Read charitably, Brett is describing a personal injury inside a forced intimacy structure. Read in the wider discourse, the sentence becomes a Rorschach blot. Critics treat it as confirmation that viewpoint diversity is a euphemism conservatives use to demand room for discrimination; defenders treat it as proof that one right-leaning student can poison a five-person well. Both readings are doing politics with a diary entry.
Adrian Vermeule, for his part, was less interested in the cohort drama than in the recurring faculty move that follows it.
That gag lands because the empirical backdrop is not subtle. Faculty party ID skews heavily Democratic in many departments; FIRE and related campus surveys keep finding that conservatives are a rare and chilly presence in the room. An adjunct's counter-anecdote—a conservative student who sparked debate and earned an A+—does not refute the pattern. It proves the pattern has exceptions, which is what patterns always have.
The deeper problem is definitional smuggling. If "viewpoint diversity" is redefined as a cover for tolerating sexism and racism, then the only allowable disagreement is disagreement that already agrees on the moral floor. That is not a seminar. It is a loyalty screen with office hours.
Brett may be right about the person she faced. Vermeule may be right about the genre. What neither tweet can settle is whether universities can tell the difference between bigotry and dissent when their hiring pipelines, citation circles, and cohort chemistries all lean the same way. Until they can, the public will keep reading these little hell stories as evidence—and academics will keep explaining that the evidence is just wicked people failing to appreciate the journals.
Letters
0
No letters yet.