Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 hours ago, Satchel said:

Unless and until Trump’s sojourn into fascist authoritarianism is stopped, this won’t end well for higher Ed in America: The state of Texas is poised to become an academic wasteland:

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2025/03/27/three-prominent-yale-professors-depart-for-canadian-university-citing-trump-fears/

worth clicking on to see one of them is tim snyder, the ukraine expert.

 

(although now that i'm reading it, seems like a little clickbait-y.  the snyder stuff is both old and not because of trump:

 

 

Shore wrote that the Munk School had long attempted to recruit her and Snyder and that the couple had seriously considered the offers “for the past two years.” Shore wrote that the couple decided to take the positions after the November 2024 elections. However, a spokesperson for Snyder told Inside Higher Ed that Snyder’s decision was made before the elections, was largely personal and came amid “difficult family matters.” The spokesperson also said that he had “no desire” to leave the United States. 

 

end).

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

One thing I believe happens if they sign it;  people start to protest on campus again and then shit starts to spiral...and they have to know that.  On top of all the other shit they SHOULD already know seeing what has happened to other institutions across various disciplines that have capitulated.  

Maybe they are trying to pull a JFK, where they just "ignore" the letter and talk about what they want to talk about.  

MIT did it best when they said federal scientifc grants should be awarded on merit alone.  The boostrap crowd is hard-pressed to argue with that.

The powers that be at UT don't give a rats ass about academic freedom, they think that's the problem.  But I'm not sure they're willing to come out and say so.

And I think they're really hesitant to differentiate themselves from schools like MIT and UVa, in any way.

I think the bad publicity attending the law firm capitulations weighs heavy on them.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

MIT did it best when they said federal scientifc grants should be awarded on merit alone.  The boostrap crowd is hard-pressed to argue with that.

The powers that be at UT don't give a rats ass about academic freedom, they think that's the problem.  But I'm not sure they're willing to come out and say so.

And I think they're really hesitant to differentiate themselves from schools like MIT and UVa, in any way.

I think the bad publicity attending the law firm capitulations weighs heavy on them.  

This is what happens when you wait around to do what you know is right from the outset.  You look like a fence riding idiot with sore balls at the end of the day. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, Chad Fuck said:

This is what happens when you wait around to do what you know is right from the outset.  You look like a fence riding idiot with sore balls at the end of the day. 

Yep.  Either way, UT has successfully branded itself as "cowardice U."  A shittacular look, but then, our state leadership wants to turn the university into "Prager University at Austin," so they are just fine with that.

Man, the one hallmark of this era that I'll never understand is how all of these pathetic fucksticks are falling all over themselves to bow in supplication and gargle the balls of the most pathetic figure in American history.  The complete lack of self-respect and dignity blows me away.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, the one hallmark of this era that I'll never understand is how all of these pathetic fucksticks are falling all over themselves to bow in supplication and gargle the balls of the most pathetic figure in American history.  The complete lack of self-respect and dignity blows me away.

Among the myriad things the Democrats have done poorly, the messaging around this has been abysmal.  All day, every day, they should be calling out Republican leadership for the cucks that they are both publicly and in private.

"Why are you even in Congress?  You don't seem to want to really vote on anything?" 

"Did daddy tell you it was ok to support this?"

"Good talk, I guess now you need to go back to your massa and check and see if this is what he wants you to do."

"You're a do-nothing bitch with no original thoughts of your own"

"A lot of power you have, you can't do anything unless the bossman tells you it's ok"

"Do you like apples?"

Edited by Surly Bevo
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

Which of the policies have people the most riled up, besides that the Trump administration came up with them? I can see people not agreeing with elimination of DEI, supporting trans sports, or wanting more foreign students and "anti-conservative" content in classrooms, but I don't see any as turning higher education into a "wasteland." This thread is 98% bitching about Texas accepting or rejecting it and not much discussing the compact itself and how it will turn Texas into a joke of a university unable to educate students. It seems these universities could take the money, interpret and enforce the terms as they want, and the worst case is the Trump team doesn't like it and pulls the preferential funding status which the universities lose anyway by not accepting.

