This thread describes a dangerous trend on the Left

https://www.city-journal.org/the-academic-vocation

The Academic Vocation
How activist professors corrupt the university—and the polity

excerpt:

The role of a professor, like all roles in society worth having, involves abnegation and renunciation—discipline in another, but related, sense. Consider an analogy to medicine. Doctors aim to heal, but they take an oath: “First, do no harm.” Likewise, professors aim to discover new knowledge in their research and to pass on such knowledge in their pedagogy. But this is a hard, slow, and uncertain process. Better, then, to make more cardinal a parallel injunction: “First, do not say anything that one does not have good reason according to one’s expertise to believe is true.” This is the basic condition of possessing integrity as an academic. It would be intolerable to follow such a standard in all facets of life. But when acting as a professor, this ought to be the paramount concern. To say something in the classroom or in an academic text because it is fashionable, because it is seen as in line with “good” objectives, or because one fears ostracism is to fall short.

***
For many academics, particularly those in the humanities and social sciences who wish to “make a difference in the world,” the most difficult of renunciations is political. One cannot be simultaneously an activist and a professor. For one thing, whoever confuses the seminar for the rally is likely to fail to convey the body of material accurately when political ends appear to interfere with pedagogical ones. But he is also abusing his professorial perch and contributing to the deterioration of our politics. The health of our public discourse and our academic institutions requires that politics and pedagogy mix as little as possible.

This is because political activity, to be ethical, requires relating to others as equals. As a citizen confronting another citizen in a democratic society, you accept that you can be challenged and gainsaid and condemned by others. You admit that you have no claim to others’ assent or even their attention beyond what you can persuade them to give you as a member of a shared community. But the academic profession, however uncomfortable the reality might be to certain modern sensibilities, ineluctably entails a relationship of authority. The professor, within his limited domain, is not the equal of his students. He is their guide and superior. For him to preach politics is therefore to exploit his scientific authority and credentials for an unearned usurpation over a little corner of a public sphere that belongs to us all equally.

No one puts the point better than Weber:

If you speak about democracy at a public meeting there is no need to make a secret of your personal point of view. On the contrary, you have to take one side or the other explicitly; that is your damned duty. The words you use are not the tools of academic analysis, but a way of winning others over to your political point of view. . . . In a lecture room it would be an outrage to make use of language in this way. . . . If [a would-be professor-politician] then asks why he cannot deal with both sets of problems in the lecture room, we should answer that the prophet and the demagogue have no place at the lectern. We must say to both the prophet and the demagogue: “go out into the street and speak to the public.” In other words, speak where what you say can be criticized. In the lecture room, where you sit opposite your listeners, it is for them to keep silent and for the teacher to speak. I think it irresponsible for a lecturer to exploit a situation in which the students have to attend the class of a teacher for the sake of their future careers but where there is no one present who can respond to him critically.
​

Political activism, especially as conducted in a vibrant democracy, is a noble pursuit; so is a professorship. But they are not the same kind of noble pursuit, and when combined they are mutually destructive. The vitality of democratic politics consists in the fact that even the most exalted, most credentialed figures in society wield their power solely through the freely given conviction that they are capable of inspiring in their fellows. The integrity of academia consists in the confidence that he who speaks as a professor and expert does so only where he can be trusted not to distort, from whatever motives, the body of knowledge in which he is presumed to be better-versed. Democratic politics and academic inquiry both support a good society, but they do so as columns that each bear part of the weight above them without themselves crossing.
​

more at the link

 

Did you forget to post the link, or am I just not seeing it?

 

oops, thanks. let me pull that up again

 

This article would never be written if professors have a conservative bend.


Anyways the right has always accused college professors of being communist propagandists. It's a century long tradition.

https://forward.com/culture/355112/when-an-actual-nazi-spoke-on-an-american-college-campus/


These furious commie students and faculty trying to cancel someone from speaking has been going on for a LONG time.

 

I find it interesting you’re posting this as it’s essentially saying that academics shouldnt have free speech when it comes to politics.

 

lol. it's definitely not saying that.

 

It's the implication. Also it denies a possibility that professors are merely just doing what any moderate sane ethical person do and reject and push back on fascist rhetoric.

 

Cancel culture comes from white America, but it used to be called laws, taboos and the violent crimes we acquit whites for committing while enforcing them

 

Not at all. Your ilk just renamed what they have been doing when using traditions and religious to “cancel” behavior and rhetoric.

Your ilk cancelled oral sex and it’s still on the books in several conservative states.

 

For the piece:
“ One cannot be simultaneously an activist and a professor. ”
Political speech is speech. This is saying that professors cannot express political activism while being a professor.

 

It’s not just an implication. The author states openly that one cannot be an activist and a professor. That is staring that expression of political speech should not be done by professors.

 

I don't.

 

Afraid that’s what you conservatives did, you use your religion and traditions to cancel whoever you deem.

I will admit, it was very shrewd to rebrand and then use it against your political and social opponents.

 

he doesn't say that one cannot, he says one should not. There's a difference. You have the freedom to go against your role-specific obligation to objectivity, but the discipline he describes involves a kind of principled self-restraint to hold one's tongue in certain contexts.

It is a great compliment to reach the end of a semester and have a student say, "you've presented us with all these arguments, but we still don't know where you stand." That usually means you've presented the material fairly, equally, and without undue bias on your part (recognizing there's always some bias present, if only in your choice of topics, subject, and course materials).

 

I'm glad he doesn't want activist professors in prison. Very kind of him. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

A calm reminder that the right has always cried wolf about their ideas being censored. It's a century long tradition at this point.

 

And Kim Jung Un is a leader of a Republic.