‘Go to Berkeley’: Ron DeSantis said students seeking ‘woke’ classes should study elsewhere

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all with music. There's music theory, reading, proficiency on the instruments, music history, music education, music production, etc.

I'd agree that there's something more concrete to music education than philosophy. It's not something that I know much about (I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between tempo and time signature)....but since it's got observable effects....there's some degree of objectivity to it.


However, I would argue that so rarely does philosophy ever amount to anything....and when it does, those philosophers are often reviled or ignored....there's little need for a dearth of philosophy majors.

Critical thinking, formal logic, writing skills, world history including history of science. I understand that philosophy grads go on to law and business quite often.

Critical thinking is not well understood these days because of the corruption of the term "critical" in modern education is more related to the idea of "criticism" than critical thinking.

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between the two will almost certainly imagine that they are "thinking critically" when openly criticizing something or someone.

You don't need philosophy to learn to think critically. Or for writing skills. Formal logic can be good for understanding when someone has reached a faulty conclusion.

History and science are completely different disciplines with methodology that attempts to remove subjectivity from the process as much as possible.

I dont believe he's associated with any academic philosophy program - neither as professor or student. But for the sake of argument, lets say he was. I think there's great value in people from a variety of pov's who've honed their capacity to step back and take a broad view of human experience - and then report what they've learned.

And so Peterson is good?

Your sense that we only get value from objective pov-free inquiry is factually false.

l would agree....for example, the artist can offer something of value regardless of the fact its entirely subjective.

You don't need college to paint though.

People get great value from this - especially when we balance out carefully considered findings from diverse pov's.

Examples?

If Ive any caveat to this, its that the public generally with their increasingly diminished attention spans wont have the room in their lives to assimilate philosophical ideas. And it not just primary source reading - who even does that? But just ideas as filtered through more accessible commentary and opinion, which formats poorly to tiktok etc.

The algorithms don't select for anything smart either....they select for outrage and popularity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you really think that a music PhD's recognized expertise is (or should be) about what player or composer is "best"??

I think you have the totally wrong end of the stick here and its degrading your understanding about the kind of work academic musicians (and philosophers etc) actually do, and the kind of knowledge theyve accumulated.

What kind of work do philosophers do?

 

[zippy2006]

Expertise has to be anchored to something other than memorization and opinions, correct? It would have to involve either knowing something or proficiency at "doing something"

That's not to say that experts can't have opinions on things, but there has to be some sort of objective premises in place, and the information provided can't be almost exclusively in the realm of things that are neither provable nor disprovable.

How does one become in expert in something that's largely comprised of unanswerable questions or that's subject to opinions, and doesn't confer any skills?

And how does one become "educated" in something, for which, it's nearly impossible for a consensus to be reached among the people who achieve the label of "expert"?

You are arguing against the liberal arts, but this is not DeSantis' argument. It would be unfortunate if folks think that by defending the liberal arts they are successfully opposing DeSantis. Not so.

Universities in the classical sense are not meant to produce experts. When the University of Berlin was founded in the 19th century the "modern university" was born, whose end was research. In America universities have largely become functional vocational schools. Either model is contrary to the classical university, which was meant to educate the human qua human, ultimately in the liberal arts. The very name "liberal arts," means that such courses of study are free and related to leisure. Free of what? Free of subordination to practical ends, such as expertise, or skills, or employability, or money-making. An interesting lecture on the subject is Alasdair MacIntyre's "Newman's Idea of a University."

DeSantis is not arguing against the liberal arts. He is not pushing philosophy, music, the fine arts, or literature out of Florida. Critical Studies are not liberal arts. They are pragmatic vehicles for change, and little else. Progressivism is deeply servile and contrary to 'otium', including the liberal arts.

 

[durangodawood]

You are arguing against the liberal arts, but this is not DeSantis' argument. It would be unfortunate if folks think that by defending the liberal arts they are successfully opposing DeSantis. Not so.....

