SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Professors worried students will share lectures with 'right wing sites'
Jon Street
Managing Editor
@JonStreet
on Mar 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM EDTProfessors across the country are expressing concern over courses being moved online as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
One professor expressed concern that "right wing sites" could expose what is being taught in college courses.Professors across the country are taking to social media to express their concern over being forced to deliver their course lectures online amid the coronavirus outbreak, sharing with each other tips on how to limit the number of people who are able to see what they're teaching students, and criticizing "right wing sites" and even Campus Reform, specifically.
Texas Christian University Associate Professor of Political Science Emily Farris tweeted Thursday, "if you are recording a lecture on anything controversial, be prepared for right wing sites to ask students to share it." Campus Reform reached out to Farris via Twitter Direct Messaging to allow her the opportunity to further explain her comments or to clarify. She later blocked the author of this article on Twitter.
LaSalle University Assistant Professor of Public Health Christen Rexing replied to Farris' tweet, asking why others could find topics such as "gun safety, women's health, elections, etc." to be "controversial, as they are "evidence-based."
"Seems like the flood gates could open," Rexing commented in response to courses moving online.
University of North Carolina political science graduate student Stephanie Shady also weighed in, saying, "Annnnd I just realized that the second half of my course focuses on public opinion towards and politicization of immigration. This will be interesting." Another user with the Twitter name "Prof CWO" replied "Sigh, I teach about white nationalism and this has been my biggest fear since we began transitioning to online instruction."
Columbia University political science professor Jeffrey Lax said he has been "thinking about" how students would be able to record classes.
Trinity College Associate Professor of Political Science Isaac Kamola who, as Campus Reform previously reported sought to hire a "Campus Reform Early Responder," specifically mentioned Campus Reform in his reply to Farris.
"If Campus Reform harasses you or someone you know, the best response is to 'follow the money.' Campus Reform receives $1.4 million from the Leadership Institute, a Koch-funded organization designed to delegitimize academics they consider too left. They are not a new [sic] source," Kamola tweeted.
A user whose website says they are a history professor at a "community college in North Texas" wrote, "I'm taking steps to limit this but nothing is foolproof."
Farris asked how Gunter was working to ensure her lectures are not made public, to which Gunter responded with one tip for her colleague.
"Instead of posting videos direct to LMS (which would then own them) I'm posting links to the videos on youtube. The videos themselves are 'unlisted' meaning you can't find them in a search or if you go to my page-only if you have the direct link. Doesn't stop link sharing though," Gunter said.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14563
So, here I am, trying to wrap my head around the fact that liberals FEAR the possibility of the public learning what they are teaching. Does that make any sense at all? If I want to shape the world, wouldn't I WANT more people to hear the word, to understand my thoughts and goals, and hopefully to get on board with my agenda?
Instead, we have liberals who FEAR the idea that their thoughts might go viral.
Imagine that. We might suspect that liberal college professors are actually just propaganda indoctrination technicians. Brainwash the kids while they are young, before they develop critical thinking skills, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:34AM (30 children)
Runaway, you uneducated imbecile! This is just like your "Hunt" journal, where you projected onto liberals what you yourself fear, or actually, desire. So yes, liberal professors will (and already do!, check out Harvard https://online-learning.harvard.edu/catalog/free [harvard.edu] and lots of others) share their lectures with you, if you can hold stilll long enough to actually learn anything. And liberals are coming for your guns, and to hunt you down and do really some terrible things to you, just because conservatives are the most oppressed group in America today. Especially white, male, Protestant, heterodox and heterosexual stupid conservatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:43AM (4 children)
Everyone prefers an educated imbecile over an uneducated imbecile, right? Show us again, on the doll, how you touched the white, male, Protestant, heterodox, heterosexual stupid conservative prepubescent child?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:46AM (3 children)
Evidently not, Trump got elected! Runaway did it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @01:21PM (2 children)
Please. Let us concentrate on the doll for a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @09:48AM (1 child)
Perv!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @03:40PM
YOU! STOP RUBBING ON THE DOLL! STOP IT I SAY!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday March 22 2020, @10:00AM
Runaway: This report says smoking's retards educational development, and is more common in schools since the vape ban.
You: My granddad and my uncle both smoked 80 a day and lived till they were in their 90s.
The world: >face palm<
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @01:25PM (6 children)
Have you not noticed that Harvard is not a liberal arts college? Not a Democratic lair? Not where you go to study transgender transracial transspecies transectionalism? Not a place that fears controversy?
Maybe you would like to try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @02:18PM (1 child)
My friend got a 13 on the ACT and applied to Yale. They sent back an acceptance letter but tuition was going to be like $100k per semester.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @03:52PM
You have no friends. Those "friends" down on the corner, who take your disability check from you every month? They're just using you, and that's still the nearest thing to a friend you've ever known.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @06:49PM (3 children)
Have you noticed that you have no idea what a Liberal Arts college is? It is not the boogie man of conservatives, the ones who kidnap them and drop them in a clearing with a pig, Hunger Games style. Liberal Arts are the arts of a liberated (free) person, in other words, the skills Americans need to retain their freedom. Why do you hate America??
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:15PM (2 children)
Oh, yes, I have an idea. It's where navel gazers sit around, convincing each other that their vacuous opinions have something to do with life. It's a nice enough place to keep the lotus eaters out of the way of those who make the world turn. The problem comes in when people begin to take those navel gazers seriously. The Eloi go to liberal arts schools, while those who make things happen go to STEM curriculum schools. But, thanks for playing!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:10PM
Ah, you mean Vo-Techs! Schools for those who would make themselves useful to others, so they can sell themselves to the highest bidder, which seems to be Walmart most recently. Slave schools, schools for slaves; no liberal arts= no freedom. You can paint yourself blue all you like, but if ya caint reed nur right, tugh tittle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @12:33PM
The people going to STEM schools are going to spend their life working at the coal face, while the Eloi are going to sit in the bosses' chairs.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @02:19PM (2 children)
Is Runaway trying to make J. Michael Hudson look sane?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:14PM (1 child)
Maybe. Possible. But he fails at an impossible task and only makes himself appear nearly as insane, just without the anti-semitic part. Runaway is more into islamophobia and philohoplia.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Monday March 23 2020, @01:17AM
He's afraid of Islam AND Philadelphia?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:09PM (13 children)
Non sequitur. What is taught doesn't necessarily reflect exactly what is present in the publications.
Let's see in ultracatholichyperrightwing Italy, what schools teach to 10 years old.
https://www.silvanademaricommunity.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/erikson-sesso-225x300.jpg [silvanademaricommunity.it]
Wew lads, and then you wonder why vital and smart 6 year olds turn to vegetables by 15. Never mind the topic, but if they get fed this flow of unstructured pap 6-8 hours a day even the best brains will succumb.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @10:34PM (12 children)
I hope most people realize that the lead in to the "what is sex" question is an explanation is the reiteration of mothers have babies and then that babies come from sex. So the natural next question is what is sex, hence the excerpt. And the reason why CSE uses a broad definition is because the research shows that using a broad definition of sex reduces all sexual behaviors in children and reduces incidents of sexual abuse by adults. But yes, pass around small excerpts of whole lessons that are part of a comprehensive curricula to take out of context, just as the educators are warning you would.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 23 2020, @07:55AM (11 children)
The literal fuck are you talking about?
- Equating sexual intercourse to fellatio and anal is wrong, not from a religious point of view (not for my religion at least, which is not concerned on what is done but on who does it to whom), it is wrong from a scientific POV;
- paragraphs should summarize content;
- general warning about the dangers of sex are not explained, especially in the relation between promiscuity and danger, in fact the focus is on the type of activity
- my body my choice is subliminally planted outside the context of abortion, or am I mistaken?
You didn't realize all of these problem, prof? truly, leftists are just a bunch of cells.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 23 2020, @07:58AM
> paragraphs
I meant headings, you should desume it from the context ofc
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @08:31PM (1 child)
I see what you are saying. You want two paragraphs of a single page of a single chapter of a book of a larger curriculum to have the entire nuance of the curriculum jammed into them. The only way for people to learn things is to take them step-by-step and attach new knowledge to things they already know. Doing what you suggest would just leave kids confused and uninformed. And they wonder why teachers are worried about people taking what they say out of context.
But it is not wrong to say that sexual activity includes those things. Or are you one of those who say gay men and lesbian women can't really have sex or that as long as you don't stick the penis in the vagina there is no risk of pregnancy or that getting raped in your anus or mouth is less of a violation than in a vagina?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday March 26 2020, @02:08PM
You want two paragraphs of a single page of a single chapter of a book of a larger curriculum to have the entire nuance of the curriculum jammed into them.
when you sample two burgers from a pub and they taste poor, do you go on sampling everything to be sure?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 26 2020, @12:32AM (3 children)
You have *zero* standing to be complaining about sex and children, Opus Dei. Remember that passage about attending to the beam in your own eye before you point out the mote in your neighbor's? Start trying to clean your demonic, blasphemous Church out and get rid of all those sadistic paederasts.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday March 26 2020, @02:06PM (2 children)
If I am responsible for antichristian pedos guess hou you fare for orthodox leftist pedos. Meanwhile boy scouts seem to do very poorly and nobody bats an eye.
