82 thoughts on “[Florida] State university faculty, students to be surveyed on beliefs”

      1. So, to avoid “McCarthyism” we should refrain from asking people what they believe?

        I think the state has an obligation to conduct quality checks of the organizations it funds. Invoking the boogeyman of McCarthyism is an overreaction to the proposal.

        Like

        Reply

          3. I attended college in the early 1980s, and again in the mid 1990s. In the latter period the prevalence of Marxian ideology in the English Lit. courses I took had become suffocating. I felt as though a revolution had taken place.

            Like

          5. When I returned to college in the 1990s, courses in women and third-world writers had become qraduation requirements. Everything I read in those classes was somehow connected to the evils of colonialism, so I would say elements of Marxian critique, structuralism and post-structuralism all applied.

            However one defines the ideological bias, the underlying theme was clear: western culture and its civilizations are shameful.

            Like

          6. Is it so bad that you had to be familiar with something other than Shakespeare and Emerson?

            Marxism is a useful paradigm for analyzing the situations of marginalized people. Being a colonial subject is not an enviable position. That’s not usually controversial to Americans.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “Marxism is a useful paradigm for analyzing the situations of marginalized people.”

            I don’t find it so.

            Like

        2. “. . . boogeyman of McCarthyism”

          The problem is not asking what people believe – opinion surveys are done all the time. The problem is the stated purpose of THIS survey by the head of the state government.

          So if you think this proposal is hunky dory, who decides what “indoctrination” is and what ideas have been unfairly ridiculed? What findings would indicate good “quality” in this “quality check?”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  2. Seems to me that the intent is to prevent suppression of viewpoint not restrict it as you appear to support. I should not be scared for my grade or job to be severely affected if I publically say I don’t buy this trans stuff so stay in the bathroom of your birth gender.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I agree nobody should fear for their job for their opinions. However, your trans denial has now ventured into policing bathrooms and affects other people. If you were some high-ranking official, your opinions shouldn’t be allowed to govern where people go to the bathroom.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. When my daughters privacy rights are violated in order to appease a boy in a dress and left wingers, it IS a policy issue. That is why family bathrooms were installed but that isnt good enough for the kooks.

        Like

        Reply

        1. How would your daughter know? Ladies rooms all have individual stalls anyway. Does she open all the doors and check other occupants’ genitals before she does her business?

          Talk about a violation of privacy rights.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Bathrooms include showers in schools and dressing in locker rooms. You know, where girls or boys see and commingle? Don’t be a dope.

            Like

          2. Is your concern that your hypothetical daughter might see a penis or that someone with a penis might see your daughter in states of undress?

            Nobody is forced to shower after gym anymore. If they’re particularly prudish or uncomfortable, they could change in a stall away from everyone.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. You people pretending boys in dresses is noemal. You know, left wing acceptance of perverse behavior that directly threatens my children’s health and safety. That is what’s up with that.

            Like

          2. Imaginary terrors are really scary. I grant you that.

            But if you are really worried about the danger of perverse behavior the reality is that your children are in far more real danger from their priests, ministers, youth choir directors, scout leaders, etc. than from the extremely uncommon transgendered fellow students whose only goal is to be left in peace.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. “I should not be scared for my grade or job to be severely affected if I publically say I don’t buy this trans stuff so stay in the bathroom of your birth gender.”

      No one is entitled to immunity from the consequences of expressing repellant opinions. You are free to think and say what you want and other people are free to respond as they wish. If you employer finds your public declarations repellant your job may well be at risk. That’s life.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      2. So you just provided the exact reason a survey to gauge diversity of opinion is desperately needed. You, in fact, support suppressing of and punishing for opinions you don’t agree with. Thanks for clarifying that. A stronger case for a survey could not be made.

        Like

        Reply

        1. People in any environment whether it is a university, a place of work or a family gathering are free to express whatever outrageous opinions they want. But they are not entitled in any way to immunity from the consequences. That is just a fact of life so my advice is . . . watch your mouth.

          You seem to think tolerance for disagreeable ideas should be enforced by the government while advocating for rooting out of people who believe that CRT is worthy of consideration. Do you not see the contradiction?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. There is no contradiction. CRT is racist trash that doesn’t belong in schools while indecent exposure by boys in dresses doesn’t belong in schools either nor saying so should be censored by left wing censorship.

            Like

          3. “There is no contradiction.”

