I think that’s a false equivalency. California is saying our employees can’t spend state monies in your area when traveling. Texas can go on discriminating.
Texas, on the other hand, is making all schools the subject of what Texas thinks is appropriate. California, if I understand how it works correctly, would then be forced to use Texas tainted textbooks. Texas is the one forcing ideas on people.
Perhaps I should have added a sarcasm tag up there.
There’s also Oak Ridge National Labs in Oak Ridge Tennessee (near Knoxville), which has the third fastest supercomputer in the world as of November 2016’s TOP500 list and does a lot of high performance computing work.
Okay. What’s the next step?
Will CA stop recognizing the legitimacy of other states laws? No more interstate rendition? How long before red state credentials like Drivers Licenses aren’t granted reciprocity?
It’s a long, slippery, painful slope to tribalism.
Which we’re well down already.
An interesting article by Mr Robert Reich on the subject of Tribalism:
Regardless of whether California’s ban has any real economic effect it’s certainly brought attention to how some states treat LGBT people.
An interesting thing I’ve noticed about people who discriminate is a lot of them don’t like having it pointed out that they discriminate.
What was that Margaret Thatcher quotation?
And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.
I suppose this is probably the real point. I’m always the one who says to shout loudly and let the kids sort it out. California is doing that right.
Who may then decide to move to a university in a state without those laws.
How? They’re getting paid to travel now. If “allies” getting inconvenienced turns then against human rights, they weren’t friends. Human rights aren’t a fair-weather concern.
I’m not sure that bringing up something that might be a contentious issue (that nixing travel might be seen as infringing on academic freedom) means turning against human rights. I’d wager that most academics support this move, even if it affects their travel budget. It might also mean that academic conferences won’t come to the states that have laws that discriminate.
To be fair, there are any number of academic conferences that are hosted by the same Universities each year, particularly where that University is a leader in research in a given field. This will to some degree punish CA-based participants that could have benefitted from attending.
That’s true too. Non-university based conferences, though connected with various academic associations regularly move around (AHA, OAH, and PCA are the ones I’m most familiar with).
But again, no one is being barred from attending, but (and we’re guessing at this) that university funds won’t be allowed to be used to travel to these states. And I’d guess that as state funds are tight anyway, travel funds have been dwindling a bit, anyway and academics are probably getting used to footing the bill for their own travel.
So “states” means “US states”?
Well I guess time will tell then. And I still contend it will require more support than that alone, but maybe it will be a jumping off point. Like I said, the comment I made was in reply to the academic conferences made.
I am not sure which laws specially they have a problem with. I assume with Kansas it was the “religious liberty” bill. Is it as bad as HB2 to get a similar response? Many states have some sort of fuckery that target gays in their laws. At least 12 states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books even after a supreme court case truck them down in 2003. Are they going to add them to the list as well?
And just in a broad sense, I don’t think we should be pitting states against each other. Depending on the area, the US seems more like the EU at times, where the states act like countries who begrudgingly have to live next to the others. In fact that sort of loyalty to the sate vs the nation was the norm for over half of the life of the country, and is how we ended up with a civil war. And how we ended up with things like the electoral college, because they don’t want them “sum’bitches over yonder” to have too much power on the Federal level.
But hey, I am Machiavellian some times, so if I am wrong and it works, great. I just don’t think it will have a lot effect. Especially in Kansas who is so fucked on so many levels with the recent experiments.
And abandon the students of that state? Leave only right leaning professors? Or are you going to have CA let Kansas residents pay in state tuition and subsidize their housing? If academics move though, it will be because KS is totally fucking up their education system right now.
Hey everyone - it isn’t black and white out there. There are no “good states and bad states”. Even “red states” have MILLIONS of liberals and moderates out there. Even California isn’t homogeneous, with there being a different culture in the North than in the South. The state are purple in reality. And staying in one state in no way means you condone all the laws.
Even Kansas who has the wart that is the Westboro Baptist Church also has lots of pro-gay groups, including the Rainbow House which is literally across the street.
o_0 how are they “fair weather” friends of human rights? Living in a state doesn’t mean you condone all the laws. Sure for some things moving a conference might not be a big deal. But like K-State has huge facilities for crop sciences and a nuclear reactor, and other things you can’t easily do somewhere else if the conference needs those facilities for part of the conference (these are examples, maybe all you need is just a Hilton with a Ballroom to rent.) At any rate Kansas schools are strapped, so their travel budgets I am sure suck. I think it would suck to pass up an experience that would have been held in Lawrence being passed up because it was moved somewhere you can’t go to, or it was held in Lawrence but the attendance is down.
If it was something like sports games or concerts or model train builders conventions, that would be a different matter.
I think you’re right. I sit on the board for a conference that is held at the same school in Texas. Since the passage of the bathroom bill there, we’ve reopened the discussion on moving, since some of our members will not be safe to use the bathroom for, like, a week. Not tenable. Texas isn’t on the list yet, but probably will be once the law is actually in effect. Members from California have started to make noise about how after this year, they might not be able to use state funds. Which for many of them, doesn’t matter. They’re on other money. But if they’re bringing students, who are often supported on school fellowships or travel awards, it suddenly matters. My sense is definitely that people are angry at states for passing these restrictive anti-human rights laws, not at CA for limiting funds.
I would be surprised if our annual meeting is in the same place in 2018. And we’ll definitely be writing to the state, with the dollars amount of what they’ve lost.
There is this too… little acknowledgement that there is cross over between the category of academic and the category of LBGQT individuals… [quote=“infundibulum, post:59, topic:93150”]
But if they’re bringing students, who are often supported on school fellowships or travel awards, it suddenly matters.
[/quote]
And this. Yes. If you have a TT job, you can probably afford to shell out a few extra bucks for travel. Students, especially MAs and undergrads, not so much. [quote=“infundibulum, post:59, topic:93150”]
My sense is definitely that people are angry at states for passing these restrictive anti-human rights laws, not at CA for limiting funds.
[/quote]
Totally!
Yes. Fuck them. If they can’t control their bigotry, (or their bigots) they should suffer for it.
That is literally what the word “condone” means.
