The latest manifestation of the conservative targetting of academia is the Professor Watchlist, created by the "activist organization" Turning Point USA, founded by rising star Charlie Kirk. It's stated purpose is to "watch" professors "who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom"
Of course, this is not new. David Horowitz has written a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America . HeterodoxAcademy.org has rational articles discussing the liberal slant to modern college campuses. Nicholas Kristoff writes an interesting piece on the same topic. However, with the election of President Trump, the stakes may have been raised. A professor in California has gone incognitio after criticizing Trump in the classroom and receiving death threats.
But more important is how the attempt to blacklist liberal academics has actually backfired. George Yancy [not the George Yancey from the Kristoff piece above] published a response, "I Am a Dangerous Professor" in the New York Times, and since then it seems to have become de rigueur for all academics to get their name on the Professor Watchlist in order to cement their tenure. An entire hashtag on Twitter has taken form: #trollprofwatchlist! People have taken to mocking the list by suggesting candidates such as Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus, not to mention Socrates, who obviously belongs.
Charlie Kirk may not be dangerous, but he did start this list. I am watching him now.
[Editor note - This story was substantially rewritten for balance. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @01:46PM
"Nazi" is not, and was not, an absolute. Using it as such is dangerous, too. It lulls people into thinking that they're not absolutely evil, so they couldn't possibly be called a nazi justly. They are just a little evil, so calling them a nazi is just hurtful hyperbole. Fascism in the Third Reich reached the extremes it did because people kept making those same little rationalizations.
We know that not even the guys tasked with carrying out the attrocities, the Einsatzgruppen, were absolutely evil. Their incidence of suicide, heavy drinking, mental breakdowns, and the like were so high Berlin kept trying to come up with ways to shield them from the psychological effects of what they were doing. That wouldn't have been the case if those guys didn't feel guilt for what they were doing.
The point is it's a lot easier for a society and individuals to cross the line into evil than most people now think it is. It is best to be vigilant, but also to call out people precisely on what they've done so that you don't rob more extreme labels of their meaning. If somebody does something foolish, call them a fool. If he kills a man in cold blood, call him a murderer. If he steals, a thief. If he expresses hatred or contempt for an ethnicity, a bigot. Save "nazi" for the people who want to round others up and march them into gas chambers, but also don't be afraid to level that charge when they purpose exactly that.
Soylent has a few bigots and some fools, but we also have a couple of real nazis.
Washington DC delenda est.