(05-04-2023 07:43 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 02:37 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 01:25 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 11:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:37 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  I guess I'll say it again, since you didn't see it in the other posts.

On top of that, read the bill.

One last time to make sure it gets across.

In case anyone wanted more evidence why the elected leadership and direction in Virginia (and North Carolina) have shifted.

So we're in agreement, everyone thinks it's a good idea to have a course teaching founding documents. It's a bad idea to pass laws that tell universities what to teach.

Yes! Agree on the first. On the other, I think it’s a good idea that citizens get a voice on how their tax supported/state agencies and Universities operate even if that means by legal means through their elected reps. I don’t think professors or academic administrators hold some higher authority than the public that supports them.

Sure, but this is the opposite. Politicians decided university policy while rejecting university input. I don't think it's controversial to have professional educators deciding education policy at the institutions the professional educators are responsible for running.

That’s the States prerogative. I get you don’t like it but state legislatures creating new policies, curriculum etc for state supported universities is within their responsibility. You refer to them as politicians - they are elected state officials, representatives of the taxpaying public. It’s their wishes which rule (as they should) and nothing requires they compromise with any group of professors, who are employees of the State.



State Authority

The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. Consequently, each state has different standards and policies which may impact the quality of education offered.

Each state's constitution requires it to provide a school system where children may receive an education. Many state constitutions also contain express provisions for creating educational curricula. Some state constitutions even empower state authorities to select textbooks and educational materials. Besides constitutional authority, state governments also have authority to legislate in this area, or they can authorize officials to establish, select, and regulate curriculum.

State legislatures have also set mandatory requirements for students to graduate. In cases where state rules and regulations for courses do exist, they must be followed. Local school districts may, however, offer courses and activities in the instructional program beyond those required by state statute. Other states delegate more of their authority.

(05-04-2023 09:05 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  State Authority

The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. Consequently, each state has different standards and policies which may impact the quality of education offered.

Each state's constitution requires it to provide a school system where children may receive an education. Many state constitutions also contain express provisions for creating educational curricula. Some state constitutions even empower state authorities to select textbooks and educational materials. Besides constitutional authority, state governments also have authority to legislate in this area, or they can authorize officials to establish, select, and regulate curriculum.

State legislatures have also set mandatory requirements for students to graduate. In cases where state rules and regulations for courses do exist, they must be followed. Local school districts may, however, offer courses and activities in the instructional program beyond those required by state statute. Other states delegate more of their authority.

The page you copied and pasted this from is talking about elementary through high school. I'm expecting better than this.

https://www.findlaw.com/education/curric...ation.html

On the page you pasted this from the words bolded above have a link to high school graduation requirements. https://www.findlaw.com/education/curric...ation.html

Setting all that aside, let's get to the meat of your last post:

(05-04-2023 09:05 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  That’s the States prerogative. I get you don’t like it but state legislatures creating new policies, curriculum etc for state supported universities is within their responsibility. You refer to them as politicians - they are elected state officials, representatives of the taxpaying public. It’s their wishes which rule (as they should) and nothing requires they compromise with any group of professors, who are employees of the State.

How is creating curriculum for state universities within the responsibility of state legislatures? I'm not aware of any other laws that specify curriculum of state universities. (this is wrong, see edit)

Edit: I spent a couple minutes on google and came up with two examples.

https://edsource.org/2020/gov-newsom-sig...csu/638506
California passed a law mandating an ethnic studies course in 2020. Many CSU faculty and university officials opposed the law on the grounds that the state was dictating curriculum, however the ethnic studies faculty supported the bill. In this case legislation was passed even with opposition, but faculty concerns were heavily considered when drafting the lawa and when deciding whether to pass the law.

https://www.usg.edu/curriculum/georgia_l...quirements
In Georgia, the state legislature passed a law that established essentially four things: (from the link)
1. Instruction or successful completion of an examination in United States history.
2. Instruction or successful completion of an examination in Georgia history.
3. Instruction or successful completion of an examination in the United States Constitution.
4. Instruction or successful completion of an examination in the Georgia Constitution.

To meet those requirements, the University System of Georgia developed courses that are offered at most institutions. This is what should have happened in NC, if the NC House cared about students actually learning about American history. It was passed in Georgia in 1975.

I can’t help you with your misunderstanding of governmental jurisdiction.

Again, it’s the States/peoples prerogative. I get you don’t like it but state legislatures creating new policies, curriculum etc for state supported universities is within their responsibility. You refer to them as politicians - they are elected state officials, representatives of the taxpaying public. It’s their wishes which rule (as they should) and nothing requires they compromise or negotiate with any group of professors, who are employees of the State.

Love the fact you're discussing this. I was in a position at UNCW to engage in this exact debate so here are the thoughts I expressed.

