domdit.com

Why I Left My Ph.D. Program at The University of Chicago

📝 INFO I have waited around 6 years to post this publicly. I have read it over and over again and I just do not see why I should not be able to post it at this point. I have obfuscated real names. Every time I read this I relive the trauma of losing over 10 years of work in academia. But every time I reflect, I realize how happy I am that all of this happened. If I was still in academia, I would be living in Chicago making ~30k a year or something. Now I have a job that offers me the freedom to do whatever I want. Is it a bastion for free speech? no. But it does not matter because my opinions do not matter as a software developer, only my code does. In academia, my opinions would be reflected in my paper and I would never lie about what I think in order to get something published.

I hope all the people involved are doing well. Thanks for the push in the right direction.

I am writing this in order to sort out and concisely explain why I have chosen to withdraw from the University of Chicago PhD Program. Some reasons require contextualization, so I hope that you will bear with me. Of course, as I am writing this, all should acknowledge the unavoidable feature of individual bias, of which I am incapable of transcending, however, am more than willing to identify (when it is apparent to me). On the other hand, I do not want to hold back emotions or feelings that may not be rooted in logic, as the subjective nature of sentimentality still plays a role in this decision (as in all decisions).

The University of Chicago has been touted as one of the final bastions for the freedom of speech and expression in academia. They claim that the freedom of expression is one of their foundational principles on their university website, invoking former University of Chicago President Hanna Holborn Gray’s statement: “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.” However, the current political climate promotes the suppression of those who are deemed to have power (whether or not that power truly exists is another argument) by those who claim to be the oppressed. As the university is the producer of this cultural phenomenon, it is not surprising that this political ideology of Marxism and Postmodernism cloaked as compassion that has infected the faculty and students clashes with former president Gray’s assertion. This repressive and backwards ideology silences its opposition before discourse can begin, rendering scholarly debate (outside of what has been deemed politically correct by the all-powerful oppressed) futile. The professors and administration turn a blind eye to the social-justice (an obvious derivation, and thus bastardization, of Justice) vigilantism so easily performed by the students who lack the necessary faculties of scholarly debate and investigation and who instead take refuge in hyperbole.

Of course, I can only speak for the department I found myself in, East Asian Languages and Cultures (EALC). It would not be fair for me to broadly characterize The University of Chicago without sufficient evidence. However, I assume that the whole Humanities department is contently infected (as it is at most United States universities). Again, for further clarification, I only want to speak of the specific actors involved in the suppression of my own freedom of expression, so as not to mischaracterize the rest of the faculty and student body of the EALC department. Furthermore, I want to reiterate that this is my own subjective interpretation of the events that took place; and that I, along with all, suffer from the inability to distinguish reality from my own re-representation of it.

On November 16th 2018, I, along with my fellow classmates JY and SC received an email from Professor PC regarding a conference next year: “Let’s invite a few people (3-4) next year for a small conference where you guys can also present papers, if you’d like. Who shall we invite? At least 2 should be women, please. The CEAS call for proposals just went out.” I was surprised to see that gender seemed to take precedence over scholarly ability. I thought to myself that, surely, we should examine the merit of the candidates, rather than their gender. Similarly, I questioned why women would want to be chosen based on their gender rather than their individual accomplishments. Furthermore, are we not limiting the seats for other genders if at least half must be allotted to women.

I brought this up to JY, who I respectfully viewed as my senpai, in order to gain a deeper understanding of academic politics and what her opinion on this matter was. As this was my first semester into my PhD program, most things happening at the administrative level were foreign to me. JY, while I cannot remember her exact argument, explained to me that not only was it normal but important as women are overlooked in academia. As I was not fully convinced, I explained to her that I would be open to learning more, as I felt (not said aloud) that the statement “women are oppressed,” seemed more like an automatic response rather than a well thought out explanation. I made it clear that I understand her point, but do not agree with her. She quickly retorted “You probably do not understand because you are a white male.” I replied, “Well, that is a racist thing to say.” We stopped speaking as other students filed in the classroom. I was appalled that a student who made it to The University of Chicago before me, a student who I looked up to, used my race to assume something about my experience as a human being and ultimately came to the conclusion that because of the color of my skin, my ability to understand something was inadequate. Furthermore, I was appalled that instead of engaging me in scholarly debate, she simply used hyperbole to diminish me as a human being.

