31–40 of 119 posts
Just a reminder that a .org does not mean "trustworthy". https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individ... In this case, the discussion and the tenor of the conversation is almost certainly cherry picked to serve a particular agenda. On its face, the actions by Stanford in this article seem...not good. But I also suspect that this is making a mountain out of a molehill for political gain.
Can have fun with this particularly if it’s a 20th century European history course assignment. If books cause harm, then pretty much any religious text will be (very) offensive to another as it’s heretical etc. psychology texts probably really offend Scientologists, and I’m sure you can come up with other combinations without too much effort. Das Kapital, any civil war history covering the western campaign and it’s g…
You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices.…
And other people, including Stanford alumni and donors and other constituents, are saying that if this is the result of restorative justice, it's perhaps an experiment that has run its course in its current form.
Just a reminder that a .org does not mean "trustworthy". https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individ... In this case, the discussion and the tenor of the conversation is almost certainly cherry picked to serve a particular agenda. On its face, the actions by Stanford in this article seem...not good. But I also suspect that this is making a mountain out of a molehill for political gain.
Devils advocate - it may be that Stanford is punishing the act of taking a picture and distributing it, rather than reading the book. I was thinking of reading Mein Kampf (I've never read it), but I'd never think to pose in front of it.
How are we supposed to learn from history if reading historical documents becomes a crime?
Just a reminder that a .org does not mean "trustworthy". https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individ... In this case, the discussion and the tenor of the conversation is almost certainly cherry picked to serve a particular agenda. On its face, the actions by Stanford in this article seem...not good. But I also suspect that this is making a mountain out of a molehill for political gain.
There is more information in the a "Stanford Daily" article:
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/22/protected-identity-harm...
And an opinion article in the "Standford Review":
Wow. Just wow. As far as I'm concerned, the student in question should have exactly one response to the Stanford administration. "Fuck You."
> the student in question should have exactly one response to the Stanford administration I would have assumed everyone would have rushed to check out copies of books this PIH deems harmful. More concretely, PIH is described as a "reporting system." Are Stanford's librarians violating their confidentiality duty? (EDIT: Never mind, it looks like a public-reporting system [1] to the let the campus rabbi get upset at wh…
This is continual additional blow back from the woke, hive mind virus.