The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

In a 1994 concurrence to a Death Penalty case the Supreme Court declined to hear, Justice Scalia argued in favor of the death penalty by citing a case of a 1983 rape and murder of a young girl.

for example, the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!"

 

The man on death row for that crime (mentally iil I should add) was exonerated by DNA evidence and just released after 30 years in prison.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not gonna cry over kids that can afford to pay their own way and are "qualified". Those kids are going to find a college. If they were passed over for the sake of "diversity" they were on the fringe anyway, with the same resume as 5-10k other kids.

 

Talk to someone in college admissions. Every kid has the same resume, they are shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Oh, no, you had to go to Iowa instead of Illinois? Your life is over! You will die, you poor child who probably were born to a well off enough family to go to a good school and will leave college without debt, WHY IS LIFE SO UNFAIIIR WHYYYYYY

 

But most can't in the same way a minority applicant can't. They have to take out loans too.

 

And I guess go ahead and ignore the issues having to change schools will raise for those students because diversity? Going to Illinois v. Iowa is a pretty big deal. They're not the same school, they're obviously geographically apart and they cost a different amount of money. But I know, every white person has advantages and can afford it and blah blah.

 

That kind of viewpoint is exactly the problem I have with the big diversity push. Same with AA policies. The goal is admirable, but doing it that way is flat out wrong.

[bmags]

But most can't in the same way a minority applicant can't. They have to take out loans too.

 

And I guess go ahead and ignore the issues having to change schools will raise for those students because diversity? Going to Illinois v. Iowa is a pretty big deal. They're not the same school, they're obviously geographically apart and they cost a different amount of money. But I know, every white person has advantages and can afford it and blah blah.

 

That kind of viewpoint is exactly the problem I have with the big diversity push. Same with AA policies. The goal is admirable, but doing it that way is flat out wrong.

 

Honestly, if you were on the bottom 25% of applicants, I have no sympathy for you getting denied. That makes you like thousands of other applicants. You were the reason you did not get accepted, not a minority/low-income candidate.

 

Also, I don't know what you are talking about "changing schools", they weren't guaranteed entry anywhere, they can go to the other 5 state schools or many private schools in Illinois and probably pay less than U of I.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Speaking of UIUC, they've opened up a s***storm of academic/professional backlash against the administration there over their decision to "dehire" a new professor who had accepted a tenured position over some harsh tweets about Israel/Palestine. There was a big document dump of emails thanks to some FOIA requests, and what's pretty clear is that some wealthy donor alums have enough power and influence over educational institutions that they can control academic hiring decisions.

 

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/201...onors-fury.html

[Jenksismyhero]

Honestly, if you were on the bottom 25% of applicants, I have no sympathy for you getting denied. That makes you like thousands of other applicants. You were the reason you did not get accepted, not a minority/low-income candidate.

 

Also, I don't know what you are talking about "changing schools", they weren't guaranteed entry anywhere, they can go to the other 5 state schools or many private schools in Illinois and probably pay less than U of I.

 

Thousands is probably a little much, hundreds maybe. But who cares? You're still taking away spots from other students on the basis of race. It's the definition of discrimination.

 

They're not guaranteed entry but if that's a dream school they didn't get into because of discrimination and they have to go to their plan B that can have a major impact. Quality of the school, location of the school, cost, people you know, etc. etc. are all factors that differ greatly depending on where you go. Simply saying you can go to 5 other state schools or to cheaper schools ignores the differences between each school. Again, this just goes back to your "they're white, they have money and can deal with it" response which is a bunch of BS. There are low class white people too who are suffering from the same issues as minorities.

[southsider2k5]

Speaking of UIUC, they've opened up a s***storm of academic/professional backlash against the administration there over their decision to "dehire" a new professor who had accepted a tenured position over some harsh tweets about Israel/Palestine. There was a big document dump of emails thanks to some FOIA requests, and what's pretty clear is that some wealthy donor alums have enough power and influence over educational institutions that they can control academic hiring decisions.

 

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/201...onors-fury.html

 

We've seen the same thing with politicians in IL as well. This is about the least surprising thing ever. Colleges are just well paid whores anymore.

[Jenksismyhero]

We've seen the same thing with politicians in IL as well. This is about the least surprising thing ever. Colleges are just well paid whores anymore.

 

Or in every walk of life? You favor and follow instructions of those that have been good to you.

[StrangeSox]

Do you think it's good for wealthy alumni to be able to control academic hiring decisions? Might it be better for these institutions to not have to rely so heavily on donations?

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you think it's good for wealthy alumni to be able to control academic hiring decisions? Might it be better for these institutions to not have to rely so heavily on donations?

 

I mean in conspiracy theory land I could see a problem with it, but not really in the real world. If I gave up millions of dollars for a donation, I would expect that the school would want to make me happy. If it was a general donation to the school for anything, maybe that's not quite as appropriate, but it definitely is if it's a specific donation for say a research project and the person being hired/not hired is going to work on the project.

 

And it might be better in theory to get rid of donations, but the alternative is public funds. Public colleges don't need a reason to increase their rates and we don't need a reason to increase taxes. It's already too f'n expensive to get a college education and I already pay too much in taxes.

 

edit: You can't tell from the article what the donations were for, but I guess we can surmise that most were general donations. I still don't really have a problem with it, especially if you've got a bunch of high level donors making the same complaint. If the hire is saying controversial things, he's going to have to deal with people not liking them. That's the nature of speech. What if the guy went on a moronic misogynist rant about rape or naked pictures being leaked or something and a bunch of female donors, alumni and students voiced their concerns? Should those concerns not be considered either?

Edited September 3, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

Diversity is an essential and high-priority aspect of education. Schools are not businesses. Their purpose is to educate, enrich, and give back to society. Fostering a campus with as many different sorts of people as possible serves many purposes. In the classroom, you avoid groupthink and allow people of both majority and minority viewpoints to be challenged regularly. There are other inherent benefits to being in social relationships among people that aren't just like you. Society benefits from this as well, disrupting hierarchies that are relics of a bygone era and bestowing knowledge to all classes of people rather than reserving the advantages and happiness offered by education to those who can purchase it.

 

And trust me, people willing to pay for everything never get left out in the cold. I've borne witness to the kind of leeway these people get, not just in admissions but in academic and disciplinary policy.

 

Some of you might prefer how some of the top private colleges do admissions, during which they claim to blind the committees to the finances of applicants. While there are other ways to glean this sort of information, its heart is in the right place. They promise a certain level of aid based on your income and they admit you and everyone else without knowing what the school's cost will be.

 

Many people (myself included, at one point) are transfixed on only the most quantifiable aspects of a potential applicant. What is the GPA? What is the ACT? What is the number of clubs? Even when we aren't talking about social justice-oriented admissions policy, admissions committees should have other priorities in addition to those others. How will this applicant fit into the mix of personalities here? Do their materials indicate a lack of maturity? Has this applicant done something that can't be comprehended in list format that merits extra consideration? My undergraduate institution, for instance, targeted applicants who had been involved with noteworthy charitable causes as high schoolers, particularly those that spearheaded innovative efforts rather than doing the standard sorts of Key Club things.

[bmags]

Thousands is probably a little much, hundreds maybe. But who cares? You're still taking away spots from other students on the basis of race. It's the definition of discrimination.

 

They're not guaranteed entry but if that's a dream school they didn't get into because of discrimination and they have to go to their plan B that can have a major impact. Quality of the school, location of the school, cost, people you know, etc. etc. are all factors that differ greatly depending on where you go. Simply saying you can go to 5 other state schools or to cheaper schools ignores the differences between each school. Again, this just goes back to your "they're white, they have money and can deal with it" response which is a bunch of BS. There are low class white people too who are suffering from the same issues as minorities.

 

That is nothing to do with it, but, yes I will cry zero tears that someone didn't get into their "dream school" that they were a fringe acceptee for, because they were just as susceptible to another white kid with money taking their spot as to a minority.

 

Diversity at a university is good, kids learn just as much from each other as the uni. Grabbing students from different areas, backgrounds and cultures is absolutely worth it, especially since the success rate of "student with 21 ACT" and "student with 23 ACT" is negligible in difference. Looking at two students with such similar academics in GPA or test scores is just meaningless, it'd be like looking at one baseball player with a 1.6 WAR and another with a 1.5 WAR and saying "clearly 1.6 is better than 1.5, we must go with the first!" That difference is so small to be a fluke, and at the end, they'll go with who is a better fit for the university and their goals.

 

If it was their dream school and did not get in, they can spend a year at a different school, do well, and transfer, where they will find it much easier after all the other freshman have dropped out due to drinking too much.

[StrangeSox]

I mean in conspiracy theory land I could see a problem with it, but not really in the real world.

 

What do you mean conspiracy theory land? There is an ongoing case in the real world where an academic hiring is being reversed due to pressure from wealthy alums. There was also the eventually failed attempt to remove UVA's president in 2012 that was at least partially influenced by two wealthy donors.

 

If I gave up millions of dollars for a donation, I would expect that the school would want to make me happy. If it was a general donation to the school for anything, maybe that's not quite as appropriate, but it definitely is if it's a specific donation for say a research project and the person being hired/not hired is going to work on the project.

 

I don't think running public institutions on that sort of patronage system is a good model. It leads to corruption and undue influence. I see no reason why a donation to UIUC should buy you a say in who they hire.

 

And it might be better in theory to get rid of donations, but the alternative is public funds. Public colleges don't need a reason to increase their rates and we don't need a reason to increase taxes. It's already too f'n expensive to get a college education and I already pay too much in taxes.

 

You do know that most (if not all?) public schools have had their funding cut repeatedly over the years and that rising tuition rates reflect that, right? There are other causes as well (bloated admin salaries and head counts), but loss of public funding is a major part.

[StrangeSox]

edit: You can't tell from the article what the donations were for, but I guess we can surmise that most were general donations. I still don't really have a problem with it, especially if you've got a bunch of high level donors making the same complaint. If the hire is saying controversial things, he's going to have to deal with people not liking them. That's the nature of speech. What if the guy went on a moronic misogynist rant about rape or naked pictures being leaked or something and a bunch of female donors, alumni and students voiced their concerns? Should those concerns not be considered either?

 

It's not that he has to "deal" with people not liking him, it's that UIUC is now losing someone who they viewed as an important scholar in his field because some wealthy donors don't like the things he said on twitter. Even more damaging, it sheds a very negative light on the school in academia and can impact their ability to attract top scholars in the future. I'll let the letter from the American Historical Association, the professional body for historians, explain:

 

The First Amendment protects speech, both civil and uncivil. It does so for good reason. The United States made a wager that democracy can flourish only with a robustly open public sphere where conflicting opinions can vigorously engage one another. Such a public sphere rests on the recognition that speech on matters of public concern is often emotional and that it employs a variety of idioms and styles. Hence American law protects not only polite discourse but also vulgarity, not only sweet rationality but also impassioned denunciation. “Civility” is a laudable ideal, and many of us wish that American public life had more of it today. Indeed the AHA recommends it as part of our own Statement on the Standards of Professional Conduct. But imposing the requirement of “civility” on speech in a university community or any other sector of our public sphere—and punishing infractions—can only backfire. Such a policy produces a chilling effect, inhibiting the full exchange of ideas that both scholarly investigation and democratic institutions need.

 

 

If allowed to stand, your administration’s punitive treatment of Steven Salaita will chill the intellectual atmosphere at the University of Illinois. Even tenured professors will fear for their job security, persuaded that their institution lacks respect for the principles of academic freedom. The unhappy consequences for the untenured will be even more pronounced. A regimen of defensive self-censorship will settle like a cloud over faculty lectures and classroom discussions. Faculty will be inclined to seek positions elsewhere. This, surely, is not the future you wish for your historically great institution.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

What do you mean conspiracy theory land? There is an ongoing case in the real world where an academic hiring is being reversed due to pressure from wealthy alums. There was also the eventually failed attempt to remove UVA's president in 2012 that was at least partially influenced by two wealthy donors.

 

 

 

I don't think running public institutions on that sort of patronage system is a good model. It leads to corruption and undue influence. I see no reason why a donation to UIUC should buy you a say in who they hire.

 

 

 

You do know that most (if not all?) public schools have had their funding cut repeatedly over the years and that rising tuition rates reflect that, right? There are other causes as well (bloated admin salaries and head counts), but loss of public funding is a major part.

 

This was done in IL by many politicians. Should we remove governmental oversight of the public schools?

[Jenksismyhero]

What do you mean conspiracy theory land? There is an ongoing case in the real world where an academic hiring is being reversed due to pressure from wealthy alums. There was also the eventually failed attempt to remove UVA's president in 2012 that was at least partially influenced by two wealthy donors.

 

What I meant by that is that I don't think there's a realistic fear that major donors are getting people hired/fired for random reasons. Here there's a person making controversial and borderline anti-semetic remarks and people who contribute a good sum of their hard earned money don't want their school hiring someone like that. It's no different than donors being pissed with athletic programs bringing in bad kids or unethical coaches or other teachers/students make racist/sexist remarks. You can't expect to be shielded by some professor bubble just because you work at a school. If a client of your employer learned that you were making public comments they didn't agree with and they threated to move their business elsewhere, i'd have no problem with your employer getting rid of you. That's the way the world works. Obviously a school is not a business, but you're talking about alumni who are very involved in funding the school and allowing it to operate. I'm not saying the school should follow the donor's wishes all the time, but should it be a consideration? Absolutely. You need to keep your donors and alumni base happy. And if enough of them complain, you should act.

 

I don't think running public institutions on that sort of patronage system is a good model. It leads to corruption and undue influence. I see no reason why a donation to UIUC should buy you a say in who they hire.

 

Ok, well I disagree. I don't think the admin should follow every command of the donor, but they should at least listen to them and consider them.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

This was done in IL by many politicians. Should we remove governmental oversight of the public schools?

No. But public officials are at least ostensibly accountable to the citizens; we all have some say in who gets elected. Private wealthy donors are not.

[StrangeSox]

What I meant by that is that I don't think there's a realistic fear that major donors are getting people hired/fired for random reasons. Here there's a person making controversial and borderline anti-semetic remarks and people who contribute a good sum of their hard earned money don't want their school hiring someone like that. It's no different than donors being pissed with athletic programs are bringing in bad kids or other teachers/students make racist/sexist remarks. You can't expect to be shielded by some professor bubble just because you work at a school. If a client of your employer learned that you were making public comments they didn't agree with and they threated to move their business elsewhere, i'd have no problem with your employer getting rid of you. That's the way the world works. Obviously a school is not a business, but you're talking about alumni who are very involved in funding the school and allowing it to operate. I'm not saying the school should follow the donor's wishes all the time, but should it be a consideration? Absolutely. You need to keep your donors and alumni base happy. And if enough of them complain, you should act.

 

But the academic world really is different, and academic freedom/tenure protections are hugely important. If you aren't guaranteed some sort of protection from being fired for saying unpopular things, there will be a chilling effect on controversial and innovative research.

 

I don't think running public institutions on that sort of patronage system is a good model. It leads to corruption and undue influence. I see no reason why a donation to UIUC should buy you a say in who they hire.

 

Ok, well I disagree. I don't think the admin should follow every command of the donor, but they should at least listen to them and consider them.

 

I think that the reality is that they absolutely do have to listen to them. What I'm saying is that it would be better if our public education system wasn't so reliant on private donations so that they wouldn't have to do what donors want.

[StrangeSox]

One lesson everyone can take away from this, though: don't ever try to make a nuanced argument on twitter.

[southsider2k5]

No. But public officials are at least ostensibly accountable to the citizens; we all have some say in who gets elected. Private wealthy donors are not.

 

Except you have the choice to go to or support another university. You don't have the choice for another politician. The one in office is the one you are stuck with.

[StrangeSox]

Except you have the choice to go to or support another university. You don't have the choice for another politician. The one in office is the one you are stuck with.

That's not true for public institutions. U of I is getting my tax dollars regardless of my current opinion of my alma matter. I'm only stuck with the current politicians in office until the next election, when I will again get a voice in the matter. I will never have a voice in wealthy alumni using their donations to influence how our public universities are run, though.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's not that he has to "deal" with people not liking him, it's that UIUC is now losing someone who they viewed as an important scholar in his field because some wealthy donors don't like the things he said on twitter. Even more damaging, it sheds a very negative light on the school in academia and can impact their ability to attract top scholars in the future. I'll let the letter from the American Historical Association, the professional body for historians, explain:

 

Let's pretend this guy said something borderline racist/homophobic/sexist, yet the school still wanted to hire him because he's an "important scholar." I'm sure you'd be 100% behind him, right? Because donors/alumni shouldn't pressure the admin to get rid of someone they like, right?

 

Come on, you know that's BS. This guy said some controversial things to a group of people. They complained. The admin reacted. Change the statements to whatever you want and this stuff happens all the time.

[StrangeSox]

Let's pretend this guy said something borderline racist/homophobic/sexist, yet the school still wanted to hire him because he's an "important scholar." I'm sure you'd be 100% behind him, right? Because donors/alumni shouldn't pressure the admin to get rid of someone they like, right?

 

Come on, you know that's BS. This guy said some controversial things to a group of people. They complained. The admin reacted. Change the statements to whatever you want and this stuff happens all the time.

 

There are plenty of examples of professors out there who continue to hold tenured positions despite saying awful things. Either way, I don't think donors should be able to use their wealth to create pressure over the school, period.

 

This guy said some things on twitter, not to a group of people directly. The admin then reacted, sure, but they flailed around a lot and have offered several different flimsy excuses for their actions. As far as I'm aware, this doesn't very often at all in academia, and when it does, there's usually a lot of backlash.

[Balta1701]

This was done in IL by many politicians. Should we remove governmental oversight of the public schools?

Frankly, there's so little money contributed to most public colleges these days by the state governments that it almost seems like we should. At some point it's going to happen that a major state school is going to kick its state government out of its management on those grounds if they can fill in the small money difference. UIUC it's down to here.

[StrangeSox]

Frankly, there's so little money contributed to most public colleges these days by the state governments that it almost seems like we should. At some point it's going to happen that a major state school is going to kick its state government out of its management on those grounds if they can fill in the small money difference. UIUC it's down to here.

I want to say that ptact mentioned something about GSU considering doing this.

[southsider2k5]

That's not true for public institutions. U of I is getting my tax dollars regardless of my current opinion of my alma matter. I'm only stuck with the current politicians in office until the next election, when I will again get a voice in the matter. I will never have a voice in wealthy alumni using their donations to influence how our public universities are run, though.

 

By your logic, you vote for different politicians to influence school policy.