I think this political cartoon is worth discussing as it is all side that do this

[laughing dog]

Since I did not dispute that CRT was hegemoni at some universities (even though that claim is pretty vague, since I strongly suspect given your posting history and the term "hegemony" that the notion of CRT hegemony is fairly elastic), one wonders why you even brought it up.

Why do you continually refuse to answer the question? ....

Why do you deliberately make false statements? I did answer it.

If you have 'no idea' whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton--despite the publically available information about Princeton accessible to anyone and not just insiders--then we are done on this topic.

The topic is irrelevant. Not only is one example insufficient evidence for a generalization, but "CRT is hegemony at Princeton" is an ill-defined statement about CRT and its alleged hegemony.

It is obvious to me that if you have 'no idea' if Princeton is in the grip of CRT, then no university in America would qualify.

IMO if Princeton were in the grip of CRT, the demands would have been unnecessary since they would have already been instituted. Since the demands have not been instituted, it seems to me your statement is a perfect example of snowflake mentality.

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you deliberately make false statements? I did answer it.

You're right. I had to ask twice and you twice refused (in posts 75 and 77) but you did indeed finally say "i have no idea" in post 79.

The topic is irrelevant. Not only is one example insufficient evidence for a generalization,

I did not claim it was sufficient evidence for a generalisation.

but "CRT is hegemony at Princeton" is an ill-defined statement about CRT and its alleged hegemony.

It's an example of what CRT hegemony at a university looks like. If you don't think it counts, then no university in America would count.

IMO if Princeton were in the grip of CRT, the demands would have been unnecessary since they would have already been instituted.

No: the demands don't have to be implemented for an institution to be in the grip of CRT. Eisgruber's letter was sufficient for me to have formed my opinion, and the additional events (that I did not know about before I posted them) were simply further evidence.

Evergreen State is in the grip of CRT as well, though because its leadership more readily capitulated to the insane and outrageous and threatening demands of the student body, it might not be in its grip for much longer, because Evergreen State will literally have destroyed itself. (All three candidates for a replacement president at Evergreen pulled out of the selection process recently).

Princeton probably doesn't want to destroy itself and so it will implement all the rhetoric of CRT (because spouting idiotic nonsense is the exact kind of virtue signalling that does not cost it much) but not necessarily the reality (as interpreted by some faculty). Of course, it will implement some of the requests to the extent that it can do so without obvious damage to the institution.

Since the demands have not been instituted, it seems to me your statement is a perfect example of snowflake mentality.

You are very attached to calling other people snowflakes, even if the only reason you have is that they have a different perspective to you.

 

[laughing dog]

You're right. ........

I would hate to imagine your response if we were "done" as you said.

 

[Metaphor]

You're right. ........

I would hate to imagine your response if we were "done" as you said.

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

 

[laughing dog]

You're right. ........

I would hate to imagine your response if we were "done" as you said.

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

No rational person would take the example of one American university as evidence that American academia is in the grip of ______ (you fill in the blank). You handwaved a shift in your the goal post from undefined "hegemony" to the undefined "in the grip of" and failed to present evidence of some alleged widespread problem in American universities/American academia, so you really never started.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

No rational person would take the example of one American university as evidence that American academia is in the grip of ______ (you fill in the blank). You handwaved a shift in your the goal post from undefined "hegemony" to the undefined "in the grip of" and failed to present evidence of some alleged widespread problem in American universities/American academia, so you really never started.

I have explained more than once that I did not intend to generalise from Princeton to all of academia, so your repeated insinuation that that's what I wanted to do is dishonest.

"In the grip" or "hegemonic" are simply two different but equivalent expressions of what I am talking about. It was not a goal post shift.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm done trying to convince you that American academia is in the grip of CRT. If you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that judgment of Princeton, then no evidence that could possibly be produced could convince you.

No rational person would take the example of one American university as evidence that American academia is in the grip of ______ (you fill in the blank). You handwaved a shift in your the goal post from undefined "hegemony" to the undefined "in the grip of" and failed to present evidence of some alleged widespread problem in American universities/American academia, so you really never started.

I have explained more than once that I did not intend to generalise from Princeton to all of academia, so your repeated insinuation that that's what I wanted to do is dishonest.

Thank you for admitting you pulled your generalization about CRT hegemony at American universities out of your ass.

You are the one who made a generalization about American universities and then, out of the blue, brought up Princeton as an example, not me. Your explanation of intent is convenient but unconvincing.

"In the grip" or "hegemonic" are simply two different but equivalent expressions of what I am talking about. It was not a goal post shift.

They are not to anyone familiar with the English language. I am surprised at such sloppy usage from someone who relentlessly criticizes word choices of those he mocks.

