I have no idea how many hours of my life I've spent trying to come up with some way to understand how Mussolini, Hitler, and the fascists in Japan were allowed to commit so many horrendous things to only now learn I wasted my time and could have instead waited to watch it in person in my own country
That the professor took the time to write this editorial and the NYT felt it was worth publishing tells you a whole lot about where we are. That it’s written in such a robotic and condescending tone doesn’t take away the fact that it’s banana-peel-for-a-hat bonkers.
Dude is clearly not an idiot. Yet he appears to be living in a fairyland where the fascists wouldn’t be coming for academia if a few naughty professors had just been more professional. Like him. Like the stoic academics of old, who never, ever had trouble with the authorities.
I get it. Intellectual honesty demands that we engage with criticism. That we use it to try to better ourselves. It’s very sensible. Does he think the fascists will appreciate how sensible he is? That they won’t label him as an enemy for saying climate change is real and vaccines work?
I feel like I’m losing my mind. To those who think this guy said something profound or thoughtful… I really don’t get it. Not a single original thought. Just bland, self-serving blather. A vigorous patting of his own back while the dumbest authoritarians are hell-bent on destroying academia.
"Science shows vaccines work & #AGW is real, but it cannot dictate whether vaccine mandates or fossil fuels restricted. Those are decisions for public, with scientific evidence being 1 factor."
But these other "factors" aren't mentioned? Mysticism? Religion? The CEO's last quarterly results?
"Computer science is totally apolitical," says an incredibly gullible professor while a career fair across campus is hiring programmers to write military drone software.
"I am prepared to die on the hill of a distorted concept of antisemitism but otherwise, lets stay focused on teaching completely neutral ...3...2...1...cybertech !"
I bet there are exact parallels to this piece in 1930s German newspapers. It screams leave me alone, take those naughty activists first, I will comply, promise, I am so professional at complying
"I would rather my fellow citizens understand why it is wrong to kidnap babies and grandmothers than to be fluent in the subtleties of postcolonialism."
You teach at fucking Harvard. Is it really too much to ask for both?
"The result is that people who disagree with one another find it hard to work at the same company or buy the same products, increasing the problem of polarization"—gonna go scream into the void for sec, brb
Look, yes, you may find it difficult to work alongside a fascist. But have you considered that this may impact shareholder value? It's not all about you, selfish!
Weird. I've always felt it's not very professional to watch as a morally abhorrent thing happens, know that you could do something to try to stop it, and refrain from doing that thing.
“we need fact- and science-based policymaking for topics such as public health and climate change, artificial intelligence and economics” all famously non-political subjects
While I generally disagree that politics/ethics should or even can be left out of broad academia, there are some interesting points in here with regards to trust.
What one person considers "politics" is different from another. If you read the readers comments, you'll find someone railing about "pronouns in my email", which they viewed as political. Other people, either with androgynous names or not common in the west said that pronouns as useful. Politics?
No, just that something as simple as using pronouns can become "political" even when not intended as such and when the political nature arise in the last 3-5 years.
Is it "political" to wear a cross to work? A hijab? A kippah? A keffiyeh?
If the author of the article is arguing that we should be "professional" in the classroom, your point seems to be that deciding what that means can be difficult in certain areas. I don't think anyone would disagree, but that doesn't change the point of the article.
“Politics has no place in the classroom” but professional ethics means not creating tools for fascists. Everything is political, and the lack of basic professional ethics instilled has clearly yielded a generation of morally bankrupt tech oligarchs destroying the world.
People who write shit excuses for failing to instill basic ethics in their students are the ones who helped get us into this mess. They don’t get to make excuses to avoid responsibility for their failure to meet the responsibility of professors and mentors to shape minds for good, not evil.
Some computer science classes should grapple with tech and society: “AI” use of energy and water; security v privacy; robotics and algorithms replacing jobs. Probably not Python classes. Conflates personal, public. Absolutes aren’t helpful.
Also note he also works at OpenAI ... working on "Alignment" so it's a bit rich that he is complaining about politics ... I am sure once we have AGI all issues it may create will also be neatly solved with Math(TM)(R) (no politics required!).
“Math?” No because your professor just got his nsf grant cancelled for no good reason and and there’s not a TA slot for the grad that loses their RA position. My man will be distracted and it’s fair of him to take a moment and say why.
"A TA sent an email encouraging students to express themselves. Also, the president is purging people not loyal to him from the civil service. That's basically the same phenomena."
I’m all for keeping politics out of the classroom. Teachers and students can do activism on their own time. But using real-life examples in class is fine, as long as they’re shared in a factual, unbiased way.
Comments
But these other "factors" aren't mentioned? Mysticism? Religion? The CEO's last quarterly results?
You teach at fucking Harvard. Is it really too much to ask for both?
I mean coal miners getting all uppity is one thing, but Googlers should be professional enough not to engage in protected speech on political issues.
I was curious what he saw as the narrow slice of disciplines studied by faculty that had some bearing on “the real world”. I mean come ON dude.
Him: "That's bad."
Me: "My colonial government did it. Now that they're gone, what should we do about it?"
Him: "Ugh can't we just keep politics out of it?"
Is it "political" to wear a cross to work? A hijab? A kippah? A keffiyeh?
Some will say yes, others "no" (to some). YMMV.
Is it political to mention that Alan Turing was gay?
Or that Lynn Conway, who simplified VLSI design was trans?
What if both issues were reasons they were hampered in their work or, for Turing, why they killed themselves?
Some computer science classes should grapple with tech and society: “AI” use of energy and water; security v privacy; robotics and algorithms replacing jobs. Probably not Python classes. Conflates personal, public. Absolutes aren’t helpful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/opinion/work-school-classroom-politics-harvard.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EE8.rQp4.g0JTjSH72DPp&smid=url-share
"A TA sent an email encouraging students to express themselves. Also, the president is purging people not loyal to him from the civil service. That's basically the same phenomena."