            As noted before, you are clearly not capable of a rational discussion on CRT. Nothing can change your preconceived ideas planted by Fox News, Tucker Carlson and/or their ilk.

            And, as noted before, you spend and lot of time and effort thinking about “boys in dresses.” Odd? Well, yes. But that is the way God made you.

            Like

  3. I don’t see much information on the survey itself.

    Is it anonymous and for statistical measures? If so, then no problem. If individual professors’ opinions are to be recorded and evaluated, that could be bad.

    Knowing if the journalism faculty overall is biased could be useful. bit pursuing individual professors based on their opinions would not be good.

    Like

    Reply

    1. From the article it seems the anonymity question is intentionally left vague in the language of the bill. I suspect they wouldn’t go so far as to target specific professors (what tenure is supposed to prevent anyway) but they might define some arbitrary number as “too liberal” and start revoking funds. From there, I think we’d see non-tenured staff start getting fired. And we all know which ones.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. The purpose of this survey according to Governor DeSantis is to determine if a university is engaging in “indoctrination.” And if it is, cut its finances. WTF does “indoctrination” mean? And who gets to decide? You see no problem? Really?

      So now the rational approach in Florida is for everyone involved in this survey to be sure to reflect Governor DeSantis’s views when answering survey questions. What a farce! Leave it to a Donald Trump wannabe to come up with such nonsense.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Universities should be a place where all ideas can be expressed and evaluated in the marketplace if ideas without fear.

        But that can’t happen if there is only one side present to advance ideas. So, an economics department made up exclusively of Marxists. or Capitalists does not support that open dialogue.

        If the survey is used to keep the debate open, then it is a useful tool, if it is used to suppress ideas, it is not. It is too soon to see how it is used.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Why not?

            Aren’t conservatives human? 🙂

            Conservatives want everyone to be prosperous and happy, they just see a different path to that end.

            Like

          2. Well under capitalism, everyone can’t be prosperous, by definition. But that’s besides the point.

            What I’m saying is this hysterical concern over “diversity of opinions” only goes one way.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Well, considering the scarcity of conservatives in university faculty, doesn’t that make sense?

            You can’t have a conservative bias when conservatives are excluded from the faculty.

            Like

          4. I guess we should settle on a definition of “conservative” for this conversation. Do you mean social conservatives or economic conservatives? Or both? Because if you want the former, you can go to Liberty or a school like it. If the latter, I can count on one hand the number of professors I’ve had who were obviously critical of capitalism.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. That is an important distinction.

            As a rule, social/religious conservatives do not hold up well in the marketplace of ideas. I am thinking more of economic and legal conservatism.

            Like

          6. Which is why they close themselves off in private institutions.

            This is anecdotal; I only took a few econ/business classes but they were all taught by staunch capitalists. I was considering law school years ago and I looked at the curricula of all the law schools in VA and there were a few, but classes taught from a more liberal perspective were rare, and usually electives.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. …”social/religious conservatives do not hold up well in the marketplace of ideas”

            You may wnat to tell the anti-abortion, anti-trans rights groups that.

            Like

        2. “Universities should be a place where all ideas can be expressed and evaluated in the marketplace if ideas without fear.”

          Uh, which is why threatening the funding if they show signs of “indoctrination” is a BAD idea.

          Generally speaking, ideas that need the force of the state to hold a place in the “marketplace of ideas” are BAD ideas.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  4. Could a bill be anymore vague and open ended? Anonymity? Who knows. Indoctrination? For what?

    Simply put, this bill purports to increase diversity, in reality it is about replacing probable liberal thinking with definite right wing propaganda.

    The sticking points are the new campaign themes of the right regarding 1619 Project and CRT. God, guns, gays and CRT.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. Imagine if the fake science of eugenics were the target of the survey, instead of the equally fake CRT or 1619 Project. Surely it would be useful to know how many students in our public schools develop a favorable view of genocide based on their curricula. I would certainly want to prevent taxpayer funding for such an education.

    Like

    Reply

        1. Your summation of what CRT says would earn you a D-Minus if you were studying it in college. Your emphasis on “personal gain” or racist behavior by individuals is not part of it at all. You are clearly not capable of rising above your feelings of white victimhood when you talk about this subject.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. …”its assertions that whites exploit blacks for personal gain and that our entire judicial and LE institutions are racist”…

          It is not so much a problem of today. BUT to deny that this country did not have an issue with it in its history is to whitewash (pun intended) history.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. It’s not so much that eugenics is “fake” as it is morally repugnant. You can isolate certain phenotypes by controlling who may reproduce. Society is mostly in agreement that eugenics isn’t something worth pursuing anymore.

      If you have issues with the 1619 Project of CRT as a paradigm, you could (and many have) write an article explaining their weaknesses. If your argument is compelling, it might even get published. Someone who disagrees with you might write a critique of your work. THAT is what goes on in universities.

      I’m apparently a masochist and have been a university student on and off for about 15 years. In my areas of study, there is certainly a strong liberal sentiment. There is NOT a strong Marxist sentiment. I have been asked to re-submit papers with further clarification and additional citations because professors were unfamiliar with Marxist epistemologies.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “t’s not so much that eugenics is ‘fake’ as it is morally repugnant.”

        And yet it was fake, if only because there never was any objective definition of human genetic “quality.”

        I’m very much in favor of allowing unpopular ideas to be discussed. I do not, however, favor false ideas being taught. That is to say, CRT and the 1619 Project needn’t be allowed in the marketplace of ideas based on their popularity; they can be disqualified for pedogogicial or rational reasons.

        Like

        Reply

          1. CRT: As a legal doctrine (disparate impact), CRT commits the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. Everything which follows from this fallacy is fruit of the poisonous tree.

            1619 Project: I’ll refer you to your own recent post about history. The material is simply inaccurate.

            Like

          2. CRT isn’t a statistical method. That’s not how the social sciences work. It’s a method of interpreting the world. It can be neither right or wrong.

            1619 largely junk. Agree, though likely for different reasons.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “1619 Project: I’ll refer you to your own recent post about history. The material is simply inaccurate.”

            I find it interesting (and maybe a little bit troubling) that you feel our country’s history told from the perspectives of Black Americans is “simply inaccurate”. Denial of history or whitewashing (pun, again, intended) is more unhealthy than not teaching history at all.

            Were there some inaccuracies in the 1619 project? Absolutely. But the same kind of inaccuracies have existed in history for many millennia. But to rule the entire thing as inaccurate is ludicrous.

            Like

          4. RE: “It can be neither right or wrong.”

            If a construct derives from fallacy, it can most definitely be wrong.

            Like

        2. “. . . they can be disqualified for pedagogical or rational reasons.”

          And who is going to decide on those reasons? You? The uneducated and irrational cannot be judges of what is rational?

          You claim the main premise of CRT is false. And yet, when asked to do so, you could not or would not offer any other explanation for the demonstrated economic, social and legal inequality suffered by the African-American community. If CRT is the wrong answer, then what is the right answer? Share you thoughts.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    3. CRT and the 1619 Project are just ways of looking at our racial issues from a different viewpoint. A viewpoint that sparks interest in some and fear in others.

      White supremacy has been the driving factor in America for centuries. Even those who abhorred slavery often expressed the racial supremacy of Caucasians. Lincoln comes to mind.

      Out of 402 years since the first slaves arrived, only about 50 were not codified apartheid, either legally or extra-legally.

      We are still struggling with minority Americans everyday in debate, economics and culture. To me this is an indication that although the arc of justice may rectify our issue, it moves mighty slowly. We have never, as a nation, truly reconciled our history. We just tweaked, adapted, made do, repaired and dismissed the racial problem.

      Time for a fresh look at social and historical roots that led to where we are today: still struggling about race.

      If ending slavery were the catalyst for a future “cafe au lait” society we would be there by now. But that did not happen. So the benchmark would be 1965 when we finally decided that Blacks were indeed real Americans. A blessing bestowed after much bloodshed, injustice and endless court room battles.

      In historical terms, that is only about 12% of our nation’s history, less if we start with the early explorers.

      If a person learned and absorbed the concept of racial supremacy from birth to age 90, the odds of changing the outlook of the nonagenarian are slim without cooperation and a new look at the old history. People are very historically bound for culture.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. No. And that was a very dumb supposition.

          But, not really unexpected. Downright predictable for that matter. Classic right wing answer that dodged the reality of American culture.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. And that was a very dumb supposition.

            It fits in with the over-arching theme of modern “conservatism” which is that white males constantly suffer at the hands of over privileged women and people of color. Not like the good old days at all when such people knew their place and did not dare question it.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “Do you think anti-white racism is a good antidote”…

          So the idea of telling an accurate history of this country, warts and all, is anti-white racism?

