98 replies to this topic

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

It's a task force, so probably very little.  My guess it will be to make recommendations.

 

I agree this is worth looking into, but a guy who runs a borderline fake university shouldn't be doing it.  How are we supposed to cut university regulation, when this guy head's a university that polices students' sex lives (as in, NO SEX LIVES, unless you're married).  That is just nuts, if you ask me. 

 

I've heard a few different explanation of expanding costs.  One is construction, but I find that to be a mostly necessary thing, especially to house higher student populations (as population grows, we either need more colleges or higher capacities at current institutions).  I find the more compelling explanation the explosion in administration.  If you have more than one of these words in your title, we need to see how important you are: Associate, Vice, Assistant, Director, Chancellor, interim, senior, under.

 

I get emails from the "Interim Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs", which of course means there are similar people with the same title for other areas of responsibility.  Now, academic affairs is a worthy area and I can't say what all of these folks do, but it's crazy the levels of administration.  I get that this is a big school in an even larger university system, but it gets nuts.  I mean, this one woman emailed us all to tell us of the new signature requirements for our email sigs.  For fucks sake.  How about I put my name at the end and we fire you and save forty grand?

 

I went to a small, private liberal arts college, and I can't begin to tell you how different it was.  There was no pissing match between different schools within the larger college, no fight between departments for credit hours...altogether different.

[Mr. Roboto]

 

 

 "Interim Senior Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs"....

 

I ask the Missus to call me this to no avail...

[freedom78]

Did you ask in a sexy voice?

[freedom78]

Our petty tyrant is threatening universities' funding:

******************************************************************************

Can Trump Block Money as Punishment for UC Berkeley Protests?

by Jon Schuppe

 

President Donald Trump's reaction to violent protests against a right-wing speaker at the University of California's Berkeley campus was to suggest he'd pull federal funds for blocking free speech.

The president's threat appears unprecedented, and raises questions about how — or if — he could follow through with it.

 

The speaker, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, took credit for Trump's response, which followed the school's decision to cancel his Wednesday night appearance after some protesters set fires, wrecked property and assaulted people. The university blamed outside agitators and estimated around $100,000 in damage to property on campus.

 

Yiannopoulos wrote on Facebook Thursday: "The days you could silence conservative and libertarian voices on campus and still expect to collect their tax money are coming to an end. I am the catalyst for this change."

 

Yiannopolous has in the past called himself a "chronicler of, and occasional fellow traveler with the alt-right," an offshoot of conservatism that includes some vocal white nationalist supporters. He has denied being a member or a leader of the alt-right or having any links to white nationalism.

 

His appearance in Berkeley, sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans, was the last stop in a tour of American campuses in which he has criticized feminists, Black Lives Matter and Muslims. Some critics have branded his comments as hate speech.

 

His events — including others that were canceled — have attracted protests that fuel his argument that universities have become resistant to the First Amendment.

But can the president use that same argument to cut funding to those schools? Trump did not elaborate on how he would justify such a move.

 

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat and Trump critic who represents Berkeley, called the president's tweet an "empty threat" and "an abuse of power." A congressional aide followed up later by saying Trump did not have the power to withdraw funding from a university on his own.

 

The stakes are huge. The University of California receives billions of dollars in federal funds, including 2.9 billion for research, the category that is most vulnerable to Trump's threat. Berkeley, the system's flagship campus, receives about $370 million of that. In addition, the nearby Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is entirely supported by federal funds — $827 million.

 

The university's other sources of federal support — financial aid for students, Pell Grants, work-study programs, fellowships with government agencies and campus healthcare programs — are more difficult to tinker with.

 

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he knew of no prior instance of a president linking free speech and federal funding of American universities, which are built on a commitment to fostering civic discourse.

 

But, Hess said, after President Barack Obama administration warned schools that violations of transgender students' rights could put them at risk of losing federal Title IX funds, some on the right began questioning funding research on campuses "which are not serious about their commitment to make sure of unfettered intellectual debate."

 

If Trump is serious about withdrawing funding from the UC Berkeley his administration would first have to determine whether federal law allowed it, Hess said. If so, then he could ask Congress to insert language in the Higher Education Act, which is up for reauthorization.

 

Gary Orfield, the libertarian co-director of The Civil Rights Project at UCLA, said that while the executive branch has the power to try to pull federal funds from public institutions for civil rights violations, it cannot do so on free-speech grounds.

 

UC Berkeley did everything right, he said, and Trump is wrong.

 

"This is an effort to intimidate, and the University of California is not going to be intimidated by this kind of nonsense," Orfield said. "This is one of the world's great universities. But a lot of other universities may just give in."

 

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a member of the University of California's Board of Regents, said on Twitter that he was "appalled" at Trump's "willingness to deprive over 38,000 students access to an education because of the actions of a few."

 

While Trump in his Twitter threat referred to "free speech" at UC Berkeley, university officials specifically cited the right to free speech and the First Amendment in refusing calls to ban Yiannopoulos or cancel the event.

 

The university also blamed a group of around 150 outside agitators for the violence, and said that while many students took part in anti-Yiannopolous protests, they did not participate in the destruction.

 

MORE: http://www.nbcnews.c...rotests-n715901

[PERM BANNED]

y

[Mr. Roboto]

Berkeley college Republicans? What's that, like two guys? 

[freedom78]

Actually put police out to stop entitled little shits from destroying property and setting fires?  Universities that foster this type of environment, that it's ok to shout down your opponent and stop dissenting opinions through force, probably don't need federal money to stay in operation.

 

I'm enjoying watching you get more authoritarian every day. 

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[AxlsMainMan]

I'm not condoning violence to silence different opinions from being heard. I don't believe in hate speech. I didn't advocate a military coup to prevent the elected President from assuming office.

No, but you are condoning and parroting the supreme idiocy and bigotry of this presidency which arguably just as bad as condoning violence.

PS, you continuing to whine about liberal arts degrees when you're likely the only one on here who didn't actually 'brick and mortar' work for their education or isn't buried under student loans brings me much laughter and enjoyment.

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

I'm not condoning violence to silence different opinions from being heard. I don't believe in hate speech. I didn't advocate a military coup to prevent the elected President from assuming office.

The only fascists are the ones who don't respect our electoral system and thinks it's ok to commit property damage, arson and block others from traveling.

Reagan had the right idea :

https://youtu.be/Bpg0UfpuUAs

 

I would hope that no one is condoning violence,  I'm certainly not.  What I'm troubled by is the lumping together of peaceful protesters and the university itself with violent protesters.  I suppose Reagan would have gone in guns a blazin' again.  Nothing like assuming a group to be in violation of the law, en masse.  Trump is doing the same, threatening the funds of the university because it acted in the name of public safety.  Can you imagine if they let the event continue and someone had managed to physically harm the speaker?  Alex Jones would tell us how that was the plan the whole time and Trump would be retweeting the same within hours. 

 

I have also heard the word fascism thrown around more than I care to in the last year, and no one seems to know what it actually means.  Your comment would seem to suggest that the Nazis weren't fascist because they embodied the will of the German electorate.  No, you can elect fascists, too.  While I'd hesitate to go so far as to apply that label to Trump, he does have the hallmarks of many fascist traits.  He's a nationalist, and I would argue that nationalism is at the very core of fascism.  He's an elitist, both in that he's a born-on-third-base billionaire and is enacting policies that will prevent the further racial mixing on the the United States.  Those are both very fascist ideals.  I"m not equating him with Hitler...nothing has gone anywhere near that level, but Mussolini was a fascist without having a Holocaust of his own.  So was Franco. 

 

Lastly, I find it ironic that you note a fascist blocks others from traveling, since this is exactly what the admin is trying to do.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

First, I would support nothing more than Ted Cruz moving to Canada, except perhaps Donald Trump moving to Alpha Centauri.  Beyond that, green card holders have already been affected, even if that wasn't the intent.  Of course, we don't really know the intent, since the admin has given conflicting messages and is mostly incompetent.  Assuming we do what's right and neither expel them nor prevent them from returning if abroad, my second concern would be others who have done nothing wrong and were previously allowed to be here, such as those on student visas.  It is perfectly normal for an international student to return home between years of schooling.  They've potentially spent tens of thousands of dollars in our education system, and now we won't readmit them because of country of origin.  Again, dumbest fucking policy ever.  These are supposed to be the sorts of immigrants we want to KEEP --- as future citizens, no less -- because they speak English and have an education...but this blunt instrument of a policy can't help bopping thousands of legal visitors in its search for the mythical terrorist.  None of this is about enforcing existing law.

 

Why should Berkeley police end a protest?  We have a right to peaceably assemble.  I can't think of much good reason to break up a peaceful protest.  When it became violent, the police acted in the interest of public safety.  Just because you can imagine that they wanted it to be otherwise, doesn't make it true.  Haven't you spent much of the last few years being all-supportive of police motives?  Why now is it suddenly different? 

[PERM BANNED]

y