I tend to take claims like these with a grain of salt.

But I just went line-by-line through the DeSantis education bill. And you guys, it’s *bananas*. A road map for wrecking one of our great state systems of higher education. 🧵 1/
Breathtaking control of viewpoint and content throughout all academic activity in the entire Florida system. All colleges and universities are forbidden to spend any money to fund pedagogy, programming, or activities that “espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
No core class can present American history contrary to a founding narrative “based on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.” /3
All state colleges and universities must remove Women’s & Gender Studies from the list of available majors and minors. No major or minor can exist if it is deemed to be “derivative” from the “belief system” of “Critical Race Theory”—gee, wonder where that will go. 4/
All faculty hiring will be done by the university board or president—who *may not delegate* any aspect of any hiring decision or any hiring authority to any group of faculty however constituted. They are “not required to consider recommendations or opinions of faculty.” 5/
On the faculty hiring one, I keep thinking I must be misreading something or missing some other aspect of the administrative/governance workings of state education in Florida. But man the language seems unequivocal. 6/
The only thing that seems as less worrisome on the *face* of the bill is post-tenure review. Long convo, but if you’re gonna have post-tenure review, these considerations seem defensible. (Yes, given everything else, the as-applied potential is super troubling.) 7/
Not good times, guys!

So I thought I’d share this walk-through for those who, like me, sometimes wonder whether some seemingly nutbar thing is being fairly described. Based on the above, the answer here seems clearly to be “yes.” 8/8
POSTSCRIPT: With apologies, the notifications have become unmanageable--I literally can't refresh fast enough to keep up. So I'm muting this thread but will try to poke through it manually. Sorry if I don't answer you; there's a good chance I didn't even see what you wrote 😬

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Julian Davis Mortenson

Julian Davis Mortenson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jdmortenson

Oct 11, 2022
I find myself in the unfortunate position of disagreeing w this essay from @WilliamBaude + Michael McConnell. And I want to explain why, more bc of what their Elections Clause arguments suggest about modern originalism than bc of anything distinctive I can add on the merits.

1/
Basically: North Carolina SCt struck down NC’s recent redistricting under the *NC* constitution. Challengers claim NC SCt can’t do this, bc *federal* constitution’s Elections Clause gives N.C. leg total power over elections except as limited by fed law 2/ brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…
It's a super weird case for an Elections Clause argument. Afaict, the NC SCt literally step-by-step did precisely what THE LEGISLATURE expressly told them to do--not just on process (challenge; PI; interim plan) but even on substance (const'l standards)
3/
Read 17 tweets
Sep 6, 2022
Seeing lots of confident proclamations that Biden's loan forgiveness plan is executive branch lawlessness run amok. I don't get it--the confidence, that is. My current sense is that it'd likely be rejected by this Supreme Court, but that it's not an easy case on the merits. 1/
But don't forget: predicting what this (or, I suppose, any) court will do in an adjudicated case is not the same thing as asking "what's the best legal analysis?"
I'm offering this thread mainly to flag some resources I've found useful in trying to think all this through. 2/
I'd start off by reading the statute. (Crazy talk, I know.) It's short and structurally straightforward. Note especially these two passages:
Sec 2(a)(2)(A) authorizing waivers & modifications re student loans
Sec 5(2) defining "affected individuals" congress.gov/108/plaws/publ… ImageImage
Read 14 tweets
May 3, 2022
Boring pedantry alert! Under current doctrine, the Commerce Clause clearly authorizes federal abortion legislation. Sure, the SCt could chuck the caselaw in the trash. But that’s what it would take: radical change—with implications far beyond abortion.🧵1/
The 1995 Lopez revolution imposed a new "economic" req't for CC jurisdiction. Basically, Congress can't regulate outside the stream of commerce unless whats being regulated is “economic”

Singing for friends on a plane? Regulable!
Singing for friends in my yard? Hands off! 2/
Since Lopez, the important fights have been whether anything *besides* profit-seeking commercial transactions can be “economic.” If I grow marijuana in my garden, is that economic? What if I barter it for an oil change? What if my co-op uses marijuana leaves as scrip? Etc etc. 3/
Read 9 tweets
May 18, 2021
Justice Breyer is getting tons of outrage for his “stop politicizing nominations; ain’t nobody here but us jurisprudes” bit. And tbc both the substance and his timing deserve ALL the dunks.

But the whole convo is IMO mixing up v different things in v important ways. 1/
Breyer’s core claim is that, in his experience, judges take very seriously their oath to “administer justice faithfully.” He contrasts that to “politicians in robes”: judges focused on outcomes, policy agendas, party loyalty, and advancing a political mov’ts policy goals. 2/
Now, it's a giant nonsequitur for him to conclude this means judges shouldn’t pay attention to who’ll likely replace them, or that it’s inappropriate for politicians and commentators to focus on policy impact of judicial nominations during hearings. That simply doesn't follow. 3/
Read 11 tweets
Jan 19, 2021
This is an extremely thoughtful piece by a member of Fed Soc on its future—and its past. Well worth reading in its entirety. (Retorts will of course come to mind for many readers; David himself anticipates most of them.) 1/
David calls for some serious changes to current Fed Soc practices, which strike me as genuinely asking a lot of the organization as currently constituted. Two related thoughts come to mind, both extending the logic of David’s piece. 2/
First, consider the possibility that a “debating, discussing, and engaging” ethic might counsel transforming the spirit of how non-textualist, non-originalist interpretive approaches are discussed, and abandoning the contempt and derision w which they are treated as “not law.” 3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(