          You have some very strange ideas on what history should be.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. RE: “So the idea of telling an accurate history of this country, warts and all, is anti-white racism?”

            CRT and the 1619 Project don’t tell an accurate history of anything. Both, however, can be accurately described as anti-white racism.

            Like

          2. “CRT and the 1619 Project don’t tell an accurate history of anything. Both, however, can be accurately described as anti-white racism.”

            I disagree for the reasons already noted. Just because you don’t like what these theories and histories say does NOT mean they are inaccurate.

            You were indoctrinated into the same white history most of us were. Now you fear the idea that our history is not as pristine as you were taught.

            And using the boogey man phrase of “anti-white racism” is just that. The Monster under the bed that only exists in your mind.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “CRT and the 1619 Project don’t tell an accurate history of anything.”

            You keep dodging the challenge. CRT explains the economic, societal and legal inequality of African Americans by positing system functional racism in our culture and institutions. You angrily say that is false. After several requests you still have not posited an alternative concept to explain the observed facts. Why not?

            As for the 1619 Project do you even know what it is? I will tell you. It is a collection of essays and papers on history written from a different perspective sponsored by a for profit organization – the New York Times. That’s it. No nefarious plot. No particular doctrine or belief EXCEPT that the history we all know has been whitewashed to a fare-thee-well. And it has. Given its nature as a collection of papers your blanket statement that it is “false” and racist is nonsense. Each essay published so far stands on its own.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “After several requests you still have not posited an alternative concept to explain the observed facts. Why not?”

            That’s simple. I’m not looking for an explanation. Maybe you should explain why you are.

            Like

          5. “That’s simple. I’m not looking for an explanation. Maybe you should explain why you are.”

            Uh, I am not looking for an explanation. I found one. The one that has your hair on fire.

            There is a fact about American life – the African-American community STILL experiences inequality in almost every possible way. An explanation is posited – CRT. It fits the evidence. You say that explanation is horribly false. But you have no alternate explanation that fits the evidence. So, unless you are simply a racist full of shit you should be looking for an alternate explanation. But you are not. Logic test – what can we conclude from that fact?

            Liked by 1 person

        3. RE: “Classic right wing answer that dodged the reality of American culture.Classic right wing answer that dodged the reality of American culture.”

          You are the one who sees racism in the “reality of American culture.” Hence my question.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Culture takes a long time to establish. We may find economic reasoning for slavery in the US. Couched in White Supremacy it becomes really easy.

            But isolating, subjugating, terrorizing and jailing people most identified by their skin color, or even the infamous “one drop” rule is racism, period. And this is AFTER Emancipation.

            This is our history and our culture.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. There is nothing to be gained by trying to blame current population for something 150 years old nor attempting to pay anyone for such. Again, you people seem to brush off world involvement in slavery including Africans who brought product to market for sale. This is nothing but conjuring up old wounds and divisive race baiting for political gain.

        Like

        Reply

        1. ” . . . divisive race baiting for political gain.”

          Oh, you mean like a candidate for President telling every jackass who wanted to hear it that our first African-American President was not legitimately President? Or that only “some” Mexican immigrants are good people? That kind of race-baiting?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. The problem was not 150 years ago. Another century plus of keeping descendants of slaves as lower class citizens under pain of terrorism and law is the big issue.

          Greenwood was just the tip of the iceberg.

          After WW2, the new burgeoning middle class rose with education, housing, good wages, retirement money, healthcare. If you were White.

          2 decades later, Civil Rights legislation, at least recognized the problem from a legal standpoint. And that itself was bloody and nasty.

          We still have de facto discrimination in housing, lending, and jurisprudence. Not as pervasive and blatant, but still we are not a well mixed populace.

          There is a saying that the most segregated hours are Sunday mornings in church. That has not changed since Emancipation. But that is sort of an indicator that we still haven’t integrated as well as we could have been. That and the disparities in wealth, income, housing, schools, etc.

          Forget the straw man of Africans selling Africans. That stopped, legally, in 1808. After that most slaves and their descendants were part of the economic engine both North and South. Yet most were by all measures, more American than anything else. Something we as a nation did not even appreciate, recognize or even acknowledge until at least 1965.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

    1. I will kindly remind you that, the NY Post is truly only good reading for Sports. The remainder is strictly fish wrapping.

      And if you don’t believe me, you can ask the journalists who left there in the past 18 months.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment