RoR: Forum

Welcome to SOLO, Marty Lewinter. Your writing is right in the mainstream of Objectivisit thought. Your work is clear, concise, and direct. It follows very closely in the tradition of the essays of Ayn Rand, both in form and content.

This article would be livelier for me if it had examples of actions taken by campus disciplinarians in the last couple of years. Horror stories from 2003 forward would be on target. Specific examples of injustices committed in the name of political correctness would prove your claim that free speech is in grave danger at our colleges.

I agree with you when you point out that emotions are not tools of cognition. Therefore, that a person feels bad upon hearing some words tells that person nothing about the validity of those words. I agree, also, that each of us makes our own internal world and that we are responsible for the consequences of our intellectual choices, i.e, for the substance of our feelings. No one else can be responsible for those feelings.

Post 1

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:47am

Marty,

I liked your article, but found many of your examples far-fetched.

But even if some of the irrationality cited is correct, it is no wonder that the internet has become such an ugly, uncivil place. All that pent-up anger/frustration has to go somewhere.

Post 2

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:42am

Heh, Marty is a professor at SUNY-Purchase, one of the worst bastions of PC prudery I have ever heard of. I don't know how publicly he is allowed to discuss his dealings with "human resources" there, but if he does, his examples aren't going to seem at all "far-fetched."

Post 3

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:52am

Being familiar with what goes on in the world of academia, I didn't bat an eye at his lack of evidence. I agree with Andrew that his examples aren't "far-fetched" at all. Though you'll have to tolerate a little anger at his christian leanings, you could check out http://www.dradams.org for specific(and often hilarious) examples of the crap that goes on in the hallowed halls. This is Mike Adams site, and you can access his article archives there.
(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 8/11, 9:55am)

Post 4

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:58am

I'm glad you enjoyed my article. I appreciate your comments on the lack of enough documentation.

For many examples of campus PC inflicted on faculty (and students), go to http://www.thefire.org/, an organization founded by Professor Kors, author of "The Shadow University."

I should have included personal examples on my campus, but they are painful to write about. I was charged with sexual harassment after giving someone a copy a CD of my compositions (I found this out later).

My entire chain of command was notified that such a charge was made. The identity of the accuser was withheld from me. I was ordered to a "counseling session" in which my guilt was assumed. I was denied union or legal representation. A similar scenario occured when a student in my math class complained that my humor created a hostile environment. (My humor earned me the gratitude of countless numbers of students. Math is hard to teach and is hard to learn - especially hard for math-phobic students taking required math courses.)

I finally took legal action to have my name cleared and to delete harsh letters from human resources from my personnel file. My legal fees amounted to about $5000.

My refusal to say "he/she" prompted troubles, as did my use of "mankind" in a core course "Culture and Society in the West."
(A tough course for a math professor!) The campus newspaper wrote trash about my politics and refused to allow me to write a counter article.

I am scorned by most faculty for my anti-left views. Many students refer to me as a Nazi and a rascist for my opposition to affirmative action and welfare state policies. I am the only professor at my leftist college who put an American flag on his office door after 9/11. The following day, my flag was on the floor with a footprint on it. Several universities prohibited their faculty from displaying American flags for fear of making foreign students uncomfortable!

Please do visit http://www.thefire.org/. My short story doesn't adequately describe the reign of terror inflicted by lefty campus officials who have contempt for due process and who enforce guilt by perception. This creates a climate of fear. Younger, untenured professors are afraid to speak their minds.
Many departments ruled by leftist faculty will not hire anyone who doesn't tow the party line.

I am encouraged when I encounter objectivist professors and brave objectivist graduate students (such as Luke Morris) who are preparing to storm the gates of our universities by becoming professors of philosophy, political science, etc. Armed with respect for truth, free inquiry, and a vision of a free society in which human happiness can be achieved, they are the hope of tomorrow.

Post 5

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 12:06pm

Marty,

Good to see you on SOLO! I very much enjoyed our music session last Friday night!

Jim

Post 6

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 12:31pm

Marty welcome. I appreciate the article and look forward to more. I am hesitant about entering the academic world partly because of some of the issues you raise.

regards
John

Post 7

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 12:57pm

Was there not a pretty thorough article in The Objectivist covering the situation in college campuses, more from the standpoint of types of organizations?
I'm guessing it's over there on the center's site, somewhere.

Post 8

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 5:03pm

Sorry Marty, I know PC is a pandemic on campuses across America, so was not impugning your veracity, but the specifics sounded like Feydeau to me. My heart goes out to you.

Post 9

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:50pm

Marty,

Great article, great to see you on SOLO, and thanks for the plug!
Of course, now you've gone and terrified me to death over going into academia. *Shiver*

Just kidding.

Post 10

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:32pm

I took an aviation class in high school, and we had a flight instructor come in one day to tell us about different aspects of becoming a student pilot. At one point, he said, "I noticed there's only one girl in your class, but I have found that women are usually better at flying than men." So naturally, I blurted out the first thing that came to mind: "I guess it's not like driving then, huh?" The entire class roared with laughter, including my teacher and the girl, and then we moved on with the rest of the class. I never got in any trouble for it. How odd that, in many ways, we set wider boundaries for our students in high school than we do for those in college.

Post 11

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:28am

Hi Jim (i loved the Celtic music we played together) and Luke (I look forward to your talk Saturday evening). It's good to be on SoloHQ (thanks to Andrew).

Andrew: I loved your anecdote. I would lose my job for such a remark. Years before PC, I got away with some un-PC remarks. I told my statistics class that 95% of the constipated people of America don't give a shit. We were given some latitude back then in our classroom humor.

There is a highway near my college called the Merit Parkway. I recently told my class I prefer it over the Affirmative Action Highway. One student got up and left the classroom abruptly. I recall being quite concerned that evening, anticipating censure from the administration. Next day, I found that she left the classroom because of an upset stomach.

;-)

Post 12

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:45pm

It is hard getting "fired" from a job for your beliefs.

It was harder still in an earlier time.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/10/16.html

I am impressed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE ( http://www.thefire.org/)). They stand up for a broad range of unpopular views, including pro-Palestinian, anti-Gulf War, as well as those of more mainstream American values. I think that to some extent, though, much of this is whining.

I am not sure what "academic freedom" is that any other Constitutional right is not. "Tolerance" may be a virtue, or it may not be. We have a denuniciation of tolerance posted as a SOLO Article right now. I agree that education is best carried out in an intellectually complex environment. I also recognize that the right to property includes the right to social discrimination.

It would be wrong to limit City Hall to persons of gender, color, or religion, of course. Tax-based funding of education complicates matters. Even nominally "private" schools such as Harvard depend on tax dollars, and have entangled relationships with public bodies. I am not sure how to untangle them. I do know that public finance is a foot in the door to state control of otherwise private entities.

Last night, I spent a few minutes with a young woman who recommended a college class she took in Black Psychology. I scoffed, and admitted that I was scoffing, but I remained open enough to ask her for a specific example from her class to show that "Blacks" (however defined) have a psychology different from "Whites." She did. I am not convinced, and I question the premise. However, the worse alternative is prohibiting such classes. After all, we have only so many resources to go around; and students want to study other things as well; we need books for the library; etc. So, we just cannot have this class -- ever. Thus, it becomes impossible to introduce new ideas.

Yet, the economic argument holds. No school can teach everything. Who decides what to teach? Is it wrong to sell learners the class material they want to pay for -- even if it reinforces their conservative (or liberal), humanist (or religionist), gay (straight), dog lover (cat fancier), alcoholic (teetotaler), vegan (carnivore) prejudices?

Ultimately, it comes down to the individual. In 1993, I penned an article for Loompanics (www.loompanics.com, a garbage dump for nihilist trash, according to Robert Bidinotto) on "Censorship in Cyberspace." You can read a summary here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/hacker/cud514.htm

Post 13

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 10:27am

Hi, fellow SOLOists, I am in perfect agreement with Marty Lewinter's contention that "Feelings should not be used to determine guilt." The idea that says, "You are guilty because you made someone feel uncomfortable", is an abomination and has no place in our society. First of all, as Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and other Cognitive Behavioral/Rational Emotive Behavioral psychologist have pointed out, no one can "make" you feel uncomfortable merely by words images or gestures. There is no direct causal link from what Ellis calls "A", the Activating Event and the emotional or behavioral Consequences or "C". Thus, for example, if a woman is told that she has a knock out body and runs crying to human resources or a similar dept in her university or college complaining that that remark had hurt her feelings, a CBT or REBT therapist will explain to her that the particular remark that was made to her could not have directly caused the emotions that she felt because many other women, upon hearing the same remark, would feel neutral about it, even happy and delerious with joy about it, as well as feeling offended by it.

Now, why can the same remark or comment produce so many different emotional and behavioral consequences? The reason is that in between the remark "A" and the feelings of hurt and uncomfort "C", is the belief system or "B". In other words, the different emotions that each woman had was due more to her internal beliefs, ideas and values than to a specific comment that was made to her. Thus, a woman who believes that it is degrading to women if someone says that she has a terrific body will have a totally different emotion than the woman who believes that the man who calls her "Hot" is making a positive affirmation of and recognition of her beauty.

I strongly believe that instead of teaching people to run crying to the authorities due to a remark or comment, that we should teach them the principle of Cognitive Behavioral psychology so that they can build up their inner strength and resilience. Paul M. Kay

Post 14

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 11:49am

Paul --

"I strongly believe that instead of teaching people to run crying to the authorities due to a remark or comment, that we should teach them the principle of Cognitive Behavioral psychology so that they can build up their inner strength and resilience."

You are exactly right but unfortunatly this would require a total shift in prevailing ideas. It would require that people who throw a tantrum are not automatically apeased and given what they want as they usually are in our schools and in our work places. Our intellectual culture is controlled by those who advocate an epistemology which is centered on validating feelings. Feelings are not only considered to be valid knowledge but they are considered to be the ONLY valid knowledge. Opinions, no matter how vauge and unreasoned are required to be given the same consideration as a well reasoned arugment. It is obvious what this type of mentality does to the general level of personal responsibility and self reliance. It is no wonder that I can rarely find any kind of useful conversation about ANY topic among younger people. They've had it rammed into their heads over and over again that opinions do not require reasons, they only require strong feelings. Many of the smarter ones see the sillyness of this universal apeasement, but instead of taking principles, reason and rationality seriously they adopt a cynical skepticism toward everything.

- Jason

Post 15

Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:41pm

Andrew- {hijack attempt} So did you get your pilots license? I've heard this too. Females supposedly have a 'softer' touch with the controls and are less likely to over-correct or over-fly the airplane. Of course for me, when I heard a female instructor make a reference to compass point "385" (the same instructor who botched an attempt at a spin and ended up taking us about 30 knots over red-line speed), this theory was called into severe question.
(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 8/19, 5:42pm)

Post 16

Sunday, July 13, 2008 - 11:28am