A hard hitting piece Katy. I hope you feel better soon 🙏. Email signatures have become dishonest signals for ingroup validation i.e., you can write all your Pronouns, ally statement, environment friendly messages but act opposite to it in your everyday life. It is cheap to write meaningless slogans and put flags than taking direct action, giving money or starting your own initiative. Institutions taking a political stand on difficult issues might enforce silence 🔕 on dissenting opinions thus limiting freedom of conscience and academic freedom. We live in strange times where hypocrisy reigns supreme.
I am doing much better - the doctor gave me some medicine to reduce all that bruising and swelling - and made me put compression bandages on, and it’s made a huge difference. Keeping leg raised. SO GLAD I did not break it - I was freaking out a bit.
So - I’ve seen research which shows that those who make the loudest statements often don’t act in accordance with them. It’s rules for other people, not them. Must find that paper again. For me what matters is - do I actually support students of all backgrounds? I think and hope that I do.
Good that you did not break your leg! The bruising and swelling looks bad but I hope it goes away soon! It seems that the adage, 'holier than thou' stands the test of time with email signatures replacing erstwhile pledge of allegiance to monarchs. When it comes to students, I think it is interesting how students who may have a different opinion may feel not supported throughout their university life. Not finding a supportive voice can be stifling especially when you are young and learning to navigate the adult world.
Yes. So the whole point of having a diverse student body is that everyone should feel supported. For example, if I aggressively make my religious views known and say I’ll be offended if anyone disagrees, students who are not of that religion might feel scared to approach me. That’s not what I want. I want *anyone* to feel comfortable to approach me.
Great article. Completely agree with you about public (as opposed to private) Universities providing a forum for politics without taking particular positions.
They do. But that leads to the question of - who makes the decision for a corporate body? In this instance they university council. I’m not saying they can’t tell people how to vote. They can say it, and many of them *did* say it. I’m saying that I think it’s unwise, and that corporate entities should do it less. They have to balance that right of free speech against their other obligations - to allow free discussion of contentious principles, and to allow freedom of conscience in a vote.
Also, I think these kinds of statements are actually counterproductive. They make the already converted feel satisfied and pleased—look the institution agrees with us!—but they don’t change the minds of those who disagree or are unsure. I don’t think they do anything constructive at all, if the aim is make people think about the way in which they vote or respond to an issue. Actually I think the aim is generally to satisfy vocal advocates of the converted., not to make people think.
Because I am a questioning person, I really hate being told what to believe, I’ve realised. When people try to tell me what to believe, I think, “Why?” and think of reasons why I shouldn’t believe that way. Much better to let me make up my own mind. Hence, I have to be careful that my contra-suggestible nature doesn’t fall into contrarianism. Blindly refusing to believe the stipulated thing is just as bad as blindly believing the stipulated thing. One must be reasoned.
A hard hitting piece Katy. I hope you feel better soon 🙏. Email signatures have become dishonest signals for ingroup validation i.e., you can write all your Pronouns, ally statement, environment friendly messages but act opposite to it in your everyday life. It is cheap to write meaningless slogans and put flags than taking direct action, giving money or starting your own initiative. Institutions taking a political stand on difficult issues might enforce silence 🔕 on dissenting opinions thus limiting freedom of conscience and academic freedom. We live in strange times where hypocrisy reigns supreme.
I am doing much better - the doctor gave me some medicine to reduce all that bruising and swelling - and made me put compression bandages on, and it’s made a huge difference. Keeping leg raised. SO GLAD I did not break it - I was freaking out a bit.
So - I’ve seen research which shows that those who make the loudest statements often don’t act in accordance with them. It’s rules for other people, not them. Must find that paper again. For me what matters is - do I actually support students of all backgrounds? I think and hope that I do.
Good that you did not break your leg! The bruising and swelling looks bad but I hope it goes away soon! It seems that the adage, 'holier than thou' stands the test of time with email signatures replacing erstwhile pledge of allegiance to monarchs. When it comes to students, I think it is interesting how students who may have a different opinion may feel not supported throughout their university life. Not finding a supportive voice can be stifling especially when you are young and learning to navigate the adult world.
Yes. So the whole point of having a diverse student body is that everyone should feel supported. For example, if I aggressively make my religious views known and say I’ll be offended if anyone disagrees, students who are not of that religion might feel scared to approach me. That’s not what I want. I want *anyone* to feel comfortable to approach me.
Great article. Completely agree with you about public (as opposed to private) Universities providing a forum for politics without taking particular positions.
Yes. It would be different if it was a private university with a particular focus.
Don’t universities have a free speech interest as well?
They do. But that leads to the question of - who makes the decision for a corporate body? In this instance they university council. I’m not saying they can’t tell people how to vote. They can say it, and many of them *did* say it. I’m saying that I think it’s unwise, and that corporate entities should do it less. They have to balance that right of free speech against their other obligations - to allow free discussion of contentious principles, and to allow freedom of conscience in a vote.
Also, I think these kinds of statements are actually counterproductive. They make the already converted feel satisfied and pleased—look the institution agrees with us!—but they don’t change the minds of those who disagree or are unsure. I don’t think they do anything constructive at all, if the aim is make people think about the way in which they vote or respond to an issue. Actually I think the aim is generally to satisfy vocal advocates of the converted., not to make people think.
Because I am a questioning person, I really hate being told what to believe, I’ve realised. When people try to tell me what to believe, I think, “Why?” and think of reasons why I shouldn’t believe that way. Much better to let me make up my own mind. Hence, I have to be careful that my contra-suggestible nature doesn’t fall into contrarianism. Blindly refusing to believe the stipulated thing is just as bad as blindly believing the stipulated thing. One must be reasoned.