• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universities: Devoted to Truth or Social Justice?

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or arguing.

Arguing. You stated social justice is subjective not truth. It is not. Social Justice is the belief that all men are created equal and deserved to be treated as such. It is the truth. Any law which attempts to treat certain people as less than equal based upon the way in which they are created is a violation of the founding principles of the country. It is objectively wrong to do so.
 
Arguing. You stated social justice is subjective not truth. It is not. Social Justice is the belief that all men are created equal and deserved to be treated as such. It is the truth. Any law which attempts to treat certain people as less than equal based upon the way in which they are created is a violation of the founding principles of the country. It is objectively wrong to do so.

If that were so in the way you say it, the outcome of any question of "social justice" would be clear beyond question.

Also, "truth" is "truth" whether "in America" or not. The actuality of "truth" doesn't hinge on the Declaration of Independence.
 
If that were so in the way you say it, the outcome of any question of "social justice" would be clear beyond question.
It pretty much is, but those who are blinded by hatred and ignorance cannot always see what is obvious and unquestionable. We live in a country where it can be objectively proven that the presdintial candidate who was the least honest of any candidate in at least three decades won the election, and the primary reason given by his supporters was that "he tells it like it is." Meanwhile the losing candidate was objectively rated to be the second most honest candidate to run of any candidate in that same time span lost, and the reason people gave for not voting for her was that "they didn't trust her."

The truth can be clear and obvious and still there will always be morons who question it.

Also, "truth" is "truth" whether "in America" or not. The actuality of "truth" doesn't hinge on the Declaration of Independence.

In formal logic an Axiom forms the basis of any logical discussion. Technically an Axiom could in it's most basic sense be an opinion, however it is an opinion which is so obvious and unquestionable that no sane person would ever argue against it. The Declaration of Independence declared that we Americans consider this the Truth. Now there may be other nations on earth that do not, but we believe it to be the truth therefore any and all who occupy our domain will adhere to it and strive towards it.
 
It pretty much is, but those who are blinded by hatred and ignorance cannot always see what is obvious and unquestionable. We live in a country where it can be objectively proven that the presdintial candidate who was the least honest of any candidate in at least three decades won the election, and the primary reason given by his supporters was that "he tells it like it is." Meanwhile the losing candidate was objectively rated to be the second most honest candidate to run of any candidate in that same time span lost, and the reason people gave for not voting for her was that "they didn't trust her."

The truth can be clear and obvious and still there will always be morons who question it.

These are not questions of "social justice." These are your opinions on what people should vote based on.


In formal logic an Axiom forms the basis of any logical discussion. Technically an Axiom could in it's most basic sense be an opinion, however it is an opinion which is so obvious and unquestionable that no sane person would ever argue against it. The Declaration of Independence declared that we Americans consider this the Truth. Now there may be other nations on earth that do not, but we believe it to be the truth therefore any and all who occupy our domain will adhere to it and strive towards it.

You mean it couldn't be an opinion. Technically, and actually.
 
Universities are there to educate people, to open their eyes, to broaden their horizons. It turns out that when people do that, they tend to become more understanding, more tolerant, and more liberal in their worldview. They tend to understand and able to see through the eyes of more people that in the past seemed very alien to them, "not one of us". Interestingly and ironically also, they tend to become less tolerant of narrow-minded ignorance and intolerance. Becoming "intolerant of intolerance" is often seen as an inherent paradox, especially by those who may be the subject of such intolerance. We get labeled Nazis. But I don't really see a contradiction there.

Here is the late Richard Rorty, professor emeritus of philosophy and humanities at Stanford, and former chair of the American Philosophical Association, on this kind of intolerance in the academic community:

I just got done with a 4 year college last year. My overall expereince is that those of social justice are some the most intolerant people I have ever met.
 
I just got done with a 4 year college last year. My overall expereince is that those of social justice are some the most intolerant people I have ever met.

Yes. Among social conservatives in this country (and other countries as well), there is this mistaken impression that in the name of "social justice", modern secular liberals are excessively tolerant of all sorts of nonsense and immoral things, like civil rights for gays, or supporting the religious sensibilities of other religious groups like, heaven forbid, Muslims (if you are living in a Christian country), or Christians (if you are living in a Muslim country), and inferior people (other racial groups, poor people, looked-down-upon ethnicities, etc...). But, they complain, we seem so critical and intolerant of the "rights" of the "good people", those with "morality, those adhering to the religion of the majority (for example we have the audacity to oppress and keep good Christians from being able to force school prayer in public schools, or keep topics like evolutionary biology from being taught, or claiming that women who are raped and gotten pregnant must have liked being raped otherwise they shouldn't be pregnant, or, in other societies, forcing them to cover their face with a veil and be kept from voting or even driving to be considered modest and "moral", etc...

But what drives this is a sense of justice. That includes, yes, social justice. Justice means fairness. Part of what it means is watching out for the weakest and most vulnerable groups and demographics in society, for making sure everyone has a fighting chance, not just those in positions of power and privilege (whether it's groups of people due to the wealth of the family they were born into, or the religious groups with which they identify, or the color of their skin, etc...). We need to be tolerant of people and groups and demographics not like us. We need to learn more about them and understand them, and be less eager to judge them and make them more like us. The pluralistic modern world demands it.

But we will not be tolerant of intolerance. We will not be tolerant of injustice. A society which has no sense of justice is not a civil society. It is the jungle, where only the strong survive and the weak get killed and eaten for lunch. No matter how privileged and part of the "in-crowd" these opponents of social justice may feel, they are very myopic if they don't realize that it's just a matter of time before they too will not be in that privileged crowd. Then maybe perhaps the concept of social justice will have more meaning for them.
 
Last edited:
Universities need violence, therefore universities should be abolished; however, as a way to balance the end of universities, society as a whole needs to be eradicated
 
They are devoted to Profit.

If you believe anything else - you need to take a course immediately in Reality 101.


And the profs are mostly there - imo - to feed their egos. They cannot make it a splash in the real world. So they go to universities where they can boss around young adults and get some of them to look up to them - making the prof's feel special/important.

Most of the prof's at the university I went to were almost as useless and had WAY bigger ego's than almost all of the fair-at-best to pathetic public school teachers I had.
 
Critical thinking and the ability to learn on one's own (as most of a person's life will be spent outside of school) -- this is the twofold mandate of a liberal arts education. Social justice ought to be an extracurricular activity, like fraternities and sororities and glee club. Truth should be presented as a goal to be pursued throughout life, not as something this or that professor thinks he's discovered and wishes to pass on to his students.

And beware of those citing the Declaration of Independence to make the case for Social Justice Warriors or Truth. Dollars to donuts these people don't believe in God or Creation -- they just find it convenient to embrace the self-evident truth of being created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by God in order to support their godless sense of entitlement and elitism. :)
 
They are devoted to Profit.

If you believe anything else - you need to take a course immediately in Reality 101.


And the profs are mostly there - imo - to feed their egos. They cannot make it a splash in the real world. So they go to universities where they can boss around young adults and get some of them to look up to them - making the prof's feel special/important.

Most of the prof's at the university I went to were almost as useless and had WAY bigger ego's than almost all of the fair-at-best to pathetic public school teachers I had.

You've certainly presented an outsider's view.

I'll present an insider's view. Most of the profs I know are dedicated to their fields and to teaching their students. You don't hear about them, of course--they're busy working.

Yes, yes, "Those who can, do while those who can't teach." I've been successful in the private sector too--leading short-courses in industry in the academic field in which I also toiled, training seminars, and blah-blah-blah. News director at a local radio station. Other stuff too.

I do know a lot of profs who have worked exclusively in academia for their entire careers. So what? Not everybody can do that any more than most people can repair cars or design bridges.

What you've written makes me think you were exactly the kind of student profs detest, a know-it-all who really doesn't know it all.
 
to my mind the pursuit of truth is a social good which brings justice about, and the pursuit of justice is devoted to the truth. treating them as mutually exclusive is a deadend that stops us seeing how they overlap.

the article is pointing out that ostensibly impartial, objective theories have cultural bias void of nuances. the example used is the dominant theory of intelligence, which saw causal links between skin colour phenotypes and intelligence as a given. the article is suggesting that such subtle politicizations of knowledge means academic freedom is really tantamount to being chained in lies. pursuing social justice means reappraising the goals of research to suit representative demographic needs which are shifting rapidly in this global age. xo
 
Back
Top Bottom