Republicans wants Iowa universities to explain ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ and other concepts being taught ‘It's not a witch hunt. It's just simply,
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
If this was handled privately the politicians wouldn't score political points. If the question and answers were handled with a simple phone call, no one would know that they are sufficiently anti-woke. It's like those televised congressional hearings where each side takes turns to grandstand or claim their viral clip.
I would say it's more of a study of the status quo.
If you want to study alternative systems you can do that in history, political science and to some extent philosophy.
I mean Valpo isn't exactly considered a left wing school but we read the Communist Manifesto in a class that was required for every Valpo student. On the other hand economics was only required because of my major.
Maybe these “nazis” you speak of just want real core education topics to be taught (like avoiding straw man arguments for one
) and not subsidize unproven non-sense topics. That would be the simpler explanation.
Does that hold true for other subjects as well? Does the opposite view point always need to be offered if a course is an elective?
If there is an art appreciation class should there be an art depreciation course?
Don't be naive. You know how teachers/professors are treated by cons.
It doesn't. The info is out there already. Here is an idea, maybe one of these repub lawmakers could ask to sit in on a class and see for themselves what is so bad that there needs to be hands on interference by politicians
Then we should close the theology departments and the business schools. And the history departments. STEM only from here on out. It's an elective, you dingbat.Maybe these “nazis” you speak of just want real core education topics to be taught (like avoiding straw man arguments for one
lol it's very amusing that the people defending this are doing so because some of the classes explore topics that upset their religeous/social conservative feelings.
That's the reason that this is an asinine exercise - politicians should not have the power to alter or ban college classes because it might expose students to ideas that they find politically offensive. If you want your kid to only take business classes then do what you can to make that happen, but to prevent others from being exposed to things that they have an interest in is authoritarian nonsense.
That's the reason that this is an asinine exercise - politicians should not have the power to alter or ban college classes because it might expose students to ideas that they find politically offensive. If you want your kid to only take business classes then do what you can to make that happen, but to prevent others from being exposed to things that they have an interest in is authoritarian nonsense.
Completely agree. And we the electorate on both sides eat it up every time. My point is we should expect our leaders to solve these problems more effectively then. Instead, our tribalism looks to the leaders who put up more political points on the scoreboard.
We get the government we deserve.
To some extent this is true I fully agree. But I would also point out that it's not exactly wrong to want to get their answers on record either.
What they tell you in a private conversation can be denied. . . it likely isn't going to be checked by any journalists, etc.
If you go on record than you can't as easily lie.
Don't get me wrong they 100% are doing it for show in part. But I would also say there is a legitimate interest in getting the answers on record.
Can’t an elective course reside in the realm of the reasonable? Is it non-sensical to expect electives to be grounded in some level of truth?
You're begging the question (common highly biased conservative Christian be types who have spent decades on Christian apology) in insisting topics in sociology are not grounded in some level of truth.
I'm upset that these are political ideologies masquerading as intellectualism.
Would you want your tax dollars going towards "The study of Cultural Marxism and how it's destroying our society"???
Yes, but you're a social dinosaur. The fact that this upsets you is more evidence that it's teaching is warranted.
Some topics in sociology ARE NOT grounded in some level of truth because they are not testable by any rational scientific method.
These "theories" . . . more correctly hypotheses are the ideas invented in someone's head, can't be tested and the vast majority of the time conclude that all of the people who think different from the person who invented the hypothesis are evil for the sake of being evil.
One of their top peer reviewed journals accepted Mein Kampf re-written with feminist language. Another accepted a paper about rape culture in dogs.
So you respond with an ad hominem attack? We clearly need more core education and less nonsense electives.
I guess I have gone about this college thing all wrong all these years. I thought college was a time for kids to be exposed to things that they might not have otherwise. To learn, discuss and debate these things in the hope of growing as a person along with prepare them for the work force.
Sounds like the legislators went through course catalogs and simply highlighted terms/phrases they considered woke. This isn’t some high-minded intellectual review of the teacher training curriculum.
So basically we need this teaching to route out thoughts like mine to carry us forward to an enlightened world where everyone agrees with you.
So much for spirited and open discussion and debate.
You were literally begging the question. Owing to your bias. I don't see how that's an ad hominem?
You're being hysterical. No one is saying we need everyone to study this stuff. It's conservatives who are trying to, ahem, cancel sociology which is being discussed. You have your panties in a wad because colleges aren't indoctrinating children in Protestant amorality.
No. We shouldn't ban classes that religious conservatives opposed because of their religious views. It's pretty simple.
You oppose these ideas because they contradict your religious beliefs. That's not an acceptable reason to remove classes from higher education.
Hell, from anywhere.
I don't give a shit what you religion you believe, so long as you don't try to push those beliefs on the rest of us.
Give an example of a topic in sociology that is not grounded in some level of truth because it is not testable?
That's absolutely what happened. . . but at the same time in SOME cases they have a point. Do they in all cases? No absolutely not. I said in my first post in this thread that critical media literacy should be taught in every school in the country. Honestly it should be taught in high schools!!! They are 100% wrong on that one.
But compulsory heterosexuality . . . it's a BS hypothesis were anyone who considers heterosexuality to be the norm (because it is statistically) is evil.
Then you wouldn't mind classes promoting the hypothesis of cultural marxism and how it's destroying society and the philosophy of Andrew Tate. . . .
Love how hoosier assumes a field of sociology neither of us is familiar with which, per the Wiki article, seemingly contradicts some of his Protestant values is on the same academic level as literal Nazi propaganda. That is pretty representative of centrism, actually.
Why can't I push that religion on people since leftist ideas are being pushed on people in higher ed?
Why isn't Andrew Tate a professor at a college teaching everyone about his shitty ideas? I mean other than the fact that he stands accused of human trafficking. But I'm sure one of his cronies can teach "The (shitty) philosophy of Andrew Tate" at the University of Iowa. You know where they can tell all the women in class are the property of men.
Nazi propaganda re-worded with feminist language was accepted by a peer reviewed sociology journal.
Peer reviewed likely by some of the professors that are still likely teaching at a university.
Now either those professors are lazy and went "TLDR" and accepted it or their entire freaking field of study is hogwash.
YOU can act like an idiot all you want and demand things are taught according to your preferred religion. Government can not. Are you new to this country?
Maybe read the definition of ad hominem?
Please go on. You are helping to demonstrate that we need more core education taught and less elective nonsense.
Fair enough. . . you are at least fair.
I don't want either one personally. We don't need anymore Tucker Carlsons screaming cultural marxism or "alpha males" who think that women are the property of men. I don't like that group anymore than I like feminists who think men are the cause of all of the worlds problems.
I'm ok competing ideas that have some way of testing and some sort of intellectual rigor behind them. But I just don't see either side here as having that. To me they are just ideas that exist to formulate a reason to hate people.
Then explain to me how a re-worded section of Mein Kampf made it into a peer reviewed sociology journal.
My two hypothesis is that more than one Ph.D. approved it without reading it or said Ph.D. liked how it sounded because it applauded the right people and hated on the right other people.
This is just it. You have a lot on the right who are perfectly fine indoctrinating young kids to things they support like religion, anti-government sentiments, guns, anti-gay and there are many who are still anti-people of color. But, since they think this way they want others to think like them. The same ones don't want people in their lives or telling them what to do, but they want to tell others what to do. If you don't liek or agree with gay lifestyle... fine, but why do you have to burn down their way of life. You can go back 50-60 years and people were against school desegregation... and all that went along with those times. Most of those people won't admit they were on the wrong side if you ask them now. The same thing is happening with the LGBTQ hate... in 20-30 years people won't admit to being so aggressive about the hate and pushback. Just let people live their life and make their own decisions.
I don't know how (I also doubt you're characterizing it accurately) but that's not enough to say all of sociology is hogwash.
I didn't say ALL of sociology is hogwash.
But some parts of it ARE in fact hogwash.
I am characterizing it correctly.
By the time of the reveal, 7 of their 20 papers had been accepted for publication, 7 were still under review, and 6 had been rejected.[3] Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] One of the published papers in particular had won special recognition from the journal that published it.[4]
Grievance studies affair - Wikipedia
This isn't classes in philosophy or women's studies or some other major or elective that an adult chooses to pursue with the full appreciation that they want to study these topics
These are classes in a college of education in a public university teaching young people how to be teachers and counselors and school administrators. This type of nonsense does not belong in these spaces at all and is a form of indoctrination into far left ideology and values. If a student chooses to use an elective to pursue these topics good for them. When they get layered into the course curriculum to become a teacher that is absolutely up for review with the strictest scrutiny. I would say the same about any curriculum that pushes the same type of classes on religious indoctrination within a teacher training curriculum at a public university
Do any of you actually believe that a professor with this type of rhetoric on their syllabus is allowing any sort of disagreement with the ideas presented? No. They are not. Anyone that claims this a free exchange of ideas in a university setting is a liar. We already have some idiot in this thread calling people nazis for questioning the material. Calling our elected representatives nazis for daring to question a university professor. That sounds like an open exchange of ideas doesn't it? What does this mean and why is it a part of teacher training? You NAZI.....how dare you question us!!! What chance does a student have to question things when that is the discourse towards elected representatives? A student reliant on the professor for a grade to become a teacher has zero chance to challenge the curriculum or the professor.
These are classes in a college of education in a public university teaching young people how to be teachers and counselors and school administrators. This type of nonsense does not belong in these spaces at all and is a form of indoctrination into far left ideology and values. If a student chooses to use an elective to pursue these topics good for them. When they get layered into the course curriculum to become a teacher that is absolutely up for review with the strictest scrutiny. I would say the same about any curriculum that pushes the same type of classes on religious indoctrination within a teacher training curriculum at a public university
Do any of you actually believe that a professor with this type of rhetoric on their syllabus is allowing any sort of disagreement with the ideas presented? No. They are not. Anyone that claims this a free exchange of ideas in a university setting is a liar. We already have some idiot in this thread calling people nazis for questioning the material. Calling our elected representatives nazis for daring to question a university professor. That sounds like an open exchange of ideas doesn't it? What does this mean and why is it a part of teacher training? You NAZI.....how dare you question us!!! What chance does a student have to question things when that is the discourse towards elected representatives? A student reliant on the professor for a grade to become a teacher has zero chance to challenge the curriculum or the professor.
Correctly identifying you as begging the question in your statements is not an attack on you.
That may be true but having open debate in an open setting may bring both sides to not hate. Also, I abhor colleges cancelling controversial speakers.
That is an assumption you made unprovoked. You attacked my motivations. That meets the standard definition.
As I mentioned earlier, your rhetoric in this thread is validating that there is a clear need for more core education and less nonsense taught in our schools of higher education.
