“…committed to ideological diversity and academic freedom.”
I mean… isn’t that a way to describe the charter of many universities? It’s practically a definition of the tenure model. Perhaps they are arguing that’s been lost in many universities, to which I would question why they believe a new university is a) the answer to the question and b) likely to somehow do any better. Smacks of someone who simply has a different perspective on diversity and freedom rather than a goal of increasing it.
Smacks of someone who simply has a different perspective on diversity and freedom rather than a goal of increasing it.
One only needs to look at the comment sections - if they even still exist - of various websites to notice that by nature of the perspective being different, it usually does inherently increase it.
Say what you want about conservatives, and they may get angry and offended just as anyone else, but they do enjoy engaging in debate. But its an an open “secret” that the opposite end of the spectrum is much more eager to silence and ban opposition, both directly, and indirectly through the invention of new and use of existing words and phrases to character-assassinate even when the shoe doesn’t actually fit. You know, like “domestic terrorist” for parents who dare want to have a say in what the schools they pay taxes for teach their own children.
I regularly post in NYT comment sections, and over half of my comments - which I make sure to keep as civil as is reasonably possible - are not approved, while extremely incendiary comments in line with the NYT’s bias are in full abundance.
They can’t prove you wrong if you don’t let them speak.
Yes, that's the usual ideals of universities. The difference is that usually it comes along with not being allowed to make extremely hateful or racist or sexist comments. There's a certain part of american society that has lost their ability to see this distinction and thinks that they should be able to attack other people, say they are not legitimate humans. They think, wrongly in my view, that they aren't free if they can't attack people in this way.
I find their definition of "trap house" to be entertaining.
Once associated with inner city crack dens, "trap house" has also become generic slang for any place where young people can score beer.
Seems like they pulled that from urban dictionary [1] and changed a few words to make it more "professional".
Originally used to describe a crack house in a shady neighborhood, the word has since been abused by high school students who like to pretend they're cool by drinking their mom's beer together and saying they're part of a "traphouse".
It doesn't just smack of it. It is nakedly obvious. The selling point is that it is a conservative-focused institution. Yes, college professors tend to vote blue. But the traditional university is going to be far more ideologically diverse than this place.
Comments
“…committed to ideological diversity and academic freedom.”
I mean… isn’t that a way to describe the charter of many universities? It’s practically a definition of the tenure model. Perhaps they are arguing that’s been lost in many universities, to which I would question why they believe a new university is a) the answer to the question and b) likely to somehow do any better. Smacks of someone who simply has a different perspective on diversity and freedom rather than a goal of increasing it.
One only needs to look at the comment sections - if they even still exist - of various websites to notice that by nature of the perspective being different, it usually does inherently increase it.
Say what you want about conservatives, and they may get angry and offended just as anyone else, but they do enjoy engaging in debate. But its an an open “secret” that the opposite end of the spectrum is much more eager to silence and ban opposition, both directly, and indirectly through the invention of new and use of existing words and phrases to character-assassinate even when the shoe doesn’t actually fit. You know, like “domestic terrorist” for parents who dare want to have a say in what the schools they pay taxes for teach their own children.
I regularly post in NYT comment sections, and over half of my comments - which I make sure to keep as civil as is reasonably possible - are not approved, while extremely incendiary comments in line with the NYT’s bias are in full abundance.
They can’t prove you wrong if you don’t let them speak.
Yes, that's the usual ideals of universities. The difference is that usually it comes along with not being allowed to make extremely hateful or racist or sexist comments. There's a certain part of american society that has lost their ability to see this distinction and thinks that they should be able to attack other people, say they are not legitimate humans. They think, wrongly in my view, that they aren't free if they can't attack people in this way.
Do you find the Yale Trap House email [1] "extremely hateful or racist"? What about physicist Dorian Abbot's views on Affirmative action?
1. https://freebeacon.com/campus/a-yale-law-student-sent-a-ligh...
I find their definition of "trap house" to be entertaining.
Seems like they pulled that from urban dictionary [1] and changed a few words to make it more "professional".
1. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=traphouse
They cite/hyperlink that urban dictionary entry.
It doesn't just smack of it. It is nakedly obvious. The selling point is that it is a conservative-focused institution. Yes, college professors tend to vote blue. But the traditional university is going to be far more ideologically diverse than this place.
It isn’t conservative at all, it’s a bunch of liberals.
The marketing is "classical liberal." But I'd put money on it having a very specific sort of ideology once it gets started.
Have you been asleep for twenty five years?