5 ms·

Don't forget California, where faculty is effectively required to engage in progressive political speech! https://archive.is/VDNPj https://archive.is/VDNPj

JohnMakin 3y ago
[flagged]
- jlkuester7 3y ago
  Seems pretty clear from the article that the expectations for professors was that they had to adhere, not to a general "don't be racist" code of conduct, but instead to a specific ideologies ("that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles"). I think it is reasonable to describe those ideologies as "progressive" (at least in the sense that they are promoted and promulgated almost exclusively by people who would describe themselves as progressive)...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tacticalturtle 3y ago
  Not sure what you mean by this - regardless of whether you agree with antiracism or progressivism- if you take them at face value, ie “progressivism” = reforming society to improve the average human condition, and “antiracism” = reforming society to be less racist, they seem fairly aligned, no? Also I suspect that the venn diagram of politicians who self-identify as anti-racist, vs politicians who self-identify as progressive is something very close to a circle. The binary nature of antiracism - if you’re not in agreement with antiracism you’re a racist - is not something I would associate with a middle of the road politician.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    It's pretty clear that what the person you are quoting to is referring to "progressive" as an action stemming from the political group colloquially referred to as "progressive" which is objectively distinct from the concept of progress and there is no reason why you need to pretend to be this obtuse!
- drak0n1c 3y ago
  "Anti-racist rhetoric" is a very recent ideological phenomenon that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice. It is possible for it to be flawed, prone to be implemented badly, or self-defeating and thus worthy of critique without being fired from academia (as in parent comment's example of California, or in Bret Weinstein's case). It is also commonly defended and advanced by progressives. So it seems appropriate to categorize it as progressive. Naming is not the be-all-end-all. If you think about the nomenclature of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is opposition to that country equivalent to "telling on yourself" as being against Democracy, Republics, Korea, or popular rule?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    >"that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice" What is this even supposed to mean? We can't be "not racist" unless its proven (by what means?) that its effective in remedying (how is this judged?) past racism? This is a platitude thats orders of magnitude greater than that which you are attempting to criticize.
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    It’s amazing how many people are easily manipulated by cynical word games. Amazing and extraordinarily depressing.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
  [dead]
burnte 3y ago
[flagged]
- celu 3y ago
  Many people believe what they teach works toward equality for all citizens, many people believe it undermines equality. Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation.
  - burnte 3y ago
    "Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation." If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them. Not all arguments have two worthwhile sides.
    - celu 3y ago
      The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant. Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people. Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
    - marcusverus 3y ago
      > versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". Happily the supreme court recently ruled against such notions. Progress!
- 3y ago
bloaf 3y ago
Did the California Community Colleges implement anti-racist policies because they believed they resulted in the best pedagogy, or because politicians told them to? This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/community-college-presidents-announce-alliance-aimed-at-combating-racism-on-campus https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/communit... That means it is not an analogue to the Texas scenario, where the university censured people because the politicians said to.
timcavel 3y ago
[dead]

JohnMakin 3y ago

[flagged]

jlkuester7 3y ago
Seems pretty clear from the article that the expectations for professors was that they had to adhere, not to a general "don't be racist" code of conduct, but instead to a specific ideologies ("that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles"). I think it is reasonable to describe those ideologies as "progressive" (at least in the sense that they are promoted and promulgated almost exclusively by people who would describe themselves as progressive)...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tacticalturtle 3y ago
Not sure what you mean by this - regardless of whether you agree with antiracism or progressivism- if you take them at face value, ie “progressivism” = reforming society to improve the average human condition, and “antiracism” = reforming society to be less racist, they seem fairly aligned, no? Also I suspect that the venn diagram of politicians who self-identify as anti-racist, vs politicians who self-identify as progressive is something very close to a circle. The binary nature of antiracism - if you’re not in agreement with antiracism you’re a racist - is not something I would associate with a middle of the road politician.
- freejazz 3y ago
  It's pretty clear that what the person you are quoting to is referring to "progressive" as an action stemming from the political group colloquially referred to as "progressive" which is objectively distinct from the concept of progress and there is no reason why you need to pretend to be this obtuse!
drak0n1c 3y ago
"Anti-racist rhetoric" is a very recent ideological phenomenon that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice. It is possible for it to be flawed, prone to be implemented badly, or self-defeating and thus worthy of critique without being fired from academia (as in parent comment's example of California, or in Bret Weinstein's case). It is also commonly defended and advanced by progressives. So it seems appropriate to categorize it as progressive. Naming is not the be-all-end-all. If you think about the nomenclature of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is opposition to that country equivalent to "telling on yourself" as being against Democracy, Republics, Korea, or popular rule?
- freejazz 3y ago
  >"that is not yet proven to be effective solution for past and present racial injustice" What is this even supposed to mean? We can't be "not racist" unless its proven (by what means?) that its effective in remedying (how is this judged?) past racism? This is a platitude thats orders of magnitude greater than that which you are attempting to criticize.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  It’s amazing how many people are easily manipulated by cynical word games. Amazing and extraordinarily depressing.
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]

burnte 3y ago

[flagged]

celu 3y ago
Many people believe what they teach works toward equality for all citizens, many people believe it undermines equality. Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation.
- burnte 3y ago
  "Regardless, teaching one side of a current controversy as fact in mandatory school is manipulation." If there were a real controversy, sure, but the sides here are "everyone is a human worthy of rights, protections, and opportunity," versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". One is tolerant, one is not. I am under no compulsion to be tolerant of intolerance. It is proper, ethical, and moral to fight for the rights of all humans, and it is improper, unethical, and immoral to fight against them. Not all arguments have two worthwhile sides.
  - celu 3y ago
    The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant. Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people. Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    > versus "some people deserve more and opportunity than others". Happily the supreme court recently ruled against such notions. Progress!
3y ago

bloaf 3y ago

Did the California Community Colleges implement anti-racist policies because they believed they resulted in the best pedagogy, or because politicians told them to? This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/community-college-presidents-announce-alliance-aimed-at-combating-racism-on-campus https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/communit... That means it is not an analogue to the Texas scenario, where the university censured people because the politicians said to.

timcavel 3y ago

[dead]