The Wisdom of Phoebe Cohen: Intellectual Debate Too Damn White

WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - Our dear friends at Powerline have noticed a jaw-dropping comment from

Phoebe A. Cohen, professor of geosciences and department chair at Williams College. She commented in a New York Times article on the Dorian Abbot controversy at MIT with a bizarre, racially charged comment, as follows:

“This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated.”

Williams Liberty certainly agrees with Powerline's suggestion that "...if you are a Williams College alum, cancel any further donations to the place. It is clearly lost."

As you may know, Williams Liberty stands in awe of Jerry Coyne, emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago. “I thought scientists would not get on board with the denial-of-free-speech movement,” he said in the NYT article, “I was absolutely wrong, 100 percent so.” Elsewhere, Coyne writes: "What? Intellectual debate and rigor are signs of toxic male white supremacy? What an outrageously stupid statement!"

Over at Leiter Reports, Brian Leiter expressed his amazement at Dr. Cohen's comments: "Professor Cohen, in addition to being a threat to the scholarly enterprise, is also completely ignorant about the history of academic freedom and of universities."

Careful Williams Liberty readers may recall that Phoebe was one of the authors of creepy, obsequious email guidelines for Williams College students. The guidelines provided directions on how to email one's snowflake professors in a manner that protects their sensitive feels about their jobs, importance, and worth to society. 

As you may know, Dorian Abbot, 40, is a University of Chicago geophysics professor who the Massachusetts Institute of Technology canceled on because of his opposition to certain aspects of affirmative action. According to Abbot, 

"I was uncomfortable with the variety of, sort of, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that to me, appeared to be discriminating against certain groups of people. And I felt that didn't treat them as individuals worthy of dignity and respect. And to me, that has to be the fundamental of any moral system that we're implementing," he said.

"And what I mean by that is I was uncomfortable with ideologies that discourage discourse. Because when you can't speak with the other side, the only recourse is violence," Abbot added.

According to a New York Times article, Dr. Abbot, was shocked by the cancellation. “I truly did not know what to say,” he said. “We’re not going to do the best science we can if we are constrained ideologically.” 

Apparently, this is the sort of unacceptable wrong think which upsets Dr. Cohen. The NYT writes: 

Phoebe A. Cohen is a geosciences professor and department chair at Williams College and one of many who expressed anger on Twitter at M.I.T.’s decision to invite Dr. Abbot to speak, given that he has spoken against affirmative action in the past.

Dr. Cohen agreed that Dr. Abbot’s views reflect a broad current in American society. Ideally, she said, a university should not invite speakers who do not share its values on diversity and affirmative action. Nor was she enamored of M.I.T.’s offer to let him speak at a later date to the M.I.T. professors. “Honestly, I don’t know that I agree with that choice,” she said. “To me, the professional consequences are extremely minimal.”

What, she was asked, of the effect on academic debate? Should the academy serve as a bastion of unfettered speech?

“This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated,” she replied.

Over at the NBC News website, Phoebe was caught sharing her callous attitude toward free speech. They shared the following about her: 

But equating the cancellation of a school’s public lecture to censorship oversimplifies the matter, said Phoebe Cohen, a paleontologist and associate professor of geosciences at Williams College. She said concerns over whether such actions curtail free speech on campuses are overblown.

“It becomes this battle cry of free speech and academic freedom, but he has academic freedom,” Cohen said of Abbot. “He is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, and he has, but that doesn’t mean that he’s free from consequences.”

And while universities should uphold academic freedoms, Cohen said, institutions also have a responsibility to consider the communities their students and faculties are a part of.

“It comes down to who is being harmed,” she said. “Universities don’t have a responsibility to platform people who are harming others.”

The story appears to be gathering some national attention. It has, for example, already been covered by the folks at The American Conservative, Why Evolution is True, MCE Zone, Reason, and Leiter Reports, among others. 

NOTE: Phoebe Cohen has blocked Williams Liberty from viewing her tweets. If you are so inclined please take a screenshot of them and email them to info.williamsliberty@gmail.com. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.

 

Williams College Warning: Philosophy is Lost!

Over at Powerline, Steve Hayward has a new article discussing the results of recent research demonstrating the considerable hostility of the academic community to conservatives. Here's the gist of his argument below:

Has academic philosophy become as hopelessly politicized as other humanities? That’s a question treated in a forthcoming paper in Philosophical Psychology entitled “Ideological Diversity, Hostility, and Discrimination in Philosophy.” From the abstract:

“We found that survey participants clearly leaned left (75%), while right-leaning individuals (14%) and moderates (11%) were underrepresented. Moreover, and strikingly, across the political spectrum, from very left- leaning individuals and moderates to very right-leaning individuals, participants reported experiencing ideological hostility in the field, occasionally even from those from their own side of the political spectrum. Finally, while about half of the subjects believed that discrimination against left- or right-leaning individuals in the field is not justified, a significant minority displayed an explicit willingness to discriminate against colleagues with the opposite ideology.”

Some of the details from the full article are even worse:

“The more right-leaning the participant, the more hostility they reported personally experiencing from colleagues, and, overall, the more left-leaning the participant, the less hostility they reported personally experiencing.”

“Participants also perceived right-leaning individuals in the field… to experience more hostility than left-leaning subjects.”

“Participants reported that they would be more reluctant to defend their own argument if it led to a right-leaning conclusion… than if it led to a left-leaning one”

“There was no association between ideology and how often participants would be reluctant to defend their argument if it led to a left-leaning conclusion… These findings point toward an apparent stigma held by most participants, regardless of their political ideology, against defending right-leaning conclusions. Considered together with our other results, this reluctance to defend right-leaning conclusions may be the by-product of perceived or actual ideological discrimination within the field. It suggests the presence of ideological ‘self-censorship’”.

I think this is what is otherwise called in different contexts “epistemic closure.” Meanwhile, whenever I point out academic jobs ads that implicitly say “conservatives need not apply,” I am told it is an exaggerated phenomenon, etc. Thus, the finding of this study is significant:

“Significant correlations were found between ideology and the WTD [willingness to discriminate]”

“The more left-leaning the participant, the more frequently a right-leaning perspective/individual would be viewed negatively in assessing grant applications, evaluating papers, inviting colleagues to symposia, and making hiring decisions involving two otherwise equally qualified candidates.

“There was a significant association between ideology and justification of discrimination against right-leaning individuals in the field… The more left-leaning the participant, the more justified they believed discrimination against right-leaning individuals to be. But… there was no significant association between ideology and justification of discrimination against left-leaning individuals.”