The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Latest DeSantis Higher Ed Reform Proposals
The Florida governor unveiled some big new ideas -- not all of them good
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis held a press conference this morning to discuss his proposed higher education reforms. His office also released a statement and a handout summarizing his proposals to combat "academic discrimination and indoctrination."
For several of these proposals, the details will matter -- a lot. Nonetheless, the bare outline is significant, even if some of these items wind up looking better, or much worse, as they get translated into policy.
DeSantis indicated that he will be making a couple of relevant budget recommendations to the legislature. They include money for New College (which now has a new set of trustees with a gubernatorial mandate), new money for civics institutes that were inspired by the James Madison Program at Princeton, and $100 million for faculty retention and recruitment.
Other proposals call for more statutory reforms of Florida higher ed. They include
- New Western Civ requirement that might or might not include some legislative intrusion into how such courses are taught
- eliminate Diversity, Equity & Inclusion bureaucracies and initiatives. A big deal but remains to be seen if that will include faculty-driven programming or classes
- allow university presidents to initiate off-cycle post-tenure review of faculty. Remains to be seen whether that will alter the process or substance of the current post-tenure review system. If it only changes the timing, then perhaps not a big deal
- allow presidents and boards of trustees to hire faculty without "faculty interference." Would be a massive change in how serious American universities operate. Giant big red warning flags on this one.
- eliminate diversity statements for faculty hiring. Consistent with what the Academic Freedom Alliance has called on universities to do.
- require research universities to spend at least $50 million per year on research related to STEM and business.
Will undoubtedly shape Republican debates on higher ed, even if the full package does not get adopted in Florida or gets significantly modified on the path to adoption. Will bear careful watching.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Republicans and conservatives will continue to operate low-quality (fourth tier or unranked, mainly) schools. Those schools will continue to be marked and shaped by censorship, dogma, nonsense, backwardness, flouting of academic freedom, and viewpoint-driven discrimination in everything from hiring and firing to admissions to curricula.
The liberal-libertarian mainstream will continue to operate our strongest teaching and research facilities. Those institutions will be marked and shaped by reason, science, modernity, academic freedom, progress, and the reality-based world.
Right-wingers will continue to resent, envy, and snipe at the better schools.
Important reasons underlie these points; most conservatives will continue to pretend they do not exist.
“The liberal-libertarian mainstream…”
I think you do not understand what libertarian means.
Agreed. However, the proposed legislation also fights dogma, among other things.
Nonsense, Krayt.
It promotes dogma. It's just that when you like the dogma being promoted you don't see it for what it is.
The legislature is going to design the Western Civ course? Fucking joke.
The President and the board are going to hire people without the faculty involved? Insane.
Bad enough a liar like Rufo is on the board. I guess they'll want him teaching his BS soon enough.
Charlie’s sensible policy is John’s dogma.
And tomorrow the sides will flip and John’s sensible policy will be Charlie’s dogma.
And on and on it goes……
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron.
Actually, you are allowed to have opinions. Good policy is not the same as bad policy. Discretion is not the same as dictated speech.
Postmodernist cynicism like this is pointless. Take a position, don't refuse to play and be smug about it.
My position is don’t indoctrinate young children. In anything. Not racial grievance politics, not gender stuff, not blind patriotism. Nothing.
Focus on teaching them math and English and science and whatever. All that other stuff can come when they’re old enough to start deciding things in their own.
That’s always been my position, which I’ve stated on here before.
It is impossible to teach and not ‘indoctrinate.’ Our history, our literature, our pedagogy, cannot be taught without perspective. Even our science must make some choices about who and what to teach that has a cultural aspect.
To many around here teaching slavery is a thing is racial grievance, after all.
Draw a real line; this is facile.
It is a real line. Slavery is a thing that happened. That a white kid today is responsible for it an opinion, and a bad one at that. It’s not that hard.
They’re wanting to indoctrinate in math now. I guess you’re fine with that too. Why can’t you just say so?
It appears Florida has not entirely shaken off its Confederate sentiments.
The 'losers, bigots, traitors' inclinations.
Or...they have shaken it off, and are angry a group of politicians want to heave trillions of borrowing onto children unborn and unresponsible so they can get a few votes and a cut as lawyers and cronies can open shoppes to inhale the money.
Brilliant! Legendary theft.
But Trump already cut taxes for the rich.
They’re wanting to indoctrinate in math now.
Ah yes 'they.'
Quit taking right-wing culture warriors as uncritically correct in their nutpicking.
https://decolonizinglight.com/
Nothing about teaching students I could see.
Also...nutpicking.
90% of the left acts like nuts.
S_0: "Nutpicking!!!!"
Pick your favorite search engine and ask it about "elementary school math equity" (or social justice or even critical theory. Nuts to the left.
When you find someone teaching white classmates are responsible for slavery, then go off.
When a legislature passes a law against schools indoctrinating students in racism and collective guilt, there are howls of protest.
Of course, they say “nobody’s teaching that.” They why protest simply because you aren’t allowed to teach something nobody is teaching anyway?
Nobody in real life, as opposed to Rufo's demagoguery world, is teaching that a white kid today is responsible for slavery. (They might be teaching something vaguely like that, that black people today are still suffering the effects of the legacy of slavery, while white people today are beneficiaries of the that legacy. One might object to that, but it is not the same thing as your strawman.)
Of course, if that were all people were objecting to, this wouldn't even be an issue. But in reality, we've seen multiple instances of the right complaining that teaching about the civil rights movement is bad, because those lessons necessarily show white people oppressing black people, which might make white kids feel bad.
The civil rights movement shouldn't be taught about except as a mistake.
I don’t know who Rufo is, but you’re ignoring dozens of syllabi that have been leaked then all.
Hell, David. Indoctrinate them all. I don’t care anymore. My give a shit about all this stupidity is about gone.
"Nobody in real life, as opposed to Rufo’s demagoguery world, is teaching that a white kid today is responsible for slavery."
Again and again I'm amazed at the way lefties will go on an on about 'diversity', and then put out stupidly dogmatic statements like that.
"No woman aborts their viable infant for bad reasons!"
"Nobody is teaching that people today are guilty of slavery!"
"Nobody is grooming elementary school students!"
"Nobody is trying to make you eat bugs!"
How stupid are you, anyway, to think that such unqualified statements wouldn't be wrong?
"Again and again I’m amazed at the way lefties will go on an on about ‘diversity’, and then put out stupidly dogmatic statements like that.
“No woman aborts their viable infant for bad reasons!”
“Nobody is teaching that people today are guilty of slavery!”
“Nobody is grooming elementary school students!”
“Nobody is trying to make you eat bugs!”
How stupid are you, anyway, to think that such unqualified statements wouldn’t be wrong?"
Just like "Nobody's trying to take your guns." It's pure gaslighting.
'My give a shit about all this stupidity is about gone.'
You never gave enough of a shit to work out if the right was lying to you.
‘How stupid are you, anyway, to think that such unqualified statements wouldn’t be wrong?’
How stupid are you to think that the problem lies with those definitive statements rather than the demagoguery, hatred and lying to which they are responding.
"It is impossible to teach and not ‘indoctrinate.’ Our history, our literature, our pedagogy, cannot be taught without perspective."
Then parents better be vigilant that their kids are being indoctrinator with the correct values.
Maybe via some kind of association or board,
Nah, let’s just have the governor do partisan nonsense and call it a day,
If you don't like it, convince people to vote for something different.
Actually, you are allowed to criticize the policies of elected officials, TiP.
What kind of tautological crap is this?
"To many around here teaching slavery is a thing is racial grievance, after all."
