Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterheater | Hacker News Reader

Look into the difficulties faced by the University of Austin [1] (not the University of Texas at Austin).

This is a project which explicitly seems to be pushing back against the current toxic academic environment, yet a major issue they are encountering seems to be degree accreditation. To get "recognized" these days, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) [2] will need to agree that your school teaches things correctly. Of course, the AAUP is responsible for the current toxic academic environment, so it's a catch-22.

Zuck University almost certainly will be fully aligned with the AAUP.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin

[2] https://www.aaup.org/

View on HN

U of Austin is having difficulty because it's defined from the jump as a right-wing institution.

Do you think a university defined from the jump as a left-wing institution would face similar difficulties?

One of the founding tenets of U of Austin is noted as being declared that they would not factor race, gender, or class into admissions because they "stand(s) firmly against that sort of discrimination". I’m amused, but not surprised, that in the minds of some that’s a conservative idea.

I think any institution founded for a political agenda (vs. an educational one) would likely be seen as a boondoggle, yes. And I think that's the correct viewpoint.

I'm honestly interested in what defines them as "right wing". All I'm seeing is media describe them as "anti-woke" and "anti-cancel culture".

It's mostly the association of the founding people, like being announced by Bari Weiss, and what their press releases look like.

Bari Weiss isn't right wing though, more like left-leaning (but pro Israel)

Belief in free speeh and other traditional values of academic inquiry is considered right wing at best, harmful at worst.

Cancel culture is just a term for "if you say something terrible, there may be consequences." Being opposed to consequences for saying or doing terrible things is, apparently, a key tenet of the American right.

When someone uses the term "anti-woke," what they are signaling is an opposition to things like fairness, awareness of systemic racism and sexism, and the ability of LGBTQ folks to live openly without fear. As with the prior paragraph, though, opposition to these things is a key position of the American Republican party.

Q.E.D.

The Q.E.D. really seals the deal for me. I don’t know anyone outside of high school who still writes online like that. To be honest though, it’s a pretty good indicator, along with the immediate onslaught of *isms, that your perspectives are sufficiently crystallized that no amount of discussion here will change your views. This kind of energy does exceptionally well on reddit, are you familiar?

Excellent job completely ignoring the substance of my comment because, apparently, you're triggered by latin abbreviations.

I wish every self-righteous chode ended their arguments with Q.E.D., it would save so much time.

Funny you should mention "systemic sexism" when 60% of college students are women. If there's systemic sexism in the academic environment, it's against boys and young men.

Curious take. When it's noted that 90% of people in tech are men, it's often said that it just isn't in women's nature to pursue work in tech; or perhaps they just don't like taking the risks that men do. Is it not in men's nature to pursue education, or is it merely not risky enough?

And supposing that 60/40 split is evidence of systemic sexism towards men, what do you make of the 40/60 split in the opposite direction when you look at tenured professors?

> what do you make of the 40/60 split in the opposite direction when you look at tenured professors?

A legacy of systemic sexism from the time when those tenured professors were in school.

The split is 50/50 among all professors.

> Is it not in men's nature to pursue education

School is a poor fit for boys' nature (to the point that boys' nature is defined as a disease to be medicated). Perhaps it's time to consider that the system is poorly designed, and expecting children to sit still for hours at a time is unwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com