Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar

    Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but something just occurred to me that I haven’t seen anyone discuss. Why…

  2. Wynship W. Hillier, M.S.'s avatar

    I first met Professor Hoy when I returned to UC Santa Cruz in Fall of ’92 to finish my undergraduate…

  3. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  4. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  5. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  6. Texan's avatar

    LLMs have been nothing but baleful for the humanities, and they’ve appeared at a time that amounts to kicking humanities…

  7. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

California passes law that would seem to prohibit academics at public institutions from visiting countries…

Brian Leiter

…that discriminate against LGBT citizens–which is a lot of countries!    Philosopher Michael Cholbi called this to my attention, but I haven't seen much on it, though it would seem to be a significant violation of the contractual right of California faculty to academic freedom, since there are many pedagogical and research-related reasons faculty might need to travel to countries with otherwise reprehensible policies.   Comments are open for readers who know more about this law and what it means.

Leave a Reply to Brian Leiter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 responses to “California passes law that would seem to prohibit academics at public institutions from visiting countries…”

  1. Robert Gressis

    I was under the impression that the bill doesn't *forbid* academics traveling to any *country* that has anti-LGBT legislation; instead, I was under the impression that the bill says that public California educational institutions *are no longer allowed to fund* academics' travel to *states in the United States* that sponsor anti-LGBT legislation. Is this wrong?

    Reply
  2. Brian Leiter

    Sorry, I ran roughshod over that distinction in my post. But practically what it means is that research-related travel, that might have been university-funded, won't be because of the destination, not its academic relevance.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress