This academic forum seeks to provide insights into the dramatic developments that have followed the introduction of the Governor’s Budget Repair Bill from an historical, legal and political perspective. All are welcome.It's called a "teach-in" in the email that was sent around but a "forum" at the law school website.
Speakers:
Professor Carin Clauss, Law School
Professor Donald Downs, Political Science
Professor Will Jones, History
Professor Andrew Coan, Law School
Professor David Cannon, Political Science
Professor Neill DeClercq, School for Workers, UW Extension
Chair:
Professor Heinz Klug, UW Law School
२२ फेब्रुवारी, २०११
Come to "University of Wisconsin Law School 'Teach-in' on the legal and political issues raised by the Governor’s Budget Repair Bill."
All are welcome. Wednesday, February 23, 2011. 6-8 pm, Room 2260 at the UW Law School:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
Were you not invited to speak?
Far out, man.
"Were you not invited to speak?"
Why should I be invited? I'm not a labor law/history person. The line-up is great, btw.
"Teach-in" makes it sound like it's being held in sympathy with the protests, doesn't it?
But Is it "fair and balanced"?
Hopefully no one will get hurt when the building tilts to the left.
What the fuck is a School for Workers?
Is it for lawyers, or regular people. I don't want to go if they're just talking over my pointy head.
Neill DeClercq - what an impressive appelation!
And according to his bio, a graduate of both* Berkeleys.
*California and Wisconsin
Maybe they can teach-in about the medical fraud-in last Saturday.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
What the fuck is a School for Workers?
To rehabilitate all the public employee union members against the day they have to go out and get a real job.
The line-up is great, btw.
Klug is very wise-sounding name.
Please, not a "teach in"
I'm reminded of this (starting at 2:05).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL_Wfc2yb90
"Forum" is much better.
"What the fuck is a School for Workers?"
When I was in school they called it either "Shop Class" or "Home Economics."
I hearken back to the idiocy of the last wave of teach-ins, at the start of the war in Iraq. What does a bunch of ignorant, lefty professors stroking the common prejudices of their community have to do with teaching or learning?
A teach-in = much teaching & little learning.
They are missing a professor from the School of Free Lunch. Without that, nothing can be explained.
What are the chances that a real debate of both sides of the issue will break out? I have no idea, I've never been taught-in, but if you know these teachers, is such a thing likely, Althouse?
Serious question to The Professor: Do they regularly have these when a Democrat is Governor?
They are missing a professor from the School of Free Lunch.
LOL.
They also need a Professor from the School of It Just Hasn't Been Tried Right
* * *
In all fairness, it is well and good that Professor DeClercq be present. Hopefully he will be asked about medical absences and snowplow misuse.
"I have no idea, I've never been taught-in, but if you know these teachers, is such a thing likely, Althouse?"
Yes.
"Professor Neill DeClercq, School for Workers, UW Extension
"
What the fuck kind of school is is that?
I don't know if Klug is going to speak, but the man is fascinating. This is worth attending for Clauss alone--she's brilliant, and her knowledge in the area of labor is pretty much unparalleled.
labor law**
Downs and Jones will be there?
So, tell us more about the line up. Can they be expected to try to see both sides?
All those dudes and the dudette (assuming Carin is a Karen) are aging hippies or those who have fond and fantastic memories of the late 60s and early 70s?
Unindicted co-conspirators of Bill Ayers, the "SDS" and that guy who sells shaved ice in your vicinity -- the one who blew up the building and killed the professor.
So after all these years, in fits and starts, it looks like there is someone in charge willing to lead the withdrawal from the "democratic society" the students, now teachers, were promoting.
Wonder if any of the teach-in (ahhh... the memories ... those.were.the.days) read this blog?
When I see or hear the term "teach-in" all I expect is a leftwing snivel about social justice.
"school for workers" yea right school for commie propaganda is more like it.
I hope the history prof has some sense of failures of socialism by government fiat. Russia is the first then there is Argentina among others Hopefully they will look at how countries have declined when a socialist government rules.
There are examples of semi successful socialism but they are within the parameters of a free capitalistic society. Large corporations and churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are examples of semi successful common welfare, commonly held.
Is the medical school having a "teach-in" on medical ethics?
You guys have some serious problems. I mean, jumping all over these professors without knowing anything about them just shows how ignorant all of you people are. I don't know about any of the non-law professors, but I'm sure that AA will attest (as will I) that Clauss, Coan and Klug are all brilliant.
I'll be there tomorrow, although I'm always interested to see what Klug is going to say...he was an exile of South Africa during apartheid for over a decade before returning to help the government. Not quite sure what he'll be talking about...
Good Lord--stuck in 1968! A teach in? Madison is SO yesterday
The predicted bubble is bursting. And the elite are getting wet.
It sounds dopey, no matter how distinguished (doubtful!) these guys are.
Goffman did a lecture on lectures that probably accounts for it, in Forms of Talk
"The lecturer and the audience join in affirming a single proposition. They join in affirming that organized talking can reflect, express, delineate, protray - if not come to grips with - the real world, and that, finally, there is a real, structured, somewhat unitary world out there to comprehend. (After all, that's what distinguishes lectures from stints at the podium openly designed as entertainments.) And here, surely, we have the lecturer's real contract. Whatever his substantive domain, whatever his school of thought, and whatever his inclination to piety or impiety, he signs the same agreement and he serves the same cause: to protect us from the wind, to stand up and seriously project the assumption that through lecturing, a meaningful picture of some part of the world can be conveyed, and that the talker can have access to a picture worth conveying.
It is in this sense that every lecturer, merely by presuming to lecture before an audience, is a functionary of the cognitive establishment, actively suporting the same position: I repeat, that there is structure to the world, that this structure can be perceived and reported, and therefore, that speaking before an audience and listening to a speaker are reasonable things to be doing, and incidentally, of course, that the auspices of the occasion had warrant for making the whole thing possible."
Who doesn't know in advance that it's going to be a self-congratulatory waste of time.
A speaker with actual talent and insight might be another matter.
These are speakers, though, who consent to such a charade.
Look instead to blogs.
You can find something worth saving there, now and then.
The real question is - Will there be drumming?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The law school hosts weekly panel lectures like this on essentially whatever is relevant. Just looking at any email from the SBA shows that. In this case, what's happening in our own city is very relevant. The law professors will talk about the law--and you can bet they'll be quite knowledgeable on it.
Again, I'll point to ignorance. You people commenting don't go to the law school and certainly have no idea how these talks are normally presented. Again, I'll point to AA, should she choose to comment...pretty sure she can attest to the normalcy of these chats.
You guys have some serious problems. I mean, jumping all over these professors without knowing anything about them just shows how ignorant all of you people are.
Any examples of brilliance?
Some distillation of something that is just the right words for it?
They labor in obscurity, for some reason. Why is that?
So if both sides will be presented, which of those liberals will be doing the - smaller government, let's cut spending, your great deal is unsustainable - side?
Can they be expected to try to see both sides?
That is the lawyerly skill, isn't it?
The prof must blog as a change of pace from her lawyerly activities.
Please share one example of a brilliant idea from any member of this panel. If you can't, I have to agree with Maguro & ditto his comment of Far Out Man!
Is our hostess planning to attend/blog?
@AJ Lynch,
I'm not going to claim that it represents brilliance by any means, but the following statement by one of the panelists (Donald Downs, political science prof.) on the topic of academic freedom at least indicates the presence of some basic cognitive ability and a fair amount of intellectual courage in the contemporary university setting:
Professional responsibility requires that instructors and researchers abide by basic standards of intellectual integrity; they must not seek to indoctrinate students; and they must not present propagandistic or fraudulent material as truthful.
I'd like to see that quote posted in every Wisconsin public-school teachers' lounge.
Well, Professor, I can only hope you will be there with your video camera so that you can share the "teaching" with your readers. I have no doubt that the proceedings will be educational in the full sense of the word.
Chip:
Sounds like a very reasoned person to me! Thanks
Look, I am by no means a liberal, but I think that I have one very distinguishing characteristic from all of you: I actually attend this law school. They have panelist discussions like this EVERY single week, both sides are almost always presented, and the moderator does a good job.
Was "teach-in" a good choice of words in the email? No, but they changed it on the law school website. I'm guessing the SBA sent it out to attract more law students to come--UW [obviously] leans to the left, so this will definitely get the lecture hall full.
Ahhh Jim. We were just having fun with the "teach-in" 60s thing.
I mean, really.
Did they (not the participants, perhaps) selectively change the label to appeal to the crowd who thinks what they have been doing the past week by not showing up for work and influencing the students improperly about their shenanigans is a noble thing?
So of course it has to be a "teach-in" because many of these younger teachers and protesters completely missed the 60s and so wanted to be at Woodstock. And setting Columbia on fire ...
The faculty may be cool.
The "teach-in" may be a PR faux pas.
Give us a good report.
Why no economist?
Not the Keyesian kind.
The Hayek kind.
After all -- this is not just poli-sci and law -- it's bottom line: red or black.
Maybe even a math professor who can add, subtract, multiply and divde?
Teach-ins have been held for decades, but the most outrageous was after 9-11. The first thought of lefty professors was to prevent students from assessing any blame to terrorists as this might place them in agreement with the right. This in turn might lead them to explore whether the right really is the silly caricature leftists pretend it is. They immediately held classes to review the leftist talking points, essentially that it was all America's fault. Back when I was on campus teach ins were the same.
It's hard not to suspect this will be in the same tradition, especially given all the hyperbole the leftist unions are spouting.
Jim says..."I'll be there tomorrow, although I'm always interested to see what Klug is going to say...he was an exile of South Africa during apartheid for over a decade before returning to help the government. Not quite sure what he'll be talking about..."
This is not a supporting fact for the remainder of your argument. He has no particular expertise, but was invited anyway. Why, because of his impeccable leftist credentials?
Maybe you should think about why you see this as positive.
I really dig the banner on the School for Workers website:
"Education for a Democratic Workplace"
Not just any workplace, a "democratic" workplace. Wisconsin taxpayers have a lot of work ahead cleaning up this mess.
Well at least it is not an invitation to a fucking "conversation."
Marshal, why even bother attempting to argue with you? You're obviously so set in your bizarre and misinformed ways that there's simply no point. "Lefty professors" trying to avoid students assessing blame to terrorists? I don't know what kind of bizarro world you're living in, but I can't remember that happening.
You really enjoy making assumptions, which I suppose is fine...even if they're completely wrong. Klug is not a speaker at this event; he's a moderator. Althouse will attest, as can I, that these events are generally very, very well-presented and do a good job of conveying both sides. I have no doubt that this is what's going to happen later today. I find your partisanship both appalling and, in many ways, sick. Your absolute hatred against "the left" is so extreme that it seems pointless to even attempt to reason with you.
these events are generally very, very well-presented and do a good job of conveying both sides.
They convey their authority over the terms of the conversation, which is always the point.
A lefty institution uses it to shut down public debate.
There's a world of irony-based sociology, say in Goffman, Gusfield and others, that's worth looking into.
It keeps you from becoming a dweeb.
Or even John Gall. Institutions do not do what they say they are doing.
I have a question for everyone who reads this. If someone put a gun to your head and said : "I'm going to ask you one question about something you have no direct knowledge of except by dint of reputation and if you get it wrong I'm going to blow your brains out. And the question is: 'The odds are that the LS faculty forum/teach-in will provide nothing but the usual lefty academic slant--True or False?"
How would you, dear reader, answer?
"The race does not always go to the swift, nor the contest to the strong--but that's the way to bet." ------------Damon Runyon
I should have more properly stated--grammatically speaking: "...about something of which you..."
A teach-in!! WoooHOOOO!
I'll just splash on some patchouli oil, and I'll be right with you.
I sure hope they let me join the drum circle. Last time, they told me I stunk.
Will there be dead-dancing?
'The odds are that the LS faculty forum/teach-in will provide nothing but the usual lefty academic slant--True or False?"
True.
I predict we'll see the usual scholarly discussion of law that argues itself into a realm devoid of common sense.
I'd like to be proven wrong on this one. Will there be a video record?
Ah, yes. Anyone critical "hates". We see the deep understanding of the left.
Psst, Jim: my description of the 9-11 teach ins isn't an assumption. Your denying the description of an event you didn't attend is.
Psst, Jim: I said I suspect. You said you have no doubt. Which is a bigger assumption?
Psst, Jim: I didn't say Klug was a speaker. I said he was invited. Here's a tip: if you have to change what I write for your criticism to make sense you aren't on point.
But there's no point arguing with someone who merely pronounces views bizarre rather than making some sort of sense.
Professor, if there's a youtube video of the forum would you publish a link? I had a class with Downs as an undergrad and he was excellent. I'd be interested in what they have to say!
A wonderful event which required an over flow room which in turn flowed over.
Hope to see it online somewhere.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा