[TerminalSystem3]

The reaction to this article kind of says it all for me. Right leaning readers seem to accept the claims, although anonymous, because they have experience on the ground that would make them believe such claims. Left leaning readers refuse to accept the claims because they are anonymous and could easily be made up.

It's confirmation bias all the way down. I personally tend to lean more on the right here because I went to an "elite" institution and saw firsthand, plenty of times, the same kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes.

I do think that the reaction to this article, and the many other articles like it, are a harbinger of the near-future breakup of the United States. There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.

[jariel]

The flaw in this line of thinking is that it's unreasonable to suggest this story is 'made up' or 'propaganda'.

It's more like: if this is just the experience of a tiny handful of people, well then it's a perspective but it's not important. If it's commonplace, then it's an issue.

There were major divisions in the nation in the past - remember that so many rejected desegregation in the 1960's. I think many progressives will think that we are now re-living those kinds of divisions, i.e. it's their turn to 'fight'.

The thing is, it's quite different this time. I don't believe that any movement here has history on their side.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

This statement is no longer progressive, in fact, it's the hallmark of many social conservatives i.e. 'I don't see race' or 'I judge on the basis of character'.

It's the woke/intersectional progressive crowd who want to re-initiate racial awareness using the logic that 'people's racial experiences matter', which while I think has some merit, is also going to be deeply divisive.

MLK won. All the way from 1960 to even now, racial disparities have been shrinking (mostly). The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with MLK's statement, and consider it a virtue.

The 'New Progressive Radicals' may have a point to make, but the inherent divisiveness of the ideal, and the focus on race/gender above character etc. leads to a pop culture civil war, amplified by social media, it plays into our worst impulses including racism. I don't think history is going to favour this movement outright.

[baix777]

If you want to find it, you will see racism in America is alive and well. This is what the black lives matter is all about. People may say they agree with MLK, but this is because they know what should be said in public. The actions of society highlight how far we still have to go to fight racism.

I know social conservatives who think they aren't racist but don't care about issues like how many more black people end up in jail than white people. They don't demand justice when police forces overreact to black protests, and don't care when police forces almost don't react (and take selfies instead) to white protests.

After all this, not being able to see how serious racism is in America is one of the better signs you are racist.

[IAmWorried]

So not caring is now a form of racism? Trying to tune out the news and live my life means I am racist?

I think 1. you need to get a grip on reality, 2. you need to look up some violent crime statistics, and 3. you need to look up the homicide rates between the BLM protests and the capitol riots. Calling everyone who doesn't "demand justice" a racist is pretty stupid and a great recipe for further polarization.

[i_ii__ii_i]

> I personally tend to lean more on the right here because I went to an "elite" institution and saw firsthand, plenty of times, the same kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes.

I hear this kind of claims many times, and it always confuses me because I've had quite the opposite experience.

I've just received an AB from an "elite" institution (the one pictured in the Substack version of this article), and despite me being quite the textbook example of a Right Leaning White Male™ (except maybe that I'm not rich), I never witnessed the "kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes."

Now, was I surrounded by mostly left-leaning peers? Absolutely. Did I ever feel coerced into keeping my opinions to myself? Never. As a matter of fact, I was given platforms to express my opinions in speaking and writing, and while the average reaction to them was forceful disagreement, it never felt disrespectful to me.

I've expressed my oppositions to a bunch of things happening at school (SGSO reform, unionization to name a couple) and I found the resulting conversations to be constructive in most cases. Sure, I arguably never changed anyone's mind, but that never was my goal. I've talked at length about issues like "progressive language" like Latinx/womxn terminology and personal pronouns, and I've never felt attacked in return.

What probably puzzles me the most, however, is that some of the forms of oppression that Bari Weiss talks about are so foreign to me that I really wonder whether I've been living in the same educational system as the one she describes. For example, in one article [1] she describes how some "feminists who believe there are biological differences between men and women . . . fear the illiberal left." In my four years of college, I've never once come across someone who suggested that there are no such biological differences--let alone witnessing oppression in the name of this idea. Sure, there are probably niche circles in which the idea has been discussed, perhaps even entertained; but the same can be said e.g. of Mormonism, yet I don't see anyone claiming that U.S. education is falling into the hands of Mormons.

Sometimes I wonder what makes my experience so seemingly different from that of many other folks on the conservative side. Maybe it's the fact that I'm international, which might make American interlocutors more accommodating of my different viewpoint. Or it could be that forceful disagreements (often garnished with insults and seasoned with various allegations of *isms) are the norm in the country I grew up in, so much so that I've grown to recognize them as inevitable--if regrettable--aspects of conversations about sensitive topics.

One thing that I did notice, however, is how many of my conservative friends were experiencing real anxiety around these topics, and stayed away from bringing them up as a result of the anxiety itself. As a matter of fact, I never joined any explicitly conservative social group, one reason being that most of the conversations going on in those circles were way too angsty and whiny for my tastes.

All in all, while I appreciate this kind of reporting for the light it sheds on a relatively unknown part of society, I really dislike how fear-based it is. I feel like it does more harm than good, by making conservative defensive and afraid before they've even had a real discussion with people they disagree with. Case in point:

>There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.

Nah, many countries (including the US) have been through far greater ideological clashes and got through them, if not unchanged.

That's not to say everything is rosy--if you ask me, problems abound; but exceptions are exceptions, no matter how alarming. Let's not stoop to crying wolf while there's time.

[1] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/3/2/22309605/the-silenc...

[2-tpg]

> What probably puzzles me the most, however, is that some of the forms of oppression that Bari Weiss talks about are so foreign to me that I really wonder whether I've been living in the same educational system as the one she describes.

Here is a FIRE survey of 1250 students on the topic of freedom of expression, sliced by field of study, race, and political leaning: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...

