The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself.
Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?
The revolution on college campuses, which seeks to eradicate individuals and ideas that are considered unsavory, constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left. Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered. Similar eruptions have happened all over the country.
What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.
The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.
The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.
Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.
Science is imperfect: It is slow and methodical, and it makes errors. But it does work. We have microchips, airplanes and streetlights to show for it.
In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”
Despite the benevolent-sounding label, the equity movement is a highly virulent social pathogen, an autoimmune disease of the academy. Diversity offices, the very places that were supposed to address bigotry and harassment, have been weaponized and repurposed to catch and cull all who disagree. And the attack on STEM is no accident. Once scientists are silenced, narratives can be fully unhooked from any expectation that they be put to the test of evidence. Last month, Evergreen made it clear that they wanted two of its scientists gone—my husband, Bret Weinstein, and me, despite our stellar reputations with the students they claimed to be protecting. First, they came for the biologists . . .
Science has sometimes been used to rationalize both atrocity and inaction in its face. But conflating science with its abuse has become a favorite trope of extremists on the left. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and not, dare I say, very logical.
Science creates space for the free exchange of ideas, for discovery, for progress. What has postmodernism done for you lately?
Ms. Heying is a former biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.
~ Response ~
Shutter Evergreen State
To comprehensively understand the future direction of Higher Education in America, one must go beyond the issue of free speech and dive deeply into the underlying political and ideological dynamics driving Higher Education today.
Heather E. Heying’s brilliantly articulate and well written essay [Wall Street Journal: “First, They Came for the Biologists –The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself”] is a must read for all citizens who care about higher education, science and a society governed by the mind and reasoned policy rather than by racist mobs.
Tragically, today there is no evidence that American colleges and universities can right themselves from within. Increasingly, it has become clear that the forces needed to return colleges and universities to their formerly highly valued role in delivering enlightenment, knowledge, and critical thinking must come from elsewhere.
Although written for a national audience, Heather E. Heying’s article — along with a plethora of other pieces — has local implications. It has become clear that Evergreen State College has gone over the edge and represents a clear and present danger to the citizens of the State of Washington as well as the rest of the nation.
Will Washington’s Democratic Governor, Jay Robert Inslee, accept personal responsibility and shutter Evergreen State? Or, should he consider another line of work? ~ Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.
The main article, First, They Came for the Biologists — was written by Heather Heying for the Wall Street Journal ~ October 2, 2017.
The response to her article is by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., a frequent contributor to the pages of the Federal Observer.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml