The French/Kmele argument was that parents should file lawsuits using the Civil Rights Act and First Amendment provisions (existing law). My argument was that these laws were insufficient and not specific to the problem, which has been confirmed by the first round of lawsuits. This is why I've encouraged red states to pass specific anti-CRT laws.
The French/Kmele argument was that parents should file lawsuits using the Civil Rights Act and First Amendment provisions (existing law). My argument was that these laws were insufficient and not specific to the problem, which has been confirmed by the first round of lawsuits. This is why I've encouraged red states to pass specific anti-CRT laws.
Academics I know at colleges in Florida/Texas are upset by the new anti-DIE laws. On one hand, some are worried they'll be less competitive for federal grants since DIE is required for those grants (woke takeover of NIH is nearing completion, NSF was lost a decade plus ago, but has less money).
Hopefully if these laws pass, the state AGs will prep to sue the Feds (NIH/NSF/USDA/etc) if federal funding drops over the laws-- ideally they find a black female scientist with a compelling project who fails to get funding due to any prospective pushback, and use her case for this. The optics would be fantastic.
On the other hand, one key strength of these pending laws not present in prior ones is that they incentivize the rabid bureaucrats to flip anti-DIE. This will kill it institutionally. Administrators want that sweet, sweet state $$, so they'll appear to comply with any law if it gets them the $$. As long as the wokies are quiet with their proselytizing, the admin will leave them in peace. But the rabid bureaucrats who believe their noble gatekeeping/risk-aversion is all that keeps the university from being defunded will flip out over DIE activity. Then all it takes is anti-DIE people in the departments ratting out the DIE activities to the rabid bureaucrats.
Ok. Thanks. I'm still confused about what you were conceding in the argument with Lindsay. Regardless of the French/Foster position, I think what you were saying about the expensive and ineffective lawsuits was confusing. Also in the OP you seemed to indicate the DeAngelis model works most effectively creating parallel institutions, as opposed to moderating the existing ones. I can't be the only one confused about the dichotomy. At any rate thank you for clarifying
The French/Kmele argument was that parents should file lawsuits using the Civil Rights Act and First Amendment provisions (existing law). My argument was that these laws were insufficient and not specific to the problem, which has been confirmed by the first round of lawsuits. This is why I've encouraged red states to pass specific anti-CRT laws.
Academics I know at colleges in Florida/Texas are upset by the new anti-DIE laws. On one hand, some are worried they'll be less competitive for federal grants since DIE is required for those grants (woke takeover of NIH is nearing completion, NSF was lost a decade plus ago, but has less money).
Hopefully if these laws pass, the state AGs will prep to sue the Feds (NIH/NSF/USDA/etc) if federal funding drops over the laws-- ideally they find a black female scientist with a compelling project who fails to get funding due to any prospective pushback, and use her case for this. The optics would be fantastic.
On the other hand, one key strength of these pending laws not present in prior ones is that they incentivize the rabid bureaucrats to flip anti-DIE. This will kill it institutionally. Administrators want that sweet, sweet state $$, so they'll appear to comply with any law if it gets them the $$. As long as the wokies are quiet with their proselytizing, the admin will leave them in peace. But the rabid bureaucrats who believe their noble gatekeeping/risk-aversion is all that keeps the university from being defunded will flip out over DIE activity. Then all it takes is anti-DIE people in the departments ratting out the DIE activities to the rabid bureaucrats.
Ok. Thanks. I'm still confused about what you were conceding in the argument with Lindsay. Regardless of the French/Foster position, I think what you were saying about the expensive and ineffective lawsuits was confusing. Also in the OP you seemed to indicate the DeAngelis model works most effectively creating parallel institutions, as opposed to moderating the existing ones. I can't be the only one confused about the dichotomy. At any rate thank you for clarifying