Michael Regnier

Orthodox Christian, grateful husband/father, higher ed puzzler, fmr charter school founder. Views don't represent my employer.

[Academics For Academic Freedom @AFAF_freespeech]

Academics and students who believe in free speech can sign this open letter in defence of @nathancofnas - @postgradafaf @StudentAFAF @samikshassotd @lucaf_london @AFFSUK

https://t.co/lBlRFmjMtp

[Heterodox Academy @HdxAcademy]

Scholars should not be disciplined for calling out the academic misconduct of another scholar; no scholar has a “right” for their scholarship to not be publicly criticized, regardless of the personal views of the critic.

Apparently, academic freedom at Ghent University is only protected for those whose values are aligned with the university’s.

[Michael Regnier @MichaelRegnier]

If these are the broadened scholarly perspectives, imagine the narrow ones.

[John Sailer @JohnDSailer]

Every year, the Society for Citizens and Scholars gives Mellon-funded "career enhancement" grants to professors who broaden "the range of perspectives" in the humanities.

Here are the doctoral dissertations written by last years fellows. Note the general theme.

[JT @jiratickets]

this might be the best tweet ever written

[Jeffrey Flier @jflier]

The @AAUP has lost all credibility as a defender of academic freedom. My piece @HdxAcademy on the consequences of it's explicit politicization. What a shame.

[George Yancey @profyancey]

Given all the talk about viewpoint diversity and that I have published in the area of academic bias, I think I want to offer an extended comment. First, as to what viewpoint diversity means. I, and others, have produced evidence of political and religious discrimination in academia. It is not as some would say, “Well, I just do not want to hire someone who is a sexist or racist. The evidence shows that merely knowing someone is a Republican or an Evangelical will convince a nontrivial percentage of individuals that he or she should be hired. That is textbook discrimination where a person’s social identity in and of itself is the source of discrimination.

Second, this discrimination is part of what limits the scope of what we can study. Allow me one simple example. Since 2016, there has been a ton of research on white conservatives and Christians. The vast majority of it is critical of those groups, likely as they were the key to Trump’s victory. You know who we have not studied with a critical eye? White progressives. Oh, but those people are not bigots, right? How do you know that without studying them? Indeed, one of the knocks against conservatives is about how fearful they are, and yet I have a paper under review showing that progressives are more fearful than conservatives. Stop with the foolish – do we need to include the perspective of Nazis? Very real research questions are being left on the table because different perspectives have been shut down.

Third, when people are only surrounded by people who think like them, there is a strong tendency to be overconfident in their assessments. I am not saying there are no arguments in academia. I am saying that the scope of the arguments is so narrow because of what is not allowed. In my example above, it becomes easy to blame just about all the social conflict on white conservatives/Christians, which is what most of the work on these topics does. By all means, we need assessment with those groups, and perhaps they are more responsible for our social conflict than white progressives. But if they are not, or if the responsibility is relatively equal, it will be hard to see that in modern academia because nearly everyone agrees that the responsibility is mostly on the conservatives. Unless you put your argument into the fire for critique, you will not know whether you have a sound argument or not.

Fourth and finally, some have talked about how academics have made themselves vulnerable by pissing off half the country, and thus the resources that drive our work are at stake. That is a valid reason to consider as we look at viewpoint diversity. I prefer the other reasons given above since those are more centered morally and can lead to better science. However, if the practical reasons of stopping the threat of the cutting off of funds is what works, then so be it. Nonetheless, at the very least, more viewpoint diversity will better allow us to talk to the half of the country that voted for Trump (for the record, I have never voted for him nor will I ever vote for him). Even if you disagree with people, we have to learn how to communicate with them beyond dehumanizing stereotypes.

Anyway, that is my 2cents, well maybe a nickel, on the subject.

[Tyler Austin Harper @Tyler_A_Harper]

Many of these “viewpoint diversity is fascist propaganda” people talk as if they don’t work at institutions heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. Apparently, a politically diverse public is supposed to let them do their unpopular politics indefinitely—and pay for it—for…reasons?

