Florida: annual surveys of political views of faculty, staff, and students

[ciao_yall]

According to https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article252283988.html there is a new law in Florida that will require annual surveys of the political viewpoints of faculty, staff, and students at public universities and colleges.

The survey will discern "the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented" in public universities and colleges, and seeks to find whether students, faculty and staff "feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom."

The measure, which goes into effect July 1, does not specify what will be done with the survey results. But DeSantis and Sen. Ray Rodrigues, the sponsor of the bill, suggested on Tuesday that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be "indoctrinating" students.

In addition to the survey, the measure DeSantis signed into law will bar university and college officials from limiting speech that "may be uncomfortable, disagreeable or offensive," and will allow students to record lectures without consent for educational purposes or to support a civil or criminal case against a higher-education institution.

While the surveys are not yet written, it is also not clear what criteria will be used to infer whether or not universities are "indoctinating" students. In my view, both the political-views survey and the legal right to record lectures without consent seem like they could result in a major infringement on free speech - the opposite of what the proponents of the law claim to be its purpose.

Also, what counts as educating a student on the fundamentals of economics and science and what counts as "indoctrinating?"

[Parasaurolophus]

I dunno, mahoganny, do you want to report your political views to a government body every year? Would you want to even if the party in government were the Democrats? I would think that the GOP, whose platform particularly emphasizes smaller government, wouldn't want the government to have even more information on individual citizens. Sometimes I think that Republicans don't really believe in their platform, but just want to do everything they can to stay in power.

As I indicated above, if the surveys are anonymous, this isn't an issue. It's not about what individual faculty believe that matters; it's whether they basically all believe essentially the same thing, whatever that is.

And if the surveys were anonymous, and there was some campaign for people to lie on the surveys to imply there was more diversity than actually exists, I'd have zero interest of working there or sending my kid there, regardless of what people actually believe. That kind of intellectual dishonesty undermines the idea of an educational institution even more than a groupthink bubble does. It's essentially a cult at that point.

Merely anonymizing responses is not a sufficient safeguard, and it does not ensure that the respondents are not identifiable. This is especially true when results are broken down by department. In a case like this, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits, especially absent further safeguards. This sort of survey wouldn't pass an IRB worth its salt.

If you're conservative, and you look at academia and see a place where your beliefs are largely rejected, there are two main possibilities. One is that academia is a cultic brainwashing conspiracy against the right with little to no intellectual diversity. The other is that the content of your beliefs is, by and large, stupid or outdated, and smart people with training and experience in the relevant subjects know those beliefs to be false.

"Intellectual diversity" sounds like a nice thing, but it's just another empty phrase. When it's used to cover for pseudointellectualism and bullshit that requires us to bow our heads to falsities because they're a "perspective", what is that but the very relativism conservatives shit bricks about all the time?

You'll recall that one of the few pieces of hard evidence on this subject comes from a study of Canadian universities and their faculty in 2000 (written up here and here). And you'll recall that the conclusion was that most of the professoriate is centre/centre-right aligned, politically, as long as you (correctly!) peg the Liberals as a centrist party, but that there's actually quite a bit of "intellectual diversity" in the Canadian academic context. The lit review in the second article is especially illuminating, actually.

[mahagonny]

If you're conservative, and you look at academia and see a place where your beliefs are largely rejected, there are two main possibilities. One is that academia is a cultic brainwashing conspiracy against the right with little to no intellectual diversity. The other is that the content of your beliefs is, by and large, stupid or outdated, and smart people with training and experience in the relevant subjects know those beliefs to be false.

An outdated belief that we agree is false could be, for example, that the earth is flat. An 'outdated' belief that some people believe is false is that merit can be measured by behavior without taking into account skin color.
Is an idea false because it is outdated? If so, did it go from being true to being false at some point in time, kind of like gender switch?

Hmm....

ETA: what if not all of these people with training in experience in the relevant fields do not agree? Do we give creedence to the beliefs held by the majority of that group? Is the majority comprised of the ones who have been hired by academia?

[marshwiggle]

Merely anonymizing responses is not a sufficient safeguard, and it does not ensure that the respondents are not identifiable. This is especially true when results are broken down by department. In a case like this, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits, especially absent further safeguards. This sort of survey wouldn't pass an IRB worth its salt.

I don't have any interest in breaking things down by department. By having the survey anonymous, I wouldn't record that information even when the survey was taken.

If you're conservative, and you look at academia and see a place where your beliefs are largely rejected, there are two main possibilities. One is that academia is a cultic brainwashing conspiracy against the right with little to no intellectual diversity. The other is that the content of your beliefs is, by and large, stupid or outdated, and smart people with training and experience in the relevant subjects know those beliefs to be false.

Ah, got it. So if someone is a moderate, are their views only moderately stupid or outdated?

"Intellectual diversity" sounds like a nice thing, but it's just another empty phrase. When it's used to cover for pseudointellectualism and bullshit that requires us to bow our heads to falsities because they're a "perspective", what is that but the very relativism conservatives shit bricks about all the time?

You'll recall that one of the few pieces of hard evidence on this subject comes from a study of Canadian universities and their faculty in 2000 (written up here and here). And you'll recall that the conclusion was that most of the professoriate is centre/centre-right aligned, politically, as long as you (correctly!) peg the Liberals as a centrist party, but that there's actually quite a bit of "intellectual diversity" in the Canadian academic context. The lit review in the second article is especially illuminating, actually.

A survey from 2000 is , as you would say, outdated. In our department, at least half of our faculty were hired since then, and virtually none of our students were even born then. Societal norms have changed drastically in the last two decades.

[Parasaurolophus]

A survey from 2000 is , as you would say, outdated. In our department, at least half of our faculty were hired since then, and virtually none of our students were even born then. Societal norms have changed drastically in the last two decades.

