The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
UC Berkeley Reverses Instructor's Attempt to Give Extra Credit for Pro-Palestinian Political Activity
"While instructors enjoy considerable freedom and all individuals, when acting as private citizens, enjoy free speech rights, University policy does impose limits on using the classroom or one's course for purposes of political advocacy."
Newsweek (Matthew Impelli) reported today on this incident, which involved "a graduate student" instructor "at UC Berkeley's Department of Ethnic Studies." (The story may have been first broken by Israelly Cool [David Lange].) Fortunately, UC Berkeley promptly rejected this; when I e-mailed the media relations office, I was informed that:
As soon as the administration was made aware of the assignment it moved quickly to ensure that it would be changed. The situation has been remedied, the assignment has been changed and there are now a number of options for extra credit, not just one. Students can now attend any local event they wish—such as a book talk or a panel discussion----related to the course's subject, including the protest…or they can watch any documentary they wish about the Middle East.
The Berkeley provost's office has also just sent out this follow-up, apparently to "all faculty, staff, and students":
I write to remind people of University policy as pertains to academic freedom and political advocacy in the classroom. While instructors enjoy considerable freedom and all individuals, when acting as private citizens, enjoy free speech rights, University policy does impose limits on using the classroom or one's course for purposes of political advocacy.
I call your immediate attention to Regents' Policy 2301, which prohibits canceling a class session for the purpose of encouraging students to participate in a protest or rally.
The principal policies that apply to these matters are (URLs at end of message):
- the Faculty Code of Conduct found in Section 015 of the Academic Personnel Manual (APM 015);
- Regents' Policy 2301; and
- for Unit 18 Lecturers, Section B4 of the Collective Bargaining agreement.
Among other limitations, these policies prohibit:
- significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course (APM 015, Section II, A.1.b & Section B4(b) of Unit 18 agreement);
- use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons (APM 015, Section II, A.5 & Section B4(h) of Unit 18 agreement); and
- misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, or for providing grades without commensurate and appropriate student achievement (Regents' Policy 2301).
In addition,
- Regents' Policy 2301 stipulates "the right of students to have their classes held on the regularly scheduled basis and to be taught by the instructor whose responsibility it is to teach the course in question is to be upheld"; and
- APM 015, Part II, A.1.c. defines"significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled" to be a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.
Instructors are also reminded of the campus's Principles of Community (https://diversity.berkeley.edu/principles-community) and of the importance of ensuring that students are not made to feel intimidated, threatened, and/or excluded in their classes.
Instructors who have questions concerning permissible or impermissible actions should discuss them with their department chair or school dean.
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
No firing. I hope her wrist heals.
It was not a firing offense. Besides UCB would have a fight with the grad students' union on its hands.
She may need to be replaced from teaching the class. I can imagine some students believing this to be an unsafe teaching environment for them, based on her actions.
Not worth fighting a union grievance
There is, if there's a potential lawsuit on the other side
All the more reason to work cooperatively with the union
VC commenters arguing in favor of snowflake students in need of a safe space. I never thought I’d see the day . . .
Antifa arguing that government should reward antisemitism. It must be a day ending in "y".
Yet another right wing Zionist dunce with nothing to say beyond frivolous accusations of antisemitism. What a surprise.
Everybody knows what "ethnic studies" means here, and what this grad student was encouraging. Even you. Name-calling and pretending otherwise won't change facts.
Agreed. It is extra credit after all. Either suck it up and go with the flow and get your extra credit, or do nothing. Don't whine about it. It's only a problem if your grade is impacted by disagreement.
When I was in undergrad in the early '90s I took a seminar class called "History as Natural History : How the Environment has Shaped History." Sounded interesting to me. Turned out to be a full-blown hippie, tree-hugger instructor who spewed nothing but environmental nonsense. Even bragged about his "minimal" living by living in a one-room "earth-igloo" (his words) and using no disposable products--including toilet paper. But he was fair. I got an A on my term paper writing about how man has figured out how to use technology to overcome geographical and environmental factors to make use of the Earth's natural resources. He did say it was about the most boring paper he ever read, but it did address exactly what the course was about. I couldn't imagine writing such a paper today and getting a A, much less a passing grade.
