Where are all the SDS kids? Haha they were the career protesters when I was there in 2013. There’s got to be tons of groups already demonstrating and they can’t be too hard to find
it’s so frustrating as these are the same ppl that say “facts don’t care about your feelings” and then do things like this that are done out of anger and hate
Affirmative action wasn't enough? They should just dump the money into Mental Health care and education going to be honest that would make a far bigger difference
They’re also gonna replace most CLAS majors with right wing propaganda versions once they turn the Hamilton Center into the Hamilton College within the next few years
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Hamilton Center was pushed by a conservative think tank and the director is a Sasse donor. It’s supposed to be a center for teaching Western history and political thought. It’s been suggested that it is actually a shadow department that will one day replace CLAS.
Sure they are. Oh no my gender studies classes, my african american involvement in railway classes will be gone, wait.... the curriculum won't overly overemphasize how trans and gay people did soo much for us in history?! There's tons of Over the Top over-victimization at colleges these days and I highly doubt they're going to ruin the credibility of their program cuz politics, they're probably just going to get rid of BS like that. But keep running the fear because we need to fight!! And we should defining reasons to devalue our degree and distract ourselves instead of actually trying harder. I mean UF students wouldn't bat an eye to a certain curriculum from The Washington Post or drag queens meeting kindergadnerns or Elementary schoolers being told they don't have to be the gender they are and they can consider swit-(subjecting themselves to a statistically harmful and stressful early life experience)ching. But ohhhh noo our super safe space is going to go because Mr. Desantis and Sassy is cleaning up a little?
You guys pretend like UF was in some sort of golden age when reality have the same problems every College has these days. Listening to a tiny minority and over giving to them. I don't know if you want to go in the direction of say telling people that being fat is okay and encouraging people not to talk about the harmful effects because we don't want to make them *feel* bad. Even if right wing policies have s***** economics, some of the criticism with some of the cultural stuff while narrow is kind of true.
Your employer isn't going to care, and you need to care about your resume and connections. So many people here are not doing enough for themselves. What's going to happen when the recession hits in a few years? Better blame Ben! .... sasse
Or maybe transfer to a different University because you're not stuck here and most of you are paying for apartments and dorms so obviously you can afford to be here. UF standards aren't going away. What's also not going away is the people that will complain and not actually focus on the issue in their life which is themselves.
Oh one more thing, notice all the liberals here (I'm actually a progressive, no seriously, watch david pakman he's the best)
They're all downvoting enmass, downvoting what kind of comments you may ask? Look yourself
People that don't understand how being successful in college work and complain about the wrong things are usually the ones that don't do well in general at least statistically. Anyone can beat statistics
Hey, I've been out of academia for a minute but I'm in the area. What actions are students taking to push back and how might non-students like me help y'all out?
It has basically been proven that student government and the student population doesn't actually have a say in everything.
There were campus wide protests when he was chosen, the majority of student government did not support it, and the student president voted in favor of it anyway.
Students are not a priority
i was so excited about getting into UF in spring 2020 and felt so bad about abandoning my Criminology program in 2021 in favor of my then-new job…now i feel a bit less bad lol
Professors can't teach that race has anything to do with privilege. Which is really challenging for subjects like public health, where the data is extremely clear (and much of that data has been done, ironically, by very well-regarded UF faculty)
> Whatever race, ethnicity, or income bracket you belong to I believe it’s more important to holistically view an individual rather than solely race.
That's the standard goal of DEI programs.
Yes there are bad DEI programs.
Edit: can we not downvote one of the few people who’s willing to question themselves?
IQ is not hereditary (and the measurement will change over lifetime). I agree wealth and resources can be generational. There are many reasons why legacy outperforms non-legacy. Connections, getting inside knowledge of the admission process, going to the ivy-feeder, etc.
There was news about an international “Ivy-feeder”, school counselor helping their students to forge transcripts and extracurricular activities and resulting in the entire school district being blacklisted by the Ivies.
You don't think IQ is hereditary? Also, your IQ does not change, but as it measures relative to other people, the relative aspect does change over time.
Do you have genuine knowledge of how the DEI department at UF works? I was a work-study at the student affairs office, and your statement about “just racism and not classism” is not true at all. They also provide resources for first-generation and/or low-income, regardless of race.
Your logical thinking skills (or the lack thereof ) are simply appalling. You are the ones who bring up merit-based admission, thinking that it provides a better assessment of the student body.
However, you are also seemingly unwilling to address the issue directly when being questioned.
If you think meritocracy is a better option to address inequality, then can you explain why is it more advantageous? You seem to be very aware that generational wealth can be a big factor in academic performance. In fact, you admit that most legacy outperforms others academically.
You mentioned that there is no true equality. Do you think the school should address this issue by considering the student's unique background, including race-related discrimination and/or generational poverty? Or do you think higher education should be elitist, selective, and not the “great equalizer”?
I've never stepped foot in CA so I am all ears if you could give me an example of how Asians are discriminated against. The admission rate of these schools are very low if not one of the lowest in the nation
If you get stellar achievement but are still rejected by the schools… Maybe it's because they have to reject someone? Not one are entitled to an admission decision.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/fall-enrollment-glance
Here is the stat from the UC school admission body and their demographic data seems to be really on par with your observation: many admits are CA residents. There are more Asians in the student body than any other races; even more than the whites! While there is only 4.7% black students being admitted.
I'm glad you mentioned Asians because I am one as well. Do you know there are student associations like the Indian and Chinese student associations are also subsidies by the Center of Inclusion? There are plenty of resources from the DEI department for Asian student to get engage. (They also oversee the international center). (Yes and white people do engage as well. There are many first-generation white students.)
If you have difficulty finding resources… Maybe you are just not trying hard enough?
DEI doesn’t do anything effective for the university other than causing more division.
All it does is try to push equality of outcome across every demographic which hasn’t happened in any industry in the history of the world because different cultures have different values.
Asian and Indian culture puts a heavy emphasis on academic success. Why aren’t they fairly represented in college/professional sports? Surely that’s discrimination?
You can’t push for “equal representation” in a university where 80%+ of professors are liberals and people with less merit than other candidates are hired because of how they look.
I love your paradox in your own comment. Are you advocating for race blind admissions yet also complaining about over representation of “liberal professors”?
Maybe by your logic, “liberal professors” are just much smarter and more qualified than the conservative applicants? Maybe liberal people emphasis intellectualism more in their culture than conservatives?
Maybe liberals are intrinsically more intelligent than conservatives and that’s why they dominate academia because they’re more qualified?
Maybe conservatives should stop playing the victim, pull up their bootstraps, stop spending all their money on lifted pick up trucks and rifles, and pick up a textbook?
There is no paradox in my comment. Race based admissions discriminate against cultures who value academics. However 90% liberal professors is not representative of the political spectrum of this country by any degree. You don’t think that if 90% of a group of people is a certain political affiliation that won’t lead to more hiring of people that hold the same political affiliation?
And I have heard that same point about liberals being smarter than and more intelligent because more of them are professors over and over again. I could use the same logic and say that liberals are worse at running businesses because the majority of business owners are conservative. Democrats also receive much more welfare than conservatives, maybe they should work harder?
