joshhansen.net

Blog

  • Prof. Mark Davies’ ouster at BYU

    Mark Davies was a professor of linguistics at BYU who created tools for analyzing large collections of text, a method known as corpus analysis. He ran a website, corpus.byu.edu, where these text collections were available for anyone to use.

    The site, now at english-corpora.org, and Dr. Davies’ website, describe a process of administrator mismanagement that led to Dr. Davies’ departure in 2020, along with the corpus project and website. See here and here.

    I did my B.A. in linguistics at BYU, and remember watching with interest as the the corpus page developed. It’s disheartening to see that such a valuable academic resource doesn’t have a permanent home at BYU.

    Removing the name-naming text and links, I will quote thus:

    This permanent loss of funding support was a punitive action … after Mark informed the university of serious “financial malfeasance” by the College of Humanities regarding income from the English corpora. Subsequently, administrators at BYU refused to help resolve the issue, which is part of a culture of ignoring whistleblowers and “closing ranks” and promoting “yes men” at BYU.

    It is not overly surprising that BYU would pay such little attention to academic productivity, since the primary mission of BYU is religious in nature, rather than academic. In certain respects, BYU is more like a religious seminary than an actual university. As a result, some people at BYU don’t really understand how to support and protect projects that have real academic importance and significance.

    Of course, there are two (or more) sides to every story. Part of why I unlink the specific callouts is that I have no way of knowing beyond Dr. Davies’ own words.

    But the critique leveled against the university rings true for me. I’ve long since come to feel that BYU did me a disservice by shielding me from critical information about the LDS church, which was not at that time covered in any of the many religion classes I took, or any other class for that matter. It seems unconscionable to have so many professors of such high qualification, and none mention any potential issues with the church they represent, except obliquely, after hours.

    “The glory of God is intelligence; or, in other words, light and truth” – it was all over campus. But the glaring exception is casting light on, and discussing the truth about, the church itself.

    EDIT: The word “ousted” may be too strong – Dr. Davies chose to retire, but the withdrawal of funding was strong pressure on him to do so.

    NOTE: I originally posted this on Reddit, check the discussion there, including a response by Dr. Davies, also seen on his blog.

  • Three reforms

    1. All federal elected officials must convert the entirety of the personal and family wealth into U.S. Treasury bonds for the duration of their term of service plus ten years.
    2. The tax rate of a corporation is equal to its market share.
    3. The tax rate of individuals and families is increased by 1% (multiplied by 1.01) each year in times of deficit, and decreased by 1% (multiplied by 0.99) each year in times of surplus; with the exception that a surplus of up to 5% of GDP will first be applied to early repayment of the national debt, in which case a tax decrease will not be triggered unless the surplus exceeds 5% of GDP.

  • Depolarization as a spiritual path

    I have studied and decried political polarization in the United States for many years.

    Congress, which should be the key site for synthesizing disparate viewpoints from across the country, is instead largely following trends established by rival media echo-chambers. The polarization is materially impairing our ability to govern ourselves effectively.

    These competing media worlds have an incentive to not agree, to maximize conflict in order to maximize viewership. “Rage to engage” is the idea.

    Allowing the most democratic house of the most democratic branch of our government to atrophy is not acceptable and could have dire consequences going forward.

    What is to be done?

    There may be key reforms that could move us in a direction where engagement is promoted and polarization is discouraged. Things like non-partisan primaries carried out using ranked-choice voting and alternate funding models for news outlets.

    But the rejuvenation of our liberal democracy must be a cultural as well as a political change.

    Fortunately, the very intensity of the polarization is what makes engaging it a powerful path forward.

    The polarization is the locus of great cultural and political energy, and will be our greatest asset if only we can get the different sides of the argument to deeply engage each other.

    This will happen bottom-up: we can each do this in our own lives, without permission. An ideological rival is a resource like no other, relentlessly pointing out the flaws in arguments, the overlooked, the bad assumptions; who wishes to can learn much this way.

    To renew our liberal democracy, we must practice liberalism and democracy in our own lives: if our culture is imbued with it, our government inevitably will be, too.

    Talk with, befriend, if possible live amongst, those you disagree with. Love them more than you may dislike their views. Be humble. You can learn from anyone.

    This is easier said than done. For those deeply invested in an echo-chamber identity, encountering other views of the world can feel deeply threatening.

    That’s why depolarization is a spiritual path. It is a path for self-growth, by challenging your assumptions. By requiring you to defend, or even modify, your beliefs in the light of new challenges and, ideally, new evidence.

    Depolarization is not for the complacent. But it is for those who are tired of feeling angry all the time; of seeing their fellow Americans as enemies; of feeling comfortable only with a certain crowd with whom they already agree. If you’re ready to live a bigger life, to open your heart wider than you ever thought it could, then you must encounter, and engage with, that which triggers you.

    It’s my belief that over time everyone who does this will come to see how what they once regarded as “other” was already a part of them; how hate for that “other” was hate for themselves; how the “other” has the answers to problems they once saw as insurmountable; and how love for themselves and for others is, in the end, the same thing.