The hippie boomer professors during that time were often willing to give you a decent grade even if you didn't agree with the class material, as long as you could back up your arguments with evidence and cited sources. The Gen-X and Millennial graduates who took their place, however, tend to not be that open-minded, and typically don't bother hiding the fact that they're ideologues that expect students to not engage in wrongthink.
So a bit of extra credit is all it would take to get you to march for genocide. Fabulous moral framework you got there.
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote. First, it is "extra" credit. Not required. I also said you could "do nothing." Which is what I'd do.
The hell it is not a firing offense.
Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day on two levels -- first, Joe Sixpack is going to be shocked at what he sees -- and that will pressure people like DeSantas to do something about it.
DeSantas is already calling Students for Justice in Palestine a "terrorist group" and demanding the UF chapters be shut down. See: https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1716930181083066727?s=20
There already are something like six US Senators calling for visas to be revoked, this could be interesting...
That letter doesn’t make sense. Claiming to be “part of” a terrorist attack… even if true, which seems unlikely here… is not “material support.” The term “material support” is well-defined and means more than just talk.
If SJP is actually materially supporting Hamas, sure, shut them down. But there’s no evidence of that. It’s just bluster, i.e. free speech.
SJP would win this lawsuit.
This is the kind of behavior that you are trivializing: https://nypost.com/2023/10/25/news/cooper-union-barricades-jewish-students-inside-library/
Sounds like "trivial" might be an overstatement. I can't help it if some Jewish snowflakes get scared and cry when they see pro-Palestinian posters. Free speech, you know. You like to say homophobic things, but you don't see the gays on here weeping and calling 911.
But the point is... are you really suggesting that posters and chanting counts as "material support" for Hamas? That's retarded. (And yes, please do cry and pee yourself that I called you retarded, it's on purpose.)
It won't be long before MAGA turns against support for Israel same as Ukraine. All the same "America First" arguments work. And plus, who wants to be on the same side of an issue as Biden, am I right?
You can keep yourself from defending people who try to break down the doors of a library to get at the Jewish people inside. You can mention that kind of physical assault instead of pretending that this only involved posters. You can refrain from proving my point by trivializing terroristic behavior.
But you're probably too busy working on your toothbrush mustache.
They didn't try to break down the doors. You made that up.
I'm defending free speech that I happen to disagree with. I might be the only commenter on VC to ever have done that, actually.
Terroristic behavior, oh my god. Half of VC is terroristic in that case. You're worse than the left calling everything "racist" or the right calling everything "censorship."
If you think half of the VC commentariat bangs on doors and windows as part of a threatening mob, you're probably hanging around too much with Antifa, the Rev, pseudo-Affleck, Davedave and the like.
Sure sounds like pounding to me. But I suppose you'd just claim that they weren't really trying to break down the door, it was just theatrical pounding.
Yes, I don't think anyone thinks they can break down a door by pounding on it, and yes, they were obviously being theatrical. Excessively theatrical even, I'll grant you.
What's the dividing line between theatrically pounding on a door pretending to try to break it down, and genuinely pounding on a door trying to break it down? Whether or not you've conducted a structural analysis?
The difference is being too dumb to know how a door works.
Have you ever heard of anyone “pounding down a door” by banging on it? It’s not a thing. Doors would be ridiculously useless if that worked. You need an axe or a battering ram or something.
“I knocked real hard and the door just flew off its hinges!” What planet are you living on?
Have you ever heard of anyone “pounding down a door” by banging on it? It’s not a thing. Doors would be ridiculously useless if that worked. You need an axe or a battering ram or something.
Or just throw the weight of your body against it:
"SIDNEY, Ohio - An Ohio father will not face charges after shooting and killing his daughter’s ex-boyfriend as he broke through their front door.
Surveillance video released by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office in Sidney, Ohio, shows 22-year-old James Rayl walk up to a home on July 31 and repeatedly bang on the front door, WDTN reports. Voices can be heard in the background telling Rayl that his ex-girlfriend, also 22, did not want to see him and instructing Rayl to go away.
A man’s voice can also be heard warning that he had a gun as Rayl pushes through the front door with his shoulder and shots ring out. Rayl was shot three times and stumbled into the driveway before collapsing on the ground."
"Or just throw the weight of your body against it"
Or a crowd of people pounding/pushing on it. with a big enough crowd pushing on each other and ultimately the door, tons of force could be generated.
I can't believe you guys are willing to be this stupid just to make some student protesters look bad.
That would kill the people before it would break down the door.
As for the James Rayl situation, the dad shot him through a window while he was still outside on the front porch. It seems like he broke some glass on the front door but that's it.
I'm sure a big dude busts down a weak door from time to time. But not by pounding on it, and not a modern commercial exterior door. They were banging on the door to be intimidating. Clearly.
I suppose I could kick down my own front door if the need arose, it's only wood, and about half a century old. A steel fire door? I couldn't have kicked one of those down when I was 220lbs of solid muscle practicing martial arts. Especially not from the outside.
But people frequently attempt to do things they have no hope of succeeding, and still, they are genuinely trying to do them.
I can’t believe you guys are willing to be this stupid just to make some student protesters look bad.
Sorry a real-life event refuted your uninformed speculation.
As for the James Rayl situation, the dad shot him through a window while he was still outside on the front porch. It seems like he broke some glass on the front door but that’s it.
"A man’s voice can also be heard warning that he had a gun as Rayl pushes through the front door with his shoulder and shots ring out."
He might've been pushing, but he didn't actually get through.
He might’ve been pushing, but he didn’t actually get through.
Rayl pushes through the front door with his shoulder and shots ring out.
pushes through the front door with his shoulder
How utterly asinine a comment.
Snowflakes? There are more anti-semitic violent incidences going on than toward any other group. Switch the groups around - say it was a bunch of white Jews outside the library and 3 or 4 Arabic students, and it'd be front page news across the country.
You really are a pathetic POS.
I would be making the same points if the roles were reversed, and disappointed if it were front-page news across the country.
I assume you're disappointed in the Post for running this obviously partisan drivel?
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20231024/swastika-found-on-playground-equipment-at-downers-grove-elementary-school
Is this another bunch of snowflakes overreacting to an innocuous poster?
Yes. Overreacting to this kind of thing is counterproductive.
Hurr, we mustn't overreact to Nazis. We ought to tolerate hijinks like vandalism and intimation of religious or ethnic groups and angry mobs blockading their targets in libraries as long as it means letting the left people "express themselves".
Nazis aren't left people.
You defending them repeatedly indicates otherwise.
You're really great, damikesc.
Oh no, you're a Democrat now!
Yes, they are left people. Big government that runs everything, national SOCIALISTS.
Own it.
You think the Nazis were socialists? Hahaha lovely. Keep showing off that big brain.
Speaking of snowflakes, a bunch of crybullies think their news-media employer should go beyond refusing to identify terrorism by name, and should also pretend that murderers' lives are worth as much as their innocent victims' lives, and declare Israel responsible for Palestinian terror groups accidentally bombing Palestinian hospitals.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-staff-crying-at-work-in-divide-over-israel-gaza-coverage-l5g2bk0nf
Paywall. But I'm against all snowflakery... especially on the left, since it makes me look bad.
You don't need "snowflakery" to look bad. You accomplish that on your own. The Leftists claim about "death threat" after "death threat", yet when these are investigated they dry up and go away.
The latest death threat complainers were House Republicans.
Those damn triggered cuck snowflakes in the House Republican majority.
I already talked to Joe Sixpack about this, and he said “Free Palestine.”
Also just lmao at you guys still thinking anything Desnatis says matters in the slightest. He’s polling in the single digits! Pure delusion.
Palestine is free. Except of course the parts controlled by Hamas and Fatah.
Oh, just except for those places?? Is that all?
Beyond parody.
Yes, just except for those places. But I’m sure it’s the Joooos fault that Hamas and Fatah refuse to hold elections and don’t have a concept of human rights.
(Yes, I recognize that when people like you say "Free Palestine," you actually mean "Free of Jews.")
Wow, it’s really convenient for you that the strawmen in your head sound so unreasonable.
