I've thought for some time that universities are going to be replaced (as centers of higher education, not job skills etc) with some new thing. Not that I think this is it, but it's nice to see new models being tried. The obvious concern is that with so much polarization this ends up being The Quilette of universities. It may be better to stand for something positive and dwell less on what's bad about the current system.
Also, this caught my eye:
> 1) every opinion will be heard and 2) every opinion must be supported by evidence
To me, having this as cannon is how you degrade into a citation / citation needed fest instead of having actual interesting philosophical discussions. I'd rather see opinions supported with reason (and good faith) as a first principle, and not pretend that all opinions are equal in a given discussion
Yeah I think if this succeeds in any form (it just seems to me some rich person's pet project with a number of sympathetic advisors who probably don't do anything) it has a nontrivial chance of turning into VoatU, no matter the best intentions of the creators. (Being charitable here...)
Weird that some of the people who complain the loudest about free speech on college campuses are also the same people who complain loudly about critical race theory being taught in schools. It is almost like these people were never "committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse" and were instead committed to a specific worldview that is being phased out of education in the US.
You can't trust an organization's FAQ page to give you a complete picture as it is obviously biased in favor of that organization. Once you look into the the people behind this project, the people who are likely to teach there, and the people who are celebrating this announcement the motivations behind this project will reveal themselves.
Simply put, the people behind this clearly do not stand for "the fearless pursuit of truth".
I bet you somehow have no problem looking down on "conspiracy theorists" while simultaneously being able to read some hidden agenda in things you don't agree with? I saw another discussion like this the other day, where someone kept insisting "no, its a dog whistle!". I don't know the objective truth, but I do know people like to give the benefit of the doubt to things they agree with, see hidden agendas everywhere in things they don't, and accuse anyone else who suspects a hidden agenda of being a conspiracy nut.
What you said also applies to the people behind this university. They believe that most American universities are no longer pursuing truth. What do you think these people would say is the motivation behind that change? If you ask them, I am betting most would respond with something about a hidden agenda including words like "wokeism", 'intersectionality", and "leftist".
These people don't actually want truth. Their motivation is that our societal definition of truth has broadened as we have started to listen to voices that were previously powerless. Critical Race Theory is one prime example. The people behind this university want to reverse course. Instead of truth, they want something that reinforces their preexisting worldview because what modern academia is now accepting as truth contradicts that worldview.
There is no hypocrisy inherently in considering some conspiracy theories absurd and some not. "Conspiracy theory" and "hidden agenda" are gigantic categories. Regardless - "I bet you...", followed by some engineered hypocritical opinion, is practically ad hominem. It usually signals that you have drawn the "us vs them" lines, and do not intend to engage intellectually.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 35.3 ms ] threadAlso, this caught my eye:
> 1) every opinion will be heard and 2) every opinion must be supported by evidence
To me, having this as cannon is how you degrade into a citation / citation needed fest instead of having actual interesting philosophical discussions. I'd rather see opinions supported with reason (and good faith) as a first principle, and not pretend that all opinions are equal in a given discussion
Simply put, the people behind this clearly do not stand for "the fearless pursuit of truth".
These people don't actually want truth. Their motivation is that our societal definition of truth has broadened as we have started to listen to voices that were previously powerless. Critical Race Theory is one prime example. The people behind this university want to reverse course. Instead of truth, they want something that reinforces their preexisting worldview because what modern academia is now accepting as truth contradicts that worldview.