Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Roy

but scanning one of their reports

Please specify the report that you “scanned” (presumably this means skimmed, as opposed to carefully read). Perhaps you could quote from it or identify the paragraph numbers or sections from which your material is coming, so others could look at what you are talking about.

Usually I would, but since you’ve already decided on no evidence or history whatsoever that I might be misrepresenting it, while your own history suggests you won’t read it anyway, I won’t waste my time.

@Roy

that they are restricting the freedom of students to choose their fields of study, by not only insisting that students of e.g. chemical engineering, astronomy, Italian literature or music theater must take courses in US history and politics

Such a requirement, if it existed, would not “restrict students from choosing their fields of study”.

Here’s a suggestion: if you want to misquote, don’t do so with the original text still visible.

@Roy

but also that those students not be allowed to select courses that focus specifically on their own ethnicity (e.g. history of Chinese immigrants) or interest.

Without some quoted material from the report, or a pinpointing of the passages from which you are deriving this statement, it’s impossible to tell whether you are accurately representing the report. You may be leaving out relevant context.
[/quote]
As some-one who frequently requests others give the benefit of the doubt, you ought to practise what you preach.

I suspect the concern is about the “X Studies” phenomenon, whereby students of particular ethnicities or other groups take whole degrees related to their ethnicity (e.g. Afro-Caribbean Studies, Puerto Rican Studies), and the contents of those degree programs are largely centered on venting social and political grievances, rather than rigorous intellectual analysis. But without seeing any passages, I have no context by which to assess your suspect characterization, and given that you admitted to only “scanning” the piece you are talking about, there is every reason to think you may be mispresenting the intent of the words you saw.

You could have found the article yourself in less time than it took to type that paragraph.

@Roy

Several people did comment on the contents of the article you were highlighting.

I suppose that technically speaking, “two” could be called “several”.

Me, Art and djkriese is more than “two”.