For my part I completely agree with this. I was just defending the humanities in principle, leaving aside (for now) the issue of ideological biases that arise within those departments.

Rob seems ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and burn the bathroom in his dismissal from the academy of any field of study in which subjectivity may arise. Of course our investigations into what it means to be human (via literature, arts, philosophy, religion) will have a subjective component. Does that invalidate them as fields of study?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are arguing against the liberal arts, but this is not DeSantis' argument. It would be unfortunate if folks think that by defending the liberal arts they are successfully opposing DeSantis. Not so.

Universities in the classical sense are not meant to produce experts. When the University of Berlin was founded in the 19th century the "modern university" was born, whose end was research. In America universities have largely become functional vocational schools. Either model is contrary to the classical university, which was meant to educate the human qua human, ultimately in the liberal arts. The very name "liberal arts," means that such courses of study are free and related to leisure. Free of what? Free of subordination to practical ends, such as expertise, or skills, or employability, or money-making. An interesting lecture on the subject is Alasdair MacIntyre's "Newman's Idea of a University."

DeSantis is not arguing against the liberal arts. He is not pushing philosophy, music, the fine arts, or literature out of Florida. Critical Studies are not liberal arts. They are pragmatic vehicles for change, and little else. Progressivism is deeply servile and contrary to 'otium', including the liberal arts.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the liberal arts. It's of little consequence to me what pursuits of curiosity and interest a person wants to pursue (unless they start demanding that I pay for it with my tax dollars). I'm arguing against a culture of indoctrination on campuses...in particular, using specific fields of study as cover for such endeavors. Like I mentioned before. if a field of study is producing graduate cohort, where 88% of them are 100% in-line with far-<insert political side here> ideology, that's indicative of indoctrination over objective teaching. The only other institutions that produce people who are that ideologically homogeneous are churches, and doing so is their stated purpose. The notion that another institution could be doing that by mere coincidence it's questionable.

But that aside.
I think the intent behind certain institutions have shifted quite a bit. The fact that liberal arts colleges aren't operating with the same function that they did 100 years ago isn't necessarily a bad thing...a lot of our institutions have shifted and adopted new purposes.

The issue is that within the constructs of what our current college system, certain fields of study are producing more "clones of the the professors' ideologies" than actual broadening of viewpoints.

Even the courses today would've met the criteria for liberal arts in a classical sense, are no longer "free of subordination"...it's just a different kind of subordination.

Instead of being subordinate to "practical ends", they're now subordinate to "making sure they espouse the correct viewpoint in the eyes of their teachers and peers, else become viewed as one of the baddies". Even in a field of study that's supposed to be aimed at leisure or pursuing interests instead of vocations, it's not a very "freeing" environment where one can be relaxed if they have to adhere to a strict social code out of fear of accidentally committing a microaggression and becoming a pariah...or someone decided to go snooping in 6 year old Twitter posts to find something to call them out on.

 

[zippy2006]

For my part I completely agree with this. I was just defending the humanities in principle, leaving aside (for now) the issue of ideological biases that arise within those departments.

Rob seems ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater and burn the bathroom in his dismissal from the academy of any field of study in which subjectivity may arise. Of course our investigations into what it means to be human (via literature, arts, philosophy, religion) will have a subjective component. Does that invalidate them as fields of study?

Yes, the objectivity vs. subjectivity arguments... I ignored those arguments, and I will basically continue to do so, but what is interesting is that a number of 20th century philosophers have pointed out that the Enlightenment focus on 'objectivity' has had the effect of training our energies on artifice rather than scientia. That is, we tend to focus on the things that we ourselves make because our knowledge of those realities is most accurate and 'objective'.

For example, on the first page there was a short discussion related to Computer Science. Classically speaking, Computer Science is an art or a form of engineering rather than a science, although it isn't too hard to understand why we label it a science. But the fact remains: computer scientists study human artifacts: computational machines which imitate Turing Machines. Computer Scientists are those who possess specialized knowledge about how to use a human tool, namely the computer. Thus Computer Science is a practical science--albeit at a high level of abstraction--and is thus differentiated both from the speculative sciences and from the liberal arts, which have a great deal in common. Once this is recognized, the sliding of Computer Science into community colleges and vocational schools is a foregone conclusion, and is mitigated only by certain technological biases of the United States.

...this is the crux of our idea of 'objectivity': Bacon's controllability or exploitability. In this way we prefer artifacts but also bend nature unto that criterion. This is a central value which aligns with other values of our age, such as comfort, technological advancement, labor-reduction, efficiency, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the liberal arts....

I do believe that bias is your main target. But you also have been very skeptical of philosophy (and music as well, before I chimed in) in principle as valid fields for university study. I cant unread what I read in post #66 and others.

 

[zippy2006]

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the liberal arts. It's of little consequence to me what pursuits of curiosity and interest a person wants to pursue (unless they start demanding that I pay for it with my tax dollars). I'm arguing against a culture of indoctrination on campuses...in particular, using specific fields of study as cover for such endeavors. Like I mentioned before. if a field of study is producing graduate cohort, where 88% of them are 100% in-line with far-<insert political side here> ideology, that's indicative of indoctrination over objective teaching.

I tend to agree, and again, Jonathan Haidt's work is helpful on this score.

But that aside.
I think the intent behind certain institutions have shifted quite a bit. The fact that liberal arts colleges aren't operating with the same function that they did 100 years ago isn't necessarily a bad thing...a lot of our institutions have shifted and adopted new purposes.

The issue is that within the constructs of what our current college system, certain fields of study are producing more "clones of the the professors' ideologies" than actual broadening of viewpoints.

Even the courses today would've met the criteria for liberal arts in a classical sense, are no longer "free of subordination"...it's just a different kind of subordination.

Instead of being subordinate to "practical ends", they're now subordinate to "making sure they espouse the correct viewpoint in the eyes of their teachers and peers, else become viewed as one of the baddies". Even in a field of study that's supposed to be aimed at leisure or pursuing interests instead of vocations, it's not a very "freeing" environment where one can be relaxed if they have to adhere to a strict social code out of fear of accidentally committing a microaggression and becoming a pariah...or someone decided to go snooping in 6 year old Twitter posts to find something to call them out on.

But isn't this all to say that the "liberal arts colleges" are no longer liberal arts colleges? That they are no longer free of subordination? That they are no longer liberal (i.e. unsubordinated and un-enslaved)?

Note though, that these are two different arguments. 1) X is an ideological hotbed, therefore it should not receive public funding. 2) X produces no expertise, therefore it should not receive public funding. It is to some extent true that both arguments are suitable against "woke" university classes, but only (2) excludes the liberal arts, and you were clearly straying into (2).

To be precise, I don't know that the consequent of those arguments in this thread has consistently been <therefore it should not receive public funding>. The key point is that whatever the particular consequent is, it is negative. If we want to argue against ideological hotbeds without excising the liberal arts, then we cannot rely on notions such as 'expertise'. An argument for the centrality of practical knowledge is different from an argument against ideology. This is because ideology is not entirely distinct from practical knowledge and expertise, but also because it is specifically the partisan nature of ideology that is at issue, and the liberal arts are not partisan in nature.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, the objectivity vs. subjectivity arguments... I ignored those arguments, and I will basically continue to do so, but what is interesting is that a number of 20th century philosophers have pointed out that the Enlightenment focus on 'objectivity' has had the effect of training our energies on artifice rather than scientia. That is, we tend to focus on the things that we ourselves make because our knowledge of those realities is most accurate and 'objective'.

I dont see at all how built things offer up more info to objective scrutiny than natural things. At least not on first consideration.

For example, on the first page there was a short discussion related to Computer Science. Classically speaking, Computer Science is an art or a form of engineering rather than a science, although it isn't too hard to understand why we label it a science. But the fact remains: computer scientists study human artifacts: computational machines which imitate Turing Machines. Computer Scientists are those who possess specialized knowledge about how to use a human tool, namely the computer. Thus Computer Science is a practical science--albeit at a high level of abstraction--and is thus differentiated both from the speculative sciences and from the liberal arts, which have a great deal in common. Once this is recognized, the sliding of Computer Science into community colleges and vocational schools is a foregone conclusion, and is mitigated only by certain technological biases of the United States.

We're reaching an interesting point in the evolution of computers where how they work is not entirely known. Increasingly we will have to discover what we've created - and play catch up as the machines create on their own. I'm not exaggerating.

Back to school here, most engineering (CS, chemical, electrical, structural, mechanical, oh heck all of them really) at a high level requires intense mathematics as well as high end equipment that your vocational school simply isnt equipped to provide. Basic coding, sure, go to voc school.

...this is the crux of our idea of 'objectivity': Bacon's controllability or exploitability. In this way we prefer artifacts but also bend nature unto that criterion. This is a central value which aligns with other values of our age, such as comfort, technological advancement, labor-reduction, efficiency, etc.

I think youre saying we've evolved to prefer learning that advances our material prospects in obvious ways. If so, I'd agree.

 

[zippy2006]

I dont see at all how built things offer up more info to objective scrutiny than natural things. At least not on first consideration.

I think it is the simple reason that something which we ourselves make is more accessible to us than something which we have not made. I have more 'objective' knowledge of a car than a tree because I understand everything about the process and purpose of a car. Similarly, an alien artifact would be less accessible to us than a human artifact, and would involve a great deal more theory and guesswork. "Objectivity" as we now use the word is bound up with independent confirmability.

I think youre saying we've evolved to prefer learning that advances our material prospects in obvious ways. If so, I'd agree.

I am saying we have decided to prefer materialism, not evolved to prefer it, as it was not a foregone conclusion. Nor is it. The American is a pragmatist because he is a materialist, but he need not have been a materialist. Or so I say.

Else, humans will necessarily pursue material prospects, but not necessarily to the extent that we do today.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Note though, that these are two different arguments. 1) X is an ideological hotbed, therefore it should not receive public funding. 2) X produces no expertise, therefore it should not receive public funding. It is to some extent true that both arguments are suitable against "woke" university classes, but only (2) excludes the liberal arts, and you were clearly straying into (2).

I think that both are examples of things that probably shouldn't be receiving a lot of public funding.

When you receive public funding, it's because you're serving some sort of public interest...and at the very least, we shouldn't be paying for something that is pretty apparently favoring one political party over the other and creating a conflict of interest.

With regards to point #1, I've mentioned it before, but asking a blue-collar conservative guy who went to welding school to pay more in taxes so that kids (that aren't his own and that he'll likely never meet) can pursue a largely frivolous major at best, and be conditioned to vote against him at worst, is a rather tough sell for a lot of folks. If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that farther left people would take serious issue with it and want funding stripped away if schools were actively inculcating kids with conservative values.

With regards to point #2, I'd argue that some fields aren't serving much of a public interest. There's nuance and degrees there....but ultimately, it would be ideal if those kinds of courses were self-play. Which actually was the case for large parts of history...one could make a strong argument that government interventionism in the realm of academia (in the form of certain types of funding and grants and guaranteed loans) created some serious upward pricing pressure that caused prices to be out of reach in the first place.

Berkeley used to be an affordable school to attend via self-pay a few decades ago. In 1970, you could go there for $300 a year if you were a state resident ($1200 a year for a non-resident). If you wanted to take courses in music or philosophy, you could do so with what you made on your summer job the year prior.

The state starting providing allocating large amounts of funding toward tuition and operations in 1974. By 1976, the price had over doubled.

