Scott R. MacKenzie
May we also please note that the first paragraph suggests that, 1. students are not receiving guidance from instructors, and 2. what Grammerly provides is "guidance." Fucking fucking fuck off

Dear faculty, we have inserted a deadly neurotoxin into your breakfast. But don't worry, we can neutralize the toxin with our new product that you probably should purchase.

Let me help you with that headline: "Two Bonkers, Far-Right Organizations Have a Political Strategy to Mainstream Their Fucking Gonzo Fascisticism and We're Helping to Legitimate Them. Bless"

You’re basically just providing a sanitized, palatable to the middlebrow version of the Trump admin’s “improper ideology” rationale.

To put it more concisely: we are not the ones who encouraged and turbocharged the rise of authoritarian white supremacism in the United States. You are

help anyone who wants to sustain a vital academic and educational system in this country. Quit ginning up fraudulent accounts of academic bias. Your evidence is totally insubstantial and your motives are fundamentally dishonest.

These scholars will not save their own positions by trying to separate themselves from progressives who "politicize" the classroom. We're all in terrible jeopardy. Radical critique does not occupy a position of powerful ascendancy anywhere in or out of the academy and shutting it down won't

In any case, now that genuine fascist and white supremacist political forces have actually gained the ascendancy in the USA, the choice that these scholars have made, to continue legitimating despicable hard-right rationales, is infuriating and disheartening.

of mainstream economics. What about the refusal of math departments to confront their dependence on abstraction? Why should those number-heads get to spend all their time teaching calculations that have nothing to do with the real world? Where is "I Hate Math" on their syllabi?

There is not, for instance, an intellectual position that disavows the profound racial inequity of American criminal-justice practices that is not either delusional or simply racist. I wonder also why the authors of this study didn't choose other "controversies," such as evolution or the mendacity

transformation. Not to mention the subsidiary, reactionary-centrist strategy that blames "woke" excesses for their own marginalization and for the failure of mainstream liberalism to forestall Trumpist demagoguery. The both-sides-ism that premises this study is the real dogmatism.

no exploration of the object of critique. That's an absurd notion. What this study is really doing is giving substance to the far-right anti-intellectual strategy of shutting down thought that identifies social exclusion and injustice and that affirms equity, freedom, and beneficial social

It's not as though students are coming to the classroom with no idea that these "controversies" exist. And it's not as though we're not introducing and investigating the perspectives that critique confronts. Just because syllabi don't "pair" texts with "other publications" does not mean there is

This reactionary centrist idiocy is so vile and self-defeating. These topics are not distinguished because they are controversies. They are far right talking points continually raised and re-raised in order to devalue sophisticated critical analysis.

For anything less than $1,250, you can choose “no perk.” Above that level, you can purchase the opportunity to purchase tickets to a music show. This email went out to all faculty and staff. Mostly just to remind us all that we’re not really a part of this situation, right?

Barely distinguishable except the AI is less prone to tantrums

At no point did I opt into “using the Ole Miss Family Experience”

I say thank you lord baby jeebus every fucking day. Pays for my therapy and gives me a leave to spend crying and trying to sleep