That's not really an accurate summation of my position. See above: "Personally, like you, I find it completely repugnant and abhorrent. But not everyone sees it the same way, and in a democracy we accept that as the price of the freedoms that we cherish." I share your implied sense that there is a moral high and low ground there. But whe…
That's not really an accurate summation of my position. See above: "Personally, like you, I find it completely repugnant and abhorrent. But not everyone sees it the same way, and in a democracy we accept that as the price of the freedoms that we cherish." I share your implied sense that there is a moral high and low ground there. But when in doubt, we consult the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, even when the message is beyond defense to rational, reasonable people. I share your feelings on the mindset issue but also understand that, yes, every topic is equally valid for discussion under that premise. My belief is that, in the end, facts prevail over opinions and good judgment trumps bad when maturity and life experience are factored in. People can think or say what they like. Our role is to be the adults in the room to guide the discussion to an appropriate resolution.
News flash: yes they have the right to say their opinion.
Just like Charlie and I have the right to say they are completely wrong, ignorant and naive. If you think that hacking women, children and babies to pieces is acceptable - which the far left does - then we have the right to call you barbaric and not worthy of our society.
Yet here you are saying Charlie shouldn’t be saying that.
Again, you flat-out mischaracterize both my words and my position statements on them. At this point I have to question your reading comprehension skills. We'll have to agree to disagree on the topic and live to fight another day.
You characterize the far lefts anti-semitism as overblown by Charlie/The Bulwark; you claim that it’s not a big deal. It’s small potatoes.
Yet thousands are chanting for Israel to be sent to the sea…but sure. Nothing to worry about.
No, you are one of these people who write dozens of words, don’t EXPLICITY say something, but you overall point is clearly saying something…yet then you hide behind “I didn’t say that EXACTLY…How dare you say that I said that”…again, while you’re overall point is just that.
You play word games. But we know what your point is.
Can you clarify for me, then, specifically, what you meant when you said: It's hard enough to make inroads without resorting to or initiating infighting among people who should be pulling together for common causes and beliefs? As in: what specifically is the "infighting" that is being "initiated?" And what is the "common cause" that we should all be "pulling together for?" I really genuinely believed, based on the context of this discussion, that "infighting" meant Democrats calling out the illiberalism of a salient vein of Democrats who cheered for or didn't condemn the acts of a terrorist organization, and that the "initiation" was writing more articles about it than you think necessary. And that "pulling together" for a "common cause" sounded like you believed that the common cause is not under discussion and shouldn't be, or that having a few anti-Semites (the worst kind, the kind that don't think they are) isn't worth getting in a tizzy about because we need to pull together for something that is grander. But I obviously have it all wrong, so walk me through it. What's the infighting, actually? What's the common cause that we pull together with terrorism-glorifiers for? What's the initiation of this infighting, if it isn't the discussion of these issues? Why, in other words, did you write those words here in response to this particular piece of writing if you meant something else entirely?
Sorry for the delayed reply. Long day of teaching, grading, and lesson planning for tomorrow -- and not a hint of political activism in any of it. Just a usual day of honest public sector work for an honest day's public sector pay, from morning until well past the midnight hour.
Which is a lead-in to my point. To clarify requires me to go back to my original premise, on higher education and the increasingly frequent branding of that arena in these pages as hotbeds of extreme liberalism -- as if automatically true in most or all cases without context and without necessarily bringing evidence of same beyond carefully chosen anecdotes and survey results with incomplete analysis and data points. Somehow that morphed into position statements on the issues involved in the Gaza Strip and how people stand on that, which was not the focus of my initial post. I was intent on seeking a more nuanced and accurate depiction of the public college environment, especially at smaller campuses where protest movements are seldom seen and heated discussions and interactions are few and far between. (As for small private schools, I will concede that their mileage sometimes varies.) The common cause is a good education for young people who increasingly need it for a bright future; we all benefit from that over time in both a society and an economy that require it. It saddens, and sometime angers, me that the bomb throwers both within and from without want to make our jobs harder than they already are by introducing or overemphasizing elements of discord that just aren't a factor in that and saying or implying inappropriately that we bring agendas into the classroom, creating unnecessary and counterproductive divisiveness when they do not have to own the results of it. From where I sit there are those young people who talk about their beliefs, and a much smaller number who actually do something about them. I'm not concerned about their protests and rhetoric when their next move is to text their friends about where to meet for dinner later on or what they are wearing the next day. I don't see a threat there, so why do we care so much what their opinion is on the Middle East, or elsewhere?