  • Eliminate DEI in hiring and admissions and make them based on merit
  • 5 year tuition freeze, and make STEM education tuition-free for "non-wealthy" students
  • Cap foreign student enrollment to save more spots for American students
  • Limit sports participation to biological sex
  • While professors can voice their "anti-conservative" views off the clock, keep it out of classroom curriculum
  • Prevent protests intended to disrupt classroom and study areas
  • Receive preferential status in federal grant funding
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  And entirely subjective.  Like, understand that a professor saying "last century, fascist movements had these common traits: repression of minority groups, high-level corruption and crony capitalism, etc. etc.".....will be deemed a violation of the "you can't say anything anti-conservative" rule.  When you understand that "anti-conservative" is both ANYTHING remotely critical of actual things done by the regime (so, no discussion of ANY negative impacts of Trump tariffs), or even of things that are objective truths (see discussing the history of fascism) that makes the regime feel "targeted."

It's hot garbage contrary to the first amendment, academic freedom, and every fucking American value and ideal.

And look at the professor's firing at Texas State. What he did was voice his opinion on an online forum, not in class. Fired. 

My biggest concern is the step deeper into censorship. I want a diverse university. I want disagreement. It makes us think. I do not want Madrassa learning styles to enter into Academia. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

You reject it on the principal that its a drastic over reach of federal power. Universities shouldn't think more than 10 seconds before rejecting it because they should choose how they run their campuses and educate their students. And if you pay any attention to these psychos, you will note that what you agree to this month will change the next. Just like Trumps ever morphing tariff bullshit. Next month if you want to STAY in their good graces, you will have to start each college lecture with the lords prayer. The following month, every college will have to teach a mandatory course on how trump is great and deserves the nobel prize. It will never end with these fucksticks. You say no, because rolling over now means they have you on a rotisserie. 

This is all true, but a bit nuanced.

It would be nice to say the federal government has no business telling universities what to do.  But then you run into the DOE argument.  And then civil rights, and on it goes.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
29 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

-- Eliminate DEI in hiring and admissions and make them based on merit

"Merit" = white.

 

Quote

-- While professors can voice their "anti-conservative" views off the clock, keep it out of classroom curriculum

Can they voice their "conservative" views in the classroom?

 

Quote

-- Prevent protests intended to disrupt classroom and study areas

Intentionally vague, which provides an easy out to squash free speech that is center or left of center.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

"You have a nice university there.  Be a shame if something happened to it.  Like if you didn't get your research grants because you know, some of your professors say things we find...distasteful.  So stop them.  How about we all get along here?  You get what you want, we get what we want.  Then nothing happens to your nice university here.  We'll be back to collect our next demand same time next week."   

Let's call it what it is:  A shakedown.  

 

See the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine."  Viewpoint-driven shakedowns like this as a condition of funding are unconstitutional.  Or, I mean, they WERE, back when we had the Rule of Law.  Now that the new rule is functionally The Divine Right of Kings, all Hail Lord Trump the First, it don't make a shit.  So, I'm just reminding you of what the rules once were.  Add them to the pile of things that don't matter anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

"Merit" = white.

 

Can they voice their "conservative" views in the classroom?

 

Intentionally vague, which provides an easy out to squash free speech that is center or left of center.

Bingo.  It will all be viewpoint-particular. 

Want a rally to shout about how Charlie Kirk sitteth at the right hand of God the Father?  Want to build an entire curriculum around the Patriotism of Turning Point USA, and it's Lord and Savior, Charlie Kirk?  No.  Fucking.  Problem.

Have a single professor in a communications course play a clip of Charlie Kirk saying one thing, and then the opposite thing?  YOU'RE FIRED.

Even contemplating the idea that this proposed system would be content-neutral is insanely disingenuous.  Just stop if that's what you're trying to insinuate.  When you want to impose a system that protects your viewpoint and punishes all opposing viewpoints, you set vague standards that look EXACTLY like these.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Either way, UT has successfully branded itself as "cowardice U."  A shittacular look, but then, our state leadership wants to turn the university into "Prager University at Austin," so they are just fine with that.

Man, the one hallmark of this era that I'll never understand is how all of these pathetic fucksticks are falling all over themselves to bow in supplication and gargle the balls of the most pathetic figure in American history.  The complete lack of self-respect and dignity blows me away.

Why respond?  Response signals something. Just don’t respond. 

On another note, you are the most affected poster of all time. 

Posted

After asswater Abbott and his BOR makes UT bend the knee, I'm guessing we'll be asked to change our mascot:

Fightin' T.A.C.O, school colors will remain the same.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

Why respond?  Response signals something. Just don’t respond. 

On another note, you are the most affected poster of all time. 

Nah, there used to be this loser named Rex Kramer who was way more affected.

  • Haha 6
Posted
15 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

On another note, you are the most affected correct poster of all time. 

FIF ya.  Y'all are just pissed that I've been correct at around a 95% clip about fucking everything that has happened, is happening, and continues to happen, under this regime.

Sorry for regularly pointing out how un-American and anti-Constitution and anti-Rule-of-Law damned near everything is.  The truth hurts people who insist on living within the comfort of their lies.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Either way, UT has successfully branded itself as "cowardice U."  A shittacular look, but then, our state leadership wants to turn the university into "Prager University at Austin," so they are just fine with that.

Man, the one hallmark of this era that I'll never understand is how all of these pathetic fucksticks are falling all over themselves to bow in supplication and gargle the balls of the most pathetic figure in American history.  The complete lack of self-respect and dignity blows me away.

The strategy all along has been to neuter the Ivies and work their way down the food chain to the best private and public universities in the country. They believe the SEC schools and the like will be a piece of cake.

Posted
16 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

One thing I believe happens if they sign it;  people start to protest on campus again and then shit starts to spiral...and they have to know that.  On top of all the other shit they SHOULD already know seeing what has happened to other institutions across various disciplines that have capitulated.  

Maybe they are trying to pull a JFK, where they just "ignore" the letter and talk about what they want to talk about.  

 

protestors = antifa 

round them up !

Posted
3 hours ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Which of the policies have people the most riled up, besides that the Trump administration came up with them? I can see people not agreeing with elimination of DEI, supporting trans sports, or wanting more foreign students and "anti-conservative" content in classrooms, but I don't see any as turning higher education into a "wasteland." This thread is 98% bitching about Texas accepting or rejecting it and not much discussing the compact itself and how it will turn Texas into a joke of a university unable to educate students. It seems these universities could take the money, interpret and enforce the terms as they want, and the worst case is the Trump team doesn't like it and pulls the preferential funding status which the universities lose anyway by not accepting.

  • Eliminate DEI in hiring and admissions and make them based on merit
  • 5 year tuition freeze, and make STEM education tuition-free for "non-wealthy" students
  • Cap foreign student enrollment to save more spots for American students
  • Limit sports participation to biological sex
  • While professors can voice their "anti-conservative" views off the clock, keep it out of classroom curriculum
  • Prevent protests intended to disrupt classroom and study areas
  • Receive preferential status in federal grant funding

Are you ever going to respond to all these posters who took the time out of their day to give you thoughtful answers?

  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Are you ever going to respond to all these posters who took the time out of their day to give you thoughtful answers?

He does raise the valid point that at least in theory, the compact could be accepted and then maliciously complied with until arbitrary enforcement revokes the preference and we're no worse off fiscally than having rejected it, and maybe a tad better off.  A performative acceptance of a performative proposal, if you will.

I'm not really troubled by any failure to respond to those pointing out that it's just a performative power grab.

 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

I mean I wishcast that this is what is going on in the Tower over this

Think Mad Men GIF

But I know better

Oh, that's probably what is going on at the Tower, except a couple of offices here and there.

It's 201 W. Seventh and 1100 Congress that you have to worry about

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, South Austin said:

We should accept the compact, ignore the conditions, and use the grant money on NIL.

Yes.  Because if there's anything that will cure our ills, it's TWO Arch Mannings.

Posted
17 minutes ago, South Austin said:

We should accept the compact, ignore the conditions, and use the grant money on NIL.

Spoiler alert: there is no grant money

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He does raise the valid point that at least in theory, the compact could be accepted and then maliciously complied with until arbitrary enforcement revokes the preference and we're no worse off fiscally than having rejected it, and maybe a tad better off.  A performative acceptance of a performative proposal, if you will.

I'm not really troubled by any failure to respond to those pointing out that it's just a performative power grab.

 

My concern goes far beyond the University of Texas at Austin. It’s the flagship, and not just for the system. It’s the gold standard for public higher education in Texas. Hell, this whole region of the country. Sure, the whimsical wishes of the regime change day-to-day, and UT could get tired of trying to placate our moronic monarch.

In the meantime, schools across the state see UT receive that cash and start trying not just to emulate the University, but to outdo it, showing they’re even more deserving by becoming full-on reich-wing indoctrination centers.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Which of the policies have people the most riled up, besides that the Trump administration came up with them? I can see people not agreeing with elimination of DEI, supporting trans sports, or wanting more foreign students and "anti-conservative" content in classrooms, but I don't see any as turning higher education into a "wasteland." This thread is 98% bitching about Texas accepting or rejecting it and not much discussing the compact itself and how it will turn Texas into a joke of a university unable to educate students. It seems these universities could take the money, interpret and enforce the terms as they want, and the worst case is the Trump team doesn't like it and pulls the preferential funding status which the universities lose anyway by not accepting.

  • Eliminate DEI in hiring and admissions and make them based on merit
  • 5 year tuition freeze, and make STEM education tuition-free for "non-wealthy" students
  • Cap foreign student enrollment to save more spots for American students
  • Limit sports participation to biological sex
  • While professors can voice their "anti-conservative" views off the clock, keep it out of classroom curriculum
  • Prevent protests intended to disrupt classroom and study areas
  • Receive preferential status in federal grant funding

I’ll try to engage this in good faith. I think only bullets two and three are placed where the feds behave any grounds to intervene based on federalism and public policy. 
 

- I welcome any movement to rein in higher ed costs and make tuition more affordable to lower income students.  The feds, as the biggest guarantor of student loans that fuel spiraling costs, are well placed to intervene and to introduce favorable conditions for federal funding to encourage affordability. 
 

- Since the feds control and administer immigration policy, its well within their interest to ensure that student visa use advanced national interests.  I think that a “foreigner cap” is a misguided, “don’t grow the pie” approach. I would welcome an thoughtful effort to link SEVIS issuance eligibility to a formula that uses foreign full-tuition revenue to offset costs for U.S. students. 
 

The rest of this is just culture war bullshit that contaminates anything useful. 

Posted

I'm typically more conservative than most posters on here and I will say that without a doubt this has to be rejected based on what I know.  There are some good ideas in the compact but also a lot of vagueness.  I'm also not sure what the schools actually received or if we know everything that was in the compact documents they received.  The good in my opinion, if done right, is to be merit based, freezing tuition and giving more grant money to schools that focus on American students.  The bad is everything else.  Mostly because it is all so vague that it can be construed in numerous ways which means that it becomes corrupt and a system to control people.  For example, I think no anti-conservative viewpoints would be fine if it instead said "no inciting or celebrating of violence against political opponents".  But that's not what it says.  I don't necessarily think a compact between the government and universities that rewards the schools for meeting certain criteria is a bad thing.  Those criteria need to be pretty obviously beneficial to all Americans, however.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, txhorns said:

I'm typically more conservative than most posters on here and I will say that without a doubt this has to be rejected based on what I know.  There are some good ideas in the compact but also a lot of vagueness.  I'm also not sure what the schools actually received or if we know everything that was in the compact documents they received.  The good in my opinion, if done right, is to be merit based, freezing tuition and giving more grant money to schools that focus on American students.  The bad is everything else.  Mostly because it is all so vague that it can be construed in numerous ways which means that it becomes corrupt and a system to control people.  For example, I think no anti-conservative viewpoints would be fine if it instead said "no inciting or celebrating of violence against political opponents".  But that's not what it says.  I don't necessarily think a compact between the government and universities that rewards the schools for meeting certain criteria is a bad thing.  Those criteria need to be pretty obviously beneficial to all Americans, however.

Agree 100%

Posted
4 hours ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Which of the policies have people the most riled up, besides that the Trump administration came up with them? I can see people not agreeing with elimination of DEI, supporting trans sports, or wanting more foreign students and "anti-conservative" content in classrooms, but I don't see any as turning higher education into a "wasteland." This thread is 98% bitching about Texas accepting or rejecting it and not much discussing the compact itself and how it will turn Texas into a joke of a university unable to educate students. It seems these universities could take the money, interpret and enforce the terms as they want, and the worst case is the Trump team doesn't like it and pulls the preferential funding status which the universities lose anyway by not accepting.

  • Eliminate DEI in hiring and admissions and make them based on merit
  • 5 year tuition freeze, and make STEM education tuition-free for "non-wealthy" students
  • Cap foreign student enrollment to save more spots for American students
  • Limit sports participation to biological sex
  • While professors can voice their "anti-conservative" views off the clock, keep it out of classroom curriculum
  • Prevent protests intended to disrupt classroom and study areas
  • Receive preferential status in federal grant funding

 

Because fuck you I won't do what you tell me is why

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, txhorns said:

 For example, I think no anti-conservative viewpoints would be fine if it instead said "no inciting or celebrating of violence against political opponents".  

But then the republicans wouldn't be able to function as the political violence is 99.99 percent right wing in nature in this country. That's why they would never put that. They want political violence on their side. 

You can't negotiate with terrorists, and this admin are terrorists. It's either fight them or get destroyed by them. This university will never be respected again in a post fascist US if it becomes a beacon university of fascist pacifism.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
But then the republicans wouldn't be able to function as the political violence is 99.99 percent right wing in nature in this country. That's why they would never put that. They want political violence on their side. 
You can't negotiate with terrorists, and this admin are terrorists. It's either fight them or get destroyed by them. This university will never be respected again in a post fascist US if it becomes a beacon university of fascist pacifism.  

This.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, txhorns said:

For example, I think no anti-conservative viewpoints would be fine if it instead said "no inciting or celebrating of violence against political opponents".  But that's not what it says. 

Yeah.  Now, ponder it.  And realize that there is a very, very, very good reason why there is no such ideology-neutral element there....

6 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

But then the republicans wouldn't be able to function as the political violence is 99.99 percent right wing in nature in this country. That's why they would never put that. They want political violence on their side. 

....it's because the above is the answer.  Think just a layer deeper, but you really don't have to overthink it.  These people act with brute and blunt force only.  There is no subtlety or even good-faith artifice.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

My concern goes far beyond the University of Texas at Austin. It’s the flagship, and not just for the system. It’s the gold standard for public higher education in Texas. Hell, this whole region of the country. Sure, the whimsical wishes of the regime change day-to-day, and UT could get tired of trying to placate our moronic monarch.

In the meantime, schools across the state see UT receive that cash and start trying not just to emulate the University, but to outdo it, showing they’re even more deserving by becoming full-on reich-wing indoctrination centers.

ap_110902134433_custom-8b3417700fc353936

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, txhorns said:

I'm typically more conservative than most posters on here and I will say that without a doubt this has to be rejected based on what I know.  There are some good ideas in the compact but also a lot of vagueness.  I'm also not sure what the schools actually received or if we know everything that was in the compact documents they received.  The good in my opinion, if done right, is to be merit based, freezing tuition

You think that the federal government telling state universities what they can charge in tuition is a good idea?  That doesn't sound "conservative" at all.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 hours ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

Oh. Relevant. 

Well it is relevant actually, because you claimed "you are the most affected poster of all time."

I pointed out that there used to be a drooling idiot on here who was much more affected.  That does make my comment relevant.

Are you familiar with this Rex Kramer person's posts?

  • Haha 3
Posted
30 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You think that the federal government telling state universities what they can charge in tuition is a good idea?  That doesn't sound "conservative" at all.  

It's downright socialist, but as usual these guys love any government-given goodwill that might benefit them, as long as we don't call it socialism, and despise any that might benefit other people.

  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...