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

[Metaphor]

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".

Those are excellent follow up questions. None of them obviate the need to measure demographic variables to see if hostility is more or less likely to be perceived by people with certain characteristics.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Duck speak from DeSantis.

 

[fromderinside]

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

So throwing out the bathwater protects the baby?

 

[Jarhyn]

If an academic calls into question the orthodoxy that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought" you'd eject her?

I would eject anyone who thinks you can get from  that is to  that ought, to the point where they felt it appropriate to educate students on the subject outside their subject or field, and in that subject or field, well...

If you want to start a thread where you think you can navigate from that is to that ought without saying something laughably stupid, be my guest. Other PD or possibly M&P would be your bet.

Either throw down or slow down.

I would eject any math teacher trying to teach YEC in their math class too.

 

[Metaphor]

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

So throwing out the bathwater protects the baby?

You'll have to explain what you mean.

 

[Ford]

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

So throwing out the bathwater protects the baby?

I mean, the right wing wants to throw out public education entirely, so really this is just another front in that battle on their part. The idea that in swoops DeSantis to "protect" taxpayer funded education is laughable. Right wingers protecting public education is like Republicans fighting climate change. An oxymoron. Anyone who actually buys into this is an actual moron.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My 'that argument is full of shit' meter needs to be replaced again.

 

[Bomb#20]

If an academic calls into question the orthodoxy that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought" you'd eject her?

I would eject anyone who thinks you can get from  that is to  that ought, to the point where they felt it appropriate to educate students on the subject outside their subject or field, and in that subject or field, well...

Ah, so that would be the "only if she takes the path less traveled all the way to blasphemy" option. And I see that in order to "justify" your endorsement of forced speech in academia, you find you need to fabricate a counterfactual motive for the hypothetical professor declining to recite your established religion's catechism.

If you want to start a thread where you think you can navigate from that is to that ought without saying something laughably stupid, be my guest. Other PD or possibly M&P would be your bet.

Who, me? I'm not the one claiming to get from "is" to "ought"; I'm just calling you out on your rejection of academic freedom. I'll leave starting the navigation thread, respectively, either to your hypothetical heretical professor to show how she got from her "is" to her "ought", or, alternately, to you, for you to show how you got from your "is" to your "ought".

Either throw down or slow down.

Tell it to a mirror.

I would eject any math teacher trying to teach YEC in their math class too.

The whole "is" to "ought" thing doesn't really apply to a YEC -- a YEC is doing an "is" to "is". So if you mean to broaden this discussion to matters we know how to scientifically settle one way or the other, then your analogy is off. To correct your analogy, you're the dean of Bob Jones University, and you'd eject a math teacher for electing not to teach YEC in her math class.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, so that would be the "only if she takes the path less traveled all the way to blasphemy" option

No, and yet again you fail to see that so far, people have been swinging at that attempt here for over a decade, and coming up short to bridge that gap.

If someone could actually bridge that gap, I'd pay it mind. But so far there have been zero successes in doing so, and it's not for a lack of trying.

If you would like to take a swing at bridging the gap, as I said, you are free to do so. I will laugh as you fall down the chasm to scramble back up the side from which you came.

You are the side in this trying to establish the ought, though, that we ought treat people differently on the specific basis of what their genitals looked like when they were born. So as I said, put up or shut up.

I'm not the one arguing relevant difference unto a set of moral rules.

I'll note the point is to eject the prostylatization of poorly argued positions in general. Conservatives have a wealth of such, where progressives... Well, we tend to want to progress past poorly argued positions

 

[Toni]

Yes, you implied it. "If they're not indoctrinating kids, who cares?"

I was explicitly talking about the Florida case.

Yes, that's what this entire thread is about.

Neither of those statements are about indoctrination, but about breadth of ideas and political tolerance.

To use your phrase so what?

I am answering your question!!

Please stop imputing these straw men. Just stop it.

First, I think legislation and resources should be used to address actual issues not imagined ones.

Good for you. There is evidence that these are issues in US academia.

If there were documented instances of issues that had been disinterestedly investigated, then the legislation would appear warranted.

Good for you. The legislation is warranted. There is evidence that students self-censor because of the campus climate, and this self-censoring is along political lines.

Second, whether one feels free to express one's beliefs and viewpoints or the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are present can be investigated without reference to political, ideological and religious beliefs of university staff and students.

Sheer nonsense. The ideas, beliefs and viewpoints that the Florida legislature is interested in and where one chooses to express (or censor) are going to be along political, ideological or religious lines.

University X has 1,000 students. 300 students express that they are uncomfortable with expressing their political views on campus. You don't know anything else about those students because you didn't collect anything about the political or ideological views of those students.

Imagine instead you'd collected this information, and you find that the university has (on a three point scale)

• 500 'liberal' students
• 300 'moderate' students
• 200 'conservative' students

But the breakdown of students who said they felt discomfort was as follows

• 100 liberal students
• 100 moderate students
• 100 conservative students.

20% of liberal students felt discomfort, 33% of moderate students, and 50% of conservative students.

You wouldn't have known that without questions about ideology. Now of course this doesn't mean the university has bred a chilling environment--you'd need further investigation. But the point is, if you'd not collected the information, you wouldn't know about the disparity at all.

Third, when legislators complain about fear of indoctrination and when the governor openly hints that funding might depend on the results, it ought to be clear what the operational intent of the legislation is. While I will grant that faculty tend to be overly suspicious of potential oversight, in this instance, I think the staff have reason to be worried.

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?

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.

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. I'm only mentioning these subjects because they are ones commonly taught as core subjects for most science majors, i.e. a large portion of majors offered at most universities.

A good professor should challenge students to think differently than when they first stepped into the classroom. Many/most university students did not find high school academically very challenging. University is one of the first places they will have the opportunity to genuinely figure out how to think critically about anything and everything. Students will feel challenged in their perceptions of themselves, in their perceptions of others, in their perceptions of their intellect and social and economic standing. Those challenges will cause discomfort. And they should!

Do I have a different view of the world from having been to university compared with if I had not gone to university? Of course I do. Thank heavens. I spent my 20's and half of my 30's living in major metropolitan areas and I learned a great deal about the world and about myself from living far from where I grew up and far from daily contact with family back home. And then, in an unpredicted move, I moved back to the midwest and to a small town, albeit one still 500+ miles from where I grew up. And learned and re-learned different lessons still. I'm still learning. It's not always comfortable. But it is certainly necessary.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, so that would be the "only if she takes the path less traveled all the way to blasphemy" option

No,

No? So you'd eject any academic who tries to get from an "is" to an "ought", even if she doesn't gore one of your sacred cows, as long as her contention is poorly argued?

and yet again you fail to see that so far, people have been swinging at that attempt here for over a decade, and coming up short to bridge that gap.

If someone could actually bridge that gap, I'd pay it mind. But so far there have been zero successes in doing so, and it's not for a lack of trying.

If you would like to take a swing at bridging the gap, as I said, you are free to do so. I will laugh as you fall down the chasm to scramble back up the side from which you came.

Why do you keep challenging me to do that? I'm not the one who derived an "ought" from an "is". That appears to be you. Aren't you the one whose argument amounted to "The student's gender identity is female. Therefore the professor ought to refer to the student with feminine pronouns."?

In fact, aren't we only talking about pronouns in a DeSantis thread in the first place because progressives keep preaching progressive religious beliefs like "Transwomen are women" in colleges, and they keep deriving "ought"s from all those unproven "is"s, and DeSantis thinks colleges keep discriminating against professors and students who have contrary opinions, and you think DeSantis ought to butt out and leave the progressives in academia to keep deriving those "ought"s from those "is"s in peace?

You are the side in this trying to establish the ought, though, that we ought treat people differently on the specific basis of what their genitals looked like when they were born.

Why did you write that? Was it

(a) because you can quote me trying to establish that we ought to do that? Or was it

(b) because you are in it to win it and you don't give a rat's ass whether the claims you fabricate about political opponents are true as long as you think they'll give you a rhetorical edge? Or was it

(c) because you're an obsessed ideological bigot who sincerely believes that his ingroup may well all be individuals but his outgroup are all interchangeable parts and when one of them argues for X that proves a different outgroup member is also trying to establish X?​

My position on "oughts" concerning which pronouns we refer to one another with is not something you need to consult your mystical inner vision or your feelings of malice towards me to discern. It's stated to the left of all my posts, between "Location:" and "Basic Beliefs:".

So as I said, put up or shut up.

Quote me or quit making trumped-up accusations.

I'm not the one arguing relevant difference unto a set of moral rules.

No? You appear to be arguing that a conservative professor ought to pretend to agree with a progressive religious belief. Is there some comparable conservative religious belief that you argue a progressive professor ought to pretend to agree with?

Or, if you prefer to frame the issue another way, you appear to be arguing that a professor ought to pretend to agree with a student's unevidenced claim when failing to pretend to agree would hurt the student's feelings. Does the professor make some comparable unevidenced claim that you argue the student ought to pretend to agree with when failing to do so would hurt the professor's feelings?

Because if there isn't one or the other of those that you argue for, then you very much appear to be the one arguing relevant difference unto a set of moral rules. And the difference you find relevant very much appears to be who outranks whom on the progressive stack.

I'll note the point is to eject the prostylatization of poorly argued positions in general.

Oh for the love of god! The point of academia was supposed to be to refute the proselytization of poorly argued positions, not to eject it. Ejecting doesn't determine who's right, only who's left.

Conservatives have a wealth of such, where progressives... Well, we tend to want to progress past poorly argued positions

Well, since we're playing the "Gross overgeneralizations about our political opponents" game...

No you don't. Progressives have a wealth of such too, and most of you show zero interest in progressing past them. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives have unenlightened principles while liberals have enlightened principles. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives have principles while progressives have a stack.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is you are assuming reasonableness.

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

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

 

[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.

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

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.

 

[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.

The problem is you are assuming reasonableness.

No, I haven't. I have not assumed reasonableness, and in fact I said any perception of unfairness or discomfort along political lines would warrant further investigation, not an assumption that the unfairness or discomfort was warranted.

In fact, in this and other contexts, I have warned against merely taking perceptions as congruent with reality.

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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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

So throwing out the bathwater protects the baby?

You'll have to explain what you mean.

What I mean is legislatures do their job. They legislate, regulate, bind, cabin, confine bind in. Believe me electing legislatures are a poor second to inviting everybody to the party. But they cost less and sometimes feel as if they were actually doing something right. And we can point our fingers at them when they FU which we all know they will.

As it is we are still racist, sexist, capitalist, power hungry, Christian back patters, self-interested, etc. Sure we could be slave holders by title rather than implication - thank heaven - but one look at every town's skid row say's we are on our way. And what's this about rampant conservative knowledge denier-ing.

 

[laughing dog]

No you don't. Progressives have a wealth of such too, and most of you show zero interest in progressing past them. 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!!!!!!!!