While this interaction haunted me for a few days, I did try to move past it. The next time I saw JY in the hallway I smiled and said hello. I was met with a forced and crooked smile. The next week when we were in class together, she made a scene when the only seat open was next to me, stomping across to the other side of the room until another classmate moved next to me so she could have her own seat. I couldn’t believe the childish behavior, but I kept my mouth shut and continued about my business. It was not long after when I was contacted by Professor PC wishing to have a meeting with me, at his house. I assumed JY must have told him what happened, and I agreed to meet with him.

When I arrived at Professor PC’s house, we spoke for an hour about academia while he actively avoided the responsibility of broaching the subject. As a guest, I did not want to do it myself, so I waited for him to bring it up. He was critical of me from the beginning, and, judging from his language, I was vilified by JY and Shum (who JY involved [in my opinion] unnecessarily). I explained the situation from my point of view. PC said that he sent that email because he was swayed by a feminist tweet (I am not sure of the content). The fact that “I was not going to be kicked out for this” was brought up twice in that conversation, which lead me to believe that my termination was discussed prior to our meeting.

PC also questioned me on my stance regarding Black Lives Matter. Before answering, I asked why he chose that specific example, and he said that it was because it seemed to be a simple matter, either you think black lives matter, or you do not. As I have two half-black brothers, a history of domestic abuse from black step-parents, as well as one of my half-black brother’s father who is in jail for murder, I assured him that it was not a simple subject. I fear for my brothers’ safety as they go about their lives in New York (from both police who are willing to shoot innocent black men, as well as from rampant black on black crime); but at the same time, I wish a police officer killed my mother’s rapist and abuser. It is clear from PC’s belief that whether or not I support the Black Lives Matter movement should be an easy decision, that he too plays a role in identity politics, assuming the nature of my experience based on the color of my skin and my gender.

Professor PC also alerted me that JY and SC went digging online to find incriminating material about me. They found that I misused the word “intersectionality”, thus rendering me insensitive to black women. They also found an image I posted regarding the statistics of male suicide, workplace deaths, etc. They reported both of these articles to Professor PC, instead of telling me about it. SC or JY could have directly told me about their issues regarding these articles if they truly cared about my well-being. However, reporting me to the adviser is obviously the preferred method for those who want to see someone reprimanded.

We agreed to meet all together in a week–after PC had met with JY and SC once more to go over what happened at our meeting. I lost a large amount of respect for PC at this moment. He was cottling JY instead of taking this as an opportunity to teach her to grow intellectually and have her argue her point with me. Instead, he allowed this drawn-out drama to continue over four meetings (because someone’s feelings were hurt, and I was deemed dangerous by my peers).

After a mutual class, we all went to a cafe to talk about what had happened. I explained to JY that I did not ask her this question in order to hurt her, I asked her as my senpai and as someone who I looked to for knowledge. SC and JY both agreed that it does not matter the intention that I had, and rather, what is dangerous is that I did not notice the inherent power dynamic that I was exploiting by speaking to a minority woman alone in a classroom and asking her questions. I explained that this was not my intention multiple times, each time I was told that my intention did not matter. Professor PC said nothing. I explained that I did not want to argue about our political views, and instead, would hope that despite our political differences, that we could still be friends and work together as a team. JY explained that we can work together, but that just because we are classmates does not mean we need to be friends. Either way, she assured me, that there were certain boundaries I could not cross.

If I was going to play this game, I wanted to know exactly what the boundaries were and the penalties for me crossing them. How can I play a game without knowing the rules? I asked what the boundaries were. They said that it is difficult to say, and that they could not give me clear examples (they did give me one that I will get to momentarily). They were essentially telling me to walk blindly through a field of mines. Of course, this is easy to remedy: adopt their ideology, and no one gets hurt. JY did tell me though that one boundary should be that I should never ask a woman a question regarding race or gender, especially if that woman is alone. Can you believe such a regressive statement was not met with any criticism from our adviser? How could a woman call for, not only the segregation of genders when it comes to “sensitive” topics, but also the devaluation of the ability to intellectually discuss a topic with the opposite sex? It is a statement that will forever be burned into my mind, simultaneously causing me the utmost disgust for her and her ideology, along with heartache for the women who will be negatively affected by this seemingly pervasive sentiment. How can I respect my adviser if he did not stand up to that statement? Furthermore, I lost respect for myself for meekly agreeing as I internally fumbled in terror that I could be terminated from something I had worked so hard to achieve.

