Has woke higher education met it's destiny?
Doom scrolling the response to congressional testimony by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn on antisemitism in higher education. If I'm being truthful, it's fun.
Greetings on a snowy Friday here in the Intermountain West. Today, I'm reaching out with a brief extra piece that, in my opinion, merits your attention because of an extraordinary event that happened a few days ago.
As many of you know, I spent a quarter of a century in higher education. I was a senior lecturer in physics for most of that time. I have written numerous essays here on Howlin’ dealing with my time in higher education, my misgivings over DEI in academia, and why I finally retired early from a job that I loved in a lot of ways. You may search Howlin’ for “education” and find enough reading to tide you through the holidays.
A few days ago, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn testified on Capitol Hill in a House hearing on antisemitism in higher education. The thing that is significant about this hearing is that the entire country finally got a crystal clear window into the woke, doublespeak that has permeated academia since the turn of the century, when none of the leaders of three of the most prestigious universities in the world could simply condemn antisemitism on their campuses.
I understand the nuances of context, but it would have been very easy for anyone not in the thrall of woke academia to have forcefully addressed antisemitism while still defending universities as vital bulwarks for free expression. What the public got was a glimpse of what I and every other non-woke faculty member were forced to endure as a condition of employment. I’m not going to lie. I’m enjoying the response and watching these people squirm.
It really makes you wonder how they got to be university presidents, does it not? That is, of course, rhetorical.
To be clear, I am pretty close to a free-speech absolutist. I think that you should be free, at least from government intervention, to say any damn silly thing that you want. This is America, where you have the right to be wrong. It was never my job as a lecturer to tip-toe around anyone’s feelings, sensibilities, or lived experiences. It was my job to tell the objective truth to the best of my ability. If you objected, it was your right to respond. The best cure for poor speech isn’t suppression; it’s better speech.
Thought and its expression through speech aren’t the same thing as action. When they morph into action, we have laws to address whatever might arise. You should be able to say just about anything that you want on a college campus; it’s when you throw a rock that you’ve crossed the line.
The deck has long been stacked in favor of the left on college campuses when it comes to the free exchange of ideas. And this is ultimately to the benefit of no one. It’s also entirely antithetical to the core mission of higher education. Now it’s plain for all to see.
Make no mistake, what has happened as a result of this testimony represents a watershed moment in the trajectory of modern higher education. It’s now clear to everyone that free expression on college campuses is generally acceptable only so long as it follows a woke narrative. Questioning most things embraced by wokeness is unacceptable because it’s an indication of bigotry, racism, misogyny, or any number of “phobias,” while challenging antisemitism is “context dependent.”
The best response to this that I’ve read is by Glenn Harlan Reynolds and is on his Instapundit Substack. I recommend it as essential reading.
Enjoy your weekend. Science Friday is coming in a couple of hours.
Associated Press and Idaho Press Club-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding bicycles and motorcycles, and arranging and playing music. Follow him on Twitter @MartinHackworth and on Substack at martinhackworthsubstack.com
The only thing that will awaken academia from wokism is the objective reality of key alumni donors cutting off large inflows of cash. Once Ross Stevens informed UPenn’s president he was cutting his $100 million contribution she squirmed and began to backtrack on her absurd statements before Congress. But shouldn’t these academics and administrators who disdain capitalists not also disdain the funds gifted by these same “thieves and gluttons?” Time to starve the wokist ivory towers!