Academics claim to revere open debate but often recoil when they see the genuine article. Witness the campaign some scholars--loosely defined--are waging against Heather Mac Donald for challenging university pieties about a recent surge in violent crime.* * *
The American Society of Criminology claims to pursue "scholarly, scientific, and professional knowledge," but a better description of its priorities is one-sided inquiry and activist politics.
Earlier this year former ASC president Joanne Belknap of the University of Colorado at Boulder published a call for "criminology activism" among crime experts, citing their responsibility to "advocate for social and legal justice." The society's journal has since shifted toward papers that downplay particular crime trends and emphasize a policy agenda that opposes broken-windows policing or much attention to black-on-black violence. In the process it has abandoned its old role as a forum for a healthy clash of ideas.
Recently in Academia Category
[T]his Article explores a form of grounded preventive justice neglected in existing scholarly, legal, and policy accounts. Grounded preventive justice offers a positive substitutive account of abolition that aims to displace criminal law enforcement through meaningful justice reinvestment to strengthen the social arm of the state and improve human welfare. This positive substitutive abolitionist framework would operate by expanding social projects to prevent the need for carceral responses, decriminalizing less serious infractions, improving the design of spaces and products to reduce opportunities for offending, redeveloping and "greening" urban spaces, proliferating restorative forms of redress, and creating both safe harbors for individuals at risk of or fleeing violence and alternative livelihoods for persons subject to criminal law enforcement. By exploring prison abolition and grounded preventive justice in tandem, this Article offers a positive ethical, legal, and institutional framework for conceptualizing abolition, crime prevention, and grounded justice together.
The Greek myth [the Rape of Persephone] has been recounted for thousands of years in hundreds of languages, scores of countries and countless works of art. It's considered a cultural touchstone for Western civilization: a parable about power, lust and grief.
Now, however, it could be getting a treatment it's never had before: a trigger warning.
In an op-ed in the student newspaper, four Columbia University undergrads have called on the school to implement trigger warnings -- alerts about potentially distressing material -- even for classics like Greek mythology or Roman poetry.
"Ovid's 'Metamorphoses' is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom," wrote the four students, who are members of Columbia's Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board. "These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background."
And no, I am not making this up. I couldn't make it up.
One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.'
'What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn't need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people's children'. . .
'The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't--the difference in their life chances--is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't,' he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion--that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.
This kind of stuff is enough to make Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby look sober.
BOSTON--Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college's academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea. "As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it's inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion," said Abrams, adding that no matter the subject, anyone on campus is always welcome to add their support to the accepted consensus. "Whether it's a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here." Abrams told reporters that counseling resources were available for any student made uncomfortable by the viewpoint.This is, of course, satire. The report is from the Onion. But it is only one step more absurd than reality.
While law firms can fire lawyers, law schools cannot cut their largest expense: faculty. Most faculty have tenure, which equals lifetime job protection -- as long as the school remains open. While faculty could be part of the solution to legal education's woes, we are actually the problem.As additional, huge problem that is neither mentioned by Brown nor considered in the notorious USN&WR rankings is a lack of diversity of viewpoint. When students hear nothing but one side of controversial issues for their entire time in school, what you have is not true education but Maoist indoctrination in the guise of education. When the academic consensus on any issue with political overtones can be predicted with 100% certainty merely by identifying the Politically Correct position, the consensus no longer means anything.
Legal scholarship is in a terrible state, with counter-intuitive incentives for faculty. Status comes with publishing, but more publishing means less teaching and interacting with fewer students. In the legal academy, second- and third-year law students select which law professors' articles to publish; while my second and third years are brilliant, they cannot select for quality the same way experts would. But even if you think the student-run system is fine, the value of legal scholarship, which is rarely read, has its skeptics, among them Chief Justice John Roberts. Scholars at the University of Florida argue in a recent study that very few articles are cited for their ideas. This broken system is also subsidized disproportionately by the tuition dollars of poorer law students.
In the wake of the recent grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island, outrage and despair are reverberating across the nation, including at the law schools where we teach. Many of our students are struggling to reconcile their ideals of justice with what they perceive as manifest injustices in the criminal law system.
Paul [Mirengoff's] two posts on the tender mercies our colleges are showing to traumatized students being excused from exams sent me back to the wisdom of my mentor M. Stanton Evans, who liked to remind young people:
"My generation had it much rougher than yours. Our malls weren't covered. We didn't have remotes so we had to get up and change the channel and we had to go through the whole Goldwater defeat without grief counselors."
What purpose is served by subjecting the most disempowered, abused and nonviolent women to the perpetually negative environment of prisons?