Per the discussion in the suggestion forum, I'm going to start trying to split threads that get too long on a regular basis, to see if that makes them a little more accessible to new members and lurkers. The previous thread is here (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=2202.1830), for your reference.
Here was the opening post:
Quote from: apl68 on March 12, 2021, 09:36:21 AMI'm know I'm taking a real risk of stirring up the hornet's nest here. I try for the most part to stay out of the culture war fights. But this one hits right where I work.
Most people by now are aware (because it blew up all over social media and the "news") that six Dr. Seuss titles have been discontinued by the publisher, for reasons of a sort commonly described as "political correctness," or, more recently, "cancel culture." The news has resulted in a mad rush by collectors and speculators to grab all remaining copies. The suddenly scarce works are suddenly worth a lot of money.
Public libraries in my own state have had people they've never seen before suddenly wanting to check out these titles in blatant efforts to steal them for resale. They've also had a number of honest inquiries about purchasing them. The State Library has advised libraries to put their copies of the titles under guard to prevent theft of what have overnight become effectively irreplaceable literary antiques. An article about the situation made the front page of the state's leading newspaper today! My colleagues have been reporting some truly crazy stuff.
Our own library's Facebook has blown up with questions and rumors. I've felt it necessary to address the whole business in my weekly local newspaper column. We're assuring patrons that we haven't purged Dr. Seuss, that most titles remain available as always, but that our copies of the suddenly scarce titles (we have three of them) will now be limited to in-library use only. Some of the titles are among Dr. Seuss' more obscure works--but they include To Think That I Saw it On Mulberry Street, which ranks right up there with The Cat in the Hat. I'm just glad I got a personal copy of a childhood favorite, Scrambled Eggs Super a few years ago when I happened across one. No way I'd be able to afford one now!
A couple of years ago the American Library Association "cancelled" Laura Ingalls Wilder by removing her name from one of its leading awards. J.K. Rowling, who for years had been an absolute darling of the "right on" crowd after misguided people challenged her Harry Potter books, has been cancelled. Now part of the Dr. Seuss corpus (And the man was a flaming lefty in his own lifetime, too!). Where is it going to end?
A simple decision by a publisher to discontinue a few titles shouldn't be this fraught, or lead to such an instant media and social media circus. Or create new problems for librarians just trying to do their jobs.
And here was the last post:
Quote from: MarathonRunner on June 16, 2023, 12:06:06 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on June 16, 2023, 10:20:43 AMQuote from: MarathonRunner on June 15, 2023, 12:39:25 PMQuote from: dismalist on June 15, 2023, 12:28:57 PM...
QuoteExcept there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.
I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!
The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!
Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?
Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.
The difficulty is with the departments that provide service to lots of others. Math, for instance, is required by lots of other disciplines, so what "credit" should that give them in retaining their own major even if the enrollment is low?
That's why I said synergies. Engineering programs obviously require math, as do plenty of other disciplines, from dietetics to psychology to business and others. So if enough programs require math, keep the math department. But is it really worth hiring a math advisor (not faculty at any Canadian university I've attended) or keeping all the math-major specific courses if you only have two math majors enrolling each year? Same with things like chemistry. Obviously many programs need chemistry up to even third year. But if there are only 3 chem majors, is it viable to offer the specialized fourth year chem courses that are only open to chem majors? I'm not in charge, obviously, but I don't think every single program needs to be offered at every single university. Like I said, we already have that with professional programs, but not so much with the generic BAs, BScs, etc. I'm just looking at what has happened recently. I'd rather all Canadian universities offer many different programs, but given funding, program closures, etc., I think specialization may help more than hurt. But I'm definitely no expert.
IHE: 'Preaching' in Biology Class? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2023/06/28/professor-says-he-was-fired-allegedly-preaching)
Lower Deck:
QuoteSt. Philip's College, despite the name, is a public college. A professor who is also a pastor says the college fired him after it allegedly received complaints of "preaching" in class.
QuoteAn adjunct professor who is also an associate pastor says a Texas community college fired him after it claimed to have received complaints of "religious preaching, discriminatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric and misogynistic banter."
P.S.---Is there any way we can change the name of this thread if we are going to keep it going? Something like, "More Suess Cancellation" or something.
From the Chronicle of Higher Education, an account of an applicant with controversial views on the efficacy of diversity statements--brings up a number of timely questions:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/this-professor-criticized-diversity-statements-did-it-cost-him-a-job-offer
QuoteWhite Professor Resigns, Alleges Reverse Discrimination
A now-former Pennsylvania State University system professor says a series of trainings and the campus's approach to grading discriminated based on race.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/06/26/white-professor-resigns-alleges-reverse
Quote from: little bongo on June 29, 2023, 09:09:35 AMFrom the Chronicle of Higher Education, an account of an applicant with controversial views on the efficacy of diversity statements--brings up a number of timely questions:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/this-professor-criticized-diversity-statements-did-it-cost-him-a-job-offer
This has been lighting up psych twitter lately too. I think there was a lot of unwarranted jumping to conclusions here among anti-DEI activists. It turns out this was a spousal hire situation. It is pretty presumptuous of him to just assume that he had the job in hand because they wanted his spouse-- this is a top program, and spousal hires often fall through for all sorts of reasons. He himself admits that he has no evidence that the letter was a deciding factor.
Also, if you read the full letter from the students, they raise some serious concerns about his responses to his questions and how he then talked about them to faculty -- this isn't just a case of them disagreeing with his viewpoints, but of how he was dismissive and seemed ill prepared to engage meaningfully with their questions.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on June 28, 2023, 09:22:54 AMP.S.---Is there any way we can change the name of this thread if we are going to keep it going? Something like, "More Suess Cancellation" or something.
Sure, although those don't really make clear what the thread's about.
-----
Google and Facebook are cancelling news access in Canada (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/university-waterloo-stabbings-1.6891832).
It's way too long, and has a strong UK focus, but Amia Srinavasan has an excellent piece in the LARB entitled "Cancelled (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n13/amia-srinivasan/cancelled)".
A few excerpts, just for fun:
QuoteNo doubt it can be painful, infuriating or upsetting to be called a racist or a bigot or a sexist or a transphobe. Most of us would find it horrible to be told that we aren't worth engaging with, that our views are socially unacceptable or merely a function of demography. But that it is painful to be on the receiving end of such remarks doesn't mean that one's own rights to 'free speech' are thereby imperilled; it might simply be a reminder that speech can wound. The failure properly to metabolise this point is what leads to the ludicrous spectacle of people with enormous speaking platforms complaining about having been 'cancelled'.
[...]
The Telegraph once called my book, The Right to Sex, a 'Soviet-style' 'Orwellian tract'. I thought it was an idiotic take but it didn't occur to me to complain I was being cancelled, just as it didn't on the occasions I have been subject to Twitter pile-ons. It's not that I'm especially psychically robust. It's just that these events, however unpleasant, do not imperil my right to speak or my access to platforms from which to do so.
There's something more here. It would sound plain weird to say that someone has been 'cancelled' by the right. If I said to you 'Owen Jones has been cancelled,' you would immediately infer that he was being lambasted by fellow leftists, not – as he routinely is – by conservatives. In this way, the notion of 'cancellation' is an exemplary bit of ideology. It appears to be content-neutral – a purely procedural complaint about 'intolerance' and the failures of the 'free marketplace of ideas' – but in fact is substantively political. Cancellation is something the left does; when the right does it, it's an exercise of free speech ('triggering libs').
[...]
When such people are accused by those on the political margins of being racist or sexist or transphobic, this is a violation of a tacit social agreement, which we call the 'right to free speech' but in fact is something else, what we might call the right to a respectful public hearing.
IHE: Racial Comment Inflames Berkshire Conference of Women Historians (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/2023/07/05/racial-comment-inflames-berkshire-conference-women-historians)
QuoteWhat did Banner say?
She did not respond to email requests to discuss the incident. Comments on multiple Twitter accounts of people who were in attendance recounted that she said she wished she were Black (she's white) so her career would have been easier.
IHE: Faculty Opposes Penn State Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/07/11/faculty-opposes-penn-state-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit)
If you read the actual complaint...and assume any of it is true...he has a legitimate case.
Texas A&M recruited a UT professor to revive its journalism program, then backtracked after "DEI hysteria" (https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/11/texas-a-m-kathleen-mcelroy-journalism/)
QuoteThe situation comes at a fraught time at Texas public universities. Schools are preparing for a new state law to go into effect in January that bans offices, programs and training that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Recently, the Texas A&M System started a systemwide audit of all DEI offices in response to the new law.
IHE: When Discrimination Attends Your Conference (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/07/13/conferences-attempt-prevent-respond-discrimination)
QuoteThe policy references both a joint Society for Classical Studies–Archaeological Institute of America "rapid response" team and a Joint AIA-SCS Harassment and Discrimination Committee. That committee looks into formal complaints that require postconference investigation, invites written responses from the accused and recommends possible sanctions to the AIA and SCS governing boards.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 13, 2023, 09:10:49 AMIHE: When Discrimination Attends Your Conference (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/07/13/conferences-attempt-prevent-respond-discrimination)
QuoteThe policy references both a joint Society for Classical Studies–Archaeological Institute of America "rapid response" team and a Joint AIA-SCS Harassment and Discrimination Committee. That committee looks into formal complaints that require postconference investigation, invites written responses from the accused and recommends possible sanctions to the AIA and SCS governing boards.
Maybe the "solution" is to have segregated conferences.
Quote from: marshwiggle on July 13, 2023, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on July 13, 2023, 09:10:49 AMIHE: When Discrimination Attends Your Conference (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/07/13/conferences-attempt-prevent-respond-discrimination)
QuoteThe policy references both a joint Society for Classical Studies–Archaeological Institute of America "rapid response" team and a Joint AIA-SCS Harassment and Discrimination Committee. That committee looks into formal complaints that require postconference investigation, invites written responses from the accused and recommends possible sanctions to the AIA and SCS governing boards.
Maybe the "solution" is to have segregated conferences.
Huh. It's sad, very sad, and not the way I would have it...but that's not the worst idea.
Usually I try to focus my posts on this thread to academic institutions, but I found this little nugget right on point:
NBC News: Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-eli-crane-refers-black-americans-colored-people-house-floor-rcna94200)
QuoteImmediately after Crane finished his remarks, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, asked that the derogatory phrase he used be stricken from the record.
"I find it offensive and very inappropriate," said Beatty, who was the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in the previous Congress. "I am asking for unanimous consent to take down the words of referring to me or any of my colleagues as colored people."
Of course, had Crane used "people of color," there would not have been any problems. Semantics. And yes, I (and probably Crane) know the history and context of the term "colored people."
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 13, 2023, 03:55:01 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on July 13, 2023, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on July 13, 2023, 09:10:49 AMIHE: When Discrimination Attends Your Conference (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/diversity-equity/2023/07/13/conferences-attempt-prevent-respond-discrimination)
QuoteThe policy references both a joint Society for Classical Studies–Archaeological Institute of America "rapid response" team and a Joint AIA-SCS Harassment and Discrimination Committee. That committee looks into formal complaints that require postconference investigation, invites written responses from the accused and recommends possible sanctions to the AIA and SCS governing boards.
Maybe the "solution" is to have segregated conferences.
Huh. It's sad, very sad, and not the way I would have it...but that's not the worst idea.
So do you ask people about their racial identity on the registration form, or do you just have guards at the door denying entry to people who look "wrong"?
(Or, I suppose you could have rules about which institution you have to be employed by to present at a given conference.)
This one is a weird one.
Salt Lake Tribune: Utah State graduate settles racism lawsuit for $45K after he said professor drew 'coon caricature' of him (https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2023/07/15/utah-state-graduate-settles-racism/)
QuoteNoel hit the tipping point in 2020, he said, and reported his concerns to the university after the white professor drew a cartoon image that Noel feels was supposed to be an exaggerated depiction of him as "the angry Black man."
In the drawing, Noel's tall, groomed afro was depicted even taller and sticking out wildly. His thick eyebrows were thicker and angry and furrowed, along with a huge mustache that took up much of his face. His skin was darker, too.
Drawing a caricature of a student one has a history of bad relations with doesn't seem very professional. If it's of a student of a different race, then it's going to be very easy for the aggrieved student to see racism in it, caricature's tendency to exaggerate an individual's prominent features being what it is.
I guess add "drawing caricatures of your students" (Even if you think the student will never see or hear about it) to the long list of things that common sense would already suggest is a bad idea. I hope the understandably unhappy student can take a deep breath and move on from here. And that the unnamed prof is thankful he didn't get publicly outed over this, and understands not to pull stuff like this in the future.
Quote from: apl68 on July 17, 2023, 10:57:08 AMDrawing a caricature of a student one has a history of bad relations with doesn't seem very professional. If it's of a student of a different race, then it's going to be very easy for the aggrieved student to see racism in it, caricature's tendency to exaggerate an individual's prominent features being what it is.
I guess add "drawing caricatures of your students" (Even if you think the student will never see or hear about it) to the long list of things that common sense would already suggest is a bad idea. I hope the understandably unhappy student can take a deep breath and move on from here. And that the unnamed prof is thankful he didn't get publicly outed over this, and understands not to pull stuff like this in the future.
I agree with al of this, but there is some context:
QuoteThe mistreatment, Noel said, started in October 2018, during his first semester at Utah State.
A computer he was using in a lab shorted out and deleted four pages of his assignment. Frustrated, Noel acknowledged, he shouted a few profanities and pushed a chair. The professor learned of the outburst, Noel said, and emailed Noel to say they needed to meet to talk about it.
At the meeting, the professor allegedly accused Noel of being violent and questioned whether he was abusive to others, including his wife.
Noel said the professor then asked him in a derogatory tone: "Was that you going full Haitian?"
Again, not great judgement on the part of the prof, but the angry outburst being the basis of their first contact probably got them off on the wrong foot right away.
Trying to overcome negative first impressions is hard, but necessary, especially when you're going to have to interact over the long term.
Texas Tribune: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in lecture (https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/texas-a-m-professor-opioids-dan-patrick/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteThe professor, an expert on the opioids crisis, was placed on paid administrative leave and investigated, raising questions about the extent of political interference in higher education, particularly in health-related matters.
QuoteJoy Alonzo, a respected opioid expert, was in a panic.
The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk.
In the few hours it took to drive from Galveston, the complaint had made its way to her supervisors, and Alonzo's job was suddenly at risk.
All the particulars are not known yet, of course, but how can conservatives support this level of McCarthuistic behavior on the part of Republican politicians? This is very dangerous behavior.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 25, 2023, 01:57:24 PMTexas Tribune: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in lecture (https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/25/texas-a-m-professor-opioids-dan-patrick/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteThe professor, an expert on the opioids crisis, was placed on paid administrative leave and investigated, raising questions about the extent of political interference in higher education, particularly in health-related matters.
QuoteJoy Alonzo, a respected opioid expert, was in a panic.
The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk.
In the few hours it took to drive from Galveston, the complaint had made its way to her supervisors, and Alonzo's job was suddenly at risk.
All the particulars are not known yet, of course, but how can conservatives support this level of McCarthuistic behavior on the part of Republican politicians? This is very dangerous behavior.
Could you have a more blatant and clearcut first amendment violation? The lawsuit is going to cost A&M a bundle.
Calgary Herald: Controversial Calgary professor sues University of Lethbridge for nixing guest lecture (https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/controversial-calgary-professor-sues-university-of-lethbridge-for-nixing-guest-lecture)
QuoteA controversial Calgary professor is suing the University of Lethbridge over its decision to cancel a guest lecture she was scheduled to deliver at the school in February.
Frances Widdowson — who was fired from Mount Royal University following heavy criticism of her comments on Canada's residential school system and the Black Lives Matter movement — is suing the southern Alberta institution alongside student Jonah Pickle and philosophy professor Paul Viminitz, who invited her to the school. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms filed the lawsuit July 26 on behalf of the three applicants.
QuoteThe planned lecture was to cover how "woke-ism" in post-secondary institutions threatens academic freedom, but it was cancelled amid backlash and a reprisal of Widdowson's views by students and faculty. She said her experience at U of L is a "textbook case" of the topic she planned to speak about.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 02, 2023, 02:00:05 PMCalgary Herald: Controversial Calgary professor sues University of Lethbridge for nixing guest lecture (https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/controversial-calgary-professor-sues-university-of-lethbridge-for-nixing-guest-lecture)
QuoteThe planned lecture was to cover how "woke-ism" in post-secondary institutions threatens academic freedom, but it was cancelled amid backlash and a reprisal of Widdowson's views by students and faculty. She said her experience at U of L is a "textbook case" of the topic she planned to speak about.
It does rather sound like it there.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 02, 2023, 02:00:05 PMCalgary Herald: Controversial Calgary professor sues University of Lethbridge for nixing guest lecture (https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/controversial-calgary-professor-sues-university-of-lethbridge-for-nixing-guest-lecture)
QuoteA controversial Calgary professor is suing the University of Lethbridge over its decision to cancel a guest lecture she was scheduled to deliver at the school in February.
Frances Widdowson — who was fired from Mount Royal University following heavy criticism of her comments on Canada's residential school system and the Black Lives Matter movement — is suing the southern Alberta institution alongside student Jonah Pickle and philosophy professor Paul Viminitz, who invited her to the school. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms filed the lawsuit July 26 on behalf of the three applicants.
QuoteThe planned lecture was to cover how "woke-ism" in post-secondary institutions threatens academic freedom, but it was cancelled amid backlash and a reprisal of Widdowson's views by students and faculty. She said her experience at U of L is a "textbook case" of the topic she planned to speak about.
I very much doubt that lawsuit has any chance whatsoever of success. Her event was cancelled, but that doesn't mean her Charter rights to freedom of assembly, thought, expression, etc. were violated. She'd be better off suing her former institution over her firing, although even that would be pretty uncertain, given the givens.
Some updates on Texas A&M's decision to bow to political pressure from right wing loonies and offer Kathleen McElroy progressively worse job offers until there was nothing left. They've settled for $1 million.
This blog post (https://dailynous.com/2023/08/04/a-philosophers-role-in-the-texas-am-debacle/) summarizes what's in the paywalled articles. Of particular interest are those text messages between the dean and the president (paywalled at the Chronicle, available in the blog post). 0_o
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 02, 2023, 03:30:16 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on August 02, 2023, 02:00:05 PMCalgary Herald: Controversial Calgary professor sues University of Lethbridge for nixing guest lecture (https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/controversial-calgary-professor-sues-university-of-lethbridge-for-nixing-guest-lecture)
QuoteA controversial Calgary professor is suing the University of Lethbridge over its decision to cancel a guest lecture she was scheduled to deliver at the school in February.
Frances Widdowson — who was fired from Mount Royal University following heavy criticism of her comments on Canada's residential school system and the Black Lives Matter movement — is suing the southern Alberta institution alongside student Jonah Pickle and philosophy professor Paul Viminitz, who invited her to the school. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms filed the lawsuit July 26 on behalf of the three applicants.
QuoteThe planned lecture was to cover how "woke-ism" in post-secondary institutions threatens academic freedom, but it was cancelled amid backlash and a reprisal of Widdowson's views by students and faculty. She said her experience at U of L is a "textbook case" of the topic she planned to speak about.
I very much doubt that lawsuit has any chance whatsoever of success. Her event was cancelled, but that doesn't mean her Charter rights to freedom of assembly, thought, expression, etc. were violated. She'd be better off suing her former institution over her firing, although even that would be pretty uncertain, given the givens.
Yeah, I think it has zero chance. Given the well documented negative and generational effects of residential schools, not to mention the Calls for Reconciliation, I don't think any lawsuit she would launch has a chance of success. Residential schools did so much incredible harm, and killed so many innocents, I have no idea how anyone in their right mind can claim they were beneficial. The harms of residential schools are well documented and ongoing, given the last one only closed in the 1990s. Sadly racism against Indigenous peoples still exists in Canada. I'm very fortunate and privileged to pass as white.
Here is the Texas A&M system report:https://www.tamus.edu/internal-review/
It seems to me that our conservative Forumites have taken a summer vacation, but I sure would be interested in their take on this one:
NBC News: Shakespeare gets caught in Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/shakespeare-gets-caught-floridas-dont-say-gay-laws-rcna98970)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 09, 2023, 08:19:59 PMIt seems to me that our conservative Forumites have taken a summer vacation, but I sure would be interested in their take on this one:
NBC News: Shakespeare gets caught in Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/shakespeare-gets-caught-floridas-dont-say-gay-laws-rcna98970)
From the article:
QuoteSeveral Shakespeare plays use suggestive puns and innuendo, and it is implied that the protagonists have had premarital sex in "Romeo and Juliet." Shakespeare's books will be available for checkout at media centers at schools, said the district, which covers the Tampa area.
"First and foremost, we have not excluded Shakespeare from our high school curriculum. Students will still have the physical books to read excerpts in class," the statement said. "Curriculum guides are continually reviewed and refined throughout the year to align with state standards and current law."
My take on this one:
It's no surprise that many books that have long been accepted (including the Bible) would be restricted under laws like this. (And to be honest, churches don't routinely expose children to some of the more graphic stories in the Bible.) Personally, I'd rather see a
consistently-applied rule that is overly restrictive rather than no rule at all.
One issue
I'd like to hear other peoples' take on is whether
history matters at all. To my mind, books that have been widely read and studied over long periods of time, even
centuries, have a level of legitimacy that something written recently and mostly unknown does not. Something that has shown a timeless appeal is in a different category than something tied to a very specific current zeitgeist, which will probably disappear into the mists of time in few decades, if not years, and whose major appeal is its current "controversial" content.
Idaho
TITLE 18 CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 87 NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION ACT
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch87/
Pushback from educators and lawyers:
https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/politics-government/2023-08-09/idaho-abortion-lawsuit-aclu-attorney-general
Haven't heard about this in a while:
IHE: Vermont Law and Graduate School Can Cover Slavery Murals, Court Rules (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/08/21/court-rules-vermont-law-and-graduate-school-can-cover-murals)
QuoteThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Vermont Law and Graduate School can permanently cover a pair of controversial murals depicting slavery without infringing upon the artist's rights.
Samuel Kerson painted the two 24-foot-long murals—which show scenes of a slave market and of Vermonters helping people escape on the Underground Railroad, among other things—on a wall at the law school in 1993.
For years, students complained that the colorful images contained racist caricatures. Finally in 2020, after George Floyd's murder by police, the institution decided to cover the murals with panels to hide them from public view.
It's a great shame to have art destroyed like that, but if the public that the public art is meant for finds it offensive then the institution doesn't have much choice but to accommodate them.
The artist has got to be terribly frustrated. You don't create work for a commission expecting the purchaser to eventually destroy it. Yet it is technically the purchaser's right to do so, especially when the art is on the side of a public building. If the art comes to be a real problem for the purchaser, then out it goes. It's not like they could have just given several dozen feet of mural back to the artist when they didn't want it anymore.
Quote from: apl68 on August 22, 2023, 07:49:35 AMIt's a great shame to have art destroyed like that, but if the public that the public art is meant for finds it offensive then the institution doesn't have much choice but to accommodate them.
The artist has got to be terribly frustrated. You don't create work for a commission expecting the purchaser to eventually destroy it. Yet it is technically the purchaser's right to do so, especially when the art is on the side of a public building. If the art comes to be a real problem for the purchaser, then out it goes. It's not like they could have just given several dozen feet of mural back to the artist when they didn't want it anymore.
An artist's moral rights typically extend to the destruction of the work (although the law on moral rights is poorly developed in general, in particular in the US). That's (presumably) why, in this case, it's being 'permanently covered' instead.
What are 'moral rights', and where do they come from? How can what are/ are not, 'moral rights', be ascertained?
Having grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
Quote from: nebo113 on August 22, 2023, 06:45:05 PMHaving grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
And the biggest danger is the conceit that "
we would
never have done those things". As Bill Maher said, "You aren't better; you were just born later."
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 22, 2023, 01:25:47 PMQuote from: apl68 on August 22, 2023, 07:49:35 AMIt's a great shame to have art destroyed like that, but if the public that the public art is meant for finds it offensive then the institution doesn't have much choice but to accommodate them.
The artist has got to be terribly frustrated. You don't create work for a commission expecting the purchaser to eventually destroy it. Yet it is technically the purchaser's right to do so, especially when the art is on the side of a public building. If the art comes to be a real problem for the purchaser, then out it goes. It's not like they could have just given several dozen feet of mural back to the artist when they didn't want it anymore.
An artist's moral rights typically extend to the destruction of the work (although the law on moral rights is poorly developed in general, in particular in the US). That's (presumably) why, in this case, it's being 'permanently covered' instead.
I'm honestly trying to understand the claim here-- maybe this is a difference between US and Canadian law, but my understanding of US law is once the artist has sold the artwork, it is just like any other property-- it is now the property of the buyer and they can do anything at all they like with it, including destroy it. If an artist wants to retain control over their work, they they need to not sell it (perhaps they can put it on loan to display it).
In this particular instance, I'm also not sure what the "preserving history" case is-- the murals were painted on 1993, they are not from some distant historical period.
Quote from: nebo113 on August 22, 2023, 06:45:05 PMHaving grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
I had cause to think about that just yesterday. Our oldest staff member was going through microfilm of the local paper from 1961. She was amazed at how different the racial climate was then, as reflected by the paper's dutiful reference to every black person it mentioned as "Negro," as if that were the most important fact about the subject. She reflected that she was 12 years old then and living here, and just never noticed it. I pointed out that had she been 12 years old and black then, she would never have been able to forget it--she'd constantly be reminded by parents not to go to certain places, or do certain things, to always stay out of the way of any white person she met and always address them with the greatest politeness to avoid trouble.
This wasn't even the "Deep South." This was an industrial town with no history of plantations or lynchings or race riots. The company that built the town kept workers and worker housing segregated and gave white workers the better jobs, but paid everybody a fair wage for what they did. The local "colored" school was actually equal as well as separate, with good facilities and a strong academic record. When desegregation came it was accomplished with no particular drama or resistance, as seems to have been the case in my own home town elsewhere in the state (Unfortunately all anybody remembers about integration in our state is the Central High crisis in Little Rock).
Relations between black and white were probably about as amicable here as anywhere in the country. And yet black people were never allowed to forget, day in and day out, that they were second-class citizens. And apparently most white people who were around at that time just had no clue that black neighbors' experiences were that different. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s all of us, black and white, knew about the segregation that had existed only a decade or two before our time. We just couldn't comprehend it. It was a different world. And it is something we need to remember.
Quote from: apl68 on August 23, 2023, 10:16:26 AMQuote from: nebo113 on August 22, 2023, 06:45:05 PMHaving grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
I had cause to think about that just yesterday. Our oldest staff member was going through microfilm of the local paper from 1961. She was amazed at how different the racial climate was then, as reflected by the paper's dutiful reference to every black person it mentioned as "Negro," as if that were the most important fact about the subject. She reflected that she was 12 years old then and living here, and just never noticed it. I pointed out that had she been 12 years old and black then, she would never have been able to forget it--she'd constantly be reminded by parents not to go to certain places, or do certain things, to always stay out of the way of any white person she met and always address them with the greatest politeness to avoid trouble.
This wasn't even the "Deep South." This was an industrial town with no history of plantations or lynchings or race riots. The company that built the town kept workers and worker housing segregated and gave white workers the better jobs, but paid everybody a fair wage for what they did. The local "colored" school was actually equal as well as separate, with good facilities and a strong academic record. When desegregation came it was accomplished with no particular drama or resistance, as seems to have been the case in my own home town elsewhere in the state (Unfortunately all anybody remembers about integration in our state is the Central High crisis in Little Rock).
Relations between black and white were probably about as amicable here as anywhere in the country. And yet black people were never allowed to forget, day in and day out, that they were second-class citizens. And apparently most white people who were around at that time just had no clue that black neighbors' experiences were that different. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s all of us, black and white, people knew about the segregation that had still existed only a decade or two before our time. We white people thought it went away a decade or two before our time. We just couldn't comprehend it. It was not a different world. And it is something we need to remember be aware of.
There. FTFY.
Quote from: Puget on August 23, 2023, 08:21:31 AMI'm honestly trying to understand the claim here-- maybe this is a difference between US and Canadian law, but my understanding of US law is once the artist has sold the artwork, it is just like any other property-- it is now the property of the buyer and they can do anything at all they like with it, including destroy it. If an artist wants to retain control over their work, they they need to not sell it (perhaps they can put it on loan to display it).
In this particular instance, I'm also not sure what the "preserving history" case is-- the murals were painted on 1993, they are not from some distant historical period.
Moral rights typically protect the author's rights to attribution, and to preserve the integrity of their work by preventing its modification or destruction in ways that might damage their honour or reputation. Depending on the country, these rights can sometimes be waived contractually. In any jurisdiction that recognizes such rights, then, you actually
cannot legally alter or destroy an artwork, even if it's your private property, if the artist or her estate object to it.
In the US, the situation is somewhat complicated because the US signed the Berne Convention but maintains that its provisions are satisfied by extant laws. Basically, some states have moral rights provisions and others don't. Federally, the The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 establishes some rights, including the artist's right to prevent a work's destruction--provided it's of 'recognized stature'. (That provision is predictably problematic, of course, but there you have it. There's at least a little case law outlining what it means, including a two-tiered standard from
Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. that gets used a fair bit.)
Anyway, I was just saying that the fact that the work is being permanently covered rather than destroyed is significant, since it gets around potential litigation grounded in moral rights.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 23, 2023, 05:36:22 PMQuote from: Puget on August 23, 2023, 08:21:31 AMI'm honestly trying to understand the claim here-- maybe this is a difference between US and Canadian law, but my understanding of US law is once the artist has sold the artwork, it is just like any other property-- it is now the property of the buyer and they can do anything at all they like with it, including destroy it. If an artist wants to retain control over their work, they they need to not sell it (perhaps they can put it on loan to display it).
In this particular instance, I'm also not sure what the "preserving history" case is-- the murals were painted on 1993, they are not from some distant historical period.
Moral rights typically protect the author's rights to attribution, and to preserve the integrity of their work by preventing its modification or destruction in ways that might damage their honour or reputation. Depending on the country, these rights can sometimes be waived contractually. In any jurisdiction that recognizes such rights, then, you actually cannot legally alter or destroy an artwork, even if it's your private property, if the artist or her estate object to it.
In the US, the situation is somewhat complicated because the US signed the Berne Convention but maintains that its provisions are satisfied by extant laws. Basically, some states have moral rights provisions and others don't. Federally, the The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 establishes some rights, including the artist's right to prevent a work's destruction--provided it's of 'recognized stature'. (That provision is predictably problematic, of course, but there you have it. There's at least a little case law outlining what it means, including a two-tiered standard from Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. that gets used a fair bit.)
Anyway, I was just saying that the fact that the work is being permanently covered rather than destroyed is significant, since it gets around potential litigation grounded in moral rights.
Interesting, thanks! I had never heard of such a law. I could see an artist demanding that someone give them back a painting rather than destroy it, but you can't really do that with a mural. I can't see the artist winning a case that involved forcing the university to keep the mural on their wall (their property)-- it seems like the university could pretty easily argue this both on property rights and forced speech terms. But of course I'm not a lawyer and could be completely wrong.
I notice you didn't tell me where these moral rights come from... but let's try another question: if artists have such moral rights to prevent destruction (or significant alteration?) of their works, then who qualifies as an artist, and what qualifies as art?
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 23, 2023, 09:41:55 PMI notice you didn't tell me where these moral rights come from... but let's try another question: if artists have such moral rights to prevent destruction (or significant alteration?) of their works, then who qualifies as an artist, and what qualifies as art?
I suppose the "moral rights" come from any basic respect for something someone created or owns----kind of like the moral rights to your personal dress, hairstyle, or the décor in your house; it is something that is specific to you, so it should be respected.
We also (...well, most levelheaded people) recognize that art serves a function in society that is not merely decorative or entertaining; art is serious expression that challenges, enlightens, uplifts, memorializes, deconstructs, saddens, outrages etc. This is part, I would suggest, of the "moral rights" of an artist's expression not to have hu's message altered.
I think I heard somewhere that the legal definition of art has something to do with the concept that if one reasonable person finds value in a work of art, then it is a work of art----but I couldn't find that online.
I did find 17 U.S. Code § 101.
Then there is the First Amendment.
But K16, rather than trying to be all Socratic about it (which never seems to work), why don't you just come out and tell us what you are trying to get us to infer. Is there some Christian art or the Ten Commandments you want seen on a public building somewhere?
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 23, 2023, 09:41:55 PMI notice you didn't tell me where these moral rights come from... but let's try another question: if artists have such moral rights to prevent destruction (or significant alteration?) of their works, then who qualifies as an artist, and what qualifies as art?
Moral rights come from the civil law system of Europe. Think of them ad a natural extension of intellectual property rights. Or do you mean something else?
As for your other tack... do you want to read a dissertation, or...? Because that's what would be needed to thoroughly answer those questions. Though even then, you might not be satisfied; there's a whole subfield of philosophy devoted to such questions, after all, and none of us agree with one another.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 23, 2023, 07:43:57 AMQuote from: nebo113 on August 22, 2023, 06:45:05 PMHaving grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
And the biggest danger is the conceit that "we would never have done those things". As Bill Maher said, "You aren't better; you were just born later."
It never occurred to me to wonder why only white kids were in my schools......
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 23, 2023, 10:18:58 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on August 23, 2023, 09:41:55 PMI notice you didn't tell me where these moral rights come from... but let's try another question: if artists have such moral rights to prevent destruction (or significant alteration?) of their works, then who qualifies as an artist, and what qualifies as art?
Moral rights come from the civil law system of Europe. Think of them ad a natural extension of intellectual property rights. Or do you mean something else?
Where does graffiti come into this? Is it "art" in the sense of civil law even if the person creating it had no permission from the owner of the "canvas" on which it was created? (I'm honestly curious about this; this seems like a deep rabbit hole.)
Graffiti is vandalism.
However, I have four huge books of graffiti art on my bookshelf.
I suppose it is illegal art.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 23, 2023, 10:18:58 PMMoral rights come from the civil law system of Europe. Think of them ad a natural extension of intellectual property rights. Or do you mean something else?
Actually, I put "moral rights for artists" into Google, and they are actually a thing.
https://pages.uoregon.edu/csundt/copyweb/CunardCAA2002.htm (//http://MORAL%20RIGHTS%20FOR%20ARTISTS:THE%20VISUAL%20ARTISTS%20RIGHTS%20ACT)
QuoteIt still comes as a surprise to many people, including some artists, that under both federal law and some state laws, artists retain certain rights to their works of art—the physical objects themselves—even if the artist no longer owns the art. Such rights are known as moral rights and, although acknowledged and protected for a long time in Europe, they are relatively new to American law.
[/url]
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 24, 2023, 07:06:22 AMGraffiti is vandalism.
However, I have four huge books of graffiti art on my bookshelf.
I suppose it is illegal art.
I suppose it's as much ephemeral "performance art" as anything. Graffiti artists presumably know that their works are not likely to last long, outside any photos taken to document them. I appreciate that they have so far not seen fit to "perform" on the walls of my house and the library building that I'm responsible for.
Quote from: nebo113 on August 24, 2023, 04:54:33 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on August 23, 2023, 07:43:57 AMQuote from: nebo113 on August 22, 2023, 06:45:05 PMHaving grown up in the "Green Book" south, amid white/colored waiting rooms and water fountains, and movie theaters with a third balcony and entry on the side and refreshment stand unseen by us white folk, I am ambivalent about removing all vestiges of that evil. It is too easy to forget. Sometimes, we must be forced to remember and confront our past.
And the biggest danger is the conceit that "we would never have done those things". As Bill Maher said, "You aren't better; you were just born later."
It never occurred to me to wonder why only white kids were in my schools......
It never occurred to me that white and black (and Hispanic, for that matter) kids
didn't belong in school together. It was my daily experience growing up, and it still is where I live now. I would think that would be considered a sort of progress. With all due respect to ciao_yall's attempt to "fix" my post above, it
is a different world today. Maybe not different enough yet, but denying that any progress have ever been made is only going to hurt efforts to make further progress. It already has.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 05:34:41 AMWhere does graffiti come into this? Is it "art" in the sense of civil law even if the person creating it had no permission from the owner of the "canvas" on which it was created? (I'm honestly curious about this; this seems like a deep rabbit hole.)
Street art is complicated because part of its nature is to be ephemeral and temporary. I'm not sure how, exactly, it has been treated with respect to moral rights.
But if you want to learn about the nature of street art and graffiti, this article (https://philpapers.org/rec/NICSAT) is a great place to start.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 24, 2023, 07:17:08 AMActually, I put "moral rights for artists" into Google, and they are actually a thing.
Did you not believe me?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 24, 2023, 07:56:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 05:34:41 AMWhere does graffiti come into this? Is it "art" in the sense of civil law even if the person creating it had no permission from the owner of the "canvas" on which it was created? (I'm honestly curious about this; this seems like a deep rabbit hole.)
Street art is complicated because part of its nature is to be ephemeral and temporary. I'm not sure how, exactly, it has been treated with respect to moral rights.
But if you want to learn about the nature of street art and graffiti, this article (https://philpapers.org/rec/NICSAT) is a great place to start.
Having skimmed it, I haven't come across any kind of distinction between a giraffe and a swastika. Without any such distinction, the whole discussion becomes kind of pointless.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 22, 2023, 01:25:47 PMQuote from: apl68 on August 22, 2023, 07:49:35 AMIt's a great shame to have art destroyed like that, but if the public that the public art is meant for finds it offensive then the institution doesn't have much choice but to accommodate them.
The artist has got to be terribly frustrated. You don't create work for a commission expecting the purchaser to eventually destroy it. Yet it is technically the purchaser's right to do so, especially when the art is on the side of a public building. If the art comes to be a real problem for the purchaser, then out it goes. It's not like they could have just given several dozen feet of mural back to the artist when they didn't want it anymore.
An artist's moral rights typically extend to the destruction of the work (although the law on moral rights is poorly developed in general, in particular in the US). That's (presumably) why, in this case, it's being 'permanently covered' instead.
Kind of a tangent, but luxury brands (LVMH, etc) have been able to prevail in court in Europe against EBay, etc for selling counterfeit items. Brands say that these companies are responsible to the consumer, as well as to the greater system of all organizations trying to protect their brands.
In the US, it was "too bad, so sad." EBay is just the transactor and nothing more.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 09:01:25 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on August 24, 2023, 07:56:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 05:34:41 AMWhere does graffiti come into this? Is it "art" in the sense of civil law even if the person creating it had no permission from the owner of the "canvas" on which it was created? (I'm honestly curious about this; this seems like a deep rabbit hole.)
Street art is complicated because part of its nature is to be ephemeral and temporary. I'm not sure how, exactly, it has been treated with respect to moral rights.
But if you want to learn about the nature of street art and graffiti, this article (https://philpapers.org/rec/NICSAT) is a great place to start.
Having skimmed it, I haven't come across any kind of distinction between a giraffe and a swastika. Without any such distinction, the whole discussion becomes kind of pointless.
I mean... there's a distinction between street art and graffiti. Some of the things we ordinarily call 'graffiti' are, he thinks, better classified as street art, because of how they make use of the space of the street to convey their artistic content; tags and the like don't do that, so they don't get counted as art.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 24, 2023, 09:49:06 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 09:01:25 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on August 24, 2023, 07:56:48 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on August 24, 2023, 05:34:41 AMWhere does graffiti come into this? Is it "art" in the sense of civil law even if the person creating it had no permission from the owner of the "canvas" on which it was created? (I'm honestly curious about this; this seems like a deep rabbit hole.)
Street art is complicated because part of its nature is to be ephemeral and temporary. I'm not sure how, exactly, it has been treated with respect to moral rights.
But if you want to learn about the nature of street art and graffiti, this article (https://philpapers.org/rec/NICSAT) is a great place to start.
Having skimmed it, I haven't come across any kind of distinction between a giraffe and a swastika. Without any such distinction, the whole discussion becomes kind of pointless.
I mean... there's a distinction between street art and graffiti. Some of the things we ordinarily call 'graffiti' are, he thinks, better classified as street art, because of how they make use of the space of the street to convey their artistic content; tags and the like don't do that, so they don't get counted as art.
A picture of a decapitated baby in front of an abortion clinic would also "make use of the space", (fitting his idea of its specific location being important to its message), but it's not something that most people would want to see protected as "art". All kinds of pictures, symbols, etc. could be put in all kinds of places which would have a clear political message which would be deeply offensive to people near those spaces; defending those as "art" makes public spaces a potential battleground.
I had not even thought of the problem of things like Christian-themed art, depictions of the Ten Commandments, etc., on buildings, including/ especially, public ones, but that does demonstrate that if such 'moral rights' are to become a thing here in the US, then this cannot legitimately become a subjective/ case-by-case thing, whereby the Christian artist does not get the right to prevent elimination of his art if the secular artist gets that right.
That said, irrespective of what Europeans think, Americans will just *never* go for the notion that an artist retains control over the disposition of artwork he has sold. Doing so would radically alter American legal, political, and cultural traditions, and open up all those cans of worms para alluded to. And, of course, well, ah, the First Amendment provides no protections for an artist, against the actions of private citizens or organizations. Really, it doesn't.
Grafitti is another issue indeed. As noted, it is just plain vandalism, and no sympathy should be shown to grafitti 'artists' (aka 'criminals') who ruin things, and degrade the public sphere, with their crimes.
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 24, 2023, 10:52:59 AMI had not even thought of the problem of things like Christian-themed art, depictions of the Ten Commandments, etc., on buildings, including/ especially, public ones, but that does demonstrate that if such 'moral rights' are to become a thing here in the US, then this cannot legitimately become a subjective/ case-by-case thing, whereby the Christian artist does not get the right to prevent elimination of his art if the secular artist gets that right.
That said, irrespective of what Europeans think, Americans will just *never* go for the notion that an artist retains control over the disposition of artwork he has sold. Doing so would radically alter American legal, political, and cultural traditions, and open up all those cans of worms para alluded to. And, of course, well, ah, the First Amendment provides no protections for an artist, against the actions of private citizens or organizations. Really, it doesn't.
Grafitti is another issue indeed. As noted, it is just plain vandalism, and no sympathy should be shown to grafitti 'artists' (aka 'criminals') who ruin things, and degrade the public sphere, with their crimes.
Moral rights
already exist in the US, as I explained above.
Quote from: apl68 on August 24, 2023, 07:33:54 AMIt never occurred to me that white and black (and Hispanic, for that matter) kids didn't belong in school together. It was my daily experience growing up, and it still is where I live now. I would think that would be considered a sort of progress. With all due respect to ciao_yall's attempt to "fix" my post above, it is a different world today. Maybe not different enough yet, but denying that any progress have ever been made is only going to hurt efforts to make further progress. It already has.
+1.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 24, 2023, 07:56:48 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on August 24, 2023, 07:17:08 AMActually, I put "moral rights for artists" into Google, and they are actually a thing.
Did you not believe me?
Hey, I believe everything you post, Para!!!
I had just never heard of "moral rights" before and did not realize that y'all were using an actual legal term.
Could you actually point to any court case in the US, where an artist has successfully sued to establish said 'rights'? There may have occasionally been such cases, *under the radar*, but as I noted, Americans would never tolerate widespread attempts to enshrine such 'rights' under law.
IHE: Book on Princeton Syllabus Sparks Conflict (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2023/08/25/book-princeton-syllabus-sparks-conflict)
Lower Deck
QuoteUniversity leaders are fielding demands to remove a book, deemed antisemitic by some and a legitimate criticism of Israel by others, from a course syllabus.
QuoteA book included on a course syllabus at Princeton University has sparked controversy on and beyond the New Jersey campus. Some Jewish campus community members and onlookers contend that the book peddles antisemitic tropes and false assertions about Israeli policy and should be removed from the course. Others—including some academic freedom advocates and a non-Zionist Jewish student group—say the book raises valid concerns about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and scrubbing the text from the course would infringe on the professor's rights.
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 24, 2023, 10:31:14 PMCould you actually point to any court case in the US, where an artist has successfully sued to establish said 'rights'? There may have occasionally been such cases, *under the radar*, but as I noted, Americans would never tolerate widespread attempts to enshrine such 'rights' under law.
Dude, just use Google.
A Stunning Legal Decision Just Upheld a $6.75 Million Victory for the Street Artists Whose Works Were Destroyed at the 5Pointz Graffiti Mecca (https://news.artnet.com/art-world/5pointz-ruling-upheld-1782396)
Copyright in the Courts: How Moral Rights Won the Battle of the Mural (https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2007/02/article_0001.html). I know you were looking for America, but India, no less.
Moral Rights Case: Trinity Church in Manhattan (https://sculpture.org/blogpost/1860266/349763/Moral-Rights-Case-Trinity-Church-in-Manhattan)
Artists score early win in lawsuit over NYC jail demolition (https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/artists-score-early-win-lawsuit-over-nyc-jail-demolition-2022-05-13/)
"Artist Obtains Compensation From City for Destruction of Her Murals," Davis Wright Tremaine Pro Bono Report (https://www.dwt.com/about/news/2014/05/artist-obtains-compensation-from-city-for-destruct)
And there's a bunch more.
Quote from: kaysixteen on August 24, 2023, 10:31:14 PMCould you actually point to any court case in the US, where an artist has successfully sued to establish said 'rights'? There may have occasionally been such cases, *under the radar*, but as I noted, Americans would never tolerate widespread attempts to enshrine such 'rights' under law.
What you're squeamish about are the rights to the integrity of the work. There are other moral rights artists exercise every day which presumably you're happy with, such as the right of attribution and, conversely, not to have things attributed to you without your knowledge or consent.
To answer your question, here are a few that deal with the integrity clause:
Gilliam v. American Broadcasting
Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation v. Büchel
Martin v. City of Indianapolis
Marc Jancou Fine Art Ltd. v. Sotheby's, Inc. (mixes non-attribution and integrity)
There are lots of settled cases, too, such as Kent Twitchell's against the US government and East Los Streetscapers against Shell.
Is there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
That is a creepy story. The guy sounds pretty weird. And there's this:
QuoteOver the years, two students reported him to campus police; others complained online. He left Kent State University after pleading no contest to something different: a theft charge that involved entering his peers' offices without permission and taking a USB drive.
Police records show that officers did investigate when Tokosh was accused of breaking into geography department offices. A blotter item in the local newspaper shows police obtained an arrest warrant in connection with a third-degree felony burglary charge. Court documents indicate Tokosh pleaded no contest to a theft on Oct. 19, 2018.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
That's got to be the weirdest Title IX offense ever.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
Jeepers. Words fail me.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
I
hate clowns. So much. They're just awful, worse even than puppets. <
shudder>
The cancellers deserve some kind of award. Like, a free speech merit badge or something, because the world is a better, freer place now.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 31, 2023, 10:53:03 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
I hate clowns. So much. They're just awful, worse even than puppets. <shudder>
The cancellers deserve some kind of award. Like, a free speech merit badge or something, because the world is a better, freer place now.
EVERYONE loves this clown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlt3rA-oDao
Distant Days...
I think there's a little stale weed around here somewhere Are you a Bozo, too?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82gfZ4jxAyc
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 01, 2023, 09:40:01 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on August 31, 2023, 10:53:03 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
I hate clowns. So much. They're just awful, worse even than puppets. <shudder>
The cancellers deserve some kind of award. Like, a free speech merit badge or something, because the world is a better, freer place now.
EVERYONE loves this clown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlt3rA-oDao
noonononono
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 01, 2023, 09:40:01 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on August 31, 2023, 10:53:03 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on August 31, 2023, 02:14:29 PMIs there no justice? Another clown fetishist is cancelled.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/31/clown-fetish-professor-kent-northern-illinois-nicholls-state/70603544007/
I hate clowns. So much. They're just awful, worse even than puppets. <shudder>
The cancellers deserve some kind of award. Like, a free speech merit badge or something, because the world is a better, freer place now.
EVERYONE loves this clown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlt3rA-oDao
Every once in a while during the political seasons SNL is brilliant.
Remember the story about the shop teacher with huge fake breasts? (See post#1575 in the archived Seuss Cancellation thread.)
Here's that latest.
Teacher who wore Z-sized prosthetic breasts left Halton board willingly: Report (https://canoe.com/news/local-news/teacher-who-wore-z-sized-prosthetic-breasts-left-halton-board-willingly-report/wcm/beb324c2-432f-4610-aa7e-4eb08c302ca1)
From the article:
QuoteLemieux has re-emerged at Nora Frances Henderson Secondary School in Hamilton, which falls under the purview of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.
The 40-year-old shop teacher arrived on campus this week sporting facial hair and male clothing and without the prosthetic breasts or wig.
And in a commentary article (https://canoe.com/opinion/columnists/kerry-lemieux-has-shown-what-a-joke-ontarios-school-system-is/wcm/61d7a85c-6782-4b36-a493-4f96cc3fd238):
QuoteThough perhaps in hindsight it wasn't the teacher who was problematic but the school and board administrators who went along with Lemieux's charade and now look all the more foolish.
As for his reasonings, there has been speculation that his motivation was an anti-woke agenda while others have claimed the whole thing was in response to a dispute and disciplinary action from school administrators.
Whatever the reasons, Lemieux may very well have punked us all simply because no one in the education system had the sense to say no.
As had been speculated earlier, all of the progressive emphasis on "self-identification" alone (and accepting whatever bizarre accommodations it implies) is just begging for all kinds of abuse.
There were photos of the shop teacher going places/doing errands dressed like a male, with short hair and no boobs whatsoever earlier this year. Allowing an educator to "take a stand" in a primary school of all places and subjecting children to huge prosthetic breasts and visible nipples was beyond outrageous as was instituting new security procedures for the individual at the expense of the children.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/canadian-trans-teacher-known-for-massive-prosthetic-breasts-shows-up-to-school-as-man/
QuoteNotably, Lemieux's prosthesis didn't break any school policies at the time because the district simply lacked a professional dress code. The loophole led director of educator Curtis Ennis, Halton's director of education, to clarify in an interview at the time: "The dress code is for students, and the dress code is not for staff." Although students are explicitly prohibited from having visible nipples, Lemieux was given a pass for months as HDSB dithered.
QuoteThe district has "an obligation to uphold individual rights and treat everyone with dignity and respect" and "should the school be subject to any disruptions or protests; we are committed to communicating with you as openly and as frequently as possible to ensure student safety — and to share any operational plans," the principal wrote in a letter first obtained by the Toronto Sun.
The administrator also alerted local parents to new security measures that would be instituted in the wake of the Lemieux's attendance, including "having students enter and exit the building using assigned doors at entry and dismissal" and "locking exterior doors during school hours, only using the front main doors during school hours."
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2023, 05:49:09 AMAs had been speculated earlier, all of the progressive emphasis on "self-identification" alone (and accepting whatever bizarre accommodations it implies) is just begging for all kinds of abuse.
Then, by all means, let us abuse people who are different than we are.
Christ Himself would, no doubt, agree.
Quote from: Langue_doc on September 09, 2023, 12:56:59 PMThere were photos of the shop teacher going places/doing errands dressed like a male, with short hair and no boobs whatsoever earlier this year. Allowing an educator to "take a stand" in a primary school of all places and subjecting children to huge prosthetic breasts and visible nipples was beyond outrageous as was instituting new security procedures for the individual at the expense of the children.
It's strange that the behaviour which offends people if it was done to "take a stand" would have been supported and encouraged by the same people if it was done because the individual was delusional and actually believed it.
Either the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour
no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 07:08:04 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
AKA "Women". The proper lingo has been pretty simple for 99.999% of human history all over the world.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2023, 08:54:00 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 07:08:04 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
AKA "Women". The proper lingo has been pretty simple for 99.999% of human history all over the world.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2023, 08:54:00 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 07:08:04 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
AKA "Women". The proper lingo has been pretty simple for 99.999% of human history all over the world.
Well, the lingo has been complicated by people who insist that we need to "define women"----I won't say who they are----instead of just saying "women" no matter what gender they were at birth, but the question is still the same: why can't we have an easy middle-ground instead of trying to confabulate rules that ostensibly target a certain demographic? It would be so easy.
Biology defines what a woman is, or a man, excepting the legitimate reality of intersexuals.
Schools, esp elementary schools, are simply not appropriate venues for social experimentation, or advancement of sexual theories contrary to the basic morality of the community. Also, of course, 8yos do not need to be sexualized in any way.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 13, 2023, 10:19:08 PMAlso, of course, 8yos do not need to be sexualized in any way.
Agreed. Although some of us balk at the concept that a transgender person automatically "sexualizes" anything. Most abusers are straight males----an inconvenient fact. The people who "sexualize" stuff are generally conservatives looking for an excuse to exercise their prejudice, or they are freaked out themselves because they cannot help but read sex into everything.
And biology may define "woman," but humans often find it convenient to ignore biology and the natural world in general. We will make an exception when we don't like something, however.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 08:02:59 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2023, 08:54:00 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 07:08:04 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
AKA "Women". The proper lingo has been pretty simple for 99.999% of human history all over the world.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 13, 2023, 08:54:00 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 13, 2023, 07:08:04 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2023, 06:44:05 AMEither the students should not have been exposed to certain behaviour no matter the cause, or they just need to accept and embrace this "diversity".
Do you see middle grounds, Marshy?
Say, not allowing teachers who are women-who-were-born-females (I don't know the proper lingo) to wear revealing clothing, or men either, but also not cleaving to overtly bigoted reactions to people who are different than we are? Maybe we just have a rule that no one shows their nipples.
AKA "Women". The proper lingo has been pretty simple for 99.999% of human history all over the world.
Well, the lingo has been complicated by people who insist that we need to "define women"----I won't say who they are----instead of just saying "women" no matter what gender they were at birth, but the question is still the same: why can't we have an easy middle-ground instead of trying to confabulate rules that ostensibly target a certain demographic? It would be so easy.
A useful analogy would be around national citizenship.
- Except in very rare circumstances, everyone is born with a clear and unambiguous citizenship. Citizenship allows someone to have a passport from that country.
- There is a clearly-defined, formal legal process for a person to become a citizen other than by birth. Someone completing this process is a "naturalized" citizen. (A very specific term clearly acknowledging that the person was not born a citizen.) Citizenship allows someone to have a passport from that country.
- Within a country, there can also be permanent residents. This is also a clearly-defined legal term which gives non-citizens access to certain things like employment. Permanent residency does not allow a person to have a passport from the country; their passport will have to be from the country of which they are a citizen.
- Visitors to a country need not be either citizens of even permanent residents. They will have access to some government services like citizens and residents, (such as use of roads, emergency services, etc.), but will have restrictions on things like employment and other government services like education.
Calling everyone in a country a "citizen" would be stupid, because all of those distinctions have a basis in reality, and are important, even though one cannot tell just from looking which term should apply to a specific individual.
For many day-to-day situations, the distinctions don't matter. That does not make it reasonable to eliminate or change the meaning of the terms.
Actually----if you insist on using another gratuitous false analogy yet again----you have to include those people who immigrate to a new country, become a citizen, and then get a passport as a new citizen of their chosen country.
People switch citizenship every day all over the world and have as long as their have been people and countries, right?
And honestly, maybe I am dense, but your analogy is not helpful at all----I have very little idea what you are getting at.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 14, 2023, 05:15:07 PMActually----if you insist on using another gratuitous false analogy yet again----you have to include those people who immigrate to a new country, become a citizen, and then get a passport as a new citizen of their chosen country.
You mean like this?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2023, 10:41:16 AM- There is a clearly-defined, formal legal process for a person to become a citizen other than by birth. Someone completing this process is a "naturalized" citizen. (A very specific term clearly acknowledging that the person was not born a citizen.) Citizenship allows someone to have a passport from that country.
QuotePeople switch citizenship every day all over the world and have as long as their have been people and countries, right?
And honestly, maybe I am dense, but your analogy is not helpful at all----I have very little idea what you are getting at.
The point is that it makes sense for terminology that has a long established, specific meaning to
keep that meaning. New situations should have new terminology so that the different situations all have clear, unambiguous terms. So, for instance, "trans woman" is not the same as "woman" and trans man" is not the same as "man" and each term and a specific unambiguous meaning.
Then we don't have the ridiculous contortions such as the Johns Hopkins definition of a lesbian as a "non-man attracted to non-men".
So a "trans woman" would be like a "naturalized" citizen of woman-land?
The tension between how we identify ourselves and how others identify us has been around for a long time--the subjects of both great drama and horrific oppression.
In an episode of MASH, Hawkeye is checking on a suspiciously young soldier after an appendix operation. After he asks how the soldier feels, the youngster replies, "Ready to kill some gooks, sir." Hawkeye responds, "Another word for 'gooks' is 'people.'"
If we remember to acknowledge each other as people, we can work out the vocabulary eventually--vocabulary goes through a lot of changes, too.
Quote from: little bongo on September 15, 2023, 10:21:58 AMSo a "trans woman" would be like a "naturalized" citizen of woman-land?
Seems about right to me. And while we distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in some respects, we afford all the same basic rights, and once someone becomes a citizen, they're a citizen; where they were born no longer matters (US presidency aside; but marshwiggle is Canadian, and we don't have that exception). They're afforded all of the same rights as any other citizen, and we don't go around checking for their birth certificate before deciding what to allow them to do.
I like the analogy, actually. It correctly identifies one socially-constructed phenomenon (gender) with another (citizenship), and both are institutionalized in similar ways, so the parallels are instructive.
Quote from: little bongo on September 15, 2023, 10:21:58 AMSo a "trans woman" would be like a "naturalized" citizen of woman-land?
Probably the best comparison would be that someone who has surgically transitioned would be like a "naturalized" citizen, while someone who has not surgically transitioned would be like a permanent resident (if they have been taking hormones for some length of time) or a visitor (if all they haven't done anything medical at all.)
The point is to not munge all these various things together under one word that then becomes virtually meaningless.
Quote from: little bongo on September 15, 2023, 10:21:58 AMSo a "trans woman" would be like a "naturalized" citizen of woman-land?
More or less. I didn't propose the analogy, I just extended it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 15, 2023, 10:58:26 AMThe point is to not munge all these various things together under one word that then becomes virtually meaningless.
Or we could pull the stick out of our collective wazoo and simply respect people for who they want to be. We would not long have to worry about munging. We would make the world a more peaceful place. And we would stop creating problems where there are no problems.
If we could then avoid egregious analogies we'd be aces, but I wouldn't want to push it.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 15, 2023, 05:23:40 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 15, 2023, 10:58:26 AMThe point is to not munge all these various things together under one word that then becomes virtually meaningless.
Or we could pull the stick out of our collective wazoo and simply respect people for who they want to be. We would not long have to worry about munging. We would make the world a more peaceful place. And we would stop creating problems where there are no problems.
Yes, these lesbians should pull the sticks out of their collective wazoos.
The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385)
QuoteJennie is a lesbian woman. She says she is only sexually attracted to women who are biologically female and have vaginas. She therefore only has sex and relationships with women who are biologically female.
Jennie doesn't think this should be controversial, but not everyone agrees. She has been described as transphobic, a genital fetishist, a pervert and a "terf" - a trans exclusionary radical feminist.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2023, 11:57:47 AMYes, these lesbians should pull the sticks out of their collective wazoos.
The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385)
QuoteJennie is a lesbian woman. She says she is only sexually attracted to women who are biologically female and have vaginas. She therefore only has sex and relationships with women who are biologically female.
Jennie doesn't think this should be controversial, but not everyone agrees. She has been described as transphobic, a genital fetishist, a pervert and a "terf" - a trans exclusionary radical feminist.
I read your posts and I always feel like I have to explain simple things that most moral people already know----like, for instance, that no one should ever be forced to have sex if they don't want to.
So the issue that you point out is not the same thing I am talking about (I talk about bigotry----you are talking about rape) in a typical apples-to-oranges false analogy..
In other words, no, the lesbians in the story have a perfect right to their sticks, may they stay right where they are.
As is often the case, you have simply distorted an idea in hopes of earning debate points.
You should have taken more liberal arts classes that made you think about abstract and difficult ideas.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 16, 2023, 11:57:47 AMYes, these lesbians should pull the sticks out of their collective wazoos.
The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385)
BTW Marshy, also do a little more with information literacy.
The Guardian: BBC says article on trans women did not meet accuracy standards (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 16, 2023, 05:45:09 PMI read your posts and I always feel like I have to explain simple things that most moral people already know----like, for instance, that no one should ever be forced to have sex if they don't want to.
So the issue that you point out is not the same thing I am talking about (I talk about bigotry----you are talking about rape) in a typical apples-to-oranges false analogy..
The point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".
By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.
Sexual orientation depends on
sex.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 16, 2023, 06:03:54 PMBTW Marshy, also do a little more with information literacy.
The Guardian: BBC says article on trans women did not meet accuracy standards (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards)
QuoteAfter a large number of complaints, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has ruled that the piece fell beneath the broadcaster's expected standards in three different ways and has ordered it to be updated. However, they also said it remained a legitimate piece of journalism that explored an important topic.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2023, 05:54:40 AMThe point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".
By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.
You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices.
This is on you and people with your ideology.
No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before.
Live and let live and we don't have problems.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 17, 2023, 11:00:39 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2023, 05:54:40 AMThe point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".
By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.
You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices.
This is on you and people with your ideology.
No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before.
So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2023, 05:09:27 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 17, 2023, 11:00:39 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2023, 05:54:40 AMThe point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".
By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.
You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices.
This is on you and people with your ideology.
No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before.
So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?
Correct.
And you predictably, deliberately misunderstand. I am not attracted to men----but I am not homophobic. I am fine with men with romantic feelings for each other. That's their business, not mine.
I am not attracted to lesbians, at least in theory, although I might fine a lesbian physically attractive, I just know that she is not for me. But I am not homophobic. If two women fall into romantic love, mazel tov.
If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine. The heart wants what the heart wants. The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous.
Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.
Now, go about your life happily and leave other law-abiding people alone, shall we?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 18, 2023, 11:22:53 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2023, 05:09:27 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 17, 2023, 11:00:39 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2023, 05:54:40 AMThe point is that the issue would never come up except for the ridiculous nonsense about what it means to be a "woman".
By making the definitions of "man" and "woman" essentially meaningless, it makes terms like heterosexual, gay, lesbian, etc. similarly meaningless.
You, my friend, are the one who creates the "ridiculous nonsense" through your obsession with people who are trans or gay and with your obsession about other people's sexual practices.
This is on you and people with your ideology.
No other terms are "meaningless"----they still mean exactly what they meant before.
So a biological female who is only attracted to biological females isn't being transphobic? And anyone claiming otherwise is wrong?
Correct.
And you predictably, deliberately misunderstand. I am not attracted to men----but I am not homophobic. I am fine with men with romantic feelings for each other. That's their business, not mine.
I am not attracted to lesbians, at least in theory, although I might fine a lesbian physically attractive, I just know that she is not for me. But I am not homophobic. If two women fall into romantic love, mazel tov.
If a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine. The heart wants what the heart wants. The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous.
Now, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.
Now, go about your life happily and leave other law-abiding people alone, shall we?
I have zero interest in having sex with
marshwiggle, and I have never even met him/her.
I supposed this means I have have a terrible, unfair prejudice against anti-woke people and wish to cancel them? Or do I need to sleep with
marshwiggle to prove I am willing to give anyone an equal chance at love and friendship?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 18, 2023, 11:22:53 AMIf a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine. The heart wants what the heart wants. The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
QuoteNow, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.
The main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary. I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms
for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2023, 12:24:34 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 18, 2023, 11:22:53 AMIf a biological female falls for another biological female and is not romantically attracted to trans-men that is just fine. The heart wants what the heart wants. The idea that one is "transphobic" for not wanting to have sex with someone is ridiculous and outrageous.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
QuoteNow, before you go trying to make an example of these rare and wretched people who try to use accusations of transphobia as a form of peer-pressure, I will remind you that I am happy to post all sorts of things about the clergy abusing all sorts of people as an example of not-very-rare and wretched people trying to use religion as a form of hierarchical power and peer-pressure.
The main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary. I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.
ETA: Note that this has nothing to do with
restricting peoples' behaviour; it's all about being able to
describe it clearly and unambiguously.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 18, 2023, 12:24:34 PMThe main difference between our points of view is simply about how clear language should be and whether or not such clarifications are (or ought to be) necessary. I favour keeping well-defined terms as is, and creating new terms where needed, rather than changing the meaning of old terms and having to invent new terms for exactly the things that the existing terms already meant.
I don't know what you are talking about.
B'sides, we invent new terms all the time.
The strength of Western Culture is its flexibility. New ideas, new philosophies, new horizons. We recalibrate what we believe and how we use things like language all the time.
Reason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism' (https://reason.com/2023/09/19/ashland-professor-allegedly-ousted-for-allowing-too-much-investigative-journalism/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteAfter the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.
QuoteIn August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."
Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors."
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 20, 2023, 05:33:09 AMReason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism' (https://reason.com/2023/09/19/ashland-professor-allegedly-ousted-for-allowing-too-much-investigative-journalism/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteAfter the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.
QuoteIn August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."
Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors."
It's too bad that nowhere in the article does it even hint at what stories the paper was covering.
I can't feel sorry for this idiot, and I can't help noticing that her "professor" title is a prominent feature of the story's marketing.
UC Santa Barbara law professor caught on video in racist tirade against construction worker (https://boingboing.net/2023/09/19/uc-santa-barbara-law-professor-caught-on-video-in-racist-tirade-against-construction-worker.html)
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2023, 05:41:15 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 20, 2023, 05:33:09 AMReason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism' (https://reason.com/2023/09/19/ashland-professor-allegedly-ousted-for-allowing-too-much-investigative-journalism/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteAfter the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.
QuoteIn August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."
Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors."
It's too bad that nowhere in the article does it even hint at what stories the paper was covering.
True. It would have been better journalism.
But would the stories they are covering really make a difference?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/20/texas-teacher-fired-for-anne-frank-diary-lesson-that-included-sex/70911098007/
The district fired her for assigning the award winning graphic novel. It had already removed all copies othe unabridged diary from the libraries.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 20, 2023, 06:05:36 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2023, 05:41:15 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on September 20, 2023, 05:33:09 AMReason: Ashland Professor Allegedly Ousted for Allowing 'Too Much Investigative Journalism' (https://reason.com/2023/09/19/ashland-professor-allegedly-ousted-for-allowing-too-much-investigative-journalism/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteAfter the student paper pressed university officials for interviews, its faculty adviser got into trouble.
QuoteIn August, Ted Daniels lost his job teaching journalism at Ashland University in Ohio. Why? According to a university official, he was encouraging student journalists to be "overly persistent." The university's paper also reported that officials told Daniels he was allowing the paper to do "too much investigative journalism."
Soon after refusing to renew Daniels' contract, administrators began demanding that students submit issues of The Collegian, the student-run outlet Daniels had advised, for prior review. However, university officials claimed this "decision was predicated on some recent, rather glaring grammatical errors."
It's too bad that nowhere in the article does it even hint at what stories the paper was covering.
True. It would have been better journalism.
But would the stories they are covering really make a difference?
It might. If their request to meet with admin is over some emerging scandal, that's different than if they keep trying to bring up the same things like student debt, etc., which have been discussed for a long time, probably even with those same officials.
So, a pressing issue which the administration is trying to keep hidden is different than one that is ongoing but mostly out of their hands.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 21, 2023, 05:08:22 AMIt might. If their request to meet with admin is over some emerging scandal, that's different than if they keep trying to bring up the same things like student debt, etc., which have been discussed for a long time, probably even with those same officials.
So, a pressing issue which the administration is trying to keep hidden is different than one that is ongoing but mostly out of their hands.
The point is freedom of the press and the university's marketing which promises expressive freedom to its studetns.
Student journalists are beginners, and they might have been beating dead horses, but as journalists that is their right.
CHE: A Professor Spoke About 'Campus Illiberalism.' Students Shouted Him Down Over His Anti-LGBTQ Views. (https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-professor-spoke-about-campus-illiberalism-students-shouted-him-down-over-his-anti-lgbtq-views)
Protesters silence renowned speaker at Washington College (https://www.stardem.com/news/local_news/protesters-silence-renowned-speaker-at-washington-college/article_997b9cfa-4f4b-11ee-902b-573058135ae8.html)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2023, 02:29:48 PMCHE: A Professor Spoke About 'Campus Illiberalism.' Students Shouted Him Down Over His Anti-LGBTQ Views. (https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-professor-spoke-about-campus-illiberalism-students-shouted-him-down-over-his-anti-lgbtq-views)
Protesters silence renowned speaker at Washington College (https://www.stardem.com/news/local_news/protesters-silence-renowned-speaker-at-washington-college/article_997b9cfa-4f4b-11ee-902b-573058135ae8.html)
From the first article:
QuoteGeorge is a conservative legal scholar who directs Princeton's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and serves on the board of the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. He has written and spoken about his opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and expansions of transgender rights.
While George's lecture at Washington College did not address those issues, some students say that his affiliations and beliefs meant that he shouldn't have been invited to the campus.
Later:
QuoteOn the Monday before the event, the college sent a campuswide email promoting the lecture. Shortly after, James Hall, an associate professor of English, emailed a student a link to George's accountability profile from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or Glaad, which features several examples of his anti-LGBTQ remarks.
...
Noelle Punte, a junior at Washington College and president of Encouraging Respect of Sexualities, a student group supporting the LGBTQ community, emailed Sosulski and called for the college to cancel the event.
Punte, who did not attend the lecture or protest, said in an interview that regardless of the lecture's content, inviting George to campus undermines the college's commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion — at a time, she added, when anti-LGBTQ laws are on the rise.
And then
Quote"I'm not saying freedom of speech should be restricted," Punte said. "But at the same time, in cases like this, there needs to be serious considerations about the ramifications and potential harm that inviting someone like Robert George on campus could cause."
So, she's not "
saying freedom of speech should be restricted", but having someone with the wrong views
on campus is a problem.
I guess as long as there's somewhere (else!) that a person can speak, not allowing them to speak
here isn't restricting free speech.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2023, 05:22:02 AMI guess as long as there's somewhere (else!) that a person can speak, not allowing them to speak here isn't restricting free speech.
That, and the fact that the protests were grass roots and not the government.
In theory I am absolutely opposed to shouting down speakers----let people speak their minds and feel free to argue, just don't assault with noise.
But the era of Trump Republicans has made me rethink this stance.
Sometimes the best way to meet irrationality is with irrationality. Shouting and flag-waving are forms of free speech, after all.
Anthropology Conference Drops a Panel Defending Sex as Binary
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/us/anthropology-panel-sex-binary-gender-kathleen-lowery.html
Quote"We looked at who was actually in it," she said, and "we began to see that this really was one of those times where people who have an alternative agenda come into professional associations, try to get into these conferences, in order to push an agenda that doesn't actually match up with the discipline."
The American Anthropological Association's executive board voted unanimously to remove the panel from the program. Monica Heller, the president of the Canadian Anthropology Society, said her board voted unanimously to support the American group's decision.
Just curious...if anthropologists have moved to seeing sex as non-binary, what are biologists thinking these days? (genetic malfunctions not withstanding)
Quote from: waterboy on October 01, 2023, 05:15:50 AMJust curious...if anthropologists have moved to seeing sex as non-binary, what are biologists thinking these days? (genetic malfunctions not withstanding)
Life would be so much simpler if people could just bring forward these gametes that are in-between (or different from) eggs and sperm.
Quote from: waterboy on October 01, 2023, 05:15:50 AMJust curious...if anthropologists have moved to seeing sex as non-binary, what are biologists thinking these days? (genetic malfunctions not withstanding)
One point the article makes is that anthropologists have not stopped taking account of biological differences between the sexes. It seems unlikely that all anthropologists buy into the idea that sex is culturally constructed. Some may think that sex is binary. Obviously the people who were trying to organize the symposium probably think that.
It does seem extraordinary to me that a symposium in anthropology could be cancelled because it advocates for unpopular views and politicizes issues. The talk of anthropology as a unified discipline is patently absurd.
How long will it take for some group of anthropologists to write a letter condemning the American Anthropological Association for its actions?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2023, 10:33:56 AMQuote from: waterboy on October 01, 2023, 05:15:50 AMJust curious...if anthropologists have moved to seeing sex as non-binary, what are biologists thinking these days? (genetic malfunctions not withstanding)
Life would be so much simpler if people could just bring forward these gametes that are in-between (or different from) eggs and sperm.
Oh boy, this is so far off on the biology that I don't know where to begin. The fact that biological sex is complex and not entirely binary is very well established and not controversial in biology, and has nothing to do with in-between gametes. Even if we set aside sex chromosome assortments other than XX and XY (which do indeed happen), primary and secondary sex characteristics arise through a complex cascade of developmental events that don't play out in the same way in everyone. If you actually want to learn about this (which I seriously doubt, but I try to think the best of people), I'd highly recommend this as a starting point: https://radiolab.org/series/radiolab-presents-gonads/
Quote from: downer on October 01, 2023, 10:44:59 AMQuote from: waterboy on October 01, 2023, 05:15:50 AMJust curious...if anthropologists have moved to seeing sex as non-binary, what are biologists thinking these days? (genetic malfunctions not withstanding)
One point the article makes is that anthropologists have not stopped taking account of biological differences between the sexes. It seems unlikely that all anthropologists buy into the idea that sex is culturally constructed. Some may think that sex is binary. Obviously the people who were trying to organize the symposium probably think that.
It does seem extraordinary to me that a symposium in anthropology could be cancelled because it advocates for unpopular views and politicizes issues. The talk of anthropology as a unified discipline is patently absurd.
How long will it take for some group of anthropologists to write a letter condemning the American Anthropological Association for its actions?
In theory, sure. But you do not have faith that the proposed panel was acting in good faith. Not all but many conservatives are flat bastards when it comes to fairness and balance. The time to be always reasonable is past.
What does it take to be acting in good faith in arranging a conference panel? Is it bad faith to want to make a political or moral point or to want to cause a stir? My impression is that this is frequent in a lot of the humanities and social sciences. Then are the panels that are basic self-promotion. Are they in bad faith? If we required that all panels were all only motivated by a desire to advance knowledge, conferences might well be much smaller occasions.
Quote from: downer on October 01, 2023, 03:39:35 PMWhat does it take to be acting in good faith in arranging a conference panel? Is it bad faith to want to make a political or moral point or to want to cause a stir? My impression is that this is frequent in a lot of the humanities and social sciences. Then are the panels that are basic self-promotion. Are they in bad faith? If we required that all panels were all only motivated by a desire to advance knowledge, conferences might well be much smaller occasions.
There is no point in playing the fairness and openness game any more; too many people are cheating. Yes, people act in bad faith. Their point is not to further the discipline or reinvigorate the status quo with bold new thinking, but to vomit their personal bigotries and hatemongering over anyone they can while ironically waving the flags of tolerance, inclusion, and free speech.
Again, the era of Trump has changed my thinking, and it has obviously changed other peep's thought processes too.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 01, 2023, 03:58:39 PMQuote from: downer on October 01, 2023, 03:39:35 PMWhat does it take to be acting in good faith in arranging a conference panel? Is it bad faith to want to make a political or moral point or to want to cause a stir? My impression is that this is frequent in a lot of the humanities and social sciences. Then are the panels that are basic self-promotion. Are they in bad faith? If we required that all panels were all only motivated by a desire to advance knowledge, conferences might well be much smaller occasions.
There is no point in playing the fairness and openness game any more; too many people are cheating. Yes, people act in bad faith. Their point is not to further the discipline or reinvigorate the status quo with bold new thinking, but to vomit their personal bigotries and hatemongering over anyone they can while ironically waving the flags of tolerance, inclusion, and free speech.
Again, the era of Trump has changed my thinking, and it has obviously changed other peep's thought processes too.
Who knows, you might be right. It creates a dilemma to go that way because organizations need to be open that they are cancelling views they don't like, which will go against most of their affirmations of academic freedom. Or else they give some bullshit explanation, which will be as transparent bullshit as anything that De Santis says, and that will reduce their credibility among academics.
I'm all for a pragmatic approach on occasion. Go with what works. But I'll be surprised if this cancelling doesn't backfire.
It has to backfire to a degree, because sure, we all believe in academic freedom.
But we know from history that concepts like "academic freedom" and "freedom of expression" are abstractions and ideals, fragile things in the face of propaganda for angry, manipulatable, frustrated, power-hungry ideologs created by angry, manipulated, frustrated, power-hungry ideologs. The Nazis, or their embryonic equivalents, do not deserve a place at the table. They just don't.
At some point good people simply need to say, "I don't care. I'm going to be as hard-minded as the crazies in order to save society."
Maybe we can get back to normal and have good faith discussions...when we again have good faith disputers.
I found a letter from FIRE condemning the cancelling.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/open-letter-american-anthropological-association-and-canadian-anthropology-society
I might support some cancellings, I guess, such as a Nazi march through Skokie, IL. I definitely don't support the cancelling of Kathleen Lowrey (https://apps.ualberta.ca/directory/person/klowrey). I don't see anything remotely fascist in her work.
Part of this is how wingnuts will cherry-pick and misuse the research.
I'm not saying that this cancellation is right; I am saying that it might be a necessary evil. And I admit that I am ambivalent. Not the least because I know so little about anthropology that I have to rely on the association's best judgment.
QuoteShe also rejected that idea that the discipline was removing the discussion of sex, noting that there were more than 30 events at the annual program, set for November in Toronto, that would discuss the subject.
The panel was nixed, she said, only after complaints that it did not have scientific merit and that it was harmful to some of the association's 8,000 members.
"This was an intention to marginalize, not engage scientifically," Dr. Pérez said.
I hate to do this because someone ALWAYS does this, but what if we have a panel of noted anthropologists who submit a panel entitled "The Jew is Always the Problem." The wingnuts have moved on to "gender" and trans-people because they have lost out on gay rights and women's rights. And while they have successfully legislated restrictions on abortions, they have done so in the face of popular resistence and they are paying for it at the voting booth. They need a new target, one that will frighten impressionable, bigoted parents.
I've largely curated this thread because I find it alarming how censorious academia is. But then with the Trump indictment I began to see the rhetoric from the right as a true evil, not a negotiation of ideas. We may be facing choices like the one simply as a stopgap.
The blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway. There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 01, 2023, 06:56:27 PMThe blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway. There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.
2 questions:
- Are there wingnuts on the left?
- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 06:06:00 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 01, 2023, 06:56:27 PMThe blowback is that now the wingnuts will use this as evidence of "liberal intolerance" and "liberal indoctrination"----but it really does not matter; their minds are limited one-way streets anyway. There is no reason for us to legitimize their hate.
2 questions:
- Are there wingnuts on the left?
- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
There are wingnuts all around us.
In my mind, disagreement is normal and I can respect people even if I disagree with them.
Anyone who goes so far as to demonize someone who disagrees with them, and even gin up a "parade of horribles" if giving in to a slight compromise, is in my mind, a wingnut.
- "Sometimes boys like to wear pink and pretend they are girls at school, and girls like to do the same thing."
- IF YOU DON'T TELL THE PARENTS YOU ARE HIDING THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL NURSE IS PRESCRIBING HORMONE BLOCKERS!
- "We need to have a reasonable policy for accepting immigrants and asylum applicants. They can be registered, and given work permits."
- BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE MS-13 FENTANYL-TOTING TERRORISTS WHO ARE ALSO WELFARE CHEATS? YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE RESOURCES FROM OUR HOMELESS VETERANS TO HELP THESE CRIMINALS?
From the article...
QuoteShe cited cases where an anthropologist might be interested in the biological effects of being female — for instance, looking at sex preferences in infanticide of past populations.
Um... nobody in the anthropological field disagrees with this fact. So why are you putting up a presentation on this topic?
A large percentage of people are binary-cisgendered and that works for most of the research out there. For the few that are not, well, research can consider how to address this fact.
And, many cultures see sex/gender as nonbinary. So is she saying that from an anthropological point of view, these cultures are invalid?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 06:06:00 AM- Are there wingnuts on the left?
Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left. Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.
Quote- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
Zealotry and fanaticism. It's simple, really.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 08:16:52 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 06:06:00 AM- Are there wingnuts on the left?
Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left. Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.
Quote- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
Zealotry and fanaticism. It's simple, really.
So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one
not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction
does make one a wingnut?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 08:53:24 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 08:16:52 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 06:06:00 AM- Are there wingnuts on the left?
Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left. Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.
Quote- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
Zealotry and fanaticism. It's simple, really.
So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction does make one a wingnut?
You will just have to figure it out for yourself, Marshy.
Do you ever get tired of these dumb games?
NYT: A Professor's Remarks on Sexual Consent Stir Controversy. Now He's Banned From Campus. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/nyregion/suny-fredonia-professor-lawsuit.html#)
This guy deserves a Foot-In-Mouth Gold Medal, but still an example of our censorious, paranoid, melodramatic academic zeitgeist.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 08:57:07 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 08:53:24 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 08:16:52 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 06:06:00 AM- Are there wingnuts on the left?
Yes, honey, there are wingnuts on the left. Right now, however, the wingnuts have control of the Republican party.
Quote- What makes a person holding a particular view a wingnut? More specifically, when someone espouses a view that has been accepted for ages, what is required for expressing that view as proof of being a wingnut?
Zealotry and fanaticism. It's simple, really.
So, saying something calmly and quietly makes one not a wingnut, but saying it loudly with conviction does make one a wingnut?
You will just have to figure it out for yourself, Marshy.
Do you ever get tired of these dumb games?
How is it a "dumb game" to ask what the difference is between a "wingnut" who shouldn't be given a platform and someone who should be allowed to be heard?
Oh okay, I'll help, buddy.
Quotea nut with a pair of projections for the fingers to screw it on.
2.
DEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a person with extreme, typically right-wing, views.
"McCarthyite wingnuts"
3. an Asian tree of the walnut family, with a deeply fissured trunk, compound leaves, and characteristic broad-winged nutlets.
I like the Urban Dictionary definition:
QuoteWing Nut
1. Ideological extremist from either side of the political spectrum who unquestioningly repeats any and all propaganda and/or conspiracy theories propagated by their side of the political spectrum, no matter how unlikely.
2. An eccentric driven by religious fervor to take on unusual or irrational social or political opinions without care that other members of society consider them off balance. The extremism of these people's faith is proof to them that they are right.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 09:30:35 AMOh okay, I'll help, buddy.
Quotea nut with a pair of projections for the fingers to screw it on.
2.
DEROGATORY•INFORMAL
a person with extreme, typically right-wing, views.
"McCarthyite wingnuts"
3. an Asian tree of the walnut family, with a deeply fissured trunk, compound leaves, and characteristic broad-winged nutlets.
I like the Urban Dictionary definition:
QuoteWing Nut
1. Ideological extremist from either side of the political spectrum who unquestioningly repeats any and all propaganda and/or conspiracy theories propagated by their side of the political spectrum, no matter how unlikely.
2. An eccentric driven by religious fervor to take on unusual or irrational social or political opinions without care that other members of society consider them off balance. The extremism of these people's faith is proof to them that they are right.
So up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express. What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 10:11:06 AMSo up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express. What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?
See below (accidental double-post)
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 10:11:06 AMSo up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express. What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?
You can blame the Republican wingnuts for the controversy. 20 years ago I never heard to terms "binary" or "nonbinary." We've had transvestites forever, at least as long as David Bowie and Twisted Sister. It's only recently that gullible people started falling for the Republican-led propaganda.
There is no, none, zero evidence that nonbinary people as a group hurt anyone.
There is a ton of objective evidence that Catholic Priests as a group do.
There is your answer.
Now, Marshy, use your brain----you have two very easy to understand definitions upstairs. Go back and reread them.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 02, 2023, 10:30:05 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 10:11:06 AMSo up until 20 (10?) years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that biological sex is binary. Now, it has apparently become, not merely worthy of debate, or even controversial, but absolutely abhorrent to express. What makes someone saying that now a wingnut, whereas the same person saying it 20 years ago totally unremarkable? Has there been some sort of monumental breakthrough in biology? Or is the reframing entirely cultural and ideological?
You can blame the Republican wingnuts for the controversy. 20 years ago I never heard to terms "binary" or "nonbinary." We've had transvestites forever, at least as long as David Bowie and Twisted Sister. It's only recently that gullible people started falling for the Republican-led propaganda.
There is no, none, zero evidence that nonbinary people as a group hurt anyone.
What does that have to do with being able to describe
biological reality?
Just because there are airplanes and wingsuits doesn't mean it makes any sense to say that humans are avian. To say that humans can fly,
but not like birds do, doesn't "harm" humans who want to be able to fly. And if a toddler thinks they can fly like Superman, no parent is going to let them jump off the roof to "support" their superhero identity. But a parent may pay for the kid's flying lessons a few years later. Ambiguating language so that there's no distinction between being able to fly like Superman and being able to fly in an airplane would be stupid and dangerous.
It doesn't help anyone to pretend that reality can be whatever they wish it to be.
But, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2023, 12:30:56 PMBut, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.
Really?
Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.
What biological reality am I denying?
*source:
Key Issues Facing People With Intersex Traits (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/)
QuoteIt is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 12:45:47 PMReally?
Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.
What biological reality am I denying?
Quote from: Puget on October 01, 2023, 01:19:36 PMOh boy, this is so far off on the biology that I don't know where to begin. The fact that biological sex is complex and not entirely binary is very well established and not controversial in biology, and has nothing to do with in-between gametes. Even if we set aside sex chromosome assortments other than XX and XY (which do indeed happen), primary and secondary sex characteristics arise through a complex cascade of developmental events that don't play out in the same way in everyone. If you actually want to learn about this (which I seriously doubt, but I try to think the best of people), I'd highly recommend this as a starting point: https://radiolab.org/series/radiolab-presents-gonads/
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 11:40:40 AMWhat does that have to do with being able to describe biological reality?
Just because there are airplanes and wingsuits doesn't mean it makes any sense to say that humans are avian. To say that humans can fly, but not like birds do, doesn't "harm" humans who want to be able to fly. And if a toddler thinks they can fly like Superman, no parent is going to let them jump off the roof to "support" their superhero identity. But a parent may pay for the kid's flying lessons a few years later. Ambiguating language so that there's no distinction between being able to fly like Superman and being able to fly in an airplane would be stupid and dangerous.
It doesn't help anyone to pretend that reality can be whatever they wish it to be.
Ah, another gratuitous analogy. Did you take the Canadian equivalent to composition 101 back in the day?
Let's put it this way: so what? Who cares if a dude transitions to woman or a woman transitions to man? So what? Who cares if a man changes into women's clothing and says, "I'm in the wrong body?"
Certain people will exercise their bigotry despite the science. Puget did say:
Quotehe fact that biological sex is complex and not entirely binary is very well established and not controversial in biology, and has nothing to do with in-between gametes. Even if we set aside sex chromosome assortments other than XX and XY (which do indeed happen), primary and secondary sex characteristics arise through a complex cascade of developmental events that don't play out in the same way in everyone. If you actually want to learn about this (which I seriously doubt, but I try to think the best of people),
And here you are, pretending science does not exist because it is inconvenient. Aren't you a scientist?
Part of my afternoon was spent at a talk delivered by an author on the current Texas book ban list. He is, of course, gay, and his books, while never pornographic, have gay characters in them. He's won awards and published with major houses----but nope, gay! Wingnut heads explode.
Let's try an analogy: Let's say there is a fella (an otherwise intelligent, pleasant, and sensitive dude) who makes an analogy. Our fella argues that "If one can be freaked out by clowns, why can't I be freaked out by a man in a dress?" Well, on the one hand, our fella is right in that we are allowed to have our own opinions and beliefs in this society. He
can be afraid of both clowns and transvestites if he wants.
The question in this analogy is: is this sane? Or is this wingnutty?
A clown is simply a performer in a costume and a little bit of greasepaint. She or he / him or her may have a disquieting appearance, but that is the just part of the act. There is no rational reason to be freaked out by a clown without some actual threat (say, a clown with a gun or Stephen King's Pennywise). But some people are. Doctors call that "Coulrophobia." A "phobia" is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." People can get treatment for clown-fear. It is good to quash an irrational belief.
So, in our analogy, clowns equate to men in dresses; fear of clowns is an irrational phobia; ergo, fear of men in dresses must also be a phobia, an extreme and irrational fear.
Clinging to an extreme and irrational fear because of political or religious reasons is a wingnutty thing to do because wingnuts, by definition, are more susceptible to propaganda and alternative facts than they are to actual facts.
Wingnuts tend to see what they want to see because they are in the throes of a phobia, and there is a weird facet of phobias which cause sufferers to cling to their irrationality, probably out of fear (but who knows?).
One can say the same thing about homophobic people who insist that men wearing dresses "sexualize" the situation----even though there is nothing more inherently sexual about an everyday dress than there is about a business suit.
So, do you kind of see where this is going and how it answers your questions about "wingnuts?"
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2023, 12:45:47 PMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2023, 12:30:56 PMBut, as Puget explained upthread, you're the one denying biological reality here, and pretending it is what you want it to be.
Really?
Most people are unambiguously biologically male or female.
A tiny *fraction of people have intersex conditions.
Most trans people don't have biological intersex conditions.
What biological reality am I denying?
*source:
Key Issues Facing People With Intersex Traits (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/)
QuoteIt is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.
How about this-- you listen to the podcasts I linked to (they are entertaining! you don't even need to read!) and THEN you can come back and talk biology. If you just keep shouting the same things without bothering to educate yourself even a little, there really is no point in any further discussion with you.
IHE: Florida Professors Win Court Costs After Being Silenced as Witnesses (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/11/15/fla-professors-blocked-witnesses-win-374k-legal-fees)
IHE: Texas College Wins Free Speech Lawsuit (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/11/16/collin-college-wins-free-speech-lawsuit)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 16, 2023, 08:58:11 AMIHE: Texas College Wins Free Speech Lawsuit (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/11/16/collin-college-wins-free-speech-lawsuit)
A somewhat ironic point from the article in the The Dallas Morning News (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2023/11/14/collin-college-wins-lawsuit-filed-by-faculty-member-who-claimed-retaliation/)
QuotePhillips claimed his contract was not being renewed after speaking up about Collin College's COVID-19 protocols, encouraging students to take precautions against the virus and his involvement in efforts to remove Confederate statues from Dallas.
The article in Inside Higher Ed refers to the covid protocol part, but not the removing statues part. It seems at least possible that the latter played at least somewhat of a role.
(And, as I noted, arguing for free speech while arguing for the removal of statues is
complex, to say the least.)
Just curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 17, 2023, 10:31:07 AMJust curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue?
Well, a monument is a form of embodied speech. Those who don't like it may feel oppressed or threatened by it. Those who consider the monument a part of their heritage will consider the removal of the monument a threat and an effort to deprive them of a part of their heritage.
This is why I've felt that we would do better simply to add monuments in our public places to those in society who've been slighted or under-represented in the past, instead of insisting that our existing monuments be removed in the process. That would create less of an all-or-nothing, you-must-lose-so-that-I-can-win struggle.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 17, 2023, 10:31:07 AMJust curious, how is removing a statue from public land a complex free speech issue?
I'm with the people who favour
adding information for context. So, instead of removing a statue, add a plaque that explains how the situation is more complex that past generations might have thought, especially if the person's "problematic" views were common at the time, and if the person did not
personally encourage or engage in things like genocide. For instance, if there is a statue in Germany of a soldier who, during WWII, rescued a bunch of people from a bombed building, then I would be for keeping it, even though the person was technically a Nazi, and on other occasions killed people for his country. On the other hand, a statue of Hitler or one of his colleagues I would have no problem being removed.
AAUP Statement: Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom (https://www.aaup.org/news/polarizing-times-demand-robust-academic-freedom)
QuoteToday, the integrity of research, teaching, and learning in US higher education is under sustained attack. In the aftermath of the events of October 7, 2023, powerful campus outsiders—including donors, legislators, and well-funded political organizations—have escalated demands that institutions crack down on what can be said or expressed on campus.
Since its founding in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has been the most prominent guardian of academic freedom for faculty and students. The AAUP has developed and promulgated standards to define, defend, and strengthen that freedom within the world of higher education. In our recent statement on academic freedom in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East, Academic Freedom in Times of War, the AAUP reasserted those standards, stressing that "institutional authorities must refrain from sanctioning faculty members for expressing politically controversial views and should instead defend their right, under principles of academic freedom, to do so." Yet today, many colleges and universities are not only failing to protect academic freedom, they are actively undermining its scope and meaning.
By acceding to external political pressures and demands for political censorship instead of encouraging the utmost freedom of discussion, college and university administrations abandon their own responsibility for protecting the academic community's central mission of education, research, and service to the broader society and to the public good. Administrators who claim to defend academic freedom and then condemn the content of faculty and student speech and expression that it should protect risk chilling speech and expression and eroding the very academic freedom that they claim to protect.
As recent AAUP statements, investigations, and reports have made clear, much current suppression of faculty and students' rights of expression and association is tied to political campaigns "to restrict the public education curriculum and to portray some forms of public education as a social harm" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). Attempts to ban critical race theory, as well as efforts to discredit the teaching of US history—particularly histories of empire, slavery, gender, and sexuality—thus form the context within which the current controversies surrounding the turmoil in the Middle East unfold on college and university campuses. The political climate of fear those campaigns produced has prompted some college and university administrations to constrain faculty autonomy and academic freedom. They have unilaterally changed curricula, created academic programs and advisory/policymaking bodies without faculty consultation, and canceled classes, speaker invitations, and public events. After October 7, as external demands for action escalated, academic administrators criticized, investigated, suspended, or fired outspoken faculty and staff members who expressed unpopular views. These violations of academic freedom and shared governance now undermine the ability of faculty members to make educational decisions about their teaching and research without fear of outside intervention or reprisal.
The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic. As institutional leaders combat discrimination and uphold principles of community, they should not lose sight of how "[p]roponents of overly broad definitions of antisemitism and proponents of eliminating teaching about the history of racial and other violence share a desire to mobilize the government to enforce particular, emaciated accounts of history, harm, and injury" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). These efforts to control what is thought, said, taught, and researched are antithetical to the educational mission of a university and the democratic values upon which it rests.
The AAUP therefore calls on college and university administrations to:
Recommit themselves to fully protecting the academic freedom of their faculties to teach, conduct research, and speak out about important issues both on and off campus, as called for in Academic Freedom in Times of War.
Protect the freedom of students to express their positions on such issues on and off campus. Students should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests, and students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately, in the words of the AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
Safeguard the independence of colleges and universities by refusing to comply with demands from politicians, trustees, donors, faculty members, students and their parents, alumni, or other parties that would interfere with academic freedom.
Just as we condemn all incursions on academic freedom by overzealous institutions or external actors, the AAUP condemns the climate of intimidation that now attempts to silence people who express unpopular views on the current conflict in the Middle East. College and university leaders have no obligation to speak out on the most controversial issues of the day. Their duty is to protect the academic freedom, free speech, and associational rights of faculty and students to speak on all topics of public or political interest without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or punishment.
Publication Date:
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
IHE: Iowa Regents Approve DEI Cuts (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/11/20/iowa-regents-approve-significant-cuts-dei-offerings)
QuoteThe Iowa Board of Regents voted last week to cut back on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the state's three public universities, KCRG.com reported.
The regents approved a slate of 10 recommendations from a study group formed to review current policies at the behest of Governor Kim Reynolds, which essentially eliminate all DEI efforts that are not essential for the institutions' compliance or accreditation.
<snip>
In approving the recommendations, the board disregarded the results of a forum that found the overwhelming majority of students and faculty consider DEI programs "critically important."
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2023, 08:00:41 AMAAUP Statement: Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom (https://www.aaup.org/news/polarizing-times-demand-robust-academic-freedom)
QuoteToday, the integrity of research, teaching, and learning in US higher education is under sustained attack. In the aftermath of the events of October 7, 2023, powerful campus outsiders—including donors, legislators, and well-funded political organizations—have escalated demands that institutions crack down on what can be said or expressed on campus.
Since its founding in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has been the most prominent guardian of academic freedom for faculty and students. The AAUP has developed and promulgated standards to define, defend, and strengthen that freedom within the world of higher education. In our recent statement on academic freedom in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East, Academic Freedom in Times of War, the AAUP reasserted those standards, stressing that "institutional authorities must refrain from sanctioning faculty members for expressing politically controversial views and should instead defend their right, under principles of academic freedom, to do so." Yet today, many colleges and universities are not only failing to protect academic freedom, they are actively undermining its scope and meaning.
By acceding to external political pressures and demands for political censorship instead of encouraging the utmost freedom of discussion, college and university administrations abandon their own responsibility for protecting the academic community's central mission of education, research, and service to the broader society and to the public good. Administrators who claim to defend academic freedom and then condemn the content of faculty and student speech and expression that it should protect risk chilling speech and expression and eroding the very academic freedom that they claim to protect.
As recent AAUP statements, investigations, and reports have made clear, much current suppression of faculty and students' rights of expression and association is tied to political campaigns "to restrict the public education curriculum and to portray some forms of public education as a social harm" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). Attempts to ban critical race theory, as well as efforts to discredit the teaching of US history—particularly histories of empire, slavery, gender, and sexuality—thus form the context within which the current controversies surrounding the turmoil in the Middle East unfold on college and university campuses. The political climate of fear those campaigns produced has prompted some college and university administrations to constrain faculty autonomy and academic freedom. They have unilaterally changed curricula, created academic programs and advisory/policymaking bodies without faculty consultation, and canceled classes, speaker invitations, and public events. After October 7, as external demands for action escalated, academic administrators criticized, investigated, suspended, or fired outspoken faculty and staff members who expressed unpopular views. These violations of academic freedom and shared governance now undermine the ability of faculty members to make educational decisions about their teaching and research without fear of outside intervention or reprisal.
The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic. As institutional leaders combat discrimination and uphold principles of community, they should not lose sight of how "[p]roponents of overly broad definitions of antisemitism and proponents of eliminating teaching about the history of racial and other violence share a desire to mobilize the government to enforce particular, emaciated accounts of history, harm, and injury" (AAUP, Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism). These efforts to control what is thought, said, taught, and researched are antithetical to the educational mission of a university and the democratic values upon which it rests.
The AAUP therefore calls on college and university administrations to:
Recommit themselves to fully protecting the academic freedom of their faculties to teach, conduct research, and speak out about important issues both on and off campus, as called for in Academic Freedom in Times of War.
Protect the freedom of students to express their positions on such issues on and off campus. Students should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests, and students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately, in the words of the AAUP's Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
Safeguard the independence of colleges and universities by refusing to comply with demands from politicians, trustees, donors, faculty members, students and their parents, alumni, or other parties that would interfere with academic freedom.
Just as we condemn all incursions on academic freedom by overzealous institutions or external actors, the AAUP condemns the climate of intimidation that now attempts to silence people who express unpopular views on the current conflict in the Middle East. College and university leaders have no obligation to speak out on the most controversial issues of the day. Their duty is to protect the academic freedom, free speech, and associational rights of faculty and students to speak on all topics of public or political interest without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or punishment.
Publication Date:
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
It's kind of ironic that, in arguing for free speech, the only examples they give of endangered speech in the current climate are those which are against Israel. There are surely numerous examples that could be given from supporters of both sides in the conflict wishing to silence their opponents. Presenting examples of both would be much better for bolstering their arguments as a
matter of principal, rather than simply as support of what they identify as a
particular unpopular position.
The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.
Marshy????
Quote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.
Marshy????
I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 07:24:03 AMQuote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.
Marshy????
I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.
I, for one, have not seen many accusations of Islamophobia being levelled at people for their pro-Israel speech. I have, however, seen quite a few people accused of anti-Semitism (and suspended from their jobs) for saying things critical of Israel (including a story on CBC this very morning). Among those making such accusations have been Israeli and American government officials. And, indeed, Israel's government has recently been pushing to have anti-Semitism equated with criticism of the state of Israel's actions.
So, it seems to me that the AAUP is prioritizing the right direction here.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 21, 2023, 12:00:45 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 07:24:03 AMQuote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.
Marshy????
I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.
I, for one, have not seen many accusations of Islamophobia being levelled at people for their pro-Israel speech. I have, however, seen quite a few people accused of anti-Semitism (and suspended from their jobs) for saying things critical of Israel (including a story on CBC this very morning). Among those making such accusations have been Israeli and American government officials. And, indeed, Israel's government has recently been pushing to have anti-Semitism equated with criticism of the state of Israel's actions.
So, it seems to me that the AAUP is prioritizing the right direction here.
If you're arguing for freedom of speech on the basis of a "right direction", you're missing the point. It's like arguing against the death penalty for the possibly wrongly-accused; the important principle of the argument applies
even for those who are clearly guilty.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 02:16:52 PMIf you're arguing for freedom of speech on the basis of a "right direction", you're missing the point. It's like arguing against the death penalty for the possibly wrongly-accused; the important principle of the argument applies even for those who are clearly guilty.
This is confused. The AAUP is not advocating for free speech for only Israel's critics. It's trying to protect a class of speech that is the subject of active attempts at censorship. Because one side is actively doing virtually all of the censoring, that side is the focus of its protective attention.
I don't really see how this is different, in principle, from when any other group steps in to try to defend the free speech rights of someone or some group of people whom they believe is being actively censored. Is this not exactly what groups like FIRE claim to be doing? (If you ask me there's one important difference, which is that most of FIRE's cases are pretty dubious at best, whereas here, at least, the censorship is very real. But that's neither here nor there. I've seen you post approvingly about FIRE's interventions. How is this different?)
UPenn president Liz Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok resign after disastrous hearing on antisemitism (https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/business/upenn-board-of-trustees-meeting-liz-magill/index.html)
I don't know how you negotiate this sort of free speech issue when there is the distinct possibility of violence.
QuoteMagill struggled to answer questions about whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate UPenn's code of conduct. She and other university presidents failed to explicitly say calls for genocide of Jewish people constituted bullying and harassment on campus. The exchange went viral and prompted a flurry of business leaders, donors and politicians to demand Magill step down.
From the NY Times:
QuoteDuring her testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Ms. Magill gave lawyerly responses to a complicated question involving speech. Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said that students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.
After parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"
Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."
Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."
Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"
Two other university presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. — testified with Ms. Magill and made similar statements. Free-speech scholars said that they were legally correct.
But Ms. Magill's remarks failed to meet a moment of moral clarity for many of the university's Jewish students, faculty and alumni, and set off a wave of criticism that included the state's Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and its two Democratic U.S. senators, John Fetterman and Bob Casey. Even the White House weighed in.
Seems like a political got'cha moment by a government official that worked, and in so doing nullified any complexity about free speech (private school or no).
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 09, 2023, 03:18:14 PMUPenn president Liz Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok resign after disastrous hearing on antisemitism (https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/business/upenn-board-of-trustees-meeting-liz-magill/index.html)
I don't know how you negotiate this sort of free speech issue when there is the distinct possibility of violence.
QuoteMagill struggled to answer questions about whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate UPenn's code of conduct. She and other university presidents failed to explicitly say calls for genocide of Jewish people constituted bullying and harassment on campus. The exchange went viral and prompted a flurry of business leaders, donors and politicians to demand Magill step down.
From the NY Times:
QuoteDuring her testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Ms. Magill gave lawyerly responses to a complicated question involving speech. Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said that students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.
After parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"
Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."
Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."
Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"
Two other university presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. — testified with Ms. Magill and made similar statements. Free-speech scholars said that they were legally correct.
But Ms. Magill's remarks failed to meet a moment of moral clarity for many of the university's Jewish students, faculty and alumni, and set off a wave of criticism that included the state's Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and its two Democratic U.S. senators, John Fetterman and Bob Casey. Even the White House weighed in.
Seems like a political got'cha moment by a government official that worked, and in so doing nullified any complexity about free speech (private school or no).
The "complexity" about free speech
for identitarians comes from allowing certain groups to say things that other groups aren't allowed to say. For
non-identitarians, it's much less complex because anything that would be unacceptable for someone to say would therefore be unacceptable for anyone to say.
It seems like all of those presidents are identitarians, and that's why they couldn't give an answer that was honest and acceptable, since it would have prevented them from protecting their own "tribe".
IHE: Did the Top Campus for Student Free Speech Punish Faculty Speech? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2023/12/11/michigan-tech-professor-allegedly-called)
Lower Deck:
QuoteA Michigan Tech professor allegedly called Young Americans for Freedom members "idiots" in class—and was then removed from the class.
QuoteAfree expression group is criticizing the university it ranked No. 1 nationally for student free speech after that same university allegedly punished a professor for using his own speech to criticize a student demonstration.
Carl Blair, a teaching professor in Michigan Technological University's social sciences department, says Michigan Tech removed him from teaching one of his classes and barred him from contacting students enrolled in it. The public university allegedly did this last month after a national conservative group with campus chapters posted online an audio clip of him during a class, purportedly calling members of that group homophobic, dumb and racist.
<snip>
Asked if the situation is ironic, Anne Marie Tamburro, a lawyer at FIRE, told Inside Higher Ed, "I wish I could say it was surprising, but the reality is that, right now, it's just a pretty terrible time for free speech on college campuses. I think this is certainly reflected by the news cycle."
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 11, 2023, 07:16:07 AMIHE: Did the Top Campus for Student Free Speech Punish Faculty Speech? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2023/12/11/michigan-tech-professor-allegedly-called)
Lower Deck:
QuoteA Michigan Tech professor allegedly called Young Americans for Freedom members "idiots" in class—and was then removed from the class.
QuoteAfree expression group is criticizing the university it ranked No. 1 nationally for student free speech after that same university allegedly punished a professor for using his own speech to criticize a student demonstration.
Carl Blair, a teaching professor in Michigan Technological University's social sciences department, says Michigan Tech removed him from teaching one of his classes and barred him from contacting students enrolled in it. The public university allegedly did this last month after a national conservative group with campus chapters posted online an audio clip of him during a class, purportedly calling members of that group homophobic, dumb and racist.
<snip>
Asked if the situation is ironic, Anne Marie Tamburro, a lawyer at FIRE, told Inside Higher Ed, "I wish I could say it was surprising, but the reality is that, right now, it's just a pretty terrible time for free speech on college campuses. I think this is certainly reflected by the news cycle."
Further down the rabbit hole:
QuoteIn perhaps further ironies, FIRE and Blair say Michigan Tech—which responded to Inside Higher Ed's requests for interviews with a two-sentence statement that didn't confirm or deny the whole situation—removed Blair from the Global Issues classroom for a short aside that ended with him defending student free speech. And the group he purportedly criticized calls itself an advocate for freedom, though it celebrated when Blair was allegedly removed from the classroom.
It's worth noting that free speech still can include lots of
intemperate speech.
QuoteYoung America's Foundation, the parent organization of the Young Americans for Freedom campus chapters, posted Nov. 14 on X and its website a 90-second recording of Blair allegedly telling his class that something involved "childish, stupid, homophobic, dumb, racist twits."
It shouldn't have gotten him fired, but he can hardly be surprised that such a *statement to a class would come back to bite him.
(*Noting that from the article the specific context is a bit unclear; still, it's unprofessional for anyone in a position who potentially has to work with people who are included in that characterization. A prof publicly calling a student a twit is inviting some sort of negative response.)
Should a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
This is in the category of "Hills I won't bother to die on." While I would agree that
legally it shouldn't be a "firing offense",
practically I'm not going to put my own career or reputation on the line to defend someone who does it. It's just way more antagonistic than is necessary or helpful. It doesn't create the kind of atmosphere of professionalism that you want in any workplace. Saying their ideas are illogical or inconsistent, etc. is the more appropriate way to go. (Addressing the
ideas, rather than the
people.)
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Absolutely not!
But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
There was a time when a professor could make such (admittedly) dumb remarks and the students, being all adults, could somehow survive.
Quote from: waterboy on December 11, 2023, 12:14:36 PMThere was a time when a professor could make such (admittedly) dumb remarks and the students, being all adults, could somehow survive.
Through all my education from first grade to graduate school, I never came across such speech on the part of teachers or professors. I guess mine were civilized.
Let me generalize even more. There can be no such thing as "free" anything. Of course speech can be hurtful! The only question can be: Who decides, the hurter or the hurtee? And that's where, once upon a time, self restraint kept the problem at bay in universities.
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Absolutely not!
But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
The current situation has largely been driven by people on the *left,fighting on the one hand
to protect people from sanctions for saying certain things, (such as criticisms of authority), while on the other hand fighting
to impose sanctions on people for "hate speech". The whole idea of "punching up" being OK but "punching down" being unacceptable creates a bottomless quagmire around determining who is "up" and who is "down", especially when it comes to
groups, since individuals are not remotely homogeneous, so that who "belongs" in a certain group is often murky at best.
(*The closest thing to "hate speech" on the right would be "blasphemy", which would be specific to religious groups.)
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Allowed is one thing.
Is it modeling professional behavior, and showing students the proper way to behave when they disagree with someone?
Should we wonder about someone's mental state and/or emotional maturity when they, the adult in the room, can't come up with a more thoughtful response than childish name-calling?
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Absolutely not!
But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
Since the professor was at work, the real issue is what is acceptable to the employer.
We seem to be forgetting the fundamentally unequal power relationship that professor x has with his students. College kids, most esp 18yo froshburgers fresh from the loving embrace of helicopter parental units, could be terrified to speak up or complain, when/if professor calls them or their friends/ coreligionists, etc., 'twits and idiots', and this could create a very hostile learning environment for said students. It would of course also be more or less perfectly reasonable to conclude that it would be at least *possible* to assume that if a student did complain about being the recipient of such verbiage, at professor's hands, and then subsequently received a poor grade in said professor's class, that the prof was punishing him for such speaking up.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 12, 2023, 04:55:51 PMQuote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AMQuote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS? Why or why not?
Absolutely not!
But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.
Since the professor was at work, the real issue is what is acceptable to the employer.
Well, the interesting question that comes from the things dismalist has said is: What is the relationship between "freedom of speech" and "employer codes of conduct"? An academic institution could, in principle, have strong protection for "freedom of speech", but have a very strict "code of conduct" so that the former was essentially meaningless since the employer could claim all kinds of things violated the
code of conduct and fire anyone.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 13, 2023, 12:06:27 AMWe seem to be forgetting the fundamentally unequal power relationship that professor x has with his students. College kids, most esp 18yo froshburgers fresh from the loving embrace of helicopter parental units, could be terrified to speak up or complain, when/if professor calls them or their friends/ coreligionists, etc., 'twits and idiots', and this could create a very hostile learning environment for said students. It would of course also be more or less perfectly reasonable to conclude that it would be at least *possible* to assume that if a student did complain about being the recipient of such verbiage, at professor's hands, and then subsequently received a poor grade in said professor's class, that the prof was punishing him for such speaking up.
Events here and elsewhere suggest that students are far from powerless when it comes to matters of speech in the classroom. Nevertheless, it might be inappropriate to single out any student group, particularly in the terms used by the instructor, in the classroom.
What I worry about are the sheer volume of speech issues on our campuses; the extension of these constraints off the campus and into people's private lives; the tremendous fragility of everyone involved; and the severity of the responses from everyone, often ruining people's careers and reputations over a gaff, misstep, inappropriate response, or unpopular opinion.
Our campuses are simply oxymoronic snowflake hotbeds.
So sure, the instructor in this instance probably crossed the line, but give him a talking-to and everyone involved then needs to unclutch their pearls-----whatever he said does not rise to the level of, say, a racist diatribe or sexual harassment.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 13, 2023, 03:59:55 PMWhat I worry about are the sheer volume of speech issues on our campuses; the extension of these constraints off the campus and into people's private lives; the tremendous fragility of everyone involved; and the severity of the responses from everyone, often ruining people's careers and reputations over a gaff, misstep, inappropriate response, or unpopular opinion.
Our campuses are simply oxymoronic snowflake hotbeds.
So sure, the instructor in this instance probably crossed the line, but give him a talking-to and everyone involved then needs to unclutch their pearls-----whatever he said does not rise to the level of, say, a racist diatribe or sexual harassment.
One of the things which has contributed to the escalation of these issues is the demands for
concrete action. So where in the past a "talking to" would have been seen to be sufficient to prevent this sort of thing in the future, now people don't attach any value to "mere" public recognition and condemnation of the act. (Although, as with many things, there's a double standard. Anything which may even obliquely be considered "shaming" of someone from a marginalized group is considered to be tantamount to physical violence.)
And now, segregated Christmas and other parties held by mayors in the name of equity!
QuoteBoston Mayor Michelle Wu proudly shared a photo of the controversial "electeds of color" holiday party (https://nypost.com/2023/12/16/news/boston-mayor-michelle-wu-shows-off-photo-from-electeds-of-color-holiday-party-after-defending-gathering/) she hosted on Wednesday, showcasing all the smiling government officials of minority backgrounds at the "no whites" gathering.
Quote"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.
Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."
Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.
The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.
"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.
Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."
Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.
The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.
"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"I don't really get offended too easily," Baker, a white Democrat, told the Boston Herald. "To offend me, you're going to have to do much more than not invite me to a party."
"I find it unfortunate that with the temperature the way it is, that we would further that division," he added.
Are we supposed to vote for candidates who share our skin color? religion? gender?
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 18, 2023, 05:33:30 AMAnd now, segregated Christmas and other parties held by mayors in the name of equity!
QuoteBoston Mayor Michelle Wu proudly shared a photo of the controversial "electeds of color" holiday party (https://nypost.com/2023/12/16/news/boston-mayor-michelle-wu-shows-off-photo-from-electeds-of-color-holiday-party-after-defending-gathering/) she hosted on Wednesday, showcasing all the smiling government officials of minority backgrounds at the "no whites" gathering.
Quote"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.
Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."
Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.
The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.
"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.
Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."
Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.
The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.
"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"I don't really get offended too easily," Baker, a white Democrat, told the Boston Herald. "To offend me, you're going to have to do much more than not invite me to a party."
"I find it unfortunate that with the temperature the way it is, that we would further that division," he added.
Are we supposed to vote for candidates who share our skin color? religion? gender?
I wonder if the party includes guests? It would be fascinating to see the "colour police" at the door deciding whose
spouses/significant others weren't welcome. (This, of course, wouldn't be necessary if people were smart enough to "stay in their lane" romantically. What century are we in???)
I think Ms. Wu is not evil, just a fool. [She majored in Economics, which is a strike against the discipline, but it was at Harvard. :-)]
Of course people can invite anyone they damned well please to their private social functions!
A minor point is that these peoples are government employees, so they may be violating the Civil rights Act. Let the lawyers figure it out.
A major point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we allow racially segregated functions of any kind, we must also allow social functions for whites alone, too. And how about functions for all races?
How did we get here? [Don't tell me; I know.]
Tempest in a teacup, I guess, but the optics certainly don't look good. As is often the case with things like this, the principals profess not to be too offended, yet I'm sure others will be eager to be offended on their behalf.
Quote from: apl68 on December 18, 2023, 03:54:40 PMTempest in a teacup, I guess, but the optics certainly don't look good. As is often the case with things like this, the principals profess not to be too offended, yet I'm sure others will be eager to be offended on their behalf.
Well, in one way it's not necessarily all pretense. I can't imagine having the
remotest interest in attending a "party" where I was specifically
not invited because of my skin colour. Sadly, history is full of events of that nature.....
This is more than a tempest in a teacup because the exclusion of individuals based on skin color is to a work-related event. As noted upthread, this might be a violation of state and federal laws. What next? Enrollment in courses based on ethnicity? Cornell tried this to promote "safe spaces":
QuoteCornell Students Defend Racially Segregated Rock Climbing Course (https://freebeacon.com/campus/cornell-students-defend-racially-segregated-rock-climbing-course/)
QuoteCornell University students expressed support for racial segregation after the school allowed white students to enroll in a rock climbing class originally restricted to minority students.
Cornell first offered "BIPOC Rock Climbing" in the spring of 2021, exclusively to "people who identify as Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, or other people of color." The school removed the racial enrollment requirement in response to a Campus Reform inquiry.
Students enrolled in the course objected to the move, telling the Cornell Daily Sun that segregating the class "is a small step" toward greater racial equity.
"At the end of the day, there is an issue of inaccessibility for minorities in this white-centric sport and BIPOC rock-climbing is a small step towards desegregating that community," Matthew Gavieta, a junior and BIPOC Rock Climbing class instructor, said.
Instructor Michelle Croen, a senior, claimed it's typically "difficult" for minority students to feel welcomed in rock climbing due to the cost and other "microaggressions," such as course names.
"From larger issues such as cost of entry and accessibility, to smaller microaggressions like the names of some outdoor climbing routes, it's difficult to be a minority and feel welcomed in the outdoors," Croen said. "Just under the surface, the climbing world especially is affected by racism, sexism, and sizeism."
Lwam Asfaw, a senior enrolled in the course, said the "BIPOC" label influenced her choice in the class. Critics of the class should focus "less on why segregation exists and more on why there's a need to segregate," the Sun paraphrased Asfaw as saying.
Safe spaces on college campuses proliferated after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. More recently, universities have begun to create exclusive spaces for students based on race or gender in the name of equity and inclusion.
Marymount University conducted two separate "healing circles" last fall, one for white students and one for black students. Columbia University announced in March it would host six separate graduation ceremonies for minority groups, LGBT students, and first-generation and low-income graduates. Students at New York University and Rice University last summer called on their schools to create black-only dorms and other separated campus spaces.
William Jacobson, a Cornell Law School professor, told the Washington Free Beacon that while the course as modified didn't present any legal challenge, the squabble over the course shows how "identity politics" can clash with laws banning discrimination.
"It appears that the course now explicitly is open to all students. If that is the case, then I don't see a problem with a 'themed' activity," Jacobson, who founded the conservative legal blog Legal Insurrection, said. "The earlier description, which suggested it was open only to students of certain racial and ethnic groups, would have been a significant potential legal problem had it not been corrected. This controversy highlights how identity politics can run into conflict with anti-discrimination laws and Cornell's own university policies against discrimination."
The course was subsequently opened to all students regardless of ethnicity or sexual orientation.
Okay, now a university offering an official course that is only for certain ethnicities is out of line.
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 19, 2023, 06:17:34 AMQuoteInstructor Michelle Croen, a senior, claimed it's typically "difficult" for minority students to feel welcomed in rock climbing due to the cost and other "microaggressions," such as course names.
"From larger issues such as cost of entry and accessibility, to smaller microaggressions like the names of some outdoor climbing routes, it's difficult to be a minority and feel welcomed in the outdoors," Croen said. "Just under the surface, the climbing world especially is affected by racism, sexism, and sizeism."
I guess that means they need smaller rocks to climb?
Quote from: apl68 on December 19, 2023, 07:19:11 AMOkay, now a university offering an official course that is only for certain ethnicities is out of line.
Not really. As usual, I'm pro-choice. The only question is who gets to choose.
We can indeed have courses segregated by race. [Never mind the Civil Rights Act.] So long as there's a section for Whites only, too, and my personal piffle, one open to all races.
And we can have sections according to gender.
Of course, proliferating sections does get a tad expensive. But hell, it's only money.
I was under the impression that "separate but equal" went away a looooonnnngggg time ago.
Quote from: waterboy on December 20, 2023, 04:30:18 AMI was under the impression that "separate but equal" went away a looooonnnngggg time ago.
Well there's the source of your confusion. "Equal" is such a 20th century concept. We're way past that now.
Now it's separate but equal if you can check any of the boxes in the DEI category. I recall that the University of Arizona or ASU had a multicultural room that was off limits to white students--a DEI activist felt threatened because she saw a couple of non-DEI students sitting there, studying for a test.
Now for the news from our neck of the woods:
QuoteNew York to Consider Reparations for Descendents of Enslaved People (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/nyregion/reparations-new-york-slavery.html)
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a bill that will create the nation's third statewide task force to examine possible reparations for the lasting impact of slavery.
Where's the money coming from? We've had major budget cuts including cuts to CUNY, according to the Daily News (https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/12/17/cuny-deeper-enhanced-budget-cuts-course-options-student-services-risk/)
QuoteCUNY orders deeper spending cuts, putting course options and student services at risk
Libraries have also had to curtail services and hours, and are no longer open on Sundays.
The comments in the NYT article are quite entertaining, with several of them pointing out that this is a gift to the Republicans. I can post the link to the gift version of the article if there's any interest.
IHE: British Scholar Accused of Transphobia Wins Harassment Case (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/01/24/british-scholar-accused-transphobia-wins-harassment-case)
NYT: Barnard College's Restrictions on Political Speech Prompt Outcry (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/nyregion/barnard-college-free-speech-restrictions-israel-hamas-war.html)
Lower Deck:
QuoteProfessors and free speech advocates are protesting a decision by the college to monitor and remove pro-Palestinian statements and other speech the college deems too political.
QuoteThree weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, the Department of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College in New York posted a statement on its departmental website in support of the Palestinian people.
Below the statement, the professors posted links to academic work supporting their view that the struggle of Palestinians against "settler colonial war, occupation and apartheid" was also a feminist issue. Two days later, they found that section of the webpage had been removed, without warning, by Barnard administrators.
What happened next has sparked a crisis over academic freedom and free expression at Barnard at a time when the Israel-Hamas conflict has led to tense protests on American college campuses and heated discussions about what constitutes acceptable speech.
Asked to explain why the page was removed, college administrators told the department that the statement and links were "impermissible political speech," a statement from the department said.
And Florida has removed Sociology from its core curriculum because it's Marxist, among other evils.
Quote from: nebo113 on January 26, 2024, 07:22:29 AMAnd Florida has removed Sociology from its core curriculum because it's Marxist, among other evils.
They kept the Anthro course though. What about the evils of relativism?
They replaced the Sociology with History. Is that really going to guarantee moral purity? Those historians have ways of drawing attention to class issues too.
Quote from: downer on January 26, 2024, 01:40:53 PMQuote from: nebo113 on January 26, 2024, 07:22:29 AMAnd Florida has removed Sociology from its core curriculum because it's Marxist, among other evils.
They kept the Anthro course though. What about the evils of relativism?
They replaced the Sociology with History. Is that really going to guarantee moral purity? Those historians have ways of drawing attention to class issues too.
Well, it won't get worse. In the average of 51 of the 60 US News top rated colleges, among PhD holding professors there are 56 registered Democrats to 0 registered Republicans, in Sociology it's 43.8 to 1, and in History it's a mere 17.4 to 1.
My own beef with the policy is that the legislature is in no position to know anything specific. My non-beef with the policy is that it is against uniformity. So, abolish the whole required Core
on anti-trust grounds!
[By the way, in Econ the ratio is 5.5 to 1. Some of my best fiends are Democrats.]
Quote from: dismalist on January 27, 2024, 05:32:42 PMSome of my best fiends are Democrats.]
Aren't you amusing.....
Not really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
It has the classic Chinese passive-aggressive-social-shunning written all over it.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
Or potentially, both. If the location of the event is going to potentially affect what is eligible, that should be something everyone knows about in the future.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2024, 09:55:21 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
It has the classic Chinese passive-aggressive-social-shunning written all over it.
ciao_yall, I would rethink this assumption as it comes across as bias. Passive agressiveness cuts across all cultures, ethniticities, and nations. I've worked with students, colleagues, tech-support personnel, and other support staff of Chinese origin on campuses, and found them to be for the most part quite professional. I've had passive-aggressive colleagues though who were not even remotely Chinese let alone Asian.
Quote from: Langue_doc on February 04, 2024, 06:48:00 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2024, 09:55:21 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
It has the classic Chinese passive-aggressive-social-shunning written all over it.
ciao_yall, I would rethink this assumption as it comes across as bias. Passive agressiveness cuts across all cultures, ethniticities, and nations. I've worked with students, colleagues, tech-support personnel, and other support staff of Chinese origin on campuses, and found them to be for the most part quite professional. I've had passive-aggressive colleagues though who were not even remotely Chinese let alone Asian.
Apologies as offense or stereotyping was not intended. I did not mean that only Chinese, or Asians in general, employ passive-aggressive behavior. Just that in this case, it fit a pattern by PRC politicians.
I assumed ciao meant the RCP government. The thing that mucks it up most is that science fiction fans can be, well, something else.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 04, 2024, 12:54:29 PMI assumed ciao meant the RCP government. The thing that mucks it up most is that science fiction fans can be, well, something else.
People's Republic of China, so PRC.
I think they should call it Republic of China's People.
fumble fingered jimbo
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
So what's next? Will they be holding the Nobel Prize awards in Russia? That choice of venue ought to yield some interesting results.
IHE: Law Schools Required Free Speech / Bar Association (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/07/law-schools-required-adopt-free-speech-policies)
Quoteaw schools must adopt free speech policies to maintain their accreditation under a requirement approved by the American Bar Association's House of Delegates Monday.
The new standard requires all law schools to approve written policies that protect the rights of faculty, students and staff to express controversial or unpopular ideas. It also forbids any conduct that limits free expression.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 07, 2024, 06:41:17 AMIHE: Law Schools Required Free Speech / Bar Association (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/07/law-schools-required-adopt-free-speech-policies)
Quoteaw schools must adopt free speech policies to maintain their accreditation under a requirement approved by the American Bar Association's House of Delegates Monday.
The new standard requires all law schools to approve written policies that protect the rights of faculty, students and staff to express controversial or unpopular ideas. It also forbids any conduct that limits free expression.
Steve Miller (he who hates anyone not white male and who filed lawsuit against Rooney Rule) will be on this like a fly on shit.
And the beat goes on.
IHE: AAUP Starting Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/15/aaup-starting-center-defense-academic-freedom)
IHE:Anti-DEI Bill Moves Forward in Kentucky (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/15/anti-dei-bill-moves-forward-kentucky)
Quote from: apl68 on February 05, 2024, 10:40:25 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 02, 2024, 01:09:22 PMNot really sure if this was censorship, or just really handled badly:
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/
So what's next? Will they be holding the Nobel Prize awards in Russia? That choice of venue ought to yield some interesting results.
The China location for the Hugos made tons of sense. China has a huge number of science fiction readers.
And this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 15, 2024, 11:43:04 AMAnd this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Aaah, no need to sweat it!
When my now adult daughter was in grade school, the permission slips that had to be signed overwhelmed my wife and me. So, I had a rubber stamp of my signature made, and gave it to my daughter to use as she pleased.
Free choice!
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 15, 2024, 11:43:04 AMAnd this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Ah Florida, home of "Florida Man," allegators in retirement community duck ponds, and many other avoidable insanities.
We just add one more insanity to the list.
Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2024, 01:20:58 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 15, 2024, 11:43:04 AMAnd this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Aaah, no need to sweat it!
When my now adult daughter was in grade school, the permission slips that had to be signed overwhelmed my wife and me. So, I had a rubber stamp of my signature made, and gave it to my daughter to use as she pleased.
Free choice!
Nope. It is discrimination by a government entity. Substitute "woman" or "Jew" or "Catholic" for African American man, and it remains appalling and arguably un-Constitutional.
The sheer number of things you think should be covered under freedom of choice (is that in your Constitution?) is staggering.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 16, 2024, 08:36:03 AMQuote from: dismalist on February 15, 2024, 01:20:58 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 15, 2024, 11:43:04 AMAnd this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Aaah, no need to sweat it!
When my now adult daughter was in grade school, the permission slips that had to be signed overwhelmed my wife and me. So, I had a rubber stamp of my signature made, and gave it to my daughter to use as she pleased.
Free choice!
Nope. It is discrimination by a government entity. Substitute "woman" or "Jew" or "Catholic" for African American man, and it remains appalling and arguably un-Constitutional.
The sheer number of things you think should be covered under freedom of choice (is that in your Constitution?) is staggering.
It seems like this may have been a case of the school using this opportunity to stir the pot.
From my read, the school requires permission slips for kids to attend any extra-curricular event or presentation, which this apparently was. By describing the nature of the event as a "a book reading by an African-American man", the school was thumbing their noses at the requirement. (Specifically, the
nature and content of the book are
completely legitimate things for parents to know about; if the book contained graphic descriptions of torture, many parents would quite reasonably opt out. Describing the event purely by the factors which be not matter to anyone was just a stunt.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 16, 2024, 10:25:42 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 16, 2024, 08:36:03 AMQuote from: dismalist on February 15, 2024, 01:20:58 PMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 15, 2024, 11:43:04 AMAnd this is simply appalling: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/15/us/miami-dade-county-permission-slips-black-history-month-reaj/index.html
Aaah, no need to sweat it!
When my now adult daughter was in grade school, the permission slips that had to be signed overwhelmed my wife and me. So, I had a rubber stamp of my signature made, and gave it to my daughter to use as she pleased.
Free choice!
Nope. It is discrimination by a government entity. Substitute "woman" or "Jew" or "Catholic" for African American man, and it remains appalling and arguably un-Constitutional.
The sheer number of things you think should be covered under freedom of choice (is that in your Constitution?) is staggering.
It seems like this may have been a case of the school using this opportunity to stir the pot.
From my read, the school requires permission slips for kids to attend any extra-curricular event or presentation, which this apparently was. By describing the nature of the event as a "a book reading by an African-American man", the school was thumbing their noses at the requirement. (Specifically, the nature and content of the book are completely legitimate things for parents to know about; if the book contained graphic descriptions of torture, many parents would quite reasonably opt out. Describing the event purely by the factors which be not matter to anyone was just a stunt.)
How "extra-curricular" is the event if the students are still on campus?
SMDH.
My read on the situation is that someone at the school is nervous (justifiably or not) about violating FL regulations regarding AfAm history/literature. If the school didn't explain who and what was going on at the event, then someone was afraid they be reprisals after the fact
Quote from: RatGuy on February 17, 2024, 11:00:47 AMMy read on the situation is that someone at the school is nervous (justifiably or not) about violating FL regulations regarding AfAm history/literature. If the school didn't explain who and what was going on at the event, then someone was afraid they be reprisals after the fact
But do you really think they need permission because the book is going to be
read by a black person, rather than because of the
content of the book? (It's hard to believe they'd have that concern over a book on astronomy or growing turnips) Do you think they wouldn't feel the need for a permission slip if the same book were going to be read by a white person? If they feel the need for the permission
regardless of who was going to read the book, then explaining it
by who was going to read the book was just being passive-aggressive regarding the requirement.
Quote from: RatGuy on February 17, 2024, 11:00:47 AMMy read on the situation is that someone at the school is nervous (justifiably or not) about violating FL regulations regarding AfAm history/literature. If the school didn't explain who and what was going on at the event, then someone was afraid they be reprisals after the fact
Not someone, everyone. This is the nature of bureaucracy. A bunch of small, scared people.
IHE: College Leaders Crack Down on Student Protests (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/02/19/college-leaders-crack-down-student-protests).
University of Austin is so brave lol (original site is down today due to massive traffic-here's the archive.org link) https://archive.is/NFgCq#selection-411.3-421.0
Quote from: Diogenes on February 19, 2024, 06:34:45 PMUniversity of Austin is so brave lol (original site is down today due to massive traffic-here's the archive.org link) https://archive.is/NFgCq#selection-411.3-421.0
The article drips with sarcasm, but I gave up before I found any suppression of speech. Was there some?
All I could find was the author being offended at the politics of speakers there.
The US of A has 3500+ colleges and universities. That's just like 3500+ hamburger joints, each serving a different type of hamburger. Along comes another hamburger joint, so now we're at 3501+, that puts vinegar on its fries, and some people go into fits of laughter, criticism of the decor, and what not. One doesn't have to send one's kids there. This is a non-issue.
Looks like nobody likes competition.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 20, 2024, 01:06:14 PMQuote from: Diogenes on February 19, 2024, 06:34:45 PMUniversity of Austin is so brave lol (original site is down today due to massive traffic-here's the archive.org link) https://archive.is/NFgCq#selection-411.3-421.0
The article drips with sarcasm, but I gave up before I found any suppression of speech. Was there some?
All I could find was the author being offended at the politics of speakers there.
Do your homework and read the whole thing, then I'll respond.
Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2024, 02:00:56 PMThe US of A has 3500+ colleges and universities. That's just like 3500+ hamburger joints, each serving a different type of hamburger. Along comes another hamburger joint, so now we're at 3501+, that puts vinegar on its fries, and some people go into fits of laughter, criticism of the decor, and what not. One doesn't have to send one's kids there. This is a non-issue.
Looks like nobody likes competition.
I should have made it more clear by putting "University" in quotes. Maybe they'll sell these kids a bridge next...
Quote from: Diogenes on February 20, 2024, 02:19:38 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 20, 2024, 02:00:56 PMThe US of A has 3500+ colleges and universities. That's just like 3500+ hamburger joints, each serving a different type of hamburger. Along comes another hamburger joint, so now we're at 3501+, that puts vinegar on its fries, and some people go into fits of laughter, criticism of the decor, and what not. One doesn't have to send one's kids there. This is a non-issue.
Looks like nobody likes competition.
I should have made it more clear by putting "University" in quotes. Maybe they'll sell these kids a bridge next...
Many colleges already do sell bridges! One more college may mean a better bridge. :-)
There's nothing to be afraid of -- unless the bridge is really better. We shall see.
Quote from: Diogenes on February 20, 2024, 02:18:30 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 20, 2024, 01:06:14 PMQuote from: Diogenes on February 19, 2024, 06:34:45 PMUniversity of Austin is so brave lol (original site is down today due to massive traffic-here's the archive.org link) https://archive.is/NFgCq#selection-411.3-421.0
The article drips with sarcasm, but I gave up before I found any suppression of speech. Was there some?
All I could find was the author being offended at the politics of speakers there.
Do your homework and read the whole thing, then I'll respond.
OK, I slogged through to the end. Here's a typical section.
QuoteSurveying the political field without venturing a step, endlessly weighing both sides, taking it all in with tranquility—this is an agreeable position. It allows banal contrarianism to masquerade as enlightened equanimity. Take, for example, a question Roiphe likes to contemplate in her writing and teaching. Is he at fault, because he assaulted her, or is she, because she drank too much and passed out? To refuse to decide on that question is, in effect, to allow the consequences of the second interpretation—exoneration—to unfold. What such heroic indecision often amounts to, in practice, is a craven reaffirmation of the powers that be.
He just can't believe that the standard social justice framing of everything would ever be challenged by anyone publicly. That's pretty much his whole message.
Quote from: dismalist on February 17, 2024, 11:45:44 AMQuote from: RatGuy on February 17, 2024, 11:00:47 AMMy read on the situation is that someone at the school is nervous (justifiably or not) about violating FL regulations regarding AfAm history/literature. If the school didn't explain who and what was going on at the event, then someone was afraid they be reprisals after the fact
Not someone, everyone. This is the nature of bureaucracy. A bunch of small, scared people.
dismalist: honest question. If you were the Principal or a School Board member, which law would you break? Despite the protests of the Florida Education czar it truly looks to me like the school has to break one.
Note: as a teacher I'd certainly choose to obey the FL law as written. That's the one that can get me fired in this case.
Actually I was too kind. The czar says you don't need to send a permission slip for subjects that are required by law, but a separate law says the teacher HAS to get permission if a student might be offended. That puts the teacher imho between the proverbial rock and hard place.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 20, 2024, 07:47:08 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 17, 2024, 11:45:44 AMQuote from: RatGuy on February 17, 2024, 11:00:47 AMMy read on the situation is that someone at the school is nervous (justifiably or not) about violating FL regulations regarding AfAm history/literature. If the school didn't explain who and what was going on at the event, then someone was afraid they be reprisals after the fact
Not someone, everyone. This is the nature of bureaucracy. A bunch of small, scared people.
dismalist: honest question. If you were the Principal or a School Board member, which law would you break? Despite the protests of the Florida Education czar it truly looks to me like the school has to break one.
Note: as a teacher I'd certainly choose to obey the FL law as written. That's the one that can get me fired in this case.
All of them, jimbo, all of them! :-)
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 20, 2024, 07:52:32 PMActually I was too kind. The czar says you don't need to send a permission slip for subjects that are required by law, but a separate law says the teacher HAS to get permission if a student might be offended. That puts the teacher imho between the proverbial rock and hard place.
That's brilliant, using the language used by progressives of "offense", which pretty much means
everyone has a Sword of Damocles over them about
anything. Maybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 21, 2024, 04:10:44 PMMaybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.
Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug. Think you can quit the madness?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 21, 2024, 04:46:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 21, 2024, 04:10:44 PMMaybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.
Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug. Think you can quit the madness?
Do you have any examples of me suggesting speech should be filtered because it might offend someone?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 22, 2024, 01:09:30 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 21, 2024, 04:46:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 21, 2024, 04:10:44 PMMaybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.
Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug. Think you can quit the madness?
Do you have any examples of me suggesting speech should be filtered because it might offend someone?
How would you feel about a drag queen giving a book reading in a public library?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 22, 2024, 03:14:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 22, 2024, 01:09:30 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 21, 2024, 04:46:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 21, 2024, 04:10:44 PMMaybe eventually both sides will agree to quit the madness.
Maybe you should lead the way, Marshbug. Think you can quit the madness?
Do you have any examples of me suggesting speech should be filtered because it might offend someone?
How would you feel about a drag queen giving a book reading in a public library?
About the same as a display in the middle of the library explaining why the "special operation" by Russia in Ukraine is necessary.
Either of those, if they were in a
separate space in the library, that people can
choose to enter or not, wouldn't be a big deal. The issue isn't the speech itself, it's whether people in a public space,
have to be exposed to it. If the children's section of the library has someone reading a book out loud, then anyone looking for books with their kids is exposed to it,
whether they want to be or not. In a public space, like a library, there should be a minimum of political or ideological messaging
that has the implied endorsement of the government. (Political candidates shouldn't be campaigning in those spaces either, for that reason.)
Public institutions should be relatively anodyne in their image, so that they don't take sides on any conflict of the moment. (In a
library,
especially, the one message should be that this is a place where people can have their
thoughts which may not be popular. People treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society.)
ETA: How about "private militia story time"? In a state with open-carry laws, how would you feel about someone in a library reading children's books while being visibly armed? If the weapons were unloaded, would that make it obviously OK?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2024, 05:59:40 AMEither of those, if they were in a separate space in the library, that people can choose to enter or not, wouldn't be a big deal. The issue isn't the speech itself, it's whether people in a public space, have to be exposed to it. If the children's section of the library has someone reading a book out loud, then anyone looking for books with their kids is exposed to it, whether they want to be or not. In a public space, like a library, there should be a minimum of political or ideological messaging that has the implied endorsement of the government. (Political candidates shouldn't be campaigning in those spaces either, for that reason.)
Public institutions should be relatively anodyne in their image, so that they don't take sides on any conflict of the moment. (In a library, especially, the one message should be that this is a place where people can have their thoughts which may not be popular. People treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society.)
ETA: How about "private militia story time"? In a state with open-carry laws, how would you feel about someone in a library reading children's books while being visibly armed? If the weapons were unloaded, would that make it obviously OK?
Riiiiiiiight, let's just keep all those bad people with their wrongthink hidden from view because someone might get offended if they are accidentally exposed to something they disagree with. Keep'em in the shadows----Christ would agree.
That's not bigoted or censorious.
Nor is it hypocritical in the light of recent comments.
Like this little cherry:
QuotePeople treating each other with respect despite these differences is what matters in a diverse society
Which is exactly to the point what you are not doing.
You seem to want "Respect" only when it applies to you.
I know that Christians hate it when non-Christians quote the Bible back to them, it's understandable, but the beam in your eye, buddy, whenever you talk about "progressives" being "offended" is bulging from your tear ducts.
I don't have a problem with people being visibly armed if the building code allows it. Cops carry guns wherever they go. Cops love little kids. But again, Marshy, think of your analogy. A gun is a lethal weapon. Gun violence is an epidemic in our culture. Not the same as a book reading. Not the same thing at all.
Critical thinking: humanities 101.
IHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 10:16:24 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
Birth coach is 'hounded out' of industry charity Doula UK after transgender activists branded her Facebook message claiming only women can have babies 'offensive' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7643251/Charity-hounds-birth-coach-post-saying-women-children.html)
Quoteynsey McCarthy-Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the national organisation for birth coaches. Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.
They did not expel the mother- of-four, who has been a doula – who provide continuous support during pregnancy – for six years, but threatened to suspend her unless she deleted the post.
I didn't even have a specific example, but it was on the first page of Google results. I didn't even bother to see how many more there were......
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 11:10:11 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 10:16:24 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
Birth coach is 'hounded out' of industry charity Doula UK after transgender activists branded her Facebook message claiming only women can have babies 'offensive' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7643251/Charity-hounds-birth-coach-post-saying-women-children.html)
Quoteynsey McCarthy-Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the national organisation for birth coaches. Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.
They did not expel the mother- of-four, who has been a doula – who provide continuous support during pregnancy – for six years, but threatened to suspend her unless she deleted the post.
I didn't even have a specific example, but it was on the first page of Google results. I didn't even bother to see how many more there were......
QuoteHer exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.
I guess her speech hurt the organization, huh?
Guess that makes her resignation legitimate.
And this is what she said:
QuoteThe Doula UK row started after Cancer Research UK dropped the word 'women' from its smear test campaign, instead saying screening was 'relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix'.
In response, Mrs McCarthy-Calvert posted a photograph on Facebook of a negligee-clad woman somersaulting underwater, with the wording: 'I am not a "cervix owner" I am not a "menstruator" I am not a "feeling". I am not defined by wearing a dress and lipstick. I am a woman: an adult human female.'
Beneath it she wrote: 'Women birth all the people, make up half the population, but less than a third of the seats in the House of Commons are occupied by us.'
She claimed women were accused of transphobia more than men, arguing men were not 'subjected to cries of bigotry and transphobia when they say they don't want to have sex with a woman with a penis'. Most trans-women have not had their male genitalia removed.
A Facebook follower accused her of using 'absolutely disgusting language', adding: 'Also, you seem to be forgetting that not only women birth children.'
I hope you are not going to suggest this is bigger than this stupid post by this lady and then the counter-reaction from 5 years ago.
And you might even take this as an object lesson: there were no problems until McCarthy-Calvert decided to be offended by some pretty unimportant language on a smear test (why would she care!?) and then other people decided to make a problem out of her problem.
Most of our problems only exist when we decide to make them problems. Perfect example.
The Mighty Marshmarine provided this one on another thread.
Business Insider: 'Disinvitations' for college speakers are on the rise — here's a list of people turned away this year (https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 10:16:24 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.
Here's a related link (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-policy-tells-midwives-to-stop-using-terms-such-as-breastfeeding-and-breastmilk-20210210-p571b7.html).
Quote from: Langue_doc on February 27, 2024, 11:32:44 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 10:16:24 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.
Here's a related link (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-policy-tells-midwives-to-stop-using-terms-such-as-breastfeeding-and-breastmilk-20210210-p571b7.html).
For the record, this particular tack in thought and language is stooooooopid and deserves sarcasm and satire, but not rage----it is not important enough for rage.
Quote from: Langue_doc on February 27, 2024, 11:32:44 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 10:16:24 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 08:18:20 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 26, 2024, 07:28:30 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:16:35 AMIHE: Academic Freedom Battles Roil Indiana University (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/02/26/academic-freedom-battles-roil-indiana-university)
We are getting to the point where we are "cancelling" people for who they are, because they fell on the wrong side of history with another group.
This is getting a bit cuckoo.
These days there are an incredible number of statements that can put someone "on the wrong side of history with another group", such as "Only women can have babies."
Who actually took offense at "Only women can have babies?" Who said that in the first place?
I recall seeing this in the BBC news website a few years ago. I think it was the British health system that decreeed that the bolded statement above was not inclusive and also introduced the term "chest feeding" because, as we all know, "breastfeeding" is discriminatory. Some of my friends and I had a good laugh.
Here's a related link (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-policy-tells-midwives-to-stop-using-terms-such-as-breastfeeding-and-breastmilk-20210210-p571b7.html).
And... babies grow in abdominal ovens and come out of genital holes.
IHE: As Alabama Republicans Target DEI, They Propose 'Gag Order' on Professors (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/03/01/ala-gop-targets-dei-it-proposes-professor-gag-order)
QuoteBut free speech groups have raised a particular concern. They say the measure could limit faculty members' speech to such an extent that even professors who disagree with the bill's list of "divisive concepts" couldn't teach students about these ideas—even to criticize them.
For instance, a professor's ability to teach about the historical dangers of nationalism, racism or antisemitism could be hamstrung by the fact that one of the "divisive concepts" listed is that "any race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior." A faculty member could be punished for having students read some of the founding fathers' racist ideas to understand and critique them, or for having them read about Nazi leaders' antisemitic, nationalistic ideas or Martin Luther's criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church.
NYT: College Dorm Decorations Become a Front in the Campus Free Speech Wars (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/nyregion/campus-free-speech-barnard-columbia.html)
Lower Deck:
QuoteBarnard College is requiring students to strip decorations from their dorm doors in the wake of protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
Quote"Zionism is terrorism," one student's door sticker said.
Concerned that some students might feel intimidated by such messages, the Barnard administration has decided to enforce a ban on dorm door decorations altogether. Their removal was set to begin on Thursday, and all but "official items placed by the college" will be taken down, Leslie Grinage, the dean of the college, wrote in an email to students.
"While many decorations and fixtures on doors serve as a means of helpful communication amongst peers, we are also aware that some may have the unintended effect of isolating those who have different views and beliefs," she wrote.
Colleges have big mouths about free speech and free inquiry.
Colleges also prattle endlessly about being welcoming, being safe for everyone, and DEI.
It may be that you can't have both at the same time, particularly if we conceive of college students as being so incredibly fragile.
And some students are----Columbia is being sued by students claiming "anti-Zionism" is making it hard for them to get an education.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 05, 2024, 08:13:40 PMColleges have big mouths about free speech and free inquiry.
Colleges also prattle endlessly about being welcoming, being safe for everyone, and DEI.
It may be that you can't have both at the same time, particularly if we conceive of college students as being so incredibly fragile.
As long as "safety" is in the eye of the beholder, that will be the case.
Life is not "safe".
Don't know what to make of this one. Clearly a typical homophobic and racial bigot trying to sublimate in academese...but still, he has an opinion...had to flee to Florida to feel safe with it...
IHE: New College of Florida Hires Professor Who Champions Colonialism (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/03/08/new-college-florida-hires-scholar-who-defends)
Lower Deck:
QuoteThe institution's president has appointed Bruce Gilley—who's argued that a "European moral revolution" ended Africa's "endemic slave empires" and said the transgender flag symbolizes mutilating children—to teach.
QuoteA second way to "reclaim colonialism," Gilley wrote, "is to recolonize some regions. Western countries should be encouraged to hold power in specific governance areas (public finances, say, or criminal justice) in order to jump-start enduring reforms in weak states." Thirdly, he added, "it may be possible to build new Western colonies from scratch." He did say colonialism could return "only with the consent of the colonized."
<...>
The article was published in September 2017. By the end of that month, Gilley, a politics and global affairs professor, was himself calling for its retraction. "I regret the pain and anger that it has caused for many people," he said in a statement. "I hope that this action will allow a more civil and caring discussion on this important issue to take place." The journal removed the essay from its website, citing threats of violence to its then editor.
<...>
So Gilley clearly hasn't changed his tune. "Decolonization has been the greatest human rights disaster ever," he told Inside Higher Ed this week. He said he's heard support for his arguments from people of color who live in countries that were once European colonies.
"They're sick and tired of having Black activists in America or white film studies professors telling them what they're supposed to think about their own histories," Gilley said.
Hmmm...gotta throw a little doubt on that last one there...
And this is more of the typical stick-up-the-wazoo / admincritters-wetting-their-pantaloons type bruhaha.
IHE: U of Houston Cancels Art Event for Sculpture Deemed 'Satanic' (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/diversity/2024/03/05/u-houston-cancels-event-sculpture-deemed-satanic)
Lower Deck:
QuoteAntiabortion groups say the sculpture being exhibited on campus has "satanic" imagery and reflects the artist's stance on abortion rights.
QuoteThe sculpture, "Witness," by Pakistani American artist Shahzia Sikander, is slated for an eight-month stay at the Public Art of the University of Houston System collection. It features an 18-foot woman with thick, gold braids that resemble rams' horns and arms and legs that look like roots. The woman also wears a hooped skirt with mosaic details and a distinctive collar that is an homage to the signature lace judicial collars worn by late U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
<....>
Texas Right to Life, an antiabortion advocacy organization, released a blistering statement, describing the sculpture as having "satanic imagery to honor abortion" and memorialize Ginsburg.
<....>
"Disobedience to God certainly should not be esteemed by society, much less lauded with a statue," the statement read. "On the contrary, art should reflect truth, goodness, and beauty: three timeless values that reveal the nature of God. Art cannot have beauty without truth. Art cannot have truth without goodness. A statue honoring child sacrifice has no place in Texas."
On the contrary, art should reflect truth, goodness, and beauty: three timeless values that reveal the nature of God. Art cannot have beauty without truth. Art cannot have truth without goodness.
Wonder if she approves of Michangelo's David..... That man is certainly beautiful, and his body truthfully sculpted.....Though his relationship with Tommasso may make him unacceptable to those who require the missionary position.
This is a bit of a reversal, but NBC News: BYU now requires incoming students to read controversial 'musket fire' speech (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/byu-freshmen-controversial-musket-fire-speech-mormon-lgbtq-utah-rcna143891)
Lower Deck
QuoteThe 2021 address, which defends "marriage as the union of a man and a woman," called on members of the Mormon church to defend its teachings with "musket fire."
QuoteA new required course at the Provo, Utah, university titled "UNIV 101: BYU Foundations for Student Success, a New Chapter for BYU" features the controversial "musket fire" speech by Latter-day Saint religious leader and former BYU President Jeffrey R. Holland as a core reading. Starting in the winter 2024 semester, all incoming students, except transfer students, will have to take the course in their first semester.
In the speech titled "The Second Half of the Second Century of Brigham Young University," Holland condemned criticisms of the Mormon faith, calling on members of the church to defend its teachings with "musket fire." One such teaching, Holland said, includes "the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
This is BYU. What would you expect them to do, deny their fundamental teachings and/or not teach these to their students?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 18, 2024, 04:33:45 PMThis is a bit of a reversal, but NBC News: BYU now requires incoming students to read controversial 'musket fire' speech (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/byu-freshmen-controversial-musket-fire-speech-mormon-lgbtq-utah-rcna143891)
Lower Deck
QuoteThe 2021 address, which defends "marriage as the union of a man and a woman," called on members of the Mormon church to defend its teachings with "musket fire."
QuoteA new required course at the Provo, Utah, university titled "UNIV 101: BYU Foundations for Student Success, a New Chapter for BYU" features the controversial "musket fire" speech by Latter-day Saint religious leader and former BYU President Jeffrey R. Holland as a core reading. Starting in the winter 2024 semester, all incoming students, except transfer students, will have to take the course in their first semester.
In the speech titled "The Second Half of the Second Century of Brigham Young University," Holland condemned criticisms of the Mormon faith, calling on members of the church to defend its teachings with "musket fire." One such teaching, Holland said, includes "the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
That incoming class has grown up with new of mass school shootings and LGTBQ people portrayed positively in the media. The chances of them having personal experience with these issues, or friends and community members with such experiences is extremely high.
If it makes half the incoming class drop out, BYU might have to rethink that policy.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 18, 2024, 07:25:55 PMThis is BYU. What would you expect them to do, deny their fundamental teachings and/or not teach these to their students?
I'm just posting the story.
This is yet another example of a university trying to control its students' speech and thoughts, however. Take that as you will.
The Morman Church has always been ambivalent about people of color:
"Many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people" 2 Nephi 30:6
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on March 19, 2024, 07:40:41 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on March 18, 2024, 07:25:55 PMThis is BYU. What would you expect them to do, deny their fundamental teachings and/or not teach these to their students?
I'm just posting the story.
This is yet another example of a university trying to control its students' speech and thoughts, however. Take that as you will.
Does anyone know if BYU has incoming students sign some sort of statement of faith when they arrive?
I don't really have a problem with things like this
if they are clear about it up front, so prospective students have the choice of going elsewhere if they don't subscribe to it. (Kind of like joining the military, in that way; the restrictions on recruits are way more extreme than would be acceptable in pretty much any other context, but they can choose to sign up or not.)
With normal institutions that at least pay some lip service to freedom of thought and expression, restrictions
imposed after they arrive are another matter entirely.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 20, 2024, 07:35:05 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on March 19, 2024, 07:40:41 PMQuote from: kaysixteen on March 18, 2024, 07:25:55 PMThis is BYU. What would you expect them to do, deny their fundamental teachings and/or not teach these to their students?
I'm just posting the story.
This is yet another example of a university trying to control its students' speech and thoughts, however. Take that as you will.
Does anyone know if BYU has incoming students sign some sort of statement of faith when they arrive?
I don't really have a problem with things like this if they are clear about it up front, so prospective students have the choice of going elsewhere if they don't subscribe to it. (Kind of like joining the military, in that way; the restrictions on recruits are way more extreme than would be acceptable in pretty much any other context, but they can choose to sign up or not.)
With normal institutions that at least pay some lip service to freedom of thought and expression, restrictions imposed after they arrive are another matter entirely.
IIRC, they have to be in good standing with the Church and gat a recommend from the Ward Bishop. And he does say that he is a practicing Mormon.
A Busy Couple of Weeks:
Ex-Stanford professor says he was fired, doxxed after colonialism lecture (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-stanford-professor-says-fired-181640087.html)
QuoteA professor who was booted from Stanford University after freshmen students complained about his lecture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict filed a defamation and retaliation lawsuit in federal court.
IHE: Sex Discrimination or Doctrinal Differences? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/religious-colleges/2024/04/04/professors-lawsuit-against-moody-bible-allowed)
QuoteA former professor's sex discrimination lawsuit against Moody Bible Institute was recently allowed to proceed by a federal appeals court. The case could have bigger implications for religious colleges.
Mailman professor Abdul Kayum Ahmed to receive letter of nonrenewal following claims of 'political indoctrination' (https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/04/mailman-professor-abdul-kayum-ahmed-to-receive-letter-of-nonrenewal-following-claims-of-political-indoctrination/)
QuoteAbdul Kayum Ahmed, assistant professor at the Mailman School of Public Health, was notified that he will receive a letter of nonrenewal by the end of June following an article in the Wall Street Journal accusing him of pro-Palestinian "political indoctrination" in his course Health and Human Rights Advocacy.
The Wall Street Journal article cited instances in Ahmed's classroom that had been videotaped, including him labeling Israel as a "colonial settler state."
UT Austin Administrators Tried to Punish Professor over Anti-DEI Crusade. He's Fighting Back (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ut-austin-administrators-tried-to-punish-professor-over-anti-dei-crusade-hes-fighting-back/)
QuoteUniversity of Texas at Austin finance professor Richard Lowery has annoyed the university's administration by publicly criticizing its embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion and suggesting that administrators exploit their positions for their children's admission.
Lowery's crusade did not go unnoticed: Several university administrators — and the university president, Jay Hartzell — responded with a "campaign to silence" the professor, which included threatening his job, salary, professional affiliations, and research opportunities, according to a lawsuit Lowery filed against the administrators.
IU administrator violated policy in suspending professor Abdulkader Sinno according to Faculty Board of Review (https://www.idsnews.com/article/2024/04/iu-administrator-violated-policy-suspending-professor-abdulkader-sinno)
QuoteVice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs Carrie Docherty violated IU policy when she suspended tenured professor Abdulkader Sinno following his attempt to reserve a room for a Palestine Solidarity Committee event, according to the IU Faculty Board of Review (FBR). The FBR wrote that Docherty failed to follow procedure by sanctioning Sinno without first referring the matter to the Faculty Misconduct Review Committee (FMRC), where Sinno could have defended himself at a hearing in front of his colleagues.
'Brazen and absurd': Penn professor Amy Wax criticizes recommended sanctions in new interview (https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/04/amy-wax-penn-sanctions-interview)
QuoteWax has drawn criticism for a number of her comments — including claims that Black students never graduate at the top of the Penn Carey Law class and that "non-Western groups" are resentful towards "Western people." Among other allegations, Wax has also faced criticism for hosting white nationalist Jared Taylor for a guest lecture and allegedly telling a Penn Carey Law student that she was only accepted into the Ivy League "because of affirmative action."
Professor Banned From Christian Campus For Criticizing Identity Politics Settles Case (https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/03/professor-banned-from-christian-campus-for-criticizing-identity-politics-settles-case/)
QuoteA professor and ordained pastor who was kicked off his campus two years ago for opposing "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives has settled with Concordia University Wisconsin in a confidential agreement, his lawyer told The Federalist Tuesday.
Philosophy professor Greg Schulz "alleged they breached the contract by violating his academic freedom, and he believes he's been satisfactorily made whole," said Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty, a nonprofit public interest law firm that took up Schulz's case on behalf of free speech.
I understand that folks don't want to get into a bun fight or would rather deal with manageable, day-to-day problems in academia, but my goodness----look what the hotbed mess our colleges are becoming. The original thread got so long a mod cut it in half, and like a worm the second half continued to grow. Speech and censorship (and yes, we understand free speech in the Constitution regards government censorship) are major issues on our campuses. The thought police have finally started to lose, Amy Waxman's mental illness and bigotry notwithstanding.
Wow! You've been busy!
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 04, 2024, 06:56:47 PMA Busy Couple of Weeks:
IHE: Sex Discrimination or Doctrinal Differences? (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/religious-colleges/2024/04/04/professors-lawsuit-against-moody-bible-allowed)
QuoteA former professor's sex discrimination lawsuit against Moody Bible Institute was recently allowed to proceed by a federal appeals court. The case could have bigger implications for religious colleges.
QuoteGarrick's lawyers, however, asserted that Moody officials were aware of her views when they hired her and merely asked her to remove that she was an "ordained minister" from her résumé and sign a doctrinal statement affirming she agreed with the institution's religious views.
This is one of those where I'm sympathetic to the institution if the person signed off on a statement when hired that they later (apparently) recanted. (Now, if the beliefs in questions weren't covered by the original statement, it's a different matter.)
Quote'Brazen and absurd': Penn professor Amy Wax criticizes recommended sanctions in new interview (https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/04/amy-wax-penn-sanctions-interview)
QuoteWax has drawn criticism for a number of her comments — including claims that Black students never graduate at the top of the Penn Carey Law class and that "non-Western groups" are resentful towards "Western people." Among other allegations, Wax has also faced criticism for hosting white nationalist Jared Taylor for a guest lecture and allegedly telling a Penn Carey Law student that she was only accepted into the Ivy League "because of affirmative action."
This is one of those cases where "telling the truth" may also be "rubbing peoples' noses in it".
Would these statements have gone under the wire in a more diplomatic format? Probably not, but an interesting discussion.
QuoteI understand that folks don't want to get into a bun fight or would rather deal with manageable, day-to-day problems in academia, but my goodness----look what the hotbed mess our colleges are becoming. The original thread got so long a mod cut it in half, and like a worm the second half continued to grow. Speech and censorship (and yes, we understand free speech in the Constitution regards government censorship) are major issues on our campuses. The thought police have finally started to lose, Amy Waxman's mental illness and bigotry notwithstanding.
Keep 'em comin' Wahoo. I hope you're right about the thought police. (And note my comment about Amy Wax above.)
Wax says things that----as with the diversity officers who consistently harp on "white privilege"----have no point but to alienate and make people angry. There is nothing really to accomplish by pointing out that top law school graduates are generally white unless one has a method for equalizing the disparity.
It appears that Wax just wants to vent her bigotry. Fine. Let her. And let her face the cultural backlash she generates.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2024, 06:18:24 AMWow! You've been busy!
Not really. That's the remarkable part.
I just put "professor" into Google and the first page was filled with this stuff. It took about a minute.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 05, 2024, 07:17:38 AMWax says things that----as with the diversity officers who consistently harp on "white privilege"----have no point but to alienate and make people angry. There is nothing really to accomplish by pointing out that top law school graduates are generally white unless one has a method for equalizing the disparity.
It appears that Wax just wants to vent her bigotry. Fine. Let her. And let her face the cultural backlash she generates.
The one caveat to this is when these statements are a
response to accusations of discrimination from the other side. So if other people claim that the lack of a proportional representation of students of group X in the top of the class of graduates is evidence of discrimination, then the unpleasant, but realistic answer may be that the incoming preparation, as shown by their incoming grades, of group X was below average, and their performance is consistent with students of other groups with the same incoming grades.
Even saying this as diplomatically as possible is no doubt going to rile people up. Amy Wax seems to not care much regardless.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2024, 08:00:19 AMThe one caveat to this is when these statements are a response to accusations of discrimination from the other side. So if other people claim that the lack of a proportional representation of students of group X in the top of the class of graduates is evidence of discrimination, then the unpleasant, but realistic answer may be that the incoming preparation, as shown by their incoming grades, of group X was below average, and their performance is consistent with students of other groups with the same incoming grades.
Even saying this as diplomatically as possible is no doubt going to rile people up. Amy Wax seems to not care much regardless.
Yeah, but I don't think Wax said anything like that.
I agree that a hard truth is a hard truth----like white privilege. White privilege is a truth that makes a lot of irrationally angry people. It's how you use it.
But while she has some ideas which bear listening to, (https://web.archive.org/web/20211204112109/https://www.inquirer.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price-for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html) I think her understanding is also so limited and idealistic that it can only make people angry.
Tennessee Triples Down on Targeting 'Divisive Concepts' (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/04/15/tennessee-triples-down-targeting-divisive-concepts)
QuoteRepublican lawmakers in multiple states have listed and taken aim at certain theories or beliefs that they often associate with pushes for diversity, equity and inclusion.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 15, 2024, 08:41:38 AMTennessee Triples Down on Targeting 'Divisive Concepts' (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/04/15/tennessee-triples-down-targeting-divisive-concepts)
QuoteRepublican lawmakers in multiple states have listed and taken aim at certain theories or beliefs that they often associate with pushes for diversity, equity and inclusion.
Ah yes: Pro white christian male
QuoteNPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/business/media/npr-suspends-business-editor.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.k00.4J_e.Y4VHCCfc6ztq&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network's liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.
Uri Berliner's article in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). Toward the end of the article, Berliner writes:
QuoteRace and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system. We were given unconscious bias training sessions. A growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to "start talking about race." Monthly dialogues were offered for "women of color" and "men of color." Nonbinary people of color were included, too.
These initiatives, bolstered by a $1 million grant from the NPR Foundation, came from management, from the top down. Crucially, they were in sync culturally with what was happening at the grassroots—among producers, reporters, and other staffers. Most visible was a burgeoning number of employee resource (or affinity) groups based on identity.
They included MGIPOC (Marginalized Genders and Intersex People of Color mentorship program); Mi Gente (Latinx employees at NPR); NPR Noir (black employees at NPR); Southwest Asians and North Africans at NPR; Ummah (for Muslim-identifying employees); Women, Gender-Expansive, and Transgender People in Technology Throughout Public Media; Khevre (Jewish heritage and culture at NPR); and NPR Pride (LGBTQIA employees at NPR).
All this reflected a broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic of birth. If, as NPR's internal website suggested, the groups were simply a "great way to meet like-minded colleagues" and "help new employees feel included," it would have been one thing.
But the role and standing of affinity groups, including those outside NPR, were more than that. They became a priority for NPR's union, SAG-AFTRA—an item in collective bargaining. The current contract, in a section on DEI, requires NPR management to "keep up to date with current language and style guidance from journalism affinity groups" and to inform employees if language differs from the diktats of those groups. In such a case, the dispute could go before the DEI Accountability Committee.
In essence, this means the NPR union, of which I am a dues-paying member, has ensured that advocacy groups are given a seat at the table in determining the terms and vocabulary of our news coverage.
Conflicts between workers and bosses, between labor and management, are common in workplaces. NPR has had its share. But what's notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.
And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.
You can hardly expect individual institutions to harbor viewpoint diversity. Institutions, including media companies, universities, schools, and firms down to the retail establishment, develop or harbor their own cultures to reduce the cost of trying to figure out what to do. If the Times or Harvard had viewpoint diversity, you'd have knife fights all day, every day.
Viewpoint diversity can only exist through competition between institutions, not within institutions.
We have Fox as well as the Times, talk radio as well as NPR. In Economics Departments, e.g., we have the commies at the New School, the Americanized German Historical School in -- of all places -- Texas, and more mundanely in Macroeconomics, the Sweetwater flavor in Chicago and Minnesota, and the Saltwater flavor in Harvard, MIT, and the others on the coast of the Northeast.
So long as all this is possible, there is no problem.
Quote from: dismalist on April 16, 2024, 01:56:27 PMYou can hardly expect individual institutions to harbor viewpoint diversity. Institutions, including media companies, universities, schools, and firms down to the retail establishment, develop or harbor their own cultures to reduce the cost of trying to figure out what to do. If the Times or Harvard had viewpoint diversity, you'd have knife fights all day, every day.
Viewpoint diversity can only exist through competition between institutions, not within institutions.
We have Fox as well as the Times, talk radio as well as NPR. In Economics Departments, e.g., we have the commies at the New School, the Americanized German Historical School in -- of all places -- Texas, and more mundanely in Macroeconomics, the Sweetwater flavor in Chicago and Minnesota, and the Saltwater flavor in Harvard, MIT, and the others on the coast of the Northeast.
So long as all this is possible, there is no problem.
Not entirely. It would be good if people didn't have to look to
competing institutions to get a balanced picture of an issue. Being able to have an insightful, civilized debate
within an institution is really valuable.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 16, 2024, 04:06:02 PMQuote from: dismalist on April 16, 2024, 01:56:27 PMYou can hardly expect individual institutions to harbor viewpoint diversity. Institutions, including media companies, universities, schools, and firms down to the retail establishment, develop or harbor their own cultures to reduce the cost of trying to figure out what to do. If the Times or Harvard had viewpoint diversity, you'd have knife fights all day, every day.
Viewpoint diversity can only exist through competition between institutions, not within institutions.
We have Fox as well as the Times, talk radio as well as NPR. In Economics Departments, e.g., we have the commies at the New School, the Americanized German Historical School in -- of all places -- Texas, and more mundanely in Macroeconomics, the Sweetwater flavor in Chicago and Minnesota, and the Saltwater flavor in Harvard, MIT, and the others on the coast of the Northeast.
So long as all this is possible, there is no problem.
Not entirely. It would be good if people didn't have to look to competing institutions to get a balanced picture of an issue. Being able to have an insightful, civilized debate within an institution is really valuable.
Fogedddabouddit.
Quote from: nebo113 on April 15, 2024, 04:04:44 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on April 15, 2024, 08:41:38 AMTennessee Triples Down on Targeting 'Divisive Concepts' (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/04/15/tennessee-triples-down-targeting-divisive-concepts)
QuoteRepublican lawmakers in multiple states have listed and taken aim at certain theories or beliefs that they often associate with pushes for diversity, equity and inclusion.
Ah yes: Pro white christian male
QuoteThese included the idea that meritocracy is inherently racist and the notion that "the rule of law does not exist, but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups."
So I guess all of those other, non-white and non-Christian countries that promote meritocracy and the rule of law have
totally misunderstood what they were doing.
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 16, 2024, 01:39:04 PMQuoteNPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/business/media/npr-suspends-business-editor.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.k00.4J_e.Y4VHCCfc6ztq&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network's liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.
Uri Berliner's article in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). Toward the end of the article, Berliner writes:
QuoteRace and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system. We were given unconscious bias training sessions. A growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to "start talking about race." Monthly dialogues were offered for "women of color" and "men of color." Nonbinary people of color were included, too.
These initiatives, bolstered by a $1 million grant from the NPR Foundation, came from management, from the top down. Crucially, they were in sync culturally with what was happening at the grassroots—among producers, reporters, and other staffers. Most visible was a burgeoning number of employee resource (or affinity) groups based on identity.
They included MGIPOC (Marginalized Genders and Intersex People of Color mentorship program); Mi Gente (Latinx employees at NPR); NPR Noir (black employees at NPR); Southwest Asians and North Africans at NPR; Ummah (for Muslim-identifying employees); Women, Gender-Expansive, and Transgender People in Technology Throughout Public Media; Khevre (Jewish heritage and culture at NPR); and NPR Pride (LGBTQIA employees at NPR).
All this reflected a broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic of birth. If, as NPR's internal website suggested, the groups were simply a "great way to meet like-minded colleagues" and "help new employees feel included," it would have been one thing.
But the role and standing of affinity groups, including those outside NPR, were more than that. They became a priority for NPR's union, SAG-AFTRA—an item in collective bargaining. The current contract, in a section on DEI, requires NPR management to "keep up to date with current language and style guidance from journalism affinity groups" and to inform employees if language differs from the diktats of those groups. In such a case, the dispute could go before the DEI Accountability Committee.
In essence, this means the NPR union, of which I am a dues-paying member, has ensured that advocacy groups are given a seat at the table in determining the terms and vocabulary of our news coverage.
Conflicts between workers and bosses, between labor and management, are common in workplaces. NPR has had its share. But what's notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.
And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.
Isn't that the point of DEI... to make sure there IS viewpoint diversity?
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 17, 2024, 06:23:46 AMQuote from: Langue_doc on April 16, 2024, 01:39:04 PMQuoteNPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/business/media/npr-suspends-business-editor.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.k00.4J_e.Y4VHCCfc6ztq&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network's liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.
Uri Berliner's article in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). Toward the end of the article, Berliner writes:
QuoteAnd this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.
Isn't that the point of DEI... to make sure there IS viewpoint diversity?
Not remotely; it's to make sure that the "viewpoint" presented reflects "diversity" of people expressing it, where "diversity" is based on identity categories, (other than straight, white, male, christian, etc.). Do you really think that, in the name of DEI, hiring will be done to
ensure that there are pro-life, conservatives on staff?
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 17, 2024, 07:13:15 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on April 17, 2024, 06:23:46 AMQuote from: Langue_doc on April 16, 2024, 01:39:04 PMQuoteNPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/business/media/npr-suspends-business-editor.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.k00.4J_e.Y4VHCCfc6ztq&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network's liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.
Uri Berliner's article in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). Toward the end of the article, Berliner writes:
QuoteAnd this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.
Isn't that the point of DEI... to make sure there IS viewpoint diversity?
Not remotely; it's to make sure that the "viewpoint" presented reflects "diversity" of people expressing it, where "diversity" is based on identity categories, (other than straight, white, male, christian, etc.). Do you really think that, in the name of DEI, hiring will be done to ensure that there are pro-life, conservatives on staff?
Apparently if one is applying to work for Lara Trump.....
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 16, 2024, 01:39:04 PMQuoteNPR Suspends Editor Whose Essay Criticized the Broadcaster (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/business/media/npr-suspends-business-editor.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.k00.4J_e.Y4VHCCfc6ztq&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, said the public radio network's liberal bias had tainted its coverage of important stories.
Uri Berliner's article in The Free Press (https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust). Toward the end of the article, Berliner writes:
QuoteRace and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace. Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system. We were given unconscious bias training sessions. A growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to "start talking about race." Monthly dialogues were offered for "women of color" and "men of color." Nonbinary people of color were included, too.
These initiatives, bolstered by a $1 million grant from the NPR Foundation, came from management, from the top down. Crucially, they were in sync culturally with what was happening at the grassroots—among producers, reporters, and other staffers. Most visible was a burgeoning number of employee resource (or affinity) groups based on identity.
They included MGIPOC (Marginalized Genders and Intersex People of Color mentorship program); Mi Gente (Latinx employees at NPR); NPR Noir (black employees at NPR); Southwest Asians and North Africans at NPR; Ummah (for Muslim-identifying employees); Women, Gender-Expansive, and Transgender People in Technology Throughout Public Media; Khevre (Jewish heritage and culture at NPR); and NPR Pride (LGBTQIA employees at NPR).
All this reflected a broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic of birth. If, as NPR's internal website suggested, the groups were simply a "great way to meet like-minded colleagues" and "help new employees feel included," it would have been one thing.
But the role and standing of affinity groups, including those outside NPR, were more than that. They became a priority for NPR's union, SAG-AFTRA—an item in collective bargaining. The current contract, in a section on DEI, requires NPR management to "keep up to date with current language and style guidance from journalism affinity groups" and to inform employees if language differs from the diktats of those groups. In such a case, the dispute could go before the DEI Accountability Committee.
In essence, this means the NPR union, of which I am a dues-paying member, has ensured that advocacy groups are given a seat at the table in determining the terms and vocabulary of our news coverage.
Conflicts between workers and bosses, between labor and management, are common in workplaces. NPR has had its share. But what's notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.
And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity.
Uri Berliner has resigned.
QuoteNPR Editor Who Accused Broadcaster of Liberal Bias Resigns (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/business/media/uri-berliner-npr-resigns.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.lU0.R7nT.aBwaoV-Hk5YR&smid=url-share)
Uri Berliner, who has worked at NPR for 25 years, said in an essay last week that the nonprofit had allowed progressive bias to taint its coverage.