""What has this to do with toy soldiers?"" Topic

Bill McClay on what liberal education is supposed to be -- a tension between two contradictory ideals.

link

Woodward seemed to be holding up the university as a place of constant unsettlement, even creative destruction, in which everything that is taken for truth today is open at every moment to being rethought, reframed, reconstituted, and even discarded; a place in which no dogma is safe and no complacency is tolerated; a place in which ideas and ideals can have validity only so long as they can stand up to the intense and uninhibited refining fire of today's most impertinent questions and searing criticisms.

Wilson, on the other hand, was pushing for an ideal of the university that stood precisely against the arrogant and self-absorbed tendency of the modern world to appoint itself the plenipotentiary judge of all things, to deny and disparage the authority of all that has come before it, and in so doing, to ensure that those who come after it will accord it the same treatment, in the fullness of time. Wilson's university was instead a place where the young would be educated to take up the fullness of their cultural inheritance, to become literate and conversant in its many features, and to fully appropriate all that it has to offer them. To be formed by it.

"How many of us who teach experience great difficulty now in facilitating class discussions, because the sensibilities of our students are too brittle, too anxious, too prone to personalize all differences, too lacking in the combination of confidence in one's own rational powers and openness to the arguments of others that is the prerequisite for vigorous and meaningful discussion and debate? I think all of us run into this problem now, and the problem is not going away. Instead, it is in the process of being institutionalized. And what was once confined to the campus is seeping out into the more general culture."

Brittle sensitivities etc. can be found on TMP forums, too. I am curious, though: some of us have been here 10+ years; does anyone else notice a decline in civility?

Things seem about the same Doc. Mind you I avoid the more heated message boards. There is always a fight going on somewhere. Just the human condition I guess. I know we lost a lot of moderate polite people along the way…and a few unpleasant characters too :)

Balin, yes, agree on both of those last points.

This is an interesting topic (yeah, not much to do with the little lead men, but I'll bite). So many people seem to think things are worse today – in this case dealing with the sensibilities of students. Most of these views, of course, come from people outside of the environment and with preconceived opinions, and little social/cultural history knowledge.
"experience great difficulty now in facilitating class discussions"
I teach college students and I 'do not' see this. We have vigorous discussions pretty much every day and the instances of whats described above are few and far between. Now granted, I don't teach history, but I do teach environ science, oceanography and geology so we get to tackle some contentious issues. In my classes down here in Texas I get a good number of students from or entering the oil and gas industry so opinions are varied and strong. And don't get me started when I get into evolution!
Far from shrinking violets, discussions are entered into vigorously with very few examples of (to use a ridiculous term) 'triggered' students.
This of course is my experience. Other topics may produce different results, but that proves the point any good educator knows, generalizations are counterproductive.

I've been here 20 years. I'd say the forums are much MORE civil than they were back then.

I remember a lot of posters back then who were tremendous sources of knowledge, but they prided themselves on "bluntness and honesty."

In reality, they were just rude. Maybe they were great guys in person(as their defenders kept telling us), but I never met them in person.

I agree with Lucius. Years back I left TMP because of the
uncivil, sometimes down right mean, comments people would make towards other folks on TMP. I have come back recently and have found a world of difference. I have commented on a wide range of things since I have come back and never have I been attacked for anything I wrote.

Well, I stand corrected then.

What indeed?
But as regards the question of TMP usage, there seems to me to be less traffic than 10 years ago. But our Editor would be the one to say.

I found that, for me personally, the way to enjoy TMP was to follow these four simple rules.

A) make sure I no longer saw the Talk about TMP board on the main page which was the main place the real crap seemed to manifest itself around here.

B) put Tango on ignore. Not becuase I had anything against Tango but his shear volume of posts used to move the posts, I was interested in following, off the homepage (which is the main way I use TMP) far to quickly.

C) Never venture onto the Napoleonics board

D) Never get involved in the editor's annual fall out with some other hobby group.

Since then I've found TMP a lot more pleasant.

I turned off the Talk about TMP board years ago. Now recently I've turned off the Ultra-Modern Board.

I've been less enthused in coming here lately. People throwing around words like "Traitor" about one's family/ancestors will do that.

People throwing around words like "Traitor" about one's family/ancestors will do that.

Sugarcoating history is not the solution.

Pretty much as Lucius and Rupert

been here 20+ years, have always known when to follow a fight and when to ignore.

No one is going to 'Win the InterNet' especially here.

Being mean-spirited and rude isn't the solution either.

+1 Gear Pilot

Been here at least twenty years. It's too quiet and peaceful. I miss the chaos of the CA board. There's no true marketplace of ideas here. Thinking is not 1 dimensional monolithic lock-step, but there is also a lack of visceral differences in much of the discussions. (This does exclude the Napoleonic Boards and a couple hot buttons, such as Little Bighorn.) I don't have a local historical game shop, so I come here to read the hobby news. Also, quite sadly, several of the folks that held unpopular opinions have passed away since 2000. Such is life, not good or bad, just life.

does anyone else notice a decline in civility?

I think things have gotten better.

As for education, go to Tech School and skip the BS. What Art and Ethics have to do with my job I'll never know. Same thing with Calculus, totally unrelated to my career unless I switched to Machine Learning or something.

@Silurian

McClay just doesn't like which way the wind is blowing. The tide has changed against restricted viewpoints and now it is time to squeal about free speech. This golden era of free speech on campuses must be a fig newton of his imagination; the only difference today is that it is tradition on the run rather than liberalism.

link

This article is particularly rich. Josh Blackmun is an intolerant, reactionary bigot who's views on "originalism" have led to Americans having constitutional rights taken away from them for the first time in the nation's history. Thus, let's not play this coy game that it's all about the wonderful wonderful world of ideas without limits. These are ideologues looking to recruit and influence the young and shape public policy the way that they prefer. I actually think these students are too gentle. Remember there was time when university students would tar and feather an unpopular speaker. Sadly, it's not all progress.

Incidentally, we dont have free speech on this forum and I find some of the posters on here curiously intolerant towards answering questions about their anarchistic theories. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I find it alarming that there are seasoned posters on here who think that declarations that things should be the way they like them should become gospel and if challenged, questioned or even developed for deeper understanding react immaturely, often lashing out.

Get your houses in order before you worry about what the kids are doing because it looks like McClay is really saying, why cant the kids think like the old folks?

I should add that, in the last year or so, our kind host has gotten better at letting robust debate take place which is to his credit. Debate and discussion are an evolutionary process for us all.

For a number of years I belonged to smaller and very friendly Napoleonic gaming forum, and followed TMP from afar. When that folded, I took a good look and felt that TMP had settled into a more civil tone, so I finally joined.

Napoleonics is far more informative than combative these days. ACW slavery debates feel like they have no end and drift into politics, but the rest of the board is great. I think things on TMP are better with one exception.

BTW, I work at a small college where I find students far from brittle. They are forward thinking and much more creative and positive than some may think. They choose fields of study that never existed 20 years ago and are passionate about their subjects. They are not obsessed with politics, but they are not too thrilled about the same old guys for leaders.

The exception for me here has become the ultra modern board. I was especially interested after the Ukraine war started and learned quite a bit on the board, thought about getting some minis. I also began to look into many of the assertions being made, and too many seemed geared towards right wing politics and election stuff. The same side was always wrong no matter what and everything was one guys fault. And it remains the home of posts that generally sound like, " We had all better learn Mandarin soon so we can read our new street signs". Or"Every other country thinks we are weak".

So I decided last week to just stay away from that board indefinitely. We all have the choice to ignore whatever we like.

TMP remains an incredible source of info on figures, gaming, and military history, with a solid roster of knowledgeable individuals, sometimes opinionated and prickly, but helpful and unique, as are most of the discussions.

Well said, Tortorella.

Charge, that isn't even close to what McClay is saying. Did you read the OP?

What Prince Rupert of the Rhine said, but turn off Ultramodern too. It is just the new CA board.

If I want politics, I'll stick to Twitter.

Why is this on The American Revolution board? This should be on the blue fez.

I agree, Soldat, but maybe not the BF. Doc, this is more of a topic for one of the General boards since it is about history in general and TMP itself, IMO.

Charge, that isn't even close to what McClay is saying. Did you read the OP?

Oh, I am sorry. Am I restricted to the narrow topics you permit me to discuss?

McClay was on the 1776 commission, dedicated in part to teaching students a positive view of America and blocking the teaching of both CRT and the 1619 project. He published this article on site dedicated to anti abortion views where you'd be hard put to find a pro abortion article.

Am I supposed to accept that McClay's vision of open mindedness isn't a one way street? What ideas does he think are getting trampled; the ones he most likes? Sounds a lot like "You shouldn't judge Madison because everyone had slavery and he wrote a really good document".

Frankly, I would prefer someone cradling the fragile dove of free speech and the totality of ideas to not be the one trampling on them himself. But that's just me.

Never had really heard of Hillsdale but you gotta love some of their featured free lectures:

This one on the Constitution:

The Constitution established a limited government, but a government with sufficient powers to protect Americans' God-given rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This course examines the design and purpose of the Constitution, the challenges it faced during the Civil War, how it has been undermined for over a century by progressivism and post-1960s liberalism, and how limited government under the Constitution might be revived.

Nothing partisan about this course, no siree bob, just a well rounded, fully developed, non judgmental discussion of the Constitution the way real patriots understand it.

Perhaps Hillsdale doesnt have to conform to this "all viewpoints" liberal arts education or perhaps the concept of open mindedness is one and the same as the Hillsdale vision or quite probably McClay excepts Hillsdale from the list of "elite universities and colleges" and thus it gets a pass and can publish propaganda.

Is this supposed to be education or an action film?

link

And about civility on here. A few of the posters I have asked for explanations about their historical assertions have been unable to explain, defend, support or even discuss their radical (and yet ultra conservative) beliefs. Then they claim they're being insulted. I would imagine many of them haven't been in school for a while. Are they, according to McClay, products of this golden era of intellectual openness and debate that is becoming rarer and rarer these days? Or has "intolerance" just got their views on the run?

Claims about a lack of civility get used on here by some posters who take any disagreement or push back personally and become angry when challenged or asked to support their arguments. That tells me that they have neither argument nor rationale, just a personal belief they're giving the pretense of reason to. Maybe McClay could work with them on how to have a discussion? If you think you have an idea and you can only argue it from one direction, all you really have is a belief that you dont want to surrender no matter how flawed it is.

The problem isnt the kids at university, the problem is that too many Americans only ever argue what they already believe in with only the flimsiest ability to express their views without having a melt down. It's been like this for a long time and the lower down the class ladder (or the higher up the ideology ladder) you go, the worse it gets.

Charger, I'm not sure what your complaint is. Would you rather someone conceal his point of view behind a facade of "objectivity"? Hillsdale is a conservative college, founded by abolitionist Baptists in the 1840s. That is to say, they have always taken strong positions on issues. I am confident there is more open debate there than most places.

Why, doc?

Okay, here's a piece of what I'm working on right now, from the Teachers Guide to a chapter on "Becoming a World Power." The two documents included for students to read with the chapter are John Quincy Adams' speech on the Declaration, 1821 ("America does not go forth seeking monsters to slay") and Albert Beveridge's "March of the Flag" speech 1891. Here's the introduction to the documents. Either in class discussion, or on individual papers, student would be expected to know both lines of argument:

The two documents which follow are each important in and of themselves, but here we mean for them to be read together. For all their manifest differences, students will see that Adams's views and Beveridge's have much in common? They share a conviction of the unique virtues of American institutions. They are both intensely patriotic Americans. But they draw radically different conclusions from that uniqueness. Adams would protect that uniqueness by avoiding foreign entanglements and tending to our own virtue at home, thereby serving as an example to humankind. Beveridge sees it as our duty to use our strength and prosperity to transmit the benefits of our way of life to a needful world. This is a dichotomy with which we have struggled throughout the nation's history.
(Teachers may suggest the following analogy: if your surroundings are beset with terrible diseases, but you and yours are still healthy, prudence would suggest isolating yourself lest you become infected. On the other hand, if you have the answer, the solution, the cure for what ails everyone else, then the heroic and compassionate thing – and in the long term the best for you yourself – is to go out and share your remedy. Adams and Beveridge here make strong arguments for these two opposite approaches.)

Well, I am just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that open debate, alive and well at my alma mater, is every bit as open as Hillsdale, and the history department was and is outstanding. I was able to delve deeply into France and Britain in North America, as well as Japanese naval history there.

Give the modern history of Hillsdale, it would not be my choice for school. It's does have a strong history of maintaining its independence from government regulation, a feisty bunch, and they do not conceal their positions. But you imply that hundreds of other school are less tolerant without any additional information.

By general consensus, we have some of the worlds greatest universities and I am proud and grateful for that.

As to Progressives and the Constitution, start with Woodrow Wilson's speeches on the Declaration and the Constitution. He saw them as outdated and barriers to efficient government (which of course is what they are INDENDED to be).

Tort, where, and when were you there? Academic history is in bad shape these days. It ranks at the BOTTOM of chosen majors and degrees.

Charger, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

Nice, Hillsdale Chargers, I get it.

I dont have a complaint but I dont understand why the great McClay didnt publish his article at Hillsdale and did publish it on an ultra conservative site. Who did he think he was reaching?

It would seem that Hillsdale pays lip service to the openness of all ideas but that its actual approach to freedom of speech and dissent is restricted and intolerant.

Would you rather someone conceal his point of view behind a facade of "objectivity"?

But their point of view is we know we are right, even if we are not and we aint changing anyway. But, everyone else not learning what McClay thinks to be important are closed minded and intellectually deprived?

Puh-lease.

If his point of view and the pov of the college are set in stone, then why does he care what others think? Why should others live with or even consider disturbing or contrary points of view? Is that what McClay/Hillsdale do? What exactly is going on here?

Hillsdale is a conservative college, founded by abolitionist Baptists in the 1840s. That is to say, they have always taken strong positions on issues.

That's fine but why is one of their professors worried about diversity of ideas on other campuses and no on his own? I suppose hypocrisy is also a point of view but where are the dissenting voices at Hillsdale? Western chauvinism seems to be the name of the game there.

I am confident there is more open debate there than most places.

Are you? Perhaps you can point me to it? It seems like they act more as social conservative arms dealers going out to proselytize other universities. Here is a Hillsdale Prof. riling up the good students at St Vincent College.

Are there equivalent bombshell lecturers visiting Hillsdale?

His lecture is truly something special. Black Privilege, eh? Well we need to put a stop to that, pronto. No bigger issue on god's planet than Black privilege running amok.

One wonders what the point of this talk is and why it needs to be exported off of Hillsdale's campus?:

YouTube link

link

A good teacher or facilitator of debate most certainly keeps his opinions to himself as his students debate the merits of this view or that. He presents the viewpoints and any relevant background info and, yes, tries to remain impartial and objective. This is for OBVIOUS reasons in any graded course.

Now, in an institution so clearly biased from the outset maybe that's irrelevant but I would have to question whether the full spectrum of opinion would be fully represented.

Doc, "chosen majors"is not a measure of content quality. If it's just a career marketplace, then open debate probably doesn't matter anyway.

Silurian, are you saying the "full spectrum of opinion" is typical at most universities? The examples to the contrary are myriad.