1. If the goal is to have "diversity" of skin color at a university, you have to damage the entire system to make it happen. Universities are at the end of the funnel. If you want skin color diversity you have to solve the problem starting first with families and then elementary and middle schools. It has to start with a comfortability and desire of parents for kids to attend college. The recommendation I had for UNCW was to have surrounding elementary schools bring kids and parents on campus on a regular basis, so the idea of a university wasn't foreign and all kids understood they "belonged" there.

The overarching concept is we need to expand the pool of skin color diverse candidates for college to achieve what should be the real goal of diversity, not just diversity for the sake of diversity.

2. There is as great a problem with men choosing not to attend college as there is a problem with skin diversity. I was constantly bombarded with statistics related to the percent of women who were attending UNCW and accepted to attend the school, along with the percentage of women who were teaching and in the administration of the university. But why? The numbers consistently showed we had "solved" the problem of women attending college while the numbers reflecting that men were becoming a much smaller percentage were ignored and never discussed.

3. A lack of skin color diversity doesn't mean anything when you look at a university. It reflects the reality of the desire for EVERY university to be "diverse". The end result is that it's a recruiting war where there aren't enough viable candidates to fulfill the desires of all the universities to be diverse(see bullet #1). An unintnded consequence is that HBCU's are being destroyed.

So, let's get to reality. And here's a real life example. UNCW has always been called UNCWhite and there has been a sustained effort to "fix this problem". So I took the time to analyze the "problem" logically, and here was my conclusion(which may be the same for many universities) that I presented to the university.

Attending college requires three things. Desire, qualification and money.

1. Desire -See #1 from above.
2. Qualification - I examined the average GPA, SAT, ACT etc. of incoming freshman at UNCW and compared that to stats of minority high school students in the surrounding counties. What I found is that very few minority high school students from the surrounding areas would qualify to attend UNCW.
3. Money - The most expensive part of attending college is room and board. To keep costs down, many college students will live at home while they attend a university in the area they live. My niece is a perfect example. Since one of the biggest barriers for minorities attending college is money, a large and diverse city surrounindg a university makes it far more possible for a student population to be "diverse".

So, UNCW faces several huge hurdles if it wants a skin color diverse student population.

1. The surrounding city isn't large or diverse. It isn't coincidence that the schools with the most diversity are usually located in large cities which are very diverse.
2. Most minority students who can gain admission to UNCW can also gain admission to NC State, UNC Chapel Hill, UNC Charlotte. And those schools, in their desire to have "diversity", offer scholarships UNCW can't compete with. Those schools also offer a wider array of desirable fields of study.
3. Even if every local minority student who could gain admission to UNCW and then chose to attend UNCW, it would only have a minor impact on "diversity".

These challenges to "diversity" are the same across the country. But it all starts in the same place. If we want diversity at colleges it starts with minority families raising children who desire to go to college. And it starts in elementary school where kids begin school with the understanding they CAN go to college.

As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

(05-05-2023 06:10 AM)82hawk Wrote:  As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

The diversity stuff was really interesting, thanks for posting it.

W/r/t the state legislature, it's not a matter of are they within their rights to do so. There's no lawsuit being brought to stop it because there isn't a legal basis to do so. However, read the bill. They created a meaningless course that only served to antagonize university faculty. If the purpose was to ensure that college students were being educated about the founding documents, the right way to do so would have been to engage the NC university faculty to develop a curriculum to do so. In California, some faculty were opposed to the mandate, but by ensuring buy-in from the faculty that will be responsible for teaching the newly mandated course, there's a good chance of getting the desired outcome. This is a good example of a state legislature disagreeing with faculty but working with them instead of antagonizing them.

(05-05-2023 02:00 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 06:10 AM)82hawk Wrote:  As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

The diversity stuff was really interesting, thanks for posting it.

W/r/t the state legislature, it's not a matter of are they within their rights to do so. There's no lawsuit being brought to stop it because there isn't a legal basis to do so. However, read the bill. They created a meaningless course that only served to antagonize university faculty. If the purpose was to ensure that college students were being educated about the founding documents, the right way to do so would have been to engage the NC university faculty to develop a curriculum to do so. In California, some faculty were opposed to the mandate, but by ensuring buy-in from the faculty that will be responsible for teaching the newly mandated course, there's a good chance of getting the desired outcome. This is a good example of a state legislature disagreeing with faculty but working with them instead of antagonizing them.

I've read the bill and see nothing that leads me to believe it is meaningless. And it does appear the title of the bill is meant to antagonize the faulty, but so what? I hate to say it, but i've spent far too much time with faculty who have no problem antagonizing others. They've placed themselves on a self made pedestal which leads them to believe they are far superior to pretty much anyone except those in the "academy". This has resulted in a closed feedback loop that is easily pierced when they are confronted with those who operate outside a college campus where theory meets reality. I've honestly heard some of the most ignorant statements and declarations in my life uttered by faculty senate "leaders" due to their lack of real world experience. So, on the whole, this group of people needs to be atangonized and I engaged in some antagonization myself.

A great example was my research on "diversity" at UNCW. The faculty had ZERO interest in any information or research I provided since it didn't allow for the concept of "white supremacy" or "institutional racism" that governs their entire thought process. And they really had no interest in listening to someone who didn't have a masters degree or wasn't a faculty member.

(05-06-2023 07:19 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 02:00 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 06:10 AM)82hawk Wrote:  As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

The diversity stuff was really interesting, thanks for posting it.

W/r/t the state legislature, it's not a matter of are they within their rights to do so. There's no lawsuit being brought to stop it because there isn't a legal basis to do so. However, read the bill. They created a meaningless course that only served to antagonize university faculty. If the purpose was to ensure that college students were being educated about the founding documents, the right way to do so would have been to engage the NC university faculty to develop a curriculum to do so. In California, some faculty were opposed to the mandate, but by ensuring buy-in from the faculty that will be responsible for teaching the newly mandated course, there's a good chance of getting the desired outcome. This is a good example of a state legislature disagreeing with faculty but working with them instead of antagonizing them.

I've read the bill and see nothing that leads me to believe it is meaningless. And it does appear the title of the bill is meant to antagonize the faulty, but so what? I hate to say it, but i've spent far too much time with faculty who have no problem antagonizing others. They've placed themselves on a self made pedestal which leads them to believe they are far superior to pretty much anyone except those in the "academy". This has resulted in a closed feedback loop that is easily pierced when they are confronted with those who operate outside a college campus where theory meets reality. I've honestly heard some of the most ignorant statements and declarations in my life uttered by faculty senate "leaders" due to their lack of real world experience. So, on the whole, this group of people needs to be atangonized and I engaged in some antagonization myself.

A great example was my research on "diversity" at UNCW. The faculty had ZERO interest in any information or research I provided since it didn't allow for the concept of "white supremacy" or "institutional racism" that governs their entire thought process. And they really had no interest in listening to someone who didn't have a masters degree or wasn't a faculty member.

I agree with you about faculty, but not about the bill. As written, the bill requires students to read the specified documents and take an exam.

"Each community college shall require ... that all students complete at least three credit hours of instruction in American government. A course required pursuant to this section shall include a cumulative final exam on the principles in the documents listed in this subsection that comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of a student's total grade and shall involve reading at least the following in their entirety:
(1) Require each student to read at least the following documents in their entirety:
a. The Constitution of the United States of America.
b. The Declaration of Independence.
c. The Emancipation Proclamation.
d. At least five essays from the Federalist Papers, as determined by the instructor.
e. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail.
f. The Gettysburg Address.
g. The North Carolina State Constitution.
(2) Include a cumulative final exam on the principles in the documents listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection. The final exam shall meet the following criteria:
a. Comprise at least twenty percent (20%) of the student's total course grade.
b. Focus substantially on the provisions and principles of the documents listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection, the perspectives of the authors of the documents, and the relevant historic contexts at the time the documents were written."

In their attempt to write the course into the bill, they created a course that is potentially meaningless while antagonizing the people they want to teach it. Maybe the faculty will take the high road and make the class meaningful, but they're not required to by the law. Part of the letter from the faculty anticipates that HB 96 "will likely bring critical scrutiny from accrediting agencies that know undue interference in university affairs when they see it." In response, the NC House added section 116-11.5.c.2, "The Board of Governors shall ensure that the requirements of this section are incorporated into the degree requirements of all baccalaureate programs and do not do any of the following: ... (2) Conflict with the accreditation process for any constituent institution." Essentially putting in the bill "no it won't", introducing the possibility that the BoG is asked to do something that is impossible if the faculty are right and the existence of the bill itself conflicts with the accreditation process. That's why I say it's meaningless. The bill is rife with ad hoc language that's clearly not been thought through, even having iterated through 3 versions that corrected some of the initial gaping holes.

My argument is that if the NC House cared about improving students' knowledge of founding documents as they claim, they would/should have made efforts to maximize the chance that that result is accomplished. Instead, they rushed a bill through so that they could campaign on platitudes and outrage. There is at least one other state that has had a law in place for almost 40 years that addresses the exact concern the NC House politicians claim to have. In my opinion, instead of modeling on that law, they actively antagonized university faculty in the name of politics. They took an idea for a course that is not at all controversial and did their best to manufacture controversy.

I hope that the faculty take the high road. Everyone agrees that the concept of the course is worthwhile. Georgia state universities already have many courses that would likely comply and the NC faculty might be able to reach out to ask for a framework. But in an age where everyone complains about hyperpartisanship, the NC House chose to start a fight instead of even attempting not to.

The faculty aren't blameless either. The letter they submitted sounds like every bad stereotype of college faculty you've ever heard. If they made an attempt to avoid a fight it hasn't been reported any more than any attempt from the NC House. Given recent interactions between the legislature and the faculty though, it's hard to fault the faculty for assuming the worst especially when the legislature started by antagonizing rather than seeking common ground.

(05-06-2023 07:19 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 02:00 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 06:10 AM)82hawk Wrote:  As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

The diversity stuff was really interesting, thanks for posting it.

W/r/t the state legislature, it's not a matter of are they within their rights to do so. There's no lawsuit being brought to stop it because there isn't a legal basis to do so. However, read the bill. They created a meaningless course that only served to antagonize university faculty. If the purpose was to ensure that college students were being educated about the founding documents, the right way to do so would have been to engage the NC university faculty to develop a curriculum to do so. In California, some faculty were opposed to the mandate, but by ensuring buy-in from the faculty that will be responsible for teaching the newly mandated course, there's a good chance of getting the desired outcome. This is a good example of a state legislature disagreeing with faculty but working with them instead of antagonizing them.

I've read the bill and see nothing that leads me to believe it is meaningless. And it does appear the title of the bill is meant to antagonize the faulty, but so what? I hate to say it, but i've spent far too much time with faculty who have no problem antagonizing others. They've placed themselves on a self made pedestal which leads them to believe they are far superior to pretty much anyone except those in the "academy". This has resulted in a closed feedback loop that is easily pierced when they are confronted with those who operate outside a college campus where theory meets reality. I've honestly heard some of the most ignorant statements and declarations in my life uttered by faculty senate "leaders" due to their lack of real world experience. So, on the whole, this group of people needs to be atangonized and I engaged in some antagonization myself.

A great example was my research on "diversity" at UNCW. The faculty had ZERO interest in any information or research I provided since it didn't allow for the concept of "white supremacy" or "institutional racism" that governs their entire thought process. And they really had no interest in listening to someone who didn't have a masters degree or wasn't a faculty member.

Helpful insight, Hawk, thanks. You’re closer to this though from what I’ve read, the faculty petition against the bill was signed/pushed by less than 25% of the entire faculty? If so, the outrage and foot stomping is by no means a majority of the faculty.

In the end, the people through their elected legislature really don’t need to be negotiating with a radical wing of the faculty anyway. If this fringe can’t accept the peoples wishes going into action, maybe they should be taking the course, not worrying how or if they would instruct it.

(05-07-2023 06:02 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  In the end, the people through their elected legislature really don’t need to be negotiating with a radical wing of the faculty anyway. If this fringe can’t accept the peoples wishes going into action, maybe they should be taking the course, not worrying how or if they would instruct it.

This is how sitting bull concedes. When he's out of arguments, he starts namecalling. That's twice in one thread!

(05-06-2023 07:19 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 02:00 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 06:10 AM)82hawk Wrote:  As far as the original topic of a State legislature mandating what should be taught in government owned and funded colleges, of course they can and they should. Public universities belong to the citizens, not the faculty or administrators. And the entire purpose and reason for public universities is for the overall good of the public. If universities forget these two things and head off in their own direction, to the detriment of the public good, legislatures can and should reign them in. Simple concept. He who writes the checks is the ultimate authority, and State legislatures write the checks.

The diversity stuff was really interesting, thanks for posting it.

W/r/t the state legislature, it's not a matter of are they within their rights to do so. There's no lawsuit being brought to stop it because there isn't a legal basis to do so. However, read the bill. They created a meaningless course that only served to antagonize university faculty. If the purpose was to ensure that college students were being educated about the founding documents, the right way to do so would have been to engage the NC university faculty to develop a curriculum to do so. In California, some faculty were opposed to the mandate, but by ensuring buy-in from the faculty that will be responsible for teaching the newly mandated course, there's a good chance of getting the desired outcome. This is a good example of a state legislature disagreeing with faculty but working with them instead of antagonizing them.

They've placed themselves on a self made pedestal which leads them to believe they are far superior to pretty much anyone except those in the "academy". This has resulted in a closed feedback loop that is easily pierced when they are confronted with those who operate outside a college campus where theory meets reality. I've honestly heard some of the most ignorant statements and declarations in my life uttered by faculty senate "leaders" due to their lack of real world experience.

Nailed it.

Looks like Florida is out

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/15/ron-d...LJAr020Rxg