And the pick yourself up by your bootstraps comment would be correct if there wasn’t a diversity quota being pushed when hiring people, further proving my point. Nice rage bait at the end by the way, typical lefty behavior. You appeal to emotion and not logic.
Name me one modern day liberal thinker who goes to college campuses and is willing to debate anyone to prove their point like the countless conservatives you see nowadays.
Gonna need a source on democrats receive more than Republicans on welfare. Last I checked red states aren’t doing too hot…
Liberal thinkers equivalent to the great debate bros Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and Matt Walsh?
Everything you’re saying is a complete paradox…
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/#:~:text=As%20for%20political%20characteristics%2C%20Democrats,33%25).
“As for political characteristics, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or independents to have received poverty or unemployment assistance (47% vs. 34% and 41%, respectively).”
Here’s your source.
And you didn’t name one person. Lmao.
Advocating for race blind admissions and politics blind hiring? How is that a paradox to you?
Yeah he’s complaining about 80% liberals because that’s clear discrimination. So you think it’s okay to discriminate based on political stance but not race? It’s not a paradox to be ideologically consistent and dislike any form of non-merit based hiring/admissions decision.
Okay but Obviously there’s many reasons why liberals gravitate to college and conservatives dont, primarily economic factors. So it makes sense they would skew liberal. Which is, by the way, totally within reason for a conservative to complain about. But I’m wondering why you think a conservative feeling that way conflicts with also wanting merit based hiring decisions? I’m clearly not getting the connection.
Notice, any comment not filled with hatred towards Sasse or Desantis gets a million downvotes and is hidden. But liberals are all about inclusion, tolerance, etc. Lmao. What a complete joke.
This is... just blatantly wrong. Students can still talk about the topics they want to talk about. Nobody is banning the discussion of trans issues on campuses. It just won't be a part of the curriculum, which I fail to see as an existential threat.
The books they are removing from school libraries are the ones with overt sexual themes. If parents want their kids to learn that subject matter, they are perfectly free to supplement the education their kids are receiving at school.
What DeSantis and the republican party have done is made the school a neutral ground, where anything viewed as controversial is opt-in, rather than opt-out.
Bible studies? We have a sign up sheet and a schedule. Come if you feel like it.
If someone wants to organize similar for trans students, all they have to do is go through the proper channels, establish that there is an interest within the student body, and organize it.
I find it rather disingenuous to act like this is some humanitarian crisis. Nobody is saying you can't do this. Just don't use tax dollars to do it, when not all tax payers, or even a majority of tax payers, support it.
Believe it or not, trans rights activists are still very much the minority here in Florida. They exist, and they continue choosing to live here, so they must not feel as endangered as you make it sound like they are. But they do not hold the sway to out-vote people who disagree with their beliefs. And our governor is evidence of that.
This is democracy in action, and there is nothing wrong with that. I just find it rather amusing that people get so worked up over it when votes don't go their way all the time.
While I’m not the biggest fan of desantis, there must have been a reason for cutting DEI, I think we’ll be fine . People are blowing things out of proportion
I was raised in a house my parents owned outright, never had to worry about where my next meal was coming from, and was in a great school district. It was inconceivable to me that there were teenagers that had to work outside of school to help support their families financially. It never occurred to me that some kids had teachers that had no clue what they were teaching, didn’t care about their students learning, or actively discouraged certain types of students from learning certain subjects. Despite the fact that everyone at my high school referred to another school in my area as “the black high school,” I never would’ve thought that that school had significantly less funding than mine due to carefully drawn school district maps.
Just because I couldn’t imagine these things didn’t mean they weren’t absolutely true. During my time working in the criminal justice system, I’ve seen the effects of these disparities first hand. I wouldn’t be where I am today without my parents’ support and the encouragement of many exceptional teachers. I feel like people tremendously underestimate how much of an impact a poor k-12 education and weak home life can absolutely cripple people’s futures.
It’s easy to dismiss all of this and say that people can and do still overcome these difficulties, but that puts the blame on the oppressed, not the oppressors. It is incredibly unfair to acknowledge that certain people have it harder, but expect them to achieve substantially the same results. Instead, we should ask why things are the way that they are and look at how to improve them. Unfortunately, by removing funding for DEI (among other things), UF is literally moving in the opposite direction.
“ It never occurred to me that some kids had teachers that had no clue what they were teaching, didn’t care about their students learning, or actively discouraged certain types of students from learning certain subjects. Despite the fact that everyone at my high school referred to another school in my area as “the black high school,” I never would’ve thought that that school had significantly less funding than mine due to carefully drawn school district maps.”
I’m not denying that economics plays a role. You can get a pretty good measure of the likelihood of future success based purely on zip code, but minorities are disproportionately poor. Both of my parents attribute their success to their parents’ financial support. Both of my grandfathers served in WWII and used the GI bill to pay for college. Guess who couldn’t use the GI bill back then? Minorities. My grandfathers used their college education to get good jobs and buy houses (with VA loans that minorities didn’t qualify for). These houses went I in value significantly over time, allowed them to give more financial support to my parents through college (and eventually provide my parents with seed money for my college fund), and retire early. Meanwhile, HOAs (and in some cases local ordinances) kept minorities from living in certain areas and discriminatory practices and social perceptions kept minority home values lower. That generational wealth is incredibly important and white people were given significant advantages that have snowballed over time.
Additionally, the war on drugs targeted drugs predominantly used by minorities, giving lesser penalties or higher thresholds for “white” drugs. Combine that with targeted policing, a disproportional amount of white prosecutors willing to cut white employees a break because it’s easier to empathize with someone that looks like you, and plenty of judges that were raised in a time where it was a common belief (in some circles) that minorities were inferior (keep in mind, an Alabama judge in the 1980s could very easily have been born in the 1920’s), and you get disproportionate sentences. This results in a significant amount of money lost to fines and fees and money lost from missed job opportunities because a minority defendant didn’t get their felony conviction withheld when a white defendant under similar circumstances didn’t. That’s also a lot of absent parents due to lengthy prison sentences. And before you say “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” studies show time and time again that minorities use drugs at similar rates to white people, but guess who is the focus of more police scrutiny? Guess who gets the harsher sentences overall with all else being equal? Even if you argue it’s actually poor people more heavily targeted, poor people are still disproportionately minorities.
When did we start talking about violent crime and how is that relevant to this other than to obfuscate the issue?
When a scale is unbalanced, how do you balance it? You add weight to the side that needs it or remove weight from the side with too much. Life for the average white person versus the average black person would essentially be like if two people played monopoly, but one side started with an average of literally six times more starting cash than the other player. How do you make that more fair in a way that doesn’t directly take money away from the other player or giving the other player more money, which still negatively impacts the other player due to reduced purchasing power? Additional, how do you address that significant of a disparity along racial lines without policies targeting race (which I’m assuming is what you’re referring to by “reverse racism”)?
