9 ms·

US memo to colleges proposes terms on ideology, foreign enrollment for fed funds

101 points by c420 1y ago

fabian2k 1y ago
> The 10-point memo urged viewpoint diversity in faculty, students and staff, including revising governance structures and "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So only conservative ideas deserve protection?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  “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.” Wilhoit's Law continues to be an accurate lens.
  - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
    That setup sounds like Apartheid Israel, before the genocide. Now they just bomb them. At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      > At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America. We seem to be doing our best to run there as fast as possible.
    - _verandaguy 1y ago
      > we're not at late stage Conservatism in America Many international observers would beg to differ.
      - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
        I was being sarcastic =)
- throwaway894345 1y ago
  Not only that, but this sounds a lot like DEI to me… I thought conservatives were against DEI?
  - Analemma_ 1y ago
    The objection was never the hegemony of a specific ideology: private evangelical universities like Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. have had much stricter demands on ideological conformity for much longer, and nobody raised a peep. The problem was always that it wasn't their ideology being promoted; anyone who thought otherwise and that their complaints about groupthink or whatever were genuine was a useful idiot for the regime.
  - codyb 1y ago
    It's great that they've declared war on DEI claiming it elevates people to positions they don't deserve to hold over more qualified candidates and then immediately proceed to elevate the least qualified, most corrupt, despicable pieces of shit they can find to every position they can while firing everyone who disagrees with anything they say.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    That’s exactly what it is. In the free marketplace of ideas, conservatism was gradually shut out because of its refusal to adapt to changing times. A populace embraces conservative values in generally two scenarios: a golden era that they don’t wish to see end and is dependent upon certain ideals, or a populist movement during a downturn or empirical collapse where a certain segment of the population seeks scapegoats instead of reform. Especially given the origins of the internet and the bulk of folks who maintain or create for it, conservative values were always the extreme minority. Rather than reform or improve their ideology and platform, they seek forced acceptance and indoctrination along with the exclusion or elimination of their perceived enemies. So yes, they’re using a form of coerced “DEI” to ensure their viewpoints are forcibly represented to a populace that has consistently told them to fuck off, but only for the narrative of DEI as a means of institutional harm against white conservatives.
    - 1y ago
- deeg 1y ago
  I wonder if Liberty Univ will be diversifying its viewpoint.
  - mc32 1y ago
    Does it get state and federal funding? If it does, it should conform. If it's private and does not get funding, then I guess it can continue doing what it does...
    - lokar 1y ago
      They count students paying with federal grants and loans, so yes.
    - matthewdgreen 1y ago
      A quick reminder that the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution bars the Federal government from forcing private institutions to participate in chosen political speech. The question of whether you get funding from the Federal Government should not matter, since it's the Federal Government that's constitutionally constrained from doing this. Of course if we're no longer in a place where the rule of law applies, then sentences like "if it's private and does not get funding..." hardly matter.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      Yes. It receives federal grant funding for its faculty. Students receive federal loans for tuition. And international students can receive visas to attend it.
- tdb7893 1y ago
  I think framing this stuff as even a protection of conservative views is going to miss the point. They seem to want a hiring preference for conservative views and seem to want to punish non-conservative organizations at universities (e.g. LGBT organizations or views). This won't be the end to this push, it's just another step in a longer context. Edit: with NSPM-7 you can sorta see the angle they are likely to push. With a lot of the oppositional views to the government being labelled as promoting terrorism and violence.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  Yes. And partisans who control the United States government will ensure their preferred political ideas get taught by private institutions under the guise of “ideological diversity”. No diversity will be required from conservative organizations. None of this is constitutional and none of it should be happening in our country.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Not just the US government but especially state governments, which control state universities: https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-audit-of-gender-studies-courses https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-aud... “The U.T. System has been reviewing courses on gender identity taught at all UT institutions to ensure compliance and alignment with applicable law and state and federal guidance, and to make sure any courses that are taught on UT campuses are aligned with the direction and priorities of the Board of Regents,” the UT System said in a statement to the Texan.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - carabiner 1y ago
    "Fight cancer," are you saying that AIDS doesn't matter?
- stronglikedan 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lokar 1y ago
    It has been well documented that conservative political violence far outnumbers liberal in the US.
    - josephg 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - pesus 1y ago
        > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. It doesn't matter if they "see" it that way. The statistics don't change because they don't like them.
        josephg 1y ago
        I know and I agree. But politics are more often driven by perception than reality.
      - rockercoaster 1y ago
        > Charlie Kirk. We'll see what shakes out of the trial, but odds are leaning that way, yeah. > The healthcare ceo. Last I checked the guy's history read as right-leaning and it was a personal grievance that motivated it? I remember this because lots of people online were surprised/disappointed when he turned out not to have clear leftist motivations. But I admit I haven't kept up on this since the first few weeks, maybe the picture's shifted again. > Multiple attempts on Trump’s life on the campaign trail. One right-leaning guy motivated by notoriety-seeking more than politics, and the second one was some nut with a very weird past (lots of felony charges including related to firearms but somehow also lots of foreign travel to conflict zones?) and tough-to-bucket politics. > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. Both sides of American politics think the other side has a worrying amount of political violence. One side's leaders routinely call for violence. The other's almost never do. There's a clear difference. There's even a clear difference with Republicans pre-Trump and the modern MAGA party—their talking heads used to sometimes call for political violence, but at least their elected and appointed officials rarely did. Both do, now, and have since Trump's first campaign (remember when he suggested his followers shoot Hillary if she won? On stage, to a crowd, with cameras and everything?)
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So what "units" do they think these are, and how are they supposedly doing it? Is that what the "units" themselves think they're doing?
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    The math and economics departments? They don't really specify, and it can easily be argued that those two departments belittle conservative ideals.
    - Hizonner 1y ago
      Could be. Although if that's what they're getting at, it's more likely they mean earth sciences and biology. "Yes, dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere has measurably changed the climate and is likely to change it more". "No, the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago, you moron." It's a fair cop.
      - Freedom2 1y ago
        Some, especially some smart HN commenters, would say that conservatives just want to have an honest discussion without being insulted or being made to feel their opinions are wrong by default.
        matthewdgreen 1y ago
        I think that's fair. But I also think table stakes for conservatives to expect an honest discussion and respect is to criticize and distance themselves from deeply wrong and unconstitutional proposals like the one in TFA.
        seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        How do you effectively deal with flat earthers, or people who believe other countries pay our tariffs? Or people who don't believe in graph slopes and just say "climate has changed before"?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- logicalmind 1y ago
  The problem I see is that the term "conservative" is not defined. There are many places where current "conservatives" would be at odds with "conservatives" of just a few years ago. If you're a fiscal conservative, where did the tea party go?, you'd by furious by the spending of the current "conservatives".
- hagbard_c 1y ago
  So you're saying [...] https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptomatic-of-the-biases-of-public-service-broadcasters/ https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptom... I suspect you are aware of the existing 'progressive' bias in academia and the dearth of 'institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against progressive ideas' on the average campus while the Humanities are rife with '${identity_group} studies' departments where the discourse is centred around challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose (a citation straight from Wikipedia and as such certainly approved by those same departments). As to whether the approach taken here is the best there is room for discussion. Instead of censoring those departments it may be more effective to have those institutions erect new departments which take aim at what those 'Studies' departments and others peddle as 'their truth'. Here's an idea, now listen well. Most if not all academical institutions have sporting arenas or at least access to them. How about they fight it out in those arenas, a regular (bi-weekly or monthly) battle of ideas between the ${identity_group} studies departments and their (equally well-funded and staffed) ideological opponents? Traditional debating rules shall be followed, no shout-me-downs, tantrums, walkouts, no paint or ketchup or pie throwing, none of the sort. If the debate ends inconclusive the fight may be continued in a boxing ring following amateur boxing rules and using protective gear. Outside of these battles the departments shall behave like normal, traditional academic institutions. If some studies department wishes to transform society through praxis and collective action they can do that in their own time, off-campus, using their own funding and at their own risk. This goes for all departments no matter where they stand politically.
colechristensen 1y ago
Democrats are cowards and will not stand up against any of this. Let us all acknowledge that we're watching America's descent into fascism and doing nothing about it. Watch your Democratic leaders in Congress stand by and do nothing but complain and appease. There will always be the would-be fascists in society, that's a constant. Whether or not there are leaders to oppose them varies. Or do we have to wait until the only opposition option is open war?
- ramesh31 1y ago
  >Whether or not there are leaders to oppose them varies. Or do we have to wait until the only opposition option is open war? No one in this country has the ability to care about anything at all anymore that isn't directly necessary for survival unless you're a millionaire (and we all know which side they're on). The result is that it makes the individually rational choice to keep your head down and just deal with it. We are at the brink, and there is just no other option than to watch in horror and pray you aren't affected.
  - zeven7 1y ago
    Together we can have a voice. But we need a good leader.
  - westmeal 1y ago
    There are options but those options won't end up well for you as an individual. The only way things can change is collective action and people are too glued to their social media bubbles to realize that we're not as different as we think.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      I'm not "glued to the social media bubble", I'm paying rent, so I don't end up on the street where a Fox News host says I should be forcibly murdered, and millions of my fellow citizens explicitly agree. I don't work for FAANG or make a huge salary, I don't own property, I don't have anything. Most of us aren't privileged enough to be able to walk away from work. I need medication to live a partially functional life. Am I supposed to just magically acquire that medication while I'm being fired from work, losing my insurance, and being arrested for daring to have a democratic opinion? Hell, my state is mostly Democrat right now. Am I supposed to go live in another state for a while and get arrested there so the right wing news can cry about how liberals are literally invading other states? We were screaming and crying about how all this was going to go down for decades. Some of us even back in the red scare days. We were called socialist and unamerican. But no, "Both sides" You would cry, or "Free market" to prevent us from reigning in corporations that own our lives. "We don't need a software developer union, what if the guy next to me makes more money! I can definitely negotiate better against literal behemoths than a collective group of people!" You cried.
perihelions 1y ago
This is completely unconstitutional. The journalist author fails the reader not explaining how the First Amendment works, or quoting a law expert who does. > "The guidance is likely to raise due process and privacy concerns in light of the Trump administration's recent attempts to deport pro-Palestinian students. The attempts have faced legal challenges." By "faced legal challenges" they should write they were ruled unconstitutional. https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-against https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-agains... ("[T]his Court rules that here the Plaintiffs have shown that Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only unconstitutional, but a thing virtually unknown to our constitutional tradition.")
- lapcat 1y ago
  Effectively, the Constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court justices say it is.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Effectively, the Constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court justices say it is The Supreme Court is more defined by acts of Congress than by the Constitution. The Constitution is ultimately what the Congress says it is.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
      Assuming a functional Supreme Court, not completely filled with partisan hacks.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Assuming a functional Supreme Court Nope. The whole point is the Congress can restructure the Supreme Court in highly profound ways. Shadow docket? The whole thing where the court chooses which cases it tries? The lack of a standard of ethics? These are not Constitutionally empowered. (Hell, the fact that the Supreme Court is a permanent bench of justices versus a rotating set chosen by lot for each case?) Worst case I guess you need 60 votes in the Senate to remove.
Hizonner 1y ago
Actual text: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Compact-for-Academic-Excellence-in-Higher-Education-10.1.pdf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...
- dormento 1y ago
  Accessing from South America: "Sorry, you have been blocked"
Hizonner 1y ago
This is fun... > Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. How do you teach political science, history, basically any social science, or even freaking literature, while doing that? Even if it only required you to be "neutral" (which is not what it says), that would be impossible. But most of it doesn't seem to be that blatant. The majority of the text seems to be about setting up expectations that sound reasonable until you see how they actually get interpreted later. Most of which is prolly still unconstitutional, mind you...
- bitshiftfaced 1y ago
  > How do you teach political science, history, basically any social science, or even freaking literature, while doing that? Even if it only required you to be "neutral" (which is not what it says), that would be impossible. By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive. As to whether staff should be allowed to make prescriptive statements, I think there's an argument for both sides. Personally, it irked me when professors used the time I paid for to "enlighten" me about their personal worldview during time that could've been used for learning about the subject and leaving the student to decide what to make of it.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive. First of all, what it says is that they aren't allowed to talk about those matters at all. Read it. Second, even if that were not the case, I guarantee that if you write what you think is a "descriptive" syllabus, there are a bunch of other people who'll think it's extremely biased political indoctrination.
    - bitshiftfaced 1y ago
      I did read it. It actually clarifies that staff/students can talk about politics in their individual capacity.
stego-tech 1y ago
I’m of two minds about these proposed changes. On the subject of surveilling foreign students without warrants and demanding schools hand over data when asked, fuck off. Students - domestic or international - deserve a campus where they can explore new ideas without fear of reprisal at home or abroad. This mandate is reprehensible, as is the mandate that these marketplaces of ideas demand students listen to viewpoints they consistently rebuff (conservatism, namely). Free speech means people are allowed to talk, not that others are required to listen or attend. On the other items, namely tuition caps and restrictions on foreign students…yeah, hate to say I agree with those, but I do. A domestic education system should prioritize domestic students, but the lax tuition rules in the USA has meant tuition surged to fleece foreign students at the expense of domestic students. Tuition is way too high given the return on investment, and the allowance of theoretically unlimited foreign enrollment means colleges don’t have to worry about domestic enrollment at all if they’re elite enough. This is the part I’ve been dreading, to be honest. Fuck the current regime, even if I agree with a few technical points along the way. They’re couching what I feel are decent policy changes in xenophobia and bigotry, which I refuse to abide by.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  The student paying expensive foreign tuition may increase resources rather than displacing anyone.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    Foreign students are in fact a major "profit center" for a lot of universities, and do in fact subsidize domestic students.
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      I will concede that I hear and see that narrative a lot, but short of compelling universities to disclose how that higher tuition is actually spent on subsidies for domestic students (what kinds of subsidies? How many benefitted? From what backgrounds? To what extent? Etc), I’m still hugely suspect on it.
fjejdjdndj 1y ago
[flagged]
duxup 1y ago
>Some of the most sweeping commitments are aimed at promoting conservative viewpoints. Universities would have to ensure their campuses are a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” where no single ideology is dominant, the compact said. They would have to evaluate views among students and faculty to ensure every department reflects a diverse mix of views. Thought police. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asks-9-colleges-to-commit-to-his-political-agenda-for-better-access-to-federal-money https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asks-9-colleges-...

101 points by c420 1y ago

> The 10-point memo urged viewpoint diversity in faculty, students and staff, including revising governance structures and "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So only conservative ideas deserve protection?

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
“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.” Wilhoit's Law continues to be an accurate lens.
- nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
  That setup sounds like Apartheid Israel, before the genocide. Now they just bomb them. At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    > At least we're not at late stage Conservatism in America. We seem to be doing our best to run there as fast as possible.
  - _verandaguy 1y ago
    > we're not at late stage Conservatism in America Many international observers would beg to differ.
    - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
      I was being sarcastic =)
throwaway894345 1y ago
Not only that, but this sounds a lot like DEI to me… I thought conservatives were against DEI?
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  The objection was never the hegemony of a specific ideology: private evangelical universities like Liberty, Bob Jones, etc. have had much stricter demands on ideological conformity for much longer, and nobody raised a peep. The problem was always that it wasn't their ideology being promoted; anyone who thought otherwise and that their complaints about groupthink or whatever were genuine was a useful idiot for the regime.
- codyb 1y ago
  It's great that they've declared war on DEI claiming it elevates people to positions they don't deserve to hold over more qualified candidates and then immediately proceed to elevate the least qualified, most corrupt, despicable pieces of shit they can find to every position they can while firing everyone who disagrees with anything they say.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  That’s exactly what it is. In the free marketplace of ideas, conservatism was gradually shut out because of its refusal to adapt to changing times. A populace embraces conservative values in generally two scenarios: a golden era that they don’t wish to see end and is dependent upon certain ideals, or a populist movement during a downturn or empirical collapse where a certain segment of the population seeks scapegoats instead of reform. Especially given the origins of the internet and the bulk of folks who maintain or create for it, conservative values were always the extreme minority. Rather than reform or improve their ideology and platform, they seek forced acceptance and indoctrination along with the exclusion or elimination of their perceived enemies. So yes, they’re using a form of coerced “DEI” to ensure their viewpoints are forcibly represented to a populace that has consistently told them to fuck off, but only for the narrative of DEI as a means of institutional harm against white conservatives.
  - 1y ago
deeg 1y ago
I wonder if Liberty Univ will be diversifying its viewpoint.
- mc32 1y ago
  Does it get state and federal funding? If it does, it should conform. If it's private and does not get funding, then I guess it can continue doing what it does...
  - lokar 1y ago
    They count students paying with federal grants and loans, so yes.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    A quick reminder that the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution bars the Federal government from forcing private institutions to participate in chosen political speech. The question of whether you get funding from the Federal Government should not matter, since it's the Federal Government that's constitutionally constrained from doing this. Of course if we're no longer in a place where the rule of law applies, then sentences like "if it's private and does not get funding..." hardly matter.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Yes. It receives federal grant funding for its faculty. Students receive federal loans for tuition. And international students can receive visas to attend it.
tdb7893 1y ago
I think framing this stuff as even a protection of conservative views is going to miss the point. They seem to want a hiring preference for conservative views and seem to want to punish non-conservative organizations at universities (e.g. LGBT organizations or views). This won't be the end to this push, it's just another step in a longer context. Edit: with NSPM-7 you can sorta see the angle they are likely to push. With a lot of the oppositional views to the government being labelled as promoting terrorism and violence.
matthewdgreen 1y ago
Yes. And partisans who control the United States government will ensure their preferred political ideas get taught by private institutions under the guise of “ideological diversity”. No diversity will be required from conservative organizations. None of this is constitutional and none of it should be happening in our country.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Not just the US government but especially state governments, which control state universities: https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-audit-of-gender-studies-courses https://thedailytexan.com/2025/09/30/ut-system-announces-aud... “The U.T. System has been reviewing courses on gender identity taught at all UT institutions to ensure compliance and alignment with applicable law and state and federal guidance, and to make sure any courses that are taught on UT campuses are aligned with the direction and priorities of the Board of Regents,” the UT System said in a statement to the Texan.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
[flagged]
- carabiner 1y ago
  "Fight cancer," are you saying that AIDS doesn't matter?
stronglikedan 1y ago
[flagged]
- lokar 1y ago
  It has been well documented that conservative political violence far outnumbers liberal in the US.
  - josephg 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - pesus 1y ago
      > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. It doesn't matter if they "see" it that way. The statistics don't change because they don't like them.
      - josephg 1y ago
        I know and I agree. But politics are more often driven by perception than reality.
    - rockercoaster 1y ago
      > Charlie Kirk. We'll see what shakes out of the trial, but odds are leaning that way, yeah. > The healthcare ceo. Last I checked the guy's history read as right-leaning and it was a personal grievance that motivated it? I remember this because lots of people online were surprised/disappointed when he turned out not to have clear leftist motivations. But I admit I haven't kept up on this since the first few weeks, maybe the picture's shifted again. > Multiple attempts on Trump’s life on the campaign trail. One right-leaning guy motivated by notoriety-seeking more than politics, and the second one was some nut with a very weird past (lots of felony charges including related to firearms but somehow also lots of foreign travel to conflict zones?) and tough-to-bucket politics. > People on the left think conservative political violence is worse. But conservatives don’t see it that way. Both sides of American politics think the other side has a worrying amount of political violence. One side's leaders routinely call for violence. The other's almost never do. There's a clear difference. There's even a clear difference with Republicans pre-Trump and the modern MAGA party—their talking heads used to sometimes call for political violence, but at least their elected and appointed officials rarely did. Both do, now, and have since Trump's first campaign (remember when he suggested his followers shoot Hillary if she won? On stage, to a crowd, with cameras and everything?)
Hizonner 1y ago
> "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas." So what "units" do they think these are, and how are they supposedly doing it? Is that what the "units" themselves think they're doing?
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  The math and economics departments? They don't really specify, and it can easily be argued that those two departments belittle conservative ideals.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    Could be. Although if that's what they're getting at, it's more likely they mean earth sciences and biology. "Yes, dumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere has measurably changed the climate and is likely to change it more". "No, the world was not created in 6 days 6000 years ago, you moron." It's a fair cop.
    - Freedom2 1y ago
      Some, especially some smart HN commenters, would say that conservatives just want to have an honest discussion without being insulted or being made to feel their opinions are wrong by default.
      - matthewdgreen 1y ago
        I think that's fair. But I also think table stakes for conservatives to expect an honest discussion and respect is to criticize and distance themselves from deeply wrong and unconstitutional proposals like the one in TFA.
      - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        How do you effectively deal with flat earthers, or people who believe other countries pay our tariffs? Or people who don't believe in graph slopes and just say "climate has changed before"?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
logicalmind 1y ago
The problem I see is that the term "conservative" is not defined. There are many places where current "conservatives" would be at odds with "conservatives" of just a few years ago. If you're a fiscal conservative, where did the tea party go?, you'd by furious by the spending of the current "conservatives".
hagbard_c 1y ago
So you're saying [...] https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptomatic-of-the-biases-of-public-service-broadcasters/ https://iea.org.uk/the-newman-peterson-interview-was-symptom... I suspect you are aware of the existing 'progressive' bias in academia and the dearth of 'institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against progressive ideas' on the average campus while the Humanities are rife with '${identity_group} studies' departments where the discourse is centred around challenging systemic power relations in society, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. Beyond just understanding and critiquing these dynamics, it explicitly aims to transform society through praxis and collective action with an explicit sociopolitical purpose (a citation straight from Wikipedia and as such certainly approved by those same departments). As to whether the approach taken here is the best there is room for discussion. Instead of censoring those departments it may be more effective to have those institutions erect new departments which take aim at what those 'Studies' departments and others peddle as 'their truth'. Here's an idea, now listen well. Most if not all academical institutions have sporting arenas or at least access to them. How about they fight it out in those arenas, a regular (bi-weekly or monthly) battle of ideas between the ${identity_group} studies departments and their (equally well-funded and staffed) ideological opponents? Traditional debating rules shall be followed, no shout-me-downs, tantrums, walkouts, no paint or ketchup or pie throwing, none of the sort. If the debate ends inconclusive the fight may be continued in a boxing ring following amateur boxing rules and using protective gear. Outside of these battles the departments shall behave like normal, traditional academic institutions. If some studies department wishes to transform society through praxis and collective action they can do that in their own time, off-campus, using their own funding and at their own risk. This goes for all departments no matter where they stand politically.

colechristensen 1y ago

Democrats are cowards and will not stand up against any of this. Let us all acknowledge that we're watching America's descent into fascism and doing nothing about it. Watch your Democratic leaders in Congress stand by and do nothing but complain and appease. There will always be the would-be fascists in society, that's a constant. Whether or not there are leaders to oppose them varies. Or do we have to wait until the only opposition option is open war?

ramesh31 1y ago
>Whether or not there are leaders to oppose them varies. Or do we have to wait until the only opposition option is open war? No one in this country has the ability to care about anything at all anymore that isn't directly necessary for survival unless you're a millionaire (and we all know which side they're on). The result is that it makes the individually rational choice to keep your head down and just deal with it. We are at the brink, and there is just no other option than to watch in horror and pray you aren't affected.
- zeven7 1y ago
  Together we can have a voice. But we need a good leader.
- westmeal 1y ago
  There are options but those options won't end up well for you as an individual. The only way things can change is collective action and people are too glued to their social media bubbles to realize that we're not as different as we think.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    I'm not "glued to the social media bubble", I'm paying rent, so I don't end up on the street where a Fox News host says I should be forcibly murdered, and millions of my fellow citizens explicitly agree. I don't work for FAANG or make a huge salary, I don't own property, I don't have anything. Most of us aren't privileged enough to be able to walk away from work. I need medication to live a partially functional life. Am I supposed to just magically acquire that medication while I'm being fired from work, losing my insurance, and being arrested for daring to have a democratic opinion? Hell, my state is mostly Democrat right now. Am I supposed to go live in another state for a while and get arrested there so the right wing news can cry about how liberals are literally invading other states? We were screaming and crying about how all this was going to go down for decades. Some of us even back in the red scare days. We were called socialist and unamerican. But no, "Both sides" You would cry, or "Free market" to prevent us from reigning in corporations that own our lives. "We don't need a software developer union, what if the guy next to me makes more money! I can definitely negotiate better against literal behemoths than a collective group of people!" You cried.

perihelions 1y ago

This is completely unconstitutional. The journalist author fails the reader not explaining how the First Amendment works, or quoting a law expert who does. > "The guidance is likely to raise due process and privacy concerns in light of the Trump administration's recent attempts to deport pro-Palestinian students. The attempts have faced legal challenges." By "faced legal challenges" they should write they were ruled unconstitutional. https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-against https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-agains... ("[T]his Court rules that here the Plaintiffs have shown that Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only unconstitutional, but a thing virtually unknown to our constitutional tradition.")

lapcat 1y ago
Effectively, the Constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court justices say it is.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Effectively, the Constitution is whatever 5 Supreme Court justices say it is The Supreme Court is more defined by acts of Congress than by the Constitution. The Constitution is ultimately what the Congress says it is.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
    Assuming a functional Supreme Court, not completely filled with partisan hacks.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Assuming a functional Supreme Court Nope. The whole point is the Congress can restructure the Supreme Court in highly profound ways. Shadow docket? The whole thing where the court chooses which cases it tries? The lack of a standard of ethics? These are not Constitutionally empowered. (Hell, the fact that the Supreme Court is a permanent bench of justices versus a rotating set chosen by lot for each case?) Worst case I guess you need 60 votes in the Senate to remove.

Hizonner 1y ago

Actual text: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Compact-for-Academic-Excellence-in-Higher-Education-10.1.pdf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...

dormento 1y ago
Accessing from South America: "Sorry, you have been blocked"

Hizonner 1y ago

This is fun... > Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. How do you teach political science, history, basically any social science, or even freaking literature, while doing that? Even if it only required you to be "neutral" (which is not what it says), that would be impossible. But most of it doesn't seem to be that blatant. The majority of the text seems to be about setting up expectations that sound reasonable until you see how they actually get interpreted later. Most of which is prolly still unconstitutional, mind you...

bitshiftfaced 1y ago
> How do you teach political science, history, basically any social science, or even freaking literature, while doing that? Even if it only required you to be "neutral" (which is not what it says), that would be impossible. By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive. As to whether staff should be allowed to make prescriptive statements, I think there's an argument for both sides. Personally, it irked me when professors used the time I paid for to "enlighten" me about their personal worldview during time that could've been used for learning about the subject and leaving the student to decide what to make of it.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive. First of all, what it says is that they aren't allowed to talk about those matters at all. Read it. Second, even if that were not the case, I guarantee that if you write what you think is a "descriptive" syllabus, there are a bunch of other people who'll think it's extremely biased political indoctrination.
  - bitshiftfaced 1y ago
    I did read it. It actually clarifies that staff/students can talk about politics in their individual capacity.

stego-tech 1y ago

I’m of two minds about these proposed changes. On the subject of surveilling foreign students without warrants and demanding schools hand over data when asked, fuck off. Students - domestic or international - deserve a campus where they can explore new ideas without fear of reprisal at home or abroad. This mandate is reprehensible, as is the mandate that these marketplaces of ideas demand students listen to viewpoints they consistently rebuff (conservatism, namely). Free speech means people are allowed to talk, not that others are required to listen or attend. On the other items, namely tuition caps and restrictions on foreign students…yeah, hate to say I agree with those, but I do. A domestic education system should prioritize domestic students, but the lax tuition rules in the USA has meant tuition surged to fleece foreign students at the expense of domestic students. Tuition is way too high given the return on investment, and the allowance of theoretically unlimited foreign enrollment means colleges don’t have to worry about domestic enrollment at all if they’re elite enough. This is the part I’ve been dreading, to be honest. Fuck the current regime, even if I agree with a few technical points along the way. They’re couching what I feel are decent policy changes in xenophobia and bigotry, which I refuse to abide by.

maxerickson 1y ago
The student paying expensive foreign tuition may increase resources rather than displacing anyone.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  Foreign students are in fact a major "profit center" for a lot of universities, and do in fact subsidize domestic students.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    I will concede that I hear and see that narrative a lot, but short of compelling universities to disclose how that higher tuition is actually spent on subsidies for domestic students (what kinds of subsidies? How many benefitted? From what backgrounds? To what extent? Etc), I’m still hugely suspect on it.

fjejdjdndj 1y ago

[flagged]

duxup 1y ago

>Some of the most sweeping commitments are aimed at promoting conservative viewpoints. Universities would have to ensure their campuses are a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” where no single ideology is dominant, the compact said. They would have to evaluate views among students and faculty to ensure every department reflects a diverse mix of views. Thought police. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asks-9-colleges-to-commit-to-his-political-agenda-for-better-access-to-federal-money https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asks-9-colleges-...