• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Cancel culture IRL Part 2

jt512 said:
On the basis of his political ideology, obviously. And that implies that the dean would similar feel no sympathy for students of similar ideology under the dean's responsibility. The president deemed that disqualifying for the job.
Click to expand...
Or on the basis that he made himself rich by debating undergraduates. Or on the basis that he helped elect President Trump and continued to influence the administration. The BBC noted, "In his tribute, Vance wrote: "He didn't just help us win in 2024, he helped us staff the entire government.""
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Or on the basis that he made himself rich by debating undergraduates. Or on the basis that he helped elect President Trump and continued to influence the administration. The BBC noted, "In his tribute, Vance wrote: "He didn't just help us win in 2024, he helped us staff the entire government.""
Click to expand...
Yeah. She can tell that to the judge.
 
From the BBC: FCC chair Cole said, "...some of the sickest conduct possible..." What was he talking about?!
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
That's not for me to apply.
Click to expand...
If you want to confidently express sentiments such as "administrators do not...have protected academic freedom" then you should be willing to do the legal analysis to back them up. I'm not remotely confident about the outcome when applied to this fact pattern but I do look forward to seeing what the appeals courts have to say.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If you want to confidently express sentiments such as "administrators do not...have protected academic freedom" then you should be willing to do the legal analysis to back them up.
Click to expand...
Huh? Administrators don't have academic freedom because they are not academics.
d4m10n said:
I'm not remotely confident about the outcome when applied to this fact pattern but I do look forward to seeing what the appeals courts have to say.
Click to expand...
I'm not either, and I never said I was.
 
At Politico Lawprof Aziz Huq suggested that Mr. Kimmel sue, writing, "Although the Supreme Court did not ultimately decide the merits in the social media case, no justice doubted the clear-as-day First Amendment principle that, as Alito explained, “government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech.” Indeed, less than a month beforehand, the unanimous court held in a different case that the First Amendment “prohibits government officials from relying on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.”

In a separate opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained what a plaintiff needed to show to get into court: Could the government’s conduct, when “viewed in context,” be “reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech?”"
 
jt512 said:
Administrators don't have academic freedom because they are not academics.
Click to expand...
That was not part of the holding from Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) or Connick v. Myers (1983) or Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006).

I suspect you've been misled by AI summaries.
 
d4m10n said:
That was not part of the holding from Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) or Connick v. Myers (1983) or Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006).
Click to expand...
I was addressing your comment: "If you want to confidently express sentiments such as "administrators do not...have protected academic freedom" then you should be willing to do the legal analysis to back them up."

I don't have to look at any case law to understand why university administrators don't have academic freedom. They don't have academic freedom because they are not academics.
d4m10n said:
I suspect you've been misled by AI summaries.
Click to expand...
You suspect wrong. I'm actually quite familiar with the subject. I've co-authored at least three peer-reviewed papers on academic freedom. I also have close contacts with leaders of the Academic Freedom Alliance (some of whom are my co-authors) with whom I have discussed the subject in considerable depth.
 
For context here, by "academic freedom" jt512 is referring to the supposed takeover of academia by the demon named "woke". Just so everybody is clear on that.
 
arthwollipot said:
For context here, by "academic freedom" jt512 is referring to the supposed takeover of academia by the demon named "woke". Just so everybody is clear on that.
Click to expand...
Some demons are real.

Performative virtue-signaling has become a threat to higher ed

Publicly, they conform; privately, they question — often in isolation. This split between outer presentation and inner conviction not only fragments identity but arrests its development.

This dissonance shows up everywhere. Seventy-eight percent of students told us they self-censor on their beliefs surrounding gender identity; 72 percent on politics; 68 percent on family values. More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors. For many, this has become second nature — an instinct for academic and professional self-preservation.
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, that is jt512's basic premise. Doesn't mean that the demon is real.
Click to expand...
When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life

G0qjjZQW0AA7GBL
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
I've co-authored at least three peer-reviewed papers on academic freedom.
Click to expand...
In that case, you should be able to enumerate the reasons why we protect academic freedom and elucidate why they do not apply to administrators who work directly with students.
 
d4m10n said:
In that case, you should be able to enumerate the reasons why we protect academic freedom and elucidate why they do not apply to administrators who work directly with students.
Click to expand...
Because they're not academics! They don't teach. How hard is that to understand?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Foundation for Individual Rights and ExpressionWP has been on the side of free speech this entire time, regardless of whether the would-be cancelers were coming from left, right, or center.

Now that the cancel mobs are being stoked by people in power on the right, FIRE are publishing articles like this one:
www.thefire.org

Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong

The nation’s top law enforcement officer doesn’t understand there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment — and that’s scary.
www.thefire.org www.thefire.org
Click to expand...
FIRE has picked up where ACLU dropped the ball.
 
jt512 said:
Advising isn't teaching.
Click to expand...
That is correct, but if you take the trouble to list out the reasons why we protect academic freedom for instructors, you will find that most of them apply to advisers as well. Some of them, arguably more so.
 
d4m10n said:
That is correct, but if you take the trouble to list out the reasons why we protect academic freedom for instructors, you will find that most of them apply to advisers as well. Some of them, arguably more so.
Click to expand...
Since that's your claim, why don't you do that exercise yourself and post the results.
 
d4m10n said:
I've never written peer-reviewed papers about education and tend to defer to expertise.

That said, how about these seven reasons?
Click to expand...
You haven't done the exercise you yourself recommended: to explain how those reasons apply to an advisor. But that said, there is a good deal of B.S. in that blog post. You'd be better served by working from this FAIR article, which was mentioned up-thread, or this one.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
You haven't done the exercise you yourself recommended: to explain how those reasons apply to an advisor.
Click to expand...
No point in doing that if you reject the post's framing, so far as I can tell.
jt512 said:
You'd be better served by working from this FAIR article
Click to expand...
That article rejects the premise that you "don't have to look at any case law to understand why university administrators don't have academic freedom," though, citing case law and judicial reasoning throughout in order to explain the bounds of the concept. It does not, however, outline the reasons why academic freedom is protected in the first place, beyond a single Earl Warren quote.

Out of curiosity, though, do you think the Demers case should have turned out differently if he was admin instead of faculty?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
No point in doing that if you reject the post's framing, so far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
In other words, you know that if you were to attempt the exercise, you'd fail.
d4m10n said:
That article rejects the premise that you "don't have to look at any case law to understand why university administrators don't have academic freedom," though, citing case law and judicial reasoning throughout in order to explain the bounds of the concept. It does not, however, outline the reasons why academic freedom is protected in the first place, beyond a single Earl Warren quote.

Out of curiosity, though, do you think the Demers case should have turned out differently if he was admin instead of faculty?
Click to expand...
I'm done with this idiotic discussion. Your belief that university administrators have academic freedom is off the wall. It shows you fundamentally misunderstand the concept. Not only do administrators not have academic freedom, an important purpose of academic freedom is to protect faculty from administrators.

BTW, just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind, last night I asked one of the leaders of the Academic Freedom Alliance if deans are protected by academic freedom. Their response verbatim, "No, deans serve at the pleasure of the president."
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Foundation for Individual Rights and ExpressionWP has been on the side of free speech this entire time, regardless of whether the would-be cancelers were coming from left, right, or center.
Click to expand...
That's not true. FIRE have had a distinct rightist bias
 
catsmate said:
That's not true. FIRE have had a distinct rightist bias
Click to expand...
I think you're incorrect. Look at the most recent cases that they're involved in:
www.thefire.org

Cases

FIRE’s team of legal and advocacy experts have decades of experience protecting free speech both on and off college campuses. Learn more about FIRE’s civil liberties cases.
www.thefire.org www.thefire.org

You've got some bias. You seem to have not noticed all the cases where liberals were trying to censor or silence conservatives - or perhaps you agree that conservatives should be silenced and their right to free speech should be rescinded? I would speculate that you only think FIRE has a rightist bias because you *disagree* with FIRE protecting the free speech rights of people you dislike.
 
Trausti said:
So is the ACLU.
Click to expand...
Really? What about the multiple times the ACLU represented NAZIs?
Or when they represented Americans for Prosperity and Thomas More Society in 2021?
Or another time they filed Amicus briefs supporting Americans for Prosperity alongside the CATO Institute?
Or another when the ACLU filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the free speech rights of the conservative Christian group, Camp Constitution which was denied permission to fly a Christian flag at Boston's City Hall?
Or another when The ACLU won an appeal on behalf of a conservative student magazine that was denied funding after publishing a satirical story?

There are many more historical precedents where the ACLU has supported conservative organizations because their Constitutional rights were infringe upon.
 
acbytesla said:
Really? What about the multiple times the ACLU represented NAZIs?
Or when they represented Americans for Prosperity and Thomas More Society in 2021?
Or another time they filed Amicus briefs supporting Americans for Prosperity alongside the CATO Institute?
Or another when the ACLU filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the free speech rights of the conservative Christian group, Camp Constitution which was denied permission to fly a Christian flag at Boston's City Hall?
Or another when The ACLU won an appeal on behalf of a conservative student magazine that was denied funding after publishing a satirical story?

There are many more historical precedents where the ACLU has supported conservative organizations because their Constitutional rights were infringe upon.
Click to expand...
"Historical" is the operative word there. Could you please indicate the year for each of those. Today's ACLU is little if anything to do with civil liberties.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Denial is not just a north African river....

But then I doubt you care about reality, right-wing money, the Bradley Foundation, the Koch brothers and the SPN, trying to control the debate.
 
catsmate said:
Denial is not just a north African river....

But then I doubt you care about reality, right-wing money, the Bradley Foundation, the Koch brothers and the SPN, trying to control the debate.
Click to expand...
Note to self: Stop clicking "Show Ignorant Ignored Content."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

d4m10n
  • Locked
Cancel culture IRL
87 88 89 90 91
Replies
4K
Views
161K
Darat
Darat

Back
Top Bottom