Today a 4-year degree there for a resident would run you in the neighborhood of $50k.

Even adjusting for inflation, in today's dollars, a kid could go to Berkeley and get a degree in whatever they wanted for about $2,200...this conversation would be a non-issue.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the pattern.

If the government (state or federal) starts offering to provide $X toward education in the form of grants, why would any college only charge $300? If the government also guarantees money in federal loans, why would they keep their price static?

If I were originally charging $300 and knew most people could comfortably afford that, and then all of the sudden, the state government is going offer up to $150 in grants and the federal gov is going to guarantee a loan of up to $500, I'm not going to charge $300 (which I know people can already afford), I'm going to charge $950, because I know that they already have the $300, and the governments will pick up the other $650...rinse and repeat several times until where we are now where the price of a 4-year degree can cost more than a car.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I do believe that bias is your main target. But you also have been very skeptical of philosophy (and music as well, before I chimed in) in principle as valid fields for university study. I cant unread what I read in post #66 and others.

There's a stark contrast between "valid pursuits of interest" and what "other people should have to pay for me to learn" (especially when the institution that's providing that learning environment is creating people that are heavily lopsided toward one particular end of the ideological spectrum)

At the end of the day, the aim of educating people (whether the field is economically viable or not) should be "giving them information or perspective", not "making sure they vote for my side when they're older"

If colleges were producing people who were more evenly balanced (like in 1994 per the graphs I provided earlier), this wouldn't even likely be a thing we were discussing right now.

However, when the model has become "You need a college degree to get a decent paying job", and "getting a college degree results in an 80% chance you'll support one political faction over the other", it's not unreasonable for people to question that.

Follow that pattern in the graphs to its logical conclusion, the end result is "go to left/democrat/progressive indoctrination camp, or be a janitor at McDonalds"


You referenced my post (#66)...that's the one that I mentioned that Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx were both philosophers...

Why is is that, despite more of von Mises's idea have been shown to pan out better in the real world, more kids leave college (particularly ones who major in Philosophy) thinking the latter's ideas are better or more viable? Are they being taught actual philosophical principles and critical thinking? Or are they being taught to cheer for the blue team?

 

[durangodawood]

....
If colleges were producing people who were more evenly balanced (like in 1994 per the graphs I provided earlier), this wouldn't even likely be a thing we were discussing right now.
....

You may be conflating the influence college with just the reasonable inclinations of young people generally, who's economic prospects have diminished significantly since your 1994 baseline - regardless of whether theyve attended college or not. Debt load, savings, health care, buying a house - good luck, young people!

And then there's the obvious specter of climate change, which they will feel much more intensely than older people like me. Of course younger people look askance at a party which has denied the facts as a central plank of its platform.

Oh and did I mention abortion... etc etc.

Young people dont need college to tell them how to feel about the world theyre facing as new adults.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You may be conflating the influence college with just the reasonable inclinations of young people generally, who's economic prospects have diminished significantly since your 1994 baseline - regardless of whether theyve attended college or not. Debt load, savings, buying a house - good luck, young people!

And then there's the obvious specter of climate change, which they will feel much more intensely than older people like me. Of course younger people look askance at a party which has denied the facts as a central plank of its platform.

Oh and did I mention abortion... etc etc.

Young people dont need college to tell them how to feel about the world theyre facing as new adults.

I referenced the fact earlier that there are some subjects where sincere informing could shape the results and not merely indoctrination. Climate change was one of them.

But that still wouldn't explain why a person would adopt every position of the left as opposed to just a few of them. (unless it's merely an allyship thing where "because party A supports me on these 2 things I care about, I'm just going to go along with them on everything").

I can even buy that economic issues could play a factor (I acknowledged earlier that young people critically thinking about the current economic system could lead to having less of a rose colored glasses view of our current implementation of capitalism)

But there's other social issues where that wouldn't apply, and it seems like something brand-new and "progressive sounding" shows up, and there's a willingness to adopt it almost immediately.


