The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Quote from: spork on April 25, 2024, 02:41:09 PMI find it amusing that college students have taken up divestment as a cause. Divestment from what? The U.S. military-industrial complex? If they want to strike an economic blow against universities, they should spend their tuition money somewhere else -- other universities that are presumably less prestigious -- and convince others to do the same. Calls for divestment are either clueless or virtue signaling.

The template comes from the divestment from South Africa to end apartheid. Because divestment was so widespread then it may have had some policy impact. (I understand that the social scientists studying it have found the sports boycott was more influential.)

It is now part of the Boycott-Divest-S[] package of actions to try influencing Israeli policy on Palestinian rights, so it makes sense that this action is being requested.

Students at my school were really gung ho on divesting from fossil fuels a few years ago. They thought that news of our school selling all its oils stocks would galvanize the CEO and BoD of Shell, Exxon et alia to change their business model and go to renewables in order to win back our holdings. That seems like a fanciful expectation. More so when you realize that our holdings represented several minutes of trading in those securities on the NYSE, so even if they got dumped in a single market order, it wouldn't even blip the share price. There would be nothing for the CEO to notice.

The unfortunate thing is that the university does thousands of things, through research and even operations, that have a large potential impact on climate change in general and fossil fuel demand in particular. If the goal is to get the university to do more to prevent or mitigate climate change, encourage more investment in those activies. Or even join into them as a student. That would make far more difference than divestment.

I suspect the arms industry follows the actions of university endowment managers even less than the oil industry does. 

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 08:07:38 AMI'll start writing my second referee report today, then work on T1.

Wrote and submitted the report, did a good chunk of T1, cleaned out my inbox, submitted an invoice, sent off my summer syllabus for approval, and had a department meeting.

A productive day!

Sorry, I realize that I did not say what Fallout is about.  As you might guess from the title, it's a dystopian tale involving nuclear war.  So far, a lot of it has focused on what happened after the bombs fell, as much of it takes place 300 or so years later.  People fared quite differently given their circumstances.  We also find out more about what happened prior to the bombs that sheds some light on these outcomes.  The casting is great.  Lots of lesser known actors are really fantastic in their roles, and Walton Goggins just always hits it out of the park IMO.  It really funny and endearing at times as well as being a fun action/sci-fi show.

We have finished a few other series and seasons, so I will recap.  We liked season 1 of Homicide a lot.  My friend likes that show better than The Wire, but I do not (yet?) agree.  Still, very good.  Succession season 2 was also awesome.  That family and surrounding factions are just so awful, but it's all portrayed so well.  I really enjoy all the betrayal and scheming that goes on.  As I think I mentioned above, we are in season 2 of Dr. Who now.

We finished all of Mr. Robot.  That was an excellent series.  It's very clever, intense, and makes good use of music.  I wasn't quite sure how it was going to end up, but I thought they wrapped it up pretty well, and the acting was great throughout.  I'm not sure if I said what it's about, but without giving too much away, it's focused to a large extent on the hacking of a major corporation and the after effects for the perps, corporation, and society.  There are a bunch of groups with warring interests that must try to come out on top.  Some of the episodes were pretty amazing.  After Mr. Robot we watched Fallout season 1.  I am not really into video games, but I would give this very high marks.  Like Mr. Robot in some ways, it makes good use of music and is very clever.  The characters and acting really drew me in, and I really didn't want it to end.  Looking forward to season 2!  Now in place of that one we are watching Person of Interest, which was created by the same folks as Fallout and focuses on cybersurveillance, so also has some overlap with Mr. Robot in a broad sense.  Pretty good so far!

p.s.

Meanwhile, in Haiti . . .

Quote from: dismalist on April 25, 2024, 08:05:24 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on April 24, 2024, 07:23:19 PM

Quote from: dismalist on April 24, 2024, 11:12:48 AM

QuoteI can't think of any example where a superior military power was actually able to dislodge a rag tag militia that can hide among the populace, take a few pot shots, and disappear back into the crowd.

It is forgotten that the French military won the Battle of Algiers and, indeed, controlled Algeria. Algeria gained independence because of support from outside. This was called "the internationalization of the conflict". This strategy has been imitated by the PLO, and now Hamas. Placing armed fighters among the civilian population is intended to cause lots of civilian casualties, which are then thought to stimulate outside support.

I don't think it will be successful because the Battle for Gaza is being fought by a neighboring, independent country with an existential interest in complete victory, something that metropolitan France never had -- French soil was not seriously threatened by the NLF.

Less dramatic historical memory surrounds the Malayan Emergency [1948 - 1960] because the British defeated the insurgents.

^ This.

Viet Nam is a great example.

The US Civil War was a classic example. On paper, the North should have won in 20 minutes. They had all the industry, weapons, wealth. What did they have to do to the South, and how long did it take, for them to finally get the South to surrender?

It is also overlooked that the Viet Cong were destroyed upon their Tet offensive. But the war didn't end because North Vietnamese regulars got involved. What Hamas has learned from the Vietnam War is that to defeat the United States, or affect its policy, one has to get at the US home front propagandistically. This is what is unfolding now. But there is so little at stake for US voters, I doubt it will make any difference.

The US Civil War was a conventional war. It is an example of something else: The attempt to internationalize the conflict, as the NLF did successfully. The South initially embargoed cotton, hoping to starve British factories of inputs and thus getting Britain to declare war on the North. This failed miserably. It did what the North could not do the first year of the war -- blockade the South.

The data indicates that separatist/irredentist/independence movements generally only succeed when they have external material support, which almost always comes from a neighbor. Sympathetic stories in international media do nothing by themselves. The military outcome of the current war is a function of how long Hamas's pre-war munitions stockpiles will last, since it's highly unlikely that Iran can get new supplies into Gaza. As secundem_artem mentioned upthread, Hamas made a horrific calculation and Netanyahu, while politically talented at saving his own skin, is a terrible statesman.

Back to campus protests:

I find it amusing that college students have taken up divestment as a cause. Divestment from what? The U.S. military-industrial complex? If they want to strike an economic blow against universities, they should spend their tuition money somewhere else -- other universities that are presumably less prestigious -- and convince others to do the same. Calls for divestment are either clueless or virtue signaling.

Also . . . doesn't it seem a bit odd that the university presidents grilled by headline-seeking members of Congress have been women, and that the grilling has largely been initiated by female members of Congress?

Quote from: kaysixteen on April 23, 2024, 08:12:05 PMAnyone see 'Civil War' yet?   Worth seeing?

I saw it, and I wouldn't have known it was an Alex Garland movie without being told. Feels quite different from Ex Machina, Men, Annihilation -- it has more in common with 28 Days Later tbh.

It's also quite different from what the advertising campaign would have you believe. Outside of the whole "what sort of American are you" scene, there's not much that's partisan in the way that people seem to think it is. After all, it's not The Hunt. It's quite episodic, and sometimes suffers for it. It also has some incredibly lyrical moments which resonate effectively. I don't think I'll need to revisit it anytime soon, as there are other war movies that speak to similar themes. But if you're a fan of Garland's writing (Men excluded, maybe) I think you'll enjoy this one. If you're interested in a commentary on American politics or a metaphor for the 2020 election, then you'll likely be disappointed.

Abbott even made Christopher Rufo and FIRE angry with this one:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4620838-texas-governor-abbott-backlash-mass-arrest-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest/

Quote from: downer on April 25, 2024, 09:18:33 AMMaybe they could allow food trucks to come to campus.

Post-pandemic, my university used food trucks, as a short-term solution to losing our on-campus food services (which was contracted out to some loser company who couldn't live up to their end of the agreement). We lost some significant parking spaces, but it solved our 1+ year problem of inadequate on-campus food options after the pandemic.

As a side-note, admins need to play hard ball with contractors. A deal is a deal. Contractors shouldn't be allowed to walk away from the terms of a signed contract. If they are allowed to walk away from a signed contract, that's the fault of spineless and/or incompetent administrators. 

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 10:06:19 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on April 25, 2024, 08:53:11 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 25, 2024, 08:10:32 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on April 25, 2024, 08:04:13 AMIt's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?

They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?

Remember the truckers in Ottawa, and blockading bridges to the U.S.? The idea that anyone who thinks they can support a righteous cause by engaging in illegal activity undermines the whole idea of what a democratic society is about. Legitimate protest is an opportunity to get people to hear your message, so that you have the chance to win them over to it. Extorting them into doing what you want in order to get on with their lives makes winning them over to your cause irrelevant.

Indeed, I do remember. And I remember being just fine with them demonstrating and even blocking traffic. I was not okay with their setting open fires, because that is a significant public safety risk. I was also not okay with their blaring air horns (which cause permanent hearing damage) in residential neighbourhoods, especially at all times of the day and night (clearly an attempt to inflict sleep deprivation on residents). You'll recall I also opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act.

As for the bridge blockade, I have no problem with a bridge blockade in principle, save that those assholes were armed with firearms. That's absolutely not okay, and a serious danger to public safety.

Whether they have firearms or tire irons,  (which truckers surely do), they are a serious danger to public safety as long as they feel entitled to prevent anyone crossing the bridge.