 

[Toni]

Posts #84 and #86 seem to be in conflict with one another.

It’s always interesting and often informative to get the perspective of non-Americans on any aspect of American culture. It’s something else to have a non -American and I believe, a non-academic who has never set foot in the US much less on the campus of an American University asset that he’s more informed about American academia than a current academic at an American university (as I believe that ld is).

 

[Metaphor]

Thank you for admitting you pulled your generalization about CRT hegemony at American universities out of your ass.

That is neither what I did nor what I just claimed I did.

You are the one who made a generalization about American universities and then, out of the blue, brought up Princeton as an example, not me. Your explanation of intent is convenient but unconvincing.

Your judgment of what is convincing or not is unconvincing coming from somebody who has 'no idea' whether CRT is hegemony at Princeton. Saying you have "no idea" betrays your epistemological pathology, where you reserve judgment for something with public and undisputed evidence, but also claim to be able to make fine judgments of motive and real intent from your ability to mind read.

I asked from the outset whether Princeton counted and I explained from the outset why I was asking. For the readers playing at home, laughing dog twice refused to answer my question (and then gave a non-answer answer) about Princeton because (he claims), his answer was irrelevant--CRT hegemony at Princeton could not generalise to CRT hegemony across academia. Yet, the very first time I mentioned Princeton (post #33, to Rhea), I put the reason I was asking in the same paragraph as the question, and the reason had nothing to do with generalising from Princeton to all of academia:

I've got a question for you: do you think Princeton is in the grip of CRT? (If you are unfamiliar with Eisgruber's open letter and its background, please take a minute to read up about it). Because if you regard Princeton as not qualifying as in the grip of CRT, we can probably end the discussion, because nothing would qualify.

They are not to anyone familiar with the English language. I am surprised at such sloppy usage from someone who relentlessly criticizes word choices of those he mocks.

It would be obvious to any good faith reader, given the context, the implied interchangeability of the terms during the discussion.

 

[Metaphor]

Posts #84 and #86 seem to be in conflict with one another.

How?

It’s always interesting and often informative to get the perspective of non-Americans on any aspect of American culture. It’s something else to have a non -American and I believe, a non-academic who has never set foot in the US much less on the campus of an American University asset that he’s more informed about American academia than a current academic at an American university (as I believe that ld is).

Yes, Toni, your continual appeals to authority are noted.

 

[Rhea]

Metaphor, you tried to claim that this thing called Critical Race Theory is

“Pervasive”
“Suffocating”
“Hegemony”
“Couldn’t survive unscathed”
“Major force”


It’s been shown clearly that it is not.

You’ve been reduced to trying to get people to accept that one person writes a letter about it and that means it’s “hegemonic” at the college.

So back to the original dispute that “both sides do this” thing that is depicted in the cartoon, CRT is not an example of it.
It is not something that is being pushed everywhere.

I still can’t figure out exactly what your problem with it is and why you’re against it, but that is not relevant to this thread. Maybe I’ll start one to ask why the description that is known as CRT (that you claim is suffocatingly everywhere) is a problem.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, you tried to claim that this thing called Critical Race Theory is

“Pervasive”
“Suffocating”
“Hegemony”
“Couldn’t survive unscathed”
“Major force”


It’s been shown clearly that it is not.

Nothing of the kind has been shown.

You’ve been reduced to trying to get people to accept that one person writes a letter about it and that means it’s “hegemonic” at the college.

This is a shockingly dishonest take, Rhea.

"One person writes a letter" sounds like somebody writing to the editor at the local newspaper. No, Rhea. The letter in question was written by the Princeton President. Not students. Not faculty. Not the 2IC. The top. And the letter hit every CRT beat. Princeton, through Eisgruber, confessed herself to being historically and currently institutionally racist.

Now, if you don't think Princeton is an example of a university where CRT is hegemonic, then so much the less could you possibly be open to the idea that CRT is widespread in American academia.

 

[repoman]

Metaphor, you tried to claim that this thing called Critical Race Theory is

“Pervasive”
“Suffocating”
“Hegemony”
“Couldn’t survive unscathed”
“Major force”


It’s been shown clearly that it is not.

Nothing of the kind has been shown.

You’ve been reduced to trying to get people to accept that one person writes a letter about it and that means it’s “hegemonic” at the college.

This is a shockingly dishonest take, Rhea.

"One person writes a letter" sounds like somebody writing to the editor at the local newspaper. No, Rhea. The letter in question was written by the Princeton President. Not students. Not faculty. Not the 2IC. The top. And the letter hit every CRT beat. Princeton, through Eisgruber, confessed herself to being historically and currently institutionally racist.

Now, if you don't think Princeton is an example of a university where CRT is hegemonic, then so much the less could you possibly be open to the idea that CRT is widespread in American academia.

