MeanGreenTeeth

I'm sure we'll follow whatever the Big 12 and SEC are doing.

That's cool. We'll just let Iowa and Nebraska join C-USA for the fall. 🙂

It seems pretty hard to argue that the game is cancelled due to an Act of God when you're continuing to play games against other teams.

Yeah. That's what I was wondering. I'm assuming the state can't/won't sue itself.

Well, you see, this is where parents get to use their judgement to make a decision about what's best for their kids and their family. A healthy 29 year old single woman working two jobs may make a different choice about sending her 7 year old kid to campus than a diabetic mother of a 15 year old.

Well..no one in their right mind is going to go out and declare 2 years of closings now of course.. but given the standards you laid out that might not be unreasonable in the bigger population areas as it ebbs and flows. There are a large proportion of schools in the country that have already canceled in-school for the fall. I don't think it unlikely that many of those will continue to cancel in the spring. In regards to educating differently in a time of need.. of course.. and the teachers and administrators will likely do the best they can, but distance education simply isn't going to be as good over the long-term, especially for younger kids and those kids who don't have much in the way of parental support (which sadly is far too many). So yeah, the suburban kids who have parents who can afford to either spend time with their kids on their lessons or hire a tutor will be more or less fine. The poor kids who have parents who don't speak English or come from a home of a single working parent are going to have a tougher go of it.

1. You're making random arguments against positions neither I nor the OP have taken, and 2. Let's see the state our children's education will be in if they don't physically go to school for two years. This isn't a simple black and white issue.

That's tragic, no doubt, but I don't think that refutes the OPs assertion. That's 5 out of 31k and given that only a fraction of children who have it are probably tested, the risk is quite miniscule (CDC itself shows that 3x the number of kids 14 and under have died from flu vs COVID).

Yeah, if you're under 70, the death rate is pretty much the same as flu as I understand it (less deadly for children I think), but of course it is more transmissible so you're still going to have more people die in total. I've known two people in their 40s who've gotten it and they both pretty much just felt lethargic for a few weeks and lost their sense of smell for a while.

I don't disagree with any of that. I agree it's a heavy handed position for the government to take for the time being. I'm truly not advocating a position as I don't know the full public policy reasons for student visas. It just seems odd to me that we'd let people stay long term on student visas if they never go to campus. If the primary purpose is to let the students get a good education, then it seems pointless as they could attend class from their bedroom in their home country just as well as some apartment in Denton. If the point is to get international money flowing to our universities and local communities, then I guess it makes sense to try to keep them here. So is the thinking that this is a swipe at China (as I'm assuming a large bulk of international students are Chinese)?

The truth is all of our options are garbage. The good news is that serious complications from COVID to children are vanishingly rare and probably much less so than flu. I also heard on the news yesterday that children aren't very good at transmitting it either (though who knows how accurate that is). Of course, there is a chance the teachers could get sick or the kids would bring it home to their family (which I understand to be the bigger concern than the kids themselves). The thing is that online school is a really really poor substitute, for younger kids especially. It also means that the kids hurt the most by not having physical school are those kids who are already underserved and/or don't have a supportive family structure. IMHO, the best of the terrible options would be to have kids attend school unless they or someone in their household is in a high-risk group. Those who couldn't attend could stay online. I'm not sure what would happen to teachers who are high risk though. I guess they might have to take a leave of absence in some cases. That's terrible to say..but things are terrible.

So, I guess I don't fully understand... I agree that it seems really heavy-handed to send international students back due to just one semester of online only school (what a headache if in-person school starts back in the spring), but it does seem reasonable that if this goes on for multiple more semesters (which seems likely) at some point the whole justification for them being here on a student visa doesn't exist as they can do their classes in their home country. What am I missing here, if anything?

Yeah. I agree. I think it's pretty unlikely at this point. The logistics of it working out seem too complex to me unless you're going to quarantine the entire teams for the whole season. I could see teams maybe playing a couple exhibition games against local opponents, but not much more. Hopefully I'm wrong though.

I can't speak to the validity of their complaints, but I will say that the UTSA grads I know are some of the whiniest people I've ever met. But then again, I guess when you donate to a school cannon, and you get a paper box in return, you probably have some reason to think the world is against you.

I don't accept this as a very apt comparison, but I think 1) engaging in a dialogue with the person would be the first, best solution (we've all had bosses/co-workers who've had various issues); and 2) if that didn't work, I would give appropriate notice and do my work until that time. I wouldn't light my paperwork on fire or anything similar in protest.

Your argument is complete nonsense. The 1st amendment does not simply mean the government cannot imprison/arrest you for speaking and there isn't a constitutional scholar in the world who would agree with you. The government can't infringe on your free speech..period... which means that a government institution can't kick you out or punish you in any way for exercising it. There are of course a handful of exceptions to free speech, but none of them are satisfied here. Here is one of the most famous cases related to this... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._University_of_Michigan

Again.. principles matter. I don't care if he's the grand dragon of the White People and Mayonnaise Superiority glee club, his 1st amendment rights apply at a government institution. That doesn't mean he can scream "White Power" in the middle of a lecture, but it does mean he can say anything ideological on the public square. Regardless of that.. I'm just saying that people need to understand that there are jackasses in life that you have to deal with as an adult. One twit out of 20k students doesn't make the institution bad and it isn't an excuse to not carry through with your commitments. It's not a rational nor mature response. Having integrity means doing the right thing even if others don't.

No, but public (government) universities should have no honor code that violates an individual's 1st amendment rights. I'm pretty sure UNT's code is consistent with this. Private universities can have whatever honor code they like and restrict whatever speech they want on whatever arbitrary grounds they choose.

It doesn't matter what I think or what you think. That's the whole point of free speech. There is no need to protect popular speech. He will get what is coming to him in the court of public opinion, but there is no reason for the government (a state run school in this instance) to punish him for expressing his beliefs. That's the same whether he is a member of the communist party, nazi party, Nation of Islam, Westboro Baptist, or a Wahhabi Muslim. I get confused why this has suddenly become so controversial a stance in certain circles. It has been the mainstream free speech view of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the US courts for as long as I'm aware. You don't have a right not to be offended.

His tweet was definitely disrespectful and in poor taste, but under that standard almost all the students would be expelled at some point. Was it racist? No. Not explicitly at least. Slander? Nope. Threatening? Nope. A university should be a place where people are free to express their ideas, even if they're unpopular. The athletes really need to grow up and understand that you don't have a right not to be offended.

Well.. UTSA is the trailer house version of a university...

This may be bad for football, but is not really bad news in the big scheme of things. It seems to indicate that COVID has gotten seriously widespread at this point yet our hospitals are not even close to being overrun. If you're not immunocompromised in some way (due to age or other factor) it isn't really a big deal.

I'm not sure what we're even arguing about. I never claimed that the war didn't start over slavery nor am defending what came afterwards. I'm simply stating that slavery wasn't much of an issue to the vast majority of the soldiers. Nor did the soldiers consider themselves traitors. In their minds the situation was analogous to the Revolutionary War. I mean, I guess they were traitors in a technical sense, but no less so than their grandparents had been during the revolution. Ha! It must be so amazing to so easily pass moral judgement on a whole group of people from 160 years ago, the vast majority of whom had probably never been further than 50 miles from their homes, were little educated, poor, and yet fought bravely to defend what they viewed as an invasion of their homeland. I think it is not irrational to feel sympathy and admiration for people who acted bravely even if the governments under which they fought were unjust.

I respect most of what you said, but that portion can't stand. That's just factually incorrect. The overarching cause of the Civil War may have been slavery, but that's not what drove the vast majority to fight (hell.. many were conscripts). The civil war only occurred a little over 70 years after the adoption of the Constitution. Folks were much more loyal to their states in those days and many still considered themselves citizens of separate little countries within a federal system. Calling them traitors isn't fair and frankly is counterproductive. Lincoln fully recognized this. Badmouthing people's ancestors isn't going to get people on your side and frankly helps poison the well of civil discussion. No. But he was unquestionably the major hero at the battle of Saratoga which was a vital victory for the patriots. I believe there is a statue of the leg he lost there to honor the part of him that remained a hero. 🙂

Yeah 1. So.. to have a more apt example.. should we bring down statues of Washington, rename Washington DC (and state), and close down Mt Vernon? Surely slaveholding is much more offending than a rather innocuous song on its face that was first sung by a minstrel group (which no doubt is despicable) . 2. Let's have another thought experiment. If we were to find a lost cartoon of Mickey Mouse. Let's say it was the first one and it was forgotten to time. Then let's say it was super-racist and Mickey was portrayed as a black person in the most disparaging way. To your way of thinking, should all Mickey Mouse merchandise, cartoons, etc., be eliminated in the present day or would it be more rational to say that for the last 90 years Mickey has had no racial connotation and the discovery of some original sin in his production shouldn't invalidate everything that came afterwards? 3. Snowflakes are terms for people who are easily offended. As if offends me in no way for the song to be taken down, I can't see how that applies to me. I'm not saying that the people who want it taking down are snowflakes either, I'm just saying that this sort of puritanical stance will in fact lead to a slippery slope. It may not "cancel" sofas and bridges, but it surely will a lot. It's important to keep in mind that this song is just a very small piece of the grievances being raised. 4. I have no problem with the athletes not being forced to sing it, or anything for that matter.