4 ms·

The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to th

The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to the lecture in question which called out the specific name of a candidate. If the author made such a reference during her lecture, even if by accident, the organizers, officers of the executive branch, would be at risk of prosecution for sponsoring an election related event, which would be a complete pain in the ass even if they would be found innocent. Cancelling the lecture was prudent. Maybe postponing the lecture would been a more politic choice, but it was still a reasonable thing to do.

makk 2y ago
That is an unserious argument. Or, at least, one made in a vacuum. When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made. In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase. If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play. But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ). Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?
  - makk 2y ago
    If there is an equally well regarded academic who holds that contrasting view, then yes I agree with you have that lecture otherwise there is an appearance of favoritism. But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << If there is an equally well regarded academic And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? << But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists. In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )? I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring. Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically. I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.' [1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_United_States https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...
      - makk 2y ago
        << And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? Their peers.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Ahh, yes. Because policing themselves did such wonders for the industry? Not to mention, such a great job of securing the trust of the population. No dice.
        2y ago
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy That is a facile fucking thing for you to say. You have literally nothing on the line. You are saying "other people should risk going to jail for my beliefs". Fuck that, man.
  - makk 2y ago
    The internet has lost its mind.
wbl 2y ago
This is nowhere near a Hatch act violation. First off the Hatch Act doesn't apply to uniformed personnel. What does apply is https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... and I just don't see a lecture by a historian, even if it seems to touch on relevant material to the election as falling within it. And that's the case even if someone asks a question and later the conversation becomes more partisan. The traditions of academic freedom would say that speakers aren't identified with the Constitution. Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.

makk 2y ago

That is an unserious argument. Or, at least, one made in a vacuum. When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made. In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase. If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< the equitable decision is to have the lecture now. Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play. But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ). Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?
- makk 2y ago
  If there is an equally well regarded academic who holds that contrasting view, then yes I agree with you have that lecture otherwise there is an appearance of favoritism. But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << If there is an equally well regarded academic And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? << But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists. In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )? I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring. Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically. I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.' [1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_United_States https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...
    - makk 2y ago
      << And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You? Their peers.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Ahh, yes. Because policing themselves did such wonders for the industry? Not to mention, such a great job of securing the trust of the population. No dice.
        2y ago
throwawaymaths 2y ago
> If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy That is a facile fucking thing for you to say. You have literally nothing on the line. You are saying "other people should risk going to jail for my beliefs". Fuck that, man.
- makk 2y ago
  The internet has lost its mind.

wbl 2y ago

This is nowhere near a Hatch act violation. First off the Hatch Act doesn't apply to uniformed personnel. What does apply is https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... and I just don't see a lecture by a historian, even if it seems to touch on relevant material to the election as falling within it. And that's the case even if someone asks a question and later the conversation becomes more partisan. The traditions of academic freedom would say that speakers aren't identified with the Constitution. Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.