[wat0n]

I was paraphrasing Dr. Padilla.

It is a logical conclusion, based on what we know about history, economics, et cetera.

I'm an economist and I would not say it's a logical conclusion of the history of how the journal system was established. But I do agree it probably needs some reform, since it's possible for certain clubs to take over some flagship journals. Such clubs may of course effectively exclude people from certain ethnic groups or gender(s?), but I would not say that's their intent or why the system was set up. I also don't think it's something only people of a certain ethnicity or gender do.

Perhaps. This seems like an unverifiable claim to me.

It may be more correct to argue that BIPOC and women are not attracted to the field because there is no real recognition of their identities.

That's the converse of what I said, and it's not surprising since the field in question are Western Classics, all of which not only come from Europe but also from societies where it was rare for women to engage or be allowed to engage in philosophy, and leave their thoughts for posterity.

But how is it any different from other similar fields? Why would you concern yourself about recognizing European or African identities in a field like Chinese studies? It would seem that the field would be inherently centered on analyzing China.

Perhaps another more interesting question would be if people from a different ethnicity would add value to the field. I would say "yes" but I also don't think this means their research should be held up to a different standard by giving them dedicated journal space.

No.

There is legislation around this already, so I assume you think it should change? Is that the argument?

My argument is that there is some degree of tension, in academia, between "freedom of political speech" and "keeping good departmental relations".

If a White Supremacist academic showed up at an African American Studies department, engaged in research that effectively affirms his ideological position yet publishes well, constantly expressed his opinions on the matter and his colleagues found that offensive... Should he get tenure? On one hand, yes, because he's getting good publications, meaning he's actually achieved recognition by some in his field. On the other, no, because the fact that his colleagues find his speech offensive could be said to be disruptive and even fall under the legal definition of a "hostile workplace environment" and if he gets tenure he stays until retirement.

Or a couple of much less extreme, and much more realistic examples. Take some researcher in a social science department that arrives to conclusions that go against claims of systemic racism in the US (say, for instance, in policing), and manages to publish in good journals. Or simply take a medievalist who does historiography of the medieval period about somewhere outside Europe or analyzes European medieval history but from a non-European perspective and using mainly non-European sources arguing that the traditional historiography of the field excludes BIPOC, and such research also publishes in good journals or the books sell well. In both cases, the researchers' colleagues disagree, find the results to be offensive and even disruptive to work within the department since everyone is having arguments around these and these can often get heated and bitter. Should these researchers get tenure?

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm an economist and I would not say it's a logical conclusion of the history of how the journal system was established. But I do agree it probably needs some reform, since it's possible for certain clubs to take over some flagship journals. Such clubs may of course effectively exclude people from certain ethnic groups or gender(s?), but I would not say that's their intent or why the system was set up. I also don't think it's something only people of a certain ethnicity or gender do.

I never claimed intent, nor did I claim that was why the system was set up, nor did I claim that this is specific to a single group except insofar as historical conditions have excluded other groups.

That's the converse of what I said, and it's not surprising since the field in question are Western Classics, all of which not only come from Europe but also from societies where it was rare for women to engage or be allowed to engage in philosophy, and leave their thoughts for posterity.

Well, both statements are unverifiable speculations. The only real difference seems that mine is based on facts.

But how is it any different from other similar fields? Why would you concern yourself about recognizing European or African identities in a field like Chinese studies? It would seem that the field would be inherently centered on analyzing China.

Because the fields of western civilisation and classics claim to be universal to the western experience. Obviously, this is not the case if the two fields focus almost exclusively on the experiences of white men.

Perhaps another more interesting question would be if people from a different ethnicity would add value to the field. I would say "yes" but I also don't think this means their research should be held up to a different standard by giving them dedicated journal space.

And I think that the status quo holds female scholars and BIPOC to a higher standard by having them overcome obstacles that white men do not facd.

My argument is that there is some degree of tension, in academia, between "freedom of political speech" and "keeping good departmental relations".

If a White Supremacist academic showed up at an African American Studies department, engaged in research that effectively affirms his ideological position yet publishes well, constantly expressed his opinions on the matter and his colleagues found that offensive... Should he get tenure? On one hand, yes, because he's getting good publications, meaning he's actually achieved recognition by some in his field. On the other, no, because the fact that his colleagues find his speech offensive could be said to be disruptive and even fall under the legal definition of a "hostile workplace environment" and if he gets tenure he stays until retirement.

This is covered by laws governing behaviour on the workplace. What is the change you are proposing?

Or a couple of much less extreme, and much more realistic examples. Take some researcher in a social science department that arrives to conclusions that go against claims of systemic racism in the US (say, for instance, in policing), and manages to publish in good journals. Or simply take a medievalist who does historiography of the medieval period about somewhere outside Europe or analyzes European medieval history but from a non-European perspective and using mainly non-European sources arguing that the traditional historiography of the field excludes BIPOC, and such research also publishes in good journals or the books sell well. In both cases, the researchers' colleagues disagree, find the results to be offensive and even disruptive to work within the department since everyone is having arguments around these and these can often get heated and bitter. Should these researchers get tenure?

This is not about your previous point about being likable.

Do you have an argument about this?

[Unthinking Majority]

We have people supporting the cancellation of Greco-Roman studies for racist reasons. "Greco-Roman philosophy will steal your identity Padilla says, only Oriental, African and other studies should be studied by people and Greco-Roman literature snubbed or derided because only then we will bring down white supremacy".

How does one figure that cancelling the Classics departments of universities will have any effect on "white supremacy"?

Their one and only argument: "you cannot criticise(.ie ask any question whatsoever) a Black professor openly calling for a cultural war" cause we say so.

I'm not sure Padilla is calling to cancel the field, at least i've not heard him say that. I think he's pointing out issues in the field that he thinks need fixing.

[noemon]

Because the fields of western civilisation and classics claim to be universal to the western experience.

Greco-Roman literature does not claim anything, only others claim in its name and that is called cultural appropriation which is what you are currently engaging in.

Obviously, this is not the case if the two fields focus almost exclusively on the experiences of white men.

This is racist. A community especially one of the past cannot change its racial makeup, it is an immutable characteristic. Holding that against a culture is the same as blaming ancient Chinese literature for not focusing on African Americans. It's also absurd. How does African literature focus on the experience of non-Africans?

I'm not sure Padilla is calling to cancel the field, at least i've not heard him say that. I think he's pointing out issues in the field that he thinks need fixing.

Classics and whiteness are the bones and sinew of the same body; they grew strong together, and they may have to die together. Classics deserves to survive only if it can become “a site of contestation” for the communities who have been denigrated by it in the past.

.....

Padilla sensed that his pursuit of classics had displaced other parts of his identity, just as classics and “Western civilization” had displaced other cultures and forms of knowledge. Recovering them would be essential to dismantling the white-supremacist framework in which both he and classics had become trapped.

How does one figure that the dismantling of the Greek & Roman literature academic departments will have an effect on white supremacy?

[wat0n]

I never claimed intent, nor did I claim that was why the system was set up, nor did I claim that this is specific to a single group except insofar as historical conditions have excluded other groups.

Then one may ask up to what extent one could say the journal system is racist.

Of course, you might be wondering why I am so concerned about this question. I'll tell you: I don't think quotas will solve the problems with the journal system, they may actually be used to simply form other clubs or expand on existing ones and the focus on this issue distracts from the broader one, which if addressed may actually help with all problems in representation.

Well, both statements are unverifiable speculations. The only real difference seems that mine is based on facts.

What facts, exactly?

Because the fields of western civilisation and classics claim to be universal to the western experience. Obviously, this is not the case if the two fields focus almost exclusively on the experiences of white men.

I would not say these fields really claim that (except, perhaps, for Classical philosophy but it could also be extended to non-Western philosophy).

And I think that the status quo holds female scholars and BIPOC to a higher standard by having them overcome obstacles that white men do not facd.

Would you elaborate on what these obstacles are? I actually think that they do face some obstacles, insofar they may have yet to form their networks (the elegant way of saying clubs). But then again, this should solve itself as time goes by and the senior demographics - which looks more like the student demographics from a few decades ago - changes.

This is covered by laws governing behaviour on the workplace. What is the change you are proposing?

It's not clear that's the case when tenure and academic freedom are added into the mix.

This is not about your previous point about being likable.

Do you have an argument about this?

Of course it has to do with likeability. In particular, people who find their research controversial may end up taking it personal if they stick to their guns too much. If an ordinary academic does, then they can be said to be unlikable.

I also pointed these two cases out since I think they have actually happened. IIRC there was a very similar controversy among medievalists, the field's demographics and also how they are narrowly centered on European history to the extent that some within the field were advocating simply ending it since the current division in historical eras is largely centered on European history (as in "it doesn't make sense to speak of a Middle Age outside Europe"). And there have been many examples of the social science thing.

[Unthinking Majority]

How does one figure that the dismantling of the Greek & Roman literature academic departments will have an effect on white supremacy?

I don't know. Some people are even trying to destroy western civilization as a concept because of "white supremacy".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... th-lecture

[Pants-of-dog]

Then one may ask up to what extent one could say the journal system is racist.

Of course, you might be wondering why I am so concerned about this question. I'll tell you: I don't think quotas will solve the problems with the journal system, they may actually be used to simply form other clubs or expand on existing ones and the focus on this issue distracts from the broader one, which if addressed may actually help with all problems in representation.

I explained how I believe the system is racist, but I think that BIPOC scholars would be able to not only provide a better explanation but would probably also have a better solution than quotas.

What facts, exactly?

I would not say these fields really claim that (except, perhaps, for Classical philosophy but it could also be extended to non-Western philosophy).

When we talk about western civilisation, we are definitely discussing the history and works of societies that have included BIPOC people for their entire history, such as every current country in the Americas.

And yet, this field does focus disproportionately on the works and acts of white men.

Would you elaborate on what these obstacles are? I actually think that they do face some obstacles, insofar they may have yet to form their networks (the elegant way of saying clubs). But then again, this should solve itself as time goes by and the senior demographics - which looks more like the student demographics from a few decades ago - changes.

No, thanks. I specifically chose not to go into academia and so I do not have the required personal experience to comment on these things intelligently.

If there is some group of BIPOC classical scholars, they may have some resources you could look at.

It's not clear that's the case when tenure and academic freedom are added into the mix.

Being racist at work is obviously illegal and grounds for being fired. And as always, people with more wealth, position, influence and/or contacts are less likely to be fired.

This is why Dr. Williams is getting flak for making what some consider to be a racist comment, but no boards of white guys are in any danger of being diversified.

Is there a change you think should be made?

Of course it has to do with likeability. In particular, people who find their research controversial may end up taking it personal if they stick to their guns too much. If an ordinary academic does, then they can be said to be unlikable.

I also pointed these two cases out since I think they have actually happened. IIRC there was a very similar controversy among medievalists, the field's demographics and also how they are narrowly centered on European history to the extent that some within the field were advocating simply ending it since the current division in historical eras is largely centered on European history (as in "it doesn't make sense to speak of a Middle Age outside Europe"). And there have been many examples of the social science thing.

How does this relate to the topic?

[wat0n]

I explained how I believe the system is racist, but I think that BIPOC scholars would be able to not only provide a better explanation but would probably also have a better solution than quotas.

Wish Dr. Padilla and others would propose that - because quotas seem to be the only means to implement what he's calling for.

When we talk about western civilisation, we are definitely discussing the history and works of societies that have included BIPOC people for their entire history, such as every current country in the Americas.

And yet, this field does focus disproportionately on the works and acts of white men.

