Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

texastribune.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#161

Post by ceejayoz »

smsm42 wrote: post #153
ceejayoz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform > The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by rein…

I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events. That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what…

It appears to be referencing this:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.p...

> The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

> The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#162

Post by smsm42 »

burnte wrote: post #156
smsm42 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forced participation in DEI is well beyond "equality of all citizens". In fact, if you notice, the very word "equality" is banned there - you must say "equity", because equality is not enough. As Kendi teaches us, "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination".…

[flagged]

> How is one "forced" to participate when all DEI really means is "the fair treatment and full participation of all people"

As I already proven, it does not.

> What's wrong with building a society that realizes wheelchair ramps are good, and stairs alone are exclusive?

I think some people would object to equating race with disability, but that is between you and your VP DEI . But yes, I think forcing people to advocate ramps and firing them if they fail to do so is wrong.

> Does this Kendi have a monopoly on the concepts of DEI? I

Probably not, but I never heard any DEI-supporting person to publicly denounce Kendi and his ilk and declare he is wrong and gets the concept (which he coined, as far as I remember? may be wrong on that, but he's certainly prominent) wrong, and the real one is so and so. Once I encounter such a person, I'll hear what they say, until that - that is what we have.

> Is it not enough to recognize that the statement is stupid and carry on?

No it's not. Because this is exactly how it is implemented, and nobody recognizes that it is stupid. In fact, they recognize is as a howto. That's why they demand "racially conscious lens" in the pedagogical approach. If they thought discrimination is stupid, they'd not require it.

> Sorry, but if you don't like trying to life up those around you

I don't even know what this means. But it's not about me and what I like. This is a really despicable rhetorical move to put the equality between "I don't support forced speech to promote 'anti-racist' discrimination" and "I want to be racist". It's not about me - it's about forcing people to perform political speech that the government favors. Yes, it's worse than even banning disfavored speech.

> I don't need you around me or in my organization.

Good thing I don't care what you need. The institutions that use my tax dollars are different business though.

> I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm saying to be here, you are required to do certain things, and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.

You imagine yourself to be the owner of public universities. You aren't. And as such, there are rules to what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and forcing political speech favored by the government is not part of this. If you want to open your private university, from your private costs, and demand that everybody who joins it would proclaim whatever credo you like 5 times a day, I would think this is very stupid, but I wouldn't object, and I would object to the government efforts to shut you down, if it even happens. But when it comes to institutions that serve wider public is not about your whims anymore.

> and you're more than free to refuse and work elsewhere.

It is funny how in one place you are "everybody must vocally support the efforts to be inclusive or you're evil" and then once you feel a bit of power - even completely imaginary one - you are suddenly "you can go elsewhere if you don't like it here". Inclusion only works one way - the way that is favorable to you - but as soon as you feel it's not convenient anymore, it's hardcore "keep you nose out of my business". Fascinating.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#163

Post by wombatpm »

willcipriano wrote: post #95
Animats wrote: post #26

Crackdowns on free speech are increasing worldwide. Afghanistan, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Florida, Texas... Israel just reached the using fire hoses on protestors level.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/world/middleeast/israel-j...

[flagged]

Good thing Hunter lost his election.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#164

Post by vxNsr »

mrguyorama wrote: post #128
vxNsr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, why does it always feel like I get into this same merrygoround every 6 months with the same goalposts being retreated to the same positions, with each argument until we’re suddenly talking about how Reagan once brushed past a reporter so clearly his party is the authoritarian one. It’s so tiring. We went from politicians ordering (with implied threats) political action from private citizens to the FBI requesting…

Because you are absolutely full of shit and not acting in good faith. You claimed "companies acting in lockstep", and then the other guy provided multiple sourced examples of of twitter employees giving the feds a clear "Nope, not going to happen", which IS NOT LOCKSTEP

He gave a single example of refusing an FBI inquiry which isn't anywhere close to the same thing as accepting every single political request. In case this is news to you, the FBI is not supposed to be politically motivated. The fact that you think this is the same thing is incredibly concerning. Conflating an FBI inquiry with a political do this or else "request" shows exactly how you view the FBI in relation to your political party... kinda saying the quiet part out loud...

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#165

Post by vxNsr »

ROTMetro wrote: post #115
vxNsr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly which is why it’s a huge problem when the tech companies act in lock step with government officials.

Now do the Government and tech companies bypassing the right to privacy by 'purchasing' our data. If the Government asking to take something down is a violation of our rights the government asking for private information is a violation of our rights.

yes I totally agree. Not sure why anyone would think the government should be doing that... in fact we should make it illegal for anyone to sell/share private data like that.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#166

Post by rawgabbit »

rsynnott wrote: post #123

> The Texas A&M University professor had just returned home from giving a routine lecture on the opioid crisis at the University of Texas Medical Branch in March when she learned a student had accused her of disparaging Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during the talk. Very Soviet. Is this a weird Texas thing, or is it normal for American universities? It's virtually impossible to imagine here; universities are more or less grou…

Texas A&M is the very conservative public university of Texas. It started as a male military academy with the purpose of graduates entering the US military. The Aggies favorite son is Earl Rudder who commanded troops during the invasion of Normandy.

UT Austin is the liberal public university in TX. It was famous for its hippies back in the 60s.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#167

Post by vel0city »

mjamil wrote: post #146
vel0city wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violatio…

Are you arguing that a teacher at a public university doesn't have 1FA rights when teaching or giving their opinion on a subject they're an expert on? I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they cho…

Are you really arguing that this hasn't happened many, many times in the past and yet people still take professorships at public universities and schools?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin

This case wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for a prof getting attacked by the state for stating something in a classroom. It's happened many times in the past too. Note this was the first time any court said there was a constitutional protection, and doesn't apply across the whole US currently.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#168

Post by vxNsr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #62
vxNsr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol using the one instance that trump asked for something stupid and was denied and pretending that happened a lot is again a very intentional mischaracterization of what happened. Not only is that apparently like one of the only times trump asked for something it’s totally dwarfed in comparison to the Biden admin’s many censorship requests which had no pushback despite being equally frivolous. Not to mention the lap…

If you think Trump's team only ever asked for one single tweet to come down, I don't know what to tell you. Again, censorship requests aren't a First Amendment violation. Joe Biden can request you go fuck yourself. He cannot order you to go fuck yourself. The Twitter Files make it quite clear Twitter etc. understood this distinction. For example, here's a Twitter Files post of them saying "go get a court order" to a…

omg, I just went through that thread in its entirety, it makes it very clear that Roth has a very cozy relationship with the FBI and his only issue was not wanting to change their stance wrt to mass surveillance, which was already compromised due to fisa warrants anyway.

Re: Texas A&M suspended professor accused of criticizing Lt. Gov. Patrick in lecture

#169

Post by vel0city »

mgraczyk wrote: post #149
vel0city wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the actions taken here, but I wouldn't say its that clear cut of a case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos When its a government employee saying things in the course of their job, their speech is not protected. Had the professor made remarks about the Lt. Governor as a private citizen and not as a state employee actively doing a state job, I'd agree its a clear cut 1st amendment violatio…

There is a 9th circuit carve out for certain faculty speech in Demers v. Austin. Doesn't apply here but I think something like this could become a test case if she is fired? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin

Yes, I do agree if this continues on it could be an interesting court case to watch as it makes it up the courts. Will the 5th circuit agree with Demers? Will we have a circuit split? Who knows.
Post reply on HN