In addition to being uncharitable and censorious, as you say, the responses to your post are just embarrassingly parochial. I spent the past year working as a tutor at an American-style liberal arts college in China, and often had to explain the diversity-signalling function of personal statements and the like to Chinese and other non-American students applying to US grad programs who weren't already inducted into the game. The whole culture war over race and diversity is an American phenomenon that's largely alien to foreigners, but the progressive proponents of AA don't realize how culturally specific their views and the terms of the debate themselves are.
I know perfectly well that some philosophy departments have hired a woman over more qualified men. I know this because I was on the hiring committees that did it. My colleagues and I did it multiple times, at multiple universities. And no, there was nothing special about those universities, my colleagues, or me. Anyone who denies that this happens frequently is just in denial or outside the philosophy culture.
It's not just philosophy departments, or even just universities. Lots of large institutions developed hiring processes with diversity goals or criteria that made it very likely that white men would be weeded out early during job searches. It's incredible bad faith for people to pretend it wasn't happening.
"diversity goals or criteria that made it very likely that white men would be weeded out early during job searches"
Could you elaborate on this? Are you simply referring to quotas (e.g. "50% of our managers will be women or racial minorities by 2028"), or is there something more subtle at play?
Keep trying. Maybe it’s trite to say at this point but I do think that the correct response to speech of any kind is more speech and better speech (reasoned and charitable and thoughtful).
So yeah, I suspect that many who speak in the manner that you document actually don’t agree that “the correct response to bad ideas is debate rather than sanctions,” but I think you should reply to their sanctions and apparent unwillingness to read and respond with charity and grace with more debate. I’m an optimist on this point — it will eventually win out. And even if it didn’t it’s the right thing to do. (I see it as a form of turning the other cheek, which, contra Nietzsche, I view as an admirable form of great strength.)
How do your critics define affirmative action? Holding other metrics fixed, what is it if not selecting on the basis of race, gender, or other demographic markers, at the very least to break ties, but possibly often to constitute shortlists, too?
Right. But then it is extremely odd to call you out for saying that AA is what they believe it is. They must believe it is something like that to be able to claim its successes and defend it. If it is not something like that, then what is it that they are defending? (To be clear my point only concerns the descriptive account of AA, not whether it is fair, etc.)
I have no clue. I think they get pressed when it's described without euphemism, but then ultimately articulate the same idea but in ways that are more palatable because obscuring.
I think the elite over-production theory explains a lot of the progressive vitriol in academia and other sectors like media and non-profits. As the number of jobs in these "desirable" sectors goes down the remaining potential workers bolster their own chances and eliminate competition by making normal discourse out of bounds.
I have been on the same path of trying to encourage people to be more self-critical and open to alternate views, and have run into a lot of the same frustrating commentary and conversation when doing so. It's discouraging to be aware that this has been a part of human behavior for as long as we have a robust record or disagreement, but maybe it's not unsolvable.
I wonder if the way people respond to issues like affirmative action should point us in the direction of economically egalitarian policies like UBI. It seems that people on both the right- and left-wing ends of the spectrum have trouble engaging in the kind of reasoned discussion you (I think rightly) call for here, largely because the issue seems existentially threatening. Whatever side of an affirmative action policy (or non-policy) one ends up on makes a huge difference for one's survival and fulfillment in life (or the survival and fulfillment of others close to one).
There's also the broader question of whether academic hiring (or hiring in general) should be meritocratic, which I think a lot of people endorse before thinking through how complicated so-called meritocracy can be (should factors like "academic pedigree," "fit," or personal connections be excluded from consideration?--that would be a drastic shift from current procedures). Another question: Is "meritocracy" even possible in situations where hundreds of qualified applicants apply for every position (or even grad program admission at this point)? It's all pretty tangled, imo.
Interesting. I think universal social welfare programs could alleviate a lot of social ills. In this case, though, I'm sure. Affirmative action in academia is motivated not just by economic precarity but also inequalities in status and knowledge production. Hard to see how UBI would help with that.
I'm envisioning a situation in which the realistic options aren't 1) get tenure-track job or 2) do something else, but also 3) cobble together UBI and part-time work to still do academic work and maybe even still participate in things like conferences.
Of course, we're probably not getting UBI any time soon anyhow...
UBI would help a lot of folks working in the trenches of academia, but I don't think it would address the affirmative action issue, because people working in academia are motivated by non-monetary factors. If you have an advanced degree -- certainly in STEM and I suspect even in the humanities -- you can get a job in corporate America that will pay you much more than academia will. This is true even for tenured profs at the Ivies; their pay is much higher than that of the median American, but much lower than that of the median PhD with Ivy League connections.
But people still chase the prestige and culture and meaning (and the not having to leave the ivory tower) associated with academic life. UBI can stretch the university's budget to let it hire more people, perhaps, but I can't imagine this ever reaching the point where the number of academic jobs is anywhere near the number of people wanting those jobs.
I'm equal parts fascinated and horrified by the idea in that first set of comments that "generational trauma" means not just that descendants of slaves are still suffering the trauma of slavery, I guess, but also that descendants of racists are still enjoying the "blood lust" of racism. Seems to me, that's of a piece with the current definition of "white supremacy" on the left, which never seems to have any real content beyond "white people perpetuate white racism merely by existing." It's a way of giving emotional power to arguments in favor of affirmative action, DEI, whatever you want to call it, by asserting that slavery and Jim Crow never really ended, and indeed never really CAN end.
Many thanks for the wit and good humour in this (very serious) piece. Only one question: is it possible that the performatively-outraged replies reflect engagement-boosting habits learnt on social media over time? It may that they disagree with the substance, and their Overton Window has shrunk, also possible that they've learned a take-no-prisoners debating style which captures the attention of their peers. Perhaps these factors interact
Great post. And of course, in all this vitriol, there is a big question: what, exactly, is affirmative action for? I think part of the problem in America is that there is a weird "disparate impact" culture in progressive institutions. Any "gap" between people of races/ethnicities/genders in any institution is considered, by default, to be a problem and worse, a problem that every institution has to be fixed, even if that way lies madness. And of course, since that is not possible, the only way that remains is the policing of the Overton window. I wrote about this a bit in this post: https://danieloppenheimer.substack.com/p/the-janine-chronicles-contd.
This is of course besides the point (which I completely agree with!), but damn, I just want affirmative action to be solidly in place on the basis of class, not race. Poverty disproportionately affects minorities so it would still achieve the same thing, but remove the objectionable reverse discrimination aspect.
I may have seen this kind of discussion a thousand times over the last decade, but I still find it fascinating--both in its own right, and because it occurred in mid-2025, about three years after the woke Left peaked. I think that the chaos of Trump's second term has heavily obscured the fact that the woke Left isn't gone, and probably won't be for quite some time.
I wonder whether the Left will rediscover its liberal principles once the woke Right comes into full bloom, which will probably occur near 2030.
For a person like me who seeks massive changes in academia, that window is far too narrow. The humorous bit is that it makes people feel good to tell themselves that they ponder the ideas of others objectively, that is until they’re threatened in sensible ways. With few exceptions they recoil in anger. I have great respect for opponents who are able to consider my ideas without getting angry, and suspect that their “Gandhi-ness” generally serves them well.
Here’s a quick laundry list of some things that I talk about that also tends to anger people in academia:
-Many who consider themselves highly naturalistic (often followers of Daniel Dennett), believe all sorts of magical nonsense about the mind and computers.
-Greater advancement in science will require a new community of “meta scientists” to emerge which helps found it in terms of what exists (metaphysics), how to explore what exists (epistemology), and what’s valuable (axiology).
-Morality exists as an evolved social tool of persuasion that’s psychologically reducible.
-Our mental and behavioral sciences largely fail because the social tool of morality punishes scientists in its most central forms from formally acknowledging that value exists as what feels good rather than bad. (Psychologists fail this constraint given their centrality, while economists succeed.)
I'm not altogether opposed to some forms of affirmative action, but I think it's funny and a little scary that the first line of defense for liberals is, essentially, denying that it has ever existed
In addition to being uncharitable and censorious, as you say, the responses to your post are just embarrassingly parochial. I spent the past year working as a tutor at an American-style liberal arts college in China, and often had to explain the diversity-signalling function of personal statements and the like to Chinese and other non-American students applying to US grad programs who weren't already inducted into the game. The whole culture war over race and diversity is an American phenomenon that's largely alien to foreigners, but the progressive proponents of AA don't realize how culturally specific their views and the terms of the debate themselves are.
Sharing for anyone interested: I've posted further reflections on this debacle--and on the concept of dog whistling, cancel culture, and the norms of political speech--here at my personal substack Arriving Yesterday: https://open.substack.com/pub/arrivingyesterday/p/do-you-really-hear-a-dog-whistle?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b23a3
I know perfectly well that some philosophy departments have hired a woman over more qualified men. I know this because I was on the hiring committees that did it. My colleagues and I did it multiple times, at multiple universities. And no, there was nothing special about those universities, my colleagues, or me. Anyone who denies that this happens frequently is just in denial or outside the philosophy culture.
It's not just philosophy departments, or even just universities. Lots of large institutions developed hiring processes with diversity goals or criteria that made it very likely that white men would be weeded out early during job searches. It's incredible bad faith for people to pretend it wasn't happening.
"diversity goals or criteria that made it very likely that white men would be weeded out early during job searches"
Could you elaborate on this? Are you simply referring to quotas (e.g. "50% of our managers will be women or racial minorities by 2028"), or is there something more subtle at play?
Or with things like "cluster hires."
Keep trying. Maybe it’s trite to say at this point but I do think that the correct response to speech of any kind is more speech and better speech (reasoned and charitable and thoughtful).
So yeah, I suspect that many who speak in the manner that you document actually don’t agree that “the correct response to bad ideas is debate rather than sanctions,” but I think you should reply to their sanctions and apparent unwillingness to read and respond with charity and grace with more debate. I’m an optimist on this point — it will eventually win out. And even if it didn’t it’s the right thing to do. (I see it as a form of turning the other cheek, which, contra Nietzsche, I view as an admirable form of great strength.)
How do your critics define affirmative action? Holding other metrics fixed, what is it if not selecting on the basis of race, gender, or other demographic markers, at the very least to break ties, but possibly often to constitute shortlists, too?
Some define it that way and defend it, e.g., compensating for previous unjust disadvantages. Others...are incoherent.
Right. But then it is extremely odd to call you out for saying that AA is what they believe it is. They must believe it is something like that to be able to claim its successes and defend it. If it is not something like that, then what is it that they are defending? (To be clear my point only concerns the descriptive account of AA, not whether it is fair, etc.)
I have no clue. I think they get pressed when it's described without euphemism, but then ultimately articulate the same idea but in ways that are more palatable because obscuring.
Thanks for modeling reasonableness and civil discourse. It’s hard to watch people work so hard not to understand.
I think the elite over-production theory explains a lot of the progressive vitriol in academia and other sectors like media and non-profits. As the number of jobs in these "desirable" sectors goes down the remaining potential workers bolster their own chances and eliminate competition by making normal discourse out of bounds.
I have been on the same path of trying to encourage people to be more self-critical and open to alternate views, and have run into a lot of the same frustrating commentary and conversation when doing so. It's discouraging to be aware that this has been a part of human behavior for as long as we have a robust record or disagreement, but maybe it's not unsolvable.
I'm pessimistic but trying anyway.
I wonder if the way people respond to issues like affirmative action should point us in the direction of economically egalitarian policies like UBI. It seems that people on both the right- and left-wing ends of the spectrum have trouble engaging in the kind of reasoned discussion you (I think rightly) call for here, largely because the issue seems existentially threatening. Whatever side of an affirmative action policy (or non-policy) one ends up on makes a huge difference for one's survival and fulfillment in life (or the survival and fulfillment of others close to one).
There's also the broader question of whether academic hiring (or hiring in general) should be meritocratic, which I think a lot of people endorse before thinking through how complicated so-called meritocracy can be (should factors like "academic pedigree," "fit," or personal connections be excluded from consideration?--that would be a drastic shift from current procedures). Another question: Is "meritocracy" even possible in situations where hundreds of qualified applicants apply for every position (or even grad program admission at this point)? It's all pretty tangled, imo.
Interesting. I think universal social welfare programs could alleviate a lot of social ills. In this case, though, I'm sure. Affirmative action in academia is motivated not just by economic precarity but also inequalities in status and knowledge production. Hard to see how UBI would help with that.
I'm envisioning a situation in which the realistic options aren't 1) get tenure-track job or 2) do something else, but also 3) cobble together UBI and part-time work to still do academic work and maybe even still participate in things like conferences.
Of course, we're probably not getting UBI any time soon anyhow...
UBI would help a lot of folks working in the trenches of academia, but I don't think it would address the affirmative action issue, because people working in academia are motivated by non-monetary factors. If you have an advanced degree -- certainly in STEM and I suspect even in the humanities -- you can get a job in corporate America that will pay you much more than academia will. This is true even for tenured profs at the Ivies; their pay is much higher than that of the median American, but much lower than that of the median PhD with Ivy League connections.
But people still chase the prestige and culture and meaning (and the not having to leave the ivory tower) associated with academic life. UBI can stretch the university's budget to let it hire more people, perhaps, but I can't imagine this ever reaching the point where the number of academic jobs is anywhere near the number of people wanting those jobs.
I'm equal parts fascinated and horrified by the idea in that first set of comments that "generational trauma" means not just that descendants of slaves are still suffering the trauma of slavery, I guess, but also that descendants of racists are still enjoying the "blood lust" of racism. Seems to me, that's of a piece with the current definition of "white supremacy" on the left, which never seems to have any real content beyond "white people perpetuate white racism merely by existing." It's a way of giving emotional power to arguments in favor of affirmative action, DEI, whatever you want to call it, by asserting that slavery and Jim Crow never really ended, and indeed never really CAN end.
Many thanks for the wit and good humour in this (very serious) piece. Only one question: is it possible that the performatively-outraged replies reflect engagement-boosting habits learnt on social media over time? It may that they disagree with the substance, and their Overton Window has shrunk, also possible that they've learned a take-no-prisoners debating style which captures the attention of their peers. Perhaps these factors interact
Yes, I think that’s right. I discuss related issues here.
https://openquestionsblog.substack.com/p/the-fragmentation-of-america
This is a great post! If we all did a better job of engaging with opinions we don’t usually agree with, discourse would elevate.
Great post. And of course, in all this vitriol, there is a big question: what, exactly, is affirmative action for? I think part of the problem in America is that there is a weird "disparate impact" culture in progressive institutions. Any "gap" between people of races/ethnicities/genders in any institution is considered, by default, to be a problem and worse, a problem that every institution has to be fixed, even if that way lies madness. And of course, since that is not possible, the only way that remains is the policing of the Overton window. I wrote about this a bit in this post: https://danieloppenheimer.substack.com/p/the-janine-chronicles-contd.
This is of course besides the point (which I completely agree with!), but damn, I just want affirmative action to be solidly in place on the basis of class, not race. Poverty disproportionately affects minorities so it would still achieve the same thing, but remove the objectionable reverse discrimination aspect.
I may have seen this kind of discussion a thousand times over the last decade, but I still find it fascinating--both in its own right, and because it occurred in mid-2025, about three years after the woke Left peaked. I think that the chaos of Trump's second term has heavily obscured the fact that the woke Left isn't gone, and probably won't be for quite some time.
I wonder whether the Left will rediscover its liberal principles once the woke Right comes into full bloom, which will probably occur near 2030.
For a person like me who seeks massive changes in academia, that window is far too narrow. The humorous bit is that it makes people feel good to tell themselves that they ponder the ideas of others objectively, that is until they’re threatened in sensible ways. With few exceptions they recoil in anger. I have great respect for opponents who are able to consider my ideas without getting angry, and suspect that their “Gandhi-ness” generally serves them well.
Here’s a quick laundry list of some things that I talk about that also tends to anger people in academia:
-Many who consider themselves highly naturalistic (often followers of Daniel Dennett), believe all sorts of magical nonsense about the mind and computers.
-Greater advancement in science will require a new community of “meta scientists” to emerge which helps found it in terms of what exists (metaphysics), how to explore what exists (epistemology), and what’s valuable (axiology).
-Morality exists as an evolved social tool of persuasion that’s psychologically reducible.
-Our mental and behavioral sciences largely fail because the social tool of morality punishes scientists in its most central forms from formally acknowledging that value exists as what feels good rather than bad. (Psychologists fail this constraint given their centrality, while economists succeed.)
I'm not altogether opposed to some forms of affirmative action, but I think it's funny and a little scary that the first line of defense for liberals is, essentially, denying that it has ever existed