No, Classics is generally to be considered the ancient Western civilization - and that's basically Greece and Rome. They did not even know that the Americas existed at all, and I don't think the antiquity in the Americas would count here (and their study is their own field anyway).

Maybe the field could be renamed as "Classical Greco-Roman studies" since it would be specific, analogous to the "xxxx" studies fields and would also help fully globalize Western humanities.

No, thanks. I specifically chose not to go into academia and so I do not have the required personal experience to comment on these things intelligently.

If there is some group of BIPOC classical scholars, they may have some resources you could look at.

What obstacles do BIPOC academics (in general, not just those in Classics) say they face, then? I mean something precise, because appealing to something like "there are too many White men" or "journals were created in the 19th century" is fairly vague. How exactly are they being kept out?

Being racist at work is obviously illegal and grounds for being fired. And as always, people with more wealth, position, influence and/or contacts are less likely to be fired.

This is why Dr. Williams is getting flak for making what some consider to be a racist comment, but no boards of white guys are in any danger of being diversified.

Is there a change you think should be made?

Actually you can be as racist as you want, as long as you don't express it.

But what happens if an academic's research is being labeled by some people as being racist or being an expression of his racism, and this is true since the academic is in fact racist?

How does this relate to the topic?

In those cases, there were also accusations of racism being thrown around (in the case of the social science example) or anti-racism was a key motivation (in the case of the medievalist) even when in both cases they deal with the content of the respective research. If the content of research was controversial enough as to sour departmental relations, is it justified to deny an academic tenure as means to keep a good/friendly work environment? Or doing so would be a violation of academic freedom?

[noemon]

If a White Supremacist academic showed up at an African American Studies department, engaged in research that effectively affirms his ideological position yet publishes well, constantly expressed his opinions on the matter and his colleagues found that offensive... Should he get tenure? On one hand, yes, because he's getting good publications, meaning he's actually achieved recognition by some in his field. On the other, no, because the fact that his colleagues find his speech offensive could be said to be disruptive and even fall under the legal definition of a "hostile workplace environment" and if he gets tenure he stays until retirement.

A white supremacist joining African-American studies, becoming a Professor and then calling for the cancellation of African studies by arguing that it justifies Black supremacy and that it "colonises the minds of white people" would at the very least be recognised as a racist.

Dan-El Padilla Peralta is that person.

And yet, this field [of Classical Studies] does focus disproportionately on the works and acts of white men.

The problem is that people make assertions without even a basic understanding of the subject they are actually discussing.

The field of Classical Studies is focused on ancient Greek & Roman literature. Just like the field of African-American studies is focused on African-American literature. Throughout the course, modern classics are discussed as well. From timeless pieces like the Mona Lisa to feminist pieces, to Martin Luther King as well as issues relating to apartheid, racism and the history of art.

Every University ties this together in its own way and Dr Padilla has no excuse as he is in control of how to structure the Classics at Princeton and tie Greek & Roman literature and art with the subjects close to his heart.

Here is a module from the Classical Studies degree that I did which further opened my mind.

Reputations
Why are some people remembered and some forgotten? This question is about the ways in which reputations are formed and how they change over time. Working chronologically, you'll start with Cleopatra and her representation in both ancient writings and Hollywood films. Then you'll turn to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Elizabeth I. Studying these figures will give you practice in working with historical documents and art works as well as modern accounts. Next, a section on Mozart provides the opportunity to develop your listening skills alongside an historical exploration of his musical work. You'll then turn to the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft in order to learn how to pick out and evaluate a philosophical argument. From there, you're introduced to the critical reading of literary texts through Charles Dickens’ novel A Christmas Carol, a story which has acquired as much of a reputation as its author. Finally, a chapter on Vincent van Gogh will develop your skills of visual analysis and prompt you to ask how far a reputation might become obscured by ideas of genius or madness.

Traditions
What are traditions and how do they influence us? This block continues to explore the ways in which the past reaches us today. You'll start with the sculptures of ancient Greece and Rome, looking also at how more recent artists have been inspired by them. A unit on the Blues develops the idea that art forms change over time and encourages you to explore song-writing and musical techniques. This is followed by an opportunity to respond to a tradition yourself through an introduction to creative writing based on storytelling. The relevance of tradition to literary works is explored in the next section, which looks at several examples of poetry about animals. A chapter on Plato then brings into question the role of tradition in contributing to moral beliefs. Next you will look at the importance of tradition in Irish history, as an example of how nations choose to collectively remember some things and deliberately forget others. Finally, you'll consider religious practices at Canterbury Cathedral and Dunfermline Abbey as well as the pseudo-medieval designs of nineteenth-century architects Augustus Pugin and William Burges.

Crossing boundaries
How are different cultures brought together or kept apart? This question will inform your study of the third block. You'll start by reading and watching Sophocles’ play Antigone and considering the ways it has been translated and adapted over time. The next two units take you to South Africa during apartheid to examine a play called The Island, which draws powerfully on the story of Antigone. You'll also learn about the ways in which music and song became forms of political protest during the apartheid era. These units will continue to develop your subject-specific skills but also provide the opportunity to consider what can be discovered through interdisciplinary study. That approach is continued in the next two sections, which explore the art of Benin from both creative and historical perspectives. In particular, you will look at the significance of these West African sculptures in the context of European colonialism and then consider how the manner in which they are displayed in museums and galleries affects how we interpret them. The final parts of the module examine the idea of compassion in relation to Western philosophy on the one hand, and Buddhist thoughts and practices on the other. That comparison will show how the disciplines of philosophy and religious studies can offer different outlooks but at the same time build upon each other.

Here is another module:

Reformation and print
In this first block, you’ll be introduced to the module’s four disciplinary approaches through two major and interconnected developments from the early modern period: the Protestant Reformation and the invention of printing. The Reformation shattered the unity of the medieval Catholic church and led to centuries of conflict as well as far-reaching changes in religion, society and culture. At the same time, the rise of printing (often called the print revolution) made knowledge, ideas, opinions and even music available to both rich and poor on a scale previously unimaginable. You'll consider how those fundamental changes to both technologies and ways of thinking altered Europe – and beyond – in ways that still reverberate today.

The French Revolution
In Block 2, you'll look at the event which created the modern concept of a revolution: the French Revolution. In this period French society was comprehensively remodelled, whilst the overthrow of the French monarchy sent shock-waves across Europe. You'll learn about how the idealism and the violence of the revolutionary period was experienced by ordinary people. You'll also look at the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which lay behind many of the revolutionaries’ ideals. The block also considers the impact of the revolution on the life and the music of Ludwig van Beethoven, and on the radical new ideas about the nature of religion found in the writings of Auguste Comte.

Revolutions and the First World War
In this third block, you'll learn about the turmoil created by the most destructive conflict the world had ever seen, including social crisis, political radicalism, and the collapse of European empires. The block considers the revolutions in Russia in 1917 and political turbulence in Germany at the end of the war. You'll also look at the philosophy of Karl Marx, whose ideas lay behind these revolutions, and at the religious foundations of the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921). Finally you’ll explore the music of Igor Stravinsky to see how the dramatic events of these post-war years affected his compositions.

The 1960s
This block looks at a different kind of revolution, focusing on the social and cultural changes of the 1960s in Europe and the USA, examining these in a much wider global context, in an age of satellites and television. This was a period in which many aspects of contemporary life were challenged. You will explore themes such as the Civil Rights Movement in the USA and the rise of youth culture and hippies. You'll also learn about the rise of female pop and soul stars, and the implications of that development for women’s rights more broadly. In addition, you'll examine the philosophy of existentialism and its links with the student protests of 1968, and you will consider how far the 1960s saw the rise of secular society, or the birth of new forms of religion that challenged established beliefs.