Finally, I thought I could bring up how the situation affected me negatively. When I said that I felt that JY telling me that I do not understand something because I was a white male reduced me to the color of my skin and my gender, it was met with a scoff from PC. I did not expect more. I did not apologize for exercising my freedom of speech and asking my classmate a question, JY did not apologize for her racist and sexist remark.

At the end of the airing of grievances, PC asked us to shake hands. JY refused and opted for a fist bump. I picked up my phone which recorded the whole incident and left.

I lost interest in academia rapidly. I was unhappy. I felt an enormous amount of stress, followed by a disillusion with the university and my adviser. My interest in completing my assignments disappeared. I stopped going to one of my classes. I was too afraid to go to any extra-curricular activity for fear that I may say something wrong. I know myself, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I knew that it was only a matter of time until I spoke my mind again. In fear of speaking my own mind, I cannot believe they did that to me. Freedom of speech is dead. I do not dare release this publicly out of fear for my future.

The University of Chicago is obviously not the right place for me to grow intellectually. I feel as if I do not belong. This is not some form of imposter syndrome. I would surely die if I were to continue, left with only a husk as I deployed any tactic possible to conceal the vestiges of my ardor for freedom that remained after the necessary sacrifice of my soul to the all-powerful producers of culture. Producers of oppression. Appropriating colonial tactics in order to silence those who they deem a standard deviation away from brainwashed. I do not respect the institution enough to die for it. I do not agree that fighting back from within is a viable solution. Instead, striving to provide a platform for students to question freely, separate from the university, seems to me to be the greater strategy. I have done most of my learning outside of the structure of the university. Only a few professors have really allowed me to express myself freely, and I am eternally grateful and wish to emulate them. But I cannot do that in a structure which does not value education.

Tags:

domdit.com


Games
asteroids
pong

My Band


Solo Music

Why I Left My Ph.D. Program at The University of Chicago

📝 INFO I have waited around 6 years to post this publicly. I have read it over and over again and I just do not see why I should not be able to post it at this point. I have obfuscated real names. Every time I read this I relive the trauma of losing over 10 years of work in academia. But every time I reflect, I realize how happy I am that all of this happened. If I was still in academia, I would be living in Chicago making ~30k a year or something. Now I have a job that offers me the freedom to do whatever I want. Is it a bastion for free speech? no. But it does not matter because my opinions do not matter as a software developer, only my code does. In academia, my opinions would be reflected in my paper and I would never lie about what I think in order to get something published.

I hope all the people involved are doing well. Thanks for the push in the right direction.

I am writing this in order to sort out and concisely explain why I have chosen to withdraw from the University of Chicago PhD Program. Some reasons require contextualization, so I hope that you will bear with me. Of course, as I am writing this, all should acknowledge the unavoidable feature of individual bias, of which I am incapable of transcending, however, am more than willing to identify (when it is apparent to me). On the other hand, I do not want to hold back emotions or feelings that may not be rooted in logic, as the subjective nature of sentimentality still plays a role in this decision (as in all decisions).

The University of Chicago has been touted as one of the final bastions for the freedom of speech and expression in academia. They claim that the freedom of expression is one of their foundational principles on their university website, invoking former University of Chicago President Hanna Holborn Gray’s statement: “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think.” However, the current political climate promotes the suppression of those who are deemed to have power (whether or not that power truly exists is another argument) by those who claim to be the oppressed. As the university is the producer of this cultural phenomenon, it is not surprising that this political ideology of Marxism and Postmodernism cloaked as compassion that has infected the faculty and students clashes with former president Gray’s assertion. This repressive and backwards ideology silences its opposition before discourse can begin, rendering scholarly debate (outside of what has been deemed politically correct by the all-powerful oppressed) futile. The professors and administration turn a blind eye to the social-justice (an obvious derivation, and thus bastardization, of Justice) vigilantism so easily performed by the students who lack the necessary faculties of scholarly debate and investigation and who instead take refuge in hyperbole.