[Tyler Austin Harper @Tyler_A_Harper]

Here’s the brass tacks question progressive academics seem to want to avoid answering: does anyone seriously believe that a geographer critical of immigration would be likely to be hired by an elite American university? Or would those views put them at a profound disadvantage? 1/

[Allie ✞ @allie__voss]

Soooo much of our understanding of the bible is lost as we in developed societies lose touch with sheep

Without exposure to sheep, you cannot fully comprehend what Jesus is saying about loving something so stupid

[Joel Berry @JoelWBerry]

I still can't get over how good this is. Conservatives have always stuck with the "It doesn't work" argument against Leftism while pointing to their charts and graphs, hoping people will follow along.

But THIS is the argument to make. 👇Leftism is ugly. It's repulsive. It's disgusting. It's lame. It's immoral. It's boring. It's depressing.

This isn't a fight between two competing economic models, one of which happens to work better. This is a fight between beauty and ugliness. Building and destruction. Thankfulness and resentment. Love and hate. Greatness and cowardice. Good and evil.

[Keith Humphreys @KeithNHumphreys]

Hard truths about the effect of political monoculture on the quality of public health research and policy by @haroldpollack

[Tyler Austin Harper @Tyler_A_Harper]

It’s remarkable that this is the best defense the head of a major scholarly organization—not to mention a Princeton full professor—can mount. Nonsensical arguments, shameless deflections, incoherence. How could you read this and think: “yeah these fields can reform themselves?”

[H S Joshi @jon_stewartmill]

1/ Academic reformers underestimate how important this is.

Having events and panels on the importance of free inquiry and such does little to correct the underlying issues as long as hiring bias remains.

Personnel is policy.

[Curt Howland 🏴󠁣󠁮󠀵󠀴󠁿 @ImpossibleBob]

https://t.co/5HK75ANqha

Thank you, @JBartlett_NH

The reality is even more dramatic than the play "1776".

(except the Triangle Trade song. That brings chills.)

[Jerry Ratcliffe @Jerry_Ratcliffe]

Study shows criminologists do not teach ideas that are counter to their political views.
Reminds me on a student in a CJ grad class when I was at Temple University who said: "This is the first class in four years at Temple where I've heard an argument against police abolition"

[Jesse Smith @jessesmithsoc]

Great HxA discussion on the Vanderbilt report. I listen to a lot of these panels and a frequent downside is that they fail to get to the central issues/tensions just due to the limitations of the format. This one follows the thread, however. https://t.co/f6AgS64P2n via @YouTube

[Michael Regnier @MichaelRegnier]

YES. This is also a disconnect in many "civics" discussions: some talk about a civil sector and direct community, but for most it all boils down to the state. Civic involvement means voting for a mass party. Civic action means securing gov't funding. So narrowed and flattened.

[Luke Burgis @lukeburgis]

The self set against the State, with nothing in between but a few good group texts.

That's not just lonely, it's dangerous.

The hunger for belonging doesn't vanish in an atomized society—it drifts toward more totalitarian forms of it, because we never stop questing for community.

My essay in @unherd today on "The lost art of association", adapted from Chapter 5 of my book, The One and the Ninety-Nine, which is titled "The Political Self".

https://t.co/ZFIat9B1kX

[Sian Beilock @sianbeilock]

A lot of campuses are quietly choosing to avoid hard conversations. I think those conversations are the whole point. Grateful to @HxAcademy for its inaugural Presidential Stewardship Award, recognizing our work on open inquiry at @dartmouth.

[Jesse Smith @jessesmithsoc]

By coincidence, on the same day I post about the challenges of assessing the extent to which scholarship is ideologically compromised, Ashley Rubin shares her experiences grappling with exactly those challenges.

Among other things, learned I’ll have to stop telling people the humanities are worse than the social sciences.
https://t.co/cJivRQCsOs

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

Congratulations to @HdxAcademy's six honorees--men and women who are advancing the cause of academic freedom and integrity.