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

[Metaphor]

I wrote it out rather clearly for you, and you've even quoted it and yet you respond with your typical venom.

Oh honey, you don't know venom. Grow up.

You do it all the time, especially when you don't want to address a point. You call it 'babble' as if it were incoherent.

What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts. The campus climate can be comfortable for the majority, but be negative for certain subgroups. When those subgroups are along political lines, in a taxpayer-funded campus, that is a problem.

That is an obvious truth.. What is also obvious is that the religious, political and ideological viewpoints of the staff and students is unnecessary to deal with problem.

It is entirely necessary. The solutions to problems that arise because of the behaviour of subgroups should be tailored to the particularities of that subgroup. Pretending otherwise is bound to produce a suboptimal solution, if any can be produced at all.

Suppression or hostility towards view points is a problem of personalities not ideology, religion or politics. If some faculty are suppressing viewpoints of students or creating a hostile intellectual environment, the issue is not religious, political or ideology of the faculty but their behavior.

Ludicrous and false. Personalities influence behaviour but so does context. If some faculty are able to get away with suppression or the creation of a hostile intellectual environment, it may be only because the administration is in sympathy with such violations. For example, conservative professors are much less likely to be able to sustain an environment hostile to liberals in a liberal-majority campus.

laughing dog, you have treated me with such hostility I wouldn't accept a cup of coffee from you.

You reap what you sow.

Yes, indeed. The long march through the institutions by the left is come to fruition, and we are all forced to eat the rotten harvest.

 

[Metaphor]

Funding should not be dependent on the political and religious views of staff or students, but it should be dependent on the university creating a climate that is fair to all taxpayers.

Which does not require asking about the religious, political and ideological views or leanings of the staff and students.

In the US, there are campuses that send out “campus climate” surveys that are an attempt to measure the openness to diverse ideas and people (among other things). These surveys do not typically ask about the religious or political views of the respondents. I know this because my campus conducts such a survey without those type of unnecessary questions.

This is not about insuring diversity of viewpoints by opening up discussion - it is a thinly veiled attempt to limiting dissent and opposing viewpoints.

Ah, but you see...according to Metaphor it is an indisputable fact that universities are all hotbeds of liberal (or even socialist and communist) indoctrination

This is an outright falsehood about what I believe, a falsehood you have promulgated despite my explicit words to the contrary.

There's a lot of falsehoods being bandied about in Florida right now.

So that makes your falsehood about me on this board a-okay?

I was using hyperbole, by the way, to mock you. Guess you missed that,

I did not, in fact, miss it. But, since I am held to the rules of the message board, any my hyperbole and obviously counterfactual statements are reprimanded, at the very least others ought also be subject to the same rules.

but anyway...if I misrepresented your position so egregiously in doing so, and you really are opposed to all that, then why pray tell are you spending so much time defending the Florida law?

Because taxpayer-funded campuses should not be hostile to taxpayers, no matter what their political leanings.

You've already stated - in "repeat a lie often enough" fashion - that you believe it is an indisputable fact that universities are overwhelmingly left-wing and there is no evidence to the contrary.

It is a fact that the left and liberals heavily outweigh the right and conservatives in US academia. This bears repetition because deniers gonna deny. Not every university is the same, obviously, but the national pattern is clear and has persisted (and gotten more unbalanced) for decades.

Why, precisely, you don't want to believe this I can't tell. One would think, given your obvious sympathies, you would say 'conservatives are just dumb fucks who hate education, of course liberals dominate'. Or, perhaps you think, when liberals have power, they cannot be trusted to not be hostile to conservatives, so you need to deny that liberals have power. Or, perhaps you really are ignorant of the fact, despite my numerous links evidencing it. Or any other number of reasons I can't imagine.

Perhaps you could answer that and then take your righteous indignation down to Florida and put it on a t-shirt to wear to a DeSantis rally....

I do one day want to visit America, but it won't be to go to a political rally.

 

[Ford]

Funding should not be dependent on the political and religious views of staff or students, but it should be dependent on the university creating a climate that is fair to all taxpayers.

Which does not require asking about the religious, political and ideological views or leanings of the staff and students.

In the US, there are campuses that send out “campus climate” surveys that are an attempt to measure the openness to diverse ideas and people (among other things). These surveys do not typically ask about the religious or political views of the respondents. I know this because my campus conducts such a survey without those type of unnecessary questions.

