5 ms·

The administration is saying “hire and promote faculty and admit students based on scholarly merit, not ideology and activism”. Universities are saying “no, we

by imgabe 1y ago

The administration is saying “hire and promote faculty and admit students based on scholarly merit, not ideology and activism”. Universities are saying “no, we want to keep doing the ideology stuff”. That is anti-intellectual.

croes 1y ago
The administration defines what ideology is and given the current administration claims it’s based on merit and given the nonsense they do economically, scientifically and militarily they are the ideological activists. Not to mention that they are clearly hired based on gender and skin color. RFK jr., really?
intermerda 1y ago
And you’re taking words of this administration at face value, correct?
- imgabe 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    What words? What university? Who at the university? Edit: My comment was that the admin is anti intellectual and I provided quotes from JD Vance on all universities and professors.
    - imgabe 1y ago
      Gosh, I don't know. If only there were a link to a statement by a university somewhere here.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Unless you have evidence Vance is lying why wouldn't I?
Braxton1980 1y ago
>no, we want to keep doing the ideology stuff How is this anti-intellectual?
- imgabe 1y ago
  Applicants for faculty positions are required to submit "diversity statements" expressing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This statement is evaluated before any of their other qualifications, like their standing in the field, number and quality of publications, teaching experience, you know, the intellectual quality of their work. If they are judged to be insufficiently committed to the DEI ideology, then their application is rejected without further review, regardless of how qualified they might otherwise be. That is anti-intellectual. That is before we even get into the explicitly racist hiring and admissions policies.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >If they are judged to be insufficiently committed to the DEI ideology, then their application is rejected without further review, Evidence
    - imgabe 1y ago
      > growing number of states and schools have also begun eliminating requirements that job applicants furnish “diversity statements” — written commitments to particular ideas about diversity and how to achieve it that, at some institutions, have functionally served as litmus tests in hiring. https://archive.is/UeZ2A#selection-5289.442-5297.27 https://archive.is/UeZ2A#selection-5289.442-5297.27 > Chavous and her colleagues did not collect demographic information from applicants. Instead, they were asked to submit statements addressing how they would advance D.E.I. goals, whether through research into “race, gender, diversity, equity and inclusion,” “significant academic achievement in the face of barriers” or “commitment to allyhood through learning about structural inequities.” Departments were invited to nominate candidates from an application pool created by the diversity center, which then oversaw further vetting. https://archive.is/i6Gv9#selection-1183.358-1187.413 https://archive.is/i6Gv9#selection-1183.358-1187.413 Ohio State Reports: DEI Litmus Test https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ohio-state-reports-dei-litmus-tests https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ohio-state-reports-dei-lit...
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
No, that's a lie and you know it's a lie. The administration specifically demanded that Harvard must submit to viewpoint diversity audits, hiring faculty and admitting students as necessary to make sure that every department has a balance of viewpoints the government finds acceptable.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  So they need to have a department to ensure a diversity of views are included?
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    No, that wasn't sufficient. The government specifically demanded that Harvard must commission a government-approved external party to audit viewpoint diversity, and must promise in advance to follow its recommendations, for each of the next three years.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      So a government run DEI department? You're aren't the original person but that's my gotcha
- imgabe 1y ago
  No, it's not a lie that the administration said universities should hire and admit students based on merit. The administration's letter is linked from the university's statement. You can go read it. It's the very first two points. It's true they also said they want viewpoint diversity quotas and audits. I agree that goes too far. I think they would probably give that up if the university pushed back. This is what Trump does every time - make outlandish demands so you have something to give up in negotiation. He even wrote an entire book telling you exactly that's what he does, yet somehow the "intellectual elite" cannot wrap their heads around a very simple negotiating tactic. Every plumber, electrician, and carpenter that ever worked with Trump figured this out decades ago.
Braxton1980 1y ago
But the Trump administration wants to punish students who don't conform to pro Israel views/ideology.
- imgabe 1y ago
  The administration wants to revoke visas for non-US citizens who come here under the pretense of education and then instead advocate for terrorist groups that are hostile to the interests of the US and its allies. No, that isn't the same. Why is the US government expected to fund people who want to destroy the US government? Should you be required to pay people who want to kill you?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >The administration wants to revoke visas for non-US citizens who come here under the pretense of education and instead advocate for terrorist groups. 1. You can get an education while advocating for causes 2. The letter doesn't only say advocating for a terrorist group. From the gov demand letter: "International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism." >Why is the US government expected to fund people who want to destroy the US government? 1. They aren't, Harvard does 2. Federal grants aren't targeted to specific students so revoking them isn't a targetted punishment 3. Harvard can still operate without these grants, including bringing in international students who the current admin might disagree with. 4. The US government gives money to people who want to destroy it all the time. Welfare, social security, etc is given to anti-gov US citizens with no restrictions based on those views. 5. Although only proposed Trump wanted to set up a fund for January 6th protestors who he pardoned. Some of whom attacked the US capital to disrupt a Democratic election process. >Should you be required to pay people who want to kill you? No. How is that related to this? You just overly generalized the entire situation in order to produce a question where I'd mostly likely to say "no" as a argument manipulation tactic.
mortarion 1y ago
The people in the administration were not admitted to their universities based on merits, they paid to get in and they paid for their degree. This is especially true for POTUS who holds an entirely fake degree bought and paid for by his father.

by imgabe 1y ago

croes 1y ago

The administration defines what ideology is and given the current administration claims it’s based on merit and given the nonsense they do economically, scientifically and militarily they are the ideological activists. Not to mention that they are clearly hired based on gender and skin color. RFK jr., really?

intermerda 1y ago

And you’re taking words of this administration at face value, correct?

imgabe 1y ago
[flagged]
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  What words? What university? Who at the university? Edit: My comment was that the admin is anti intellectual and I provided quotes from JD Vance on all universities and professors.
  - imgabe 1y ago
    Gosh, I don't know. If only there were a link to a statement by a university somewhere here.
Braxton1980 1y ago
Unless you have evidence Vance is lying why wouldn't I?

Braxton1980 1y ago

>no, we want to keep doing the ideology stuff How is this anti-intellectual?

imgabe 1y ago
Applicants for faculty positions are required to submit "diversity statements" expressing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This statement is evaluated before any of their other qualifications, like their standing in the field, number and quality of publications, teaching experience, you know, the intellectual quality of their work. If they are judged to be insufficiently committed to the DEI ideology, then their application is rejected without further review, regardless of how qualified they might otherwise be. That is anti-intellectual. That is before we even get into the explicitly racist hiring and admissions policies.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >If they are judged to be insufficiently committed to the DEI ideology, then their application is rejected without further review, Evidence
  - imgabe 1y ago
    > growing number of states and schools have also begun eliminating requirements that job applicants furnish “diversity statements” — written commitments to particular ideas about diversity and how to achieve it that, at some institutions, have functionally served as litmus tests in hiring. https://archive.is/UeZ2A#selection-5289.442-5297.27 https://archive.is/UeZ2A#selection-5289.442-5297.27 > Chavous and her colleagues did not collect demographic information from applicants. Instead, they were asked to submit statements addressing how they would advance D.E.I. goals, whether through research into “race, gender, diversity, equity and inclusion,” “significant academic achievement in the face of barriers” or “commitment to allyhood through learning about structural inequities.” Departments were invited to nominate candidates from an application pool created by the diversity center, which then oversaw further vetting. https://archive.is/i6Gv9#selection-1183.358-1187.413 https://archive.is/i6Gv9#selection-1183.358-1187.413 Ohio State Reports: DEI Litmus Test https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ohio-state-reports-dei-litmus-tests https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/ohio-state-reports-dei-lit...

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

No, that's a lie and you know it's a lie. The administration specifically demanded that Harvard must submit to viewpoint diversity audits, hiring faculty and admitting students as necessary to make sure that every department has a balance of viewpoints the government finds acceptable.

Braxton1980 1y ago
So they need to have a department to ensure a diversity of views are included?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  No, that wasn't sufficient. The government specifically demanded that Harvard must commission a government-approved external party to audit viewpoint diversity, and must promise in advance to follow its recommendations, for each of the next three years.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    So a government run DEI department? You're aren't the original person but that's my gotcha
imgabe 1y ago
No, it's not a lie that the administration said universities should hire and admit students based on merit. The administration's letter is linked from the university's statement. You can go read it. It's the very first two points. It's true they also said they want viewpoint diversity quotas and audits. I agree that goes too far. I think they would probably give that up if the university pushed back. This is what Trump does every time - make outlandish demands so you have something to give up in negotiation. He even wrote an entire book telling you exactly that's what he does, yet somehow the "intellectual elite" cannot wrap their heads around a very simple negotiating tactic. Every plumber, electrician, and carpenter that ever worked with Trump figured this out decades ago.

Braxton1980 1y ago

But the Trump administration wants to punish students who don't conform to pro Israel views/ideology.

imgabe 1y ago
The administration wants to revoke visas for non-US citizens who come here under the pretense of education and then instead advocate for terrorist groups that are hostile to the interests of the US and its allies. No, that isn't the same. Why is the US government expected to fund people who want to destroy the US government? Should you be required to pay people who want to kill you?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >The administration wants to revoke visas for non-US citizens who come here under the pretense of education and instead advocate for terrorist groups. 1. You can get an education while advocating for causes 2. The letter doesn't only say advocating for a terrorist group. From the gov demand letter: "International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism." >Why is the US government expected to fund people who want to destroy the US government? 1. They aren't, Harvard does 2. Federal grants aren't targeted to specific students so revoking them isn't a targetted punishment 3. Harvard can still operate without these grants, including bringing in international students who the current admin might disagree with. 4. The US government gives money to people who want to destroy it all the time. Welfare, social security, etc is given to anti-gov US citizens with no restrictions based on those views. 5. Although only proposed Trump wanted to set up a fund for January 6th protestors who he pardoned. Some of whom attacked the US capital to disrupt a Democratic election process. >Should you be required to pay people who want to kill you? No. How is that related to this? You just overly generalized the entire situation in order to produce a question where I'd mostly likely to say "no" as a argument manipulation tactic.

mortarion 1y ago

The people in the administration were not admitted to their universities based on merits, they paid to get in and they paid for their degree. This is especially true for POTUS who holds an entirely fake degree bought and paid for by his father.