Here are more details about the extent of ultra-left dominance at the Sociology Department at OISE.
Captive social science is not new, of course, nor is it restricted to OISE. Here is a course description for an offering at Wheaton College in Illinois, an Evangelical Christian institution:
ANTH 355. Human Origins. This course surveys the biological and cultural evidence for fossil humans and seeks to understand that evidence within a Christian framework that is true to the integrity of the data, philosophy of science, biblical hermeneutics, and theology.
Before modern times, teachings about society were widely constrained by the dogmatic prescriptions of religious institutions. And of course the Nazi and Soviet dictatorships admitted no viewpoint except their own.
Now at the Department of Sociology and Equity Studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (University of Toronto), we have a fairly modern and fashionable version: social science held captive by ultra-left dogmatists. There are two interesting features of this new dogmatism: 1) it is not freely agreed to by its constituency, as is the case with the Evangelical Christians, nor 2) is it enforced by state power. Instead it has come about and is enforced by stealth: the new dogmatists have been able to seize control of a publicly-financed institution, and they seem to perpetuate their control through their power over recruitment procedures. The closest analogue are the Communist-controlled trade unions that existed in North America for a number of decades in the last century.
My previous posts have focused on how the SESE dogmatics have affected the writing of graduate theses. Here I am concerned over how SESE faculty members describe their professional interests. One of the SESE web pages lists 16 Teaching Faculty, 5 Sessional lecturers, and 11 Cross-Appointed Associated Faculty, for a total of thirty-two SESE professors and instructors. Next to each person’s name is a listing of “Teaching Emphasis.” In twenty-one of these thirty-two, these descriptions indicate adherence to left-wing dogma.
Sometimes this adherence seems mild and almost inoffensive, as when it quietly lists “gender” or “gender studies” (more on that later). But in many other cases these listing are very much in-your-face: “Anti-racism and domination studies,… anti-colonial thought”, “Gender, colonialism … black feminism, anti-racist education.”
And perhaps even more interesting is what is not in these listings. I found nobody prepared to teach research methods, nobody interested in statistics. So here is a sociology entirely devoid of quantitative methods. How can that possibly wash ? Haven’t any of the U of T powers-that-be noticed that ?
Faculty attitudes toward Jews and Israel are not shown in the listings of “teaching emphasis.” But seven out of the thirty-two are publicly on record as condemning Israel, as shown by their signatures on petitions dated Jan. 12, Feb. 27, and Feb. 28 of 2009. At about the same time other academics signed petitions favoring Israel, but I was not able find SESE names on that kind of statement. Now obviously, a faculty member can have a private life, and in that private life can express political views of any and all sorts. But as we have seen in the current discussion on the Peto and Epstein theses — the only recent SESE theses dealing with Jews — all of the SESE scholarship on that topic suggests, not to put too fine a point on it, that the vast majority of Jews are Fascist pigs. Surely more can be said on the subject ? Apparently not, apparently not at SESE.
The most often mentioned “teaching emphasis” in these listings is “gender.” (In addition, there are numerous mentions of “feminism.”) On the surface, “gender” appears to be neutral; it could mean an entirely scholarly interest in sex differences in learning, or whatnot. But in the current context I found that an interest in “gender” is short-hand for a desire to engage in advocacy on behalf of a grievance-based political action. In every case that I have been able to check in this SESE context, “gender” means that there is perceived disadvantage to women, and thus a grievance that requires redress by way of writing and teaching at SESE.
To appreciate just how deleterious this stance is to scholarship, let us recall the well-established and often replicated data concerning sex differences in mathematical abilities. On average, the two populations, male and female, seem very close or perhaps identical on this trait. But when you look at the relatively small number of people who are in the very highest level of mathematical ability, there is a very marked, stark difference. At this very highest level, men outperform women dramatically. These findings are robust and remain after the application of control values.
The findings are a challenge to scholars. How do we explain them ? There is no simple answer, and certainly not one that insists on environmental variables alone. But while we have no simple answers, we do know that the feminist “gender” approach, which is dogmatic and a-priori and always apologist, cannot possibly be at all satisfactory.
These two examples — the study of Jews, the problem of sex differences — may seem extreme or isolated, but I think that they point to a very general problem, viz. the systematic anti-scientific, anti-intellectual subversion of academic life by the new dogmatists. And unfortunately, it is most unlikely that OISE is the only institution so affected.
My related postings on this topic:
Also: Read Robyn Urback’s analysis of the Peto thesis