Florida university leaders bash plan to downgrade sociology


Tampa Bay Times
The subject has been “an integral part of higher education for nearly two centuries,” they said in a statement.
A campus walkway at the University of South Florida, where about 1,700 students take an introductory sociology course every year. State officials have proposed removing sociology as one of the options for core courses students must take as part of their studies.

Department leaders at 10 of Florida’s public universities say they “strongly object” to a plan that would remove sociology as an option for courses students must take as part of their college studies.

The plan was proposed Nov. 9 by state Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. and advanced by the Board of Governors, which oversees Florida’s university system. It will take a final vote in January.

Introductory sociology courses have been “an integral part of higher education for nearly two centuries,” and thousands of Florida students take them each year, the department heads wrote in a follow-up letter to the Board of Governors.

The subject “is a field of science that seeks to understand the social causes and consequences of human behavior,” they wrote. “It seeks to identify patterns of organization and change in social life.”

A wide range of professions — including law, medicine and public health — have relied on principles of sociology, the letter said. Entrance exams for medical school and law school recommend coursework in the subject, the department leaders wrote, also noting that companies like Apple and Google have said they want recruits with backgrounds in sociology.

The letter was signed by sociology department heads from the University of Florida, Florida State University, the University of South Florida, the University of Central Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of West Florida, Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida International University and Florida Gulf Coast University.

All students entering the state’s colleges and universities are required to take core courses in each of five subject areas: communication, mathematics, social sciences, humanities and natural sciences. These are known as “general education” courses, which provide a foundation for further studies.

Diaz proposed striking out “Principles of Sociology” as a social science option with little explanation. He said a panel of faculty members had introduced a seventh course as a social sciences option — a history class titled Introductory Survey to 1877. By striking sociology as an option, he said, the number of available courses for social sciences would come back down to six, and half of them would satisfy a new requirement for civics education.

The change is due to a new state law, Senate Bill 266, that calls for a review of general education courses every four years. It requires that courses should “provide broad foundational knowledge” and not include “curriculum based on unproven, speculative, or exploratory content.”

It also says the courses should, “whenever applicable, provide instruction on the historical background and philosophical foundation of Western civilization and this nation’s historical documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, and the Federalist Papers.”

Diaz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Despite concerns raised by students and faculty at the Board of Governors’ Nov. 9 meeting, board members voted for a new list of general education course options that excluded sociology, noting that another vote is set for January.

Annual enrollment in the introductory sociology course averages about 2,000 at the University of Central Florida, 1,700 at the University of South Florida, 1,600 at the University of Florida, 1,200 at Florida State University, 1,000 at Florida Atlantic University, and 850 at Florida International University, the department heads wrote.

While schools still would offer the course, they said, removing it as an option for a requirement could cut their resources and hurt their ability to recruit faculty who bring in research dollars. They said it would also lead to an “impoverishment of the general education curriculum overall.”

“Students have long gravitated to introductory sociology courses because they understand that they will gain a broad perspective on the social forces that influence their lives and life chances,” the letter said. “This is the intrinsic benefit that introductory sociology brings to the core of general education, and it is also what makes it an important component of the civic literacy that we have defined as a goal of higher education.”

^ Hmmm...I wonder what they are teaching in these "sociology courses" courses these days that bothers Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. and the Board of Governors. 🤔 I see no mention of it. Any details?

Just wondering, If it because the education system is greatly controlled and taught by left-wingers with an agenda within these schools, I can understand the concern about what is being taught, which is probably about restricting freedom of speech and thought for what they call the common good.
It's funny how their agenda spills over into practical progressive politics.
JP makes some interesting points...

It's For The Greater Good, So Shut The F*ck Up!

?si=QtQwvDQ2f4eW3APW

What to know about Donald Trump’s gag orders in D.C. and New York


WSJ
Two judges — in Donald Trump’s federal election-obstruction case in D.C. and in the New York civil fraud case against him and his business — have issued narrow gag orders limiting what the former president can publicly say about the cases. Trump has appealed both rulings, arguing that the orders infringe on his First Amendment rights while he is once again running for president.

Gag imposed: Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued the limited gag order from her courtroom on Oct. 16.

Reason for gag: Chutkan said Trump’s public attacks on people who are “involved in the judicial process” made a gag order necessary. She wrote in her order: “To safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain restrictions on public statements by interested parties.”

How it limits Trump’s speech: The order prohibits the former president from disparaging prosecutors, witnesses and court personnel involved in his trial, which is scheduled for March 4 and includes four charges related to trying to block Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory.

Appeals process: The federal appeals court in D.C. heard arguments about the gag order on Nov. 20 and could rule at any time on whether to uphold, narrow or overturn it. In the meantime, the appeals court paused the order.

Once the appeals court rules, the decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Gag imposed: The New York gag order was issued on Oct. 3 by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron. He is overseeing the trial, in which Trump and his business are accused of falsely inflating their property values. Engoron also imposed limited speech prohibitions on Trump’s attorneys later in the month.

Reason for gag: Trump’s fixation with Engoron’s law clerk and his claims that she was biased and overly influential in the case led Trump to post identifying information about her on social media. Millions of Trump followers were able to see the item, and the clerk began receiving a flood of threats. Engoron said he feared for her safety.

How it limits Trump’s speech: Trump cannot discuss any member of the judge’s staff, including the law clerk. He is free to make comments about the judge and about New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who brought the lawsuit, and he continues to do so.

Appeals process: An appellate panel reinstated the gag order on Nov. 30, two weeks after a single appeals judge issued a pause on the order. The general legality of the orders will be debated by the appeals court at a later date. But with the lengthy trial winding down, Trump is again barred — for now — from commenting on court employees in public.

Sue you Russ? I'm surprised they didn't try to arrest you for insurrection.

#45

That's a great post. Looks like you're the wrong guy to F with. Lol!

Russ, you are clearly a threat to DUHMACRACY...AlLeGeDlY. 😳

No Menorahs, Please
Is allowing a Hanukkah celebration really an endorsement of killing?


WSJ Editorial Board

The Christmas season is a busy time for our secular scolds. Usually they are taking offense at nativity displays. But this year they have decided to be more ecumenical by going after a proposed menorah lighting in Williamsburg, Va.

The lighting was proposed for Dec. 10 at the 2nd Sundays Art and Music Festival. But plans were cancelled. In messages to Rabbi Mendy Heber, festival organizer Shirley Vermillion said the organization decided that it couldn’t approve the lighting because it didn’t “want to make it seem we’re choosing a side—supporting the killing/bombing of thousands of men, women and children.”

When the news broke, Gov. Glenn Youngkin tweeted that the decision was “absurd and antisemitic.” Ms. Vermillion claims the festival wasn’t cancelled because it had never officially been approved. She has also told various media outlets that 2nd Sundays doesn’t feature religious events and has turned down many Christian organizations in the past.

But at one point Ms. Vermillion suggested the menorah lighting might be okay if an Islamic group were to participate at the same time, or if the lighting took place under a banner calling for a cease-fire in the Hamas-Israel conflict. So who’s really taking sides here?

The lighting of the menorah is part of Hanukkah, when Jews celebrate the Maccabees victory over Syrian-Greek rulers who demanded that they give up their Jewish identity and practices. After the Jews liberated the Temple in Jerusalem, they discovered a jug that had enough oil for one day but lasted for eight days. Today the holiday is known as the Festival of Lights.

Hanukkah has been celebrated for millennia, long before the present conflict in Gaza. To those who say that allowing a menorah lighting is to approve the killing of men, women and children, we’d say that’s a good argument for more light in the midst of such darkness.




This is a good example of a "content based" government suppression of speech rarely coupled with the Freedom of Religion claust of the First Amendment. If the city gets sued, it will lose very fast.

That is an interesting idea having an Islamic group participate….return to the forum without posting further.

Had to clean up my posts (delete) Yesterday our Finest, camped outside our house for a good 30 minutes or more, parked in the ditch beside the driveway sitting in his squad car. but the school is 2 blocks away, so he could say he was watching the kids coming out of school and it was between 3pm til ten ta 4... his end of shift is 4pm and usually he skips out around ten ta 4 for home.. We'll see what today brings us?? 🇨🇮

Marked or unmarked?

If it’s unmarked I’d call in a suspicious vehicle. If he’s city I’d call the county sheriff, if he’s county I’d call city.

The. I’d go mow the lawn in one spot so he gets some good sound

Teachers sue over Florida law banning use of preferred pronouns


Reuters
Dec 13 (Reuters) - Three teachers in Florida on Wednesday sued the state over its law prohibiting transgender and nonbinary teachers from using their preferred pronouns in school, saying it violates their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida's capital, Tallahassee, says the state law is designed "to stigmatize and demonize transgender and nonbinary people" and deprives them of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The state law, which took effect in July, says school employees cannot tell students to call the employees by their preferred titles or pronouns, if the preference does not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

Several other states have passed laws saying teachers and classmates do not have to refer to students by their preferred pronouns.

One plaintiff, identified as AV Schwandes, says they are non-binary and were fired from a teaching job at a "virtual school" in October for continuing to use the honorific "Mx." at work. The other plaintiffs are transgender women who say they have been forced to accept being misgendered.

"Florida intentionally sends the state-sanctioned, invidious, and false message that transgender and nonbinary people and their identities are inherently dangerous, especially to children," the teachers' lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, wrote in the lawsuit.

The Florida Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is the latest to challenge laws adopted by Florida and other Republican-led U.S. states aimed at limiting discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation in schools. Critics call them "don't say gay" laws and claim they are unlawful and harmful to LGBT people.

In April, Florida education officials voted to ban classroom instruction on those topics in all public school grades after state lawmakers in 2022 barred it through third grade.

A federal judge in August dismissed a challenge to that law, and an appeal has been put on hold after the state and the students and parents who sued said they were negotiating a settlement.

Last month, civil rights groups sued to block a similar Iowa law that covers kindergarten through sixth grade.

Oh it's subdued unmarked, both SUV's are now, the council allowed him a $28,000 purchase for a used 2003 SUV this past summer... He cannot keep police officers under his watch, so the vehicles sit across from the city hall on the square in the evening time, unless the two other Veteran officers are pulling a shift, in the past year and a half, our community put 6 officers through the academy only to lose them to other city's... but no one see's a pattern here?? I've already spoken with a detective friend I went to school with, he told me two years ago, document everything, because nobody likes this chief...

He's just trying to get a reaction from me... I may or may not toss a paper bag of dog **** out in the ditch.. after putting a match to it someday? 🤦 we stil have leaves that need ignited... 🇨🇮

United States Pocket Constitution:

http://tinyurl.com/ycxry9sv 

I found the perfect gift for our local council members and zoning board... even got a deal on the purchase!!!

can't wait to see their faces when the open their presents at the January meeting... 🇨🇮

Was it the city council dude or the chief of police?!!

Chief of Police, on duty... we have an Alderwoman who is our next door neighbor and we get along with her just fine and the other alderman as well.. there are just two who make the policy's and run things in this little community. the other members are their as a "Vote" on the policy's they enact..

Sounds more disturbing he’s there ON duty…nothing else more important for him to do?

Minnesota’s Xenophobic Restrictions on Speech
Its ban on political speech by ‘foreign influenced’ companies defies U.S. Supreme Court precedent.


WSJ
A federal judge on Monday will consider a Minnesota law that surreptitiously attempts to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) that corporations have a constitutional right to speak independently about politics.

While Citizens United and other judicial decisions have loosened restrictions on corporate political speech, courts have upheld longstanding bans on political speech by foreign nationals. Therefore, Minnesota and other opponents of corporate speech now seek to redefine large swaths of American businesses as “foreign influenced” to stop their political engagement.Seattle, St. Petersburg, Fla., and Alaska have joined Minnesota in passing laws banning political speech by so-called foreign-influenced corporations. Lawmakers in numerous other states and Congress have introduced similar bills.

