Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/15/1176210007/florida-ron-desantis-dei-ban-diversity

"The new law also bans what can be taught in the state's higher education institutions. General education courses can't "distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics," or critical race theory."

Is there a First Amendment violation in here somewhere, or does that only apply to what the college does to the student body and not what the state government does to the college?

 

DeSantis is studying for a degree in fascism.

 

The picture of him signing this is... something else. In ye olden tymes, he might have gotten burnt for demon possession.

 

"Burn, baby, BURN!"

 

It seems to me that many of the laws that DeSantis is implementing are unconstitutional. I have to assume that he's making the cynical calculation that getting a law declared unconstitutional will likely take years and by then he will have received all the political benefit anyway. So, he doesn't care.

 

I almost feel sorry for Floridians, but this is what they voted for. Kudos to them!

 

True, there are plenty of valid complaints that can be made against democracy. The problem is that there isn't anything better.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that there are better and worse ways to organize a democracy. I can agree with that but, it's still a democracy. (I'm ignoring the pure democracy versus republic debate.)

 

University of South Florida probably had the most popular DEI training program, and they were giving it out for free. I'm sure that made DeSatan happy.

 

I freely admit that democracy has many flaws. I was only arguing that democracy is better than the alternatives.

 

Let me try to give an example. Let's say a saint like altruistic celebrity loved by all was convinced to be an autocrat in charge of a new country. He did a great job and brought peace and prosperity to all in his twenty year rule. He dies of old age.

I would argue that this same country after twenty years of democratic rule would probably be in a better position for long term success. I would even argue this while admitting that the country is probably better off at the time of the saint-like leader's death than if it had been ruled democratically for those twenty years. The reason is that saint-like leaders are few and far between. The chance of another altruistic leader taking over the reigns of rulership are slim to none. The country has a tradition of autocratic rule and the people of the country will likely expect another autocrat to lead their country.