3 ms·

I read the sourcewatch link and see lots of conservative funding. So I went through FIREs articles and found lots of conservative-learning articles, but also:

I read the sourcewatch link and see lots of conservative funding. So I went through FIREs articles and found lots of conservative-learning articles, but also: https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secretary-state-against-childproofing-literature-and-speech https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secr... https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-restricts-student-speech-and https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-... https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... So there's at least some bipartisan criticism. This article seems to match with the stanford article... so do you have any criticism of the contents of this article?

abakker 4y ago
my personal criticism is that that the article's premise is that Stanford "May" ask someone to do something. The outlet has published a letter to stanford seeking corrective action in line with their politics. In general, I am in favor of free speech and do not under any circumstances want to police what people read. (especially as reading Mein Kampf at a college would seem to suggest a certain course of study, rather than just recreation). But, I am not in favor of cherry picking incidents to drum up support for "holding people accountable" and making this into some kind of broader trend instead of isolated miscommunication. I also acknowledge that Stanford has to address this and get it right. But, fire.org appears to be paid to generate this kind of content and that makes me mistrust their motives even if their content is fine.

abakker 4y ago

my personal criticism is that that the article's premise is that Stanford "May" ask someone to do something. The outlet has published a letter to stanford seeking corrective action in line with their politics. In general, I am in favor of free speech and do not under any circumstances want to police what people read. (especially as reading Mein Kampf at a college would seem to suggest a certain course of study, rather than just recreation). But, I am not in favor of cherry picking incidents to drum up support for "holding people accountable" and making this into some kind of broader trend instead of isolated miscommunication. I also acknowledge that Stanford has to address this and get it right. But, fire.org appears to be paid to generate this kind of content and that makes me mistrust their motives even if their content is fine.