Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Obviously it depends on the conservative critique; there is a range, to be sure. But the species of critique that would seek to more gender studies and critical race theory into traditional history/literature/sociology departments doesn't seem too different...
...from the argument that Greek and Latin ought to have to share space, prominence and tenure-lines with a range of other pre-modern Mediterranean languages/cultures or (as I've seen proposed), all global 'ancient' cultures, however defined.
Both plans would, in theory, involve unemploying quite a lot of scholars in the respective discipline with the sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit assumption that some small number of 'worthy' scholars in the discipline would survive by finding places in new combined departments.
I would read a specific such critique if you have one in mind, but my instinct is to say that latter species is disingenuous. Gendered or queer-theory-based readings of literary texts, for example, are also wildly unpopular on the right.
The Pope Center's report on the UNC system a few years back asserted that English departments were failing just because they dedicated classes to Black, queer, and woman *authors*, without even bothering to take aim at methodology
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