You mentioned the inclinations of young people (and you may have a point on that part). There is a desire among young people to be "radical". We all went through those phases. Back in the 90's, you didn't really have to do anything that was actually all that radical in order to outflank the mainstream political overton window on the left. Wearing a Che Guevara shirt, listening to Rage against the Machine, and smoking the occasional joint was all it took. A lot of modern day republicans are further left on certain issues than democrats were in 1995.

 

[durangodawood]

.....A lot of modern day republicans are further left on certain issues than democrats were in 1995.

We also just had a presidency (preferred over all other alternatives by R primary voters) populated with staff and un/official advisors who were openly flirting with white nationalism and other nonsense. With all the other factors I mentioned, I dont see how we can draw one particular conclusion about why young college grads lean left from the statistical correlation you presented. At best, the correlation indicates "indoctrination" is a possible explanation - among others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes.

Speaking as someone who grew up in a strict southern Baptist home, where it was basically verboten to even have friends that were non-Christian (and forget about the concept of having gay friends... I had to tell my one friend from high school to hide the fact that he was gay in front of my parents in order for him to be allowed to come over), there's a lot of societal acumen (learning how to get along with people from all walks) that can be gained through a liberal education that can't be if one's living and learning in a bubble.

It's the broad generalization of educational trends I don't necessarily agree with. That is, the supposed effect upon personality. Florida isn't much of a bubble...it's rather diverse politically and demographically.

I don't see children coming out of social studies or civics classes with a greater appreciation for diversity of thought/culture. There are several ways that this can happen....but generally, they relate to personality.

So you don't think that kids from liberal homes in CA, who end up attending liberal universities, don't lack some prudence and pragmatism at the end of their journey?

Is it an ideological bubble though? Prudence and pragmatism can be found lacking in many heavily red states.

Living in a bubble causes certain blind spots. (that goes for liberal and conservative bubbles)

However, in the world of post-1994 academia, it's only side's bubble that's getting burst. You can be far-left, and you can go most colleges, and there's a good chance you'll never have your views challenged. However if you're Right/Center-Right/Center, there's a good chance they'll be challenging your views on a pretty regular basis.

View attachment 331282

The data doesn't lie...post 1994, the general trend has been "the longer you stay in college, the more liberal you become". Indicating that there is at least some measure of leftist indoctrination happening on campuses.

I'm not saying indoctrination doesn't happen. I'm saying that the reason it's happening is the same reason why I wouldn't conflate these courses with education. It's not as if students are leaving university without pragmatism or prudence....they leave with a moral viewpoint based on dogmatic assertions that certain people should be believed without scrutiny and even questioning these assertions is indicative of a moral failure.

I used to think comparing this to religion was exaggeration....but it really isn't.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that both are examples of things that probably shouldn't be receiving a lot of public funding.

When you receive public funding, it's because you're serving some sort of public interest...and at the very least, we shouldn't be paying for something that is pretty apparently favoring one political party over the other and creating a conflict of interest.

With regards to point #1, I've mentioned it before, but asking a blue-collar conservative guy who went to welding school to pay more in taxes so that kids (that aren't his own and that he'll likely never meet) can pursue a largely frivolous major at best, and be conditioned to vote against him at worst, is a rather tough sell for a lot of folks. If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that farther left people would take serious issue with it and want funding stripped away if schools were actively inculcating kids with conservative values.

With regards to point #2, I'd argue that some fields aren't serving much of a public interest. There's nuance and degrees there....but ultimately, it would be ideal if those kinds of courses were self-play. Which actually was the case for large parts of history...one could make a strong argument that government interventionism in the realm of academia (in the form of certain types of funding and grants and guaranteed loans) created some serious upward pricing pressure that caused prices to be out of reach in the first place.

Berkeley used to be an affordable school to attend via self-pay a few decades ago. In 1970, you could go there for $300 a year if you were a state resident ($1200 a year for a non-resident). If you wanted to take courses in music or philosophy, you could do so with what you made on your summer job the year prior.

The state starting providing allocating large amounts of funding toward tuition and operations in 1974. By 1976, the price had over doubled.

Today a 4-year degree there for a resident would run you in the neighborhood of $50k.

Even adjusting for inflation, in today's dollars, a kid could go to Berkeley and get a degree in whatever they wanted for about $2,200...this conversation would be a non-issue.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the pattern.

If the government (state or federal) starts offering to provide $X toward education in the form of grants, why would any college only charge $300? If the government also guarantees money in federal loans, why would they keep their price static?

If I were originally charging $300 and knew most people could comfortably afford that, and then all of the sudden, the state government is going offer up to $150 in grants and the federal gov is going to guarantee a loan of up to $500, I'm not going to charge $300 (which I know people can already afford), I'm going to charge $950, because I know that they already have the $300, and the governments will pick up the other $650...rinse and repeat several times until where we are now where the price of a 4-year degree can cost more than a car.

I agree regarding argument #1 and I also agree that there are a lot of problems with the inflation of tuition costs. As to argument #2 (whether taxes should help fund the arts) I don't necessarily agree, but this is a much larger discussion. Probably we are disagreeing on whether the liberal arts are in the public interest. I like the phrase in your OP where you spoke about education policies that produce "the best results and best members of society." Yet my interpretation of that phrase would go beyond the production of experts, employees, and money-makers.

The other variable here is that one of the basic reasons the government got involved in higher education is because modern warfare and defense depends in large part on technological advances, and technological advances are often produced by university faculties in the STEM-like fields. It was this very basic form of public interest that caused governments to co-opt academia in the first place.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They don't necessarily have to go to Berkeley, but they do have to go into mold-infested dorms.

New College pushes upperclassmen to dorms with mold issues amid influx of student-athletes​

Weeks before the start of the fall semester, the college emailed returning students Tuesday to tell them their housing assignments had been changed at the last minute to accommodate an influx of student-athletes and freshmen. The new cohort would live in the apartment-style Dort and Goldstein buildings — which have historically housed upperclassmen — while returning students would be moved to other, shared-space dorms, such as the older I. M. Pei designed buildings.

Pei dorms, however, were considered virtually uninhabitable due to mold as of early this summer. Although New College housed students in the Pei dorms last semester, a May report commissioned by the school and obtained by the Herald-Tribune concluded that the Pei dorms "should not be occupied in their current condition" due to a systematic mold issue that would require a fiscal investment to repair.

Students had until July 14 to cancel their housing agreements with no penalty, a deadline only three days after the email was sent.

[New College Interim President] Corcoran hired an athletic director and baseball coach, and launched the department in March. The college has since added several other sports, hiring coaches for men's and women's basketball, soccer and softball. New College had applied for membership with the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics as of Saturday.

--

In part due to historical accident, and partly because formerly New College had no intercollegiate sports, the school's official mascot was literally [ ]

The new DeSantis Board has now replaced that with the Mighty Banyan. Although initially student input was sought, the poll options included the Rebels and the Conquistadors, which caused such a flap that they 86ed the poll and the Board decided the matter.

The new influx of pampered freshman jocks should significantly improve the student body on measures of strength and aerobic capacity.

 

[FireDragon76]

A banyan tree? I guess the DeSantis regime hasn't heard of Poe's Law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They don't necessarily have to go to Berkeley, but they do have to go into mold-infested dorms.

New College pushes upperclassmen to dorms with mold issues amid influx of student-athletes​

More than one-third of New College of Florida faculty will not be returning in the fall.

That’s according to Provost Bradley Thiessen, who called the 36 departures in a single year a “ridiculously high” number for a school with fewer than 100 full-time teachers.