I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
I see what you are saying, but not publishing the materials is not going to solve the problem. That's because the people who are attacking the professors will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Remember, the attackers are not a few oddballs. The are members of a vast MAGA movement that has enough member to elect the present president and that encourages this sort of behavior. And they have tons of money behind them.
A friend of mine was harassed by these sorts of groups for their teaching. They received death threats, hardcore pornography, and gore in their inbox from these chuds. The trigger was the availability of their course material online.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
Telling the history of your country about how you enslaved, murdered and tortured are considered "grievance narratives" by the current administration. Declaring scientists public enemy because they don't follow your politics.
While this has some valid points, constructively addressing these issues is clearly not the political thrust of the destructionists who wish to simplistically downplay the history rather than framing it in a more productive manner.
Also the condemnation of "treats political disagreement as moral evil" landed harder back before the other tribe decided to embrace the dynamic and fortify their political stances with blatant immoral evil.
Do they also teach about Comanche slave raids and other intra-native wars, and the native American treatment of prisoners of war and slaves, putting European conquerors in context as just another warring 'tribe', just a more successful one? Or do they teach a one-sided morality play version of history?
What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?
College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."
What a sleazy way to try to obfuscate lying by omission. Why are you suddenly so confused? "What history course would you expect to see this in?" What kind of question is that? A history course on native Americans - you can't seriously be saying that you can't imagine any kind of college course teaching it, can you?
> Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material.
Was it not clear that I was complaining about the composition of those course materials?
> Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade?
No. But when your college is silent on every atrocity committed by anyone other than whites, people will correctly see it as trafficking in propaganda, not truth. Nobody is convinced by your implications that it's all just a big coincidence that there are no courses specifically on Aztec imperialism, or Dahomey slave trading, or the Barbary and trans-Saharan slave trades (not because they ignore the Middle East, because they do have courses on Edward Said-style "orientalism" [1,2]), or problematizing the cultural revolution.
From a European perspective this response and your other comments ranting about "pronouns" and "Marxist ideology" makes me think you're either a troll parroting bizarre US political memes or, if serious, you're the one indoctrinated in a radical ideology. Either way, I suggest closing the browser and talking to people in real life.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
Boards of Regents consistently suck shit. The rather famous "put your body upon the gears" speech was about the Berkeley Board. Leftists largely hate the boards of both public and private universities. They are often megarich people with minimal understanding of pedagogy or even university administration.
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
I personally favor the features of "Ur-Fascism" by Umberto Eco:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. action for action’s sake
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to a frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot
8. the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
9. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
10. contempt for the weak
11. everybody is educated to become a hero
12. machismo - both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality,[...] Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons
What bothers me is that the Left is quick to shout "fascism!" but cannot see their own soft, creeping totalitarianism. Don't think gender operations are a healthy thing? That's not an option, it's either "celebrate!" or "hate speech". And then places like Canada and the UK enshrine this into law.
If you make the opposing opinion illegal (the US has not, but the trend is obviously there), don't be surprised if people with the opposing opinion do something about it. The current administration is a hacked mess, of course, but the universities got themselves into it with things like requiring "diversity statements". What if you want to be a professor but you don't think that implementing progressive diversity is important? Too bad, no choice. If a private Christian or a Muslim university requires a statement of faith, well, it's kind of in the name. But a State-funded university that requires a "statement of faith" implementing a progressive political policy, seems like a clear overreach.
I am not defending the Trump administration, which may very well contain fascist elements. But don't go crying "fascist!" and ignore the other side's self-righteous totalitarianism.
It's not the federal government's job to police ideology. That's the stuff of Communist China's cultural revolution. There's nothing stopping people from creating their own university teaching "correct" ideology. The US has no shortage of well-resourced individuals and organizations spanning the entire spectrum of political viewpoints.
That has been going since forever. McCarthy is just one blatant example, it happened in the 20s, and 30s, and 40s 50s and 60s and 70s and all the way to today.
I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
So, that sounds fine in theory.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
I see what you are saying, but not publishing the materials is not going to solve the problem. That's because the people who are attacking the professors will just get it by some other means, like having someone attend the class.
Remember, the attackers are not a few oddballs. The are members of a vast MAGA movement that has enough member to elect the present president and that encourages this sort of behavior. And they have tons of money behind them.
Not sharing course outlines is not going to help make this problem better. Better to face those groups head on than hide.
Why should professors face death threats head on? What are they going to do differently besides self censor?
It observably does make it better.
A friend of mine was harassed by these sorts of groups for their teaching. They received death threats, hardcore pornography, and gore in their inbox from these chuds. The trigger was the availability of their course material online.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
[flagged]
Telling the history of your country about how you enslaved, murdered and tortured are considered "grievance narratives" by the current administration. Declaring scientists public enemy because they don't follow your politics.
[flagged]
While this has some valid points, constructively addressing these issues is clearly not the political thrust of the destructionists who wish to simplistically downplay the history rather than framing it in a more productive manner.
Also the condemnation of "treats political disagreement as moral evil" landed harder back before the other tribe decided to embrace the dynamic and fortify their political stances with blatant immoral evil.
Do they also teach about Comanche slave raids and other intra-native wars, and the native American treatment of prisoners of war and slaves, putting European conquerors in context as just another warring 'tribe', just a more successful one? Or do they teach a one-sided morality play version of history?
What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?
College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."
What a sleazy way to try to obfuscate lying by omission. Why are you suddenly so confused? "What history course would you expect to see this in?" What kind of question is that? A history course on native Americans - you can't seriously be saying that you can't imagine any kind of college course teaching it, can you?
> Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material.
Was it not clear that I was complaining about the composition of those course materials?
> Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade?
No. But when your college is silent on every atrocity committed by anyone other than whites, people will correctly see it as trafficking in propaganda, not truth. Nobody is convinced by your implications that it's all just a big coincidence that there are no courses specifically on Aztec imperialism, or Dahomey slave trading, or the Barbary and trans-Saharan slave trades (not because they ignore the Middle East, because they do have courses on Edward Said-style "orientalism" [1,2]), or problematizing the cultural revolution.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
[2] https://www.coursicle.com/harvard/courses/TDM/174PO/
From a European perspective this response and your other comments ranting about "pronouns" and "Marxist ideology" makes me think you're either a troll parroting bizarre US political memes or, if serious, you're the one indoctrinated in a radical ideology. Either way, I suggest closing the browser and talking to people in real life.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
Boards of Regents consistently suck shit. The rather famous "put your body upon the gears" speech was about the Berkeley Board. Leftists largely hate the boards of both public and private universities. They are often megarich people with minimal understanding of pedagogy or even university administration.
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
Nobody (roughly) is choosing the university to go to based on the syllabus. They choose it based on cost, exclusivity, and networking considerations.
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
McCarthyism wasn't long before that time
That was in the early 1950s, as far as we were concerned that was a different era—one long gone.
I think its important that everyone learn to recognize the 14 points of fascism.
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.ht...
In this case, we can recognize: "11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts".
I personally favor the features of "Ur-Fascism" by Umberto Eco:
1. cult of tradition
2. rejection of modernism
3. action for action’s sake
4. disagreement is treason
5. fear of difference
6. appeal to a frustrated middle class
7. obsession with a plot
8. the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
9. pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
10. contempt for the weak
11. everybody is educated to become a hero
12. machismo - both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality,[...] Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons
13. selective populism
14. Newspeak
These are only his major points of his speach in 1995. The speach is at the moment available here: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
What bothers me is that the Left is quick to shout "fascism!" but cannot see their own soft, creeping totalitarianism. Don't think gender operations are a healthy thing? That's not an option, it's either "celebrate!" or "hate speech". And then places like Canada and the UK enshrine this into law.
If you make the opposing opinion illegal (the US has not, but the trend is obviously there), don't be surprised if people with the opposing opinion do something about it. The current administration is a hacked mess, of course, but the universities got themselves into it with things like requiring "diversity statements". What if you want to be a professor but you don't think that implementing progressive diversity is important? Too bad, no choice. If a private Christian or a Muslim university requires a statement of faith, well, it's kind of in the name. But a State-funded university that requires a "statement of faith" implementing a progressive political policy, seems like a clear overreach.
I am not defending the Trump administration, which may very well contain fascist elements. But don't go crying "fascist!" and ignore the other side's self-righteous totalitarianism.
[dead]
https://archive.is/HJa8N
This reminds me of something I read about the STASI.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Whaddabout the military then? Same same problem.
If you are interested in removing bias, then hopefully you're interested in removing bias in the military too?
Law Enforcement, Churches, Prisons, Unionized workplaces, we have a lot of ideological correction ahead of us!
Pete Hegseth in particular is addressing those issues… :-)
It's not the federal government's job to police ideology. That's the stuff of Communist China's cultural revolution. There's nothing stopping people from creating their own university teaching "correct" ideology. The US has no shortage of well-resourced individuals and organizations spanning the entire spectrum of political viewpoints.
That has been going since forever. McCarthy is just one blatant example, it happened in the 20s, and 30s, and 40s 50s and 60s and 70s and all the way to today.
[flagged]
It does not look like you actually know what "far" means , either left or right.
[flagged]
The author of that cartoon posted an updated version of it:
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1966288413939659079
neither one is in the same county as the truth
If I were drawing the cartoon, I would have both sides extending outward.
Surveillance of publicly funded activity is due diligence.