Of course, I can only speak for the department I found myself in, East Asian Languages and Cultures (EALC). It would not be fair for me to broadly characterize The University of Chicago without sufficient evidence. However, I assume that the whole Humanities department is contently infected (as it is at most United States universities). Again, for further clarification, I only want to speak of the specific actors involved in the suppression of my own freedom of expression, so as not to mischaracterize the rest of the faculty and student body of the EALC department. Furthermore, I want to reiterate that this is my own subjective interpretation of the events that took place; and that I, along with all, suffer from the inability to distinguish reality from my own re-representation of it.

On November 16th 2018, I, along with my fellow classmates JY and SC received an email from Professor PC regarding a conference next year: “Let’s invite a few people (3-4) next year for a small conference where you guys can also present papers, if you’d like. Who shall we invite? At least 2 should be women, please. The CEAS call for proposals just went out.” I was surprised to see that gender seemed to take precedence over scholarly ability. I thought to myself that, surely, we should examine the merit of the candidates, rather than their gender. Similarly, I questioned why women would want to be chosen based on their gender rather than their individual accomplishments. Furthermore, are we not limiting the seats for other genders if at least half must be allotted to women.

I brought this up to JY, who I respectfully viewed as my senpai, in order to gain a deeper understanding of academic politics and what her opinion on this matter was. As this was my first semester into my PhD program, most things happening at the administrative level were foreign to me. JY, while I cannot remember her exact argument, explained to me that not only was it normal but important as women are overlooked in academia. As I was not fully convinced, I explained to her that I would be open to learning more, as I felt (not said aloud) that the statement “women are oppressed,” seemed more like an automatic response rather than a well thought out explanation. I made it clear that I understand her point, but do not agree with her. She quickly retorted “You probably do not understand because you are a white male.” I replied, “Well, that is a racist thing to say.” We stopped speaking as other students filed in the classroom. I was appalled that a student who made it to The University of Chicago before me, a student who I looked up to, used my race to assume something about my experience as a human being and ultimately came to the conclusion that because of the color of my skin, my ability to understand something was inadequate. Furthermore, I was appalled that instead of engaging me in scholarly debate, she simply used hyperbole to diminish me as a human being.

While this interaction haunted me for a few days, I did try to move past it. The next time I saw JY in the hallway I smiled and said hello. I was met with a forced and crooked smile. The next week when we were in class together, she made a scene when the only seat open was next to me, stomping across to the other side of the room until another classmate moved next to me so she could have her own seat. I couldn’t believe the childish behavior, but I kept my mouth shut and continued about my business. It was not long after when I was contacted by Professor PC wishing to have a meeting with me, at his house. I assumed JY must have told him what happened, and I agreed to meet with him.

When I arrived at Professor PC’s house, we spoke for an hour about academia while he actively avoided the responsibility of broaching the subject. As a guest, I did not want to do it myself, so I waited for him to bring it up. He was critical of me from the beginning, and, judging from his language, I was vilified by JY and Shum (who JY involved [in my opinion] unnecessarily). I explained the situation from my point of view. PC said that he sent that email because he was swayed by a feminist tweet (I am not sure of the content). The fact that “I was not going to be kicked out for this” was brought up twice in that conversation, which lead me to believe that my termination was discussed prior to our meeting.

PC also questioned me on my stance regarding Black Lives Matter. Before answering, I asked why he chose that specific example, and he said that it was because it seemed to be a simple matter, either you think black lives matter, or you do not. As I have two half-black brothers, a history of domestic abuse from black step-parents, as well as one of my half-black brother’s father who is in jail for murder, I assured him that it was not a simple subject. I fear for my brothers’ safety as they go about their lives in New York (from both police who are willing to shoot innocent black men, as well as from rampant black on black crime); but at the same time, I wish a police officer killed my mother’s rapist and abuser. It is clear from PC’s belief that whether or not I support the Black Lives Matter movement should be an easy decision, that he too plays a role in identity politics, assuming the nature of my experience based on the color of my skin and my gender.

