The most amazing thing is that a student's single unsubstantiated Twitter post could produce a cascade that degenerates into a ritual public shaming and inquisition. That's a serious institutional failure on NYU's part and a personal ethical failure on the part of its leadership. They should have in place an administrative process that handles student complaints privately -- with step 1 being a fair finding of fact. Students should be asked to use that process, not make claims on Twitter as a first resort. If that process fails, then fine, go to Twitter. But claims made first on Twitter and without due process should be ignored by the university. Any university worth its tuition should do this.
What's really astonishing is that one boneheaded student can create such a kerfuflle. Where's the leadership in academia to ferret out this nonsense or to at least sit this chick down and give her a lesson in exactly why she's attending university, ie to hone her analytical skills & writing and not to hound the faculty with her snowflake sensitivities. Where are the adults??
I'm from a STEM background - and it is common and encouraged after presenting some information, proposal, or data to be asked "WHY?", with an expectation that you will be able to provide a coherent answer. Many times on more complicated questions, you may have to get back to the person our group with more detail.
It is expected that the person asking the question is roughly your intellectual equal , and wants to know the details with no malice. Even if they are much junior to you, this could be a learning experience. And sometimes, during the explanation, you may find a hole in your logic which may require you to tighten up your presentation. That is the whole point of reviews.
In rare instances you may be wrong - and that is when you will see a hissy fit. I also notice this behaviour in rigid hierarchies - they are not use to being questioned and "being wrong" has severe consequence. Try getting a politician or professor to back track on a stance. it boomerangs on you as a Denier (which has a slew of religious connotations - Propaganda started from the Catholic Church).
Personally - I believe that non-surgical masks provide some level of befit against COVID, but the response from people in authority when questioned sends red flags. The emotions and vitriol says the person is emotionally unstable and cannot answer a simple question or they cannot admit they don't know the answer. Either way - they need to be removed from a position of authority.
Listened to the podcast and thought, that's a great class. Forcing students to, cough, think outside of their comfort zone. My hats off to him and best of luck in running the gauntlet of institutional stupidity.
I watched the interview on Useful Idiots. The student joins the class late and apparently misses Miller saying they should wear their masks. Then everything goes off the rails. I am curious, but I guess not surprised, that the University didn’t just talk to all of the class members about what Miller told the students as opposed to relying on one person who missed the first class. This was an intellectual exercise that seems to have been lost on the “intellectuals”. There is something else at play here as Katie postulated towards the end of the interview. I donated to his legal fund.
This is a particularly interesting article, Matt. Thanks for posting it. I was an Adjunct Professor at Northern Michigan University. I taught a little creative writing, but mostly freshman and sophomore English in which my students had to write argument papers and other persuasive analyses. Some of the above happened to me about four years ago as this cancel thing was just ramping up. I conveniently didn't fill out my self-evaluation on time (when I was down at Karmanos Hospital with my son who had developed testicular cancer) and lost my place in the teaching queue--not all that upsetting as it turns out. I was also called an "anti-intellectual" and much more by the acting head of the English dept. Publicly. I don't always agree with YOU, either, but I am so grateful you are writing and doing this important work.
We need a new political language, since these cultural revolutionaries are not "the left". They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class. They certainly aren't progressives, either.
I returned to college in 1998[age 46] to get my teaching credentials. I had been a PI for 20 years. I spoke my mind in class. I'm libertarian which should be cool in campus, but even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors. They would come up to me after class[w/ the prof gone!] and thank me. I tried to encourage them to speak up, but that was not an option in their minds. I did my undergrad 1970-74. It was a different world back then. Wokeism has taken over academia, MSM, corporate complex, medicine. It is time to revolt!
I was getting prepared to cheer for a professor actually teaching their students to think, but a visit to his blog seriously undercut that self-promotion. The blog promotes some sources with seriously deficient logic and "conspiracy theory" type thinking. (No I don't dismiss any contrarian view as a conspiracy theory; it depends on the content. Some of them ARE kind of delusional, whether left or right). His blog is not a haven for critical thinking. It's possible that he can teach "do as I say, and not as I do", but I wonder.
That said, I am disgusted with the way that woke elites try to twist this into a threat to his job. So he's a conspiracy thinker on his own time, who cares? He wasn't attacked for that per se, but for not being woke enough.
I wondered what had happened to him. I've thought one of his comments from the early aughts, which I'm paraphrasing, could be extended to describe our current situation succinctly.
About the political climate of the early Bush years, MCM said, "It's like the "Republicans got the government and the Democrats got the English Department." The irony is that 20 years later, it appears the English Department, or at least the Cultural Studies section, now has the government.
I saw this shit coming from a long time ago. It's the progression of the left which seemed inevitable even back when I came of age and voted the first time in 1976. I was sure that when others researched this new political party that a friend introduced me to that hated war, wanted to decriminalize drugs, freedom from income tax and no censorship that everyone would agree. I proudly told anyone who would listen to vote for Roger McBride of the libertarian party! It was a no brainier! Get government out of the way and let freedom ring!
The party was trashed by the MSM and other politicians who denounced libertarian principals as crazy and unrealistic while blindly marching towards the state of affairs we are in today.
I also failed to underestimate the ability of folks to be deceived over and over, again and again and continue to vote the same way expecting different results.
Orwell's 1984 should be promoted reading instead of the woke curriculum today.
There are two main issues at play here and one of them leads to the other in a sense. The first issue is a public health and scientific issue. Initially, I was skeptical of masks being effective because at a molecular level, a mask is effectively cheesecloth and a virus will sail right through it. I'm a former molecular biologist and so I understand the science and biology. Then, there were experiments showing that masks prevent aerosols, basically saliva sprays when someone sneezes or talks, and therefore limit local transmission. The virus is embedded in droplets that are 10 to 1000-fold larger than the virus. This is why surgeons use masks when you have surgery, to limit wound infection. (This is also how bioweapons are weaponized - the agent is injected into the environment in an aerosol or powder form to enable it to reach as many people as possible with the smallest amounts.) To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask. Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended. I do not wish to get sick or cause harm.
Now then, he's a media professor and his specialty is propaganda. It is not biology, public health, or a hard science. He's certainly within his rights and profession to say the things he's been saying, but does he have the academic chops to definitively say certain public health measures are propaganda? They may possibly be, but considering that Japan controlled its pandemic through mask use and other measures would suggest otherwise. Now, if his focus was what is reported in the media, fine. Most journalists took chemistry for poets in college or university. They are liberal arts and communications majors, not science majors. They have no concept of the size of an atom versus virus versus human cell versus something on the macroscopic scale such as a mask. Microscopic scales are even abstract for science majors. You can't see what you are manipulating, but you are working with billions and trillions of them. At best a bacterial culture turns cloudy whereas said culture clears from lysis when a viral infection kills 99% of the cells. What I am trying to convey here is that any information we get from the average journalist about science in general and Covid-19 measures is like Chinese whispers. Information will get lost in translation because experts have to simplify the message so that the average person can grasp it. It doesn't help that science is an iterative process and most messaging is conservative to begin with, then you have to dumb it down further. It's like the Red Dwarf episode where the crewmembers try to explain to the Cat what a spacetime rift is only to state that it's a magic door in total frustration.
So, do I support Mr. Miller? The answer is yes. He was doing his job. He should keep his job. But, he should confer with colleagues who know the science and can keep him from inserting his foot into his mouth on what could be a public health issue. If it goes to the courts, that could or could not be in his favor. Courts don't handle scientific evidence well and the issue depends heavily on context. A lot of crap in academia doesn't get put in emails, so it could be difficult to prove who said what, when, and exactly why, for what reasons he was censured. If the institution attacks him from the public health angle, he might have a difficult fight.
The most amazing thing is that a student's single unsubstantiated Twitter post could produce a cascade that degenerates into a ritual public shaming and inquisition. That's a serious institutional failure on NYU's part and a personal ethical failure on the part of its leadership. They should have in place an administrative process that handles student complaints privately -- with step 1 being a fair finding of fact. Students should be asked to use that process, not make claims on Twitter as a first resort. If that process fails, then fine, go to Twitter. But claims made first on Twitter and without due process should be ignored by the university. Any university worth its tuition should do this.
What's really astonishing is that one boneheaded student can create such a kerfuflle. Where's the leadership in academia to ferret out this nonsense or to at least sit this chick down and give her a lesson in exactly why she's attending university, ie to hone her analytical skills & writing and not to hound the faculty with her snowflake sensitivities. Where are the adults??
The Left is purging itself because the Left understands politics is power. Not truth, not justice and certainly not Liberties or free speech.
You will comply or be purged.
Had we not gone through a century of this it would be surprising I suppose.
I'm from a STEM background - and it is common and encouraged after presenting some information, proposal, or data to be asked "WHY?", with an expectation that you will be able to provide a coherent answer. Many times on more complicated questions, you may have to get back to the person our group with more detail.
It is expected that the person asking the question is roughly your intellectual equal , and wants to know the details with no malice. Even if they are much junior to you, this could be a learning experience. And sometimes, during the explanation, you may find a hole in your logic which may require you to tighten up your presentation. That is the whole point of reviews.
In rare instances you may be wrong - and that is when you will see a hissy fit. I also notice this behaviour in rigid hierarchies - they are not use to being questioned and "being wrong" has severe consequence. Try getting a politician or professor to back track on a stance. it boomerangs on you as a Denier (which has a slew of religious connotations - Propaganda started from the Catholic Church).
Personally - I believe that non-surgical masks provide some level of befit against COVID, but the response from people in authority when questioned sends red flags. The emotions and vitriol says the person is emotionally unstable and cannot answer a simple question or they cannot admit they don't know the answer. Either way - they need to be removed from a position of authority.
Listened to the podcast and thought, that's a great class. Forcing students to, cough, think outside of their comfort zone. My hats off to him and best of luck in running the gauntlet of institutional stupidity.
Christ what crap. Who died and made all these thinking-free sieg heiling students junior popes or reichsfuehrers?
I watched the interview on Useful Idiots. The student joins the class late and apparently misses Miller saying they should wear their masks. Then everything goes off the rails. I am curious, but I guess not surprised, that the University didn’t just talk to all of the class members about what Miller told the students as opposed to relying on one person who missed the first class. This was an intellectual exercise that seems to have been lost on the “intellectuals”. There is something else at play here as Katie postulated towards the end of the interview. I donated to his legal fund.
This is a particularly interesting article, Matt. Thanks for posting it. I was an Adjunct Professor at Northern Michigan University. I taught a little creative writing, but mostly freshman and sophomore English in which my students had to write argument papers and other persuasive analyses. Some of the above happened to me about four years ago as this cancel thing was just ramping up. I conveniently didn't fill out my self-evaluation on time (when I was down at Karmanos Hospital with my son who had developed testicular cancer) and lost my place in the teaching queue--not all that upsetting as it turns out. I was also called an "anti-intellectual" and much more by the acting head of the English dept. Publicly. I don't always agree with YOU, either, but I am so grateful you are writing and doing this important work.
We need a new political language, since these cultural revolutionaries are not "the left". They are elitist authoritarians who don't give a fuck about working class issues except to the degree they can exploit and manipulate the working class. They certainly aren't progressives, either.
If he is successfully teaching critical thinking skills then does it matter what he writes in his blog?
I returned to college in 1998[age 46] to get my teaching credentials. I had been a PI for 20 years. I spoke my mind in class. I'm libertarian which should be cool in campus, but even 22 years ago it wasn't. Kids were cowered by bully professors. They would come up to me after class[w/ the prof gone!] and thank me. I tried to encourage them to speak up, but that was not an option in their minds. I did my undergrad 1970-74. It was a different world back then. Wokeism has taken over academia, MSM, corporate complex, medicine. It is time to revolt!
I was getting prepared to cheer for a professor actually teaching their students to think, but a visit to his blog seriously undercut that self-promotion. The blog promotes some sources with seriously deficient logic and "conspiracy theory" type thinking. (No I don't dismiss any contrarian view as a conspiracy theory; it depends on the content. Some of them ARE kind of delusional, whether left or right). His blog is not a haven for critical thinking. It's possible that he can teach "do as I say, and not as I do", but I wonder.