In real life, Free Palestine means the Palestinians should have their own sovereign state, free of external blockade and occupation. Just like the Israelis have, nothing more. The only person here arguing for an ethnostate is you.
If it hurts your side, it's automatically good.
In real life, "free" does not mean "run by fanatic religious authoritarians — or even secular authoritarians — who happen to be of the same ethnicity as the population." North Korea is not free, Russia is not free, and Gaza is not free, and none of that has anything to do with Israel. If people actually cared about freedom for Gaza, they'd be demanding that Hamas leave, rather than cheering Hamas on.
As far as I can tell, people are demanding that Hamas leave. But they're also observing that Israel has been an enabler of Hamas for the last 20 years.
The people chanting "From the river to the sea…" are not demanding that Hamas leave; they're applauding Hamas.
Who is doing that, exactly, besides Israel and its supporters?
Certainly not the organizers of this event, who have expressly celebrated the perpetrators of the butchery on 10/7 as "martyrs" and denounced labeling it "terrorism" as Islamophobic.
The Gazans, for one. As you posted yourself the other day DN:
It’s silly to claim that the lack of freedom in Gaza has nothing to do with Israeli policies. Is that what you’re claiming?
No, he said Free Ballentine. As in the ale.
You'll have to go to Israel if you're a fan of universities firing employees for wrongthink.
“a graduate student” instructor at UC Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies.
Shouldn’t that read “a former graduate student” instructor at UC Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies.
Oh wait. UC Berkeley. Never mind.
What did you expect.
UCB disarmed the issue quickly and appropriately. The gard student should get a stern talking to, that is all.
She should probably be removed from teaching the classes as well.
Yes, cancel culture is the way to go. Who doesn't love cancelling the people they disagree with.
That's not cancel culture. It's a call to be fired from a job shown to be incompetently handled, not to be fired from an unrelated job.
I've noticed that whether the cancelling is "unrelated" vs "incompetence" tends to track extremely closely to whether or not you agree or disagree with the cancellee, respectively.
I don't agree with the instructor. I do agree that UCB handled this matter appropriately.
This single incident would not satisfy the State of California's criteria for firing for cause from a state entity. If this person violated UCB's code of conduct repeatedly, that would be a different story.
It's a hostile environment for those of Israeli nationality.
As Aunty said... lol!
It was a single incident and it was immediately corrected by UCB
In this case, I agree.
Personally, I think the Chemerinsky affair sensitized UCB to this.
“The grad student should get a stern talking to, that is all.”
And a formal letter in the file. Just to have a record of the warning in case the behavior is repeated.
But anyway, it's a Department of Ethnic Studies and if you decide to have such a department you can expect stuff like this occasionally.
Your correct about a formal letter to the file.
Trump lawyers continue to plead guilty.
House Republicans just elected a thin resume from the Alliance Defending Freedom as Speaker, after weeks of dysfunction, setting up plenty of anti-gay, anti-abortion sideshows and little prospect of responsible governance.
It was revealed that ethical illiterate Clarence Thomas also neglected to report that a quarter-million-dollar loan from a right-wing supporter (for the fancy recreational vehicle he used to masquerade as a "man of the Walmart parking lot people") had been "forgiven" years ago.
Another violent gun nut is on the loose, running around what counts as a city in Maine, shooting more than a dozen people.
And the Volokh Conspiracy wants to talk about . . . this shit.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, though, and not a step beyond.
Unfortunately the death toll is far, even worse than that.
I'm sure Dr. Ed will set everyone straight tomorrow.
Dr. Ed will do it now — Maine is a constitutional carry state so why did no one shoot back?
1 Walmart Warehouse (not being mentioned, incidentally) is a gun free workplace, so no one could shoot back.
2 Bars frown on armed patrons.
3 Bowling alleys do as well.
And what the hell is wrong with the VA? He was committed for two weeks over the summer — that somehow didn’t quite work.
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2023/10/26/news/central-maine/what-we-know-about-the-person-of-interest-in-the-lewiston-shootings/
If he genuinely has an involuntary commitment in his record he should be a prohibited person under current federal law, so how did he get a gun?
Did someone forget to file the paperwork with NICS?
It's almost as if when there are so many millions of guns around, those types of laws don't work.
I've never understood how gun control is supposed to disarm criminals, anyway. The same way meth control deprives addicts of their fix?
Prohibitions of all sorts are generally ineffective and carry serious negative side effects. And that's the case even when they're not prohibitions against exercising a civil right.
Another violent gun nut is on the loose, running around what counts as a city in Maine,
This was the voting record of Lewiston in 2020:
Year Democratic Republican Third Parties
2020 55.30% 9,616 41.59% 7,232 3.11% 540
It's always fun to watch the slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklib slag his own people.
A backwater is a backwater, much as a disaffected right-wing bigot is a disaffected right-wing bigot.
Do your monotonous ejaculations occur before or after your third jar of pruno, Reverend?
We know how the Monneapolis DA deals with violent gun nuts.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/10/25/minneapoliss-woke-and-deluded-da-foiled-by-an-ethical-judge/
The assignment raises grave questions as to the competence of the instructor. While a range of opinions on Israel’s policy toward Gaza is possible, anyone who thinks that Gaza is occupied by Israel is ignorant of international law, the facts, or both.
You mean like the US, UK, and UN? I think actually it's you (and DN) that are ignorant here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hYiIWVlpFzEC&pg=PA429#v=onepage&q&f=false
Italy out of Vatican City!
Yeah, I always see the Italian Defense Force out there shooting Cardinals who venture too close to the fence.
If those Cardinals started decapitating Italian babies, yiu can bet they would.
I suspect if they started grabbing people off of the Piazza Padre Pio and dragging them back in St Peter’s Square things may rapidly change.
Not to mention firing rockets into Rome.
And when that all happens, we'll say that Italy is effectively occupying the Vatican.
Baloney. East Germany used to do that (shooting people who wandered too close to the Berlin Wall) , and no one in their right mind thought that the DDR was occupying West Germany, or even Berlin.
Both South Korea and North Korea has multiple such incidents across the DMZ throughout the 60s, 79s and 80s - no one thinks the South occupied the North or vice versa.
Are you stupid? Israel has the Gaza Strip entirely surrounded, including blockading the airspace and waterfront, and supervising the Egyptian border.
That's why people are comparing the Vatican, which is at least entirely surrounded by Italy, so there's something to think about there.
East Germany was shooting its own people to keep them in, so... East Germany was occupying itself? You're doubly retarded on that one. Neither of the Koreas has the other one entirely surrounded.
You need to stop embarrassing yourself on the Internet.
Israel does not “supervise” the Egyptian border, and as the paragliding terrorists of the 10/7 massacres show, does not control the airspace, either.
As to people embarrassing themselves with ignorance on the internet, have a read, moron: “30 people from both East and West who were not trying to flee but were shot ”
https://www.berlin.de/mauer/en/history/victims-of-the-wall/
Hahahaha oh man did you think I wouldn't click the link? Why don't you tell the class what the next five words of that sentence are?
Meanwhile, the (entire) first sentence:
I can just see you, fingers crossed, "please don't click the link, please don't click the link" hahahaha snort.
I gave you the quote from the link: “30 people from both East and West who were not trying to flee but were shot ” The next 5 words were “or died in an accident” – do you think that changes the fact that some were shot?
That more East Germans were shot doesn’t mean West Germans weren’t also shot.
Do yourself a favor sonny, and read more carefully.
Uh uh. Because East Germany shot some West Germans on accident, that’s the same as Israel having a policy of shooting anyone who tries to enter or leave Gaza over any route.
Are you trying to convince the world that you take the short bus?
Ok, I see the problem, you simply can't read English at Elementary school level. The sentence "30 people from both East and West who were not trying to flee but were shot or died in an accident” means 30 people who were not fleeing died. Some were shot, some died in an accident. "Or" is a conjunction that connects two alternatives - some were shot, some died in an accident, not that they were shot by accident.
Wow. Just wow. Did it not occur to you, oh smarty pants, that it actually does mean “shot in an accident or died in an accident”?
Why, do tell, do you suppose theose prople from both East and West were shot, if not, as it says, by accident?
For fun?
Target practice?
Out of boredom?
Do you have any idea about the reasons for the things that you happen to notice are going on in the world, or are you pleasantly ignorant of reality, just flitting hither and thither, making snap judgements and misunderstsnding all you see?
I've seen such arguments and they are absolutely wrong as a matter of law. Occupation is well defined and requires "boots on the ground" and actual control. Control of the border does not constitute occupation. And of course the border with Egypt is actually controlled by Egypt, not Israel. Pretty much everything in Gaza is run by Hamas. Who runs the courts? Hamas, not Israel. Who regulates business? Hamas, not Israel. Who controls public services such as hospitals? Hamas, not Israel. Who controls the police? Hamas, not Israel. Who runs the educational system? Hamas, not Israel. The fact that various political organizations falsely characterize the situation as occupation is evidence of their bias, not that Israel actually occupies Gaza.
I like how America is a "various political organization" here.
Anyway, I think your bias is showing. I'm not an expert on this particular point of international law, but it seems to me like the Gaza Strip is effectively under the control of Israel. I think that's how someone living there would feel. Israel even has soldiers along the border with Egypt, just to be extra sure that border doesn't become a containment leak.
The fact that Hamas deals with some of the internal logistics is uninteresting. Compare to a prison. The prisoners control doing the laundry and cooking the food. They control cleaning the restrooms. They control the jailyard gangs and smuggling operations. But those little bits of power aren't sufficient for self-determination when the entire facility is locked down and ultimately controlled by Israel, I mean the prison guards.
Israel is achieving the purposes of an occupation. Why should it matter that they think they found a loophole in international law?
Hamas doesn't just " deal[s ]with some of the internal logistics " -it runs every single aspect of life there, and controls everything with the exception of exiting the country via the sea.
You wouldn't think we'd be contemplating the impact of an imminent ground invasion by Israel if Israel was actually already occupying Gaza.
Randal,
Let's imagine that the UN Security Council declares that Gaza is a nation state. What would change? Almost nothing. Israel would secure its international border. It would control entry to and from Israel. The government of Gaza (Hamas) would still have to but power, water, and fuel.
What would change is that the water border of Gaza would be controlled by Hamas.
Are you contending that is it Israel's blockade of sea entry is what makes an otherwise independent entity into a prison?
Essentially, yes. The complete isolation of the Gaza Strip by land, air, and sea puts Israel in total control of it, like a colony of seamonkeys.
"like a colony of seamonkeys."
Thanks for a direct answer.
But do you have to add highly prejudicial snarks "like a colony of seamonkeys."
They detract from what is otherwise a serious answer that one could argue about. I expect that many would say, the blockade to not lessen the status as a nation state BUT does constititute ipso facto a declared state of war between Israel and the nation of Gaza
Again conveniently ignoring that Egypt is in control of one of the land borders. Israel is NOT in complete control of Gaza.
as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border
As for Israel's regulation of who can go where, again that is not as a matter of law occupation. It is what is known as "border control". And since Gaza is a quasi-state at war with Israel (continuously since 2007) it is not entitled to the normal courtesies. And although Israel defines Gazans and Palestinians for its own purposes, the UN and many countries and organizations falsely characterize most Palestinians in conflict with international law. That's why the Palestinians have their own agency - hardly any of them would fall within the scope of the UN's real refugee agency.
The class is "Asian American Communities and Race Relations" and not "Middle Eastern Studies."
Based on the last sentence in the screenshot, supporters of Israel are not going to feel welcome with or without the extra credit opportunity.
The class is “Asian American Communities and Race Relations” and not “Middle Eastern Studies.”
Doesn't matter. That's the whole point of Marcusian intersectional theology, that the world can be neatly divided into "oppressed" and "oppressors," and that the former is always good and righteous, while the latter is always bad and malicious.
It doesn’t look like they actually reversed it. They just permitted the extra credit to be obtained in other ways as well.
So long as the end result is a situation where obtaining extra credit doesn't depend on the students' adopting a particular political stance that seems fine to me.
Not really if it doesn't explicitly allow opposing viewpoints and is just prof's POV or unrelated.
The university's correction does explicitly allow opposing viewpoints. So what is your problem with it?
Why are you hungry for blood?
Correct, and that does remove the offensive nature of the extra credit opportunity.