This is not about insuring diversity of viewpoints by opening up discussion - it is a thinly veiled attempt to limiting dissent and opposing viewpoints.

Ah, but you see...according to Metaphor it is an indisputable fact that universities are all hotbeds of liberal (or even socialist and communist) indoctrination

This is an outright falsehood about what I believe, a falsehood you have promulgated despite my explicit words to the contrary.

There's a lot of falsehoods being bandied about in Florida right now.

So that makes your falsehood about me on this board a-okay?

I was using hyperbole, by the way, to mock you. Guess you missed that,

I did not, in fact, miss it. But, since I am held to the rules of the message board, any my hyperbole and obviously counterfactual statements are reprimanded, at the very least others ought also be subject to the same rules.

but anyway...if I misrepresented your position so egregiously in doing so, and you really are opposed to all that, then why pray tell are you spending so much time defending the Florida law?

Because taxpayer-funded campuses should not be hostile to taxpayers, no matter what their political leanings.

You've already stated - in "repeat a lie often enough" fashion - that you believe it is an indisputable fact that universities are overwhelmingly left-wing and there is no evidence to the contrary.

It is a fact that the left and liberals heavily outweigh the right and conservatives in US academia. This bears repetition because deniers gonna deny. Not every university is the same, obviously, but the national pattern is clear and has persisted (and gotten more unbalanced) for decades.

Perhaps you could answer that and then take your righteous indignation down to Florida and put it on a t-shirt to wear to a DeSantis rally....

Even if we were to accept that you've sufficiently repeated the assertion often enough to make it the truth, what of it?

This country is almost exactly evenly divided between right and left, and if academia and the universities were guilty of tilting the country so far to the left that even Marx would be like "guys...pump your brakes a bit," we'd certainly have seen some evidence that their nefarious plan is working. Or even having an effect at all.

I've been watching a series of videos on the You Tube from a young American commenter who points out that - as a socialist - his content is routinely de-monetized by the platform and he must rely upon Patreon to keep the channel going. Advertiser support is non-existent. The ads that do pop up during his videos? Charlie Kirk. Jordan Peterson. Ben Shapiro. The platform has no problem whatsoever placing right wing ads on a left wing video while at the same time denying the socialist commentary the ability to be supported by advertisers. And this guy is not a radical by any stretch. Had he lived in the FDR era, he'd be a bit to the left of the mainstream Democrats of the day, but a true-blue American nonetheless.

Now he's being demonetized for daring to be even slightly socialist.

But you keep pretending that America is a land where conservative viewpoints are being suppressed...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The national evidence is sufficient for programs like this to be justified in any state. And when the surveys run, we will get Florida-specific evidence.

Are you against collecting evidence to see if there is a problem in Florida?

The problem is we are against kangaroo research.

If someone says "I felt uncomfortable expressing X", then one asks "Why". That is sufficient to see if there is an issue.

Correct. If uncomfortableness varies by political ideology, we should investigate. If umcomfortableness does not vary along political ideology but is very high, we should also investigate.

I am glad you are convinced we should investigate.

We investigate by asking why, not by seeing where people lie on the political spectrum.

Why shouldn't funding depend on the results? If a taxpayer funded university has bred a climate that is hostile to the political views of certain kinds of taxpayers using the university, why shouldn't it be accountable?

Funding should be dependent on the political and religious views of the staff or students. One can establish hostility towards views without engaging in political or religious witch hunts.

I think you meant 'should not be dependent'.

Funding should not be dependent on the political and religious views of staff or students, but it should be dependent on the university creating a climate that is fair to all taxpayers.

And what he's trying to do isn't.

This isn't about being fair to taxpayers, this is a very clear message that you must toe the conservative party line or be fired.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EDIT: At my current university, there are two short courses, in addition to what I'm actually studying, that I was required to take. An academic plagiarism course (which is fair, that is relevant to whatever you are studying) and a course about consent, illustrated with a range of differently-coloured and sexually-orientated cartoon characters, built on the idea that some rapists don't know when they're raping people, and a consent course will change their minds about raping people.

It's not complete nonsense, just the usual stupidity of focusing on a small part of the problem that can be addressed and pretending it's a big part of the problem.

There are cases where the woman gets into a situation she didn't intend to but is afraid of saying no. While I do not agree with requiring a "yes" there needs to be something affirmative, not merely neutrality. I'm fine with non-verbal ways of expressing that yes.

You missed the point.

I know how to not rape people, and I knew how to not rape people before I enrolled at university. And if I had the desire to rape people, a 'consent' course, I imagine, would not change my mind. Also, I did not enrol in a masters of how to not rape people.

No, you missed the point.

I'm pointing out there are some edge cases where he doesn't realize it's rape but she didn't consent.

 

[Metaphor]

Even if we were to accept that you've sufficiently repeated the assertion often enough to make it the truth, what of it?

The fact that it is true makes it true, not the fact that I have repeated the utterance of the truth. You can either accept the truth (and I cannot fathom what is so difficult about accepting it), or you can continue to pretend it isn't true, or it's not been evidenced, or both, or any other combination of falsehoods.

This country is almost exactly evenly divided between right and left, and if academia and the universities were guilty of tilting the country so far to the left that even Marx would be like "guys...pump your brakes a bit," we'd certainly have seen some evidence that their nefarious plan is working. Or even having an effect at all.

I have explained, umpteen times, why it is important that taxpayer-funded campuses are not selectively hostile to students based on the student's political leanings.

The predominance of the left in academia is certainly having an effect on academia, and that is a concern. It would not matter one whit what the population outside academia is doing. Taxpayer funds should not be used to create political enclaves hostile to students of certain political leanings. It's one thing for elite private institutions to take $80,000/year from gormless students to help create a hostile environment, but it's quite another for taxpayers to fund such an endeavour.

I've been watching a series of videos on the You Tube from a young American commenter who points out that - as a socialist - his content is routinely de-monetized by the platform and he must rely upon Patreon to keep the channel going. Advertiser support is non-existent. The ads that do pop up during his videos? Charlie Kirk. Jordan Peterson. Ben Shapiro. The platform has no problem whatsoever placing right wing ads on a left wing video while at the same time denying the socialist commentary the ability to be supported by advertisers. And this guy is not a radical by any stretch. Had he lived in the FDR era, he'd be a bit to the left of the mainstream Democrats of the day, but a true-blue American nonetheless.

Now he's being demonetized for daring to be even slightly socialist.

I have no idea what this has to do with the thread, but perhaps it belongs in another thread. YouTube's heavy-handed shenanigans probably deserve their own thread.

But you keep pretending that America is a land where conservative viewpoints are being suppressed...

Of course they are suppressed. There are two ways to be kicked off Twitter: be Donald Trump or 'misgender' somebody. If you want to talk about what private capital is allowed to do, start a thread about it.

This thread is about publically funded universities in Florida. The Florida government has every right--and indeed, a duty--to make sure all her citizens are welcome at publically funded institutions.

 

[Metaphor]

EDIT: At my current university, there are two short courses, in addition to what I'm actually studying, that I was required to take. An academic plagiarism course (which is fair, that is relevant to whatever you are studying) and a course about consent, illustrated with a range of differently-coloured and sexually-orientated cartoon characters, built on the idea that some rapists don't know when they're raping people, and a consent course will change their minds about raping people.

It's not complete nonsense, just the usual stupidity of focusing on a small part of the problem that can be addressed and pretending it's a big part of the problem.

There are cases where the woman gets into a situation she didn't intend to but is afraid of saying no. While I do not agree with requiring a "yes" there needs to be something affirmative, not merely neutrality. I'm fine with non-verbal ways of expressing that yes.

You missed the point.

I know how to not rape people, and I knew how to not rape people before I enrolled at university. And if I had the desire to rape people, a 'consent' course, I imagine, would not change my mind. Also, I did not enrol in a masters of how to not rape people.

No, you missed the point.

I'm pointing out there are some edge cases where he doesn't realize it's rape but she didn't consent.

No, you miss the point and you keep missing it. And your language is sexist.

 

[Metaphor]

The problem is we are against kangaroo research.

No. The problem is you are against the possibility of discovering problematic climates on campus.

We investigate by asking why, not by seeing where people lie on the political spectrum.

Incorrect. If there is a problem for people on a certain part of the political spectrum and not for another group of people, you must ask about political spectrum to discover the problem.

And what he's trying to do isn't.

This isn't about being fair to taxpayers, this is a very clear message that you must toe the conservative party line or be fired.

Unevidenced nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funding should not be dependent on the political and religious views of staff or students, but it should be dependent on the university creating a climate that is fair to all taxpayers.

Which does not require asking about the religious, political and ideological views or leanings of the staff and students.

In the US, there are campuses that send out “campus climate” surveys that are an attempt to measure the openness to diverse ideas and people (among other things). These surveys do not typically ask about the religious or political views of the respondents. I know this because my campus conducts such a survey without those type of unnecessary questions.

They're necessary if you actually want to discover nuanced truths. A campus climate that the majority are happy with, but select subgroups are very unhappy with would be something you would not discover unless you asked your allegedly 'unnecessary questions'.

The problem is there are always subgroups that are unhappy. It's effectively impossible to have a situation where there aren't some that are unhappy.

 

[Metaphor]

The problem is there are always subgroups that are unhappy. It's effectively impossible to have a situation where there aren't some that are unhappy.

Subgroups that are happy no matter what cannot be addressed. Subgroups that are unhappy because a taxpayer-funded campus has fostered a hostile climate towards them can and should be addressed.

If you don't want political leaning included on the survey, it's because you want to be ignorant of any problem with the political climate taxpayer-funded campuses may have created. It's too bad the taxpayers in Florida disagree with you.

 

[laughing dog]

You do it all the time, especially when you don't want to address a point. You call it 'babble' as if it were incoherent.

The truth hurts. BTW, babble has a number of connotations, besides incoherent.

It is entirely necessary. The solutions to problems that arise because of the behaviour of subgroups should be tailored to the particularities of that subgroup. Pretending otherwise is bound to produce a suboptimal solution, if any can be produced at all.

Subgroups are not monolithic, especially when is talking about faculty. Any problems are with individuals who either don’t know how to foster or maintain a sufficiently open intellectual environment or are unwilling to do so. That is independent of their views.

Ludicrous and false. Personalities influence behaviour but so does context. If some faculty are able to get away with suppression or the creation of a hostile intellectual environment, it may be only because the administration is in sympathy with such violations. For example, conservative professors are much less likely to be able to sustain an environment hostile to liberals in a liberal-majority campus.

Quelle surprise - a reactionary example. Unless some administrator admits they are not doing their duty because of their sympathy with the miscreant, you impute guilt by association - which is exactly what the Florida legislator and governor made clear.

Yes, indeed. The long march through the institutions by the left is come to fruition, and we are all forced to eat the rotten harvest.

Wow, that is some real first-class conservative bs. But it makes clear what drives your position - McCarthyesque revenge against "the left".

 

[Metaphor]

Subgroups are not monolithic, especially when is talking about faculty.

Whoever claimed they were?

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

Quelle surprise - a reactionary example.

Quelle surprise - you use the word 'reactionary' without understanding what it means.

Unless some administrator admits they are not doing their duty because of their sympathy with the miscreant, you impute guilt by association - which is exactly what the Florida legislator and governor made clear.

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.

Wow, that is some real first-class conservative bs. But it makes clear what drives your position - McCarthyesque revenge against "the left".

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.

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.

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Man accused in threats to kill Rep. Pramila Jayapal released

A Seattle man arrested Saturday on suspicion of committing a hate crime against U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal has been released from jail. The Seattle Times reports King County prosecutors said

buffalonews.com

Seattle police arrested the man outside Jayapal’s house in the Arbor Heights neighborhood at 11:25 p.m. Saturday after she called 911 and reported an unknown person or people were in a vehicle using obscene language, according to the probable cause statement. She told a dispatcher her husband thought someone may have fired a pellet gun, the statement said.
Officers found the man standing in the the street with his hands in the air and a handgun holstered on his waist, the probable cause statement said.

A neighbor told police she heard the man yell something to the effect of, “Go back to India. I’m going to kill you,” the statement said. The neighbor also saw and heard the man drive by Jayapal’s residence at least three times, yelling profanities, according to the statement.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Man accused in threats to kill Rep. Pramila Jayapal released

A Seattle man arrested Saturday on suspicion of committing a hate crime against U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal has been released from jail. The Seattle Times reports King County prosecutors said

buffalonews.com

Seattle police arrested the man outside Jayapal’s house in the Arbor Heights neighborhood at 11:25 p.m. Saturday after she called 911 and reported an unknown person or people were in a vehicle using obscene language, according to the probable cause statement. She told a dispatcher her husband thought someone may have fired a pellet gun, the statement said.
Officers found the man standing in the the street with his hands in the air and a handgun holstered on his waist, the probable cause statement said.

A neighbor told police she heard the man yell something to the effect of, “Go back to India. I’m going to kill you,” the statement said. The neighbor also saw and heard the man drive by Jayapal’s residence at least three times, yelling profanities, according to the statement.

What?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think it's all self-selection.

I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.

If an academic calls into question the orthodoxy that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought" you'd eject her? Or only if she takes the path less traveled all the way to blasphemy? Thanks for letting us know how highly you value academic freedom.

I expect that ... even reasoning like Angra Mainu ...'s gets spotted before too long. As such the vague liberal bias of reality itself is going to win out and cause a bias.

Angra Mainyu was the smartest poster in this forum. You think you're competent to judge him. Ten Holy Office Cardinals thought they were competent to judge Galileo.

You have to step out of the cave to be welcome in academia. ... I'm talking about Plato's Cave.

The academics who make others unwelcome in academia for not joining them outside Plato's Cave are apparently under the self-delusion that they're outside Plato's Cave. Nobody ever steps out of Plato's Cave.

 

[laughing dog]

[I never said they did all think alike or all act alike or anything like it.

Then there is no need to ask their political or religious beliefs: the motivation for their (mis)behavior is not relevant.

I'm not a deranged leftist who blames all the ills in the world on certain demographics.

LOL - you are reactionary who does.

Non. I don't even know what you mean: guilt by association.

Of course you don't.

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.

It is the method of measurement that is under dispute. The issue is whether a campus is hostile to viewpoints, not groups.

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.

Cool story bro. You do realize that there is no evidence there is a problem at Florida institutions of higher learning.

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.

You keep flinging those straw men -it is what you do best.

 

[Metaphor]

[I never said they did all think alike or all act alike or anything like it.

Then there is no need to ask their political or religious beliefs: the motivation for their (mis)behavior is not relevant.

Of course there is a need, and I've articulated it more than once. If staff or faculty of a particular stripe are more likely to perceive discomfort, this points to the possibility of a problem.

You have not addressed this.

"20% of people on campus perceive hostility to their political views" is a problem less able to be tackled than "5% of liberals, and 40% of conservatives, and 20% of all stakeholders, perceive hostility to their political views".

It is the method of measurement that is under dispute. The issue is whether a campus is hostile to viewpoints, not groups.

The method of measurement is the only way to understand if there is a problem, and the only way to inform a solution if one is necessary.

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.

Cool story bro. You do realize that there is no evidence there is a problem at Florida institutions of higher learning.

Yes. Because they've never been examined to see if there is a problem.

I suppose you believe people don't have cancer unless and until a doctor examines them. Your attitude is extraordinary.

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.

You keep flinging those straw men -it is what you do best.

You are opposed to legislation that can uncover if a problem exists, and you are opposed to making the investigation effective enough to inform optimal solutions.

You are anti-information, which is not surprising, since your grasp of epistemology is shockingly poor.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course there is a need, and I've articulated it more than once. If staff or faculty of a particular stripe are more likely to perceive discomfort, this points to the possibility of a problem.

No one denies you are repeating your nonsense.

You have not addressed this.

"20% of people on campus perceive hostility to their political views" is a problem less able to be tackled than "5% of liberals, and 40% of conservatives, and 20% of all stakeholders, perceive hostility to their political views".

I don't think it less able to be tackled. The questions should be along the line of "do you perceive hostility to their views", "how is this hostility exhibited", "give examples of the hostility", and "where and by whom".

[

Yes. Because they've never been examined to see if there is a problem.

I suppose you believe people don't have cancer unless and until a doctor examines them. Your attitude is extraordinary.

What an absurd analogy to use to create yet another straw man.

You are opposed to legislation that can uncover if a problem exists, and you are opposed to making the investigation effective enough to inform optimal solutions.

You are anti-information, which is not surprising, since your grasp of epistemology is shockingly poor.

More straw men. Which makes your last sentence truly ironic.