Actually 2 left leaning guys discussing Gay - one basically says it’s all a racist attack by conservatives, thus there’s nothing more to discuss - Gay was sacrificed unjustly. The other says that he agrees with some of the Harvard prof’s points about plagiarism accusations perhaps being blown out of proportion, but the fact that conservative groups were targeting Gay is irrelevant. The only thing that should matter is objective assessment of the plagiarism. That does resonate with me, as you see politicos on all topics avoid tough issues if they’re raised by a messenger considered impeachable, just by focusing on the messenger instead of the issues raised by the message.

The Harvard prof, who seemed like a reasonable guy - he lamented recent FL and TX moves to squash education on racial issues. I agree with that when it comes to things like “slavery as a benefit to slaves” initiatives. But that’s not really what FL and TX just did - they attacked DEI, not classroom content (according to a report I read this morning in the WSJ). The idea of equity (guaranteed outcomes, which is where “communism” accusations come from) in hirings and other employment issues. Near as I can tell, the Prof was conflating these issues. I think that happens a lot in a variety of topics. One might be totally against sanitizing of reading materials, where books dealing with race or gender or other social justice hot button issues are banned from certain grades, but also be opposed to the way they see DEI’s hyper-focus on “identity” and ethnic generalizations about oppression. The Prof seemed to me to conflate the two - if you’re opposed to current DEI approaches, you’re opposed to balanced history curricula.

Which seems somewhat related to the focus on cancelling people. As the link headlines - is the controversy addressed by canceling Gay, or the Penn pres, and relentlessly pursuing the MIT head on a platter, to score the popular political trifecta? I objected to their anti-semitism responses to Stefanik, and am not shedding tears. But it feels like more cancel culture in action to me. Is anything going to change? If we’re really looking to change this focus onto merit instead of ethnicity, would it be more effective, if less politically satisfying, to work with someone like Gay after she completely disavowed her mistaken answers to Stefanik?

Maybe not, given Gay’s focus on her own victimhood in her NYT oped, although if she’s subjected to all kinds of racist vitriol, not real sure I blame her. Nonetheless, the right is targeting all three U presidents from that disastrous testimony equally - not just the black lady. Yeah, Stefanik and Co. are scoring political points, but I don’t see it as racist. It’s ideological.

Anyway, I think it’s incredibly difficult to cut through all the political noise - serious passions on both sides - without lurching in public debates to extremes - you’re either for current DEI, or you’re against balanced classroom curricula! And the focus on canceling individuals, bringing all kinds of cheers when the heads roll, tends to obscure the greater substantive effort. Seems close to impossible to rationally debate all this.


[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 01/05/2024 08:11AM]