I'm not sure that a teacher education class is really the right venue to be discussing abortion policy and how it affects autism rates. Not that doing that makes it an "unsafe space", but given that this same student raised a stink about having to be involved in a role playing scenario in class that involved a same sex couple (something a prospective teacher should certainly be prepared for), I wouldn't be surprised if the school and professors were just sick of her drama.
Yeah, that guy in the video has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't get it at all. Waste of time listening to him. He doesn't belong in any part of the web labeled as intellectual.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Why is it an "ultra conservative spin"? What was spun?
People really need digital literacy education. Why the "ultra-conservative spin?" Hmm, let's look at the sources.
Original article is from "The College Fix." The College Fix is a self-identified conservative watchdog blog associated with the Student Free Press, both activist organizations "designed to groom young conservatives for careers in the news media by placing college students in internships with right-leaning publications." Both interest are funded through endowments which link back to the Koch Brothers and have Rick DeVos as a board member (yes, Betsy's brother). The Chronicle of Higher Education has identified The College Fix as an interest that routinely misreports the facts - nee lies about stories.
Next, go to Andrew Lawton's blog where you can listen to the actual recording, which is bull#### move by the student if the faculty member was unaware of the recording going on. As Pepsi pointed out, Lawton is an very conservative individual with a very conservative perspective. Far be it for him to spin something to his advantage. Lawton has never been accused of that, or anything beyond the expected behaviors of the high quality journalist he claims to be, right? So he couldn't possibly be blowing this out of proportion?
Listen to the audio! The discussion between the student (Valerie Flokstra) and professor (Nancy Norman) and Department Chair (Vandy Britton) portrays a much different tenor and focus that that portrayed. The faculty member explains to the student that she should be aware of her surroundings - called critical mindedness, or being open to others and their points of view - and respect the other students in the class. The faculty member actually reminds the student that the class was on autism and not abortion, and that she should stay focused on the subject matter rather than introduce unrelated content that could muddy the waters of the discussion. At no time did anyone in the room suggest the student was in trouble or censored in any way. In fact, they just reminded the student that she was one of 31 voices in the room. Based on the exasperation in the voice of the Chair, it seems this may not be the first time this student has been problematic in class and they are trying to correct a student's behaviors. Not surprisingly, the audio runs out as the instructor begins to articulate exactly why the student was wrong in introducing the subject matter in the classroom.
The student in question is obviously an activist and flaunts her beliefs aggressively. My experience is that the people who cry free speech are the ones who are the most disruptive and the ones who use their speech as a weapon. She repeats the term free speech five times in the short discussion with faculty member and department chair.
If you go back to the primary source and listen to the audio you can immediately see this is a hit piece meant to create a controversy. A student went into a classroom with an agenda and got called out for it. She cut a very selective portion from a recording of a one hour conference and tried to use that as a platform. The right wing noise machine got a hold of it and amplified it to become something way bigger than it was - reframing it as an affront to an individual's beliefs and freedom of speech, rather than focusing on the actual behaviors of the student that lead to the conference in the first place. So yeah, this was all spin, and it was pushed further and further right as things went along.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Here's an interesting battle being waged in Arizona right now. The conservatives on the board of governors who oversee one of the largest community college systems in the country are influencing the actions of educators and what content they can expose students to.
8. “Progressive Stack”
The Progressive Stack: An Intersectional Feminist Approach to Pedagogy
In the name of Maria Gonzalez, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for Truth
Discipline/subdiscipline: feminist pedagogy (philosophy of education)
Summary: This is our most appalling paper, and it’s deeply concerning that how it is being treated at the highly respected journal Hypatia. It forwards that educators should discriminate by identity and calculate their students’ status in terms of privilege, favor the least privileged with more time, attention and positive feedback and penalize the most privileged by declining to hear their contributions, deriding their input, intentionally speaking over them, and making them sit on the floor in chains—framed as educational opportunities we termed “experiential reparations.”
Purpose: Patently unfair, inhumane, and abusive treatments of students will be acceptable in educational theory if it is framed as an opportunity to teach them about the problems of privilege.
Note: This paper insists that the most privileged students shouldn't be allowed to speak in class at all and should just listen and learn in silence
throughout the term. Even more, it insists that students with high privilege could benefit from adding on “experiential reparations,” such as sitting in the floor, wearing chains, or intentionally being spoken over, as an educational “opportunity” within the class. The reviewers’ only concerns with these points so far have been that (1) we approach the topic with too much compassion for the students who are being subjected to this, and (2) we risk exploiting underprivileged students by burdening them with an expectation to teach about privilege. To correct for this, the reviewers urged us to make sure we avoid “recentering the needs of the privileged.” They asked us to incorporate Megan Boler’s approach called “pedagogy of discomfort” and Barbara Applebaum’s insistence that the privileged learn from this discomfort rather than being coddled or having their own experiences (suffering) “recentered.” It also utilizes Robin DiAngelo’s now-famous concept of “white fragility” to explain why students subjected to this treatment will object to it, and uses that to justify the more cruel treatment suggested by the reviewers. The reviewers acknowledged that they believe this “fragility” is the correct interpretation for student pushback against being told to stay silent and sit in the floor, possibly in chains, throughout the semester.
Apparently that one wasn't one of the published papers, but the journal doesn't seem to have much issue with the ideas proposed in it. Which... yikes?
Actually going to the trouble of doing this is an insane amount of work to effectively troll these disciplines, though. This must have taken hundreds of hours.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
A comment on "grievance studies" and the subsequent "scandal" surrounding them.
Has anyone actually looked into this? Is it really a problem or more games being played by disgruntled academics? I get that there are academics with an agenda, are these people just more of them? This is part and parcel of any industry or large bureaucracy. I'm kind of sitting back and wondering what the extent of this really is about, and what it really points to? Is this really a massive problem in "academia" or is this more of an isolated problem that is being blown out of proportion? To provide some perspective, there are over 11,500 recognized and catalogued journals covering 230+ disciplines. Is this an attack at certain journals or subjects of the individual's likings, or is this a real problem?
For example, the canine article was submitted to the monthly "feminist geography" journal Gender, Place Culture. This is a journal published by Taylor and Francis and has a limited audience. It has an impact factor (the number of citations it will receive in a year) of 1.18 (top journals being in the 4.0 range). That means it is a pretty small journal. Obviously it is going to have influence over its readership, but is it indicative of a greater problem in "academia" as a whole? An interesting note is that the Managing Editor of this publication is Dr. Pamela Moss from University of Victoria!
To continue down this rabbit hole, Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism, was accepted by the peer-reviewed women and social work journal Affilia. Published by Sage, and edited by Stéphanie Wahab (Portland State University), Yoosun Park (Smith College), and Rupaleem Bhuyan (University of Toronto) this journal has an impact factor of .833.
Additionally, the Journal of Poetry Therapy, published by Taylor and Francis has a very small reach as well. Going through their online journal the largest number of reads of any of the articles from their publications going back to 2015 has a high read number of 701 views and a high or 4 citations for any article.
These are obviously very targeted campaigns that are addressing subject matter near and dear to the hearts of those punking the journals, and when I say that I mean they hold them in high contempt. Activism has its good points, but it also has its bad. The fact that these academics are very targeted in their actions seems to suggest they have a personal axe to grind. I get that, and frankly I agree with their contempt for the subject matter in question, but I also think they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a micro journal does not follow appropriate rigor in reviewing their content does not mean all are guilty.
A comment on "grievance studies" and the subsequent "scandal" surrounding them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Has anyone actually looked into this? Is it really a problem or more games being played by disgruntled academics? I get that there are academics with an agenda, are these people just more of them? This is part and parcel of any industry or large bureaucracy. I'm kind of sitting back and wondering what the extent of this really is about, and what it really points to? Is this really a massive problem in "academia" or is this more of an isolated problem that is being blown out of proportion? To provide some perspective, there are over 11,500 recognized and catalogued journals covering 230+ disciplines. Is this an attack at certain journals or subjects of the individual's likings, or is this a real problem?
For example, the canine article was submitted to the monthly "feminist geography" journal Gender, Place Culture. This is a journal published by Taylor and Francis and has a limited audience. It has an impact factor (the number of citations it will receive in a year) of 1.18 (top journals being in the 4.0 range). That means it is a pretty small journal. Obviously it is going to have influence over its readership, but is it indicative of a greater problem in "academia" as a whole? An interesting note is that the Managing Editor of this publication is Dr. Pamela Moss from University of Victoria!
To continue down this rabbit hole, Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism, was accepted by the peer-reviewed women and social work journal Affilia. Published by Sage, and edited by Stéphanie Wahab (Portland State University), Yoosun Park (Smith College), and Rupaleem Bhuyan (University of Toronto) this journal has an impact factor of .833.
Additionally, the Journal of Poetry Therapy, published by Taylor and Francis has a very small reach as well. Going through their online journal the largest number of reads of any of the articles from their publications going back to 2015 has a high read number of 701 views and a high or 4 citations for any article.
These are obviously very targeted campaigns that are addressing subject matter near and dear to the hearts of those punking the journals, and when I say that I mean they hold them in high contempt. Activism has its good points, but it also has its bad. The fact that these academics are very targeted in their actions seems to suggest they have a personal axe to grind. I get that, and frankly I agree with their contempt for the subject matter in question, but I also think they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a micro journal does not follow appropriate rigor in reviewing their content does not mean all are guilty.
It frankly seem's to be dog whistle tactics; red meat for people who worship the likes or Peterson. An Alt right motivation for this is to use this is to be able to "paint with a wide brush" and continue to attack and outrage culture academia. So same old same old.
It frankly seem's to be dog whistle tactics; red meat for people who worship the likes or Peterson. An Alt right motivation for this is to use this is to be able to "paint with a wide brush" and continue to attack and outrage culture academia. So same old same old.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Their agenda is to combat the growing illiberalism of both the right and left. I know for some people that just doesn't compute. But it's an intellectually and politically sound aim.
If you don't know Tyler Cowen's style, it's rapid-fire questions so this interviews all over the place.
If will be of interest to some that in this interview, Jordan says he's currently helping the Democratic Party.
Quote:
I’ve been working with Democrats, at least to some degree, trying to formulate policy that would constitute an alternative to the idiot radical leftist ideology that dominates most of the discourse with regards to democratic politics and the politics of the Democrats. And it’s not obvious what the rank order of the problems might be. But I certainly wouldn’t say that immigration is top of the list.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
