DeSantis signs bill requiring FL students, professors to register political views with state

[laughing dog]

I don’t agree and here’s why: Some people grow up in families where a diversity of opinion is not entertained. And sadly enough, a lot of those families have Fox News playing every night, telling them that the liberals are out to get them, are anti-American, godless, etc. But same thing if the family is very liberal and constantly bashes conservatives. People who don’t grow up hearing other viewpoints or knowing that reasonable people can disagree or that there is more than one approach to life—and especially if the little darlings are taking gut that their every utterance is gold—any criticism or pushback or even any other point of view will seem super harsh and unfair.

Exactly - this is a device to allow snowflakes of all sorts (but especially conservative ones) to reinforce the illiberal instincts of the Florida legislature and Governor and to give them ammunition to go after public higher education.

If these people were really interested in determing the openness of these institutions to different viewpoints, they would not focus on the political, religious or ideological views of students and staff, but on the actual instances of legitimate restriction of views or legitimate outright hostility to views.

Because there are instances where it is legitimate to restrict views (promotion of ethnic cleansing or violence against a particular group come immediately to mind). And outright hostility to a view is sometimes legitimate as well - Nazism and treason come immediately to mind.

 

[ZiprHead]

The bottom line for me and I would assume most USAians is it's none of your fucking business.

 

[Toni]

I don't think that it is any university's job to ensure that ANY student never feel discomfort in a classroom. One of the major points of education is to expose students to different ideas, to different ways of thinking, and to THINK. There is and should be some discomfort in that process.

Sure. But I never suggested otherwise. If 20% of students feel uncomfortable expressing ideas in class and there is no variation by political ideology, it may be just their personality. But if students of one particular political stripe perceive an environment hostile to their beliefs, and the university has contributed to that environment, that is a problem.

And it wouldn't just be students either. There are probably liberal professors who are afraid of their own, further to the left students.

From time to time, students SHOULD feel uncomfortable if they express ideas that are poorly thought out, regardless of political POV, if any political POV is attached to those ideas. I can only imagine every chemistry, physics or mathematics professor is rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that students should never be made to feel uncomfortable.

Well, I did not suggest that.

I don’t agree and here’s why: Some people grow up in families where a diversity of opinion is not entertained. And sadly enough, a lot of those families have Fox News playing every night, telling them that the liberals are out to get them, are anti-American, godless, etc. But same thing if the family is very liberal and constantly bashes conservatives. People who don’t grow up hearing other viewpoints or knowing that reasonable people can disagree or that there is more than one approach to life—and especially if the little darlings are taking gut that their every utterance is gold—any criticism or pushback or even any other point of view will seem super harsh and unfair.

I think you have misunderstood my response. I said I did not suggest students should never be made to feel uncomfortable. In fact, I think many students cannot tolerate even the mildest discomfort without suggesting they feel 'unsafe' and demanding the administration do something about it.

I think the surveys will capture those students who cannot tolerate even mild discomfort as well as students who don’t take the survey seriously or who want to make their own political statement by …being creative with their responses or those students who simply think that it’s nobody’s damn business and answer…creatively.

So, you think people will lie and the surveys will be useless. Goodbye to all surveys in the future then. Goodbye to surveys that measure women's perception of safety or experience of harassment.

I also think that the threat of these surveys are being used now as an attempt to intimidate academics.

If academics have fostered an environment hostile and chilling to certain students of a different political stripe, then they should be intimidated.

I cannot think of a single reason the surveys could be used to accurately measure what they purport to want to measure. And a lot of ways they can be used for nefarious reasons.

Your unwarranted skepticism about surveys is noted.

I would possibly be less cynical but my kids used to come home talking about various ‘assessment tools’ were being used at their schools. My daughter was once nearly in tears when she was in high school because some of her fellow students were not taking the time to attempt to answer questions on one such instrument and they had been told that future school funding depended on student performance on that particular assessment. And I remember writing an entire essay in high school based on a lie because I felt the premise was far too intrusive and none of the teacher’s business. I think I tried to be shocking.

I know that particular demographic well enough to know that a certain percentage will not give best faith responses. AND occasionally I read Rate My Professor and I know for certain that students do NOT always even know the names of their professors and not infrequently give negative scores because the professor has something resembling standards.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think that it is any university's job to ensure that ANY student never feel discomfort in a classroom. One of the major points of education is to expose students to different ideas, to different ways of thinking, and to THINK. There is and should be some discomfort in that process.

