Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
Pants-of-dog wrote:As I predicted, the immediate response was to try and justify this response by blaming the “other” side.
Since Republican voters can convince themselves that Democrats forced them to take away civil rights, they can vote for politicians who take away civil rights with a clear conscience.
And this is why Desantis stands a good chance of winning.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
I am not certain why you are directing this at me. You have been very clear in your opinion of me, and no doubt think that I am being hypocritical or whatever.
And you seem to agree with my claims, and are merely explaining why you think Desantis should be applauded for his open support for whiteness.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
Yes, you have already explained why you stand by government intrusion and control of education, including censorship.
You now seem to be arguing that any degree that makes. less money than any other PSE program is worthy of being fully cancelled.
Pernell v Florida Board of Governors of the State University System & Novoa v Diaz wrote:...
So, what does Bishop require this Court to do? Before discussing the analytical framework in depth and applying it to Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court briefly describes the case itself. Bishop involved an exercise physiology professor at the University of Alabama who challenged the University’s restriction on his class discussions, which included religious matters that the University deemed outside the scope of his required course content. The professor would refer to his religious beliefs during instructional time and, on the eve of exams, offered an “after-class meeting for his students and others . . . wherein he lectured on and discussed ‘Evidences of God in Human Physiology.’ ” Id.
After receiving a few complaints from students, the University issued a memo to the professor about “Religious Activities in a Public Institution.” Bishop, 926 F.2d at 1069. The University’s memo advised that the professor’s references to his religious beliefs and his after-class meeting “[were] unwarranted at a public institution such as The University of Alabama and should cease.” Id. Failing to persuade the President of the University to rescind the memo, the professor sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the memo violated his free speech rights, among other constitutional violations. Id. at 1070. After the case proceeded to a final order of summary judgment in the professor’s favor, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court. Id.
In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the “University’s restrictions with respect to classroom conduct issued under its authority to control curriculum” did not infringe the professor’s free speech rights. Id. at 1078. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit held that “the memo’s restriction with respect to the optional after-class meeting” did not infringe the professor’s free speech rights, given that the “ ‘extra’ or ‘optional’ class or meeting [was] under the patronage of a university course” and that the meeting was held so close to the course’s final examination. Id.
To reach these conclusions, the Eleventh Circuit applied a “case-by-case inquiry into whether the legitimate interests of the authorities [were] demonstrably sufficient to circumscribe [the] teacher’s speech.” Bishop, 926 F. 2d at 1074 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court suggested a balance of interests, taking “as its polestar Kuhlmeier’s concern for the ‘basic educational mission’ of the school which gives it authority by the use of ‘reasonable restrictions’ over in-class speech that it could not censor outside the classroom.” Id. (quoting Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 266–67). But the Eleventh Circuit did not hold that no protection attaches to professors’ in-class speech. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit recognized the principle, which this Court has already discussed at length, that the State has great flexibility when it comes to setting curriculum and determining course content. And with respect to the facts at issue in Bishop, the Eleventh Circuit held that when a professor and a university “disagree about a matter of content in the courses he teaches . . . . [t]he University must have the final say in such a dispute.” Id. at 1076. In other words, “[t]he University’s conclusions about course content must be allowed to hold sway over an individual professor’s judgment.”48 Id. at 1077.
In Bishop, the Eleventh Circuit considered three factors under its “case-bycase” approach—namely, (1) “the context,” (2) “the University’s position as a public employer which may reasonably restrict the speech rights of employees more readily than those of other persons,” specifically with respect “to reasonably control[ling] the content of its curriculum, particularly that content imparted during class time,” and (3) “the strong predilection for academic freedom as an adjunct of the free speech rights of the First Amendment.” Id. at 1074–75.
The context of Bishop involved a professor who independently chose to inject his personal religious beliefs into class discussions on exercise physiology. Citing the ever-present “specter of an establishment violation,” the Eleventh Circuit credited the University’s concerns of possible coercion as a valid interest in regulating the professor’s speech. Id. at 1076 n.7. The fact that the professor conducted an “optional class” that served as a soapbox for his own personal agenda on the eve of final exams underscored the University’s concern about coercion.