The dishonesty is part of the tactic outlined in the cartoon.

 

[Rhea]

The letter in question was written by the Princeton President. Not students. Not faculty. Not the 2IC. The top. And the letter hit every CRT beat. Princeton, through Eisgruber, confessed herself to being historically and currently institutionally racist.

You seem to be under the impression that when a college president has a favored idea, that all of the instructors in all of the departments will carry it out with equal fervor.

Have you met American Colleges?

Hegemony is a heavy word. It means something. And the presidents lettter does not demonstrate it.

Let me be clear, because you seem confused about what I’m saying.
I agree that letter seems to be talking about a full embrace of the items outlined in CRT (I’m just reading about them for the first time in this thread, btw, because it is NOT pervasive).

But the letter doesn’t convey all the other words you gave it - hegemonic for one, also suffocating, pervasive. For all we know that’s the first time the president has expressed that view, and all the professors could be saying “holy shit, did you see that?” Publishing that lettter does not prove “suffocating” all throughout the college. It just doesn’t. It could be, for all we know, but you have not demonstrated it.

And the pivot from “Hegemonic at American colleges” to “well, at this one college!” to “well in the president’s office! to, “well, starting today!”

Well, at any rate, no you have not proven the cartoon.

Don’t you have a better example of the left being “just as bad” that holds up better?

 

[Metaphor]

You seem to be under the impression that when a college president has a favored idea, that all of the instructors in all of the departments will carry it out with equal fervor.

No, I am under the impression that the boss is the boss.

 

[Metaphor]

Nothing of the kind has been shown.



This is a shockingly dishonest take, Rhea.

"One person writes a letter" sounds like somebody writing to the editor at the local newspaper. No, Rhea. The letter in question was written by the Princeton President. Not students. Not faculty. Not the 2IC. The top. And the letter hit every CRT beat. Princeton, through Eisgruber, confessed herself to being historically and currently institutionally racist.

Now, if you don't think Princeton is an example of a university where CRT is hegemonic, then so much the less could you possibly be open to the idea that CRT is widespread in American academia.

The dishonesty is part of the tactic outlined in the cartoon.

It frankly wouldn't surprise me if laughing dog and Rhea now claimed that they didn't deny CRT was hegemony, even though they've been denying it for ten pages.

 

[Rhea]

The thread’s only 2 pages, but whatever.

It frankly wouldn't surprise me if laughing dog and Rhea now claimed that they didn't deny CRT was hegemony, even though they've been denying it for ten pages.

I edited prior post to add

the items outlined in CRT (I’m just reading about them for the first time in this thread, btw, because it is NOT pervasive).

It’s obviously not hegemonic enough for me to have encountered it. Like say, Christianity in AMerica. THAT is pervasive.

 

[Metaphor]

The thread’s only 2 pages, but whatever.

The thread is ten pages on my browser. I don't know what settings you have.

It frankly wouldn't surprise me if laughing dog and Rhea now claimed that they didn't deny CRT was hegemony, even though they've been denying it for ten pages.

It’s obviously not hegemonic enough for me to have encountered it. Like say, Christianity in AMerica. THAT is pervasive.

Oy gevalt. "CRT is hegemony in American academia" is not disproved by "Person X has not heard of CRT".

The Duluth model is the predominant model for domestic abuse intervention in the United States, and that would not be untrue even if the majority of the people on the front lines didn't realise it or wouldn't know to call it that.

 

[Toni]

You seem to be under the impression that when a college president has a favored idea, that all of the instructors in all of the departments will carry it out with equal fervor.

No, I am under the impression that the boss is the boss.

Not really. Professors are not generally bossed around. Particularly those covered by faculty unions.

Universities can and do function without presidents. It is not uncommon for the office of president to be vacant when the sitting president decides to leave their position. And yet, the university continues to function.

 

[Metaphor]

You seem to be under the impression that when a college president has a favored idea, that all of the instructors in all of the departments will carry it out with equal fervor.

No, I am under the impression that the boss is the boss.

Not really. Professors are not generally bossed around. Particularly those covered by faculty unions.

Universities can and do function without presidents. It is not uncommon for the office of president to be vacant when the sitting president decides to leave their position. And yet, the university continues to function.

Okay Toni. A university president isn't the boss, has no authority or influence or power, sets no direction, and has to raise her hand to ask to go to the toilet if it isn't recess.

I can't even.

*EDIT: Just for shits and giggles, I looked up what an impotent figurehead that does literally nothing because the university functions without her, gets for being a university president these days. Eisgruber has taken home between $970k-$990k per year over the past few years. It really puts into perspective AOC's below poverty salary as a Congresswoman.