Feel free to name such a person.
I live in the Deep South. Grew up here. Slavery was taught, extensively, throughout my education from 1st grade thru college. It was not taught as a good thing, justifiable thing...just a bad thing.
Funny how several Slave states didn't join the Confederacy, almost like the Wah wasn't just about Slavery,
Frank
You mean like Maryland?
Lincoln threw most of the Democrat politicians in jail....
In West VA, while there weren't that many slaves up in the mountains, it was more about the moral reprehensibility of rebelling.
You may not care about the impact of our culture on our science, but it cares about you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_Life
And your point is ?
'Not racial grievance politics, not gender stuff, not blind patriotism.'
Two of these things are not like the other, inasmuch as they are not things that are taught.
'and whatever.'
Left that nicely vague at the end.
Your side's idea of Western Civilization is lying about the many accomplishments of "African Americans" and lauding the virtues and accomplishments of the "men" who were at the Stonewall riots and then went home to go bareback their future "husbands" if they didn't die of AISD first.
>fourth tier or unranked, mainly
Perhaps; you'd would expect the current elites to resist change. Only time will tell whether these common-sense improvements are enough to make a dent in the current power structure.
What Kirkland fails to understand is that we Philistines vote, and greatly outnumber him in Red States.
And as to "better schools", I will never forget the night that this [then] state school undergrad had to convince a bunch of Harvard students that they wouldn't drown if they simply stood up and walked ashore.
Yes, the other side had 4 fathom* or so of water, but they were ON THE BOAT RAMP and hence in something like 4 *feet* of water. Cold, and it was at night (and dark) but still, what idiot doesn't *try* to stand up on the possibility that maybe the water isn't over your head???
Particularly students from the best schools????
They're not the best schools, they're just the best connected ones.
And if we see a reshuffling of the social deck like we did during the first Great Depression, we well may find ourselves with "best" schools that aren't important anymore, as folk from the "low-quality (fourth tier or unranked, mainly) schools" assume positions of economic leadership and hire alumni from *their* schools....
* A fathom is 6 feet or 2 meters -- while we now have the ability to accurately measure depth, there is so much variance -- just from the phase of the moon -- that inches really are irrelevant.
Or, the blue states continue to draw all the smart kids and $$s out of the red states. Then one day the blue states decide to stop subsidizing the red states. After all, they aren't very grateful. We'll just factory farm the land for our food and let the remaining human populations die away in poverty with no health insurance.
LOL. Good luck feeding and keeping yourselves warm without the rural areas that produce most of your food, energy, and water.
You are confusing states with counties.
Powerline has good article on what happens to teachers that try to teach to a rigorous level.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/mathematx.php
Definitely worth getting rid of the diversity equity and inclusion crap.
Pretty scanty discussion of why this guy retired.
And just saying 'new teacher likes diversity and inclusion = bad' is dumb and reductive.
Base your nonsense on more substance than this weak tea.
I don't think the article was saying that Jaime Escalante retired because of out of control political correctness - he retired in 1991, after all. Before your time perhaps, but he was pretty famous at the time.
I think Joe_dallas was calling your attention to Dr. Gutierrez' biography there at the bottom, which reads "Dr. Gutierrez' scholarship focuses on issues of identity and power in mathematics education, paying particular attention to how race, class, and language affect teaching and learning. Through in-depth analyses of effective teaching/learning communities and longitudinal studies of developing and practicing teachers, her work challenges deficit views of students who are Latinx, Black, and Indigenous and suggests that mathematics teachers need to be prepared with much more than just content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, or knowledge of diverse students if they are going to be successful. They need political knowledge. ...".
My sense is that her focus is quite different from Mr. Escalante's. If you are unfamiliar with Mr. Escalante, you might read the wiki page about him and ponder whether his approach or Ms. Gutierrez' is likely to better serve disadvantaged children.
My sense is that while she 'focuses on issues of identity and power', he focused on teaching calculus.
I mean, it's Joe_dallas...
As to her resume I'd prefer actual evidence of actual people and how they teach, not just your sense and speculation based on their scholarship.
"I’d prefer actual evidence"
Fair enough. My standards of proof are lower; I'm willing to believe what she says.
She doesn’t say anything about how she’ll teach math.
If you want to argue that math teachers are not teaching math, *find an example* don’t just assume and suggest based on a resume you don’t like.
Her own description of her beliefs about math education doesn’t count as evidence?
Not on how she'll actually teach, no.
I don't think it's too much to ask for actual evidence of actual action.
I wouldn’t want someone who stresses the importance of ‘politics’ in math teaching to teach math to my kids. And her bio is a woke word salad. But hey, maybe once the bell rings she’s down the middle classical instruction.
I have like 3 different resumes, each with a different message to them.
It would be pretty funny if there's another bio for her out there that stresses her commitment to back-to-basics instruction and building students' sense of self-worth through inspiring them to master the subject matter.
concur - her bio is a very good indication of her commitment to the rigorousness of her math instruction philosophy.
Her scholarship / resume/bio is a very good indication of her level or rigorousness of her teaching. Dumbing down the quality of the course does none of her students a favor.
Absaroka -
I was calling attention to value and lifelong benefits of rigorous math instruction and calling attention to the serious decline and deemphasis on quality math education.
Math is one of the fundemental building blocks of science and development of critical thinking skills.
As an undergrad math major when I read this
"Math is one of the fundemental building blocks of science and development of critical thinking skills."
I was reminded of one of my second year analysis profs who said
'physics and chemistry are important subsets of mathematics'.
Kinda like saying spelling is a fundamental part of English.
Ragebot - concur that math is very interrelated with physics, chemistry, other sciences, basic analytical skills , etc. My point was that math is a very important component of science and critical thinking skills. Very useful in being able to separate the real science from the politically correct social sciences.
Um. I don't think she's a HS math teacher.
I think she is someone who studies math pedagogy and tries to improve it, to better reach groups of students who typically don't do well - sort of like what Escalante did. I mean, if you are going hold him up as an example, let's note that he took kids who weren't expected to do well and figured out how to get them to do better. What's wrong with that?
As for the bio, yeah, there's some jargon in there - "mathematx" makes me cringe - but that's hardly unusual in academic C.V.'s
The point is that, right or wrong, she is trying to improve math education.
"I don’t think the article was saying that Jaime Escalante retired because of out of control political correctness – he retired in 1991, after all. "
I wanted to point this out because I think this is important. Escalante's career ended in 1991. A lot has change since then. His approach might have worked during the 70s and 80s but, three decades later, students have changed and the way they perceive themselves and their place in the world is different. How one engages students needs to meet them where they are not where they were back during the "good 'ol days." If Gutierrez's approach is through a political lens, that doesn't necessarily make it ineffective. Given her work, what she means by "political" is likely more complex and nuanced than how the average Reason.com reader would use the word. Certainly, boiling it down to "woke" is just manufacturing a strawman.
"New Western Civ requirement that might or might not include some legislative intrusion into how such courses are taught."
In my doctoral research, I came across a state where the legislature not only mandated something similar, but required non-compliant faculty and deans be fired and banned from any form of state employment (i.e. public universities, etc.) for either five or seven years.
Sooner or later the taxpayer gets tired of paying for repulsive nonsense like men can be women, selective racial discrimination is good, an adult talking to your six-year-old about oral sex is not grooming, etc.
Sooner or later, everyone finds their cosmopolitan elitism.
>non-compliant faculty and deans be fired
So, basically, do the job you're paid to do.
Are you saying you approve of that?
Big fan of the Leader, are you? Got a portrait over the fireplace, I guess.
I don't think I have EVER had a job where it wasn't a matter of "do what the boss says or be fired"
All actions are dictated by the governor; discretion and academic freedom is bad, actually.
What a tyrannical take.
Yes, Florida can do this. But lots of things the government can do are awful and authoritarian.
If you work for the government, the government tells you what to do while on the job. Calling that 'tyrannical' is a category error.
Seriously, do you even understand the idea of a "job"? I get the impression that you don't.
Do YOU know how a job works? I have a job description. It is pretty broad. I get tasks. I get to figure out how to execute those tasks, and how to do my job generally.
Bosses who are micromanagers in the public and private spheres are authoritarian assholes. That is the style of government you are endorsing - micromanagement from the governor's mansion.
It's likely legal, definitely bad, and surely authoritarian.
"Do YOU know how a job works?"
Yes. There's a set of stakeholder who's interest you are supposed to be advancing. In the private sector they are called customers. In the public sector, it's the public.
And those stakeholders will give you the amount of discretion that they believe will result in you advancing those interests.
If, as a public employee, the public believes that you are not advancing their interests, they are going to exert greater control over you.
This is not public action.
What's not public action?
How exactly ARE the public supposed to act in a representative democracy, if not through their elected officials?
1. We are not a direct democracy. Representatives not being perfect vessels for the public will is a baseline truth to our system of government.
Asking 'how can the public make it's will known' is a whole other question worth a whole other post.
2. In this particular case, there are plenty of ways for the public to make it's will known - PTA, school board, local government.
Quit using the fact that we live in a democracy to pretend that all policies thus passed are good. I don't argue 'well Biden was elected so your argument is invalid.' That would be silly. You should similarly avoid being silly.
Sarc, except your criticism is specifically of the fact that -they are being told what to do- not (although I understand you also disagree with this) what it is they are being told to do. Stop attacking with one and defending the other.
I actually have issues with both the own the libs content and the state government bigfooting method.
Neither of those objections is answered by an appeal to ‘the will of the people' because as I noted, this is not the will of the people, and even if it were it can still be bad both procedurally and substantively.
Is the CEO of your employer the same sort of engineer you are?
If not, how can he micromanage what you do? Sure, he might decide what projects you work on, but I doubt he looks over shoulder to check your calculations, etc.
What state was it?
"allow presidents and boards of trustees to hire faculty without 'faculty interference.'"
You get a job... you get a job... everybody's brother-in-law gets a job!
What size donation do I have to give to get a tenure track appointment?
bribery is still illegal without these shitty laws.
In fairness, bribery is slippery subject in the higher ed world e.g., it's considered acceptable to bribe your kid into selective schools.
No new goalposts.
It is?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal
They just paid off the wrong entity. “Special Deans List” admittees are ubiquituous....so much that there is even a customary-rate for admission (~ 4x tuition gift + agreement to pay list price while there)
Suppose parents or legislators don’t want their kids being taught that “humans are descended from monkeys”. If biology teachers risk their jobs and livelihoods by teaching evolutionary theory, a proposed law leading to the possibility that evolutionary theory must not be taught is at best misplaced, and is in all likelihood pandering to the ignorant and to intolerant fundies, and any other group who pile on board for any action that might lead to owning the libs.
Suppose that the president and the board appoint and approve to the biology faculty an ex-legislator who wants to teach “intelligent design” in biology classes. A proposed law leading to the possibility, likewise to the above, is invidious.
DeSantis may be being performative, or he may be simply pandering, but as the suggested legislation leads to the possibilities above, that legislation is garbage, and its promoters, POSs.
Suppose parents or legislators don’t want their kids being taught that “humans are descended from monkeys”.
I would hope that no parents want their children being taught that "humans are descended from monkeys." That is not a sound understanding of evolution. Humans are descended from primates that lived millions of years ago, and monkeys are also descended from those same ancient primates.
I think you understand that, of course, given that you put it in quotes. But I thought it worth pointing out to those that might take that literally.
Only the uninformed. Like, perhaps, DeSantis.
Indeed! And see from 2:19 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0fFKNCKIhE
Suppose parents or legislators don’t want their kids being taught that “humans are descended from monkeys”. etc
SRG's suppositions do not lead him, or her, to reasonable conclusions. Of course it is possible that parents or legislators or governors or college presidents or boards of trustees might want idiotic or useless notions taught in colleges (or schools). Or sensible or useful things not taught. But the same thing can be said of university professors (and schoolteachers.) Intelligence is certainly no protection against idiocy. As Orwell reminded us - there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
The question is what is to be done about this risk of idiocy ?
Suppose that the Earth Sciences Department at a University comes to be dominated by a cadre of Professors who believe, and teach, that the Moon is made of Green Cheese ? And possessing a veto on new hires, they preserve this orthodoxy, despite the firm belief of the University President, the Board of Trustees, the Governor, 90% of the members of each House of the State Legislature and 90% of the people, that teaching this nonsense about the Moon is, well, nonsense ?
Well if it is a private university, then the answer is - whatever the university's statutes say. That might be that the Board of Trustees is King, or it might be that the faculty has veto power over the Board's decisions. Whatever - it's not the Governor's or the Legislature's or the people's business.
But if it's a State university, and you live in a democracy, then it's the demos that - in the end - wins. However stupid the demos might be. And by way of reassurance - however idiotic the demos might be, the intelligensia can out-idiot it, wearing street shoes.
I realise that my insistence on the rich diet of idiocy to be found in the intelligensia might be misconstrued. Of course it is a good thing that academia is well stocked with people with idiotic ideas, for finding good ideas that turn out to be right is hard, and one needs to sift through a lot of dung to find them.
However the value of a fecund imagination is primarily in research. On the teaching side it's best to hose most of the dung off first. Just "most" - no harm in letting them know about the wacky - but probably wrong - ideas that researchers are working on.
This is probably in his authority, but dumb and bad.
Red meat culture war bullshit off the backs of schools may even make you win some votes. But it’ll fuck up your state to have a badly educated populace and no one want to teach there but true believers.
Yeah this is going to lead to some bullshit and indoctrination, but the left asked for it. Begged for it.
Politize the schools and eventually the other side will be put in charge and they’ll do it too. Reaping and sowing and all that.
'but the left asked for it'
It's always the left's fault, somehow.
Notice how I talked about actual good policy, not about owning the libs?
And yet owning the libs and then victim blaming them is all your comment contemplates.
That's not who is suffering. And just in general a fucked up way to think about society. It is tempting, but do some work to see life as more than tit for tat.
See my answer above nitwit. I’m not going to answer it twice.
I’ve always hated the religious politicization of the Texas school board and its effects on textbooks. Both sides, right.
Note that y’all don’t actually deny that the left has been politicizing schools that you’ve been defending. What the hell did you expect would happen?
Florida is full of people who are not really in this culture war. This policy effects them as well. And you're just ignoring them!!
Quit excusing bad Republican acts by pointing left. First, people are responsible for their own actions.
Second, look at who is actually burdened. Hint: it's not liberal politicians.
You sound almost like a tankie at this point.
Hell, man, I don’t support this. Just saying it was to be expected and that actions that you and queen and nige supported guaranteed it would happen. Newton’s Third Law and all that. You wanna whine about it now? Tough shit. You and yours brought this on everyone.
This sounds a lot like you support it, albeit for assholeish reasons.
“I don’t support this” sounds like I support it. You’re such an openly stupid prick.
Sounds a lot you can’t accept what I said even though I know what I think and you don’t. Didn’t you accuse me earlier of putting words in people’s mouths?
Pot, meet openly hypocritical kettle.
If you aren’t going to believe what I say, I guess there’s really no point in us talking anymore.
'Didn’t you accuse me earlier of putting words in people’s mouths?'
You did accuse him and me of being directly to blame for the actions of Republicans, and that you accept it as an inevitable an natural outcome. You've found a whole new way to be morally vacuous, in favour of Republicans.
'I'm not for it. But I think it had to happen. And you should quick saying it's bad.'
...Dude...
'You and yours brought this on everyone.'
Are you glued onto that fence?
following up on Bevis comment
A small segment of the religious right dont want evolution taught, which gets push back from the majority of the right.
On the other hand, no one on the left objects to the woke, grooming, diversity, equity and the whole host of degration of rigorous teaching standards.
And left complains about the push back
I deny that the left has been politicizing schools.
"Notice how I talked about actual good policy, not about owning the libs?"
Did you?
Thanks, QA. As her cut and paste shows, I posted bout policy, and it’s impacts.
I did not post ‘liberals are asking for it’ or ‘conservatives deserve this comeuppance’ or ‘let me post yet again that Dems like causing suffering.’
He said that good policy is not bad policy! Doesn't that count?
In S_0's book, accusing the other side of imposing bad policies is somehow talking about good policies. And QA apparently falls for it.
Avoiding bad policies is good policy.
Remember: maintaining the status quo is a policy choice.
Politize the schools and eventually the other side will be put in charge and they’ll do it too. Reaping and sowing and all that.
You have an awfully short memory.
Do you honestly think the schools weren't politicized before, say , the 1960's? How old are you?
You wouldn't believe the lies that were routinely taught about all sorts of topics,and they were right-wing lies. The Civil War, of course was the prime example, but anything having to do with foreign policy, including wars, was inevitably a tale of American virtue.
The westward expansion was all noble pioneers. Reconstruction was evil. Communists were everywhere and we had to be on guard, but fortunately had J. Edgar Hoover looking out for the country. Evolution was not mentioned in biology classes.
So don't give us any shit about how right-wing politicization was a deserved backlash to left-wing politicization. Besides, someone once said two wrongs don't make a right,
And you know, we do actually need to think about the students here. Instead of trying to keep out anything you don't like for the sake of getting on Fox News, about trying for some decent education.
"The westward expansion was all noble pioneers. Reconstruction was evil. Communists were everywhere and we had to be on guard, but fortunately had J. Edgar Hoover looking out for the country. Evolution was not mentioned in biology classes."
This does not comport with my memories of public school in the 60's or 70's, in schools in states that were on the losing side of the Civil War.
The problem I see for DeSantis is that he maybe pushing one way too hard. At some point he will need to come back to the center and that may be a long way to travel.
Seems like.
But I thought the same thing about Trump.
Remember, after Desantis wins the GOP primary, where being awful like this is a value add, he has to run against a real life Democrat. And snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is well within the realm of possibility.
Does "the center" like DEI bureaucracies? Or CRT? Or diversity statements for hiring?
What few things do you think "the center" cares about?
Let me cut and paste it for you:
"Red meat culture war bullshit off the backs of schools may even make you win some votes. But it’ll fuck up your state to have a badly educated populace and no one want to teach there but true believers."
That is a point about policy, and it's impacts.
It is not 'liberals are asking for it' or 'conservatives deserve this comeuppance' or 'let me post yet again that Dems like causing suffering.'
Comment should be above. I have moved it.
You think professors will be turning down competitive positions in Florida? Care to cite any data (or anything else) to support that?
If they do, and if it’s for ideology reasons, then Florida will probably be better off with alternate professors who are interested in something else instead of primarily ideology.
Yes, I do think policies actively hostile to a profession will narrow the talent pool in that profession. And these policies are very hostile.
It's not ideological to not want your job micromanaged based on the partisan signaling the governor feels into today.
Is not teaching kids the US is corrupt and oppressive from day 1 down to the bone and, as such, the Constitution should be overthrown so…who…can make changes unencumbered by silly ideas they are self-serving corruptions, thus limited by the Constitution from seeking to increase their power, a bad thing?
Which, coincidentally, empowers corruptions to increase their power. But they are good people with kind hearts, they tell us so! And they are definitely not, not no way, not no how, psychopaths lite who lie to you, not caring one whit what you think of them, but, omfg, so curiously relying on your synonymization of the feeling you have you have a kind heart, with granting them total power over everything. Unlike those pesky rules the slave-owning FFs set up to stop them.
You OK?
In fact for at least 20 years the media has excused the ignorant, nasty behaviors and words of MAGA nominees as things they had to do and say to gain the nomination. The trek back to the center for MAGA candidates is a short, straight line and the media provides grease and special shoes for the trip.
If the pendulum is already dramatically over to one side, a sizable push the opposite direction to reach equilibrium is needed.
Do you want to actually engage with the specific proposals or just gripe generally? Do you disagree with eliminating diversity statements? Do you disagree with the research focus? Do you disagree with eliminating DIE administrators?
The OP does a great job of this. I have other issues as well, though.
In general, something that has potential to ban the teaching both sides of the debate on affirmative action is not good policy.
Actually, the OP barely gets beyond some vague worries.
"allow presidents and boards of trustees to hire faculty without "faculty interference." Would be a massive change in how serious American universities operate. Giant big red warning flags on this one."
I see this as a good way to put some ideological diversity into faculties. There are a lot of disciplines where a clique of professors relentlessly impose orthodoxy in hiring to the detriment of students getting opposing viewpoints in contentious fields.
Those who have been around this blog for a while will remember than Jonathan Alder, a paragon of moderation, originally blogged here as 'Juan non-Volokh' for fear that openly expressing his views could affect his chances of being offered a tenure track professorship at many law schools.
Perhaps a proposal like this can open up more opportunities for other similarly situated academics that have to self censor their research and writings for fear of killing their career.
But if you're a gatekeeper of the revolution it's a big red flag. I could understand a concern that a connected individual could be offered a job they're unable to competently do but then I look at academia and wonder how one would tell the difference from the status quo.
'I see this as a good way to put some ideological diversity into faculties'
Affirmative action for shitty ideas.
Yes, shitty ideas should be politically consistent.
Neither good ideas nor shitty ideas are obliged to be politically consistent. Most ideas are entirely divorced from politics, except actual ideas relating to politics.
I find it odd that if ANY other group had the miniscule numbers as conservatives in academia, it would be proof positive of virulent bigotry against said group.
But conservatives...nah, they're just stupid.
Congrats, Gov. Faubus. I thought you died long ago.
It might if conservatives weren't so consistently antagonistic to academia. 'Make academia a scapegoat and target of bile and ridicule, wonder why so few of you go into academia, must be bigotry!'
It's a good way to do a lot of things.
But past performance makes it most likely it'll be used for nothing other than partisan mischief and scalp-taking.
Well this proposal is for hiring, not firing.
But another good example is the example of Ben Sasse as President of the University of Florida. The Faculty Senate voted 76-16 to have no confidence in his appointment. They probably would have endorsed a clown like Kamala Harris 92-0. Ben Sasse maybe a conservative but he is hardly a culture warrior or scalp taker. Its a perfect example of the people trying to retake control after the inmates have melded with the asylum.
That maybe the hire that is laying the blueprint for DeSantis’ proposal.
When you have multiple candidates, choosing one and not the other acts a lot like a firing.
Ask anyone who has been up for a tenure track position.
There are plenty of ways to encourage or even ensure conservatives are not passed over in hiring without top-down diktats.
...yet none have been done for decades.
So, time to make it happen.
They want conservatives to PAY for the institutions.
This is not narrowly tailored to make that happen; don't pretend that this is what the law is about.
It is about correcting a long-standing issue where anybody remotely conservative has effectively no chance of becoming a professor.
The problem as I see it is that hiring by peers is seen as unalloyed good and hiring by superiors is seen as unalloyed bad. That's not how this actually works. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. The vast majority of the world works in one of those ways, not the other. And it's no accident that in the competitive world where people actually have to try and find the best ways to do things in order to succeed, they've arrived at a consensus of hiring by superiors.
Seen as by who?
I don't have a broad view of how schools do it, but from what I've seen faculty hiring committees are not the final authority.
in the competitive world where people actually have to try and find the best ways to do things
1. Is 'consensus by superiors' how they do hiring in private schools, who presumably are in this competitive world you're extolling? I don't know that this is the case.
2. Assuming if business does it it's the best way in all applications is...mighty iffy.
Do you wish to try to argue that conservative-controlled schools might
set aside their statements of faith,
stop collecting loyalty oaths,
switch positions on superstition vs. reason and science vs. dogma,
start respecting academic freedom,
withdraw their old-timey speech codes,
ditch their old-timier conduct codes,
stop engaging in viewpoint-discriminatory hiring with respect to teachers, administrators, basketball coaches, landscapers, van drivers, dishwashers, and every other position on campus, and/or
stop teaching silly fucking nonsense, etc.?
These DeSantis criticisms are aimed solely at better schools. Republicans will always excuse conservative-operated schools from any of their partisan, paltry proposals.
"Dear Colleagues,
"Stop doing that shit, or we will pull your tax dollars."
"Sincerely,
"Honest folk."
It's all about the money. Politicians know when a law is passed, people will imagine there must be some extremely powerful moral behind it, and it will raise up as people imagine and hypothesize about it. Eventually, it lifts off from the law and monetary threats and takes on a life of its own, where it is declared moral in and of itself.
I mean, it must be, right?
I didn't fight my whole life against the stupidities of religion so a quasi-religion that swaps "for God" with "for The People" can authorize the exact same corruptions Power in the exact same way, for the exact same reason.
This is really the key element of the reform package. Changing the trustees/president only goes so far when you have active resistance to ideological diversity from the faculty. Preventing the history faculty from vetoing a qualified history professor because the candidate is anti-abortion is exactly what needs to be done to reform higher education.
Weird they didn't address this particular issue, and left it much broader than that.
Well, it's not like it's just being anti-abortion that would get you a black mark from left-wing faculty. It's not toeing the line on any of an ever growing number of party lines. As I've remarked before, every time you get rid of the people beyond the pale, the pale moves closer. You're chasing a moving target.
So I think any specific line they drew would swiftly be obsolete, just denying the faculty a veto covered it nicely.
Allowing the presidents and boards of trustees to do hiring of faculty sound like it is creating more job for political payoffs and rewards. The next professor hired qualification might be that he was an assistant campaign manager for the governor.
You have to look at in context. Here is a video of the Provost at Florida New College trying to keep the new Trustees from speaking to the Faculty and Students last week. Since all the Trustees were there, they voted 2-1 to overrule the Provost, it appears the President was also called and she backed the Provost. The President was fired today by the Trustees.
Here is a link to the video:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1619126074641612800
And here is the threat one of the Trustees received which is what put “everyone in danger” and according to the provost required cancelling the QA session:
"SEE YOU ON WEDNESDAY ASSHOLE, MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE A FLAK JACKET ON, YOU MOTHERFUCKIN MORON!"
That's a risk, yes. But don't pretend that faculty hiring doesn't have its own problems.
No one is assuming that, though.
In fact, I'm not even sure pure faculty hiring is the current system in Florida.
allow presidents and boards of trustees to hire faculty without "faculty interference." Would be a massive change in how serious American universities operate. Giant big red warning flags on this one.
Nah. Remember this is about State education institutions, not private ones. The State provides the premises and the money. So the question is - which State officials should be responsible for hiring State employees ?
And the answer is - the elected ones, or at least those appointed by the elected ones to run the institutions. Not the employees of the institutions. A State university is not a workers' co-operative.
That is not to say that consulting existing faculty about hiring decisions might not be a good idea, especially if existing faculty are more or less sane, but the idea that they should have some kind of a veto is ridiculous. And the proposal is merely :
allow presidents and boards of trustees to hire faculty without "faculty interference."
note "allow" not require. It simply means that if any State educational institution has rules or procedures that prevent presidents and boards of trustees from hiring whoever they want to hire, if necessary over the heads of dissenting faculty, those rules and procedures are nixed. And rightly so.
Of course if the government is elected by the people, the people's representatives will often be as ignorant and biased and irrational as the people themselves. And they may choose policies which are not at all those which might be chosen by the more enlightened. Proving once again that democracy is a terrible system - indeed, the worst. Except for all the others.
Teachers have been distinct from other state employees for a long time.
Ignore that at the peril of your state’s educational enterprise.
It simply means that if any State educational institution has rules or procedures that prevent presidents and boards of trustees from hiring whoever they want to hire, if necessary over the heads of dissenting faculty, those rules and procedures are nixed. Is this currently untrue? And if that was what they were getting at, why didn’t they say it like that, rather than more nebulously?
I do like how you chose democracy (even while crapping on it) over market forces (public schools are market participants, and their faculty choices are no small element of that calculous).
And also ignore the open invitation for patronage.
Ignore that at the peril of your state’s educational enterprise.
It is already in peril. There’s a choice of perils. It’s as if you’ve never heard of Rudi Dutschke,
And if that was what they were getting at, why didn’t they say it like that, rather than more nebulously?
I thought they’d done it rather elegantly and concisely with the simple word “allow”, which means, er, “allow.”
I do like how you chose democracy (even while crapping on it) over market forces (public schools are market participants, and their faculty choices are no small element of that calculous).
Not one of your better weaselling efforts. All government institutions are “market participants.”
The air force is big in the aircraft engineering market. That does not mean however that the air force is a free market business, nor that the government should eschew interference in how the air force is run.
And patronage would be – a little bit – more of a worry if it were not rife already. It is better to compare reforms with the status quo rather than with utopia.
Is this one of those magical non-statistical perils?
Yours is not the only interpretation of that clause. Check out the OP for another one.
The government is generally a buyer in the market. Schools are sellers. I hope this helps you understand the differing incentives here that you are throwing away to cite 'democracy' as though that ends the discussion.
I’m sorry – I missed whatever it is that you spotted in the OP that analysed that line. I spotted the OMG the sky is falling bit, but as to analysis of why “allow” might mean something other than “allow” , can you point me to it ?
No I’m afraid I don’t see why I should care about the “differing incentives” you imagine between when the government is a buyer or a seller. If you’re simply suggesting that it is inevitable that the government acts as a buyer in the market, but not inevitable that it acts as a seller, then that I do understand.
And if what you are alluding to is the idea that the government should avoid getting involved in anything it doesn’t absolutely have to get involved in – ie if it's evitable, the government should keep out, then I entirely agree. Though it would astonish me to discover that you were of the same mind. But if you do agree then we can rapidly agree on the ideal solution. No State universities => no conundrum about how to run them.
I’m not recommending “democracy” as the best way of running universities. Far from it. I’m only recommending democracy as the appropriate way to run things that the goverment runs. Not because democracy is flawless system, for it is a terrible system. But there’s a limit on how many times one should tell the same Churchill joke in any one thread.
But I’m puzzled as to where you are coming from. Supposing the government was so foolish as to decide to set up a State Auto Company, which company would engage in the manufacture and sale to the public of automobiles, do I understand correctly that it is your opinion, that having initiated the crazy idea of a State Auto Company, the elected politicians should then ignore how it is run ?
That this enterprise is a market participant on the holy sales side, should make it immune from all interference by the democratically elected part of the government ? Really ?
I'm explaining why professors are not civil servants. You know why; you're pettifogging.
You're citing democracy to try and launder the political bullshittery which abounds here.
I'm pointing out that bad teachers *already* have an impact on a school.
I'm sorry you find this confusing, except you seem more interested in quibbling than actually not following.
I’m explaining why professors are not civil servants. You know why; you’re pettifogging.
Well, state university professors are government employees. Not quite sure what nuance you're putting on "civil servants" but I'm guessing that your "civil servant" is the sort of government employee who administers, rather than actually does, things. A fighter pilot is not a civil servant.
But anyway if your point is that professors "do" (ie teach and research) and do not adminsitrate, then, er, what ? Distinguishing them as not civil servants seems to underline the doubts that they should be holding a veto over the Boards' hiring choices.
But perhaps you just mean that professors are special. Special in what way remains unspecified. A couple of sentences ago you were insisting that what was special was a state institution that sold something. But somehow a state car company didn't make it into the ranks of the holy.
In short you have taken a brief vacation from gaslighting, and switched to handwaving.
You’re citing democracy to try and launder the political bullshittery which abounds here.
Yup. I think my diagnosis was right.
I’m pointing out that bad teachers *already* have an impact on a school.
Hmm. So this is an argument for giving them a veto on the hiring of new staff ? Your mind moves in mysterious ways.
I’m sorry you find this confusing, except you seem more interested in quibbling than actually not following.
Aaaaand, it's back to handwaving.
Why is it you’re writing novels to my comments? You’re sure doing a lot of sweaty work to keep arguing that teachers are rightfully getting regulated at last (weird that hasn't been a thing for a century or so, eh?)
There are lots of government employees that are not civil servants. Football coaches, bus drivers, soldiers. We treat each differently. That does not mean one of them is special, only that it is good policy to treat different things different.
What am I gaslighting about? I didn’t peg you for one of the asshole brigades to misuse that term.
So this is an argument for giving them a veto on the hiring of new staff? It is not. I wrote what I meant.
The reason that I write longer comments is that I like to make myself as clear as possible (within my limited abilities.) You however prefer, as I have mentioned before, the brief gnomic comment, which requires readers to try to puzzle out precisely what brilliant apercu lies hidden beneath the gnomicism.
Alas I still have no idea what point you're trying to make other than "professors are special" - and if that is your point then yes I agree, they are special, to the same extent that civil servants, football coaches, bus drivers, and soldiers are special in their own way.
But there's nothing about professorial specialness that differs from soldierly specialness when it comes to how much say they should be afforded on who is to be hired to serve with them in the professorial or soldierly trenches.
Which was the point originally at issue, and in respect of which the overexcited Prof Whittington looked up and saw a falling sky.
I am not really gnomic. Rather an open book, really.
I’ve explained my point is that treating every government employee as a civil servant is dumb. Teachers are one of the many types of government employees that are distinct from civil servants, and who analyzing as a civil servant is dumb.
We have some unique policies that apply to soldiers. Because we don't treat them like civil servants. And similarly we have some ways we think about teachers that is also different from civil servants.
I don't think I'm gnomic; I think you're putting a thesis in my mouth all on your own.
S_0, you've repeatedly asserted that teachers are different and special, but you haven't really given good reasons that public teachers and/or professors should be unique -- except that it's a tradition. Which is ironically funny.
Michel, I've repeatedly said that's not what I'm saying. So maybe you should revise your thinking.
I have above talked about why academic freedom is a good idea.
Here, I'm just arguing that the thesis that we should lump all government workers together as the same is dumb.
"I’m explaining why professors are not civil servants. "
Isn't that an argument that they SHOULDN'T have the same kind of civil service protections as other government workers?
No, it's not an argument for that.
If you want to make an argument for why teachers should be less protected based on their distinction from other civil servants, make it.
I'm talking about academic independence as good policy.
If the lesser states want to fall to even greater depths with respect to educational quality and attainment, perhaps better states should watch the hayseeds continue to decline.
Better Americans should offer strong opportunities for the smart and ambitious students in those hayseed states to get the hell out of there after high school graduation, though. Decent people do not fault children for having losers for parents, and our country will need all of the reasoning, educated, skilled, modern, progressive citizens we can get.
kirk - contrary to your delusional belief - Raising educational standards to more rigorous levels is positive progress. Woke instruction that you seem to favor is a step backward.
I can see STEM funding. We need as much research there as we can get. But business? Considering all of the misconduct over at least the last 30 years or more, I'd want to see that coupled with a strong Ethics requirement as well.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
There's a range of (sensible) views on what business skills and practices are useful (including what might be useful in future.) So it's reasonable for a teacher to teach a good range, even if he or she doesn't personally have much faith in some of the things he or she is teaching.
And business ethics falls within that range. But there's certainly no canonical set of business ethics. If you're going to teach business ethics without simply trying to indoctrinate your students in your own preferred doctrines, then you're going to be spending quite a lot of time on ethics as opposed to business. There are uncountable things that somebody might think it is unethical for a business to do, or for you to do within a business, and you're not going to have time for them all. And ditto for presenting a range of perspectives on each ethical conundrum.
Of course business ethics is not the same thing as law - ie you certainly want your students to understand what is likely to get them, or their business, into legal trouble. And business ethics is not the same as prudence as to political risk - ie you want your students to understand what sorts of things might generate a howling mob outside company HQ.
But aside from that, hmm. Perhaps there are aspects of ethics that are special to business, as opposed to life in general, but for the most part I'd be inclined to leave ethics to the philosophy class.
After all it's not like you're going to be able to avoid ethical questions as a soldier, or a virologist, or a schoolteacher, or an NFL player, or a geologist, or a civil servant. What's so special about business ?
Why don't conservatives just accept that it's always racism, and that racism against white people is actually antiracist? Why do conservatives keep trying to fix the intentionally inequitable and orthodox power structures embedded in the privileged ivory tower community rather than, uh... um... look, over there, racism!
Your link doesn’t say anything like your strawman post. It just notes that saying racism isn't a thing is not helpful if you actually want to address racism as an issue.
I got about halfway through the linked article before losing interest.
But along the way it did strike me that one coud write a more or less identical article about Marxism - ie how those with Marxist ideas refute, minimise etc their intellectual connection to those gulags and those killing fields.
And that consequently this sort of article (and a corresponding article explaining the obvious flaws in the linked article) might form suitable teaching material, or prompts to class discussion, in courses on politics (ie on how politics is done) or on rhetoric.
Weird switch of subject.
But what the heck are you on about? Marx was a philosopher. He had some insights, and was also wrong about a lot.
But nothing he wrote commands any killing fields.
You're minimizing the actual villains of history for some reason.
I found a list of Marx quotes and looked through the first few pages. Are these accurate? (there were some obvious fakes; I am only listing ones where the source was cited):
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
" ...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
Aside #1 ... yikes, there were a lot of anti-Semitic ones. One example:
"The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races."
Aside #2 ... he doesn't seem to like bureaucrats:
"For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him."
Aside #3:
" Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
"There are no circumstances imaginable, not even victory, under which the proletariat should give up its possession of arms."
Yeah, he did some race science stuff, and predicted revolutions.
Seems more sensible to blame Pol Pot for the killing fields though, eh?
Lotsa blame to go around. If the Grand Cyclops whips up the crowd enough, IMHO he gets part of the blame for the subsequent lynching, even if he didn’t specifically order it.
Is the author of ‘The Turner Diaries’ blameless for what McVeigh et al. did? (see the section headed ‘Violent influence’)
"predicted revolutions"
'Predicted' or 'encouraged'?
‘Predicted’ or ‘encouraged’?
Yup, Marxism would be considerably less ramshackle intellectually if Marx had stuck to being a "philosopher" and had not also been an activist and polemicist. (Something similar is obviously true of all those lefty academics that DeSantis disapproves of.) The latter activities involved a lot of trimming to the tactical moment, such that his writings are a jumble of attempts at (a) "scientific" exposition and explanation, and (b) mere politicking, and it is by no means clear where the one ends and the other begins.
This is one of the main reasons why poor old Engels had to spend so much time and effort trying to tidy up Das Kapital, and Marx's theory of surplus value, after Marx's death.
The second, purely philosophical problem, was that although Marx was undoubtedly a clever, hard working, well read fellow, he formulated his views in ignorance of the great strides that the classical economists made in the field of microeconomics in the second half of the 19th century onwards. As a "philosopher" he should be seen as part of the Nietzsche stable - good at aphorisms, not so good as a grand theorist.
You seem to have developed the view that Marx and Marxism and Marxists are not really anything to do with each other.
Certainly you can blame Pol Pot for the killing fields. But was he a classical liberal ? A monarchist ? A Jehovah's Witness perhaps ? Or a Marxist ?
He's plainly connected to Marxism intellectually, and particularly to the Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist interpretations thereof. And to the (very Stalinist) French Communist Party. It's not like he was egregiously bonkers by the standards of governing Marxists - I mean could you really make a case for him being nothing like Mao or the Kim family ?
Anyway there's an intellectual connection between salon and faculty Marxists (and "golly, me a Marxist ?" far lefties) and the ones who are dripping with blood. The question is - how much of a connection and is it important ? And one can play exactly the same quibbling denying minimising etc game with Marxism as one can with racism.
The broad brush "down with denialism, minimising etc" thing is just sophistry, and ham fisted sophistry at that. The devil is in the details. Sometimes racists are dangerous, sometimes they're not. And sometimes they're not racists at all. And ditto for Marxists. And any other kind of -ist.
The linked piece is a valuable contribution to the study of sophistry and hyperbole. Not a valuable contribution to the study of racism.
But what the heck are you on about?
I was merely making the point that the fellow writing about “the art of denial” in connection with those “denying” racism could have written much the same about those “denying” anything else.
He (or was it a she?) was describing a list of sly tactics (or possibly shrewd counterarguments) whereby those who do not think racism is very important, or very prevalent, or is absent where it is claimed to be present, might seek to minimise or deny or otherwise throw sand at the alleged horrors of “Raaaaaacism !” There were some marginally plausible points amid a sea of sophistry and hyperbole.
I merely thought that it said more about sophistry and hyperbole than about racism, and said so. I do not object to students being exposed to sophistry and hyperbole, so long as what they are being taught is how to spot it and the holes in it, rather than that the sophistry and hyerbole being offered is a useful truth about the world.
But perhaps I was too gnomic. Perhaps I should have written a novel. But I have now.
Statement: “__ is not racist.” Response strategy: Point out the person is making an accusation rather than an argument. Invite them to make an argument instead. [i.e. it's always racism, but try to change the subject by arbitrarily accusing them of bad faith]
Statement: “Racism isn’t as bad as it used to be.” Response strategy: Offer broader, more accurate definitions of racism. [i.e. it’s always racism]
Statement: “__ is not about race.” Response strategy: Explain why there can be more than one explanation for an outcome, but this does not mean racism is not still a factor. [i.e. it’s always racism]
Statement: “You’re making people racist by __.” Response strategy: Explain that just because bias is unconscious or implicit does not mean people aren’t still accountable for it. [i.e. it’s always racism]
Statement: “__ wasn’t about race, it was but [sic] about this.” Response strategy: Ask about whether the person demands such a high standard of proof for all issues or just racism and why. [i.e. it's always racism, and arbitrarily accuse the person of bad faith]
Statement: “__ is reverse racism.” Response strategy: Acknowledge that many White people are experiencing challenges and disadvantages but these are due to manipulation, abuse and neglect by the wealthy, not “racism” against White people. [i.e. racism against white people is actually antiracism, and also blame it on the rich]
The article is actually stupider than my paraphrase.
This is not an argument, it’s just whining.
Back in the days when Burkean conservatism was in better odor, there was a notion that independent civic organizations were useful counter-weights to government. That was counted a conservative view. Of course, private schools and universities fit easily in that scheme. Public schools and universities have also fit there, but uneasily.
I like the idea, which I do not see much expressed, that public schools and universities would best serve their functions if given latitude to match the organizational and customary methods used with success by their private counterparts. But what do we see now?
We see political advocacy based on insistence that private education is not only far from successful, but actually pernicious—and thus a terrible model for public education. In accord with that, Florida's DeSantis indulges an impulse—to call it a plan or a program would over-dignify it—to abolish any possibility that public education could serve as a Burkean-style counterweight to government. I get that movement conservatives tend also to be anti-Burkeans, but I still think that is unwise.
Just some random thoughts.
There are too many fuckin PhDs with degrees in subjects that there are no job openings for, maybe the First Lady being a prime example. Going a little farther there are too many jobs for these shit eating PhD degrees like the First Lady has that are basically do nothing jobs. Back when I was in school there was no such thing as a PhD who was running the rec center/gym; hell there was not even a rec center. Same goes for a shit load of stuff like diversity bull shit and majors in anger studies. Talk about rent seekers the university system is full of them.
To some extent the same thing goes for high school. While I took a college prep course load there was also a trades course load but there were no advisors or diversity peeps. Even in the college prep direction there were no bullshit courses, it was all math, English, and science stuff. Again we see rent seekers multiplying in high school employment. I would also point out that there was no bullshit about discipline when I was in high school; if you disrupted things you were expelled and went to what was reform school (basically jail for high school students)
Point is tax payers were willing to foot the bill for primary and higher education back in the day but as the rent seekers started to gain more power tax payers were less willing to pay for what they considered bull shit. It should come as no shock to anyone that tax payers/voters are voting for pols who are promising to reduce the number of rent seekers in education.
The First Lady has an EdD, not a PhD.
Way to stay on topic. EdE is even more of a rent seeking degree than a PhD, do you agree?
Better than being a partisan hack that isn’t capable of independent thought Queenie. The fact that it so bothers a mindless zealot like you makes me happy.
The point is saying 'both sides are bad; my enlightened path is to condemn all and choose nothing' is in fact as thoughtlessly zealous as any right winger or leftist.
Your thesis that all indoctrination is bad fails to understand some pretty important fundamentals of how teaching works.
'Better than being a partisan hack'
Not the way you do it. You rant and rave and lash out more than the average partisan hack commenter here.
Well I'm listing Adler as an anecdote, not an arbiter of justice and light.
Toe, damn it. Why would you tow the line?
My son was “taught” that Ronald “49 of 50 states” Reagan was terrible for the nation.
No, he was terrible for unionized government employees, whose bosses bought peace with improvident promises of other peoples’ money.
Yay, you won this! And we, all of us, suffer the inevitable and predictable mathematical consequences.
Teachers have no business “teaching” this as fact outside of democratic control.
"Many conservatives really have no idea what a “profession” is."
The left thinks a profession is where you get paid and you get to do whatever you want? How unsurprising.
Look, I'm a professional engineer. I'm actually paid to exercise my judgment about the best way to accomplish tasks my employer gives me. Which tasks they are, my employer dictates. If my employer doesn't like the result of my judgment, I look for another approach, because I do understand there aren't just engineering considerations at play.
I have thankfully never been confronted with a situation where my professional judgment and my employer's demands seriously conflicted, because I work in industry, and that things actually work is terribly important. People can die if the stuff we manufacture malfunctions at the wrong time, and it WOULD be traced back to us. We have to do things so that the malfunctions are in the once per BILLION range, and confirmed to be so by rigorous statistical analysis. One part fails, a car catches fire, and you might not see it, but behind the scenes people are in a panic, determined to pin the blame and see to it that that failure mode is foreclosed.
Now, things aren't remotely the same in every industry, especially the industries dealing with people rather than steel. As Kipling put it,
"The prudent text-books give it
In tables at the end
'The stress that shears a rivet
Or makes a tie-bar bend—
'What traffic wrecks macadam—
What concrete should endure—
but we, poor Sons of Adam
Have no such literature,
To warn us or make sure! "
And so industries that deal in people, not steel, get cut a lot of slack, on account of having to deal with people, who vary a lot, and where failure may be unavoidable, rather than "Not an option!"
If little Johnny ends up not being able to do trig, hey, maybe the teacher did the best she could, and Johnny is just a bit dull, or didn't put in the work on his end. So the teacher doesn't get fired if some percentage of her students end up innumerate or illiterate.
That gets confused with the privilege of doing something other than trying to make sure Johnny doesn't end up illiterate. It permits them to hand wave away the results of pursuing educational fads instead of using tested methods with reliable results. Of blowing off doing their best to get results, and pushing ideology instead.
But while teachers get really pissy if you insist on measuring THEIR success, the end customer cares about it, and what you're seeing is that the end customer is getting utterly fed up with teachers confusing "We cut you some slack because after all Johnny might genuinely be a bit slow." with "Being paid to do what you want instead of focusing like a laser on Johnny ending up literate."
You might tow the line if you wanted to move the barge it was attached to.
You are correct, of course. Toe the line, as in flip it up like someone on TikTok seeking peeps amd mebbe go viral, may be actual, but towing as in pulling on same rope on a ship, does also make sense.
Your son had a bad teacher. Time for the state to step in with broad policies - that always works!
Reagan did suck tho.
Which is just as bad as teaching that Reagan was the greatest President ever and if only the country would return to Reaganist principles all would wonderful, etc.
Think about what you are objecting to. Is it criticism of Reagan, or the introduction of the teacher's personal political views? And if the latter, which is fine to object to, you should also object to the introduction of DeSantis' personal political views.
In fact you should fear DeSantis more, because he is trying to control an entire state, not one classroom.
Yes. That's what makes it a profession and not just a job.
Measuring teachers' success is hard because people are different, and learning outcomes are effected by many things beyond teaching.
Your idea of what a teacher does being purely mechanical is overly narrow. And your idea that the state is the appropriate level for management just because it can be so is also wrong.
Most importantly your and many others have a sense of rampant wokeness in schools. *This is not supported*. I'd say these policies are a solution in search of a problem, but it's not even a solution, it's just creating an enemy and attacking them for voter gains. That's destructive.
Bellmore, cool. What did Kipling have to say about 3D printing tie-bars out of sintered metal?
What does any of that have to do with whether it's a good idea for the legislature to design Western Civ courses?
"Measuring teachers’ success is hard because people are different, and learning outcomes are effected by many things beyond teaching."
That's... what I said, isn't it? My point was that this is being confused with teachers being entitled to pursue something other than the educational outcomes.
"*This is not supported*"
Bullshit. We've literally confronted you with literature directly off school system websites, and you've blown it off.
You do realize, I hope, that that's a subjective evaluation that was rejected by a large majority of the population, right?
Just checking. Personally, I've got a lot of views that are outliers from the general population, I consider it an important matter of intellectual hygiene to be aware of that, and not confuse my own views with public consensus.
Yes, Brett. I said that was bad teaching, and also noted that I personally agreed with the teacher’s general views on Reagan.
So you are checking on something I explicitly said.
I mean, you head-nodded to it, but then back-slid:
'But while teachers get really pissy if you insist on measuring THEIR success, the end customer cares about it, and what you’re seeing is that the end customer is getting utterly fed up with teachers confusing “We cut you some slack because after all Johnny might genuinely be a bit slow.” with “Being paid to do what you want instead of focusing like a laser on Johnny ending up literate.”'
That's not backsliding, that's my freaking point: Your observables being noisy isn't the same thing as not HAVING observables.
Teachers are hired to do a job, and the employer is entitled to have them be doing that job, and not what they think they should be doing instead of it.
You've confused slack with not being on a leash, and are moaning because the guy holding the leash is tugging on it.
No excluding the middle. I'm not saying teachers get infinite discretion, so quit saying I am.
You're advocating for micromanagement from the top. Not just as within authority, but as good policy.
Beyond the bullshit own the libs purpose here, as a professional, you should know better on a purely procedural level.
We're not talking about micromanagement here, Sarcastr0. Though I think the teaching profession could use some of that, witnessing what my son's math teacher is doing.
This is just "management".
This bill is micromanaging teaching from the top.
Do you even understand the difference between "managing" and "micromanaging"? This is just "managing"; General directives to be followed.
"Micromanaging" would be detailed instructions on how to do everything, not, "Stop doing this short list of specific things!"
Brett
Cutting the rhetoric on this conversation
One side wants rigorous objective standards as a basis for determining the quality of the instruction
The other side is wanting subjective standards
No, actually, Brett.
The right is really loud, but what they actually have is nutpicking and mixing up teachers' trainings with actual lesson plans.
Pointing out the right wing dumbeat of bullshit on this may make you unhappy, but it is engaging with the content and not blowing anything off.
I had to look up "nutpicking".
No, I'm not doing that. The point is that the nuts exist, and we're entitled to get rid of them before they stop being outliers and become the rule.
Your slippery slope argument is unsupported.
Making policy based on outliers is bad policymaking.
"Making policy based on outliers is bad policymaking."
That is incredibly stupid. Outliers can do a lot of damage. An awful lot of policy IS based on outliers. In fact, often policy based on outliers is WHY the outliers are outliers, not the rule!
For instance, you can generally assume that most accountants are honest, embezzlers are outliers. So, why the hell do we do audits? That's policy based on outliers! Audits bad!
But if we never audited, if we treated auditing as an offense against the sanctity of the accounting profession, would embezzlement STAY rare? Want to bet on it?
Parents don't want to hear that "That teacher who's telling your elementary student about her love of anal sex is an outlier, so we're not going to do anything about it." They don't want to hear that "Only a few teachers are blowing off teaching algebra so that they can indoctrinate their students about [fill in the blank], so we're going to let it continue to go on."
They want it stopped, and they're right to want it stopped.
Neither of those things is happening.
What, never, ever, in a country of over 330 million people? Don't be an idiot here. Of course it happens.
What, never, ever, in a country of over 330 million people?
This is below you, Brett.
This isn't fucking debate club.
Don't be such a liebaby, Brett. This never happens:
In your very example, the teacher was fired and lost their license.
Dumb shit by teachers already isn't tolerated. The existing management structures are working fine. DeSantis is violating free speech and enacting authoritarianism for fun and profit. And you all supposed freedom-lovers are creaming your pants. It's scary sad.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/11/ron-desantis-woke-act-blocked
He'd probably have said that tensile strength would suffer if you didn't do the sintering under isostatic compression in order to close all the voids and achieve 100% density.