"That is because despite Jonathan Haight’s famous piece claiming colleges have a choice between accepting that their telos is truth or that it is social justice, I know of no one who actually would say the latter is the telos. What Haidt offered, I think, is an odd false dichotomy—a choice between one thing that no one really thinks and another thing that many people do think, but mistakenly so."
Any number of Higher Ed leaders and students have claimed over the last so many years that their institutions exist for the sake of diversity. That is more or less the guiding principle behind the explosive growth of DEI bureaucracy. How could you not know of anyone asserting "social justice" as the telos of a university? Do you not know how to use Google?
Also, the way the above statement is phrased implies a misunderstanding of Haidt's (NOT "Haight’s") observation. He did not present universities with two choices. He presented an unbiased search for knowledge and truth as the traditional understanding of the purpose of the university. And then he pointed out that it's the universities themselves who have instead chosen to pursue social justice. He didn't say they must choose between one or the other, he pointed out that they have already discarded the former for the latter. And, yes, I believe he then proceeded to express his own support for the former. And good for him.
First, thanks for catching that typo. It’s fixed now.
Second, “for the sake of diversity”? I don’t think I’ve seen such claims. I have certainly seen many claim diversity is important for universities. Indeed, I agree with that--because diversity helps universities attain their telos and help in the pursuit of truth. Being important for universities, though, is not the same as being the *telos* of universities. Nor do I think diversity is the same as social justice (or "DEI"). Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point here?
Third, I don’t think your last paragraph expresses a disagreement with what I said—except, of course, that while I do think universities should pursue truth, I don’t think it’s the telos.
Regarding your statement: "Nor do I think diversity is the same as social justice (or 'DEI'). Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point here?"
The D in DEI stands for Diversity. I'm having a hard time believing that you aren't just deliberately trolling me with your statements. They are very hard to take seriously.
From Nate Silver, "Why liberalism and leftism are increasingly at odds": "Social Justice Leftism's focus on group identity contrasts sharply with liberalism’s individualism."
From Steven Pinker at the Boston Globe, "A five-point plan to save Harvard from itself": "Many of the assaults on academic freedom (not to mention common sense) come from a burgeoning bureaucracy that calls itself diversity, equity, and inclusion while enforcing a uniformity of opinion, a hierarchy of victim groups, and the exclusion of freethinkers. Often hastily appointed by deans as expiation for some gaffe or outrage, these officers stealthily implement policies that were never approved in faculty deliberations or by university leaders willing to take responsibility for them."
From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, "A Uniquely Terrible New DEI Policy": "Under the changes to California’s education code, all community-college employees will be evaluated in a way that places 'significant emphasis' on 'antiracist' and 'DEIA competencies.' (The A stands for 'accessibility.') For professors, that means all will be judged, whether in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions, on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as those concepts are understood and defined by state education bureaucrats."
The last ten years have been filled to the gills with stories, like the ones here referenced, chronicling, dissecting, and clearly identifying the fact that American Higher Ed, exactly as Jonathan Haidt indicated, chose to pursue and promote an illiberal ideology known as Wokeness, Social Justice Leftism, DEI, or whatever other name you may prefer.
It's almost impossible to believe that you could assert "I know of no one who actually would say" that Higher Ed adopted this ideology as its mission, its guiding principle, or, if you prefer, its Telos. Again, just use Google. There are hundreds if not thousands of people out there making that exact claim. I'm sorry, but if you're attempting to be serious rather than sarcastic, then you appear to be out of touch to an extent that's simply head-spinning.
Alot in there seems to repeat your central point, which I now think I understood. Perhaps we can clear up some of the confusion by noting discussing "telos."
Your view, if I understand it correctly, requires that the telos of a thing is what people (majority? all? implicitly?) believe it is--so you worry that because many academics (supposedly) believe college is for social justice, that is its telos. I would deny that. A "teleological explanation ... does not crucially depend upon the application of psychological concepts such as desires, beliefs, and intentions" (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FourCaus). The "idea is that the standards of goodness for a thing are determined by the kind of thing it is. ... kinds of things have a particular form, or shape. The form of hammers is just their hammer-shape. The form of a thing determines its function: the function of a hammer is to hammer because hammers are shaped in a way that makes them good for hammering. And function thus determines the *telos* (purpose or end) of the thing: hammers are for hammering, and a good hammer is one that hammers well" (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/).
Some smaller points:
-I know what "DEI" is an acronym for. I would deny, though, that the way the term is now used at most colleges has very much to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion. I haven't read this (https://amzn.to/42xHEf7), but am told it does some good in explaining the problems. Of interest also in Joseph Heath's recent post on misconstruals of "equity" (https://josephheath.substack.com/p/why-philosophers-hate-that-equity). Heath is always worth reading.
-The Nate Silver quote doesn't contain the word "diversity," nor the words "college" or "university." It thus doesn't support your claim.
-The Pinker quote is more interesting because it's about Harvard. But note that it doesn't contain the term "social justice." More importantly, it does say the relevant policies (presumably "DEI" or "social justice" related) "were never approved in faculty deliberations"--perhaps that is because the faculty do not approve them. Perhaps they realize that is not part of the telos of the university.
-The same basically applies to the Friedersdorf quote.
One last, bigger, point: on the view you seem to have, you can't criticize Universities for failing to do what they are supposed to do. On your view, after all, they are supposed to advocate social justice because that is what they (supposedly) think they are supposed to do. You can criticize them, but only for doing something different from what *you* (and Haidt, and others) think they should do. On my view, I can criticize them for that *and* for *failing to be Universities.*
In any case, I stand by what I have said. And, I assure you, none of this is meant to be trolling. I am simply trying to make clear what really matters. (I realize I may not be succeeding at doing so.)
YOU are the one who asserted that "the telos of a thing is what people believe it is." Here are your words from the original post:
"That is because despite Jonathan Haight’s famous piece claiming colleges have a choice between accepting that their telos is truth or that it is social justice, I KNOW OF NO ONE WHO ACTUALLY WOULD SAY the latter is the telos. What Haidt offered, I think, is an odd false dichotomy"
In other words, it's not a Telos if people aren't asserting as much.
So I responded in a manner appropriate to the premise which YOU set, and now, apparently, you try to pull that premise out from under us. There is indeed some confusion here, but it's not due to me.
"I know what 'DEI' is an acronym for. I would deny, though, that the way the term is now used at most colleges has very much to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion."
You don't say. You know who else thinks that DEI has little to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion? Jonathan Haidt. And your position is so increasingly unclear that I can no longer even tell if you agree or disagree with him.
The Nate Silver quote (obviously) asserts the existence of an identifiable ideology (which he calls Social Justice Leftism) which animates the Telos in question. It's relevance is abundantly clear. The Pinker quote discusses the same ideology as it manifests itself in Harvard. The Friedersdorf does the same in the context of the California Community College system.
And it should not be necessary for me to point any of that out. I am growing increasingly concerned, and I mean this in all seriousness: I hope that you are in fact entirely well. I'm sorry, but the way you have communicated in your initial column and in your follow up comments makes it all but impossible for me to believe that you are in fact a professor (as your bio asserts). I do not mean that as a personal judgment; I mean it as an expression of concern. If you really are in need of some kind of help, I truly do hope that you get it.
It does not seem likely that this will improve our dialogue, but I'll explain nonetheless.
-The quote you provide is just me explaining why I was *not* addressing the idea that the telos could be social justice as Haidt suggests many seem to think it is. Nothing more. When alot of people believe something I think mistaken, I have reason to explain why; when no one believes it, there is no reason to explain why they shouldn't. I was *not* saying it's not a telos because no one says it is. I was saying why it wasn't even worth *addressing* since no one believes it. It would have been like addressing the idea that the telos of college is to make people shorter.
-You are right that Haidt and I are in agreement about DEI. I think we agree about many things.
-We don't agree, though, about the telos of the university--which is partly why I wrote the post. Per the first point: since I know alot of people think Haidt is right about this and I think it's wrong, I had reason to argue against it.
