I always thought gender studies would be really interesting if it allowed more perspectives. What parts of the differences between men and women are nature, and which ones really *are* nurture? How much of gender arises from sex? What about the ways society and stereotyping disadvantages *men*? I've heard endlessly about body image, the second shift, and 'gray rape' and nothing about the draft or custody or divorce battles.
Not that I expect our current progressive academics to address these questions, but they do exist.
If an entire academic field is dominated (a few brave scholars and substack posts notwithstanding) by a political consensus that vigorously polices internal dissent and sits far outside the views of most people in society, why is outside political pressure illegitimate? If biology departments across the country were dominated by racists of the most base, skull-measuring kind, would you still oppose political pressure on them to reform?
Put another way: If almost an entire academic field was dominated by an ideological stance that is hostile to the views of most of the society which supports that field with their tax dollars, why is outside political pressure illegitimate?
Will Whitman, Your argument treats universities as institutions whose primary obligation is to represent the prevailing views of their constituents rather than as institutions designed to pursue knowledge through disciplinary methods. Society invests in knowledge institutions precisely because those institutions can discover things that society does not yet know or believe. The very value of scholarship lies in its capacity to challenge, refine, and sometimes overturn prevailing assumptions. Why would you expect scholarship in gender studies to mirror "the views of most of the society"?? Gender studies may very well need to reform, but reform should be rooted in methodological rigor, not mirroring people's viewpoints.
I agree that there is value in serious scholarship which refines, challenges, and sometimes overturns prevailing assumptions in its search for truth. Yet surly you are aware of the professors who have resigned or taken early retirement to then speak out on the weighty leftward slant of higher education today. Others, and not recently, have mentioned the insularity of Gender/Women's Studies. In Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge’s text Professing Feminism, they contend that Women’s Studies has become more like a political pressure group or “gender cult” than a scholarly discipline. They cite “dubious scholarship,” pedagogical practices resembling indoctrination, and “ideological policing” that discourages open debate. And having taken one such course I can concur. There was an inherent conflict between transgender rights and the most basic dignity of women and girls which was bound to come to a head. And it should surprise no one when transgender medicine came under scrutiny. So, I also agree that the field should reform and must do so with methodological rigor and honesty - for its own good.
Sorry, the Gender Studies crowd is not, not now, not ever, going to commit to a real program of "internal reform." It's biases are structural--dare I say "systemic" Any "reforms" that do occur will be cosmetic, designed to bring cover until the next Democratic administration comes along to restart the party. One can only imagine the faculty meetings where these "reforms" are discussed--"what can we do to now create the illusion of free debate?" Even a purge of all existing faculty would do little for change--they would just be replaced by a new cadre of dogmatic Leftists, because who else is going to make it through a graduate program in Gender Studies? The question answers itself.
But you got one thing right: those who short-circuited academic freedom from within are in no position to complain when it is compromised from the outside.
A diversity of viewpoints/premises/hypotheses is a good start, but the real problem in *Studies is that these fields are epistemologically unsound. Fix the epistemology and they will be able to withstand external criticism.
No doubt that GS, like many other fields, should be working to improve. But it's worth being precise about the criticism. Interestingly, the essay this one links to, by LuElla D’Amico, actually says that GS “treats reality as constructed through competing narratives rather than open to the possibility that, in some cases, there is simply an objective truth.” Which is it—GS scholars agree too much or they haven’t settled on a single, agreed-upon truth?
They lost me when they conflated women with "gender," like a kind of random "non-male" sports category. Women are half the humam species and deserving of study as females, not just lumped together with "others."
As long as the gender ideology zealots are in charge of women's studies, don't expect the questions noted below to be addressed. Because gender-critical WS profs are silenced, we won't see the academic arm of the women's movement fulfilling it's potential. Orthodox, antifeminist forces prevail. See my recent The Naked Emperor.
I agree completely, but as with my own field of anthropology, gender studies seems to reject viewpoint diversity as liberal delusion, defense of the status quo, colonialist, etc.-- all the names... But yes, I hope the internal reform Simovski calls for happens.
"The only way to remedy women’s and gender studies — and all disciplines that are being crippled by ideological homogeneity — is internal reform. An aggressive legislative approach may appease a voting base, but it also carries the risk of eroding the academic freedom that makes great scholarship and innovation possible"
First, that assumes that those studies are remediable, an assumption many, including myself, do not share.
Using the law to forbid or counteract the very people and departments that themselves are grossly violating academic freedom (with racial hiring and admissions quotas, forbidding of certain topics for research and teaching, ...) is not only appropriate but essential, given the state of corruption in academia.
At this point , I'm not sure there would be any serious loss if gender studies programs disappeared. I don't mean to be snarky , but what are they actually contributing to the welfare of the nation, especially as dogmatic as they are? People who are drawn to the field are already bringing rigid , confirmed beliefs with them , hence what you see in these programs. Would any of us even notice if they no longer existed? Would we even know? This strikes me as the same problems you face with the idea of reforming DEI. The names and titles may get changed , but the dynamics remain the same as that's their very reason for existing. You're taking on the role of Sisyphus here.
I always thought gender studies would be really interesting if it allowed more perspectives. What parts of the differences between men and women are nature, and which ones really *are* nurture? How much of gender arises from sex? What about the ways society and stereotyping disadvantages *men*? I've heard endlessly about body image, the second shift, and 'gray rape' and nothing about the draft or custody or divorce battles.
Not that I expect our current progressive academics to address these questions, but they do exist.
If an entire academic field is dominated (a few brave scholars and substack posts notwithstanding) by a political consensus that vigorously polices internal dissent and sits far outside the views of most people in society, why is outside political pressure illegitimate? If biology departments across the country were dominated by racists of the most base, skull-measuring kind, would you still oppose political pressure on them to reform?
Put another way: If almost an entire academic field was dominated by an ideological stance that is hostile to the views of most of the society which supports that field with their tax dollars, why is outside political pressure illegitimate?
Will Whitman, Your argument treats universities as institutions whose primary obligation is to represent the prevailing views of their constituents rather than as institutions designed to pursue knowledge through disciplinary methods. Society invests in knowledge institutions precisely because those institutions can discover things that society does not yet know or believe. The very value of scholarship lies in its capacity to challenge, refine, and sometimes overturn prevailing assumptions. Why would you expect scholarship in gender studies to mirror "the views of most of the society"?? Gender studies may very well need to reform, but reform should be rooted in methodological rigor, not mirroring people's viewpoints.
I agree that there is value in serious scholarship which refines, challenges, and sometimes overturns prevailing assumptions in its search for truth. Yet surly you are aware of the professors who have resigned or taken early retirement to then speak out on the weighty leftward slant of higher education today. Others, and not recently, have mentioned the insularity of Gender/Women's Studies. In Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge’s text Professing Feminism, they contend that Women’s Studies has become more like a political pressure group or “gender cult” than a scholarly discipline. They cite “dubious scholarship,” pedagogical practices resembling indoctrination, and “ideological policing” that discourages open debate. And having taken one such course I can concur. There was an inherent conflict between transgender rights and the most basic dignity of women and girls which was bound to come to a head. And it should surprise no one when transgender medicine came under scrutiny. So, I also agree that the field should reform and must do so with methodological rigor and honesty - for its own good.
Exactly.
Sorry, the Gender Studies crowd is not, not now, not ever, going to commit to a real program of "internal reform." It's biases are structural--dare I say "systemic" Any "reforms" that do occur will be cosmetic, designed to bring cover until the next Democratic administration comes along to restart the party. One can only imagine the faculty meetings where these "reforms" are discussed--"what can we do to now create the illusion of free debate?" Even a purge of all existing faculty would do little for change--they would just be replaced by a new cadre of dogmatic Leftists, because who else is going to make it through a graduate program in Gender Studies? The question answers itself.
But you got one thing right: those who short-circuited academic freedom from within are in no position to complain when it is compromised from the outside.
A diversity of viewpoints/premises/hypotheses is a good start, but the real problem in *Studies is that these fields are epistemologically unsound. Fix the epistemology and they will be able to withstand external criticism.
No doubt that GS, like many other fields, should be working to improve. But it's worth being precise about the criticism. Interestingly, the essay this one links to, by LuElla D’Amico, actually says that GS “treats reality as constructed through competing narratives rather than open to the possibility that, in some cases, there is simply an objective truth.” Which is it—GS scholars agree too much or they haven’t settled on a single, agreed-upon truth?
They lost me when they conflated women with "gender," like a kind of random "non-male" sports category. Women are half the humam species and deserving of study as females, not just lumped together with "others."
As long as the gender ideology zealots are in charge of women's studies, don't expect the questions noted below to be addressed. Because gender-critical WS profs are silenced, we won't see the academic arm of the women's movement fulfilling it's potential. Orthodox, antifeminist forces prevail. See my recent The Naked Emperor.
I agree completely, but as with my own field of anthropology, gender studies seems to reject viewpoint diversity as liberal delusion, defense of the status quo, colonialist, etc.-- all the names... But yes, I hope the internal reform Simovski calls for happens.
"The only way to remedy women’s and gender studies — and all disciplines that are being crippled by ideological homogeneity — is internal reform. An aggressive legislative approach may appease a voting base, but it also carries the risk of eroding the academic freedom that makes great scholarship and innovation possible"
First, that assumes that those studies are remediable, an assumption many, including myself, do not share.
Using the law to forbid or counteract the very people and departments that themselves are grossly violating academic freedom (with racial hiring and admissions quotas, forbidding of certain topics for research and teaching, ...) is not only appropriate but essential, given the state of corruption in academia.
At this point , I'm not sure there would be any serious loss if gender studies programs disappeared. I don't mean to be snarky , but what are they actually contributing to the welfare of the nation, especially as dogmatic as they are? People who are drawn to the field are already bringing rigid , confirmed beliefs with them , hence what you see in these programs. Would any of us even notice if they no longer existed? Would we even know? This strikes me as the same problems you face with the idea of reforming DEI. The names and titles may get changed , but the dynamics remain the same as that's their very reason for existing. You're taking on the role of Sisyphus here.