Florida to ban DEI programming and instruction; eliminate university tenure

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

futureapppsy2

Assistant professor
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
7,696
Reaction score
6,459

Under this proposal, DeSantis will:
-Not allow any DEI programming or education in Florida public colleges or universities, even if it’s funded by non-state sources
-Give presidents and university trustees the ability to review/revoke tenure at any time, thereby eliminating tenure
-Given that he’s requested the names of faculty and staff who do any DEI work or teach DEI-related classes (Provost makes bestiality joke, reacting to concern for LGBTQ faculty), he’s pretty clearly going to have them immediately fired, imo.

On a practical note, I guess Florida public universities will no longer have any accredited psych programs in a year or so, as both accreditors require multicultural competencies?

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The VA had this issue when Trump banned diversity programming. IIRC staff pretty much just ignored it, but we also knew it could change during the next administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Based on multiple polls etc, the Republican party is approx 85% White…
Just keep that demographic happy while inexplicably getting some votes from LGBT, racial minorities and… women & parents of daughters 🤦‍♂️.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
The VA had this issue when Trump banned diversity programming. IIRC staff pretty much just ignored it, but we also knew it could change during the next administration.
This is much worse, IMO, because it's banning instruction, training, and research in a university, where those things are the entire mission of the university. Also, Trump didn't eliminate tenure for VA employees, which is a huge difference that allowed them to ignore the directive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
This is much worse, IMO, because it's banning instruction, training, and research in a university, where those things are the entire mission of the university. Also, Trump didn't eliminate tenure for VA employees, which is a huge difference that allowed them to ignore the directive.
I also think it's even worse because DeSantis is installing his cronies on the board of regents and upper-level appointed admin roles at state universities and seems to be giving them free rein to enforce this policy. I don't think as many positions in the VA change with federal administration changes, but I might be mistaken...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I also think it's even worse because DeSantis is installing his cronies on the board of regents and upper-level appointed admin roles at state universities and seems to be giving them free rein to enforce this policy. I don't think as many positions in the VA change with federal administration changes, but I might be mistaken...
They don't--most federal employees who aren't political appointees effectively have tenure (i.e., can only be fired for financial exigency or cause) for this reason (i.e., you don't want administrations and congress turning over the entire federal workforce with every election, especially because then politicians could say lierally "vote for me or I'll personally fire you" to every federal employee in their district).

As I was telling my non-academic girlfriend last night, people go into academia for a) the relatively high degree of job security tenure brings and b) the degree of freedom to research and teach what you want, as long as you do it well and fulfill requirements. Similarly, a lot of people who go federal do it for a) the relatively high degree job security and b) the work-life balance (e.g., no unpaid overtime). In both of these cases, people who choose these options do so because they believe that the pros make up for the lower salary (and, in the case of academia, the absolutely terrible work hours). DeSantis is basically going for a system where a) the faculty have to do research and teach in a way that directly, solely, and explicitly supports his policies and ideology and b) they can get fired at any time if they don't, or if he or his cronies just feel like it. So, basically, there are no pros at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Florida is like recruiting me to a NBA team. You can always laugh at their failures and recognize how much better off you are.

In all seriousness, its a gross (and unsurprising) action that follows with everything else. We'll see what comes to pass of this and how much it stays to his stupid ideological stance when rubber meets the road.
 
I find the whole charade ridiculous. We have some ties and my wife and I have joked about wanting to retire in FL, but it just doesn't seem to be on a good path right now.

I've posted this before, but the crusade by people who didn't finish 9th grade based on what they imagine happens on college campuses still continues in full force. A class on multiculturalism is not a class on "How to hate White people" and even if we assume the latter exists (it...probably doesn't?), we need to recognize the grey here. Hey, I agree DEI can go too far. Hamline is a good example - fire the president and throw out the students who complained as far as I'm concerned. What FL is doing is ridiculous.

Should I abandon hope of our collective sanity returning at any point in my lifetime? I guess it provides us some job security...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Also, all this seems like pretty blatant First Amendment violations, but that's probably not going to help, as everyone will be fired before it gets to court. :(

And the court will potentially uphold it because nowadays even the courts are ideological.

Btw, I wasn't trying to imply the VA situation was as bad, this is obviously worse. I just thought it was interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't think this will be limited to Florida, sadly. I can easily see it spreading.

It's key to understand they are using funding, not instructions to do something. This is a legal loophole. They can cut the budget for a subject, and change some hiring practices. But, they cannot fire professors for teaching something they dislike. For example, your university could have $0.00 for teaching English Literature. So, no one wants to teach it. But you are constitutionally protected if you choose to teach that, for free.

The relevant term is called, "academic freedom". It is based off of common law, enshrined by SCOTUS, and established in multiple cases, which means it would be extremely difficult to repeal.

In 1957, SCOTUS ruled that Academic Freedom is part of the First Amendment. Academic Freedom may be applied to both academic institutions AND academic individuals. The term protects: course content, research content, what you teach or how you teach it, how you evaluate students or how they evaluate you. This principle has been extended to other academic behaviors, including making inflammatory public comments.

Since teaching content is a protected first amendment activity, as identified by academic freedom, any state challenge would be a constitutional case. If SCOTUS chooses to hear the case, they would have to state they erred in their 1957 decision AND that common law somehow does not apply. This would create INCREDIBLE liability for professors who take inflammatory positions . If you look at the US cases that have been protected by academic freedom, you'll notice that a certain perspective tends to benefit from this legal principle.
 
It's key to understand they are using funding, not instructions to do something. This is a legal loophole. They can cut the budget for a subject, and change some hiring practices. But, they cannot fire professors for teaching something they dislike. For example, your university could have $0.00 for teaching English Literature. So, no one wants to teach it. But you are constitutionally protected if you choose to teach that, for free.

The relevant term is called, "academic freedom". It is based off of common law, enshrined by SCOTUS, and established in multiple cases, which means it would be extremely difficult to repeal.

In 1957, SCOTUS ruled that Academic Freedom is part of the First Amendment. Academic Freedom may be applied to both academic institutions AND academic individuals. The term protects: course content, research content, what you teach or how you teach it, how you evaluate students or how they evaluate you. This principle has been extended to other academic behaviors, including making inflammatory public comments.

Since teaching content is a protected first amendment activity, as identified by academic freedom, any state challenge would be a constitutional case. If SCOTUS chooses to hear the case, they would have to state they erred in their 1957 decision AND that common law somehow does not apply. This would create INCREDIBLE liability for professors who take inflammatory positions . If you look at the US cases that have been protected by academic freedom, you'll notice that a certain perspective tends to benefit from this legal principle.
But they 100% are doing this by allowing the president/trustees to unilaterally review and revoke tenure at any time--tenure exists largely to protect academic freedom, and without tenure, universities can fire faculty at will for any reason as long as they put something vague but legal in writing. For example, that Hamline case that has gotten so much attention (where the adjunct showed a picture of Muhammad during an art history class and then wasn't hired back to teach the next semester) was defensibly legal because they "didn't renew her contract" vs. actually technically firing her. Likewise, Florida university presidents/BOTs could just say that faculty who did anything the governor didn't love "weren't meeting university mission guidelines" [which they decide] and fire them on that basis. Tenure requires that revocation/firing show due cause and has safeguards with multiple levels of appeal and review--the whole point of this tenure change is to allow unilateral firing for ideological reasons under the vague guise of the "university mission", as long as they don't put in writing that they're explicitly firng someone for being in a protected class. There's no functional academic freedom without tenure or tenure-like equivalents (like those in most federal jobs).

They're already doing this at Florida's public SLAC, New College of Florida: New College of Florida board trustee wants to replace president and fire all faculty and staff to eliminate ‘dogmatic wokeness’

In a few years, could SCOTUS do something about it? Sure, maybe--but all dissenting faculty will have been fired by then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Under this proposal, DeSantis will:
-Not allow any DEI programming or education in Florida public colleges or universities, even if it’s funded by non-state sources
-Give presidents and university trustees the ability to review/revoke tenure at any time, thereby eliminating tenure
-Given that he’s requested the names of faculty and staff who do any DEI work or teach DEI-related classes (Provost makes bestiality joke, reacting to concern for LGBTQ faculty), he’s pretty clearly going to have them immediately fired, imo.

On a practical note, I guess Florida public universities will no longer have any accredited psych programs in a year or so, as both accreditors require multicultural competencies?
I'm just a lowly RA building a school list for the next app cycle, but I actually have a Florida school on my list. Assuming DeSantis and his minions actualize their goals do you think it would be worth taking off the FL school?
 
"Every nation (state) has the government it deserves."

I generally agree, but we also have to acknowledge the limitations of democracy in certain states (gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc). For instance, my state is Republican controlled even though they're the minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I generally agree, but we also have to acknowledge the limitations of democracy in certain states (gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc). For instance, my state is Republican controlled even though they're the minority.

In some areas, maybe. In Florida, not so much. Everyone knew who Desantis and the GOP in Florida were through the Trump and Covid years, they re-elected Desantis in an absolute landslide, and the GOP absolutely killed it in the midterms. It wasn't even remotely close. This is unequivocally what Florida chose. Now it gets to live with its choices.
 
In some areas, maybe. In Florida, not so much. Everyone knew who Desantis and the GOP in Florida were through the Trump and Covid years, they re-elected Desantis in an absolute landslide, and the GOP absolutely killed it in the midterms. It wasn't even remotely close. This is unequivocally what Florida chose. Now it gets to live with its choices.
I suspect the majority in FL who voted for DeSantis and GOP reps/senators would support these policies and are happy to live with them.
 
In 1957, SCOTUS ruled that Academic Freedom is part of the First Amendment. Academic Freedom may be applied to both academic institutions AND academic individuals. The term protects: course content, research content, what you teach or how you teach it, how you evaluate students or how they evaluate you. This principle has been extended to other academic behaviors, including making inflammatory public comments.

I'm sure there are legal loopholes. I'm aware of at least one state that was toying with productivity requirements for academics to keep their jobs, regardless of tenure.
 
I'm just a lowly RA building a school list for the next app cycle, but I actually have a Florida school on my list. Assuming DeSantis and his minions actualize their goals do you think it would be worth taking off the FL school?
In general, I don't think this would affect students so much as faculty, though there is a small risk that accreditation for programs that require DEI-related education and training (e.g., clinical/counseling/school psych) could be pulled if the universities can't meet that requirement. Also, there's a risk some faculty could leave because of this.
 
I'm sure there are legal loopholes. I'm aware of at least one state that was toying with productivity requirements for academics to keep their jobs, regardless of tenure.
That doesn't really invoke academic freedom, though, because it's not saying that you get rewarded/punished based on the ideology you may display in those publications, it just sets a blanket requirement for productivity and, usually, a series of safeguards and steps for removing tenure if faculty don't meet them. The particularly troubling thing about Florida and North Dakota's proposed laws is that they give *one person* unilateral authority to revoke tenure without any sort of due process (and, in ND's case, the faculty also can't appeal or sue, so they would have zero recourse).

Link to the proposed ND law: Bill: North Dakota presidents could fire tenured faculty
 
I suspect the majority in FL who voted for DeSantis and GOP reps/senators would support these policies and are happy to live with them.

I agree, but there are also people that are being impacted by this and don't agree with it. I don't think they should have to put up with policy like this just because they choose to live in Florida for whatever reason. Saying "just leave the state" isn't really helpful, nor is it an effective long-term solution to the issue at hand, especially if this legislation spreads to other states.

Some really great work is being done by these people too, like the Florida Freedom to Read Project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
That doesn't really invoke academic freedom, though, because it's not saying that you get rewarded/punished based on the ideology you may display in those publications, it just sets a blanket requirement for productivity and, usually, a series of safeguards and steps for removing tenure if faculty don't meet them.

That's kinda what I was saying: You could move the goal posts or restructure the removal process to fire someone for their ideas without firing someone for their ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree, but there are also people that are being impacted by this and don't agree with it. I don't think they should have to put up with policy like this just because they choose to live in Florida for whatever reason. Saying "just leave the state" isn't really helpful, nor is it an effective long-term solution to the issue at hand, especially if this legislation spreads to other states.

Some really great work is being done by these people too, like the Florida Freedom to Read Project.
This--and to a large degree, faculty go where they can get TT jobs. Not everyone can get a TT job in a blue state, especially if you want one at a stable college or university (i.e., not a small LAC with little money and a nosediving enrollment, which has serious risks itself). A TT job I was a finalist for but didn't take for logistical reasons a few years ago (at a small state school in a blue state) was recently eliminated because the associated program was shut down. TT jobs at large state universities in red states looked pretty safe even a couple of years ago. No one took one because they thought that state legislatures would suddenly make even TT/tenured faculty at-will employees and substantially restrict their freedom of speech.

Plus, a lot of this research needs to be done in all states, or we're going to end up with bodies of research that only reflect blue states and their populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm just a lowly RA building a school list for the next app cycle, but I actually have a Florida school on my list. Assuming DeSantis and his minions actualize their goals do you think it would be worth taking off the FL school?
If I saw that anyone willing chose to move to Florida given this and other recent developments, liberal ol` me would definitely judge you negatively and assume you are at least partly supportive of the recent policy changes (or ignorant thereof, which imho is just as bad). DeSantis has made his views clear, both pre- and post election. Fair or not, I view choosing to bring yourself there (outside of some clearly articulated and evidence supported doing so to affect change) as implicit support of the way things are there. I'm extremely my views, by I also review applications, so there's that.
 
If I saw that anyone willing chose to move to Florida given this and other recent developments, liberal ol` me would definitely judge you negatively and assume you are at least partly supportive of the recent policy changes (or ignorant thereof, which imho is just as bad). DeSantis has made his views clear, both pre- and post election. Fair or not, I view choosing to bring yourself there (outside of some clearly articulated and evidence supported doing so to affect change) as implicit support of the way things are there. I'm extremely my views, by I also review applications, so there's that.
I don't think this is very fair, tbh--a lot of people just have to go where they get a job (or get into grad school or where their family lives).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't think this is very fair, tbh--a lot of people just have to go where they get a job (or get into grad school or where their family lives).
Maybe not, but, firstly, I'm talking people who put Florida and their list recently. Secondly, we're not talking about taking the FL job or family starves- we're talking psychologists, professors, and grad students. There's 49 (well, actually maybe 46ish) other places to choose from. There needs to be consequences for this nonsense, hatred, and evil.
 
Maybe not, but, firstly, I'm talking people who put Florida and their list recently. Secondly, we're not talking about taking the FL job or family starves- we're talking psychologists, professors, and grad students. There's 49 (well, actually maybe 46ish) other places to choose from. There needs to be consequences for this nonsense, hatred, and evil.
I think you are seriously overestimating the geographic flexibility people have when applying for faculty jobs, especially tenure-track ones. I've been in the position of "move to a red state or don't have a job in a few months." I'm not going to blame anyone for wanting a salary or healthcare v. unemployment. There needs to be consequences, yes, but this is not the fault of the faculty who took jobs in Florida a couple of a years ago. It is the fault of legislatures and people who stir up media panics that are often grounded in bigotry. Those people deserve consequences, not the faculty or grad students who may not have or have had other options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I agree, but there are also people that are being impacted by this and don't agree with it. I don't think they should have to put up with policy like this just because they choose to live in Florida for whatever reason. Saying "just leave the state" isn't really helpful, nor is it an effective long-term solution to the issue at hand, especially if this legislation spreads to other states.

Some really great work is being done by these people too, like the Florida Freedom to Read Project.
Oh, I agree. Besides that, I think leaving the state may be helpful and necessary for some, but in other cases, it deprives the state of a counter-voice to current policies (which goes both ways).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think you are seriously overestimating the geographic flexibility people have when applying for faculty jobs, especially tenure-track ones. I've been in the position of "move to a red state or don't have a job in a few months." I'm not going to blame anyone for wanting a salary or healthcare v. unemployment. There needs to be consequences, yes, but this is not the fault of the faculty who took jobs in Florida a couple of a years ago. It is the fault of legislatures and people who stir up media panics that are often grounded in bigotry. Those people deserve consequences, not the faculty or grad students who may not have or have had other options.
Maybe I am. However, DeSantis recent move was to remove the unanimous jury provision for death penalty cases. Who is most likely to face a capital charge? Non-whites. I may be extreme with my views, but he is extremely (and infinitely more dangerous). This isn't a democratic vs republican thing- DeSantis and his ilk are taking the first (and second and third and forth) steps towards fascism (and maybe national socialism, with this death penalty stuff). Move there and contribute to that economy at your own risk. For what it's worth (and I understand if that's not much) people like me will judge you negatively in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
, but this is not the fault of the faculty who took jobs in Florida a couple of a years ago
I think it's pretty clear that that's not who I am talking about. I'm saying that moving forward younshould keep FL of your list or it might be seen as implicit support for what's going on there. I have a dog in this fight, as my brother and his family live there. He moved there many years ago and I wouldn't expect him to move, but I'm not visiting him either. And that sucks .
 
Maybe not, but, firstly, I'm talking people who put Florida and their list recently. Secondly, we're not talking about taking the FL job or family starves- we're talking psychologists, professors, and grad students. There's 49 (well, actually maybe 46ish) other places to choose from. There needs to be consequences for this nonsense, hatred, and evil.
I don't think prospective grad students have the same level of mobility as psychologists or professors, nor do I think that should matter. Once you factor in research interest, funding package, and frankly how competitive certain areas can be, your range gets considerably smaller. As much as I'd love to end up in an exceptionally blue metro/state that's just completely unrealistic with how competitive the application process is. In no way would that stop me or someone else from moving to Florida to join the 3 million people that didn't vote for DeSantis. Besides, aren't people who are willing to relocate to Florida to act against DeSantis actually the least implicit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't think prospective grad students have the same level of mobility as psychologists or professors, nor do I think that should matter. Once you factor in research interest, funding package, and frankly how competitive certain areas can be, your range gets considerably smaller...
Yeah- it's tough and grad school entry is competitive. Univ. Florida has one of, if not the top program in my primary field (ABA) in the country. It'd be tough to turn that down. If, however, you're talking about about a place like the oft maligned PsyD program in "Southeastern" Florida, you have better options. Regardless, you probably shouldn't worry about the opinions of some ornery blue state ultra-liberal negatively impacting your carreer. I think less of you, but I'm an extreme and we'll likely hever cross paths!
... In no way would that stop me or someone else from moving to Florida to join the 3 million people that didn't vote for DeSantis. Besides, aren't people who are willing to relocate to Florida to act against DeSantis actually the least implicit?
Wait a second- which is it? Choosing FL due to limited options or wanting to stick it to DeSantis and his supporters from the inside? Be careful with this technique of arguing a point. Makes it seem like you're trying to justify a questionable choice with a noble choice, ultimately coming across as insincere.
 
"Every nation (state) has the government it deserves."

We don’t deserve Republicans.
Which is why they rig the system, making it harder for minorities to vote, making it harder for their votes to count, installing fascist judges who ignore law and precedent and come up with any excuse to further have religion invade every aspect of our lives…. Then beg Democratic states for help when they get flooded or their heating grid doesn’t work
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yeah- it's tough and grad school entry is competitive. Univ. Florida has one of, if not the top program in my primary field (ABA) in the country. It'd be tough to turn that down. If, however, you're talking about about a place like the oft maligned PsyD program in "Southeastern" Florida, you have better options. Regardless, you probably shouldn't worry about the opinions of some ornery blue state ultra-liberal negatively impacting your carreer. I think less of you, but I'm an extreme and we'll likely hever cross paths!

Wait a second- which is it? Choosing FL due to limited options or wanting to stick it to DeSantis and his supporters from the inside? Be careful with this technique of arguing a point. Makes it seem like you're trying to justify a questionable choice with a noble choice, ultimately coming across as insincere.
My point was the matter of it being a choice doesn't really matter, you're not implicit in any instance. If you elect to move there to/and actively support DeSantis then well ... yeah I don't think that needs further explanation. If you're deciding to move there but you're also taking action to make it a better place, by not voting for DeSantis and his supporters and even doing advocacy work for those affected by DeSantis, I really fail to see how that's remotely implicit.

What could be considered far more implicit is being several states away and electing to do ... literally nothing.

I am also only applying to funded PhD programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We don’t deserve Republicans.
Which is why they rig the system, making it harder for minorities to vote, making it harder for their votes to count, installing fascist judges who ignore law and precedent and come up with any excuse to further have religion invade every aspect of our lives…. Then beg Democratic states for help when they get flooded or their heating grid doesn’t work

As a moderate, I believe that we do, for several reasons. One, the binary us vs. them is a stupid dichotomy that both sides play, and it alienates a very large group that exists somewhere in the middle. Progressives think we're far right and far right whackjobs think we're socialists. Both have become so delusional that you can't reason with them.

And, while I agree that voting should be easier (e.g., early voting, vote by mail, weekend voting, national paid holiday for general elections, etc) I think the issue is overhyped to a large extent. It does not explain the horrid voting participation rates in the country. Take voting in the youngest eligible age cohort. It usually hovers around 20%. People were astounded when it rose to the highest it's been in decades in the last round....at 27%. These patterns hold even in areas that have greatly expanded voting access. Votes have consequences. Staying home also has consequences. So, stay home, or in the case of 2016, throw out some pointless protest votes. Then live with it.
 
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 4 users
Public schools in Florida are removing books from libraries to comply with the state statutes..
 
Yeah- it's tough and grad school entry is competitive. Univ. Florida has one of, if not the top program in my primary field (ABA) in the country. It'd be tough to turn that down. If, however, you're talking about about a place like the oft maligned PsyD program in "Southeastern" Florida, you have better options. Regardless, you probably shouldn't worry about the opinions of some ornery blue state ultra-liberal negatively impacting your carreer. I think less of you, but I'm an extreme and we'll likely hever cross paths!

Wait a second- which is it? Choosing FL due to limited options or wanting to stick it to DeSantis and his supporters from the inside? Be careful with this technique of arguing a point. Makes it seem like you're trying to justify a questionable choice with a noble choice, ultimately coming across as insincere.

But how will change ever happen if people with progressive views only live in blue states? There are people who can't move out of Florida and will be negatively impacted by this, who did not vote for it. Should we just abandon them?

Remember, liberal vs. conservative divide isn't really by state anymore, it's by urban vs. rural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I'm sure there are legal loopholes. I'm aware of at least one state that was toying with productivity requirements for academics to keep their jobs, regardless of tenure.

That's a work around, where they can change employment rules to punish a proxy for the legally protected issue. It's like how certain private school teacher contracts have "morality" clauses that disproportionately affect LGBTQIA+ individuals (e.g., "no cohabitation without a marriage in a 7th Days Adventist church"). It's not illegal, because the rule is not exclusive to a protected class. But... come on... we know what they're doing.

In this case, I imagine someone will sue and win a LOT of money. The politicians are just trying to get a presidential nomination. They don't expect it to work.

The maxim is that you can fire anyone for any reason (except for Montana), but you can't fire someone for the wrong reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Personally, I'd like to see how DEI is operationalized in practice/interpreted in the law because we cant even do it here. But, I guess it's like porn, you know it when you see it.

The problem is that DEI proponents brought this on themselves and have had a complete lack of accountability in how they refer to the outgroup. By golly, "justified" intolerance, ratcheting up/contributing to polarization, blanket labeling of insults, cancelling people for silly reasons, open and uncritical love of communism, etc., and people act shocked how the right is seizing on this to advance their political agenda. Furthermore, they seem to train people to think about things in a cognitively distorted way. I don't think that modern DEI or CRT have actually been a net benefit to individuals and society because I do kind of see it as bit of mind virus that divides us and I think it's done on purpose to weaken America. But there are tons of mind virii (or viruses).

Let's be honest, there are jerks on both sides who use this moment to advance their personal agenda. I'm sitting back with popcorn watching the culture war.


But, here's something that young people, right out of grad school, or currently in a college of education don't want to hear: you're part of the problem, too. The outrage you're feeling is manufactured, on purpose, on both sides, to benefit a select few.
I agree that there are some people on the social justice side of things who take things too far—but, on the other hand, you have people arguing that we need to treat the Holocaust or slavery “neutrally” and “respect both sides,” which… no you don’t, honestly.

When I teach diversity-related concepts, I repeatedly and openly state to my students that there is not one “right answer” to a lot of this stuff, because it’s complex, but that it’s important to respect people’s identities and experiences and to understand that your experience is not going to be the same and everyone else’s.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But how will change ever happen if people with progressive views only live in blue states? There are people who can't move out of Florida and will be negatively impacted by this, who did not vote for it. Should we just abandon them?

Remember, liberal vs. conservative divide isn't really by state anymore, it's by urban vs. rural.
I hear you, but I just don't think we are talking about the run of the mill pork barrel and pandering politics (that both sides engage in), liberal vs conservative thing. DeSantis is literally trying to make it easier to legally kill people, as well as strip the right to any discourse regarding discrimination, etc. That's a very dangerous step down an ugly, evil road.mhecwon by a freaking landslide! The people have spoken, and few left of the middle professors and grad students (who are historically unlikely to vote locally or make a statistical difference anyways) won't make a difference. In fact, I'd bet he uses them for a "if it's so bad, why they still moving here" defensive strategy. If this works and there's not more active resistance ( particularly of the financial nature), I'd be worried about this evil coming to a town near me if I was in any of the more hard leaning red states. When ( not if) this guy runs for president, it will be years to soon for any of the "I'll move there to make a difference" stuff to have any effect. Again- his more recent position is that it should be easier to legally kill people. That's well beyond the typically "we don't want Obamacare/masks are tyranny" stuff. It's "discrimination doesn't exist, you can't talk about it existing, white males know best and it's better when we're in charge" stuff. And, oh yeah- that whole death penalty thing that historically is used more against minorities? Let's make that easier to do. I'm not saying make Florida socialist, for God's sake!
 
I feel like we've argued the merits of dei/liberals/republicans to death and the most interesting part of this post is re: tenure and what is going to happen to graduate programs in Florida.

I would be concerned as an applicant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I feel like we've argued the merits of dei/liberals/republicans to death and the most interesting part of this post is re: tenure and what is going to happen to graduate programs in Florida.

I would be concerned as an applicant.
Yeah. I wasn’t being hyperbolic in my accreditation comment. I legit wonder how they can maintain accredited programs if they can’t teach the required material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah, APA requires diversity programming. This will impact not only grad programs, but also internship sites in the university system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I would imagine it is in the APA's interest to keep these programs accredited. I wonder whether they will offer their own DEI programming for programs who find themselves unable, legally, to fulfill these accreditation requirements.
 
Top