I (Robin Hanson) have signed this statement, and am posting it simultaneously with three of my colleagues, Bryan Caplan, Alex Tabarrok, and Don Boudreaux. Statement of Commitment to Academic Freedom and to Intellectual Merit
An important statement overall, and yet why is the focus on leftist attempts to stifle ideas with nary a mention of some of things Republican governments wish to impose on academia, such as the State of Florida via the "Stop WOKE Act"? If privately enforced "diversity statements" are egregious, surely a government imposing restrictions on what professors may teach is even worse.
And unfortunately, focusing on privately enforced leftist restrictions will likely cause the statement to be viewed as partisan, rather than principled.
Yes. I support the statement Hanson signed and I don't think academics should be forced by administration towards any particular viewpoint. However, it seems that the "Stop WOKE Act" and similar right-wing efforts are much more threatening to academic freedom.
Under "Stop WOKE," teachers aren't allowed to explain to their students whole swathes of history. People have always been awful towards members of outgroups, and that isn't going to stop, and students should be learning about it. It even bans the teaching of "unconscious racism," which is literally a whole area of psychological research. https://www.livescience.com/55337-unconscious-racial-bias.html
"The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society (...shall be taught...). Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. "
That is not even from the stop WOKE act. What you quoted is from subsection 3 of section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, as it already read *before* the stop WOKE act.
The stop WOKE act revises that section by adding more specific details about what should be taught, and prohibiting anything being taught that would make white people feel guilty about it.
(The details it adds to that section about what should be taught in an African-American course unit sound nice, but are the kind of thing that would already be taught in any such course unit, which, again, was already required by the statute prior to the stop WOKE act. The details it adds to that section are there to distract from the main purpose of the bill.)
I guess I miss something (maybe because I am not a native speaker). The bill seems reasonable to me. Doesn't the bill say that people living today should not be held accountable for things done in the past by members of the same race? Don 't you agree that is fair?
As a psychologist, I can say with confidence that the unconscious bias literature (like a lot of literature in social psych in recent years) is problematic--less objective science, more activism. But agree with your general point.
Implicit association tests are measuring *something*, and they produce consistent results on a population level if not necessarily an individual level.
Yes, but they are overinterpreted (in this case as evidence of latent racism), as are many results in psych. Teaching people that they are all implicitly racist because they share in these associations is not scientific. The conclusions are not warranted by the evidence, and that's key. I don't necessarily think it should be banned though because that's hopeless anyway.
Well, IATs show us that people tend to more readily associate "black" with negative attributes and "white" with positive attributes. Of course this association is going to influence their thinking and judgments. People think by making associations. Variation in a person's associations is variation in the way the person thinks. It just seems obvious.
What could the term "unconscious racism" even *mean*, other than unconscious racial associations?
By trying to draw any kind of equivalence between the "Stop WOKE Act" and leftist cancel culture you are essentially trying to equate a surgeon's scalpel with a mugger's switchblade.
My understanding is that right leaning departments, including potentially the economics department at GMU, receive Koch brother funding and in exchange for that allow the Koch brothers to have power over who they hire as professors.
I don’t believe for one sec the Koch brothers are casting a wide net for the best and brightest, but rather those who serve their interests.
If you stand supposedly for academic freedom, then perhaps you should take a stand against that.
Also it’s a lousy and dishonest letter. As a new reader to your blog, I’m out.
It seems to me, as a Norwegian foreigner, that most of this statement is already covered by the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, which the USA signed without exceptions. It is therefore quite a mystery to me, how American universities can support both censorship (read: cancel culture) and racism (anti white masculine privilege)?
The only passage I do not consent to here, is the passus "... the right and duty of academic departments to hire and promote the most brilliant, creative, and productive faculty in their fields, ...".
There are only som many of the "most brilliant, creative and productive" people to hire, and certainly not enough to go round, so; most departments really have to settle for "well qualified", in order to get anyone at all. In short: This demand is a tad too much.
There must be room for the "well qualified", on both sides of the pulpit.
But of course: All forms of censorship, both against students and personnel are against the spirit and letter of the Human Rights, and should be a matter of course, even in the USA.
An important statement overall, and yet why is the focus on leftist attempts to stifle ideas with nary a mention of some of things Republican governments wish to impose on academia, such as the State of Florida via the "Stop WOKE Act"? If privately enforced "diversity statements" are egregious, surely a government imposing restrictions on what professors may teach is even worse.
