You bring up many points in this post. I'd like to touch on one of them. In my opinion, the place for preference in education is at the primary school level, where disadvantaged students experience significant segregation from their more affluent, and predominantly Caucasian counterparts. Here, schools in historically minority populated school districts deal with issues that students in more affluent school districts do not. As a society, we benefit from the best young minds succeeding. I agree with your viewpoint that this should not be happening at the more elective university level. But, if we really want the best young minds to succeed, we must consider the possibility of evening the playing field so that the disadvantaged are not left behind, before ever applying for entrance at the university level. I feel that this (and not at the post-secondary level) is where we are failing. By the time student reach post-secondary education, the cake has been baked, so to speak.
Leveling is a poorly designed goal. (The playing field cannot be perfectly leveled, unless all the kids are taken away from their parents and placed in the custody of the State.) The problem is not that many kids get worse educations. The problem is that many kids get bad educations. Stop focusing on the gap. Start focusing on the absolute height of the lowest point.
Thanks. I certainly agree with you that primary education is where the cake is baked. But this article is after all a book review and one about the tertiary sector.
Hoping you will find enough merit in my writing to subscribe anyway Robert?
Funny thing about the girl who claimed rape and carried around the mattress as performance art, she created a video reenactment that clearly showed she willfully engaged in consensual rough sex.
Her beef, as she openly states, was that the sex didnt end fast enough when, in the middle of it, she decided she wanted it to.
I'm not sure the proper distinction here and the guy was likely an asshole, but society needs to focus on solving the issue of fully non-consensual sex and I don't think she's helping.
I was only commenting on the woman who came up in the piece. I don't think I wrote anything that questioned the context of the piece itself. I would say my comments add to what you wrote about her.
Thanks for all these comments Kelly. Since you like this essay, why not subscribe free to: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/ and get future essays (I post one per month) which you may also find interesting.
I do have a bit of a beef. I was on campus when "Take Back the Night" was a thing.
I was raped on that campus, and there was a strong rape culture amongst the boys. They wanted to get it any way they could, and they were away from home, with no consequences. Who would believe me?
Rape culture on campus is/was a thing - it sounds like they diversified it. Sheesh.
I am so sorry for what happened to you. I can't imagine what that is like.
I agree that rape been a major issue - I am a man but have close friends who had close calls. It is terrible. I am just saying I think that smearing the edges into things that might not best be called rape *hurts* the goal of protecting women from predation. There's enough rape and need to defeat rape culture that it's better to focus on real cases.
Yes, I've tried to imagine what it is like in this "culture of consent," where - as if it wasn't awkward enough when we were young, one has to ask at every step, "can I do this? would you like that?" - it's a wonderful concept in theory, but I'm not sure that humans are mature enough yet.
I'm pretty sure that the confused interactions of human sexual relations don't easily conform to the notional ideals of progressive white suburbanites.
I agree there is white bias in SATs (for example). I agree that inner city schools struggle with metrics that are imperceivable to the suburban schools. But at the University level, it should be completely colour/diversity blind, and excellence graded in performance alone.
It's not levelling the playing field - so much as possibly elevating the underprivileged, to open opportunities for that excellent performance. Harm reduction. But that's been tried with Headstart, school breakfasts, etc. It needs to happen at the local, grass roots level, not top-down.
Thanks for these comments JC. Since you like this essay, why not subscribe free to: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/ and get future essays (I post one per month) which you may also find interesting.
Done, since you promised not to overwhelm my inbox. Many substack authors write faster than I can read! It amazes me, because it's high quality product/writing/research - and they pump them out like firehoses!
There is no singular issue. But there are several important ones: 1) funding is lower in non-affluent school districts; 2) attracting good teachers is difficult in these districts; 3) parent participation (both at home and in-school) is lower; 4) student attendence is typically lower; 5) student nutrition is poorer in these districts
The funding issue is bandied about a lot, but is simply untrue. Accordingly to Federal Reserve data, the average black and average white students are funded at lost exactly the same rate, see link below.
Every other issue you mention is cultural. In short, African-American kids have poor educational attainment because African-American culture does not value education. The state cannot fix this by spending more money.
I think you failed to (fully) read your own source. While it is true to federal funding is essential independent of race, there are multiple sources of funding that contribute to the total expenditures for primary education. From your own source: "However, when examining sources of funding, the racial gaps are starker. The average White student attends a district where 47% of funding is from local sources and 7% is from federal sources. In contrast, the average Black student attends a district where 44% of funding is from local sources and 10% is from federal sources. The share of funding from state sources is very similar at 46%. Because federal funding often comes as grants or for specific programs, school districts that serve predominantly Black student bodies may have less control over how these funds are spent." And then look at Figure 2 in your own source. It is VERY clear that school districts with low percentages of minority students very often have much, much higher levels of per student spending -- sometimes an order of magnitude higher. Your own source makes this statement in regard to Figure 2: "shows the relationship between the expenditures on current instruction per student and the share of the student body that is Black. There is a small but statistically significant negative relationship; on average, schools with a 10-percentage-point higher share of Black students spend $140 less per student on instruction. The data on total expenditures are similar; schools with a 10% higher share of Black students spend $160 less per student. " And then, there is the conclusion in your own source which states: "Despite many efforts by policymakers, there remains a large racial gap in key educational outcomes such as high school graduation rates and college attainment.1 In this essay, we examine whether school expenditures differ by race. Average expenditures are very similar for the average Black and average White student, though sources of funding differ, with Black students receiving more federal funds and White students more local funds. Despite this, there is still a negative correlation between expenditures and the share of students who are Black. This outcome is driven by small, predominantly White schools with high expenditures that do not educate a large share of the student body nationally." Sometimes it helps to read more than just the first paragraph.
Great review, Graham, and I agree with most of much of what you say. Heather MacDonald is a great writer and I always appreciate her take even if I don't always agree with it.
My one little quibble echoes one that someone else made on another comment just now.
> I suspect that, in the unlikely event of The Diversity Delusion being read by anyone on the Left, they too would mentally airbrush the evidence away.
I think it's a mistake to assume that The Left is a monolith. It makes it harder for you to hear and address our arguments. The domain of The Left includes more than just racial politics, identity politics and gender politics. I am a lifelong leftie and I have read and agree with a lot of Heather MacDonald's observations. Identity politics is corrosive and should be opposed but identity politics does not define the left any more than free-market capitalism or immigrant-bashing defines the right.
No the Left is not a monolith. All political creeds are spectrum in nature. And the rhetorical kind of journalism that I write always has a degree of approximation - otherwise it risks becoming unreadably dense. Through our conversations, I have come to know something of the kind of lefty you are and it's a kind I can respect. Would you not agree though that, in the last 50 years or so, the dominant strain has shifted quite radically - from an essentially economic/working -class/fairness one to an essentially middle-class obsession with an identity -based kind of competitive victimhood?
Oct 19, 2023·edited Oct 19, 2023Liked by Graham Cunningham
I agree that there has been a big shift. I think there's a case to be made that the surge in identity politics is largely a reaction to the disappointment that having a black president didn't fix everything in America. This has been amplified by a generation that grew up with social media and their parochial concerns get more airtime than they would have got in the 1960s.
But I disagree that it's the dominant strain on the left. I think it's all too easy to 'nutpick' weirdos and extremists and claim that they represent the left. It's unfortunate that identity politics gets so much airtime but I think the primary goal of the left is still fairness — as it ever was.
On a whim, I just googled for a definition of left-wing politics just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself. Here's what Wikipedia had to say:
> Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished*
Yes. That's me. It's a good, succinct summary of my political outlook.
* The article goes on to say that some on the left advocate radical solutions (I don't) and that the hard left supports movements like communism and anarchism (I don't). It doesn't mention identity politics at all.
Wikipedia is great for many things and I use it a lot but it's not much use for defining something as open to interpretation as 'Left wing politics'. I could probably go into it myself and alter that defintion if I was determined enough. Also who is this notional enquirer who has no idea what 'Left wing politics' means? A better way is to look at what has been done in its name in recent times: what is taught in its name about race and gender in schools and universities; what legislation about identity has been enacted by its politicians. Etc.
I do agree a huge amount with what you say to be honest. I’m of the pessimistic view wokery is a form of radicalisation; I guess what I’m trying to do is stop the rot with a new positive alternative to intersectionality (the woke doctrine) before we can get back to the timeless good ideas that create rather than destroy. Baby steps
Very interesting stuff Graham, thanks for the recommendation. I created my sub stack to take on some of the delusions of our time by tacking the (anti) intellectual idea or application of intersectionality’s which is as the heart of this stuff. I posit a more positive and accurate alternative in ‘indiesectionality’. I’d like to stress-test this idea so be keen to know your thoughts. Just 5 pages so not War & Peace
I read your '5 Pages' with interest and I think our analyses of 'wokeness' have much in common. But I suspect I am more of a pessimist than you. I do not subscribe to the 'culture war' meme; I see our recent history more in terms of 'culture surrender'. I see civilisations (all civilisations) as tragic - as in they follow a trajectory; they rise and fall; their end is in their beginning; they carry the seeds of their eventual ruination. I fear that Western civilisation's halcyon days are behind it.
