The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Higher Education "Reform" in Florida
Some of the proposals pose real threats to free inquiry
At the end of January, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis held a press conference to announce a package of higher education reforms. I noted at the time that the details would matter, but that there was cause for concern.
We now have some details in the form of House Bill 999. If anything, the current bill is worse than the bullet points the governor outlined a few weeks ago. The text of HB 999 can be found here. Hopefully the bill will be improved before its seemingly inevitable final passage.
Some of the highlights:
- A prohibition on academic majors or minors in critical race theory, gender studies, or derivatives of "these belief systems." This is an extremely unusual legislative intervention into the academic affairs of state universities, and the current language attempts to avoid evasion by including a ridiculously vague catch-all. Can the University of Florida continue to offer a major in "African-American Studies?" Who knows.
- Florida already has a post-tenure review system for faculty. The bill would allow reviews to be immediately triggered "for cause," which could put problematic faculty on a path to being terminated after a year. The current process puts a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the provost to declare the performance of tenured professors unsatisfactory and get rid of them. Politically inconvenient faculty may find tenure protections to be less than advertised in Florida.
- Specifies that the board of trustees has sole responsibility for hiring faculty, though university presidents "may provide hiring recommendations." Current faculty need not be consulted.
- In addition, section 1001.725(1)(a) directs that
The board of trustees may delegate its hiring authority to the president; however, the president may not delegate such hiring authority and the board must approve or deny any selection by the president.
Say what now? The president has to personally read all the application files for even adjunct positions and make the hire for every vacancy in the university? Good luck with that.
- Prohibits diversity statements in faculty hiring and promotion, but the language used here is an absolute mess. The legislature should revise this section and borrow the model language outlined by FIRE.
- And then we have this:
Each state university board of trustees may, at the request of its chair, review any faculty member's tenure status.
The board can unilaterally revoke tenure? So tenure in Florida might protect you from an unhappy department chair, but it won't protect you from the university leadership (through post-tenure reviews) or the trustees (through this provision). Don't rock the boat in the Sunshine State.
- A ban on "any programs or campus activities" that "espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric." Courts are going to love that language. This also would seem to go well beyond activities initiated and run by the DEI bureaucracy and cut into scholarly activities by faculty and academic affairs. Not good from an academic freedom perspective, and quite likely to run into First Amendment concerns.
- A ban on general education core courses that "suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics" or "defines American history as contrary" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. This has already been framed by critics as a legislative ban on teaching race, etc. It clearly is not, but it is another word salad that courts will not appreciate. To the extent that it bans certain perspectives in university teaching, it will run into the same constitutional problems as the Stop Woke Act.
- A legislative mandate that every student take a class that "promote[s] the values necessary to preserve the constitutional republic through traditional, historically accurate, and high-quality coursework." The effort to control the perspectives being taught in university teaching likewise runs into academic freedom concerns, but it is not so obvious to me that this will suffer the same fate as the Stop Woke Act. Florida might well prevail in arguing that this specific course is government speech and instructors will be employed solely to be the mouthpiece of the government. Highly unusual in a state university environment, but I have argued elsewhere that this is a constitutionally possible option.
- The same provision also specifies that courses with "unproven, theoretical, or exploratory content are best suited to fulfill elective or specific program" requirements and should not be general education courses. This is just weird and probably unworkable.
That's a lot of "reform." Hard to imagine that this kind of micromanagement of how universities operate will be very workable in practice, even if it were a good idea. It is not quite as terrible as some critics are already claiming, but it poses a serious threat to tenure protections and faculty hiring. There will also be some substantial constitutional challenges to several provisions of this bill if it gets adopted in anything like its current form. In the name of prohibiting political litmus tests for faculty, the reform will wind up imposing political litmus tests for faculty.
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
"Each state university board of trustees may, at the request of its chair, review any faculty member's tenure status."
What does "review" mean? Would the review process still be limited to termination for cause?
“What goes around comes around,” each side is warned every few years before flipping power. This will have consequences, and is itself in consequence to something that may be summed up as the cancel left will suddenly re-discover the importance of freedom of inquiry and tenure as prophylactic against firing for unpopular positions.
The right was warning the Tenured Radicals about that for decades -- but they presumed that they would always be in power and hence would never have to worry about that possibility.
You are starting to see the same thing in the US House of Representatives -- Team Pelosi thought they would always be in power and never have to worry about the evil Republicans playing by the same rules. Well, that's changing and they don't like it.
Yeah, they've been warning them that they don't like their politics therefore they're going to destroy them. Academic freedom!
'Well, that’s changing and they don’t like it.'
You mean Republicans are doing what they've always done - really horrible and stupid shit, while blaming everyone but themselves for their own actions.
Yeah right. A response to all those conservative professors who were fired or suppressed in Florida state universities by the Democratic state government in Florida. Seriously, are you smoking crack?
Love the gutting of Marxism. States can and should root out that evil in all its forms. I also love the Tenure Reform.
Tenure shouldn't protect you if you're teaching anti-White hatred.
See, this is why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about academic bunfights which supposedly threatened the very concepts of freedom of speech and academic freedom never touched on the obvious solution – better employee protections. They want to gut academia and fire everyone they don’t like and replace them with politically appointed half-baked propagandists.
No, we want to fire *your* politically appointed half-baked propagandists and replace them with *our* politically appointed half-baked propagandists. Just like Andrew Jackson did.
They're not politically appointed. They're qualified academics. That's why you hate them. They have actual qualifications, not political patronage, your preferred form of advancement.
BULLSHYTE -- I have the same qualifications they do.
I earned them to give me the ability to say that.
The self-described "Tenured Radicals" of 40-50 years ago might have been qualified, but we are now into the second generation of those whom they hired on the basis of politics. And "politically appointed" doesn't inherently mean by politicians.
Most of them are not only intellectually corrupt but also STUPID -- and I have the letters after my name to qualify me to judge.
You are not an academic.
You write at a fifth grade level.
You are a bitter old man.
Oh, and you are an ostracized loon.
Hey (man!) our POTUS is a non-academic, 5th(charitably) Bitter Old Man, and becoming an Ostracized (he's already a Loon) Loon. STFU or he'll give hundreds of billions to your biggest enemy!!!!!!
You're a janitor at a college, who likes to make up anecdotes based on what some guy once told you, while masturbating to thoughts of a civil war in the U.S.
What is your sexual fixation with janitors?
And what difference would it make if I were one (I'm not) -- if I have the same credentials as them, I have the legitimate ability to evaluate theirs on the peer level.
Politically appointed does, in fact, mean appointed by politicians. You either approve of that sort of thing or you don’t. Clearly you do.
No it does not. It means appointed by reference to political criteria.
This can be done by bureaucrats just as well as by politicians, and politicians can make appointments without reference to political criteria.
In practice, we currently have political appointment by educational bureaucrats - the whole idea of requiring DEI statements by applicants is political by definition.
'In practice,'
So you guys keep whining, allegedly.
'the whole idea of requiring DEI statements by applicants is political by definition.'
It's not polticial for an organisation to have an ethos and a code of practice, it's not political to foster diversity, unless you're a Republican and opposed to it.
It's not necessarily political to have such, but it certainly CAN be political, if the details of that ethos and code of conduct are political in nature.
And fostering an ethos of diversity is ipso facto political. Diversity is a political goal.
I love Nige’s notion that whether a goal can be categorised as political or not depends on whether you support it or not !
"Love the gutting of Marxism."
So long as you know what the term means. There are two problems that frequently arise with the use of the term "Marxism." First, it fails to distinguish a Marxist political philosophy, one that advocates a particular form of political economy, and Marxist social theory, an interpretive framework that has been highly productive in understanding social issues. Second, it fails to understand that the two theoretical perspectives in social theory are materialism and idealism (Weber's effort to find a synthesis was compelling, but it's still a synthesis of the two perspectives, not a third...). Materialist interpretations can be very powerful, and it is simply naive to label them all "Marxist" because Marx understood the role of materialist forces in history.
So, "gutting Marxism" could mean that no one can promote a Stalin/Lenin political form -- which is vanishingly rare in universities anyway -- or it could mean that no one is allowed to suggest that the U.S. interest in Middle East peace is driven by a concern with oil production and supply. It would not even allow a political scientist to discuss whether people vote with their material interests in mind. Do you really want that?
‘There are two problems that frequently arise with the use of the term “Marxism.”’
There’s no problem here – it’s a straight up lie, just like all those children's books getting banned from libraries are gay pronography. Big ludicrous obvious lies nobody could possibly be expected to believe.
Some of these books contain graphic descriptions or pictures of little boys sucking dicks.
That may be just a Monday morning to you, but to us Normals that's gay porn.
Worse than just gay porn. Far worse.
don't knock it till you've watched it. The Lesbo (is that "Gay"?) porn is pretty good.
NOT WITH CHILDREN!!!!!
So stop watching it
Paging the FBI, paging the FBI….
🙂
No, they do not. You massive hateful liar.
I love how the people who can’t define “woman” and demand we call anything and everything a "woman" no matter how absurd, are somehow experts at defining “Marxism”.
an interpretive framework that has been highly productive in understanding social issues.
Is that assertion really part of your universe of beliefs? I’m not really sure how to respond to someone who genuinely believes that the Original Sin of Whiteness as in CRT or the fifty genders of 4th wave feminism are contributing anything positive to society.
“Gutting Marxism” means attacking all the corrosive absurd nonsense started in the Frankfurt School and has become a hate-filled mind virus that is spreading and has to be stopped. It’s a virus that believes in imaginary oppressors, perpetuates divisiveness, and falsely claims to fight oppression.
"It’s a virus that believes in imaginary oppressors, perpetuates divisiveness, and falsely claims to fight oppression."
OK. You've defined cultural conservatism quite succinctly. When will you get to your interpretation of Marxism?
Goodness! What a pile of non sequiturs! I wrote nothing about defining "woman" and yet I am guilty of not being able to define it? As for "Marxism", I have been teaching Marx in social theory graduate courses for about 40 years -- I've recently retired -- and I think I have a fairly good sense of how that label has been misused by amateurs. And your apparent inability to read and understand my comment doesn't offer much hope for a rational exchange.
"someone who genuinely believes that the Original Sin of Whiteness as in CRT or the fifty genders of 4th wave feminism are contributing anything positive to society."
Again, I have no idea where you get such a bizarre assumption about me. Apart from your falling for Rufo's lies about CRT, I am unaware of anyone proposing that there are 50 genders, so your hyperbole does little to enhance your credibility here.
These people are a kind of disease, you see? You see where this is going, right?
You really needn’t have wasted your time attempting to explain any of that. This is not a forum of people who give a shit about, and in many cases entirely incapable of understanding, such distinctions.
Come on, we're 5 years out from mandatory Desantis photos on every elementary school wall.
Dude's too short to be president, both in actual size and in attitude. So we'll get the Orban of Florida, any educator with an option will flee the state, and the Carnie State can continue to specialize in Meth Studies. (Nothing theoretical there!)
Go into any office of the executive branch of any state and you'll see a picture of that state's governor.
I remember the framed portrait of George Washington....
Who not only (didn't) have wooden teeth but (did) own Slaves (none with wooden teeth) was featured on the Seal of the Confederate States of Amurica, obviously a Race-ist! Cancel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Washington was a Virginian and identified as such, so this surprises you?
Probably not as much as your wife fucking your lawn guys surprises you.
Seriously "Dr" Ed 2, I'm a working class Stiff, went to Intergrated Pubic Screwels with Spicks (actually not many Spicks in the 70's) and Niggers, only White Boy (that's the most printable of what they called me) on my 7th grade Hoops team, been shot at in Wah (Yes, "Desert Storm" qualifies as a "Wah") and can Moonwalk like Michael Jackson, Freestyle like Biggie, and Smoke Doobies like Snoop Dogg,
You're punching way too far up,
Frank
You are ignorant of Ante-Bellum loyalty though.
The “my country, right or wrong” of today was “my *state*, right or wrong” back then. Lee is a really is a really good example of this.
And I do my own lawn work -- I need the exercise.
Lee?? you mean of the Robert E. Persuasian (down hear we call him "Bobby") I farm mine out, (gotta big yard, pool, all the accruements, and these wetbacks, I mean "Migrants" do such good work, (and my wife seems really happy whenever "Manuelo" shows up to do the pool, he's always talking about checking out the "Deep End")
Robert E Lee did not have a pool, and if you were ever in the military, you'd know that because you'd know where his house is located.
No. You're just trying to justify Lee's treason by pretending it was natural. Many did not betray their country. That Lee chose to, in defense of slavery, just proves that he had no honor, not that there was some "my state" philosophy.
What’s your take on Washington’s treason ?
Actually if Desanto wins in 0'-24 his picture will go up in government offices January 2025, or just under 2 years from now.
Not sure how many "Educators" will leave the state, only other No-Income-Tax States are Texas, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Nevada,
Oh, and Alaska, not like they're gonna find a liberal paradise in Kileen Texas,
Frank
How many Volokh Conspirators would survive without tenure?
Who would be the first standing on the street, holding a box of diplomas, mugs, and pictures of Scalia?
How many would land anywhere other than Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, Notre Dame, Brigham Young, orSouth Texas?
Bring it on, clingers.
"How many Volokh Conspirators would survive without tenure?"
Probably most of them.
"How many would land anywhere other than Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, Notre Dame, Brigham Young, orSouth Texas?"
Ever hear of Tapping Reeve Law School?
It was once the most prestigious in the country -- and no longer exists.
Ever hear of the Penn Central Railroad????
What inclines that opinion? At a good law firm, it often takes far less than a public apology from firm leadership for a lawyer's conduct (or misconduct) to incline expansion of employment horizons. The readers of this blog tend to overestimate substantially the degree to which hard-right law professors are respected (or desired as colleagues) beyond the Federalist-Republican-Heritage-Olin0-ACU-Family clingerverse.
Kirkland -- Penn Central RR....
How could the Penn Central railroad be relevant to the issue of whether any strong, mainstream would want to hire (or continue to employ, in a world without tenure) any Volokh Conspirator these days?
I would expect several schools to act relatively quickly -- within months, perhaps days -- with respect to some of the most prominent Conspirators. Those schools would tend to be the stronger schools.
Just to be picky, review means review.
And includes accreditation review.
But who Accredits the Accreditors????
Betsy DeVos attempted to address that issue...
Hopefully the bill will be improved before its seemingly inevitable final passage.
Improved???
The only way to improve this bill is to kill it.
It ought to have anyone who cares one whit about freedom of expression or academic freedom up in arms.
A ban on "any programs or campus activities" that "espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric."
This presumably includes activities organized by student groups. Cancel culture, anyone?
A ban on general education core courses that "suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics" or "defines American history as contrary" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Fucking joke.
Frankly, this bill deserves hearty condemnation, not the gentle constitutional analysis Whittington provides.
If the bill is going to pass without major changes, what minor changes would you try to make during the legislative process? That is the question that drove the post.
The obvious problem with the bill is a poor definitions. However, some of what Whittington is pretending is vague isn't nearly as much so as he presents, and bernard is doubling down on that.
For example, the universities would be prohibited from funding
Does that really sound so bad? A bit vague, but not nearly as much as presented. And no worse than pre-existing requirements for classes to support teaching 'underrepresented' viewpoints.
No, what you cited does not sound so bad. I agree with it. The over-wrought reactions I am reading are amusing.
Oh well then, all the rest of the bill that he doesn't cite must be fine.
The section I cited is the part that defines the things that Whittington is suggesting are dangerously and vaguely restricted.
My post is making the point that while some of the definitions are vaguer than they should be, they are not nearly as vague and open to abuse as this article suggests.
Do you have any particular complaints about the bill?
My response was to XY's comment. But beside the ridiculous vagueness of much of the bill, my complaint is about the whole exercise. I don't really know enough about the subject of tenure and hiring to have an opinion about that section. But state government shouldn't be attempting to micromanage what is taught in Universities. I acknowledge that they have the authority to do it, but it is a terrible idea, and doesn't promote educational quality. I would ardently oppose any politician of any political party who tries to do it. I can't see how one could support free speech and also these types of bills, even if the speech under discussion is partially or wholly funded by the public treasury.
It's a bill. It hasn't been amended, or voted on.
There is much hand-wringing about it
When is hand-wringing appropriate? Only after it becomes law? I wouldn't want to be guilty of poorly timed hand-wringing.
XY,
Did you actually read the rest?
bernard11, what part of – No, what you cited does not sound so bad. I agree with it. – is not clear. Pretty common sense.
Bottom Line: It is a bill. It will be amended. However…State money, state strings attached.
Do you live in FL, bernard11? If not, you're safe. 😉
XY,
Well, I was just wondering what you thought of the other provisions>
Am I safe? Sort of, and I would be even if I lived in FL, since I'm retired and have no particular connection with any university.
But not entirely.
First, I like the idea of having a strong university system in the country. It's a national strength. So, as a patriotic citizen I don't want politicians fucking around with it to play to their base, and show how much they hate "elites."
Second, there is some chance DeSantis will be President, and I would be absolutely disgusted, as anyone with integrity should be, at the thought of these policies being implemented nationwide.
Making ignorance a national policy is not a good idea.
I would LOVE for DeSantis to be Secretary of Education -- Betsy DeVos was good, but she was too polite.
I would love to see this stuff done nationally because I know how morally bankrupt our universities actually are.
bernard,
My impression is that such bill are a reaction against policies and federal mandates that have introduced new compliance requirements and thereby new administrative infrastructures on campus. Consequently overheads keep rising, the ratio admins to faculty and admins to students keeps rising, and focus on academic substance must necessarily fall (that because the new federal mandates are unfunded.
When the marked up bill comes out of committee and is presented for a vote, I'll tune in. Until then, the overwrought reactions I am reading here are pretty amusing. Really, the reactions are just....over the top.
bernard11....just chill. It will be ok. FL was doing Ok before DeSantis, and FL will do Ok when he leaves, and the next guy/gal takes over.
When a very bad bill shows up, with governor's push, you don't just wait till it gets to the floor to point out it sucks.
You can tell people to calm down and no point at the awful crap being proposed, but I'm not sure why you would.
Reacting to what's there now might have some effect on what ends up going for the vote, you know that, right?
That's well thought out and well considered.
The Chicken Littles be damned
A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
You may disagree with affirmative action, but this can be read as outlawing speech defending it. That's a tell.
Anyone could pretend it means anything.
Well, then I suppose we should just have faith that the governor will be cool about it, eh?
Florida conceded that this concept means affirmative action. See p. 91: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/motion-preliminary-injunction-hearing-transcript.
Affirmative action is bad, and soon to be illegal in government institutions.
It does seem that it would prevent the University from using public funding to advocate for affirmative action, yeah.
You seem to think that's a bad thing. Do you also disagree with the 20+ year old section 7, which bans the University from using public funding to advocate for antisemitism or BDS?
Is that what the bill does, "Prevent the University from using public funds...?" Or is it "A ban on any programs or campus activities that espouse...?" That's a pretty big difference.
The section being modified by that phrase is part of "1004.06 Prohibited expenditures." and follows:
As far as I can tell, it does not in any way prevent such views from being aired on a campus, by faculty, students, or guests. It just prevents the University from funding it.
The bad definition part is about University recognized student organizations. Does a student org that gets funding have to abide by the same restriction? It's not obviously direct support, but would it count as "providing services" to allow campus facilities to be used? What about advertising over campus phones/networks/notice boards/etc?
Okay, thanks for that. Interesting.
You OK with saying no one can advocate for being pro life on campus?
"You OK with saying no one can advocate for being pro life on campus?"
That's not what the bill says. It says, "It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts..."
Which is fine. Students shouldn't be taught to be pro-life, they should be taught both sides of the issue.
Indeed.
Moreover the bill just bans the use of public funding. Individuals can freely advocate using their own funds on campus if they wish.
the bill just bans the use of public funding.
This is false. It establishes,
A ban on "any programs or campus activities" that "espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric."
This is straight-out censorship.
You might try reading the bill itself rather than inflammatory paraphrases. Here's the actual language:
Oh, and for completeness:
Yep. Thanks.
"any programs or campus activities"
Because campus activities don't involve the expenditure of public funds. Electricity is free, heat is free, water is free, and the snow just disappears from the sidewalks on its own.
There are both fixed and incremental costs for the use of a building or room in a building. And "programs" usually means credits awarded.
Part of the definition includes the goal of such speech being the expectation that people believe it to be true.
I can teach ABOUT Nazis. I can not teach my students to BE Nazis.
That is the distinction people seem to be missing.
If you want to argue there may be logistical issues regarding how that is enforced I would likely agree.
Buy to argue against the intent of the bill by omitting a critical aspect of it and creating a false strawman of its purpose... yeah, not on board for that.
A good a nuanced point on the scope.
But I actually think it ends up coming out worse for the language. It is more specific about what CRT is, indeed, but if you can tell me what the boundaries of: 'subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels' are, you're better at statutory interpretation than I am!
I think the usual approach is to consider a concrete case, and then determine whether it falls within the words. So feel free to offer a hypothetical case that you are worried might fall within the words and we can see, using standard interpretation technique.
They are not missing that detail, they are explicitly omitting it to sell lies.
It is not illegal to outlaw speech on the public dime.
That’s not quite true. And to the extent it is, no one here is arguing about illegality, so you are defending a strawman. And an old strawman - most defenders if this awful crap moved on from that strawman a couple of weeks ago.
I don't see your reading in the text. No speech is being outlawed. Discrimination against individual is.
Don, *none* of this is about discrimination, it is all about speech. Read the first section of the text: "subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels..."
Calling that discrimination doesn't mean it is. That's all speech.
From which I deduce that you think that speech and discrimination are mutually exclusive concepts. In sarcastroworld it is literally impossible for a teacher to discriminate if all he does is talk.
Subjecting a student is not about speech. it is about compelling another individual.
Your argument is not convincing counselor
As we've seen, all you have to do is tell big obvious ludicrous lies about what is isn't covered by these - cf. 'scholarship as Marxism,' 'children's books as gay pornography,' 'CRT,' 'wokism,' and so long as you have the political power you can do what you want.
Eeekk!!!!!!! Facts!!!!!!!!!
Prepare to have the entire Shitstorm of Woke-ism fall all over your "Haid" (new required "Woke" pronunciation of "Head", I mean, "Watchew Bee Speekin' all White Foe'????!!!!!"
Frank "Dees bee sum Bool Sheeeetttttttttt"
You're not reading this carefully enough.
This list treats as "discrimination" any training that incorporates concepts like implicit bias, systemic racism, and white supremacist patriarchy. These things exist and merit talking about.
That these things exist is not disputed by most people (save maybe "systemic" versions of these things).
Teaching that a) they exist AND b) you MUST view them in this way is not the same as just (a).
Sorry, what’s white supremacist patriarchy and where is it to be found ?
Your piss-stained BarcaLounger is one place it can be found. There’s probably other places too.
If it’s something to do with piss and BarcaLoungers is it really something that college students need to be taught about ?
When they’re 2, or 80, maybe. But at 20 ?
Only 22% of Stanford's incoming class is "White".
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/stanfords-class-of-2026-doesnt-look-like-america/?utm_source=recirc-%5BSCREENSIZE%5D&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=first
That should be a crime.
Antennae go up when I see contextless percentages:
American Indian or Alaska Native 1%
Asian 29%
Black or African American 7%
Hispanic or Latino 17%
International 13%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander <1%
White 22%
Two or more races 10%
Unknown <1%
Declare war on Asians, I guess?
So, non-Hispanic whites make up 59.3% of the US population.
Yet only 22% of Stanford's incoming class is white?
Whites are under-represented by 63%? That's pretty impressive for supposed "implicit bias" and "systemic racism" by whites.
No other ethnic group is under-represented by close to that margin.
You argument might have even a little bite if anyone was talking about racial quotas.
No one is, so you're gumming at a strawman.
I predict that beyond this one class in this one school, undergrads from elite institutions will be very white for decades to come. Do you disagree?
Also, Stanford draws largely from California, where Asians and Hispanics are going to have a higher proportion and whites a lower.
This is just a trash article by National Review. Just abuse of statistics in service of race baiting. I guess it worked - you're sharing it and I clicked on it.
They should do better, and you should know better.
Schools should really teach people minimal levels of critical thinking. No, not only 22% of Stanford's incoming class is white. That's wrong in small ways (it's actually the 2026 class - first year students, not the incoming class) and large (it excludes all multiracial, international, and Hispanic students from the white category, even though many will be white).
He referred to “White” as per the breakdown in the NR article. This clearly means “white” as defined and it is defined as excluding Hispanics . He then quoted a figure of 59.3% for non-Hispanic whites in the population as a whole. Thus excluding the Hispanic students from the NR percentages is the correct thing to do, minimal levels of critical thinking wise. His comparison is only wrong to the extent that there are students in other categories in the NR figures that would be included in the 59.3% categorised as non Hispanic whites. It’s not obvious who those might be. Obviously because of the 13 % international students who don’t figure in the US population, we should gross up the 22% by dividing by .87, giving us about 25% for the non Hispanic white score. That is still quite a way off 59.3%. And as AL suggests is hardly indicative of the power of the white supremacists.
Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
After you untangle the negatives, that demands social policy predicated on the notion that racism is a thing of the past, and without continuing effect. It proposes to outlaw teaching any opinion to the contrary.
I will agree that the language is mighty convoluted.
Whether one agrees with the policy or not, one should not lie about it. That's not what it "demands" at all. One can fully believe that racism is not a thing of the past and think that colorblindness is the appropriate response to that.
No lies at all, Nieporent.
Taking the whole thing in its own self-created context, it is loaded with color-consideration. It explicitly allows and encourages all kinds of color conscious decisions, so long as they agree with points of view right-wingers favor. But it prohibits color conscious decisions if they support activities or points of view right wingers disfavor.
I concede that to see that, you have read the whole thing together.
"Taking the whole thing in its own self-created context, it is loaded with color-consideration. It explicitly allows and encourages all kinds of color conscious decisions, so long as they agree with points of view right-wingers favor. But it prohibits color conscious decisions if they support activities or points of view right wingers disfavor.
I concede that to see that, you have read the whole thing together."
Stephen could you provide examples.
And my response is that there are no minor changes that would make it acceptable.
It's like quibbling over what kind of gun you are going to use to shoot someone.
I mean..you could be using this type of gun.
https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8061806/ped-o-jet-mass-inoculation-gun-inoculation-gun
The only way to improve this bill is to kill it.
The same was said of the Civil Rights Act -- an effort to do so is how we got Title IX. And one could have legitimately warned that there would be future consequences from greatly expanding Federal power via the commerce clause, and that has happened.
But to those dealing with the fire hoses, baseball bats, and police dogs, the answer would be "we don't care." And those of us crushed by the Ivory Gulag of today likewise don't care.
But look at who was most opposed to the Civil Rights Act then -- and who is most opposed to this now -- and think about that...
'crushed by the Ivory Gulag'
You snivelling snowflake.
Impeded, not crushed.
Thank you for pointing that out.
‘Muh genius was not appreciated.’
But look at who was most opposed to the Civil Rights Act then — and who is most opposed to this now — and think about that
It was the right that was most opposed, quite strenuously, to the CRA.
Regardless, do you have a point?
It was the Democrats opposed to the CRA.
It actually was those who had the most to loose who opposed it.
Same thing now. Do you honestly think that tweeledumb would be the press secretary if she wasn't (a) female, (b) lesbian, (c) Black, and (d) an immigrant? What do you honestly think would happen were those four things to cease to matter?
Yes, when the Democrats were on the right.
The Democrats were opposed to treating people back then, they're opposed to treating people equally right now.
Same people, same beliefs, different marketing.
Yeah, the guys who believed black people should be enslaved or subject to Jim Crow now believe they should be enouraged to go to college. Identical.
No, it isn't. You know nothing and don't know you know nothing.
You have heard a common story that sex was inserted into the CRA as a poison pill — which is not true — and then completely confused it with an entirely different law. Title IX is part of the Education bill passed a decade later.
"The only way to improve this bill is to kill it,"
That’s the easiest answer for Florida's elected representatives to ignore.
I doubt the FL legislature is much interested in my opinion.
You’re not interested in their concerns, they’re not interested in yours.
Eugene's absolute silence on the developments in Florida - even while he comments on academic freedom and free speech issues in other parts of the country - is conspicuous and striking. I have no idea why he is not writing about this, or the proposed law expanding defamation liability.
Maybe it’s because there are no actual victims of the "developments" in Florida.
I know why he is not writing about this.
Hypocrisy.
Cowardice.
Partisanship.
Serving the clinger cause.
Flattering his bigoted, downscale fans.
Cancel culture, anyone?
No. Cancel culture would be expelling anybody who organized such an activity, not banning the activities.
Get a grip, dude.
Same thing, isn't it?
I mean, if someone organizes such an activity they've broken the law and thus are quite likely to get expelled, or worse.
Perhaps Prof. Volokh could address this, after he participated in a Federalist Society panel discussion that featured one clinger, a professor named Lerner or something similar, whining that 'most people don't understand what conservative students are going through in law schools today' and that 'conservative views are dismissed and ridiculed among their peers.'
She continued along that line -- this was an actual fucking hour-long Federalist Society presentation devoted to whining about how strong, modern law schools are insufficiently hospitable to right-wing bigotry, old-timey superstition, and Republican backwardness these days -- by contending 'the problem is fellow students -- conservative students are isolated and "shunned" by other students.
Prof. Lerner (or something similar) proposed that law schools address the ostensible problem by adding courses to 'familiarize students with conservative thought."
I think I saw her shed a tiny tear as she recounted at length the living hell that is mainstream America for intolerant, obsolete right-wingers these days, and thought I saw Prof. Volokh nod a bit in agreement as she went on and on about how this is a genuine problem and our society must do something about it.
So maybe Prof. Volokh could address his fan's point about cancel culture . . . unless he is still weeping at the thought of how bad it is for conservative law students on better campuses these days.
take a class that "promote[s] the values necessary to preserve the constitutional republic through traditional, historically accurate, and high-quality coursework."
As defined by Ron DeSantis, I suppose.
Will there be mandatory campus-wide meetings every morning to praise DeSantis?
It's a good thing no one has ever thought to require civics courses before. Can you imagine what a fascist hellhole the US would be if civics courses had been a standard - required! - part of public education since the early 20th century?
The laws of several states explicitly require them in all public IHEs the state funds. I came across this in my doctoral research, but didn't keep records of it because it wasn't relevant to it.
First of all, Toranth, we are talking about universities here, not junior or senior high schools.
Second, there's a difference between a class on American government in general, which is what my civics class was all about, and promoting the "the values necessary to preserve the constitutional republic through traditional, historically accurate, and high-quality coursework," according to Ron DeSantis.
Read the Texas educational code sometime -- they even add "the benefits of capitalism" in their mandates.
Do you think university students are somehow more vulnerable to ideological programming than middle and high school students? That seems like a very odd concern to have.
Now, the "general education" courses section used to be very poorly defined. The law require Universities to have them, but had no definitions of what constituted one, nor their content, nor even how they would transfer credits between universities within the Florida school system. Most of the changes in this section have to do with that, rather than your preferred target.
And as for the description you chosen in the bill, here's the full sentence you're using part of:
"Traditional", "historically accurate", and "high-quality coursework" are useless terms here, it requires that the university system have at least one general-ed course that:
Hmm. Both from the initial description, and the later requirements, that sure sounds like a civics class! I'm sure all of those topics were covered in your civics class - I can't imagine a civics class that did nothing but describe the structure of the US government in general.
Now, if your complaint was that the bill does not do a good job of defining the terms used in the requirements for classes, I'd agree! I've said so repeatedly, in fact.
But you've declared that this is somehow evil. And I see no such signs that this is evil, or instituting a Cult of DeSantis, or any other thing that is upsetting your fevered imagination.
For anyone curious, here are the new requirements for general education courses:
That sounds typical pablum; similar requirements are used for pretty much all universities. While I think Universities should be teach specialized knowledge, and general ed should be a lower-level thing, this has been tradition at schools for generations.
Ummm -- once was.
You'd be shocked to see Gen Eds today....
Then share one.
https://www.umass.edu/gened/new-diversity-requirements
-Students will learn disciplinary or interdisciplinary theories and knowledge necessary to comprehend diverse social, cultural, and political perspectives.
-Students will develop the ability to understand, articulate, and critically analyze diverse social, cultural, and political perspectives.
-Students will demonstrate critical awareness of how individual perspectives and biases influence ways of seeing the world.
