Why, oh why, might the politicians who made it harder to vote in Florida not want credible national experts to give evidence-based testimony under oath? donmoynihan.substack.com/p/an-assault-o…
At the same time Florida politicians made it harder to vote or protest, they also made it illegal for teachers to suggest there was any race-related pattern to this, and started to surveil professors political beliefs and classroom discussions. These things are connected.
Update: The University of Florida released a statement which says they are committed to academic freedom and then confirm they restricted speech because they judged it contrary to “the university’s interests as a state or Florida institution.” What interests might those be?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Take a minute to look at where we are: state authorities in Florida stopping professors from testifying in voting rights case.
One job of faculty is to use their expertise to speak truth to power. Here, power is silencing them. 1/ nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/…
The most severe restrictions on campus speech come not from students, but from leaders who want to ensure that their abuses of power are not exposed. 2/
The pattern here is straightforward. Florida restricted:
*voting rights based on false claims in ways likely to hurt minority voters to protect the GOP
*teachers from talking about structural racism in the classroom
*faculty from giving evidence on the effects of these laws 3/
New from me: Administrative burdens are bad for your health.
We spend a lot of time dealing with health care paperwork hassles. A new wave of research shows how that leads to more psychological costs and less health care.
The $22 billion we spend on health care hassles is only a measure of the direct cost of our time. The resulting stress and frustrations lead to another $26 billion in workplace absences, and productivity losses of about $96 billion. 3/ journals.aom.org/doi/epub/10.54…
One of 850 books that the Chair of a Texas House Committee and candidate for state Attorney General is trying to find out if schools have as part of an anti-CRT law. Also Handmaids Tale, Between the World and Me, titles that mention Black Lives Matter. texastribune.org/2021/10/26/tex…
Something very on the money about a Texas legislator seeking to weed out from schools a biography of the person who came up with the term "red pill" texastribune.org/2021/10/26/tex…
My kids have read this book, which I guess is on the list of dangerous books because it acknowledges that homosexual people exist texastribune.org/2021/10/26/tex…
A history professor at a tweeted criticism of VP Pence and university leadership pandemic response.
Elected officials and Fox News expressed outrage.
The College President promised to "deal with it."
Then she was fired.
(via @TheFIREorg) thefire.org/lawsuit-fired-…
Willing to wager that a faculty fired because for speech that offended local politicians will receive only a fraction of the coverage of the faculty whose invite to MIT was rescinded. Both are bad, but the more serious attack on academic freedom will get less attention.
Campus Reform, College Fix, YAF and Fox routinely target faculty for their social commentary every day, hoping to create enough pressure to silence them. It has become a professional hazard. Lets be honest that these orgs don't care about free speech or cancel culture.
One of the things I liked about @RottenInDenmark’s piece is his dissection of the casual tendency to compare Mao’s cultural revolution to any sort of perceived trend you disagree with. Because people do this way too much. michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/moral-panic-…
Hobbes was talking about Applebaum's piece, Friersdorf was defending Weiss. It's almost like a class of commentator who knows that Nazi comparisons won't fly, but think Stalinist or Maoist comparisons will. Andrew Sullivan is a serial offender here.
Its the "Stop comparing disagreements about campus politics to a brutal totalitarian regime" challenge
You've seen the bad vax mandate headlines, the ones the emphasize the people who left even though 99% complied.
I wrote about the cognitive biases and partisan incentives behind these headlines.
Please share & consider subscribing to the free newsletter. donmoynihan.substack.com/p/what-explain…
One thing I want to do with my blog is connect research with the real world. Once you understand denominator neglect then you understand the misleading effect of headlines that emphasize those who quit rather retain those who comply with mandates.
Stories of the rare resisters frame how we think about successful vaccine mandates.
Research by @AsmusOlsen shows that while people say they prefer statistical data to make health decisions, in reality they find anecdotes more memorable and compelling. donmoynihan.substack.com/p/what-explain…