| They sound good because they are being presented in a pleasant way that undermines that reality of what these requests are. First, adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice. Basically, the current administration can dictate what constitutes a violation. The government gets to dictate what is passing and what is not passing. Basically, this is the government having a direct hand in dictating what the schools that receive government funding can say and do, full stop. Further, this is a potential violation of the current administrations desire to eradicate DEI as this compact literally promotes DEI. So it's an odd request. It's also a massive violation of the freedom of speech. > Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. So, no one employed by the university can speak about societal or political events unless it has a direct impact on the university. Imagine not being able to talk about modern events in the classroom? I was doing this in high school in the 90s in Missouri! And now the administration wants to take that away. There are many reasons this is bad. But predominantly it's this: I get to decide what any of this means. So you have to defend this from MY POV, because this establishes me as the ultimate arbiter here. * Why me? Because it's whoever is in charge at the time, which means you need to be able to defend the merits of this when it doesn't necessarily fit your wants or needs. Which means me. |