Thursday, January 04, 2024

Bring on the crazy!

I'm seeing some crazy stuff tonight on the social.
Like this: At least Canadians are enjoying this: Here's some more crazy stuff :
At Routine Proceedings, Dale Smith summarizes the Saskatchewan carbon debacle in Roundup: Legal fictions around the carbon levy refusal
...the big story domestically remains that Saskatchewan is planning to move ahead with their plans to stop collecting the carbon levy on heat, and hoping that they won’t suffer any repercussions for it. This includes trying to put forward some legal fictions like trying to register the Government of Saskatchewan that’s the seller of natural gas and electricity rather than Crown corporations like SaskEnergy, which the federal government would be well within their rights to reject outright because it’s a fig leaf attempting to protect those Crown corps for breaking federal law. And to add to that, the provincial minister has been spinning the falsehood that the federal “pause” on heating oil won’t reduce the rebate, and that the rebates in his province should be secure if they stop collecting the levy, which is also false–the rebates will be reduced because that money comes from collecting the carbon price—it’s not a federal entitlement programme out of general revenue.
The feds need to start using "carbon cash-back" instead of "carbon tax", because we just don't understand what is going on: More crazy about the Claudine Gay resignation: Yes, plagiarism is the problem here - Tom Nichols is right when he says Claudine Gay's resignation was overdue. Her accusers acted in bad faith but they're not wrong.
 Though all the uproar started because three university presidents refused to tell Congress that they would consider anti-semitism is hate speech. 
Which, clearly, it is. 
I still don't understand why they couldn't just say that. Oh, I know, there could still be a debate about whether phrases like "from the river to the sea" are anti-semitic, and whether speech is equivalent to action, and so on and so on. But basically, those university presidents let their students down when they just couldn't state a principle plainly.
It reminded me of this:


Cap said...

The question Rep. Stefanik asked the university presidents was whether the universities' codes of conduct allowed students to call for the murder or genocide of Jews. That question could easily be flipped to ask whether students are allowed to call for the murder or genocide of Palestinians. The answer in both cases is and should be "it depends," which is what the presidents answered.

University codes of conduct shouldn't, and mostly don't, curtail campus political speech. Doing so would be contrary to educational purposes. Students benefit from being exposed to a variety of views on social issues, including views they may find offensive. And, yes, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out," has long been a staple of jingoist political speech, especially when America's at war.

Codes of conduct should, however, allow students to be sanctioned for illegal conduct. So, if a student were arrested and convicted of incitement, harassment, and so on, then the university is able to expel them. The determination of illegal conduct is up to police, prosecutors and the courts, not the university.

There is no good reason to single out academic leaders for failing to condemn Hamas for rape, torture and killing, or for failing to condemn the far-right Israeli government for the same. Such condemnation is never demanded of business or other social leaders. As Nichols said, the accusations against the university leaders were brought in bad faith, and should be dismissed as such. And, i agree that academic allegations of plagiarism are a different matter.

Cathie from Canada said...

Hey, Cap - Thanks for the comment.
Yes, it is a complex issue, but I still think the university presidents did their students a disservice by the way they answered the questions. In the portion of the hearing I watched, they seemed almost pleased with themselves for coming up with non-answers - they didn't seem to realize that moral clarity was needed, not academic nuance.

Cap said...

Yeah, I agree Cathie, the university presidents looked smug in that hearing room. But none of them was anywhere near as smug as Rep. Stefanik when she took credit for pulling them off their perches.

Anyway, happy new year to you and yours, and best wishes for 2024!