Of course you'll find plenty of examples to the contrary. Invited speakers being booed or even turned away. We all hear about such occurrences, and its very unfortunate.
However the most productive debates occur within the classroom, and usually a few weeks into the semester when the students are more familiar with each other. In such situations, yes, my experience has typically been that most standpoints are openly and amicably expressed.

Well, MY experience, which is now about five years old but I cannot imagine it has gotten better, is that students are very reluctant to discuss, fearful of someone taking offense. I have been in similar classrooms for 50 years teaching the same subjects, and this reticence is new and striking.

Interesting. I guess experiences differ.
Lets hope things improve across the board, huh?

Students remain unconcerned or maybe unaware about causing offense in my experience, although they are often polite about it. They are also excited about expressing their views many times. They do not have much interest in the grievance culture or framing their ideas around current old guy politics. They seem the same as they have always been, going back to the 80s for me.

They are diverse in their levels of openness and some are quiet. But this is as its always been. They are enthusiastic about their own futures in general.

The last year I taught -- as I say, it was about five years ago -- I had two sections (25-30 students each) at UT Chattanooga, and a class at Walker State Prison. All three were US survey. It was striking how open and free and stimulating the prison class was, eager to learn but also quick to question. The two UTC classes were none of those things.

When you teach the same subject for half a century, and use the same illustrations and stories and jokes, you learn how a class will react. The UTC classes simply didn't, wouldn't. They were terrified of being un-PC.

I believe you doc, I have just never seen it. But what I do have trouble with is the new p/c around pronouns. I cannot get a handle on it, and don't really want to. My students usually forgive me or try to help me. But it's an open debate I do not want to have. Plural pronouns are plural, and communication suffers when these basic norms are tampered with. It is nothing to do with personal identity, IMO.

Well there is student generated terror and there is University generated terror.

It would seem there is a certain lip service to free speech and the exchange of ideas at Hillsdale. Something of a PR approach to open mindedness seems to belie a very restricted, toe-the-line conformity enforced by the University mucky mucks.

link

We do notice that article is more than 20 years old? Mostly accurate still, I dare say.

doc,

I am trying to figure out why McClay wrote this piece you linked to. Does it also apply to Hillsdale?

It would seem that Hillsdale positions itself as a bastion of Western traditions, think the left is trying to abridge free speech and, all the while, also considers some ideas to dangerous too consider. Is this at odds with McClay's hypothesis or is it in sync with it?

Perhaps it explains why Hillsdale didn't publish McClay's article? Or, perhaps it is a way for McClay to advocate exporting the Hillsdale approach of directed studies masquerading as liberal arts in full knowledge that it'll make students think a way that the Hillsdale intelligentsia approves of?

You want a more contemporary article on Hillsdale and a certain Stepford Wives approach to student free speech?

link

link

link

How about this article? I haven't vetted it thoroughly but, misunderstood, it might suggest that Hillsdale is training soldiers for an ideological struggle.

link

Although the whole study is interesting, the bit on Hillsdale and freedom of speech starts on page 34:

PDF link

Taken together, these findings suggest that the high level of openness reported by many Hillsdale students
may be a result of ideological homogeneity among the student body and, as at Wesleyan, Hillsdale may
not see many dissenting views on campus or in the classroom.

It would be interesting to see what speakers Hillsdale has invited to campus in the last several years.

Mostly very conservative Including Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Pence, but also David McCullough. Palin raises issues of academic credibility, but they have four a year and I did not see them all.

I am not understanding what this has to do with gaming either?

I am not understanding what this has to do with gaming either?

Aside from the fact that it is an interesting topic, on the surface, it has little to do with gaming. However, there are some subtexts that can be pulled from the discussion that might relate to writing wargaming aides such as rules. For instance, the ability to objectively research topics, vet ideas and sources, defend viewpoints against criticism with a willingness to discard them if it turns out they are erroneous or there exists a better viewpoint might be some of the hallmarks of a good rules writer.

"the ability to objectively research topics, vet ideas and sources" yeah…

link
It isn't just me.