It's absolutely outdated. However, it's one of the few pieces of evidence actually out there. And the narrative that universities were brainwashing the youth to the left was prevalent back then, too, and it didn't let the facts get in the way. Since the narrative has been trotted out again, we should regard it with skepticism, since it's the same one that was false then, and there's no new evidence in its favour.

We should be especially skeptical because it's being trotted out as part of an effort to silence free speech and academic freedom on campuses.

[mahagonny]

A survey from 2000 is , as you would say, outdated. In our department, at least half of our faculty were hired since then, and virtually none of our students were even born then. Societal norms have changed drastically in the last two decades.

It's absolutely outdated. However, it's one of the few pieces of evidence actually out there. And the narrative that universities were brainwashing the youth to the left was prevalent back then, too, and it didn't let the facts get in the way.

Right, the academic left believes it has been scrutinized for indoctrination and then vindicated. So there might well be reason to keep an eye on them.

Since the narrative has been trotted out again, we should regard it with skepticism, since it's the same one that was false then, and there's no new evidence in its favour.

So let's view it with skepticism, and then believe after it is demonstrated, if it is.

ETA:

If you're conservative, and you look at academia and see a place where your beliefs are largely rejected, there are two main possibilities. One is that academia is a cultic brainwashing conspiracy against the right with little to no intellectual diversity. The other is that the content of your beliefs is, by and large, stupid or outdated, and smart people with training and experience in the relevant subjects know those beliefs to be false.

If #1, there is always the possibility that while they are cultists they firmly believe they are not. Talked with any Scientologists lately?

[Volhiker78]

Just another idiotic thing coming out of our state government in Florida.  As a faculty member in a public university, I could care less about myself although I would be happy if someone sues the state government and wins over this.  This state can't  build a competent online unemployment website.  Problems with their Covid reporting are well documented.  By the time they figure out what the survey will ask,  where the data will go,  and who will have access to it,  I'll be dead and gone.  You can't ask for a better rep of 'Florida man' than Ron DeSantis.   

OTOH, DeSantis was elected by popular vote, and you weren't. So whether or not the whole thing seems idiotic to you: who cares?

It's a message board.  Who cares what you think either?  Don't try and shut me up with that bullshit.

There is no doubt in my mind that the reason the GOP led state government wants to utilize this information in order to decrease funding to universities they find too liberal.

[downer]

For professors who want to retain funding for their universities, what kind of answers should they give on the survey?

Should they make sure to put "Jesus" in every answer, or "Ayn Rand"? What answer should they give for "Who won the 2020 Presidential Election"?

[mahagonny]

For professors who want to retain funding for their universities, what kind of answers should they give on the survey?

Should they make sure to put "Jesus" in every answer, or "Ayn Rand"? What answer should they give for "Who won the 2020 Presidential Election"?

Or maybe, 'sure, antiracism is a good idea. I just can't figure out why thirty-something academics and people in Hollywood think they invented it.'  A little sanity goes a long way.

ETA: 'or why it isn't antiracism without being combined with socialism.'

[dismalist]

The idea of such a survey by the body that majorly finances some universities is an invitation to behave strategically, as noted upthread. Tell the paymasters what they want to hear. I've been doing this with any survey that crosses my path for many years.

It may seem that the difficulty is that we disagree. But we don't have to agree.

Instead of financing institutions, State governments could give out stipends and allow students to choose what kinds of educations they want. In such a situation, strategic answering seems difficult. Then students could get what they want. [Once upon a time, New York State had such.]

I understand that all this is usually looked upon as a power game, here between the Florida legislature and many academics. If it stays about power, there will be a group of losers, a bloody big one. It needn't be.

[mahagonny]

Just another idiotic thing coming out of our state government in Florida.  As a faculty member in a public university, I could care less about myself although I would be happy if someone sues the state government and wins over this.  This state can't  build a competent online unemployment website.  Problems with their Covid reporting are well documented.  By the time they figure out what the survey will ask,  where the data will go,  and who will have access to it,  I'll be dead and gone.  You can't ask for a better rep of 'Florida man' than Ron DeSantis.   

OTOH, DeSantis was elected by popular vote, and you weren't. So whether or not the whole thing seems idiotic to you: who cares?

It's a message board.  Who cares what you think either?  Don't try and shut me up with that bullshit.

I meant that while people on the forum care what you think and your academic community does too, the state of FL doesn't. I expressed it poorly.

The idea of such a survey by the body that majorly finances some universities is an invitation to behave strategically, as noted upthread. Tell the paymasters what they want to hear. I've been doing this with any survey that crosses my path for many years.

It may seem that the difficulty is that we disagree. But we don't have to agree.

Instead of financing institutions, State governments could give out stipends and allow students to choose what kinds of educations they want. In such a situation, strategic answering seems difficult. Then students could get what they want. [Once upon a time, New York State had such.]

I understand that all this is usually looked upon as a power game, here between the Florida legislature and many academics. If it stays about power, there will be a group of losers, a bloody big one. It needn't be.

There's no power play being done by higher education of behalf of the democratic party? I think these confrontations are foreseeable.

ETA: I predict, and also hope, that in the near future we'll get more conservatives in politics who represent true conservative values without the scary lunacy of Trump. They may even be POC. Interesting things ahead!

[dismalist]

Left, contemporary liberal, classical liberal, conservative, whatever,

"Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently."

[mahagonny]

I would just lie. Pretty sure I know what DeSantis and the legislators want to hear.

That must be how corporate employees handle the toxic, racist nonsense they are subjected to, that gets called  'antiracism allyship training' or some stupid thing. Where did it come from? Harvard and Princeton and now Boston University and UNC at Chapel Hill.

[Mobius]

I suspect a good number of faculty will troll a survey like this. I would.