A bunch of us had a contentious discussion the other day about institutional neutrality, apropos of my then-upcoming talk about it at the Heterodox Academy conference. One topic that came up was how institutional neutrality relates to curricular decisions. Is there an institutionally neutral way of deciding, say, whether a given topic or discipline merits inclusion within the curriculum of a given institution of higher education? Or a neutral way of deciding whether a program, department, division, school, or university itself ought to set aside the resources to make something a formal subject of study? Since not everything can be studied, decisions have to be made about what gets included and what doesn’t. Can those decisions be made “neutrally”? Continue reading
Getting in the Way
“…Jesus did get in the way of empire…”
–Mary Anne Grady Flores, Ithaca Catholic Workers Movement
As I’ve mentioned here a few times (May 26, May 28, July 1), I support the direct-action activist effort to block weapons shipments from the United States to Israel. These shipments conscript our complicity in Israeli aggression, occupation, and war crimes, and also conscript (and are embedded in) civilian commercial networks for military purposes. They turn all of us into accomplices of and human shields for atrocity, a status that I think we’re obligated to resist and refuse.
Continue readingBlack Plagiarism Matters
One of the biggest higher ed stories out there right now is the Jason Arday plagiarism case. The New York Times has run two articles on it in the last two days, the Guardian is running with it, the Times of London is pushing it, and then there’s Tech Times, Times Higher Education, The Telegraph and the BBC. From a more ideologically astringent angle, there’s Bari Weiss’s ever-impartial Free Press, some sermonizing at The Wall Street Journal, and some tooth-gnashing at Daily Caller. Obviously, you can count on the white nationalists to have weighed in. This is their chance to shine.
Continue readingLike a Surgeon
Back in February 2025, I wrote a post here in which I took issue with the trend among physicians of objecting to the use of the word “provider” for physician. Physicians object to that term because they find the “provider” terminology disrespectful and status-diminishing, but my claim was that the objection is itself just an expression of physicians’ narcissism, elitism, and political naivete. Like it or not, physicians are providers and have to get used to being described as team players in a joint enterprise rather than as solo practitioners engaged in some quasi-Romantic quest.
Continue reading“Iran’s Fractured Leadership”
I wrote the post below the line back in April, but got pulled into other things, and never posted it. But I feel pretty vindicated: since late March, the Times’s narrative has turned 180 degrees. In March, they were quoting officials quite sure that Iran’s leadership was too “fractured” to act in a unified way. By July 29, the narrative became: “Trump Encounters a More Determined Iran as War Widens.” By August 1, it was: “In Iran, the U.S. Appears Headed for Strategic Defeat, Allies Fear.”
Good call, NYT, but how the fuck did that happen? How did Iran go from being all fractured and confused to achieving victory over the supposedly unified and all-powerful United States in four months? One possibility is that though “fractured,” Iran had the capacity to heal its “fractures” pretty fast. The other is that Iran was never all that fractured in the first place. In the first case, we’ve gotten no account from the Times of the transition from the one thing to the other; in the other, we’ve gotten no acknowledgement of its false assessment of Iranian dysfunction. Either way, the question arises: how much do these journalistic “experts” really know, anyway? To the extent that they know anything, how much of their knowledge is ultimately neutralized by the desire to generate nationalist propaganda? Continue reading
Port Elizabeth 4 On Trial (CANCELED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE)
I‘VE JUST GOTTEN WORD THAT THE COURT HAS, WITH LESS THAN 24 HOURS’ NOTICE, CANCELED TOMORROW’S TRIAL FOR THE SECOND TIME. APPARENTLY, A JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR COULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TOMORROW. THERE IS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO RE-SCHEDULED DATE.
–Irfan Khawaja, August 4, 6 pm.
Port Elizabeth 4 Face Trial for Blocking the Shipment of Weapons to Israel’s Genocide
Press Contacts: Mary Anne Grady Flores, gradyflores08@gmail.com (607)-280-8797
Haqq Sankara, haqqsankara@tuta.com (interviews available)
August 5; press conference: 9:30 am; trial scheduled to begin 10 am (CANCELED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE)
1 Police Plaza
Elizabeth Municipal Court
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201
July 30th. Four activists known as the Port Elizabeth 4, face trial on Wednesday, August 5th at 10 am at 1 Police Plaza, Elizabeth, NJ (press conference at 9:30 am) for blocking the main roadway to the Port of Elizabeth on October 3, 2025. They were part of an autonomous coalition of 100 protestors who stopped trucks delivering military cargo to the Port of Elizabeth bound for Israel on the Maersk Sentosa vessel. By August 5th, the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza will have gone on for 1,028 days, beyond three years.
Continue readingInstitutional Neutrality, Coeducation, and History
Since my first post here on institutional neutrality in 2025, Heterodox Academy has, predictably, re-affirmed its commitment to the doctrine by way of the same tired “arguments” for it, and done its fair share of bragging about the latest institutions to have signed on to it. For all their talk about “viewpoint diversity” and the burdens of rational discourse, the defenders of institutional neutrality seem pretty oblivious to the arguments that have been made against it. I haven’t, for instance, seen any serious attempts to deal with the complicity-based objections I’ve raised to it over the last year. I’ll take that as my cue to deploy yet another of the (literally) dozens of counter-examples I have to institutional neutrality, if only for the fun of piling them up. Continue reading
Unfortunate Sons
What’s remarkable here is the total lack of self-awareness with which these people will hold a graduation ceremony for soldiers (officers) in a public park, then rationalize the bombing of schools, hospitals, bridges, power plants, and crowds of starving civilians by claiming that the presumptive presence of n “terrorists” or “militants” at those locations makes it all OK. Wouldn’t the same logic rationalize blowing up everyone in the park pictured here, including all of the complacent but supportive civilians? What complaint could they offer if someone did here what was done at Old Dominion University?
Continue readingA(nother) Reductio for Institutional Neutrality
And a challenge to its defenders
Imagine a university whose administration passes what it takes to be a procedurally neutral rule–a “time, manner, place” restriction–prohibiting all protests on campus that take place either on grass or on thoroughfares. Protests inside university buildings are prohibited as well. Protests on grass, admin says, damage the grass, and protests on thoroughfares are a traffic hazard. Obviously, protests inside university buildings are too disruptive of university business to be permitted. All neutral considerations.
Now suppose that 99% of campus consists either of grass, thoroughfares, or buildings. It follows that large scale protests will be made impossible on such a campus.
Continue readingDHS Is Systematically Lying to You
People sometimes claim to be unable to decide between the claims of, say, DHS and migrant defense activists. Faced with conflicting stories, people sometimes retreat into a kind of Pyrrhonian skepticism: each side is incompatible with the other, they’ll say, but neither side’s claims can easily be rejected. So we’re left with an undecidable clash of equal and opposite positions.
What to do? The original Pyrrhonian skeptics believed that tranquility was to be sought in the undecidable clash of such equal and opposite claims.* So they lived their lives–or tried to–without having any settled beliefs at all. If belief leads to conflict (they thought), non-belief eliminates it, producing the calm equanimity of the perpetually uncommitted. I sometimes wonder whether this is the guiding ethos of our news media and its modal consumer. If “mental health” means tranquility, and tranquility demands perpetual agnosticism, maybe it’s safer (people seem to be reasoning) to give equal credence to every claim, even if the resulting tranquility is purchased at the price of cognitive paralysis.
Continue reading
Policy of Truth 