I think time is on their side. The view that professors should not be activists came from an age where scholarship was putatively believed to be an objective enterprise that stripped away biases (mostly superstitious biases) to find the truth. That view is simply passé; we no longer have to think that way. Now we recognize that such a project was unattainable and what is important is that one has the "right" biases--the politically correct biases that fly with one's colleagues. Times being what they are, they are progressive biases.

In a little time these professors and all the others will not have to put up with the annoyance of academic achievement, foisted upon them by an earlier pretense. The one rule that will reign is that advancement comes if and only if one adheres to the party line. After all, what we need is research that confirms the party line and that can be turned out in a New York minute.

Professors will one day all be judged politically and that's good. Fie on the attempt for unbiased research, fie. Fie on academic achievement, fie. Fie, fie, fie... the correct kind of activism should be preeminent and eventually the only thing that counts. When that day comes I would like to put in for the party line inspector job.

Alternatively, activist professors don't pay the bills. They will be gone in the new order. ;)

What you describe is clearly more and more true every day. It is also sick and disgusting. Those in the professoriate that fit your profile, including many of those described in the article, are boldly leading the way into a world accurately depicted in the movie "Idiocracy." For Mike Judge, it was a comedy that would happen five centuries in the future. But with the unflagging dedication of progressives, community organizers, activists, and, of course, (how did Ms. Tarlau put it?) "higher education. . .remade," Idiocracy is deadly serious and right around the corner.

Yes, because you simply say so, I guess it must be more and more true every day. Thank you, I see you are an activist for discrediting activist scholarship, really, "sick and disgusting," care to expound on that thought a bit more. Without knowing the topic of research, without knowing the author's credibility, you just say it is all bad. Bad for whom? Anyway, Idiocracy was a piece of shit movie. To say that rotten tomato of a film "accurately depicts" anything casts some shade on your scholarship. Hope you don't teach Film Studies.

Not because I say so. . . Because it's happening. Can an activist be objective? Is the goal of higher education to seek the truth? To think critically? Or to be told what to think and forced to accept the "consensus?"

Good questions, I personally would answer:

Neither the so-called "activist" or "non-activist" professor is objective because objectivity is a myth for all. Objectivity in political analysis is another word for "majority group consensus."

One goal and and an important one is to seek "truth" (but seeking truth does not necessarily mean you can know it). Is the truth of the incredible racial disparities in treatment of minorities by justice and prison system not an "objectivity" you like? See above comments on what objectivity is.

Activist scholars are generally extremely critically aware because they are not living in the fog of "I'm white, I don't have a race" mentality.

It may not be a "manifest" function of higher education to force students into consensus thinking, but it sure as hell is a "latent" function. But it starts far earlier. By the time you have reached first grade you have lost the ability to think for yourself and your K-12 education doesn't prepare you to challenge anything that might diminish the majority's hold on status, power and money. Everything else might be slightly negotiable.

Well said...please understand that livefreeordie didn't just pull that online name out of a hat. The right-wing meme is that group of collective activism is bad, individual activism is a just cause and akin to martyrdom.

If what you say is remotely true, than it is vital for all universities to ensure a diversity of activist thought. If what you say is true, a university must seek and employ people from as many different worldviews as possible, and those differing worldviews need to be represented in all fields. They are not doing so.

So, again, universities fail.

objectivity is a myth for all

Yup, gravity and thermodynamics are myths...

Mencius Moldbug was right about the State Religion of Pax Americana.

Lorhead, learn to read first and then think. I said very clearly that objectivity is a myth in the social sciences not in the physical sciences. Last I checked physics isn't in that category. But thanks for your insight. No idea what your tangential reference to pax Americana is, but then again I don't care to know.

If objectivity is a myth and there is no truth, only the seeking of it, I invite you do have the courage of your convictions and jump off the brooklyn bridge.

Thanks, you are another in a long line of people who can't understand what I am saying. I thought this was a comment board for people who can think? Your comments show you have simplified my argument to a level that makes sense to you I guess. So you are arguing that if we can't have access to "universal knowledge" then we should kill ourselves? That's pretty perceptive stuff...if you were a cabbage.

Objective (neutrality) is a word used to obscure how easily power moves into fake positions to advantage themselves. Stating your position, biases and openly confronting them is a more honest pursuit. Someone should read how Edward Bernays became the father of public relations (advertising) --- posing as someone objective.... And in terms of being told what to think, there is little evidence (even objective evidence) that your line of thinking cannot be traced back to some defunct economist from Austria...

Wasn't there this ancient Greek activist scholar whose work so upset the authorities that he was forced to drink poison?

Ah, but that scholar went against the tide, not with it.

speaking of knee-jerk denial . . ladies and gents, may I present: Socratease 2!

If you are too stupid to understand the dangers, nothing will help you until you're on the receiving end. Use a little imagination, a little observation, read a little history.

Dangers of what? Receiving end of what? What denial? I will use my imagination here because there is nothing in your rambling post to focus on. Care to clarify with some lucid sentences?

O, how I wish your post wasn't spot-on, but it sadly is. And if our precious little scholar-activists read it all, they'll either not understand, or knee-jerk deny. More activist than scholar, I fear.

Here is the question: are researchers willing to publish findings that go against their political beliefs and the subject of their activism? Are they willing to let the chips fall where they may and report findings that do not fit the world view associated with their activism? If not, their scholarship will be tainted by their activism.

I think you actually answered your own question, or to quote a certain movie: "I think you know how this will end, don't you."

Ah, do you think a black activist scholar needs to replicate the
sociological literature on racism or re-do studies within the field of Criminal Justice that focus on the severe racial inequalities that make the American penal system a stench in god's nostrils? No, they don't have to re-establish the credibility of their field. Why does it have to be a zero sum game? Activism and academics are not mutually exclusive, sorry if you and liveordie2 find the concept to be threatening to your world view. Theory without praxis or praxis without theory, neither is desirable. Finally, you and the rest who think that scholarship and research done by non-community engaged white folk is objective or neutral, think again. There is no such thing as a "centrist" or "objective" position to argue anything from, all social research is biased by unexamined values, myths, assumptions, norms and power-dimensions. You and livetodie2 are good examples of that.

"Ah, do you think a black activist scholar needs to replicate the sociological literature on racism or re-do studies within the field of Criminal Justice that focus on the severe racial inequalities that make the American penal system a stench in god's nostrils?"

If the research has been done, then the researchers no longer have to be employed. Go be an activist on your own dime. Tuition costs too much and the push back has started.

I don't think that is the point I was making, research is never "finished" when it comes to human societies and their behaviors, I don't think that needs to be debated. I don't think the "activism" part has to cost the university money either (well, humanities and some social sciences are certainly not the money makers for university). But, really now, by your logic, there is no need to employee professors to teach intro biology, geology or anything else if the research is already done. I think there are plenty of college students who would learn a lot of new information if they took a criminal justice class, some shocking information at that. Better give them some trigger warnings.

Those professors are needed for the moment to teach their students. Frankly, thats strictly, "for the moment."

On the contrary, humanities and social sciences classes cost a lot less than STEM with their labs and equipment and computers and whatnot, yet tuition is generally the same across majors at most institutions. Ergo, there is usually a bit of cross-subsidization from the tuition dollars of the humanities and social sciences students to the coffers of the engineering and biology departments.

This is true.

Yes, stagnant real salaries in most of STEM since Bush 43's first term, unparalleled age discrimination, and the increasing offshoring of IT, programming, and R&D departments surely are hallmarks of a classic labor shortage. Uh huh.

True, humanities and social sciences cost far less and often times do subsidize STEM fields. No doubt about that, but they also bring in far less money in grants and more and more students are looking at majors within the College of Arts and Sciences a lot more skeptically than before. I am sure there has been a drop in enrollment in "liberal arts" majors, mostly because I have no facts to support the assertion.

True enough for most liberal arts disciplines; take a gander at # of majors over time at http://nces.ed.gov/programs... Business and vocational stuff like fitness studies, nursing, criminal justice, etc have realized big gains; most humanities and social sciences programs are stagnant to declining.

O, are lab fees a thing of the past?

Yes, but they actually learn something in STEM. The social sciences and humanities have become schools of left-wing indoctrination.

Does Hansford ACCEPT the fact that the Michael Brown was a thug who attacked the police officer and the police officer acted in self defense.....or does he continue to peddle the lie that Mike Brown was some tolerant little giant? We should not allow SJW in the classroom if they are not interested in the truth.......as in any black killed by a white cop is a victim of racism or women don't like about rape..

Blargh! Random code words! Blargh! Uninformed Rants! Go Away!

research is never "finished" when it comes to human societies and their behaviors

How convenient for the activist professors. The above means tenure, and a lifetime job.

But, really now, by your logic, there is no need to employee professors to teach intro biology, geology or anything else if the research is already done.

Apples and oranges. A lot of people don't know biology or geology. Professors ought to actually teach these subjects, and many do. As for the additional politics that professors throw in - keep that at home and we won't have a problem.

Your first comment is just cynical and your second addresses a point I didn't make.

Nice parse there. "...research is never 'finished' when it comes to human societies and their behaviors..."

No. Research is never finished.......period. And this includes climate scientist fabulists who claim the research on anthropogenic global warming is settled science. Science is NEVER settled.

Evolution too?

"Finally, you and the rest who think that scholarship and research done by non-community engaged white folk is objective or neutral, think again."

Of course your point is right about so-called objective or neutral scholarship as not neutral at all, but why "white" folk scholarship? Do Asians of color or scholarship and research done by non-community engaged black folk count as well? Why do you suggest that white folk are monolithic? Swede, Arab, and Greek white folk are just as diverse among themselves as among the larger communities of white folk, along with mixed race folk, black folk, and Asian people of color who are themselves diverse within and without

It's time to interrogate progressive use of "white" as a neatly monolithic entity. Indeed, such use is laughable.
With so many bodies of color today desiring of and making love with white bodies and producing children of multiple races, what's a good progressive to do with their essentialist categories???

Yes, this could be applied to any "bound" cultural group that distinguishes clearly between "in-group" and "out-group" norms and behaviors. And you are right, there is more in-group diversity than between group diversity, always a good point to remember. White academics are still by far the largest percentage of academics, which is why I used them as my default example but I agree the monolith is eroding and there is a multi-racial future coming where whites will simply be a majority minority and then perhaps an actual minority. It is already hard for many people to define their ethnicity easily, well, maybe it is easy for many but it is arbitrary. Look at Obama, our first "Black" president. Someone should tell his mom who was a white girl from Kansas. Isn't he our first bi-racial president?

Define "racism."

Are you serious? First, I will give you a definition and you try to give me a dictionary entry. What's a word that means "to waste someone's time with a useless question?"

You mean like white professors who find ways to argue in support of ideas they want to hold true, but in reality aren't, and then publish the results? That is a good one, watch out for those shifty activists. Anyway, concerning the subject of this activism, race and inequality, what part of their worldview is distorted? Why would you find a black scholar who studies the horrors of the American prison system to be wrong in advocating for prison reform? How does that a priori taint their scholarship? Scholarship is either rigorous and methodologically sound or it isn't, don't think ethnicity of author or topic of research matter.

My question is appropriate here. To use your example, if scholars who study the American prison system generate findings that go against their argument for prison reform, do they submit those findings for publication or do they discard/hide those findings because they don't fit the world view upon which their activism is based? If the latter, then their scholarship is tainted by their activism and one cannot trust the "research" generated by that "scholar." We would have to ask ourselves: how many other times did this scholar hide findings because they conflicted with their activism? All legitimate scholars have to be prepared to present findings that we don't expect, including stories about the real world that don't comport with our world views. I regularly publish findings that do not necessarily fit with my view of how the world works, including my political views.

There should be no place for those who substitute activism for scholarship in the research university. Period. If one wants to be an activist whose scholarship is tainted by that activism, then by all means join an activist group in the role of a propagandist, but do not do so in the university. If one's scholarship is so tainted by activism that the researcher's own findings are discarded or hidden because they don't fit with the researcher's activism, they are committing research malpractice and do not deserve a place in the university.

None of this means that individuals cannot be both activists and scholars. One of my best academic friends is an activist whose research is related to her activism, but she takes great pains to use her research to understand the world relating to the topic of her activism rather than use her research as a propaganda tool. The scholarly community (and I) trust the results of her research because she practices the kind of research detachment necessary to give her credibility as a scholar.

Of course, fabricating data or evidence in order to promote a cause, even a very worthy one, is academic fraud and should not be celebrated. And it happens, no doubt about it, and the more "squishy" the subject matter, the easier it is to define and explain circumstances to fit your agenda. My argument is perhaps one level back, I find it interesting that people (likely the pale, European descent types) are very "ready" to become indignant over the idea that activist scholars are pushing propaganda rather than social science. But, I see a distinct lack of reflection on the reality that the majority of professors in this country are white but somehow, being a white professor you are not challenged to defend your research in the same manner. No ones says, wow, all these white professors pumping out their limited white world views, I wonder what kinds of biases are rampant in their work? Why is it only when it comes to (mostly) minority scholarship that people want to root out bias? I have some ideas.

You make an interesting point that I can take seriously. It seems reasonable to me that there can be ethnic bias in empirical research even if you are seriously pursuing the truth; and that it is possible and maybe likely that "European descent" professors unfairly evaluate research done by other ethnicities...even if it is unconscious. Because of that reality it seems to me that there is a compelling need for ethnic diversity at the world's universities. But it shouldn't end there.

There is a general need for intellectual diversity. Its need is widely recognized but legitimate fears of quackery and crackpots and the prized hegemony of authority in all matters that empirical studies has garnered militate against that. It's not that empirical studies do not produce new knowledge, but that it want's to rule the world of values, morality, metaphysics and religion, too. It's not qualified to do that.

Sorry, don't mean to keep coming back to this but forgot something. I understand your point about "activism" when it has clearly lost a connection to credible scholarship. So, of course, you can't simply substitute one for the other but, I would argue, if done "correctly" an activist edge should be a welcome complement to good scholarship. How can you study something and have no thoughts how to apply it in society? I think students would benefit from the energy and passion an activist (already getting sick of this word and its connotations) professor brings to their lectures and discussion with students. Such a professor may be a great mentor and motivator. I would rather have an honest professor who doesn't pretend to be bias-free and puts his or her thoughts right out there for you to engage with. As long as students aren't punished for opposing views and are rewarded for evidenced arguments that support their counter views. That is a system that reflects human reality and one that students can appreciate if they are interested in learning how to critically think. All this crap about making sure students feel safe in the classroom is so antithetical to actual learning.

There's a least two serious problems with your proposal. 1) Students are regularly and enthusiastically punished when they do not go along with the prevailing progressive party line. Some of the "punishments" are so-called microagressions (it swings both ways), other punishments include but are not limited to keeping you out of the academic club, withdrawal of support and so forth. It does make a difference. Not that there aren't fair people on both sides of many of these issues, but it isn't 50/50 or 70/30. It's more like 90/10 and 95/5 favoring progressive ideology at elite universities.

2) We can agree that, "...making sure students feel safe in the classroom is antithetical to actual learning." For one, I went through without "protection" and it helped sharpen my critical (and diplomatic) skills. I'm thankful for that.

We can also agree that "white" profs have biases that affect their work, but we should also be able to agree that minority profs will bring in their biases even if both groups are seriously in pursuit of the truth. The conundrum is how to resolve these differences by getting closer to the truth. And that's very difficult in part (maybe a large part) because of our understanding of the human cognitive condition. I see no help for that from what i read in your comments. You seem to be saying minority profs (activist minority profs) are in a superior epistemic situation because of their awareness of their critical condition. How so if they bring in their own biases? Explain how trading one set of biases for another set of biases gets us closer to the truth? It isn't obvious that different biases correct each other; more likely over time they merely supplant one for the other. And if it all comes down to raw power, they why cloak this in the fancy pants of academic garb.

Good points. I certainly am not trying to advocate that minority biases be privileged over those of the dominant majority nor that the scholarship of activist scholars get some kind of hall pass just because they are working to create "social justice" in some shape or form. There are no easy answer to these questions and "truth" remains a very malleable concept. However, I see one flaw in your argument. You can say that "minority bias" is no better or worse than "dominant culture bias" and in the abstract of course I agree. But are the two forms of bias equal? Up until very recently Anglo-American culture has been the sun around which minority cultures had to orbit their satellites. They are now trying to change the trajectory of those orbits but for a long, long time minority activists and theorists have had to use the language and methods of the majority and received little in the way of social traction on many issues. I have some sympathy, not for academic fraud but for the perspective of some groups who may feel they have to yell a bit louder or push their agendas a bit more forcefully in order to even be heard. sometimes, I think it is not "bias" so much as "presentation" that makes certain groups uncomfortable with activist academics.

There is a lot to agree with what you said above. There are possibly a technical issue or two that could be usefully clarified, but that's probably too technical for these sort of comments. The issues have to do with metaphysics and epistemology and clarifying which we're talking about when we discuss notions like "truth" and "knowledge" and so forth.

But on a less technical issue I find I can agree with your analysis of the Anglo-American culture being the sun around which minority cultures have had to orbit their satellites. And I appreciate the fact you see my concern of trading one set of biases for another.

Sadly my train of thought from there on isn't as clear as I would like it to be and I am, therefore, also sad my views are not completely convincing, even to myself. Having conceded that, I presently want to say i think that the problem of biases is made considerably worse when there is a power dominance of one of the "groups" over the others so that abuses creep (and sometimes gallop) in. This deserves a more detailed analysis than can be given here, but the issue of power, who has it, who uses it, and who has enough of it to get away with rampant corruption is very important.

We're not going to get rid of biases or abuses of biases completely because of the human condition. It seems to me however, that checks and balances can tame some of it. Structural changes also do make improvements in situations, but it also seems to me that a culture still cannot rise above the critical mass of the shared moral character of its diverse and competing groups.

There has to be enough fair-minded and fair-fighters among us striving for truth, justice and mercy to allow our form of government and culture to long endure.

Call me cynical - but based on what's come out of universities in the past 20 some years, I do not believe scholarship and actual research takes place much anymore. The so-called researchers seem to begin with their bias and look for or twist evidence to fit it.

Please give us a trigger warning before displaying your bigoted statements about white professors. Your micro aggressions against the melanin unprivileged are hurtful.