• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,426
7,164
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟423,319.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are the courses to which the governor objects elective or required? I can understand that mandatory coursework in the failings of American society--especially-as regards race; ethnicity; religion, family background, sex/gender roles, socio-economic status, and other personal qualities could be very problematic But elective study should be left to the university.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
[DeSantis] simply rejects certain avenues of inquiry on ideological grounds.
I havent yet proposed "my logic" about whether the full value of various arenas of study tracks solely to job market prospects. My sense is a good education includes various studies that dont in themselves show salary returns upon graduation, but instead advance that old fashioned notion of the well rounded citizen whos learned how to look at issues from various perspectives.
But Id hate to see those departments eliminated as we make universities into glorified vocational programs. Here's to the age old idea of a liberal education!
But the issue here is not ideology, it is the fact that things like "Gender Studies" aren't part of the liberal arts at all. It's the fact that these "special interest" degrees are ideology, lol. All DeSantis is trying to do is get rid of the ideology in education, and this is badly needed.

Jonathan Haidt--who is historically liberal--writes a fair bit on this problem through his Heterodox Academy, but also elsewhere. I am pulling from memory, but his basic distinction is that some universities are about truth and some are about change. The classical, liberal arts model, is about truth. The "critical studies" degrees are about change.* Their express purpose is to bring about a particular change in the world, and this is where Rob's point becomes particularly salient. Why should taxpayers fund public institutions which exist to promote changes they feel to be undesirable? That's a great question. Another is, "Why is public money being spent for the sake of (ideological) change at all?"

The "Gender Studies" department of a university is essentially a political special interest group, or a partisan think tank. In the American scheme such institutions are necessarily private, and this is because public funding aims to further things which are non-partisan. And we do have private colleges and universities which devote themselves entirely to critical studies or women's studies, and that's fine. They are functioning as a sort of private think tank and special interest group. The problem is when the government itself begins endorsing and funding such partisan initiatives.


* Think of Marx's famous quote, "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Are the courses to which the governor objects elective or required? I can understand that mandatory coursework in the failings of American society--especially-as regards race; ethnicity; religion, family background, sex/gender roles, socio-economic status, and other personal qualities could be very problematic But elective study should be left to the university.
According to the article it is the idea that tax dollars should not fund things which are unrelated to "the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be."

At the deep roots of this controversy is the question, "What is a university," and America has probably never had a clear answer to that question. Granted, in DeSantis' favor, none of the answers we have given to the question provide the rationale for publicly funding things like "Gender Studies."
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
23,111
6,801
72
✟379,351.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
FL vs CA! ......its on! Im sure we'll have no trouble at all determining who are the "best members of society" and how the presence of a gender studies program etc in their states U system forged them - or didnt - into who they are. At any rate I was responding to the specific idea presented to me there in the text I was responding to and I wasnt going to fix the obvious disharmony with the back reference - He could have bought it back on track if we he felt he'd misdirected me from his own intent.

Also note, I edited my post above above to address my "other failure".

(Yes I see now that Desantis didnt mention an experiment)
Well if we use the rankings of the colleges in the 2 states it is no contest. By this set:


California has 3 in the top 10. The best Florida School is University of Florida at #98.

Or this ranking


Again 3 California schools in the top 10. Best Florida school again University of Florida at #151.

Side note: Cal Tech is the only school in the top 50 with less than 8,000 students. (These rankings are highly biased towards large schools).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟300,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You stated my premise wrong by omitting half of it, and then flat out claiming I didnt say the omitted half, when you critiqued it.
Since I've been so sloppy I'll spell it out (link):
  1. Hire-ability is about what major you choose
  2. Hire-ability is about whether your school has a reputable major in that program
  3. Therefore, There's nothing new to be learned from dropping various majors from one school or another. You can already see how attractive people with those majors are in the job market.
First let's note that the more proper conclusion, which would better address Rob's concern, would be, "Therefore, there's nothing new to be learned from refashioning a university curriculum..." That is, there is nothing new to be learned in dropping or adding majors. The points which follow will hold of both conclusions, but this new conclusion is the preferable one since Rob's idea is not limited to dropping majors.

Now (1 -> 3), and this is why I (sloppily) overlooked (2) in my initial response. Overlooking it, I claimed that your argument ignores (2). Now that's ironic and silly, but it's also true. Once we add (2), (3) no longer follows. This is because once we recognize (2) we must note that dropping (or adding) majors will affect the education which the graduate receives, which will in turn affect the school's reputation. With (2) in place, Rob is correct and (3) is false. New things will be learned about the "hire-ability" of graduates when the curriculum is refashioned. (This is one reason why curriculum revisions are so hotly contested.)

This is what I meant when I said, "I was working from your conclusion, which I assumed was valid. It turns out to be invalid, then. That additional premise negates your claim that nothing new could be learned." The "additional premise" is (2). (Your conclusion requires the absence of (2), and so I naturally assumed that you absented (2).)

Its my bedtime. Good night Zippy!
Yes, I should go to bed as well. Good night. :doh:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 12, 2010
432
566
United Kingdom
✟280,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think there's a difference between "taking a gender studies class" (on the journey to getting a degree in something more practical, just to get a little variety in there) is different than paying $70k for a graduate degree in Gender Studies.

If that's something that's important to someone, there's plenty of private colleges that I'm sure will still offer degrees in those programs. However, with regards to institutions that are funded in part by state level taxes, those are supposed to be something of an investment for everyone who's chipping in.

One can make a strong practical argument for saying we need nurses, we need teachers, we need engineers, we need doctors & lawyers, accountants, etc... It'd be a little harder to make similar justifications for someone who's graduating with a degree in a niche field with a sub-par job placement rate that doesn't really offer any sort of public good.

And given the subject matter taught in some of those courses, I can understand why conservative parents in Florida may not be crazy about funding those programs. From their perspective, it's "I'm paying money, involuntarily, to help fund programs that are teaching the next generation that I'm terrible"

And the same would be true for the inverse... if there were California publicly funded colleges teaching courses in "Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics, I would totally understand why liberal parents in California would object to having to chip in for that.
What does a Gender Studies degree involve?

Why would "liberal parents in California" be opposed to those subjects receiving public money?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,197
17,034
Here
✟1,468,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why would "liberal parents in California" be opposed to those subjects receiving public money?
The example I was providing there was how some liberal parents would likely be upset if their state taxes were going towards ""Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics" (both things that are associated with conservative values) as a way to provide an inverse analogy.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,197
17,034
Here
✟1,468,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's odd that red states don't want kids, teens and grown-ups to be educated. Also, DeSantis wants to be president and force this on everyone. Woke is nothing but true education, that right wing people are trying to scare people with.
If the worded simply meant "informed/aware/educated" in it's popular usage, then progressives wouldn't be trying to distance themselves from the word.

It may have started off as a word to describe "being extra aware of social justice issues", but many feel that it's morphed into something better described as "weaponized political correctness", where it's not just about an individual showing their own awareness, but now comes with a component of "how much of an imposition can you put on everyone else in order to foist those views upon them"

If it still meant the same thing now that it meant in 2015, progressives would still want to wear it as a badge of honor and claim it instead of saying things like this:
AOC: “wokeness” is a term almost exclusively used by older people these days btw, people using the word “woke” in a 2021 political discussion are James Carville and Fox News pundits so that should tell you all you need to know.


...and I also don't feel that subjective, partisan, philosophical subject matter should be considered a major facet of being "educated". Just because some sort of expression is being conveyed via the modality of a classroom setting doesn't equate to being a critical component of being "educated"

For instance, if there were a college that was being funded by your tax dollars, and they were teaching classes centered around "why gun ownership is a great thing", "why traditional hetero marriages are better than same sex marriage", or some sort of dodgy revisionist history class trying to claim that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery...you'd likely have a reasonable objection to your tax dollars helping to facilitate that correct? (for the reasons I mentioned above, those would be subjective, partisan, and largely opinion based).

It certainly wouldn't be fair for someone to rebuttal against your objection by claiming that "you're against education because you don't approve of those classes"
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,546
19,230
Colorado
✟538,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The example I was providing there was how some liberal parents would likely be upset if their state taxes were going towards ""Traditional Marriage Studies" or courses glorifying Supply-side economics" (both things that are associated with conservative values) as a way to provide an inverse analogy.
Remember Berkeley law prof John "torture memos" Yoo from the GWBush era? There were many liberal parents who were unhappy with him...for good reason I might add.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,197
17,034
Here
✟1,468,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Remember Berkeley law prof John "torture memos" Yoo from the GWBush era? There were many liberal parents who were unhappy with him...for good reason I might add.
The name sounds familiar, is he the one who basically was trying to say that waterboarding was okay?

If it's the same guy, I guess he didn't really that was a professor at Berkeley.


But I know Berkely (faculty and students) don't necessarily even have their bar set terribly high for "which values we don't want imported into our bubble"...that's the same college that had demonstrations (and things got a little rowdy) merely because Bill Maher was invited to speak there. Even the notion of people being exposed to the speech of a center-left comedian was enough for them to get bent out of shape.

With Berkeley in particular (I know they're a college known for being an outlier for being so far left - even in comparison to other colleges), It'd be tough for them to be the critics of what Florida's trying to do. But thus far, I haven't heard any critiques of this DeSantis move by anyone affiliated with Berkeley. thus far, their only involvement was that they happened to be the school that he named as an example.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,258
15,950
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,073.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
As someone who spends the vast majority of her time in public in a wheelchair I am here to tell you that ramp does NOT equal accessible learned that a LONG time ago to the point I would almost whether a place out right tell me a place is not accessible than get there and realize that it is not and be very disappointed because I really wanted to do something at that particular place.
I don't understand your anecdote.
My argument is that a good, functioning ramp will allow you to access buildings and thereby create equality.
To counter that argument, you say that ramps DO NOT equal access because you're frustrated by places that don't have accessibility ramps.

But that's MY point. Ramps give you access.....

Sorry, I'm confused.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,546
19,230
Colorado
✟538,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
But the issue here is not ideology, it is the fact that things like "Gender Studies" aren't part of the liberal arts at all. It's the fact that these "special interest" degrees are ideology, lol. All DeSantis is trying to do is get rid of the ideology in education, and this is badly needed.

Jonathan Haidt--who is historically liberal--writes a fair bit on this problem through his Heterodox Academy, but also elsewhere. I am pulling from memory, but his basic distinction is that some universities are about truth and some are about change. The classical, liberal arts model, is about truth. The "critical studies" degrees are about change.* Their express purpose is to bring about a particular change in the world, and this is where Rob's point becomes particularly salient. Why should taxpayers fund public institutions which exist to promote changes they feel to be undesirable? That's a great question. Another is, "Why is public money being spent for the sake of (ideological) change at all?"

The "Gender Studies" department of a university is essentially a political special interest group, or a partisan think tank. In the American scheme such institutions are necessarily private, and this is because public funding aims to further things which are non-partisan. And we do have private colleges and universities which devote themselves entirely to critical studies or women's studies, and that's fine. They are functioning as a sort of private think tank and special interest group. The problem is when the government itself begins endorsing and funding such partisan initiatives.


* Think of Marx's famous quote, "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Good post. Not that I agree with all of it. But theres something to think about.

I really have to contest this truth / change dichotomy. If people are using Berkeley as emblematic of a "change" U, they have to ignore all its stellar programs in sciences, engineering, math, heck even a lot of its rigorous humanities programs where lots of basic ideology neutral research gets done. Honestly its absurd. Reality seems more like typical state U's are 90% truth and 10% change. Maybe Berkeley is 80/20 instead, The change side gets exaggerated because its culture wars fodder and get better ratings than some discovery about insect morphology or whatever.

As for gender studies, sometimes truth is partisan in a given political climate. This cuts both ways tho. And I certainly dont want to see conservative truths ignored or diminished just because "the times" make their true positions seem partisan in the moment. I would prefer to see more really thoughtful conservatives in the academy.

Marx had a good point. Czarist Russia (for example) was in desperate need of change. Clearly the dominant revolutionaries had a foundationally bad plan for doing it tho.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
32,714
6,395
Georgia U.S. State
✟1,115,872.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't understand your anecdote.
My argument is that a good, functioning ramp will allow you to access buildings and thereby create equality.
To counter that argument, you say that ramps DO NOT equal access because you're frustrated by places that don't have accessibility ramps.

But that's MY point. Ramps give you access.....

Sorry, I'm confused.
Just because there is a ramp that I can get into the place does not mean it is accessible once I get in there. A ramp may get me IN the building, but that does not mean that once I get IN the building I can access the services. Merely entering a building does not give one access to the services. Say you walked in a store, restaurant or really any other business does the fact that you are in the building mean you will buy anything or use any of the services they provide just by walking in? no, likewise a ramp that may allow me to access a building without much issue does not mean that once I get in there I have access to the same services as the able-bodied people
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,197
17,034
Here
✟1,468,067.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I really have to contest this truth / change dichotomy. If people are using Berkeley as emblematic of a "change" U, they have to ignore all its stellar programs in sciences, engineering, math, heck even a lot of its rigorous humanities programs where lots of basic ideology neutral research gets done. Honestly its absurd. Reality seems more like typical state U's are 90% truth and 10% change. Maybe Berkeley is 80/20 instead, The change side gets exaggerated because its culture wars fodder and get better ratings than some discovery about insect morphology or whatever.

This isn't meant to be snarky, this is an honest question. If universities are really the 90/10...

What do you think would be the driving factors behind these trends?

1684506569530.png


(and it's an even more of a stark shift when you look at it just for people who were already democrat-leaning going in)
1684507990652.png


If not for the subject matter itself, then what would be the driver behind this?

sometimes truth is partisan

This is something I acknowledged back in my previous post where I cited the first graph. The example I used was climate change. That's a subject that's polarized, but one where the evidence and facts definitively back up one side's position.

But I don't think that's the case for every issue. For instance, economic issues.

When compared to the baseline numbers, certain college education programs are producing quite a jump in favoring certain left-leaning economic systems over others.

Philosophy majors: nearly 80% support socialism
English majors: 58%
Music majors: 57%

My hunch is that part of it can be attributed to the fact that there's a growing culture of people making "going against the status quo" synonymous with "intellectualism"
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,258
15,950
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,073.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Just because there is a ramp that I can get into the place does not mean it is accessible once I get in there. A ramp may get me IN the building, but that does not mean that once I get IN the building I can access the services. Merely entering a building does not give one access to the services. Say you walked in a store, restaurant or really any other business does the fact that you are in the building mean you will buy anything or use any of the services they provide just by walking in? no, likewise a ramp that may allow me to access a building without much issue does not mean that once I get in there I have access to the same services as the able-bodied people
Ok. Totally fair point. But my initial point is that services like a ramp are meant to provide equitable opportunity; not that a ramp ALONE is going to do it.

I was in a rock n roll band with a dude in a wheelchair and it was very eye opening listening to him talk about his struggles.
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
32,714
6,395
Georgia U.S. State
✟1,115,872.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ok. Totally fair point. But my initial point is that services like a ramp are meant to provide equitable opportunity; not that a ramp ALONE is going to do it.

I was in a rock n roll band with a dude in a wheelchair and it was very eye opening listening to him talk about his struggles.
that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,258
15,950
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,073.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.
That was also my friends problem. He found street level venues would say they were accessible because they tossed up a bar in a stall in the bathroom.... and then the bar is 5ft away from the toilet.

Silly
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,546
19,230
Colorado
✟538,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
that is part of the reason that quite frankly if a business tells me up front they are not very accessible I do not mind that; because I do realize if you are on a budget and 95% of your base does not need something it makes more sense to spend money on the 95% than the 5%. What I do not like is when I want to do something and cannot and I was looking forward to it. Same thing with even a school private schools are not required to provide the same access to education ( special needs wise as public schools) yet, I support school choice because the public schools are not for everyone and I would whether a school tell me look we cannot provide the services you need as opposed being forced under the law to do so and failing badly. I have aged out of the secondary school, but still even as someone who needs accessible services I am OK with them not being provided as long as I have warning I would whether a business not HAVE to do it and tell people on front we cannot handle your needs as opposed to being forced to meet a minimum requirement that frankly is really not a whole heck of a lot.
What do you think of new buildings that meet all the ADA guidelines? Are they generally "accessible" from your pov? (Not that I expect anyone to know what the guidelines are - but if you do...)
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
32,714
6,395
Georgia U.S. State
✟1,115,872.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What do you think of new buildings that meet all the ADA guidelines? Are they generally "accessible" from your pov? (Not that I expect anyone to know what the guidelines are - but if you do...)
Those guidelines are usually well wrong. For the most part the only require one accessible bathroom ( which is fine for small/medium businesses, but when you have say 200 people in the business at any one time one could argue that that is should not meet the guidelines. More than that though ( as the bathroom is a small part of the business/ people's experenice with them those guidelines usually only require that you can ACCESS the building as in get in that does not mean that I have to be able to access all the services, nor does it mean that there needs to be space between say racks for my chair to fit. I also HATE it when ( and I do understand this sort of fits in the budget part, but when businesses do not enforce handicap parking and people use it without need. There are TWO not one, but TWO different handicap tags one that is meant to go on your window and one that is on the tag, so if you have neither of those then you do not need to park in a handicap place there are laws that impose both fines and/or incarceration including towing for people who fail to follow those laws, but businesses in general do not enforce them and some people may or may not rat on others. Some do not see the point in it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,258
15,950
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟448,073.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
This isn't meant to be snarky, this is an honest question. If universities are really the 90/10...

What do you think would be the driving factors behind these trends?

View attachment 331224

(and it's an even more of a stark shift when you look at it just for people who were already democrat-leaning going in)
View attachment 331226

If not for the subject matter itself, then what would be the driver behind this?
Some people are not interested in their personal understanding of the world being challenged (and some within that group had parents who misinformed their understanding). Some groups of people are not interested in being called a poster child for Dunning Kruger and are happy to listen and learn from experts.
Some people are so hyperindividualistic, learning from someone else is an affront.


This is something I acknowledged back in my previous post where I cited the first graph. The example I used was climate change. That's a subject that's polarized, but one where the evidence and facts definitively back up one side's position.

But I don't think that's the case for every issue. For instance, economic issues.

When compared to the baseline numbers, certain college education programs are producing quite a jump in favoring certain left-leaning economic systems over others.

Philosophy majors: nearly 80% support socialism
English majors: 58%
Music majors: 57%
lol. WATCH OUT! The philosophy majors are socialists. They're gonna take over the world as soon as they get their head out of the clouds!
 
Upvote 0