6 ms·

This is really light on details. What exactly is this? Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom.

This is really light on details. What exactly is this? Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom. We should want people to have freedom of thought. The headline makes it seem like some crazy right wing nut job, indoctrination camp, but don't we want people to have free intellectualism?

1qaboutecs 5mo ago
generally when you want people to have free intellectualism you don't force them to take your courses
summermusic 5mo ago
It was almost named after Charlie Kirk. It is, in fact, an indoctrination camp.
- akramachamarei 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    I missed something. Did Charlie Kirk promote civil debate and intellectual curiosity?
    - 0xy 5mo ago
      What about Charlie Kirk's conduct was not civil? Did he advocate or perpetuate violence?
      - BrokenCogs 5mo ago
        Yes
        akramachamarei 5mo ago
        Source?
        BrokenCogs 5mo ago
        He called for the military to use "lethal force" against migrants at the southern border. He also repeatedly demanded "Nuremberg-style trials" for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care. Also there's this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/ https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/
        matchbok3 5mo ago
        Well, being that gender "care" has been pretty much debunked, that seems fine.
        array_key_first 5mo ago
        Debunked in what sense? In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too. Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
        matchbok3 5mo ago
        Even the ACLU had to admit your last line is false (U.S. v. Skrmetti). After multiple rounds of obfuscation.
        UncleMeat 5mo ago
        This is a misunderstanding. Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide. We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
      - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
        Didn't he call for the death penalty for Joe Biden?
    - akramachamarei 5mo ago
      Uh, yeah. That was like, one of the major things he was known for, earning the epithet of a "debate-me bro".
      - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
        He only debated kids. He was afraid to debate adults.
      - krapp 5mo ago
        "debate bros" are known for their bad faith arguments and lack of any real intellectual curiosity. They make a mockery of honest discourse. It isn't a compliment.
        akramachamarei 5mo ago
        They shouldn't be killed for it. The allergy to even bad faith debate which apparently so incensed his shooter is a problem. Again, this is why I think it wasn't unreasonable he might be this center's namesake.
        krapp 5mo ago
        I disagree that someone unwilling to engage in good faith debate should be made the namesake of a "Center for Intellectual Freedom" because at the very least such a person is a bad example what such a center should stand for and represent. Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift. Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
  - array_key_first 5mo ago
    Charlie Kirk was killed by someone because he had an apathy for gun violence in education which, inevitably, then happened to him. In a way, the death of Charlie Kirk is an almost perfect encapsulation of his own beliefs. If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
    - akramachamarei 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - array_key_first 5mo ago
        How is this a strawman? To quote Charlie Kirk, "I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational” Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself? Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
        akramachamarei 5mo ago
        You're really struggling with nuance. Yes, he judges the 2nd amendment dangers an acceptable tradeoff. That's a reasonable belief. He doesn't conceptualize school shootings et al as "freak accidents". That would be a ridiculous belief; it's a strawman. Neither is his death a freak accident. It's purposeful malignance. Furthermore, I'm not a Charlie Kirk supporter. I don't agree with him on many or most things. I find many of his beliefs odious. The difference between me and you, is I don't think his death was worth it. It reflects a sickness in our society. A sickness that you are embracing. This Iowa university program seems directionally good, opposed to this sickness, and it was a shame that they are planning on making it mandatory.
- metalman 5mo ago
  perhaps they will provide usefull training in how to read the room, and when to duck as I think those are generaly usefull skills no matter what you are talking about.
Symbiote 5mo ago
[dead]
rchaud 5mo ago
> intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom. Indeed. And what better way to prove it than by mandating six credit hours worth of tuition fees on the topic?
futuraperdita 5mo ago
I found a syllabus for each of the two current classes that they teach: https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syllabus-political-revised.pdf https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll... https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syllabus-values-revised.pdf https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll...
- mplanchard 5mo ago
  Aw yeah, can’t wait for the lecture on “Why Capitalism Rocks!”
UncleMeat 5mo ago
State legislators in Iowa are mad that faculty lean left. So they created this institute that expressly hires conservatives and has conservative leaning curricula. But students would rather take a history class from a historian than some reactionary weirdo who thinks that all historians are communists. So the university is mandating students to take courses from this program. This is the opposite of free intellectualism. It is faculty hired for their political beliefs and curricula created for political ends and mandatory enrollment so students must be exposed to these ideas whether they like it or not.

1qaboutecs 5mo ago

generally when you want people to have free intellectualism you don't force them to take your courses

summermusic 5mo ago

It was almost named after Charlie Kirk. It is, in fact, an indoctrination camp.

akramachamarei 5mo ago
[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
  I missed something. Did Charlie Kirk promote civil debate and intellectual curiosity?
  - 0xy 5mo ago
    What about Charlie Kirk's conduct was not civil? Did he advocate or perpetuate violence?
    - BrokenCogs 5mo ago
      Yes
      - akramachamarei 5mo ago
        Source?
        BrokenCogs 5mo ago
        He called for the military to use "lethal force" against migrants at the southern border. He also repeatedly demanded "Nuremberg-style trials" for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care. Also there's this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/ https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/
        matchbok3 5mo ago
        Well, being that gender "care" has been pretty much debunked, that seems fine.
        array_key_first 5mo ago
        Debunked in what sense? In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too. Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
        matchbok3 5mo ago
        Even the ACLU had to admit your last line is false (U.S. v. Skrmetti). After multiple rounds of obfuscation.
        UncleMeat 5mo ago
        This is a misunderstanding. Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide. We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      Didn't he call for the death penalty for Joe Biden?
  - akramachamarei 5mo ago
    Uh, yeah. That was like, one of the major things he was known for, earning the epithet of a "debate-me bro".
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      He only debated kids. He was afraid to debate adults.
    - krapp 5mo ago
      "debate bros" are known for their bad faith arguments and lack of any real intellectual curiosity. They make a mockery of honest discourse. It isn't a compliment.
      - akramachamarei 5mo ago
        They shouldn't be killed for it. The allergy to even bad faith debate which apparently so incensed his shooter is a problem. Again, this is why I think it wasn't unreasonable he might be this center's namesake.
        krapp 5mo ago
        I disagree that someone unwilling to engage in good faith debate should be made the namesake of a "Center for Intellectual Freedom" because at the very least such a person is a bad example what such a center should stand for and represent. Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift. Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
- array_key_first 5mo ago
  Charlie Kirk was killed by someone because he had an apathy for gun violence in education which, inevitably, then happened to him. In a way, the death of Charlie Kirk is an almost perfect encapsulation of his own beliefs. If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
  - akramachamarei 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - array_key_first 5mo ago
      How is this a strawman? To quote Charlie Kirk, "I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational” Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself? Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
      - akramachamarei 5mo ago
        You're really struggling with nuance. Yes, he judges the 2nd amendment dangers an acceptable tradeoff. That's a reasonable belief. He doesn't conceptualize school shootings et al as "freak accidents". That would be a ridiculous belief; it's a strawman. Neither is his death a freak accident. It's purposeful malignance. Furthermore, I'm not a Charlie Kirk supporter. I don't agree with him on many or most things. I find many of his beliefs odious. The difference between me and you, is I don't think his death was worth it. It reflects a sickness in our society. A sickness that you are embracing. This Iowa university program seems directionally good, opposed to this sickness, and it was a shame that they are planning on making it mandatory.
metalman 5mo ago
perhaps they will provide usefull training in how to read the room, and when to duck as I think those are generaly usefull skills no matter what you are talking about.

Symbiote 5mo ago

[dead]

rchaud 5mo ago

> intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom. Indeed. And what better way to prove it than by mandating six credit hours worth of tuition fees on the topic?

futuraperdita 5mo ago

I found a syllabus for each of the two current classes that they teach: https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syllabus-political-revised.pdf https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll... https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syllabus-values-revised.pdf https://cif.uiowa.edu/sites/cif.uiowa.edu/files/2026-03/syll...

mplanchard 5mo ago
Aw yeah, can’t wait for the lecture on “Why Capitalism Rocks!”

UncleMeat 5mo ago

State legislators in Iowa are mad that faculty lean left. So they created this institute that expressly hires conservatives and has conservative leaning curricula. But students would rather take a history class from a historian than some reactionary weirdo who thinks that all historians are communists. So the university is mandating students to take courses from this program. This is the opposite of free intellectualism. It is faculty hired for their political beliefs and curricula created for political ends and mandatory enrollment so students must be exposed to these ideas whether they like it or not.