Apparently, you have to keep an eye out for the guy who loftily explains that the time for argument is past.

Oh, yeah. For what it's worth, the stuff they dug up about Ward Churchill *WAS* worth firing him over.

Plagiarism! I mean, now we know that it's complicated but back in the day it was an actual sin! And he was so egregious that it embarrassed the institution which, I've already said, is the only unforgivable.

Which turns the discussion into "would they have brought out the fine-tooth combs if Churchill hasn't embarrassed the institution?" and the answer to that is "of course not".

But, at that point, you've got yourself a pickle anyway.

The Gibson's Bakery thing is the one that gets me to say that academia has no idea how much good will they've lost and the sheer number of grads who are screaming for debt relief are making that relationship even worse.

The grey tribe is going to learn what it hates about the red tribe good and hard again, but when it comes to academia?

I'm not sure that the red tribe will do a whole lot of harm to the red/grey alliance based on the academia thing.

Academia is part of why the greys left.

Do you have the high notes?

Well, I think that one of the big problems plaguing the relationship everybody has right now is that there are isolated demands for rigor and one of the places we see it is, yes, the academy.

Like we can have years of one particular ruleset and then, when the Trump Administration shows up and threatens Universities for, for example, antisemitism on campus in violation of campus policy, the response is not "wow... these DEI rules came back to bite us in the butt, I guess" but "where are the free speech absolutists".

You've noticed that, right?

Failing one test but passing the one where I just like sputtering "how dare you"s in response to offensive comparisons in any given discussion of Ward Churchill.

Nah, I'm comparing what's happening to Academia in general to 9/11.

Academia is the United States, in the analogy. The professors would be the "Little Eichmanns". The Trumpistas would be the hijackers.

I'm mostly unclear on the requirements that you have for my answers to you and the requirements that you hold for yourself when it comes to the answers you give me.

Which, quite honestly, reflects the fundamental problem.

Do we want a set of universal rules?
Or do we want to temporarily hold to a temporary standard that matches what others say the universal rules should be?

Because, lemme tell ya, if we go back to “we’ll use your rules for me and we’ll use my rules for you”, that’s worse than “we’ll use the same rules we used yesterday”.

So let's now move to "and I answered" on your part.

My question was whether what I wanted was on the table.

You never answered whether what I wanted was on the table. Could you point out where you did?

If you didn't, that's cool. You can just say "I didn't answer that question".

I may need you to explain how:

1) "I’d love to change the rules to how I’d have it instantiated."
2) "Yes, I would have it otherwise."

Are not direct answers to your question.
Or, I suppose, an acknowledgment that, whoopies, you guess that they are direct answers to your question.

He pointed out that 9/11 was basically a logical outcome of US foreign policy, have if we’re going to keep bombing them, they’re eventually going to start bombing us, a thing that quite a lot of people at the time pointed out.

So things, bad things presumably, will inevitably lead to other bad things happening as an inevitable outcome?

Huh.

Is that phenomenon universal? Or was it limited to just that one thing, that one time?

I actually answered the question and then asked you a question.

Wait a second... is this one of those things where you get to ask me questions but I don't get to ask you questions?

Like, our relationship is that of lawyer versus person on the stand?

Wow, that would explain a lot!

I don't like that dynamic and I refuse to play by it, by the way.

Wait, do you want me to answer the question you asked or tell you what I think about something?

Because if those things are at odds and I start to explain why and I get the response that I'm being non-responsive, I find myself in a place where I have no idea what it is in the hell that you want.

"Would you have it otherwise?"
"Yes, I would have it otherwise. Is changing it to how I would have it on the table?"
"ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!"

I'd love to change the rules to how I'd have it instantiated.

Is that on the table?

Because, lemme tell ya, if we go back to "we'll use your rules for me and we'll use my rules for you", that's worse than "we'll use the same rules we used yesterday".

"Private companies can do whatever they want".

He was fired because he committed what even academics consider a sin: He embarrassed the institution.

I know: Columbia should appeal to the importance of the academy being a place where difficult ideas need to be wrestled with, not smothered.

Oh good! I was wondering about this!

Thanks for writing it!