6 ms·
Texas governor signs law shutting diversity offices at public universities
- splendor_spoon 3y ago[flagged]
- macintux 3y ago[flagged]
- ethagknight 3y agoIts "big government" shutting down unnecessary public spend?
- esalman 3y agoBig government should not decide how public universities spend their money.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoPublic universities. Who else is going to decide how they spend their money? They're part of the government.
- esalman 3y agoIf you poll the public where the public universities are located, e.g. the major metropolitan areas, you'll probably find the majority support progressive agenda.
- shapenamer 3y agoWhy poll when you could actually vote and elect! Oh they do.
- esalman 3y agoYes, and Texas governor is flexing his big government hands by imposing state laws on progressive institutions and local constituencies because there's an impasse over property tax legislation a.k.a dick measuring contest going on and he has to throw his hat in the ring, and he does not like progressives anyway.
- growse 3y ago> Public universities. Who else is going to decide how they spend their money? They're part of the government. Small Government is as much about localism as it is about reducing the size of the government. So having a state-level legislature meddle in the inner workings of a university is absolutely Big Government.
- defen 3y agoThis is a pointless discussion. Even if it is Big Government (debatable), thinking that you're going to "gotcha" Republicans on their hypocrisy will have about as much effect as Republicans saying "See, Democrats are the REAL racists" in response to some policy that ostensibly harms Black people. This is a policy move designed to destroy a politically vulnerable patronage network on the other side. If the voters think this is bad policy they should vote in new politicians.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIt's a state university. It's funded by the state. Of course the state government is going to have oversight. If Austin wants the say in how a university is run, let Austin fund it.
- Ekaros 3y agoSmall government would not have public universities... So maybe that would be first step for one.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago> Small Government is as much about localism as it is about reducing the size of the government. "Small Governments" have no rights outside of what the Federal and State constitutions give them. This is known as the Dillon Rule. Localism also is debatable, since many of these big state Texas Unis are in big cities, e.g. U Texas is in the state capital of Austin -- right next to the state legislature. Other U T branch campuses are in other big cities but are ultimately part of the UT system.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoWho should decide how public universities spend taxpayer money?
- conductr 3y ago[flagged]
- nathanaldensr 3y ago"Everything I don't like is fascism."
- conductr 3y agoI'd normally agree with this. For most of my life the concept of fascism was a bit lost on me; a political concept in history books. However, in recent years there are certainly some members/subgroups of our politics that have brought real tangible policies/actions/words that fit the bill of fascism. Which is why I use the term and feel that Greg Abbott in Texas is a member of that cohort as evidenced by his body of work as Governor (and his general approach to deciding what to focus on). I've lived in Texas for almost 50 years so I feel I'm somewhat qualified to demarcate the fact he's cross the line into that territory even given we've had fairly conservative leaders most my life, this brand of it is different. That said, the term resurfacing these past handful of years is absolutely with reason. I'm not just name calling because I disagree on policy. Your comment is without sustenance and a lazy dismissal of a fairly serious concern.
- ralfn 3y agoUsing laws to tell how a private university should be run based on particular ideology would definately be fascism. You are not arguing in good faith. What if they passed laws trying to do the opposite? Wouldn't that be fascism too?
- shapenamer 3y ago"You're not arguing in good faith". You clearly didn't even read the headline, much less the article. Is that "good faith"? Set a good example for us lmao.
- paulddraper 3y agoUm. Good or bad, how is getting rid of government employees/services "big government"?
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago[flagged]
- suchire 3y agoFrank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
- slowmovintarget 3y agoThat's about as useful as saying Democrats sit on the left and Republicans on the right. It does not produce any understanding at all. And for the record, you can substitute Conservatism for Progressivism and the statement would carry no less veracity, and the same utility.
- Timon3 3y ago> That's about as useful as saying Democrats sit on the left and Republicans on the right. It does not produce any understanding at all. Then I think you misunderstand the quote. There is a very clear message in it. > And for the record, you can substitute Conservatism for Progressivism and the statement would carry no less veracity, and the same utility. No, you cannot. Progressivism is fundamentally based on moving towards equality, conservatism is not. This is why conservatism makes sense in the previous quote and progressivism doesn't.
- slowmovintarget 3y agoProgressivism obsesses over equality of outcome. Conservatism obsesses over equality of opportunity. In this respect the two groups often strive to solve the same problems, but disagree on the cause, leading to fundamental disagreements over policy. Progressives often demonize conservatives (the out-group to their in-group). This is why progressivism may be substituted in the quote.
- Timon3 3y ago> Progressivism obsesses over equality of outcome. No, that is inaccurate. Progressivism works towards equality of opportunity. > Conservatism obsesses over equality of opportunity. No, that is inaccurate. Conservatism works towards inequality of opportunity. > Progressives often demonize conservatives (the out-group to their in-group). This is why progressivism may be substituted in the quote. And yet progressives fight for equality of conservatives, whereas conservatives fight for inequality of progressives. This is why you can't substitute progressivism in the quote.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThis isn't the government telling a private institution what it can and can't do. This is the government deciding that it, the government, is no longer going to do something that it used to do. I struggle to see how you can label that "big government". (You can perhaps label it unwise, bigoted, a bunch of other things, but not big government.)
- tibbydudeza 3y ago[flagged]
- lockhouse 3y agoWhat problem are you alluding to? These offices are unnecessary. There is nothing “progressive” about making making decisions about admissions or hiring based upon irrelevant things like race, gender, or sexual identity.
- tibbydudeza 3y agoAnd you seem to forget that the Supreme Court had a case called Brown vs Dept Of Education in 1954 - not 1854 or 1754 but70 years ago. Do you think enough time has elapsed to make the issue moot in some US states ???.
- eindiran 3y agoSo long enough ago that the youngest voters of the time would be 87 today, significantly more than 1 sigma over the median life expectancy in the US?
- _2z1p 3y agoThere are people who are trying to bring back segregation, but they aren’t white conservatives: https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-without-white-people/ https://arrow-journal.org/why-people-of-color-need-spaces-wi...
- predictabl3 3y agoMinorities have congregated together, for all of history, for a reason.
- tzs 3y agoGender can be relevant, because at many full time universities the students live there and much of the social life is there. A good example was Caltech in 70s and 80s. When I was started there in the late '70s it was around 85%/15% male/female. Caltech is a hard school. There isn't a lot of time left over to develop much of a social life outside of campus. Whatever social life you had was going to be mostly on campus. On campus that 85/15 ratio made any kind of normal social life for the majority of the heterosexual male students very unlikely, leading to a lot of unhappy males. It was no picnic for the women either--they sometimes got overwhelmed at the amount of male attention almost constantly on them. In that kind of environment academics are affected. I knew a lot of people who definitely would have done better in class if they had been at a school that was just like Caltech except with a more balanced gender ratio. Caltech put a lot of effort in to boost the female percentage. They didn't give women any admissions preference or lower admission standards for women, but they did try to find high school girls who were qualified and convince them to apply to Caltech. Nowadays they are something like almost 60/40.
- Fellshard 3y ago[flagged]
- splendor_spoon 3y ago[flagged]
- MissTake 3y ago[flagged]
- predictabl3 3y ago[flagged]
- RecycledEle 3y agoI know the public universities in Texas will lie and say they followed Abbott's order, while still doing what they have done for decades.
- paddw 3y agoThe law seems designed to attract media attention for culture-war enthusiasts, rather than have any practical effect.
- samhuk 3y agoIt's not exactly technical, so I get that it's not 100% "on-brand" for HN, however it is a little sad that the post has to be flagged. It feels like the community isn't trusted with a political topic like this.
- foogazi 3y agoIsn’t the flagging done by the community?
- lockhouse 3y agoFrom the HN guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- samhuk 3y agoThat would be great, in theory, but: 1) This rule is not applied consistently, as we all know. 2) Doesn't the post represent new phenomenon? Has this thing happened before? (government taking real, tangible action against DEI in education, not just talk etc.). If not, then by guidelines, it should be ok, unless it's not "interesting" (whatever that means).
- red-iron-pine 3y agoAffirmative Action -- or DEI as it's referred to these days -- isn't new, nor are any of the debates. It's been a 'wedge issue' since the 80s, with various pushes and initiatives, and push-backs. Standard culture war stuff. Nothing to see here.
- samhuk 3y agoIn my experience on HN, there have been plenty of unflagged/un-deranked posts regarding DEI. Remember when the harvard admissions scandal occurred? There is obviously "things to see here", in some cases. In this case, there indeed may be some new phenomenon, which is real, effectful action against DEI in education, by government (at least in a long time and as far as my memory serves me). Calling something you (you personally) don't like to see, don't find interesting, or don't agree with as "just stuff, nothing worth seeing", is not the right way to approach discourse in online forums, wouldn't you agree? Personally, i'm undecided on the DEI hot button, but what I'm more passionate about is open discourse about it, not more of your philosophy of shutting it down.
- tzs 3y agoUT Austin is the only Texas public university that considers race for admissions. So what do the diversity offices actually do at the other Texas public universities?
- foogazi 3y agoDiversity, Equity and Inclusion are not restricted to race or admissions
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- rasse 3y agoGranting admission based partially on race, and subsequently blocking another individual's admission based on their race always seemed to be a racist practice.
- ofcourseyoudo 3y agoHow would you propose that institutions address the systemic bias that has favored white students from birth in this country for decades? Race-conscious admissions may indeed be the worst solution except for all of the other ones. Keep in mind that students are treated differently in damaging ways based on their race from kindergarten: "A September 2021 study published in the journal Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences found that teachers tended to complain more about Black students, particularly Black boys. These teachers identified Black students’ behavior as more problematic, compared with white students, the authors wrote, even though these differences “were not seen in directly observed behavior in the laboratory.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/half-of-the-250-kids-expelled-from-preschool-each-day-are-black-boys/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/half-of-the-250-k...
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoI am not in the US, so doesn't affect me directly, but as a white male, when if I'm excluded because I'm white, that feels like racism. I literally feel excluded because I'm white. All of this to say, I don't have a solution to your question, but that doesn't make the current answer a valid one. Racism is not solved with more racism, or the spiral of anger will continue
- rasse 3y agoI should've been more explicit in the fact that my comment wasn't primarily intended as a judgement or endorsement of the practice. I was just calling out the apparent racism. As for your question, for which I don't claim any expertise: I fully acknowledge the problem of systemic racism. I think the better an individual (both the oppressed and others) has control over their own actions and outcomes, the better. In this sense, quotas based on race would be worst solution, extra points based on race a little better, but less than optimal. As far as I'm concerned, if the problem is low application rate among minorities, actions should be aimed to boost these numbers. If the problem is poor performance on admission tests / GPA etc., actions should aim to boost these numbers.