Sure. But I never suggested otherwise. If 20% of students feel uncomfortable expressing ideas in class and there is no variation by political ideology, it may be just their personality. But if students of one particular political stripe perceive an environment hostile to their beliefs, and the university has contributed to that environment, that is a problem.

And it wouldn't just be students either. There are probably liberal professors who are afraid of their own, further to the left students.

From time to time, students SHOULD feel uncomfortable if they express ideas that are poorly thought out, regardless of political POV, if any political POV is attached to those ideas. I can only imagine every chemistry, physics or mathematics professor is rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that students should never be made to feel uncomfortable.

Well, I did not suggest that.

I don’t agree and here’s why: Some people grow up in families where a diversity of opinion is not entertained. And sadly enough, a lot of those families have Fox News playing every night, telling them that the liberals are out to get them, are anti-American, godless, etc. But same thing if the family is very liberal and constantly bashes conservatives. People who don’t grow up hearing other viewpoints or knowing that reasonable people can disagree or that there is more than one approach to life—and especially if the little darlings are taking gut that their every utterance is gold—any criticism or pushback or even any other point of view will seem super harsh and unfair.

I think you have misunderstood my response. I said I did not suggest students should never be made to feel uncomfortable. In fact, I think many students cannot tolerate even the mildest discomfort without suggesting they feel 'unsafe' and demanding the administration do something about it.

I think the surveys will capture those students who cannot tolerate even mild discomfort as well as students who don’t take the survey seriously or who want to make their own political statement by …being creative with their responses or those students who simply think that it’s nobody’s damn business and answer…creatively.

So, you think people will lie and the surveys will be useless. Goodbye to all surveys in the future then. Goodbye to surveys that measure women's perception of safety or experience of harassment.

I also think that the threat of these surveys are being used now as an attempt to intimidate academics.

If academics have fostered an environment hostile and chilling to certain students of a different political stripe, then they should be intimidated.

I cannot think of a single reason the surveys could be used to accurately measure what they purport to want to measure. And a lot of ways they can be used for nefarious reasons.

Your unwarranted skepticism about surveys is noted.

I would possibly be less cynical but my kids used to come home talking about various ‘assessment tools’ were being used at their schools. My daughter was once nearly in tears when she was in high school because some of her fellow students were not taking the time to attempt to answer questions on one such instrument and they had been told that future school funding depended on student performance on that particular assessment. And I remember writing an entire essay in high school based on a lie because I felt the premise was far too intrusive and none of the teacher’s business. I think I tried to be shocking.

I know that particular demographic well enough to know that a certain percentage will not give best faith responses. AND occasionally I read Rate My Professor and I know for certain that students do NOT always even know the names of their professors and not infrequently give negative scores because the professor has something resembling standards.

There is an unwarranted faith in surveys, even though relatively few are done with the appropriate care in question construction and sampling techniques. And, in this case, there is no reason to think that this mandated "voluntary" survey will end up adhering to the rigorous standards necessary to have sustain any real faith in the results.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Whoever claimed they were?

Indeed, the fact that people are individuals strengthens the case for measuring along many aspects.

You are contradicting yourself. Individuals are not subgroups. All liberals do not think alike nor do all conservatives.

I never said they did all think alike or all act alike or anything like it. I'm not a deranged leftist who blames all the ills in the world on certain demographics.

Non. It does not require anybody to admit to 'not doing their duty', nor does it imply guilt by association. Indeed, the people who have created the hostile environment, if indeed such an environment has been created, may not be aware that they've done it, or contributed to it, or indeed even think a hostile environment is wrong.

People are responsible for their decisions and actions. Unless they admit their motivation, you are inferring guilt by association. Which, of course, is exactly what the GOP in Florida wants to achieve.

Non. I don't even know what you mean: guilt by association. Either a campus is perceived as hostile to a particular group or it is not. You cannot measure whether it is perceived as hostile until you measure it.

No, I am not driven by revenge--unlike for example Democrats calling for the summary execution of certain Supreme Court justices. That you read 'revenge' into my statement is a reflection of your mindset, not mine.

That does not even pass the laugh test.

As it is, I am quite happy with my little composition. It is my evidenced belief that, in fact, conservatives are indeed more likely to perceive US campuses as hostile to them, and the Florida surveys will also reflect that.

People's perceptions are not always accurate (your posts are a perfect examples of that). Your views on US academia are based on limited 3rd party reports (at best) along with a lack of contextual background of the political and social interactions.

I did not claim perceptions accurately reflected reality. However, measuring perceptions are a necessary step to know if a problem exists.

