Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Langue_doc]

Not sure where to put this, so here it is.

One of my hiking groups has been valiantly trying to prove that it is non-discriminatory. Some excerpts from their latest posting:

Suitable for: This hike is rated as moderate on the [Organization] hiking scale. This will be an all-day hike. Persons who are in marginalized communities i.e. BIPOC, LGBTQ+, neurodivergent - are especially encouraged to participate, including those in MI/SU Recovery AND having the fitness to participate.

Fitness: Open to those with hiking experience and those who can scramble short distances and navigate rocky terrain. This hike is not suitable for beginners, easy hikers or trail runners. Leader sets the pace.

I have no idea what MI/SU means.

[namazu]

I have no idea what MI/SU means.

From context, I'd guess "mental illness / subtance use".

[Puget]

Leader sets the pace.

Maybe this should go in "asides" but having lead many hikes and had wilderness safety instruction,  "leader sets the pace" is NOT how you safely lead a hike. The entire party travels at the pace that is sustainable for the slowest member, unless the party is large enough to be safely broken into smaller groups. You NEVER leave someone trailing behind, leave them to wait for the party on the way back, or leave them to return to the trailhead alone. Yes to screening for ability level ahead of time, but once underway the slowest member sets the pace, always. /rant

[downer]

AMC generally has a sweep. The point about the leader setting the pace is to stop people rushing ahead.

[Langue_doc]

AMC generally has a sweep. The point about the leader setting the pace is to stop people rushing ahead.

Hikes are categorized as easy, medium, strenuous, vigorous, etc. in order to weed out slow as well as fast hikers. Leaders in my hiking organizations are required to set the pace and also announce it in the hike descriptions. In addition, leaders have to make sure that people can get to the train station in time to catch the once-an-hour train back to Manhattan. Participants have to sign a page-long waiver for at least one of these organizations, acknowledging that they fully understand the risks associated with these hikes.

You NEVER leave someone trailing behind, leave them to wait for the party on the way back, or leave them to return to the trailhead alone. Yes to screening for ability level ahead of time, but once underway the slowest member sets the pace, always. /rant

The slowest member never ever sets the pace because given the terrain and the scrambling involved in many of these hikes that I consider too strenuous for my ability, the entire group would be forced to spend the night in the wilderness or even give up the hike that they had signed up for, because one or more of the members decide to join a hike that was far too difficult for them. Hike leaders usually send these hikers back to the trailhead/starting point so that they can get back to the parking lot/train station.

I posted the paragraphs from the hike description here because of the ludicrousness of the long list of categories invited to join the hike. Are people supposed to introduce themselves as, for example, such-and-such ethnicity/skin color, neurodivergent, sexual orientation, recovering from something, and the like? As a hike leader and hiker, all that matters is that participants can keep up with the pace listed, are friendly, and most important, don't keep b!tching about the weather, the location, the trails, etc during the hike.

Thanks, namazu for the MI/SU explanation.

[downer]

I used to do AMC hikes and I may well do so again. Once you have done a few, you get to know the leaders and you know who you like and who to avoid. I have occasionally seen noobs who turn up to a hike wearing inadequate sneakers and without appropriate gear. Often they turn back after the first big hill.

[apl68]

I posted the paragraphs from the hike description here because of the ludicrousness of the long list of categories invited to join the hike. Are people supposed to introduce themselves as, for example, such-and-such ethnicity/skin color, neurodivergent, sexual orientation, recovering from something, and the like? As a hike leader and hiker, all that matters is that participants can keep up with the pace listed, are friendly, and most important, don't keep b!tching about the weather, the location, the trails, etc during the hike.

It does seem like somebody is either trying too hard or protesting too much.  Or maybe both.  Are they adding all this verbiage and jargon on their own, or have they been pushed into it by pressure from activists?

I usually just hike by myself.  But I've got a fair amount of experience, and only hike on well-marked trails in reasonable weather.

[Puget]

You NEVER leave someone trailing behind, leave them to wait for the party on the way back, or leave them to return to the trailhead alone. Yes to screening for ability level ahead of time, but once underway the slowest member sets the pace, always. /rant

The slowest member never ever sets the pace because given the terrain and the scrambling involved in many of these hikes that I consider too strenuous for my ability, the entire group would be forced to spend the night in the wilderness or even give up the hike that they had signed up for, because one or more of the members decide to join a hike that was far too difficult for them. Hike leaders usually send these hikers back to the trailhead/starting point so that they can get back to the parking lot/train station.

If they send them back *with* someone else who is a strong hiker, then fine. Otherwise, nope, not safe and not following mountaineer rules. They shouldn't be on the hike in the first place, but once they are, it is the leader's responsibility to ensure they return safely, even if that means everyone going back to the trailhead early. And yes, I have turned back before many summits because someone was not in good shape to continue safely.

[downer]

Not sure where to put this, so here it is.

One of my hiking groups has been valiantly trying to prove that it is non-discriminatory. Some excerpts from their latest posting:

Suitable for: This hike is rated as moderate on the [Organization] hiking scale. This will be an all-day hike. Persons who are in marginalized communities i.e. BIPOC, LGBTQ+, neurodivergent - are especially encouraged to participate, including those in MI/SU Recovery AND having the fitness to participate.

Fitness: Open to those with hiking experience and those who can scramble short distances and navigate rocky terrain. This hike is not suitable for beginners, easy hikers or trail runners. Leader sets the pace.

I have no idea what MI/SU means.

Hiking does tend to be very white/anglo. Well, not sure which category the Koreans come in, but they show up in strength.

Or course, the phrase "marginalized communities" is a red flag for bullshit. One aspect of being marginalized is precisely the lack of community.

Nevertheless, I like the idea of opening hiking groups up to people who might not be sure if they are welcome. I'm sure lots of hikers already fit in one or more of those categories listed but never mention it.

[Langue_doc]

It does seem like somebody is either trying too hard or protesting too much.  Or maybe both.  Are they adding all this verbiage and jargon on their own, or have they been pushed into it by pressure from activists?

It's the activists/organizations virtue signaling with a vengeance. We get a diverse group of people in our walks/hikes/bird outings and other activities especially in the city, so there is no need to advertise that organizations are "diverse". The so-called marginalized groups also participate in these outings, and should feel free to participate without needing to disclose their recovery/neurodivergence/and other issues that most of us would consider private. I think these organizations mean well, but just the thought of needing to proclaim one's marginalized status would be a disincentive for most hikers.

They shouldn't be on the hike in the first place, but once they are, it is the leader's responsibility to ensure they return safely, even if that means everyone going back to the trailhead early. And yes, I have turned back before many summits because someone was not in good shape to continue safely.

@puget, this is a valid concern; when I lived/hiked in the midwest decades ago, hikes would be limited to 25 or fewer participants, with a leader and co-leader who would be the sweep. These hikes would be in nature preserves and similar areas far away from civilization, so the hike leaders would ensure that everyone stayed together and got back to the parking lot as a group.

In the city however, the hike descriptions note the bus/train schedule for the hikes and make it very clear that the participants need to keep up with the group (hikes have to include information regarding the mileage, terrain, pace, etc.). Hike leaders who are all volunteers have lives too, and do need to return to the train or bus station/parking lot at the scheduled time. Neither the hike leader nor the group can afford to be stranded overnight without proper clothing, food, or shelter because of a hiker who didn't bother to read the hike description. Hikers are given the usual speil at the beginning of the hike about the terrain, need to keep up with the group and related information so that they can take the bus/train back to the city.

Apologies for going off tangent/topic, but we could start a thread on hiking if anyone is interested.

[downer]

I'd like a hiking thread.

[Langue_doc]

I'd like a hiking thread.

Go right ahead, you can do the honors. I'll pitch in after that.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: A Free Speech Violation or Overdue Discipline?

A tenured history professor at Bakersfield College in California who founded a controversial, conservative-leaning faculty group received notice earlier this month that the Kern Community College District Board had voted to fire him. The professor, Matthew Garrett, says administrators are penalizing him for exercising his free speech. College leaders say the decision has nothing to do with his conservative views and have charged him with a litany of offenses.

****

The report alleges Garrett defended vandalism on campus by the Hundred Handers, described as a white supremacist group by the Anti-Defamation League; publicly accused colleagues of using grant funds to advance a partisan agenda; held an in-person event against COVID-19 protocols on Sept. 8, 2021; filed 36 "baseless" complaints against colleagues that resulted in 23 third-party investigations; and sent a threatening email to Trustee John Corkins claiming to possess documents that showed "past indiscretions," among other accusations.

****

"If you read the charges against me, there's not a whiff of anything about immorality, unless immorality is questioning social justice and the new-age DEI stuff, which I would hope that as academics we could have thoughtful discussion about these things, that we could have disagreed opinions and we could debate and we could have discourse," he said.

****

"Garrett has been repeatedly warned that some of his actions, including unprofessional conduct and persistent violations of district rules and California Education Code regulations, were seriously disrupting the ongoing activities of the college and hindering our mission to educate students," the statement continued. "In accordance with our rules, as he refused to cease this disruptive activity, we had no choice but to move forward with action, which has all been done in accordance with legal policies and procedures and contract rights.
[/url]

[apl68]

Sounds like he was something of a lunatic whose mad delusions came to be channeled into partisan politics.  Which perhaps explains quite a bit of what we see nowadays.

[ciao_yall]

IHE: A Free Speech Violation or Overdue Discipline?

A tenured history professor at Bakersfield College in California who founded a controversial, conservative-leaning faculty group received notice earlier this month that the Kern Community College District Board had voted to fire him. The professor, Matthew Garrett, says administrators are penalizing him for exercising his free speech. College leaders say the decision has nothing to do with his conservative views and have charged him with a litany of offenses.

****

The report alleges Garrett defended vandalism on campus by the Hundred Handers, described as a white supremacist group by the Anti-Defamation League; publicly accused colleagues of using grant funds to advance a partisan agenda; held an in-person event against COVID-19 protocols on Sept. 8, 2021; filed 36 "baseless" complaints against colleagues that resulted in 23 third-party investigations; and sent a threatening email to Trustee John Corkins claiming to possess documents that showed "past indiscretions," among other accusations.

****

"If you read the charges against me, there's not a whiff of anything about immorality, unless immorality is questioning social justice and the new-age DEI stuff, which I would hope that as academics we could have thoughtful discussion about these things, that we could have disagreed opinions and we could debate and we could have discourse," he said.

****

"Garrett has been repeatedly warned that some of his actions, including unprofessional conduct and persistent violations of district rules and California Education Code regulations, were seriously disrupting the ongoing activities of the college and hindering our mission to educate students," the statement continued. "In accordance with our rules, as he refused to cease this disruptive activity, we had no choice but to move forward with action, which has all been done in accordance with legal policies and procedures and contract rights.

Not much to add on this specific case, but I do work in the California Community College system. Like the K-12 system, we all have our own locally elected governing boards. We have generally been immune from most of the K-12 testing, etc drama because we are considered to be part of the higher education system, so more akin to CSU and UC in terms of academic freedom.

Still, in the same way local K-12 boards have been dealing with "anti-woke" types, these folks are finding their way onto our local College boards at times. From what I hear from colleagues, so far they are generating more heat than light. Yet issues that used to be rubber stamps, like including "equity" and "dismantling racism" in our mission statements have occasionally led to tantrums.

Because they also approve our curriculum which is again, just a rubber stamp of a long list of course numbers and titles, I have not yet heard of any board member making a stink about a particular course or its content.

Is it coming?