All of this being OT wrt the comment you replied to.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2020, @02:53PM (1 child)
Damn yer dumb, and a fair bit evil too. Or is the evil just compounding stupidity gone wrong?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 30 2020, @07:15AM
Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers, as the Bot here is good and well aware, in a sort Milo Suckapriestalot sort of way. Never got this about religion, always seemed to be front for sexual perversion of one sort or another, beginning with those darn Pythagoreans, what with their prohibition on beans, and the Knights Templar, what with their "love that cannot be spoken" nearer to god and buggery. I still don't get it. If your religion involves orgasms, perhaps you auto auto-ass-sphincterate sooner, that later, so you can be reincarnated as a homosexual donkey or zebra, of Republican Senator.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @03:46AM (3 children)
Not seeing the equating myself. They're instead stating that there's this big category, "having sex" that includes all three. It's like saying that a doctor, fire fighter, and astronaut are all professions. They aren't being equated by that observation.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 05 2020, @10:09AM (2 children)
LOL way to miss the point. Let's sidestep the cultural brainwashing, one that currently makes the bigots appear, well, BE, the more rational ones.
There is another big category, chewing. Chewing gum, and chewing food. If a basic textbook taught stuff like this, I'd burn it. Not because of some sacred religion that says only food is sacred and chewing gum sends you to hell, but because it FAILS TO TEACH. What the fuck are you chewing for? YOU TELL THAT FIRST.
Another less basic textbook SHOULD consider the problems that chewing and not eating MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT cause to the organism. Because it is OBVIOUSLY not functional activity in a system which takes function very seriously. The question is like, what if I keep a car in first gear? Can I, for how long?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @04:58PM (1 child)
Because? You already run into problems because chewing food has a different reason than chewing gum does. Same for sex. So you handwave for a paragraph about the multiple reasons for having sex: boyfriend pressured you into it, having fun, or trying to make a kid. Better go into the reasons for not having sex or you're going to create problems right there.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 07 2020, @12:13PM
>Because? You already run into problems because chewing food has a different reason than chewing gum does. Same for sex.
That is my point.
>So you handwave for a paragraph about the multiple reasons for having sex
Yes, that's called teaching vs. indoctrinating. Indoctrinating tells you what to do and what not, teaching gives you a framework for you to understand what's going on.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:45AM (13 children)
Not Brietbarf, not the WashingMoonies Times, not the sin of OANN, not the Daily Caller (Tuckin' Carl'sJr), or even that non-alt-right guy's website, but Campus Reform. Hmmm, who are they?
OK, who is this "Leadership Institute"?
Well, isn't that special! In a "thinking differently (racist)" kind of way.
All the best people! If anyone remembers "top Jeff Gannon, or ex-con James O'keefe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Institute [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Sunday March 22 2020, @10:03AM (12 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 22 2020, @03:25PM (11 children)
Is he wrong though? Don't commit the genetic fallacy..
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @03:53PM
committed the genetic fallacy . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @04:15PM (2 children)
Oh come on.
Do you not realize the irony in your own comment? The original post from Aristarchus was little more than the genetic fallacy embodied.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @06:25PM (1 child)
It wasn't from aristarchus, it was FatPhil pretending to be aristarchus posting AC!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:27AM
So, PhatFil fallacy, then? I always say, consider the Estonian source.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 24 2020, @10:09AM (6 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 24 2020, @02:11PM (5 children)
You did, a veiled genetic fallacy. Your post's subtext is "oh, it's Aristarchus again, fuck's sake. Don't even bother."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 25 2020, @01:09AM
I quite enjoy his posts, not least because his distinctive style, but mostly because he choses interesting tagets. Sometimes he overstretches, but nobody's perfect. When he posts A/C, I don't automatically see his posts, as I have A/Cs down at -1, and view at 0.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @05:01PM (3 children)
Tone troll away! Your hypocrisy, no doubt veiled, sometimes is a marvel to watch.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 07 2020, @04:03AM (2 children)
Do you even know what "tone trolling" is, you stupid son of a bitch? Obviously not.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 07 2020, @06:02PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 09 2020, @12:25AM
You very clearly do not, based on your usage of the term.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by lentilla on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:14AM (11 children)
No, I believe it is more a case that people fear three things:
University-level discussions have traditionally taken place in a forum of trust and with considerable foreknowledge of what was discussed previously. In a way, it has much in common with a family dinner table - ideas can be bandied about because the family knows that everyone will be given the benefit of the doubt to fully flesh out an idea - or possibly to come to the conclusion that a particular idea, argument or opinion doesn't hold weight.
Let's be realistic - we alter the way we speak depending on the audience - not because we are afraid of what we think but because communication is more effective when we tailor it for the recipients. The last thing we want is to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. Just imagine how boring that would be.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:43AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday March 22 2020, @10:08AM (2 children)
But they cannot talk to the outside world that same way because ...
... they don't want the outside world to learn?
What is so dangerous about their knowledge that they positively do not want the outside world to learn it?
The far more parsimonious conclusion is fortunately the obvious one - they are trying to cover up the fact that they are brainwashing students.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Sunday March 22 2020, @01:00PM
Well said. Holding knowledge secret is not a good thing. (Although I personally wouldn't publish "The Complete Beginner's Guide to Making Explosives In Your Own Kitchen".)
Perhaps my take on the matter is coloured. I am more than happy to oblige when asked to teach something - but if someone asks me to lecture into a camera lens to an unknown audience I will simply decline. (Well, not absolutely decline - but it will very much change my choice of delivery.)
It is hard to pin down exactly why I feel this way. Perhaps it is because I feel the need for a reciprocal arrangement where I can see those that I am teaching, learning the subject. Perhaps it is a need to open a dialogue. Perhaps it is just vanity. Hard to know.
I know I have little desire to be a TV presenter. If I am going to teach I want it to be part of a two-way process - otherwise I would simply write a book. So maybe that's the reason for feeling the way I do: if I want to learn something, I start reading. When and if I need further help I look for a teacher - that being someone I can interact with.
There is one additional element - and that regards feedback. I am more than happy to engage with students (after all, that is probably the best part of teaching). What I do not want to do is get heckled by anonymous mobs - which is something the Internet facilitates well. Given the assumption that I am teaching something valuable to a limited number of students, I don't want to be heckled by a much larger number of people who are interested only in causing trouble, with zero interest in seeking knowledge, and with no way to effectively engage with a meaningful dialogue with everyone.
So I don't believe I am promoting secret knowledge. There are particularly gifted "TV Educators" but I would not advocate forcing all teachers into that narrow specification. One of humanity's greatest attributes is our ability to pass on knowledge - and of those that have a special affinity to do so not every teacher (and not every student) is suited to broadcast learning.
Quite. Although in my case you'll have to take my word for it that I not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes - I simply want to pass on something they actually want to learn.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Monday March 23 2020, @07:36PM
What is so dangerous about their knowledge that they positively do not want the outside world to learn it?
Most muggles aren't accustomed to seeing a flying car.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @04:10PM (5 children)
Eh? I went to a top 10 university. Literally anybody, student or not, could sit in any class they wanted. To my knowledge this is still the case, though I haven't visited the campus in more than a decade. I think the major difference is schools teaching people *how* to think versus teaching them *what* to think. Now a days, especially among degree mill universities, the latter seems to be becoming the norm. When you remain in the domain of logic and analysis it doesn't matter who you're talking to because you're not really taking any moral or ethical position one way or the other. It's only when one starts to aim to try to persuade people to think a certain way that issues start to emerge because you inherently begin to try to support (or oppose) various views for reasons outside of provable and impartial considerations.
This is part of the reason that I've always felt the social sciences have become increasingly inappropriate. In times past they made sense. They were little more than a fundraiser. They were there to enable rich kids to pursue to have something to shoot the shit about at their cocktail parties, with those funds subsidizing the cool stuff the school was actually doing and the education of those actually doing things. But now a days people coming from poor backgrounds are pursuing these courses that have no real redeemable value whatsoever. And then these people graduate 6 figures in debt and start ranting about capitalism because nobody wants to hire them and their impeccable knowledge of critical theory, intersectionality, and other topics which are mostly meaningless in terms of actually achieving things. But at least your barista can provide you some amusing rants.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @06:45PM (4 children)
You're a moron who views education solely as a means to economic development. Like some spoiled brat who gets the benefit of their family's hard work then goes and whines about doing chores, not getting the newest toy, and learns to criticize the "lazy" help.
You are the dipshit academic who would be easily manipulated into supporting Eugenics because you took no philosophy courses, no ethics courses, and no history courses to give you some sliver of wisdom from the humanity's development.
Current structure of society is fucked and leads to people denigrating"useless" endeavors. Pretty ridiculous when the goal of technological development was to make life better and free humanity to pursue less survival based activities.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:27PM (2 children)
Ahhh but you, quite ironically, perfectly illustrate what I mean. Practically all [wikipedia.org] of academia were some of the biggest voices behind eugenics - Harvard, Wharton, Stanford and all the old money philanthropic organizations - the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, etc. And, in fact, nearly all universities even had courses specifically about eugenics as part of their curriculum. And as genetics was still in its infancy, the majority of arguments were specifically of the ethical and moral sort.
In particular imagine somebody is about to be born. You know this child will end up a murderer of great harm and no value to society. If you have the choice, is it ethical to prevent this birth? Regardless of whether you view the world deontologically, consequentially, or in a simple utilitarian fashion - the answer would probably be yes. From this point you've already created the ethical foundation of eugenics. What remains is little more than a question of certainty and criteria. E.g. what if you're 99% sure? What if instead of being a murderer he's "just" rapist? So forth and so on.
We could go further, but it's beside the point. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of eugenics. I'd rather pluck my own eyes out than to see our dysfunctional governments be granted [...more...] power over life and death itself, regardless of the arguable utility. But that's because of my own personal beliefs, not because I think eugenics is not supportable. The sole reason you apparently seem to think there could exist no argument in favor of eugenics from a moral or ethical viewpoint is exclusively because you have not been taught, or at least not learned, *how* to think, but only *what* to think. And that is sad. It results in you having such a limited perspective of the world due to impaired reasoning and logic abilities.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 23 2020, @08:14AM (1 child)
> You know this child will end up a murderer of great harm and no value to society. If you have the choice, is it ethical to prevent this birth?
Never got to understand this question. If you know the future 100% accu, just have a couple policemen around as he brings the knife against the first person. Plus, whoever else has this divination power? "You know this doctor will end up murdering your kid, if you have the choice....". In other word, moral questions about impossible situations are irrelevant, they are just there to establish a slippery slope.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @04:25PM
Ah, but this scenario doesn't create any sort of a slippery slope. These issues are always present in our views and values, but people who never really bother to delve into *why* they think what they think, never really consider them. All the scenario does is emphasize that your views are not necessarily what you think they are.
To understand the importance of considering these scenarios we can turn to one of the most influential philosophers of all time - Al-Ghazali. [wikipedia.org] People are quick to recount that the Islamic world was at one time the center of education and learning in the world. And that is, mostly, true. Of course everything from Arabic numerals to Algebra (from Ilm al-jabr wa l-muqābala) all came from the Islamic world especially during the Islamic Golden Age. But few ever talk about what happened. Why did this end, how? That is where our friend Al-Ghazali comes into play.
Al-Ghazali was a philosopher and particularly a religious philosopher. However, he rather tired of these sort of logical games posing various difficult to answer questions to views that were not really as sound as people liked to imagine they were. So he developed a new theory, extensively elaborated upon in his famous treatise, 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'. He resolved all of these logical problems by simply rejecting them all, not all that different than you are indirectly proposing. He posited that when a leaf comes to light, it wasn't because it was heated to a certain level, because it was exposed to fire, or anything like this. It was solely and exclusively because God willed it to come to flames at that exact moment. And the only reason such a thing would repeat is because, each and every time, god wills it happen. It has nothing to do with the fire, nothing to do with the leaf, nothing to do with anything except for fire. Everything happens because, and only because, God wills it happen at that exact moment.
That philosophy was comforting to many because it again justified belief in absolutes without all these pesky logical issues that they tend to run into. And it spread far and wide across the Islamic world. That view also persists to this day. It's the very reason that the Islamic world went from the world leader in what was practically everything to a mentally desolate 'nation' with little to nothing to show for their contributions to humanity, in spite of making up a one of the largest chunks of our species' population. And indeed the Islamic Golden Age would come to an end relatively shortly following the adoption of Al-Ghazali's 'resolution.'
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @03:56AM
Completely mischaracterizing another person's statements is truly the essence of the educated mind. I hope you didn't pay a lot for that.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:18PM
Indeed there are other possibilities. Not one of them, short of risk from a mob of nazis (that one day will materialize, if only for the tons of time they have been evoked), justifies censorship. I mean, your sons and daughters are being shaped by those guys, and we should care about them being in a controversy? I'd say, all the power and no responsibility? fuck them.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:20AM (1 child)
Allodoxaphobia - the fear of hearing other people's opinions.
These supposed educators can only prosper when their listeners are too afraid to offer differing opinions or interpretations, like a bunch of students desperate for that degree. Out on the open internet, when just anyone can talk back, well, the very idea sends them off to their safe space.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:23PM
Allowhat?
allo other
doxa opinion i know i know
I'd go for something simpler, impostor syndrome. Entirely justified when you are an impostor.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:27AM (5 children)
I agree that classrooms aren't the appropriate setting for instructors to be promoting political views. But there are a couple of problems here:
1) Turning Point USA maintains a "professor watchlist" [professorwatchlist.org] that's supposed to be a list of professors pushing liberal views in the classroom. If you look at why the professors have landed on the watchlist, many are on it for things they've said in TV interviews or written in op-eds, not things they've done in the classroom. Putting faculty on a watchlist for expressing their opinions outside of the classroom has a chilling effect on free speech.
2) Why are they only concerned about liberal professors pushing their political views in the classroom? Shouldn't it also be out of bounds for professors using the classroom to push conservative views? It seems like organizations like TPUSA support free speech just as long as it's speech they agree with.
3) Some of the faculty are on the watchlist because they've told students to do assignments about topics or political positions they disagree with. This can mean being expected to write persuasive essays supporting positions they personally disagree with. However, that can be valid as a critical thinking exercise, to give students practice understanding positions they don't personally agree with. For example, a journalist reporting on politics will need to be able to understand all sides of political issues regardless of which side they personally support. They need to be able to ask tough questions of people whether or not they agree with those people. Such assignments have landed professors on the watchlist, but there are very valid reasons why a professor might assign something like that. It doesn't necessarily constitute using the classroom to push political views on students.
4) Why is it that some conservatives who staunchly support second amendment rights don't seem particularly concerned about first amendment rights? Consider the case of University of Kansas professor David Guth [bearingarms.com], who tweeted a comment expressing his outrage about the NRA's position on gun control amid school shootings. What he tweeted wasn't very nice, but he wasn't actually calling for people to shoot the children of NRA leaders. He was harshly pointing out that the NRA leadership might view the issue differently if their children had been the victims of school shootings. Whether you support or oppose gun control, it seems clear that Guth's tweet wasn't a very nice thing to say, but it's protected political speech. It seems that some second amendment rights advocates were willing to dispense with first amendment protections for speech, yet they seem to resist just about every effort to increase gun control. Why is freedom of speech less important than the right to keep and bear arms?
5) People often conflate politics with matters of science. For example, they object that professors might teach that humans are causing much of the global climate change observed over the past few decades, but not present the opposing view. The reason is that one of these sides is supported by a very large majority of climatologists and is backed by substantial evidence, while the other has neither. There's a similar issue regarding the teaching of evolution versus creationism in the classroom. One is both theory and fact, while the other is simply not science. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a matter of religion, is not testable in principle, and therefore has no place in a science class. For that matter, evolution and creation, including by the Christian God, are not mutually exclusive. Yet people have difficulty separating science for political issues. Saying that humans are causing global warming is a statement of science, not expressing a political view. But many people don't understand the distinction.
6) Campus Reform has a history of misleading reporting [merionwest.com]. Moreover, many of the professors placed on the TPUSA watchlist were added because of Campus Reform reporting.
So while I don't agree with using the classroom to push political views on students, I see plenty of reasons why faculty are wary.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:52PM (3 children)
Seems to me like whether the professor in question could be fired for that speech is all about his employment contract with the university (which quite often do restrict the ability to fire professors for speech), not about the first amendment.
I don't see where that says you can't or shouldn't be fired for speech, even political speech. He absolutely has a right to say that, but where does it give him a right to keep his job afterwards?
Sure, but it doesn't even matter. Even if he literally meant "I hate you so much I hope someone shoots your kids in their fucking faces", he still has the absolute right to say it. And the first amendment still doesn't give him a right not to be fired for it.
Finally, even though I don't see that the case you cited evidences this 2A > 1A preference at all:
If they cared more about the first amendment than the second, they'd be "first amendment rights advocates" instead. It's a self-selected sample, of course you're bound to find some people who care more (or only) about the second as well as those who care more-or-less equally about both.
Personally, I care deeply about both, but as I see it, the first amendment rights are in much better shape, so I find myself comparatively less concerned about them. Believe me, I want free speech to stay that way, and I do resist abridgements of the first amendment, but if you manage to contrive a situation where I had to choose one or the other, I'd favor the second without hesitation.
If felons who've served their time were kept muzzled from political speech against the war on drugs and the prison industry, as they are kept disarmed against violence in their communities; if most Americans had to wait for a state-issued permit before they were allowed to utter political speech in public, as they do to carry a handgun; if there were a $200 tax, a federal registry, and a background check (which entails a 6-month bureaucratic wait because fuck you) to start any organ of journalism from a blog up, as there is for NFA firearms; if it were illegal to found a new civilian-owned newspaper, with only those already in business before 1986 permitted to change hands, as it now is with machineguns; and if, on top of all that, one political party was still crying "More, more restrictions! That speech is only suitable for governments; it has no place in our streets!", you can bet I and many others would "resist every effort" to abridge the first with the same fervor we oppose yet one more infringement of the second.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 23 2020, @03:50PM (1 child)
Whoa. That is very well said. First amendment rights are in little danger, today, in comparison with second amendment rights. Great post!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24 2020, @08:48AM
If someone is disqualified from government employment on the basis of their political speech, surely that does infringe upon the right to free speech. I agree that nobody is entitled to a government job. But it's an attack on free speech to remove someone from a government job on the basis of their political speech.
Conservative groups like Campus Reform and TPUSA don't believe that conservatives have free speech on college campuses. If free speech isn't under attack, how can this be?
Cancel culture is toxic, whether it's coming from the right or from the left. The real test of whether you support free speech is whether you support the right to say things you find truly repugnant. Everyone supports free speech when it's speech they agree with. And too many people are willing to censor speech just because they disagree with it. Are you sure that free speech isn't under attack?
The bottom line is that we shouldn't pick and choose which rights are more important than others. I support second amendment rights. But it's unreasonable to call for someone's first amendment rights to be violated because they spoke out against second amendment rights. All of our rights are essential.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @05:32PM
There's two factors to consider here. First, who's paying for that university? If it's outright a state university, for example, they're subject to the First Amendment. That has priority over any contracts and they can't fire someone merely for speech. And I'd wager that universities dependent on government funding are somewhat constrained as well (for example, no firing people by proxy in order to preserve government funding). Second, a number of universities advertise their free speech environment and have it codified into their rules. Even when free speech isn't part of the contract with the professor, false advertising still constrains them.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:26PM
Seems to me that the watchlist mirrors what the lefty have done in the latest 10 years. Yes, it's a bad thing, it is also eating own dogfood for a leftie prof.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:41AM (11 children)
No, because they aren't liberals. Nothing liberal about them. These are, in bulk if not in total, regressive reactionaries, quite the opposite of liberals.
"Brainwash the kids while they are young, before they develop critical thinking skills, right?"
And whenever possible prevent them from ever developing such skills, yep. That's why public schools were invented.
Other posters have pointed out already some more 'legit' concerns that *might* be in play, and that may not be entirely wrong. But I doubt it amounts to much more than rounding error.
Actual liberals are happy to see their lectures distributed as widely as possible, and happy to engage in dialogue with their critics.
Faux liberals prefer to speak in secret, and punish their critics rather than engaging them.
Which do you think this article was actually describing?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday March 22 2020, @10:22AM (6 children)
I'd be very surprised if there was anything being taught in her syllabi that Alan Sokal or Peter Boghossian couldn't shit on from a great height. Does their political "science" have any testable hypotheses? The only question in my mind is whether it's more wrong, or more not even wrong.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:18PM (5 children)
Alan Sokal - science, mathematics, physics?? What kind of cult worshipers are these people? Thank goodness there's not very many of them. Why do people want to learn things anyway? Curiosity should be regarded suspiciously. Just put the Ramen in the microwave and push the button.
Political science... A most obvious contradiction.. Animal Planet is more educational. I can easily understand why they don't want these "courses" getting out.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday March 23 2020, @12:14AM (4 children)
It's just a specialisation inside of Ethology. Granted it's difficult for humans to attain the neutral point of view required to do it honestly, and most academics don't even try.
Animal planet can be quite educational, but it intentionally avoids treating humans directly. And we aren't identical even to our closest cousins, let alone to say crocodiles.
Although their presence in central africa certainly shaped our own evolution.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 23 2020, @12:39AM (2 children)
The only "science" in politics peaked with Edward Bernays. It is the science of propaganda/advertising. That would be the correct label for the course. On the other hand, politics is synonymous with propaganda So, okay, I can dig
And we aren't identical even to our closest cousins
We only have less hair. We do the whole alpha thing just as extremely as all other complex lifeforms, and even the simple ones. Proximity to power is a real thing. Our nature is very identical. Our political and economic systems are pure native savagery. Just look at DC. Even better, Ankara [youtube.com]. It couldn't be more animal, made worse by the psychopathy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday March 23 2020, @07:30AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @05:41PM
I can figure out how to make something more or less similar. But more or less identical?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 23 2020, @01:26AM
Oh, damn, I completely missed it, sorry 'bout that!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 22 2020, @12:35PM (3 children)
We run into that, time and again. In the US, our liberals are not liberal, our conservatives are not conservative, left ain't left, right ain't right, and anything in the middle is just ground zero for all the destructive SOB's who hate America. And, yet, Dem, left, socialist, and liberal remain near-synonyms for the same group of people who are left of republicans in the US. Would it suffice to say that I understand all of that, and yet, I don't understand a bit of it?
Once again, I despise the R's, and I despise the D's at least a hundred times as much. They all suck!
And, I keep wondering when the common man, Joe the plumber, and Andy the auto plant worker, and all the rest of us are going to revolt from the two parties, and vote in some real people. It's been a near thing, last two elections, but it still hasn't happened. All we hear are rumors of revolt, but the nearest thing so far was when Wasserman-Schultz was booted from her chairmanship at the DNC. The other near thing, was the defeat of Clinton. Trump? Sort of a revolt - we dodged several bullets with that huge field of potentials offered by the R's.
So, here we are, with a laundry list of higher education "authorities" who fear that the common man might hear and understand their subversive propaganda.
Personally, I love knowing that they fear all of us Americans who still love our nation. Let them quake in fear, wondering when we are coming to get them.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @05:22PM
Ugh, you're the worst.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday March 22 2020, @05:53PM (1 child)
That's understandable. It's been deliberately done to render thought difficult.
"And, yet, Dem, left, socialist, and liberal remain near-synonyms for the same group of people who are left of republicans in the US."
But in what way are they to the left of republicans in the US?
The party power structure, and many of its officeholders, have spent the last 4 years consistently attacking a republican president *from the right* so how can they be to the left of the republicans?
We have two right-wing parties right now, and BOTH of them have worked for decades to make liberal a dirty word. Because liberalism is what they both fear and loathe.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:28PM
We have two right-wing parties right now
Not really, it is one party grazing on the bourgeoisie
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @01:28PM
People pay forthe course material and access to a lecturer/advisors. Making half of that free to all cuts into the bottom line. Actual content was always secondary. As in no uni course has new to say, rather collated and managed in a certain way.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 22 2020, @03:20PM (3 children)
Give it up already. Your sources have been exposed several times in the thread comments, the story itself is the same kind of weak, whiny, limp-wristed persecution porn you're constantly whacking off to anyway, and *no one cares.* Not even Jesus loves you. Not even Jesus *notices* you. You're background noise to the world at large. Get it through your fat head already.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @04:20PM (1 child)
Springtime again, and Azuma Hazuki begins fantasizing about Runaway1956 sex life again. How would this work, Hazuki? You ambush him, kneecap him with your little .22, then rub your bush all over him? You will show him no mercy until he gives you an ounce of creamy white jism? Then what? Will you bite his head off, like some spiders do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @04:56PM
my qotd
That would be superfast gestation for a human, a little fast for spiders - http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/marssim/simhtml/organisms/spider.html [northwestern.edu]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @06:47PM
and people whine and downvote you
troll? idiots can't even figure out the difference between flamebait and troll
it has been nice to see some of the other users recently finally pushing back against the alt-right craziness, thank you to everyone willing to go through the trouble of calling out bullshit
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @06:55PM (1 child)
As some AC said in Runaway's last journal, "Runaway is a doo-doo head. He smells like poop." Truer words, etc, etc.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @09:47AM
Runaway never went to collage, you know. He was "socially promoted" out of secondary school, enough to "Join the Navy", as the Men at Work song goes. So, no, never had much book larning, or any larning at all butsex what he kenned from Faux News and Newt Gringrich, a stupid person's idea of a smart person. Newt wrote a book one, about how great the Belgians were in the Congo. Kind of a "Heart of Whiteness". Scary how stupid and uneducated some people can be, as illusterated by the Runaway, 'cher.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 22 2020, @08:10PM
At least she can provide plausible deniability. "Oh, I'm not the Steph Shady you're thinking about. I'm not the real one, I'm just imitating."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:45PM (2 children)
It would seem to be the Democrats who want to reap benefit from the situation, but Republican states are acting the same way. It seems a bit over the top to hurt citizens in one's own state so hard, just to embarrass Trump.
Coronavirus disease has been around since December, people have been migrating more or less freely until the US closed the border to China. If the disease is so contagious, you likely already had community spread from airports and universities going on for months. Then people started getting sick in Italy and their outcomes at least seem at face value to be much worse than elsewhere.
So in the realm of conspiracy theories: Did, possibly the Italians, try to engineer a vaccine for the virus but instead ended up creating a much more virulent version? And this information is being circulated among governments, but kept from the people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 23 2020, @06:14AM
Republicans want to "profit" from the situation, and some already have. Hanging's too good for 'em. But for now, "Lock them up!" Burr, and that bitch married to the chair of the stock exchange, and ron johnson, bastard.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 23 2020, @08:22AM
You are assuming that in a matter of 2 months we pick a virus, decide to weaponize it, succeed, and mistakenly release it into the wild. The timing is so unitalian. The proposal to pick up the virus is probably ping ponging between state departments right now.
Account abandoned.