Terrifying! Also, watch the slide show. First, the creepy UF president who refrains from any critique of the bill and then lies that faculty can still teach freely. Second, some of the slides, which clearly make no sense. 🧵
HB7 criminalizes old-school overt racism as cover to outlaw critique or even discussion of new racism, ie covert, implicit, unintended, institutional.
Many academic studies have shown existence of "privileges" and "oppressions" linked to race, color, national origin & sex in US!
Again, many academic studies have shown that several of these "neutral" and "objective" policies and principles were explicitly created to discriminate against non-whites and women. EXPLICITLY!
Ok, so this means that, if you show that the motivations and/or outcomes of these policies are racist and sexist, sometimes having created havoc in specific communities, you have to end with: "but you have to make up your mind whether you like that"?
This literally means that anything, from the craziest antisemitism to the vilest misogyny, goes in the classroom. HOWEVER, whatever is said, white, male, Christian students can not walk out of that classroom feeling uncomfortable!
Again, leaving aside that everyone has bias, and one can at best suppress the biases they are aware of, all of this is within the limits that white, male, Christian students have to come out feeling "comfortable".
Leaving aside all these points, of course the worst part of the new law for teachers is that they are incredibly vague and that the governor and legislature has made it perfectly clear that they see teachers as potential perpetrators and (certain) students as potential victims.
"Why don't you teach "objective" then? "Why do you bring YOUR bias/morals into it?"
Many academic concepts are objective but have a moral weight attached to them. I can objectively state X is anti-democratic, racist, violent, and students will see that as "bad".
Personal example: I teach about "far right", a term that is perceived by most people as negative. But it is also an academic term. I can "objectively" show that Trump is "far right" and Trump-supporting students could then sue me/UGA for making them feel uncomfortable!
That is what is happening in Florida and only a criminally naive person would think that it is not coming to other GOP-dominated states. In fact, we almost had it in #Georgia but universities were excluded (for now). #TheEnd
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A corrupt cop accidentally hits and kills a man on the road and gets blackmailed by another corrupt cop. High energy action movie with pretty good plot lines. 7/10
21 Bridges 🇺🇸
Good cops and robbers and good cop versus bad cops movie, set in New York City. Nothing remarkable but acting, plot and production are well above average in the genre. 7/10
1. On a personal level, huge relief. Not that I didn't THINK this would happen, but I also thought Brexit and Trump would NOT happen, so...
2. YES, there was MUCH at stake in this election. A Le Pen victory would have thrown France into probably gridlock (cohabitation) and would have been frightening for targeted communities -- irrespective of which actual policies would have followed.
This is an interesting reflection. I also write non-academic books but didn’t experience this kind of pushback —probably because they didn’t really sell (or because I rarely mingle with the Ivy crowd). 😂
I think only thing @jasonintrator is forgetting is that academics are paid to publish “academic” work. I think “trade books” could be complimentary to that but should not replace it. But for academic, these books should build upon academic research, so why not publish that too?
It’s a bit the same as journalists who keep the “juicy bits” for their book rather than publish it in the newspaper that paid them to find those “juicy bits”.
This should not be/remain a local story. There will be many more Kim Morissons soon, across “red” America, while many others will self-censure. Students, schools and whole country will suffer. 🧵 news-leader.com/story/news/edu…
My state, Georgia, just passed an “anti-CRT” law. Obviously, it is not about Critical Race Theory, it is about racism. More specifically, it is about limiting “racism” to a very specific, personal, ideology, overtly expressed and supported by just a minority of Americans.
The sentiment is perfectly captured in this banner: “Don’t Make Me Into A Racist”.
The assumption is not just, “I” am not racist but that racism is not a real problem (ie limited to a few stereotypical “baddies” everyone can agree on denouncing).
Marine Le Pen refers to her campaign as "optimistic, positive and hopeful".
This is in sharp contrast to dominant portrayal of the far right in media and scholarship as based on "fear", "negativity" and "pessimism". Yet, both can be correct.
1. Obviously, part of this difference of assessment/opinion is based on ideological difference, which logically leads to different interpretations of positive/negative, optimism/pessimism, and fear/hope.
2. Moreover, and partly related, it is based on the different purposes of these assessments/opinions, i.e. academic qualification or political gain.
The main story of the first round of the #FrenchElections2022 is not at the extremes but at the heart of liberal democracy. And it's not a particularly French story, although there are certain French particularities. A speculative thread. 🧵
1. Far right is not big winner. Le Pen gains 2%, which is minimal, while other far right (Zemmour and Dupont-Aignan), get 5% more than D-A got in 2017.
Zemmour's support is part poor given massive media attention for him as well as his support from within mainstream right.
2. This +7% for the combined far right should be seen in the context of the main story of today, the complete implosion of Les Républicains, the mainstream right, which lost 15% (!) compared to 2017.