I was asked to tell my story. so here we go. Long story short version.
More from Society
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0940 \u092c\u093e\u0930 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) March 12, 2021
\u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0947\u0936\u0932 \u0915\u094d\u0932\u093e\u0938 \u0932\u0917\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940 @ArvindKejriwal \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0964
\u090f\u0915 \u092a\u093e\u0920\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u092e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0938\u0947 \u092c\u091a\u094d\u091a\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0930 \u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940\u0964 pic.twitter.com/iO6WMBh4YG
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
