A principle of post-modernism is the rejection of meta-narratives, which are frameworks within which truth claims can be proved or disproved.
Without such a framework, all that we have are unprovable ideologies (collections of ideas/ideals). There are no referees who decide who has truth.
I’m not saying that Rufo is the right person for the job. I just propose that because there is no shared understanding of what truth is, all that is left to win the day is power dynamics. Hence, we have critical theory. Any person who would be willing to step in and take over could be called an ideologue by somebody.
I think that @TracingWoodgrains is correct in that the best we can hope for is competing academic institutions governed by opposing ideologies. At least then, both sides will be able to hold the other’s ideas to some sort of scrutiny.
Is New College the right place for this to play out? I don’t know. I haven’t seen any rich progressives offering to fund its continuation, and whatever else can be said about Rufo, his read of the numbers is correct—this institution, left to its own devices, is dying. Perhaps that is reason enough.
I think you’re equating my cynicism to acquiescence. It’s your right to do so. But it isn’t.
Even liberalism and a search for truth take place within some sort of axiomatic framework. The academy under the church in the Middle Ages flourished for a time and was a good place for free thinkers who stayed in their lane. I’m not saying we go back to that… but even the concept of free speech has a relationship to the context it is in.
The core question is, do we allow blasphemies against the prevailing orthodoxy of the academy? I trust Rufo et al more than the old guard at New College to permit that there. Granted, he may institute his own prohibition of certain blasphemies against what he holds sacred, and that would be a shame, but even so, a right-leaning New College would be a minority report in a sea of progressive universities set against it.
A principle of post-modernism is the rejection of meta-narratives, which are frameworks within which truth claims can be proved or disproved.
Without such a framework, all that we have are unprovable ideologies (collections of ideas/ideals). There are no referees who decide who has truth.
I’m not saying that Rufo is the right person for the job. I just propose that because there is no shared understanding of what truth is, all that is left to win the day is power dynamics. Hence, we have critical theory. Any person who would be willing to step in and take over could be called an ideologue by somebody.
I think that @TracingWoodgrains is correct in that the best we can hope for is competing academic institutions governed by opposing ideologies. At least then, both sides will be able to hold the other’s ideas to some sort of scrutiny.
Is New College the right place for this to play out? I don’t know. I haven’t seen any rich progressives offering to fund its continuation, and whatever else can be said about Rufo, his read of the numbers is correct—this institution, left to its own devices, is dying. Perhaps that is reason enough.
I think you’re equating my cynicism to acquiescence. It’s your right to do so. But it isn’t.
Even liberalism and a search for truth take place within some sort of axiomatic framework. The academy under the church in the Middle Ages flourished for a time and was a good place for free thinkers who stayed in their lane. I’m not saying we go back to that… but even the concept of free speech has a relationship to the context it is in.
The core question is, do we allow blasphemies against the prevailing orthodoxy of the academy? I trust Rufo et al more than the old guard at New College to permit that there. Granted, he may institute his own prohibition of certain blasphemies against what he holds sacred, and that would be a shame, but even so, a right-leaning New College would be a minority report in a sea of progressive universities set against it.