Search the Community

Poll: Do you believe that college admissions can truly be colorblind, regardless of whether you support or oppose affirmative action? Opponents, supporters of affirmative action on whether college admissions can be truly colorblind: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/affirmative-action-supreme-court-deciding-cases-on-college-university-admissions/ I will go with other answer: In my opinion, affirmative action is crucial in certain areas like social work to ensure diverse representation that reflects the communities being served. It bridges the disconnect caused by having a workforce from a different racial or ethnic background in predominantly black or Hispanic communities, enhancing support and understanding. In my opinion, affirmative action should NOT be a priority in areas in technical areas. Merit should be the primary factor in college admissions and employment decisions, as technical expertise and skills are crucial in this field. Emphasizing equal opportunities based on qualifications and achievements ensures a competitive and competent workforce. It is a sensitive topic, because I get all the arguments about the best to rule, and the smartest to rule, and I have that mentality about school, and competition for the top spot, however, is it practical for all scenarios? Is it practical to send people from a different racial or ethnic background to a predominantly different community after they finish school?! That does not help the system. I voted for other in a way agreeing with affirmative action in some aspects while in others I don't.

First, let me start by giving my opinion, that I do not like superficial slogans which involve no thinking, but this debate is more than a slogan. From the Libertarians, reason.com: Last year, a Michigan middle school forced two students to remove their "Let's Go Brandon" sweatshirts because they violated a dress code rule prohibiting clothing with "profane" slogans. The students have now filed a lawsuit against their school with the support of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit. Poll: Should schools be ALLOWED TO FORCE students to remove clothing with potentially controversial slogans? Options: 1. Yes 2. No 3. It depends on the situation 4. Other

Poll: Do you agree with the school firing this Florida teacher for making students write their own obituaries? --- A fired Florida teacher, who made his students write their own obituaries, isn’t apologizing – or backing down. Jeffrey Keene, who teaches psychology at Dr. Phillips High School, is appealing his termination after he was let go for what the Orange County School District calls an “inappropriate” assignment about school violence. (This is a federal, national topic hence why the thread is here) https://nypost.com/2023/04/06/florida-teacher-fired-for-making-students-write-own-obituaries/

A Florida charter school principal said she was forced to resign this week after some parents complained about their sixth-grade students being shown images of Michelangelo’s “David” statue in class, with one parent believing the art lesson on the Renaissance masterpiece amounted to pornographic material. Do you agree with the decision to fire a Florida school principal over displaying images of Michelangelo’s 'David'? The more graphic picture is in the article too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/24/florida-principal-michelangelo-david-parents/

A high-level human resources employee at the City of Markham has been placed on leave after she said and displayed the N-word while giving a guest lecture to students at George Brown College. My commentary: Now, you are a high-level human resources employee at the City of Markham. Ok. So, you are dealing with racist incidents, and are involved in that world where is your job being in Human Resources to pay attention to every word you say. Maybe she is a radical libertarian in using words, fine. Ok. So, regardless, of how you think at home that one should use the "N-word" while trying to make an academic point, you should know by now, that this will not play well with any student that will pull off their phone and you will end up a star. So, did she value her work? Did she practice any of this material the night before? Of course, she has not, or maybe she is a racist herself some radical left-wingers will say, but not enough proof of that. If her history surfaces, sure. So this employee ended up a star now. How can you not respect your work? You deserve your faith, then. I will not name her, the CBC is doing that alongside her picture, you can go there and get your fix, I promote the CBC enough as it is. What are your thoughts on this?

More from within the academic world in the United States. <--- Just imagine, Bernie Sanders has his way and opens the gates for colleges. More voters for him, what a deal that will be for old Bernie. 😄 Here are his supporters, that can't wait to get in, embracing Bernie as some sort of guru: 😄 The cultism is scary, it reminds me of MAGA world. ---> 😄 but back to the academic world: From Reason.com / Libertarian Platform 40 % of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding As the academy gets younger it grows more authoritarian, according to a new survey of over 1,400 faculty members conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The free speech group's findings portend a dark future for higher education if this course isn't reversed—and if faculty minds don't become more open to dissenting viewpoints. Over the past decade or so, many academic departments embraced ideological views in their teaching and research, promoting social justice–laden scholarship as a way of correcting the wrongs of the past. Unsurprisingly, many departments developed left-of-center academic monocultures, becoming unfriendly to differing opinions. Young faculty entering the profession are only adding to this academic echo chamber. As a professor, I'm on the younger side for faculty members. My cohort is much more illiberal than their older colleagues. Two-thirds of faculty over 55 years old said students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable. That number plummets to 37 percent for faculty 35 and under. Shockingly, younger faculty report more acceptance of violence to combat speech. While 97 percent of older faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech, only 79 percent of younger faculty agree. That one in five younger professors show any level of acceptance for violence to stop speech should alarm all of us. Mixing age with ideology reveals even more pronounced support for illiberal attitudes. Among liberal faculty 35 and under, only 23 percent indicated that students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable, compared with 88 percent of conservative faculty. Moderate faculty in this age group were also much more likely than their conservative colleagues to endorse the acceptability of these tactics. Perhaps most alarming of all, only 64 percent of young and liberal faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech. Illiberalism runs deep among young liberal faculty members, and their views regrettably resemble those of their students rather than their more senior peers. As newer and far less tolerant numbers of professors replace older faculty, colleges and universities may be in a true crisis if the higher education enterprise destroys its core values. The research also finds that faculty members are self-censoring at higher rates. In 1955, at the end of the second Red Scare after World War II during the age of McCarthy and deep anti-communist fear, 9 percent of social scientists said they toned down their writing for fear of causing controversy. Today, 25 percent say they're very or extremely likely to self-censor their writing in academic publications. More than half of faculty—52 percent—say they're afraid they'll lose their job or reputation over a misunderstanding of something they said or did, or because someone posted something from their past online. While almost three-quarters of conservative faculty expressed this year, 40 percent of even liberal faculty agree. That's staggering: two in five professors who are a part of the prevailing orthodoxy on campus are fearful of losing their jobs over a misunderstanding. As the report says, this "speaks volumes about the climate of fear, intimidation, and censorship on campus." This cannot be the environment of the future. Our society cannot thrive when opposing voices are met with fists rather than facts. And as a professor, I know that what starts on campus rarely stays there. This fear will continue to grow and infect our neighborhoods, our workplaces, and our communities. There is still time to course correct. But students, trustees, donors, alumni, and the public must demand better from the faculty today before these young authoritarians run higher education tomorrow. https://reason.com/2023/02/28/40-percent-of-liberal-professors-are-afraid-theyll-lose-their-jobs-over-a-misunderstanding/?itm_source=parsely-api

A friend of mine sent me a Stanford University (California) so called "harmful word." Original: brave Stanford University to Swap with: none/do not use Reason from Stanford University: This term perpetuates the stereotype of the "noble courageous savage," equating the Indigenous male as being less than a man. ---> I want to ask, are there any Indigenous, Native people on this website? I want to ask their opinion about this, do you find this word offensive as Stanford University does? How about the rest of us, do you find this word offensive as the academics at Stanford are saying? I think this thread can stay here as Stanford University, if I am not mistaken, receives federal grants.

This morning, while I was reading the news, I came across a trending article. From California 😄 I placed this article in Federal Politics because Universities, if I am not mistaken in the US do get help from the federal government. Hope that gives it legitimacy. University department removes the word 'field' over 'racist connotations' References including "field work" and "going into the field" may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers "that are not benign", the school of social work at the University of Southern California wrote in a letter to staff and students. Explaining the decision, it said: "We have decided to remove the term 'field' from our curriculum and practice and replace it with 'practicum'. "This change supports anti-racist social work practice by replacing language that would be considered anti-Black or anti-immigrant in favour of inclusive language. "Language can be powerful, and phrases such as 'going into the field' or 'field work' maybe have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign." The letter was addressed to staff and students from the "Practicum Education Department", which until recently was called the Field Education Department. It continued: "Our goal is not just to change language but to honour and acknowledge inclusion and reject white supremacy, anti-immigrant and anti-blackness ideologies. "We know changing terminology can be challenging, and a complete transition will take some time." "Staff and stakeholders have raised concerns about the use of the term 'field worker' and its implications for descendants of Black and Brown individuals," it said in a memo. "While the widespread use of this term is not intended to be harmful, we cannot ignore the impact its use has on our employees," the memo reads. "Establishing shared language is essential to our collective progress." ---> I will start a poll, do you agree with the decision to remove the word "field" due to "racist connotations"?