Posted on 11/25/2023 7:45:08 AM PST by DoodleBob
I think it’s time to start piss-testing all college “perfesers”.
Last summer’s Arizona heat seemed to boil these two “experts’” brains. That and all the cactii.
Academics lost any claim to be experts the moment that postmodernism was let in the door. The more foolish they look the more they resort to censorship and browbeating to reclaim the appearance of credibility.
Diversity sucks now? I've lost track. DOES ANYONE HAVE A SPARE PROGRAM I CAN BORROW?
Good analogy.
The propaganda has become so outlandish and absurd they have to blot every criticism lest it be exposed.
In 1963 the Left loved free speech. After Hillary lost her election bid she said, “Resistance is the highest form of patriotism.” When the Left’s arguments lose, free speech has to go away. But the totalitarians are the ones who will have to go away and it’s not going to be pretty because they will get violent.
Translation - “We” (Left wing professors) decide what is “expert” speech.
Yes, fascists make great use of democratic institutions (free speech) to get control. Once in control, no such democratic institutions are tolerated. They are far left wackos when they’re sniffing at power, then they go far right once they get it. Projecting their crimes on the opposition as they go along. In the end no opposition is allowed, no changes are allowed. Stagnation, poverty for masses. Wealth, privilege and luxury for the few.
This is nothing short of horrifying.
“ This is nothing short of horrifying.”
This is the truth of it…because this philosophy, when it is supporting the dominant/elitist culture in a nation, only ends in extreme violence, genocide and complete subjugation of the dis-favored population.
As one would expect, these two rabid Leftists; Richard Amesbury and Catherine O’Donnell, are carpetbaggers setting up shop at a state university in Arizona.
What I see in the next generation is a rebellion brewing against he purveyors of Marxist cant.
My very young grands view the current schlock babble with disdain.
I have been waiting for the youth to rebel against their elders. It is happening. The young will always challenge the current power.
IF I had any kids that I paid serious $$$$ to get into college, I would be looking for these 2 & others to make them VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
The authors think highly of themselves. How many times did they use the word expert?
Same argument was used when the leftards were trying to get the gov’mt to finance left-wing radio.
Non commie trash radio is doing fine, AM and FM. Start spewing lies and your site goes under.
Wonder how these idiots would respond if a group of poor whites were show up in one of their classes and shout them down?
How quickly would they screech for the police if such were to happen?
Per the find function, 42 times. Here are few example…
Our contention is that calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose, namely, the production of expert knowledge and understanding, in the sense of disciplinarily warranted opinion. Expertise requires freedom of speech, but it is the result of a process of winnowing and refinement that is premised on the understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Efforts to “democratize” opinion are antithetical to the role colleges play in educating the public and informing democratic debate. We urge administrators toward caution before uncritically endorsing calls for intellectual diversity in place of academic expertise.
…
We academics tend to want to understand ourselves as egalitarians, and it can feel awkward — undemocratic, even — to claim authority based on expertise. Facing increasing skepticism from the public, we are loath to seem elitist. But we’re not claiming a universal expertise, just a limited scholarly expertise, and it’s for the public to judge how much that kind of expertise matters. For our part, we either stake our claim to the expertise our training and experience provide us, or we stake no claim at all. Nor is it elitist to insist that scholars are best suited to judging whether curricula should be adopted, or speakers sponsored as part of academic programming.
…
Left to its own devices, a marketplace of ideas is under no necessity to converge on the truth. Taken alone, that account of the First Amendment’s understanding of free speech is in tension with expert knowledge, the acquisition of which requires discrimination. The creation of knowledge through academic disciplines would be undermined by a jurisprudence that insisted on content neutrality in this context. The question for Post is, thus, how the conditions required for expert knowledge might be reconciled with the comparatively permissive standards of the public sphere. When free speech drowns out expert speech, we all suffer.
…
embattled academics cannot simply fall back on academic freedom. That concept is, to be sure, indispensable, but, as Durkheim observed, it has to be undergirded by public trust in academics, or, more broadly, by disciplines whose status as disciplines isn’t itself a matter of public dispute. Otherwise we end up where we find ourselves now: with a lack of public support not simply for the claims of certain scholars, but for the value of the disciplines and departments of which they are part — the very disciplines within which these claims might be knowledgeably assessed. Or a sense, at any rate, that these are just further opinions — a dissolving of expertise into a flattened-out theory of knowledge. “Free speech” is what we are left with when we recognize no experts.
Right...’experts’ have it all figured out
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.