Dorian Abbot is an excellent example for examining the very edge of where cancelation becomes the correct action. He loves to use the word 'clearly' as cover for a lack of thought about his own privilege, merit, morality, etc., so I will use it to say that he is clearly unaware of his white privilege. He is also clearly unaware of the hypocrisy in his claim that his professional statements must be considered separately from his social (non-professional, unprofessional?) statements, but that he must use his professional platform to promulgate his social statements. He is a 40-ish spoiled brat, and I agree with his own department's unwillingness to support him in his crusade (yes, that is a metaphorically appropriate word here), but he should not have been cancelled from the conference. On the other hand, I feel no outrage that he was cancelled. To put it in terms of Nazism, as he did, he is not Joseph Mengele, creating professional knowledge through the torture of innocents, so his professional output should not be discarded, but we have no obligation to support his professional work if his social commentary becomes too toxic.
Also, Amna, how could you let Abbot diss “the humanities” writ large? More than once! Such ignorance, feels like an ad hominem attack. One could honestly make the same argument about computer simulations of climate change on Mars!
I probably would have been more sympathetic to Dorian Abbot before hearing this interview. This is why we shouldn't de-platform people: by letting them speak, we metaphorically give them the rope to hang themselves with. Mr Abbot makes a number of demonstrably false and inaccurate claims (which should probably have been fact checked and/or challenged in real time but whatever). He is clearly a racist and a white supremacist. Oh, and a jackass. It's definitely an indictment of higher education that pompous, ignorant, spoiled brats like him get to be college professors.
I wish Professor Khalid had pushed back on the claim that science has always been a place with no politics, where people got their positions purely based on effort and achievements. If that were true, women and underrepresented minorities would not in fact be underrepresented. Professors Khalid and Abbot should perhaps watch the film "Picture a Scientist," and they should perhaps read the National Academy of Sciences report on Sexual Harassment in Academia.
Thanks for this, Amna. This episode is a fantastic case in defense of not leaving the problem of academia’s racial segregation to tenured geophysicists 🙄
Reminds me of when James Watson talked about the inferiority of Black peoples’ intelligence. Or when Scott E Kern at Johns Hopkins published an opinion in an academic journal that suggested only scientists who have “earned it” should have families. A thinly veiled attack on women not putting enough work in at the lab because they choose to have children. Yes, those terrible old misogynist days: published in 2010.
I’d actually argue the main difference between Tenured Professor Dorian Abbot and his detractors is the medium, not the message. When he was their age 20+ years ago, you might get someone canceled via Newsweek. He was adroit to use YouTube initially, but a more mainstream platform would have garnered him a more receptive audience, I think.
So you run your mouth in Newsweek, and your opponents run theirs on Twitter. For such a smart guy it doesn’t sound like he sees how the systems work. Or maybe he does, and this podcast is his next act, Redemption?
It's the interviewer's job to probe and provide context to the claims of the subject. Giving this man so much free time to air his views unchallenged is not journalism, it's PR. If his ideas were truly so robust then they would stand up to scrutiny, but that's sorely lacking here. You've lost a listener with this one, sorry.
This episode was a miss for me. He was still invited to speak at the school, ended up giving his speech to an equally large audience at Princeton, got on the cable news circuit, and even received an award for his “cancellation.” It seems like he got a career boost from simply having to switch audiences for his intended speech. Somebody cancel me please!
He makes sense to me. Society seems to be terrorized by views that encourage discrimination and unfairness, while professing to abhor those activities. These things likely will be seen for what they are a few decades from now when people have moved on to other craziness.
My piece to offer here is, I suffer from the affliction of being a late middle-aged now retired straight white male journeyman carpenter, who happens to be a damn good poet. The main topic of my writing is war poetry. My applications for writing residence's are continuously rejected. One sited my "lack of seeking a further, more refined education." ie: No initials behind name.
I do not ever come close to being canceled, I'm never allowed a seat at the table due to overtly judgmental academic snobbery. On one occasion a residency candidate (with an MFA) selected over me didn't attend because of a little snowfall between her home and the residencies' location. Yet, she applied for a wintertime slot. I guess common sense isn't a requirement necessary for an MFA in poetry.
To Mr. Abbott's many fine points, I know all to well the game of checked boxes in complete disregard to a person's actual abilities in both my working and writing life. I will however invite Mr. Abbott to utilize common sense over his academic prowess wishing to, hide away with his equations, by suggesting he stay the hell off of twitter. Twitter is just so much dis-jointed internet graffiti & the downfall of many.
(before someone starts screaming white privilege, I've heard it all. Been there, done that. Most reading this weren't even born yet the first time I took-it to the streets. But that's for another day. -semper fi)
The main proof that liberal cancel culture has gone too far is that expressing essentially moderate views - whether you agree with them or not - is now cause for cancellation.
We are not even close to talking here about hate speech or bigotry, but the far left is equating everything to its right as equivalent. There is nothing wrong with questioning whether affirmative action is fair or advisable, whether reparations are justified, etc., etc. There are reasonable arguments - with pluses and minuses - on both sides.
