I know of someone who publishes several articles per year in law. This person is currently a PhD student and continues to publish quite incessantly. I noticed that they always co author. I have suspicions that undergrad level student work is being converted to journal articles in exchange of coauthorship. It made me wonder to what extent have we gone that ECRs are also trying to shore up their numbers by possibly exploiting someone below the chain. To people who produce several articles per year - how is your innovative ? One cannot just keep producing ideas out of thin air especially in Law where everything moves slowly.
So I have never seen this myself, but I have heard from others of younger academics being exploited in this way, particularly in the sciences. I could never do it. It’s yet another reason I hate “publish or perish”.
In some ways - I think we put too much focus on being innovative in academia. With contract damages I slowly develop my ideas (maybe one or two articles on it per year) as I think through it - always coming (hopefully) to a deeper, richer understanding. As you say, law develops slowly. It’s not like I am going to be able to totally overthrow the law of contract damages. I can just explore corners and new cases, hopefully in ways that are practically useful. And another of my roles is not to produce new ideas, but to just explain what is. That in itself has real value. It links back to the importance of teaching.
Academic scientist here: it's the norm for the PI (principal investigator on the grant that funded the research) to be an author on all papers resulting from that research, even if the PI did not do much (or any) of it for a particular experiment that was done by underlings. Abuse occurs if an underling's research is not allowed to get published at all, or if the underling is left off the paper entirely.
Yes. My husband was an academic scientist. So I’m aware of the PI norms, as I hint at in the post. No, husband wasn’t exploited, but I heard of it happening to others.
Maybe I missed it, but yours seems like a level head, so maybe you can point me in the right direction. What exactly was so abhorrent about their responses that it would merit irreconcilable shame? The questions themselves were incendiary and their parameters were absurd. Free speech is a tricky topic and boundary between freedom of speech and harassment is indeed context dependent. They repeatedly said this, and when pressed for the "right" answer they gave variations of this. For some "From the river to sea" is a call for genocide, is this speech prohibited? The entire inquisition-sorry, hearing- was done in terrible faith and its hard to take any of it seriously. Sure, one may fault the presidents for not handling the absurd questions more expertly. How did this inform better freedom of speech policies? What did we learn, except that circuses are a favorite and effective tool of the political arm?
My fear is that it will not inform better freedom of speech policies, not at all. I think you may share the same fear. Political circuses do not promote rational thought. The wrong lessons will be learned, on all sides. Everyone crows as they get the knives out.
For me, the issue is not the answers themselves. Legally, what the Presidents said is technically correct under US free speech rules. However, in practice, as everyone knows, there is one rule for some groups, another rule for other groups. It is the rampant hypocrisy which is a problem for me. It’s fine to call for genocide of Jews, but not to say anything about another group of people whom the Presidents regard as more worthy of protection? Does that make sense?
So - if there is an exception to the rule, it must be on principled bases, not just “Oh NOW I’m suddenly going to whip out free speech, after saying free speech is not absolute for years.” The whole thing made me want to come out in hives of utter shame on behalf of the Presidents. I don’t know if it’s just that I’m super sensitive about coherence in the law and legal principle. Given my expertise, this may be possible.
So, given the loose boundaries of freedom of speech, it seems you are insinuating that had it been another minority group, their responses would have erred on the side of "protection" at the expense potentially permissible speech. Fair enough, double standards often illustrate poor policy implementation or failures in the policies themselves. Still, the question of equal representation is a serious matter in universities and it should be treated seriously, and it may be that the forces behind DEI have already compromised a careful handling of the matter (being that they are also political in nature). And this may be the natural reaction of an already fraught experiment. It is really unfortunate, because it remains something worth trying to get right and now given the forces at play its hard to remain optimistic that even in academic environments, a careful serious discussion will not be possible. I am not so pessimistic to think that it was always a hopeless endeavor.
Anyways, thank you for your post. It was stimulating.
No thanks you. You are correct. My issue precisely that if it was another minority group, they would have responded entirely differently. And I do think that this is a stuff up for the greater project. I’m really glad I made you think. I don’t seek so much as to persuade as to make people think.
The universities have become places of conformity and, for the ones who stray, inquisition, firing, and sometimes even threats of violence. It was interesting to see the Inquisition turn on the Inquisitors. The questions were not absurd, imo, regardless of the dodges around the chess board regarding the meaning of "From the river to the sea." Reminds me of "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. When asked directly if calls for genocide were ok, more bad chess moves ensued.
Yes. This is the thing. I had a moment in October this year where I felt physically unsafe on campus, for several complex reasons. Fortunately, our VC is a decent person. I’d already spoken to him in July about my fears for the safety of staff and students for various reasons, and he’d taken my fears seriously.
I keep thinking that there are echoes of the Cultural Revolution, such that I was minded to write on it. Ironically, the post is themed on Yom Kippur. I feel sad reading it; would I hesitate to write about Yom Kippur now? Maybe for a second, but I would still do it. https://www.whatkatydid.net/p/guilt-and-apologies
Very interesting read. I'm immune to struggle sessions of any kind, but I could pretend compliance long enough to escape. "Our tort legislation in Australia allows room for apologies to be given without an admission of legal liability." I really wish we had something like that in the US. When I read stories of damage unintentionally done to someone and a lawsuit proceeds, I often think to myself how an apology seems like the more rational outcome. Keep your head on a swivel, walk with friends (preferably large, male friends) and stay safe!
Really enjoyed your essay and your reflections on academia. I terminated my journey during my postdoc (systems biology/cancer biology) because I couldn't unsee the unethical practices. The Venn diagram illustrates the dilemma perfectly - conform to institutional principles by violating your own or violate institutional principles by adhering to you own. The former is what morally erodes people leading to moral injury in those who had ethical principles to begin with. I suspect those individuals who are accountability averse and who insist that accusations of plagiarism can be dismissed and DARVO with racial targeting have yet to embody ethical principles.
Your ability to not compromise your principles shouldn't need to be acknowledged or applauded but as you pointed out, it's harder to stay true to you in contexts that dangle success, prestige and power in exchange for one's soul.
No thank you for reading my piece and commenting. My husband started out in science academia, and he left - the constant need to “sell” one’s work to get grants meant they lost a talented scientist.
You were definitely right that I would love everything about this article. (Maybe you didn’t need to hold back so much though...)
In all seriousness, I think it’s shameful that it took this sort of egregious academic misconduct to bring Gay down, and that she still has a tenured position. She should have immediately resigned after that catastrophic testimony, especially as it capped of such bad handling on the spillover effects of the Middle East conflict on campus.
It also makes me apprehensive. However bad a teacher and writer she may (or may not) be, she will likely keep teaching and publishing in what is meant to be one of the most elite universities in the world. With almost 50 documented incidents of outright plagiarism. What a disgrace
As I have said elsewhere, I would have resigned immediately. I possibly would have had to be restrained from jumping off a building, such would have been my shame. You might be interested in this article in The Atlantic, which does not pull its punches on Gay’s scholarship: https://archive.md/ihW5r (archive link to get around the paywall).
One of my concerns with all this is that it’s a massive indictment on the academy. We undermine our reputation in the eyes of many, without those who stay in the “bubble” realising it. I’m aware that there are problems, but I don’t want the baby to be thrown out with the bath water, as it were. I happen to think (admitting I’m biased) that what I do is quite useful, as is the work of many colleagues.
I’m very glad to meet you, Katy! We are like-minded, I see. I agree that there are some academics around who are good in all three areas, but that always rather surprises me. It barely feels as though it should be possible. That said, I suspect their classes may not quite have the spontaneous quality that perhaps yours and mine share. At least, I sort of hope not. I wouldn’t know how to account for it. Thank you for using the phrase ‘box-ticking’, by the way. That’s precisely what it is, but every time I use the phrase, some colleague rushes on to the next item on the (box-ticking) agenda...
Thank you for an excellent article, which tended to crystallise some ideas that have been floating around in my mind. In particular, your first pie chart gave me pause. It showed me why I’m not the born academic everyone always used to tell me I was. Is it possible - I’ve heard colleagues suggest it - that the different slices tend to rub up against each other in a questionable way? One can’t help noticing that the really inspired, interesting teaching, for instance, shrivels away in any given department as the admin takes over. I know a number of lecturers who believe that the day of the Great Academic (Russell springs to mind for some reason) are over. Maybe the general set of skills required of us these days are sometimes antipathetic to each other. I know one thing - if I put it that way in the departmental office, I’d receive an indulgent chuckle, a shrug, and an invitation ti go fill in another form...
YES! So - the reasons I am not a good administrator are precisely the reasons I am a good teacher and researcher. I am very good at planning meticulously for a class or project and then throwing it out when something interesting occurs. I do not tick boxes. I do not do the things one is “supposed” to do, but it works. I can think of one person who was both an excellent administrator and teacher, but - as an administrator he was protective, loud, and often raised problems others didn’t want to talk about. So I don’t know if administrators thought he was an excellent administrator. I can just say that as a student and later, a junior academic, he was superb. It’s this narrow box ticking approach which gets rid of the interesting stuff. I think one thing I’m sad about is that - I would be good at being an old-fashioned eccentric academic. Why did I have to achieve this role at a time when the very things which make me a good academic are not valued?
Hey, new here, don't really know how I got here, but now that I am ...
"I'm entirely certain that calling for the genocide of any ethnic or religious group on a university campus is morally contemptible."
But that wasn't the question! The question from Stefanik was whether the school's STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT prohibited a call for genocide. And the factual answer in all cases is "no". Because a generic call for genocide (not targeted at specific individuals) is First-Amemdment-protected speech, according to SCOTUS rulings (or so I have been told; I'm not a lawyer), and those campus codes usually are not more restrictive than that (nor should they be!). The presidents all tried to explain that if such a call became bullying or harrassment of a particular student or students, THEN it would be prohibited. But they flubbed it by not stating the plain truth at the outset, and defending it.
Of course none of them are champions of actual free speech. If they were, their campuses would not have such dismal ratings from FIRE.
The thing that gets me is - would their answers have been the same if they’d been asked about policies towards a different, currently “popular” minority group? I would be willing to bet that for some minorities, they would NEVER have given the same answer before Congress, no matter that the law said, or what the policies said.
So my understanding, too, is that SCOTUS has said that there has to be an imminent threat (lawyer, but Australian). What they said was entirely legally correct, in the technical sense. It rang very untrue, however, because everyone knows that they don’t apply the law or their policies equally. I think, discussing it with others, that what makes me sick is the hypocrisy of it, and a notion that rules have to be coherent, and exceptions have to properly justified. The lack of coherence is what really upset me: the sudden recourse to freedom of speech when they haven’t cared about it for ages (yes, I also saw the FIRE data, they’re right down the bottom).
To be frank, I would not want to send my child to these universities, if this is how they behave. I don’t care how old or prestigious they are, how smart many of the professors are - it’s just not somewhere I’d want my children to attend. For one thing, who can learn at an institution which is so closed-minded and hypocritical? How to hollow something out from within, in my view.
Anyway, welcome and thanks for your views. Always interesting to get takes from others.
On that last graph I've done a bit of each over my life; most notably when I was in undergrad I once did a debate on behalf of the political party I belonged to then and had to awkwardly defend the party's position on a social issue where I disagreed with it. It felt pretty awful and I eventually just stated, during the debate, that I disagreed with the party on that point. Fortunately it wasn't limited to that topic.
Yes. I had that recently with my Union. I disagreed with it on some things, agreed with it on other things. I did say publicly at several union meetings how I disagreed, and why. Eventually, it all got too much - I resigned. I could no longer bring myself to defend the local branch’s actions.
'I wonder whether Kornbluth in particular, as a Jewish academic, was hamstrung by her office, and felt compelled to express the “institutional position”. This is another reason why I am not an administrator. If the institutional position conflicted fundamentally with my principles, I could not readily espouse it.'
I think the point is that, as the item I link to reports: "Kornbluth was asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) if a call for genocide against Jewish people would constitute harassment on MIT’s campus." In other words, the question was about the institutional position rather than Kornbluth's own position.
Stefanik's question can be restated thus: If a student or employee of MIT were to call for genocide against Jewish people, and another student or employee of MIT formally complained that this call constitutes harassment, what would the relevant decision-making body that hears the complaint be likely to decide? Kornbluth had to answer this question. Stefanik did not ask Kornbluth what she thinks the decision-making body *ought* to decide in such a situation, or what she thinks the MIT harassment policy should be, and I don't think Kornbluth should be criticised for not answering a question that she was not asked.
She didn’t have to reply that way, even if the reply was true.
However, does anybody think that if it were a different historically oppressed group (such as African Americans, or LGBT people) that would have been the answer? The issue of unequal standards here cannot be ignored. (We should all acknowledge that apparently if the same question about Asians had been asked then once again we would likely have heard that the answer is context-dependent but I think that just serves as a further indictment of her university, not an exhibition of her honesty...)
Correct. As Kling points out, the problem is the institutional policies are designed as such, whether Kornbluth stays in power or not. Jewish and Asian minorities do very well as groups. This is precisely why both Asian and Jewish students get a rough deal in the US with affirmative action policies. They don’t fit the patterns minority groups are “supposed” to fit if you accept DEI.
I know of someone who publishes several articles per year in law. This person is currently a PhD student and continues to publish quite incessantly. I noticed that they always co author. I have suspicions that undergrad level student work is being converted to journal articles in exchange of coauthorship. It made me wonder to what extent have we gone that ECRs are also trying to shore up their numbers by possibly exploiting someone below the chain. To people who produce several articles per year - how is your innovative ? One cannot just keep producing ideas out of thin air especially in Law where everything moves slowly.
So I have never seen this myself, but I have heard from others of younger academics being exploited in this way, particularly in the sciences. I could never do it. It’s yet another reason I hate “publish or perish”.
In some ways - I think we put too much focus on being innovative in academia. With contract damages I slowly develop my ideas (maybe one or two articles on it per year) as I think through it - always coming (hopefully) to a deeper, richer understanding. As you say, law develops slowly. It’s not like I am going to be able to totally overthrow the law of contract damages. I can just explore corners and new cases, hopefully in ways that are practically useful. And another of my roles is not to produce new ideas, but to just explain what is. That in itself has real value. It links back to the importance of teaching.
Academic scientist here: it's the norm for the PI (principal investigator on the grant that funded the research) to be an author on all papers resulting from that research, even if the PI did not do much (or any) of it for a particular experiment that was done by underlings. Abuse occurs if an underling's research is not allowed to get published at all, or if the underling is left off the paper entirely.
Yes. My husband was an academic scientist. So I’m aware of the PI norms, as I hint at in the post. No, husband wasn’t exploited, but I heard of it happening to others.
Maybe I missed it, but yours seems like a level head, so maybe you can point me in the right direction. What exactly was so abhorrent about their responses that it would merit irreconcilable shame? The questions themselves were incendiary and their parameters were absurd. Free speech is a tricky topic and boundary between freedom of speech and harassment is indeed context dependent. They repeatedly said this, and when pressed for the "right" answer they gave variations of this. For some "From the river to sea" is a call for genocide, is this speech prohibited? The entire inquisition-sorry, hearing- was done in terrible faith and its hard to take any of it seriously. Sure, one may fault the presidents for not handling the absurd questions more expertly. How did this inform better freedom of speech policies? What did we learn, except that circuses are a favorite and effective tool of the political arm?
My fear is that it will not inform better freedom of speech policies, not at all. I think you may share the same fear. Political circuses do not promote rational thought. The wrong lessons will be learned, on all sides. Everyone crows as they get the knives out.
For me, the issue is not the answers themselves. Legally, what the Presidents said is technically correct under US free speech rules. However, in practice, as everyone knows, there is one rule for some groups, another rule for other groups. It is the rampant hypocrisy which is a problem for me. It’s fine to call for genocide of Jews, but not to say anything about another group of people whom the Presidents regard as more worthy of protection? Does that make sense?
So - if there is an exception to the rule, it must be on principled bases, not just “Oh NOW I’m suddenly going to whip out free speech, after saying free speech is not absolute for years.” The whole thing made me want to come out in hives of utter shame on behalf of the Presidents. I don’t know if it’s just that I’m super sensitive about coherence in the law and legal principle. Given my expertise, this may be possible.
So, given the loose boundaries of freedom of speech, it seems you are insinuating that had it been another minority group, their responses would have erred on the side of "protection" at the expense potentially permissible speech. Fair enough, double standards often illustrate poor policy implementation or failures in the policies themselves. Still, the question of equal representation is a serious matter in universities and it should be treated seriously, and it may be that the forces behind DEI have already compromised a careful handling of the matter (being that they are also political in nature). And this may be the natural reaction of an already fraught experiment. It is really unfortunate, because it remains something worth trying to get right and now given the forces at play its hard to remain optimistic that even in academic environments, a careful serious discussion will not be possible. I am not so pessimistic to think that it was always a hopeless endeavor.
Anyways, thank you for your post. It was stimulating.
No thanks you. You are correct. My issue precisely that if it was another minority group, they would have responded entirely differently. And I do think that this is a stuff up for the greater project. I’m really glad I made you think. I don’t seek so much as to persuade as to make people think.
The universities have become places of conformity and, for the ones who stray, inquisition, firing, and sometimes even threats of violence. It was interesting to see the Inquisition turn on the Inquisitors. The questions were not absurd, imo, regardless of the dodges around the chess board regarding the meaning of "From the river to the sea." Reminds me of "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. When asked directly if calls for genocide were ok, more bad chess moves ensued.
Yes. This is the thing. I had a moment in October this year where I felt physically unsafe on campus, for several complex reasons. Fortunately, our VC is a decent person. I’d already spoken to him in July about my fears for the safety of staff and students for various reasons, and he’d taken my fears seriously.
I keep thinking that there are echoes of the Cultural Revolution, such that I was minded to write on it. Ironically, the post is themed on Yom Kippur. I feel sad reading it; would I hesitate to write about Yom Kippur now? Maybe for a second, but I would still do it. https://www.whatkatydid.net/p/guilt-and-apologies
Very interesting read. I'm immune to struggle sessions of any kind, but I could pretend compliance long enough to escape. "Our tort legislation in Australia allows room for apologies to be given without an admission of legal liability." I really wish we had something like that in the US. When I read stories of damage unintentionally done to someone and a lawsuit proceeds, I often think to myself how an apology seems like the more rational outcome. Keep your head on a swivel, walk with friends (preferably large, male friends) and stay safe!
Unfortunately the legislation isn’t very well known. But I think it’s a great idea, a way for things to be defused before they become toxic.
Really enjoyed your essay and your reflections on academia. I terminated my journey during my postdoc (systems biology/cancer biology) because I couldn't unsee the unethical practices. The Venn diagram illustrates the dilemma perfectly - conform to institutional principles by violating your own or violate institutional principles by adhering to you own. The former is what morally erodes people leading to moral injury in those who had ethical principles to begin with. I suspect those individuals who are accountability averse and who insist that accusations of plagiarism can be dismissed and DARVO with racial targeting have yet to embody ethical principles.
Your ability to not compromise your principles shouldn't need to be acknowledged or applauded but as you pointed out, it's harder to stay true to you in contexts that dangle success, prestige and power in exchange for one's soul.
Thank you for your reflections.
No thank you for reading my piece and commenting. My husband started out in science academia, and he left - the constant need to “sell” one’s work to get grants meant they lost a talented scientist.
You were definitely right that I would love everything about this article. (Maybe you didn’t need to hold back so much though...)
In all seriousness, I think it’s shameful that it took this sort of egregious academic misconduct to bring Gay down, and that she still has a tenured position. She should have immediately resigned after that catastrophic testimony, especially as it capped of such bad handling on the spillover effects of the Middle East conflict on campus.
It also makes me apprehensive. However bad a teacher and writer she may (or may not) be, she will likely keep teaching and publishing in what is meant to be one of the most elite universities in the world. With almost 50 documented incidents of outright plagiarism. What a disgrace
As I have said elsewhere, I would have resigned immediately. I possibly would have had to be restrained from jumping off a building, such would have been my shame. You might be interested in this article in The Atlantic, which does not pull its punches on Gay’s scholarship: https://archive.md/ihW5r (archive link to get around the paywall).
One of my concerns with all this is that it’s a massive indictment on the academy. We undermine our reputation in the eyes of many, without those who stay in the “bubble” realising it. I’m aware that there are problems, but I don’t want the baby to be thrown out with the bath water, as it were. I happen to think (admitting I’m biased) that what I do is quite useful, as is the work of many colleagues.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/opinion/harvard-claudine-gay-resignation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Bummer, can’t read. I’ll try to use the uni’s subscription to NYT.
I’m very glad to meet you, Katy! We are like-minded, I see. I agree that there are some academics around who are good in all three areas, but that always rather surprises me. It barely feels as though it should be possible. That said, I suspect their classes may not quite have the spontaneous quality that perhaps yours and mine share. At least, I sort of hope not. I wouldn’t know how to account for it. Thank you for using the phrase ‘box-ticking’, by the way. That’s precisely what it is, but every time I use the phrase, some colleague rushes on to the next item on the (box-ticking) agenda...
Thank you for an excellent article, which tended to crystallise some ideas that have been floating around in my mind. In particular, your first pie chart gave me pause. It showed me why I’m not the born academic everyone always used to tell me I was. Is it possible - I’ve heard colleagues suggest it - that the different slices tend to rub up against each other in a questionable way? One can’t help noticing that the really inspired, interesting teaching, for instance, shrivels away in any given department as the admin takes over. I know a number of lecturers who believe that the day of the Great Academic (Russell springs to mind for some reason) are over. Maybe the general set of skills required of us these days are sometimes antipathetic to each other. I know one thing - if I put it that way in the departmental office, I’d receive an indulgent chuckle, a shrug, and an invitation ti go fill in another form...
YES! So - the reasons I am not a good administrator are precisely the reasons I am a good teacher and researcher. I am very good at planning meticulously for a class or project and then throwing it out when something interesting occurs. I do not tick boxes. I do not do the things one is “supposed” to do, but it works. I can think of one person who was both an excellent administrator and teacher, but - as an administrator he was protective, loud, and often raised problems others didn’t want to talk about. So I don’t know if administrators thought he was an excellent administrator. I can just say that as a student and later, a junior academic, he was superb. It’s this narrow box ticking approach which gets rid of the interesting stuff. I think one thing I’m sad about is that - I would be good at being an old-fashioned eccentric academic. Why did I have to achieve this role at a time when the very things which make me a good academic are not valued?
Hey, new here, don't really know how I got here, but now that I am ...
"I'm entirely certain that calling for the genocide of any ethnic or religious group on a university campus is morally contemptible."
But that wasn't the question! The question from Stefanik was whether the school's STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT prohibited a call for genocide. And the factual answer in all cases is "no". Because a generic call for genocide (not targeted at specific individuals) is First-Amemdment-protected speech, according to SCOTUS rulings (or so I have been told; I'm not a lawyer), and those campus codes usually are not more restrictive than that (nor should they be!). The presidents all tried to explain that if such a call became bullying or harrassment of a particular student or students, THEN it would be prohibited. But they flubbed it by not stating the plain truth at the outset, and defending it.
Of course none of them are champions of actual free speech. If they were, their campuses would not have such dismal ratings from FIRE.
The thing that gets me is - would their answers have been the same if they’d been asked about policies towards a different, currently “popular” minority group? I would be willing to bet that for some minorities, they would NEVER have given the same answer before Congress, no matter that the law said, or what the policies said.
So my understanding, too, is that SCOTUS has said that there has to be an imminent threat (lawyer, but Australian). What they said was entirely legally correct, in the technical sense. It rang very untrue, however, because everyone knows that they don’t apply the law or their policies equally. I think, discussing it with others, that what makes me sick is the hypocrisy of it, and a notion that rules have to be coherent, and exceptions have to properly justified. The lack of coherence is what really upset me: the sudden recourse to freedom of speech when they haven’t cared about it for ages (yes, I also saw the FIRE data, they’re right down the bottom).
To be frank, I would not want to send my child to these universities, if this is how they behave. I don’t care how old or prestigious they are, how smart many of the professors are - it’s just not somewhere I’d want my children to attend. For one thing, who can learn at an institution which is so closed-minded and hypocritical? How to hollow something out from within, in my view.
Anyway, welcome and thanks for your views. Always interesting to get takes from others.
On that last graph I've done a bit of each over my life; most notably when I was in undergrad I once did a debate on behalf of the political party I belonged to then and had to awkwardly defend the party's position on a social issue where I disagreed with it. It felt pretty awful and I eventually just stated, during the debate, that I disagreed with the party on that point. Fortunately it wasn't limited to that topic.
Yes. I had that recently with my Union. I disagreed with it on some things, agreed with it on other things. I did say publicly at several union meetings how I disagreed, and why. Eventually, it all got too much - I resigned. I could no longer bring myself to defend the local branch’s actions.
Katy, you wrote:
'I wonder whether Kornbluth in particular, as a Jewish academic, was hamstrung by her office, and felt compelled to express the “institutional position”. This is another reason why I am not an administrator. If the institutional position conflicted fundamentally with my principles, I could not readily espouse it.'
I think the point is that, as the item I link to reports: "Kornbluth was asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) if a call for genocide against Jewish people would constitute harassment on MIT’s campus." In other words, the question was about the institutional position rather than Kornbluth's own position.
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4350010-mit-board-announces-support-for-university-president-after-backlash-to-house-testimony/
Stefanik's question can be restated thus: If a student or employee of MIT were to call for genocide against Jewish people, and another student or employee of MIT formally complained that this call constitutes harassment, what would the relevant decision-making body that hears the complaint be likely to decide? Kornbluth had to answer this question. Stefanik did not ask Kornbluth what she thinks the decision-making body *ought* to decide in such a situation, or what she thinks the MIT harassment policy should be, and I don't think Kornbluth should be criticised for not answering a question that she was not asked.
Agreed. I think she will survive as President, precisely because of this. She had to give the institutional position.
She didn’t have to reply that way, even if the reply was true.
However, does anybody think that if it were a different historically oppressed group (such as African Americans, or LGBT people) that would have been the answer? The issue of unequal standards here cannot be ignored. (We should all acknowledge that apparently if the same question about Asians had been asked then once again we would likely have heard that the answer is context-dependent but I think that just serves as a further indictment of her university, not an exhibition of her honesty...)
Correct. As Kling points out, the problem is the institutional policies are designed as such, whether Kornbluth stays in power or not. Jewish and Asian minorities do very well as groups. This is precisely why both Asian and Jewish students get a rough deal in the US with affirmative action policies. They don’t fit the patterns minority groups are “supposed” to fit if you accept DEI.