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.
Quite honestly, I'm not too concerned about programs retaining APA accreditation. This is more political stunt and I think everyone (including/especially Desantis) is banking on responses that allow him to look good to his base without anything imploding. UF/FSU/USF/UCF/etc. no longer being able to produce licensable individuals in a number of fields (I'm assuming this impacts more than just psychology) is not going to achieve that. Not to mention that programs will almost certainly find ways around this while everyone looks the other way. At least when I was in grad school (which wasn't THAT long ago), APA standards actually did NOT explicitly require a DEI course they just required "That the material was covered in coursework". We did NOT have a required multicultural course, but every course was required to have a multicultural component embedded in it (e.g. psychopathology had a diversity model). I doubt anyone is going to look that closely and in fact I strongly suspect people are banking on folks NOT looking that closely once the posturing is done and they've made examples of a few "History of Racism in America" social sciences professors. Most psychology courses aren't likely to frame things in a way Desantis et al. are likely to bark at anyways.

None of the above should be taken to construe my support for any of this or that I think it isn't a big deal. It is. This is abhorrent and disgusting behavior. This is fascist and scary. I have a conference in FL late this year I'm reluctant to attend and partly hoping they will move as I <really> don't have the option of just "not attending" this particular conference (long story). Just laying out how I realistically think things will unfold if this does move forward. It is a guess. It could get much, much uglier than I'm imagining.

Semi-related note, but I'd love to see Disney call his bluff and offer to move the whole operation elsewhere. Orlando would likely become a trash heap inside 2 years, the airport would likely have to shut down and no one outside FL would even remember it existed in a decade or so. Not that I think this is likely to happen, but would be entertaining to watch unfold.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Quite honestly, I'm not too concerned about programs retaining APA accreditation. This is more political stunt and I think everyone (including/especially Desantis) is banking on responses that allow him to look good to his base without anything imploding. UF/FSU/USF/UCF/etc. no longer being able to produce licensable individuals in a number of fields (I'm assuming this impacts more than just psychology) is not going to achieve that. Not to mention that programs will almost certainly find ways around this while everyone looks the other way. At least when I was in grad school (which wasn't THAT long ago), APA standards actually did NOT explicitly require a DEI course they just required "That the material was covered in coursework". We did NOT have a required multicultural course, but every course was required to have a multicultural component embedded in it (e.g. psychopathology had a diversity model). I doubt anyone is going to look that closely and in fact I strongly suspect people are banking on folks NOT looking that closely once the posturing is done and they've made examples of a few "History of Racism in America" social sciences professors. Most psychology courses aren't likely to frame things in a way Desantis et al. are likely to bark at anyways.

None of the above should be taken to construe my support for any of this or that I think it isn't a big deal. It is. This is abhorrent and disgusting behavior. This is fascist and scary. I have a conference in FL late this year I'm reluctant to attend and partly hoping they will move as I <really> don't have the option of just "not attending" this particular conference (long story). Just laying out how I realistically think things will unfold if this does move forward. It is a guess. It could get much, much uglier than I'm imagining.

Semi-related note, but I'd love to see Disney call his bluff and offer to move the whole operation elsewhere. Orlando would likely become a trash heap inside 2 years, the airport would likely have to shut down and no one outside FL would even remember it existed in a decade or so. Not that I think this is likely to happen, but would be entertaining to watch unfold.
I don't know--among the professors put on a "DEI list" for the governor, per one of the articles I linked in the OP, was one who taught social work research, because he had content on incorporating diversity considerations into study designs--so it does initially appear that they are looking that closely, especially because the state of Florida now requires that all syllabi be publicly available and searchable. Cynically, I wouldn't put it past them to search for "multicultural", "diversity," etc, in the posted syllabi and then censor all professors with that content in their syllabi. Which would, yes, be extreme, but honestly, they seem to want extreme, even if it hurts the universities. Getting rid of tenuire is a great way to get a lot of your funded, productive, and promising faculty to leave and so is profoundly misguided on a purely practical level.

Edit: The article wasn’t in the OP but is here: Concerns arise over Governor DeSantis targeting professors teaching "woke" subjects
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Certainly possible it could go that route. I'd be surprised though since that is obviously going to impact an enormous number of faculty and the universities as a whole. Not a good strategy if you want to posture and get some headlines without blowback. Like I said though, I could well be wrong. Very glad I'm not on faculty there.

100% agree RE: tenure. Productive people leave and your top candidates for faculty jobs invariably accept other offers. Or you have to offer them giant salary premiums and 7 figure startup packages so they can use you to build their reputation before leaving for greener pastures. That was the Harvard/Yale model for many years in psychology. It didn't even prove sustainable for them as they appear to be dialing it back a notch to try and retain people. I can't imagine it being sustainable for state schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
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.
Thank you for saying this. Couldn't have said it better myself. I am gay, married, disabled, and a moderate conservative...after years of being your prototypical liberal gay guy. But I guess that still won't hold any weight with others since I don't embody other more favored minority labels, but I digress.

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.
Absolutely. This is not the first time we've had debates or conversations pertaining to DEI (J?) on this forum, and I believe you also brought this up before on another thread. Yes...the folks who are most pissed off about Florida's stance on this are unstandably the people who have peddled the most to these endeavors with loosely associated data to justify their positions on DEI topics. It's become the new flavor of the month that the very liberal psychologist elites wants everybody in our profession to embody, and if we don't, we risk getting cancelled, or at the very least, we have to hush up and stay in the back ground while others continue to bastadarize our profession. You'd think as psychologists we would learn our lessons about jumping into "buzz worthy" fads with variable "supportive data." I guess DEI sounds good now, and then in 50-80 years APA will yet again come out apologizing for crap we are doing now, which they think they are correct in doing. When we tend to operate at the extreme ends of things, that's how we shoot ourselves in the foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DeSantis doesn't care, but he should. Everything he is doing is performative politics for a 2024 run. Is this one of many declarations that will be overturned in court eventually...probably. Attacking funding is actually pretty smart because it is harder to redirect, but that cuts both ways. The Federal Gov't should hold ALL federal funding hostage until DeSantis stops being such a Napoleonic Dictator. Florida receives $37B+ in federal funding (not counting disaster relief or similar), which is 1/3 of their state budget. Between the Feds and Disney, DeSantis can pretend he has power, but The House of Mouse and the Fed would crush him if they really wanted to make a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

I recommend that.

I'm so yuck about this situation and reporting from all sides. Basically, everyone sucks here, but the teacher is the worst.

First, and this is the most apalling part - none of the stuff in the course is being based in psychological evidence. It's just someone yucky prof with a personality disorder using the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to masturbate and exercise their narcissism. At the risk of musterbating, the entire program should be burnt down. I fail to see how any of this will make someone a better practitioner. DEI homeslices, can you educate me? Like what's the utility here?

Second, the students are just as yuck. Here they go again equating speech with violence. Jeeze, how to make such fragile weak minded babies? Tell them speech is violence. Here's an idea: dinguses exist in the world. You can (a) accept that, shut up, and get your degree and move on (b) set a boundary by not listening to them, or (c) listen to them and learn something about them and yourself in the process - even if they say despicable things. None of what the teacher did was violence. There is some sketchy stuff mentioned in the other article - and if I were a student - I'd probably make a board complaint.

Third, burn the program down for lack of institutional control. How did administration/faculty allow such an unqualified and obvious scion of mental illness into a power position over students? Oh wait, anyone criticizing this teacher would get every -ist nasty label applied to them and academics lack a back bone.

Can we just stop. These types of interactions only make sense in an economy that prizes victimhood over the advance of scientific knowledge. Can we also do a better job of calling out professionals who use DEI to advance their narcissism before they get hired? Here's a simple test: if they identify as an activist - look at their insta. If they are smiling at a protest - then they aren't really into the cause - they're more interested in the performative aspect of it.

Outside of academia and the news, I have never had another interaction like this with a human being.

The last time I felt so yuck about something was when I read an article about rain water harvesting and some government stooge was like "you really should have a permit for collecting water off your own roof."

Indeed - we live in a society of people who are triggered and should adopt the mentality of a victim which gets equated with "validation" under the guise of "psychological science."

People have a right to post things and say things. Heck, half the stuff I see on this forum by folks who, let's face it, skew certain political directions that I may not align myself with, however, I realize they are entitled to their opinions as offensive as I may find them, or how much I might disagree with them. I pick my battles. Most of the time, I don't see a need to call someone out on stuff for their opinions. Most of the time I just like to stir the pot on here when there is a political theme to some of the posts. The reality is, no one here on this forum will saying things to people that will effect some profound moralistic or philosophical change to others. When they don't get their way, the liberal elites love to condescend as their go-to option to quell dissenting opinions. I've seen that come up a lot here as well in other threads. Wise is correct, in that when we skew to any one side of moralistic thinking, we set ourselves up to being ignorant to the fact that others may have equally valid beliefs for their own reasons with just as much "evidence" to support their position. Also, we live in a time now where people do not make space for anything that is offensive. We are quick to want to cancel people, to screenshot and send people's opinions to their employers, boards, etc. in hopes that if we hit them where it hurts, then that will teach them a lesson, when in reality, it reinforces the fact that the very people hell-bent on espousing freedom of speech, "enlightenment" and open-mindedness are the biggest offenders of their own moral crusades.
 
Lots of strawmen here. It's easy to find an extreme example of individual people behaving badly when their feelings are hurt. I live in the bluest area of a blue state- I have a million of these examples (e.g. local town meetings spend time voting a declaring no-fly zones). That stuff is just silliness at the extremes. Conflating eradicating that nonsense with the goals of DeSantis's fascist/national socialist agenda is a bit disingenuous, dontcha think? My position is not against coservatism- Silvio Conte, GHWB, heck even GW were conservatives. I didn't/don't like them, but DeSantis isn't them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lots of strawmen here. It's easy to find an extreme example of individual people behaving badly when their feelings are hurt. I live in the bluest area of a blue state- I have a million of these examples (e.g. local town meetings spend time voting a declaring no-fly zones). That stuff is just silliness at the extremes. Conflating eradicating that nonsense with the goals of DeSantis's fascist/national socialist agenda is a bit disingenuous, dontcha think? My position is not against coservatism- Silvio Conte, GHWB, heck even GW were conservatives. I didn't/don't like them, but DeSantis isn't them.

What's interesting is that the language you use strongly suggests you have already approached DeSantis with a pre-mature judgment influenced by your understanding and application of fascism. It's interesting - you could get a group of liberals and conservatives to look at the same situation and they will undoubtedly probably use "fascist, Hitler, Holocaust, etc." as means to equate modern day politics, policy actions with those of the most extreme, often referencing "slippery slopes" as a precursor to what is to come if we go down some path that a politician is advocating for. I may not like Biden or much of this policies, but unlike others in the conservative camp, I won't jump on the bandwagon of painting him as a socialist or other controversial figureheads in world history who has some similar characteristics of Biden. But based on your description of DeSantis - it is riddled with bias.

I think that's the point I am personally wanting to emphasize - being able to recognize that even liberally-minded people, are equally as susceptible to putting on the blinders. It's even more difficult to recognize this when your entire life's work has largely focused on approaching advocacy with that same level of bias or, personal interpretation of the relevant "peer reviewed" literature pertaining to social inequality, etc.

My bachelor's degree is in sociology, so I remember that most if not all my professors were total liberals. The sociological lens really loves to emphasize victimhood on a macro level.
 
What's interesting is that the language you use strongly suggests you have already approached DeSantis with a pre-mature judgment influenced by your understanding and application of fascism. It's interesting - you could get a group of liberals and conservatives to look at the same situation and they will undoubtedly probably use "fascist, Hitler, Holocaust, etc." as means to equate modern day politics, policy actions with those of the most extreme, often referencing "slippery slopes" as a precursor to what is to come if we go down some path that a politician is advocating for. I may not like Biden or much of this policies, but unlike others in the conservative camp, I won't jump on the bandwagon of painting him as a socialist or other controversial figureheads in world history who has some similar characteristics of Biden. But based on your description of DeSantis - it is riddled with bias.

I think that's the point I am personally wanting to emphasize - being able to recognize that even liberally-minded people, are equally as susceptible to putting on the blinders. It's even more difficult to recognize this when your entire life's work has largely focused on approaching advocacy with that same level of bias or, personal interpretation of the relevant "peer reviewed" literature pertaining to social inequality, etc.

