[teejers1]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

[teejers1]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

[OutsiderFan]

The calls for Atlas to be fired are going to increase, as this shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

[OutsiderFan]

The calls for Atlas to be fired are going to increase, as this shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

[teejers1]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Like I said, sometimes you crack me up.
Wasn't even responding to your comments about Atlas; but rather, the suggestion that Hoover Institute has to go (as made clear by stuff in bold . . . or so I thought).

[teejers1]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Like I said, sometimes you crack me up.
Wasn't even responding to your comments about Atlas; but rather, the suggestion that Hoover Institute has to go (as made clear by stuff in bold . . . or so I thought).

[akiddoc]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

[akiddoc]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

[82 Card]

The calls for Atlas to be fired are going to increase, as this shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

There is no chance that Atlas will have his government job after January 20. The odds that he will lose his government job before January 20 are infinitesimal. Sure he's awful. That's why he was hired in the first place. Theoretically, a calamity could strike down Trump and Pence, making Nancy Pelosi president. Short of that, not happening.

[82 Card]

The calls for Atlas to be fired are going to increase, as this shows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

There is no chance that Atlas will have his government job after January 20. The odds that he will lose his government job before January 20 are infinitesimal. Sure he's awful. That's why he was hired in the first place. Theoretically, a calamity could strike down Trump and Pence, making Nancy Pelosi president. Short of that, not happening.

[old spanish trail]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

[old spanish trail]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

[82 Card]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

[82 Card]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

[Farm93]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.

[Farm93]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.

[82 Card]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.

[82 Card]

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

Yep. LOL

Accomplished folks at Stanford reaching beyond their area of expertise into pseudoscience with awful results is not peculiar to Hoover. From my time on campus, there was Linus Pauling, by 1980, more known for Vitamin C and eugenics than his areas of accomplishment. Long before my time, there were a series of big names that wondered into eugenics. See Stanford’s history with eugenics.

Eugenics creates an odd example for his discussion as the University has been working diligently to lower the on campus profile of those figures.  I am not sure that's where you intended to bring the Hoover Institution example.

For all of my time as a Stanford alum I have viewed the Hoover Institution presenting a conservative view as a positive thing.   IMHO it served as an excellent counter balance to the idea that everyone and everything in the SF Bay Area, or at least at Stanford, was too progressive, too liberal.

However, in the last decade some conservative positions have embraced alternative facts and conspiracy theories, friendly words for a fictional world view.  It may become difficult for a conservative think tank to continue to have a meaningful voice in that emerging ecosystem while still using available facts and data.  I certainly hope the Hoover Institution can continue to present a conservative, but reasoned, political view.  Though I worry about how the Hoover Institution remains relevant if prominent conservatives need to appeal to audiences fond of OAN, Newsmax and Parler.

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.

[OutsiderFan]

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.

Really well-stated. We have a crisis of what used to be conservative principles in the United States. Allowing the right wing crazies to occupy the position formerly occupied by principled conservative Republicans, and claim they aren't being heard if their fascist impulses are shouted down, is so dangerous for the world it can hardly be emphasized enough.

Biden's administration will have no greater priority than cracking down on disinformation and propaganda in our media, and doing all he can to facilitate a resurgence of principled pro-democracy conservativism in the Republican Party. The Hoover Institute could be part of the solution, but only if terrible people like Scott Atlas are jettisoned.

[OutsiderFan]

I see parallels between the eugenicists and the work of Atlas and John Yoo. I see very bright ambitious people loosing touch with any sense of humanity. It's not a left-right thing. Pauling's origin was not the right wing. People styling themselves "left" have gone down similar roads. One of the things I have appreciated about Hoover in the past has been their efforts to out horrors when most of academia refused to look. It pains me to see Hoover associating with advocates of monstrous policies. This should not be used as an excuse to boot them off campus anymore than Stanford would consider getting rid of the Chemistry or education departments because of the eugenicists. However, Hoover has some work to do taking out the trash.

I don't see FOX, OWN, Newsmax and the whole Trump/McConnell universe as "conservative." Hoover does not need to be relevant with the radical right. In the past, Hoover has gone long periods without constant media attention. It would do better without the kind of attention it is now getting.

Really well-stated. We have a crisis of what used to be conservative principles in the United States. Allowing the right wing crazies to occupy the position formerly occupied by principled conservative Republicans, and claim they aren't being heard if their fascist impulses are shouted down, is so dangerous for the world it can hardly be emphasized enough.

Biden's administration will have no greater priority than cracking down on disinformation and propaganda in our media, and doing all he can to facilitate a resurgence of principled pro-democracy conservativism in the Republican Party. The Hoover Institute could be part of the solution, but only if terrible people like Scott Atlas are jettisoned.

[Goose]

I think it is inappropriate to deny academic freedom to people who advocate controversial ideas, even ones that some may consider morally abhorrent.  What I do believe is that academic freedom needs to comply with accepted standards of rigor. If any advocacy repeatedly fails to meet an acceptable standard of scholarship, even (or perhaps especially) when the policy advocated is "generally accepted", then such a person may reasonably be asked to leave. This should be true at Hoover and also in the University at large.

[Goose]

I think it is inappropriate to deny academic freedom to people who advocate controversial ideas, even ones that some may consider morally abhorrent.  What I do believe is that academic freedom needs to comply with accepted standards of rigor. If any advocacy repeatedly fails to meet an acceptable standard of scholarship, even (or perhaps especially) when the policy advocated is "generally accepted", then such a person may reasonably be asked to leave. This should be true at Hoover and also in the University at large.

[Genuine Realist]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.

[Genuine Realist]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.

Come on, dude.  The First Amendment only applies to government.  It doesn't apply to private organizations. Is Stanford private or public?  Moreover, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  Atlas is yelling to stay seated when fire is raging in the theater.

I see Stanford is getting dragged for its tepid response to Atlas as more people are calling for him to be canned, not just me.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.

Come on, dude.  The First Amendment only applies to government.  It doesn't apply to private organizations. Is Stanford private or public?  Moreover, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  Atlas is yelling to stay seated when fire is raging in the theater.

I see Stanford is getting dragged for its tepid response to Atlas as more people are calling for him to be canned, not just me.

[Mick]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

Think I read something about fascism on this thread.  Apparently, the poster supports it.

---

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

The Hoover Institution has seven Directors, a Distinguished Fellow, 62 Senior Fellows, 23 Research Fellows, 20 Distinguished Visiting Fellows, 11 Visiting Fellows, five Media Fellows, and one Senior Research Fellow.  129 in all.  With which of these do you disagree and must therefore be cast out?

And given the reprehensibility of the Hoover Institution, would you also advise LSJU and the assorted related entities (medical school, hospital, etc.) to reject donations from (and return any donated funds to) organizations that donated to the Hoover Institution?  Should the HI's Board of Overseers be prevented from affiliation with Stanford?  Just curious as to how far you want to sever the ties between Stanford and those with whom you disagree.

---

Come on, dude.  The First Amendment only applies to government.  It doesn't apply to private organizations. Is Stanford private or public?

Stanford is a private university that, last year, accepted $1.276 billion in funding from the government covering 6,800 projects.  Found that on an oddly named link at facts.stanford.edu.

[Mick]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

Think I read something about fascism on this thread.  Apparently, the poster supports it.

---

The Hoover Institute is full of people who love to publish pseudo intellectual pontifications on subjects upon which they have no academic or real world qualifications to do so.

The Hoover Institution has seven Directors, a Distinguished Fellow, 62 Senior Fellows, 23 Research Fellows, 20 Distinguished Visiting Fellows, 11 Visiting Fellows, five Media Fellows, and one Senior Research Fellow.  129 in all.  With which of these do you disagree and must therefore be cast out?

And given the reprehensibility of the Hoover Institution, would you also advise LSJU and the assorted related entities (medical school, hospital, etc.) to reject donations from (and return any donated funds to) organizations that donated to the Hoover Institution?  Should the HI's Board of Overseers be prevented from affiliation with Stanford?  Just curious as to how far you want to sever the ties between Stanford and those with whom you disagree.

---

Come on, dude.  The First Amendment only applies to government.  It doesn't apply to private organizations. Is Stanford private or public?

Stanford is a private university that, last year, accepted $1.276 billion in funding from the government covering 6,800 projects.  Found that on an oddly named link at facts.stanford.edu.

[OutsiderFan]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

Regardless, I'm fairly certain the university's President or board of directors can see to it someone who is advocating for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, whether by intent or ignorance, can be removed from the university.

[OutsiderFan]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

Regardless, I'm fairly certain the university's President or board of directors can see to it someone who is advocating for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, whether by intent or ignorance, can be removed from the university.

[Goose]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

OF, do you have any idea at all how hard it is to fire an at-will employee when that employee can claim (in this case correctly) it was based on political speech? Especially if the employer has deep pockets.

[Goose]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

OF, do you have any idea at all how hard it is to fire an at-will employee when that employee can claim (in this case correctly) it was based on political speech? Especially if the employer has deep pockets.

[oregontim]

I think it is inappropriate to deny academic freedom to people who advocate controversial ideas, even ones that some may consider morally abhorrent.  What I do believe is that academic freedom needs to comply with accepted standards of rigor. If any advocacy repeatedly fails to meet an acceptable standard of scholarship, even (or perhaps especially) when the policy advocated is "generally accepted", then such a person may reasonably be asked to leave. This should be true at Hoover and also in the University at large.

+1 thanks Goose. Much as I hate what Scott Atlas is saying (I called it "despicable" in an earlier post in this thread) I'm troubled by the idea of a university firing somebody for voicing an unpopular opinion. Your approach to this here, in your post above, works for me. Not as a rationale for anything specific on Atlas, but as a way to navigate the uncomfortable waters of controversial ideas in a university environment.

[oregontim]

I think it is inappropriate to deny academic freedom to people who advocate controversial ideas, even ones that some may consider morally abhorrent.  What I do believe is that academic freedom needs to comply with accepted standards of rigor. If any advocacy repeatedly fails to meet an acceptable standard of scholarship, even (or perhaps especially) when the policy advocated is "generally accepted", then such a person may reasonably be asked to leave. This should be true at Hoover and also in the University at large.

+1 thanks Goose. Much as I hate what Scott Atlas is saying (I called it "despicable" in an earlier post in this thread) I'm troubled by the idea of a university firing somebody for voicing an unpopular opinion. Your approach to this here, in your post above, works for me. Not as a rationale for anything specific on Atlas, but as a way to navigate the uncomfortable waters of controversial ideas in a university environment.

[OutsiderFan]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

OF, do you have any idea at all how hard it is to fire an at-will employee when that employee can claim (in this case correctly) it was based on political speech? Especially if the employer has deep pockets.

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.

Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.  As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

[OutsiderFan]

Is Atlas a tenured professor?  If he is an employee at Hoover Institute, he can be fired at any time for any reason as an at-will employee. 

OF, do you have any idea at all how hard it is to fire an at-will employee when that employee can claim (in this case correctly) it was based on political speech? Especially if the employer has deep pockets.

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.

Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.  As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

[Goose]

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.


Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

Yes, and when they lose the lawsuit they can be forced to rehire him. Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a world where "at will" employees really were exactly that and could be fired for an reason or no reason. However, our laws are not that, and firing somebody because they advocate political actions with which you disagree (and are not criminal) is generally impossible. Atlas hasn't been charged with a crime, and I seriously doubt he could be.

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.
As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

I think you misunderstand the framers. The "virtue" to which they refer is not the "virtue" of though police but the ability of the public to reject calls for actions that would result in piles of bodies because said public's own virtue. Scott Atlas appears to think there are activities going on in terms of governmental overreach that are "destructive to society". Should he be able to demand firing everybody that doesn't agree with him? I certainly don't agree with him. I would prefer he didn't work at the Hoover. However, if he leaves it should be because he was "run off" by people clearly demonstrating his ideas are inaccurate, not just because we don't like them.

The difference between Atlas and Jones is so obvious it hardly needs discussion. Jones actually poisoned people who did die. Now, if you want to argue that Atlas called for violence against the Michigan Governor that is fine, but you have to be able to make that "stick" in a legal sense. So far, no jurisdiction has indicated they felt they could make that case. While you are at it, you can tell us what should have been done with Stanford employees who stood in White Plaza and told us we should "Off the pigs".

[Goose]

It's real simple. "You are fired."  If Atlas wants to sue, that's his right.  But the university shouldn't be basing its actions on money. It should be basing them on moral principles and doing what is right.


Atlas would not be being fired for political speech. He'd be being fired for advocating people be harmed. It is tragic how so many people have come to justify anything goes in the name of protecting people's rights to do things that destroy us. We can protect the right to do and say stupid things until bodies start piling up and anarchy reigns. Is that what we want?

Yes, and when they lose the lawsuit they can be forced to rehire him. Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a world where "at will" employees really were exactly that and could be fired for an reason or no reason. However, our laws are not that, and firing somebody because they advocate political actions with which you disagree (and are not criminal) is generally impossible. Atlas hasn't been charged with a crime, and I seriously doubt he could be.

A society without any guardrails or fail-safes is doomed to failure.
As the Framers said "without virtue there can be no liberty." Are we OK with failing as long as we allowed it to happen by countenancing people's right to engage in behavior destructive to society?  Seriously, what is the difference between Jim Jones and Scott Atlas? Would y'all be OK with Jim Jones being employed by Hoover Institute if he survived the Jonestown massacre?

I think you misunderstand the framers. The "virtue" to which they refer is not the "virtue" of though police but the ability of the public to reject calls for actions that would result in piles of bodies because said public's own virtue. Scott Atlas appears to think there are activities going on in terms of governmental overreach that are "destructive to society". Should he be able to demand firing everybody that doesn't agree with him? I certainly don't agree with him. I would prefer he didn't work at the Hoover. However, if he leaves it should be because he was "run off" by people clearly demonstrating his ideas are inaccurate, not just because we don't like them.

The difference between Atlas and Jones is so obvious it hardly needs discussion. Jones actually poisoned people who did die. Now, if you want to argue that Atlas called for violence against the Michigan Governor that is fine, but you have to be able to make that "stick" in a legal sense. So far, no jurisdiction has indicated they felt they could make that case. While you are at it, you can tell us what should have been done with Stanford employees who stood in White Plaza and told us we should "Off the pigs".