#faculty of pedagogy

[essektheylyss]

I was reminded today that asynchronous courses means being able to listen to lectures at higher speeds and thank fuck

[kindafooey]

YESSSS THE SPRING SEMINAR IS HAPPENING MASTER'S THESIS HERE I COOOOME

[3xc3lsior]

For context I asked what she thought about submitting a memoir / creative nonfiction for the application and she said the committee “wouldn’t even consider it” like. Okay I won’t then

[the-music-keeper]

Change of plans. Remember when I said I wanted to look up Harvard information this week? Yeah, we're not going to do that. We're going to look at info for The Ohio State University instead.

[centrally-unplanned]

To discuss one of my own university issues, I personally think the marriage of research & teaching at universities was a mistake, something I have discussed before. It creates bad incentives for the teaching of good classes, and creates a mess of a mission for the schools in question.

But it serves a lot of purposes that are hard to disentangle! The status thing for elite schools is a big one; how does an Ivy Leage school perpetuate status? How does it make elite companies care about its students? Generating talented undergraduates, sure, but also through its research; the faculty are high-status people themselves, consulting for big companies, pushing pioneering science, etc etc. Companies gain value from their research, or want to associate with the prestige, and so on. An extremely common occurrence at an elite school is for a student to take a class with a professor who works with an elite company, and if you do well in that class and impress the professor they will write you a letter of recommendation or w/e for internships/jobs at that company. Career teachers are never high-status this way. So a school that shed its research would lose status and place its grads in worse jobs, even if it got better at "teaching core skills" via a focus on pedagogy ,or lowered tuition. Because pedagogy doesn't matter that much to the school's real outputs, and lowered tuition doesn't matter at all (the consumers that matter at every end are not price sensitive for elite schools).

There are a bunch of other reasons btw, this is just one of them. I do think an alternate path for schools did "exist" historically, where there was a bit more of a split between essentially undergraduate and graduate school. But we didn't take it, and now its going to be very hard to shift. So instead you push for marginal changes like more full-time teaching faculty & alternative ways to highlight student talent. And hey over time it could shift more and more, its possible ofc. I just like to focus on how dynamic the equilibrium really is on these things, which I think is missed a lot.

[qqueenofhades]

https://www.tumblr.com/qqueenofhades/751102464296665088

*Puts on old man costume*

"Back in my day, we used to cheat and procrastinate like real people! With copious amounts of bullshitting and pulling things out of our asses at the last minute! Secretly sneaking in little things written on our hands or in our phones fer tests and shit! Heck, maybe we didn't even NEED to cheat because it turns out we actually knew stuff, we just didn't know we knew stuff until our last minute papers got a good grade anyways because our shit actually had some analytical relevance borne from deep in our psyche, but we just didn't realize it because we had massive cases of imposter syndrome where we thought everyone else was smarter than us, while overlooking our own abilities!

Now these newfangled ChatGPTs are just taking the easy way out of the easy way out! What's up with that!? These new procrastinators and cheaters make us look even worse than we already do, cuz they ain't even doing the work of not doing the work! And y'all can't even say that you can learn from it in the art of bullshittin', cuz that's not even YOUR bullshitting, it's someone else's bullshitting mangled up with hundreds of other peoples' bullshittin'!

Feh, kids these days!"

*Takes off old man costume*

Addendum: old man anon griping about cheating with ChatGPT does not endorse cheating or procrastinating. I'm just being silly.

I mean... at least with regular old-fashioned cheating, also an academic tradition since time immemorial, at least you're engaging with the material somehow. You are putting your own two god-given eyeballs on that and using your own ickle brainikins to do SOMETHING with it, even if that something is morally questionable. We've all seen the elaborate cheat devices where someone managed to engrave all the exam answers onto a pen or a pair of socks or whatever -- at least that person went in and used their initiative to remember information SOMEHOW, and to do it under their own power. Now, yes, it will get you into trouble, and yes, there are plenty of conversations to be had about accessibility and the fact that not everyone learns by sitting in a room and being lectured at and then having to regurgitate it all from memory with no notes in a final exam, which is why there is a whole thriving field of educational pedagogy and best practices and how to accommodate students with different learning styles and etc. etc. I sometimes see AI framed as "uwu accessibility issue :(" and like... cmon. There are educational professionals who spend their whole lives and careers working out how to shake up the traditional learning format and present material in an engaging way and teach students how to think and write and otherwise be academic and rigorous. And like, if you're voluntarily in this space, then we presume you WANT that instruction! Not to just sit around and whine about how we aren't catering enough to you personally and this means you should get to use the Bullshit Plagiarism Nonsense Machine to never ever think at all!

Now, I will say that the naivete around AI is not only limited to students. I was in a department meeting yesterday where the literal associate dean of the college seemed startled to discover that AI might not be a) totally reliable b) able to totally replace lesson planning and evaluation/grading by an actual human professor (after several faculty members pushed back, shall we say, briskly on the idea that it could). Plenty of people still think it can just magically solve Academia (or /insert field here), and those are not just limited to clueless undergraduates. And yes, undergraduates are clueless in different ways and for different reasons in every era of the world; it is likewise an academic rite of passage. But I still cannot for the life of me understand why you, in ye olde benighted 21st century, would pay tens of thousands of dollars and/or accrue it in debt to go to college, to learn nothing, to whine and blame your professors for "not designing assignments well" (when again, every remotely decent educational professional agonizes for eons about how to do a good job of this for all kinds of students), to insist it is your entitled right to use the Bullshit Plagiarism Nonsense Machine, and then presumably be /shocked pikachu face/ when you don't learn anything and spend your time posting idiot takes on the internet. I mean. The state of critical thinking is /waves hand/ Already So Bad, and the AI craze plays directly into that by fulfilling the insidious fantasy that the hard things in life aren't actually hard and don't have to be learned by patient and careful practice. And that is just. Yeah. C'mon.

(I realize this was a funny/lighthearted ask, but yeah, we can consider this one old man turning to another old man on the park bench and making a joke, and the other old man bellowing YOUTH THESE DAYS!!! and scaring all the pigeons and/or passersby. Ahem.)

[sagechan]

so today I was at an event on campus celebrating Black women's roles in the foundation of democracy in the USA, and one of the guest speakers was giving a really brilliant response that touched specifically on white women's tears as being adverse to Black liberation movements, and I guess that must have struck a nerve with the (white) nursing student sitting directly behind me, because she would not stop muttering and complaining about how long the speaker was talking for, and making disparaging remarks to her classmates sitting next to her. now, I'm getting frustrated, cuz the information up on the stage is fantastic and useful for my own pedagogy—plus, this girl is just plain being a racist fool. so I decide to say something. but, of course, as a college English and Rhetoric instructor on the campus representing the faculty, I'm telling myself, "okay, I should be professional about this."

the script in my head: excuse me, if you're not going to listen and learn something, then you should just leave.

what comes out of my damn mouth: yo you can leave or you can shut the fuck up

[libraryben]

Teaching Trans History

Reading List and Resources

This non-exhaustive reading list is intended to offer practical tools and resources to academics wanting to include more trans history in university-level teaching. It was originally compiled for a 2023 workshop in Teaching Trans History aimed at skillsharing with colleagues in the University of Oxford History Faculty.

'Introductions to Trans History' includes texts written for a very general audience that would work well as an entry point for anyone (including students) who is new to thinking historically about gender. 'Historiography and Historical Methodology' includes review essays that orient scholars to the state of the field in trans history today. 'Trans Studies and Trans Theory' offers a partial snapshot of our sister field of trans studies, including some foundational canonical texts and some that are especially relevant to the relationship between trans studies and trans history. 'Case Studies' includes articles and monographs in trans history, organised in roughly chronological order, many of which we have had previous successful experiences teaching at undergraduate and at master's level across a range of fields, periods, and cultural contexts. 'Pedagogy, Policy, Politics, Experience' includes writing by trans academics about their experiences teaching trans studies and trans history, as well as policy reports about the experiences of trans people in the academy.

Dr Jack Doyle & Dr Emily Rutherford

University of Oxford LGBTQ History Faculty Network

October 2023

[chicago-geniza]

Some guy on archive dot org has been going to town digitizing periodicals in the Polish public domain for the past two weeks, which means I am getting a veritable glut of Stefania content. I got her pedagogy articles, her first professional art history article after finishing her PhD in 1919 from Wianki (though this was not, contrary to popular belief, her first publication as such; during WWI she authored a short piece on Polish-Hungarian relations while living in Budapest). I have an announcement from the screenplay contest Hendrykowska mentioned, where Stef is one of the judges. I also have a spate of antisemitic attacks in the right-wing nationalist press going back much earlier than certain Piłsudskiite nostalgia-pilled scholars might suggest. In the late 20s people are already talking about the WWP being "the most Jewified faculty in Poland" and mentioning her by name, or about "Judeo-formism" and the "socialist-ization of art," putting her name in inverted commas to convey that she's a convert/an assimilated Jew. Then by 1937 we have the likes of Adolf Nowaczyński spelling Jews as "Żydy" instead of "Żydzi" to render Jews grammatical unpersons in a polemic against Stefania and Jelonka

[careermantradotorg]

Top 30 MBA Colleges in India: A Complete Guide for 2024

Pursuing an MBA is a dream for many aspiring business leaders. With India emerging as a global hub for management education, the demand for MBA degrees has skyrocketed. Choosing the right institute can be the key to unlocking immense career opportunities. This guide highlights the Top MBA colleges in India, renowned for their academic excellence, infrastructure, placements, and overall development. If you're aspiring for a management career, this list will serve as your compass.

1. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad

Renowned globally, IIM Ahmedabad consistently tops the list of Top MBA colleges in India. With a strong curriculum and excellent placement record, this institute is a dream destination for many.

2. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bangalore

Known for its industry connections and research-oriented faculty, IIM Bangalore offers an unparalleled learning experience. It's recognized for shaping future leaders.

3. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Calcutta

Offering one of the best business programs in the country, IIM Calcutta focuses on shaping its students into global leaders. Its alumni network is vast and influential.

4. Indian School of Business (ISB), Hyderabad

ISB Hyderabad is a prominent player in the MBA arena with a global focus. It offers a one-year MBA program, attracting professionals from across the world.

5. Xavier School of Management (XLRI), Jamshedpur

XLRI is one of India’s oldest business schools, known for its rigorous programs and exceptional faculty. It specializes in Human Resource Management and Business Management.

6. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Lucknow

As one of the top-tier IIMs, IIM Lucknow is famous for its academic rigor, leadership programs, and exceptional placement rates, making it a top choice among MBA aspirants.

7. Faculty of Management Studies (FMS), Delhi

FMS Delhi is celebrated for its low fees and high ROI (Return on Investment). Known for providing excellent management education at an affordable cost, FMS has a stellar reputation in the industry.

8. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Kozhikode

IIM Kozhikode is famous for its diverse and innovative curriculum. It emphasizes leadership and managerial development, making it one of the Top MBA colleges in India.

9. S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research (SPJIMR), Mumbai

SPJIMR stands out with its unique pedagogy and international exposure. It consistently ranks among the top business schools in India.

10. Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon

Located in the heart of India’s corporate hub, MDI Gurgaon offers outstanding industry interface and strong academic programs, making it a preferred choice for MBA students.

11. Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), Mumbai

NMIMS has grown rapidly, offering high-quality MBA programs. It has a diverse set of specializations and a strong industry connection that ensures excellent placements.

12. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Indore

IIM Indore is known for its holistic approach to management education. It combines academic learning with industry exposure, preparing students for dynamic business challenges.

13. Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai

TISS offers specialized programs in Human Resources Management and Labour Relations, considered one of the best in Asia. It is well-known for its research orientation and social focus.

14. Symbiosis Institute of Business Management (SIBM), Pune

SIBM Pune offers a dynamic MBA program with a strong industry focus. It is well-respected for its quality education and vibrant campus life.

15. Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai

Great Lakes is relatively new but has quickly risen to prominence with its innovative curriculum and global faculty. It focuses on leadership and managerial skill development.

16. Institute of Management Technology (IMT), Ghaziabad

IMT Ghaziabad is known for its marketing and finance programs. With a vast alumni network and strong corporate ties, it is a popular choice among MBA aspirants.

17. Vinod Gupta School of Management (VGSOM), IIT Kharagpur

As the first management school within the IIT system, VGSOM offers a unique blend of technical and managerial education. It is ideal for those looking for a tech-driven management career.

18. Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management (SJMSOM), IIT Bombay

Located in one of India’s premier technical institutes, SJMSOM provides a robust management education grounded in technology and innovation.

19. Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), Delhi

IIFT specializes in international trade and business. It is highly sought after for its niche specialization and impressive placement records.

20. Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies (JBIMS), Mumbai

Often called the ‘CEO Factory’, JBIMS is known for producing top corporate leaders. Its strategic location in Mumbai adds to its industry interface.

21. Department of Management Studies (DMS), IIT Delhi

DMS IIT Delhi is a top-notch institute for those looking to combine technology and management education. It’s highly regarded for its research and consultancy projects.

22. International Management Institute (IMI), Delhi

IMI Delhi is recognized for its academic excellence and strong corporate connections. It offers a diverse MBA program with global exposure.

23. Goa Institute of Management (GIM), Goa

GIM offers an MBA program with a unique focus on sustainability and ethics in business. It is gaining recognition for its innovative curriculum.

24. KJ Somaiya Institute of Management, Mumbai

KJ Somaiya is known for its diverse MBA specializations and strong industry partnerships, particularly in finance and marketing.

25. TA Pai Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal

TAPMI is well-respected for its rigorous academic program and strong placement track record. It has a student-centric approach to education.

26. Loyola Institute of Business Administration (LIBA), Chennai

LIBA is known for its focus on ethics and social responsibility in business. It offers a high-quality MBA program with excellent placement support.

27. Birla Institute of Management Technology (BIMTECH), Greater Noida

BIMTECH is renowned for its diverse MBA programs and strong faculty. Its focus on entrepreneurship and innovation makes it stand out.

28. Symbiosis Centre for Management and Human Resource Development (SCMHRD), Pune

SCMHRD is one of the best institutes for HR and business management in India. Its strong alumni network and excellent placements make it highly sought after.

29. Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), Anand

IRMA offers a unique MBA program focusing on rural management and development. It is ideal for those looking to make an impact in the rural sector.

30. FORE School of Management, Delhi

FORE School of Management is known for its industry-oriented curriculum and strong placement records. It offers a well-rounded MBA program with excellent faculty support.

Conclusion

Selecting the right MBA college can set the course for your entire career. Whether you are aiming for leadership in corporate settings or looking to make an impact in niche sectors like rural management, these Top MBA colleges in India offer diverse and enriching opportunities. As you prepare to embark on this academic journey, consider factors like faculty, infrastructure, industry connections, and ROI when making your choice. The Top MBA colleges in India continue to shape the future of business and leadership, and choosing the right one could be your gateway to success.

[lboogie1906]

Dr. Alain Leroy Locke (September 13, 1885 – June 9, 1954) was a writer, philosopher, educator, and patron of the arts. Distinguished as the first African American Rhodes Scholar, he was the philosophical architect, the acknowledged “Dean” of the Harlem Renaissance.

He was born in Philadelphia to parents Pliny Ishmael Locke and Mary Locke, both of whom were descended from prominent families of free African Americans, he was their only child. His father was the first African American employee of the Postal Service. His mother Mary was a teacher and inspired his passion for education and literature.

He graduated from Central High School, second in his class in the academic institution. He attended the Philadelphia School of Pedagogy.

He graduated from Harvard University with a BA in English and philosophy; he was honored as a member of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and recipient of the Bowdoin Prize. He was the first African American to be selected as a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford. He was denied admission to several colleges. Several American Rhodes Scholars from the South refused to live in the same college or attend events with him. He was admitted to Hertford College, where he studied literature, philosophy, Greek, and Latin. He was part of the Oxford Cosmopolitan Club, contributing to its first publication. He attended the University of Berlin, where he studied philosophy.

He received an assistant professorship in English at Howard University. He became a member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity.

He returned to Harvard to work on his doctoral dissertation, The Problem of Classification in the Theory of Value. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy.

He returned to Howard University as the chair of the department of philosophy. He began teaching the first classes on race relations. After working to gain equal pay for African American and white faculty at the university, he was dismissed in 1925.

Following the appointment of Mordecai W. Johnson, he was reinstated at the university. He returned to philosophy as a topic of his writing until he retired in 1953. Locke Hall is named in his honor. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #phibetasigma

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman

Published: Oct 2, 2023

Note: A version of this article will appear as an invited chapter in the forthcoming volume The Free Inquiry Papers edited by Robert Maranto, Lee Jussim, and Sally Satel.

1. An age of unreason

The liberal enlightenment, humanism, and democracy are under siege. A once-obscure postmodernist worldview, Critical Social Justice (CSJ) [1-3], has escaped the academy and is quickly reshaping our institutions and society at large. Long-standing merit-based practices in science are rapidly being subordinated to practices based on the tenets of CSJ theory [4]. Increasingly, scientists must compete for funding, no longer only on the basis of scientific merit, but also on the basis of how their proposed research will promote the goals of CSJ. As an example, an NIH neurology program requires grant applications to include a “plan for enhancing diverse perspectives” with the goal to “bring about the culture change necessary to address the inequities and systemic biases in biomedical research….” [5] Similarly, funding for fundamental research in chemistry and physics now depends on researchers demonstrating their commitment to “promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence” [6].

In the academy, faculty hiring and administrative appointments are increasingly made on the basis of the candidate’s identity [7-9]. Merit-based admission to schools and universities is being weakened, with standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT being abandoned on “social justice” grounds [10,11]. K–12 is affected as well. Some school districts have stopped giving D and F grades in order to improve “equity” [12]. In math classes, activist teachers claim that getting the right answer and showing your work are white supremacist concepts and are advocating, instead, a supposedly anti-racist CSJ pedagogy [13,14]. Accelerated mathematics programs for gifted students, necessary to prepare them for advanced training and careers in STEM [15], are being dismantled in the name of “social justice” [16-18]. Many school districts have eliminated honors classes altogether in the name of “equity” [19]. The resultant weakening of the workforce has already contributed to the fall of the US from its position as the world leader in science [20].

In the university, faculty and staff are instructed to use Newspeak—neopronouns and other neologisms—in their written and verbal communications for the purpose of “inclusivity” [21,22]. To be avoided are such apparently un-inclusive terms as “strawman,” “brown-bag lunch,” and “picnic” [22–25]. Professional societies and corporations are following suit, proscribing terms such as “field,” “dark times,” “black market,” “double-blind study,” “nursing mother,” “hip-hip hooray,” “smart phone,” “homeless,” and “the French” [26–30].

In biology, an education paper recommends that teachers emphasize the sexual diversity across species in nature, which includes “organisms such as ciliates, algae, and fungi [that] have equal-size gametes (isogamy) and do not therefore have gametic sexes [that is, binary sexes, as mammals do].” This is supposed to promote inclusivity of LGBTQIA2+ students in the classroom [25]. Chemistry education also needs to be reformed, according to the journal Chemical Education, which published a virtual Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) collection of 67 papers exploring such topics as decolonization of the chemistry curriculum, chemistry and racism, and gender and sexual orientation identities in the chemistry classroom [31]. A recent paper in the same journal describes “a special topic class in chemistry on feminism and science as a tool to disrupt the dysconcious racism in STEM,” which explores “the development and interrelationship between quantum mechanics, Marxist materialism, Afro-futurism/pessimism, and postcolonial nationalism.” “To problematize time as a linear social construct,” the paper says, “the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of wave-particle duality was utilized” [32]. No, Deepak Chopra was not a co-author of the paper.

In STEM, prospective faculty are asked to pledge their commitment to the ideology of CSJ and to document their activism in advancing DEI [8,9,33,34]. Medical schools are abolishing long-accepted assessments of competency in order to improve racial parity in residency programs [35]. A pamphlet published by the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health claims that public health anti-obesity campaigns are an example of “fatphobia,” that public health’s “focus on body size is rooted in racism,” that “higher weight is not causal to worse health outcomes," and that “focusing on weight ignores systematic injustices” [36,37]. Under the doctrine of gender-affirming care, adolescents are offered life-changing transgender treatments, often after only perfunctory psychological assessment, despite the poor understanding that medicine currently has on the risks and benefits of these treatments [38–40].

[ Unreason and intolerance. Upper left: Yale students protest “offensive” Halloween costumes (2015). Lower left: Activists burn books by J.K. Rowling (2023). Right: Students at UC Davis disrupt a film viewing by throwing a bag of manure into the room. ]

Free speech itself, the cornerstone of liberal democracy, is under attack. As viewed by CSJ activists, free speech is dangerous, harmful, and equivalent to violence [41]. Adherents of DEI ideology believe that DEI should trump academic freedom [42]. Institutions essential for providing a platform for the marketplace of ideas, information exchange, and debate have largely abandoned their mission in the name of social justice activism. Articles in the press are infused with CSJ ideology [4]. Scientific publishers from Scientific American to the flagship journals Science and Nature have become mouthpieces for CSJ [43–56]. Universities, whose primary mission is education and truth seeking, have become complicit in censorship, scholarship suppression, indoctrination, and intimidation [57–59]. Universities and professional organizations have compromised their mission as seekers and communicators of objective truths by abandoning traditional institutional neutrality in favor of political activism, taking official positions on elections, police reform, abortion, wars, and other social issues [60,61], leaving dissenters out in the cold. Where debate, constructive disagreement, and discussion were once cultivated, conformity and dogmatism, enforced both top-down (by CSJ-infused DEI trainings [62,63]) and bottom-up (by ideologically driven activists [58]), now reign.

On campus, another essential provision of democracy, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no longer guides procedures for resolving conflict. Suspensions and terminations of professors without a hearing in response to offense taken by students, faculty members, or administrators has become commonplace (see, for example, Ref. 64–67). A predictable consequence is that there is now an unprecedented level of self-censorship by students and faculty [57,68,69]. Proposed changes to Title IX regulations will further erode the free speech of students and the protection of due process [70]. 

CSJ adherents accuse dissenters of being indifferent to existing inequalities and historic injustices, of being bigots, of having nefarious motives, and of perpetuating existing power structures. We reject these accusations. We oppose the practices of CSJ because they harm everyone, including those groups they purport to elevate [71-73]. It is precisely because we care about the existing problems in the world and about real social justice that we oppose CSJ.

What we are witnessing today—curriculum “decolonization,” the elimination of honors classes in schools, the ubiquitous war on merit [4], the imposition of political litmus tests for academic positions, Newspeak, the renaming of everything in sight, and on and on—are not isolated excesses perpetrated by a handful of overly zealous but otherwise well-meaning individuals; they are symptoms of a wholesale takeover of our institutions by an illiberal movement that currently has the upper hand. The current situation is not a pendulum that has swung too far and will self-correct [74]; it is a train hurtling full speed toward a cliff. Those of us unwillingly to go over the edge can either jump off—leave academia (or maybe start up alternative institutions)—or fight to get the brakes applied before it is too late. The remainder of this chapter is about the latter course of action.

2. Why we should fight

To put it simply, we should fight because it is the right thing to do. It is not only our duty to the next generation, but an opportunity to pay our debt to the previous generations of dissenters who fought against forces of illiberalism to create the free and prosperous world that we enjoy today [75,76]. By fighting, we, too, can fend off the forces of unreason and restore the values of humanism, liberalism, and The Enlightenment. Inaction and submission will only enable the further spread of illiberalism. The history of past illiberal regimes, such as the USSR and Nazi Germany, provide ample lessons and motivation to stand and fight today. The train is gaining momentum; the longer we wait, the harder it will be to stop it. We must act now, while we still can.

Although there are uncanny parallels with totalitarian regimes of the past [23,77–80], we are still living in a free, democratic society. Despite the advances of illiberal ideology, manifested by the rise of censorship, the spread of cancel culture [23,57,58,81–83], and the proliferation of institutionalized structures (such as DEI bureaucracies) to enforce CSJ ideology, the dissenters of today do not face incarceration in prisons, labor camps, and mental hospitals. Nonetheless, we can learn from history.

In his book To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter [84], Vladimir Bukovsky [85] describes his experiences as a dissident who refused to comply with the Soviets and challenged the regime. Bukovsky describes the apathy and complacency of the majority of the population at that time. People understood the corrupt and inhumane nature of the regime, but they chose to keep their heads down because—as the Russian proverb goes—“No man can splay the stone” (in Russian: плетью обуха не перешибёшь).

Because of this complacency, the economically bankrupt, oppressive, and inhumane Soviet regime lasted as long as it did (70+ years). But it was the actions of dissidents that ultimately catalyzed its downfall. Consider, for example, the impact of the books of Solzhenitsyn, who told the world the truth about the atrocities of the Soviet regime [86]. In addition to meticulously documenting the scale of the atrocities, Solzhenitsyn explained that they came to be, not due to deviations from the party line or shortcomings of its individual leaders, but as the direct result of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

In Bukovsky’s time (the late 1950s to mid-1970s), open dissent was rare. Growing up in the Soviet Union, I [Anna]—as most of my peers—did not even know dissidents existed. It wasn’t until Perestroyka in the late 80s, when I read Solzhenitsyn’s books and learned about Sakharov [87] that I found out. Yet, it is through the actions of the dissidents that the West came to understand the Soviet regime as an “evil empire,” and this understanding propelled the political forces in the West that ultimately decided the outcome of the Cold War. The impact of the dissident movement on the Soviet regime has been illuminated through a series of memoranda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, stolen and published by Bukovsky in his book Judgment in Moscow [88]. The acts of individuals splayed the stone after all.

I [Anna] was born (in the then-Soviet state of Ukraine) into the luckiest generation in the history of the USSR—the generation that witnessed the fall of the Wall when they were still young. We could escape to the free world, live as free people, and build successful and fulfilling careers in the West. Had the regime lasted another 20 years, my generation would have been yet another of the long list of those whose lives were ruined by the Soviet regime. I feel a personal debt to the dissidents of the day. 

Now, it is our turn to be the dissidents and to fight the good fight.

Fighting for what is right is not just the right thing to do; it is empowering. Standing up and speaking your mind is liberating, even exhilarating; while hunkering down in fear, hoping the storm will pass, is a bleak experience. Being honest feels good, while being complicit in lies is dispiriting. Fighting the good fight puts you in control, whereas passive submission leaves you helpless. Whether we ultimately win or lose this fight, those who choose to remain silent will look back and ask themselves why they did not act when they could. As Martin Niemöller wrote after World War II,

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Eventually, this illiberal movement, like those of the past, will come not only for the dissidents, but for the silent bystanders as well (and, eventually, for its own vocal supporters).

There are myriad excuses, as old as the history of totalitarianism and oppression itself, invoked to justify inaction, complacency, and collaboration. Bukovsky [84] enumerates a few of the more familiar: “What can I do alone?”; “I’ll be more effective after I get the promotion”; “It’s not my job; I’m a scientist.” “If I don’t collaborate, someone else will anyway (and I’ll probably do less harm).” These reasons may seem logical, even compelling; however, they are self-deceptions. Not pushing back against bad ideas allows them to spread. Not fighting back against illiberalism allows it to grow. Not standing up for truth permits the lies to flourish. Not confronting the CSJ ideologists permits them to advance. And when they advance, we lose. It is a zero-sum game.

The choice to fight in the face of potential consequences is personal [89] and not an easy one to make. But as you contemplate whether to act or to lay low, consider the importance of truth and integrity in your life. To paraphrase Bari Weiss: Worship truth more than Yale. As she says:

[D]o not lose sight of what is essential. Professional prestige is not essential. Being popular is not essential. Getting your child into an elite preschool is not essential. Doing the right thing is essential. Telling the truth is essential. Protecting your kids is essential. [90]

Sure, no one wants to become a martyr for free speech or experience bullying, ostracism, and professional damage [81,91–93]. Cancel culture is real, but the risks are not what dissenters to totalitarian regimes faced historically or face today—cancel culture does not put you in jail. One still can write a dissenting op-ed without the fear of being stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country, as Solzhenitsyn was for his writings [83]. We still can criticize DEI policies without fear of being put under house arrest, as Sakharov was for his vocal opposition to nuclear weapons and his unwavering defense of human rights [87]. But if we delay, some of the totalitarian nightmares of the past may become a reality. There are already worrying signs of this totalitarian-style repression in America: parents opposing CSJ in schools have been accused of terrorism and investigated by the FBI [94]; a journalist who wrote about collusion between the government and social media was paid a surprise home visit by the Internal Revenue Service [95]; a student who questioned the concept of microaggressions [96] at a mandatory training was expelled and forced to “seek to psychological services” [97]. These incidents in America today are chillingly similar to practices in Russia in the Soviet era, when the KGB routinely investigated dissidents, and dissent from Soviet ideology was considered a psychiatric disorder [84,88]. In the absence of resistance, this illiberal movement, like illiberal movements of the past, will gain ever more power, and we will face ever worse repression and erosion of individual freedom.

Inaction does not guarantee survival, but fighting a successful fight does. The only way to defend yourself against repression by an illiberal ideology is to stop the spread of the ideology.

The dangers of inaction are real, but how much risk one should take must be a personal decision [89]. Above all, it rarely does any good to get fired. Getting fired is playing into their hands. It’s one less enemy in the organization to fight against its ideological capture. Should all the dissidents get fired, the ideology wins. Full stop.

But it’s not hopeless. As we elaborate below, there are ways to maximize the impact of your actions and minimize the chances of negative consequences of resistance.

3. How to fight

Although there is no sure-fire roadmap to solve the current crisis, there are some do’s and don’ts. A recently published handbook, Counter Wokecraft (which we highly recommend), written by an anonymous STEM professor, provides concrete recommendations for staging the resistance [98]. It convincingly explains how small but deliberate actions add up to big change and elaborates on the perils of delaying action. In what follows, we offer our view on how to fight, and we share examples of successful acts of resistance that give us reason for hope. Small contributions add up, so do something rather than nothing.  As Gad Saad writes in The Parasitic Mind:

The battle of ideas knows no boundaries, so there is plenty to do. If you are a student and hear your professors spouting postmodern nonsense or spewing anti-science drivel, challenge them politely and constructively. If you are a graduate and your alma mater is violating its commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, withdraw your donations—and let the school know why. If your Facebook friends are posting comments with which you disagree, engage them and offer an alternative viewpoint.... If you are sitting at your local pub having a conversation about a sensitive topic, do not refrain from speaking your mind. If your politicians are succumbing to suicidal political correctness, vote them out of office. [99]

1. Educate yourself; knowledge is power.

To effectively counter the ideology of CSJ, it is crucial to understand its nature and the tactics it employs. As two-time Nobel Laureate Marie Sklodowska-Curie said:

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so we may fear less.

Although Curie was referring to phenomena of the natural world, the observation applies equally to the world of ideas. By understanding the origins and tenets of CSJ, we can fear less—and fight more effectively.

For me [Anna] and my former compatriots, who were forcibly schooled in Marxist-Leninism and experienced its implementation as Socialism firsthand, it is easy to recognize the current illiberal movement’s philosophical roots [78,79]. We recognize the familiar rhetoric and the Orwellian co-option of the language: the media outlet of the Communist Party, which disseminated its lies, was called Pravda (Правда), which is Russian for “truth”; victims of Red terror were called “enemies of the people” (враги народа); Soviet troops invading other countries were called “liberators” (освободители); and  nuclear weapons were developed with the slogan “nucleus for the cause of peace” (атом—делу мира). We are used to looking behind the facade of nice-sounding words and seeing their real meaning to those in power [100]. It is not hard to see that today’s “Diversity,” “Equity,” and “Inclusion” have about as much in common with the noble concepts of diversity, equality, and inclusion as Orwell's Ministry of Love had to do with love or his Ministry of Plenty had to do with plenty. (A more-fitting operational definition of DEI would be Discrimination, Entitlement, and Intimidation.) This linguistic tactic is used because it works. It has fooled many STEM academics and ordinary citizens and has enabled the illiberal ideology to get its foot in the door [3].

As Counter Wokecraft explains, the tactics CSJ employs to gain power in our institutions include the use of liberal-sounding “crossover words” to shroud the illiberal aims of the movement [98]. The concise essay “DEI: a Trojan Horse for Critical Social Justice in Science” by the same author offers insights into the philosophy that undergirds the CSJ movement and clearly elucidates its aims [3]. For a deeper dive into CSJ, we recommend the book by Pluckrose and Lindsay [1].

2. Use all existing means of resistance, but first and foremost, the official ones.

Mechanisms of resistance are available through existing institutions, even if the institutions themselves are failing to protect their mission [101]. These mechanisms can be exploited to change the institution from within.

Bukovsky describes how their dissident group worked within the legal boundaries of the Soviet regime [84]. He contrasts this approach with anarchism and revolutionary destructivism, which, he argues, lead to outcomes that are worse than the original evils. Bukovsky and his dissident comrades structured their activism and resistance within the framework of the Soviet constitution—which many legitimately considered to be a joke. When allowed to speak in court, Bukovsky framed his defense to emphasize the constitutional rights of Soviet citizens, for example, to peacefully demonstrate. Bukovsky attributes their success to this strategy. As an example of an important victory, he describes how he and his fellow political prisoners managed to resist and ultimately eliminate mandatory “corrective labor” for political prisoners. Following legal protocols, they rolled out a concerted effort of filing official complaints. Although isolated complaints never had any effect (they would be registered, duly processed, and dismissed), by flooding the bureaucratic system with a massive number of such complaints (which each had to be properly registered and responded to), they pushed the system beyond its limits. The sheer number of complaints compelled administrative scrutiny of the prison and its officers. And the prisoners won the fight.

Today, we can work within the system of our universities and professional organizations, even if they have already been ideologically corrupted. We can participate in surveys; communicate our concerns to leadership; nominate candidates committed to liberal principles to committees and leadership; vote against CSJ ideologues; speak up against practices that violate the stated mission of the institution [43,102,103]; publish well-reasoned opinion pieces [4,14,15,23,82,83,102]; and insist that our institutions adhere to their stated institutional (and legal) commitments to free speech and non-discrimination, such as being equal opportunity employers. Counter Wokecraft [98] provides concrete suggestions on how to effectively oppose the advances of the CSJ agenda by simply insisting that standard protocols of decision-making be followed—that is, through formal meetings with organized discussions that adhere to a set agenda, vote by secret ballot, and so on. In short, the existing governance structures and institutional policies can still be utilized to defend and even restore the institutional mission, even when the institution’s workings have been undermined by CSJ activists.

The following success stories illustrate the effectiveness of working within the system.

At the University of Massachusetts, a faculty group fought—and won—against a proposed rewriting of the university mission statement, which would have redefined the purpose of the university as engaging in political and ideological activism, rather than pursuing the truth [104].

Faculty at the University of Chicago succeeded in having departmental statements that violated institutional neutrality (by voicing collective support for specific social and political issues in violation of the University’s Kalven Report [105]) rescinded [106].

Also at the University of Chicago, in response to faculty complaints to the institution’s Title IX coordinator and general counsel, at least seven programs that gave preferences to specific races or sexes in violation of Federal regulations were discontinued [106].

The faculty of the University of Washington voted down a proposal to require DEI statements for all tenure and promotion candidates [107]. As reported to us, an email campaign initiated by a single faculty member was decisive in defeating the proposal.

At the University of North Carolina (UNC), the Board of Trustees adopted [108] the Chicago Free Speech Principles [109] and Kalven Report [105]. The former articulates the university’s commitment to free speech and is considered to be a model policy on this issue; the latter ensures institutional neutrality, prohibiting units of the university from taking stands on moral, political, or ideological issues, unless they directly affect the mission of the institution.

Also at UNC, responding to a faculty petition, the Board of Governors moved to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements from its hiring and promotion process. The mandate states that the university “shall neither solicit nor require an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement” [110].

In California, mathematicians organized a petition that has, so far, blocked the implementation of radical, CSJ-based revisions to the K–12 math curriculum [18]. At the time of publication, the fight is not over; but they’ve won so far.

A new nonprofit, Do No Harm, has been formed to fight against the encroachment of identity politics in medicine [111]. Among their successes, filings with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against two medical schools has resulted in the elimination of race as a requirement for certain scholarships. Scholarships “meant for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, [a] worthy goal, can and should be met without racial discrimination,” writes the organization’s founder [112].

Adverse publicity and mockery, too, can cause Universities, which are sensitive to their public image, to roll back woke policies, as the following examples illustrate.

The administration of MIT reversed its own decision and reinstated the use of standardized tests for admission [113], the elimination of which had been mocked by dissidents [114].

The Stanford University “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” website, which listed 161 verboten expressions, including “beating a dead horse,” “white paper,” “insane,” and even “American,” was taken down after sustained mockery in the press and on social media. The university’s president ultimately disowned the initiative and reaffirmed the university’s commitment to free speech [29].

At the University of Southern California, the interim provost made a clear statement that “the university does not maintain a list of banned or discouraged words” in response to the mockery [115] of an earlier memorandum the university's School of Social Work announcing the cancellation of the word “field” as racist [26,29].

At Texas Tech, the administration announced that it was dropping mandatory DEI statements from the hiring process [116], after details of how these statements influenced hiring decisions had been publicized [9].

These examples illustrate the maxim that sunlight is the best disinfectant [117]. We can use social media and the press to shine a light on the excesses of CSJ to bring about change.

Pressure from state governments can also force universities to change course away from DEI ideology. Facing threats from the state assembly to cut funding, the University of Wisconsin system has announced it will eliminate mandatory DEI statements for job applicants. As we are writing this chapter, the state assembly is also threatening to eliminate funding for administrative positions at UW dedicated to DEI [118].

Arizona has also dealt a blow to DEI ideology. The state’s Board of Regents has mandated that public universities drop the use of DEI statements in hiring. The move was in response to a finding by the Goldwater Institute that DEI statements, which were required in over three-fourths of job postings, were being used “to circumvent the state’s constitutional prohibition against political litmus tests in public educational institutions” [119].

Organizations such as the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have successfully used institutions’ own governing policies and bylaws as well as the law to defend scores of scholars who have been attacked for their extramural speech and threatened with administrative discipline or firing [120,121].

A move is afoot to strengthen universities’ commitment to academic freedom by encouraging them to officially adopt the Chicago Trifecta (the Kalven report, the Chicago Principles, and the Shils report). The “Restoring Academic Freedom” letter [122], which calls on universities to do so, has garnered 1700 signatures so far.

3. Don't play their game: You can’t win.

We are trained to seek compromises and solutions that bring different groups on board; we seek consensus. That is a fine approach under normal circumstances, when all agents are acting in good faith. But we must recognize that we are up against agents who are driven—knowingly or unknowingly—by an ideology whose goal is to take over the institution. Every compromise with them brings them closer to their goal [1,3,74,98,123]. Therefore, we must stand our ground.

A major advance in the spread of illiberalism has been the establishment of DEI bureaucracies in our intuitions to enforce CSJ ideology through policy [3,8,98,124-127]. It is important to understand the power of this system and to distinguish the system from the people. A DEI apparatchik can be a nice, well-meaning individual, who has been fooled by the movement’s deliberately deceptive language [1,98]; a cynical opportunist who seeks power and career advancement; or a True Believer. A DEI administrator may be completely unaware of the philosophical origins of CSJ, whose goals the DEI machine has been installed to implement. But just as a Soviet apparatchik need not have read Das Kapital to have been an agent enforcing conformity to Marxist doctrine, a DEI apparatchik need not have read the works of the critical theorists Gramsci, Derrida, Foucault, Bell, Crenshaw, and Delgado to be implementing CSJ-inspired ideology. But even participants who are naive of the movement’s history, philosophy, or ultimate goals are furthering its aims; they are still cogs in the machine. Do not be fooled by DEI administrators who may naively or deceptively deny that they are advancing CSJ ideology. They are, whether or not they know it or acknowledge it.

The power of the system—the DEI bureaucracy—and its ideological foundation make the motivations of the individual participants irrelevant. The story of Tabia Lee illustrates this point [128]. Lee—a black woman who directed a DEI program at a community college in California—questioned anti-racist and gender orthodoxy, declined to join a “socialist network,” objected to land acknowledgments and Newspeak terms such as “Latinx,” “Filipinx,” and neopronouns, and supported a campus event focused on Jewish inclusion and antisemitism. Lee describes her non-orthodox worldview as follows:

I don’t have ideological or viewpoint fidelity to anyone. I’m looking for what’s going to help people and what will help our students and how we can be better teachers and our best teaching selves. [128]

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

The establishment of the DEI bureaucracy in our institutions represented a tectonic shift from CSJ as a grass-roots movement to CSJ as an official power structure within the university equipped with a massive budget to promote its ideology [124,126,129-132].

A 2021 report by the Heritage Foundation [130], which documented the size of this new bureaucracy, identified 3,000 administrators with DEI responsibilities among the 65 universities they surveyed [124,131]. This number is in addition to the already extensive staff of Federally mandated Title VI, Title IX, and disability offices, who also perform DEI-related tasks. The new diversicrats already outnumber the mandated staffers. For example, the average university examined had 4.2 DEI personnel for every one ADA compliance administrator [124]. Given the sheer number of DEI officials and their generous salaries (one-third of chief diversity officers are paid more than $200,000 annually [132]), it is not surprising that DEI budgets are enormous; for example, in 2021, UC–Berkeley dedicated 41 million dollars to DEI [129].

The DEI bureaucracy is given official status within the university and is empowered to interfere in faculty hiring, to disseminate CSJ ideology by means of mandatory trainings, to infuse the ideology into teaching [10,13,16,25,31], and to curtail academic freedom [42,127]. Khalid and Snyder provide insight into the logic and financial incentives behind the DEI machine:

This attitude was found to be incompatible with the ideology of DEI. When Lee refused to change her worldview to comply with the orthodoxy, she was terminated from her position [128].

The establishment of the DEI bureaucracy in our institutions represented a tectonic shift from CSJ as a grass-roots movement to CSJ as an official power structure within the university equipped with a massive budget to promote its ideology [124,126,129-132].

A 2021 report by the Heritage Foundation [130], which documented the size of this new bureaucracy, identified 3,000 administrators with DEI responsibilities among the 65 universities they surveyed [124,131]. This number is in addition to the already extensive staff of Federally mandated Title VI, Title IX, and disability offices, who also perform DEI-related tasks. The new diversicrats already outnumber the mandated staffers. For example, the average university examined had 4.2 DEI personnel for every one ADA compliance administrator [124]. Given the sheer number of DEI officials and their generous salaries (one-third of chief diversity officers are paid more than $200,000 annually [132]), it is not surprising that DEI budgets are enormous; for example, in 2021, UC–Berkeley dedicated 41 million dollars to DEI [129].

The DEI bureaucracy is given official status within the university and is empowered to interfere in faculty hiring, to disseminate CSJ ideology by means of mandatory trainings, to infuse the ideology into teaching [10,13,16,25,31], and to curtail academic freedom [42,127]. Khalid and Snyder provide insight into the logic and financial incentives behind the DEI machine:

DEI Inc. is a logic, a lingo, and a set of administrative policies and practices. The logic is as follows: Education is a product, students are consumers, and campus diversity is a customer-service issue that needs to be administered from the top down. (“Chief Diversity Officers,” according to an article in Diversity Officer Magazine, “are best defined as ‘change-management specialists.’”) DEI Inc. purveys a safety-and-security model of learning that is highly attuned to harm and that conflates respect for minority students with unwavering affirmation and validation.

Lived experience, the intent–impact gap, microaggressions, trigger warnings, inclusive excellence. You know the language of DEI Inc. when you hear it. It’s a combination of management-consultant buzzwords, social justice slogans, and “therapy speak.” The standard package of DEI Inc. administrative “initiatives” should be familiar too, from antiracism trainings to bias-response teams and mandatory diversity statements for hiring and promotion. [127]

The DEI bureaucracy is a categorical enemy. Don't deceive yourself that you can work with it to accomplish good for your institution [128]. This bureaucracy is founded on ideas that are in direct opposition to the liberal enlightenment and humanism [1,3,4,42,79,99,125–128,133,134]. Their goals are not your goals; consequently, you cannot ally or compromise with them. We must, instead, focus our efforts on stripping the DEI bureaucracy of its power, ideally, ridding the institution of it completely. This will not be an easy fight, but neither is it an impossible dream. State legislatures are already taking action against DEI. At the time of this writing, 35 states have introduced bills that would restrict or ban DEI offices and staff, mandatory DEI training, diversity statements, and/or identity-based preferences for hiring and admissions [135]. Recognizing that such bills could go too far and compromise academic freedom, the Manhattan Institute has drafted model legislation that would abolish DEI bureaucracies on campuses while preserving academic freedom [136]. To date, at least one state, Texas, has enacted legislation based on the Manhattan Institute’s model [137].

Another reason not to attempt to work with the DEI bureaucracy is that CSJ ideology leaves no space for rational dialog. As explained by McWhorter [71], Pincourt [3,98], Pluckrose [1], Saad [99], and others, CSJ is not a rational or empirical worldview, but an ideology whose adherents have accepted a set of unfalsifiable tenets that may not be questioned. Thus, CSJ ideologues are not open to reasoned arguments that contradict their worldview; it is, thus, futile to argue with them. We need, instead, to reason with those of our colleagues who have not yet drunk of the Kool Aid.

Finally, since the goal of CSJ is to take over the institution, small compromises with them ultimately lead to large losses for us. Give CSJ an inch, and it will take a mile. Consider, for starters, the following example, in which the dean of the Duke Divinity School made the mistake of conceding to student activists, which led to ever-increasing demands and personal attacks on the dean herself [138]. “The chickens have come home to roost at Duke’s divinity school,” writes John Staddon. Dean Heath, the dean of the school, fully allied herself with the CSJ agenda, rolled out a variety of DEI initiatives, issued a self-flagellating editorial admitting the “structural sins” of the school, and forced non-conforming faculty to resign. Yet, despite these concessions, the demands of “marginalized groups” only grew stronger, culminating in uncivil acts, such as the disruption of the dean’s state-of-the-school address by “four dissident female students bearing bull-horns and chanting, ‘I am somebody and I won’t be stopped by nobody,’ followed by a rap, a little theatrical performance [of a rude nature].”

Staddon writes:

There is poetic justice in this incident. Despite the dean’s earnest attempts “to provide a welcoming and safe place for students,” even after she designed “a space for the work of Sacred Worth, the LGBTQIA+ student group in the Divinity School”—even after disciplining, and losing—Professor Griffiths [a non-conforming faculty], in spite all this, she has apparently not done enough! The LGBT folk want more, much more, in the form of 15 demands. “We make up an integral part of this community, and yet our needs remain deliberately unheard.”

The demands include:

“To appoint a black trans woman or gender non-conforming theologian” as well as “a tenure-track trans woman theologian” and a “tenure-track queer theologian of color, preferably a black or indigenous person.”

A dissident MIT website, the Babbling Beaver [139], illustrates the same point by a mock resignation statement by MIT’s former President Reif:

You would think giving them a Women’s and Gender Studies Program, hiring six dozen DEI deans and staffers, most of whom couldn’t pass 18.01 [MIT’s introductory math course] if their lives depended on it, and cancelling invited lecturers to appease shouting Twitter mobs would be enough,” lamented the weary lame duck. “But noooo ... The only thing I accomplished by giving in to the incessant demands was encouraging additional demands, each more strident than the last.” [140]

The statement is satire, but the concessions made by the president and the ever-increasing demands were real.

Stories of how CSJ, once it is let in the door, rapidly infiltrates the organization and eventually takes it over are too many to enumerate. We present but one example, where the process has been meticulously documented. The report, spon.sored by the organization Alumni and Donors Unite, explains how CSJ took over University of San Diego “first gradually then suddenly.”

Gradually, over the course of a decade, CSJ-DEI became sown into the university’s fabric through changes in hiring committees and curriculum. Then suddenly in 2020–2021 the administration, outside all normal channels of decision-making, initiated a hostile takeover of USD and adopted a radical woke agenda into nearly all facets of the university’s life. [141]

The devaluation of merit and intellectual honesty in the guise of social justice that we now witness will inevitably lead to the decline of our institutions, if not to their destruction [4]. A case in point is The Evergreen State University, which, in 2017, experienced a notorious CSJ uprising on campus [142]. Since then, the university has suffered a 25% drop in enrollment and has lost 45 faculty through lay-offs and attrition [143].

Learn how to recognize and take on categorical enemies [98]. Remember—it is a zero sum game.

4. Focus on truth, not partisanship. Do not fear verbal attacks.

When you take on CSJ, there is something you will need to come to terms with: you are going to be called names, and your views and beliefs are going to be distorted and misrepresented. These are standard tactics of the CSJ movement. Since the adherents of CSJ have adopted an ideological, rather than a rational, worldview, they cannot rationally defend it; so they use the only tools they have: personal attacks and strawman arguments. They will call you transphobe, racist, misogynist, alt-right, Nazi, etc., no matter what you say or do. They will use deliberate misrepresentation of your expressions to subvert and discredit them [98]. They will use the “Motte and Bailey” trick [144] to derail conversations. Learn about these tactics so that you can anticipate, recognize, and counter them [98]. As Gad Saad explains:

The name calling and accusations are locked and loaded threats, ready to be deployed against you should you dare to question the relevant progressive tenets. Most people are too afraid to be accused of being racist or misogynist, and so they cover in silence.… Don't fall prey to this silencing strategy. Be assured in your principles and stand ready to defend them with the ferocity of a honey badger. [99]

Because you will be attacked no matter what you believe, what you say, or how carefully you say it, there is no point in affirming in your interactions with CSJ ideologues that you are committed to traditional humanistic, liberal values. They don’t care. In her essay “I'm a Progressive, Please Don't Hurt Me,” Sarah Haider calls this practice of hedging “throat-clearing” and explains why it is not effective [145]. She also points out the hidden bigotry of it, that is, the implicit assumption that those on the other side of the aisle are inherently evil. Haider writes:

Before touching on any perspective that I knew to not be kosher among other Leftists, I tended to precede with some version of throat-clearing: “I’m on the left” or “I’ve voted Democrat my whole life.” I told myself that this was a distinction worth insisting on because 1) it was the truth and 2) because it helped frame the discussion properly—making clear that the argument is coming from someone who values what they value. But there was another reason too. My political identity reminders were a plea to be considered fully and charitably, to not be villainized and presumed to be motivated by “hate.” The precursor belief to this, of course, is that actual conservatives should not be taken charitably, are rightfully villainized, and really are motivated by “hate.” But I’m done sputtering indignantly about being mischaracterized as “conservative,” or going out of my way to remind the audience that I really am a good little liberal.

She goes on to explain that throat-clearing is counterproductive because: (1) it doesn’t work, you won't be spared; (2) it is a tax on energy and attention; (3) it is bad for you; and (4) it is bad for the causes you care about.

So we should stop worrying about our group loyalties and focus on our cause. Truth wears no clothes, so do not try to dress it up in partisan attire. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and move on.

It may be tempting to stay out of the fight in order to preserve friendships. It is true that some people you thought of as friends may turn against you—privately or even publicly. It has happened to us, and it hurts. But it also lets you know who your real friends are—those who stick up for you whether they agree with your views or not. And you will find new friends and allies who share your values. These relationships, forged fighting the good fight, will be enduring and empowering.

5. Do not apologize.

We cannot stress this enough. Your apology will be taken as a sign of weakness and will not absolve you—in fact, it will make matters worse. Apologies to the illiberal mob are like drops of blood in the water to a pack of sharks. Additionally, your apology can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, which can come back to haunt you in the event you need to defend yourself legally or in an administrative proceeding. The Academic Freedom Alliance advises: “If you confess to an offense you didn’t commit, or if you concede to a claim or accusation that is factually inaccurate or not truly an offense, the admission can and will be used against you.” [146] Recognize that the CSJ activists on Twitter do not care about your apology; they care about publicly flaying you in order to sow fear among other potential dissenters [147]. Someone claims to have been offended by your speech? Someone claims it caused them pain? Fine, that's their problem [148]. You know what your views are. And your friends do too. Stay on message. 

6. Build a community and a network.

Communities and networks provide moral support and there is safety in numbers. Some groups already exist. The Heterodox Academy (HxA), for example, provides a platform to organize communities (e.g., HxSTEM is a community of STEM faculty) and to connect with colleagues who are open to reasoned debate, as per the HxA statement, which each member is asked to endorse: “I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.” The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) also provides resources and support to those who push back on anti-humanistic policies, especially in schools, universities, and in the medical profession.

Organizations like FIRE and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) provide educational resources, opportunities to network, and—most importantly—protection, including legal representation. Join and support them. Build groups and act as a group—e.g., write an op-ed piece with a group of co-authors. Ten people are harder to cancel than one. Counter Wokecraft describes how to identify the allies among your colleagues and how to build effective resistance at your workplace [98].

Stand up for others. Next time they will do it for you. When you see a colleague being ostracized for what she said, think first, “Which parts of her message do I agree with?” not “Which parts do I disagree with?” If you agree with the main message, say so, and be charitable about imperfect expression. Way too often do we hear colleagues justifying their silence with excuses like “I agree with her in general, but she should have been more careful about how she said this or that.”

Some communities, including mathematicians and psychologists, in response to CSJ takeovers of their professional societies, have simply started new ones [149,150]. Perhaps we need more of these to send a strong message to the old societies that they need to change course. We see evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy; for example, the American Mathematical Society [151] cancelled its CSJ-dominated blog shortly after the establishment of the new Association for Mathematical Research [149], whose apolitical mission is simply to “support  mathematical research and scholarship.”

In 2022, in response to increasing ideological influence and censorship in their profession, behavioral scientists founded the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, dedicated to “open inquiry, civil debate, and rigorous standards” in the field [152]. It publishes the Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, which commits to “free inquiry,” “rigorous standards,” and “intellectual exchange” [152]. Notably, its terms and conditions state that the journal will base retraction decisions strictly on the basis of the widely accepted COPE guidelines [153]; otherwise, the terms and conditions state, “We will never retract a paper in response to social media mobs, open or private letters calling for retraction, denunciation petitions, or the like....” [154]

There is even a new university—The University of Austin (UATX)—established in response to the current crisis in higher education [155]. The message on the UATX webpage—“We are building a university dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth”—makes clear what void in the American academy UATX aspires to fill [156]. That the university received over $100 million in donations and over 3500 inquiries by professors from other institutions within six months of the project’s announcement, makes clear the demand [157].

The success of such new initiatives will inspire more educators and scientists to stand up and defend the key principles of science and education. And it will send a strong message to our leadership. Even if we cannot appeal to their sense of duty, the financial considerations (Go Woke, Go Broke [158]) and the effect of negative publicity of the excesses of CSJ (such as DEI loyalty oaths, “decolonizing” the curriculum, renaming everything, and Newspeak [9,23,24,139]) may provide incentives to straighten out their act.

4. Conclusion

Will we succeed? Will we stop the train before it goes over the cliff? We do not know what will happen if we fight. But we know what will happen if we don’t. The task ahead might look impossible. But remember the USSR. It looked like an unbreakable power, yet in the end it collapsed like a house of cards. The Berlin Wall looked indestructible, yet it came down overnight. Recalling his 20 years’ experience in the gay marriage debate, Jonathan Rauch told us: “I can tell you that the wall of received opinion is sturdy and impenetrable...until it isn't. And that it's the quiet people in the room who are the swing vote.... and please illegitimi non carborundum [159].”

We are not helpless. We have agency and we should not be afraid to exercise it. We should fight not just because it is the right thing to do, but because fighting brings results. If we behave as if we were living in a totalitarian society, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Afterword

A Russian proverb says, “Fear has big eyes” (у страха глаза велики), meaning that people tend to exaggerate danger. Accordingly, it may feel like resisting the mob will inevitably lead to career damage. But this is not the case; the flip side of risk is reward. In recognition of her activism, including her publication of “The Peril of Politicizing Science” [23], which “launched a national conversation among scientists and the general public,” Anna Krylov, co-author of this chapter, was awarded the inaugural Communicator of the Year Award, Sciences and Mathematics, by the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences [160]. In “Victory Lap” [161], Lee Jussim, co-editor of the book in which this article will appear, documents how as a result of his public resistance to a mob attack on a colleague falsely accused of racism, his career enjoyed a variety of benefits including additional conferences invitations, massive positive public support for his activism, national attention to his scholarship, and an appointment to a departmental chair (with commensurate increase in salary), which he was offered because he had demonstrated that he could take the heat.

==

Stop saying "nO oNe iS sAyInG aNy oF tHiS!!" They are. You know they are. Dotted throughout the article are references to sources for quotes and claims. For the list of references, see: References.

Liberalism really is under attack. It's always been under attack from the religous right, but its influence has diminished over time, with society becoming increasingly secular and irreligious, or at least indifferent to religious influence. And principles like the US's First Amendment keep it, at least in theory, from breaching the threshold.

But where the religious attack is on the downswing, the attack from the illiberal left is on the upswing, and both more rapid and more successful, having infiltrated everything from government to science and even knitting clubs. And it hides behind nice-sounding words like "equity" and "diversity," people don't recognize it for what it is, and welcome it inside in a way they don't welcome religious intrusion.

This isn't about left vs right. It's about do we want a liberal society, or do we want a rampantly illiberal, or indeed anti-liberal society?

[shubham-pandey]

Why Indian students choose Russia for MBBS - Top Reasons

The competition to study MBBS in government medical colleges in India is fierce. Owing to the affordability and the quality of education, every aspirant dreams of making it to one of the government colleges. However, such competition is overwhelming for many students and they look for other options.

Russian universities emerge as a viable option for Indian students owing to their affordable tuition fees and world-class education. An MBBS from a Russian university is more cost-effective than an MBBS from a private college in India. 

Indian students choose Russia for MBBS to get affordable world-class education in a conducive academic environment.

Affordability

The high cost of medical education from the private universities in India compels students to explore options outside India. Russian universities emerge as an affordable option for Indian students willing to pursue MBBS.

Russian universities charge somewhere between USD 3500  and USD 7000 per year for MBBS. Besides, the cost of living in not much in Russia. The monthly expenses for students range USD 120 to USD 360 depending upon the lifestyle and the city. Some universities in Russia also have the facility of Indian mess which adds to the comfort of hostels and dorms.   

MBBS in Russia is affordable. Why?

Pursuing MBBS in Russia is affordable for the following reasons:

Higher education in Russia is highly subsidized which brings down the tuition fees and brings it within the range of Indian students. 

Russian universities are transparent in their admission process and pricing of their medical degree programs. It ensures that students do not have to pay overhead charges like capitation fees or donations.

The cost of living in Russia is not high which brings down the hostel and mess charges. Living in Russia for six years of medical program is thus not costly. 

Quality of Education

Medical education in Russia is built upon a strong tradition of medicine and healthcare in Russia. Russian universities boast of innovative pedagogy and latest curriculum. They prepare students to take on the challenges of healthcare industry with their high-standard of instruction.

Russian medical schools boast of a conducive research environment which attracts top faculty. Advanced simulation facilities, well-equipped classroom, and well-resourced libraries contribute to the quality of education in Russian universities.

Recognition from leading international and regional organizations plays a huge role in maintaining and improving the quality of education. It earns them global respect. Russian universities are recognized by the World Health Organization and find their place in the World Directory of Medical Schools (WDOMS). National Medical Commission of India recognizes medical programs taught in Russian universities.

Russian medical education system balances theoretical and practical learning. It maintains the rigour of its programs by focusing on clinical partnerships, laboratory sessions, internships, and simulation exercises. 

Welcoming Environment

Russian universities are known for their inclusive culture. It is easy for medical students from India to adapt to the new environment. Universities in Russia offer language courses, and organize various events for adaptation and cultural exchange. 

Doing an MBBS from Russia offers many advantages. The cost is lower than most European countries and private colleges in India. The Russian universities offer state-of-the-art infrastructure besides world-class teaching and clinical training.

.

Thank you for reading this article. We hope you found it insightful and engaging. For more exciting and informative content, be sure to follow us. Stay tuned for more valuable updates and knowledge!

[whentherewerebicycles]

morning with the pups. I have a headache from crying but I bought myself a small treat (orange scone from panera) and managed to get some good work done this morning. I will be honest I feel Bad still but am trying to ground myself so I don’t spiral off into the deep despair again.

here are five small positive things:

I am being actively befriended by this very gruff middle-aged women’s studies faculty member who was on my search committee. I thought she hated me for the entire Zoom interview and the first seven hours of the campus visit but then in the last hour of the visit it suddenly became apparent that she liked me a great deal and just has a very brusque no-nonsense demeanor. we have been emailing back and forth all morning about this faculty pedagogy fellowship she’s leading and I think we are going to co-teach a couple workshops together. also we’re going to start going on walks together because we live so close. it’s nice to be befriended! and it’s nice to think about work as a place where I could build more friendships, especially with people who are there for the long haul.

my best friend lives so close to me now 😭 it was nice to break up the crying jags last night by going over to see her.

I’m genuinely excited to be an aunt. there is a lot of pain around it too and it is going to take some time to work through that but it will be so nice to have a baby in the family. also I am requesting nicely of the universe that if my brother & sister-in-law MUST have a baby before I do, please let the baby to be born on my birthday so we will have a special aunt/niece or nephew bond forever. I do not think this is too much to ask. ugh my heart hurts a lot but I am being brave about it.

last year I wrote a long letter of rec for my old boss/beloved grad advisor for this major mentoring and leadership award she was up for. she won the award and I guess they sent her the file with the letters attached. anyway she sent me a box of woolf & vita sackville-west books, a beautiful handmade glass vase, and a long letter where she said my rec letter made her cry and cry. it was really nice to hear from her—she’s been dealing with really scary long covid health issues since early 2020 and there was a period of time where she was in and out of the hospital so often with such serious issues I thought she might die. she is doing better now though and she says she’s retiring this year, which will be a huge loss to the university but I hope good for her. idk I was happy to hear from her and it was nice to get a surprise package of books (with more on the way, apparently).

oh friends. to quote that tumblr meme from the other day, they should invent a way out that isn’t through. I just don’t want to do the soul-work of trying to break down this grief and metabolize it and integrate it into my sense of self all over again. I’m just sad, you know? I’m sad and I’m tired of feeling sad, I want to feel otherwise, but it’s exhausting to think about clawing my way through these feelings again. I want to be on the other side of this experience and I thought I was there but I see now that I’m not, or maybe that the grief and painful agonizing uncertainty about future losses is going to keep surging back every time something reopens the wound. I feel like I’ve spent the past seven weeks swimming so hard for shore, and I’d finally managed to haul my exhausted self up onto the beach only for a massive tidal wave to crash down over me and pull me back out to sea. and I know it is just the start. liz will be pregnant soon and my SIL will have the baby and people in my social circles will continue to post their pregnancy announcements online and ugh. ugh. I just have this hugely selfish wish that everyone would hold off for like six more months so I could crawl a little further inland before the next wave hits. this is not a positive thing from the day but I can’t quite wrangle myself into feeling gratitude for all the good things in my life today. I think I’m just going to be treading water for a while.

[revlyncox]

Love, Liberation, and New Visions: Wisdom from bell hooks

Love is more of a practice than a sentiment. This sermon was offered to The Unitarian Society in East Brunswick on February 11, 2024.

Love is an important practice for Unitarian Universalists. Indeed, love is at the center of the way UU values are described in the proposed revision to Article II of the UUA bylaws. As Valentine’s Day approaches, and we are bombarded with images of romantic love that may or may not be healthy, this is a good time to re-orient ourselves to our deepest values; we remind ourselves about what love means in concrete terms. 

A few years ago, the world lost one of its great sages who wrote about love. The author, feminist, poet, professor, and social activist known to her readers as bell hooks died in December of 2021 at the age of 69. She used her great-grandmother’s name as a pen name. She would write it in all lower case, and said that was so readers would focus on (quote) the “substance of books, not who I am.”

As an author and an academic, bell hooks was successful and influential. She taught at various universities such as Stanford, Yale, and City College of New York before returning home to Kentucky to join the faculty of Berea College in 2004, where she was a Distinguished Professor in Residence in Appalachian Studies. 

With over 30 published books on topics ranging from racism to pedagogy to a culture of place, there is a lot we can learn from bell hooks, yet in honor of the upcoming holiday and our exploration of love in the proposed Article II, concentrating on her book All About Love: New Visions seems the logical place to begin. Written in 1999 and published in 2000, this was her first in a series about love that also included “Communion,” “The Will to Change,” and “Salvation.” While the book All About Love does address romantic love, hooks makes the specific point that romance isn’t the only or the most important kind of love, and that all love is better understood as a practice rather than a sentiment. 

In practicing a love ethic, hooks said that love is best understood as a verb. Inspired by M. Scott Peck and The Road Less Traveled, hooks advocated for clear, operational definitions of love. She wrote, “To truly love, we must learn to mix various ingredients–care, affection, recognition, respect, commitment, and trust, as well as honest and open communication” (From “Chapter One: Clarity: Give Love Words”). We might be surprised that, as a poet, hooks was less caught up in creating metaphors and images that described the inner experience of feeling affection than she was fierce in insisting that we can all learn how to love well. Yet, as a poet, she knew that words need to have meaning in the living world. 

Dr. Takiyah Nur Amin made the point in this week’s Braver/Wiser devotional newsletter that Unitarian Universalism is a lived faith. Our actions matter. She also talked about the theological importance of Black Unitarian Universalist history, because much of what our Black UU ancestors have to teach is written in their lives rather than in essays. She writes:

If you’re seeking sacred Black “text” in our tradition, you have to examine the way our Black ancestors lived. You have to seek out the Black folks who were in Unitarian and Universalist or UU congregations, and the work that they were doing in community—whether it was suffrage, or trying to educate Black children, or their working towards social action or civil access. Our “text” is embodied in the lives of people like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Joseph Jordan, David Eaton, and countless others.

(Dr. Amin continues)

One of the things I love about this tradition is that our faith is covenantal and not confessional—meaning that to some degree, our tradition cares little about what you stand up and say you believe. The evidence of your Unitarian Universalism is embodied in the depth of your relationships: how do you live in relationship to self and other? (I don't just mean human other: to the plants, to the animals, to the stars…) The proof is in the pudding, for UUs. It’s not about what you have to say. How are you living?

I encourage you to read Dr. Amin’s whole reflection. How we live means how we show up for our values in the public square, and how we treat the people around us, and how we steward the resources with which we have been entrusted, and how we commit to growing as people. It’s all love. 

Here at TUS, one of the ways we practice love is by adhering to the right relations covenant. This document is on display in the hall, and I’ll read it to you:

Right Relations Covenant

As members and friends of this Unitarian Universalist congregation, we affirm that our community is founded on openness, trust, respect, and love. In our time together–in meetings and conversations and worship and work–we covenant with one another to freely explore our values and honor our diversity as a source of communal strength. Therefore, I will:

accept responsibility for my individual acts and interactions;

in all encounters, speak for myself, from my own experience;

allow others to speak for themselves;

listen with respect and resilience;

not criticize the views of others or attempt to pressure or coerce others;

not interrupt–except to indicate that I cannot hear;

participate within the time frames suggested by the facilitator;

communicate with kindness and clarity in service of justice and peace in our community

Love is one of the values named right in the first sentence of the Right Relations Covenant. Love is operationalized, it’s about the ways we behave, and the ways we demonstrate respect. One of the things I notice about this covenant is that it requires us to slow down. We allow others to speak for themselves; that takes time. We listen with respect and resilience; that takes time. Deep and healthy relationships require an investment of the gift of time. 

Love, in a community setting, asks us to communicate about our perspectives, needs and wants; and also asks us to recognize the perspectives, needs, and wants of others. With kindness and consideration, we understand that our own perspective does not equal a demand that all operations be geared toward making us comfortable at the expense of others’ ability to participate. Love calls us to show up in service to others, to express appreciation, to look carefully for the pieces that are missing that would help us create a place where all can, as bell hooks says, “live fully and well.” 

Love makes room for repair. One of the things that sets a covenant apart from a list of rules is that it stretches to accommodate our human-ness. People make mistakes. A covenant should be constructed to take this into account, and to invite people back into relationship as we acknowledge our mistakes and work toward making amends. In this morning’s story, bell hooks (in the voice of Girlpie) reminds us that “there is no all the time right. But all the time any hurt can be healed. All wrongs forgiven. And all the world made peace again.”

We come together in community from a variety of backgrounds, bringing all kinds of experiences and heavy emotions from other parts of our lives; of course we will sometimes make mistakes and have conflicts. Our brushes with misunderstanding, when we navigate them skillfully, can be the sandpaper that softens our sharp corners and helps us to smooth out the pathways for forward movement. 

This is sharply different from how many of us were raised. There are plenty of settings without room for forgiveness or repair. We might say that these are places without grace, though I know that can be a tricky word. There are families where perfection, or at least a convincing illusion of perfection, is expected at all times, and failure to produce that perfection results in isolation and rejection. There are cultural expectations on some of us to be right, and where being right is more important than being collaborative. 

Switching gears to a practice of love in which we can discuss our differences honestly is a profound paradigm shift for many people. It is disconcerting to be asked to acknowledge conflict or hurts if our experience is that these conversations lead only to punishment and rejection rather than to a deeper relationship that comes from mutual understanding. If our previous experience is that discomfort is a one-way ticket to exclusion, the discomfort necessary in hearing other perspectives, in admitting that we don’t know everything, in accepting responsibility–all of that discomfort is hard to tolerate if we have been taught that discomfort and danger are the same thing. The active, flexible, living practice of love is necessary to create the spaces where we can be bold, authentic, and caring. 

This brings me to another point raised in All About Love, which is that the authentic practice of love is congruent with liberation. The true practice of love cannot coexist with abuse or with systems of domination. In the contrast I made just now between the loving community and the settings where no mistakes are tolerated, one of the ingredients that gets in the way of love is fear. As hooks writes in Chapter Six:

“Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination. It promotes the desire for separation, the desire not to be known. When we are taught that safety lies always with sameness, then difference, of any kind, will appear as a threat. When we choose to love we choose to move against fear–against alienation and separation. The choice to love is a choice to connect–to find ourselves in the other.”

As an antidote to fear, hooks calls us to choose to be known, to choose to be our whole selves and to embrace the practice of other people being their whole selves, different from us. This is what we need to cultivate hope and to overcome the nihilism of isolation, despair, and fear. She quotes Cornel West, who says:

“Nihilism is not overcome by arguments or analyses, it is tamed by love and care. Any disease of the soul must be conquered by a turning of one’s soul. This turning is done through one’s own affirmation of one’s worth–an affirmation fueled by the concern of others.” (Quoted in All About Love, Chapter Six)

Cornel West is also known for reminding us that “justice is what love looks like in public.” For both West and hooks, love is a practice in our personal relationships and in our societal structures. Listen to West here, talking about “affirmation of one’s worth.” This is Humanist language, ready to unleash the potential of the inherent worth and dignity of every person, which necessarily includes dismantling the structures that dehumanize. West and hooks agree that making that turn is fueled by active care and concern, by practices of nurture and affirmation and support. The project of caring for one another and the project of humanizing the spaces we inhabit and the project of cultivating justice and mercy in the public sphere are all the same project. They are all aspects of love. 

I want to back up a little bit and talk about liberation, because it’s not a framework that everyone is used to. Liberation is not single-issue based, and it is not about more powerful people making good things happen on behalf of less powerful people. Liberation is a vision for a different way of being. Putting this in love terms, bell hooks says, “A love ethic presupposes that everyone has the right to be free, to live fully and well.” 

Liberation requires an assumption of agency, particularly the agency of people who are most impacted by oppression. Black liberation theologians like James Cone and Latin American liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutiérrez are also illuminating here. In liberation theology movements, our deepest sources of hope and inspiration are not separate from the world, but are present with us in the struggle for liberation. Liberation means freedom from oppression, living into a world that practices the inherent worth and dignity of every person, moving toward economic justice and collective concern for collective well-being. 

Liberation is a vision in which all of us need all of us. Our thriving is connected. Liberation is not about benefactors or saviors, but about people acting together for the collective good, because none of us are truly self-sufficient. Put another way, liberation is about right relationship, at every scale of relationship. And so, full circle, liberation is about love. When we behave in our relationships in a way that brings about mutual care and shared thriving, that is the love in operational terms that bell hooks spoke of. 

Liberation is a vision, it is a practice we can create on a small scale, even as we acknowledge that the larger society is not yet free. According to bell hooks, systemic oppression, accepted in the larger culture, is a major obstacle to our practice of true love. In All About Love, she explores the obstacles of patriarchy; gender roles and expectations that prevent people from being honest with others and themselves; norms of systemic oppression that turn what could be mutually caring relationships into power struggles. In other writing, she explores how racism gets in the way of relationships and in the way of the feminist movement. Systems of oppression overlap and interlock. Every aspect of a worldview that diminishes the agency, dignity, and worth of some for the benefit of others gets in the way of the practice of love. And practicing love in defiance of those systems–being authentic and demonstrating care and cultivating courage in relationships–the practice of love helps dismantle oppression. 

We cannot practice a love ethic without letting go of racism, patriarchy, classism, wealth inequality, xenophobia, and other oppressions. “Awakening to love can happen only as we let go of our obsession with power and domination,” writes bell hooks. She goes on to say, “To bring a love ethic to every dimension of our lives, our society would need to embrace change.”

Embracing change is, of course, difficult. The pandemic has invited us into a period of profound change, and it’s hard. Our society has the opportunity to improve building requirements for clean air, to normalize masking, to increase access to paid sick leave and to quality health care. We know that no one person’s health is an isolated phenomenon; what happens to one of us affects all of us. Pretending that everything is back to normal is more tempting than making the societal changes we need to take care of each other. 

Out of love, we advocate as best we can in the public square, and we remain true to our capacity to change in the service of love in our own environments. As we as a congregation live into being a hybrid community–a place where people can remain connected even if their disabilities or their caregiving responsibilities make it hard to travel on Sundays–we are going to remember again that change is hard. Practicing welcome and inclusion is hard. Demonstrating our values in the way we do things, even if it’s not familiar or comfortable, is hard. Again, if you are used to comfort being the same as safety, it may not feel like love to do the things that are unfamiliar so that we can be inclusive and flexible. Love asks us to change so that all of us can live fully and well. 

Fear gets in the way of love, and practicing love gives us the courage to overcome fear. Choosing love means choosing authenticity, choosing the possibility of accountability and forgiveness, choosing collective wellbeing instead of power and domination, choosing mutual thriving instead of an ethic of control. Choosing love means choosing connection. It is not easy, and we are capable of doing hard things. Choosing love means we will not be doing hard things alone.

May it be so.