On Liberal Academia

No doubt, you've come across the Vox article written by a "liberal professor" by now. The professor, writing under the pseudonym Edward Schlosser, offers up an incredibly unpopular opinion, claiming that his liberal students scare him and that their passion for social justice has made them aggressive towards anything contrary to the preferred status quo.

In response, a Vox writer and former adjunct professor posits that Mr. Schlosser's opinion is skewed by personal experience with very little in the way of evidence to back it up. She dedicates her article to pointing out how ridiculously difficult the job market is for those in academia, citing that a majority of adjunct professors live below the poverty line. Her point is that professors shouldn't be afraid of their students but that they should take issue with a "university system that treats students as customers and faculty as the interchangeable means of production."

Finally, again on Vox, Koritha Mitchell wrote an article in response to the whole ordeal. She wrote of her experience as a black woman teaching in a white male dominated field. More so than this, however, she offered up a concept that had yet to have been discussed:

"It is worth asking, Who can most afford to teach in ways that are least likely to inspire controversy? Those who are not immediately hurt by dominant ideas. And what's the most dominant idea of them all? That the white, male, heterosexual perspective is neutral, but all other perspectives are biased and must be treated with skepticism."

She believes the most important way to discuss controversial issues is to discuss the power dynamic present in each situation. This is, perhaps, the most important point made throughout this whole discussion and it bears rumination.

The first writer, ostensibly a white man, is disturbed by his colleagues being admonished for even broaching the discussion of offensive or unpopular ideas. He portrays his students as sensitivity police, always on the lookout for toes breaching the line. Personally, I don't believe he is entirely off base here. Stepping outside the world of academia for a moment, comedian Jerry Seinfeld recently made a few remarks about political correctness and how he believes that it is "killing comedy." In particular, he claims that he won't perform at colleges for this very reason, a move made by fellow comedian Chris Rock last year. Both comedians bemoan the easily offended natures of young college students with Seinfeld making the claim that younger people these days are throwing words like "sexist" and "racist" around without really knowing what it means.

They both have sort of a point. It's the same point that Mr. Schlosser makes in his article and, like Ms. Mitchell's, is worthy of some thought. The point that overzealous liberals are making it hard to discuss issues is sound. There are certainly instances in which unpopular ideas are drowned out entirely in favor of emotion. The culture around shutting down opinions because they are uncomfortable is an existing one. But I am hesitant to acquiesce to the idea that is a dominant one. This is where power dynamics come in.

Koritha Mitchell posited that white heterosexual men suffer from the misconception that their skin color and position in life have no effect on their actions, rendering them neutral. In this idea she further makes the point that white men make a habit of offering their ideas without paying mind to their privilege while turning around and reprimanding minority opinions as those borne from emotion rather than fact.

This presents an interesting and complicated (as you've probably already seen) issue. On the one hand, you have a particular sect of the college population that does take social justice to the limit and that does often make it difficult to have an actual discussion. But on the other hand, you have people in positions of power that have always been in power that are now questioning their "safety" from these passionately socially conscious students. Unlike network news, I won't tell you that there's a right or wrong answer. This is not an issue or black and white (well...you know what I mean) but an issue of grey, where all of the above people dwell yet cannot seem to find one another. All of them, in one way or another, are making a worthy point. It's up to you to decide which points are founded and which are not.

In short, I offer this: never discredit someone's opinion because of their background, but always take that background into account. Use it as a gauge, not a gag. Similarly, waving off young people as a group of overly sensitive whiners is a very limited and narrow view of the world that could benefit from reading opinions by those in minority positions. Read books and articles written by black women and gay men and transgender people. Do your best to empathize with those that live entirely different lives from you.

The world is full of nuance and is way too confusing. Take heart in the fact that this is a universal problem.