What is the world coming to!

[LizzieMaine]

The days of "academia" are long gone, I think, the idea of dignified ivy-covered professors and grassy quads where the best and brightest gather. That hasn't existed since the GI Bill. College today is simply something every kid is expected and more or less required to do between the ages of 18 to 22. High High School, if you will.

As far as ideological bias is concerned, well, there's always Hillsdale, Regent, Patrick Henry, Brigham Young, Pepperdine, Kings College, Liberty University, and the University of Dallas, among others.

 

[AmateisGal]

The days of "academia" are long gone, I think, the idea of dignified ivy-covered professors and grassy quads where the best and brightest gather. That hasn't existed for a very long time. College today is simply something every kid is expected and more or less required to do between the ages of 18 to 22, or longer if they can't find a job.

As far as ideological bias is concerned, well, there's always Hillsdale, Regent, Patrick Henry, Brigham Young, Pepperdine, Kings College, Liberty University, and the University of Dallas, among others.

I would like to see the enrollment numbers for those types of universities, to see if they have seen an uptick in recent years or not.

I've decided that if my daughter doesn't want to go to college, I won't force her. If anything, she would do well at a community college. A university? Nope. She doesn't have the desire or the personality for it - she does much better in smaller, more intimate environments, which is why a small private college or a community college would be best.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If I had kids, they'd go straight to trade school. Electricians and plumbers never want for work, and none of them around here are under the age of sixty. I'd rather see them carry a union card than a PhD.

 

[Fading Fast]

We didn't have blackboards -- ours were greenboards, so we just called them "The Board."

I can think of a lot more things worth getting worked up about than something like that, to be honest. I got criticized once at work by a customer for referrring to the "handicap bathroom," and I simply apologized and directed her to the "accessible bathroom." It didn't cost me anything to acknowledge that she was uncomfortable with the term I'd used, and everyone left happy.

Language changes over time, whether we like it or not. If it didn't we'd still be talking like Chaucer. I really don't see how it's worth getting one's back up if we're challenged for inadvertently offending someone. And if we deliberately go out of our way to use a term someone finds offensive with the idea of "showing them," well, all we're doing is proving their point.

I agree but with a few caveats. Yes language evolves and if a critical mass of people determine a word to be offensive then, one would hope organically, society would move away from that word as has happened in my lifetime and my parents' and grandparents' lifetime. But because one or a small vocal group of people find a word offensive, the 330 million other Americans do not have to accommodate - social and cultural changes occur as they gain acceptance by a majority in the marketplace for ideas. And if a small group wants to advocate for cultural change, fine, but that isn't what we are seeing on college campuses; we are seeing bullying, intimidation and threats. So again, I agree wth language changing and as words organically, or even through civil advocacy, losing or gaining acceptance, then society will adapt, but that is different from every single person with a complaint having immediate legitimacy or, worse, every small group that is willing to engage in civil disobedience being accommodated.

 

[Fading Fast]

If I had kids, they'd go straight to trade school. Electricians and plumbers never want for work, and none of them around here are under the age of sixty. I'd rather see them carry a union card than a PhD.

From a job security point of view, I agree and thought long and hard in high school and even in my first year of college about dropping out and becoming an electrician (never wanted to be a plumber, but agree, similar security) for job security, but for me, I decided that I wanted to pursue careers that were only open those with college degrees. I have had an interesting and, overall, rewarding career, but absolutely no, none, never any job security. As to PHDs, it's like anything else, some are incredible people who found their calling in their field and at that impressive level and others are jerks.

 

[Fading Fast]

If I had kids, they'd go straight to trade school. Electricians and plumbers never want for work, and none of them around here are under the age of sixty. I'd rather see them carry a union card than a PhD.

Interestingly, there are plenty of young and middle-aged plumbers and electricians in NYC. The inside story is out, people realize these are good paying careers with job security and, if you are so inclined, you can turn your skills into a small business. I've worked with many college educated people who only want their kids to go to college, but also many who think trade school or some other vocational oriented path is better. Many in my generation of college graduates ('85) - as a group - have never had job security (companies were downsizing "white-collar" workers form the '80s on), have not had great compensation (many studies argue comp has stagnated since the '90s) and are very open to alternative paths for their kids.

 

[AmateisGal]

I agree but with a few caveats. Yes language evolves and if a critical mass of people determine a word to be offensive then, one would hope organically, society would move away from that word as has happened in my lifetime and my parents and grandparents lifetime. But because one or a small vocal group of people find a word offensive, the 330 million other Americans do not have to accommodate - social and cultural changes occur as they gain acceptance by a majority in the marketplace for ideas. And if a small group wants to advocate for cultural change, fine, but that isn't what we are seeing on college campuses; we are seeing bullying, intimidation and threats. So again, I agree wth language changing and as words organically, or even through civil advocacy, lose or gain acceptance, then society will adapt, but that is different from every single person with a complaint having immediate legitimacy or, worse, every small group that is willing to engage in civil disobedience being accommodated.

You nailed it. Now we are being *told* what is offensive and if we don't accept that it *is* offensive, we are painted as racists, bigots, etc., etc. It is bullying at its very worst - and ironically, this comes from people who claim to be victims of bullying. I have no doubt that many are - but they are using the very same tactics in a sort of twisted version of revenge. I don't think they realize (or don't care) that this is what they're doing.

I don't know...I wish cooler heads would prevail. I wish logic and reason would make a dramatic appearance again. But what I'm seeing far too much of is, "If you hurt my feelings or in any way offend me, I will hunt you down and destroy you."

 

[LizzieMaine]

As far as I'm concerned, the person who takes offense is the one who gets to decide whether or not they're offended. Otherwise, it's just a matter of "sit down and shut up, and we'll tell you when you can take offense." There are many groups in this country who lived under such an arrangement for quite a long time, and I can understand fully that they might just be weary of it.

 

[Harp]

The days of "academia" are long gone, I think, the idea of dignified ivy-covered professors and grassy quads where the best and brightest gather. That hasn't existed since the GI Bill. College today is simply something every kid is expected and more or less required to do between the ages of 18 to 22. High High School, if you will.

As far as ideological bias is concerned, well, there's always Hillsdale, Regent, Patrick Henry, Brigham Young, Pepperdine, Kings College, Liberty University, and the University of Dallas, among others.

Academia exists, tarnished and cluttered with biased denizens whose partisan astigmatism has wrought considerably less than was hoped.
The U of Chicago policy paper currently circulating campi proves the flame has not been extinguished however.

 

[Bushman]

Out of my group of friends in High School, I think only myself and another one of my friends ever went to college. The rest of us ended up in trade school, or joining the military.

 

[Harp]

Out of my group of friends in High School, I think only myself and another one of my friends ever went to college. The rest of us ended up in trade school, or joining the military.

I was a discipline problem for the Christian Brothers of Ireland; though read voraciously, because of the war I didn't get out of the Army
until I was twenty-one, and realized I couldn't chase wahinies and waves along Kaneohe Beach in Hawaii forever....much to my regret.
I took the GI Bill road to college and am grateful for that; also the parochial education I received under the Irish brothers.

 

[AmateisGal]

As far as I'm concerned, the person who takes offense is the one who gets to decide whether or not they're offended. Otherwise, it's just a matter of "sit down and shut up, and we'll tell you when you can take offense." There are many groups in this country who lived under such an arrangement for quite a long time, and I can understand fully that they might just be weary of it.

Of course - they can take offense if they want to. But what is happening now is that they are demanding everyone else be offended on their behalf. and if you aren't offended, then you're part of the problem and Must Be Made To Pay and Repent and Apologize.

 

[AmateisGal]

Academia exists, tarnished and cluttered with biased denizens whose partisan astigmatism has wrought considerably less than was hoped.
The U of Chicago policy paper currently circulating campi proves the flame has not been extinguished however.

Is that paper online anywhere? I'd like to read it.

 

[Fading Fast]

As far as I'm concerned, the person who takes offense is the one who gets to decide whether or not they're offended. Otherwise, it's just a matter of "sit down and shut up, and we'll tell you when you can take offense." There are many groups in this country who lived under such an arrangement for quite a long time, and I can understand fully that they might just be weary of it.

Everyone can absolutely decide for him or herself when they are offended and if disagreeing that they are offended is the equivalent of telling them to "sit down and shut up," then society is just going to have to live with a lot of people feeling offended as, otherwise, 300+ million people will have to change their culture and language daily based on any single person's view of what offends them. Or we will do what we always do, which is evolve over time as practices, words, etc. reach a critical mass of acceptance or not acceptance as they come into or fall out of use. So, yup, everyone can feel offended, and even if no one can challenge that is how they feel, the answer is still - tough, who cares - until you can gain a critical mass of acceptance of what you view individually is offensive, you'll just go on being offended. I am all for change and reducing society's offenses, but there is a social process that includes the free exchange of ideas, of criticizing others views harshly (mine are regularly) and of gaining a critical mass of acceptance to actuate that change. Shutting down debate isn't the process. And I am very weary of some of my ideas being label as "unacceptable," and of being told "the debate is over," (effectively "sit down and shut up"), but I don't get a special lever to pull because I'm weary, I still need to convince others through open, honest debate.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course - they can take offense if they want to. But what is happening now is that they are demanding everyone else be offended on their behalf. and if you aren't offended, then you're part of the problem and Must Be Made To Pay and Repent and Apologize.

But isn't the better course, even if you don't like their methods, to simply be willing *listen* to what they're saying and try to understand it, rather than, as a lot of people do nowadays, stick your fingers in your ears and yell PC PC PC PC, and conclude that they've got nothing to be angry about? Isn't that the very embodiment of the sort of privilege they denounce -- the refusal to acknowledge that anyone could possibly have a legitimate grievance against whatever system is under discussion? Brings to mind Malcolm X's comment about how the America of his time not only hadn't pulled the knife out of the back of a tenth of its citizens, it refused to even acknowledge that the knife is there. There's a lot of that still with us to this day.

Sometimes apologies aren't a bad idea. For example, Woodrow Wilson did more than any man of his generation to perpetuate, as a matter of formal policy, Jim Crow in government, and the effects were felt long, long after his death. If chiseling his name off a building might help to heal old wounds even just a little, I'll gladly strike the first blow myself.

 

[Harp]

Is that paper online anywhere? I'd like to read it.

It should be available online. I chanced across the U of C student newspaper the other week, and both the Wall Street Journal
and New York Times have made mention of it amidst campus coverage to put some perspective down.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree but with a few caveats. Yes language evolves and if a critical mass of people determine a word to be offensive then, one would hope organically, society would move away from that word as has happened in my lifetime and my parents' and grandparents' lifetime. But because one or a small vocal group of people find a word offensive, the 330 million other Americans do not have to accommodate - social and cultural changes occur as they gain acceptance by a majority in the marketplace for ideas. And if a small group wants to advocate for cultural change, fine, but that isn't what we are seeing on college campuses; we are seeing bullying, intimidation and threats. So again, I agree wth language changing and as words organically, or even through civil advocacy, losing or gaining acceptance, then society will adapt, but that is different from every single person with a complaint having immediate legitimacy or, worse, every small group that is willing to engage in civil disobedience being accommodated.

So, imagine you're in a situation with someone like the one I mentioned above, and you direct her to the "handicap bathroom," and she shoots you the side-eye and says "that's offensive!" Do you then say, "well, we still talk about handicap parking areas, and most people that I know aren't offended by the use of the term, so I see no reason why I should acknowledge that it makes you uncomfortable until you have the mass of public opinion on your side." Or do you say "Sorry, ma'am, my mistake. The accessible bathroom is right over there."

As I've said before, Loungers tend to go on and on and on here about how much we lament the loss of "manners" in modern society, but do we really mean "manners as defined by white able-bodied Anglophone men a century ago?" Or do we mean "manners" as in going out of our way to not make anyone unnecessarily uncomfortable no matter who they are?

 

[Fading Fast]

But isn't the better course, even if you don't like their methods, to simply be willing *listen* to what they're saying and try to understand it, rather than, as a lot of people do nowadays, stick your fingers in your ears and yell PC PC PC PC, and conclude that they've got nothing to be angry about? Isn't that the very embodiment of the sort of privilege they denounce -- the refusal to acknowledge that anyone could possibly have a legitimate grievance against whatever system is under discussion? Brings to mind Malcolm X's comment about how the America of his time not only hadn't pulled the knife out of the back of a tenth of its citizens, it refused to even acknowledge that the knife is there. There's a lot of that still with us to this day.

Sometimes apologies aren't a bad idea. For example, Woodrow Wilson did more than any man of his generation to perpetuate, as a matter of formal policy, Jim Crow in government, and the effects were felt long, long after his death. If chiseling his name off a building might help to heal old wounds even just a little, I'll gladly strike the first blow myself.

But are there no other avenues, venues, ways open for the groups to express their anger, their opinion, their ideas? These are liberal colleges that have embraced diversity - are the students saying they have no avenue to express their opinions? Are they saying they can't bring their ideas up in the usual venues, in civil rallies, in op-ed pieces, in class discussion on social issues, and other appropriate ways to advocate for change in the usual manner? I don't think that's what is happening. I am not screaming "PC" and not listening; what I am saying is you have to sell your ideas like everyone else and you are wrong (yes wrong) for wanting to shut others down from having an opposing view. I can only speak for myself, but I don't hear people saying you don't have the right to your ideas or that they won't be listened to, but they are saying you can't stifle others; they are saying you have to use the same venues as others for getting your ideas out and you have to let others do the same. And here's another rub, they might use all the right venues and not convince enough people (that is IMHO what is happening) - the next step is not stifling others, but trying harder, sell your ideas harder. But you don't have right to stop others from doing the same. Just because my group can't convince enough people to adopt our ideas doesn't allow me to shut down the opposition and it doesn't mean I'm being treated unfairly or not listened to - maybe I was listened to and the answer is - we still don't agree.

 

[Harp]

But isn't the better course, even if you don't like their methods, to simply be willing *listen* to what they're saying and try to understand it, rather than, as a lot of people do nowadays, stick your fingers in your ears and yell PC PC PC PC, and conclude that they've got nothing to be angry about? Isn't that the very embodiment of the sort of privilege they denounce -- the refusal to acknowledge that anyone could possibly have a legitimate grievance against whatever system is under discussion? ...Sometimes apologies aren't a bad idea.

The campus protesters have been heard, and the race card has been played far too often. Same deck, rant and rave and a complete lack of honesty in the game.
Some serious self examination is in order yet whether it happens or not, the song hasn't fallen upon deaf ears.

 

[AmateisGal]

But isn't the better course, even if you don't like their methods, to simply be willing *listen* to what they're saying and try to understand it, rather than, as a lot of people do nowadays, stick your fingers in your ears and yell PC PC PC PC, and conclude that they've got nothing to be angry about? Isn't that the very embodiment of the sort of privilege they denounce -- the refusal to acknowledge that anyone could possibly have a legitimate grievance against whatever system is under discussion? Brings to mind Malcolm X's comment about how the America of his time not only hadn't pulled the knife out of the back of a tenth of its citizens, it refused to even acknowledge that the knife is there. There's a lot of that still with us to this day.

Sometimes apologies aren't a bad idea. For example, Woodrow Wilson did more than any man of his generation to perpetuate, as a matter of formal policy, Jim Crow in government, and the effects were felt long, long after his death. If chiseling his name off a building might help to heal old wounds even just a little, I'll gladly strike the first blow myself.

I am perfectly willing and indeed, want to listen to their grievances. But if they do not even respect me enough to have a civilized, rational conversation - even if it is one full of emotion - then how do they expect me to react? What I am seeing on Twitter and on reports from campuses across America is most certainly *not* a wish for a civil dialogue. I wish it was.