I very much share your valuing of 'individual agency' (what I would also call personal responsibility) but, as I see it, the West's very strengths - it's wealth creation and it's great liberalism - have eroded this and encouraged, in its stead, a kind of passive/aggressive rampant narcissism (wokeness). I see this current wokeness as the extrapolation of a long gestation (100 years+ long) and I do not think it will end well. (hope you will still want to FREE subscribe though!)
"Chapter 14 takes a more optimistic look at evidence of a healthy appetite for learning about the West’s cultural treasures continuing to exist in the real world outside of universities."
Those works are fine to study but there is so much to learn outside of them.
I mean, I can agree that this behavior is silly and harmful, but it's not like there is no valid underlying point, that there are not legitimate grievances. And if we're criticizing people's gameplay, there's no shortage of buffoonery and delusion among literally any organization that is composed of humans. Throwing stones *is easy*, defending against them is not so easy, especially when thrown by someone who has studied your culture's techniques.
I enjoy thinking of it as an example of "The sins of the Father being visited upon the sons" - the chickens are coming home to roost, Westerners, in the form of your own culture turning against your crimes, both historic and current. And it is a *beautiful* thing to watch, history in the making!
Big questions you flag here...... too big really to answer in a little comment thread (although I flatter myself that I make a good stab at it in the totality of all my essays here when taken together). Two things (necessarily simplistic):
1) the typical 'grievances' of students in privileged Western universities are largely performative, self absorbed, narcissistic and shallow.
2) if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
> if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
While I agree with most of what you have written, this statement seems perverse to me. Just as one is advised to remove the beam from one's own eye before attempting to fish out the mote in one's neighbor's, so too one's concern to police against injustice is best directed to one's own society, which one best understands and in which one has a stake. It's all too easy for a criminal elite in control of the organs of propaganda to point the finger abroad and initiate a real moral and humanitarian catastrophe in their own interests by encouraging the public to think ill of people and places they know nothing about.
Yes but my point was that I don't think student 'radicalism' is really about confronting injustice anywhere... although it does manage to delude itself with such vanities. As in my 1) I see it as primarily shallow performative self-importance.
Agreed; that can often be the case. My thought is that the reduction of politics to shallow performative self-importance becomes easier if it is not tied to the world of experience. Remoteness and abstraction both tend to sever that tie.
Very much agree..... and I have written elsewhere on this as an aspect of the mass media age. Perhaps the corollary - in the case of the student politico - is that they have become so cosseted and self-absorbed as to be abstracted even from their own Western culture.
> the typical 'grievances' of students in privileged Western universities are largely performative, self absorbed, narcissistic and shallow.
You have a valid point! However....as a fan of logical nuances of the English language (and culture), I am endlessly fascinated by how easy it is to write sentences that are technically correct (also known as: True, "the" reality, etc), but misleading/misinformative to an unknown degree (perhaps lots), and in a variety of ways. I wonder if anyone is as good at it as us Westerners!
> if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
This I cannot even gracefully label as technically true, as it implicitly asserts that their motives/grievances are "to confront evil and grievance" and "horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes". That *is* a fantastic story though, it is exactly the type of thing I would utilize if I was interested in persuading people to think in certain ways and believe certain things. Even better, I would establish it as a cultural standard, through a variety of means.
Of course this is all a bit unfair to you I fully concede, but at the same time it's kind of funny, eh?
You bring up many points in this post. I'd like to touch on one of them. In my opinion, the place for preference in education is at the primary school level, where disadvantaged students experience significant segregation from their more affluent, and predominantly Caucasian counterparts. Here, schools in historically minority populated school districts deal with issues that students in more affluent school districts do not. As a society, we benefit from the best young minds succeeding. I agree with your viewpoint that this should not be happening at the more elective university level. But, if we really want the best young minds to succeed, we must consider the possibility of evening the playing field so that the disadvantaged are not left behind, before ever applying for entrance at the university level. I feel that this (and not at the post-secondary level) is where we are failing. By the time student reach post-secondary education, the cake has been baked, so to speak.
Leveling is a poorly designed goal. (The playing field cannot be perfectly leveled, unless all the kids are taken away from their parents and placed in the custody of the State.) The problem is not that many kids get worse educations. The problem is that many kids get bad educations. Stop focusing on the gap. Start focusing on the absolute height of the lowest point.
Thanks. I certainly agree with you that primary education is where the cake is baked. But this article is after all a book review and one about the tertiary sector.
Hoping you will find enough merit in my writing to subscribe anyway Robert?
Funny thing about the girl who claimed rape and carried around the mattress as performance art, she created a video reenactment that clearly showed she willfully engaged in consensual rough sex.
Her beef, as she openly states, was that the sex didnt end fast enough when, in the middle of it, she decided she wanted it to.
I'm not sure the proper distinction here and the guy was likely an asshole, but society needs to focus on solving the issue of fully non-consensual sex and I don't think she's helping.
You surely don't think that I was suggesting she WAS helping?!
I was only commenting on the woman who came up in the piece. I don't think I wrote anything that questioned the context of the piece itself. I would say my comments add to what you wrote about her.
Thanks for all these comments Kelly. Since you like this essay, why not subscribe free to: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/ and get future essays (I post one per month) which you may also find interesting.
Thank you
I do have a bit of a beef. I was on campus when "Take Back the Night" was a thing.
I was raped on that campus, and there was a strong rape culture amongst the boys. They wanted to get it any way they could, and they were away from home, with no consequences. Who would believe me?
Rape culture on campus is/was a thing - it sounds like they diversified it. Sheesh.
I am so sorry for what happened to you. I can't imagine what that is like.
I agree that rape been a major issue - I am a man but have close friends who had close calls. It is terrible. I am just saying I think that smearing the edges into things that might not best be called rape *hurts* the goal of protecting women from predation. There's enough rape and need to defeat rape culture that it's better to focus on real cases.
Yes, I've tried to imagine what it is like in this "culture of consent," where - as if it wasn't awkward enough when we were young, one has to ask at every step, "can I do this? would you like that?" - it's a wonderful concept in theory, but I'm not sure that humans are mature enough yet.
I'm pretty sure that the confused interactions of human sexual relations don't easily conform to the notional ideals of progressive white suburbanites.
I agree there is white bias in SATs (for example). I agree that inner city schools struggle with metrics that are imperceivable to the suburban schools. But at the University level, it should be completely colour/diversity blind, and excellence graded in performance alone.
It's not levelling the playing field - so much as possibly elevating the underprivileged, to open opportunities for that excellent performance. Harm reduction. But that's been tried with Headstart, school breakfasts, etc. It needs to happen at the local, grass roots level, not top-down.
Thanks for these comments JC. Since you like this essay, why not subscribe free to: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/ and get future essays (I post one per month) which you may also find interesting.
Done, since you promised not to overwhelm my inbox. Many substack authors write faster than I can read! It amazes me, because it's high quality product/writing/research - and they pump them out like firehoses!
Thank you....and I've pressed the 'follow you' button (although I'm never quite sure what that does.)
:D
IKR? Maybe someday I'll feel compelled to write sommat here. Maybe then "follow" will mean something? LOL
"Here, schools in historically minority populated school districts deal with issues that students in more affluent school districts do not."
Which are the biggest issues holding them back?
There is no singular issue. But there are several important ones: 1) funding is lower in non-affluent school districts; 2) attracting good teachers is difficult in these districts; 3) parent participation (both at home and in-school) is lower; 4) student attendence is typically lower; 5) student nutrition is poorer in these districts
The funding issue is bandied about a lot, but is simply untrue. Accordingly to Federal Reserve data, the average black and average white students are funded at lost exactly the same rate, see link below.
Every other issue you mention is cultural. In short, African-American kids have poor educational attainment because African-American culture does not value education. The state cannot fix this by spending more money.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2022/02/16/school-district-expenditures-and-race#:~:text=Average%20Expenditures%20by%20Race&text=Overall%2C%20spending%20is%20remarkably%20similar,that%20spends%20%2414%2C263%20per%20student.