That said, I am disgusted with the way that woke elites try to twist this into a threat to his job. So he's a conspiracy thinker on his own time, who cares? He wasn't attacked for that per se, but for not being woke enough.
Yes, 'fascism' is it is anywhere is coming from from the LEFT today.
I wondered what had happened to him. I've thought one of his comments from the early aughts, which I'm paraphrasing, could be extended to describe our current situation succinctly.
About the political climate of the early Bush years, MCM said, "It's like the "Republicans got the government and the Democrats got the English Department." The irony is that 20 years later, it appears the English Department, or at least the Cultural Studies section, now has the government.
I saw this shit coming from a long time ago. It's the progression of the left which seemed inevitable even back when I came of age and voted the first time in 1976. I was sure that when others researched this new political party that a friend introduced me to that hated war, wanted to decriminalize drugs, freedom from income tax and no censorship that everyone would agree. I proudly told anyone who would listen to vote for Roger McBride of the libertarian party! It was a no brainier! Get government out of the way and let freedom ring!
The party was trashed by the MSM and other politicians who denounced libertarian principals as crazy and unrealistic while blindly marching towards the state of affairs we are in today.
I also failed to underestimate the ability of folks to be deceived over and over, again and again and continue to vote the same way expecting different results.
Orwell's 1984 should be promoted reading instead of the woke curriculum today.
There are two main issues at play here and one of them leads to the other in a sense. The first issue is a public health and scientific issue. Initially, I was skeptical of masks being effective because at a molecular level, a mask is effectively cheesecloth and a virus will sail right through it. I'm a former molecular biologist and so I understand the science and biology. Then, there were experiments showing that masks prevent aerosols, basically saliva sprays when someone sneezes or talks, and therefore limit local transmission. The virus is embedded in droplets that are 10 to 1000-fold larger than the virus. This is why surgeons use masks when you have surgery, to limit wound infection. (This is also how bioweapons are weaponized - the agent is injected into the environment in an aerosol or powder form to enable it to reach as many people as possible with the smallest amounts.) To not wear a mask during this pandemic is like a person with HIV not using a condom during sex - it is reckless endangerment bordering on attempted murder. The problem is that the murder victim maybe someone who walked by the person not using the mask. Because of the preponderance of evidence, I wore a mask after the lockdown was ended. I do not wish to get sick or cause harm.
Now then, he's a media professor and his specialty is propaganda. It is not biology, public health, or a hard science. He's certainly within his rights and profession to say the things he's been saying, but does he have the academic chops to definitively say certain public health measures are propaganda? They may possibly be, but considering that Japan controlled its pandemic through mask use and other measures would suggest otherwise. Now, if his focus was what is reported in the media, fine. Most journalists took chemistry for poets in college or university. They are liberal arts and communications majors, not science majors. They have no concept of the size of an atom versus virus versus human cell versus something on the macroscopic scale such as a mask. Microscopic scales are even abstract for science majors. You can't see what you are manipulating, but you are working with billions and trillions of them. At best a bacterial culture turns cloudy whereas said culture clears from lysis when a viral infection kills 99% of the cells. What I am trying to convey here is that any information we get from the average journalist about science in general and Covid-19 measures is like Chinese whispers. Information will get lost in translation because experts have to simplify the message so that the average person can grasp it. It doesn't help that science is an iterative process and most messaging is conservative to begin with, then you have to dumb it down further. It's like the Red Dwarf episode where the crewmembers try to explain to the Cat what a spacetime rift is only to state that it's a magic door in total frustration.
So, do I support Mr. Miller? The answer is yes. He was doing his job. He should keep his job. But, he should confer with colleagues who know the science and can keep him from inserting his foot into his mouth on what could be a public health issue. If it goes to the courts, that could or could not be in his favor. Courts don't handle scientific evidence well and the issue depends heavily on context. A lot of crap in academia doesn't get put in emails, so it could be difficult to prove who said what, when, and exactly why, for what reasons he was censured. If the institution attacks him from the public health angle, he might have a difficult fight.