I suspect that I'm not doing a good job of crystallizing my ideas at the end of such a long day. Bottom line: I'm not here to tell people how to think or feel about the Middle East crisis. I respect freedom of opinion. But I would like both a balanced and an honest account when people want to project their own viewpoints into our campus environment and try to pass judgment without having or seeking out all the facts. It feels like a reasonable request. Charlie's track record has not been good on that count, as others in this space have noted as well. So we call him out, under the premise that at some point enough is enough of the innuendo and the subtle agenda/bias against higher ed when, by all appearances, it seems to have worked out just fine for him and those who are like-minded. They got theirs. They don't always want others to have the same opportunities. If they have a specific beef with us and our domain, just come out and say it forthrightly and have the discussion that comes with it -- facts first, opinions second. Those of us who are in that environment every working day have a lot of relevant information to share. My 2.5 cents' worth, adjusted for that pesky inflation people are talking about. We'll see over time where the topic goes. If the comments here, on both sides, are any indication, it isn't going away.
This is a very thoughtful reply, thanks for taking the time to write it. I suppose I can see your point, though I must admit that it's difficult for me due to my own bias: I left academia in large part because my own experiences were very different than yours, and Charlie's arguments and observations resonate with me as such. I'd very much LIKE if your perspective were the more representative of the overall picture, if it makes any difference.
Thanks for the additional feedback. I try hard when I speak out here to remember that what I experience at my campus is not necessarily that which everyone else in the college setting undergoes. There are many variables. But I also know, from talking with a number of longtime colleagues elsewhere, in various programs and at institutions big and small, spread out across the country -- such being the perks of decades in the field -- that there are a lot of shared experiences, and that what we see on our various campuses often is not so different than the human experience in any other area. I try to speak to that as I can.
I feel lucky to be where I'm at, as there is little rancor and likewise little in the way of divisive behavior or hostility toward others. People have their beliefs, they practice them privately as they see fit, and we all seem to share the road quite well. I wish it were that way everywhere. Just this evening, grabbing a bite to eat at a local restaurant after another long day of classes, one of my new students came up to me unexpected and said, first thing out of his mouth, "My favorite professor. Really nice to see you here too." I've had him in class for only eight weeks and he indicated that I've already made a positive difference in his life. That's what I got into this field for in the first place -- not for politics and agendas, not to indoctrinate, just to be the best teacher I can be, as my professors once were for me when I needed them, and to help young people find their way forward through academics and good instruction. As I've said to Charlie and others in these pages, I wish we could have that discussion instead sometimes, as that is really what so much of the college experience is about and what ultimately is far more influential on these young people. It should not go unrecognized and underappreciated. Another 2.5 cents' worth from my corner of the ring. Thanks for a good discussion.
That's not really an accurate summation of my position. See above: "Personally, like you, I find it completely repugnant and abhorrent. But not everyone sees it the same way, and in a democracy we accept that as the price of the freedoms that we cherish." I share your implied sense that there is a moral high and low ground there. But when in doubt, we consult the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, even when the message is beyond defense to rational, reasonable people. I share your feelings on the mindset issue but also understand that, yes, every topic is equally valid for discussion under that premise. My belief is that, in the end, facts prevail over opinions and good judgment trumps bad when maturity and life experience are factored in. People can think or say what they like. Our role is to be the adults in the room to guide the discussion to an appropriate resolution.
News flash: yes they have the right to say their opinion.
Just like Charlie and I have the right to say they are completely wrong, ignorant and naive. If you think that hacking women, children and babies to pieces is acceptable - which the far left does - then we have the right to call you barbaric and not worthy of our society.
Yet here you are saying Charlie shouldn’t be saying that.
Again, you flat-out mischaracterize both my words and my position statements on them. At this point I have to question your reading comprehension skills. We'll have to agree to disagree on the topic and live to fight another day.
You characterize the far lefts anti-semitism as overblown by Charlie/The Bulwark; you claim that it’s not a big deal. It’s small potatoes.
Yet thousands are chanting for Israel to be sent to the sea…but sure. Nothing to worry about.
No, you are one of these people who write dozens of words, don’t EXPLICITY say something, but you overall point is clearly saying something…yet then you hide behind “I didn’t say that EXACTLY…How dare you say that I said that”…again, while you’re overall point is just that.
You play word games. But we know what your point is.
Can you clarify for me, then, specifically, what you meant when you said: It's hard enough to make inroads without resorting to or initiating infighting among people who should be pulling together for common causes and beliefs? As in: what specifically is the "infighting" that is being "initiated?" And what is the "common cause" that we should all be "pulling together for?" I really genuinely believed, based on the context of this discussion, that "infighting" meant Democrats calling out the illiberalism of a salient vein of Democrats who cheered for or didn't condemn the acts of a terrorist organization, and that the "initiation" was writing more articles about it than you think necessary. And that "pulling together" for a "common cause" sounded like you believed that the common cause is not under discussion and shouldn't be, or that having a few anti-Semites (the worst kind, the kind that don't think they are) isn't worth getting in a tizzy about because we need to pull together for something that is grander. But I obviously have it all wrong, so walk me through it. What's the infighting, actually? What's the common cause that we pull together with terrorism-glorifiers for? What's the initiation of this infighting, if it isn't the discussion of these issues? Why, in other words, did you write those words here in response to this particular piece of writing if you meant something else entirely?