In addition, the Eleventh Circuit recognized that the professor sought to recategorize his religious beliefs as his professional views about the science course he was required to teach. Id. Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out “that the two have to be conceptually separated for fair analysis. That is, simply renaming religious views as professional, no matter how well-founded . . . does not deny the authority of his employer to request that he sequester the personal from the professional nor dismiss the specter of an establishment violation.” Id. In other words, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the University had a valid and weighty interest in regulating the course curriculum and avoiding an establishment violation, which outweighed the professor’s asserted interest in academic freedom to discuss his religious beliefs in relation to the exercise physiology course he was required to teach.49 This was particularly true where the Eleventh Circuit was “not convinced . . . that Dr. Bishop ha[d] fully comprehended the separation of his personal views from his professorial duties that the University demands.” Id. at 1076 n.7.
Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit found that a professor cannot do an end-run around required curriculum by hijacking a course’s content and injecting religious beliefs into the classroom under the guise of offering their “professional opinion” on the subject. Considering the facts and the Establishment Clause concerns at play in Bishop, the Eleventh Circuit “concluded that the University as an employer and educator can direct Dr. Bishop to refrain from expression of religious viewpoints in the classroom and like settings.” Id. at 1077.
This is not to say, however, that the University’s restriction was permissible simply because of the religious nature of the speech at issue.50 Bishop might have had a different outcome had Dr. Bishop taught a religious studies class and instead offered his views regarding his own faith while instructing on Christianity. Or it might have been a different case had the University permitted the exercise physiology course to include a unit on intelligent design and evolution with respect to human physiology. In Bishop, however, the Eleventh Circuit credited the University’s determination that Dr. Bishop’s religious speech was not part of its curriculum with respect to the exercise physiology course he taught. The same would likely be true if a professor tried to teach an introductory botany class through the lens of critical race theory.
In sum, the Eleventh Circuit—on the facts of the case before it—held that the University’s authority to regulate content in the classroom with respect to the established curriculum and its concern regarding a possible establishment violation outweighed the professor’s weak interest in academic freedom to change the content of the course. The Eleventh Circuit never said the University of Alabama had unfettered power to control every thought or opinion a professor wished to express during class. Instead, it determined that the University had proved it had a sufficient interest to justify restricting Dr. Bishop’s in-class speech about his religious beliefs.
...
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog I think it's obvious you're referring to me.
Why should Florida fund humanities instead of e.g. the trades? The Canadian case suggests that, for the median graduate, learning a trade will pay as much as a humanities BA (same holds in the US depending on the trade), although BAs are more expensive for the government (the studies take longer).
To me, this suggests there are just too many humanities grads around to require any special subsidy from the government, but it would make sense to differentiate by each major to make a proper decision. For the quintessential humanities major (gender studies), the median earnings in 2019 stood at ~$55,000, which is what the median electrician was earning in 2018.
@Tainari88 I already answered to Pote in the respective thread. Do you have anything of value to add here besides saying I'm lazy even though you have zero arguments to make here (or there for that matter)?
No, having another Hispanic who doesn't toe to your line is not "laziness" or "dishonesty". Dishonesty is to lie about your own initial claims and then changing the goalposts.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that the proposed bill does not merely call to defund gender studies programs. It calls for their elimination.
The defunding happens later, as punishment for those universities that refuse to abolish those degree programs.
Forcibly preventing all gender studies, intersectionality, and critical race theory programs is government suppression of the free exchange of ideas, even if one wishes to describe it as a curriculum decision.
wat0n wrote:@Tainari88 I'm not referring to your claims, but to @Pants-of-dog's behavior in another thread.
Feel free to support one of those with evidence. […]
- By Pants-of-dog
Yes, thise DNA test sites that tell you that you a[…]
No. So you agree that the IDF is blocking comvoy[…]
Women have in professional Basketball 5-6 times m[…]
- By litwin