SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The latest manifestation of the conservative targetting of academia is the Professor Watchlist, created by the "activist organization" Turning Point USA, founded by rising star Charlie Kirk. It's stated purpose is to "watch" professors "who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom"
Of course, this is not new. David Horowitz has written a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America . HeterodoxAcademy.org has rational articles discussing the liberal slant to modern college campuses. Nicholas Kristoff writes an interesting piece on the same topic. However, with the election of President Trump, the stakes may have been raised. A professor in California has gone incognitio after criticizing Trump in the classroom and receiving death threats.
But more important is how the attempt to blacklist liberal academics has actually backfired. George Yancy [not the George Yancey from the Kristoff piece above] published a response, "I Am a Dangerous Professor" in the New York Times, and since then it seems to have become de rigueur for all academics to get their name on the Professor Watchlist in order to cement their tenure. An entire hashtag on Twitter has taken form: #trollprofwatchlist! People have taken to mocking the list by suggesting candidates such as Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus, not to mention Socrates, who obviously belongs.
Charlie Kirk may not be dangerous, but he did start this list. I am watching him now.
[Editor note - This story was substantially rewritten for balance. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:00PM
Before I reply, let me just remind everyone that I've repeatedly argued here that, while I am no Trump supporter, the recent last-ditch effort to try to change the Electoral College outcome was a terrible idea. I still think so, and I think the efforts of the so-called "Hamilton electors" actually went against the spirit of the Founders in trying to collude to ensure a specific outcome (something the Constitution and the Founders explicitly tried to prevent).
However:
So now you are advocating the lobbying of electoral college voter?
I see nothing necessarily wrong with this, particularly in the large proportion of states which do not penalize "unfaithful" electors. Electors were originally specified in the Constitution as representatives of STATES, as you noted. But since around the 1830s, they have almost universally been PARTY-SELECTED state appointees. From my (and the Constitution's) perspective, they are first-and-foremost representatives of states, not parties.
Just to be clear, the way many laws are written is that the ELECTORS are awarded/allocated based on the popular vote outcome in states, not the VOTES of said electors. Traditionally, in most states you'd have a notice on the ballot at the election making clear that you were NOT voting for a candidate, but rather a slate of electors X, Y, and Z who declared support to that party (or something to that effect). Most states have done away with having that information on a ballot (which, from my perspective, is HIGHLY misleading, given who the Constitution clearly vests voting power in).
Anyhow, if a state legislature does not EXPLICITLY bind the votes of its electors (instead merely allocating electors based on the popular vote, as I believe is true of 21 states), I see nothing wrong with people contacting their appointed electoral representatives and making their case.
To my mind, the problematic aspect comes in the way the state governments choose to mislead the public by not putting electors' names on the ballot. If the state government is not going to ensure a vote is cast in a particular way by statute, then they should make clear to voters that their votes are merely cast for another set of voters, who can then make their own choice. The problem in this case isn't with the lobbying, but the misleading way that states now make people think they are actually voting for President, when Constitutionally, they are not.