Sorry for the delayed reply. Long day of teaching, grading, and lesson planning for tomorrow -- and not a hint of political activism in any of it. Just a usual day of honest public sector work for an honest day's public sector pay, from morning until well past the midnight hour.
Which is a lead-in to my point. To clarify requires me to go back to my original premise, on higher education and the increasingly frequent branding of that arena in these pages as hotbeds of extreme liberalism -- as if automatically true in most or all cases without context and without necessarily bringing evidence of same beyond carefully chosen anecdotes and survey results with incomplete analysis and data points. Somehow that morphed into position statements on the issues involved in the Gaza Strip and how people stand on that, which was not the focus of my initial post. I was intent on seeking a more nuanced and accurate depiction of the public college environment, especially at smaller campuses where protest movements are seldom seen and heated discussions and interactions are few and far between. (As for small private schools, I will concede that their mileage sometimes varies.) The common cause is a good education for young people who increasingly need it for a bright future; we all benefit from that over time in both a society and an economy that require it. It saddens, and sometime angers, me that the bomb throwers both within and from without want to make our jobs harder than they already are by introducing or overemphasizing elements of discord that just aren't a factor in that and saying or implying inappropriately that we bring agendas into the classroom, creating unnecessary and counterproductive divisiveness when they do not have to own the results of it. From where I sit there are those young people who talk about their beliefs, and a much smaller number who actually do something about them. I'm not concerned about their protests and rhetoric when their next move is to text their friends about where to meet for dinner later on or what they are wearing the next day. I don't see a threat there, so why do we care so much what their opinion is on the Middle East, or elsewhere?
I suspect that I'm not doing a good job of crystallizing my ideas at the end of such a long day. Bottom line: I'm not here to tell people how to think or feel about the Middle East crisis. I respect freedom of opinion. But I would like both a balanced and an honest account when people want to project their own viewpoints into our campus environment and try to pass judgment without having or seeking out all the facts. It feels like a reasonable request. Charlie's track record has not been good on that count, as others in this space have noted as well. So we call him out, under the premise that at some point enough is enough of the innuendo and the subtle agenda/bias against higher ed when, by all appearances, it seems to have worked out just fine for him and those who are like-minded. They got theirs. They don't always want others to have the same opportunities. If they have a specific beef with us and our domain, just come out and say it forthrightly and have the discussion that comes with it -- facts first, opinions second. Those of us who are in that environment every working day have a lot of relevant information to share. My 2.5 cents' worth, adjusted for that pesky inflation people are talking about. We'll see over time where the topic goes. If the comments here, on both sides, are any indication, it isn't going away.
This is a very thoughtful reply, thanks for taking the time to write it. I suppose I can see your point, though I must admit that it's difficult for me due to my own bias: I left academia in large part because my own experiences were very different than yours, and Charlie's arguments and observations resonate with me as such. I'd very much LIKE if your perspective were the more representative of the overall picture, if it makes any difference.
Thanks for the additional feedback. I try hard when I speak out here to remember that what I experience at my campus is not necessarily that which everyone else in the college setting undergoes. There are many variables. But I also know, from talking with a number of longtime colleagues elsewhere, in various programs and at institutions big and small, spread out across the country -- such being the perks of decades in the field -- that there are a lot of shared experiences, and that what we see on our various campuses often is not so different than the human experience in any other area. I try to speak to that as I can.
I feel lucky to be where I'm at, as there is little rancor and likewise little in the way of divisive behavior or hostility toward others. People have their beliefs, they practice them privately as they see fit, and we all seem to share the road quite well. I wish it were that way everywhere. Just this evening, grabbing a bite to eat at a local restaurant after another long day of classes, one of my new students came up to me unexpected and said, first thing out of his mouth, "My favorite professor. Really nice to see you here too." I've had him in class for only eight weeks and he indicated that I've already made a positive difference in his life. That's what I got into this field for in the first place -- not for politics and agendas, not to indoctrinate, just to be the best teacher I can be, as my professors once were for me when I needed them, and to help young people find their way forward through academics and good instruction. As I've said to Charlie and others in these pages, I wish we could have that discussion instead sometimes, as that is really what so much of the college experience is about and what ultimately is far more influential on these young people. It should not go unrecognized and underappreciated. Another 2.5 cents' worth from my corner of the ring. Thanks for a good discussion.