-What you say here about the quotes is predicated on the idea that it's worth arguing about social justice being the telos; I don't think it is. I do think your use of the quotes problematic for the reasons I gave in my last response, but it doesn't matter very much.
To be honest, I am now wondering if *you* are trolling *me.* It's OK either way. If you actually believe what you wrote in your last paragraph.... thanks for your concern. But also: it's likely best you don't read this blog anymore. Sorry to lose someone who might have been an interesting interlocutor going forward. Wishing you well.
Re: truth, couldn't we say that we equip students to become good truth-seekers themselves? So we profs don't (just) use them for our search of truth. We improve their rational capacities. I'd say that's enough to hold that we don't treat them merely as tools.
The idea of university as a transformative experience was specific to a time when only a small proportion of young people went through it. Most came from well-off backgrounds where they could afford to spend four years finding themselves, or else they were bright and ambitious enough to succeed in doing that while also securing their future.
But if it becomes economically necessary that most of the workforce have post-school education or training, that doesn't work any more. University is primarily a continuation of school for most students, not a new and radically different experience. Those interested in the telos will be looking at graduate school (assuming this survives Trump)
I'm genuinely baffled as to why all universities should have a telos, or the same telos, let alone one oriented toward citizenship or something citizenship adjacent (any university that allows an anarchist to graduate has failed in its telos!).
Perhaps the telos of an MIT and the telos of an Oberlin differ. Perhaps instead it is the students' diversity of teloi that are closer to the truth. Or perhaps the Aristotelian framing is wrong, and a university is an ecosystem lacking any fixed telos of its own -- no more than a prairie or a friendship or a star has an intrinsic telos -- but an environment in which a variety of different ends are pursued by a variety of different agents and actors, and not the category of thing that has a telos in its own right.
Trying to pick the One Right Telos (and consign the rest to the flames?) seems like a classic bad-faith philosophical gambit: you concede the game by even allowing the phrasing of the question that way.
I actually agree. I think religious colleges, for an obvious example, have a telos different from others. Likely also Tech Schools (MIT, Cal Tech, etc). I imagine there are other types. I think, though, that there is a telos of the “classic college.” Also, I don’t think college is for everyone. Some should choose one of those types of colleges, others should choose something different. Each should choose what would most help them express their own telos.
If the telos of college is too produce well rounded persons, but college is not for everyone, does that mean that not everyone is meant to become well rounded? Some people are to remain stunted, or have some deformed personality? This seems objectionably elitist. If (to avoid the elitism objection) other means of becoming well rounded are available to non college people, then college seems to be performing some redundant function.
First, a quick and less important response. The same sort of objection could be levied against any of the suggested teloi. Some aren't mean to be good citizens? to know/seek truth? to be involved in social justice? That means they are meant to be "stunted" or "deformed"? That's elitist! BUT, the second response is more important from my point of view: I don't think it is elitist to recognize that not everyone is meant to go to college. I'm not sure why saying someone isn't meant to be *well rounded in the way a good college allows* should lead us to think they would be "stunted" or "deformed" in anyway. There is a close possible world where I never went to college and instead became a plumber. I have family members that did that and have great lives; I don't think they are stunted or deformed. We just lead different sorts of lives. Should they think I am stunted because I didn't do what they did? I wouldn't think so. Maybe the elitism is thinking the sort of life college allows for is the best way of life (full stop). It's a way of life. I like it. Maybe I love it. Maybe it's the best way of life *for me* (not honestly sure!). I don't think it's for everyone. I wouldn't have wanted it forced on me. I wish we'd stop forcing it on kids.
Maybe there are just certain connotations to the term "well rounded". To be well rounded is to not have too much of an excess in one aspect or too little in another. Consider it a covert Aristotelianism. It seems that insofar as well-roundedness is a virtue of any sort it is the kind of virtue a person possesses when he has achieved a golden mean, balancing his commitments in all spheres of human activity.
This sounds odd to me:
"That is because despite Jonathan Haight’s famous piece claiming colleges have a choice between accepting that their telos is truth or that it is social justice, I know of no one who actually would say the latter is the telos. What Haidt offered, I think, is an odd false dichotomy—a choice between one thing that no one really thinks and another thing that many people do think, but mistakenly so."
Any number of Higher Ed leaders and students have claimed over the last so many years that their institutions exist for the sake of diversity. That is more or less the guiding principle behind the explosive growth of DEI bureaucracy. How could you not know of anyone asserting "social justice" as the telos of a university? Do you not know how to use Google?
Also, the way the above statement is phrased implies a misunderstanding of Haidt's (NOT "Haight’s") observation. He did not present universities with two choices. He presented an unbiased search for knowledge and truth as the traditional understanding of the purpose of the university. And then he pointed out that it's the universities themselves who have instead chosen to pursue social justice. He didn't say they must choose between one or the other, he pointed out that they have already discarded the former for the latter. And, yes, I believe he then proceeded to express his own support for the former. And good for him.
First, thanks for catching that typo. It’s fixed now.
Second, “for the sake of diversity”? I don’t think I’ve seen such claims. I have certainly seen many claim diversity is important for universities. Indeed, I agree with that--because diversity helps universities attain their telos and help in the pursuit of truth. Being important for universities, though, is not the same as being the *telos* of universities. Nor do I think diversity is the same as social justice (or "DEI"). Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point here?
Third, I don’t think your last paragraph expresses a disagreement with what I said—except, of course, that while I do think universities should pursue truth, I don’t think it’s the telos.
Thanks!
Regarding your statement: "Nor do I think diversity is the same as social justice (or 'DEI'). Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point here?"
The D in DEI stands for Diversity. I'm having a hard time believing that you aren't just deliberately trolling me with your statements. They are very hard to take seriously.
From Nate Silver, "Why liberalism and leftism are increasingly at odds": "Social Justice Leftism's focus on group identity contrasts sharply with liberalism’s individualism."
From Steven Pinker at the Boston Globe, "A five-point plan to save Harvard from itself": "Many of the assaults on academic freedom (not to mention common sense) come from a burgeoning bureaucracy that calls itself diversity, equity, and inclusion while enforcing a uniformity of opinion, a hierarchy of victim groups, and the exclusion of freethinkers. Often hastily appointed by deans as expiation for some gaffe or outrage, these officers stealthily implement policies that were never approved in faculty deliberations or by university leaders willing to take responsibility for them."
From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, "A Uniquely Terrible New DEI Policy": "Under the changes to California’s education code, all community-college employees will be evaluated in a way that places 'significant emphasis' on 'antiracist' and 'DEIA competencies.' (The A stands for 'accessibility.') For professors, that means all will be judged, whether in hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions, on their embrace of controversial social-justice concepts as those concepts are understood and defined by state education bureaucrats."
The last ten years have been filled to the gills with stories, like the ones here referenced, chronicling, dissecting, and clearly identifying the fact that American Higher Ed, exactly as Jonathan Haidt indicated, chose to pursue and promote an illiberal ideology known as Wokeness, Social Justice Leftism, DEI, or whatever other name you may prefer.
It's almost impossible to believe that you could assert "I know of no one who actually would say" that Higher Ed adopted this ideology as its mission, its guiding principle, or, if you prefer, its Telos. Again, just use Google. There are hundreds if not thousands of people out there making that exact claim. I'm sorry, but if you're attempting to be serious rather than sarcastic, then you appear to be out of touch to an extent that's simply head-spinning.
Alot in there seems to repeat your central point, which I now think I understood. Perhaps we can clear up some of the confusion by noting discussing "telos."
Your view, if I understand it correctly, requires that the telos of a thing is what people (majority? all? implicitly?) believe it is--so you worry that because many academics (supposedly) believe college is for social justice, that is its telos. I would deny that. A "teleological explanation ... does not crucially depend upon the application of psychological concepts such as desires, beliefs, and intentions" (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FourCaus). The "idea is that the standards of goodness for a thing are determined by the kind of thing it is. ... kinds of things have a particular form, or shape. The form of hammers is just their hammer-shape. The form of a thing determines its function: the function of a hammer is to hammer because hammers are shaped in a way that makes them good for hammering. And function thus determines the *telos* (purpose or end) of the thing: hammers are for hammering, and a good hammer is one that hammers well" (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/).
Some smaller points:
-I know what "DEI" is an acronym for. I would deny, though, that the way the term is now used at most colleges has very much to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion. I haven't read this (https://amzn.to/42xHEf7), but am told it does some good in explaining the problems. Of interest also in Joseph Heath's recent post on misconstruals of "equity" (https://josephheath.substack.com/p/why-philosophers-hate-that-equity). Heath is always worth reading.
-The Nate Silver quote doesn't contain the word "diversity," nor the words "college" or "university." It thus doesn't support your claim.
-The Pinker quote is more interesting because it's about Harvard. But note that it doesn't contain the term "social justice." More importantly, it does say the relevant policies (presumably "DEI" or "social justice" related) "were never approved in faculty deliberations"--perhaps that is because the faculty do not approve them. Perhaps they realize that is not part of the telos of the university.
-The same basically applies to the Friedersdorf quote.
One last, bigger, point: on the view you seem to have, you can't criticize Universities for failing to do what they are supposed to do. On your view, after all, they are supposed to advocate social justice because that is what they (supposedly) think they are supposed to do. You can criticize them, but only for doing something different from what *you* (and Haidt, and others) think they should do. On my view, I can criticize them for that *and* for *failing to be Universities.*
In any case, I stand by what I have said. And, I assure you, none of this is meant to be trolling. I am simply trying to make clear what really matters. (I realize I may not be succeeding at doing so.)
YOU are the one who asserted that "the telos of a thing is what people believe it is." Here are your words from the original post:
"That is because despite Jonathan Haight’s famous piece claiming colleges have a choice between accepting that their telos is truth or that it is social justice, I KNOW OF NO ONE WHO ACTUALLY WOULD SAY the latter is the telos. What Haidt offered, I think, is an odd false dichotomy"
In other words, it's not a Telos if people aren't asserting as much.
So I responded in a manner appropriate to the premise which YOU set, and now, apparently, you try to pull that premise out from under us. There is indeed some confusion here, but it's not due to me.
"I know what 'DEI' is an acronym for. I would deny, though, that the way the term is now used at most colleges has very much to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion."
You don't say. You know who else thinks that DEI has little to do with diversity, equity, or inclusion? Jonathan Haidt. And your position is so increasingly unclear that I can no longer even tell if you agree or disagree with him.
The Nate Silver quote (obviously) asserts the existence of an identifiable ideology (which he calls Social Justice Leftism) which animates the Telos in question. It's relevance is abundantly clear. The Pinker quote discusses the same ideology as it manifests itself in Harvard. The Friedersdorf does the same in the context of the California Community College system.
And it should not be necessary for me to point any of that out. I am growing increasingly concerned, and I mean this in all seriousness: I hope that you are in fact entirely well. I'm sorry, but the way you have communicated in your initial column and in your follow up comments makes it all but impossible for me to believe that you are in fact a professor (as your bio asserts). I do not mean that as a personal judgment; I mean it as an expression of concern. If you really are in need of some kind of help, I truly do hope that you get it.
It does not seem likely that this will improve our dialogue, but I'll explain nonetheless.
-The quote you provide is just me explaining why I was *not* addressing the idea that the telos could be social justice as Haidt suggests many seem to think it is. Nothing more. When alot of people believe something I think mistaken, I have reason to explain why; when no one believes it, there is no reason to explain why they shouldn't. I was *not* saying it's not a telos because no one says it is. I was saying why it wasn't even worth *addressing* since no one believes it. It would have been like addressing the idea that the telos of college is to make people shorter.
-You are right that Haidt and I are in agreement about DEI. I think we agree about many things.
-We don't agree, though, about the telos of the university--which is partly why I wrote the post. Per the first point: since I know alot of people think Haidt is right about this and I think it's wrong, I had reason to argue against it.
-What you say here about the quotes is predicated on the idea that it's worth arguing about social justice being the telos; I don't think it is. I do think your use of the quotes problematic for the reasons I gave in my last response, but it doesn't matter very much.
To be honest, I am now wondering if *you* are trolling *me.* It's OK either way. If you actually believe what you wrote in your last paragraph.... thanks for your concern. But also: it's likely best you don't read this blog anymore. Sorry to lose someone who might have been an interesting interlocutor going forward. Wishing you well.
Re: truth, couldn't we say that we equip students to become good truth-seekers themselves? So we profs don't (just) use them for our search of truth. We improve their rational capacities. I'd say that's enough to hold that we don't treat them merely as tools.
That sounds like what colleges should do. I don’t know that we do it anymore (at least not well).
The idea of university as a transformative experience was specific to a time when only a small proportion of young people went through it. Most came from well-off backgrounds where they could afford to spend four years finding themselves, or else they were bright and ambitious enough to succeed in doing that while also securing their future.
But if it becomes economically necessary that most of the workforce have post-school education or training, that doesn't work any more. University is primarily a continuation of school for most students, not a new and radically different experience. Those interested in the telos will be looking at graduate school (assuming this survives Trump)
Don’t you wish we could get back to something like that time (minus the racist and sexist way college students were selected)?
I'm genuinely baffled as to why all universities should have a telos, or the same telos, let alone one oriented toward citizenship or something citizenship adjacent (any university that allows an anarchist to graduate has failed in its telos!).
Perhaps the telos of an MIT and the telos of an Oberlin differ. Perhaps instead it is the students' diversity of teloi that are closer to the truth. Or perhaps the Aristotelian framing is wrong, and a university is an ecosystem lacking any fixed telos of its own -- no more than a prairie or a friendship or a star has an intrinsic telos -- but an environment in which a variety of different ends are pursued by a variety of different agents and actors, and not the category of thing that has a telos in its own right.
Trying to pick the One Right Telos (and consign the rest to the flames?) seems like a classic bad-faith philosophical gambit: you concede the game by even allowing the phrasing of the question that way.
I actually agree. I think religious colleges, for an obvious example, have a telos different from others. Likely also Tech Schools (MIT, Cal Tech, etc). I imagine there are other types. I think, though, that there is a telos of the “classic college.” Also, I don’t think college is for everyone. Some should choose one of those types of colleges, others should choose something different. Each should choose what would most help them express their own telos.
If the telos of college is too produce well rounded persons, but college is not for everyone, does that mean that not everyone is meant to become well rounded? Some people are to remain stunted, or have some deformed personality? This seems objectionably elitist. If (to avoid the elitism objection) other means of becoming well rounded are available to non college people, then college seems to be performing some redundant function.
First, a quick and less important response. The same sort of objection could be levied against any of the suggested teloi. Some aren't mean to be good citizens? to know/seek truth? to be involved in social justice? That means they are meant to be "stunted" or "deformed"? That's elitist! BUT, the second response is more important from my point of view: I don't think it is elitist to recognize that not everyone is meant to go to college. I'm not sure why saying someone isn't meant to be *well rounded in the way a good college allows* should lead us to think they would be "stunted" or "deformed" in anyway. There is a close possible world where I never went to college and instead became a plumber. I have family members that did that and have great lives; I don't think they are stunted or deformed. We just lead different sorts of lives. Should they think I am stunted because I didn't do what they did? I wouldn't think so. Maybe the elitism is thinking the sort of life college allows for is the best way of life (full stop). It's a way of life. I like it. Maybe I love it. Maybe it's the best way of life *for me* (not honestly sure!). I don't think it's for everyone. I wouldn't have wanted it forced on me. I wish we'd stop forcing it on kids.
Maybe there are just certain connotations to the term "well rounded". To be well rounded is to not have too much of an excess in one aspect or too little in another. Consider it a covert Aristotelianism. It seems that insofar as well-roundedness is a virtue of any sort it is the kind of virtue a person possesses when he has achieved a golden mean, balancing his commitments in all spheres of human activity.