6 ms·

Anyone taking this at face value is misinterpreting the current Montana political situation. There's a Republican majority in both houses and also the governor

Anyone taking this at face value is misinterpreting the current Montana political situation. There's a Republican majority in both houses and also the governor and most of the executive positions are red as well. In all likelihood, this won't pass, and was never designed to pass. What is happening is that the Montana University System Board of Regents serve a 7 year term. The previous governor had two terms in office, and so he appointed the entire board of regents. He was "purple" in so far that "purple" means he lied to the populace to try and pretend he wasn't as left leaning as he actually is. One place this lie wore thin was with the MUS Board of Regents, which are not revocable and wield near-absolute power in the University system, as defined by the Montana constitution. His regent picks were as hard left as possible. In addition to that, Bozeman and Missoula, the homes of the two major campuses in the state, have attracted a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans, drastically driving up the cost of living, meaning both U of M and MSU have astronomical cost of attendance, despite being subsidized state schools. The end result of all this is that the current political climate is that Missoula and Bozeman are not at all representative of the rest of the state, as evidenced by the overwhelming Republican victories in the last couple elections, but the newly elected state legislature and governor are unable to change the University policies quickly enough for their liking. There are currently multiple thrusts in the state legislature to reign in the universities, with challenges over guns on campus, challenges against the public union (mostly made up by teachers and graduate students) and challenges over budget. All of these are designed simply to wield power over the Board. By my estimation, the MUS Board of Regents are effectively unelected tyrants who are doing the state a great disservice. And their behavior begets crap like this. (Which is also stupid and awful). These are the types of stupid games we get to play when there's no direct accountability. Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman) and trying to solve problems relevant to Montana, this unfortunate lose-lose war will continue.

dd36 4y ago
What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Evolution is a tyranny to small minded people.
- COGlory 4y ago
  Science is not the target (maybe to this one freshman congressman, but not the greater legislative agenda). The row precipitated over a ballot initiative that gave Montanans the right to carry firearms on public property, including college campuses. The ballot initiative instructed the legislature to craft law outlining this. The legislature worked with the colleges for months coming up with a number of compromises in exchange for the university system not fighting the bill. After the bill was passed (remember, it was mandated by a direct public ballot initiative), the unelected Board of Regents sued to stop it on the grounds that they have complete authority over all policy on state campuses. The legislate argues that state law (and the state constitution gaurantees a right to bear arms) supercedes it. There have since been a number of minor skirmishes, while that main case is tied up in court. This is an attempt by the legislature to further erode the constitutional clause governing public education being seperately governed. Had the Board of Regents respected the ballot initiative, this likely would not be getting introduced, because the House leaders would have stopped it.
  - dd36 4y ago
    Seems like they must sue if that’s the law? Otherwise they’re not independent as the law requires? Tyrannical seems like a stretch?
duxup 4y ago
I’m confused about how this all works together. There are a lot of gaps in this story and it sounds like a hysterical “outside people are moving into town” narrative. How are these regents “hard left”? How did the regents somehow attract “ a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans”? Aren’t cost of living issues a local issue around these campuses, at least as far as housing goes? Montana can’t be short on space… And what does any of that have to do with the bill in question? The bill is about k-12 education.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  And if "a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans" has been attracted isn't that likely changing the political climate since MT is a low population state?
  - heyoni 4y ago
    I’m not familiar with Montana specifically but gerrymandering could buffer the effects of that influx.
- twelve40 4y ago
  it sounds plausible, I lived there and visit every once in a while. there is an influx of people for sure (just go check Wikipedia population numbers, esp. for towns mentioned) and it has nothing to do with the regents (and I don't think the parent said that) habitable space, at least in bozeman, is very tight because you're bounded by the Gallatin Valley, everything outside has little to none infrastructure to accommodate any meaningful incoming number of people, same situation as the SFBA - there is plenty of cheap space in central valley but people pay 1.5m+ to live right in sf. don't have enough info to vouch for the whole story, but sounds believable
  - duxup 4y ago
    I’m not sure any population increase really means any of the other post’s story is true. Rural populations have been moving to suburban size towns for a long time now.
allturtles 4y ago
Whatever the merits of what you're saying, the bill in question is about K-12 education, so I don't see how it relates to any effort to rein in the universities.
- COGlory 4y ago
  All of public education in Montana falls under the same clause in the state constitution. This is an attack on that clause.
nsajko 4y ago
Your comment provides some interesting context, but your perspective is twisted. You're basically saying that the current Republican state government should be allowed to make a putsch on the Uni Goverment, so that's why they're justified in attacking science. There's obviously multiple deficiencies of logic there.
- COGlory 4y ago
  All I'm saying is that this is the current climate. I'm not saying either side is right, just that when the Regents started exercising unilateral authority and ignoring the legislature, that this outcome was predictable.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman) Montana is a low population state (1.1 Million in 2021). If Missoula and Bozeman are growing as much as you say they are (" a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans") won't that have some effect on who the "average Montanan" is?
- COGlory 4y ago
  Probably eventually, but perhaps not quite yet. Montana is clearly in a transition phase.
- qbrass 4y ago
  The average Montanan is a cow, there are twice as many of them living there than people.
toss1 4y ago
Ummm... sounds great. Except that scientific facts are not democratic; they exist as they are, regardless of your or my opinion, I've never seen scientific theory presented as anything but "this is the current most effective explanation of the facts", and academic freedom is a subset of protected free speech. Politicians should not be even in the same continent as setting curricula. This is a general assertion that "regent picks were as hard left as possible", without the slightest bit of context as to the actual meaning of that statement. What "hard left" policies are they pursuing? Or is it just as "hard left as possible" in the context of an entirely anti-science right-wing caucus, meaning that they still have a slight tether to reality? (and sorry, but the entire basis of right wing rhetoric has been entirely anti-science and anti-education for the past decade; there is zero credibility there.) Let us be clear: In a democracy, all of the institutions of a society are independent, starting with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govt, and also the societal components of the press, academy, industry, religion, charity, etc. In an autocracy, all of these societal institutions are coerced and restructured to bend to the will of the executive or religious leaders. This is nothing less than a key component of a broad attempt to destroy democracy. Stop trying to justify it; it makes you look like an autocrat.
- COGlory 4y ago
  I am a PhD research scientist at one of these Montana universities. I am merely commenting on how the situation has played politically. But thank you for explaining to me what "scientific fact" is.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Congratulations — an impressive achievement! Yet how is it that you are here publicly writing and posting multiple paragraphs defending the existence and authors of a bill that would ban teaching scientific theories? There is little that is more anti-scientific than attempting to ban science. Whatever local politics may have lead to this, the larger and most relevant context is that the right wing in this country and internationally is making a major anti-science push, against every part of science from evolution to vaccines, in the interest of installing quasi- or actual Christo-fascist governments. This bill is part and parcel of that push, and no local politics, however heinous, can excuse that; yet here you are attempting to excuse it. Failing to recognize the borader anti-science context and not wholly objecting to it (despite some perceived positives regarding your resented board of regents) quite obscures and contradicts your scientific background and achievements. The appearance is that your local political outlook is more core to your being than all your laudable scientific work, to the point that it is not even evident that you did any.
molotovh 4y ago
Thank you for providing some local perspective. These things don't just happen in a vacuum but it can be hard to discern the threads that got us here without eyewitness accounts.

dd36 4y ago

What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Evolution is a tyranny to small minded people.
COGlory 4y ago
Science is not the target (maybe to this one freshman congressman, but not the greater legislative agenda). The row precipitated over a ballot initiative that gave Montanans the right to carry firearms on public property, including college campuses. The ballot initiative instructed the legislature to craft law outlining this. The legislature worked with the colleges for months coming up with a number of compromises in exchange for the university system not fighting the bill. After the bill was passed (remember, it was mandated by a direct public ballot initiative), the unelected Board of Regents sued to stop it on the grounds that they have complete authority over all policy on state campuses. The legislate argues that state law (and the state constitution gaurantees a right to bear arms) supercedes it. There have since been a number of minor skirmishes, while that main case is tied up in court. This is an attempt by the legislature to further erode the constitutional clause governing public education being seperately governed. Had the Board of Regents respected the ballot initiative, this likely would not be getting introduced, because the House leaders would have stopped it.
- dd36 4y ago
  Seems like they must sue if that’s the law? Otherwise they’re not independent as the law requires? Tyrannical seems like a stretch?

duxup 4y ago

I’m confused about how this all works together. There are a lot of gaps in this story and it sounds like a hysterical “outside people are moving into town” narrative. How are these regents “hard left”? How did the regents somehow attract “ a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans”? Aren’t cost of living issues a local issue around these campuses, at least as far as housing goes? Montana can’t be short on space… And what does any of that have to do with the bill in question? The bill is about k-12 education.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
And if "a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans" has been attracted isn't that likely changing the political climate since MT is a low population state?
- heyoni 4y ago
  I’m not familiar with Montana specifically but gerrymandering could buffer the effects of that influx.
twelve40 4y ago
it sounds plausible, I lived there and visit every once in a while. there is an influx of people for sure (just go check Wikipedia population numbers, esp. for towns mentioned) and it has nothing to do with the regents (and I don't think the parent said that) habitable space, at least in bozeman, is very tight because you're bounded by the Gallatin Valley, everything outside has little to none infrastructure to accommodate any meaningful incoming number of people, same situation as the SFBA - there is plenty of cheap space in central valley but people pay 1.5m+ to live right in sf. don't have enough info to vouch for the whole story, but sounds believable
- duxup 4y ago
  I’m not sure any population increase really means any of the other post’s story is true. Rural populations have been moving to suburban size towns for a long time now.

allturtles 4y ago

Whatever the merits of what you're saying, the bill in question is about K-12 education, so I don't see how it relates to any effort to rein in the universities.

COGlory 4y ago
All of public education in Montana falls under the same clause in the state constitution. This is an attack on that clause.

nsajko 4y ago

Your comment provides some interesting context, but your perspective is twisted. You're basically saying that the current Republican state government should be allowed to make a putsch on the Uni Goverment, so that's why they're justified in attacking science. There's obviously multiple deficiencies of logic there.

COGlory 4y ago
All I'm saying is that this is the current climate. I'm not saying either side is right, just that when the Regents started exercising unilateral authority and ignoring the legislature, that this outcome was predictable.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman) Montana is a low population state (1.1 Million in 2021). If Missoula and Bozeman are growing as much as you say they are (" a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans") won't that have some effect on who the "average Montanan" is?

COGlory 4y ago
Probably eventually, but perhaps not quite yet. Montana is clearly in a transition phase.
qbrass 4y ago
The average Montanan is a cow, there are twice as many of them living there than people.

toss1 4y ago

Ummm... sounds great. Except that scientific facts are not democratic; they exist as they are, regardless of your or my opinion, I've never seen scientific theory presented as anything but "this is the current most effective explanation of the facts", and academic freedom is a subset of protected free speech. Politicians should not be even in the same continent as setting curricula. This is a general assertion that "regent picks were as hard left as possible", without the slightest bit of context as to the actual meaning of that statement. What "hard left" policies are they pursuing? Or is it just as "hard left as possible" in the context of an entirely anti-science right-wing caucus, meaning that they still have a slight tether to reality? (and sorry, but the entire basis of right wing rhetoric has been entirely anti-science and anti-education for the past decade; there is zero credibility there.) Let us be clear: In a democracy, all of the institutions of a society are independent, starting with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govt, and also the societal components of the press, academy, industry, religion, charity, etc. In an autocracy, all of these societal institutions are coerced and restructured to bend to the will of the executive or religious leaders. This is nothing less than a key component of a broad attempt to destroy democracy. Stop trying to justify it; it makes you look like an autocrat.

COGlory 4y ago
I am a PhD research scientist at one of these Montana universities. I am merely commenting on how the situation has played politically. But thank you for explaining to me what "scientific fact" is.
- toss1 4y ago
  Congratulations — an impressive achievement! Yet how is it that you are here publicly writing and posting multiple paragraphs defending the existence and authors of a bill that would ban teaching scientific theories? There is little that is more anti-scientific than attempting to ban science. Whatever local politics may have lead to this, the larger and most relevant context is that the right wing in this country and internationally is making a major anti-science push, against every part of science from evolution to vaccines, in the interest of installing quasi- or actual Christo-fascist governments. This bill is part and parcel of that push, and no local politics, however heinous, can excuse that; yet here you are attempting to excuse it. Failing to recognize the borader anti-science context and not wholly objecting to it (despite some perceived positives regarding your resented board of regents) quite obscures and contradicts your scientific background and achievements. The appearance is that your local political outlook is more core to your being than all your laudable scientific work, to the point that it is not even evident that you did any.

molotovh 4y ago

Thank you for providing some local perspective. These things don't just happen in a vacuum but it can be hard to discern the threads that got us here without eyewitness accounts.