> I've never once come across someone who suggested that there are no such biological differences

It is the difference between equality and equivalence: not everybody is equal in quality, but everybody is equal in value. When this difference is not made, saying that female managers have, on average, different (some negative, some positive) qualities than male managers, then translates to saying: female managers are of lesser value than male managers. So talking of different (biological) qualities often leads to confrontation with the illiberal left, even if closely on their side with regards to equal value for all.

Suggesting there even are biological differences between genders which have causal effects -- "females, on average, have higher emotional intelligence and empathy, and thus prefer to work with people and children, and so are overrepresented in nursing and kindergarden teaching, this is not dominantly the result of male oppression or gender discrimination or lack of chances" -- already got multiple tenured professors fired. In industry, Damoore's facts on biological differences, in context of gender representation in job roles, was cause for firing: the difference between equality and equivalence was not made, and so "Damoore had made female colleagues feel like lesser value, and this is unacceptable".

> One thing that I did notice, however, is how many of my conservative friends were experiencing real anxiety around these topics, and stayed away from bringing them up as a result of the anxiety itself.

All study surveys confirm this. Left progressive socialist viewpoints are not speaking truth to power, this is already the ruling power. By field of study, in the humanities and education, many right-leaning people, especially if not from a minority/victimized group, rationally keep their mouth shut. Not underbelly anxiety, but legit fear of reprisal or spoiling the work place a la Damoore, until forced to speak up, because silence is violence, and two sides of the coin is a racism apology or denial.

> Let's not stoop to crying wolf while there's time.

Many are only just now realizing this is even a problem, and that the anti-racist or social equality movement can be very discriminatory on skin color or in favor of inequality (promoting employees to fill an ideal skin color quota, as if that is any merit). My conferences are now putting in place code of conducts, where "participants made uncomfortable or insulted by your scientific work or presentation warrants an investigation" or "anything you say on social media as a participants can be monitored and acted upon if it goes against the stated goals (diversity & inclusion) of the organization". People from American companies which take military funding are checking computer vision colleagues' work for ethical mentions of adverse use against Uyghurs. Part of my work as engineer is now being aware that whites benefit from a systemic racist society and can't be discriminated against, because they are in a position of power. It is here. No time to lose.

[2-tpg]

From FIRE on the current state of US academia:

> Nevertheless, freedom of speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s campuses, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, “free speech zones” confining free speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress speech on a case-by-case basis are common today in academia. FIRE, as a free speech nonprofit organization, fights against this sort of censorship in academia.

> Liberty cannot exist when people are forced to conform their thoughts and expression to an official viewpoint. Differences of opinion are the natural byproducts of a vibrant, free society. At many of our nation’s colleges and universities, however, students are expected to share a single viewpoint on hotly debated matters like the meaning and significance of diversity, the definition of social justice, and the impermissibility of “hate speech.” Mandatory “diversity training,” in which students are instructed in an officially-approved ideology, is common. Some institutions have enacted policies that require students to speak and even share approved attitudes on these matters or face disciplinary charges.

https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission/

[borepop]

>There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.

That strikes me as a rather hyperbolic take. It's rather like the Jordan Peterson vision of reality in which certain ideological shifts in the educational realm are portrayed as being a wholesale reworking of society in general rather than what they actually are -- namely, just some aspects of the life of schools, which don't actually do that much to change or affect anything in the power structures that overwhelmingly dominate the rest of life.

[TerminalSystem3]

I dunno, dude - I think to the rational folk on HN it does indeed seem hyperbolic, but there are a lot of really pissed off people who are a little beyond the point of rationality.

For instance, a recent survey showing 29% of respondents would support breaking up the US: http://brightlinewatch.org/american-democracy-at-the-start-o... The source is apparently legit and founded by Yale / Dartmouth professors.

Combine this with the increasing demands of the new ideology, the massive inequality of the modern age, the future automation job losses, and tons of pressure from foreign nations who would love to see a weaker US - I think in 10 years there could easily be some crisis.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I don't think this is constrained to the educational realm. I can certainly tell you that in Big Tech Company Inc, we get emails every day about ending white supremacy, anti racism, yada yada.

[borepop]

Well I agree that there are some bigger societal shifts going on that are indeed pretty destabilizing. I was just commenting that nuances of the curriculum of high schools, or even undergrad education, around questions of race/gender/capitalism (or whatever woke themes) is not really quite as consequential as I think some folks, including the author of the article that is the subject of the post, make it out to be. All these elite schools, no matter what their political posturing, are still basically just manufacturing future elites who will be perfectly content to perpetuate the status quo in whatever way is advantageous to them. If that involves more racial equity, or different pronouns, or whatever, nobody actually gives a shit as long as their own economic ox is not gored.

[jariel]

They are not nuances, and they aren't even 'curriculum'. They are a fundamental reshaping of our world view.

'America is a State of White Supremacy' is a pretty fundamentally different want to think about the US than any time in history.

[lawpoop]

Even during times of black chattel slavery, when native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands, and Asians and Middle Easterners were suing in court to be recognized as white, so they could enjoy the benefits of first class citizenship?

[jariel]

You mean the time when slavery was common throughout the world, and that literally every spot on planet earth was fundamentally ethnocentric?

So yes, if we want to talk about racial issues during the foundation of America and world history, then sure, but it has not so much to do with America and also, it has little to with White Supremacy and more to do with Ethnocentrism.

Literally today in 2021, in almost every single nation outside the New World or the West, a White person would always be considered an outsider by virtue of their race.

That fact is completely ignored by the woke crowd who want to somehow decontextualise all of this to make it a 'white problem', when it's not. Frankly, I suggest there are a lot of racist impulses behind a lot of the woke smokescreen.