My bachelor's degree is in sociology, so I remember that most if not all my professors were total liberals. The sociological lens really loves to emphasize victimhood on a macro level.
I'm willing to accept examples of other executive level politicians in the US who are currently looking to pass legislation to outlaw discourse, disband/penalize/criminalize systems that teach views different than those of the executive. Oh yeah- and also want to make it easier to execute people!

My "liberal" bias makes me find people like Bezos, Musk, McConnell, even Graham and Cruz, awful. My dislike for self-serving, disingenuous liars makes me find people like Trump and McCarthy distasteful (and it looks like Biden and his stash of top secret documents might put him in that category, joining Bill Clinton). My FEAR of DeSantis is, I assure you, something beyond liberal bias.
 
I think there are so many dei straw men because the dei religion itself dogmatically calls any critic any -ist insult and threatens cancellation. Like it or not, this is main stream. I view dei as moder McCarthy ism.
If that's true, then they are wrong. DeSantis could really give 2 s***s about those guys. They're just convenient windmills to tilt at to attract the attention of all my Facebook "friends" from high-school who have dogs named Blondi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Again, it seems like you have already established a filter for yourself that if whatever you seen or learn of doesn't align with your world view and what ought to be, it's dismissed. Your values and what matters to you the most may not be the case with others, such as myself. We/I may see other avenues in how we address issues that affect people's abilities to have stable jobs, housing, food, access to healthcare and education. It seems like if others' opinions don't align with the prevailing liberal approaches, they are drastically dismissed and labeled as unacceptable, prejudice, draconian, or whatever synonyms you'd prefer to use. To me, that represents the anthesis of being open-minded to how we can address people's mental health challenges. It's understandable in our field as this tends to be the prevailing mindset, seeing how we all have doctorates and we were more or less socialized into thinking like this, so whatever doesn't fit within our learned paradigms, we categorize them and others that go against them in an invalidating manner. I'm sure we can all dredge up examples from people we know (neighbors, high school friends, etc.) where certain topics "hit close to home you," but "you" don't have a monopoly on the plight of mankind. We all have our level of crap and unfortunate circumstances we deal with. It's not an excuse to dismiss others because you think you have a patent on misfortune or inequity.

I am using "you" in the general sense, not necessarily you.
 
I think there are so many dei straw men because the dei religion itself dogmatically calls any critic any -ist insult and threatens cancellation. Like it or not, this is main stream. I view dei as moder McCarthy ism.

Ironically, what DeSantis is starting to do here--making lists of faculty with dissenting viewpoints and firing them--is pretty much what McCarthy tried to do and what gave us the Supreme Court ruling on academic freedom. "Canceling" academics for having right of center view points is wrong, but so is DeSantis firing everyone with left of center viewpoints, which is what he's trying to do here (and has already started to do at New College). Are you going to be in the majority among your colleages if you're a UF faculty member now who thinks, say, that racism doesn't exist anymore or that transgender people are all sexual predators? Probably not, but if you're tenured and do your job, they can't fire you, and they shouldn't be able to. I had a tenured professor in grad school who stated a few times in class that "the gays" and "he/shes" were all deviants and thus not a minority group--that profesor retired by choice after decades there. Saying very heterodox/controversial things pre-tenure can get dicey, perhaps, especially if a tenure case is more borderline overall (e.g., you aren't knocking it out of the park with grants and pubs), but that's what tenure is largely for--that freedom to research and publish even unpopular/controversial work (And trust me--plenty of more-left-wing faculty self-censor pre-tenure, too, especially in conservative states). I have a friend who is a tenured professor of religion at an R1, and students fairly frequently accuse faculty in the department of heresy; they can't get fired for teaching something different from what a student believes precisely because of academic freedom and tenure. What DeSantis plans to do here is to fire any faculty member, tenured or not, with a dissenting viewpoint from his without due process, because he now will be able to do just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
How dare you bring this back to your original thread. Yeah, tenure is important. Totally agree.

I just worry that as the academy is becoming more and more about leftism, it risks losing a level of objectivity and that has political consequences. Again, I view DEI as a bit of mind virus that was created to divide and further polarize America so we are less able to respond to foreign and external threats. That sounds paranoid, and maybe I am. But, it just seems to fan the flame. We have so many common problems to work on.

