Dave wrote: < More significant: I have had my curricular materials censured and have had my job threatened on a number of occasions because it was deemed inconsistent with liberal values. Ironically, many of these events occurred when I was teaching at a Catholic university where I could, with impunity, challenge religious orthodoxy, but not liberal woke snowflake orthodoxy. I was once censured by the University of Wisconsin HR department because a female student filed a sexual harassment complaint because I had a meeting with her in my office where I had three Salvador Dali prints on my wall and "she was forced to look at breasts the entire meeting." Her complaint was upheld because neither the content of the Dali prints nor my intent or rational for having them in my office mattered — only her subjective feelings. At Highlands I was forbidden to offer Honors courses or any opportunities to earn extra credit in a class by tackling extra hard problems (these were software courses) because doing so was racist and unfair — simply because more non-Hispanic students obtained the extra credit or the honors designation. >
So the university had the expectation that before advanced classes could be offered, there needed to an unbiasing of the candidate pool for those classes by adequately training everyone (every demographic) that was potentially feeding in to them? Ok. If the university wants to do this, or incentivized to do this, it is really just a matter of private/public strategy. If you don't want to work for a university that has this "fair" strategy, then don't. As for subjecting young students to strange imagery, I can see why one would not want to do that. Just as it would strange for a female professor to dress like a hooker. Organizations can have dress codes. Don't be a fool, universities are just another kind of business. You mess with the business, you will have a problem. It would be better if your department heads were "upstanders" and just said, "Hey Dave, how is this art helping your students?" < Not personal, but a relative: multi-generational ranch with Federal grazing right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years were spent enhancing the Federal land, containment ponds for water that reduced erosion and flash flooding without diminishing runoff contribution to watershed; planting of native grasses, elimination of deadwood, etc. etc. End result was the ability to safely and sustainably graze X number of cattle. About five years ago, BLM issued a new policy dictating the maximum carrying capacity of Federal lands. The math was based on lowest common denominator. The policy was, at the behest of preservation groups, written with the specific intent to minimize and eventually eliminate the use of public lands for grazing. (Also mining and motorized recreational vehicle use.) Bottom line, allotment was taken away because it violated the numbers — not because there was any evidence of actual harm. > I'm a taxpayer. Why should I want off road vehicles or cows on federal land? I don't care about either of those things. This is a weird entitlement that these folks have in mind. As far as I was concerned the Bundy principals in Oregon deserved to be met by A-10s. Marcs - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