And unfortunately, focusing on privately enforced leftist restrictions will likely cause the statement to be viewed as partisan, rather than principled.
Yes. I support the statement Hanson signed and I don't think academics should be forced by administration towards any particular viewpoint. However, it seems that the "Stop WOKE Act" and similar right-wing efforts are much more threatening to academic freedom.
Under "Stop WOKE," teachers aren't allowed to explain to their students whole swathes of history. People have always been awful towards members of outgroups, and that isn't going to stop, and students should be learning about it. It even bans the teaching of "unconscious racism," which is literally a whole area of psychological research. https://www.livescience.com/55337-unconscious-racial-bias.html
From the WOKE-act:
"The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society (...shall be taught...). Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. "
That is not even from the stop WOKE act. What you quoted is from subsection 3 of section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, as it already read *before* the stop WOKE act.
The stop WOKE act revises that section by adding more specific details about what should be taught, and prohibiting anything being taught that would make white people feel guilty about it.
(The details it adds to that section about what should be taught in an African-American course unit sound nice, but are the kind of thing that would already be taught in any such course unit, which, again, was already required by the statute prior to the stop WOKE act. The details it adds to that section are there to distract from the main purpose of the bill.)
Thanks for the correction. Could you send me the section you referred to? Thanks.
The devil is in the details, isn't it? For me it is hard to make a judgment on this law, not knowing the finesses and exact wording.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/7/BillText/er/PDF Page 15
I guess I miss something (maybe because I am not a native speaker). The bill seems reasonable to me. Doesn't the bill say that people living today should not be held accountable for things done in the past by members of the same race? Don 't you agree that is fair?
As a psychologist, I can say with confidence that the unconscious bias literature (like a lot of literature in social psych in recent years) is problematic--less objective science, more activism. But agree with your general point.
Implicit association tests are measuring *something*, and they produce consistent results on a population level if not necessarily an individual level.
Yes, but they are overinterpreted (in this case as evidence of latent racism), as are many results in psych. Teaching people that they are all implicitly racist because they share in these associations is not scientific. The conclusions are not warranted by the evidence, and that's key. I don't necessarily think it should be banned though because that's hopeless anyway.
Well, IATs show us that people tend to more readily associate "black" with negative attributes and "white" with positive attributes. Of course this association is going to influence their thinking and judgments. People think by making associations. Variation in a person's associations is variation in the way the person thinks. It just seems obvious.
What could the term "unconscious racism" even *mean*, other than unconscious racial associations?
The petition seems to be focus on holding views and expressing them, the WOKE act is focusing on instruction/education.
These are different, though there is overlap for professors
Thank you, Robin.
By trying to draw any kind of equivalence between the "Stop WOKE Act" and leftist cancel culture you are essentially trying to equate a surgeon's scalpel with a mugger's switchblade.
"It's okay because it's my side doing it this time."
My understanding is that right leaning departments, including potentially the economics department at GMU, receive Koch brother funding and in exchange for that allow the Koch brothers to have power over who they hire as professors.
I don’t believe for one sec the Koch brothers are casting a wide net for the best and brightest, but rather those who serve their interests.
If you stand supposedly for academic freedom, then perhaps you should take a stand against that.
Also it’s a lousy and dishonest letter. As a new reader to your blog, I’m out.
lol
I swear Tyler"Wokeness has peaked" Cowen works for GMU? Why would he not sign?
Because he likes being special
It seems to me, as a Norwegian foreigner, that most of this statement is already covered by the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, which the USA signed without exceptions. It is therefore quite a mystery to me, how American universities can support both censorship (read: cancel culture) and racism (anti white masculine privilege)?
The only passage I do not consent to here, is the passus "... the right and duty of academic departments to hire and promote the most brilliant, creative, and productive faculty in their fields, ...".
There are only som many of the "most brilliant, creative and productive" people to hire, and certainly not enough to go round, so; most departments really have to settle for "well qualified", in order to get anyone at all. In short: This demand is a tad too much.
There must be room for the "well qualified", on both sides of the pulpit.
But of course: All forms of censorship, both against students and personnel are against the spirit and letter of the Human Rights, and should be a matter of course, even in the USA.
This initiative seems superficial until enforced effectively! I do hope it succeeds and the true values are upheld
Is this a response to something?