Should schools pick applicants based on their adherence to "social justice"?
I received an alumni newsletter from the University of Tennessee and read up on some of the changes going on in the Psychology Department. One segment that caught my eye stated "New emphasis on social justice training." The website is here.
"Oh lord," I thought, as I read about the "buzz" in the faculty discussions and the agreement among each member that "we should add a new component to our training model." It seems that this new training model will be a two-semester course sequence of "social justice practica" which will teach students to conduct social justice research, and to gain skills in consultation, program development, and intervening at a systemic level to bring about social change.
The most troubling part of this little exercise was yet to come, however. It seems the psychology program has received double the number of applications for the doctoral program in Counseling in 2008 as they received in 2007 and the newsletter went on to mention that the doctoral students in 2008 were selected, in part, for their interest in developing social justice advocacy skills [emphasis mine].
My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma. How many people will they turn away due to their politics? No one will ever really know.
I wonder what would happen if clinical and counseling doctoral programs across the country announced that applicants would be chosen for their "interest in liberty and free market ideas?" Should these programs really be choosing candidates based on their politics, because ultimately, that's what they are doing. As much as the Counseling psych website advocates that they are proud of the "diversity of their student body," I wonder how much diversity of political thought they allow?
"Oh lord," I thought, as I read about the "buzz" in the faculty discussions and the agreement among each member that "we should add a new component to our training model." It seems that this new training model will be a two-semester course sequence of "social justice practica" which will teach students to conduct social justice research, and to gain skills in consultation, program development, and intervening at a systemic level to bring about social change.
The most troubling part of this little exercise was yet to come, however. It seems the psychology program has received double the number of applications for the doctoral program in Counseling in 2008 as they received in 2007 and the newsletter went on to mention that the doctoral students in 2008 were selected, in part, for their interest in developing social justice advocacy skills [emphasis mine].
My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma. How many people will they turn away due to their politics? No one will ever really know.
I wonder what would happen if clinical and counseling doctoral programs across the country announced that applicants would be chosen for their "interest in liberty and free market ideas?" Should these programs really be choosing candidates based on their politics, because ultimately, that's what they are doing. As much as the Counseling psych website advocates that they are proud of the "diversity of their student body," I wonder how much diversity of political thought they allow?
Labels: political correctness, psychology
posted by Helen at 10:37 AM
44 Comments:
Why is diversity so important when it comes to the things we have zero control over, but the one area we have near total control over is the one area it is okay (even good) to discriminate against.
In the real world I pay far more attention to the things that we can change like clothing and outward behavior and then ideas/beliefs as these are far greater indicators of who a person is when compared to who he was born to.
It's been a long time since I have been involved with academia. I'm stumped on "Social justice advocacy skills." What does that mean? I don't see a definition in the linked site. Is there some sort of official definition?
With my wife being a psychologist (she resists calls for social justice from her colleagues as well), I look at the same literature being sent to our house.
I have also found that there are many private foundations active in promoting social justice with grant funds--avoiding researchers who propose ideas that may challenge their deeply held beliefs.
My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma.
My guess is you are absolutely correct. As for diversity, I'm sure that they measure it by the most superficial of factors: color of skin, gender, and national origin. In my experience with the U.T. Psych. Dept. (B.A. psychology, 1976) is that many are left leaning and the more left leaning the less likely they were to know how to change a tire on their car.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has been dealing with "social justice" requirements for quite a while. here are some examples.
Let's face it, at least they're being upfront. Many colleges of many types, in both the physical and social sciences, across the country already do engage in indoctrination: economics programs at many schools teach interventionist economics; history programs at many schools teach state-worship history; environmental programs at many schools teach Al Gore's global warming position. At least UofT is letting people know up-front that this is what they plan on doing.
In that light, I think you ought to be praising the Psychology Department, not criticizing it. Academic honesty is one of the pillars of all academia. If UofT isn't going to do honest research, you should at least be glad that they're being honest with potential students about their dishonesty.
I know that if I was seeking a psych degree, UofT would not even be on my list, if only because of its stated goal of going beyond its mission as an educational institution.
"My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma."
That's not a guess; it's a diamond-perfect assessment. One hour in a classroom supervised by any "socially aware" professor will confirm it for you -- especially if you dare to raise an audible objection to his dogmas.
The PC fascists run the colleges & universities, and they've done so for decades. Should we really be surprised at this development? I'm not. It's sad and lamentable, but it's not surprising at all.
J. Bowen,
I get what you're saying and at least, like you say, they're upfront. However, it's a public institution--taking tax payer money--should they really have the right to drive applicants with other views away if they do not agree with their brand of "social justice?" I don't think so.
Psychology and the other "helping" are no longer about helping individuals overcome their personal problems and challenges. Now the helping professions are about molding society into the system the helpers think is best and then forcing people to follow that system.
Psychology used to be primarily focused on individual behaviors. Now it's moved more and more into the realm of sociology and, in that sense, lost it's direction.
Blogger Cham said...
It's been a long time since I have been involved with academia. I'm stumped on "Social justice advocacy skills." What does that mean? I don't see a definition in the linked site. Is there some sort of official definition?
11:29 AM, January 09, 2009
Come on Cham, don't be so dense. "Social Justice" is a code word for the radical left wing agenda. I've known that the moment I first heard that odious phrase back in the early 1990s.
DADvocate - that's a good point. We are creeping towards a collectivist mindset with regard to even one's supposedly personal life. Yes your personal issues now belong to the collective. The Borg shall assimilate you.
They'll be coming through our front doors before it's over. Like I said, it IS happening here, one day at a time.
The frog in the pan of water on the stove.
However, it's a public institution--taking tax payer money--should they really have the right to drive applicants with other views away if they do not agree with their brand of "social justice?" I don't think so.
Well, what if the public wants the tax-payer funded institution to do that (I don't actually believe this...but what if)?
Just out of curiosity, is this an effort solely on the part of the university, or are there higher politics involved? If there are, I think this is simply one more reason why we ought to be pushing for a separation of science and state.
Alex said:
We are creeping towards a collectivist mindset with regard to even one's supposedly personal life. Yes your personal issues now belong to the collective. The Borg shall assimilate you.
br549 said:
We are creeping towards a collectivist mindset with regard to even one's supposedly personal life. Yes your personal issues now belong to the collective. The Borg shall assimilate you.
I know that this is somewhat off-topic, but I can't help it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p09s01-coop.html
J. Bowen - it is a valid point that in a single-payer system the government has a right to interfere in your lifestyle choices if they are footing the bill. We as a nation have to decide if "I am my neighbor's keeper" or not.
In order to do that Alex, don't we a constitution to throw out first?
[i]In order to do that Alex, don't we a constitution to throw out first?[/i]
Don't you know that Congress already has the power to impose universal health care upon us? It [their power] comes from the commerce and general welfare clauses.
The lesson for new students?
Stay away from the liberal arts.
Unless you come from one of the pre-approved victim classes. Then you can really solidify your victimhood.
"Social" is, in English, a particle of negation.
"Social justice" is the opposite of justice. "Social science" is the opposite of science. "Social Security" is the opposite of security. "Social networking" is the opposite of networking. The website "Socialtext" has lots of pretty pictures.
Well, the poster child for this sort of thing is Bill Ayers (and his wife). And as I kept trying to tell people, a guy from a rich background who takes a job, when jobs are scarce, that someone from a poorer background needs more doesn't seem very interested in social justice to me.
Dr. Helen:
Pscyhology, like other Social Sciences and the Humanities, are only going to marginalize themselves.
Already many conservatives do not seek counseling, precisely because they are afraid (with good reason, I am told to understand) that they will be told that there conservative beliefs are part of their illness.
In other words, many of your psychologist colleagues take a page out of the old Soviet Union playbook.
If you search higheredjobs.com for "social justice" you will find 126 jobs advertised, as of today, that mention social justice -- everything from librarians to accountants to nurses to admissions officers and HR staffers.
"My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma. "
Guess?
I'll tell you with 100% certainty that it IS for that reason. If they could get away with sending conservatives to gas chambers, they would.
For many years the concept of social justice bothered me. How could one modify justice? It was or it wasn't. I think I may have finally figured it out.
Social justice is not concerned with eliminating injustice. It only wants to distribute injustice "fairly".
This means unjust activities can be just so long as they create injustice for only those who have benefitted from previous injustice.
Given, that all people have attempted to oppress all other people throughout history, this means you can justify anything as social justice by carefully picking your base time and place.
"Social justice" is simply another word for stealing.
You have more money than someone else. It's not socially just. We're going to steal some from you so you don't.
That's "social justice". That's ALL it is.
What's bizarre is that "social justice" people should take money away from people who didn't earn it themselves if they HAVE TO redistribute money.
It seems more just to me to take money away from Heather Mills than from Bill the Plumbing Contractor. But they don't even think that way. Bill the Plumbing Contractor would be the more likely target, if he has earned a couple of million.
Same with the IRS, as long as I'm ranting.
Sally Layaround is cute, and a guy who was interested in her gave her a necklace that she sold on e-Bay for $15,000. She pays no taxes on a gift.
Rick earns $15,000 by working nights in addition to his day job. He is taxed on his highest marginal rate for that extra money.
Society really has bizarre notions.
If you have read Atlas Shrugged, this sounds exactly like Dr. Pritchett, one of the main villians.
These comments really show that birds of a feather flock together...or at least often read the same blog.
Here's how Dictionary.com defines "social justice":
"the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society"
What's wrong with that? I think that it's important that we're aware of the discrepancies in the distribution of advantages and disadvantages in our society. It's our duty as fellow humans, so that we can address injustices where they exist.
Kathy H:
Care to explain to us how "we can address [social] injustices where they exist" without stealing from people who are "advantaged"?
Is stealing OK when you can get 51% of population to vote to steal from the other 49%?
"Social justice" is stealing. If you want the outcomes of "social justice" without resorting to stealing, then you need to call it something else so people know what you're talking about.
Now the helping professions are about molding society into the system the helpers think is best and then forcing people to follow that system.
That's standard technocrat MO.
Is stealing OK when you can get 51% of population to vote to steal from the other 49%?
If it's immoral for one person to do it, it's immoral for a group to do it. The fact that the group voted to do it doesn't change the moral implications of the act.
Kathy H is a golddigger, nothing more.
We are creeping towards a collectivist mindset with regard to even one's supposedly personal life.
"The personal is political". I'm sure you know the origin of that phrase. Though it was, in my opinion, originally coined to deny the legitimacy of criticizing leftists (it essentially says that objecting to your politics is a personal attack on you), its transformation into the rally cry of the all-powerful state was inevitable.
Kathy H offered another amusing example of a leftist running to a dictionary that conveniently offers a prescriptive definition of a term for which a descriptive definition would instantly demolish the claim the leftist is trying to make. (See the use of the term 'feminism' for other examples of this leftist rhetorical tactic to defend leftist dogma from deserved criticism.)
Psychology is only the latest university department dominated by women that is turning toward churning out social activists. "Scholarship, activism, and teaching are inseperable elements of a single whole" says the National Women's Studies Association here.
It's creepy! I keep thinking of the remark someone threw at me when I went to seminary: "Just remember, whenever a lot of women go into a profession, its standards and prestige plummet." He gave the example of physicians in the Soviet Union to prove his charming point.
But the connection, I think, is that when women are entering a profession in ever larger numbers, there are often the devil's own choices facing a conservative female. She may just want to go study and work and learn to do the best job possible in her field, but the assumption will be that she has to be radical and adopt a whole slew of other prescribed opinions to go with. As if they were saying what she could wear before or after Labor Day. "OMG, the oppressors fought women't ordination, therefore you as a female must be in solidarity with X and Y and the accused rapist next door."
The level of political correctness you describe still chokes the seminary I graduated from in the mid 1980s. Back then, you could belong to one of two groups (and no prizes for guessing which one dominated and now completely runs the school and got the recommendations for internships, jobs, etc.):
A) Conservative politically, traditional theologically, but frothing at the mouth hating gays, against the ordination of women, pro-life, patriotic . They would seriously try to convince the few conservative women there that to be "true" servants of God,they should just give up their vocation to the priesthood and marry one of their classmates to help him. Oh,and she should also not chill with her gay friends any more. This basically forced the women there (many of them at least initially conservative and pro-life and highly traditional) over to the Dark Side of the Force to
B) Liberal to radical politically, accepts the ordination of women, gay rights (even if the student might say they were not interested in lobbying or politics), uninterested in theology but preferring bs like oppression studies, gender issues, celebrating the diversity of groups like WICCA, opposed to the "tyranny of traditional marriage and gender roles", therapeutic rather than pastoral in sensibility. There is nothing so lightweight as the literature on Pastoral Counselling that was offered at the time. People took it because wrestling with Greek or Karl Barth was too hard by comparison.
Lawlz. "Liberalist and left leaning dogma" doesn't sound so bad. Higher taxes, or having every single one of my freedoms abridged and fucked with seems like a pretty easy call to make. I dunno, are you guys all rich outlaws or something that you've got this attitude?
Off the cuff, 'Justice' is the existence of appropriate consequences for actions.
'Social Justice' is primarily concerned with insulating one group of people from the negative consequences of their actions, and taking away the positive consequences from another group.
It is a moral inversion predicated on the notion that a person's choices and actions have nothing to do with how their life turns out.
I think there is a happy medium somewhere in here. People are responsible for their choices and actions, but they are also influenced by their social strata and culture.
If you head over to India and take a hard look at the untouchables, you'll always find one in 10,000,000 that made their way out of the squalor to be a megamillionaire, but the rest of them tend to stay at the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder. Just because one person can do it doesn't make economic success easy or workable for the rest. And many of those 99,999,999 are decent hard working individuals.
I keep thinking of the remark someone threw at me when I went to seminary: "Just remember, whenever a lot of women go into a profession, its standards and prestige plummet." He gave the example of physicians in the Soviet Union to prove his charming point.
I have heard that point made many times, but I don't buy it. If prestige should fall, it's not because women are entering the profession, but because women always demand special accomodations, rules, and procedures just for them. The net result of the demanded changes is almost always a lowering of the qualifications required for admission and an extremely PC social environment that is guaranteed to offend and turn away men.
The advice I give to my young nephews is - don't go to college. Go to a technical school like DeVry or Heald and learn tech skills or, if you must attend a four year institution, stick with engineering, computer science or hard sciences.
Colleges and universities are anti-male. They are chock full of anti-male, politically correct garbage that is a waste of a young man's time and resources. Considering the plummeting college enrollment rates for young men, I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion.
""Social justice" is simply another word for stealing."
I agree. It is also the opposite of taking personal responsibility and addressing a situation yourself.
It is also utopian, thinking that government structures and programs can change human nature.
And it had absolutely NOTHING to do with helping people and families live better, which is what therapists are supposed to do.
Trey
網頁設計会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング会社設立
Post a Comment
<< Home