Independent Project
In this final eight-week block, you'll choose a single discipline to focus on as you work towards an extended essay on a question of your choice. This gives you the chance to specialise in History, Music, Philosophy or Religious Studies, deepening your knowledge and skills within that discipline. You'll have considerable freedom in how you approach the essay and will begin to do some of your own independent research as you work towards it. This process will help to prepare you for the next step in your learning journey, moving on to OU level 2.

2) The Classics are proud to have produced a Sappho(a lesbian poet from 2000 years ago whose works were copied and survived via Greek Christian monks), the Amazons, Gorgo and a whole bunch of other female heroines.

3) Greek & Roman literature inspired both the feminist Simon de Beauvoir and Martin Luther King.

4) Greeks and Romans have never seen themselves as "white men" and as such it is quite rude(and racist) to throw them in this light.

[JohnRawls]

A white supremacist joining African-American studies, becoming a Professor and then calling for the cancellation of African studies by arguing that it justifies Black supremacy and that it "colonises the minds of white people" would at the very least be recognised as a racist.

Dan-El Padilla Peralta is that person.



The problem is that people make assertions without even a basic understanding of the subject they are actually discussing.

The field of Classical Studies is focused on ancient Greek & Roman literature. Just like the field of African-American studies is focused on African-American literature. Throughout the course, modern classics are discussed as well. From timeless pieces like the Mona Lisa to feminist pieces, to Martin Luther King as well as issues relating to apartheid, racism and the history of art.

Every University ties this together in its own way and Dr Padilla has no excuse as he is in control of how to structure the Classics at Princeton.

Here is a module from the Classical Studies degree that I did which further opened my mind.



Here is another module:




2) The Classics are proud to have produced a Sappho(a lesbian poet from 2000 years ago whose works were copied and survived via Greek Christian monks), the Amazons, Gorgo and a whole bunch of other female heroines.

3) Greek & Roman literature inspired both the feminist Simon de Beauvoir and Martin Luther King.

4) Greeks and Romans have never seen themselves as "white men" and as such it is quite rude(and racist) to throw them in this light.

It is faulty to say that Romans are white man. Romans were perhaps the first to put globalisation and multiculturalism in to practice. Rome was perhaps the most multicultural and globalised political entity until the 18/19th century. By the end of the ROman empire, a Roman could have been a person from Africa, Europe, Asia and even India.

So calling Romans white men literally means that the person doesn't know the history of the Roman republic or the empire. Also this has been the case for quite some time starting from the social wars and onwards.

[noemon]

"Whiteness" is a very modern concept particular to the USA.

Europeans have only started seeing themselves as "white" sparingly, very recently and mainly because they are seen as such by others.

[Potemkin]

"Whiteness" is a very modern concept particular to the USA.

Europeans have only started seeing themselves as "white" sparingly, very recently and mainly because they are seen as such by others.

It's 'particular' to Western Europe as well as the USA (which inherited the idea from Europe), and is especially dominant in the Germanic nations, especially the Anglos. The Latin peoples of Europe (and I include the Greeks in this) didn't and largely still don't care about 'race' in the same way the Anglos did and still do. The modern concept of race is largely the result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade from the 17th century onwards. It didn't exist in Shakespeare's time, as the play Othello and Shakespeare's sonnets to his 'Dark Lady' testify, but it certainly existed by the late 18th century and probably earlier, with the rise of "scientific" racism to justify the inhumanity and brutality of the slave trade. In fact, this "scientific" racism went so far that even the Irish or the Italians were not accepted as being "white" until very recently.

[noemon]

In fact, this "scientific" racism went so far that even the Irish or the Italians were not accepted as being "white" until very recently.

Or the Greeks or the Jews for that matter.

At U.S. election polls, Klansmen passed out cards which crudely and defiantly declared:

When cotton grows on the fig tree
And alfalfa hangs on the rose
When the aliens run the United States
And the Jews grow a straight nose
When the Pope is praised by every one
In the land of Uncle Sam
And a Greek is elected President
THEN–the Ku Klux won’t be worth a damn.

[Potemkin]

Or the Greeks or the Jews for that matter.