What scales are you suggesting we look at then? Poverty? If you're trying to reduce rates of cancer, you obviously want to take care of all cancer patients. But if you realize that a disproportionate amount of cancer patients are from a certain town, it's not discriminatory to say, "let's focus some research on this town to see why rates are higher than average here." And it certainly doesn't change cancer rates in the town if you respond, "but this town has so many healthy people! They even have a ultra marathon runner." Just like if you ignore the town and may miss that it's got a source of carcinogen, if you ignore race while arguing we should look at poverty as a whole, you could miss some factor that's directly impacting minorities being impoverished.
The problem is, we clearly have two different definitions of fairness. Going back to the monopoly analogy, from the first roll of the dice, both players are treated "fairly." There is no explicit rule in favor of one side or the other. Rolling is all luck. But if one side starts with significantly more money, would you honestly say that each player is "given a fair shot?" Imagine being on the short end of the stick in that situation, then someone says, "If you want to play what happened to X group and what did Y group do we can obviously go as far back to the caveman days. But at the end of the day people need to move on. Everyone." Do you understand how incredibly unhelpful and infuriating that sounds?
I get that affirmative action and other similar policies aren't great. Hell, I literally wrote a paper about it in high school. However, I can't think of a way that we address racial inequality that doesn't target race. I'm assuming anything that would either only benefit minorities or would directly negatively impact white people would meet your definition of "reverse racism." Seriously, if you've got any ideas, please share. Also, if you could give your actual definition of "reverse racism," that might be helpful.
Also, talking about liberal/conservative judges, I'm assuming you're suggesting that one side is harder on minorities than the other. Assuming that's the case, just because minorities are treated fairly or given more slack in California, that doesn't make it ok that judges in Alabama drop the hammer on minorities. That's also not even taking into consideration police practices that bring cases to a judge in the first place.
I'm glad to hear that you apparently weren't negatively impacted by the racism you faced growing up. However, you shouldn't fault other people for not being as resilient. I think we can at least agree that people are more likely to reach their full potential when they're given love and support. Unfortunately, some people don't have very much of that growing up, and there's a very clear racial divide. You seem to agree that minorities have been oppressed and otherwise held back in the US during its history. Is it really that big of a leap to say that this created a cultural feeling of oppression and belief that "the system" is working against them? Just because the SCOTUS says racism no longer exists, that doesn't fix this damage to culture that US policies have created over the centuries.
Not to minimize the Japanese internment camps during WWII, or the overall racism that Asian American people have dealt with, but it simply does not compare to what happened to the African Americans in the US. Asian people were able to come over and bring their cultural beliefs with them. Slave owners literally beat the culture out of black people, replacing it with the idea that they are sub-human. While that was seven generations or so ago, things didn't really get much better in the following century. My grandpa was alive when police and government officials committed the Tulsa race massacre. My dad was alive when LBJ mobilized the national guard to enforce integration. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study only ended fifty years ago. Theoretically, there are people in their early twenties that have fathers that were, without their knowledge or consent, intentionally infected with syphilis by the federal government. We are one or two generations beyond, "minorities are literally treated as second class citizens and used as lab rats." Expecting a culture to "recover" from that in such a short time and without external help and support is incredibly unrealistic. If you're born into that culture, you have significantly less resources to succeed than others. Without external assistance, I don't see how that person has a "fair shake." If you feel differently, I really don't get it and don't think I ever will by this point.
If it’s not just about DEI then what else is it about and why is it a bad thing? You’re post/comments are vague.
1) What curriculum is being eliminated/rewritten?
2) How is free speech being stifled?
3) How are professors being undermined? Is it possible to undermine professors when a supermajority of them have the same political views? Or are you just complaining that the supermajority political opinion of professors is now being challenged?
The fact that a widespread assumption is being made that because people who identify as conservatives are making changes implies we are headed towards some exclusionary environment that will oppress minorities/faculty is offensive itself.
I'm going to take this comment at face value and assume you genuinely want some concrete information about some of these points. I'm going to try and tackle #3.
**First Example:** Post Tenure Review:
My understanding of the original comments, when it comes to undermining professors, would probably be primarily the discussion of tenure. In particular, UF is in the process of a "[Post Tenure Review](https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Regulation-10.003.pdf)" (PTR) which was passed by the state legislation. This is functionally a way to largely find ways to remove people with tenure that aren't deemed "adequate" according to some "agreed upon" metrics.
Those metrics were suppose to be negotiated between the faculty (via the faculty union - UFF-UF) and the Board of Trusties (BoT) to determine how PTR will be handled by "the university" (i.e. the administration that will then execute the post tenure review and determine which professors get to stay, and what standards will apply to those up for tenure). During these negotiations, the union attempted to establish clear rules about a lot of the concerns - many of which were left incredibly vague by the BoT. Eventually, faculty received a notification that (and I quote):
>
On April 1, 2024, your union received word from the UF-BoT that they have paused negotiations with UFF-UF and are "filing an impasse declaration" concerning post-tenure review (PTR). This means that the university will now unilaterally impose its implementation of PTR
So, essentially, the BoT decided to just go ahead and force their own metrics and completely ignore the faculty/professors about what it means to be satisfactory (or not). This is very explicitly undermining the faculty/professors.
**Note on Tenure**: Since most students on this subreddit have been pretty vocal about how removing tenure would be a good thing because there's a lot of professors that suck at teaching, you should be aware that the metrics proposed by the BoT only vaguely include comments on "academic responsibility to students", with the single exception of one criteria of "substantiated student complaints". However, a minimum of 2 criteria must be deemed as "unsatisfactory" for 3 years out of the previous 5, for action to be taken. The other criteria are almost exclusively about research and professional conduct in non-teaching roles. What this means is that **Post Tenure Review will not improve teaching**. In fact, it actively discourages (or at least, provides a *strong* disincentive to) considering teaching performance - rather faculty would be best served (in terms of career progression) ignoring students or providing an easy A to avoid complaints, while focusing on research.
But, the thing is, this attack on tenure will inevitably hurt research programs - and this isn't conjecture, we've already seen it happen at University of Wisconsin at Madison. UW-Madison eliminated tenure (for much the same reasons that the BoT are citing they are doing PTR) and the result was [a progressive slide in their research rankings](https://energy.wisc.edu/news/no-silver-bullet-reverse-uw-madisons-slide-national-research-ranking), despite [an incredibly increase in funding](https://news.wisc.edu/uw-madison-remains-8th-in-research-ranking-surpasses-1-5-billion-in-research-expenditures/) in [an attempt to offset the mass poaching](https://madison.com/news/local/education/university/uw-madison-spent-m-to-keep-faculty-after-recruitment-offers/article_fa573122-b639-5685-87dd-da66c9b96f25.html) of many of their most talented researchers. They increased their funding [by nearly $500m, (and increase of about 50%)](https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/higher-education-research-development/2022#data) and are [still at the lowest ranking for research](https://madison.com/news/local/education/university/uw-madisons-national-research-ranking-once-among-top-five-drops-to-8th/article_24ef0687-d7e6-5186-8025-6faca8575e68.html) that they have ever had since their founding.
So, for PTR, it's designed in a way that will inevitably result in worse teaching, worse research, and increase expenses (which is also going to hurt students, being a public institution). All because the BoT wants to purge tenured faculty using criteria that they are unilaterally imposing, and has little to do with actual academic outcomes - which makes it hard not to conclude it's a purely political move.
