The student activism exhibited sentiments that repeated around the world -- they were anti-war and anti-exploitation of the people. They were also pro-technocrats. — L'éléphant

I don't think so, at least not obviously so. The 1960s student movement, particularly the German one, was explicitly for the democratization of the universities, and against bureaucratic control. And you'll notice that Adorno says "I do not doubt for a moment that the student movement in its current form is heading towards that technocratization of the university that it claims it wants to prevent". He was intimately familiar with the movement, so I don't think he was imagining things.

However, I'm not quite clear on your point so I'd be interested if you have more to say.

The left Element O is more interesting to me because it concerns the problems of left politics, whereas the conservative version is just conservatism doing what it does, and my opposition to the imposition of the conservative belief system is just obvious, easy, and boring. Woke politics, by which I mean left Element O, is a more complex, difficult, and profound phenomenon, I think. — Jamal

I don’t want to do battle over who is more open-minded, left or right. The question is too abstract and ahistorical. Sometimes it’s the left, sometimes the right. — Jamal

This is why I went down the path of comparing the right and the left's wokeness. It's because you were asserting there was something distinguishing in the left's wokeness that is alarming but not the right's, which I take to be that you always thought the right had a morally failed position, but not so for the left. I was only trying to point out that they've both always been morally flawed to some degree, so your belief that one prevailed over the other was just bias.

A provocative response from me here, or at least one I intend to be, is to point out that your problem is not that you're now learning both the left and the right suffer equally from Element O. We all knew that. We needn't look very far to find leftist, Marxist actors heavy in Element O.

Your problem, I'd submit, is that you are having trouble understanding your anti-wokeness instinct that your brothers and sisters well to the right of you are openly embracing when those to the left of you are rejecting it. You don't sit often in the right isle, and it feels a bit uncomfortable nodding your head when you hear some of the anti-trans talk (for example). So, the question is whether the left really has to accept the consequences of what were once considered reductio ad absurdum arguments to remain on the left.

The answer, as the ideologies grow more developed, are made more logically consistent, and become less pragmatic, appears to be yes. You're left in these polarized positions where you have to accept some degree of nonsense because it flowed from your first principles.

But it was the same kind of challenge, namely that of radical students who tried to enforce the party line on a member of the academic staff, to prevent him from lecturing if he didn’t show support (and express regret for his previous unsupportive actions), and to stage direct action against the institution if it didn’t comply with their demands. — Jamal

But such is politics isn't it? I don't like that my local school board has decided to change the bus schedules, so the neighbors and I get a bunch of signs and scream and yell and call for the outster of them all. We can substitute "change the bus schedules" to whatever issue du jour is before the community, but to think I should be limited in some way from fighting for what I want else be accused of trying to cancel someone doesn't seem fair.

A director has to be able to deal with angry students. If Arono is the sort that wants only to be bothered with the academic part of his job, then that's what he needs to limit himself to. He just seems like a really weak director.

But I guess I could snipe at the example you've provided all day long. What I'll accept is that there are plenty of examples of professors and administrators being denied promotions and success based upon their ideologies and not academic abilities. That is, the very concept of being free to say whatever you want without reprisal (the tenure system basically) is being misued to only allow those club members in that pass a certain belief litmus test.

That is a problem. It is the politicalization of every nook and cranny in society, from what beer we are to drink to which professor gets which appointment. It's not the wokeness. It's the Element O. I do think it forms the stated basis for why DeSantis did what he did when he re-organized the school. Whether his intent really went beyond just wanting to slap the left is very doubtful though.

This is why I went down the path of comparing the right and the left's wokeness. It's because you were asserting there was something distinguishing in the left's wokeness that is alarming but not the right's, which I take to be that you always thought the right had a morally failed position, but not so for the left. I was only trying to point out that they've both always been morally flawed to some degree, so your belief that one prevailed over the other was just bias. — Hanover

I get that, but I disagree. I think woke politics is a particular way of doing politics that comes out of progressive neoliberalism, was originally and is still primarily left-wing (in the sense of socially progressive), but may now have become the way of doing politics across the board.

Your problem, I'd submit, is that you are having trouble understanding your anti-wokeness instinct that your brothers and sisters well to the right of you are openly embracing when those to the left of you are rejecting it. You don't sit often in the right isle, and it feels a bit uncomfortable nodding your head when you hear some of the anti-trans talk (for example). So, the question is whether the left really has to accept the consequences of what were once considered reductio ad absurdum arguments to remain on the left.

The answer, as the ideologies grow more developed, are made more logically consistent, and become less pragmatic, appears to be yes. You're left in these polarized positions where you have to accept some degree of nonsense because it flowed from your first principles. — Hanover

I understand. There’s a kernel of truth here, but you’ve got me somewhat wrong (maybe mostly). I’ve been pretty anti-woke and anti-identity-politics for decades, and have recently become more mellow and tolerant towards it. And I don’t know who you think is to the left of me; the targets of my criticism don’t seem to be.

The kernel of truth is that it is difficult to challenge woke politics from the left, because most of its critics are on the right. And that can be uncomfortable. As I admitted elsewhere on the forum, I did come to realize some time ago that I had grown too enamoured of criticisms of wokeness that, as it turned out, were functioning to defend hierarchy and oppression. And I know it was just an example but for the record I don’t find myself nodding along to any “anti-trans talk”. (Although some would say I just have a high bar for what I consider “anti-trans talk”, but that’s another matter)

So yes, it’s difficult and uncomfortable, but no, I’m not surprised about it or mystified as to my own instincts, which I have no doubt are compatible with a principled Marxist position.

And of course, I don’t accept that what I’m complaining about stems from my, or the left’s, first principles. How does that work?

To summarize: nice try but no cigar!

But such is politics isn't it? I don't like that my local school board has decided to change the bus schedules, so the neighbors and I get a bunch of signs and scream and yell and call for the outster of them all. We can substitute "change the bus schedules" to whatever issue du jour is before the community, but to think I should be limited in some way from fighting for what I want else be accused of trying to cancel someone doesn't seem fair.

A director has to be able to deal with angry students. If Arono is the sort that wants only to be bothered with the academic part of his job, then that's what he needs to limit himself to. He just seems like a really weak director.

But I guess I could snipe at the example you've provided all day long. — Hanover

I still think you're being too hasty in your judgements, not knowing much about the context. He had been working hard for a year or so to walk a line between, on the one hand, guidance and conditional support for students, and on the other hand, criticism of their approach and defence of the autonomy of the academics at the Institute, which he was deeply committed to. He had been involved in discussions with the student protesters and had supported students in conflicts with the authorities (although as I've already related he also called the police on them once).

That he couldn't deal with the disruptions might be evidence of the extreme behaviour of the students rather than of his own weakness. He had dealt with disruptions before, and you'll surely agree that when a conflict like this becomes increasingly intense there must come a point when one man cannot stand up to a room full of angry students. I don't want to label the students as terrorists but it's important to remember that the incident took place in the context of a violent long-running conflict that culminated in a series of terrorist attacks.

But if it were shown that he was just a big baby and an incompetent director, it wouldn't matter much. All I can say is that from what I've read, I don't think that's how it was. But it has to be said that he was a little old man and an old-fashioned bourgeois intellectual so he was doubtless not cut out for physical confrontation. And as I said before, I'm not here to evoke sympathy for poor little Adorno, victim of topless girls.

Your most substantive point is that the students ought to have been free to disrupt his lectures in protest at whatever they were protesting against. Well, they were free to do that, and they didn't suffer personal consequences for it as far as I know--but the result was that he couldn't lecture and found it impossible to maintain the distance from the conflict that he felt was essential in his role as independent theoritician.

What I'll accept is that there are plenty of examples of professors and administrators being denied promotions and success based upon their ideologies and not academic abilities. That is, the very concept of being free to say whatever you want without reprisal (the tenure system basically) is being misued to only allow those club members in that pass a certain belief litmus test.

That is a problem. It is the politicalization of every nook and cranny in society, from what beer we are to drink to which professor gets which appointment. It's not the wokeness. It's the Element O. I do think it forms the stated basis for why DeSantis did what he did when he re-organized the school. Whether his intent really went beyond just wanting to slap the left is very doubtful though. — Hanover

Cool. But what you call Element O is probably just an aspect of what I've been calling woke politics.

That is, the very concept of being free to say whatever you want without reprisal (the tenure system basically) is being misued to only allow those club members in that pass a certain belief litmus test. — Hanover

Life at the university, conform or be cast out. Option number three, pretend until you're tenured. But how are the deceptive bastards who get in through pretense treated? The real pretense is that this system is supposed to support diversity.