My organisation surveys me every year, and asks quite personal questions. They are right to do so, because if a problem exists on a certain dimension, they need to know who is experiencing the problem, and where that person falls on the dimension.

That you are hostile to even discovering this information is a reflection on you.

And it is a reflection on you that swallow that conservative snowflake paranoia and use it to justify a needless witch hunt. If Joseph McCarthy were alive today, he'd applaud your position.

Yeah, you name dropped McCarthy before. I heard you the first time.

I'm sorry you disagree that taxpayer-funded campuses have no obligation to serve taxpayers of different political stripes equally. The taxpayers of Florida disagree with you, and so do I.

Can you name any left wing professors who teach in their classrooms or courses that right winged supreme court justices should be lynched? You know, like hanging Mike Pence?

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you actually, seriously, sincerely believe that the Florida Republican legislators think tenure committees don't discriminate against conservatives?

I wouldn’t be surprised if those yahoos believed such drivel.

You're saying "tenure committees don't discriminate against conservatives" is drivel?!? That's so out of character for you I'm guessing you misspoke or you misread the question. Feel free to clarify your opinion.

... The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives have unenlightened principles while liberals have enlightened principles.

But according to some (not you), liberals are leftists!!!!!!!!

Yeah, well, according to some, the Kim family ruling North Korea are conservatives. Politics is a feeding ground for language abuse, some deliberate, some just from overexposure to other people's language abuse. As a rule, Americans habitually misuse the word "liberal".

I think the misuse evolved because liberalism has been dying out all over western civilization pretty much ever since the Liberal Party tore itself apart and was supplanted by Labour. By the 30s and 40s the chattering classes had divided themselves up into fascists, conservatives, democratic socialists and communists, with the odd Peronist thrown in for variety. But old fashioned liberalism was something only dinosaurs still went in for. So when McCarthy was issued the power to persecute communists and inevitably exceeded his mandate and started persecuting vanilla democratic socialists, our democratic socialists found themselves in desperate need of a new name that didn't have "socialist" in it. And conveniently enough, there was "liberal", just lying around not being used for anything. So American democratic socialists took up calling themselves "liberals" as protective coloration. Once that happened Americans started assuming "liberal" meant whatever the people calling themselves "liberals" were; the people in question were leftists; consequently a lot of us inferred that "liberal" is the word for leftists. But countries that didn't go through the McCarthyism debacle have democratic socialists who still call themselves "socialist", and liberal parties hardly anyone votes for. (Unless of course their Liberal party sells its soul in an attempt to escape electoral irrelevance and votes for a merger with the Social Democrats.) So Europeans, Australians, etc. generally know better than to assume liberals are leftists.

 

[Metaphor]

Can you name any left wing professors who teach in their classrooms or courses that right winged supreme court justices should be lynched? You know, like hanging Mike Pence?

Why have you directed this at me? Did I make such a claim?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many of the conservatives aren't after a reasonable position. They'll be unhappy in any fair system.

Oh well then, nothing to see here. Conservatives are unreasonable! Who cares if taxpayer-funded environments are unwelcoming of them!

I note no reply to my point about the Heil Hitler crowd.

What the fuck was your point? Of course some political positions are widely regarded to be unacceptable. So what?

I'm listing the Heil Hitler crowd as ones that aren't going to be happy with a fair system--and we seem to have a fair number of them on the right.

 

[Metaphor]

Many of the conservatives aren't after a reasonable position. They'll be unhappy in any fair system.

Oh well then, nothing to see here. Conservatives are unreasonable! Who cares if taxpayer-funded environments are unwelcoming of them!

I note no reply to my point about the Heil Hitler crowd.

What the fuck was your point? Of course some political positions are widely regarded to be unacceptable. So what?

I'm listing the Heil Hitler crowd as ones that aren't going to be happy with a fair system--and we seem to have a fair number of them on the right.

So, if I understand correctly, you think a 'fair' system is unwelcoming to the 'Heil Hitler' crowd.

Is being unwelcoming of white people 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of non-'Heil Hitler' Republicans 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of socialists 'fair'?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Many of the conservatives aren't after a reasonable position. They'll be unhappy in any fair system.

Oh well then, nothing to see here. Conservatives are unreasonable! Who cares if taxpayer-funded environments are unwelcoming of them!

I note no reply to my point about the Heil Hitler crowd.

What the fuck was your point? Of course some political positions are widely regarded to be unacceptable. So what?

I'm listing the Heil Hitler crowd as ones that aren't going to be happy with a fair system--and we seem to have a fair number of them on the right.

So, if I understand correctly, you think a 'fair' system is unwelcoming to the 'Heil Hitler' crowd.

Is being unwelcoming of white people 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of non-'Heil Hitler' Republicans 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of socialists 'fair'?

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Many of the conservatives aren't after a reasonable position. They'll be unhappy in any fair system.

Oh well then, nothing to see here. Conservatives are unreasonable! Who cares if taxpayer-funded environments are unwelcoming of them!

I note no reply to my point about the Heil Hitler crowd.

What the fuck was your point? Of course some political positions are widely regarded to be unacceptable. So what?

I'm listing the Heil Hitler crowd as ones that aren't going to be happy with a fair system--and we seem to have a fair number of them on the right.

So, if I understand correctly, you think a 'fair' system is unwelcoming to the 'Heil Hitler' crowd.

Is being unwelcoming of white people 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of non-'Heil Hitler' Republicans 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of socialists 'fair'?

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Either Loren has softened left or I have hardened right.

I don't think I've moved "right", so...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think that it is any university's job to ensure that ANY student never feel discomfort in a classroom. One of the major points of education is to expose students to different ideas, to different ways of thinking, and to THINK. There is and should be some discomfort in that process.

Sure. But I never suggested otherwise. If 20% of students feel uncomfortable expressing ideas in class and there is no variation by political ideology, it may be just their personality. But if students of one particular political stripe perceive an environment hostile to their beliefs, and the university has contributed to that environment, that is a problem.

Sure, that'd be a problem. What classes even provide this opportunity in College though? And it certainly appears to be begging the question, instead of actually showing a truth. For decades the right-wing has been hostile to colleges. Call graduates elites (despite most Government folk umm... being Ivy Leaguers). Back in the 80s, being "elite" meant that you merely had book smarts, not real world smarts. So college educated people that saw issues with bad ideas were simply uninformed on how "things really work".

Anti-education attitudes from the right-wing continued to expand. The public school system became targeted. They were accused of "liberal indoctrination". These were always vague claims made at the label level, never actually being demonstrated across a systematic plan. In the last decade, there have been individual cases of teachers going about teaching certain aspects the wrong way (against white people... this was never an issue if done with no ill intent against minority students).

In the '00s and '10s, the state of Texas began using their book buying influence to influence how content is presented in text books. Today, young children are being "coached" into sexual behavior according to the alt-right. Teachers are being labeled as predators now. A state Government in meddling in collegiate education (not administration, but education) because of alleged partisan attitudes that have never been demonstrated. You can pretty much believe what you want in colleges, however, you have to prove your work.

This anti-education movement has been on-going for decades, snowballing, getting worse and more vile. This latest Florida stuff isn't in a bubble.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Either Loren has softened left or I have hardened right.

I don't think I've moved "right", so...

While my memory isn't too good, Loren's positions on rights, economics, police, ... just about everything ... are about where they were when I first joined. I think what differentiates him from the alt-right is that his positions are based on principles and philosophies, not politics.

The partisan right has veered so hard into insanity, they are defending positions that would have been indefensible 30 years ago. In other words, they have radicalized.

 

[lostone]

An unasked question is whether or not secondary schools attempt to indoctrinate students with Right Wing, religious views - those I attended certainly did so, albeit that was long ago. Presumably, that would be Ok with DeSantis.

 

[Metaphor]

Many of the conservatives aren't after a reasonable position. They'll be unhappy in any fair system.

Oh well then, nothing to see here. Conservatives are unreasonable! Who cares if taxpayer-funded environments are unwelcoming of them!

I note no reply to my point about the Heil Hitler crowd.

What the fuck was your point? Of course some political positions are widely regarded to be unacceptable. So what?

I'm listing the Heil Hitler crowd as ones that aren't going to be happy with a fair system--and we seem to have a fair number of them on the right.

So, if I understand correctly, you think a 'fair' system is unwelcoming to the 'Heil Hitler' crowd.

Is being unwelcoming of white people 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of non-'Heil Hitler' Republicans 'fair'? Is being unwelcoming of socialists 'fair'?

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Why is it a dumb question? I didn't call Loren a socialist.

 

[Metaphor]

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Either Loren has softened left or I have hardened right.

I don't think I've moved "right", so...

While my memory isn't too good, Loren's positions on rights, economics, police, ... just about everything ... are about where they were when I first joined.

Loren used to call himself a libertarian. I recall arguing with him about what an insane world 'libertopia' would be. It would be now very difficult to call him a libertarian with a straight face.

I think what differentiates him from the alt-right is that his positions are based on principles and philosophies, not politics.

The partisan right has veered so hard into insanity, they are defending positions that would have been indefensible 30 years ago. In other words, they have radicalized.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Either Loren has softened left or I have hardened right.

I don't think I've moved "right", so...

While my memory isn't too good, Loren's positions on rights, economics, police, ... just about everything ... are about where they were when I first joined.

Loren used to call himself a libertarian.

He still is.

I recall arguing with him about what an insane world 'libertopia' would be.

Seeing there are roughly 1 trillion flavors of libertarianism, it is easy to be libertarian and think anaracho-libertarianism is crazy.

It would be now very difficult to call him a libertarian with a straight face.

And you are a great example of how things have swung so hard to reactionary on the right-wing.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think that it is any university's job to ensure that ANY student never feel discomfort in a classroom. One of the major points of education is to expose students to different ideas, to different ways of thinking, and to THINK. There is and should be some discomfort in that process.

Sure. But I never suggested otherwise. If 20% of students feel uncomfortable expressing ideas in class and there is no variation by political ideology, it may be just their personality. But if students of one particular political stripe perceive an environment hostile to their beliefs, and the university has contributed to that environment, that is a problem.

Sure, that'd be a problem. What classes even provide this opportunity in College though?

Any class where discussion of the material is an aspect?

And it certainly appears to be begging the question, instead of actually showing a truth.

Non. To beg the question is to assume the conclusion in your premises. I haven't assumed any conclusion.

For decades the right-wing has been hostile to colleges. Call graduates elites (despite most Government folk umm... being Ivy Leaguers). Back in the 80s, being "elite" meant that you merely had book smarts, not real world smarts. So college educated people that saw issues with bad ideas were simply uninformed on how "things really work".

Anti-education attitudes from the right-wing continued to expand. The public school system became targeted. They were accused of "liberal indoctrination". These were always vague claims made at the label level, never actually being demonstrated across a systematic plan. In the last decade, there have been individual cases of teachers going about teaching certain aspects the wrong way (against white people... this was never an issue if done with no ill intent against minority students).

In the '00s and '10s, the state of Texas began using their book buying influence to influence how content is presented in text books. Today, young children are being "coached" into sexual behavior according to the alt-right.

Today, parents are putting 4 year old boys on YouTube and Twitter and asking them to explain what 'non-binary means to them', in order to virtue signal to others how accepting and progressive they are. This is difficult to watch hardcringe - for a normal person. Schools hire drag queens with sexual names to perform for primary school children. This is difficult to watch hardcringe - for a normal person.

Teachers are being labeled as predators now. A state Government in meddling in collegiate education (not administration, but education) because of alleged partisan attitudes that have never been demonstrated.

A State government investigating whether a taxpayer-funded institution creates a systematically hostile environment for certain groups is not 'meddling'--it is responsible government.

Partisan attitudes in higher education are not 'alleged'. They are quite real. But, how could partisan attitudes be demonstrated if you refuse to investigate whether they exist? Like laughing dog, you claim no investigation is justified because there's no evidence. There's no evidence because no investigation has been undertaken.

You can pretty much believe what you want in colleges, however, you have to prove your work.

Of course you can believe what you want. Nobody has the apparatus yet to stop people's thoughts. Believing what you want isn't the issue.

This anti-education movement has been on-going for decades, snowballing, getting worse and more vile. This latest Florida stuff isn't in a bubble.

 

[Metaphor]

That is a dumb question, as Loren Pechtel isn't remotely a socialist, he is a conservative moderate. Always has been. He appears a lot more liberal these days only because people on the hyper partisan right have just gone bonkers. He is our board's Bill Maher or sorts, minus the comedy.

Either Loren has softened left or I have hardened right.

I don't think I've moved "right", so...

While my memory isn't too good, Loren's positions on rights, economics, police, ... just about everything ... are about where they were when I first joined.

Loren used to call himself a libertarian.

He still is.

I recall arguing with him about what an insane world 'libertopia' would be.

Seeing there are roughly 1 trillion flavors of libertarianism, it is easy to be libertarian and think anaracho-libertarianism is crazy.

It would be now very difficult to call him a libertarian with a straight face.

And you are a great example of how things have swung so hard to reactionary on the right-wing.

Oh yes. Do tell.

 

[Politesse]

While my memory isn't too good, Loren's positions on rights, economics, police, ... just about everything ... are about where they were when I first joined. I think what differentiates him from the alt-right is that his positions are based on principles and philosophies, not politics.

Jesus, those were the days. Where have all the Lorens gone?