6 ms·

This seems like a reasonable response by MIT. I’m struggling to understand where the core disagreement lies though. Would someone who is opposed to this “compac

This seems like a reasonable response by MIT. I’m struggling to understand where the core disagreement lies though. Would someone who is opposed to this “compact” care to explain their view? I’m not interested in baseless name-calling (“fascist” etc) but I am interested in cogent reasoning. I didn’t read the compact itself, but I did read the wikipedia article about it, and it seems to be a very positive set of criteria (safeguarding individuality and merit, protecting against the formation of ideological monoculture, protecting against hostile nation-state actors, etc) It’s bizarre actually, because these institutions should be doing all of these things already. I don’t know what to make of the fact that they aren’t.

mtalantikite 1y ago
Regardless of what is in the compact, it's important that our educational institutions have independence to run themselves as they see fit. To make funding conditional to a set of demands by the government takes away that independence.
- jtbayly 1y ago
  He who pays the piper... This is why a couple of conservative schools don't accept any sort of federal money. Liberal schools might be considering doing the same. Otherwise, yes, an independent school can do what they want. If you want to be truly independent, you have to be willing to walk away from the money. Anybody that gives money can attach conditions to it, including the government.
- kjksf 1y ago
  That is obviously the case that federal money comes with strings and strings curtail independence. What you seem to imply that there should be no strings. Which is a position you can have but it has never been the case. To wit, one of the things this compact wants is an enforcement of civil rights act and Biden admin did the same thing: > The most important stipulation during the Biden administration attached to federal funding for universities was compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including discrimination against Jewish students through antisemitic harassment or hostility on campus. Universities that fail to adequately address such issues risk federal investigations by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and potential loss of funding. > Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests, the administration opened over 100 Title VI investigations into universities for alleged antisemitic discrimination—more than in the entire previous four years combined. This included guidance like a May 2024 "Dear Colleague" letter to colleges outlining examples of prohibited conduct, such as denying Jewish students equal access to education or tolerating harassment.
  - mtalantikite 1y ago
    I didn't say there should be no strings. I believe institutions should follow laws, and if they or society find those laws to be unjust, we have recourse through our democratic institutions. The Civil Rights Act was legislation put into place by Congress, signed by LBJ, and upheld by the Supreme Court. This compact was a letter sent by the White House telling universities to fall in line with their demands or be refused funding. I find those to be two completely different things.
jmathai 1y ago
I think decisions based off race, sex, etc. could probably be eased off a bit. But I don’t know that it should be completely eliminated. Diversity and meritocracy don’t always go hand in hand - I think a healthy balance is important.
NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
I did read the Compact and had a similar response: "This all sounds very reasonable". I think the negative reaction to it is mostly a function of who is pushing it.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  [flagged]
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  It’s the usual trick of writing something so that an uninterested reader assuming the common meaning of words will be completely nonplussed, but a lawyer or judge reading such a document adversarially will reach many unexpected conclusions.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
    "nonplussed" means "bewildered" or "really confused". Maybe you mean "not worried"? If you mean "not worried", then yeah, I bet you're right that there are a bunch of things that could be entailed by the language that aren't obvious. Good point.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      “Nonplussed” also means “unfazed, unaffected, or unimpressed.” A bit like “cleave” in that way. But yes, you read me correctly.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
Let’s focus on #2: Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse. > Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. Only conservative ideas receive protected status under this compact. Why? It is objectively false that only conservative ideas are punished, belittled, and met with threats of violence on the relevant college campuses. > Such policies also shall recognize that academic freedom is not absolute, and universities shall adopt policies that prevent discriminatory, threatening, harassing, or other behaviors that abridge the rights of other members of the university community. Read strictly, this clause implies no protests or demonstrations of any kind of a college campus, including e.g., the annual pro-life demonstrations at my alma mater (which occasionally became violent, by the way). It is naive to imagine this clause will be enforced equitably. > Signatories commit to rigorous, good faith, empirical assessment of a broad spectrum of viewpoints among faculty, students, and staff at all levels and to sharing the results of such assessments with the public; and to seek such a broad spectrum of viewpoints not just in the university as a whole, but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit. Every biology department must hire creationist professors. Every astronomy department must hire flat-earthers. Every geology department must hire young-earthers. Every medical school must hire germ-theory-skeptical epidemiologists. And across departments, too: we need mathematicians who believe in Fomenko’s new chronology and ultrafinitist historians. I assume you’ll argue these are hyperbole, but I’ve encountered such people during my time in academia. > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. So, logically, a professor of classical philosophy must entertain homophobic assertions about Plato and Aristotle, and cannot sanction in any way the student interrupting class in this fashion. I also see that a Christian student could occupy a Hillel building (a Jewish student organization) and could not be legally removed or administratively sanctioned for doing so under this section of the policy. You might argue that these fall under the ban on “heckler’s veto” defined later in this paragraph, but strictly speaking they don’t. The “heckler’s veto” ban applies to the hypothetical Jewish students attempting to convince the Christian student to leave. > Signatories shall adopt policies prohibiting incitement to violence, including calls for murder or genocide or support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations. Recall how NSPM-7 recently expanded the definition of “terrorist organization” to include groups that display some of the following “common threads”: “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” How any Islamic student group, no matter how explicitly pro-Israel and pro-Christianity, survives this definition is an real question. EDIT: To those who believe this example is unjustified, please see https://www.christianity.com/newsletters/breakpoint/understanding-the-threat-of-islamism-to-christians-and-western-values.html https://www.christianity.com/newsletters/breakpoint/understa... for a typical American Evangelical opinion on the status of Islam. > The university shall impartially and vigorously enforce all rights and restrictions it adopts with respect to free speech and expression. As we have seen, this concluding sentence is contradicted by the whole of the policy that appears before it. How is that for a breakdown? I didn’t say “fascist“ once, may I collect my five pounds?
maldusiecle 1y ago
> In matters of bathroom, locker-room, and sports segregation, universities will define sex categories based on reproductive and biological criteria. In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. > Calls for ideological diversity, not just at the campus level, "but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit." In other words, every academic department is susceptible to ideological litmus tests defined by the state. If Trump's white house feels like your Computer Science department has too many Democrats in it, you fix that problem or you lose your funding. > Restricts student visas to foreign students who ... "are ... supportive of, American and Western values." In other words, another ideological litmus test, only in this case the consequence is that foreign students can be thrown out at will. > Requires that "university employees, in their capacity as university representatives" as well as all colleges, faculties, departments, and other academic units "abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events" In other words, tenured faculty lose their right to free speech.
- clessed 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - maldusiecle 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - clessed 1y ago
      Would you like to elaborate on your abusive comment? Doesn't really say much.
  - bmandale 1y ago
    It is not. Trans people, frequently, look like the opposite sex. Hence there can be no reasonable enforcement of this policy. Cis people, frequently, look like transgender individuals of their own gender. Hence they are liable to receive harassment by any attempt to enforce such a policy. Harassing people, cis and trans, merely trying to use the bathroom in peace, is a far greater imposition than merely existing in the same space as someone else.
danaris 1y ago
It is not baseless name-calling to dub someone a "fascist" when they exhibit all the well-known signs of fascism. There's too much pussyfooting around it these days. Trump is a fascist, as are the upper echelons of his administration. If people had been willing to say this in 2016, maybe he wouldn't have been elected twice, to all of our detriment.
AvAn12 1y ago
Try considering the opposite situation. Suppose Biden or Obama sent a mandate to universities making unilateral and ideologically-motivated demands of their curriculum, policies, and practices. Everyone cool with that scenario? Or, does each new presidential administration get to impose their will on institutions of higher learning? What would that be like?
- dekhn 1y ago
  There was an Obama "Dear Colleague" letter (actually, 3 of them) that I think at least partially qualify as unilateral and ideologically motivated. Yes, every new administration can attempt to impose their will on institutions of higher learning (so long as the administration has some sort of leverage, like funding or legal threats). The wise administrations limit their imposition, preferring to allow academia to enjoy high levels of freedom, autonomy, and funding to achieve their mission.
  - AvAn12 1y ago
    Don't think Obama or Biden threatened to withhold federal funds. Big difference.
    - dekhn 1y ago
      That's precisely what the letters said: that federal funding was contingent on following the policy outlined in the letter. Here is one of the letters: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dea...
      - AvAn12 1y ago
        The linked letter reminds schools of their requirements to comply with civil rights statutes that have been on the books in the US for many years. The trump admin, otoh, is on a witch-hunt to “protect” conservative views based on their own feelings and concerns. Not the same.
baked_beanz 1y ago
My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students based on "hostility to America or our allies", which is obviously an attempt to silence dissent. Who is responsible for defining what "hostility" means? If a foreign student supports boycotting Israel due to their ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, would they be barred from admission to an American university? I would contend that threatening to annex Canada and Greenland constitutes "hostility to American allies", but since those talking points are being espoused by the sitting president, it stands to reason that this administration's justice department wouldn't intervene to prevent a potential student with similar views from from admitted to an American school. - Forcing institutions to define bathroom usage criteria based on biological sex. Putting aside for a moment the fact that this is a blatant attempt to humiliate trans people -- how does this work in practice? Do you hire someone to stand at every bathroom door and prevent people from entering if they don't fit your notion of what that gender is "supposed" to look like? Do you demand identity documents before letting someone use the toilet? There are plenty of videos online of cisgender people being accosted in the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex simply because other people _assume_ based on their appearance that they are trans.
- clessed 1y ago
  [dead]
  - baked_beanz 1y ago
    More Republican politicians have been convicted of sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people. Perhaps we can start with the real issue, and ban them from public bathrooms first? Remember, facts don't care about your feelings! Source: https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legislators-arrested-for-bathroom-misconduct https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legis...
sgentle 1y ago
Careful not to fall into the "People's Democratic Republic" trap: the way something is described and its purported aims are not at all the same as its actual effects (and, often, not even its intended ones). Politics is, in many cases, the art of selling you a box of spoons with "forks" printed on the label. Instead of asking "does this agreement sound nice?", ask what power it gives, to whom, and what might they want to do with it. Some prompts to spark a cogent reasoning process: > Signatories commit themselves to [...] transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas What "institutional units" might this mean? How are they identified? Who identifies them? What is the threshold for belittling conservative ideas that might trigger the "transforming or abolishing" remedy? > Universities shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not knowingly: (1) permit actions by the university, university employees, university students, or individuals external to the university community to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations [...] signatories commit to using lawful force if necessary to prevent these violations What do "actions by" "university students" to "delay or disrupt class instruction" refer to? What kinds of disruptive action might the people writing this document be so concerned about that they would ask universities to "commit to using lawful force" to prevent? What sort of scenario is being envisaged here? > Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting "male," "female," "woman," and "man" according to reproductive function and biological processes. Doesn't it seem oddly specific to assert a definition like this? Why can't a university decide for itself? How does this assertion square with "maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas" and the "empirical assessment of a broad spectrum of viewpoints"? Why only this definition and no others? I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. It's an important skill to practice critically reading a document the same way you might critically audit code. Don't ask what it seems like it does, ask what it might allow someone to do.
- kjksf 1y ago
  There was a wave of violent disruptions across many universities under the guise of protests. "protestors" took over libraries, disrupted lectures, vandalized university property, used the power of the mob to intimidate students who disagreed. The universities have rules against all of that but failed to stop it, leading to weeks long disruptions on campus. There are videos of all that on the internet. And you're playing dumb asking what actions do they mean. Those actions: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=university+protests https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=university+prot... Actions like setting fire to university, which apparently happened yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voqhFZZ9zyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voqhFZZ9zyA Actions like smashing windows by masked hooligans: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CH2kUU3h9j4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CH2kUU3h9j4 Actins like breaking cop's nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMssP-A09A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMssP-A09A As to defining a "woman" as anything else than a woman: it's modern day flat earthism, not something a serious person should entertain.
runako 1y ago
Highly suggest reading the document[1] if you are interested. The overarching problem is it moves management decisions from the colleges to the White House. But here are a couple of really problematic points: - mandates government price setting - requires institutions to promise to use force against minors when faced with unknown hypotheticals - requires universities to monitor & censor staff and faculty - requires government oversight of classroom grading, in the total absence of government standards - bathroom fetish likely in conflict with state laws - White House oversight of which academic programs are allowed, and the budgets attached to each. White House does not specify whether programs currently in flight will be allowed to continue through the school year, or whether students in those programs will need to leave immediately. - White House decides what criteria can be used for admission - White House decides which "institutional units" are allowed to function - To enforce a parts of the Compact would effectively require the White House to install commissars at the institution to e.g. monitor speech and communications to ensure they are acceptable. This alone should be disqualifying. - Many discretionary decisions like the above are made at the White House without any binding written guidance Basically, an independent university would only agree to this if it would have to close otherwise. The Compact is not conservative because it centralizes decisions best made lower down; it aims to radically reshape higher education; it mandates prices; it promulgates ideology, and more. Conservatives should also reject this Compact. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/22e45e59-75ac-4a81-b1c1-a0ca9753375c.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/22e45e59-75ac-4a81-...

mtalantikite 1y ago

Regardless of what is in the compact, it's important that our educational institutions have independence to run themselves as they see fit. To make funding conditional to a set of demands by the government takes away that independence.

jtbayly 1y ago
He who pays the piper... This is why a couple of conservative schools don't accept any sort of federal money. Liberal schools might be considering doing the same. Otherwise, yes, an independent school can do what they want. If you want to be truly independent, you have to be willing to walk away from the money. Anybody that gives money can attach conditions to it, including the government.
kjksf 1y ago
That is obviously the case that federal money comes with strings and strings curtail independence. What you seem to imply that there should be no strings. Which is a position you can have but it has never been the case. To wit, one of the things this compact wants is an enforcement of civil rights act and Biden admin did the same thing: > The most important stipulation during the Biden administration attached to federal funding for universities was compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including discrimination against Jewish students through antisemitic harassment or hostility on campus. Universities that fail to adequately address such issues risk federal investigations by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and potential loss of funding. > Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests, the administration opened over 100 Title VI investigations into universities for alleged antisemitic discrimination—more than in the entire previous four years combined. This included guidance like a May 2024 "Dear Colleague" letter to colleges outlining examples of prohibited conduct, such as denying Jewish students equal access to education or tolerating harassment.
- mtalantikite 1y ago
  I didn't say there should be no strings. I believe institutions should follow laws, and if they or society find those laws to be unjust, we have recourse through our democratic institutions. The Civil Rights Act was legislation put into place by Congress, signed by LBJ, and upheld by the Supreme Court. This compact was a letter sent by the White House telling universities to fall in line with their demands or be refused funding. I find those to be two completely different things.

jmathai 1y ago

I think decisions based off race, sex, etc. could probably be eased off a bit. But I don’t know that it should be completely eliminated. Diversity and meritocracy don’t always go hand in hand - I think a healthy balance is important.

NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago

I did read the Compact and had a similar response: "This all sounds very reasonable". I think the negative reaction to it is mostly a function of who is pushing it.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
[flagged]
TimorousBestie 1y ago
It’s the usual trick of writing something so that an uninterested reader assuming the common meaning of words will be completely nonplussed, but a lawyer or judge reading such a document adversarially will reach many unexpected conclusions.
- NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
  "nonplussed" means "bewildered" or "really confused". Maybe you mean "not worried"? If you mean "not worried", then yeah, I bet you're right that there are a bunch of things that could be entailed by the language that aren't obvious. Good point.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    “Nonplussed” also means “unfazed, unaffected, or unimpressed.” A bit like “cleave” in that way. But yes, you read me correctly.

TimorousBestie 1y ago

Let’s focus on #2: Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse. > Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. Only conservative ideas receive protected status under this compact. Why? It is objectively false that only conservative ideas are punished, belittled, and met with threats of violence on the relevant college campuses. > Such policies also shall recognize that academic freedom is not absolute, and universities shall adopt policies that prevent discriminatory, threatening, harassing, or other behaviors that abridge the rights of other members of the university community. Read strictly, this clause implies no protests or demonstrations of any kind of a college campus, including e.g., the annual pro-life demonstrations at my alma mater (which occasionally became violent, by the way). It is naive to imagine this clause will be enforced equitably. > Signatories commit to rigorous, good faith, empirical assessment of a broad spectrum of viewpoints among faculty, students, and staff at all levels and to sharing the results of such assessments with the public; and to seek such a broad spectrum of viewpoints not just in the university as a whole, but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit. Every biology department must hire creationist professors. Every astronomy department must hire flat-earthers. Every geology department must hire young-earthers. Every medical school must hire germ-theory-skeptical epidemiologists. And across departments, too: we need mathematicians who believe in Fomenko’s new chronology and ultrafinitist historians. I assume you’ll argue these are hyperbole, but I’ve encountered such people during my time in academia. > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. So, logically, a professor of classical philosophy must entertain homophobic assertions about Plato and Aristotle, and cannot sanction in any way the student interrupting class in this fashion. I also see that a Christian student could occupy a Hillel building (a Jewish student organization) and could not be legally removed or administratively sanctioned for doing so under this section of the policy. You might argue that these fall under the ban on “heckler’s veto” defined later in this paragraph, but strictly speaking they don’t. The “heckler’s veto” ban applies to the hypothetical Jewish students attempting to convince the Christian student to leave. > Signatories shall adopt policies prohibiting incitement to violence, including calls for murder or genocide or support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations. Recall how NSPM-7 recently expanded the definition of “terrorist organization” to include groups that display some of the following “common threads”: “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” How any Islamic student group, no matter how explicitly pro-Israel and pro-Christianity, survives this definition is an real question. EDIT: To those who believe this example is unjustified, please see https://www.christianity.com/newsletters/breakpoint/understanding-the-threat-of-islamism-to-christians-and-western-values.html https://www.christianity.com/newsletters/breakpoint/understa... for a typical American Evangelical opinion on the status of Islam. > The university shall impartially and vigorously enforce all rights and restrictions it adopts with respect to free speech and expression. As we have seen, this concluding sentence is contradicted by the whole of the policy that appears before it. How is that for a breakdown? I didn’t say “fascist“ once, may I collect my five pounds?

maldusiecle 1y ago

> In matters of bathroom, locker-room, and sports segregation, universities will define sex categories based on reproductive and biological criteria. In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. > Calls for ideological diversity, not just at the campus level, "but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit." In other words, every academic department is susceptible to ideological litmus tests defined by the state. If Trump's white house feels like your Computer Science department has too many Democrats in it, you fix that problem or you lose your funding. > Restricts student visas to foreign students who ... "are ... supportive of, American and Western values." In other words, another ideological litmus test, only in this case the consequence is that foreign students can be thrown out at will. > Requires that "university employees, in their capacity as university representatives" as well as all colleges, faculties, departments, and other academic units "abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events" In other words, tenured faculty lose their right to free speech.

clessed 1y ago
[flagged]
- maldusiecle 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - clessed 1y ago
    Would you like to elaborate on your abusive comment? Doesn't really say much.
- bmandale 1y ago
  It is not. Trans people, frequently, look like the opposite sex. Hence there can be no reasonable enforcement of this policy. Cis people, frequently, look like transgender individuals of their own gender. Hence they are liable to receive harassment by any attempt to enforce such a policy. Harassing people, cis and trans, merely trying to use the bathroom in peace, is a far greater imposition than merely existing in the same space as someone else.

danaris 1y ago

It is not baseless name-calling to dub someone a "fascist" when they exhibit all the well-known signs of fascism. There's too much pussyfooting around it these days. Trump is a fascist, as are the upper echelons of his administration. If people had been willing to say this in 2016, maybe he wouldn't have been elected twice, to all of our detriment.

AvAn12 1y ago

Try considering the opposite situation. Suppose Biden or Obama sent a mandate to universities making unilateral and ideologically-motivated demands of their curriculum, policies, and practices. Everyone cool with that scenario? Or, does each new presidential administration get to impose their will on institutions of higher learning? What would that be like?

dekhn 1y ago
There was an Obama "Dear Colleague" letter (actually, 3 of them) that I think at least partially qualify as unilateral and ideologically motivated. Yes, every new administration can attempt to impose their will on institutions of higher learning (so long as the administration has some sort of leverage, like funding or legal threats). The wise administrations limit their imposition, preferring to allow academia to enjoy high levels of freedom, autonomy, and funding to achieve their mission.
- AvAn12 1y ago
  Don't think Obama or Biden threatened to withhold federal funds. Big difference.
  - dekhn 1y ago
    That's precisely what the letters said: that federal funding was contingent on following the policy outlined in the letter. Here is one of the letters: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dea...
    - AvAn12 1y ago
      The linked letter reminds schools of their requirements to comply with civil rights statutes that have been on the books in the US for many years. The trump admin, otoh, is on a witch-hunt to “protect” conservative views based on their own feelings and concerns. Not the same.

baked_beanz 1y ago

My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students based on "hostility to America or our allies", which is obviously an attempt to silence dissent. Who is responsible for defining what "hostility" means? If a foreign student supports boycotting Israel due to their ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, would they be barred from admission to an American university? I would contend that threatening to annex Canada and Greenland constitutes "hostility to American allies", but since those talking points are being espoused by the sitting president, it stands to reason that this administration's justice department wouldn't intervene to prevent a potential student with similar views from from admitted to an American school. - Forcing institutions to define bathroom usage criteria based on biological sex. Putting aside for a moment the fact that this is a blatant attempt to humiliate trans people -- how does this work in practice? Do you hire someone to stand at every bathroom door and prevent people from entering if they don't fit your notion of what that gender is "supposed" to look like? Do you demand identity documents before letting someone use the toilet? There are plenty of videos online of cisgender people being accosted in the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex simply because other people _assume_ based on their appearance that they are trans.

clessed 1y ago
[dead]
- baked_beanz 1y ago
  More Republican politicians have been convicted of sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people. Perhaps we can start with the real issue, and ban them from public bathrooms first? Remember, facts don't care about your feelings! Source: https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legislators-arrested-for-bathroom-misconduct https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legis...

sgentle 1y ago

Careful not to fall into the "People's Democratic Republic" trap: the way something is described and its purported aims are not at all the same as its actual effects (and, often, not even its intended ones). Politics is, in many cases, the art of selling you a box of spoons with "forks" printed on the label. Instead of asking "does this agreement sound nice?", ask what power it gives, to whom, and what might they want to do with it. Some prompts to spark a cogent reasoning process: > Signatories commit themselves to [...] transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas What "institutional units" might this mean? How are they identified? Who identifies them? What is the threshold for belittling conservative ideas that might trigger the "transforming or abolishing" remedy? > Universities shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not knowingly: (1) permit actions by the university, university employees, university students, or individuals external to the university community to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations [...] signatories commit to using lawful force if necessary to prevent these violations What do "actions by" "university students" to "delay or disrupt class instruction" refer to? What kinds of disruptive action might the people writing this document be so concerned about that they would ask universities to "commit to using lawful force" to prevent? What sort of scenario is being envisaged here? > Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting "male," "female," "woman," and "man" according to reproductive function and biological processes. Doesn't it seem oddly specific to assert a definition like this? Why can't a university decide for itself? How does this assertion square with "maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas" and the "empirical assessment of a broad spectrum of viewpoints"? Why only this definition and no others? I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture. It's an important skill to practice critically reading a document the same way you might critically audit code. Don't ask what it seems like it does, ask what it might allow someone to do.

kjksf 1y ago
There was a wave of violent disruptions across many universities under the guise of protests. "protestors" took over libraries, disrupted lectures, vandalized university property, used the power of the mob to intimidate students who disagreed. The universities have rules against all of that but failed to stop it, leading to weeks long disruptions on campus. There are videos of all that on the internet. And you're playing dumb asking what actions do they mean. Those actions: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=university+protests https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=university+prot... Actions like setting fire to university, which apparently happened yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voqhFZZ9zyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voqhFZZ9zyA Actions like smashing windows by masked hooligans: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CH2kUU3h9j4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CH2kUU3h9j4 Actins like breaking cop's nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMssP-A09A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyMssP-A09A As to defining a "woman" as anything else than a woman: it's modern day flat earthism, not something a serious person should entertain.

runako 1y ago

Highly suggest reading the document[1] if you are interested. The overarching problem is it moves management decisions from the colleges to the White House. But here are a couple of really problematic points: - mandates government price setting - requires institutions to promise to use force against minors when faced with unknown hypotheticals - requires universities to monitor & censor staff and faculty - requires government oversight of classroom grading, in the total absence of government standards - bathroom fetish likely in conflict with state laws - White House oversight of which academic programs are allowed, and the budgets attached to each. White House does not specify whether programs currently in flight will be allowed to continue through the school year, or whether students in those programs will need to leave immediately. - White House decides what criteria can be used for admission - White House decides which "institutional units" are allowed to function - To enforce a parts of the Compact would effectively require the White House to install commissars at the institution to e.g. monitor speech and communications to ensure they are acceptable. This alone should be disqualifying. - Many discretionary decisions like the above are made at the White House without any binding written guidance Basically, an independent university would only agree to this if it would have to close otherwise. The Compact is not conservative because it centralizes decisions best made lower down; it aims to radically reshape higher education; it mandates prices; it promulgates ideology, and more. Conservatives should also reject this Compact. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/22e45e59-75ac-4a81-b1c1-a0ca9753375c.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/22e45e59-75ac-4a81-...