Professor PC also alerted me that JY and SC went digging online to find incriminating material about me. They found that I misused the word “intersectionality”, thus rendering me insensitive to black women. They also found an image I posted regarding the statistics of male suicide, workplace deaths, etc. They reported both of these articles to Professor PC, instead of telling me about it. SC or JY could have directly told me about their issues regarding these articles if they truly cared about my well-being. However, reporting me to the adviser is obviously the preferred method for those who want to see someone reprimanded.

We agreed to meet all together in a week–after PC had met with JY and SC once more to go over what happened at our meeting. I lost a large amount of respect for PC at this moment. He was cottling JY instead of taking this as an opportunity to teach her to grow intellectually and have her argue her point with me. Instead, he allowed this drawn-out drama to continue over four meetings (because someone’s feelings were hurt, and I was deemed dangerous by my peers).

After a mutual class, we all went to a cafe to talk about what had happened. I explained to JY that I did not ask her this question in order to hurt her, I asked her as my senpai and as someone who I looked to for knowledge. SC and JY both agreed that it does not matter the intention that I had, and rather, what is dangerous is that I did not notice the inherent power dynamic that I was exploiting by speaking to a minority woman alone in a classroom and asking her questions. I explained that this was not my intention multiple times, each time I was told that my intention did not matter. Professor PC said nothing. I explained that I did not want to argue about our political views, and instead, would hope that despite our political differences, that we could still be friends and work together as a team. JY explained that we can work together, but that just because we are classmates does not mean we need to be friends. Either way, she assured me, that there were certain boundaries I could not cross.

If I was going to play this game, I wanted to know exactly what the boundaries were and the penalties for me crossing them. How can I play a game without knowing the rules? I asked what the boundaries were. They said that it is difficult to say, and that they could not give me clear examples (they did give me one that I will get to momentarily). They were essentially telling me to walk blindly through a field of mines. Of course, this is easy to remedy: adopt their ideology, and no one gets hurt. JY did tell me though that one boundary should be that I should never ask a woman a question regarding race or gender, especially if that woman is alone. Can you believe such a regressive statement was not met with any criticism from our adviser? How could a woman call for, not only the segregation of genders when it comes to “sensitive” topics, but also the devaluation of the ability to intellectually discuss a topic with the opposite sex? It is a statement that will forever be burned into my mind, simultaneously causing me the utmost disgust for her and her ideology, along with heartache for the women who will be negatively affected by this seemingly pervasive sentiment. How can I respect my adviser if he did not stand up to that statement? Furthermore, I lost respect for myself for meekly agreeing as I internally fumbled in terror that I could be terminated from something I had worked so hard to achieve.

Finally, I thought I could bring up how the situation affected me negatively. When I said that I felt that JY telling me that I do not understand something because I was a white male reduced me to the color of my skin and my gender, it was met with a scoff from PC. I did not expect more. I did not apologize for exercising my freedom of speech and asking my classmate a question, JY did not apologize for her racist and sexist remark.

At the end of the airing of grievances, PC asked us to shake hands. JY refused and opted for a fist bump. I picked up my phone which recorded the whole incident and left.

I lost interest in academia rapidly. I was unhappy. I felt an enormous amount of stress, followed by a disillusion with the university and my adviser. My interest in completing my assignments disappeared. I stopped going to one of my classes. I was too afraid to go to any extra-curricular activity for fear that I may say something wrong. I know myself, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I knew that it was only a matter of time until I spoke my mind again. In fear of speaking my own mind, I cannot believe they did that to me. Freedom of speech is dead. I do not dare release this publicly out of fear for my future.

The University of Chicago is obviously not the right place for me to grow intellectually. I feel as if I do not belong. This is not some form of imposter syndrome. I would surely die if I were to continue, left with only a husk as I deployed any tactic possible to conceal the vestiges of my ardor for freedom that remained after the necessary sacrifice of my soul to the all-powerful producers of culture. Producers of oppression. Appropriating colonial tactics in order to silence those who they deem a standard deviation away from brainwashed. I do not respect the institution enough to die for it. I do not agree that fighting back from within is a viable solution. Instead, striving to provide a platform for students to question freely, separate from the university, seems to me to be the greater strategy. I have done most of my learning outside of the structure of the university. Only a few professors have really allowed me to express myself freely, and I am eternally grateful and wish to emulate them. But I cannot do that in a structure which does not value education.

Tags: