redfox

Just when I thought a piece of legislation was going to just be clean and good, instead I read there's opponents, and it's because it holds back African and Latin kids...

Dammit, I just want kids to be able to read!

Indiana's legislature is getting involved in higher education. Your world view will likely inform whether you think that's good or bad. I can't think of many instances where it's good.

Edit: This post isn't an endorsement of the measure, there are more opposition articles below.

I'll include quotes from the posted article, and include a couple of other related opposition articles.

Indeed, from what I’ve seen, not a single professor or administrator who testified on this bill admitted a lack of ideological diversity in higher education. That is troubling and, at best, reveals an unhealthy institutional blind spot. There are other perspectives.

Today, American public universities are among the least ideologically diverse institutions in the world. Indiana is no exception. I am certain there is more ideological diversity in a typical infantry platoon than would be found at any public university.

Let me be clear by what I mean about ideology. I teach Karl Marx to first year students. That isn’t indoctrination. Likewise, a biology professor should ignore public opinion on evolution or photosynthesis. Our research and teaching should pursue and reflect truth, no matter the distress it causes. I am not referring to party affiliation or support for a particular candidate. By ideological imbalance, I mean there is an artificial closed-mindedness that stifles debate, isolates important perspectives and diminishes the richness of a college education.

One clear example comes from a Ball State University colleague who attended a brainstorming session on how to convince more faculty to live near the university. He suggested that highlighting the many high quality local schools would help attract new faculty. Most normal folks view this as self-evident. Yet, this professor was scolded by a senior university administrator, who said the university would not discuss that because “concern about school quality is white privilege.”

Opposition articles:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2024/02/26/senate-bill-202-receives-pushback-public-universities-indiana-purdue-ball-state-general-assembly/72743950007/

“If you’re saying that you want to be able to fire faculty for not promoting intellectual diversity, it’s basically giving a gag order to them to say: ‘Don’t upset students. Don't challenge them, or we might have to fire you,'” Erickson said.

While Purdue has not yet made a formal statement, their faculty-led Senate released a statement claiming the bill poses a near-existential threat to faculty tenure, making retaining and recruiting faculty harder and potentially eroding academic freedom.

Ball State's University Faculty Council chimed in as well in a statement condemning the bill and rejecting "the provisions in SB 202 which grant the Board of Trustees oversight of intellectual diversity on campus."

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/29/indiana-senate-bill-202-universities-purdue-deery-tenure-expression-holcomb/72780178007/

House Democrats for the last several weeks have railed on the bill in the chamber's education committee and on the House floor arguing against the premise that Indiana universities need the free expression requirements.

Historical and contemporary examples of such purposefully diminished intellectual spaces abound: from Communist Party-controlled university curriculum in China, to routine dismissals of free-thinking faculty in Islamist-controlled universities in Iran, to countless suspensions, intimidations, and even forced migrations of academics at the behest of political strongmen in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, to countless other similar or worse cases across the globe.

Discussion comments:

First, it's very well known that no one likes American republicans, there's likely no need for party bashing/name calling since there's already tons of posts for that. Please keep party related comments in context on specific educational legislation trends if possible. One of the articles mentions US conservative students though, so it's still relevant.

• Have you ever attended an educational institution that you felt scolded for expressing an ideological view? Examples: Political, economic, religious, etc? What were those views and how were they received?

• Have you attended an educational institution where the course curriculum was heavily influenced by political ideology? What was it? What is the context of your region/locality's views and how did it align or differ from what you were being taught?

• "Our research and teaching should pursue and reflect truth, no matter the distress it causes." Do you have any examples of teachings like this you received? Was it to your benefit or not?

• Did you ever experience a professor in your higher education track teach heavily political view points, even in a class that was not related to politics (like Biology)? What about one's you identify with? Progressive, Liberal, Conservative?

“concern about school quality is white privilege.”

• Do you believe that mentioning good schools in a community to attract talent is 'white privilege'?

• Does that mean areas with good schools are for whites, and areas with bad schools are for underprivileged? Is this racial, or socioeconomic?

• From your higher education experience, what institutional issues did you experience related to this article? Did you experience legislature interference? Did you experience faculty's personal views being reflected in your teaching? Did you get affirmation or rebuking of your original world view before education. Did you feel enlightened or have your original views changed after being exposed to broader viewpoints?

Edit:

• Would good educators in your area be fired for expressing dissenting view points based on the composition of your legislative bodies?

• Do you believe there are more progressive, liberal, or conservative educators?

• Do you believe there should be a mix of all viewpoints?

• Do you believe research topics should be a mix of views, if the research crosses from scientific into political/ideology realms?

The content creator for RealLifeLore explains how the USSR transformed the Asia for agriculture, and destroying the world's 4th largest lake in the process.

Edit to add further description:

Author outlines water diversion for crops, effects on ecosystem, resulting complications from further chemical and pesticide use, predicts future potential conflict due to lack of water resources.

This article outlines an opinion that organizations either tried skills based hiring and reverted to degree required hiring because it was warranted, or they didn't adapt their process in spite of executive vision.

Since this article is non industry specific, what are your observations or opinions of the technology sector? What about the general business sector?

Should first world employees of businesses be required to obtain degrees if they reasonably expect a business related job?

Do college experiences and academic rigor reveal higher achieving employees?

Is undergraduate education a minimum standard for a more enlightened society? Or a way to hold separation between classes of people and status?

Is a masters degree the new way to differentiate yourself where the undergrad degree was before?

Edit: multiple typos, I guess that's proof that I should have done more college 😄

ALL,

I have noticed a bunch of slightly overlapping communities, or some that just don't seem super active.

There are a couple of security related news communities already.

Is there actually interest in INFOSEC projects, blogs, frameworks, TTPs, etc?

Perhaps people who are interested would weigh in, and we could pick a community to work in? I know people don't always like the idea of consolidation, but I'm more interested in gauging people's continued interest.

• Do people here actively work on info sec projects that would post walk throughs, configs?
• Do people work within security frameworks and have sharable configurations?

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

I don't have a problem blocking it, just seems like a pro Russian influence operation to me, since I don't know anything about this group or the culture.

I'm curious if anyone feels they get the same degree of workplace protection the concept of tenure for professors?

• Some contractors get protection if it's built into their contracts
• Unions create termination restrictions
• Military gets sanctuary for their last two years before twenty years service, then usually kicked out, unless they're generals
• you can't legally fire someone because color, religion, orientation, etc

What makes professors different or not different?

You can fire retail workers for anything not illegal

Based on your stance, if professors should be special, why?

If not, do you believe we won't get good ones all the sudden if they can't have tenure?

I'll try to find specific arguments made by opposing legislation, but but not necessarily asking for people just to verbally slay conservative/liberals. There's already a million posts for that.

Ah yeeeah!

If there was ever a time to email your reps...

This is interesting.

Firstly, I love that states inherently have the power to set their own laws. This allowed Oregon to be a great large scale experiment for drug policy.

I saw some interesting quotes:

But estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show, among the states reporting data, Oregon had the highest increase in synthetic opioid overdose fatalities when comparing 2019 and the 12-month period ending June 30, a 13-fold surge from 84 deaths to more than 1,100.

Despite public perception, the law has made some progress by directing $265 million dollars of cannabis tax revenue toward standing up the state's new addiction treatment infrastructure.

I guess since only cannabis is sold, it's the only taxable substance in the mix.

Some lawmakers have suggested focusing on criminalizing public drug use rather than possession. Alex Kreit, assistant professor of law at Northern Kentucky University and director of its Center on Addiction Law and Policy, said such an approach could help curb visible drug use on city streets but wouldn't address what's largely seen as the root cause: homelessness.

Homelessness leads to drug use? Or drug use leads to homelessness? Couldn't it be either?

In the first year after the law took effect in February 2021, only 1% of people who received citations for possession sought help via the hotline, state auditors found.

Critics of the law say this doesn't create an incentive to seek treatment.

Thoughts:

• Maybe just start with cannabis and see how that goes? Or do we really need to progress collectively to heroine, meth, cocaine, MDMA?

• Is the major public health crisis the use of more illicit drugs, or overdoses? Is possible that recreational use of cocaine/MDMA/others wouldn't be as big of a crisis as meth and fentanyl?

• Should heroine be legal for use?

• Should MDMA be legal for use?

• Should cocaine be legal for use?

( I am not advocating for or against use of these substances with this post. Posted for discussion/interest. Questions are posed for discussion. )

Now, before you go ape shit on Republicans are all....

Instead, I'm curious about the matter of running vs voting.

Do you believe you should only be able to run for a party you voted for?

Does this protect the party? Or limit candidates (assuming it's a candidate you don't disagree with)?

Are there down sides to this?

What is if a moderate ran for Republican, but he voted Democrat a few times, or vise versa?

Would it be good if a middle of the road person ran instead of a more partisan candidate?

Lastly, I'm not advocating for this guy. Only discussion about the situation.

Far out dude...

I am super interested to see how this goes. I've heard studies from western states have shown encouraging results in some people.

It only took 50 years to circle back to considering these things might have benefits beyond getting high or hearing colors.

On July 25, 2023, the states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa, along with intervenors American Water Works Association and National Rural Water Association, petitioned the Eighth Circuit to review the EPA’s new rule. This rule requires states to review and report cybersecurity threats to their public water systems (PWS).

The states’ brief argues that the EPA’s Cybersecurity Rule unlawfully imposes new legal requirements on states and PWSs. It also contends that the rule exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority by ignoring congressional actions that limit cybersecurity requirements to large PWSs and by changing the criteria for sanitary surveys through a memorandum

And then there a bunch of PLCs at water utilities compromised:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/28/federal-government-investigating-multiple-hacks-of-us-water-utilities-00128977

https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/11/28/exploitation-unitronics-plcs-used-water-and-wastewater-systems

https://apnews.com/article/water-utilities-hackers-cybersecurity-1c475f5d2ef3b5d52410c93bdeab3aad

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-breach-us-water-facility-via-exposed-unitronics-plcs/

So many more...

Now, I can understand arguments about jurisdictions, but would the exact same requirements coming from CISA instead of the EMP have been OK, or where these places just whining about any kind of oversight? At the end of the day, they look a little foolish.