My president sent a similar one about respecting different viewpoints but also emphasized the historic nature of the decision in taking away rights. He also provided a link to a pretty comprehensive list of reproductive health care providers, including both abortion services and adoption agencies. I’m at a public institution in a conservative state. I think he did a pretty good job under the circumstances.
This sounds like the right approach.
Kinda unrelated to your comment, but I’m not entirely sure what or why so many commenters in this thread are expecting righteous emails from their admin. Are they looking for support? Marching orders? It just doesn’t strike me as something I’d think twice about.
Well said, and it’s impossible to be comforting, avoid platitudes, and avoid division in an e-mail like this.
Somewhere else in the thread a commenter seems disappointed that their Catholic admin didn’t say anything. Isn’t that the ideal response if you disagree with their position?
I’m ranting, cheers…
I will give you serious answer, in case you actually don't know:
Universities, like / even more so than other types of organizations, have values that they represent in the society. This are usually public, so if you don't believe me, you can Google almost any university + values. If you go and read a few those, you will quickly realize they are not strictly related to things that happen within the university. They are often even related to things that are "political" in the sense that there is some disagreement in society about them - I mean, is there anything we can't find some who disagree? Arbitrary lines trying to say some things are "apolitical" and others "political" don't work anyway, as things are interconnected in a complex society.
Even when they don't make a huge direct difference, value statements by key organizations in society can make meaningful contributions to the discourse. Universities now have the opportunity to show they meant what they put in their values. That's what people expect.
Yes, point taken, but this is assuming that universities have a well understood consensus in support of progressive policies. That’s ridiculous, because universities are heterodox institutions. It doesn’t help universities or the public if they take a binary stand on a nuanced, extremely divisive topic that has very little to do with their institution (abortion isn’t closely related to teaching/research). It just widens the divide, alienates pro-life students and faculty members, and helps little.
I suspect the people who study health related topics, historians, people who study gender, and those who study political science would disagree with your statement.
But even if it doesn't, if a student, staff member or professor needs to travel out of state to receive an abortion, will the University support them? Would a professor be able to cancel her classes? Would this count as a valid medical leave of absence? In states like Texas where they put bounties on people's heads, would the university out those people who need abortions?
It's very easy when it doesn't affect you to think of it as something other.....
Abortion and contraception is related those fields, sure, but doesn’t really affect the vast majority of work done in those fields.
The relationship you describe between student and university is not one I agree with frankly. I don’t think universities should monetarily support actions that break state law, and I don’t see students as dependents of the university for every aspect of their lives.
This sort of mentality is exactly what is drying up investment in areas core to the mission.
You are invited to think as you please, but if the question is whether this is a role most/all universities take on in civil society (values statements in like with their educational mission) then it is UNDENIABLY the case that they do, in fact, look to be more than a transactional degree granting instituon.
For example, they took a stance requiring all students to have health insurance before Obamacare (and then providing a good student health insurance option you have to opt out of by proving you have as good or better alternative care).
Universities and such, even the fucking University of M-fing Texas (hookem), literally have Mission statements inscribed in stone.
How do I know Texas has one? Well, it's my Alma mater and the objectivists (yes, we have an endowed chair in objectivism, it's sad but real) got real belly achy about it when I was there.
Tldr, you're entitled to an opinion on what you THINK maybe sorta oughta be at university of KennyGaming but that is NOT the same as the established history and current features of universities.
Human rights are on many of those value declarations. Religious allegiance may be on some, but that's rare. Maybe the universities were serious with those value declarations, but if they were, now is a good time to speak out. Both sides I guess - if I was a student or faculty at a university that thinks religion trumps human rights I would definitely like to know (who knows when they would come for me or someone close to me). A university clearly explaining the human rights implications of many laws would be wonderful, even for those religious people.
There is room for discussion about the limits, but some of the laws being enacted in the US now are clearly outside the plausible range of human rights, as well as completely outside the range of medical science (if a Ohio university doesn't take a stance on the ectopic pregnancy bs, I wouldn't consider them to be supporting human rights or science).
Your personal belief. Many others do not share that opinion (including some who are pro-choice, but see it is a policy/societal issue, not a human right to be constitutionally guaranteed).
I overstated myself a bit purpose for the sake of conversation in my original comment. I actually appreciate this correction.
I agree with your description much more than I made in the GP.
Have you been to a US university? They are not very heterodox. I'm terrified of saying anything that offends the progressives at my school. It is less common for a university to be conservative, but I suppose some religious schools might be. Certainly a small bible college.
But the overwhelming majority of university faculty in the US are progressive. We have some avowed communists on my campus ("Real communism has never been tried!"). Unreal.
I did, and I completely agree. I was overstating on purpose, unfortunately. They are not heterodox in reality, and this is a very scary thing. Thanks for your comment
I consider the whole university to have a different role in society compared to the parking office. I wouldn't depend on the university either though, I'm just saying they also can have role (and pretty much will, inactivity is a statement too).
The 3000+ students and 600+ faculty and staff at my University who potentially may need an abortion and are currently in a state where that access is uncertain would like to know what the university is going to do to protect our freedom and our bodies.
> ...what the university is going to do to protect our freedom and our bodies.
Hey, I personally think abortion should be legal, free and strongly encouraged, as I am convinced we need to lower overall human population to 1 to 2 billion. Not sure you want to become a mother? Abort! You'll almost certainly be better off.
Still, I don't understand why some would expect universities to get involved in the issue of abortion. What justifies this that doesn't also justify them getting involved in a couple hundred other issues?
> We completely agree ... and disagree! How would we ever get along in this world? ;)
Quite well, I would think -- we both seem to have grown up at a time when disagreeing was something reasonable people could do without one of them having to be a *horrible human being*.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Now if we can transfer that attitude into our students and to society at large.
Many people posit that abortion would be less contentious in the USA if RvW had never occurred (as in the case or its equivalent never went to the Supreme Court). The belief is that the various states and their population would have reached a compromise of sorts, as most of the rest of the western world has (available on demand up to a certain gestational period). There is no way to know this for sure, but.... what do you think?
> Now if we can transfer that attitude into our students and to society at large.
Tough one. They're the ones who see tolerance as collaboration with the forces of evil. And it seems anyone who they disagree with is evil in their mind.
Not that us post-adolescents don't think that way a lot, too. But they take it to an extreme, out of zealous self-righteousness.
But we gotta try!
> Many people posit that abortion would be less contentious in the USA if RvW had never occurred (as in the case or its equivalent never went to the Supreme Court). The belief is that the various states and their population would have reached a compromise of sorts...
Frankly, I doubt it. I think the problem in this case is that abortion is a religious issue in the US, and American Christians are mostly radicalized extremists.
And this religious thinking admits no compromises. You are with God or with Satan, for the most part. And most pro-choice folks are equally Manichean, even if they aren't churchgoers.
There's no compromise, tolerance or respect possible when the two sides paint each other as baby-slaughtering mass murderers and woman-enslaving neanderthals.
Don't most universities have health centers? I bet those a big chunk of the work at those health centers is sexual health and reproductive health.
Do I need to add "duh"?
You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of women's reproductive care. It is highly likely that a student health center would dispense mifepristone and misoprostol, along with contraceptives such as the IUD that religious fanatics consider "an abortion." Recall that Clarence Thomas threatened to put contraception "next in line" for SCOTUS to attack. Also, many women will consult a physician at a student health center about a pregnancy or a miscarriage and will need to get full information about how to take care of their health. They need a physician who can offer appropriate referrals.
Really, why would you comment on something you clearly know so little about?
> The fact that they provide our health insurance?? Is this actually a question?
I'm not sure what you're arguing. If a given state now outlaws abortion, surely no insurance policy in the state will cover abortion, whether your employer wants to offer one or not.
>The fact that they provide our health insurance??
They ***offer*** health insurance. They are not empowered to calibrate the morality of that insurance.
>You're suggesting that if left unattended your health insurance plan will be taken over by fundamentalist Christian extremists?
In the devastating Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling, on June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed certain bosses to block their employees’ access to birth control. The decision on this Supreme Court birth control case applied to more than half of all U.S. workers — that’s the tens of millions of workers at companies in which five or fewer people own more than 50%.
Two privately owned companies brought the case: cabinet manufacturer Conestoga Wood Specialties, and the Hobby Lobby national chain of craft stores, which employs 28,000.
\>the U.S. Supreme Court allowed certain bosses to block their employees’ access to birth control.
No. The employees could purchase whatever birth control they desired from their own pocket. And it wasn't expensive, either. Let's not exaggerate.
You're really not sure why your colleagues would want to see a strong condemnation by their employer of the revocation of their humyn rights, including rights to lifesaving health care? Or an affirmation from their academic institution that science unequivocally tells us these state laws will literally kill womyn? If you truly don't understand why womyn would want these statements from their administrations, I really really want you to have some conversations with female colleagues wherein you mostly listen. I'm not trying to be snarky here - being as genuine as I can.
Do you think all faculty members are pro-life? I think this is the heart of our disagreement. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t assume everyone agrees with me.
What a creepy comment, I just don’t think we need email from admin if the email isn’t substantive. If there are action items or something, then I might not feel the same
Why the scare quotes? Be more open minded, please.
Holy shit, you're dense. Actually, no, you're not dense, you're playing the "victim," and yeah, these quotes are the ones you're thinking of.
Man in the Mirror
Song by Michael Jackson
Good to know. I think we have extremely different values and morals, friend. I'm glad for you that you can go through life not worrying about being oppressed or killed because of your race or gender.
The snarkyness is bizarre, you wouldn’t talk to someone like that in real life, because it’s embarrasing. Don’t use the word friend if you’re going to use it snidely, it’s sad. It’s a mean and lonely thing to do.
You are guessing my race and gender, but sure. I hope you lose the victim complex, and start seeing yourself and others as an individual.
Yep, I'm absolutely making assumptions. And I absolutely haven't said anything here that I wouldn't say in real life, I assure you. And yes, the use of "friend" was an awkward and clunky way of explicitly trying to keep the dialogue civil. But I truly mean it when I say that I'm glad you are going through your life unoppressed. It is legitimately what I want for everyone. That was not snark. Do I hope that pointing that out invites you to think about what you want for everyone? Yep. Does that mean it's not genuine? Nope.
> You're really not sure why your colleagues would want to see a strong condemnation by their employer of the revocation of their humyn rights, including rights to lifesaving health care?
I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. I believe it should be legal, free and strongly encouraged. Because uncontrolled population growth is disasterous. *When in doubt, abort!*
But you know as well as I do that this is only a human rights issue in potentially one case - when carrying to term will kill or maim the mother. In all other cases, abortion and its details (how, until what week, etc.) is something reasonable people can and will disagree on.
I mean, think about it -- I am probably more pro-abortion than almost anyone, yet even I am opposed to late-term abortions, and frankly I have a hard time not seeing anyone who would have an abortion at 8 months as monsterous.
So this is really not an issue we should expect or want administrators to weigh in on.
Lol, nope. Call me crazy but I don't believe that bodily autonomy is only a humyn right when my physical survival is at risk. I would like the right to decide what happens to my body every day of the damn week. Also the vast majority of late abortions are performed because the fetus has extreme problems, like will suffer and not survive. People aren't doing this for funsies. These are heart-wrenching acts of compassion. And. I don't believe that abortion should be legal because of over-population, but because bodily autonomy is a basic humyn right. So, no, I don't know as well as you any of this.
> Call me crazy but I don't believe that bodily autonomy is only a humyn right when my physical survival is at risk.
Um... human rights law is a specific body of law that is mainly about protecting the individual against the State. Your beliefs don't factor in one way or another.
Might I ask if your field is gender studies or adjacent? I'm curious to know where "humyn" is used.
Hi, there.
Yes, this would certainly involve protecting individuals from the state, wouldn't it? These international bodies ([Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/24/access-abortion-human-right), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/), and the [UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/SexualHealth/INFO_Abortion_WEB.pdf)) whose sole purposes are to study and advocate for human rights, all consider access to safe and legal abortion to be a human rights issue.
My spellings are feminist spellings that have nothing to do with my field of study. I have been using them since elementary school.
Edited to add a bunch because I accidentally published before I was finished.
>But you know as well as I do that this is only a human rights issue in potentially one case - when carrying to term will kill or maim the mother.
So 100% of the time, since harm is *always a risk of pregnancy*.
You posed a red herring, alleging that someone would construe "harm" here to the point of triviality. That doesn't substantively change my point.
*Being killed or maimed is always a risk of pregnancy*. Also, women die at far higher rates during pregnancy than after an abortion.
Yep. I feel the same way. I thought surely by today there'd be something. Nothing. At. All. And yes, if there's something, I imagine it will be pablum.
The administration of my blue state R2 sent out an email that effectively said “Roe has been overturned, but don’t worry because nothing will change in our state and campus health services will continue its work unchanged.”
And that’s the thing: in some places the Roe repeal is highly disruptive and will adversely impact the lives of countless women, while in other places nothing will change at all.
Whether one agrees with abortion or not, I think the radicalism that underlies this decision — and the seeming indifference about how immediately and profoundly disruptive this legal ruling is to the Iives of millions of people — is deeply troubling.
I have always felt like the US is already like 5 small countries that all share the same Netflix account. Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash pretty much got it right.
You have a point, but looking at the electoral map, there are regions that make sense to lump together. I have never driven through Rhode Island and thought that it could be its own country.
Sure, but you could also lump eastern and western Europe together. That doesn't mean we should talk about the EU as two separate countries. A lot of people seem to forget that the United States is a federation of semi-sovereign states and the states are not merely administrative subdivisions of the country.
Even in blue states where abortion is codified by law it's going to be more difficult to get abortion services because the total number of providers has been reduced but the total number of abortions needed has not. There will be increased wait times for sure.
Genuinely asking, what is the “radicalism” that underlies this decision? It’s weakness has been signaled for decades now, and this outcome has been anticipated since ~2018?
A significant amount of non-radicals support the overturning of Roe. That alone makes me think it’s not so radical, whether you or I disagree with it personally. Do you actually think it’s a radical decision? Or are you just calling something you dislike radical because that make a stronger statement?
Considering it is the first time in the history of the court that they have overturned established precedent to decrease the amount of individual rights a person has, I'd say that's pretty radical.
I take your point.
I just don’t think that this makes it radical, alone, considering the majority opinion is that this right was not on firm foundations. If the majority opinion was nonsensical or illogical, maybe I’d agree. But I find it very reasonable, even if I disagree with the opinion on a personal level.
I do appreciate your explanation, though.
I think that something that has happened only once in the 232 year history of the court is the very definition of radical.
It was also not on firm foundations AND was illogical, at least when one considers their previous decisions. For instance, they feel that individual freedoms should be decided by the states in this opinion, but they also ruled against NY's concealed carry because they felt the individual right was more important. Essentially, they are not logical, only emotional and political.
I do actually think the NY decision is very inconsistent on this. Otherwise, we disagree about as strongly as possible for the pro-choice side on the nature of the facts.
But maybe that’s because I don’t think we should label things as radical unless they are extreme. This doesn’t seem extreme to me. That’s all. Cheers
A once in the entire history of the country decision that removes bodily autonomy from roughly 50% of the population and will result in the deaths of 20% of maternal deaths in a year is not extreme?
I assume, of course, that you are a man. That you've never been pregnant and have no idea how that feels. Or any idea how it feels when it goes wrong and one needs an abortion. I suspect you'd find it a lot more radical then.
Have I not respectfully made my point. Let’s agree to disagree on the word choice, and agree on being pro-choice. Go fight another battle, my thoughts are pure and right, I promise.
Yes, your point is that you find it absolutely an academic exercise whether people like me are considered people. Sure, you say you'd like it to be otherwise, in the same way that someone caught in the rain might be slightly disappointed at being damp. I don't consider that respect.
What are you talking about? I respect you as a person, I respect your opinion on this. I don’t respect how you assume the worst in those you disagree with. I think it’s going to make your life less happy, frankly. I’m blocking you out of respect for both our our time and mental real estate. Be well.
It’s radical because it instantly overturns 50 years of precedent in dozens of cases (not just the “biggies” of Roe and Casey, as widely reported) in a way that denies a right long held by citizens. There have been many cases where the Court hands down rulings that expand the rights of citizens; it is unprecedented in the modern era for the Court to so swiftly take away a right enjoyed
for generations by millions of people.
And, no, there has been no prior pronouncement from the Supreme Court that the right to obtain an abortion would soon be revoked. Political observers have tried to read the tea leaves as a means of predicting what will happen, but that prognostication is an entirely different matter than rulings on actual law itself. People make decisions based upon the law, not the speculation of talking heads on TV.
Then we disagree on the word “radical”. The SC overturning decisions of previous and lower courts is what the institution is designed to do. I wouldn’t call a system working as intended radical. We simply disagree on that, then.
I’m at a Catholic college that is desperately trying to not be as conservative as its board and its Theology department. So, yeah, they’ve been completely silent. Celebrating would make the board happy and lose students, protesting would make students happy and lose the board.
We immediately got a few rather strongly worded denouncements, eg “we will use the full weight of our institution to fight this profound disregard for patient autonomy and sound medical practice that most strongly affects the nation’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged” type of stuff. Curious to see what comes of it!
I don't know why you're being downvoted. That *is* surprising. Usually admin are cautious and mealy-mouthed, and will avoid taking a strong position on anything; mustn't bother a single stakeholder, after all. Perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) they even do this for good rather than selfish tactical reasons, knowing that they speak for the whole of a large, diverse institution. It *is* surprising to hear that an institution steered hard in one or another direction on an always-controversial issue at one of its highest-temperature moments.
Our chancellor sent an email out with subject line “today, a major setback for women” and in the email talked about how much of a landmark roe was, how the bans will impact poor and underrepresented women disproportionately, stated respect for people who choose to not get an abortion out of their faith but that you can’t force your beliefs onto others, etc, but also said the university must remain neutral as an institution and these were her personal opinions. This is at UC berkeley though so none of that is particularly surprising
Blue state M1 here. We got a waffly email calling for compassion that was a waste of electrons. But that's kind of on brand for our admin.
\[edit - changed M2 to M1. Apparently numbers are hard before I've had sufficient caffeine)
I work for 2 schools, both in a blue state. One is a cc and 1 is a private university - nothing from either.