I think you failed to (fully) read your own source. While it is true to federal funding is essential independent of race, there are multiple sources of funding that contribute to the total expenditures for primary education. From your own source: "However, when examining sources of funding, the racial gaps are starker. The average White student attends a district where 47% of funding is from local sources and 7% is from federal sources. In contrast, the average Black student attends a district where 44% of funding is from local sources and 10% is from federal sources. The share of funding from state sources is very similar at 46%. Because federal funding often comes as grants or for specific programs, school districts that serve predominantly Black student bodies may have less control over how these funds are spent." And then look at Figure 2 in your own source. It is VERY clear that school districts with low percentages of minority students very often have much, much higher levels of per student spending -- sometimes an order of magnitude higher. Your own source makes this statement in regard to Figure 2: "shows the relationship between the expenditures on current instruction per student and the share of the student body that is Black. There is a small but statistically significant negative relationship; on average, schools with a 10-percentage-point higher share of Black students spend $140 less per student on instruction. The data on total expenditures are similar; schools with a 10% higher share of Black students spend $160 less per student. " And then, there is the conclusion in your own source which states: "Despite many efforts by policymakers, there remains a large racial gap in key educational outcomes such as high school graduation rates and college attainment.1 In this essay, we examine whether school expenditures differ by race. Average expenditures are very similar for the average Black and average White student, though sources of funding differ, with Black students receiving more federal funds and White students more local funds. Despite this, there is still a negative correlation between expenditures and the share of students who are Black. This outcome is driven by small, predominantly White schools with high expenditures that do not educate a large share of the student body nationally." Sometimes it helps to read more than just the first paragraph.
Great review, Graham, and I agree with most of much of what you say. Heather MacDonald is a great writer and I always appreciate her take even if I don't always agree with it.
My one little quibble echoes one that someone else made on another comment just now.
> I suspect that, in the unlikely event of The Diversity Delusion being read by anyone on the Left, they too would mentally airbrush the evidence away.
I think it's a mistake to assume that The Left is a monolith. It makes it harder for you to hear and address our arguments. The domain of The Left includes more than just racial politics, identity politics and gender politics. I am a lifelong leftie and I have read and agree with a lot of Heather MacDonald's observations. Identity politics is corrosive and should be opposed but identity politics does not define the left any more than free-market capitalism or immigrant-bashing defines the right.
No the Left is not a monolith. All political creeds are spectrum in nature. And the rhetorical kind of journalism that I write always has a degree of approximation - otherwise it risks becoming unreadably dense. Through our conversations, I have come to know something of the kind of lefty you are and it's a kind I can respect. Would you not agree though that, in the last 50 years or so, the dominant strain has shifted quite radically - from an essentially economic/working -class/fairness one to an essentially middle-class obsession with an identity -based kind of competitive victimhood?
I agree that there has been a big shift. I think there's a case to be made that the surge in identity politics is largely a reaction to the disappointment that having a black president didn't fix everything in America. This has been amplified by a generation that grew up with social media and their parochial concerns get more airtime than they would have got in the 1960s.
But I disagree that it's the dominant strain on the left. I think it's all too easy to 'nutpick' weirdos and extremists and claim that they represent the left. It's unfortunate that identity politics gets so much airtime but I think the primary goal of the left is still fairness — as it ever was.
On a whim, I just googled for a definition of left-wing politics just to make sure I wasn't fooling myself. Here's what Wikipedia had to say:
> Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished*
Yes. That's me. It's a good, succinct summary of my political outlook.
* The article goes on to say that some on the left advocate radical solutions (I don't) and that the hard left supports movements like communism and anarchism (I don't). It doesn't mention identity politics at all.
Wikipedia is great for many things and I use it a lot but it's not much use for defining something as open to interpretation as 'Left wing politics'. I could probably go into it myself and alter that defintion if I was determined enough. Also who is this notional enquirer who has no idea what 'Left wing politics' means? A better way is to look at what has been done in its name in recent times: what is taught in its name about race and gender in schools and universities; what legislation about identity has been enacted by its politicians. Etc.
Wikipedia is woke. I use it for things like chemical formulas but not for anything remotely political or politicizable.
'Mac Donald' (yeah, I know).
Yes and I only noticed this yesterday! My text was correct (Mac Donald) but must have got altered by Substack's algorithm when I uploaded it
Thank you.
Great article. I will read this book. I recommend The War on the West by Douglas Murray, if you have not already read it.
I do agree a huge amount with what you say to be honest. I’m of the pessimistic view wokery is a form of radicalisation; I guess what I’m trying to do is stop the rot with a new positive alternative to intersectionality (the woke doctrine) before we can get back to the timeless good ideas that create rather than destroy. Baby steps
Very interesting stuff Graham, thanks for the recommendation. I created my sub stack to take on some of the delusions of our time by tacking the (anti) intellectual idea or application of intersectionality’s which is as the heart of this stuff. I posit a more positive and accurate alternative in ‘indiesectionality’. I’d like to stress-test this idea so be keen to know your thoughts. Just 5 pages so not War & Peace
I read your '5 Pages' with interest and I think our analyses of 'wokeness' have much in common. But I suspect I am more of a pessimist than you. I do not subscribe to the 'culture war' meme; I see our recent history more in terms of 'culture surrender'. I see civilisations (all civilisations) as tragic - as in they follow a trajectory; they rise and fall; their end is in their beginning; they carry the seeds of their eventual ruination. I fear that Western civilisation's halcyon days are behind it.
I very much share your valuing of 'individual agency' (what I would also call personal responsibility) but, as I see it, the West's very strengths - it's wealth creation and it's great liberalism - have eroded this and encouraged, in its stead, a kind of passive/aggressive rampant narcissism (wokeness). I see this current wokeness as the extrapolation of a long gestation (100 years+ long) and I do not think it will end well. (hope you will still want to FREE subscribe though!)
Interesting. Thank you!
Thank you. Any chance of you putting it on your Saturday Commentary & Review sometime?
I've bookmarked it and I'll look to slot it in at some point in the future.
Thank you....appreciate this.
"Chapter 14 takes a more optimistic look at evidence of a healthy appetite for learning about the West’s cultural treasures continuing to exist in the real world outside of universities."
Those works are fine to study but there is so much to learn outside of them.
I mean, I can agree that this behavior is silly and harmful, but it's not like there is no valid underlying point, that there are not legitimate grievances. And if we're criticizing people's gameplay, there's no shortage of buffoonery and delusion among literally any organization that is composed of humans. Throwing stones *is easy*, defending against them is not so easy, especially when thrown by someone who has studied your culture's techniques.
I enjoy thinking of it as an example of "The sins of the Father being visited upon the sons" - the chickens are coming home to roost, Westerners, in the form of your own culture turning against your crimes, both historic and current. And it is a *beautiful* thing to watch, history in the making!
Big questions you flag here...... too big really to answer in a little comment thread (although I flatter myself that I make a good stab at it in the totality of all my essays here when taken together). Two things (necessarily simplistic):
1) the typical 'grievances' of students in privileged Western universities are largely performative, self absorbed, narcissistic and shallow.
2) if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
> if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
While I agree with most of what you have written, this statement seems perverse to me. Just as one is advised to remove the beam from one's own eye before attempting to fish out the mote in one's neighbor's, so too one's concern to police against injustice is best directed to one's own society, which one best understands and in which one has a stake. It's all too easy for a criminal elite in control of the organs of propaganda to point the finger abroad and initiate a real moral and humanitarian catastrophe in their own interests by encouraging the public to think ill of people and places they know nothing about.
Yes but my point was that I don't think student 'radicalism' is really about confronting injustice anywhere... although it does manage to delude itself with such vanities. As in my 1) I see it as primarily shallow performative self-importance.
Agreed; that can often be the case. My thought is that the reduction of politics to shallow performative self-importance becomes easier if it is not tied to the world of experience. Remoteness and abstraction both tend to sever that tie.
Very much agree..... and I have written elsewhere on this as an aspect of the mass media age. Perhaps the corollary - in the case of the student politico - is that they have become so cosseted and self-absorbed as to be abstracted even from their own Western culture.
> the typical 'grievances' of students in privileged Western universities are largely performative, self absorbed, narcissistic and shallow.
You have a valid point! However....as a fan of logical nuances of the English language (and culture), I am endlessly fascinated by how easy it is to write sentences that are technically correct (also known as: True, "the" reality, etc), but misleading/misinformative to an unknown degree (perhaps lots), and in a variety of ways. I wonder if anyone is as good at it as us Westerners!
> if they really wanted to confront evil and grievance they would focus their moral outrage and their protesting on some of the horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes outside of the liberal West
This I cannot even gracefully label as technically true, as it implicitly asserts that their motives/grievances are "to confront evil and grievance" and "horrific things endured by people living under the yoke of ugly regimes". That *is* a fantastic story though, it is exactly the type of thing I would utilize if I was interested in persuading people to think in certain ways and believe certain things. Even better, I would establish it as a cultural standard, through a variety of means.
Of course this is all a bit unfair to you I fully concede, but at the same time it's kind of funny, eh?