Going After Harvard Corp.

Pushing back against woke ideology.

By
52

Political philosopher and former Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield joins Jamie to trace the academic roots of wokeness. Also:
—The plagiarism accusations against Harvard President Claudine Gay;
—Trump, Biden, or the alternatives; and
—Campaigns against grade inflation.

By
Comments (52)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    First Robert George and now Harvey Mansfield! Jamie, you’ve been doing a great job ever since you took over hosting these interviews.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Pgrossjr47

    You would think that if it was such a big deal that Gay was the first black woman to become president of Harvard they would have done a better job of vetting her. That is one of the problems with DEI. If your criteria is race, gender, etc and not merit, merit becomes secondary. The Harvard board set this trap for themselves.

    Collapse
  3. Paul.Teitelbaum

    Based on Professor Mansfield’s definition, Sarah Isgur is “woke.” For me, this was not worth very much.

    Collapse
  4. McGoogles

    I'd suggest changing the title of the podcast from "Going after Harvard Corp." to "Angry, Old, White, Homophobic, Racist, Misogynist, Male Harvard Professor Disses Harvard and Liberals".

    Collapse
  5. Mmorrissey001

    Interesting discussion. There used to be an old interview online of Mark Steyn with Artie Shaw. At that point Artie Shaw was older and could be described as quite cranky. It was an interesting interview.

    It seems to me that once upon a time, the names of the Ivy league schools meant something. If you were hiring a doctor or lawyer from Harvard, you would likely be getting someone well educated and one of the best. Same for hiring an engineer from MIT or a molecular biologist from Johns Hopkins. Sadly I wonder if that is still true. The reputation is still there for now, but if the quality slips it will become evident soon enough and then the reputation will start to suffer.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Charley Warns

    The Professor hit the nail on the head ... full stop. Defending Claudine Gay is defending the indefensible – so why do they? Like a Wuhan bat virus, a woke ideology has been allowed to permeate every level of the educational system. I'm going to put the below in quotes because I didn't write it; it's a passage from the piece, "It’s Not Hard to Define Wokeness If You’re Honest," by Dan McLaughlin:

    "Because woke politics sees politics as a struggle between identity groups rather than a contest of ideas, any political disagreement must be treated as an attack on your identity, which must be taken personally. It is this feature of woke ideology that makes it unable to accept dissent. Disagreement is assault, which is indistinguishable from violence. Agreeing to disagree is impossible. The only reasonable response to a dissenting speaker is to shout him down."

    That perfectly explains why anyone would defend the indefensible. Imagine Ben Sasse getting caught at that! Why would I defend him? You think the left would call it a nothingburger?

    Collapse
  7. Dplorins

    The best part was when he was asked if a young person should still want to go to an Ivy League school. Mansfield chuckled and said of course there are many advantages to attending an elite school. Apparently getting a great education is somewhere down the list of advantages of a Harvard degree.
    Listening to drunk uncle recite his thirty year old grievances with “them” in an authoritative tone that was dripping with condescension for the benighted fools that can’t comprehend the obvious truths he is mumbling was truly a treat. I can only imagine the joy of attending an elite school and sitting at the feet of such giants every day.
    Maybe for your next podcast flip through the Boston phonebook to find a guest, at least you’ll get a perspective more recent than “Geraldine Ferraro, now there was a dame!”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Charley Warns

      I encourage you to take what Dplorins typed above with a grain of salt. Jaime's question is asked at the 19:30 mark. Listen to it yourself so you can understand the context behind the statement. Given that Mansfield graduated from Harvard and was a professor there since 1962, of course he'll defend the institution! He's saying the tide is turning so didn't give up on the ship:

      "Yes, there's a lot of good at Harvard, especially in the other students. There is the prestige. Harvard should not be abolished. Once there, you should think and behave differently than most of the other students. At first, there needs to be some reeducation of student as they enter. Who should do that? Well, not so much the faculty but other students as it looks like the game may be changing. It's hard to think the debacle we've seen at Harvard will be allowed to continue."

      Collapse
      1. Dplorins

        Thank you for your thoughtful response to my perhaps, "overheated" comment.

        My issue with Harvard and the Ivy League schools is that they are such a perfect example of a system that ensures that "our people" stay wealthy and in power. Which is fine, I guess, in one sense because that's how the whole world works. But it's striking to hear it from a Harvard professor (paraphrasing) "Don't worry about the liberal indoctrination, you'll still make all the connections you need to stay rich and powerful. Besides, maybe the kids will re-education each other away from leftist ideas."

        Furthermore, the Woke ideology he dismisses as late-stage feminism is largely an effort to respond to how thoroughly the game is rigged against the "them" of us vs them. That the professor doesn't even recognize that aspect of his opponents' arguments makes his confident tone all the more aggravating.

        Still, perhaps the tone of my initial comment was too strident. Thank you again for your measured reply.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dvega

    I'm proud to be a charter member of The Dispatch, but I am NOT proud or happy that any of my money went to support this podcast. I often tell my liberal friends that various things they say are the kinds of things that helped us get to the point where Trump could win an election. Prof. Mansfield said stuff that was like that, but opposite: things that made me think "that's why we have woke people."

    Two examples:

    First, where he said that taking things that used to be defined as good and defining them as evil was inherently woke. I have no knowledge of, or opinion about, Harvard's Memorial Hall, so I don't know if whatever happened to it qualifies as woke gone out of control. But I do know that many things that used to be defined as good (patriarchal attitudes, looking at foreigners as our "little brown brothers", etc.) should certainly be challenged. Changing our ideas about what is good or bad is not necessarily woke.

    Second, comparing the use of "Ms." to using pronouns of your choice. Prof. Mansfield says that you're taking something that was given to you by nature and changing it to whatever you feel like calling yourself. That hardly applies to "Ms." as I don't believe that "Mr.", "Mrs.", and "Miss" were given to us by nature.

    Anyway, having a guy like this on, or at least broadcasting his ideas on some of these topics, wasn't really worthy of The Dispatch. I'm glad most stuff on here is of much higher quality.

    Collapse
    1. Amy.Bruhn

      I totally agree with regards to "Ms." He commented that women no longer wanted to be identified based on whether they were married or not (or words to that effect). In his view, women are supposed to accept their roles as subservient to and identified in relationship to men. The "Mr." title gives no indication as to whether a man is married or single, so what is wrong with women having a similar title that is independent of their marital status? I know women who use "Mrs." socially but prefer "Ms." professionally because their marital status should be irrelevant in hiring and other professional situations.

      Collapse
  9. Johnbrennan722

    "Trump is a grave threat to constitutional democracy.... but he might be who I vote for in 2024 if I don't like the Democratic candidate." I am surprised how often I hear this sentiment. Our system of checks and balances can address deficiencies in any normal president from below and to the side. A threat to constitutional democracy from inside the White House seems like as grave a threat as our system can face. I can understand Trump voters who don't think he is a threat to constitutional democracy but I don't understand how people who think he is a threat to constitutional democracy will consider voting for him anyway.

    Collapse
    1. Uriah

      Because they consider many anti-Trumpists - especially on the Left - as a threat to Republic too. It makes sense tossing a coin when you have the problem of choice.

      Collapse
    2. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  10. Avatar photo
    E7a56c3893

    I find Mansfields comments about the stakes of the election quite interesting. Mansfield sees foreign policy as a critical question in the election, yet the most popular position (it appears) among the primary candidates is a retreat from supporting Ukraine, and militarization of the US-Mexico border.

    I disagree with some of the commentators here who take issue with "feminisim" (scare quotes) as the origins of woke. This podcast was too brief to adequately explore the term "woke" with the depth it deserves. I find Coleman Hughes' podcast episode with Yascha Monk's as an excellent example of how one can intelligently explore/understand the intellectual tradition that gave rise to what we now consider woke. Naming actual philosophers and concepts.

    Mansfield is surely an oddity. A man with a nominal commitment to the American Constitution, yet equivocates as to whether it is more secure under a Biden or Trump presidency. Cares deeply about America's national security, yet does not take into consideration the bizarre and quixotic foreign policy stances by nearly every contender in the Republican Primary. I think this episode would've been better served with more time allotted to explore Mansfields' thought process and views.

    Collapse
Load More