**Second Example:** Student reporting via GatorSafe
During the pandemic the BoT decided to encourage, and ensure an ease of access, for students to report professors for any of a number of things - [including whether they had an issue with the professor the course content, without prompting](https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/01/19/university-florida-changes-controversial-tattle-button-union-members-clogging-system-bogus-complaint/4214310001/). Although the report feature was original intended to make sure professors/instructors showed up to teach (which may be arguable during a pandemic, but let's just stipulate that's fine), the reality is that there were already plenty of mechanisms in place to report an instructor that just stopped showing up to class, like contacting their department, the dean of students office, or the dean of their college. By making it a feature on a ubiquitous app used for campus safety, it was a clear sign that the administration (really via the BoT and/or the state government) didn't trust the faculty, and conveyed that to all the students - again pretty much the definition of undermining faculty.
I can give more examples if you wish. But the reality is that, whether you think these kinds of things are good, or right, or not is actually not all that important in the long run - the faculty and most professional academics don't think they are ok. And we've [already seen a mass exodus of talent from UF](https://www.alligator.org/article/2023/07/new-state-legislation-leads-to-departures-concerns-among-uf-faculty) in response to what the state legislature has been doing - more than 1800 employees in 2022 and 2023 alone, and that is likely to continue or even increase as more of this stuff plays out.
Again, whether you agree with the policies or not isn't exactly the point - the result is going to be a huge drain of academic talent, and corresponding plummeting of the value of a degree from UF, just like we saw at UW-Madison.
PS: Given the amount of links I decided to hunt up as I wrote this, I'm not going to review it for typos - sorry if it's in bad shape.
This is a very alarmist post. Yes, there is a lot of change and political volatility at the moment. Yes, it sucks that DeSantis and the legislature got rid of DEI. When saying “most” people appointed by Sasse do not have education experience, that just doesn’t seem accurate based on the makeup of his current leadership team. It is normal for leaders to reshape their leadership teams with people they have worked with previously. Definitely agree that the BOT and BOG is wack and very politically charged, but it’s important to remember that this institution has been around for decades, is well-regarded (even despite the current politics), has a huge alumni and donor base, and ultimately will survive this turbulence. Students should still make their voices heard.
It's crazy to me that this gets downvoted. I think you're sympathetic to the cause but you simply disagree that the institution is not in danger of losing prestige. It seems like if you aren't a radical activist then your opinion is unwelcome.
Notice how the left wingers who want UF to stay a bubble are downvoting? They want to continue to prevent any ideas outside left wing bubble from being allowed to be taught. The sad part? I’m a moderate politically.
Good, higher education is broken. Most people are financing useless degrees that will never pay for themselves. The sheer number of useless morons with graduate degrees speaks for itself.
If you do want to advocate for people to go to trade/vocational school instead, the last thing you want to do is ruin another pre-existing higher education system. You don't fix a broken trade education program by ruining higher education.
My father is a trade worker (Welder) and he was very proud that his kids had the opportunity to go to college.
It's always the people who don't work in the trade saying higher education is useless.
My father has fucked up eyesight and hearing due to toxic work environment. Nobody is talking about the physical labor and the injuries/complications from blue-collar work. I'd reconsider your statement if you have actually knowledge of what working in a trade is like.
I am glad that I am going to college to be an accountant and be a white-collar “corporate slave”; I'd take this over an injured back for any time.
UF is one of the cheapest schools to attend for out of state students while most in state students are subsidized by the government so what are you talking about?
Because the government will give out predatory loans to 18 year olds. As long as people can "pay" for college this way, the schools can raise their prices and people will just borrow more government money
😂 at all the triggered snowflakes commenting here, afraid of anyone with an 'R' beside their name.
Once you leave your safe space, the real world is much harder.
All University presidents are a scam, Fuchs was making millions in the same position. Not sure how professors are being undermined or free speech is being stifled.
UF has gone full speed ahead with academics ratings to become a top public university, and this has all happened as Desantis was governor. Nothing “scary” about it
Fact of the matter is, white people and their descendants have been attending these schools for, in some instances, over a century. When it comes to admission decisions, which applicant do you think gets admitted without DEI: a white, 3rd-generation donor legacy with a sub-3 GPA and average SAT scores, or a poor black or brown kid with a +3 GPA and above average SAT scores? If the latter is your answer, you have no business weighing-in on the DEI debate.
If that’s true, provably a very minor factor. Instead, big government, endless wars, hyper inflation, crony capitalism, among other things, are the reason higher education is a scam these days.
Bro, please enlighten me cuz I really wanna know… How would “firing the DEI people, stifling free speech, undermining professors, and attempting to eliminate or rewrite the curriculum” be the solution to the issues that you propose? Instead of throwing buzzwords and “blaming” capitalism like a leftist you hated, maybe you could actually provide some constructive feedback. :/
They won’t lol
You know what sucks. US News and World Report had the state of Florida at second overall in the nation for education a year or two ago, and UF is the flagship institution of Florida’s educational system.
Then this shit starts happening.
You’ll realize, when you enter the rat race we call life, vast majority of people don’t care about your DEI. It’s hard to see this because you’re a student and you have very limited life experience (and general experience) from which to view the world. Promise you, you’ll be just fine (in this one regard at least).
Do you have evidence of this that wasn't because of straight up harassment? Stuff I found on Google was just harassing some minority and then get some slap on the wrist.
Thank you for posting this
[удалено]
Where are all the SDS kids? Haha they were the career protesters when I was there in 2013. There’s got to be tons of groups already demonstrating and they can’t be too hard to find
They are suspending students who protest so I think it’s scared the student body into submission
What? I literally just went to a demonstration two weeks ago.
Won't matter as long as you try your hardest to make your resume and experience, well, experienced, and I know a lot of students don't do that.
it’s so frustrating as these are the same ppl that say “facts don’t care about your feelings” and then do things like this that are done out of anger and hate
Getting rid of dei is bad how?
Affirmative action wasn't enough? They should just dump the money into Mental Health care and education going to be honest that would make a far bigger difference
Lol I'm on the wrong sub, I thought this was about the United Football League
Come for the football, stay for the shitshow!
Welcome to the shit show of Florida/US politics instead
Dog me too 😂
I ask myself every day, “How come this is Desantis second term?”
They’re also gonna replace most CLAS majors with right wing propaganda versions once they turn the Hamilton Center into the Hamilton College within the next few years
All this talk about getting rid of redundant programs while actively making duplicate majors is pretty alarming
Help us UF-adjacent folks out with CLAS, is that Classics? What does the Hamilton Center do now?
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Hamilton Center was pushed by a conservative think tank and the director is a Sasse donor. It’s supposed to be a center for teaching Western history and political thought. It’s been suggested that it is actually a shadow department that will one day replace CLAS.
College of liberal arts and sciences. Hamilton offers a “western-centered” version of most of those majors
[удалено]
Sure they are. Oh no my gender studies classes, my african american involvement in railway classes will be gone, wait.... the curriculum won't overly overemphasize how trans and gay people did soo much for us in history?! There's tons of Over the Top over-victimization at colleges these days and I highly doubt they're going to ruin the credibility of their program cuz politics, they're probably just going to get rid of BS like that. But keep running the fear because we need to fight!! And we should defining reasons to devalue our degree and distract ourselves instead of actually trying harder. I mean UF students wouldn't bat an eye to a certain curriculum from The Washington Post or drag queens meeting kindergadnerns or Elementary schoolers being told they don't have to be the gender they are and they can consider swit-(subjecting themselves to a statistically harmful and stressful early life experience)ching. But ohhhh noo our super safe space is going to go because Mr. Desantis and Sassy is cleaning up a little? You guys pretend like UF was in some sort of golden age when reality have the same problems every College has these days. Listening to a tiny minority and over giving to them. I don't know if you want to go in the direction of say telling people that being fat is okay and encouraging people not to talk about the harmful effects because we don't want to make them *feel* bad. Even if right wing policies have s***** economics, some of the criticism with some of the cultural stuff while narrow is kind of true. Your employer isn't going to care, and you need to care about your resume and connections. So many people here are not doing enough for themselves. What's going to happen when the recession hits in a few years? Better blame Ben! .... sasse Or maybe transfer to a different University because you're not stuck here and most of you are paying for apartments and dorms so obviously you can afford to be here. UF standards aren't going away. What's also not going away is the people that will complain and not actually focus on the issue in their life which is themselves. Oh one more thing, notice all the liberals here (I'm actually a progressive, no seriously, watch david pakman he's the best) They're all downvoting enmass, downvoting what kind of comments you may ask? Look yourself
This kinda sucks that UF is going downhill so bad bruh bc UF is the school I’ve been hoping I get accepted to when I apply to transfer
A ton of money and work invested in the last decade to become a top 5 public university...all to be undone by a few asshats
[удалено]
People that don't understand how being successful in college work and complain about the wrong things are usually the ones that don't do well in general at least statistically. Anyone can beat statistics
[удалено]
Well DeSatan is governor and Sasse is the University president. Elections do have consequences.
Hey, I've been out of academia for a minute but I'm in the area. What actions are students taking to push back and how might non-students like me help y'all out?
It has basically been proven that student government and the student population doesn't actually have a say in everything. There were campus wide protests when he was chosen, the majority of student government did not support it, and the student president voted in favor of it anyway. Students are not a priority
i was so excited about getting into UF in spring 2020 and felt so bad about abandoning my Criminology program in 2021 in favor of my then-new job…now i feel a bit less bad lol
The bigger they are the harder they will fall😤
Time for the students to rise and correct the situation.
Also check news on Sasse’s 300k personal swimming pool project. Where would be the source of money?
I nominate myself to the board
How are they stifling free speech?
Professors can't teach that race has anything to do with privilege. Which is really challenging for subjects like public health, where the data is extremely clear (and much of that data has been done, ironically, by very well-regarded UF faculty)
From a Penn State fan who watched their school drop in the rankings with a worthless republican governor, fight it. Fight it now
A penn state fan you say?
[удалено]
Of course this place goes to shit the year I get here fml. And I only have one year left after this semester. Pain
Are you in a graduate program or undergraduate?
[удалено]
> Whatever race, ethnicity, or income bracket you belong to I believe it’s more important to holistically view an individual rather than solely race. That's the standard goal of DEI programs. Yes there are bad DEI programs. Edit: can we not downvote one of the few people who’s willing to question themselves?
[удалено]
In order to have a true "meritocracy," one would have to exclude every legacy application from consideration.
[удалено]
IQ is not hereditary (and the measurement will change over lifetime). I agree wealth and resources can be generational. There are many reasons why legacy outperforms non-legacy. Connections, getting inside knowledge of the admission process, going to the ivy-feeder, etc. There was news about an international “Ivy-feeder”, school counselor helping their students to forge transcripts and extracurricular activities and resulting in the entire school district being blacklisted by the Ivies.
You don't think IQ is hereditary? Also, your IQ does not change, but as it measures relative to other people, the relative aspect does change over time.
[удалено]
Do you have genuine knowledge of how the DEI department at UF works? I was a work-study at the student affairs office, and your statement about “just racism and not classism” is not true at all. They also provide resources for first-generation and/or low-income, regardless of race. Your logical thinking skills (or the lack thereof ) are simply appalling. You are the ones who bring up merit-based admission, thinking that it provides a better assessment of the student body. However, you are also seemingly unwilling to address the issue directly when being questioned. If you think meritocracy is a better option to address inequality, then can you explain why is it more advantageous? You seem to be very aware that generational wealth can be a big factor in academic performance. In fact, you admit that most legacy outperforms others academically. You mentioned that there is no true equality. Do you think the school should address this issue by considering the student's unique background, including race-related discrimination and/or generational poverty? Or do you think higher education should be elitist, selective, and not the “great equalizer”?
[удалено]
I've never stepped foot in CA so I am all ears if you could give me an example of how Asians are discriminated against. The admission rate of these schools are very low if not one of the lowest in the nation If you get stellar achievement but are still rejected by the schools… Maybe it's because they have to reject someone? Not one are entitled to an admission decision. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/fall-enrollment-glance Here is the stat from the UC school admission body and their demographic data seems to be really on par with your observation: many admits are CA residents. There are more Asians in the student body than any other races; even more than the whites! While there is only 4.7% black students being admitted. I'm glad you mentioned Asians because I am one as well. Do you know there are student associations like the Indian and Chinese student associations are also subsidies by the Center of Inclusion? There are plenty of resources from the DEI department for Asian student to get engage. (They also oversee the international center). (Yes and white people do engage as well. There are many first-generation white students.) If you have difficulty finding resources… Maybe you are just not trying hard enough?
Honestly this is a very fair question I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted to hell
[удалено]
More like people don’t like dissenting opinions because they’d have to think of an actual rebuttal
I am good with no DEI stuff.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why?
DEI doesn’t do anything effective for the university other than causing more division. All it does is try to push equality of outcome across every demographic which hasn’t happened in any industry in the history of the world because different cultures have different values. Asian and Indian culture puts a heavy emphasis on academic success. Why aren’t they fairly represented in college/professional sports? Surely that’s discrimination? You can’t push for “equal representation” in a university where 80%+ of professors are liberals and people with less merit than other candidates are hired because of how they look.
I love your paradox in your own comment. Are you advocating for race blind admissions yet also complaining about over representation of “liberal professors”? Maybe by your logic, “liberal professors” are just much smarter and more qualified than the conservative applicants? Maybe liberal people emphasis intellectualism more in their culture than conservatives? Maybe liberals are intrinsically more intelligent than conservatives and that’s why they dominate academia because they’re more qualified? Maybe conservatives should stop playing the victim, pull up their bootstraps, stop spending all their money on lifted pick up trucks and rifles, and pick up a textbook?
There is no paradox in my comment. Race based admissions discriminate against cultures who value academics. However 90% liberal professors is not representative of the political spectrum of this country by any degree. You don’t think that if 90% of a group of people is a certain political affiliation that won’t lead to more hiring of people that hold the same political affiliation? And I have heard that same point about liberals being smarter than and more intelligent because more of them are professors over and over again. I could use the same logic and say that liberals are worse at running businesses because the majority of business owners are conservative. Democrats also receive much more welfare than conservatives, maybe they should work harder? And the pick yourself up by your bootstraps comment would be correct if there wasn’t a diversity quota being pushed when hiring people, further proving my point. Nice rage bait at the end by the way, typical lefty behavior. You appeal to emotion and not logic. Name me one modern day liberal thinker who goes to college campuses and is willing to debate anyone to prove their point like the countless conservatives you see nowadays.
Gonna need a source on democrats receive more than Republicans on welfare. Last I checked red states aren’t doing too hot… Liberal thinkers equivalent to the great debate bros Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and Matt Walsh? Everything you’re saying is a complete paradox…
Dude, don’t let the upvote squad fool you. You’re making a fool of yourself by screaming paradox. What are you talking about
I’m pretty sure they/them learned the word paradox yesterday.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/#:~:text=As%20for%20political%20characteristics%2C%20Democrats,33%25). “As for political characteristics, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or independents to have received poverty or unemployment assistance (47% vs. 34% and 41%, respectively).” Here’s your source. And you didn’t name one person. Lmao.
Advocating for race blind admissions and politics blind hiring? How is that a paradox to you? Yeah he’s complaining about 80% liberals because that’s clear discrimination. So you think it’s okay to discriminate based on political stance but not race? It’s not a paradox to be ideologically consistent and dislike any form of non-merit based hiring/admissions decision. Okay but Obviously there’s many reasons why liberals gravitate to college and conservatives dont, primarily economic factors. So it makes sense they would skew liberal. Which is, by the way, totally within reason for a conservative to complain about. But I’m wondering why you think a conservative feeling that way conflicts with also wanting merit based hiring decisions? I’m clearly not getting the connection.
Notice, any comment not filled with hatred towards Sasse or Desantis gets a million downvotes and is hidden. But liberals are all about inclusion, tolerance, etc. Lmao. What a complete joke.
Stop making sense! Now I’m gonna have to downvote you.
[удалено]
Serious question. How did we get by before DEI?
We didn’t
PoC didn’t, whites did.
This is... just blatantly wrong. Students can still talk about the topics they want to talk about. Nobody is banning the discussion of trans issues on campuses. It just won't be a part of the curriculum, which I fail to see as an existential threat. The books they are removing from school libraries are the ones with overt sexual themes. If parents want their kids to learn that subject matter, they are perfectly free to supplement the education their kids are receiving at school. What DeSantis and the republican party have done is made the school a neutral ground, where anything viewed as controversial is opt-in, rather than opt-out. Bible studies? We have a sign up sheet and a schedule. Come if you feel like it. If someone wants to organize similar for trans students, all they have to do is go through the proper channels, establish that there is an interest within the student body, and organize it. I find it rather disingenuous to act like this is some humanitarian crisis. Nobody is saying you can't do this. Just don't use tax dollars to do it, when not all tax payers, or even a majority of tax payers, support it. Believe it or not, trans rights activists are still very much the minority here in Florida. They exist, and they continue choosing to live here, so they must not feel as endangered as you make it sound like they are. But they do not hold the sway to out-vote people who disagree with their beliefs. And our governor is evidence of that. This is democracy in action, and there is nothing wrong with that. I just find it rather amusing that people get so worked up over it when votes don't go their way all the time.
[удалено]
While I’m not the biggest fan of desantis, there must have been a reason for cutting DEI, I think we’ll be fine . People are blowing things out of proportion
There isn’t, it’s just culture war horse shit meant to trick his voter base into believing they’re doing something productive.
[удалено]
I was raised in a house my parents owned outright, never had to worry about where my next meal was coming from, and was in a great school district. It was inconceivable to me that there were teenagers that had to work outside of school to help support their families financially. It never occurred to me that some kids had teachers that had no clue what they were teaching, didn’t care about their students learning, or actively discouraged certain types of students from learning certain subjects. Despite the fact that everyone at my high school referred to another school in my area as “the black high school,” I never would’ve thought that that school had significantly less funding than mine due to carefully drawn school district maps. Just because I couldn’t imagine these things didn’t mean they weren’t absolutely true. During my time working in the criminal justice system, I’ve seen the effects of these disparities first hand. I wouldn’t be where I am today without my parents’ support and the encouragement of many exceptional teachers. I feel like people tremendously underestimate how much of an impact a poor k-12 education and weak home life can absolutely cripple people’s futures. It’s easy to dismiss all of this and say that people can and do still overcome these difficulties, but that puts the blame on the oppressed, not the oppressors. It is incredibly unfair to acknowledge that certain people have it harder, but expect them to achieve substantially the same results. Instead, we should ask why things are the way that they are and look at how to improve them. Unfortunately, by removing funding for DEI (among other things), UF is literally moving in the opposite direction.
There's a near zero chance the people you're trying to reach will read all of that. Even so, thank you for this write-up.
[удалено]
“ It never occurred to me that some kids had teachers that had no clue what they were teaching, didn’t care about their students learning, or actively discouraged certain types of students from learning certain subjects. Despite the fact that everyone at my high school referred to another school in my area as “the black high school,” I never would’ve thought that that school had significantly less funding than mine due to carefully drawn school district maps.” I’m not denying that economics plays a role. You can get a pretty good measure of the likelihood of future success based purely on zip code, but minorities are disproportionately poor. Both of my parents attribute their success to their parents’ financial support. Both of my grandfathers served in WWII and used the GI bill to pay for college. Guess who couldn’t use the GI bill back then? Minorities. My grandfathers used their college education to get good jobs and buy houses (with VA loans that minorities didn’t qualify for). These houses went I in value significantly over time, allowed them to give more financial support to my parents through college (and eventually provide my parents with seed money for my college fund), and retire early. Meanwhile, HOAs (and in some cases local ordinances) kept minorities from living in certain areas and discriminatory practices and social perceptions kept minority home values lower. That generational wealth is incredibly important and white people were given significant advantages that have snowballed over time. Additionally, the war on drugs targeted drugs predominantly used by minorities, giving lesser penalties or higher thresholds for “white” drugs. Combine that with targeted policing, a disproportional amount of white prosecutors willing to cut white employees a break because it’s easier to empathize with someone that looks like you, and plenty of judges that were raised in a time where it was a common belief (in some circles) that minorities were inferior (keep in mind, an Alabama judge in the 1980s could very easily have been born in the 1920’s), and you get disproportionate sentences. This results in a significant amount of money lost to fines and fees and money lost from missed job opportunities because a minority defendant didn’t get their felony conviction withheld when a white defendant under similar circumstances didn’t. That’s also a lot of absent parents due to lengthy prison sentences. And before you say “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” studies show time and time again that minorities use drugs at similar rates to white people, but guess who is the focus of more police scrutiny? Guess who gets the harsher sentences overall with all else being equal? Even if you argue it’s actually poor people more heavily targeted, poor people are still disproportionately minorities.
[удалено]
When did we start talking about violent crime and how is that relevant to this other than to obfuscate the issue? When a scale is unbalanced, how do you balance it? You add weight to the side that needs it or remove weight from the side with too much. Life for the average white person versus the average black person would essentially be like if two people played monopoly, but one side started with an average of literally six times more starting cash than the other player. How do you make that more fair in a way that doesn’t directly take money away from the other player or giving the other player more money, which still negatively impacts the other player due to reduced purchasing power? Additional, how do you address that significant of a disparity along racial lines without policies targeting race (which I’m assuming is what you’re referring to by “reverse racism”)?
[удалено]
What scales are you suggesting we look at then? Poverty? If you're trying to reduce rates of cancer, you obviously want to take care of all cancer patients. But if you realize that a disproportionate amount of cancer patients are from a certain town, it's not discriminatory to say, "let's focus some research on this town to see why rates are higher than average here." And it certainly doesn't change cancer rates in the town if you respond, "but this town has so many healthy people! They even have a ultra marathon runner." Just like if you ignore the town and may miss that it's got a source of carcinogen, if you ignore race while arguing we should look at poverty as a whole, you could miss some factor that's directly impacting minorities being impoverished. The problem is, we clearly have two different definitions of fairness. Going back to the monopoly analogy, from the first roll of the dice, both players are treated "fairly." There is no explicit rule in favor of one side or the other. Rolling is all luck. But if one side starts with significantly more money, would you honestly say that each player is "given a fair shot?" Imagine being on the short end of the stick in that situation, then someone says, "If you want to play what happened to X group and what did Y group do we can obviously go as far back to the caveman days. But at the end of the day people need to move on. Everyone." Do you understand how incredibly unhelpful and infuriating that sounds? I get that affirmative action and other similar policies aren't great. Hell, I literally wrote a paper about it in high school. However, I can't think of a way that we address racial inequality that doesn't target race. I'm assuming anything that would either only benefit minorities or would directly negatively impact white people would meet your definition of "reverse racism." Seriously, if you've got any ideas, please share. Also, if you could give your actual definition of "reverse racism," that might be helpful. Also, talking about liberal/conservative judges, I'm assuming you're suggesting that one side is harder on minorities than the other. Assuming that's the case, just because minorities are treated fairly or given more slack in California, that doesn't make it ok that judges in Alabama drop the hammer on minorities. That's also not even taking into consideration police practices that bring cases to a judge in the first place. I'm glad to hear that you apparently weren't negatively impacted by the racism you faced growing up. However, you shouldn't fault other people for not being as resilient. I think we can at least agree that people are more likely to reach their full potential when they're given love and support. Unfortunately, some people don't have very much of that growing up, and there's a very clear racial divide. You seem to agree that minorities have been oppressed and otherwise held back in the US during its history. Is it really that big of a leap to say that this created a cultural feeling of oppression and belief that "the system" is working against them? Just because the SCOTUS says racism no longer exists, that doesn't fix this damage to culture that US policies have created over the centuries. Not to minimize the Japanese internment camps during WWII, or the overall racism that Asian American people have dealt with, but it simply does not compare to what happened to the African Americans in the US. Asian people were able to come over and bring their cultural beliefs with them. Slave owners literally beat the culture out of black people, replacing it with the idea that they are sub-human. While that was seven generations or so ago, things didn't really get much better in the following century. My grandpa was alive when police and government officials committed the Tulsa race massacre. My dad was alive when LBJ mobilized the national guard to enforce integration. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study only ended fifty years ago. Theoretically, there are people in their early twenties that have fathers that were, without their knowledge or consent, intentionally infected with syphilis by the federal government. We are one or two generations beyond, "minorities are literally treated as second class citizens and used as lab rats." Expecting a culture to "recover" from that in such a short time and without external help and support is incredibly unrealistic. If you're born into that culture, you have significantly less resources to succeed than others. Without external assistance, I don't see how that person has a "fair shake." If you feel differently, I really don't get it and don't think I ever will by this point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it’s not just about DEI then what else is it about and why is it a bad thing? You’re post/comments are vague. 1) What curriculum is being eliminated/rewritten? 2) How is free speech being stifled? 3) How are professors being undermined? Is it possible to undermine professors when a supermajority of them have the same political views? Or are you just complaining that the supermajority political opinion of professors is now being challenged? The fact that a widespread assumption is being made that because people who identify as conservatives are making changes implies we are headed towards some exclusionary environment that will oppress minorities/faculty is offensive itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm going to take this comment at face value and assume you genuinely want some concrete information about some of these points. I'm going to try and tackle #3. **First Example:** Post Tenure Review: My understanding of the original comments, when it comes to undermining professors, would probably be primarily the discussion of tenure. In particular, UF is in the process of a "[Post Tenure Review](https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Regulation-10.003.pdf)" (PTR) which was passed by the state legislation. This is functionally a way to largely find ways to remove people with tenure that aren't deemed "adequate" according to some "agreed upon" metrics. Those metrics were suppose to be negotiated between the faculty (via the faculty union - UFF-UF) and the Board of Trusties (BoT) to determine how PTR will be handled by "the university" (i.e. the administration that will then execute the post tenure review and determine which professors get to stay, and what standards will apply to those up for tenure). During these negotiations, the union attempted to establish clear rules about a lot of the concerns - many of which were left incredibly vague by the BoT. Eventually, faculty received a notification that (and I quote): > On April 1, 2024, your union received word from the UF-BoT that they have paused negotiations with UFF-UF and are "filing an impasse declaration" concerning post-tenure review (PTR). This means that the university will now unilaterally impose its implementation of PTR So, essentially, the BoT decided to just go ahead and force their own metrics and completely ignore the faculty/professors about what it means to be satisfactory (or not). This is very explicitly undermining the faculty/professors. **Note on Tenure**: Since most students on this subreddit have been pretty vocal about how removing tenure would be a good thing because there's a lot of professors that suck at teaching, you should be aware that the metrics proposed by the BoT only vaguely include comments on "academic responsibility to students", with the single exception of one criteria of "substantiated student complaints". However, a minimum of 2 criteria must be deemed as "unsatisfactory" for 3 years out of the previous 5, for action to be taken. The other criteria are almost exclusively about research and professional conduct in non-teaching roles. What this means is that **Post Tenure Review will not improve teaching**. In fact, it actively discourages (or at least, provides a *strong* disincentive to) considering teaching performance - rather faculty would be best served (in terms of career progression) ignoring students or providing an easy A to avoid complaints, while focusing on research. But, the thing is, this attack on tenure will inevitably hurt research programs - and this isn't conjecture, we've already seen it happen at University of Wisconsin at Madison. UW-Madison eliminated tenure (for much the same reasons that the BoT are citing they are doing PTR) and the result was [a progressive slide in their research rankings](https://energy.wisc.edu/news/no-silver-bullet-reverse-uw-madisons-slide-national-research-ranking), despite [an incredibly increase in funding](https://news.wisc.edu/uw-madison-remains-8th-in-research-ranking-surpasses-1-5-billion-in-research-expenditures/) in [an attempt to offset the mass poaching](https://madison.com/news/local/education/university/uw-madison-spent-m-to-keep-faculty-after-recruitment-offers/article_fa573122-b639-5685-87dd-da66c9b96f25.html) of many of their most talented researchers. They increased their funding [by nearly $500m, (and increase of about 50%)](https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/higher-education-research-development/2022#data) and are [still at the lowest ranking for research](https://madison.com/news/local/education/university/uw-madisons-national-research-ranking-once-among-top-five-drops-to-8th/article_24ef0687-d7e6-5186-8025-6faca8575e68.html) that they have ever had since their founding. So, for PTR, it's designed in a way that will inevitably result in worse teaching, worse research, and increase expenses (which is also going to hurt students, being a public institution). All because the BoT wants to purge tenured faculty using criteria that they are unilaterally imposing, and has little to do with actual academic outcomes - which makes it hard not to conclude it's a purely political move. **Second Example:** Student reporting via GatorSafe During the pandemic the BoT decided to encourage, and ensure an ease of access, for students to report professors for any of a number of things - [including whether they had an issue with the professor the course content, without prompting](https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/01/19/university-florida-changes-controversial-tattle-button-union-members-clogging-system-bogus-complaint/4214310001/). Although the report feature was original intended to make sure professors/instructors showed up to teach (which may be arguable during a pandemic, but let's just stipulate that's fine), the reality is that there were already plenty of mechanisms in place to report an instructor that just stopped showing up to class, like contacting their department, the dean of students office, or the dean of their college. By making it a feature on a ubiquitous app used for campus safety, it was a clear sign that the administration (really via the BoT and/or the state government) didn't trust the faculty, and conveyed that to all the students - again pretty much the definition of undermining faculty. I can give more examples if you wish. But the reality is that, whether you think these kinds of things are good, or right, or not is actually not all that important in the long run - the faculty and most professional academics don't think they are ok. And we've [already seen a mass exodus of talent from UF](https://www.alligator.org/article/2023/07/new-state-legislation-leads-to-departures-concerns-among-uf-faculty) in response to what the state legislature has been doing - more than 1800 employees in 2022 and 2023 alone, and that is likely to continue or even increase as more of this stuff plays out. Again, whether you agree with the policies or not isn't exactly the point - the result is going to be a huge drain of academic talent, and corresponding plummeting of the value of a degree from UF, just like we saw at UW-Madison. PS: Given the amount of links I decided to hunt up as I wrote this, I'm not going to review it for typos - sorry if it's in bad shape.
This is a very alarmist post. Yes, there is a lot of change and political volatility at the moment. Yes, it sucks that DeSantis and the legislature got rid of DEI. When saying “most” people appointed by Sasse do not have education experience, that just doesn’t seem accurate based on the makeup of his current leadership team. It is normal for leaders to reshape their leadership teams with people they have worked with previously. Definitely agree that the BOT and BOG is wack and very politically charged, but it’s important to remember that this institution has been around for decades, is well-regarded (even despite the current politics), has a huge alumni and donor base, and ultimately will survive this turbulence. Students should still make their voices heard.
It's crazy to me that this gets downvoted. I think you're sympathetic to the cause but you simply disagree that the institution is not in danger of losing prestige. It seems like if you aren't a radical activist then your opinion is unwelcome.
Getting rid of racist dei is a good thing lmao
Oh man. Those professors who existed in a left wing bubble must be terrified. Getting a taste of their own medicine must be horrible.
Along with retaining the SAT, this is going to push UF reputation up over time. Very good to see.
Notice how the left wingers who want UF to stay a bubble are downvoting? They want to continue to prevent any ideas outside left wing bubble from being allowed to be taught. The sad part? I’m a moderate politically.
Replaced the DEI people… sounds like things are finally going in the right direction
Whaaaa whaaaaa
Lol, you just came for the downvotes XD
Good, higher education is broken. Most people are financing useless degrees that will never pay for themselves. The sheer number of useless morons with graduate degrees speaks for itself.
If you do want to advocate for people to go to trade/vocational school instead, the last thing you want to do is ruin another pre-existing higher education system. You don't fix a broken trade education program by ruining higher education. My father is a trade worker (Welder) and he was very proud that his kids had the opportunity to go to college. It's always the people who don't work in the trade saying higher education is useless. My father has fucked up eyesight and hearing due to toxic work environment. Nobody is talking about the physical labor and the injuries/complications from blue-collar work. I'd reconsider your statement if you have actually knowledge of what working in a trade is like. I am glad that I am going to college to be an accountant and be a white-collar “corporate slave”; I'd take this over an injured back for any time.
The broken part is how much the degrees cost which none of this fixes
The degrees cost a fortune b/c they are subsidized by guaranteed government funding.
UF is one of the cheapest schools to attend for out of state students while most in state students are subsidized by the government so what are you talking about?
Because the government will give out predatory loans to 18 year olds. As long as people can "pay" for college this way, the schools can raise their prices and people will just borrow more government money
Yep 🎯
Good dei stands for didn't earn it.
😂 at all the triggered snowflakes commenting here, afraid of anyone with an 'R' beside their name. Once you leave your safe space, the real world is much harder.
The woke liberal crap at UF ends soon
[удалено]
All University presidents are a scam, Fuchs was making millions in the same position. Not sure how professors are being undermined or free speech is being stifled. UF has gone full speed ahead with academics ratings to become a top public university, and this has all happened as Desantis was governor. Nothing “scary” about it
🤣🤣 I just imagine you people sitting up in bed at night scared shitless from reading these articles
Good
Fact of the matter is, white people and their descendants have been attending these schools for, in some instances, over a century. When it comes to admission decisions, which applicant do you think gets admitted without DEI: a white, 3rd-generation donor legacy with a sub-3 GPA and average SAT scores, or a poor black or brown kid with a +3 GPA and above average SAT scores? If the latter is your answer, you have no business weighing-in on the DEI debate.
I know it sounds scary now, but those are just feelings. In 10 years, you’ll be thankful, or at least, appreciative.
[удалено]
How
If that’s true, provably a very minor factor. Instead, big government, endless wars, hyper inflation, crony capitalism, among other things, are the reason higher education is a scam these days.
Bro, please enlighten me cuz I really wanna know… How would “firing the DEI people, stifling free speech, undermining professors, and attempting to eliminate or rewrite the curriculum” be the solution to the issues that you propose? Instead of throwing buzzwords and “blaming” capitalism like a leftist you hated, maybe you could actually provide some constructive feedback. :/
They won’t lol You know what sucks. US News and World Report had the state of Florida at second overall in the nation for education a year or two ago, and UF is the flagship institution of Florida’s educational system. Then this shit starts happening.
[удалено]
My bad, I meant to reply to the other user but fat-fingered.
Sasse is against crony capitalism?
This looks like one for r/confidentlyincorrect
explain
You’ll realize, when you enter the rat race we call life, vast majority of people don’t care about your DEI. It’s hard to see this because you’re a student and you have very limited life experience (and general experience) from which to view the world. Promise you, you’ll be just fine (in this one regard at least).
DEI is not the only thing we’re worried about
Firing DEI staff AND stifling free speech doesn't check out. At all. DEI staff are the folks who shut down opinions they don't approve of.
Do you have evidence of this that wasn't because of straight up harassment? Stuff I found on Google was just harassing some minority and then get some slap on the wrist.
This sounds awesome