You know why anti-CRT activists only ever use the word "transparency", and then leave you to fill in the blanks? Because they want to distract you from this.
Here's the reality. The only way these bills get passed is if they keep YOU from knowing what's inside them. That's why Chris Rufo, who can't shut up about these things, only ever posts screenshots. Never links to the actual bill.
Never.
Ever.
Half of these people have no idea what's inside the bills they're pushing. The other half has an inkling but actively suppresses that knowledge. Maybe a fraction of a percent actually knows what they're talking about. One day, I'd like to meet that fraction.
CODA: Needless to say, all of these bills are currently live. If you want to read more, @PENamerica has you covered. Here are some places to start.
Anti-con discrimination in academia is real. Part of it is a self-selection problem in the pipeline (ie "I have better things to do with my time than deal with a hostile grad program,") but part is also surely active discrimination in hiring, grad admissions, publication. 1/
We have good reason to think this is happening. Surveys of academic philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists all show an explicit willingness to discriminate. Cons and libs do it at equal rates, but since academia has far more libs than cons, they tend to do more damage. 2/
I'll say that again, just so there's no misunderstanding. A significant minority of academics explicitly state that they would be less likely to hire a candidate or support publication of a paper due to political identity. It's happening. 3/
An Israeli dance prof is suing UC Berekley for allegedly discriminating against her on the basis of her nationality. Having taught at the dance department before, she was encouraged in the summer 2023 to apply for renewal.
This is what the chair said a few months later.
It's not just the chair's cowardice that's so striking. It's the hey-I'm-real-sorry-but-in-a-way-I'm-doing-you-a-favor level of stupidity that really stands out to me. YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Jews (or any other minority ethno-cultural group) wanting to discourage intermarriage and assimilation. It’s about cultural survival. Passing on something you feel has value.
By the way, this is something that critics of cultural appropriation should be able to immediately appreciate.
The harm in assimilation is obvious. The culture, which I value, is lost. Intermarriage is fine in itself, but tends to make assimilation much more likely. I’m a child of intermarriage myself, as is my kid. Love conquers all! But it can make other goals much more difficult.
It’s gotta be said: much of the Jewish response to the Bibas family is flat-out insane. Genocidal, psychopathic, murderous, cruel, and out-of-control. And not just from the usual precincts of Jtwitter, either. It’s everywhere.
Stop. Step back from the Kahanism.
I logged on after Shabbat and found nothing but bloodlust. Dressed in a rueful “they forced us into this” fatalism, of course, but you could sense the eagerness. It’s understandable but still inhuman.
Obviously plenty of pro-Palestinian accounts are vomiting up their own brand of bile. Psychopaths like Saeed, Kiswani, El-Kurd. But I expect that sort of shit from them. They have precisely one rhetorical speed and we can all see how successful THAT’S proven to be.
Angry about Katherine Franke's "retirement"? Good, you should be. But if people are serious about stopping something like this from happening again, they need to get serious about the cause. Because the precedent was set loooong ago.
A big-ish 🧵
In fact, all of the tools now being used against pro-Palestine faculty (the DEI apparatus, Title VI complaints, collegiality discourse) were developed years ago to quash speech opposed by the left. And I have receipts to prove it.
Here's your imperial boomerang, folks. 2/
This prof worries about DEI being weaponized as a tool of repression. Buddy, that die was cast years ago. In fact, I'd wager that the use of DEI as a weapon is *less* effective now than it was five years ago. It's just that the target has (partially) changed. 3/
🚨The IHRA definition of antisemitism, if adopted and enforced by public universities, is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. So says a federal judge in Texas. A terrific (if, for reasons I'll explain in a second, somewhat inconclusive) decision. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Here's the gist. Last March after a series of protests by SJP and related groups on college campuses, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed GA-44, an executive order requiring public colleges and universities to prohibit and punish antisemitic speech. gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/…
To define antisemitic speech, TX higher ed was told to use the IHRA definition and its attendant examples, which the legislature adopted in 2016. At the time, it was framed as simply a diagnostic tool for spotting antisemitic speech in the state. statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/GV/htm/GV…