This is what happens when you start banning accepted science and threatening to take people's kids away. They could have gotten away with a lot more with fewer academic casualties if they hadn't been so public and aggressive about everything.
The academic casualties are the whole point. First you pass the silly laws, then you drive away the kinds of high-profile experts who might say something to embarrass or oppose you politically. Then you guarantee that most in-state students get a systematically worse and propaganda-filled education, while the smart and creative kids go to other states (where they likely stay.) Eventually you've driven away the experts, voters and activists who might otherwise oppose you politically.
It's too bad that everyone in Florida has to suffer a worse economy and educational system so a few politicians can enshrine themselves for life, but many of those Floridians are voting for it.
I always thought the Texas crazyness was similar. Texas makes a huge fuss with insane abortion laws at the same time as people were talking about moving from the liberal west coast, often with Texas in their sights.
Did you read the article? There are no laws attacking accepted science, there are laws pushing back on ideological capture.
That the country is “systemically racist” and that “men can be women” are not scientific facts. These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset. Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
In short, this is a shortage of politically motivated academics who bias their research and teaching towards political ends rather than the truth. Purging the university of these kinds is a major win.
There is an objective truth to things. Wrapping those things in “political policy recommendations” doesn’t detract from that objective truth.
Now you can discuss that objective truth but dismissing it as politically motivated, saying, without any cause, that the people who left those positions “
bias their research and teaching away from truth, and finishing with stating that a (objectively politically motivated) purge is a “major win” is the height of lazy, brain-dead thinking that might benefit from a little bit more education and a little bit less red-meat politics.
What a strange one-sided debate you’re trying so desperately to have.
I suggest re-reading my comment again, but without the “I’m completely triggered by any mention of gender online” glasses that you’re clearly wearing right now.
I'm not sure what made you think this is a debate. I'd just like to understand how you came to your conclusions. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. You don't have to answer. The process takes some back and forth, that's all.
It sounds like your observations about how people interact socially are as clear as watching a ball travel through the air. Is that right?
In this world we live in there exists an objective truth to things. "things" in this context can be fuzzy, like if something is "good" or "bad", or they could be physical, like if something is getting "hotter" or "colder".
Wrapping those "things" in "politics" doesn't detract from the objective truth of the "thing", whatever that may be. It's merely a lazy distraction that reframes the debate in a way that favours the person or entity positioning themselves against the "thing" (for whatever reason). Here are some examples:
> The planet isn't getting hotter. These "scientists" are just begging for grant money and so have to say the planet is warming else they won't have a job!
> The planet is getting warmer. These "politicians" are just begging for oil-industry money and so have to say the planet is not getting warmer else they won't have a job!
> men cannot be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a politically motivated idiot trying to tear down good honest family values and those who indoctrinate our students with this nonsense should be purged
> men can be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a hard-headed idiot who must vote republican/conservative/other-bad-party, is probably racist and is trying to bring us drag us back into the stone age where women didn't have the vote. anyone who indoctrinates their kids with this nonsense should be purged
None of these unfortunately common arguments are actually saying anything, or are really about the actual "thing" in question. Just like the original comment I was replying to. The "thing" is a segway to attack the person.
The original commenter doesn't understand the nuances of systematic racism or sex vs gender any more than the layman. But that's not what they are attacking. They are attacking a perceived, fictitious persona that they don't personally like, or have been indoctrinated to not like by others. And that's lazy as hell.
I still don't understand. The person you originally replied to was celebrating "politically motivated academics" not interested in the truth being purged and you replied, vaguely, that there's an objective truth and then insulted the user's intelligence for celebrating a politically motivated purge.
Something tells me you wouldn't have made the same post if the politics were the other way around.
> These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset.
Could you provide some citations showing how this is becoming less prominent over time?
> Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
That’s interesting, don’t you think? Wouldn’t that discount most practical research as “politics”?
> politically motivated academics who bias their research
This stands out in a good faith reading as a real problem that commonly occurs. However, the preceding words "this is a shortage of" suggest that it is known that these specific academics perpetrate this problem. Is there a way for one who is currently uninformed to become informed about this?
> Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
This sounds like a Political Person can choose to co-opt my opinion as part of their Platform and then tell me that my opinion is Political. No, it's just an opinion; not everything is Politics.
One can dream that the solution here would be to have companies to start treating Florida university degrees as worthless. Want a job outside of Florida? Need to go to university and live outside of Florida. Want a job with a company that is based outside of Florida but has Florida offices? Gotta go to university outside of Florida as well.
Will that hurt a lot of people that live in Florida? Yeah, it absolutely will. But sometimes, pain is the best medicine. I know it's callous and heartless, but much like with cancer, sometimes you need to cut out healthy tissue to make sure you cut out all the cancer. At some point you do need to put the needs and betterment of society as a whole above the individual.
Plus I figure if we can manage to hold them off long enough, Florida's gonna turn into a bunch of archipelagos and politically irrelevant.
I agree with the thesis of the article but it sure is using a lot of dodgy language to get around making statements of fact to back it up.
36 of the small honors college’s approximately 100 full-time teaching positions were vacant.
Orphan statistic. How does this compare to two years ago before the slate of bigoted lawmaking?
“State University System of Florida has not received any concerns from our member institutions indicating turnover this year has been any higher than previous years."
Andrew Gothard predicts a loss of between 20 and 30% of faculty members at some universities
Is the first statement a lie? If so, why is the second statement just a vague prediction of a 20-30% turnover without any explanation of evidence?
It should not be difficult to do better than just a list of anecdotal stories from people who say they're leaving.
I see vigilance when it comes to applying the same standards of evidence to people you agree with and people you don't as an important part of being a functional human being. Once you get emotionally attached to your conclusions you're not a rational thinker anymore; you're just a dumb animal following your tribalistic loyalty around. My opinions could be proven wrong at any time.