This is Marcuse's repressive tolerance in praxis. Repressive tolerance skews the argument to one side by canceling the people in opposition. They fight to the death because their safety is at risk. They are oppressed victims. Texas Professor, Tommy Currey, who does not get canceled from Youtube for violence. against whites in the link below
Dorian Abbot is an excellent example for examining the very edge of where cancelation becomes the correct action. He loves to use the word 'clearly' as cover for a lack of thought about his own privilege, merit, morality, etc., so I will use it to say that he is clearly unaware of his white privilege. He is also clearly unaware of the hypocrisy in his claim that his professional statements must be considered separately from his social (non-professional, unprofessional?) statements, but that he must use his professional platform to promulgate his social statements. He is a 40-ish spoiled brat, and I agree with his own department's unwillingness to support him in his crusade (yes, that is a metaphorically appropriate word here), but he should not have been cancelled from the conference. On the other hand, I feel no outrage that he was cancelled. To put it in terms of Nazism, as he did, he is not Joseph Mengele, creating professional knowledge through the torture of innocents, so his professional output should not be discarded, but we have no obligation to support his professional work if his social commentary becomes too toxic.
Also, Amna, how could you let Abbot diss “the humanities” writ large? More than once! Such ignorance, feels like an ad hominem attack. One could honestly make the same argument about computer simulations of climate change on Mars!
I probably would have been more sympathetic to Dorian Abbot before hearing this interview. This is why we shouldn't de-platform people: by letting them speak, we metaphorically give them the rope to hang themselves with. Mr Abbot makes a number of demonstrably false and inaccurate claims (which should probably have been fact checked and/or challenged in real time but whatever). He is clearly a racist and a white supremacist. Oh, and a jackass. It's definitely an indictment of higher education that pompous, ignorant, spoiled brats like him get to be college professors.
I wish Professor Khalid had pushed back on the claim that science has always been a place with no politics, where people got their positions purely based on effort and achievements. If that were true, women and underrepresented minorities would not in fact be underrepresented. Professors Khalid and Abbot should perhaps watch the film "Picture a Scientist," and they should perhaps read the National Academy of Sciences report on Sexual Harassment in Academia.
Seems some crucial context about MIT’s decision process was omitted. https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps
Thanks for this, Amna. This episode is a fantastic case in defense of not leaving the problem of academia’s racial segregation to tenured geophysicists 🙄
Reminds me of when James Watson talked about the inferiority of Black peoples’ intelligence. Or when Scott E Kern at Johns Hopkins published an opinion in an academic journal that suggested only scientists who have “earned it” should have families. A thinly veiled attack on women not putting enough work in at the lab because they choose to have children. Yes, those terrible old misogynist days: published in 2010.
I’d actually argue the main difference between Tenured Professor Dorian Abbot and his detractors is the medium, not the message. When he was their age 20+ years ago, you might get someone canceled via Newsweek. He was adroit to use YouTube initially, but a more mainstream platform would have garnered him a more receptive audience, I think.
So you run your mouth in Newsweek, and your opponents run theirs on Twitter. For such a smart guy it doesn’t sound like he sees how the systems work. Or maybe he does, and this podcast is his next act, Redemption?
It's the interviewer's job to probe and provide context to the claims of the subject. Giving this man so much free time to air his views unchallenged is not journalism, it's PR. If his ideas were truly so robust then they would stand up to scrutiny, but that's sorely lacking here. You've lost a listener with this one, sorry.
Dorian Abbot is straightforward, realistic, and brave. On what grounds is anyone calling him "a spoiled brat?"
This episode was a miss for me. He was still invited to speak at the school, ended up giving his speech to an equally large audience at Princeton, got on the cable news circuit, and even received an award for his “cancellation.” It seems like he got a career boost from simply having to switch audiences for his intended speech. Somebody cancel me please!
He makes sense to me. Society seems to be terrorized by views that encourage discrimination and unfairness, while professing to abhor those activities. These things likely will be seen for what they are a few decades from now when people have moved on to other craziness.
My piece to offer here is, I suffer from the affliction of being a late middle-aged now retired straight white male journeyman carpenter, who happens to be a damn good poet. The main topic of my writing is war poetry. My applications for writing residence's are continuously rejected. One sited my "lack of seeking a further, more refined education." ie: No initials behind name.
I do not ever come close to being canceled, I'm never allowed a seat at the table due to overtly judgmental academic snobbery. On one occasion a residency candidate (with an MFA) selected over me didn't attend because of a little snowfall between her home and the residencies' location. Yet, she applied for a wintertime slot. I guess common sense isn't a requirement necessary for an MFA in poetry.
To Mr. Abbott's many fine points, I know all to well the game of checked boxes in complete disregard to a person's actual abilities in both my working and writing life. I will however invite Mr. Abbott to utilize common sense over his academic prowess wishing to, hide away with his equations, by suggesting he stay the hell off of twitter. Twitter is just so much dis-jointed internet graffiti & the downfall of many.
(before someone starts screaming white privilege, I've heard it all. Been there, done that. Most reading this weren't even born yet the first time I took-it to the streets. But that's for another day. -semper fi)
The main proof that liberal cancel culture has gone too far is that expressing essentially moderate views - whether you agree with them or not - is now cause for cancellation.
We are not even close to talking here about hate speech or bigotry, but the far left is equating everything to its right as equivalent. There is nothing wrong with questioning whether affirmative action is fair or advisable, whether reparations are justified, etc., etc. There are reasonable arguments - with pluses and minuses - on both sides.
This is Marcuse's repressive tolerance in praxis. Repressive tolerance skews the argument to one side by canceling the people in opposition. They fight to the death because their safety is at risk. They are oppressed victims. Texas Professor, Tommy Currey, who does not get canceled from Youtube for violence. against whites in the link below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzzzUhknV_o&t=12s