The Minnesota law is typical of these measures, making Monday’s hearing an early test of their constitutionality. The law defines “foreign-influenced corporations” as including any U.S. company in which a single foreign investor has “direct or indirect beneficial ownership” of as little as 1% of total equity. This status also may be triggered if hundreds or even thousands of foreign stockholders collectively own 5% of shares. It doesn’t require these stockholders to be of the same nationality or to collude to influence so much as the corporate cafeteria menu.

The law’s breadth is matched by its vagueness. Foreign-influenced status also may be triggered if any foreign investor “participates directly or indirectly in the corporation’s decision-making process with respect to the corporation’s political activities in the United States.” If a single foreign stockholder casts a proxy vote on an activist-shareholder proposal, that could bring the state’s corporate speech ban into effect.

The charade is obvious: The left-wing Center for American Progress estimates that 98% of publicly traded companies would trigger these thresholds. Many privately held business likely would as well. Once defined as foreign-influenced, a corporation is prohibited from making contributions or independent expenditures to promote or oppose candidates for public office. This includes lobbying legislators and the governor on appointed positions. The ban further applies to corporate activities that promote or oppose ballot measures. Foreign-influenced corporations also may not contribute to organizations that support or oppose candidates or ballot measures. The Minnesota law even seems to ban companies from engaging in these activities at the federal level, despite federal law to the contrary.

Though opponents of corporate political speech act as if large businesses serve as the puppet masters of politics, most corporations don’t engage in campaign spending at all. For-profit corporate funds amount to about 2% of total political spending in the U.S. per election cycle. For businesses, the right to speech serves mostly as an emergency tool. Elected officials wielding enormous power to regulate the private sector shouldn’t be permitted to immunize themselves against critique from those they govern.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is seeking a preliminary injunction against the state’s law at Monday’s hearing. The Minnesota Chamber merely seeks to preserve its right, and that of its members, to respond when government threatens workers’ livelihoods, investors’ interests and the vibrancy of free enterprise.

How the court rules will determine if all-American brands that manufacture in the U.S.—such as Louisville Slugger, Jeep and Harley-Davidson—can keep the First Amendment rights the Supreme Court has upheld.

I'd removed the previous Council Meeting Video's as I am waiting to hear if the Mayor and City Attorney are going to attempt to sue me for pointing out the Mayors Violations on Ethics Laws??

I have since been told by two different citizens I have a Target on my Back after the outcome of the December 6, 2023 council meeting exposure to these violations. I clearly expressed to the Mayor to contact these agencies and clear up his financial Obligations especially the one that is 19 yrs. old. To Date he has made no attempt at doing so.

Tonight was our Zoning BOard Meeting and I produced documents to the zoning commissioner where a sitting Alderman built a retaining wall for his building and did not recieve nor request a zoning permit to build as said retaining wall is now sitting on another private citizens Parcel of Property! and he needs to address this matter with the council at the upcoming January 2024 council meeting, on camera he refuses to take it to open council meeting, but will address the matter?

This ****'s like a B rated Movie!!! 🤦

Apologies folks, the sound did not come through...

Wish Us Luck Folks... I finally got the attention of one of our state representatives and a meeting this afternoon with them. myself and a few other tax paying citizens and witness's to events are going with me to express their concerns on how we are being represented. I added a zip drive and hard copies of the actions I have already sent through the States AG office and have stalled in trying to get a meeting with our State's Attorney over these Factual Matters that have transpired over the Years of city politics and how they have done business to/with this community and tax dollars..

So Yes I do have a target on my back, and 4 combat tours under my belt in foreign lands deployed to ward off Oppression I refuse to retire to a community that is blatantly Oppressed and has been. "Transparent Government" is the Quest for our community Friends and Family!!