It'll be interesting if the STEM minded people choose Florida schools because they don't want to learn about DEI shoehorned into differential equation classes or material engineering, when that time could be focused on you know, learning the math and science of their respective field. I'm sure the liberal education will suffer, but it might actually strengthen the STEM programming in these universities.
I don't think anyone is focusing on DEI in, say, differential equations (if you know an example, please do share, legitimately). On the other hand, there's the (empirically) incorrect idea that science/STEM is completely untouched by issues of diversity--see the studies on experiences of sexism among female scientists, for example, or the studies on the difficulties that disabled scientists have accessing labs and workplaces. We see this in psych, too--the idea that in ABA you don't have consider or report demographic variables because ABA is universal or that the reading measure you normed on 100 upperclass kids wih parens wih PhDs will obviously apply perfectly to kids in every socioeconomic sphere because literacy is literacy. Does an engineering major need to take 10 DEI-focused classes? No, and I don't think they do, unless they're choosing to double major in something that requires that or they just want to. Would taking a single class on, say, social issues in STEM fields harm their engineering educations? I don't think so--it might help, it might be boring for some people, or it might be affirming for some people who have experienced these issues in their field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
More like eating those sandwiches for 208 weeks. I once, out of pure laziness and lack of creativity, ate a Hot Pocket for lunch everyday for who knows how long. Pretty much the same thing, right?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Well this thread has quickly escalated. I'll just sit back and admire the echo chamber :)
I legit often wonder if we are allowed to bring any other nuance to these discussions without being immediately all or nothing labeled a bigot and then there resultantly being "concern over the fact you're a psychologist."
 
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 2 users
I also think it's important to consider that a politician implementing legislation is FAR different from a professor implementing policies in the classroom.

Also, I think universities wouldn't have such a liberal bias if conservatism wasn't becoming so increasingly anti-intellectual. I say this as a former conservative, btw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I also think it's important to consider that a politician implementing legislation is FAR different from a professor implementing policies in the classroom.

Also, I think universities wouldn't have such a liberal bias if conservatism wasn't becoming so increasingly anti-intellectual. I say this as a former conservative, btw.

I would say it's the GOP that is becoming anti-intellectual. Most GOP reps these days are not really conservatives in most classical senses. Nowadays they just want to wage BS culture wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
... It seems like if others' opinions don't align with the prevailing liberal approaches, they are drastically dismissed and labeled as unacceptable, prejudice, draconian, or whatever synonyms you'd prefer to use. ...
Nope (at least not in this case, though I am a human and therefore inherently biased). I'd argue that DeSantis policies don't align with the prevailing conservative approaches, thus my rather extreme position. I'm not advocating for not moving to, say, Ohio or New Hampshire because they have conservative governors. I'm advocating the need for extreme reprisals against executive level policies seeking to penalize and criminalize discourse that disagrees with that of those currently in power and makes it easier to legally execute people. This is are not the typical conservative tax cuts, smaller government, faith-based initiative stuff. Rather, it's a direct assault (or precursor to) on the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 9th amendments. My bias (yep, I admit it!) is that he'd really like to take on the 13th, 14th, 15th, 20th, 25th, and even the 26th (in the case of lowering the age). He wouldn't dare touch the 2nd (for obvious reasons), and without the 12th it'd be unlikely he'd ever get a sniff of the presidency, so he'll leave those alone. Yes, Virginia (the fictional character, not the state), the constitution didn't stop at the 2nd, skipping over the first on the way there.
 
I legit often wonder if we are allowed to bring any other nuance to these discussions without being immediately all or nothing labeled a bigot and then there resultantly being "concern over the fact you're a psychologist."
If you have a contrasting opinion, please do share (saying that 100% sincerely). On that note, I recently submittted a manuscript on a "hot button" issue where my conclusion was "there are two sides to this, there's not a consensus within this community, and you could make ethical arguments to support either position", so I do think there's room for nuance (and speaking as a mod, I definiely want that here, even if I, as a person, have strong opinions on some things).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Not to go entirely off-the-rails political: I hadn't really thought of it before, but this seems to dovetail with DeSantis's legislation essentially fast-tracking military veterans becoming teachers, which could perhaps be seen as an effort to try to get more conservative-leaning educators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I legit often wonder if we are allowed to bring any other nuance to these discussions without being immediately all or nothing labeled a bigot and then there resultantly being "concern over the fact you're a psychologist."
While I tend to be very active on these types of threads, I try to be extremely careful about ad hominems. I label my own positions for what they are (to the extreme side of left), and try my best to avoid labeling the messenger (vs. the message). I also try to be ideologically consistent. I don't always succeed. Legitimately keep this on my desk and reference it often:
1675440945211.png

If somebody advocates for a policy which clearly discriminates against or punishes people based on ethnicity or race, they are by definition a "bigot." That can't be logically argued. Whether or not their position on that policy is correct is an opinion, and can be logically argued. Saying that because someone has displayed bigotry on one issue means that they are wrong on all other issues is not terribly logical. If I decide not to hanf out with/hire them or support their relationship with my son/daughter based on that bigotry, that's bias (and I'm okay doing it). I hopefully have not accused anyone - in regards to this topic- of being a bigot. I think others have assumed my position on this issue stems purely from a bias against Republicans/conservatives. While ibam not immune to such biases, I don't think (but could be wrong) that that's what's going on here. My position is that DeSantis's policies fit the definition of fascism (e.g. seeking to criminalize speech that is not in line with people the ruling party's position), and also borders on national socialism (e.g. positions are based on race/ethnicity). While DeSantis identifies as a Republican (and probably as a coservative) it would not be fair or logical to assume that his positions on the issues at hand are representative of the republican/conservative ideology a whole. My opinion, based on my and others observations, filtered through the lens of my own history and current beliefs, is that he'd like forchis policies to be that of the overall party, and that is an existential threat to our democracy and constitution. It also makes it harder for some of the good people around here to do the important (bias alert ⚠️) work that they do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
I legit often wonder if we are allowed to bring any other nuance to these discussions without being immediately all or nothing labeled a bigot and then there resultantly being "concern over the fact you're a psychologist."

I remember at my last VA, it was my first week on the job and I attended a BHIP team meeting where one of the psychiatrists said "I question the wisdom of some of these [residents]." They said this in response to the fact that a sizable amount of the med students and psych residents had expressed concern and disinterest in getting the COVID vaccine. So, the psychiatrist (being super liberal as he is), launched into a diatribe on this. All the while I was just rolling my eyes, and eventually left the meeting. Again, our profession is highly politicized whether people want to admit it or not, and frankly, the political leaning of our field is a pretty liberal one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would say it's the GOP that is becoming anti-intellectual. Most GOP reps these days are not really conservatives in most classical senses. Nowadays they just want to wage BS culture wars.

I would caution saying most of GOP. I'd also mention that this true about the Democratic Party. Both are equally guilty of this. Frankly, I am uninterested in who is pandering to their voter base more, but rather, I am more interested in having folks develop balance where possible. It's not wrong for folks to be liberal or conservative. But I think where it screws is when we are unable to consider alternative thoughts and/or integrate some elements from an opposing viewpoint. It's why I prefer to be a moderate conservative as I see value in both progressive policies as well as conservative ones. There are some things conservatives excel at while other times progressives are more on par.

Just an observation - it's interesting how this topic has now shifted to "I don't have a problem with conservatives, but they have evolved into a more extreme version."

....just waiting on that level of introspection and insight to being applied to the liberal side of this as well.

As far as DeSantis, I actually like him.

;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
While I tend to be very active on these types of threads, I try to be extremely careful about ad hominems. I label my own positions for what they are (to the extreme side of left), and try my best to avoid labeling the messenger (vs. the message). I also try to be ideologically consistent. I don't always succeed. Legitimately keep this on my desk and reference it often:
View attachment 365476
If somebody advocates for a policy which clearly discriminates against or punishes people based on ethnicity or race, they are by definition a "bigot." That can't be logically argued. Whether or not their position on that policy is correct is an opinion, and can be logically argued. Saying that because someone has displayed bigotry on one issue means that they are wrong on all other issues is not terribly logical. If I decide not to hanf out with/hire them or support their relationship with my son/daughter based on that bigotry, that's bias (and I'm okay doing it). I hopefully have not accused anyone - in regards to this topic- of being a bigot. I think others have assumed my position on this issue stems purely from a bias against Republicans/conservatives. While ibam not immune to such biases, I don't think (but could be wrong) that that's what's going on here. My position is that DeSantis's policies fit the definition of fascism (e.g. seeking to criminalize speech that is not in line with people the ruling party's position), and also borders on national socialism (e.g. positions are based on race/ethnicity). While DeSantis identifies as a Republican (and probably as a coservative) it would not be fair or logical to assume that his positions on the issues at hand are representative of the republican/conservative ideology a whole. My opinion, based on my and others observations, filtered through the lens of my own history and current beliefs, is that he'd like forchis policies to be that of the overall party, and that is an existential threat to our democracy and constitution. It also makes it harder for some of the good people around here to do the important (bias alert ⚠️) work that they do.

This would be the epitome of bias. All of this. But that's okay, I am too. I have my own views about what rises to the level of discrimination, bigotry, etc. Again, like I previously said, it seems like folks who are biased to thinking certain ways will undoubtedly filter reality through those lenses. So, based on your description and perception of DeSantis's policies, this makes perfect sense as to how you are conceptualizing him. It follows your unique experiences and persuasion of thinking. But others may elect to view it and filter it differently. That's my point I suppose.
 
I would caution saying most of GOP. I'd also mention that this true about the Democratic Party. Both are equally guilty of this. Frankly, I am uninterested in who is pandering to their voter base more, but rather, I am more interested in having folks develop balance where possible. It's not wrong for folks to be liberal or conservative. But I think where it screws is when we are unable to consider alternative thoughts and/or integrate some elements from an opposing viewpoint. It's why I prefer to be a moderate conservative as I see value in both progressive policies as well as conservative ones. There are some things conservatives excel at while other times progressives are more on par.

Just an observation - it's interesting how this topic has now shifted to "I don't have a problem with conservatives, but they have evolved into a more extreme version."

....just waiting on that level of introspection and insight to being applied to the liberal side of this as well.

As far as DeSantis, I actually like him. Full transparency, both my husband and I voted Trump last election, alternatively, my husband voted Trump, but voted completely Demotractic on the rest of the ballot.

;)

I wouldn't, there are very few Kinzingers, Hogans, and Sununus these days in elected office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I suppose to each their own :shrug:

Indeed. And why, if I criticize something, am I obligated to equally criticize every other ideological faction? If I don't, is it assumed that I am tacitly agreeing with everything that I do not mention, even if not pertinent to the comment that I made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
As far as DeSantis, I actually like him.

You don't find it hypocritical, at all, that this policy bans DEI and threatens to fire academic who promote it in the name of academic freedom? I take it your sympathetic to the heterodoxy people? If so, I don't think you're helping your cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Indeed. And why, if I criticize something, am I obligated to equally criticize every other ideological faction? If I don't, is it assumed that I am tacitly agreeing with everything that I do not mention, even if not pertinent to the comment that I made?

I find that I really like to just speak to the more salient or important things to me, but often, I tend to let other things go. It's okay if you or others don't agree with my view on things. Some times, you don't have to say anything. People are free to infer and conclude whatever they want.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure you can say you are all about "considering other viewpoints" but then be all about people who ban books and limit discourse.

I find that I really like to just speak to the more salient or important things to me, but often, I tend to let other things go. It's okay if you or others don't agree with my view on things. Some times, you don't have to say anything. People are free to infer and conclude whatever they want.

And that's fine, but your response implied my agreement with an unrelated issue at the time. When that was far from the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You don't find it hypocritical, at all, that this policy bans DEI and threatens to fire academic who promote it in the name of academic freedom? I take it your sympathetic to the heterodoxy people? If so, I don't think you're helping your cause.

The cool thing about this is, I don't have to explain my rationale as to why I might favor a certain politician or policy. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you'd like about me. I like to refrain from drawing lofty conclusions about people I know nothing about other than their screen name and whatever ad hominem statements they make on here.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure you can say you are all about "considering other viewpoints" but then be all about people who ban books and limit discourse.



And that's fine, but your response implied my agreement with an unrelated issue at the time. When that was far from the case.

I do consider others' viewpoints. I think you might be confusing "consideration" with acquiescing or agreeing - with either all or parts of the opposing party's viewpoints.
 
The cool thing about this is, I don't have to explain my rationale as to why I might favor a certain politician or policy. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you'd like about me. I like to refrain from drawing lofty conclusions about people I know nothing about other than their screen name and whatever ad hominem statements they make on here.

Refer to ABA's chart for the definition of ad hominem--I asked you a simple question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The cool thing about this is, I don't have to explain my rationale as to why I might favor a certain politician or policy. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you'd like about me. I like to refrain from drawing lofty conclusions about people I know nothing about other than their screen name and whatever ad hominem statements they make on here.

You're reaching a lot here. There is no ad hominem. This poster is just pointing out a contradiction.

I do consider others' viewpoints. I think you might be confusing "consideration" with acquiescing or agreeing - with either all or parts of the opposing party's viewpoints.
The issue posed was that if this is your consideration, then why would you champion an elected official who is actively censoring viewpoints. I don't agree with some of them, but I also don't think they should be banned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You're reaching a lot here. There is no ad hominem. This poster is just pointing out a contradiction.


The issue posed was that if this is your consideration, then why would you champion an elected official who is actively censoring viewpoints. I don't agree with some of them, but I also don't think they should be banned.

I think there might some confusion here, at least related to context. When I referenced ad hominem, it was not about myself, it was more so in the general sense with previous posts by others in this thread.

To your second point, again, I don't see why I'd need to justify or argue with people if they are confused how I can believe one thing, but they interpret my other remarks as apparent contradiction.

I am unsure of what profound changes will come from arguing or debating this topic, that's why I like to not justify things with strangers.
 
To your second point, again, I don't see why I'd need to justify or argue with people if they are confused how I can believe one thing, but they interpret my other remarks as apparent contradiction.

I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify your position and you seem unwilling to do so. Can you see how you open yourself up to misinterpretation by doing so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think there might some confusion here, at least related to context. When I referenced ad hominem, it was not about myself, it was more so in the general sense with previous posts by others in this thread.

To your second point, again, I don't see why I'd need to justify or argue with people if they are confused how I can believe one thing, but they interpret my other remarks as apparent contradiction.

I am unsure of what profound changes will come from arguing or debating this topic, that's why I like to not justify things with strangers.

You claim that you are a big fan of considering others viewpoints and open discourse. People were puzzled by the seeming contradiction in one some of the viewpoints you discussed. Instead of openly engaging and clarifying your viewpoint. Your answer is instead to shut down and tell people that you do not owe them an explanation. Can you see why people may be confused about your intentions and whether or not you engaged in this discussion with a semblance of good faith?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify your position and you seem unwilling to do so. Can you see how you open yourself up to misinterpretation by doing so?

You claim that you are a big fan of considering others viewpoints and open discourse. People were puzzled by the seeming contradiction in one some of the viewpoints you discussed. Instead of openly engaging and clarifying your viewpoint. Your answer is instead to shut down and tell people that you do not owe them an explanation. Can you see why people may be confused about your intentions and whether or not you engaged in this discussion with a semblance of good faith?


I think we are escalating things to a point that may be unhealthy here. I making the choice to not continue to engage in this particular part of the discussion as there is simply no benefit in doing so, but rather, keeps the argument going.
 
I think we are escalating things to a point that may be unhealthy here. I making the choice to not continue to engage in this particular part of the discussion as there is simply no benefit in doing so, but rather, keeps the argument going.

That is your right, but I wouldn't be surprised if people make assumptions when you refuse to clarify seemingly contradictory positions. Also, I would strongly recommend thinking about that concept in your legal work. Some lawyers are good at pointing these out, and they'll crucify you on cross with it.
 
I think we are escalating things to a point that may be unhealthy here. I making the choice to not continue to engage in this particular part of the discussion as there is simply no benefit in doing so, but rather, keeps the argument going.

That's too bad. I really do believe SDN should be a place for healthy, rigorous dialogue about issues where there might be strong disagreement; relative anonymity affords us that. I can't think of a regular poster on here that I haven't had a disagreement over the last couple of years when I have been more active on the board, but I still have loads of respect for the people here. Anyways, I'll see you in other threads (I hope) and maybe some time later we can pick this up again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
That is your right, but I wouldn't be surprised if people make assumptions when you refuse to clarify seemingly contradictory positions. Also, I would strongly recommend thinking about that concept in your legal work. Some lawyers are good at pointing these out, and they'll crucify you on cross with it.

How I conduct myself on here is different than how I conduct myself in my professional work.
 
Top