Well, it's like the difference between CRT (pure theory) and CRT by the time it goes through the telephone game and comes out the other side in the form of social media posts.
Critical Theory? It might be awesome if we limited the game to Bertrand Russell and thereabouts.
But anyone can play and, good lord, they do a better job of turning people off of it than their fiercest critics do.
A parallel question is "What are universities actually doing?"
How far from what we want them to be are they?
Looking at what they actually do gives us a handful of different answers... the administrators do one thing, the professors another, the TAs yet another, the librarians have their own fiefdom, and the students are as diverse as their majors.
You've got some of them getting hired as they walk off the stage and others who walk off the stage and walk across the street and join a protest demanding student loan relief.
The crazy thing is that out of all of the things that we want the University to be, one of the top three is "sustainable" and... well, whatever we have now, doesn't seem to be sustainable.
My assumption is that people mean "critical theorist" when they say "Marxist" these days.
The folks in charge of running the university have a different set of goals ("maintain endowment", "grow endowment") than the people teaching the courses ("teach math", "teach LGBTQ dance theory"), and those are different than the goals of the students themselves ("chase tail", "get good job when I graduate, I guess").
The problem is that there are a handful of really bad actors who have screwed everything up for everybody and the landscape of universities will look significantly different in a generation and in the bad direction. Smaller, fewer students, more emphasis on employment prep than life of the mind.
They sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
And unevenly distributed. There are folks who look around and cannot even comprehend why something like this might be necessary even as others, such as the NYT, realize that they're in the middle of a five-alarm fire.
What does the president of Wesleyan know anyway? Wait, lemme google "Wesleyan"... it's probably a Christian thing... yep. Named after John Wesley. OH! A Methodist to boot!
Yeah, he can probably be dismissed along with anybody who agrees with him or has any sympathies whatsoever to his point about insular thinking in the academy.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Rawls is like Nietzsche.
He won. He won so completely that we don't even need to read him anymore.
Only crazy people still do.
They get used to set and develop policy, though.
"They're difficult to master" is all well and good if it is contained in the university setting.
Once it bleeds out into management and administration, it'll have transmogrified into a status game.
Status games are a lot easier to master. Amateurs can do it.
We can include unintentional underemployment.
Well, it's like the difference between CRT (pure theory) and CRT by the time it goes through the telephone game and comes out the other side in the form of social media posts.
Critical Theory? It might be awesome if we limited the game to Bertrand Russell and thereabouts.
But anyone can play and, good lord, they do a better job of turning people off of it than their fiercest critics do.
A parallel question is "What are universities actually doing?"
How far from what we want them to be are they?
Looking at what they actually do gives us a handful of different answers... the administrators do one thing, the professors another, the TAs yet another, the librarians have their own fiefdom, and the students are as diverse as their majors.
You've got some of them getting hired as they walk off the stage and others who walk off the stage and walk across the street and join a protest demanding student loan relief.
The crazy thing is that out of all of the things that we want the University to be, one of the top three is "sustainable" and... well, whatever we have now, doesn't seem to be sustainable.
My assumption is that people mean "critical theorist" when they say "Marxist" these days.
The folks in charge of running the university have a different set of goals ("maintain endowment", "grow endowment") than the people teaching the courses ("teach math", "teach LGBTQ dance theory"), and those are different than the goals of the students themselves ("chase tail", "get good job when I graduate, I guess").
The problem is that there are a handful of really bad actors who have screwed everything up for everybody and the landscape of universities will look significantly different in a generation and in the bad direction. Smaller, fewer students, more emphasis on employment prep than life of the mind.
They sold their birthrights for a mess of pottage.
Joe Rogan was mocked for talking about having been prescribed Ivermectin and taking it as prescribed.
There was also a movement to have his show taken off of Spotify entirely.
He's not an academic, though.
"too little, too late"
And unevenly distributed. There are folks who look around and cannot even comprehend why something like this might be necessary even as others, such as the NYT, realize that they're in the middle of a five-alarm fire.
See? The obvious conclusion is that there shouldn't be debates!
It makes you wonder why the New York Times is printing stuff like this in the first place. Are they trying to distract us away from... DONALD TRUMP?!?
Personally, I don't think that medical treatments should be debated at all.
This isn't House.
What does the president of Wesleyan know anyway? Wait, lemme google "Wesleyan"... it's probably a Christian thing... yep. Named after John Wesley. OH! A Methodist to boot!
Yeah, he can probably be dismissed along with anybody who agrees with him or has any sympathies whatsoever to his point about insular thinking in the academy.