whether such a course is worth it for you personally or not - but you should not ban such courses, as long as they don't break any already existing laws.

[Cricket22]

As long as a class meets the requirements of the university or state (if publicly funded) they can teach whichever. If there could be an Iaido class at my university, I don't see what's wrong with gender studies etc...

It's their money (or their parents). They are free to throw it away on a useless degree.

Exactly, resulting in less competition in the job market for the rest of us.

I think it's wonderful.

[Vynny]

Yes, we should allow these courses. Students not willing to waste their time taking them have the ability to choose a proper program not including such courses as core courses. Which is basically how it is nowadays in, pretty much, all universities. No one is forcing you to take a class brainwashing you into hating on a group of people. But such course are in some demand among certain people, so it is only right to provide them with opportunity.

You can take a history course on Nazi ideology, and you will essentially be taught the ideology of nazism. Doesn't mean they will try to convert you into Nazi. But they might try that, depending on the course outline and on the instructor. Again, you should decide for yourself whether such a course is worth it for you personally or not - but you should not ban such courses, as long as they don't break any already existing laws.

So you would be fine with a college professor indoctrinating people into Nazism? You wouldn't think to try and stop it? What about Maoism? Stalinism? You see nothing ethically objectionable about allowing such ideologies to be propagated? You think no harm can come from the misinformation and dogma that would be spread? There is absolutely no ethical reason or imperative to curb these destructive ideologies as much as possible? I mean they've collectively lead to the greatest human loss of life in history and threatened the safety of the whole world, but nope, just fine to have professors indoctrinating their students into this stuff. Now before you start claiming that I want to ban history classes for the threat of these ideologies propagating, don't because that case is completely different from Social Justice. The difference is clearly laid out by you "You can take a history course on Nazi ideology, and you will essentially be taught the ideology of Nazism. Doesn't mean they will try to convert you into Nazi. But they might try that . . ." The expressed purpose of the course is a historical study into Nazism which can lead to falling into that ideology. Social Justice courses are meant to lead you into that ideology. So if a professor was caught indoctrinating their students into Nazism then they should be fired and have their certification revoked in order to keep them from indoctrinating young minds anymore, but if a student picks up Nazism due to the course without the professor indoctrinating them then there's not much we can do.

[May90]

So you would be fine with a college professor indoctrinating people into Nazism? You wouldn't think to try and stop it? What about Maoism? Stalinism? You see nothing ethically objectionable about allowing such ideologies to be propagated? You think no harm can come from the misinformation and dogma that would be spread? There is absolutely not ethical reason or imperative to curb these destructive ideologies as much as possible? I mean they've collectively lead to the greatest human loss of life in history and threatened the safety of the whole world, but nope, just fine to have professors indoctrinating their students into this stuff. Now before you start claiming that I want to ban history classes for the threat of these ideologies propagating, don't because that case is completely different for Social Justice. The difference is clearly laid out by you "You can take a history course on Nazi ideology, and you will essentially be taught the ideology of Nazism. Doesn't mean they will try to convert you into Nazi. But they might try that . . ." The expressed purpose of the course is a historical study into Nazism which can lead to falling into that ideology. Social Justice courses are meant to lead you into that ideology. So if a professor was caught indoctrinating their students into Nazism then they should be fired and have their certification revoked in order to keep them from indoctrinating young minds anymore, but if a student picks up Nazism due to the course without the professor indoctrinating them then there's not much we can do.

Like I said, I had a history professor who was a communist and tried hard to get his students to "turn". He didn't have much success though. Do not underestimate students, it is not that easy to indoctrinate them into something crazy.

Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be thrilled to hear that, say, a certain professor at my university tries to convert students into Nazism. Would I want it banned though? No. I don't believe in fighting harmful ideologies by banning them or their teaching, I believe in fighting harmful ideologies by arguing against them in a civilized debate and proving them harmful. If a professor wants to try to convert his students into Nazism, he should be free to do so, as long as he explains it properly in a syllabus, so those students that aren't okay with taking such a course are free to bail out. But for one professor converting students into Nazism, you will have thousands professors teaching students of dangers of Nazism. Which group do you think will emerge victorious? Nazism is a weak ideology, it cannot survive a civilized criticism.

Same with all those courses on feminism and such you are talking about. Some of them are just studies of ideologies, others are promoting them. Students are free to take or not take those courses, they are free to apply or not apply for offered programs. If you disagree with what you call "social justice", then criticize it, engage in a discussion with its followers and demonstrate to everyone that your opinion is better, more thought out. By banning them, you only attract the attention to them; students are generally rebellious guys and girls, they are pulled towards everything that is banned/tabooed, so you would only reach the result opposite to what you wanted by taking such censoring measures.

[Ninjavitis]

I wouldn't say ban it, but definitely don't make anything involving it a requirement.

[McFuu]

I think anyone taking a course such as these should be required to take coursed that will help them understand what is being taught in SJ courses. Namely statistics. I cringe every time people back up claims with statistics but give no access to the actual data those statistics are based on. Case in point (and these are real.)

If you are African American you are 40% more likely to be ticketed than Caucasians during a police interaction.

In all police interactions, Caucasians receive a ticket 5% of the time, Latinos receive a ticket 6% of the time, and African Americans receive a ticket 7% of the time.


I didn't lie in either representation of the data. Except one paints a picture of oppression and the other paints a picture of equality.
Statistics can be made to look however the presenter wants them to look. College students shouldn't be allowed to take any class that presents data in support of an idea until they can actual interpret that data for themselves. Or know enough that when some random percentage is thrown out there to support an idea, that this is just a bastardization of an actual real data-set.

[SodiumChloride]

The vast majority of which were effete philosophy nerds.

Oh please. They were business men who might have some education in humanities in their general education.

They can certainly do basic math. Do we call the founding fathers mathematicians?

You seriously trying to credit the humanities (as studied today; i.e. not science nor mathematics) for the creation of a nation?

[Waynhim]

[abel86silhouette]

I just go for soggy biscuit

[twiddler]

From my experience, professors in engineering, management, and other useful, technical fields tend to be more conservatives. Professors in useless shit tend to be more liberal

Highly doubt that's true for a general consensus. Academics have a tendency of being almost unanimously liberal. Engineers may be a little more conservative even they are commonly overwhelmingly liberal. A political discussion likely is never to surface itself in a STEM classroom but it definitely indicative that a professor leans some way.

[Kraenen]

I think anyone taking a course such as these should be required to take coursed that will help them understand what is being taught in SJ courses. Namely statistics. I cringe every time people back up claims with statistics but give no access to the actual data those statistics are based on. Case in point (and these are real.)

It's basic sensationalism. It's like seeing a news headline that says "Crime skyrockets 500%" while the small town of Bumville went from one shopping cart stolen per year to five.

[Raelbo]

you can't have guilty until innocent unless your going to punish people for making false reports or the whole system will fall apart

I was never advocating guilty until innocent, I was advocating something else.