Indeed. This poisonous racism - even towards the Greeks, who can be regarded as the founders of European culture - was and still is at the root of Anglo culture. Even the Anglo liberals who so vociferously condemn all form of racism tend to exhibit an inverted form of it by implicitly denying moral agency to people of colour, as Zizek and others have pointed out.

[noemon]

Indeed. This poisonous racism - even towards the Greeks, who can be regarded as the founders of European culture - was and still is at the root of Anglo culture. Even the Anglo liberals who so vociferously condemn all form of racism tend to exhibit an inverted form of it by implicitly denying moral agency to people of colour, as Zizek and others have pointed out.

The Anglos and the Germans both engaged in replacement philosophy with the Greeks as they had done earlier with the Biblical Israelites. This then necessarily results to the denigration of the real Greek and Hebrew communities because "if we are, then they cannot be". Christianity and the British Classicists have denounced that today and it's deconstruction has been well under way.

Pants-of-Dog mentioned the word "experiences" earlier, as did Padilla who spoke of himself as being interested in the "politics of the living". Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking to Angela.

Angela is my wife's cousin, she has been raised by Nadia in a council estate as a single mother and a nurse. My wife's British family tree is incredibly mixed. My wife's mum is Anglo-Polish and her dad is Iranian. She looks like her dad however, very typical Iranian.

Her granny(who herself hails from Yemen) had 2 "white kids"(white giants, my wife's mum and her uncle) with an Anglo-Polish man and 2 "dark kids"(her aunty and other uncle who are dark and very short compared to their siblings) with an Yemeni man in Manchester. She also adopted 2 more children, a Turkish-Cypriot refugee and a girl from the West Indies who currently resides in Canada.

Angela is a natural blonde Afro and is 29 y.o. She is a Labour supporter, she studied Archeology in Nottingham and is now doing a masters in Classical Studies.

I showed her this conversation yesterday and she was really upset that some people are trying to shame her as a "white-privileged elitist" and "white-supremacist" for her academic choices. She is a very active young lady that splits her time between Cambridge and London.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wish Dr. Padilla and others would propose that - because quotas seem to be the only means to implement what he's calling for.

The fact that we are ignorant of the exact nuances of all the policies that Dr. Padilla and his like-minded colleagues propose is a problem if we wish to discuss them. But bear in mind that we simply read a few out of context quotes from a short speech during a panel presentation.

Racial bias in the journal system is almost certainly a complex problem and would probably require a far more in depth analysis than what would be found in such a presentation.

So, the impression that he is only suggesting quotas could easily be an effect of simply not having time to mention much else.

No, Classics is generally to be considered the ancient Western civilization - and that's basically Greece and Rome. They did not even know that the Americas existed at all, and I don't think the antiquity in the Americas would count here (and their study is their own field anyway).

Maybe the field could be renamed as "Classical Greco-Roman studies" since it would be specific, analogous to the "xxxx" studies fields and would also help fully globalize Western humanities.

Please note that I was discussing western civilisation and not the classics.

What obstacles do BIPOC academics (in general, not just those in Classics) say they face, then? I mean something precise, because appealing to something like "there are too many White men" or "journals were created in the 19th century" is fairly vague. How exactly are they being kept out?

I could ask for you, but my BIPOC friends prefer it when I do my own research. So, the polite thing for me to do at this point would be to offer to do your research for you.

Actually you can be as racist as you want, as long as you don't express it.

But what happens if an academic's research is being labeled by some people as being racist or being an expression of his racism, and this is true since the academic is in fact racist?

What do you think should happen?

In those cases, there were also accusations of racism being thrown around (in the case of the social science example) or anti-racism was a key motivation (in the case of the medievalist) even when in both cases they deal with the content of the respective research. If the content of research was controversial enough as to sour departmental relations, is it justified to deny an academic tenure as means to keep a good/friendly work environment? Or doing so would be a violation of academic freedom?

Has this happened in the classics?

[noemon]

Please note that I was discussing western civilisation and not the classics.

That is false. Click the link in the bracket, it's to your own post.

You start by calling it by name:

The field of classical studies

Then you remove the word "classics":

And yet, this field [of Classical Studies] does focus disproportionately on the works and acts of white men.

And now you pretend you never spoke of "the Classics" despite wat0n arguing your point while quoting precisely these exact sentences.

[wat0n]

The fact that we are ignorant of the exact nuances of all the policies that Dr. Padilla and his like-minded colleagues propose is a problem if we wish to discuss them. But bear in mind that we simply read a few out of context quotes from a short speech during a panel presentation.

Racial bias in the journal system is almost certainly a complex problem and would probably require a far more in depth analysis than what would be found in such a presentation.

So, the impression that he is only suggesting quotas could easily be an effect of simply not having time to mention much else.

Has he written a more concrete proposal out?

Please note that I was discussing western civilisation and not the classics.

I would not say the West is the only civilization that aspires to universalism either. But either way, at least as far as field is concerned, what I mentioned does apply.

I could ask for you, but my BIPOC friends prefer it when I do my own research. So, the polite thing for me to do at this point would be to offer to do your research for you.

So far I've never seen a more concrete layout of the mechanisms of how this discrimination would take place. At least where I'm more knowledgeable about (economics and to a lesser statistics), there is more focus on measurement rather than teasing mechanisms out.

My view is that it is a consequence of something worse, i.e. clubs/nepotism. If I'm correct, quotas or general identity-focused measures won't really solve the problem since they would not actually deal with nepotism. Doing so would require a deeper overhaul of the journal system.

What do you think should happen?

I'm not sure, actually. A cogent case can be made for both positions.

Perhaps it should be treated in a case-by-case basis?

Has this happened in the classics?

I'm not sure, but I would not be surprised if it did. It's a general trend in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, academia in general.

A white supremacist joining African-American studies, becoming a Professor and then calling for the cancellation of African studies by arguing that it justifies Black supremacy and that it "colonises the minds of white people" would at the very least be recognised as a racist.

Dan-El Padilla Peralta is that person.

Just to be certain, that fragment and hypothetical scenario you're quoting was written by me.

I don't know if Padilla is a Black supremacist, but I do agree that if it was said by a White person in an African-American studies department there would be accusations of racism. But well, those are the strange times we're living in.

[Pants-of-dog]

Has he written a more concrete proposal out?

I have no idea.

I would not say the West is the only civilization that aspires to universalism either. But either way, at least as far as field is concerned, what I mentioned does apply.

No, I do not think that African studies or Women studies aspires to universalism.

So far I've never seen a more concrete layout of the mechanisms of how this discrimination would take place. At least where I'm more knowledgeable about (economics and to a lesser statistics), there is more focus on measurement rather than teasing mechanisms out.

My view is that it is a consequence of something worse, i.e. clubs/nepotism. If I'm correct, quotas or general identity-focused measures won't really solve the problem since they would not actually deal with nepotism. Doing so would require a deeper overhaul of the journal system.

Again, we can speculate about the experiences and ideas of BIPOC and female scholars, but we are still not addressing their actual proposals.

I'm not sure, actually. A cogent case can be made for both positions.

Perhaps it should be treated in a case-by-case basis?

Perhaps.

I'm not sure, but I would not be surprised if it did. It's a general trend in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, academia in general.

Sorry. What is this “general trend”?

[wat0n]

No, I do not think that African studies or Women studies aspires to universalism.

I thought we were referring to civilizations, not academic fields. I don't think Classics aspires to universalism for the most part.

Again, we can speculate about the experiences and ideas of BIPOC and female scholars, but we are still not addressing their actual proposals.

What are those proposals?

Sorry. What is this “general trend”?

The general trend of a conflict between academic freedom and keeping good labor relations when it comes to identity politics, which is simply the consequence of a broader project of trying to "decolonize academia" - itself based on postmodern notions of deconstruction of science and identity politics, both of which are mutually inconsistent ideas.