Gdanning
2yr ago
Neither the government nor the schools have a valid interest in what children are taught. The valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents,
- Note that we are talking about what ideas are available in libraries, which is not quite the same issue as what is taught in class.
- More importantly, the fact that the valid interest begins and ends with that of the parents is exactly why schools need to refrain from censoring views and to avoid indoctrination. The interest is an interest of *individual *parents, not "the parents" as a group. If I think BLM is bullshit, it is a violation of that interest if the only books my child finds in the library are White Fragility and The New Jim Crow. You seem to be blind to the fact that "the parents" of a school district ultimately constitute "the government" -- they elect the school board, and if they elect a PC slate that promises to indoctrinate students on gender issues, then "the government" is violating my interest in what is taught.
You cannot write a law that "prevents indoctrination" in a system that exists to indoctrinate. There is no neutral viewpoint.
Yeah, this is the same nonsense that I heard from some colleagues when I was teaching: "It is impossible to be completely neutral; therefore, it is fine to indoctrinate my students in my personal political views." No, it isn't: A teacher, and a school, are perfectly capable of exposing students to varying views on issues, including those with which they disagree. I did it all the time: "Here is a very common argument on one side of this issue. Here is a common argument on the other side."
Gdanning
2yr ago
they do some things that might seem obscenely ridiculous in the absence of corruption,
I do not agree with this premise. It is not ridiculous; it is rational:
When Gateway Computers announced the appointment of Elizabeth Dole to its board of directors, its stock price jumped 13.66% that day. The Disney Company’s stock price went up 4.24% when actor Sidney Poitier was announced as a director. Why do firms appoint O.J. Simpson, Evander Holyfield, Billy Jean King, Deepak Chopra, Lynn Swann, and other celebrities to their boards? ... Our first question investigates the effect on shareholder wealth by the appointment of celebrity directors. On the whole, we find that such appointments enhance firm value. These findings lead to our second research question. How does the appointment of celebrity directors improve firm value? We propose as an explanation that these appointments enhance a firm’s visibility to investors. Celebrities on boards can enhance the public prestige and standing of a given board. A celebrity can make a corporate board more visible to both consumers and investors. Elberse (2007), for instance, notes how a celebrity provides free advertising for an organization. She further argues that this increased prominence due to the celebrity’s presence can increase the ability of the organization to secure more resources. In the case of a corporate board, this might mean the recruitment of high ability directors. Podolny (1993) contends that the presence of celebrities within an organization can provide it with an advantage in its competition with others. That is, the development of a board with high ability directors might provide a firm with a competitive advantage over rivals with less talented boards. Groysberg, Polzer, and Anger-Elfenbein (2010) study Wall Street equity analysts and conclude that groups benefit from having members who achieve high levels of individual performance or renown. They argue that the contribution of star individuals can drive organizational success indirectly by enhancing the group’s perceived status among critical external constituencies. Hence, celebrities on boards might improve a firm’s ability to attract new customers, find business partners, or obtain new capital from investors.
Ferris, Stephen P., et al. "Reaching for the stars: the appointment of celebrities to corporate boards." International Review of Economics 58 (2011): 337-358.
Why do you choose to focus on the former and not the latter?
Because I was criticizing the common claim that the latter is the only explanation, which is incorrect, because it is based on a misapprehension
Gdanning
2yr ago
Again, I am hardly an expert on FCPA, but based on my perusal ofthe DOJ page discussing the act, yes it would certainly seem that that would be a valid defense, if the jury believed it. It would be a difficult argument to make in the case you cite, because those appear to be low level hires, not board members, who, in contrast to low level hires 1) are publicly known by investors to have been hired; and 2)are often, in fact, hired for purely PR purposes. It is even possible that Burisma wanted the Biden name because Joe was seen as a straight shooter, and hence Hunter's presence created an inference that Burisma's financial statements were relatively trustworthy., compared to their competitors. (And, before someone starts talking about the "Biden crime family", I said was seen as.)
Again, the point is not that Hunter Biden is innocent. I have no idea. All I know is that this supposed smoking gun is no such thing. It only appears that wayto those who are naive about how corporate boards operate.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Sorry, I misread your previous reply. It seems that you agree that indoctrination is bad; if that is the case, then I do not understand why you oppose a law that prevents indoctrination. Because, to clarify, once the plurality opinion in Pico is overruled, which is inevitable given the Court's subsequent government speech jurisprudence, schools will be free to engage in indoctrination by removing all books that conflict with the majority view.
Gdanning
2yr ago
No, I didn't imply it at all. I made a very simple point: The assumption that, if a company names an "unqualified" person to their board, it can only be for the purpose of bribery or the like, is based on a failure to understand how corporate board appointments work.
As for your questions:
- Yes, duh.
- I have no idea how common it is, nor how common "one may think" it is.
- I am not overly familiar with the FCPA, but I assume that "hir[ing] an employee/board member for an improper purpose, due to his/her connection to government officials."
But, again, all of that begs the question as to whether it was for an improper purpose. Again, the common argument, "it must have been for an improper purpose, because all he brings to the table is his name" is based on ignorance, because a famous name is all that many, if not most, corporate board members bring. As is often the case, it is rarely true that "if you are not outraged, you are not paying attention," but rather that "if you are outraged, you probably don't understand what is going on."
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'm not willing to give away the option to prevent flooding the library with propaganda
Well, we will have to agree to disagree, because I see that as deeply improper. And, as Justice Alito has correctly noted, 'The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State." Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393, 424 (2007). That is true regardless of whether decisions are made by librarians or parents.
Gdanning
2yr ago
then please explain how this law would prevent librarians from curating away books they don't like,
The point is that, in the absence of the law, libraries will not simply be able to remove books with views they don't like; they will have the right to do so. In contrast, if the law is passed, they risk losing funding or worse if they do so. Will it absolutely prevent them from doing so? No, just as laws against murder do not absolutely prevent murders.
yes I would be a lot more ok with that than having these decision made by a single librarian.
You are avoiding the issue. The issue is not by whom it should be done, but rather whether it is ok with it being done at all.
It also looks like you were trying to address the other part of my comment but didn't get around to it?
No, there was just a formatting problem. I have edited it for clarity.
Gdanning
2yr ago
From your link: "Officials are trying to establish whether the bank hired young workers from prominent, well-connected Chinese families in order to curry favor and win business."
Yes, that is obviously improper. But that begs the question, right? The assumption that if a company puts a famous "unqualified" name on its corporate board, it must be for an improper purpose, is highly naive.
it seems the only question here is whether parents should be allowed to overrule librarians, and I don't see why the answer to that should be "no" whether we're talking about blue, or red parents.
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a majority of parents can silence all views with which they disagree, and whether schools should only provide information on one side of political issues. That certainly is not the norm. Most school districts, be they red or be they blue, have "controversial issues" policies which require teachers to teach such issues objectively, and to provide views on all sides. Even the supposed "anti-CRT" laws generally do not ban those ideas from class but instead provide that discussion thereof is perfectly fine if "instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement.".
And, you would be OK if your kid's school only taught Das Kapital, and only had Marxist works in their libraries, and blocked all websites other than those that gave Marxist interpretations of history, economics, politics, etc?
Whether or not both sides will benefit from lack of this kind of "censorship" will also depend on whether librarians tend to have a bias towards one side or the other
School boards, not librarians, are ultimately responsible for deciding what books can be in libraries, and school boards often are asked to remove books which are not politically correct.
Gdanning
2yr ago
It is illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to have a relative of foreign politician on the board of a US company?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Except that my suggestion was re codifying Pico, which does not prevent the removal of material because it includes sex, or profanity, or violence, etc. It only apples to removal of books based "upon disagreement with constitutionally protected ideas in those books, or upon a desire on petitioners' part to impose upon the students of the [school] a political orthodoxy to which petitioners and their constituents adhered."
So, absent Pico, blue schools will almost certainly remove books that are supposedly "racist."
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, it is the same, very well known, test, the NAEP. it is easy enough to do some research on its history. Feel free to do so.
Gdanning
2yr ago
- I don't understand why you frame it as which side gets to hurt the other more, as opposed to both sides benefiting from ensuring that their ideas are not censored.
- Have you not heard of cancel culture, and the like? Do you think that only conservatives try to censor ideas that they don't like? A law that prevents censorship benefits all sides.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Yes, no one doubts that he got the job because of his name. That is my point: As is often the case in corporate boards, it is the name that the company is paying for.
Gdanning
2yr ago
No, I did not say he doesn’t notice. I actually said the exact opposite in #2 above.
The point is that those who think that there must have been a bribe, because why else would Burisma want an "unqualified" person on their board, are being very naive.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Under current circumstances, an asylum seeker can apply for a work permit and then work legally for years until their hearing takes place. Not only does that pay far more than the underground economy, in the meantime they might develop grounds for acquiring legal status even if their aslum application is denied: Maybe they will get married, or find an employer willing to sponsor them for a work visa. A lot can happen in 8 years. And that creates an enormous incentive to come to the US and give it a shot.
All those incentives disappear if applications are adjudicated in 6 months. Far fewer people are going to come here in order to work in the underground economy forever than are willing to come and a) work legally; and 2) have a shot at a green card.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I know this is a waste of time, but:
- That is not the least corrupt interpretation, since it is Burisma (like all companies), not Hunter Biden, that wants to create the appearance of connections (not "a corrupt bribe scheme"). And, Viktor Shokin was not appointed Prosecutor General until February of 2015; Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board months earlier, in April of 2014. I would note also that in late 2015, the US ambassador to Ukraine called out Ukrainian prosecutors for failing to cooperate with a UK investigation into Burisma.
- It might be a scandal for Hunter, but not for Joe. It is Hunter who is the crackhead, after all. Though acceding to the request, "please come on our board; investors in Ukraine are so used to corruption that they will assume you will be able to influence US policy, even though it is not true" is perhaps not that huge a scandal, in the grand scheme of things in the world of big business.
Gdanning
2yr ago
How about increasing funding for asylum adjudication, so that the wait for adjudication is 6 months, not several years? That will pretty much eliminate the border issue, since it will massively decrease the incentive to enter the country and give asylum a shot. That would have bipartisan support, especially from people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who for all intents and purposes really control what passes the Senate.
How about a law to preserve the substance of the Pico plurality decision, which is probably no longer good law, to prevent red schools from removing ideas they don't like, and blue states from doing the same?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Hunter Biden, Joe's fuckup son, gets a seat on the Burisma board despite being unqualified
People who think this proves anythng don't understand how corporate boards work. Especially for a relatively young company, board memberships are largely about creating appearances. That is why the former president of Poland was on the board of Burisma, and why Theranos added people like George Schultz to their board. And that is even more the case in in a country with high levels of corruption, like Ukraine; putting big names on the board makes investors think the company has connections and the advantages that come with that. What Burisma needed from Hunter Biden was the appearance of advantage, not so much actual advantage.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Schools do not appear to suck, relative to the 1980s
The point is that corporations indeed make board appointments because "they have some weird 'appearance' argument."
Do you really not understand the difference between:
I have discussed only #1, not #2.
I have said several times that it could be corrupt.
More options
Context Copy link