Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.1K

The first is a political push for a single new law: academic fraud should be made into an offense punishable by fines or jail time. A simple law that would easily do serious damage to the corruption in the academic institutions of your country. A law that can easily gain the support of most of your countrymen.

Thr second is a lawsuit launched against your educational system arguing that the curriculum of historical education is purposefully designed to incite hatred and self-loathing in the students towards people of Caucasian descent by presenting an Intentionally skewed historical narrative that gives the false impression of European ethnicities as being morally inferior to all other races of mankind. In the wake of the controversy regarding CRT, this can easily be pushed by those who know how to advocate for this in such a way as to appeal to most people.

The first is a political push for a single new law: academic fraud should be made into an offense punishable by fines or jail time. A simple law that would easily do serious damage to the corruption in the academic institutions of your country. A law that can easily gain the support of most of your countrymen. Thr second is a lawsuit launched against your educational system arguing that the curriculum of historical education is purposefully designed to incite hatred and self-loathing in the students towards people of Caucasian descent by presenting an Intentionally skewed historical narrative that gives the false impression of European ethnicities as being morally inferior to all other races of mankind. In the wake of the controversy regarding CRT, this can easily be pushed by those who know how to advocate for this in such a way as to appeal to most people.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (16).
[–] • 0 pt

Ooof! The lawyers will get rich over these. Way too many hard to define terms. Academics usually argue about things even as concrete as concrete. Who would define the dishonest one? Would the one who spoke out against popular opinion be punished? Which side of the global warming debate goes to jail? Who decides?

Private Universities and K-12 schools would work if the govt could be made to pay the same per student as they do to public schools. Teachers' unions fight this to the death.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Academic fraud is not supporting the wrong ideas, academic fraud is purposefully lying about your research.

Falsifying your data, deliberately manipulating your methodology without disclosure, having a conclusion that does not follow from the results of the study.

It's not about what conclusion you've arrived at, but how that conclusion was reached, and where it was drawn from.

[–] • 0 pt

Looking at the climate debate, has either side accused the other of deliberate dishonesty? Lawyers would love this. Lets have a big trial to let a jury decide who is manipulating their data.

I hate bogus academics, and ones promoting bullshit subjects (LGBT studies, et. al.). Rather than making more laws, giving the government more power, I prefer taking my dollars away from the ones I consider frauds.

[–] • 0 pt

That's the idea, major fines all around, and the university is going to be expected by the fraudulent bastards to cover their asses, hopefully resulting in infighting as panty waste pseudointellectuals tear each other to shreds, leaving honest researchers to finally have some respite.