3 ms·

The org behind the article openly works from predrawn conclusions. The National Association of Scholars non-profit politically conservative education advocacy

The org behind the article openly works from predrawn conclusions. The National Association of Scholars non-profit politically conservative education advocacy organization. It advocates against multiculturalism, diversity policies, and against courses focused on race and gender issues. Originally called the Campus Coalition for Democracy, the National Association of Scholars was founded in 1987 ... with the goal of preserving the "Western intellectual heritage" Chapters of the NAS have been involved in a number of campus controversies ... In response to the [Duke University] NAS chapter formation, a larger group of faculty formed "Duke Faculty for Academic Tolerance".* ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Schola...

toomuchtodo 2y ago
That does not mean the discrimination surfaced does not exist. Regardless of their politics and values (in this particular case, those which I do not agree or align with), facts are facts (when supported by evidence). Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Always be building a paper trail. Nothing changes if you don’t publicly drag leadership making and sanctioning these decisions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  They start with a conclusion and work their way back to the cause. This isn't a process to discover problems but to identify enemies. This group's agenda and methods don't seem to be in dispute. One of those methods seems to be composing articles that give no hint of what is driving it.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    If someone’s agenda drives out actual malfeasance, such an agenda can be tolerated; if they libel or slander in the process, or harass, that should be prosecuted. Motivation drives discovery and results, but illegal behavior should not be tolerated regardless of party. It is not untenable to believe org leadership knew of this behavior, hence the discovery required. On the contrary, how can you be in a leadership role and not be involved in understanding talent operations that roll up to you? You’re either lying (actively directing), complacent (knew and did nothing), or incompetent (didn’t know when you should have known).
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      The ends justify the means isn't a persuasive argument. An article that is crafted to conceal it's agenda: This is more about luring than informing. And it's not a one-off; these folks are adept and comfortable with dishonesty. Nothing here indicates they're working from the high road.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        What road you work from is immaterial imho. All that matters is you’re looking for the truth until you bump against a legal boundary (at which point you should stop and reevaluate). As long as you’re not breaking the law, I don’t see a problem. Worst case, it’s annoying (and annoying people are a fact of life; I am annoying when I find a thread and refuse to stop pulling wrt investigative activism). Best case, evidence is discovered. Don’t break the law, but keep digging as long as you’ve got the energy and the means. If they’re dishonest, evidence it. If they break the law, prosecute. Everything else is fair game. Activism and the search for truth is a contact sport, and those who are perhaps disingenuous will always be with us. Sometimes, they are useful for aligned objectives.
        WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
        > What road you work from is immaterial imho. If we no longer care what road we're on, we've likely lost our way. > All that matters is you’re looking for the truth... Truth is a measurement. Much matters beyond it. > ... until you bump against a legal boundary Laws are contrivances intended to control. They aren't ethics; they aren't inherently good. They're a poor yardstick to determine whether behavior is ethical or good. > If they’re dishonest, evidence it. If they break the law, prosecute. Setting records straight requires resources + time and misdirection is cheap to produce. Well funded bad actors exhaust the resources of ethical people. This happens every day. > Everything else is fair game. A game of resources. > Activism and the search for truth is a contact sport. If measuring truth has become a sport, it's another sign we have lost our way.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Did you actually read or hear the evidence or are you just dismissing it entirely based on the source? So what if they did identify "enemies" - that could be said of anything that is worth arguing over, and frankly identifying a problem here is automatically going to identify "enemies" who cause those problems. Even if they started with a conclusion (which is just another way of saying they speculated like we all do), the evidence is absolutely damning. Let's say you don't believe the testimony of the professors that put their personal reputation and career on the line by challenging other deans, professors, and departments over racially discriminatory hiring practices. The University of Washington's own investigation found the hiring process was racially discriminatory and violating their own policy. It was so clearly racist that they made a public post about it (https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-action-after-faculty-hiring-process-inappropriately-used-race-as-a-factor/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-...) and literally barred the department from conducting its own hiring for faculty positions. It doesn't matter to me what group finds something like this. Discrimination is discrimination. I'm glad people are now pushing further to prove that this history of discrimination involved higher up people like the board of regents.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Diversity initiatives that alleged discrimination because they didn't like certain demographic distributions. Quite similar logic.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

That does not mean the discrimination surfaced does not exist. Regardless of their politics and values (in this particular case, those which I do not agree or align with), facts are facts (when supported by evidence). Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Always be building a paper trail. Nothing changes if you don’t publicly drag leadership making and sanctioning these decisions.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
They start with a conclusion and work their way back to the cause. This isn't a process to discover problems but to identify enemies. This group's agenda and methods don't seem to be in dispute. One of those methods seems to be composing articles that give no hint of what is driving it.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  If someone’s agenda drives out actual malfeasance, such an agenda can be tolerated; if they libel or slander in the process, or harass, that should be prosecuted. Motivation drives discovery and results, but illegal behavior should not be tolerated regardless of party. It is not untenable to believe org leadership knew of this behavior, hence the discovery required. On the contrary, how can you be in a leadership role and not be involved in understanding talent operations that roll up to you? You’re either lying (actively directing), complacent (knew and did nothing), or incompetent (didn’t know when you should have known).
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    The ends justify the means isn't a persuasive argument. An article that is crafted to conceal it's agenda: This is more about luring than informing. And it's not a one-off; these folks are adept and comfortable with dishonesty. Nothing here indicates they're working from the high road.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      What road you work from is immaterial imho. All that matters is you’re looking for the truth until you bump against a legal boundary (at which point you should stop and reevaluate). As long as you’re not breaking the law, I don’t see a problem. Worst case, it’s annoying (and annoying people are a fact of life; I am annoying when I find a thread and refuse to stop pulling wrt investigative activism). Best case, evidence is discovered. Don’t break the law, but keep digging as long as you’ve got the energy and the means. If they’re dishonest, evidence it. If they break the law, prosecute. Everything else is fair game. Activism and the search for truth is a contact sport, and those who are perhaps disingenuous will always be with us. Sometimes, they are useful for aligned objectives.
      - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
        > What road you work from is immaterial imho. If we no longer care what road we're on, we've likely lost our way. > All that matters is you’re looking for the truth... Truth is a measurement. Much matters beyond it. > ... until you bump against a legal boundary Laws are contrivances intended to control. They aren't ethics; they aren't inherently good. They're a poor yardstick to determine whether behavior is ethical or good. > If they’re dishonest, evidence it. If they break the law, prosecute. Setting records straight requires resources + time and misdirection is cheap to produce. Well funded bad actors exhaust the resources of ethical people. This happens every day. > Everything else is fair game. A game of resources. > Activism and the search for truth is a contact sport. If measuring truth has become a sport, it's another sign we have lost our way.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Did you actually read or hear the evidence or are you just dismissing it entirely based on the source? So what if they did identify "enemies" - that could be said of anything that is worth arguing over, and frankly identifying a problem here is automatically going to identify "enemies" who cause those problems. Even if they started with a conclusion (which is just another way of saying they speculated like we all do), the evidence is absolutely damning. Let's say you don't believe the testimony of the professors that put their personal reputation and career on the line by challenging other deans, professors, and departments over racially discriminatory hiring practices. The University of Washington's own investigation found the hiring process was racially discriminatory and violating their own policy. It was so clearly racist that they made a public post about it (https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-action-after-faculty-hiring-process-inappropriately-used-race-as-a-factor/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2023/10/31/university-takes-...) and literally barred the department from conducting its own hiring for faculty positions. It doesn't matter to me what group finds something like this. Discrimination is discrimination. I'm glad people are now pushing further to prove that this history of discrimination involved higher up people like the board of regents.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Diversity initiatives that alleged discrimination because they didn't like certain demographic distributions. Quite similar logic.