CensorshipU: Lawmakers Cut Public School Funding of 'Controversial' Classes

[Milchshake]

Remember, censorship is mostly about projection. In the US academic settings. Professors of justice, environmental, and minority issues get shut down far more often than their conservative peers.
Its because the Board of Regents, Directors, and fundraisers have far more real power. Than some students complaining about authentic Bahn Mi in the cafeteria.

Since much contemporary Online discourse seems not to understand what “censorship” means, here’s an actual example:

In Idaho, a public university abruptly cancelled dozens of diversity-related classes as lawmakers advanced a budget cutting funding, threatened further cuts, and added provisions barring Idaho universities from using state funding to support “social justice” activities, clubs, events, or organizations.

The cancellation of the classes comes after more than a year of lawmakers’ efforts to rein in classes at Idaho universities and colleges. As one legislator explained last March, the goal was to “stop rubber-stamping these budgets” and instead threaten the universities’ funding as a way to “send the message that we do have a say on what is taught.”

This year, they are following through. The course cancellation followed the state’s joint budget committee cut of $409,000 from Boise State University’s budget and efforts to cut between $2,500,000 and $18,000,000 that goes to “social justice programming and critical race theory.” (The latter effort, which would have asked the legislature to return the budget to the committee, did not succeed, as the State Senate adopted the committee’s budget — the day after the courses were cancelled.)

In addition to the $409,000 cut — which one lawmaker said “borders on censorship” — the budget problematically includes language barring any state university or college from using “appropriated funds” to “support social justice ideology student activities, clubs, events and organizations on campus.” This provision, which is likely unconstitutional, is a classic example of a law that would require the institutions to withhold funds from student organizations based on their viewpoints in direct contradiction to long standing precedents set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States. (For similar efforts, see our analysis of a proposal in New York to bar funding to student organizations that permit “hate speech.”)

Additionally, each Idaho state university is required to “submit a written report of its expenditures related to these activities,” and the State Board of Education is directed to “evaluate” the use of student activity fees for “activities, clubs and organizations focused on individual beliefs and values” in light of “the need for access, affordability, and choice.”

I can’t wait for Glenn, Bari and Sully to write extended denunciations of this state attack on free speech on their Subhacks.

[Machismo]

States like Idaho, Utah, and Texas are famous for their censorship and utter disdain of the First Amendment.

[Kaleredar]

They trying to pave the way for southern states to start mandating civil war history be taught the “right” way in colleges? Or that red state universities start teaching science “without all that unnecessary liberal propaganda about vaccines or climate change?”

I suppose if it’s any consolation, America’s finest collegiate institutions are all still in the liberal bastion states who I doubt would try this nonsense. Though it is obviously disadvantageous for students who might not have the ability to attend colleges like Berkeley or UCLA or the like.

[Edge-]

"The government shouldn't be forcing you to learn X!" - Conservatives
"Schools cannot be allowed to teach Y, and we will pull funding from them if they do!" - Also conservatives.

I love how Schrodinger's Government is both supposed not get involved in our lives but also is always deeply involved in our lives even in our bedrooms.

- - - Updated - - -

They trying to pave the way for southern colleges to start mandating civil war history be taught the “right” way?

We need to look at "Both sides" of the issue!

On the one side we have folks who were tolerant of slavery and didn't have a strong appetite to do much about the institution as it stood. But were attacked and their hand was forced and here we are.
On the other you had a group of rampaging, murderous slaveowners and "maybe one day I too will be wealthy enough to own a slave" folks that were itching for a fight and were largely taken down by the fact that the ideology their rebellion was based around was completely and totally non-functional and they ended up with hyperinflation and functionally bankrupt because you can't fund a war without taxes. Also, they wanted to keep owning human Black beings.

IT'S A SUBTLE AND NUANCED ISSUE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD ARGUMENTS ON "BOTH SIDES"

[Machismo]

They trying to pave the way for southern states to start mandating civil war history be taught the “right” way in colleges? Or that red state universities start teaching science “without all that unnecessary liberal propaganda about vaccines or climate change?”

I suppose if it’s any consolation, America’s finest collegiate institutions are all still in the liberal bastion states who I doubt would try this nonsense. Though it is obviously disadvantageous for students who might not have the ability to attend colleges like Berkeley or UCLA or the like.

You joke...but I know people who were taught it as "The War of the Great Northern Aggression."

[The Butt Witch]

Oh no, the local government cut funding for Anti-white Racism classes! The tragedy! Where will those black kids learn that they are being oppressed, and where will those white kids learn that they're racist because they have white skin and they should be ashamed of it?

[Machismo]

Oh no, the local government cut funding for Anti-white Racism classes! The tragedy! Where will those black kids learn that they are being oppressed, and where will those white kids learn that they're racist because they have white skin and they should be ashamed of it?

Someone clearly doesn't understand the demographics of Idaho...

[Edge-]

Oh no, the local government cut funding for Anti-white Racism classes! The tragedy! Where will those black kids learn that they are being oppressed, and where will those white kids learn that they're racist because they have white skin and they should be ashamed of it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmin...ection_of_1898

Hey, people learning about that time that there was a literal white supremacist coup in the USA, with dozens of Black folks murdered, hundreds more Black residents and many white folks that weren't violent racists were literally run out of town, and they literally committed mass-election fraud and stole an election?

This kinda stuff is good to learn about, yo. It's our history, and whitewashing it doesn't do us any benefits other than making white racists feel better about how great the history of the US is.

[Grimbold21]

You know that critical race theory is being successful when noble concepts like Diversity are being reframed and reunderstood along its respective lines...which then of course allows for all this outrage.

Also, for a moment, I thought this was about New Hampshire's HB544 - https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB544/id/2238380 - which intention is more or less the same. Btw, isn't this the same reframing of what Trump wanted to do, with the whole "Trump wants to ban diversity training", except the proposition said it wouldn't stop it from being taught?

Btw, if you find racism despicable, shouldn't you by default be agaisnt theories that reduce individuals to their respective racial categories?

Edit: Before I forget, since folks like to play the race card so much, pssst, remember critics of this academic theory aren't exclusively white, contrary to what you may assume.

[Mihalik]

Is "critical race theory" the new Marxism for cuckservatives?

Edit: Before I forget, since folks like to play the race card so much, pssst, remember critics of this academic theory aren't exclusively white, contrary to what you may assume.

Bro, you sure carry a lot of water for racism in America. I have a feeling you're like the Portuguese equivalent of the Spanish VoX. Blatantly racist and fascist.

The only critics of critical race theory are racists and people who literally don't even understand what the fuck it is.

[Elegiac]

You know that critical race theory is being successful when noble concepts like Diversity are being reframed and reunderstood along its respective lines...which then of course allows for all this outrage.

We know it's being successful because y'all are bitching so much about it like you used to bitch about feminist theory and queer theory before those became normalized and you had to move on to the next outrage du jour, lol.

Btw, if you find racism despicable, shouldn't you by default be agaisnt theories that reduce individuals to their respective racial categories?

Sure, but that's not what critical race theory is.

- - - Updated - - -

Is "critical race theory" the new Marxism for cuckservatives?

Yep.

Folks caught onto the fact that "postmodern neomarxism" doesn't actually mean anything and heard left wing academics say 'critical race theory' and went "hey, that sounds sufficiently controversial if you decontextualize it and torture its definition, let's get upset about that" like they did with toxic masculinity or cultural appropriation, lol.

[Grimbold21]

Is "critical race theory" the new Marxism for cuckservatives?



Bro, you sure carry a lot of water for racism in America. I have a feeling you're like the Portuguese equivalent of the Spanish VoX. Blatantly racist and fascist.

Bro, that's a lot of meaningless buzzwords to just and try and insult me.

- - - Updated - - -

We know it's being successful because y'all are bitching so much about it like you used to bitch about feminist theory and queer theory before those became normalized and you had to move on to the next outrage du jour, lol.



Sure, but that's not what critical race theory is.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep.

Folks caught onto the fact that "postmodern neomarxism" doesn't actually mean anything and heard left wing academics say 'critical race theory' and went "hey, that sounds sufficiently controversial if you decontextualize it and torture its definition, let's get upset about that" like they did with toxic masculinity or cultural appropriation, lol.

Uuuh uhh, let me guess, you're gonna refer back to its origins which certainly had a noble purpose to try and paint it favorably now

[Elegiac]

Uuuh uhh, let me guess, you're gonna refer back to its origins which certainly had a noble purpose to try and paint it favorably now

No, I'm just going to point out nothing has changed between now and "its origins".

It's always just been a function of tedious Eurocentrists getting defensive that your traditional view of history is being challenged, lol.

[Mihalik]

sip

Nah. I just literally can't be arsed to peel through the layers of unsubstantiated and idiotic blatantly racist bullshit you constantly spam these forums with.

To be critical of critical race theory your default position needs to be that institutional racism doesn't exist. To hold that stance you either have to be an abysmal moron or a racist.

Take your pick.

[jonnysensible]

the cultural marxism to critical race theory pipeline. dude stop watching youtube you cant use it safely.

[Grimbold21]

No, I'm just going to point out nothing has changed between now and "its origins".

It's always just been a function of tedious Eurocentrists getting defensive that your traditional view of history is being challenged, lol.

Defensiveness, that sounds familiar. Oh, that's right, I might be misremembering here, but wasn't it D'Angelo that argued that the task of someone upholding CRT is to agitate racism, to make it apparent, so that the idea that t racism is ingrained in everything, thus making it politically actionable? And that if defensiveness or criticism of such ideas are themselves evidence of racism? Imagine that, framing an escape route for your theory in case it meets resistance. Fascinating.

I expect nothing less of you. I still have some memory of you peddling White Fragility in the Floyd murder thread, and doing precisely what the theory allows for in that case. Oh, let's not forget that in the Atlanta thread you defended that racism is society's default condition.

[Elegiac]

Defensiveness, that sounds familiar. Oh, that's right, I might be misremembering here, but wasn't it D'Angelo that argued that the task of someone upholding CRT is to agitate racism, to make it apparent, so that the idea that t racism is ingrained in everything, thus making it politically actionable? And that if defensiveness or criticism of such ideas are themselves evidence of racism? Imagine that, framing an escape route for your theory in case it meets resistance. Fascinating.

You know we can tell your familiarity with the subject is based on YouTube ragemongers by the fact the only CRT figure you're apparently familiar with is Robin D'Angelo, right? In the same way we can tell people bitching about gender critical theory based on YouTube outrage only ever talk about Anita Sarkeesian.

Lol. Again: you keep complaining about analytical lenses without actually understanding what they are because you've been told they're bad.

Oh, let's not forget that in the Atlanta thread you defended that racism is society's default condition.

"Default condition" Cut it out with the strawman. This was already addressed by Mihalik:

To be critical of critical race theory your default position needs to be that institutional racism doesn't exist. To hold that stance you either have to be an abysmal moron or a racist.

Take your pick.

[Grimbold21]

Nah. I just literally can't be arsed to peel through the layers of unsubstantiated and idiotic blatantly racist bullshit you constantly spam these forums with.

To be critical of critical race theory your default position needs to be that institutional racism doesn't exist. To hold that stance you either have to be an abysmal moron or a racist.

Take your pick.

What is increasingly fascinating is how supposedly upholding (more like hijacking) honorable causes such as the fight agaisnt discrimination allows one to behave, say, and insult others in a fashion that you'd expect from their extreme opposites.

Let's take a moment here to reflect briefly on the fact that Mihalik here has labeled me a racist because with the admittedly small knowledge I have of CRT, I happen to disagree with it; because the (fortunately?) few examples show how a seemingly noble project becomes insidious. Oh, let's not forget, that Mihalik here will likely get away with this portrayal.

Let's also remember that when an example was posted of what I find the outcomes of CRT may be, the reaction was to undermine the person's story and reduce it to, and roughly paraphrasing here, "she's just a white woman that was mad she had to redo her work and couldn't get on board with the diversity program, now she's painting herself as a victim. Poor white woman!" I suppose in the intersectional hierarchy the quality of woman is severely undermined by "white".

Let's also recall that Smith college president's reaction regarding the black student who claimed to be racially profiled was to immediately sympathize with her and put the staff through anti-bias training. Did anyone hold the president accountable when the investigation found no evidence of racism? I guess the media gears didn't grind for that.

But sure, keep calling people racists. If there's one thing you're definitely succeeding at is devoiding the word of its significance. And if you wish to to be reductive and frame people along their racial categories and all else, well, i'd prefer if it were like religion, it's fine, but keep it in your house, alas, here we are.

[Elegiac]

with the admittedly small knowledge I have of CRT, I happen to disagree with it

I think I may have identified the problem.

[Grimbold21]

You know we can tell your familiarity with the subject is based on YouTube ragemongers by the fact the only CRT figure you're apparently familiar with is Robin D'Angelo, right? In the same way we can tell people bitching about gender critical theory based on YouTube outrage only ever talk about Anita Sarkeesian.

Lol. Again: you keep complaining about analytical lenses without actually understanding what they are because you've been told they're bad.



"Default condition" Cut it out with the strawman. This was already addressed by Mihalik:

Actually default condition thing might've been Derrick Bell's, one of the founding fathers of CRT, and this one you'll like, cause it essentially describes you, since he fundamentally argued that white people are only interested in civil rights issues when it happens to serve their own interests. If you want a bit of reductio ad absurdum the logical (and absurd) conclusion of that is that anti-racism is itself racist... Skip a few decades and meet a few "I stand with you!!" flag waving wokesters, and you see the irony.

What's also ironic is you describing my how I may or may not obtain my knowledge when you love dropping tidbits of your own when they align with whatever you want to argue. Right, Mr. white fragility. Or should I say Mr. Contrapoints?

Funny that you mention Sarkeesian, since you were arguing people's default position ought to be to look everything to the lens of race. Who else made herself a meme with the whole "everything's sexist"? Oh yea...

But you know what's sad? That I have to resort to race (let's be honest here, I did not say racism) in order to fundament the point that discontent with what I think are the consequences of taking the theory too far. How you ask? Well here https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-co...th-College.pdf
I suppose their opinions don't count because as black individuals in a privileged position their black identity is negated since they can't speak to the true black lived experience??