It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a...
Exemplary
It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a [racist, homophobe, fill in the blank]. The unease many of us feel over the current climate of shaming people over anything that challenges the current status quo re statements' acceptability in public discourse—up to and including firing/"cancelling" people for disagreeing with that culture—is not due to some deep-set bigotry, but an instinct to protect freedom of thought. It doesn't feel good to be coerced or forced under duress into publicly holding extreme beliefs, but that is what happens when a small subset of the population thinks they are intellectually and morally superior—they feel justified in smacking down everyone who thinks differently. It isn't right. (That is, it's wrong.) And if all discussion on these matters is just shut down immediately, we'll never be able to make progress as a society, because as we now know very well, that tactic only further entrenches people in their beliefs.
Not to take this too far off topic, but in the last week or so, I've seen too many examples of this kind of behavior. Some people refuse to even engage with dissenting opinions in good faith, instead opting for sarcasm and cruel derision from (ostensible) high ground. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than posturing. It doesn't change minds. It just makes them look...well, bad. And to be quite honest, as one who generally agrees with the verdicts these people have made (but obviously not their tactics), it really weakens the standing of these positions in the public eye, because anyone would come away from a "discussion" like that thinking their opponent (shouldn't be a brawl, btw) can't actually defend their viewpoint. To be honest, I'm embarrassed to even make it known that I agree with them a lot of the time, because the general perception in pubic is that people who hold progressive views are basically children having tantrums, thanks entirely to people online who think abuse is acceptable as long as they're punching down on those who are morally inferior (by their judgment).
Please pardon my tangent, but I have to agree with Barvinok here. If we shut down the ability to criticize official positions, whether in academia, any other workplace, or simply in public, then we're certainly not heading toward a freer future.
It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a [racist, homophobe, fill in the blank]. The unease many of us feel over the current climate of shaming people over anything that challenges the current status quo re statements' acceptability in public discourse—up to and including firing/"cancelling" people for disagreeing with that culture—is not due to some deep-set bigotry, but an instinct to protect freedom of thought. It doesn't feel good to be coerced or forced under duress into publicly holding extreme beliefs, but that is what happens when a small subset of the population thinks they are intellectually and morally superior—they feel justified in smacking down everyone who thinks differently. It isn't right. (That is, it's wrong.) And if all discussion on these matters is just shut down immediately, we'll never be able to make progress as a society, because as we now know very well, that tactic only further entrenches people in their beliefs.
Not to take this too far off topic, but in the last week or so, I've seen too many examples of this kind of behavior. Some people refuse to even engage with dissenting opinions in good faith, instead opting for sarcasm and cruel derision from (ostensible) high ground. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than posturing. It doesn't change minds. It just makes them look...well, bad. And to be quite honest, as one who generally agrees with the verdicts these people have made (but obviously not their tactics), it really weakens the standing of these positions in the public eye, because anyone would come away from a "discussion" like that thinking their opponent (shouldn't be a brawl, btw) can't actually defend their viewpoint. To be honest, I'm embarrassed to even make it known that I agree with them a lot of the time, because the general perception in pubic is that people who hold progressive views are basically children having tantrums, thanks entirely to people online who think abuse is acceptable as long as they're punching down on those who are morally inferior (by their judgment).
Please pardon my tangent, but I have to agree with Barvinok here. If we shut down the ability to criticize official positions, whether in academia, any other workplace, or simply in public, then we're certainly not heading toward a freer future.