#i think personally jonathan in that instance is just more in the wrong but neither of them are really the good guys

[samgelina-jolie]

I've been watching ST since s1 came out and I feel like over the years peoples opinions of this scene have changed drastically but maybe that's just me?

I feel like even my own opinions on it have changed, It's a lot more "50/50 they're both in the wrong" to me now than it was back in 2016, but still I want to hear what people have to say. Please feel free to add your reasons in the tags!

[heavencasteel420]

I was feeling a bit stuck on my main WIPs, so for fun I wrote a couple of lines/paragraphs for each of my other story ideas (the proper ones where I have a general sense of the story's shape, not the shitpost ideas like "Chrissy turns into a car?"). Here are the ones for my Cute/Normal story ideas:

Long

Nancy Wheeler Can't Win (no UD AU, Nancy-centric)

Sometimes, Nancy thought her life would be easier if she were dating Jason Carver instead. Not better, necessarily. She didn't like Jason nearly as much as Steve; he was kind of pompous and, although he technically looked way more like Tom Cruise, she couldn't imagine ever finding him as sexy as she did Steve. She couldn't help but notice, though, that Chrissy Cunningham didn't have to be one person on Saturday night and another on Monday morning.

Life During Wartime (companion to above, centers on Will and Jonathan)

"I can't believe I'll be the last one to get girlfriend," Mike lamented as he and Will biked home from school. It was a perfect September afternoon, neither too hot nor too cold, and the first leaves were turning yellow. "First Lucas and Max, then Dustin and Suzie, now you and Megan. I'm going to die a virgin."

"We could all still die virgins," Will pointed out. "I don't think Lucas and Max are doing it yet, and Megan and I definitely aren't. And we're not even sure if Suzie is real."

Horse Girl (Stoncy, summer 1985)

The thing about being an asshole, Steve thought, as he listlessly scooped butter pecan ice cream for a couple of sixty-something ladies, was that it took a long time to catch up with you. For instance: the thing he'd spray-painted on the theater marquee about Nancy almost two years ago. Sitting on the hood of his car outside the 7-11, he'd resigned himself to her shunning him forever. He'd even gone to apologize to Jonathan first so he could put off seeing the cold disgust on her face. Then, one month later, she'd taken him back, accepting his apology as a matter of course. Maybe that should've been his first clue that something was wrong.

It's All a State of Mind (AU where Hopper-Byers siblings are psychic carnies/confidence artists in the 1930s)

"Heather likes you," El pointed out a few days later, after they'd settled in. They were in the dining tent, digging into some beef stew. "You could get close to her."

"Keep eating and forget what Murray said," Jonathan told her, although he couldn't summon any harshness to back it up. This was the best meal that he or the kids had eaten in months. "Heather puts up with me. She doesn't want to get close to anyone, either."

Heather Holloway was an aerialist, a pert dark-haired girl who'd joined the circus to get away from a home in some ways worse than the one that Lonnie had provided him and Will. She was friendly to Jonathan, but that was probably because he'd shown no interest in getting inside her drawers.

"So you admit it," Will said smugly. "We wouldn't mind if you got married, you know. So long as we liked her.

From the High to the Low to the End of the Show (S1 AU where the teens are in their late twenties)

"Doesn't it piss you off?" Fred asked her. "That he can just waltz in and get a job because he's 'so talented,' when the rest of us had to work hard and do it the right way?" "Eyes on your own paper, Fred," Nancy said, in a chipper tone that she knew would annoy him. She agreed with him, to a point; she never would have been hired at the Hawkins Post if she'd gone to night school instead of IU. At the same time, she'd heard the other guys say that she'd only gotten the job out of pity. Fred wasn't one of them, but she was running on three hours of sleep an half a bagel, so she didn't feel like being nice. "Why would Holloway care about college? Byers has something he wants and he's willing to pay for it."

Medium

Tomorrow May Not Be Your Day (pre-S4 Jancy breakup, probably no Vecna, eventual Jargyle)

"I'm sure you'll work it out," Mom says. She smiles at him anxiously, and he knows what he should do. He should mumble agreement, accept this bit of comfort. Pay her back with white lies of his own: that the distance isn't really a problem, that she didn't kind of screw him over by moving them all across the country. That there's no reason to worry about him, because he's going to figure things out with Nancy and somehow make Emerson happen. "Yeah?" he asks instead. "What if I don't? What if this is it?" It doesn't come out as a plea for reassurance, either. That would be humiliating, maybe even futile, but at least everyone would understand what he was doing. Instead, it comes out as a challenge.

Let the Broken Hearts Stand (companion to above, Nancy's first year at college, eventual Nancy/Carol)

"Look, I was friends with Steve for, like, ten years before he ditched me and Tommy," Carol says, taking a drag off her cigarette, "but he was definitely the bigger asshole in your relationship." Nancy laughs, startled. Carol grins uncertainly, then offers her the cigarette. She accepts. "Like, whatever, you're a totally embarrassing drunk, and you didn't have the balls to dump him until you were sure you had Byers eating out of your pussy, but--" "Jesus Christ, Carol," Nancy said, turning bright red, but Carol waved her off. "Fine. Va-gi-na. Lady garden. Cavern of feminine wonders. Whatever Emily Post says to call it." Carol cackled as Nancy struggled to look disapproving. "My point is, he was also a fucking prick."

How Will You Make It on Your Own? (Stonathan no UD college AU, the context is Jonathan and Samantha have broken up):

Because all the theater freaks were shunning him, Jonathan sat with Barb and Nancy at lunch. "You'll get back together," Barb said glumly. It was unclear whether she was trying to reassure him but was too stressed out about Mathletes to manage a cheerful tone, or if she was predicting an outcome she disapproved of. "You'll ignore her, she'll call and sort of say sorry, and, because she apologized first, you'll fall all over yourself saying that it's all your fault, and that she's right that you should both move to New York City and live in a condemned building and wear garbage bags instead of clothes." Well. That answered his question. "I don't think that's going to happen," he said, contemplating the peanut butter cracker he'd spent the last half hour eating. "It feels different this time."

Oh, I'm Bound to Go (companion to Drive All Night)

Will wasn't sure who figured it out first, him or Mom. When the money first started coming in--so much money, enough for Mom's medicine and Will's new shoes and more food than he could ever remember having--he asked why they couldn't just live with Jonathan in the city. Surely Indianapolis had enough piecework and odd jobs for the two of them. "He's living in a boarding house, sweetheart," she said, keeping her eyes on the chicken she was cleaning instead of his face. "There's no room for us." Maybe she'd known it was a lie all along. But Will understood Jonathan better than anyone, knew how his lies looked and sounded. On paper, he couldn't hear the too-bright home or watch him disappear behind his eyes, but the wrongness came through all the same.

Short

I Know It Breaks Your Heart (Tommy-centric, mostly future fic)

Tommy didn't need anyone to think that he was smart except for Carol, who understood without explanation that he didn't have to act like a nerd or a circus freak to prove that he was clever. It just felt shitty, sometimes, that Steve clearly thought of him as a dumbass. Steve, who had no bullshit meter and maintained a B-minus average with more effort than he liked to admit. It was annoying, but, more than that, it struck Tommy as greedy. Steve was taller, more handsome, more impressive on the court and field. He put people at ease. He could've let Tommy have something.

Raised on Promises (El's life in California, gen)

No matter what Joyce says, and no matter how nice Will and Jonathan are about it, El still feels embarrassed by the toys. Jonathan doesn't play with anything, except sometimes for the hacky sack Argyle gave him; he just listens to tapes and smokes. And maybe that's because he's almost grown up, but Will is her age and he gave away all his D&D stuff to Erica before they moved. He does art now, which isn't playing. Grown-ups do art, too, sometimes even as a job. The girls at school don't play with toys, either. They have fun like she and Max did last summer: dressing up and messing around with makeup and hanging out at the mall. Only the girls here aren't as nice, and Max isn't here to show her how to act her age. So she finds herself building little towns out of blocks and shuffling around a bunch of plastic dolls.

The P is for Perfection (and You Know That We Are Freaks) (Joyce doesn't move the family to California and El becomes a cheerleader)

"I heard she was raised in a cult," Amanda whispered to Chrissy, as the freshman girls lined up. "Chief Hopper knocked up some hippie and only found out when she died a couple years ago. And then he left her with Joyce Byers when he died. Not really an improvement, if you ask me." "Shush," Chrissy said. She was already getting a headache and the yelling hadn't even started. "You don't want the other girls to hear." Amanda muttered that it was common knowledge, but Chrissy tuned her out and studied Jane Hopper. She was on the tall side, with a lean and strong-looking frame. No flyer, but she could be a backspot or a base. She had curly brown hair pulled back in a scrunchy and a pretty, guileless face. She was dressed okay, in a baggy light purple sweatshirt and white leggings, but there was an air of offness about her.

[willel]

Where will El and Will Start

I’ve been accused of being biased towards Will and El. And you know what? 

They’re totally absolutely right. But even with my huge bias, I am a reasonable person. There are few things I expect and don’t expect in the upcoming season and I wanted to discuss them. 

First, I wanted to address what I expected of season 3 and what didn’t happen.

Season 3:

In season 3, I did not expect Will and El to be best buddies/soulmates. I expected them to be awkward. Why? Because I imagined they didn’t have a lot of contact outside of The Party AND I expected even when El was with everyone, there was little time for them to get to know each other one on one. This expectation was met not only with Will, but with Max. They were sorta friends/friendly, but hadn’t spent time alone together or gotten to know each other more than just the surface level. As we saw, El and Max just needed a moment to finally click with one another to make the friendship bloom.

In season 3, I expected to start seeing Will and El click. Not as Max and El did, a more complicated confusing kind of click. They’re the two of the party with supernatural inclinations. They have a weird connection that they nor the audience really understand. So, I expected as the supernatural stuff started unfolding, Will and El would be bouncing information off each other and sharing it with the group. This did happen.... once. The one conversation El and Will had this entire season was the one instance of what I expected to happen. In the end, I will say that expectation wasn’t met. 

In season 3, by the end of the season, I expected Will and El to be more than timid friends. Not best friends like Max and El, but certainly more than... whatever season 3 was. So, that expectation wasn’t met either.

So one expectation met, two others weren’t. This leaves season 4 in a very awkward position. 

Will and El are living as a family now. They’ve been living together for 3 months actually and now they’re moving away from all their friends somewhere else. This leaves me questioning how we will see Will and El in season 4. 

One thing I didn’t want in season 3 and what I definitely don’t want in season 4 is Will and El ALREADY being best buddies. I want to see the journey. I want the friendship build up. I want to see how they come to trust one another, to see them openly speak about what happened in season 1 and season 2. I wanted to see Will tell El how thankful he was. Or if El expressed more guilt for opening the gate in the first place, for Will to reassure her it wasn’t her fault (she was still bothered by the ‘wound’ in season 2, as Kali harshly but correctly pointed out)

But you see, they’re living together now. If season 4 starts out with them still being at odds with one another, won’t that be weird? If a year or two passes by, am I really supposed to believe they’ve never worked things out and became closer? Neither Will or El are petty enough to just ignore each other for an entire year. 

So, let’s discuss my expectations of season 4 now

Season 4:

I expect Will and El to still be awkward friends. They don’t ignore each other. They have chit chat about mundane things as friends do. If El still isn’t in school, Will sometimes shares his homework or schools book with her so that she’s still being educated in something. A positive but surface level relationship. 

I expect at the beginning of the season, Will does not confide anything personal to El and vice versa. Will is already hesitant to share his true feelings with his mother and Jonathan, I’m willing to bet he never tells El anything about his personal feelings and El doesn’t share hers either. it’s not because they dislike each other, it’s simply they haven’t moved past the point of being acquaintances even while living in the same house for a year. They’re just roommates, nothing more. El would sooner call Mike and Max and discuss her feelings than walk to Will’s room who’s right across the hall. 

I expect by the end of season 4, the previous expectation will be flipped totally on its head and Will and El will become more like siblings for real and not just awkward roommates. How this will happen, I am not sure. But I feel as though El will be the one to make it happen. Will has a history of bottling things up until it’s at a breaking point, whether it’s his personal issues or supernatural issues. Jonathan is the one that usually breaks through Will’s personal issues before they blow up (”Being a freak is awesome.”). I think, El will become the one that can break through Will’s supernatural issues before they become a problem. 

Ok, so those are my 3 big expectations for Will and El in season 4. I want to discuss the final point a little more.

To put it simply, both Will and El are alarm bells that work slightly differently. Unlike Will, El can’t exactly sense something bad is happening. Usually, she discovers something is wrong by accident. In season 2 episode 7, she went to find Mike and Hopper right as the Mind Flayer was wrecking the lab. It was a coincidence that she buzzed in at the right time. In season 3, it was a coincidence that she buzzed in right as the Mind Flayer was possessing Heather. 

In Will’s case, if something bad is happening around him, his body immediately alerts him to the danger whether he knows what’s going on or not. In season 2, his mind flickered into the Upside Down, warning him of the approaching storm (the Mind Flayer) plus the prickling on his skin from the Mind Flayer’s presence. In season 3, the prickling sensation continued as the Mind Flayer was acting up again. 

So, let’s say there’s a scenario where Will is getting bad feelings again, but ignores it. If El happened to stumble into something odd, and needed to confirm it, Will is her guy. Like Jonathan is able to call bullshit on Will (pretending he likes sports for Lonnie or trying to burry his outcast feelings like nothing is wrong), I think El will be able to as well, but for supernatural stuff. 

After all, that’s what friends/family do. They don’t let you lie to yourself, right? 

I think to fulfill my expectation that Will and El will become more like siblings instead of awkward friends, a wall needs to be broken between them. I think El will take the hammer to this wall via supernatural bad stuff happening and needing Will to open up to her about it. Pretending it’s not happening doesn’t stop it from happening. El is the superhero from all those comics he likes reading, I think he’ll see that and make a change in himself to stand up to his fears. (and maybe in doing so, somehow helping her regain her powers too. In a ‘maybe if you do this your powers will come back?’ kind of experimentation)

[trash-writes-stuff]

Metathesiophobia (Scriddler)

Gotham has seen its fair share of chaos in the past years, but nothing could prepare them for the trouble that started brewing when two certain rogues met under the not-so-loving roof of Arkham Asylum.

Chapter Two:

The Air Went Out

Every gaze turned to the ginger, all eyes plastered on him, and boy was he enjoying the attention he was getting. He sucked it up like a sponge. The guard left some time ago, probably to get some coffee or just sit in peace with the other guards until rec time ended. Edward didn’t dare move from the doorway yet, he almost didn’t breathe. The silence of the room was suffocating, the lack of movement tormenting and the little whispers that occasionally broke through the air were lost to the wind. They looked at him, they stared as though he was some miracle or saint, and he was loving it. Oh, how he craved it, he had craved it for months now, the attention, the admiration.

In return, he eyed them all, brilliant and cunning lime eyes scanning the room. His gaze didn’t linger, didn’t for a moment focus on one rogue in particular, and yet it felt as if his eyes had pierced them all. Crane could swear that he’d never seen a brighter hue of green in a person’s eyes. The curiosity of a child ever so present, yet masked by professionalism and experience, the kind which came with age. And yet he seemed so young, so boyish, so unlike a rogue.

Breathing became easier for everyone in the room when Edward made his first step, yet all eyes were still on him. A smirk dawned his face as he moved across the room, to the couch where Oswald and Harvey were watching TV. Edward found a certain form of comfort in Oswald’s company as they had been on good terms for a while now, and it was always good to see a familiar face in a place like this. And as for Harvey, it was safe to say that there was this mutual hatred between them.

Jon had never been gladder that a person avoided him in his life. This man was his complete polar opposite, and as stunning as he was, Jonathan wanted nothing to do with him. Harley, on the other hand, was freaking out, whispering things like “Professah we gotta talk to him!” or “Jonny he seems interesting! Let’s go up to him!”

Crane, frankly, didn’t see the appeal. And yet he couldn’t take his eyes off the ginger man. There was just something about him, it didn’t click. He was TOO perfect. This man, seemingly flawless, was in an asylum for murdering people. There had to be something more, something hidden beneath that façade. Maybe Harley saw it too, or maybe she just saw the handsome yet deadly man that everyone else saw and wanted to get his attention. Jon wasn’t sure, but he didn’t care much, as whatever she had seen wasn’t important. What was important was that he wanted to avoid any contact with the green-eyed devil.

Too late had Jonathan realized that he fucked up by not looking away. Edward cast him a glance, still talking to Oswald, and as he saw how Crane’s eyes were trying to read him, he locked his gaze with the auburn-haired man. Land met water, the ground met the sky and they stayed like that for a few passing moments before Crane broke off the staring competition, tuning back into whatever Harley was saying. She was still rambling about talking to him.

“Don’t let me stop you child, but I have no desire to talk to that,” he needed a moment to find the right words “that flamboyant pin-up.” As he finished, Harley rolled her eyes, then she sighed sadly, then she rolled her eyes again, which was followed by another sad sigh.

“But Professahhhhh pleaseee.” She whined, and Crane almost wanted to give in. “Don’t make me use the nuclear option.” She said, trying to sound serious. Now, Crane was in no mood for publicly embarrassing himself, but if Harley went trough with her ‘nuclear option’, they’d both be crying messes on the floor, and that wouldn’t be pleasant. It was either that or talking to the rather lavish man. Crane wanted nether, but the decision was made before he could do anything about it, as he realized Nygma was approaching them, his eyes glued on Crane.

As he stopped at their couch, Harley almost squealed. Up close Crane could clearly see the brilliance behind those eyes. His face was relaxed, yet he looked so confident, looking down at Jonathan, analyzing him now that he could see him up close. The blue-eyed man, on the other hand, was eyeing Nygma like he was a mouse. His gaze was piercing, dangerous, and the eerie blues were almost glowing from behind his glasses.

“Scarecrow. Quinn. Pleased to meet you. I am Th-“

“The Riddler, yes, we are aware, now if you would kindly fuck off, it would be much appreciated.” Jonathan cut in coldly, trying to make it clear to the Riddler that he simply did not care and that the man just wasn’t welcome there. Nygma’s face soured, but before he could make a rude remark and start complaining about being rudely interrupted, Harley snapped out of her exited trance and whacked Jonathan across the shoulder.

“Jonathan please! Give Eddie a chance!” She scolded, almost like a disappointed mother, and who could blame her. She wanted the best for her friend, how was he supposed to have friends who weren’t Harley when all he did was shut down people. “You’ll have to excuse him, Eddie, he’s always like this. And please, no formalities, that’s Harley for ya.” She looked at Edward and reached her hand out towards him to shake it. Nygma shook her hand, and Harley had to take a moment to acknowledge how soft his hand was. When they let go, Harley scooted over closer to Jonathan and smacked her hand onto space next to her, motioning Eddie to sit down. He happily obliged, and he and Harley immediately started talking about something. Jon wasn’t completely sure what, as he had tuned out again the moment Harley smacked his shoulder. The only thing he did overhear was Nygma saying “Where’s the southern hospitality, Crane?” which almost made Jon strangle the man.

Something, he didn’t know what, but something made Jon look at Edward's face again. He was closer now, and if anyone asked Jonathan, he’d say Nygma was far too close for his liking. The upside was that now he could see some small details which were hardly visible from a distance.

For instance, how sharp his facial lines were. His jawline was strong, almost as strong as Crane’s own. The sharp cheeks, the pointy, button-like nose, strong freckles. The worst part of it was that Edward made it look so beautiful. The bright ginger hair, the stunning green eyes you could just get lost in, the god damned freckles which some would have found hideous, but they just made him look all the more stunning. He was so gorgeous, but there was something, and yet again Crane couldn’t pin what it was, but there was something wrong. Off in a peculiar kind of way.

His train of thought was broken as Nygma’s eyes met his own again. He was still talking to Harley, fully concentrated on their conversation, yet the way he locked his gaze onto Crane said otherwise.

This man, Jon decided, was a puzzle. And it had been so long since Jonathan had a challenge in this place. So there and then, as he glared straight into Edwards’ eyes, he promised himself he’d break this man.

-

On Friday, the doctors decided to try the group therapy method once again. Harley and Crane were silently judging the staff as they were being led to the room. In a circle were seated the unfortunate doctor under the name of Gilbert Ferber, next to him sat Oswald, then Harvey, afterward came Garfield, then Edward, next to him sat Ivy, then Harley and finally Jonathan. 

Dr. Ferber looked beyond nervous, after yesterdays accident he was very unsure that this method would ever actually work. Still, after being pressured by other doctors he decided to give the group therapy another chance, thinking that it might actually do some good.

Boy was he wrong.

-

“Nygma if you don’t shut your mouth, I will blow your face off!” Dent thought it was a good idea to have a shouting contest with Edward after the ginger had pointed out how ridiculous the whole coin-tossing business was. The moment he pointed out that Harvey was basically useless without his coin to make his decisions for him, Harvey lost it.

The doctor was trying to calm them down, pointlessly so. Jonathan just leaned back and waited for chairs to start flying.

“Riddle me this, Jekyll! I am there when you're born, yet I begin to fade away from day one. I will stay until death even if you choose to erase me. Maybe even more, if you pass me to your children. My worst enemy? It once killed, but not a human being. What am I?” Edward said, seemingly unphased by the sudden outburst of the two-faced bandit. His eyes were burning holes into Harvey, and as Crane looked at Nygma, he saw the insanity behind his glare. Those brilliant lime orbs held so much emotion, so much curiosity, so much madness. There was a line between a genius and a madman, and Edward was standing right on that line, leaning to neither side in particular.

“The answer to that, Harvey, is your downfall. It’s the reason you’ll never get better.” His tone was as cold as his gaze. Dent jumped off his chair and furiously stomped over to Edward and grabbed the freckled man by the throat. Edwards glare didn’t falter. No, not at all, in fact, there was something in it that reminded Crane of the way he looked at Nygma yesterday. Like a predator eyeing its prey. There was no fear in his eyes even though Harvey could snap him like a twig. This brought up a question in Jon’ s head. What was a man like Nygma afraid of?

It was safe to say that Edward had successfully piqued Jonathan’s interest.

Edward sat so very still, and the air was perfectly still, and everything in the room was just still, not even the shadows dared to move. That is until the guards rushed in and took Harvey away. Dr. Ferber sighed deeply. This had yet again lead them nowhere. After all of the participants refused to respond to anything the doctor said, he was really close to dismissing the whole session and letting the inmates get back to their cells.

And then Harvey decided to start flipping his coin, which Edward, of course, commented on without any hesitation. That was followed by all hell breaking loose.

He was sick of his job.

Nygma eyed Crane again, and Jon stared right back, amusement visible in his eyes.

Yes, Crane thought, breaking this man will be an experience to remember.

-

“Ignorance?” Asked Crane as he stood in the cafeteria line next to Nygma. He honestly had no idea what suddenly possessed him to talk to the annoying ginger, and he prayed that Edward didn’t hear him. Luck wasn’t on his side, however. The shorter man looked up; the confusion was written all over his face.

“What?” Asked Edward after a few awkward moments of silence had passed between them. He was desperately searching for an answer in Jon’s blank expression, but his attempts were fruitless. Crane would rather be shot in the head than be forced to admit that the baffled expression looked good on Edward. Then, most things did. Crane shook his head; he was losing his train of thought; he was getting distracted.

“The answer to the riddle you asked in group yesterday. Is it ignorance?” Edward’s face immediately lit up as he nodded frantically, and a small smile appeared on his face. Not one of those smiles he gave to anyone who he wanted to charm, not the fake, seductive smile, but a genuine one. And Crane suddenly realized he didn’t really want to break Edward. No, he wanted to know him. And that thought terrified him.

“Riddle me this Jonathan Crane, didn’t you tell me to, and I will paraphrase, “kindly fuck off” yesterday?” Nygma said, his face suddenly returning to its usual expression, which was a mix of cocky and bored. A grimace plastered itself upon Crane’s face. Maybe I do want to break him.

“Riddle me that, indeed.” He said almost bitterly, realizing that this was just Edward messing with his head. Like he always does. He heard the rumors which arose since Thursday. Rumors spread through Arkham faster than they did through his hometown back in Georgia, which was quite impressive, given the fact that in Georgia if someone stole something at 9 AM, by noon of the same day everyone would already know.

Edward was known for messing with people, making them think in a certain way, just so they would do something for him. Crane should want to break him, he should yearn for it, and yet something deep inside begs to differ. This man was dangerous.

A dangerous enemy indeed. But a useful ally.

No, no, no! This train of thought would be the end of him. Nothing good can come from actually being on good terms with this man. Hell, with how flashy Nygma was, Jon was willing to bet the Bat would catch them the moment they stepped out of Arkham.

But he’s so smart, he’s the only one in here who seems to be able to hold intellectually stimulating conversations besides Harley.

Crane was going to need to think this over carefully over the next week, but for now, he might as well try making Harley happy by being friendly.

“You wanna come sit with Harley and me?”

[theimpossiblescheme]

“But I believe in beauty and I hate war--why do I have to die?”

I’ve gone on about the old 1970s sci-fi series “The Fantastic Journey” a little bit before on this blog, and it should come as a surprise to no one that my favorite character is Roddy McDowall’s Jonathan Willaway.  But it has more to do with the genuinely clever writing around the character than with the actor (although he does help a great deal).  As campy and far-fetched as the show can be sometimes, all of its best and most memorable moments go toward helping a man who was once a greedy loner with no respect for the sanctity of life along the path of redemption until he eventually becomes a sort of reluctant hero or at least a wild card with more of a noble side than he cares to admit.  And you can see his progression with each episode he’s in--join me under the cut for details!

“Beyond the Mountain”: Jonathan Willaway the Somewhat Tragic Villain who builds a home for himself off of slave labor just to prevent going crazy from isolation, tries to force a woman to marry him solely for the sake of having another human around, and is forced to watch his home painfully crash and burn under the weight of his own pride.

(Even while he’s very much the bad guy, we still get glimpses of the humanity underneath.  He does love, or at least tries to convince himself that he loves, the androids he’s built to basically be his servants and “family”.  He notes that seeing one of them, whom he’s come to consider like a son to him, without his central processing unit is like seeing him dead and starts to have second thoughts about punishing his disobedience.  It’s the archetype of the “kind” slaveowner who takes up the “White Man’s Burden” and thinks he’s doing a service to mankind by doing so.  And when he watches his home be abruptly reclaimed by the ones he’s wronged, he’s left a numb, broken man with nowhere to go and not even the energy to properly cry. When we see him again at the end, it’s no coincidence that he’s wearing black—Jonathan’s essentially in mourning for his entire life since reaching the island.  What he did was unequivocally wrong, and he knows it now… but it was all he had.)

“Children of the Gods”: Jonathan Willaway the Bitchy Primadonna who still doesn’t quite appreciate what the main characters are risking in bringing him along, but reveals some hidden depths by helping someone similarly misguided and much younger realize his mistakes and try to better himself.

(This episode is especially notable since it’s the first time we see that, while Jonathan is inevitably going to butt heads with any adult he comes across just for the sake of keeping his pride, he gets along surprisingly well with kids, despite his own protests to the contrary.  Scott is the first of the main cast who’s willing to be alone with him.  And while Jonathan’s invariably still either rude or dismissive to the adults in the party, when he’s talking to Ace and trying to talk him out of essentially making a bunch of other kids into child soldiers, listen to his voice during key moments.  It’s soft and measured, and there’s actual compassion in it.  Jonathan recognizes someone else who’s about to royally screw up his life and urges him not to.)

“A Dream of Conquest”: Jonathan the Willing Double Agent who actually helps of his own volition this time, gets a front row seat to the sort of cruelty he’s been trying to leave behind him, and gets smacked in the face with just how much he needs to come through for his new friends after all they’ve done for him.

(Here, Jonathan really gets a cold dose of just what kind of man he might have become if he’d stayed home—every second he’s in the company of this warlike dictator who treats his own people like cattle, you can tell that he hates it.  He actually says in the episode that he hates war and everyone who engages in it, but he’s now embroiled in someone else’s war for the sake of getting him and the main cast out of the battle zone with a whole skin.  And going along with the charade visibly erodes the others’ trust in Jonathan, which scares him to death because they’re now all he has.  He might be always “seeking better”, but he doesn’t have to look very far for it; without even realizing what it truly means, he’s willing to put his life on the line for the people he’s just now starting to consider friends.)

“An Act of Love”: Jonathan the…Friend?  Yeah, the Friend who’s actually starting to be integrated properly into the group and is now trusted to be able to save lives rather than risk them.

(Here, Jonathan doesn’t have quite as much to do, but it’s starting to become evident how much he’s actually become a part of the main cast rather than a glorified guest star.  He’s realizing that he actually cares about these people—he wants to see them happy and safe from danger, and he really feels Varian’s absence when it becomes less and less certain that he’ll stay with them.  And note how Fred, the conscientious doctor who was Jonathan’s most vocal enemy before now, puts him in charge of talking a woman out of letting herself be killed.)

“Funhouse”: Jonathan the Slave, having his new psychological scars taken advantage of by someone much more powerful and reduced to little more than a puppet his friends have to forcibly cut the strings of before it kills him.

(The Possession Episode ™ of any TV show, particularly when it’s played for horror instead of humor, can always be a little hard to watch because you’re basically watching a character have their mind and body violated by someone who, a lot of the time, is a complete stranger.  But I’m hard-pressed to think of an instance where it felt more like a man being sexually assaulted.  Jonathan is watched from afar and called “vulnerable”, but “perfect” right before he’s taken over, and it’s abundantly clear that it’s a painful and humiliating thing for him to go through, even as he struggles to take back control.  When it’s over, he admits that he can’t remember much of what happened, but what he does remember he’d rather forget.  This is the second time Jonathan’s put through the meat grinder now that he’s actively trying to be a better man, and it won’t be the last.)

“Turnabout”: Jonathan the Exploited, forced into action by a new, broken society that lets him watch his friends be tortured if he refuses to put his own life on the line and help fix it.

(This time, Jonathan doesn’t willingly volunteer to help this community reform from the inside—he’s shanghaied into it.  Either he puts himself at great personal risk by repairing a computer that’s taken a turn for the Hal 9000, or he gets to watch his friends slowly and painfully die with nothing he can do about it.  The scene where he’s shut in the opposite jail cell of Varian and Scott as they gradually succumb to poison is actually pretty harrowing, especially when he sees that Varian is doing everything he can to reduce Scott’s suffering—remember that these two were the first to truly accept Jonathan as part of their company.  Even when their captors change their minds and let them go, Jonathan isn’t so quick to forgive, saying that it isn’t the lack of compassion that truly bothers him, but the lack of justice since neither he, nor Varian and Scott did anything to deserve their punishment.)

“Riddles”: Jonathan the Frightened, faced with another near-death experience and the fear that no one is coming to save him, all the while actually being more concerned for his friends than his own safety.

(I did say that “Funhouse” wouldn’t be the last time Jonathan gets put through the meat grinder.  This time he’s not only nearly frozen to death trying to help the company find an artifact that could help them get home, but also shoved face to face with his own fear of enclosed spaces where no one can hear him yelling for help. He’d be forgiven for thinking that he’d be trapped there forever and actually says that he thought they’d never be able to find him.  But all the while, it’s not his own wellbeing Jonathan puts at the forefront.  He quickly regains his bearings both times and goes on as if nothing ever happened, ready to move on to whatever lies ahead for him and the company.  And again, his concern for Scott rears its head—notice the terror on his face when he’s told that Scott is also alone somewhere in this godforsaken house.)

“The Innocent Prey”: Jonathan the Neutral No Longer, first tempted to leave a city in need after finding what they need from it, then moved into staying and helping once he knows just how much it means to his friends.

(This episode can pretty much be a microcosm of Jonathan’s character arc throughout the series so far—first motivated primarily by selfishness, then softened into actual empathy once he realizes how much pain will remain if they walk away and do nothing.  His earlier credo that “it takes a thief to catch a thief” gets an ironic callback when he describes those kinds of people here as being bloodthirsty, cruel, and fundamentally untrustworthy.  And not for nothing, but the one who ends up appealing pretty thoroughly to his better nature?  Fred, who once hated Jonathan and still bickers with him incessantly.  In fact, Jonathan ends up preventing Fred from doing anything rash out of blind emotion and helps him to uncover the truth about a murder.)

What really makes this evolution effective is that, like all the great character arcs, Jonathan isn’t magically a new person on the other side.  He’s not perfect, and he’s never going to be—he’s still proud, impatient, sarcastic, cynical, a bit vain, sometimes thoughtless, and willing to tread a more morally grey zone than the others are.  But underneath all the obvious flaws is a more selfless, self-aware, and compassionate man than he was at the start, a man who sees the people around him as actual people rather than utilities and, when he sees his own faults in others, tries to help them overcome.  It’s honestly kind of inspiring to see, even for a campy ‘70s show. In the spirit of Jonathan always having a pithy quote to share in each episode, Marcus Aurelius once said, “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be.  Be one.”  And he does just that.

[rhoeysama]

So, I was going to write an essay about Nancy Wheeler, self-acceptance and the undue hate that she receives, but it accidentally turned into so much more than that. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to share it at all, but seeing as I lost myself in writing this, and it feels like such a big chunk of my soul is in this, I will. I’m rambling about Nancy and Jonathan and getting my thoughts out, and it’s perhaps a bit messy, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on these two characters. Although some of the writing on the show is lacking, in my opinion, and doesn’t do Nancy and Jonathan the justice that I think they deserve, I really like them, and their relationship, and I just want to express that. 

It’s about the concept of self-acceptance and being true to oneself, and about Nancy’s journey to finding herself and how it connects to real life. It’s long and ranty, but if you want, you can read it and hopefully it wasn’t a complete waste of time. :) 

* * * * * * * * 

Nancy was quick to forgive Jonathan for his mistake because she’s a compassionate person. 

She was willing to give Jonathan the benefit of doubt; willing to believe that his heart was in the right place, that he’s not a bad person and didn’t have malicious intent with what he did. He just made a bad decision, at a bad time, when his head wasn’t screwed on just right, after his brother had went missing. And on top of that, he’s only seventeen.

She was genuinely curious about why Jonathan took her picture in the first place. 

“What was I saying [when you took my picture]?” 

She wanted to understand his reasoning behind it (to learn more about him, what's going on inside that head of his, what makes him tick), so much so that she brought it up again later and pressed him for an answer. He didn’t want to answer, because he had already said his sorry and acknowledgment of having overstepped a boundary and been “weird”. And when he finally gave in to her prodding and presented his observation, she became angry. It just happened to be very awkward when it came from a boy who appeared to like her, which is why she tried to chalk it up to him just being jealous of Steve. But that wasn’t the only reason. She got angry because he was right, and she knew it. After all, he wasn't the first person to vocalize that she was trying to be someone she isn’t.

Barbara: “Nance, this isn’t you.”

Dustin (to Mike): “There’s something wrong with your sister. She’s got a stick up her butt. (...) She’s turning into a real jerk. (...) She used to be cool.”

Jonathan (to Nancy): “I saw this girl, trying to be someone else. But in that moment, you were alone, or you thought you were, and you could just be yourself.”

Nancy was changing her behavior and making bad choices to be liked by a boy. But she never wanted to - or tried to - join in on the bullying and mocking of others just to be part of his group and be perceived as “cool”. Steve even pointed this out to Tommy and Carol: “Neither of you cared about her. You never even liked her. Because she’s not miserable like you two, she actually cares about other people.”     

The compassionate Nancy is the real Nancy. The Nancy who cares about others. The Nancy who's willing to listen to someone’s side of a story, and not simply dismiss them and believe the rumors about them instead. The Nancy who’d rather end the suffering of a wounded animal than leave it to die a slow, painful death. The Nancy who’d rather buy bear traps and a can of gasoline and go after and kill a monster than let it claim more victims. The Nancy who puts her own life in danger to get justice for her dead best friend and her parents. The Nancy who dances with the lonely adolescent boy who's crying because nobody wanted to be his dance partner, and cheers him up with words of encouragement. 

That’s the real Nancy Wheeler. 

Not the one who slams doors in other’s faces when they kindly offer her their left over pizza. Not the one who looks on when someone’s property is taken by force and destroyed as revenge. Not the one who tells her best friend - whom she dragged to a party she didn’t want to go to in the first place - to get lost while she goes upstairs to have sex. Not the one who drunkenly calls her boyfriend “bullshit”. 

Being young, especially a teenager, is hard. You have limited experience and knowledge about the world, but plenty of feelings and thoughts and you’re vulnerable and exposed and people can be so cruel, so relentless. Everyone is going through their own life with their own burdens, and deals with it differently. Some bottle it up, some lash out, some bully, some drink and do drugs or party and have plenty of sex to dull the pain. Some, unfortunately, commit suicide. But everybody deals in their own way, and most people wise up, mature, and grow into the people they were always meant to be. Not all, but most. 

And we all have an essence, an authentic self. Someone we were born to be, but the world tried to take it from us. And that is why the way we act when we’re alone is who we truly are. That’s when our walls come down and we drop our masks. 

This is why Jonathan is an interesting character to me. He saw Nancy as something more than she appeared to be. She was a genie in a bottle, and that bottle had become increasingly small as she was growing, but she was still trying to fit, even if it wasn’t in her own best interest. (And Jonathan saw in her what she saw in Will, and what he had told him as well: to just be himself.) 

There are many things we do in private when we’re alone that we would never ever do with others around. I, for instance, talk to myself. A lot. Like, have actual animated, heated debates, complete with all sorts of funny faces and voices, it’s almost like a performance, except I prefer mine not to have an audience. I also sing terrible “opera”, and laugh at myself for how bad it is, because it’s pretty bad, but that’s okay. It’s all in good fun. I also do a lot of voice acting, trying to imitate Eric Cartman, or Rick and Morty or any random Pokemon, but again, it’s awful (but I hear I make a very believable Bulbasaur!). It’s mine, and mine alone, and I’m not willing to share unless I’m 100% comfortable around someone. But it’s something I have accepted, and I’m content with it. It’s all a part of who I am. It’s valid, it’s authentic, it’s weird, it’s human. 

This is everyone. Every single person. And guess what? It’s okay. Because none of us learn how to be human, it’s not like it’s taught in school. Or on TV. And all of us are in this life, trying to figure it all out, and most of us don’t have much to go on except for what we absorb from the culture we happen to find ourselves in. And all that culture has to offer is this checklist of things you’re supposed to have, you’re supposed to do, supposed to be. And that’s not all; there’s a deadline for each of those boxes on the checklist! Also, there’s a shit ton of fine print and legalese, and people who will sneak a peak at your list and ask you why you haven’t checked the boxes yet and ostracize you for it, too. 

Nobody tells you that everyone does that weird or gross thing you’re doing when no one’s watching, except that others have their weird or gross thing while you have yours, and yes, everyone thinks they’re the only one doing it, and if anyone found out, oh dear lord have mercy. That’s why we don’t really talk about these things, either. So we shut up about it, think we’re alone in our weirdness, and try to emulate our surroundings, and everyone’s basically just a bunch of fakers wearing masks and creating these fictional personas of themselves to put out there in the world. It’s a defense mechanism, because people are cruel and judgmental and ruthless. They are ready to tear you down if you don’t behave a certain way, if you don’t fall in line and get with the program. 

People are messy and complicated; LIFE is messy and complicated. Nothing is ever straight-forward or obvious, because even adults don’t always know what to do and don’t always have their lives figured out. Sometimes everything looks idyllic and perfect on the surface, and they have all the boxes checked on their list, but they may still be deeply dissatisfied and unhappy. All of this comes from the lies we tell ourselves: if only I have this and this and this, I will be happy. 

The truth is, it’s the other way around: if you’re not happy and grateful for the things you already have, no amount of things and good happening in your life is ever going to make it any better. 

So, one of the hardest things you can do in life is to accept yourself for who you are, and learn to love yourself, just the way you are. It’s hard, in the face of reality, in which most people don’t share your sentiment, most people don’t like themselves and would much rather NOT accept themselves, and that’s why they won’t accept you as you are, either. Because the way our consumer culture has evolved is by constantly making sure that people feel dissatisfied and unhappy with what they have and who they are, so that they keep on buying more, buying more, consuming, consuming, consuming. And on the other side of the same coin is the religions and politics, the meddling authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum trying to put their ideological shackles on you and keep you in a shoebox (or the “magic lamp”/bottle), when there’s a whole limitless universe out there.

When you’re a teenager, you start waking up to these facts, and it’s ridiculously hard. Coming out of childhood, suddenly realizing what this world is all about. Realizing that there’s so much suffering in the world, and you feel it too, but there’s not much you can do about it. 

But there is, actually. You can start with yourself, and extend kindness to those who need it. Extend kindness to yourself first by not lying to yourself because it’s more convenient. The truth has a tendency to catch up to us, and it will sooner or later, and the longer one waits, the messier it will be. Once you learn to be kind to yourself and ask yourself “Who am I, really? What do I want?”, you will start embracing your true self, even if the journey there will be rough and ugly. You’ll lose friends along the way, and maybe family, too. People will get pissed at you and some will even try to ruin your life and your reputation.   

But no one can learn and grow unless they go for what they truly want, what they hold to be true, push their boundaries, and inevitably hurt others and themselves in the process. If we never do any of these things, our lives will stagnate, nothing will ever happen we get nowhere. When we stop learning, we’re dead. 

Being a teenager is hard, because life is hard. It’s especially hard when you know who you are, and you know that what you want in life, and what you like, and the very essence of your soul does not mesh well with what’s expected of you. 

Jonathan knows who he is, and he’s accepted that he’s a “freak”, and that’s okay. Nancy is still figuring things out, but starting to embrace her true self more, and thankfully she has Jonathan there to help her with that. 

[the-syndic4te]

Another example, taken from the abundant historical literature rather than from my personal experience: the program for the destruction of severely handicapped and mentally ill Germans, called the “Euthanasia” or “T-4” program, set up two years before the “Final Solution.” Here, the patients, selected within the framework of a legal process, were welcomed in a building by professional nurses, who registered them and undressed them; doctors examined them and led them into a sealed room; a worker administered the gas; others cleaned up; a policeman wrote up the death certificate. Questioned after the war, each one of these people said: What, me, guilty? The nurse didn’t kill anyone, she only undressed and calmed the patients, ordinary tasks in her profession. The doctor didn’t kill anyone, either, he merely confirmed a diagnosis according to criteria established by higher authorities. The worker who opened the gas spigot, the man closest to the actual act of murder in both time and space, was fulfilling a technical function under the supervision of his superiors and doctors. The workers who cleaned out the room were performing a necessary sanitary job—and a highly repugnant one at that. The policeman was following his procedure, which is to record each death and certify that it has taken place without any violation of the laws in force. So who is guilty? Everyone, or no one? Why should the worker assigned to the gas chamber be guiltier than the worker assigned to the boilers, the garden, the vehicles? The same goes for every facet of this immense enterprise. The railroad switchman, for instance, is he guilty of the death of the Jews he shunted toward the camp? He is a railroad employee who has been doing the same job for twenty years, he shunts trains according to a schedule, their cargo is none of his business. It’s not his fault if these Jews are being transported from Point A, across his switches, to Point B, where they are to be killed. But this switchman plays a crucial role in the work of extermination: without him, the train of Jews cannot reach Point B. The same goes for the civil servant in charge of requisitioning apartments for air-raid victims, the printer who prepares the deportation notices, the contractor who sells concrete or barbed wire to the SS, the supply officer who delivers gasoline to an SP Teilkommando, and God up above, who permits all this. Of course, you can establish relatively precise degrees of legal responsibility, which allow you to condemn some while leaving all the rest to their own conscience, assuming they have one; it’s even easier when the laws get written after the fact, as at Nuremberg. But even then they were sloppy. Why hang Streicher, that impotent yokel, but not the sinister von dem Bach-Zelewski? Why hang my superior Rudolf Brandt, and not his superior, Wolff? Why hang the interior minister Frick and not his subordinate Stuckart, who did all his work for him? A lucky man, that Stuckart, who only stained his hands with ink, never with blood. Once again, let us be clear: I am not trying to say I am not guilty of this or that. I am guilty, you’re not, fine. But you should be able to admit to yourselves that you might also have done what I did. With less zeal, perhaps, but perhaps also with less despair, in any case one way or another. I think I am allowed to conclude, as a fact established by modern history, that everyone, or nearly everyone, in a given set of circumstances, does what he is told to do; and, pardon me, but there’s not much chance that you’re the exception, any more than I was. If you were born in a country or at a time not only when nobody comes to kill your wife and your children, but also nobody comes to ask you to kill the wives and children of others, then render thanks to God and go in peace. But always keep this thought in mind: you might be luckier than I, but you’re not a better person. Because if you have the arrogance to think you are, that’s just where the danger begins. We like to contrast the State, totalitarian or not, with the ordinary man, that insect or trembling reed. But then we forget that the State is made up of individuals, all more or less ordinary, each one with his life, his story, the sequence of accidents that led him one day to end up on the right side of the gun or the sheet of paper while others ended up on the wrong side. This path is very rarely the result of any choice, or even of personal predilection. The victims, in the vast majority of cases, were not tortured or killed because they were good any more than their executioners tormented them because they were evil. It would be a little naïve to think that way; allow me to suggest you spend a little time in a bureaucracy, even the Red Cross, if you need convincing. Stalin, by the way, conducted an eloquent demonstration of my argument, by transforming each generation of executioners into the victims of the following generation, without ever running out of volunteers. Yet the machinery of State is made of the same crumbling agglomeration of sand as what it crushes, grain by grain. It exists because everyone—even, down to the last minute, its victims—agrees that it must exist. Without the Hösses, the Eichmanns, the Goglidzes, the Vishinskys, but also without the railroad switchmen, the concrete manufacturers, and the government accountants, a Stalin or a Hitler is nothing but a wineskin bloated with hatred and impotent terror. To state that the vast majority of the managers of the extermination processes were neither sadists nor sociopaths is now a commonplace. There were of course sadists and psychopaths among them, as in all wars, and these men did commit unspeakable atrocities, that’s true. It is also true that the SS could have stepped up its efforts to keep these people under control, even if it actually did more in that line than most people realize. And that’s not easy: just ask the American generals what a hard time they had of it in Vietnam, with their junkies and their rapists, smoking dope and fragging their officers. But that’s not the problem. There are psychopaths everywhere, all the time. Our quiet suburbs are crawling with pedophiles and maniacs, our homeless shelters are packed with raving megalomaniacs; and some of them do indeed become a problem, they kill two, three, ten, even fifty people—and then the very same State that would without batting an eye send them to war crushes them like a blood-swollen mosquito. These sick men are nothing. But the ordinary men that make up the State—especially in unstable times—now there’s the real danger. The real danger for mankind is me, is you. And if you’re not convinced of this, don’t bother to read any further. You’ll understand nothing and you’ll get angry, with little profit for you or for me.

Jonathan Littell “Les Bienveillantes”

[mistslash25-blog]

Vox’s Consistent Errors on Campus Speech, Continued

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, and the Director of Communications at Heterodox Academy.

Let me start by saying that in some respects, it is a strange debate between Beauchamp, Yglesias and I:

In the highly-polarized political environment in which we find ourselves, it seems to be a standard assumption that if someone is criticizing one position, it must be because they personally hold the opposite view themselves. For instance, if I am criticizing Beauchamp and Yglesias’ essays “proving” there is no speech crisis, it must be because I believe there is one, right?

Yet I close my recent essay, “Vox’s Consistent Errors on Campus Speech, Explained,” as follows:

Beauchamp and Yglesias insist that the burden of proof is on those who declare there is a crisis. I happen to share this conviction.

San Diego State University psychologist Jean Twenge, NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, HxA Research Director Sean Stevens, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, and others have responded to this challenge by offering compelling – albeit preliminary — evidence that there is a significant normative shift underway among contemporary young people with regards to free expression and other issues (here, here, here, here, here, here, here).

However, in my personal view, more (and different) evidence needs to be marshalled by proponents in order for their case to be fully persuasive. And further research is being done — both within Heterodox Academy and beyond. In the meantime, my position, as I stated in the initial piece, is that the jury is still out on the extent of any normative change – but it is probably unhelpful to refer to it as a “crisis” in any case.

In short, I have no issue with Yglesias and Beauchamp’s skepticism regarding the campus free speech “crisis.” The problem I have is with the specific evidence they attempted to deploy to “prove” there is no crisis.

Specifically, I argued that Yglesias failed to control for straightforward confounds in his analysis of the GSS data – and when these are controlled for, it seems like contemporary students may actually be less tolerant of those they disagree with than previous cohorts. But don’t just take my word for it: political scientists April Kelly-Woessner (Elizabethtown College) and John Sides (George Washington University) have also published essays underscoring this point using the same GSS data that Yglesias relied on.

But I also cautioned that, across the board, the General Social Survey provides (at best) weak evidence with regards to this dispute. Why? Because the GSS has such a small sample of college students in any given year that it would be irresponsible to generalize much from it. In 2016, for instance, they had roughly 32 enrolled students who fell within the “iGen” age group (which is the cohort which Twenge et al. have argued hold different values on free speech — the position Yglesias seems to be taking himself to refute).

Obviously, one cannot make sound claims about the millions of iGen students and their values on the basis of surveying a few dozen of them — but this the best the GSS can muster right now. In other words, even if Yglesias’ analysis didn’t suffer from important confounds (which it does), the data he relied on could not rebut, or even meaningfully speak to, the claims of those who argue that there is a major cohort change with iGen students on free speech (e.g. Haidt, Lukanioff, Twenge, Campbell, Manning, Stevens).

Yet Yglesias drew a very strong conclusion (“Everything we think about the ‘free speech crisis’ is wrong”) on the basis of this very weak data.

For Beauchamp, I argued that he misrepresented data from all the sources he cited in a recent Vox report. I focused on two sources, which occupied the bulk of his essay: the Free Speech Project database, and a database on faculty firings by Acadia University political scientist Jeffrey Sachs.

In his attempted rebuttal, “The myth of a campus free speech crisis,” Beauchamp flagged that there were actually three sources he ostensibly relied upon: in addition to the Free Speech Project and Sachs’ database on faculty firings, he also cited FIRE’s disinvitation database.

Fair enough.

But ironically, this correction only makes Beauchamp’s problem worse. Allow me to briefly walk through the three sources Beauchamp cited, why his description of their findings was problematic, and why his “rebuttal” fails to resolve any of my core criticisms (click to expand):

Free Speech Project (FSP)

To review, my core criticisms of Beauchamp viz. the FSP data:

The FSP data is so preliminary and incomplete that it cannot yet effectively speak to the overall prevalence of these incidents – which is what Beauchamp’s story was about. And so, while the FSP project is fantastic on its own merits, it is inappropriate to try to use this data for the kind of case Beauchamp was trying to make. Dr. Ungar’s essay said absolutely nothing about overall prevalence.

Beauchamp’s portrayal of the “free speech crisis” on the basis of the FSP data seemed to be far out of touch with Dr. Ungar’s own view on the matter on the basis of this same data. This divergence, I argued, was a product of the issues in criticism 1: Dr. Ungar came to a different conclusion, not because of some major ideological difference — but because he had a better understanding of his data (and its limits) than Beauchamp seemed to.

In the attempted Vox rebuttal, the second criticism is validated: It is acknowledged that Dr. Ungar sees a more serious problem than one might have gathered from Beauchamp’s initial essay.

“[Dr. Ungar] is certainly not as much of a skeptic about the free speech ‘crisis’ as I am — he believes that there is a real problem, particularly for university administrators who are terrified of a high-profile incident happening at their campus, and that there is ‘evidence’ that speech is ‘being suppressed’ in certain instances.”

With this established,  we can occupy ourselves primarily with point 1.  But first, it turns out Beauchamp actually made another error in his FSP discussion, which I originally missed, but is relevant here. The original opening language of the essay ran:

“Entire books and online magazines are premised on the idea that political correctness is sweeping the American university, threatening both higher education and the broader right to free speech. But a brand new data analysis from Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project suggests that this ‘crisis’ is more than a little overblown.”

Extending basic intellectual charity to Beauchamp, I did not really scrutinize the metadata on the original FSP Medium post to make sure that it really was a “brand new analysis.” Turns out, it wasn’t. The FSP essay that Beauchamp relied on was actually published in March 2018, nearly five months before Beauchamp published his piece (and I wrote my initial rejoinder).

In other words, Beauchamp was not relying on current data from the FSP at the time he composed his essay – and he did not disclose this fact in his essay. This raises a couple of possibilities, both unsettling:

Beauchamp was not aware that he was using out-of-date information because he neglected to look at the publication date on the FSP post before burning off an essay about it (suggested by the “brand new analysis” verbiage) – and also neglected to go to the actual FSP website to explore the data prior to publication (which would have given him current numbers). This would underscore my point about failing to exercise due diligence. OR

Beauchamp was aware that Dr. Ungar’s essay was published in March, but nonetheless framed Dr. Ungar’s analysis “brand new” and also declined to report the current data in his own essay – either out of negligence (i.e. he didn’t want to bother with basic research), or because the more current information was less convenient for the point he was arguing. Neither is a good look. And then there is a secondary problem if Beauchamp was aware that Dr. Ungar’s information was actually from March (and hence, likely out of date): why did he fail to disclose this fact – and instead present the analysis as “brand new”?

Beauchamp recently issued a correction acknowledging that the “brand new” analysis he described was actually from March 2018. Yet, in his attempted rebuttal, he makes no mention of this error – instead insisting that his original presentation of the data was completely accurate!

Before we dive into that, notice that both of my core critiques of Beauchamp viz. the FSP have already been vindicated: Beauchamp has issued a correction indicating one way he misrepresented the FSP data. He has also conceded that his presentation of the (non) threat — on the basis of FSP data — was out of step with Dr. Ungar’s own position that there is a serious problem.

Now let’s drill down a little more: Does this new identified error by Beauchamp relate to the criticisms I offered in the initial essay? Yes. Here’s how:

I did work through the actual FSP database in formulating my initial essay, and found that there were more than 90 recorded incidents from campuses at the time, out of a total 137 incidents overall.

If Dr. Ungar’s analysis was “brand new,” yet only focused on 90 incidents (60 from campuses) – this would mean he was only working with a subset of the total incidents in his database — itself, just a small subset of a much larger pool of incidents “in the world.” This was a fair reading, because Dr. Ungar himself refers to the set of incidents he was referring to as a “sample” which was not necessarily representative, etc.

Hence, I assumed that Beauchamp’s error was failing to understand that Dr. Ungar cited just a sample out of the total 137 incidents available in the FSP database as of August 2018 (when Vox covered Ungar’s “brand new” analysis… from March). And while Beauchamp did fail to grasp the nature of the FSP data (or he would never have used it to make bold claims about the overall prevalence of incidents) – in addition to this, he was also working with information that was several months out-of-date, and (intentionally or not) misled his readers (myself included) on this point. This is apparently why he was insisted there were 60 incidents in the FSP data, instead of the 90 he could have easily retrieved through basic research prior to his article’s publication.

Now, it is striking that the number of campus incidents in the FSP database grew from sixty to ninety just between Dr. Ungar’s original Medium post and Beauchamp’s original Vox essay –this amounts to a 50% increase. And as Beauchamp himself noted in his attempted rebuttal, the number has grown further still since my rejoinder (published just a couple weeks ago). I explicitly predicted this would happen, and it underscores the problem with trying to use Dr. Ungar’s data to speak to the overall prevalence of these incidents:

For the sake of argument, let’s run with Beauchamp’s presumption that the number of incidents in the FSP database actually is reflective of the total incidents nationwide. Well, if there were “roughly only 60 incidents in the last two years” as of March… and by mid-August there were suddenly 90 incidents – then it seems as though the total number of campus incidents nationwide over the last two years actually increased by 50%, just between March and August. This would truly be astonishing, and a cause for concern – especially given that classes were not even in session for most of this period!

By the end of 2018 it is likely that there will be well over a hundred campus incidents in the FSP database from the last two years. Of course, this would not mean that the actual prevalence of incidents increased by nearly 100% (or more) since Dr. Ungar published his original essay. Why not? Because neither the cases Dr. Ungar analyzed in March, nor the number of events FSP will ultimately highlight by December, meaningfully speak to the general prevalence of these incidents at all.

In an attempt to defend himself against my critique, Beauchamp apparently reached out to Dr. Ungar himself. Vox readers were only provided with basically two statements out of what was presumably a conversation of at least several minutes – and even one of these statements was partially redacted through ellipses. Yet, despite the fact that the purpose of this essay (and its predecessor) is to highlight misrepresentations by Beauchamp regarding Dr. Ungar’s Medium essay, let’s just take it on faith that Beauchamp is not conveniently neglecting to share statements from Dr. Ungar which undermine his argument, and that he is faithfully representing the little bit of content from Dr. Ungar that actually made it to the page (redactions notwithstanding).

Beauchamp says he asked directly whether it was appropriate to try comparing the total number of incidents by the total number of universities (apparently bracketing the fact that the data he was relying on was non-exhaustive, non-representative, and out-of-date at time of the Vox publication). Dr. Ungar’s indirect, hedged and polite response was, “I’m not sure I would say you were wrong...”

Now, we can’t know everything Dr. Ungar did say in their conversation, given how little Beauchamp actually included – but we can certainly note some things he apparently did not say:

First, let’s hammer home that he did not say there were “roughly only 60 incidents” between 2016 and March 2018. Hence, Beauchamp’s claim to this effect is simply incorrect.

There were 60 incidents in the FSP database as of March 2018. This is emphatically not the same as saying there were actually “only roughly 60 incidents in the last two years.” A correction is warranted here from Vox. A more accurate version of the relevant sentence could read:

“The fact that the FSP database only showed around 60 incidents (as of March 2018) suggests that free speech crises may be somewhat rare events that don’t define…”

But would the FSP data even suggest this, really? To answer that question, let’s continue exploring statements Dr. Ungar apparently declined to make:

He did not say his original Medium post indicated anything at all about the overall prevalence of incidents; he did not say that it actually was appropriate to draw inferences about overall prevalence from the FSP data, nor did he say al-Gharbi was wrong with regards to the specific criticisms leveled at Beauchamp viz. the FSP. He basically dodged Beauchamp’s question and then shifted to express “delight” that the Free Speech Project received coverage in Vox.

That sort of response speaks for itself… and it does not send the message Beauchamp seems to hope.

Indeed, despite Dr. Ungar’s diplomatic evasion, the Free Speech Project website is quite explicit that the sort of maneuver Beauchamp attempted in his first essay was inappropriate given how preliminary their data are (emphasis mine):

“…the Tracker is a work in progress and should not be considered a complete listing of every instance in which freedom of speech was tested, challenged, or commented upon… As it grows in size and content, it should become a steadily more useful tool for analysis.”

And so, had Beauchamp actually consulted the FSP website when drafting his essay, not only could he have used current data in his original story, as I did in my rejoinder (rather than content from five months prior) — he could have also avoided making inferences about overall incident prevalence on the basis of this data (such as, “there were only roughly 60 incidents in the last two years”), which the FSP explicitly recommends against.

Sachs’ Database on Faculty Firings

Beauchamp represented Sachs’ findings on faculty firings as follows:

Sachs’ data do not show this. He himself flagged that his data was misrepresented, taking to social media to share and praise my essay about Vox.

This is a good piece from @Musa_alGharbi of @HdxAcademy. Quite a few people have claimed that the data shows “liberal” faculty are fired at a higher rate than “conservative” faculty. It does not, as Musa emphasizes.

But a few further points: https://t.co/OVsBJ38a5X

— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) August 16, 2018

In fact, not only did Sachs validate my concerns about Beauchamp’s essay, he went on to vindicate my critique of the GSS, against Yglesias’ protests, as well:

Matt, his critique of the GSS data, which I’ve used as well, is a good one. Personally I think Musa is too quick to dismiss the Stouffer Questions, but his general point is well taken.

— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) August 17, 2018

Sachs and I are not too far apart on most of these issues. Hence it is perplexing, in the attempted rebuttal, when Beauchamp makes statements like:

Again, I did not claim there is such a crisis – indeed, in the very essay that Beauchamp is responding to, I explicitly said the evidence of a normative shift is not decisive, and that the “crisis” framing is unhelpful and ill-defined. So it isn’t clear how Sachs is “at odds” with me here.

Moreover, I am in full agreement with Sachs that one should avoid making sweeping claims on the basis of his firings database, given that firings are relatively rare (especially relative to other forms of speech sanction). It was Beauchamp who tried to make strong claims about relative likelihoods viz. firings (“left-wing professors were more likely to be dismissed,” emphasis his) – I merely pointed out that he misrepresented Sachs’ data, and that when better contextualized, his claim that liberal professors are “more likely” to be fired for political speech than conservatives is unsupported. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Again, it was Sachs himself, in his Niskanen essay, who noted that given the base-rates of conservative to liberal professors – it may be the case that conservatives are more likely to be fired, despite the fact that most who are terminated are liberals:

“…the professoriate leans significantly to the left as well, so we should expect left-leaning speech to make up the bulk of terminations. As with the skewed findings of FIRE’s Disinvitation Database, we are not talking about a population where political ideology is uniformly distributed. It is possible for liberals to constitute the majority of faculty terminations and also for conservatives to be terminated at an equal or higher rate.” (Sachs’ own emphasis)

I merely demonstrated Sachs’ own point with the available data on faculty base rates… so, again, it is not clear to me how Sachs and I are supposedly “at odds.”

But it is clear that Beauchamp misrepresented Sachs’ data. In fact, following Sachs’ confirmation that his data was misrepresented, Beauchamp had to issue a correction for the second source I focused on in my rejoinder as well.

Let’s recap then. In my initial essay I claimed that Beauchamp misrepresented data from the FSP and Sachs. Beauchamp has actually issued corrections for his treatment of both of those studies:

Given this reality, it’s not clear exactly what Beauchamp takes himself to be “proving” in his attempted rebuttal. Yet because Beauchamp seems to put a lot of weight in the fact that he actually analyzed three sources, let’s consider the third as well:

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

One of the things I criticized Beauchamp for in my original essay was failing to make full use of the very sources he cited when he was trying to understand the scope of the problem. For instance, he mentioned FSP but failed to rely on their full current dataset when composing his essay (setting aside the inferential issues regarding prevalence). He cited Heterodox Academy, misrepresenting our structure and mission, and then failed to incorporate the data from our Guide to Colleges into his picture on the prevalence of campus incidents. These are criticisms which Beauchamp has not contested: He did not use contemporary data from the FSP (despite describing the March 2018 data as “brand new”… in August). He did not use any data from HxA.

In line with this trend, here is Beauchamp’s summary of FIRE’s data in his original essay:

Based on Beauchamp’s summary, one would be forgiven for thinking that FIRE also believed the problem is pretty small. But, as with Dr. Ungar’s essay, I would urge readers to follow the link Beauchamp provided, and read the actual essay he references, because once again, the narrative he wants to spin on the basis of this data would be greatly undermined.

Moreover, as FIRE’s Robert Shibley wrote in response to Beauchamp, disinvitations are actually one of the least significant ways of measuring the “free speech” problem at universities. This is especially true given that, in Beauchamp’s attempted rebuttal, he claims that the “subject” of his original essay was allegedly “speech rights of faculty and students.”

If “speech rights of faculty and students” was the subject of his piece, it is curious that he literally only mentions the “rights” twice in the entire essay (excluding listing the full name for FIRE) – once when mischaracterizing the mission of HxA, and once when describing the mission of FSP. All other times he uses “right” in the essay, he is referring right-wing political partisans. In the rejoinder, he also evokes “rights” only twice (excluding FIRE’s name) – and one of these was the sentence where he insists “speech rights of faculty and students” were the “subject” of his essays all along!

This is a poorly-substantiated retcon attempt. However, even if allowed to stand, it actually does little to improve his case. In fact, it makes his neglect of FIRE’s resources even more glaring. If Beauchamp was primarily concerned with understanding rights and whether or not they were protected or threatened, then it is not clear why he was analyzing disinvitations (many of them at private institutions, where there is no “right” to the campus… and technically, no “right” to free speech). He should have instead been looking at university policies and relevant court cases, especially if he was already committed to analyzing data from FIRE (which works primarily on policy and legal issues).

In terms of lawsuits, etc. — as I mentioned in my initial essay — FIRE publically lists hundreds of legal cases they were/ are engaged in. These were completely absent from Beauchamp’s calculations.

In terms of policies, FIRE collects information on speech codes — and confirmed incidents of censorship or violations of due process — for more than 450 universities nationwide. Each of these schools are assigned a FIRE rating based on their official policies regarding academic freedom and due process. If Beauchamp was primarily concerned about “rights,” it seems as though this dataset is where he should have put his main emphasis.

But the story these data tell are pretty inconvenient for his thesis: nearly a third of the institutions in the set have a “red” rating – indicating policies that significantly threaten freedom of expression or due process. Meanwhile, only about 10% have a “green” rating, indicating strong, consistent support for academic freedom and due process.

In other words, if Beauchamp wants to retroactively portray his story as being about “rights,” then the data he chose to highlight in his essays were even less appropriate than they would be if he was speaking about prevalence. And that’s saying something – because literally none of the datasets he relied on could effectively address the overall prevalence of campus incidents. Moreover, if he was primarily analyzing “speech rights of faculty and students” the FIRE resources would pose an even larger problem for this thesis than they already do.

But let’s be clear: his original essay was not about “rights” — it was about how common free speech incidents are on campus. Indeed, the word “incident” was used more than 10 times in the original essay and 24 in the rebuttal attempt (as compared to two instances of “rights” in each).

Beauchamp also ignored useful resources from FIRE regarding the question he was actually trying to explore (again, “How common are these campus incidents?”): beyond the disinvitation database (which he mentioned) and their publicly-listed court cases (which he neglected), FIRE also has a searchable database containing incidents of attempted censorship or due-process violations at the 450 schools they track. This dataset makes no pretense towards being exhaustive. Nonetheless, it contains hundreds of incidents.

It is very telling that there are this many incidents from just 450 universities, out of “4583 colleges and universities in the United States (including two and four year institutions).” If we are already at hundreds from FIRE’s data alone, based on just 1/10 U.S. schools, consider what the number would likely be if FIRE could collect comparable data on the remaining 4000 or so institutions of higher learning. My bet is we would end up at more than “dozens.”

In short, rather than helping Beauchamp in any way, including FIRE among his list of sources only reinforces concerns that Beauchamp is underutilizing the very data sources he’s citing.

The FIRE example also provides yet another illustration of Beauchamp presenting a picture of the world that is out of step with that of his sources. FIRE strongly disputes Beauchamp’s portrayal of the free speech situation on campus. Beauchamp obliquely acknowledged this in his attempted rebuttal, but failed to mention or address that FIRE also published a rejoinder to him, which I linked to in my original essay, and have shared again above.

Again, had Beauchamp reached out to FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, as he eventually did with Sachs and Ungar, he would have been informed (as I was informed) that even the hundreds of incidents Beauchamp could have easily culled from FIRE’s publicly-available resources are just scratching the surface – they actually get about 1k direct requests for help each year, only a fraction of which they can ultimately pursue in court, etc. (due to constraints in resources, manpower, and the like).

In short: Beauchamp is correct to insist that he did briefly mention FIRE in his original essay, despite my claim to the contrary. However, this is of little use for him, because his treatment of the data from FIRE was just as problematic as that from Sachs and the FSP.

More Essays, More Problems

As the preceding sections showed, Beauchamp’s attempted rebuttal did not dislodge any of the core criticisms I offered of his piece. If anything, he dug the hole deeper by adding FIRE into the mix as yet another institution whose data he misrepresented and underutilized (rather than simply ignoring, as I initially suggested).

But there still are a few more issues we have to flag. First, a problem I alluded to in my original essay, but which needs to be rendered more explicit because Beauchamp doubled-down on the error in his attempted rebuttal: he repeatedly claims that the data from Sachs, the FSP and FIRE all seemed to tell “the same story” — “dozens” of incidents. This is a basic statistical error.

In fact, all of these datasets were speaking to different phenomena — disinvitations v. faculty firings v. campus protests etc. – meaning they each tell a different story. Given that the cases in each of the sets are generally non-redundant, they would actually need to be combined (i.e. added) together in order to get on the same page, to actually tell the “same story” about campus incidents in general. So let’s do that:

Between 2016 and the time Beauchamp wrote his essay, the FSP database had come to include 90 campus incidents. There were also 43 incidents from Sachs’ database on faculty firings within this period, and 88 disinvitations from the FIRE dataset. Summing them up we can see that, just from the narrow range of data Beauchamp himself cited, a more accurate description is that there were “hundreds” of free speech incidents, not “dozens,” in the last two years. Had Beauchamp incorporated the full range of publicly-available data from FIRE and HxA, both sources he cited in his original essay, the number would be much higher still.

And although we actually don’t have to speculate about all the incidents that HxA, FSP, FIRE and Sachs fail to capture in order to clearly see that Beauchamp underrepresented campus incidents in his essay(s) – it is worth noting again that, even collectively, these datasets are nowhere near comprehensive in capturing incidents of suppression of speech or ideas. As I flagged in my initial rejoinder:

“All of us are only looking at situations that involve terminations, make the news, or end up in court… We are not able – even collectively – to capture all publicly-available incidents. We will never be able to capture other, likely far more prevalent, incidents of suppression of speech or ideas that do not end up in major media outlets, in courtrooms, etc. As a result, the default assumption should be that the problem is likely worse than the available data suggest (maybe not by much… but also, maybe by a lot).”

II.

In addition to doubling down on previous mistakes, Beauchamp concludes his essay by committing a few new errors that are worth noting: First, he again attributes to me a belief that there is a free speech crisis, despite my repeated assertions — in the very essay he is responding to — that I do not actually hold that view. For instance:

“I do not have any particular investment in whether or not there is a free speech ‘crisis’ (I try to avoid this kind of language myself, as a rule). Nor do I have any stake in whether or not the contemporary cohort of young people (iGen) are profoundly different from previous generations. My only aim here was to debunk low-quality research / analysis on these topics, not to argue for or against any particular position on them.”

I’m not sure how I could have made my own position any clearer. Yet Beauchamp nonetheless structured his entire “rebuttal” as an attempted debunking of a belief that I explicitly do not hold (even calling his attempted rebuttal the “Myth of the Campus Free Speech Crisis” as though that is any kind of refutation of my own position). See: Straw-man fallacy.

Second, he runs together the issues of an alleged “free speech crisis” and “liberal bias” in academia — in an attempt to dismiss both.

Example:

“So why does this all matter? It matters because claims of a campus free speech crisis (al-Gharbi’s piece included) unintentionally bolster a right-wing narrative that the campus is a haven of out-of-control liberalism — and that something dramatic needs to be done to address that. In a vacuum, the notion of promoting ‘viewpoint diversity’ is laudable. But we aren’t operating in a vacuum: We’re operating in a world where Republican legislators are using allegations of a campus free speech crisis and liberal bias among the academy to further efforts to crack down on individual freedom.”

We should definitely separate the issue of the “free speech crisis” from the “liberal bias” in academia. Here’s why:

As I have repeatedly stated in both this essay and the previous one, it is a live debate whether or not there are significant changes underway in terms of how young people view speech — and whether those changes would constitute a “crisis” even if established. Skepticism here is perfectly fine (notwithstanding Beauchamp and Yglesias’ failed attempts at “proving” there is no crisis).

However, the evidence of deep political bias in social research fields is far clearer: It affects how social problems are defined and studied. It affects how committees of professors make decisions in peer review, hiring, promotion, grad school admissions and beyond. It affects which materials are assigned to the curriculum and how they are engaged. It affects the opinions of religious, conservative, rural, low-income and/or minority students about whether the academy has a place for them, or whether they would be better suited elsewhere. It affects how policymakers and the public evaluate the credibility or utility of social research. And it affects virtually all of these things in a negative way.

Heterodox Academy has built a library with a sampling of peer-reviewed empirical studies highlighting this phenomenon and its impacts in various social research fields – a corpus that merely scratches the surface of the available evidence on this question. More has been building every day since HxA burst onto the scene and inspired greater interest in this issue among academic researchers.

Again, this is the problem Heterodox Academy was created to address: homogeneity and insularity within the humanities and social sciences. It is a serious problem which undermines the quality and impact of research and pedagogy. And it is not just a problem for academics: to the extent that good social research is distrusted, or biased and unreliable social research is utilized, this has negative downstream consequences for the populations scholars study and often wish to empower or assist (typically those of low socio-economic status, or those from historically marginalized or disenfranchised groups).

Conclusion: “Heterodox Academy, and why this debate matters at all”

Let me conclude by returning to the theme I led with: in this highly-polarized political moment, it is generally assumed that if someone is pushing back against a popular left-leaning narrative, or espousing an inconvenient view for the left, then they are de facto aligned with the right, intentionally or not. Beauchamp’s rebuttal attempt provides a great example of this fundamentalist thinking: highlighting systemic political bias or threats to free speech on campus will help the right – regardless of one’s intentions –and so, apparently, we should not talk about these issues (except, perhaps, to deny they are a big deal).

I am deeply familiar with this “logic”: as a Muslim scholar who, until recently, worked exclusively on national security and foreign policy issues, it was regularly *suggested* to me that criticism of the “War on Terror” – especially by “people like me” — provided cover or ammunition for al-Qaeda, ISIS and their sympathizers. In the view of these critics (mostly on the right), I was aiding and abetting “the enemy,” intentionally or not.

There was even an article published in the National Security Law Journal which argued that I, and academics like me (by which the author seemed to mean: Muslim, left-leaning, and politically “radical”) should be viewed as enemies of the state — and could legitimately be targeted by national security and law enforcement agencies. This article was eventually retracted, and its author forced to resign from his position at West Point (as described in the Washington Post here). But suffice it to say, I *get* the kind of narrative Beauchamp is trying to spin here, and I reject it whole-cloth.

I challenge U.S. national security and foreign policy precisely to render it more effective, efficient and beneficent – because I actually have “skin in the game” with regards to how the military is deployed. I relentlessly criticize bad research on Trump and his supporters because it is important for the opposition to be clear-eyed and level-headed about why he won – to help ensure it does not happen again. A similar type of motivation undergirds my critique of Beauchamp and Yglesias:

It does not help the left or academics to respond to distortions and exaggerations on the right by denying that there is any significant problem. It is especially damaging for “wonks” or academics to dress up these kinds of political narratives as social research – even more so if this “research” suffers from major errors or shortcomings like the essays criticized here.

Such a strategy is self-defeating because it is the left, those in humanities and social sciences, those from historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups, and those who seek to give voice to these perspectives or to help these populations, who stand to lose the most if the credibility of social research is further eroded due to perceived partisanship.

One brief example from an essay Jonathan Haidt and I wrote for The Atlantic:

Most of the major “free speech” blowups have happened at elite private schools (or “public Ivies” like Berkeley) – which are disproportionately attended by upper-income and white students, and disproportionately staffed by faculty who are white and male.

Yet, which schools are paying the cost for public dissatisfaction about the state of higher ed (driven in large part by these incidents at elite, private institutions)? Public land-grant schools like University of Arizona (my alma mater): the very schools that are most likely to educate lower-income and minority students, and the very schools that are most likely to have tenured or tenure-track professors that are women and minorities.

Within these schools, which programs are first on the chopping block? Humanities and social sciences – the very fields in which women, blacks and Hispanics are most likely to hold professorships, and in which students of color and women are among the most likely to enroll.

Hence, what Heterodox Academy is trying to achieve isn’t something “laudable” in the abstract, for those “operating in a vacuum” (as Beauchamp describes). The reverse is true: some people have the luxury of ignoring or denying the problem because they are not directly grappling with the fallout. Beauchamp graduated from Brown and the LSE (Yglesias, from Harvard). For lack of a better way to say this: It shows.

Yet, if concerned about social justice, it is absolutely essential for those who are part of elite institutions (including those at my current home, Columbia) to understand these dynamics, and to be cognizant of the way their actions can have ramifications for less privileged students and faculty, especially those at less insulated (i.e. virtually all other) colleges and universities.

This is a tough pill to swallow. I get why many on the left, especially at elite universities and media outlets, would rather just say “nothing to see here,” than to confront these realities. But it will not do, for all of us to simply close ranks and insist “there is no problem, we will make no changes.” Because there is a problem — and change is coming to institutions of higher learning, one way or another.

At Heterodox Academy it has always been our hope and expectation that when professors and administrators come to understand the seriousness of the challenge we face, they will rise to the occasion — out of their own commitment to truth and rigor (or self-preservation!) — and correct course while we still have choices regarding how our institutions and practices are best reformed. In order to facilitate these efforts, HxA produces and consolidates research, tools and strategies to help university stakeholders understand and address the lack of viewpoint diversity, mutual understanding and constructive disagreement within institutions of higher learning. Soon, we hope to foster networks within and between research fields (or institutional roles) to further accelerate the reform process.

However, we do all this with an acute awareness that if we fail in our mission — if social researchers cannot restore sufficient faith in our work, and in our academic institutions — then we are likely to see continued declines in enrollments, and even more  ham-fisted and harmful legislation of the sort Beauchamp highlighted. In fact, a segment from the previous essay provides a fine note to close out this whole discussion:

“[Dr. Ungar] also posits, regarding the myriad laws being passed to help “fix” institutions of higher learning – often these “cures” seem to be worse than the “disease” they are trying to address. Many in Heterodox Academy share these sentiments. In fact, HxA Research Associate and NYU Law student Nick Philips has argued both of these points in recent publications: campus conservatives must check their own trolling; attempting to legislate away the socio-political tensions within universities is probably a bad idea. FYI: Nick is a conservative. These do not have to (and should not) be partisan issues.”

No doubt, there is an active and cynical campaign by some on the right to reduce the complicated challenges facing universities into wedge political issues. But here’s the thing, we actually don’t have to oblige them (by reflexively adopting a simplistic position, diametrically opposed to theirs). We can steer this in a different direction. And I hope that’s what we do.

As an organization that prizes pluralism and disagreement — with more than 2k members holding diverse views on most issues — Heterodox Academy does not really have “official positions.”

Opinions expressed here are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply endorsement by Heterodox Academy or any of its members. We welcome your comments below. Feel free to challenge and disagree, but please try to model the sort of respectful and constructive criticism that makes viewpoint diversity most valuable. Comments that include obscenity or that sound like a tirade or screed are likely to be deleted.

Source: https://heterodoxacademy.org/vox-consistent-errors-campus-speech-beauchamp/

[brandondiaz13posts-blog]

Rapid Manual to Five Personality Lessons in Diablo 3

At her recent swearing in as Money Minister for the 2nd time around, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala allegedly reported, "I am here to generate jobs." That's music to the ears of Nigerians, such as the noted and staggering 40 million job-seekers and those that know that lack of employment is a important contributor to the high offense wave in most edges of our Motherland. Combined with passage of indigene legislation, Nigeria can foster greater property roots and procedures capable of ameliorating sectarian violations, such as for instance those that usually happen in Jos and other parts of our "One Nigeria ".

I understood Mrs. Iweala's "I am here to generate careers" comment to signify she will work hard to generate an economic atmosphere that's good to the personal market creating excellent spending careers for Nigerian people and immigrants. I'll return to why the "immigrants" portion is critical to Nigeria's growth and prosperity.

It will not be simple!

President Goodluck Jonathan  bola88 must certanly be commended for the heightened emphasis he seems to be according to the improvement of Nigeria's economy. I hope both President and Money Minister succeed for the nice of Nigerians, but like many Nigerians, I'll hold more reward till I see measurable results whilst we help just their worthwhile efforts. Nigerian history is saturated in false starts and lost opportunities.

Nevertheless, the President and the Minister can not and shouldn't be expected to do all of it by themselves without our support. Nigerians everywhere should get all practical terrace and contribute to worthwhile causes of any administration. Both job seekers and the used must have strong work ethics and give remarkable solutions that make their employers'firms prosper to allow them to hire more people and remain in operation for a long time. Every worker should work it like it were their father's company.

In the world's more effective economies, the personal market may be the motor of development and job creation. Nigeria does not need more government or community market jobs. It takes more sustainable personal market workers.

That and every administration must certanly be vocally criticized if they follow the wrong agenda. That's constructive and great for all. Each administration must certanly be evaluated by how it improves the lives of the people in the short and long haul with the people asserting their responsibilities along the way too.

For the first time ever, I wrote to Nigerian President in Might 2011 to question him to place growth of Nigeria's new property industry towards the top of his economic agenda for the betterment of all. I explained the potential externalities of the brand new house industry for the Nigerian economy. For the reason that missive, I indicated my willingness to contribute professional bono compared to that effort. I managed to get very distinct that I neither find any monetary/political prize nor do I want to return to Nigeria permanently anytime soon.

Being material in America does not preclude me (or others) from making trips to Nigeria (at personal expense) to greatly help organize seminars and tours for educating Nigeria's aspiring homebuilders who wish to understand the National new property methods. Certainly, I do not need all the responses but because that is my excited career (new homes) in America, it's my wish to give right back by contributing the little I understand to new domiciles growth inside our precious Nigeria.

I respect Mrs. Iweala's choice to return to Nigeria to serve. I believe she'll accomplish properly in her encore as Money Minister. After being towards the top of one's job overseas for several years, it can be hard to uproot one's family. Leaving one's household abroad and returning house to work in Nigeria is a heavy commitment also, regardless of how much one earns there.

Nigerians inside and external the nation should respect those that drop this path to help, and never to loot the coffers. The leaders who question these experts to return with their birthplace must certanly be acknowledged and praised predicated on good results, perhaps not top services.

It was noted that President Jonathan recently formed the National Financial Administration Group (NEMT) to spearhead his economic agenda. The names and agencies that make up the staff seem impressive. If egos are examined at the doorway, and bureaucratic inertia is prohibited to engrain, breathtaking excellent may come from this team. Nigerians everywhere have now been waiting for the "coming" to come.

It is to the pleasant credit of the Jonathan administration and all the NEMT members should they achieve real success. Nigerians must certanly be cautiously optimistic.

Despite what some at home might think about those of us in Diaspora, all of us want Nigeria to improve. We wish to have the practical option to return to Nigeria for good. We starvation to contribute our reveal to the growth of our Motherland. We want to get our youngsters to Nigeria to exhibit them how good and free life could be there, not only to exhibit them how excellent they have it here overseas. Most of us love Nigeria (too), perhaps, a lot more than Nigeria enjoys us!

True Nigerian experts abroad were not swayed a couple of years ago by yesteryear administration's "Clarion Contact" to return house, since that was perceived as a rudderless call. Nigeria has disappointed so many of its persons so often that the few who have discovered greener pastures overseas will not be simply lead into the lion's bedroom again. They see footprints pointing inward without the footprints coming out; and they know that those that entered were used by the hungry lion in the den.