Seeking to remove, or to justify the removal of, the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin or any other great thinkers and scholars who have advanced our understanding of human societies’ evolution over millennia, and especially of political economy, is like rejecting and suppressing the contributions of Einstein because he was anti-war and pro-socialism.
It’s a foolish, cowardly and reactionary approach to education, and probably ultimately “species-cidal” as well.
We remove the works of lots of old thinkers who got it wrong. The whole question is "Who is a great thinker?" Marx is an out of date economist of the classical school, and there is less reason to read his economics books than to read JS Mill's textbook that dominated in the 19th century.
This is a great article. A couple of reflections on "The path forward": while I am all for a heterodox-friendly administration, it is not obvious to me that Democrats will want to dismantle a sociology that supports their coalition building. It is also not obvious that Republicans want to remedy this problem, as unhinged Democrats make Republicans look attractive come elections.
Recognizing the problem may be politicly entrenched, we might look to external levers such as a holistic communications strategy that for one, targets the donors of schools, scientific institutions, and private foundations, in an effort to incentivize heterodox sociology; two, rally grassroots letter writing campaigns to flood the servers of institutions when there are abuses, and three, use this marketing infrastructure to lobby for a more heterodox society across all institutions of knowledge. My two cents if that.
What an excellent and interesting article. I find it such a tragedy how the word "liberal" is used, or rather incredibly misused, these days. It's obviously originally related to "liberty" or freedom, which clearly we shouldn't be against, and it's often defined in ways such as "willing to accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas; otherwise as relating to a political or social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." Sounds a hell of a lot like a sane conservative to me. On the other hand, being behind "cancel culture" and silencing opponents is just the opposite of being open to other viewpoints; promoting self-identification through group identity is just the opposite of "individual rights"; being in favour of DEI policies is, with about one minute's explanation and analysis, just the opposite of civil rights; being in favour of socialism is not being in favour of democracy, and being against capitalism is not being in favour of free enterprise. So "liberal" is the most misused word of the 21st century, despite being up against some serious competition. Those who lean to the left so far that they've fallen off their horse are not "liberal", they are authoritarian, and self-righteous bullies. It's about time they were re-labelled!!
IDK, that is the history, but I am not sure it is inevitable. But, then, I come from the "there really is such a thing as free will" school of thought, kinda at the intersection of the Yogi Berra school of thought, Yogi having once pointed out, "It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future."
Regarding machine learning, don’t be so sure that it is merely technical. I used to teach data science ethics, and whooooo boy was that a mess. Effectively the entire field boiled down to “if your algorithm suggests that minority groups have a lower outcome than whites, you are wrong. If a proxy for a minority group has lower outcomes, you are wrong. Etc.” Looking at what the data patterns show wasn’t ok; if your algorithm showed that low income blacks are a higher credit risk than whites, you need to change your algorithm until it stops doing that.
Just recently I substacked about Sociology, "We'll just have to drop the sociology department." I'll have to go back and revise it with this info that Denmark actually did what I suggest-- and then revived the department with real scholars.
I wouldn't call elimination of an activist department a violation of academic freedom. Rather, the university's academic freedom *requires* it to have the authority to close down a weak department. It sounds like the Danish departments were no longer scholarly, and hence were contrary to the university's mission. This is a point Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit (Chicago) has often made: academic freedom is freedom of the academy as much as freedom of the academic.
It is not uncommon for universities to put departments "into receivership" when they've degenerated, making an outsider chairman and giving him powers to hire, recommend tenure, etc. without departmental input. Disbanding the department is another solution.
The academic freedom issue is very tricky, and I think it occurs at three different levels, each of which can conflict with the other levels:
1. Institution
2. Professional organizations
3. Individual faculty.
So, yes, institutions can set their course, but if that course involves bagging a dept because of what it is doing, that does seem to violate the academic freedom of the individual faculty.
However, as you know, even 1A protections of free speech are not absolute, and, in a similar spirit, I do not think academic freedom at any level is absolute (descriptively), nor should it be (prescriptively). Weighing whether any particular infringement on academic freedom, then, hinges on the particulars of each situation.
Agreed. But as I’m sure you know, most university administrations are in no position to put sociology departments in academic receivership: they’re as biased as the sociology departments themselves!
Interestingly, and you may already know this, your own university was involved in a "freedoms ending in abuse" incident, when your Professor Steven Shaviro in the English Dept publicly opined on Facebook in July ‘23 that it was better to murder conservative speakers who come to your campus than it is to protest them:
He was suspended with pay, but I can find no news on what has happened to him since. He appears to have resumed his academic online activities several months later, and now refers to himself as Emeritus Professor. So maybe he was forced to semi-retire, or maybe he chose to on his own, but otherwise appears to have suffered no significant consequences. Which is pretty incredible.
If it seems incredible to anyone that such a thing happened without it making the news or them hearing about it, I recall that it took place a day or two before that horrible mass shooting at the religious school in Nashville; any news of it was crowded out by the reporting on the Nashville tragedy.
Academic departments like sociology do not add to the nation's productivity. Their graduates will be forever underemployed and saddled with excessive student debt.
There are plenty of excellent sociologists, a point which is not mutually exclusive with there also being plenty of ideological ax-grinders in sociology. This Unsafe Science post is on a book by a sociologist which is likely to be of interest to many folks here, and in which I have a chapter.
Seeking to remove, or to justify the removal of, the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin or any other great thinkers and scholars who have advanced our understanding of human societies’ evolution over millennia, and especially of political economy, is like rejecting and suppressing the contributions of Einstein because he was anti-war and pro-socialism.
It’s a foolish, cowardly and reactionary approach to education, and probably ultimately “species-cidal” as well.
We remove the works of lots of old thinkers who got it wrong. The whole question is "Who is a great thinker?" Marx is an out of date economist of the classical school, and there is less reason to read his economics books than to read JS Mill's textbook that dominated in the 19th century.
This is a great article. A couple of reflections on "The path forward": while I am all for a heterodox-friendly administration, it is not obvious to me that Democrats will want to dismantle a sociology that supports their coalition building. It is also not obvious that Republicans want to remedy this problem, as unhinged Democrats make Republicans look attractive come elections.
Recognizing the problem may be politicly entrenched, we might look to external levers such as a holistic communications strategy that for one, targets the donors of schools, scientific institutions, and private foundations, in an effort to incentivize heterodox sociology; two, rally grassroots letter writing campaigns to flood the servers of institutions when there are abuses, and three, use this marketing infrastructure to lobby for a more heterodox society across all institutions of knowledge. My two cents if that.
What an excellent and interesting article. I find it such a tragedy how the word "liberal" is used, or rather incredibly misused, these days. It's obviously originally related to "liberty" or freedom, which clearly we shouldn't be against, and it's often defined in ways such as "willing to accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas; otherwise as relating to a political or social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." Sounds a hell of a lot like a sane conservative to me. On the other hand, being behind "cancel culture" and silencing opponents is just the opposite of being open to other viewpoints; promoting self-identification through group identity is just the opposite of "individual rights"; being in favour of DEI policies is, with about one minute's explanation and analysis, just the opposite of civil rights; being in favour of socialism is not being in favour of democracy, and being against capitalism is not being in favour of free enterprise. So "liberal" is the most misused word of the 21st century, despite being up against some serious competition. Those who lean to the left so far that they've fallen off their horse are not "liberal", they are authoritarian, and self-righteous bullies. It's about time they were re-labelled!!
Isn't a subject field like sociology bound to lurch left-wards, always being at-risk of ideological capture?
IDK, that is the history, but I am not sure it is inevitable. But, then, I come from the "there really is such a thing as free will" school of thought, kinda at the intersection of the Yogi Berra school of thought, Yogi having once pointed out, "It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future."
Regarding machine learning, don’t be so sure that it is merely technical. I used to teach data science ethics, and whooooo boy was that a mess. Effectively the entire field boiled down to “if your algorithm suggests that minority groups have a lower outcome than whites, you are wrong. If a proxy for a minority group has lower outcomes, you are wrong. Etc.” Looking at what the data patterns show wasn’t ok; if your algorithm showed that low income blacks are a higher credit risk than whites, you need to change your algorithm until it stops doing that.
Wow.
Just recently I substacked about Sociology, "We'll just have to drop the sociology department." I'll have to go back and revise it with this info that Denmark actually did what I suggest-- and then revived the department with real scholars.
https://ericrasmusen.substack.com/p/well-just-have-to-drop-the-sociology
I wouldn't call elimination of an activist department a violation of academic freedom. Rather, the university's academic freedom *requires* it to have the authority to close down a weak department. It sounds like the Danish departments were no longer scholarly, and hence were contrary to the university's mission. This is a point Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit (Chicago) has often made: academic freedom is freedom of the academy as much as freedom of the academic.
It is not uncommon for universities to put departments "into receivership" when they've degenerated, making an outsider chairman and giving him powers to hire, recommend tenure, etc. without departmental input. Disbanding the department is another solution.
Hi Eric! Glad to have posted something useful.
The academic freedom issue is very tricky, and I think it occurs at three different levels, each of which can conflict with the other levels:
1. Institution
2. Professional organizations
3. Individual faculty.
So, yes, institutions can set their course, but if that course involves bagging a dept because of what it is doing, that does seem to violate the academic freedom of the individual faculty.
However, as you know, even 1A protections of free speech are not absolute, and, in a similar spirit, I do not think academic freedom at any level is absolute (descriptively), nor should it be (prescriptively). Weighing whether any particular infringement on academic freedom, then, hinges on the particulars of each situation.
Agreed. But as I’m sure you know, most university administrations are in no position to put sociology departments in academic receivership: they’re as biased as the sociology departments themselves!
Thanks.
Interestingly, and you may already know this, your own university was involved in a "freedoms ending in abuse" incident, when your Professor Steven Shaviro in the English Dept publicly opined on Facebook in July ‘23 that it was better to murder conservative speakers who come to your campus than it is to protest them:
https://yaf.org/news/wayne-state-professor-calls-for-murder-of-those-who-express-opinions-he-disagrees-with/
He was suspended with pay, but I can find no news on what has happened to him since. He appears to have resumed his academic online activities several months later, and now refers to himself as Emeritus Professor. So maybe he was forced to semi-retire, or maybe he chose to on his own, but otherwise appears to have suffered no significant consequences. Which is pretty incredible.
If it seems incredible to anyone that such a thing happened without it making the news or them hearing about it, I recall that it took place a day or two before that horrible mass shooting at the religious school in Nashville; any news of it was crowded out by the reporting on the Nashville tragedy.
Academic departments like sociology do not add to the nation's productivity. Their graduates will be forever underemployed and saddled with excessive student debt.
In an alternate world with no leftwing bias, they could produce useful graduates.
What, as baristas?
There are plenty of excellent sociologists, a point which is not mutually exclusive with there also being plenty of ideological ax-grinders in sociology. This Unsafe Science post is on a book by a sociologist which is likely to be of interest to many folks here, and in which I have a chapter.
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/bad-professors