The South Dakota Board of Regents are meeting today after gathering commentary on how to implement the requirements of House Bill 1087, otherwise known as the Free Speech Act, calling it an “Intellectual Diversity Public Conversation.” And a few people whose names you might recognize chimed in.
Board of Regents Submitted Comments for Intellectual Diversity Public Conversation by Pat Powers on Scribd
In particular, the Governor had a few things to say..
As did Legislative Leadership..
and..
When Republican legislative leadership notes “if the current trend continues and Diversity Offices are not reformed to include recommendations in this and the other letters mentioned below, the legislature may be forced to explore options such as Tennessee has adopted that remove funding for these offices all together,” it might be a hint to the Board of Regents that this might not be the last time that they hear about these issues.
Does that mean you are not going to accept any amounts of money from any national diversity foundations???? lol
I don’t think so. lol…….You need to practice what you preach. NO MONEY TRAIL.
It’s amazing that being forced to let students hear and say anything they want is going to require diversity officers or committees or rules, or training. Or anything.
South Dakota is leading the nation in making these important and needed reforms and it makes be proud of our state
what reforms?
Everyone need to realize an important fact at the beginning of this debate. Our universities are controlled by leftists. They have the power to control everything on campus, including what gets taught and what books assigned. That is why we have to go in and pull everything apart and put in new leaders who aren’t drooling Bernie-bots
There you go again blaming leftists. Last I heard the South Dakota Universities have been controlled by the Republican party for the last 40 years.
Remember when SDSU forced students to take down American flags?
I remember SDSU diversity bureaucrats forcing us to go through the “Tunnel of Oppression” and go to the Drag Queen Ball. It’s nuts people, , people don’t even realize the half of it
Drag is the new blackface. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, white people dressed up and performed in minstrel shows which exaggerated ridiculous stereotypes of blacks as being stupid and lazy.
That was finally acknowledged to be more horror show than entertainment.
But now men dress up as women and perform in drag shows which exaggerate ridiculous female stereotypes of high maintenance and prissiness.
One historical analysis of the minstrelsy genre pointed out that Minstrel shows were popular with poor uneducated whites who did not feel part of mainstream white society, but minstrelsy defined their separation from black culture and helped to “codify whiteness.”
Likewise, drag is popular with effeminate men who do not feel they are participants in mainstream masculinity, but it defines their separation from femininity and helps to codify masculinity.
So here we are: Blackface is horrifically offensive, but drag shows are fine entertainment.
Drag is demeaning to women, but it’s politically incorrect to point this out.
You are wrong.
Good grief! Reading all this nonsense has me craving a frosty pint of beer and grilling a nice South Dakota sourced Brat and burger. All a waste of time. Bigger fish to fry and Walleye sounds good too right about now.
This movement is catching on–good work South Dakota!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/in-one-state-the-diversity-industry-is-under-attack.php
It’s interesting that the BOR just trots out left-wing students that they have total control over to testify at these things after being pushed to do so by the BOR.
Maybe the BOR should let the left-wing diversity “experts” testify?
No! have to keep those people hidden from the voters!
Do they think we’re dumb?
I plan to ask the Regents how they envision application of the new law will effect Diversity at the USD Medical School. The school “has chosen three areas of emphasis on diversity to enrich the learning environment and promote inclusive excellence: American Indians, rural, and gender.” Under the new law will the Medical School now include intellectual diversity in their areas of emphasis? With Intellectual Diversity, will the school be graduating doctors that have been exposed to people of differing opinions that disagree with each other? Or, for example, will our state’s future doctors be indoctrinated with only one side of the gender issue?
Here is a thought. Maybe they should take the best students!
Given the way Asian students are turned down in some programs because they perform too well and they are not “diverse enough” or something, this is a great opportunity for South Dakota to attract the best and brightest students from other states with the simple pitch: “Come to South Dakota. We won’t discriminate against you because you are too smart”.
This is classic Dog Whistle politics with seeking solutions to problems that don’t exist. South Dakota University campuses are not similar to Berkley. South Dakota is not California. What next our campuses become a version of the Handmaiden’s tale?
They aren’t Ivy League either.
The entire BOR was appointed either by Rounds or Daugaard. I don’t think it’s teeming with liberals. And it’s also clear that the “rumors” that BOR was front loading liberal support were false or just propaganda. They reached out to many orgs across the political spectrum, not asking for an opinion on the law but rather HOW they can implement the new legislation.
It seems that some input confused intellectual diversity and race diversity. I think both are important. Dow isn’t recruiting from School of Mines anymore because they’re too white. Kids are fine with, and some seek out, racial diversity if they haven’t had biases ingrained in them from childhood. Kids seeking diversity sure as heck ain’t looking at South Dakota for college. Maybe that’s the goal.
Legislators are trying to make it clear that they’re concerned about conservative opinions being oppressed. I don’t know if that is really a problem or not. The outcome is more paperwork and beaurocracy. If something was ever challenged in court isn’t the first amendment enough if the concern is really about free speech? I don’t think that’s the real motivation behind the legislation.
I understand some oppose these reforms. If you believe that, as things now stand, our SD campuses offer the right balance of conservative and liberal views, you don’t feel change is needed. Some fear change.
The problem: most stakeholders disagree. More than 50 percent of taxpayers, tuition payers, alums, and voters see conservative voices hushed on campus. Students report free speech chilled and censored. The majority do NOT perceive the universities in perfect, harmonious balance.
As Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Majorities aren’t always or automatically correct. We get it wrong from time to time. Perhaps the minority view is correct in this case. Perhaps there’s a better way to address the problem. I’m willing hear ideas. But I scarcely blame our elected representatives, including Governor Noem, for advancing a solution SD voters ardently support.
Under God, the people rule.
Diversity offices employ 31 people and costs nearly $6 million a year? Cut the funding from the state, problem solved. To much government intrusion and overreach. That’s what happens when you keep dishing out money.
I agree with Tara for the second time ever.
Getting a drink.
The more you drink, the more you will be agreeing with me Dave R.
Had to laugh at the slideshow from Regional Health, which insisted they needed a “workforce that is as broad and diversified as the patient population that it serves”, which they claim would increase “mutual respect and understanding between patient and organization.” Their pictures were an artful arrangement of groups of “persons of color” and not a single person that wasn’t above an ideal weight. Guess they haven’t seen their “patient population” lately.
Just curious BOR and SD Legislature……..you talk the conservative talk, but you don’t walk the conservative walk. How can you say you are Conservatives when you raise tuition, fees. room and board and grow government every year. Change starts with you. So quit making excuses and take responsibility for the grow of government and education costs.