Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote: We may have gone over this at some point, but how could 'merit based pay' for teachers possibly work?

Florida has merit pay. The answer seems to be "poorly."

This is a fascinating move given Harvard relies on a $50B "non-profit" corporation. In the Uni President's response he wrote:

“No government-regardless of which party is in power-should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

I wonder if he feels the same philosophy should apply to every other private employer/institution in the US. My guess would be a firm "no", so this is likely a bet that they can win in court or outlast the Trump admin directed changes on antisemitism tolerance and race-first admissions.

it is clearly a 1st amendment issue. for all the yelling the R's have made about D's wanting to take away your right for free speech the R's sure are doing a good job of eliminating speech they do not like

Glad you suddenly care about the speech! Welcome to the team!

Peeps wrote:it is clearly a 1st amendment issue. for all the yelling the R's have made about D's wanting to take away your right for free speech the R's sure are doing a good job of eliminating speech they do not like

I agree that the expansion of the definition of antisemitism to include general criticism of Israel and it's existence is wrong and unconstitutional. Same thing for a lot of what is discussed in 'DEI". No organizing principle, particularly culture, religion, and government, should be above public criticism and protest (protest so long as the physical safety of uninvolved persons is protected). But I also think it's naive to believe that is what the administration at Harvard wants here.

BurtReynolds wrote:Glad you suddenly care about the speech! Welcome to the team!

I should warn you that we're a small team destined to lose, but sometimes there are signs that are encouraging enough to give us false hope, which makes our crushing defeats all the more poetic!

BurtReynolds wrote:Glad you suddenly care about the speech! Welcome to the team!

ive never been against free speech.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees fundamental freedoms, including religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion. It also protects freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

now i know the Rs will say well congress isnt interfering....

Bi_3 wrote:

Peeps wrote:it is clearly a 1st amendment issue. for all the yelling the R's have made about D's wanting to take away your right for free speech the R's sure are doing a good job of eliminating speech they do not like

I agree that the expansion of the definition of antisemitism to include general criticism of Israel and it's existence is wrong and unconstitutional. Same thing for a lot of what is discussed in 'DEI". No organizing principle, particularly culture, religion, and government, should be above public criticism and protest (protest so long as the physical safety of uninvolved persons is protected). But I also think it's naive to believe that is what the administration at Harvard wants here.

i dont think harvard is doing anything in the wrong with DEI discussions. the problem with DEI at least from the R/Maga side is they do not want to admit that despite america being a great place to live they do not want its history fully taught. they just want all the good taught but if you dare bring up anything negative well then they want to silence you

Random af. AI writing policy again.

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-degr ... n-11085695