-Students will gain knowledge of structural and cultural forces that shape or have shaped discrimination based on factors such as race, ethnicity, language, religion, class, ability, nationality, sexuality, or gender.
-Students will demonstrate the capacity to listen to and communicate respectfully with others of diverse perspectives. Students will explore and address questions that reflect multiple perspectives to develop a complex understanding of the world.
You’re shocked at this?! It’s empathy and don’t be an asshole 101. Seems like you are writing checks in the comments your actual experience can't cash.
Empathy makes Baby Jesus cry.
As opposed to campus wide anti-racism indoctrination meetings every morning?
Extremism begets extremism. This sucks, but so does the shit that was/is being taught.
Got a solution? I don’t. We could quit supporting extremist assholes in our politics but none of the hard core people care to do that, preferring to encourage more of it instead?
Imaginary extremism begets extremism in this case.
Because “campus wide anti-racism indoctrination meetings every morning” does not happen anywhere.
My solution is you call bad things you see happening bad, and don't appeal to other things to do another tiresome bothsides doomsaying.
I get the impulse - I hear about liberals doing some caving to idiot students bullshit I want to point out how the right is banning books. But that's not useful.
Neither does “meetings every morning to praise DeSantis”. The fact that I was matching Bernard’s sarcastic humor blew right by you in your zeal to look for ways to argue.
I agree with calling out bullshit, but I don’t see you calling out the bullshit from the left. DEI is frequently “bad things happening” because they routinely don’t practice the D or the I, but you defend them like Crockett at the Alamo.
I don't think that has ever been his zeal.
bernard was making a sarcastic prediction.
You made a statement of current affairs, that might appear sarcastic except you then rely on it for your ‘extremism begets extremism’ statement. Which, by the way, is acting as a *defense of this law.* You don’t need to defend this law.
Don’t go off on your wrongheaded generalizations about what DEI is and does, and quit attacking the commenter not the comment – FOCUS.
No, I was pointing out that morning meetings to praise DeSantis were no more likely than morning indoctrinations. To acknowledge that his prediction was unlikely to occur (which I’m comfortable that he realizes).
And I said “this sucks”, referring to the proposed law, which somehow you’re interpreting to be a defense of the law. Because you don’t actually listen to what people say, you just contort their comments so you can argue against your contortions.
And all you do is attack commentators. My initial response to bernard contained no criticism of bernard at all. You’re the one who flew in with personal bullshit, because that’s your idiom.
If truth in labeling laws were applied to DEI groups, they would have to change their name to simply “E”. And the anti-racists are at least as bigoted and hateful as any group we’ve got going right now.
DeSantis is fucking over third level education because he hates the politics that comes out of it and it's being applauded by the sorts of commenters who go on about free speech and academic freedom and you're fucking wrangling about sarcastic asides.
'And the anti-racists are at least as bigoted and hateful as any group we’ve got going right now.'
Yeah, and like Dr Ed said, being crushed by the ivory gulag is the equivalent of the baseball bats and dogs unleashed on the civil rights protesters, and for some reason we're supposed to take this monumental stupidity seriously and at face value?
When it comes to right wing nonsense, you *never* just say 'this sucks' you *always* say 'This sucks, but.' What do you think is going on there?
I make plenty of arguments, and spend plenty of time engaging with comments. Sometimes that criticism relies on past comments to show either a pattern or inconsistency.
Kind of incredible that you see what I do as purely attacking commenters.
You continue to have a view of DEI not in some offices but *as a practice* that is broadly wrong, but which you really love to believe.
You bring up over and over again. And I'm going to tell you it's not true, just a story the right weaves out of confirmation bias. You'll get mad, but that's on you.
You’re full of shit as usual. You notice buts one way but not the other, because you’re the indoctrinated one here, not me.
The other day I defended Justice Jackson and said that we need more perspective from the criminal defense bar on the bench. Not a peep from you, because the only responses I get from you simply serve to defend your side’s bullshit.
DEI is an abomination that crushes diversity and practices more exclusion than inclusion. You can call me names from now until Christmas and you won’t change that.
'DEI is an abomination'
You're just getting more and more hysterical about it, it's so cartoonishly evil in your mind now you soon be thinking DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Putin are all heroically trying to save you from the woke agenda.
You want me to give you cookies for every time I agree with a comment of yours?!
I've told you about a DEI office that is doing good stuff, but you just refuse to believe it. It might interrupt this awesome hate-on you're really really into.
I don’t give a shit about your approval. But at least stop complaining that I’m a MAGA Nazi or whatever the fuck you think and that you’re constantly busting on me for.
I’m not the one note pony here. That’s you.
The other day I defended Justice Jackson and said that we need more perspective from the criminal defense bar on the bench. Not a peep from you, because the only responses I get from you simply serve to defend your side’s bullshit.
Looks like in order for me to be even-handed, I need to complement you when you post not bad takes?
It's interesting you accuse me of calling me something akin to "a MAGA Nazi," since I've never said anything of the sort.
'I’m not the one note pony here'
How many times have you posted a comment about defending Justice Jackson in the past few days?
My solution is to get government out of higher education altogether. You can be as extremist as you like, teach whatever "woke" crap you're into, just not on my dime.
Well, yes, that's the agenda, teaching extremist crap for a profit is the whole point of all this, and if your only concern about education is that it's taxpayer funded, you certainly don't acually give a shit about education, but that's what you said.
As opposed to campus wide anti-racism indoctrination meetings every morning?
Equally bad. So what?
My solution?
Obvious. Don't let politicians fuck around with university curricula. You'll notice, maybe, that it is only RW assholes who want to do this.
And don't give me a lot of crap about how the dreaded "Left" has infiltrated and taken over the schools and turned them into Marxist indoctrination centers. That's Bellmore level nonsense.
The whole "woke" business has been vastly overblown by the right to gain some sort of political advantage and have another culture war battle.
Yeah. There have been some abuses on the left, and some stupidity, but no liberal is advocating a wholesale political takeover of the universities.
Look. DeSantis is trying very hard to use state government to stifle all sorts of discussions and ideas. That's all there is to it. You can holler about "both sides" blah, blah, blah, all you want, and you can, laughably, blame it on the left (as though conservatives have no obligations or agency) but you can't ignore the plain facts.
Read this again:
A ban on "any programs or campus activities" that "espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion or Critical Race Theory rhetoric."
So if a student club invites someone to speak on CRT, or diversity, equity and inclusion, they are breaking the law?
If you can't see that as major censorship you're blind.
Bernard, I agree this is awful.
But to address your point, the reason the left isn’t clamoring for stuffin schools is that they’ve got control of the schools and are simply, for lack of a better way to phrase it, playing defense. Hell, on a different but related front the left is rewriting classic books. No innocents here.
Honestly, between the group that thinks that gender fluid 2nd graders are a wonderful thing and that whites should be flogged on the public square and the group that thinks that Jesus would frown on Catch-22 being taught in high school and that the 2000 yr-old planet thing should be taught in science it’s a wonder that we’re able to educate anyone.
We’ve gone and let the crazies take control. How do we reign them in?
Well, I don't agree that the left is doing anything like this. I'm wondering where you get your information.
I mean, I know there is a lot of stupid leftwing shit, as I said. And I know that Eugene loves to highlight it, and that in fact there is an entire RW propaganda industry that blows it all up too.
But I don't think the it's as widespread as many imagine. Even more important, I think the fact that this is being done by government is a significant difference. That is where you start to get real, legally enforced, systemic, censorship. It's a big step. And a bad one.
You know, I remember when people, including some on the right, used to say the way to respond to bad ideas is with good ones - that more speech was the solution. But that's not the approach being taken here. Instead it's a lot of banning of ideas DeSantis doesn't like. Well, fuck him.
Fundamentally, he and his supporters are opposed to free expression, and want only certain ideas, right or wrong, to be presented.
I’ve seen documented reports from all over of ridiculous harmful and hateful stuff being taught to children. Documented with copies of presentations and syllabi. I’ve seen with my own eyes the indoctrination that’s being broadcast on networks like Disney, Jr. It’s happening all over.
I agree that DeSantis has a censorious streak and I’ve said before that I wouldn’t vote for him for that reason. But when you say counter it with speech, well how? When people complain about it on social media the opponents try to suppress it. When parents (a huge majority of whom are opposed to this crap) complain to school boards they’re told they aren’t the experts snd are ridiculed as hayseeds and are labeled as potential terrorists. The speech against it is hammered down from every angle.
So you’re left with DeSantis who can play to the parents’ frustration and all he’s got is this sledgehammer. So he’s swinging it.
Where, praytell, have you seen these documented reports?
I’ve seen with my own eyes the indoctrination that’s being broadcast on networks like Disney, Jr.
Ummmm
When parents (a huge majority of whom are opposed to this crap) complain to school boards they’re told they aren’t the experts and are ridiculed as hayseeds and are labeled as potential terrorists.
Nothing like this happened. That's a far right distortion you should look into before you take as truth.
'When parents (a huge majority of whom are opposed to this crap)'
What crap? You've got a bunch of organised cranks demanding libraries be stripped of books, and this is DeSantis taking it up a level and strippng colleges of stuff he doesn't like, that's all.
I used to believe the in the good speech approach -- it doesn't work in a fascist gulag.
“…but you can’t ignore the plain facts.”
He absolutely can and he absolutely will.
If it were Cuomo or Newsom or any other leftist, would you be nearly as upset?
Oh wait -- it has been for years, and you weren't upset. Never mind.
What has it been for years???
Your zeal for pretend miscomprehension.
No really, what are you talking about here? Are there mandatory campus-wide meetings every morning to praise Cuomo or Newsom?
I have no idea what you're saying in your comment, that's why I asked about it.
And quit accusing me of pretending anything. I'm a pretty open book and post in good faith. I asked because I don't know what you're saying.
It's the defense they seem to have chosen to defend this crap bill. "It's just a response to what Democratic politicians have done." Noteworthy that these comments never have a single reference to any such instance.
When did Cuomo or Newsom start trying to dictate curriculum content?
Glad you asked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/09/california-ethnic-studies/
Nice try, but a flop.
This refers to high school, not universities, and doesn't ban anything, unlike DeSantis.
So, not close.
Your question was… “When did Cuomo or Newsom start trying to dictate curriculum content”
What this law does is MANDATE “ethnic studies” being required for graduation from California high schools. This answers your question accurately. Furthermore, it hits an order of magnitude more people, with the exact same “critical race” nonsense that Florida is attempting to restrict.
If you are angry about what Florida is doing, you should be doubly upset by California’s heavy handed mandating of ethnic studies in a high school curriculum.
Actually the article I just linked below is a requirement for universities. Apparently they rolled it out as two separate pieces of legislation.
Ouch.
Non-paywalled discussion of CA's new Ethnic Studies requirement here.
He was elected. Other classes are routinely required. No one elected the people who decided those other classes' content.
Sure the bill is ridiculous. But academia has been beclowning itself for decades with Marxism, and wokism is just the latest variation.
You get more of what you subsidize. Subsidizing student loans generates students who have no real aptitude for college and have to fish around for studies which require no intellect. Subsidizing science generates "scientists" who have no real aptitude for research and fish around for fields which require no intellect. The perfect combination of ineptitude is why academia is full of Marxists and wokists.
The real solution is to stop government subsidies in education. I won't lose any sleep over some higher education being trashed by the right when 90% of it has been trashed by the left for decades.
ABC – makes a very good point with this comment – “The real solution is to stop government subsidies in education. ”
In a similar vain – The most successful anti poverty program was “ending welfare as we know it” signed into law during the clinton administration. the vast majority of complaints came from the “Poverty industrial complex” ie government employees, who jobs would come into jeopardy due to reduced welfare case load.
In summary , stop the excessive subsidizing of education
Airy handwaiving about 'Marxism' as defined by nothing is the same nonsense as CRT as defined by nothing.
And there is plenty of middle ground between reforming our loan system and not subsidizing education at all.
I won’t lose any sleep over some higher education being trashed
Which is myopic as hell.
Your pretend blindspot over Marxism is old hat. You've been playing that tune for years. Maybe try a new tune once in a while lest your audience become jaded.
The habit of many on the right to use Marxism to stand in for 'bad, but like intellectual' is the real old hat.
Based on your use of the term, I have no idea what you're actually objecting to. And based on my past experience with people hauling it out as an epithet, if you do get specific it'll have either little to do with what Marx said, little to do with what's taught on campus, or both.
There's plenty on campus I don't defend. But sorry you find my calling out this nonsense tiresome; until you quit with the nonsense I'm going to keep calling it out.
Your pretend blindspot over Marxism is old hat.
It’s not a blind spot. We see this “Marxist” crap all the time, without anyone explaining WTF is so Marxist about it, or what aspects of Marxism they are worried about.
Marxist crap is basically a framing exercise – framing the study of anything on the basis that the anything consists essentially as a power struggle between groups, with different groups being pre-assigned the roles of oppressors or oppressees. This obviously derives from Marx’s original analysis of history as a power struggle between economic groups. As a system of framing it falls into the general category of “assuming your conclusion.”
There is of course no harm in glancing at a question from time to time through a Marxist frame - it may shed some light on a question that is obscured from other frames. But that is not really what Marxist inspired Profs have in mind. Marx is a Jealous God, and he doesn’t accept the legitimacy of competing perspectives. For at root Marxism - as economics or as social theory - is not about intellectual inquiry, it is about the struggle.
Which is why Marxism a la Marx is, intellectually, so full of confusion and obscurity. He could never prevent himself from hopping from philosophical rumination to the revolutionary rhetoric du hour and back again.
'being pre-assigned the roles'
Or, as it is more commonly known, 'history.'
Agreed: "[A]cademia has been beclowning itself for decades [...] The real solution is to stop government subsidies in [higher] education."
One of the things that I learned from the Soviet fishermen I met in the late '80s and then the International students who had lived behind the Iron Curtain was that reality tempers idealism.
I survived the Ivory Gulag and hence don't have a problem with ANY of this!!!
First, it isn't unprecedented at public IHEs -- it is only the PRIVATE ones that initially had shared governance, and that was as approved by the religious order that had founded the college. Do you honestly think the Puritans would have tolerated a Quaker at Harvard (when they were hanging them on Boston Common)? Or that the Jesuits would have hired a Protestant to teach about the Reformation (before Vatican II)? And the exclusion of Jewish *students* from the Ivy League is well known....
The Land Grant Colleges, Normal Schools, and Community Colleges -- the origins of almost all public IHEs -- started with very strict curricular requirements. It took *legislation* to bring even the mainstream liberal arts into the curriculum, and prior to the 1970s, there was no pretense that those teaching there were TEACHERS, not divine faculty.
Second, legislation like this already exists in other states -- it may be ignored, but it's on the books in several.
Third, this display of naked power is nothing more than the similar display we have seen from the tenured radicals over the past 30 years, and they WERE NOT elected, while this is the people's representatives speaking on their behalf.
And fourth -- RECONSTRUCTION IS ENDING! There were some unpleasant consequences the first time it ended, and there likely will be this time as well, but such is life...
As usual, it's the current gorers getting gored by the previously gored that upsets them the most. Goring itself is perfectly cromulent, when of the
rightleft kind.People who wanted to get rid of Bull Connor weren't all that worried about the precedents doing so would set.
You say this is bad. But all you've done in this tread is point at some other problem, and complain about the libs.
Do you actually think this is bad?
Do you actually think that is an argument?
My point is that you're deflecting a lot.
Do you think this bill is bad? You said you did, and I'm glad. But what specifically about it do you think is bad?
The only substantive bits of the Bill are those attempting to get staffing decisions out of the bowels of the apparat and into the hands of the officials directly appointed by, and accountable to, the elected officials. These bits of the Bill will undoubtedly prove patchy and disappointing, but, as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
All the rest about trying to prevent taxpayers money being spent on lefty indoctrination programs is essentially pointless, as it's an endless game of whack-a-mole. What was once racial preference was euphemised into affirmative action, and then repainted as diversity. Equalising outcomes got repainted as equity, and, should it be necessary, DEI will be repainted as something else. If DEI classes are defunded, they'll take place within the Chemistry and Botany classes. Trying to instruct the moles, as to where they may and may not dig, is pointless. You have to eradicate them.
Thus the only thing that matters is to take control of HR.
I should perhaps mention this as few know it: Normal Schools were Teacher's Colleges, establish to "normalize" (or standardize) the preparation of K-8 teachers. The first is what is now Framingham State University and it was Horace Mann who led the movement.
Land Grant Colleges were started by the first Morrill Act (and extended by the following two) and were established to teach Scientific Agriculture and Mechanical Arts (i.e. engineering) (along with Army ROTC) and some are still referred to as A&M. ROTC was initially required for Freshmen & Sophomores because the US Army had a shortage of 2LTs circa 1863.
And in most states, Community Colleges started as Vocational Technical Institutes -- where you went to learn to weld or the classroom instruction required to apprentice as a plumber or electrician.
EG -- UCLA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_University_of_California,_Los_Angeles
Yes, a normal school.
The Land Grant Colleges, Normal Schools, and Community Colleges — the origins of almost all public IHEs — started with very strict curricular requirements.
Assuming this is true - this is Ed we're talking about here - that was presumably the choice of each school, not one elected official declaring how it was gonna be.
Perhaps legal. But we've known what that meant for a long time.
Dr Ed actually provides rebuttable facts. You never have that I remember.
Sorry, Ed sucks and lies, and I'm not going to pretend he's a normal commenter, even among folks here.
But *I assumed what he was saying was true* in my comment, so I don't know what your objection is here.
C'mon (man!) Sarcastro,
Dr. Ed may suck, but he swallows, so he's got that going for him,
This certainly seems to be the perfect legislation for everyone who hates third level education because it's full of people who disagree with them and have ideas they don't like and dare to act on those ideas. The answer, apparently, is to impose different ideas and outlooks top-down through political means and suppress the stuff you don't like. This is academic freedom, and an answer to the supposed fascism of encouraging more non-white people to go to college.
legislation like this already exists in other states — it may be ignored, but it’s on the books in several.
First, let's see a cite.
Second, so what? If other states have stupid laws that means Florida has to have them too?
Seems like most of this is anger at the weakening of tenure. Every time tenure is threatened, academics roll out a parade of horribles about the consequences and rant and rave that tenure is so important. Yet no only profession has the concept and none of those negative consequences ever seem to show up.
And as usual, the real solution is getting rid of government control of schools. That should include getting rid of government funding, since he who pays picks the tunes.
It is telling how they don't object to the concept of telling the piper what to play, only who is doing it.
That should include getting rid of government funding
Including tax breaks.
And as usual, the real solution is getting rid of government control of schools. That should include getting rid of government funding, since he who pays picks the tunes.
Yes, get rid of government funding of education and watch the free market work its magic! I mean, it's not like that would be a recipe to ensure that quality education would primarily be a luxury that those already wealthy would be able to bestow upon their children.
It's likely that children of poor parents woud not get private funding to be indoctrinated in worthless political crap. As a result those of moderate ability would be condemned to become plumbers, electricians, secretaries and suchlike.
Meanwhile the children of the rich would still be able to pursue these worthless courses, getting themselves credentialed as junior sheep in the SJW Army, or apprenctice cat ladies. It's not obvious that the cruelty imposed on the children of the poor is any more brutal than this.
However those children of the poor with actual ability and potential would likely be funded by eager employers, keen to apprenctice the most productive workers of the future to their organisations.
So the overall effect would be a large scale culling of worthless courses, and a large scale culling of mediocre students, who would be set on a practical road more suitable to their talents.
Only the dimmer children of the rich would continue to live the life of the Eloi, eagerly learning to be even more foolish and useless than they were when they entered college.
those children of the poor with actual ability and potential would likely be funded by eager employers, keen to apprenctice the most productive workers of the future to their organisations.
Ever studied history?
Yes.
Though I might add that I have read way more history after leaving school and college than I did when I was actually "studying" it. And though I find history very interesting, I doubt very much that it contributes anything useful to productive work. Certainly, very little history makes it into the movies 🙂
As for the benefits of teaching history in schools, I seriously doubt they exist. In colleges, ditto in spades. Which is not to say that self-financed, aka parentally-financed, students should not study history if it amuses them, so long as nobody tries to fool them into thinking that it's going to land them any kind of job. Productivity-wise, far better to skip college and learn to be a plumber. Also much more socially valuable.
But read as many history books as you like in your own time.
If you are, in your usual gnomic fashion, trying to appeal to history in implying that employers in the past did not fund the education of poor students, out of self interest, then of course you would be wrong. Employers were happy to take on apprentices in all sorts of trades and professions.
The world has moved on technologically and in terms of wealth but there's no reason at all to believe that, absent the crowding out effects of goverment sponsored higher education, modern employers would be any more blind to their own self interest than were the employers of old.
Of course self interested modern employer funding of their techno-apprentices might not support the SJW courses that provide jobs for rancid hacks and negative productivity payoffs for their students, but that is of course a feature, not a bug.
you are, in your usual gnomic fashion, trying to appeal to history in implying that employers in the past did not fund the education of poor students, out of self interest, then of course you would be wrong. Employers were happy to take on apprentices in all sorts of trades and professions.
Yes, you picked up what was a pretty easy point I was making.
And no, apprentices were not generally taken from the ranks of the poor but talented. It’s better to do a favor for a wealthy customer and take their kid.
Your market worship has lead you far away from how actual society has in the past worked into fantasy world of market-as-meritocracy.
Markets are good at lots of stuff. Capacity building in a broad talent pool for workforce development is not one of them.
Hmm. Your imagination has conjured up a fantastic past in which wealthy customers were many rather than few, thus enabling the demand for apprentices to be filled from the ranks of their children.
Also a world in which apprenticeship was seen not as assisting production by training your workforce, but as a sales expense.
These are depths of lefty fantasy that I confess I had never even suspected.
According to Britannica, in 10th century Europe - the end of the Dark Ages - the majority of children were put out apprenticeship.
After the Black Death and the rise of the guilds, it went up dramatically. By the 16th century, it was almost all children - of middle and lower social classes. You know who didn't do apprenticeships? The top social classes! Unless you count squiring as an apprenticeship.
Apprenticeships didn't decline until the Industrial Revolution reduced the demand for single high-skill workers. Even in 1900, about a quarter of all working-class male teenagers in England were serving an apprenticeship.
Unfortunately for you, your understanding of apprenticeships is utterly incorrect, and can be shown to be so by a very simple check with even general information sources. Have you ever considered doing so before posting?
It’s likely that children of poor parents woud not get private funding to be indoctrinated in worthless political crap.
Yes, because SJW ideology, CRT, and the like make up most of the school day in the public schools of your imagination.
As fun as it was to poke at this idea of doing away with government funding of education, no one is actually proposing to do away with it. Libertarians and many conservative Republicans are very eager to expand voucher programs, though. That way, instead of supposedly being indoctrinated in worthless political crap, children can be literally indoctrinated in worthless religious crap at the vast majority of private schools that are religious.
That seems to be the whole point of vouchers for religious conservatives. It isn't the free market for education or a belief in the equality of opportunity, but the need to get more young people to be faithful followers, since the current trends are in the opposite direction. That they can also exclude LGBT students or students with LGBT parents from these schools is also important to them. Children that don't have any experience knowing people that are LGBT are more likely to grow up sharing their parents' prejudices.
If that sounds familiar, it should. Private schools started popping up all throughout the South in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education so parents that didn't want their kids in the same schools as Black kids could have their way. These segregation academies should make anyone that cares about actual equality of opportunity wary of the way Republicans have been implementing vouchers.
I have seen so many moderate (not even "conservative") tenured professors fired* over the past 25 years that I consider it meaningless. And what everyone is forgetting is that almost all public IHEs have a faculty union...
Bullied into resigning is a distinction without a difference.
I have seen so many moderate (not even “conservative”) tenured professors fired* over the past 25 years that I consider it meaningless.
Well, if Dr. Ed personally testifies, it must be true!
And if Sarcastr0 denies it, it must be doubly true!
...are you defending the credibility of Ed and his many stories?
Just doubting your credibility.
I mean, you claimed the federal government couldn't use race or sexual identity in its diversity initiatives...then doubled down on the claim. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/
This is way off topic, but you've clearly been wanting to post that for a while so lets talk a bit.
The federal government cannot use race or gender as a selection or eligibility criterion for any programs absent a specific legislative exception, of which I’m really not aware of many offhand. IOW, it cannot favor black people as folks on Thursday were yelling about.
Check out the EO you linked, and what methods it contemplates. You really need to strain to claim this is anti-white or anti-male:(b) The term “diversity” means the practice of including the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities
take an evidence-based and data-driven approach to determine whether and to what extent agency practices result in inequitable employment outcomes, and whether agency actions may help to overcome systemic societal and organizational barriers Also something I specifically talked about, and which people claimed was eyewash.
Sigh… There is literally a minority business development agency run by the federal government.https://www.mbda.gov/
You keep spouting lies.
Your claim that the government cannot take race or gender or sexual orientation into account is a blatant lie that you keep repeating.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) was originally established as the Office of Minority Business Enterprise by President Richard M. Nixon on March 5, 1969. By establishing a federal agency dedicated exclusively to minority business enterprise, President Nixon recognized the impact of minority businesses on the nation’s economy and on the general welfare of the country.
Remember where I said: "absent a specific legislative exception, of which I’m really not aware of many offhand?" Oh hey, a legislative exception!
Quite a jump to call me lying because I, who do science policy, did not about this office in the Department of Commerce that offhand doesn't seem to be a DEI initiative itself.
Looking at grants.gov their only open grant is "The MBDA Capital Readiness Program" which is "designed to help close the entrepreneurship gap between socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (SEDI) and non-SEDI".
SEDI defined:
(1) membership in a group that has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society;
(2) gender;
(3) veteran status;
(4) limited English proficiency;
(5) disability;
(6) long-term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society;
(7) membership in a federally or state-recognized Indian Tribe;
(8) long-term residence in a rural community;
(9) residence in a U.S. territory;
(10) residence in a community undergoing economic transitions (including communities impacted by the shift towards a net-zero economy or deindustrialization); or
(11) membership in an underserved community.
So once again your claim I'm lying about the government's war on white men is utterly bullshit.
I don't think you're lying though, just ignorant and into calling people liars far more quickly than you should.
I do recall what you said. This is what you said.
"I work for the federal government, AL. Our diversity initiatives *cannot* include race, gender, or sexual orientation."
Now, you lied about that. And continue to defend your lies.
I see, so you found a diversity program authorized by law that supersedes the Civil Rights Act for a specific purpose.
And you think that proves me a liar, because you've got this pedantry-plus-accusation-of-bad-faith thing going.
To be strictly accurate, a proviso 'unless Congress tells us to' but I that goes without saying for just about every restriction on a government agency.
You could have asked what was going on with that example. But no, you decided I was doing a big coverup because you're an overly aggressive moron.
AND the diversity at issue in the program is not at all just race and gender. So your general argument about whitey being kept down is still bullshit!
Sarcastr0...OT, you say you're partly responsible for government science policy? Really?
You mean political science, right?
My day job is a fed science policy guy via university grant-making.
That's where I interface with real-life DEI folks, among other things.
Just out of interest, what is the interface between DEI and science policy ? Canteen chat aside ?
How for example does DEI impinge on the grant process for work on magnetism or cell biology ? Or anything else that springs to your mind.
And if Sarcastr0 denies it, it must be doubly true!
Should I introduce you to Hitchens's Razor?
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
When the burden of proof is on someone making a claim (which is virtually always), then one does not need to justify dismissing the claim if no evidence in favor of it is offered.
Looks to me as if Hitchens Razor, though admirably pithy, seems to fall within the category of assertions that we are invited to chop up with Hitchens Razor.
Here's one: https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/professor-mike-adams-suicide-will-always-haunt-me
SO MANY!
You make the argument of the abuser all over this thread 'we warned you, and now it's punishment time.' A tellingly awful worldview to think that's a legit defense.
No you ONLY care about so-called conserative professors supposedly getting fired, when as we've seen it's actually black academics who disproportionately face actual career-damaging/ending consequences for controversies, while the white ones are mostly left to get on with it or move laterally once whatever storm is raging subsides. There was a post about it right here on the Volokh a few weeks ago. Did NOBODY else read it?
I have seen so many moderate (not even “conservative”) tenured professors fired* over the past 25 years that I consider it meaningless.
No you haven’t.
Seems like most of this is anger at the weakening of tenure.
Seems like you've picked your battlefield carefully. Because that's not well done, but it's also not where I see the anger.
Employment security is important to everyone who has a job, and yeah, it's definitely something Republicans hate. Every time the right goes selectively ballistic over some academic getting fired for saying something they approve of, they are, in fact, complaining about the negative consequences of the weakening of tenure.
Yes, how dare university professors look out for their own self interest. What monsters they are!
Yes, how dare
university professorsTaxpayers look out for their own self interest. What monsters they are! 🙂I would never suggest taxpayers don't have the right to look out for their own self-interest. They have the exact same rights in that regard as university professors.
Not the weakening of tenure, Rossami, so much as who is being given authority over it.
If you want to tighten tenure standards objectively, OK. But letting politicians "review" tenure, and control hiring, is just destructive of the university.
Seems like the sort of reaction you might expect to the extremist excesses we’ve all seen. People have been saying for years that taxpayers don't have to continue funding hate factories. Looks like Florida may lead a new movement to finally reform a lot of that.
First drafts of legislation aren’t final drafts. There will no doubt be some changes. Too bad for extremists that they already burned every shred of credibility they might have used to urge compromises in the bill's language.
Wittington's criticisms show he isn’t much interested in the goal of the representatives of Florida voters. Not even an acknowledgment that Florida voters have the prerogative to direct what taxpayers' money is spent on. Arguments that are just everything is bad, you guys are bad, let’s not do anything probably won’t be listened to.
'People have been saying for years that taxpayers don’t have to continue funding hate factories'
Are those people the billionaires funding think tanks and media networks churning out stories about how trans people are coming for your children?
They aren't???
Yeah, just like all those children's books banned from libraries are gay porn. Some weirdo billionaires and Ron DeSantis want you to, if not actually *think* so because how stupid would you have to be to really believe it, but SAY so on their behalf.
If you can't read from them to *adults* at a school board meeting, they ought not be in the school library. It's that simple...
Book-banners lie.
I'm pretty sure I'd get silenced at most school board meetings from reading the "emissions of a horse" line out of the Bible.
That’s a new conspiracy theory.
But whatever, billionaires have free speech rights just like thousandaires. Weird that someone might think that trans people — the people most at war with the rules of society and nature — might not respect rules of society regarding protection of children.
Lol, it's a conspiracy theory now that billionaires own media outlets.
Using the grotesque pretext that trans people are unnatural and a threat to children (when more Republican politicians and operatives and Christian pastors get caught for abusing children than there are trans people in the US) you want laws passed that will end up criminalising them. Now, who does that sort of thing?
Why are Dems so motivated to blur the lines and push the boundaries to normalize using children sexually?
You guys should stop doing it and protect children instead.
They don’t. You just tell massive lies about it.
And what people like Wittington fail to realize is that the legislature can simply say "No Mas" and nuanced issues such as post tenure review become moot because the institution itself is shut down.
A generation ago we did this to the mental health hospitals -- it was a mistake on multiple levels but society had enough of the abuses and simply shut the damn things down. And unlike our shoddily-built campi of the 1960's, those mental health campi were well built without the differed maintenance in academia.
Not only do faculty consider themselves to be gods, but entitled to their 6-figure allotments of taxpayer's money. And like those in the railroad industry of an earlier era, the higher education industry is going to get a harsh wakeup call.
That would be a good thing to try to include in the bill: if courts invalidate protections for taxpayers and irrevocably enshrine the teaching of race hatred, then the University — in whole of in part — must cease operating.
How do you think Florida shutting down a buncha schools would end up going for Florida?
probably no big deal, most of the peoples moving to FL have kids who already finished school and those who don't probably don't want their kids getting taught some Critical Race Bullshit anyway.
Or Hillsdale could expand...
Why would they decide to shut down rather than giving up teaching racial hatred?
If courts do it then it will be judges shutting them down. If government Universities can’t exist without teaching racial hatred, then some other sort of learning institution with no teaching of racial hatred can be created to take their place.
Because no one is teaching racial hatred, Ben.
You are fixing to blame courts not the state that passed and then enforced your made up awful law. You know it's awful, don't you? You just don't care.
You post about unity. You post about how the Dems don't want to make America better, and then here you are once again advocating based on spite and nonsense.
"Because no one is teaching racial hatred"
No discriminatory lessons, no problem. Yet another big win for students and taxpayers in Florida. DEI grifters hardest hit.
Teaching that there are 2 sides to the debate about affirmative action is racial hatred according to the censorious right.
So no, there is no one teaching racial hatred. But that doesn't mean schools will stay open. Because too many on the right want scalps more than they want what's best for America.
One side is that discrimination is bad and that people should be treated equally as individuals.
In a few months the Supreme Court will do away with the fictions about race preference programs and the law will be clear.
Absolutely no one believes your dumb story that a university will be shut down.
The willingness to lie so blatantly about what's being taught is kind of a red flag, if any more were needed.
Stop lying then.
I'm not the one calling kids' books gay porn or claiming a law school course is being taught in schools.
Can I be Frank?? Of course, I'm "Frank"
But something really wrong is goin' on here! You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!!!!!!!
Yeah, they should get rid of "Afro-Amurican/Gay/Queer" pretty much anything that has "Studies" in the title, which leaves you with even less marketable skills than "Basket Weaving" who's graduates presumably (big presumption) would know how to weave a Basket (Today, probably have to do an unpaid "Internship" at a Basket Weaving Factory)
I'll give on the various programs to keep illiterate "Student-Ath-Uh-Letes" in school, I mean, who wants to see a bunch of Pencil Neck Geeks playing in "March Madness" (probably only me)
But as much as I love how the TSA officer giving me a virtual hand job because my Vasectomy Clips set off the machine has a Degree in "the Journey of the Queer Nigger in Amurica" can we at least make a token (get it? "token" ha!) effort to teach some useful skills??
My daughters? one wanted to be a Social Worker, the other a Fashion designer. Paid for flight training for both, now they're both military pilots (ones now Reservist and full time for Delta) and making a shit load more Somalians than any Social Worker, and having more fun than most fashion designers,
I mean dont you care? does anyone care??
obviously not,
and hey, we need plenty of peoples to weave those baskets and give me virtual hand jobs (why can't it at least be a chick??)
Frank "Hard on for Hard Science"
The guy who wanted a woman to be gang-raped has an opinion. His sort always do.
Attack the messenger much? thanks for not making me use one of my list of devastating responses, speaking of rapes, what do you think was worse, Bill Clinton raping Kathryn Willey, or Teddy Kennedy leaving Mary Joe Kopecknehy to Asphyxiate (NOT drowned, there's a difference) probably after he raped her (no Autopsy, so who knows?? and did you know that semen crystalizes like Amber(don't ask how I know) so the evidence is still there, smoldering in Mary J's grave, just waiting for a competent Forensic Pathologist,
Frank
No, Mary Jo was cremated.
Interestingly, she had grass stains on her shirt but not pants...
Cremated? did you get that fact the same place you got your "Dr" title? the back of a box of Count Chocula??
She was buried in a regular sized casket (paid for by Teddy K, what a Gentleman!! he pays for his victims funerals)
OK, I've got as much documentation for TK paying as you do that she was cremated, it's called "a Gratuitous assertion can be just as gratuitously refuted "
Would be strange if she was cremated as it was Verboten for Catholics in 1969 (as was Abortion, hey, if she'd waited a few years she could have saved Teddy some $$$ cremation's much cheaper)
Frank
You said you hoped a woman would be gang raped.
I'll save you the humiliation of trying to defend yourself, with this Oldie but Goodie
"Clinton denied assaulting Willey. According to Monica Lewinsky's testimony, Clinton stated that the allegation was absurd because Willey is a small-breasted woman, so he would never pursue such a woman.[4]"
Yeah, Bill Clinton, who's next in line to take over as the "Best Post-President POTUS" once Jimmuh Cartuh assumes Room Temperature (Probably not anytime soon, Hospice?? Guys been claiming to have terminal cancer for 20 years)
You said you wanted a woman to be gang raped.
"and give me virtual hand jobs (why can’t it at least be a chick??)"
Identify as female and it will be.
Talk about Discrimination, so the Lesbos and Peter Puffers get their preferred Sex to feel them up?? While I get some knucklehead the size of Shaquille Oneal handling my Juevos like he's shooting craps at Ceasar's Palace? It's literally Pre-Nazi Germany!!!!!
Back when everyone was wearing masks, I'd occasionally yell "zu den Ofen!!!!!" as a goof, seriously, they're more like Slaughterhouses, except the victims in the Slaughterhouse are more intelligent,
Frank
All sounds good to me...
Me too... for most of it.
Interestingly, the Presidential hiring-and-firing prerogative that seems to offend Whittington already exists at most public and private universities: in many instances, focusing such power into the hands of a single individual is a creature of the later 1970s, born to avoid issues with ERISA/ADEA/etc.
The outcry from faculty seems to relate not to the freedom to teach true fact to interested students but instead to a loss of a bully pulpit from which self-selected demi-gods rule over fiefdoms granted, for a lifetime tenue, by an unelected, unaccountable "they." What hubris!!
It is regrettable that faculty must be reminded of their telos: faculty exist to teach by professing true facts to interested students, not to somehow guide the development of society in accordance with their personal whims.
"A ban on general education core courses that... "defines American history as contrary" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. "
What is that even supposed to mean? The vagueness in many parts of this bill is incredible. Political demagoguery and dog whistling turned into statutory language.
It's like Pornography, you know (you like it) when you you see it (and claim to not like it)
I'll try to translate the right-wing fever-speech.
Critical race theorists sometimes make the point that racial inequality is in some ways written into the country's DNA. That, despite the Declaration of Independence's statement of principles and the Constitution's apparent promise of individual freedom and the rule of law, these were really principles and promises made by and among primarily white men. They cite, as evidence of this, real-life examples of the Founders' own actions; the ways in which governments paid little heed to these high-falutin' principles and promises; the structure of the federal government itself; the preservation of slavery and the quick reinstatement of racial superiority after the Civil War (the civil rights amendments notwithstanding); and so on.
The counterpoint to this CRT critique of American history is to acknowledge past imperfections, but to insist that we've always been working towards that original promise. That is what the proposed law would appear to require universities to teach. But critical race theorists are skeptical of this narrative, seeing in it instead just another layer of obfuscation and defense of the status quo.
is it impolite to tell someone their "Theory" is Bullshit?
Well too bad, that's me, the guy who comments on the Ugly Baby, and if you were an ugly baby (I like Ugly Babies, the Cute ones turn out to be Lee Harvey Oswalds and Hitlers) wouldn't you rather know, instead of finding out at the Baby Single Bars??
Frank
“Critical race theorists are skeptical of this narrative”
I was born in a small town in Tennessee in 1957. If you could quantify the amount of racism in society and put it on a scale - with 1 being legalized slavery and regular lynchings and 10 being perfect nirvana where everyone treats each other with perfect dignity - when I was born we were at 2, maybe 2.5, and now we’re somewhere between 7 and 8. Note that 10 will never be achieved because there’s always going to be hateful assholes. You can’t even achieve 10 within same race groups because someone will always be stirring up crap.
I have no interest in debating the start and end points because it’s massively subjective and everyone will have a defendable answer based on their own experience and observations. But the improvement - several orders of magnitude - is undeniable. And if, as you say, the adherents of CRT can’t see it and acknowledge it, then it surely demonstrates how totally full of shit they are.
And if, as you say, the adherents of CRT can’t see it and acknowledge it, then it surely demonstrates how totally full of shit they are.
I didn't see SimonP saying anything like that. Nor do I have any information that indicates academics that support Critical Race Theory deny the progress that has been made. But your assertion that your hometown went from a 2 or 2.5 to 7 or 8 on a 10 point scale of racial equality is not supported by anything. It is your opinion on the matter, not something objective. As you say later, these things are very subjective and based on their own experience and observations. Thus, whether the progress American society has made over the last several decades is enough to say that racial inequality is no longer systematic and part of our law and institutions is a legitimate point of debate. It is not something that you can fairly call someone as being full of shit if they don't believe that it is as much in the past as you do.
The quote about skeptical CRT theorists is directly out of simon's post.
And I wasn't talking about the change in my hometown because I've been gone for a long time. I was talking about American society generally.
And like I said, put any number you want on it but anybody who can't see how much race relations have improved over the last 60 years or so is just not existing in reality. There's just no relationship between then and now, despite all the New Jim Crow bullshit that's being thrown around.
White guy says racism solved. That's a cliché!
Progress has been made. We're *so* much better then Europe.
But talk to actual people and consider perspectives other than your own before you make a call on their behalf.
I didn’t say it was solved. Point of fact I said that it’ll never be solved - precisely the opposite of how you claim to interpret it.
Once again, as is your method of discussing you claim I said something I didn’t then argue with your contortion. It’s tiresome and I’m through with you. You should spend your time arguing with Charlie and Frank and those guys. Out of my sight.
And I wasn’t talking about the change in my hometown because I’ve been gone for a long time. I was talking about American society generally.
I misunderstood the "when I was born" to include "where" as well, since you mentioned it as well as the year. Regardless, you still present a contradiction in putting a specific number to how much progress on racial equality has been made, then later saying that you're not interested in actually debating it because it is so subjective, and then turning around again and saying that CRT adherents are full of shit for not recognizing the progress.
By the way, SimonP had written this: "But critical race theorists are skeptical of this narrative, seeing in it instead just another layer of obfuscation and defense of the status quo."
The narrative he was referring to was that the proposed law would appear to require universities to teach that the U.S. has always been working to live up to its promises of equality despite past imperfections. Being skeptical of this narrative is not denying that progress has been made. Being skeptical of the narrative is instead being skeptical that the U.S. has "always" been working toward fulfilling its promises in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and that the law would allow for a real examination of those past imperfections and scholarly debate about how much effort was put into making progress as well as how much progress has been made. One doesn't even need to be an adherent of CRT to be skeptical of those things. One just needs to know enough of U.S. history.
That's almost certainly targeted at The 1619 Project and other similar attempts to claim the US was akshually founded to preserve slavery or racism or other similar claims. I'm not sure what else the full clause would accomplish:
I do agree with you about the vagueness in this bill. It's a problem. I just disagree that it's a problem nearly as bad as Whittington or some of the other posters here are claiming.
Causally saying 'well it's this bad piece of scholarship they're trying to silence' is quite a tell.
None of this is about students, or reforms.
The comments here show what this law does. It is culture war bullshit, no benefits intended or expected. Other than making resentful folks well out of school feel like they got one over.
Your telepathy aside, governments have been setting the contents of courses at the general and specific levels for a long time.
As I mentioned above, and which you declined to address, the Florida legislature modified this same section more than 20 years ago to ban the teaching of antisemitism or other racist anti-Israeli ideologies. Was that also just "culture war bullshit, no benefits intended or expected"? Was that just "making resentful folks well out of school feel like they got one over"?
Do you think that the Universities should be allowed to teach antisemitism and antisemitic tropes as truth?
Telepathy? I'm quoting your post!
And as I said above, declaring some viewpoint just like antisemitism so you can ban it is just making excuses. You need to show a lot more work than that.
But you won't be able to. Because there's a fundamental scope problem off the break: the statutes at work here are not focused, they are broad. Both in substance and in procedure. So your analogy fails immediately.
Telepathy is you, constantly, attributing motives and deeper meanings to people you've never met and do not understand in the slightest.
You also did not quote me; you made up a strawman to attack me with. And then you follow up by again lying about my question.
You are claiming that the Florida legislature banning teaching antisemitism by that exact term without defining it is fundamentally different than the Florida legislature banning teaching racial hatred, in similarly undefined terms. You claim that term antisemitism is not 'broad' - a falsehood that is trivially revealed every time one of the VC posters puts up an article about Israel and antisemitism. These are both untrue.
What you appear to be showing is that you care primarily about what content is being banned, rather than having an principled aversion to the banning of teaching certain beliefs as truth.
Okay, fair enough Toranth. As I said above, I object to the whole exercise on principle, and any similar attempts by either side of the political spectrum.
Well, if you accept that one such principle was equality of people, it means that you can't teach about the slave trade, as that bit of history is very much contrary to that principle.
A ban on general education core courses that "suppress or distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics" or "defines American history as contrary" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Actually, that would rule out teaching the operative clause of the Declaration of Independence, which reads as follows:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Note the complete lack of constraint. It has to be that way, because the Declaration was about announcing the creation of a new kind of joint popular sovereignty. Sovereignty was then, and is now, defined by power sufficient to act at pleasure, without constraint. So Florida proposes to nullify that, and instead impose an official view, prescribed by law, which constitutes the People's will for as long as the law lasts.
Luckily for the People, that idiocy has no power to constrain them. They constrain government. Government has no power to constrain them.
Why is it the "Open and Frank (love anything "Frank") Discussion about Race" never openly and frankly discusses the appalling level of Black on White/Asian/Hispanic/Black violence?? Most recent example this friggin (I'd call him an Ape, but that would be insulting to Apes) "Youth" in yes, Florida, who beat the shit out of his teacher?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/florida-teachers-aide-violently-attacked-after-taking-students-nintendo-switch/ar-AA17Uzv6
Frank "All for "Reparations" how much are they going to pay us?"
Given the monoculture that's resulted from academic freedom ("our sociology department has both kinds of professor -- true believer Marxist revolutionaries, and democratic socialists who use Marxist analysis!"), I think we're more-than-due for a few elected state governments insisting that the unelected state government employees do as they're told, instead.
Or start their own university...
Wow, they could even be told to get an untested vaccine or be fired!!!!!!
Moar Marxist Professor talk from someone who hasn't been on a campus in decades.
So you're a fucking Chinese Spy Balloon?? I'll have you know I'm a "(Assistant to the Assistant) Adjunct Professor of Anatomy " at a major Medical School (Umm, OK, a "DO" school, they're "Real Doctors" just ask one) https://www.pcom.edu/campuses/georgia-campus/
No, I don't get paid, but I love teaching Gross Anatomy to this current generation of drooling idiots (hey, it's who'll be doing my CABG 20 years from now), lots of hot chicks, and despite what they say, they know an "MD" trumps their "DO" (it really doesn't, they have more residency options than MD grads)
But I frequent College Campuses frequently (Auburn/FSU/UGA, hey, I live in GA, gotta take in the lovely Spring foilage)
Frank "I love when the leaves change color"
tried Googling "Moar Marxist" to try and figure out what the fuck you were trying to say, best I could get was this,
Moar is an intentional misspelling of more, used online as a humorous demand.
OK, Cool, guess you learned that between playing "Hackysack"
But since you're so smart, try this one,
כוח פוליטי צומח מתוך קנה של אקדח
Frank "Ironic, dontcha chink"
Bring it on, clingers.
Advanced, educated, reasoning, successful states could respond by refusing to recognize degrees issued by nonsense-teaching conservative schools, or mainstream accreditors could stop accrediting low-grade yahoo farms in Republican states.
The marketplace of ideas will sift this. Conservatives will lose, as usual.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, that is.
The Red states could do likewise and your supposed "better" states would get screwed when their licensees stopped getting recognized as being licensed out in the hinterland.
Again Jerry, saving up your "Klingers" for the end of the month, as usual, I read you like a (Pornographic) book,
So why our so many of our "Betters" moving to the "Klinger" (I'm not at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
so I can type "Klinger" as many times as I want, and don't have to give the "Correctional" Officers a (redacted) to get on AlGores Internets,
Where was I? oh yeah, busting your balls over your incarceration for (Perverted) Sex Crimes,
So whats the Ratio (I'd explain it to you, but you'd have to give "D'andre'duval" a (redacted) of PA residents moving to FL/ FL residents moving to PA??
Of course since you can't remember where you (supposedly) went to law school (seriously, Jerry Sandusky had more Legal Chops) don't think you'll be able to respond sententially (hard word to spell, not sure I did it right)
Frank
Considering the pack of clowns we currently have as tenured faculty at most colleges and universities, I regard this as a feature, and not a bug at all. Time to clear these people out of our universities, and replace them with people who are more interested in teaching than indoctrinating. It sure would be nice for college degrees outside nursing and engineering to actually mean something again.
What you said!!!!!!!!!! at my (2010 and (almost) 2013 BCS CHAMPION AUBURN TIGERS) the Math/Physics/Biochem/Chemistry faculty were non-political (there was one pro-IRA a-hole, who really hated when the UK kicked Argentina's ass in the Falklands, but in class how political can you get with Carboxylic Acids??)
But all of the "Soft" (soft is never good) subjects we Pre-meds had to take, English, Lit, Sociology, Psychology, I'd say they were Bozos, but Bozo was William S. Effing Buckley compared to these Yahoos, this was 1983!!!!!!! George Wallace (D, BTW) was Governor!
Fortunately none of that shit was on the MCAT (or of any use after the (ridiculously easy) tests
I did get a "C" in a Mid-Evil History class because I didn't have the approved opinion that Rome fell due to Penis Envy,
Frank
It's OK in principle to reconsider outdated tenure rules, so long as the legislatures don't interfere with existing tenure contracts. That would probably be contrary to the Contracts Clause, though I don't know if the courts are still enforcing that.
How much of this legislation is enforceable and interpretable by the courts, and how much of it is supposed to be implemented by the Boards of Trustees?
DeSantis appointed Chris Rufo to be a trustee of New College. What more proof is needed of his antipathy to academic freedom and the goals of quality higher educational institutions?
Evil, racist university people sure don’t like being exposed by guys like Chris Rufo.
When I was discharged from active duty in 1968 I enrolled at the University of South Florida (parents lived in the Tampa Bay area). Keep in mind it was the 1960s and as the saying goes 'if you can remember what you did in the 1960s you were doing it wrong. In any case seven years later I graduated with a degree in mathematics and saw the writing on the wall. At the time if I had been able to get a PhD and a job at a university I would have probably been able to make $US50,000 a year. On the other hand due to my part time jobs and frugal life style I had almost $US14,000 in the bank (which I invested wisely buying wheat at the same time the Russians did and made big bucks). But I realized by going to FSU and getting a dual degree in Urban and Regional Planning and a JD in law I could make a lot more than 50K a year which I did.
Point is while I did take some bullshit classes like Modern Cinema Appreciation and tons of photography classes in the Art Department where I met hot babes there was not a lot of political stuff. Maybe more to the point I had no student debt and plenty of my fellow students were in the same boat. Not to mention Uncle Sugar not only helped out financially but during the time I spent getting a second place medal in the 1967-68 Southeast Asian War Games taught me to get up early, shit, shower, shave, and get on with the days work which made getting good grades in college easy.
So riddle me this Batman, what has changed so much that today students have to borrow sometimes six figures and even then may not graduate and even if they do graduate often times wind up not getting a job that allows them to pay off their debt.
Love the Riddler reference,
but get this, Uncle Sammy will not only pay for your Med School, but pay you while you're going.
OK, you do owe a year for every one he pays for, and residency time doesn't count.
But hey, not like he's gonna send you to Iraq or Afghanistan (You-Crane, yes)
Frank
The prohibition on teaching American history in a manner “contrary to the principles of the declaration of independence” appears to make it illegal to suggest that the American government wasn’t the good guys on everything that happened since. After all, the Declaration of Independence blasted King George III for having “excited domestic insurrections among us” and aiding the “Merciless Indian Savages.”
Perhaps one could argue that “domestic insurrections” doesn’t actually refer to the British practice of offering freedom to slaves of revolutionary supporters. (What does it refer to?) But “Merciless Indian Savages?” The law would appear to make it illegal to characterize Native Anerican history in any other light but the Indians were really bad guys who merely got what they deserved.
It would appear to make it illegal even to have students read primary sources from people on the British or Loyalist side, at least if those sources say anything that reflects the British or Loyalist point of view.
Shockingly, governments normally require their own schools to portray them in a positive light. In fact, guaranteeing that they'll be so portrayed to the general population is the chief motivation for governments having their own schools in the first place! An educated populace being more productive being only a secondary consideration.
Do I think an honest accounting of history will always put the US government in a good light? Hardly! Perhaps not as negative a light as such travesties as the 1619 Project, but our history has an ample share of warts no honest account would omit.
But, again, who pays somebody to say bad things about them? This bill is applicable only to the government's own schools, and it is irrational to expect the government to pay people to badmouth it. That this was, for a short while, routinely starting to happen was an historical anomaly, a product of our educational institutions being captured by a hostile ideology, which the government had not yet begun to respond to.
Why would anyone expect the government to perpetually tolerate such a situation? You want freedom to teach things the government objects to, go work at a school that the government isn't funding.
And of course it’s worth pointing out that one of the first things the Nazis did when they took power in Germany was have party functionaries take over the hiring and firing process, sack professors who weren’t suitably pro-Nazi, and hire people in humanities, social science, and sometimes science departments based primarily on their political reliability.
We should probably expect that the form you’re commenting on is pretty much the form in which the legislation will be passed. The headlines are what’s important, not the law. Echoes of the far-right high fives and accolades will still ring long after most or all of it is shredded in the courts. Most fans won’t even hear of that. And the ones who do won’t care.
As far as I can see, reasonably read, (IOW, NOT by somebody looking for an excuse to object to it.) the bill bans nothing that it isn't reasonable for a state to want to ban in its own schools. In fact, much of what it bans would be unreasonable for a state to PERMIT to be taught in its schools! By some interpretations of the 13th and 14th amendments, it might even be a constitutional violation for a state to permit much of what this bill bans.
Which is, of course, why the bill's foes are so adamantly vague about what it's banning.
Depending on your politics, you might complain about the mandate end of it, though that part would have been almost completely uncontroversial a couple generations ago. As has been remarked, civics classes in government schools are hardly a new thing.
I refuse to understand these legal subtleties. I just need universities to be able to provide quality education to their students. I am a mother of two children. I am very worried about whether my son will be able to find a good job right after university. I was interested in how things are with the employment of young people in the temp agency - https://jobssite.ca/ And I see that employers are not eager to accept interns with higher education for paid vacancies. But there are many offers for unskilled labor. I would be glad if someone gives a direction for such statistics for any US state