DeSantis signs law requiring students and faculty state their political beliefs

And who is the head of the state school board but in most states an elected official. What we need is MORE citizen involvement not isolated independent "boards" which unilaterally make such decisions.
And again if you oppose indoctrination then support this law.

 

He is a textbook example of an authoritarian / hyper divisive partisan hack.

 

In other words, you're way more authoritarian than I.

 

More likely, you are grasping for straws.....

 

The claim in the title is Fake News. The requires no such thing. Universities though, do have an issue with indoctrination that I'm certain the taxpayer has no interest in funding.

OUT: EDUCATION. IN: INDOCTRINATION. How Universities Weaponize Freshman Orientation.

​

"Instead of simply informing students about the resources on campus, orientation can amount to an ideological hazing."

"I arrived at Princeton University in September 2019. I had looked at Princeton online and thought, “one day . . .” Suddenly, I was experiencing day one. My eager arrival on campus was emotionally amplified by bright smiles, copious pamphlets, and dormitory supervisors dancing in tiger suits. Orientation innocently began with introductions of names and hometowns — then descended into divisive lectures and panels. The intention of these programs was not to assimilate us into our new (and intimidating) surroundings, but rather to coerce students into accepting and affirming a resident orthodoxy."

"We often hear about how college students are indoctrinated in the classroom. But the brainwashing begins on move-in day."

"Princeton University undertook a mission to present incoming students with sexual, moral, and political guidance, wholly omitting widely held perspectives and effectively insulating progressive views from intellectual trial. Moreover, attendance at these events was compulsory."

Of course. The similarities between Left Wokism and Cultism are too many to ignore.

“Decolonizing Black Sex, Love, Pleasure, and Relationships” and “HIV and White Supremacy.”

Enough is enough. We need actual Diversity, Fairness, and Inclusion on Campus.

 

Big deal back in 2008 I was teaching mostly black students in a most black community an I openly stated to all who asked that I was supporting John McCane over Barack Obama

 

Well said. Universities have always been one of the stalwarts in enforcing thought. In the early and middle ages they were pivotal in enforcing thought and ideology as mainly decreed by the Catholic Church. Then they led the vanguard of rational exploration and the search for truth through, among other things, support for diversity. They began turning away form that and moving to controlling ideas and extolling non-diverse progressive thinking somewhere if the early mid 20th century, though they still kept rational education afloat. Then around 1980 or so they became more adamant and today exhibit a near all inclusive totalitarian attitude on indoctrination and a stamping out of diverse opinions. This coupled with the natural inclination of government and the power of big tech is what will destroy individual freedom and liberty.

 

That is progressively fast getting harder and harder to do

 

Well, we have the longest surviving government in existence today because our system of ordered liberty is pretty damn resilient. I'd say that it's the universities that are going to lose their battle to encroach on our individual freedom and liberty, a loss that is already beginning to form, in my opinion.

HARVARD SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED: The Harvard University website refers to Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, as a “politically motivated lawsuit.” "Well … I guess … if Harvard means that in the sense that Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a politically motivated lawsuit, then yes. The web site also states, “Harvard College does not discriminate against applicants from any group in its admission processes.” This is simply false."

Here’s a link to an amicus curiae brief supporting Students For Fair Admissions.

"In this brief, Amici respond to two of the assumptions that underpin the case for race-preferential admissions policies:
(1) that these policies promote racial integration on campuses; and
(2) that these policies are the result of expert academic judgments concerning the pedagogical benefits of a racially diverse class.
The evidence shows that neither assumption is true."

"First, rather than promote the important goal of racial integration, race-preferential admissions policies have the perverse effect of promoting racial separation. Separate student lounges, separate student dormitories, and such things as separate orientations and graduation ceremonies are now a way of life on many campuses. It is Amici’s view that one of the most significant factors in bringing about this state of affairs is the gap in credentials between students who were admitted to the school based on their own academic credentials and those who needed a preference. Put differently, race preferences are helping to cause the problem of racial separation rather than helping to solve it."

"Second, while it’s tempting to believe that race preferential admissions policies are motivated by a concern for pedagogy—since that is the motive that is sanctioned by Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)—the reality is different. Much more often, practical and ideological considerations that have nothing to do with the pedagogical benefits of diversity dominate. One of the most important ideological motivations—a belief that a debt is owed to an entire race as compensation for past wrongs—has already been rejected as a justification for race-preferential admissions policies. See Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307–09 (197 (opinion of Powell, J.). And the very real practical motivations—like the need to appease state legislators or student protestors or the need to qualify for lucrative federal or foundation grants—should not under any circumstances receive judicial sanction. Stripped of underpinnings like these, the case for tolerating race discrimination in admissions collapses. For this and other reasons, Amici urge the Court to overrule Grutter."

 

You didn't include the link to support your claim, I did a search for it and was unable to locate it.

I like DeSantis standing up to the DIE (Diversity Inclusion Equity) cult.

Progressive public school teacher in a blue state: Things are as bad as you've heard

​

Standard cautions on blind sourcing, but, with these cancel freaks, I can certainly understand why this source choses to remain concealed.

 

Says the neocon who doesn't like the direction the country is headed but still likes Biden.

 

What with the name calling? Biden's POTUS for a while

 

IDK about fascist but it certainly is concerning.
Its forced political speech.


We have secret ballots for a reason: No one may be compelled to assert they are for one party or another or hold any certain belief.

 

This is nothing more than the Amici's counter- assumption. The things they list-- showing that, with large numbers of minority students, these students can do cliquish things-- is not evidence that, therefore, there is greater "integration" of minority students, without regarding their admissions in any way differently than any other... unless one defines integration, as not being able to find anyone of your own race, with whom to hang out.

Further, I would point out the fallacy of the Amici's supposition, that what is promoting racial separation is merely the idea, in the minds of white students, that no black students were admitted, on their own merits. This would, first of all, be calling white students, writ large, idiotic bigots. That some of the black students receive special consideration, does not mean that all would need it, for acceptance (it should go, without saying). Therefore, if one wished to be intellectually snobbish, the intelligent way to go about it, would be to judge for oneself, which students did or did not belong at Harvard, on an individual basis. To do so, of course, would require one to intermingle with these racially different people-- thereby promoting racial integration!


Perhaps it is a matter the differing, of both your own and the quoted Amici's belief, from what I take to be the "Progressive," idea, of the term "integration." I submit that this is more accurately understood as interaction with-- and so, therefore, first hand education about-- people of diverse racial backgrounds (which is difficult to get, when there are few of these, to be found). You and the Amici, however, seem to regard "integration," as meaning, acting white. Even if black students do some things, with only other black students, this does not mean that, in every aspect of their college experience, they are avoiding interacting with white students. This assumption is, on its face, moronic (to call a spade, a spade).

Both the desire to sometimes be among specifically those of "one's kind," as well as to jump to prejudicial judgements about those regarded as different from oneself, are parts of human nature which, for better or for worse, will always remain with us. The idea of racial diversity is to promote a truer understanding, than what stereotypical thinking provides, and hence is innately in keeping with the concept of higher education.

To put a final nail in the coffin of your Amici's quoted argument-- suggesting that, given good reason to be confident that their fellow students, who happened to be black (or of some other non majority race), had at least the minimal academic credentials to be at Harvard, they would be more welcoming-- I point to the reaction to the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, to the U.S. Supreme Court. There can be no credible argument made, that Jackson is out of her depth, at this level of the legal system. Instead, the reaction was not that she was not competent, but that she was not the most qualified, whatever that is supposed to mean. It is an odd thing-- to those who are clueless about others' motivations, that is-- that there is none of the tremendous concern, even total outrage, to be found, when any white man is nominated for the Court, that he is not absolutely the "best" possible candidate.

 

She's an idiot who thinks you have to be a biologist to define female. No cowboy ever put a bull in a stanchion and tried to milk it, and they don't have biology degrees.



Nobody with a brain is ever surprised that the rooster does not lay eggs.

 

Well he's trying to dismantle a hyperpartisan institution.

One that you probably want to protect from dismantlement so of course you're going to cry about it.

 

It's easy to see why weird worshipers whose lardass deity is being brought to justice are looking to this autocrat for authoritarian subjugation.

 

And you take this reply, to actually be supporting your Amici argument, that what keeps apart students, of different colors, is not irrational bigotry, but only the totally justified concern about, and rightful indignation over, their perception of black students being afforded a leg up, whether or not it was needed, for their admittance to Harvard?

 

@Zorro

I wasn't able to fit in this addition, beneath the editing window:


EDIT: I have heard Antonin Scalia, in a SCOTUS argument, contend that crosses are the universal symbol of a gravesite, even among non Christians (FYI, they are not). I have heard Brett Kavanaugh forcefully make his argument of defense: "I like beer!" I have heard Sandra Day O'Connor, in an interview. I am utterly unimpressed, by the general "brilliance," automatically attributed to anyone, who is a member of our High Court. They may have brilliant legal minds-- but that is not where lies your complaint, about Jackson.

At best, it seems to me that your argument against her qualifications, if it is not due to a prejudice against people of her skin color (or gender), is that she does not share your seemingly hostile attitude towards a different group of recipients, of your bigotry. That is, we all know, including Ms. Jackson, that there are both structural and other physiological differences, between "original" and trans-gendered individuals. Why would this be a point of interest, in the evaluating of a person's legal credentials? Even bringing it up, had merely been the Senator's disingenuous way of attacking members of that group. Oh, but I'm sure, that is only because of the unfair advantages, he believes that they get.

 

We'll see if the Court thinks it passes constitutional muster. "The way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race." ~Chief Justice Roberts