Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

When I go food shopping I don't need to defend my choices about what items to buy, and no one can tell me what to consume. Choices for one' childrens' education are no different. Father and mother know best.

No, often they really don't.  By definition, half of all people are below average intelligence.  We have some very smart people dedicating their lives to education and pedogodgy, who may actually know something about it.

Regarding food, there are some parents feeding babies cola...

We have some very smart people dedicating their lives to education and pedagogy, who may actually know something about it.

Then competition will not be a problem for those smart people.

If the consumers of education are deemed too stupid to recognize the quality, then take away the right to vote.

Leaving the asides. The parents chose the school (of course that is their right!), but then they were outraged that the students were shown exactly what the school promised. I simply do not understand your points.

Nay, nay, nay. Whatever happened or didn't happen at the school doesn't matter except to the school. It worries me not.

I'm not worried either. I am mocking though. I wish I were better than that, but alas, I am not.

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: The Real Source of Self-Censorship:  Free-speech issues on campus might be a matter of peer pressure, according to several high-profile surveys.

...a national survey from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in higher education, became the latest piece of research to shed light on the state of campus discourse, which is typically the stuff of newsmaking incidents or opinion pieces. The results of the surveys are consistent. Contrary to the fears expressed by Rodrigues, which implicitly affix blame to a liberal professoriate, students are more concerned with their peers' judgment than with their professors'.

The North Carolina results also found that students were more concerned about their fellow students' opinions than about those of their instructors. The survey additionally showed that faculty members weren't pushing political agendas in class and that most students didn't significantly change their political views throughout college. (It's more difficult to draw conclusions from the Florida survey, given its 2.4-percent response rate among students, but a majority of respondents there agreed that their campus fostered free expression.)

[marshwiggle]

CHE: The Real Source of Self-Censorship:  Free-speech issues on campus might be a matter of peer pressure, according to several high-profile surveys.

...a national survey from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in higher education, became the latest piece of research to shed light on the state of campus discourse, which is typically the stuff of newsmaking incidents or opinion pieces. The results of the surveys are consistent. Contrary to the fears expressed by Rodrigues, which implicitly affix blame to a liberal professoriate, students are more concerned with their peers' judgment than with their professors'.

The North Carolina results also found that students were more concerned about their fellow students' opinions than about those of their instructors. The survey additionally showed that faculty members weren't pushing political agendas in class and that most students didn't significantly change their political views throughout college. (It's more difficult to draw conclusions from the Florida survey, given its 2.4-percent response rate among students, but a majority of respondents there agreed that their campus fostered free expression.)

A few further notes:

And in Wisconsin, just 34.6 percent of students who identified as very conservative said instructors "often" or "extremely often" encourage students to explore a wide variety of viewpoints; more than double that share of very liberal students — 73.8 percent — said the same. Conservative students were also significantly more likely than their liberal counterparts to report having felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a particular opinion — 91.3 percent of self-identified conservative and very conservative students reported as much, as opposed to 30.5 percent of their liberal counterparts. And conservatives were less likely than their liberal peers to feel comfortable speaking up on hot-button topics like transgender issues and abortion.

Asking administrators to intercede against troubling speech was more common among liberal students than conservative ones. Liberal students in Wisconsin were much more likely to favor administrators' banning the expression of harmful views and to advocate for disinviting controversial speakers — 40.9 and 58 percent of liberal or very liberal students, respectively, favored disinviting speakers from campus if some found their message offensive, while only a quarter of moderates, 13 percent of somewhat conservative students, and 9 percent of very conservative students said they'd do so.

[nebo113]

May be behind paywall....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/04/03/how-christian-is-christian-nationalism

"Many Americans who advocate it have little interest in religion and an aversion to American culture as it currently exists. What really defines the movement?"

[Wahoo Redux]

A few further notes:

And in Wisconsin, just 34.6 percent of students who identified as very conservative said instructors "often" or "extremely often" encourage students to explore a wide variety of viewpoints; more than double that share of very liberal students — 73.8 percent — said the same. Conservative students were also significantly more likely than their liberal counterparts to report having felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a particular opinion — 91.3 percent of self-identified conservative and very conservative students reported as much, as opposed to 30.5 percent of their liberal counterparts. And conservatives were less likely than their liberal peers to feel comfortable speaking up on hot-button topics like transgender issues and abortion.

Asking administrators to intercede against troubling speech was more common among liberal students than conservative ones. Liberal students in Wisconsin were much more likely to favor administrators' banning the expression of harmful views and to advocate for disinviting controversial speakers — 40.9 and 58 percent of liberal or very liberal students, respectively, favored disinviting speakers from campus if some found their message offensive, while only a quarter of moderates, 13 percent of somewhat conservative students, and 9 percent of very conservative students said they'd do so.

These are good notes, Marshy.  I haven't finished reading the article yet.

Does anyone remember this little fracas?

Dr. Osuna, who is a scholar of minority issues (what some dismiss as "grievance studies"), still charges "racial profiling" because a CSULB police officer would not unlock Osuna's office door without an I.D. 

In both his case and the responses of students above, I suspect a clear prevalence of subjectivity.  I wish we had more data on how conservative students "report having felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a particular opinion."  Do we have a specific examples of this?  Could the students or Osuna prove their charges in a court of law?  Very often we see what we expect to see.

Those of us who are "leftist" or left-leaning really need to stop trying to censor other people, no matter what kind of idiot that are.  It does nothing to stop the "wrong ideas" from spreading, is hypocritical, and simply gives ammunition to the ideologues.  No more disinviting.  Counter with fact and thought-out opinion----exercise free speech.  We need to get this across to students too.

[Kron3007]

A few further notes:

And in Wisconsin, just 34.6 percent of students who identified as very conservative said instructors "often" or "extremely often" encourage students to explore a wide variety of viewpoints; more than double that share of very liberal students — 73.8 percent — said the same. Conservative students were also significantly more likely than their liberal counterparts to report having felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a particular opinion — 91.3 percent of self-identified conservative and very conservative students reported as much, as opposed to 30.5 percent of their liberal counterparts. And conservatives were less likely than their liberal peers to feel comfortable speaking up on hot-button topics like transgender issues and abortion.

Asking administrators to intercede against troubling speech was more common among liberal students than conservative ones. Liberal students in Wisconsin were much more likely to favor administrators' banning the expression of harmful views and to advocate for disinviting controversial speakers — 40.9 and 58 percent of liberal or very liberal students, respectively, favored disinviting speakers from campus if some found their message offensive, while only a quarter of moderates, 13 percent of somewhat conservative students, and 9 percent of very conservative students said they'd do so.

These are good notes, Marshy.  I haven't finished reading the article yet.

Does anyone remember this little fracas?

Dr. Osuna, who is a scholar of minority issues (what some dismiss as "grievance studies"), still charges "racial profiling" because a CSULB police officer would not unlock Osuna's office door without an I.D. 

In both his case and the responses of students above, I suspect a clear prevalence of subjectivity.  I wish we had more data on how conservative students "report having felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a particular opinion."  Do we have a specific examples of this?  Could the students or Osuna prove their charges in a court of law?  Very often we see what we expect to see.

Those of us who are "leftist" or left-leaning really need to stop trying to censor other people, no matter what kind of idiot that are.  It does nothing to stop the "wrong ideas" from spreading, is hypocritical, and simply gives ammunition to the ideologues.  No more disinviting.  Counter with fact and thought-out opinion----exercise free speech.  We need to get this across to students too.

For all we know the conservative students who felt pressured to agree with their professors were learning about evolution or how old the earth is.  I spent some time in the deep South and met plenty of people in my STEM field who did not believe in evolution and would have checked that box.

Without more details, who knows what significance these surveys have. 

[dismalist]

For all we know the students who felt pressured to agree with their professors were learning that

--all of history is the history of struggle between classes;

--all of history is the history of struggle between races;

--all of history is the history of struggle between the sexes.

[kaysixteen]

OK, but surveys like this demonstrate what I have asserted here before, something which admittedly cannot be proved, namely that people will not want to publicly evince opinions that they fear will be politically unacceptable, and may well lie, even in anonymous polls, lest they expose themselves to judgmental reactions.   This would certainly be magnified in power relationship situations, such as professor-student (here,  in the academic context, I am mostly referring to conservative attitudes towards various issues of sexuality and abortion, including, like it or not, the question of whether transitioning post-pubescent birth males should be allowed to compete with biological women).

[dismalist]

Conservatism could be a psychological disease, perhaps caused by the F-factor [F for fascism], which may be treatable psychoanalytically.

Of course, it could also be that people disagree with each other.

[Wahoo Redux]

For all we know

But we don't know. 

something which admittedly cannot be proved

Which is a big problem with your theory.

Of course, it could also be that people disagree with each other.

Was that ever in question?

[Kron3007]

OK, but surveys like this demonstrate what I have asserted here before, something which admittedly cannot be proved, namely that people will not want to publicly evince opinions that they fear will be politically unacceptable, and may well lie, even in anonymous polls, lest they expose themselves to judgmental reactions.   This would certainly be magnified in power relationship situations, such as professor-student (here,  in the academic context, I am mostly referring to conservative attitudes towards various issues of sexuality and abortion, including, like it or not, the question of whether transitioning post-pubescent birth males should be allowed to compete with biological women).

Likewise, if one believes the world is flat, they may also be reluctant to express their thoughts on the matter.   Deep down, they know their stance defies logic and reason, so they understandably don't want to make a public stance where they are not surrounded by like minded people.

If you are against gay marriage, you deep down likely know you are a bigot and would not want to be confronted with this fact, especially in front of a group that almost definitely includes some LGBT people.  Sometimes, peer pressure can be good I suppose.

As for your example, I am very much a lefty but I don't think post-pubescent transitioning trans women should be able to compete in sports in the women's category.  Not even all trans women would support this.  It is a strawman.

What would be more interesting is to have more details on the specifics of how they feel pressured.  Without that the survey isn't very helpful.  It is also interesting that about a third of the liberal students also felt this way, despite being in the liberal bastion. 

[marshwiggle]

OK, but surveys like this demonstrate what I have asserted here before, something which admittedly cannot be proved, namely that people will not want to publicly evince opinions that they fear will be politically unacceptable, and may well lie, even in anonymous polls, lest they expose themselves to judgmental reactions.   This would certainly be magnified in power relationship situations, such as professor-student (here,  in the academic context, I am mostly referring to conservative attitudes towards various issues of sexuality and abortion, including, like it or not, the question of whether transitioning post-pubescent birth males should be allowed to compete with biological women).

Likewise, if one believes the world is flat, they may also be reluctant to express their thoughts on the matter.   Deep down, they know their stance defies logic and reason, so they understandably don't want to make a public stance where they are not surrounded by like minded people.

If you are against gay marriage, you deep down likely know you are a bigot and would not want to be confronted with this fact, especially in front of a group that almost definitely includes some LGBT people.  Sometimes, peer pressure can be good I suppose.

As for your example, I am very much a lefty but I don't think post-pubescent transitioning trans women should be able to compete in sports in the women's category.  Not even all trans women would support this.  It is a strawman.

What would be more interesting is to have more details on the specifics of how they feel pressured.  Without that the survey isn't very helpful.  It is also interesting that about a third of the liberal students also felt this way, despite being in the liberal bastion.

A bit more interesting stuff from the survey:

But there's also nuance that those numbers can't capture. In her interview-based research, Binder has found progressive students to be more ambivalent on the matter, often making what she described as "contradictory back-and-forth comments about administrators' responsibility to protect vulnerable students." A student might start a conversation with Binder by stating adamantly that administrators should ban controversial speakers, she explained. "Then we'd say, 'Really? There's no place for that person to speak on campus?'" The student might then backtrack and suggest that perhaps instead of banning a speaker, a university leader should make a statement about how the speaker "is not in keeping with the principles of community on our campus." In general, Binder said, progressive students in her research hesitate to give definitive answers on whether speakers should be banned.

If the students who are most driven by how they think others will see them think a "progressive" view is the popular one, it makes sense that their views won't be very deeply-held (or consistent). They'll be constantly trying to figure out which way the wind blows.

Students in the Heterodox survey identified a larger, and increasing, source of concern about where self-censorship occurs — on the campus itself. Just over 63 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that the climate on their campus prevents people from saying things they believe because others might find those views offensive, marking a nearly 10-point growth since 2019 and 2020 in the percentage of students who said so.

That's puzzling, the Heterodox report points out, because "there are frequent top-down reminders from institutions for students to consider varying perspectives," but such administrative messaging doesn't penetrate students' perceptions of campus climate.

This segues directly (and insightfully) into this:

One possible explanation for the disconnection might be seen in Binder's research, which finds that administrators are perceived by conservative students as "always falling on the side of progressive issues," particularly as they send out community emails about topics like police shootings, global warming, and anti-Asian hate. "It's easier to characterize them as hopelessly, consistently on the side of progressive issues, whereas if you have more face-to-face time with people, i.e. your professors, then you don't have that same sense of it all being the same," she said.

She said it.

[Wahoo Redux]

This guy is just plain stupid. 

Professor suspended after saying it would be 'more admirable to kill' racist speakers than protest

This sort of rhetoric is dangerous and viable grounds for dismissal. 

The kicker is that he was worried that right-wing speakers only come to campus to provoke a reaction to discredit the left----which is largely true.

Go job on proving the right right, bucko.

[marshwiggle]

This guy is just plain stupid. 

Professor suspended after saying it would be 'more admirable to kill' racist speakers than protest

This sort of rhetoric is dangerous and viable grounds for dismissal. 

The kicker is that he was worried that right-wing speakers only come to campus to provoke a reaction to discredit the left----which is largely true.

Seriously? That's the only reason they speak? I guess we might as well stop all public talks if nobody ever comes to them with their minds not already made up.
If all public "discourse" is really just preaching to the appropriate choir, (including, presumably, discussions here), then we might as well just all shut up and go home.

[Wahoo Redux]

This guy is just plain stupid. 

Professor suspended after saying it would be 'more admirable to kill' racist speakers than protest

This sort of rhetoric is dangerous and viable grounds for dismissal. 

The kicker is that he was worried that right-wing speakers only come to campus to provoke a reaction to discredit the left----which is largely true.

Seriously? That's the only reason they speak? I guess we might as well stop all public talks if nobody ever comes to them with their minds not already made up.
If all public "discourse" is really just preaching to the appropriate choir, (including, presumably, discussions here), then we might as well just all shut up and go home.

Yeah, I think the main reason that conservative provocateurs target college campuses is for the headlines.  It is certainly what you find on YouTube and the agitprop websites.