news.artnet.com: It’s a petty thing, given the scale of all that’s going on. But Mark Bauerlein’s op-ed last Friday in the New York Times offering helpful tips for the President on cultural policy—“Trump Wants to Make American Culture Great Again. This Is How He Should Do It”—is more than just a bad argument. Its curious incoherence is emblematic of a movement of cultural conservatives that’s lost the plot.
2 comments:
I think the word woke has been used as a buzz word on the conservative side of politics for way too long, just because humanities analyzes and goes over progressive ideologies and current world issues doesn’t mean it’s just woke slop propaganda. I feel like a large percentage of conservatives criticize humanities because they don’t understand its impact and the effect it has on everyone, a world without teaching the humanities is a world that’s doomed to fail but a lot of people like bauerlein don’t recognize that and that’s very scary especially since people like him are in power and are running the country with no sense of empathy or respect for the educators that are teaching such vital subject matter. University funding is not a waste, the work that universities put out has always been of high quality and the research done has always been important, its devastating to see how it’s been targeted
What a backwards way of thinking from the New York times. From an editorial that has been historically based on facts and reason (albeit against lots of liberal movements) this piece pointedly picks and chooses its facts to represent just like the president. I have never heard of professors in humanities teach in a way that is stifling ideological uniformity and focus on critique and social identity. How would all the professors be able to be uniform when you critique something? Yes they are judging and analyzing past work and status quo because it does not work but they can not all mean the same thing. The very purpose of the critique is to allow discussion of what is wrong, where that idea comes from and how it can be better to allow for more to be done. It's stifling for people who think that the way things have been done in the last 50 years, but there's always more to do and a better way to do it.
Post a Comment