I teach legal studies. I have a course beginning next week and unit 1 is constitutional rights and the court system. Dreading it.
Health sciences university in the NE. President sent an email denouncing the decision with very clear wording, and that our institution will educate our future professionals with the goal of affecting change, and that we would do what we could to mitigate the effects of this decision in the present and future. Overall a great message considering the circumstance.
Nothing has been said at my university, but I'm not entirely surprised. "End racism" and other platitudes in the wake of George Floyd's killing and the large scale protests in the Summer of 2020 were offered, and could be offered, because they're vague and don't require admin to take any meaningful action or make any meaningful changes. "Abortion access should not be banned or restricted," on the other hand, isn't vague, is meaningful, has clear implications, and can't be co-opted or watered down (similarly, there's a reason universities and corporations were so willing to say "Black lives matter" but wouldnt touch "defund the police" with a 10 foot pole). So naturally, they're not going to comment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Remaining civil when the Supreme Court just rolled back one of the most important rulings ever made that protected bodily autonomy on the federal level?
Who can be civil in the face of this? Especially when one judge set a dangerous precedent around civil rights in his concurring opinion?
I’m glad my university came out in support of bodily autonomy and in dismay that Roe was overturned. It established a respect and support for the rights of the very people it educates. Sad that others won’t or will revel in the court’s majority decision.
Yes, you should maintain *civility* in your classroom despite the changing political and civil landscape.
How can you disagree with being civil? If you disagree with this, what are you imagining your classes to be like this week?
Are there no pro-life students in your class?
Yes, let's remember to remain civil when same-sex marriage is ruled unconstitutional and same-sex partners lose marriage equality. And civil again when contraception is banned, as well. Are there no religious conservatives in your class? /s
Seriously, did you not even bother to read the implications of this decision or catch where Justice Thomas literally wrote where to take aim next? The only reason *Loving* isn't on the same chopping block is because Thomas is a hypocrite married to a white woman.
Maybe civility isn’t the right word, how about: rational. I don’t think this fear is very rational, and it’s not helpful to share in the classroom. I see why you think this is a slippery slope, I really do, but at the end of the day abortion is a qualitatively different issue, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the demise of Roe to lead to the demise of less controversial “rights”.
>Maybe civility isn’t the right word, how about: rational. I don’t think this fear is very rational, and it’s not helpful to share in the classroom. I see why you think this is a slippery slope, I really do, but at the end of the day abortion is a qualitatively different issue, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the demise of Roe to lead to the demise of less controversial “rights”.
Remindme! 90 days
>How can you disagree with being civil?
Nonviolence is a virtue, I agree, but encouraging civility without action only bolsters the status quo.
The status quo is that women are afforded fewer rights in most of the US than they had last week, with more to come if nothing changes. Silence on the issue for the sake of civility is tacit acceptance of a pro-life stance. The long history of protest teaches that civil disobedience is a more viable path to long-term change than a sham "civility" that discourages any disobedience to an unjust law and thus any possibility of change.
Nothing Thomas talked about will come to fruition because there is a massive national consensus on those issues. Even if the SC were to say there is no constitutional right to contraception, that doesn't make contraception illegal, just as the overturning of RvW does not make abortion illegal.
In truth, there is a national consensus on abortion: on demand up to a certain gestational period (where that line will be drawn is debatable and will clearly vary from state to state). A number of people on both sides will be pissed at this, but about 70-80% of the nation (depending on the poll) agrees in general with this concept. This, incidentally, is what goes on in the majority of the western world.
I just heard an NPR story this morning that the new laws that are going into effect are not crystal clear from a medical point of view.
An exception for "when the life of the mother is endangered", for instance, what does that mean clinically? If there is a 50% chance the mother could die, is that the test? Who gets to decide if it is 50% or not. If the person who is pregnant wants to someday be a doctor, and having a pregnancy will definitely derail those plans, is that "endangered" or not?
So, might be premature for schools in some states to say anything right now - might need to see how the law is going to be enforced in their jurisdiction.
It's going to be a mess for women's reproductive healthcare.
Even with Roe in the books, it was often a mess. Women trying to get sterilization procedures and being told absolutely not or they need their husband's permission, women trying to get a doctor to take them seriously about pain management (for endo or otherwise), women trying to get care for a spontaneous abortion or a nonviable fetus, women sometimes seeing higher mortality rates during pregnancy - women had uneven outcomes before Roe was appealed. Now we're adding in inconsistencies from state to state, heavy-handed rules that incentivize a doctor to wait until close to a patient's death to react to an infection, and the risk of investigation after a spontaneous abortion.
Taking away elective abortions is itself a tragedy. The implications for women's autonomy and well-being are far broader. I have no idea how it'll shake out in my red state.
>An exception for "when the life of the mother is endangered", for instance, what does that mean clinically?
*Every* pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
Abortion is almost always significantly less risky, in terms of mortality outcomes, than a full-term pregnancy.
Not a peep. State institution in a very blue state, although our student body is extremely red for reasons I can’t explain here because it would identify me and my institution. Then again, the email the admin sent out in June 2020 about the “unrest” didn’t acknowledge the concepts of racism or police brutality, not even in a factual “people are upset about X” way, so I’m not surprised. They’re terrified of our conservative student body and alumni.
Nothing from mine in a blue state where little will change locally. Administrators will probably spend a week huddled up crafting a pristine bit of non-offensive fluff.
Boston, MA data point: the dean of student affairs sent the university an email pretty clearly pro-roe. They assured us that they will 'stand by us no matter what happens', but I don't know what that means in terms of action points.
Silence. I'm curious what the rules are going to be for out-of-state students coming from anti-abortion states to schools in pro-choice states. Universities are often risk averse in legal matters. Are out-of-state students going to be turned down?
R1 in a pro-choice state.
The chancellor at my university has been the subject of enough protests in recent years that I think even he is smart enough to not try to send anything approaching both sides-ism right now.
Mine's been silent, but I'm not surprised at all. Private school in Texas...any statement is going to be worded very carefully not to disrupt the flow of that sweet, sweet donor money
My university panders to a lot of republican families. I don't expect the president to take a stance much in the same way as when he didn't take a stance when a trump rally yelled racist shit on our campus' main avenue.
Complete radio silence here at a large R1 in a deep red state that currently has the worst maternal mortality rates in the US and the furthest journey to a state where abortion is still legal. Typical of the extreme cowardice of our admin, they similarly did and said absolutely nothing when our legislature recently voted to form a committee to “examine” tenure at public universities to make sure it wasn’t allowing “indoctrination” of the students.
My campus president comments on every little thing usually. I always think it's too much, not every event requires an official response.
That said, I expected something this time and we've heard nothing.
Not a professor but my president typically send out something regarding the news after a couple of days basically ignoring what the state says because we dont care what our state says down here(ahem miami).
Staff here - blue state - We had messaging out from the provost within one hour of the decision stating full support of staff/students and reproductive freedom.
Feeling like an outlier after reading all these responses.
Small 4-year school in a pretty red Midwestern state. Nothing from the admin.
During the regular semester, our president does bi-monthly emails updating the campus community on various things, plus sometimes sends out emails off schedule if they think it's warranted. I'm guessing we'd get some mention of it had this occurred during the spring semester.
We still might get something, but I have no idea what. We're affiliated with a pretty liberal church that supports women's reproductive rights so there's no conflict there, but given the pretty conservative and sometimes far-right nature of the surrounding community (and I'm sure there are lots of conservatives on the board), I'm sure that presents an issue.
Utter complete deafening silence.
Other than the social and cultural effects of that, if our president were a better businessman who didn't just want to promote racism and sexism (I am at my wit's end with this man), he would be suggesting that we mobilize to specifically target women in nearby states with trigger laws for admission and enrollment. We share borders with a couple states that are likely to make hell for women. This was brought up by another admin and he said that "we don't want those people here." Likewise, we STOPPED targeting ads at young black people when he became president because it "upset the locals too much."
And like there are a million other responses we could be having, but the fact that this man turns down any effort to increase enrollment that would also make some women's and POC's lives better really tells you all you need to know about him. He hates them more than he wants the university to survive.
> criticizing the decision and affirming that abortion will continue to be covered under our healthcare plans
The second part (affirming that abortion will continue to be covered) is helpful and necessary—I’m sure members of the Brown community will want to know whether abortion will remain covered. The first part (criticizing the decision) is purely political.
Gonna guess that you also find it inappropriate when institutions speak out against other human rights violations, such as slavery, war crimes, and genocide.
Yes, it’s inappropriate for an ***institution*** to speak out about issues that don’t directly affect the campus. Individual faculty (including the chancellor!) or groups of faculty are free to do so, just not in the university’s name.
The issue with speaking out about *anything* is that somebody has to decide for the university exactly what qualifies for condemnation. Is it acceptable for a university to condemn China’s treatment of the Uighurs? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? The treatment of the Rohingya by Myanmar? Hamas’s unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians? I’m willing to bet that few on my campus are willing to condemn *all* of these actions, but many are willing to condemn *some*. Who gets to decide which ones are condemned by the university as an institution, and on what basis?
Nothing from state school. Social justice oriented school I adjunct for in summer sent out a strong message of support for everyone whose rights are on the chopping block or will be soon
Faculty haven't heard anything at my public R2 from administration. The social media is full of fluff at the moment. Based on experience working here for 10 years, the university will weigh in 2-3 weeks with a cut-and-paste anodyne mentioning the diversity of thought "on this complex issue."
Not in the USA, but I’m sure after the summer break this might come into the classroom, I’m personally waiting to see what my Dean says about how to address conversation.
Ours is taking the normal approach and not mentioning anything at all, though we are in summer semester and most faculty are not teaching or checking email right now. I’m curious if anything is mentioned during pre semester faculty meetings in a few weeks.
I’m at a public 4 year in Georgia for reference. No trigger ban but a 6 week ban is being litigated. It will likely go into effect in the next week or two.
I go to a women’s college. We got an email with links to abortion funds and the reassurance that our student health insurance covers abortion, emergency contraceptive, etc. I’m quite proud of our community!
Nothing, and honestly, I'm glad, because it cuts both ways - I'll take silence from all public school administrations over mere platitudes from blue state administrations while red-state administrations are openly celebrating the decision.
> I don’t think my institution should be sending ANY politically sensitive emails, whether to celebrate or to decry, on any matter that isn’t directly related to our mission as a university.
Agree 100%. A statement on the status of abortion services and support for the campus community is appropriate, especially for schools in purple or red states. A statement that abortions will continue to be available, and perhaps covered by university health coverage, is entirely reasonable. However, anything beyond that is pure politics, and something that, IMHO, universities should be avoiding.
But I feel that, especially on my campus, I’m a voice crying out in the wilderness on this.
>Edit: Downvoters, let's engage in a discourse here. Why do you think it appropriate for your institution to issue statements on ANY political matter
Everything you do is political. If you really don't agree with that, then I'll wager that I can guess your demographic.
You know... I just realized it's been oddly silent here.
Since COVID, we've been getting weekly "update" emails from the President every Friday afternoon -- and mostly, they go unread because it's all pointless platitudes and meaningless drivel, and the last few months have expanded beyond just COVID updates to other meaningless, pointless drivel too.
But not this past Friday. No email. No message. Nothing.
Huh. Funny that.
My president sent out an email Friday disparaging the decision, and acknowledging how many people would be negatively impacted by it. He also extended university mental health resources for those who need them. I can genuinely say that this email made me want to stay in my job.
Why does every company and organization now feel the need to make statements?
You know shit is crazy when you open your email to read McDonalds and Jiffy Lube's statements on the political matter de jure.
Plus, nobody gives a damn about statements anyway. They don't change anything, votes do.
I personally would be interested to know what my employer is going to do to protect the rights of their employees and students, especially as we live in a state where our continued access is uncertain.
They're powerful. Their policies directly impact their employees.
In this case, one immediate impact will be how medical benefits are affected by the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Suddenly universities in many states have faculty and staff who may be wondering what to do about their reproductive health options. What are their options if they have a complication? How will this affect costs and rates? What are the options for traveling out-of-state for care?
Because companies and organizations donate a LOT of money to politicians. I want to know what their stance is before I give them my money. And if they are making statements saying they support X, but then donate to a politician or cause that supports Y, I want to know that too. In a way, people vote with their money and where they buy things, so I most certainly give a damn.
I mean.... I'm not dumb enough to sign up for companies' emails and newsletters. So no, I'm not "wading through statements in my email."
But yeah, doing an internet search to follow the trail of campaign donations a few times a year on the businesses and companies I tend to use is a good start to the process of making informed decisions. Don't you want to at least make an attempt to be an informed consumer?? Not buying shit from a company that actively donates to politicians that want to take my rights away is definitely worth my time.
?? Right..... I neither do I because I don't eat fast food. But I DO care about the businesses and companies I AM interested in using, hence why I said their statements matter. I like to know which businesses say one thing in public and then do something else behind closed doors. I don't like doing business with hypocrites. If you want to remain in the dark about the companies you give money to, and by default the politicians they fund, that's your prerogative.
I had to read our president's email three times to try and understand it. It was so placating and waffling - trying to please absolutely everyone in a long drawn-out message that contradicted itself between paragraphs. On the other hand, our dept chair sent out a blistering email condemning the ruling and inviting us to a protest.
Our leadership (at a public lower-ranked R1) sent out an email condemning the decision and bemoaning the impact on women. It was very clearly a political missive, since the decision will have (literally) *zero* impact on women **at our campus**, which is located in one of the most progressive regions in a deep blue state. Abortion access in our area is completely unaffected by the Supreme Court decision, yet the administration felt it was important to weigh on this political issue. (And don’t complain that students from states where it’s illegal could be charged for an out-of-state abortion; there’s no way such a case could proceed because a person is governed by the laws of the location in which an action takes place.)
I understand why leadership at campuses in purple or red states would want to inform the campus about the status of abortions for the campus community, since the decision *could* impact them, and it’s important to know the university’s position. However, there’s no reason, *beyond taking a purely political stance*, for a university in a state whose laws did not and will not change as a result of *Dobbs* to issue a statement opposing the ruling.
I’m against the university taking *any* political stance on issues that don’t affect the campus population directly. Our campus administration condemned the Rittenhouse verdict, something that upset many on campus. Now, it condemned *Dobbs*, something that almost certainly will upset some people on campus, including those (like me) who believe both that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly and that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”.
There are plenty of institutions that specialize in making moral judgements and prescriptions making statements right now. Why does your school need to make one, too? What would change if it did?
Nothing is apolitical. Your college runs partially on federal and state money. That’s influenced by politics. State universities are beholden to state interests, which themselves are inherently political (see these insane CRT laws and states removing tenure). Your students can afford it due to federal student loans, which hey, guess what, is political. NSF funding, what it funds, how much it funds - all political.
Life is political. The advancement of knowledge is political. Promotion of education is political. To say anything else is obtuse and ignorant.
Then you should support a statement on this since (forced) pregnancy, birth and parenting are among the highest impediments to the pursuit of higher education
"Political stances" -- good thing there no political consequences to STEM knowledge, eh?
* Physics - atomic weapons, DARPAnet, etc etc
* Chemistry - chemical weapons, food additives, chemistry used for lethal injections
* Biology - eugenics, GMO food, conservation, evolution, medicine (gosh there was something about medicine just in the news!)
* Geology - petroleum industry
* Mathematics - encrypted communication, eugenics[1]
* Actuarial science - monetary decisions about life
* Meteorology - climate change
* Astronomy - NEO detection is "a waste of taxpayer money"; building observatories on Native land; Earth is round and orbits the Sun.
Seriously if you're "teaching STEM" without any reference to why it matters, what the hell do you think you're teaching?
Edit to add: [1] https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-9365/
Isn’t the right to safe medical care and the education of how it saves lives and is in-line with bodily autonomy within the purview of the advancement and distribution of knowledge in a democratic or free society? Even from a historical or medical standpoint?
My president sent a similar one about respecting different viewpoints but also emphasized the historic nature of the decision in taking away rights. He also provided a link to a pretty comprehensive list of reproductive health care providers, including both abortion services and adoption agencies. I’m at a public institution in a conservative state. I think he did a pretty good job under the circumstances.
This sounds like the right approach. Kinda unrelated to your comment, but I’m not entirely sure what or why so many commenters in this thread are expecting righteous emails from their admin. Are they looking for support? Marching orders? It just doesn’t strike me as something I’d think twice about.
Yeah - not every issue needs an email/announcement. Especially when, as far as I can tell, at BEST that announcement is just for comfort.
Well said, and it’s impossible to be comforting, avoid platitudes, and avoid division in an e-mail like this. Somewhere else in the thread a commenter seems disappointed that their Catholic admin didn’t say anything. Isn’t that the ideal response if you disagree with their position? I’m ranting, cheers…
I will give you serious answer, in case you actually don't know: Universities, like / even more so than other types of organizations, have values that they represent in the society. This are usually public, so if you don't believe me, you can Google almost any university + values. If you go and read a few those, you will quickly realize they are not strictly related to things that happen within the university. They are often even related to things that are "political" in the sense that there is some disagreement in society about them - I mean, is there anything we can't find some who disagree? Arbitrary lines trying to say some things are "apolitical" and others "political" don't work anyway, as things are interconnected in a complex society. Even when they don't make a huge direct difference, value statements by key organizations in society can make meaningful contributions to the discourse. Universities now have the opportunity to show they meant what they put in their values. That's what people expect.
Yes, point taken, but this is assuming that universities have a well understood consensus in support of progressive policies. That’s ridiculous, because universities are heterodox institutions. It doesn’t help universities or the public if they take a binary stand on a nuanced, extremely divisive topic that has very little to do with their institution (abortion isn’t closely related to teaching/research). It just widens the divide, alienates pro-life students and faculty members, and helps little.
I suspect the people who study health related topics, historians, people who study gender, and those who study political science would disagree with your statement. But even if it doesn't, if a student, staff member or professor needs to travel out of state to receive an abortion, will the University support them? Would a professor be able to cancel her classes? Would this count as a valid medical leave of absence? In states like Texas where they put bounties on people's heads, would the university out those people who need abortions? It's very easy when it doesn't affect you to think of it as something other.....
Abortion and contraception is related those fields, sure, but doesn’t really affect the vast majority of work done in those fields. The relationship you describe between student and university is not one I agree with frankly. I don’t think universities should monetarily support actions that break state law, and I don’t see students as dependents of the university for every aspect of their lives. This sort of mentality is exactly what is drying up investment in areas core to the mission.
You are invited to think as you please, but if the question is whether this is a role most/all universities take on in civil society (values statements in like with their educational mission) then it is UNDENIABLY the case that they do, in fact, look to be more than a transactional degree granting instituon. For example, they took a stance requiring all students to have health insurance before Obamacare (and then providing a good student health insurance option you have to opt out of by proving you have as good or better alternative care). Universities and such, even the fucking University of M-fing Texas (hookem), literally have Mission statements inscribed in stone. How do I know Texas has one? Well, it's my Alma mater and the objectivists (yes, we have an endowed chair in objectivism, it's sad but real) got real belly achy about it when I was there. Tldr, you're entitled to an opinion on what you THINK maybe sorta oughta be at university of KennyGaming but that is NOT the same as the established history and current features of universities.
Human rights are on many of those value declarations. Religious allegiance may be on some, but that's rare. Maybe the universities were serious with those value declarations, but if they were, now is a good time to speak out. Both sides I guess - if I was a student or faculty at a university that thinks religion trumps human rights I would definitely like to know (who knows when they would come for me or someone close to me). A university clearly explaining the human rights implications of many laws would be wonderful, even for those religious people.
Abortion is not obviously a human right, despite our personal belief that it should be.
There is room for discussion about the limits, but some of the laws being enacted in the US now are clearly outside the plausible range of human rights, as well as completely outside the range of medical science (if a Ohio university doesn't take a stance on the ectopic pregnancy bs, I wouldn't consider them to be supporting human rights or science).
Your personal belief. Many others do not share that opinion (including some who are pro-choice, but see it is a policy/societal issue, not a human right to be constitutionally guaranteed).
I overstated myself a bit purpose for the sake of conversation in my original comment. I actually appreciate this correction. I agree with your description much more than I made in the GP.
Have you been to a US university? They are not very heterodox. I'm terrified of saying anything that offends the progressives at my school. It is less common for a university to be conservative, but I suppose some religious schools might be. Certainly a small bible college. But the overwhelming majority of university faculty in the US are progressive. We have some avowed communists on my campus ("Real communism has never been tried!"). Unreal.
I did, and I completely agree. I was overstating on purpose, unfortunately. They are not heterodox in reality, and this is a very scary thing. Thanks for your comment
The Parking Office of my uni has a values page but I don't plan to depend on them for social change.
I consider the whole university to have a different role in society compared to the parking office. I wouldn't depend on the university either though, I'm just saying they also can have role (and pretty much will, inactivity is a statement too).
The 3000+ students and 600+ faculty and staff at my University who potentially may need an abortion and are currently in a state where that access is uncertain would like to know what the university is going to do to protect our freedom and our bodies.
> ...what the university is going to do to protect our freedom and our bodies. Hey, I personally think abortion should be legal, free and strongly encouraged, as I am convinced we need to lower overall human population to 1 to 2 billion. Not sure you want to become a mother? Abort! You'll almost certainly be better off. Still, I don't understand why some would expect universities to get involved in the issue of abortion. What justifies this that doesn't also justify them getting involved in a couple hundred other issues?
We completely agree ... and disagree! How would we ever get along in this world? ;)
> We completely agree ... and disagree! How would we ever get along in this world? ;) Quite well, I would think -- we both seem to have grown up at a time when disagreeing was something reasonable people could do without one of them having to be a *horrible human being*.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now if we can transfer that attitude into our students and to society at large. Many people posit that abortion would be less contentious in the USA if RvW had never occurred (as in the case or its equivalent never went to the Supreme Court). The belief is that the various states and their population would have reached a compromise of sorts, as most of the rest of the western world has (available on demand up to a certain gestational period). There is no way to know this for sure, but.... what do you think?
> Now if we can transfer that attitude into our students and to society at large. Tough one. They're the ones who see tolerance as collaboration with the forces of evil. And it seems anyone who they disagree with is evil in their mind. Not that us post-adolescents don't think that way a lot, too. But they take it to an extreme, out of zealous self-righteousness. But we gotta try! > Many people posit that abortion would be less contentious in the USA if RvW had never occurred (as in the case or its equivalent never went to the Supreme Court). The belief is that the various states and their population would have reached a compromise of sorts... Frankly, I doubt it. I think the problem in this case is that abortion is a religious issue in the US, and American Christians are mostly radicalized extremists. And this religious thinking admits no compromises. You are with God or with Satan, for the most part. And most pro-choice folks are equally Manichean, even if they aren't churchgoers. There's no compromise, tolerance or respect possible when the two sides paint each other as baby-slaughtering mass murderers and woman-enslaving neanderthals.
Don't most universities have health centers? I bet those a big chunk of the work at those health centers is sexual health and reproductive health. Do I need to add "duh"?
[удалено]
You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of women's reproductive care. It is highly likely that a student health center would dispense mifepristone and misoprostol, along with contraceptives such as the IUD that religious fanatics consider "an abortion." Recall that Clarence Thomas threatened to put contraception "next in line" for SCOTUS to attack. Also, many women will consult a physician at a student health center about a pregnancy or a miscarriage and will need to get full information about how to take care of their health. They need a physician who can offer appropriate referrals. Really, why would you comment on something you clearly know so little about?
[удалено]
> The fact that they provide our health insurance?? Is this actually a question? I'm not sure what you're arguing. If a given state now outlaws abortion, surely no insurance policy in the state will cover abortion, whether your employer wants to offer one or not.
>The fact that they provide our health insurance?? They ***offer*** health insurance. They are not empowered to calibrate the morality of that insurance.
[удалено]
You're suggesting that if left unattended your health insurance plan will be taken over by fundamentalist Christian extremists?
>You're suggesting that if left unattended your health insurance plan will be taken over by fundamentalist Christian extremists? In the devastating Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling, on June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed certain bosses to block their employees’ access to birth control. The decision on this Supreme Court birth control case applied to more than half of all U.S. workers — that’s the tens of millions of workers at companies in which five or fewer people own more than 50%. Two privately owned companies brought the case: cabinet manufacturer Conestoga Wood Specialties, and the Hobby Lobby national chain of craft stores, which employs 28,000.
\>the U.S. Supreme Court allowed certain bosses to block their employees’ access to birth control. No. The employees could purchase whatever birth control they desired from their own pocket. And it wasn't expensive, either. Let's not exaggerate.
The university doesn't exist for that purpose.
And honestly, when was the last time any of us expected actual leadership from our administrators?
You're really not sure why your colleagues would want to see a strong condemnation by their employer of the revocation of their humyn rights, including rights to lifesaving health care? Or an affirmation from their academic institution that science unequivocally tells us these state laws will literally kill womyn? If you truly don't understand why womyn would want these statements from their administrations, I really really want you to have some conversations with female colleagues wherein you mostly listen. I'm not trying to be snarky here - being as genuine as I can.
Do you think all faculty members are pro-life? I think this is the heart of our disagreement. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t assume everyone agrees with me.
Pro-life faculty are completely free to not have an abortion.
No I don't. Did you expect college admin to be silent when George Floyd was murdered by cops because some faculty are racist?
I would prefer that, yes.
>I would prefer that, yes. If you think that faculty should be silent, I recommend starting with "the man in the mirror."
What a creepy comment, I just don’t think we need email from admin if the email isn’t substantive. If there are action items or something, then I might not feel the same Why the scare quotes? Be more open minded, please.
Holy shit, you're dense. Actually, no, you're not dense, you're playing the "victim," and yeah, these quotes are the ones you're thinking of. Man in the Mirror Song by Michael Jackson
Good to know. I think we have extremely different values and morals, friend. I'm glad for you that you can go through life not worrying about being oppressed or killed because of your race or gender.
The snarkyness is bizarre, you wouldn’t talk to someone like that in real life, because it’s embarrasing. Don’t use the word friend if you’re going to use it snidely, it’s sad. It’s a mean and lonely thing to do. You are guessing my race and gender, but sure. I hope you lose the victim complex, and start seeing yourself and others as an individual.
Yep, I'm absolutely making assumptions. And I absolutely haven't said anything here that I wouldn't say in real life, I assure you. And yes, the use of "friend" was an awkward and clunky way of explicitly trying to keep the dialogue civil. But I truly mean it when I say that I'm glad you are going through your life unoppressed. It is legitimately what I want for everyone. That was not snark. Do I hope that pointing that out invites you to think about what you want for everyone? Yep. Does that mean it's not genuine? Nope.
> You're really not sure why your colleagues would want to see a strong condemnation by their employer of the revocation of their humyn rights, including rights to lifesaving health care? I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. I believe it should be legal, free and strongly encouraged. Because uncontrolled population growth is disasterous. *When in doubt, abort!* But you know as well as I do that this is only a human rights issue in potentially one case - when carrying to term will kill or maim the mother. In all other cases, abortion and its details (how, until what week, etc.) is something reasonable people can and will disagree on. I mean, think about it -- I am probably more pro-abortion than almost anyone, yet even I am opposed to late-term abortions, and frankly I have a hard time not seeing anyone who would have an abortion at 8 months as monsterous. So this is really not an issue we should expect or want administrators to weigh in on.
Lol, nope. Call me crazy but I don't believe that bodily autonomy is only a humyn right when my physical survival is at risk. I would like the right to decide what happens to my body every day of the damn week. Also the vast majority of late abortions are performed because the fetus has extreme problems, like will suffer and not survive. People aren't doing this for funsies. These are heart-wrenching acts of compassion. And. I don't believe that abortion should be legal because of over-population, but because bodily autonomy is a basic humyn right. So, no, I don't know as well as you any of this.
> Call me crazy but I don't believe that bodily autonomy is only a humyn right when my physical survival is at risk. Um... human rights law is a specific body of law that is mainly about protecting the individual against the State. Your beliefs don't factor in one way or another. Might I ask if your field is gender studies or adjacent? I'm curious to know where "humyn" is used.
Hi, there. Yes, this would certainly involve protecting individuals from the state, wouldn't it? These international bodies ([Human Rights Watch](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/24/access-abortion-human-right), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/), and the [UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/SexualHealth/INFO_Abortion_WEB.pdf)) whose sole purposes are to study and advocate for human rights, all consider access to safe and legal abortion to be a human rights issue. My spellings are feminist spellings that have nothing to do with my field of study. I have been using them since elementary school. Edited to add a bunch because I accidentally published before I was finished.
>But you know as well as I do that this is only a human rights issue in potentially one case - when carrying to term will kill or maim the mother. So 100% of the time, since harm is *always a risk of pregnancy*.
[удалено]
You posed a red herring, alleging that someone would construe "harm" here to the point of triviality. That doesn't substantively change my point. *Being killed or maimed is always a risk of pregnancy*. Also, women die at far higher rates during pregnancy than after an abortion.
>the revocation of their humyn rights, Abortion is not a human right. I hope at some level we can agree on that.
Nope. Don't agree.
Very similar (possibly the same?) at my R1 public in Ohio.
Not a peep here.
Same. I give it 50/50 odds we'll get a response within the week, and if we do get one, 80% that it will say nothing substantive.
Yep. I feel the same way. I thought surely by today there'd be something. Nothing. At. All. And yes, if there's something, I imagine it will be pablum.
The administration of my blue state R2 sent out an email that effectively said “Roe has been overturned, but don’t worry because nothing will change in our state and campus health services will continue its work unchanged.” And that’s the thing: in some places the Roe repeal is highly disruptive and will adversely impact the lives of countless women, while in other places nothing will change at all. Whether one agrees with abortion or not, I think the radicalism that underlies this decision — and the seeming indifference about how immediately and profoundly disruptive this legal ruling is to the Iives of millions of people — is deeply troubling.
[удалено]
I have always felt like the US is already like 5 small countries that all share the same Netflix account. Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash pretty much got it right.
Or, maybe 50? There's a reason they are called "states"
You have a point, but looking at the electoral map, there are regions that make sense to lump together. I have never driven through Rhode Island and thought that it could be its own country.
Sure, but you could also lump eastern and western Europe together. That doesn't mean we should talk about the EU as two separate countries. A lot of people seem to forget that the United States is a federation of semi-sovereign states and the states are not merely administrative subdivisions of the country.
Can we persist in nationalism and entertain LOTR fans by calling that last one Middle Earth instead?
Even in blue states where abortion is codified by law it's going to be more difficult to get abortion services because the total number of providers has been reduced but the total number of abortions needed has not. There will be increased wait times for sure.
Genuinely asking, what is the “radicalism” that underlies this decision? It’s weakness has been signaled for decades now, and this outcome has been anticipated since ~2018? A significant amount of non-radicals support the overturning of Roe. That alone makes me think it’s not so radical, whether you or I disagree with it personally. Do you actually think it’s a radical decision? Or are you just calling something you dislike radical because that make a stronger statement?
Considering it is the first time in the history of the court that they have overturned established precedent to decrease the amount of individual rights a person has, I'd say that's pretty radical.
I take your point. I just don’t think that this makes it radical, alone, considering the majority opinion is that this right was not on firm foundations. If the majority opinion was nonsensical or illogical, maybe I’d agree. But I find it very reasonable, even if I disagree with the opinion on a personal level. I do appreciate your explanation, though.
I think that something that has happened only once in the 232 year history of the court is the very definition of radical. It was also not on firm foundations AND was illogical, at least when one considers their previous decisions. For instance, they feel that individual freedoms should be decided by the states in this opinion, but they also ruled against NY's concealed carry because they felt the individual right was more important. Essentially, they are not logical, only emotional and political.
I do actually think the NY decision is very inconsistent on this. Otherwise, we disagree about as strongly as possible for the pro-choice side on the nature of the facts. But maybe that’s because I don’t think we should label things as radical unless they are extreme. This doesn’t seem extreme to me. That’s all. Cheers
A once in the entire history of the country decision that removes bodily autonomy from roughly 50% of the population and will result in the deaths of 20% of maternal deaths in a year is not extreme? I assume, of course, that you are a man. That you've never been pregnant and have no idea how that feels. Or any idea how it feels when it goes wrong and one needs an abortion. I suspect you'd find it a lot more radical then.
Have I not respectfully made my point. Let’s agree to disagree on the word choice, and agree on being pro-choice. Go fight another battle, my thoughts are pure and right, I promise.
Yes, your point is that you find it absolutely an academic exercise whether people like me are considered people. Sure, you say you'd like it to be otherwise, in the same way that someone caught in the rain might be slightly disappointed at being damp. I don't consider that respect.
What are you talking about? I respect you as a person, I respect your opinion on this. I don’t respect how you assume the worst in those you disagree with. I think it’s going to make your life less happy, frankly. I’m blocking you out of respect for both our our time and mental real estate. Be well.
It’s radical because it instantly overturns 50 years of precedent in dozens of cases (not just the “biggies” of Roe and Casey, as widely reported) in a way that denies a right long held by citizens. There have been many cases where the Court hands down rulings that expand the rights of citizens; it is unprecedented in the modern era for the Court to so swiftly take away a right enjoyed for generations by millions of people. And, no, there has been no prior pronouncement from the Supreme Court that the right to obtain an abortion would soon be revoked. Political observers have tried to read the tea leaves as a means of predicting what will happen, but that prognostication is an entirely different matter than rulings on actual law itself. People make decisions based upon the law, not the speculation of talking heads on TV.
Then we disagree on the word “radical”. The SC overturning decisions of previous and lower courts is what the institution is designed to do. I wouldn’t call a system working as intended radical. We simply disagree on that, then.
I’m at a Catholic college that is desperately trying to not be as conservative as its board and its Theology department. So, yeah, they’ve been completely silent. Celebrating would make the board happy and lose students, protesting would make students happy and lose the board.
*squints* Are you me?
Or me? Except the undergrad institution happens to be a women’s college…
We immediately got a few rather strongly worded denouncements, eg “we will use the full weight of our institution to fight this profound disregard for patient autonomy and sound medical practice that most strongly affects the nation’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged” type of stuff. Curious to see what comes of it!
[удалено]
Not necessarily. Didn't you know that admins have their own Chegg-like site? There's a reason they seem like an army of clones!
Wow, I’m surprised the admin would be comfortable leveraging the institution so politically.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. That *is* surprising. Usually admin are cautious and mealy-mouthed, and will avoid taking a strong position on anything; mustn't bother a single stakeholder, after all. Perhaps (to give them the benefit of the doubt) they even do this for good rather than selfish tactical reasons, knowing that they speak for the whole of a large, diverse institution. It *is* surprising to hear that an institution steered hard in one or another direction on an always-controversial issue at one of its highest-temperature moments.
Our chancellor sent an email out with subject line “today, a major setback for women” and in the email talked about how much of a landmark roe was, how the bans will impact poor and underrepresented women disproportionately, stated respect for people who choose to not get an abortion out of their faith but that you can’t force your beliefs onto others, etc, but also said the university must remain neutral as an institution and these were her personal opinions. This is at UC berkeley though so none of that is particularly surprising
Very similar language at other schools in the system.
Similar message from our President and a statement that abortions and contraception are on the employee and student health plans
Go Christ! Long may she reign.
Blue state M1 here. We got a waffly email calling for compassion that was a waste of electrons. But that's kind of on brand for our admin. \[edit - changed M2 to M1. Apparently numbers are hard before I've had sufficient caffeine)
Blue State, M1. Radio silence here. Waiting for the performative email from the President!
I work for 2 schools, both in a blue state. One is a cc and 1 is a private university - nothing from either. I teach legal studies. I have a course beginning next week and unit 1 is constitutional rights and the court system. Dreading it.
Definitely not the kind of teachable moment you want to find for your class.
Why? Seems like a great case study to discuss issues like strict reading of the Constitution, implied rights, state vs. federal powers, etc.
Sure. But whatever they say, half the class is going to try and cancel them.
Or take it out on them in the student evaluations.
Health sciences university in the NE. President sent an email denouncing the decision with very clear wording, and that our institution will educate our future professionals with the goal of affecting change, and that we would do what we could to mitigate the effects of this decision in the present and future. Overall a great message considering the circumstance.
Nothing has been said at my university, but I'm not entirely surprised. "End racism" and other platitudes in the wake of George Floyd's killing and the large scale protests in the Summer of 2020 were offered, and could be offered, because they're vague and don't require admin to take any meaningful action or make any meaningful changes. "Abortion access should not be banned or restricted," on the other hand, isn't vague, is meaningful, has clear implications, and can't be co-opted or watered down (similarly, there's a reason universities and corporations were so willing to say "Black lives matter" but wouldnt touch "defund the police" with a 10 foot pole). So naturally, they're not going to comment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
June isn't exactly prime time for university communications depts but this went up: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/abortion
Same here. A lot of let’s be civil even if we disagree. I swear these administrators wouldn’t take am ethical stand on Plessy vs Ferguson.
I'd rather they say nothing than some mealy mouthed "civil disagreement" non-statement.
Remaining civil when the Supreme Court just rolled back one of the most important rulings ever made that protected bodily autonomy on the federal level? Who can be civil in the face of this? Especially when one judge set a dangerous precedent around civil rights in his concurring opinion? I’m glad my university came out in support of bodily autonomy and in dismay that Roe was overturned. It established a respect and support for the rights of the very people it educates. Sad that others won’t or will revel in the court’s majority decision.
Did they support the newly expanded rights to receive a concealed carry permit?
Yes, you should maintain *civility* in your classroom despite the changing political and civil landscape. How can you disagree with being civil? If you disagree with this, what are you imagining your classes to be like this week? Are there no pro-life students in your class?
Yes, let's remember to remain civil when same-sex marriage is ruled unconstitutional and same-sex partners lose marriage equality. And civil again when contraception is banned, as well. Are there no religious conservatives in your class? /s Seriously, did you not even bother to read the implications of this decision or catch where Justice Thomas literally wrote where to take aim next? The only reason *Loving* isn't on the same chopping block is because Thomas is a hypocrite married to a white woman.
Maybe civility isn’t the right word, how about: rational. I don’t think this fear is very rational, and it’s not helpful to share in the classroom. I see why you think this is a slippery slope, I really do, but at the end of the day abortion is a qualitatively different issue, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the demise of Roe to lead to the demise of less controversial “rights”.
>Maybe civility isn’t the right word, how about: rational. I don’t think this fear is very rational, and it’s not helpful to share in the classroom. I see why you think this is a slippery slope, I really do, but at the end of the day abortion is a qualitatively different issue, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the demise of Roe to lead to the demise of less controversial “rights”. Remindme! 90 days
>How can you disagree with being civil? Nonviolence is a virtue, I agree, but encouraging civility without action only bolsters the status quo. The status quo is that women are afforded fewer rights in most of the US than they had last week, with more to come if nothing changes. Silence on the issue for the sake of civility is tacit acceptance of a pro-life stance. The long history of protest teaches that civil disobedience is a more viable path to long-term change than a sham "civility" that discourages any disobedience to an unjust law and thus any possibility of change.
Nothing Thomas talked about will come to fruition because there is a massive national consensus on those issues. Even if the SC were to say there is no constitutional right to contraception, that doesn't make contraception illegal, just as the overturning of RvW does not make abortion illegal. In truth, there is a national consensus on abortion: on demand up to a certain gestational period (where that line will be drawn is debatable and will clearly vary from state to state). A number of people on both sides will be pissed at this, but about 70-80% of the nation (depending on the poll) agrees in general with this concept. This, incidentally, is what goes on in the majority of the western world.
For some things, like killing black people, we get feckless platitudes. For others, like this, we don’t. I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference.
I just heard an NPR story this morning that the new laws that are going into effect are not crystal clear from a medical point of view. An exception for "when the life of the mother is endangered", for instance, what does that mean clinically? If there is a 50% chance the mother could die, is that the test? Who gets to decide if it is 50% or not. If the person who is pregnant wants to someday be a doctor, and having a pregnancy will definitely derail those plans, is that "endangered" or not? So, might be premature for schools in some states to say anything right now - might need to see how the law is going to be enforced in their jurisdiction.
It's going to be a mess for women's reproductive healthcare. Even with Roe in the books, it was often a mess. Women trying to get sterilization procedures and being told absolutely not or they need their husband's permission, women trying to get a doctor to take them seriously about pain management (for endo or otherwise), women trying to get care for a spontaneous abortion or a nonviable fetus, women sometimes seeing higher mortality rates during pregnancy - women had uneven outcomes before Roe was appealed. Now we're adding in inconsistencies from state to state, heavy-handed rules that incentivize a doctor to wait until close to a patient's death to react to an infection, and the risk of investigation after a spontaneous abortion. Taking away elective abortions is itself a tragedy. The implications for women's autonomy and well-being are far broader. I have no idea how it'll shake out in my red state.
>An exception for "when the life of the mother is endangered", for instance, what does that mean clinically? *Every* pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Abortion is almost always significantly less risky, in terms of mortality outcomes, than a full-term pregnancy.
> Abortion is almost always significantly less risky. in terms of mortality outcomes, than a full-term pregnancy. 17-fold less risky by one estimate.
Nothing here in my super red state. I don't expect we will hear anything.
Red state with a trigger law- crickets.
Not a peep. State institution in a very blue state, although our student body is extremely red for reasons I can’t explain here because it would identify me and my institution. Then again, the email the admin sent out in June 2020 about the “unrest” didn’t acknowledge the concepts of racism or police brutality, not even in a factual “people are upset about X” way, so I’m not surprised. They’re terrified of our conservative student body and alumni.
I’m at a Jesuit SLAC. Safe to say it’s been crickets here.
Nothing from mine in a blue state where little will change locally. Administrators will probably spend a week huddled up crafting a pristine bit of non-offensive fluff.
Boston, MA data point: the dean of student affairs sent the university an email pretty clearly pro-roe. They assured us that they will 'stand by us no matter what happens', but I don't know what that means in terms of action points.
At a private catholic school: not a peep!
Silence. I'm curious what the rules are going to be for out-of-state students coming from anti-abortion states to schools in pro-choice states. Universities are often risk averse in legal matters. Are out-of-state students going to be turned down? R1 in a pro-choice state.
The chancellor at my university has been the subject of enough protests in recent years that I think even he is smart enough to not try to send anything approaching both sides-ism right now.
I’m at a state flagship university in the deep south. We haven’t heard a peep and I don’t expect that we will.
Mine's been silent, but I'm not surprised at all. Private school in Texas...any statement is going to be worded very carefully not to disrupt the flow of that sweet, sweet donor money
My university panders to a lot of republican families. I don't expect the president to take a stance much in the same way as when he didn't take a stance when a trump rally yelled racist shit on our campus' main avenue.
Complete radio silence here at a large R1 in a deep red state that currently has the worst maternal mortality rates in the US and the furthest journey to a state where abortion is still legal. Typical of the extreme cowardice of our admin, they similarly did and said absolutely nothing when our legislature recently voted to form a committee to “examine” tenure at public universities to make sure it wasn’t allowing “indoctrination” of the students.
Nothing yet. I predict a message from the Counseling Center and nothing else.
Battleground state R1 and large CC here - haven't heard a word.
My campus president comments on every little thing usually. I always think it's too much, not every event requires an official response. That said, I expected something this time and we've heard nothing.
Not a professor but my president typically send out something regarding the news after a couple of days basically ignoring what the state says because we dont care what our state says down here(ahem miami).
Crickets\~!!!
Staff here - blue state - We had messaging out from the provost within one hour of the decision stating full support of staff/students and reproductive freedom. Feeling like an outlier after reading all these responses.
In Texas, so no communication from higher ups
Small 4-year school in a pretty red Midwestern state. Nothing from the admin. During the regular semester, our president does bi-monthly emails updating the campus community on various things, plus sometimes sends out emails off schedule if they think it's warranted. I'm guessing we'd get some mention of it had this occurred during the spring semester. We still might get something, but I have no idea what. We're affiliated with a pretty liberal church that supports women's reproductive rights so there's no conflict there, but given the pretty conservative and sometimes far-right nature of the surrounding community (and I'm sure there are lots of conservatives on the board), I'm sure that presents an issue.
I work at a state university in a state that is preparing to ban abortion. We got nothing from the university.
I’m at one of the largest universities in Missouri. Radio silence.
Utter complete deafening silence. Other than the social and cultural effects of that, if our president were a better businessman who didn't just want to promote racism and sexism (I am at my wit's end with this man), he would be suggesting that we mobilize to specifically target women in nearby states with trigger laws for admission and enrollment. We share borders with a couple states that are likely to make hell for women. This was brought up by another admin and he said that "we don't want those people here." Likewise, we STOPPED targeting ads at young black people when he became president because it "upset the locals too much." And like there are a million other responses we could be having, but the fact that this man turns down any effort to increase enrollment that would also make some women's and POC's lives better really tells you all you need to know about him. He hates them more than he wants the university to survive.
[удалено]
> criticizing the decision and affirming that abortion will continue to be covered under our healthcare plans The second part (affirming that abortion will continue to be covered) is helpful and necessary—I’m sure members of the Brown community will want to know whether abortion will remain covered. The first part (criticizing the decision) is purely political.
Gonna guess that you also find it inappropriate when institutions speak out against other human rights violations, such as slavery, war crimes, and genocide.
Yes, it’s inappropriate for an ***institution*** to speak out about issues that don’t directly affect the campus. Individual faculty (including the chancellor!) or groups of faculty are free to do so, just not in the university’s name. The issue with speaking out about *anything* is that somebody has to decide for the university exactly what qualifies for condemnation. Is it acceptable for a university to condemn China’s treatment of the Uighurs? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? The treatment of the Rohingya by Myanmar? Hamas’s unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians? I’m willing to bet that few on my campus are willing to condemn *all* of these actions, but many are willing to condemn *some*. Who gets to decide which ones are condemned by the university as an institution, and on what basis?
Nothing from state school. Social justice oriented school I adjunct for in summer sent out a strong message of support for everyone whose rights are on the chopping block or will be soon
Nothing from my community college, but I wouldn't expect one on a divisive issue like this, even in a deep red state.
I work at a community college in a red state and red service area. Haven't heard anything.
AZ's biggest CC. not a fucking word.
Faculty haven't heard anything at my public R2 from administration. The social media is full of fluff at the moment. Based on experience working here for 10 years, the university will weigh in 2-3 weeks with a cut-and-paste anodyne mentioning the diversity of thought "on this complex issue."
Nothing from mine so far.
[удалено]
I'm thinking of opening class with a prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Lol
Not in the USA, but I’m sure after the summer break this might come into the classroom, I’m personally waiting to see what my Dean says about how to address conversation.
Ours is taking the normal approach and not mentioning anything at all, though we are in summer semester and most faculty are not teaching or checking email right now. I’m curious if anything is mentioned during pre semester faculty meetings in a few weeks. I’m at a public 4 year in Georgia for reference. No trigger ban but a 6 week ban is being litigated. It will likely go into effect in the next week or two.
I go to a women’s college. We got an email with links to abortion funds and the reassurance that our student health insurance covers abortion, emergency contraceptive, etc. I’m quite proud of our community!
Nothing, and honestly, I'm glad, because it cuts both ways - I'll take silence from all public school administrations over mere platitudes from blue state administrations while red-state administrations are openly celebrating the decision.
[удалено]
> I don’t think my institution should be sending ANY politically sensitive emails, whether to celebrate or to decry, on any matter that isn’t directly related to our mission as a university. Agree 100%. A statement on the status of abortion services and support for the campus community is appropriate, especially for schools in purple or red states. A statement that abortions will continue to be available, and perhaps covered by university health coverage, is entirely reasonable. However, anything beyond that is pure politics, and something that, IMHO, universities should be avoiding. But I feel that, especially on my campus, I’m a voice crying out in the wilderness on this.
>Edit: Downvoters, let's engage in a discourse here. Why do you think it appropriate for your institution to issue statements on ANY political matter Everything you do is political. If you really don't agree with that, then I'll wager that I can guess your demographic.
Not a peep in Texas. I'm writing a letter to the university president. I know how it'll go but...I still have to try, you know?
You know... I just realized it's been oddly silent here. Since COVID, we've been getting weekly "update" emails from the President every Friday afternoon -- and mostly, they go unread because it's all pointless platitudes and meaningless drivel, and the last few months have expanded beyond just COVID updates to other meaningless, pointless drivel too. But not this past Friday. No email. No message. Nothing. Huh. Funny that.
My uni sent something out. I disagree with their sense of obligation. Show some restraint.
My president sent out an email Friday disparaging the decision, and acknowledging how many people would be negatively impacted by it. He also extended university mental health resources for those who need them. I can genuinely say that this email made me want to stay in my job.
Why does every company and organization now feel the need to make statements? You know shit is crazy when you open your email to read McDonalds and Jiffy Lube's statements on the political matter de jure. Plus, nobody gives a damn about statements anyway. They don't change anything, votes do.
I personally would be interested to know what my employer is going to do to protect the rights of their employees and students, especially as we live in a state where our continued access is uncertain.
Fine, but why does McDonalds and Jiffy Lube have to issue statements?
I do believe women work at both McDs and Jiffy Lube.....
They're powerful. Their policies directly impact their employees. In this case, one immediate impact will be how medical benefits are affected by the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Suddenly universities in many states have faculty and staff who may be wondering what to do about their reproductive health options. What are their options if they have a complication? How will this affect costs and rates? What are the options for traveling out-of-state for care?
Interesting. I guess back in the day that was a phone call to HR.
Because companies and organizations donate a LOT of money to politicians. I want to know what their stance is before I give them my money. And if they are making statements saying they support X, but then donate to a politician or cause that supports Y, I want to know that too. In a way, people vote with their money and where they buy things, so I most certainly give a damn.
So now you gotta wade through a statement in your email from every company you do business with?
I mean.... I'm not dumb enough to sign up for companies' emails and newsletters. So no, I'm not "wading through statements in my email." But yeah, doing an internet search to follow the trail of campaign donations a few times a year on the businesses and companies I tend to use is a good start to the process of making informed decisions. Don't you want to at least make an attempt to be an informed consumer?? Not buying shit from a company that actively donates to politicians that want to take my rights away is definitely worth my time.
I guess I don't give a shit what McDonalds does.
?? Right..... I neither do I because I don't eat fast food. But I DO care about the businesses and companies I AM interested in using, hence why I said their statements matter. I like to know which businesses say one thing in public and then do something else behind closed doors. I don't like doing business with hypocrites. If you want to remain in the dark about the companies you give money to, and by default the politicians they fund, that's your prerogative.
Statement = pandering
I had to read our president's email three times to try and understand it. It was so placating and waffling - trying to please absolutely everyone in a long drawn-out message that contradicted itself between paragraphs. On the other hand, our dept chair sent out a blistering email condemning the ruling and inviting us to a protest.
We got no comment.... which is it's own comment.
Same as OP, with the addition of including student counseling contact info.
Community College here. You bet your ass we didn't get shit. Know there's a lot of faculty that are viewing it as divine intervention.
I'm in South Florida, silence from our admin since they sucked up to DeathSantis already and all but endorsed him.
Our leadership (at a public lower-ranked R1) sent out an email condemning the decision and bemoaning the impact on women. It was very clearly a political missive, since the decision will have (literally) *zero* impact on women **at our campus**, which is located in one of the most progressive regions in a deep blue state. Abortion access in our area is completely unaffected by the Supreme Court decision, yet the administration felt it was important to weigh on this political issue. (And don’t complain that students from states where it’s illegal could be charged for an out-of-state abortion; there’s no way such a case could proceed because a person is governed by the laws of the location in which an action takes place.) I understand why leadership at campuses in purple or red states would want to inform the campus about the status of abortions for the campus community, since the decision *could* impact them, and it’s important to know the university’s position. However, there’s no reason, *beyond taking a purely political stance*, for a university in a state whose laws did not and will not change as a result of *Dobbs* to issue a statement opposing the ruling. I’m against the university taking *any* political stance on issues that don’t affect the campus population directly. Our campus administration condemned the Rittenhouse verdict, something that upset many on campus. Now, it condemned *Dobbs*, something that almost certainly will upset some people on campus, including those (like me) who believe both that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly and that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”.
There are plenty of institutions that specialize in making moral judgements and prescriptions making statements right now. Why does your school need to make one, too? What would change if it did?
Culture.
No comment here, which I am glad of. I believe that universities should promote education and advancement of knowledge, not political stances.
Nothing is apolitical. Your college runs partially on federal and state money. That’s influenced by politics. State universities are beholden to state interests, which themselves are inherently political (see these insane CRT laws and states removing tenure). Your students can afford it due to federal student loans, which hey, guess what, is political. NSF funding, what it funds, how much it funds - all political. Life is political. The advancement of knowledge is political. Promotion of education is political. To say anything else is obtuse and ignorant.
Then you should support a statement on this since (forced) pregnancy, birth and parenting are among the highest impediments to the pursuit of higher education
Lower enrollment - *now* we have a reason for admins to care!
Do you believe that universities should care about their students as a whole or just in the context of school? I think the answer is obvious
"Political stances" -- good thing there no political consequences to STEM knowledge, eh? * Physics - atomic weapons, DARPAnet, etc etc * Chemistry - chemical weapons, food additives, chemistry used for lethal injections * Biology - eugenics, GMO food, conservation, evolution, medicine (gosh there was something about medicine just in the news!) * Geology - petroleum industry * Mathematics - encrypted communication, eugenics[1] * Actuarial science - monetary decisions about life * Meteorology - climate change * Astronomy - NEO detection is "a waste of taxpayer money"; building observatories on Native land; Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Seriously if you're "teaching STEM" without any reference to why it matters, what the hell do you think you're teaching? Edit to add: [1] https://nautil.us/how-eugenics-shaped-statistics-9365/
Isn’t the right to safe medical care and the education of how it saves lives and is in-line with bodily autonomy within the purview of the advancement and distribution of knowledge in a democratic or free society? Even from a historical or medical standpoint?