War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 822
  • Views: 26K
  • Politics 
LeoBloom said:
Excellent point.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I mean, they aren't totally wrong, are they? I think it's possible to define a theory of privilege based on hypocrisy alone -- that is, privilege is the ability to gain special treatment for yourself that others would not get in similar situations.

Think of the classic movie or film tropes about privilege. For a century, filmmakers have realized that they could paint their villains as over privileged assholes simply by showing hypocrisy (often paired with insensitivity but not always). Because that's kind of what it is. The King doesn't have to follow the law.

Of course, there's another understanding of hypocrisy -- the one that most of us apply because we think it's best for a pluralistic democracy. Hypocrisy is a sign of intellectual failure or dishonesty. As those are things to be avoided, to us "hypocrisy" is a potent accusation. We like to avoid it where possible, because we value honesty in our public discourse. We value integrity, and complete theories that promise an increase in the general welfare, not private interests only. In the 20th century, that understanding of hypocrisy became dominant, largely because of the civil rights movement, I speculate. Note: when I say we value honesty, I'm not making a claim about how much of it there actually is. It is a value for us, though. It's less of a value for fundamentalists.
 
superrific said:
As I've said before, I think the key to understanding MAGA is to realize that hypocrisy is not, for them, a vice. We see it as a sign of insincerity, of contradiction, of incoherent views. They don't give a shit. They see hypocrisy as a form of privilege that they want. They think it's good that Trump speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy, naked and blatant, is a show of power. Rules for thee but not for me, implies that me is the one making the rules.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not saying they should stay out of politics. I'm saying that getting involved in politics doesn't always work out well for schools, businesses, corporations, etc, so it's not surprising that they are making the decision to get out.
Click to expand...
Another risky proposition.

A Walmart Heiress Breaks Ranks and Joins the Anti-Trump Movement​

Billionaire Christy Walton buys ad supporting this weekend’s ‘No Kings’ demonstrations—to the surprise of Walmart​


Loading…

www.wsj.com
 
donbosco said:
At UNC Wilmington

Click to expand...

God forbid that we as a society promote and value diversity and equity. The horror! I'd love to know the demographic makeup of this awful, obviously right-wing "Accuracy in Media" group that is trying to remove pretty much every official or administrator at UNC system universities that dares to speak up about DEI. And for those who argue that it is now illegal at UNC system schools to promote DEI, how, exactly, do you propose to eliminate diversity and equity at all of these schools? Eliminate all minority students? Shut down the Sonja Haynes Center for Black Culture and History? Put the Silent Sam statue up again? I have a hunch those are exactly the kind of "solutions" that this "Accuracy in Media" group would be in favor of.

And that's without mentioning that they are getting good and decent administrators fired who were only doing their jobs before the GOP-dominated Board of Governors voted to repeal DEI. It's painfully obvious what these people really want, and it's the opposite of both diversity and equity.
 
Last edited:

‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender​

By Katherine Mangan June 20, 2025

"Teaching social work in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Cassandra E. Simon often assigns readings that describe how the families her students might one day serve have been impacted by more than a century of housing, employment, and education discrimination. The associate professor has encouraged her students to engage in spirited discussions about race, even assigning a project in which they advocate for or against a social-justice issue.

Doing any of those things today, she argues in a federal lawsuit, could get her fired from the state flagship, where she’s taught for 25 years. Last year, the state’s Republican governor, Kay Ivey, signed into law a sweeping bill that restricts what professors can teach about race. If any of their lessons veer into what conservative politicians have deemed “divisive concepts,” faculty members risk being reported, investigated, and potentially fired.

That kind of incursion into the curriculum is growing and prompting a flurry of First Amendment challenges from Simon and other plaintiffs. It’s a line state lawmakers did not cross early on in their push to dismantle DEI efforts, even as universities shuttered offices, laid off employees, canceled scholarships, and called off diversity training. But over the past two years, more than a dozen laws have been enacted that either limit which classes can be taught or imposed restrictions on what professors can say in the classroom, according to a Chronicle analysis of state legislation and a compilation of what PEN America calls “educational gag orders.”

This year especially “has been a banner year for censorship at a state level across the country,” said Amy B. Reid, senior manager at PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program. “The point of a lot of these restrictions is to put people on guard, worried that anything or everything could be prohibited so you really have to watch what you say.”

Some of the chief architects of the DEI-dismantling playbook have insisted that they’re not trying to silence anyone. In a January 26 letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal by Ilya Shapiro and Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute, the institute declared that “Conservatives Have No Interest In Censorship.”

“By ending practices such as identity-based discrimination and compulsory, politically coercive diversity statements,” these laws “protect the rights of professors and students to engage freely on all topics, including race,” they wrote."

Anyone wants to read the rest of this firewalled article let me know and i'll post more.

Loading…

www.chronicle.com
 
donbosco said:

‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender​

By Katherine Mangan June 20, 2025

"Teaching social work in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Cassandra E. Simon often assigns readings that describe how the families her students might one day serve have been impacted by more than a century of housing, employment, and education discrimination. The associate professor has encouraged her students to engage in spirited discussions about race, even assigning a project in which they advocate for or against a social-justice issue.

Doing any of those things today, she argues in a federal lawsuit, could get her fired from the state flagship, where she’s taught for 25 years. Last year, the state’s Republican governor, Kay Ivey, signed into law a sweeping bill that restricts what professors can teach about race. If any of their lessons veer into what conservative politicians have deemed “divisive concepts,” faculty members risk being reported, investigated, and potentially fired.

That kind of incursion into the curriculum is growing and prompting a flurry of First Amendment challenges from Simon and other plaintiffs. It’s a line state lawmakers did not cross early on in their push to dismantle DEI efforts, even as universities shuttered offices, laid off employees, canceled scholarships, and called off diversity training. But over the past two years, more than a dozen laws have been enacted that either limit which classes can be taught or imposed restrictions on what professors can say in the classroom, according to a Chronicle analysis of state legislation and a compilation of what PEN America calls “educational gag orders.”

This year especially “has been a banner year for censorship at a state level across the country,” said Amy B. Reid, senior manager at PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program. “The point of a lot of these restrictions is to put people on guard, worried that anything or everything could be prohibited so you really have to watch what you say.”

Some of the chief architects of the DEI-dismantling playbook have insisted that they’re not trying to silence anyone. In a January 26 letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal by Ilya Shapiro and Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute, the institute declared that “Conservatives Have No Interest In Censorship.”

“By ending practices such as identity-based discrimination and compulsory, politically coercive diversity statements,” these laws “protect the rights of professors and students to engage freely on all topics, including race,” they wrote."

Anyone wants to read the rest of this firewalled article let me know and i'll post more.

Loading…

www.chronicle.com
Click to expand...
Disturbing. The argument seems to boil down to it is not censorship if the topic is about race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or gender identity Because we are just protecting people from hearing something upsetting (?)
 
So now, the Trump administration is just going to pressure universities to remove their presidents. This is happening at the University of Virginia.

Scary times.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Justice Dept. Pressuring University of Virginia President to Resign

The Justice Department has demanded that James E. Ryan step down to help resolve a civil rights investigation into the school, three people familiar with the matter said.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
This could be trouble — not that accrediting organizations as they currently exist aren’t a huge pain in the ass anyway.

 
donbosco said:
This could be trouble — not that accrediting organizations as they currently exist aren’t a huge pain in the ass anyway.

Click to expand...

That conservative states would help to form a new college accreditation body that would give them leverage over universities and/or allow them to opt out of the current accreditation bodies was utterly predictable.

That North Carolina is a participant in the process saddens me greatly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top