Indiana blocks world’s top sex research center from state funds: ‘a scary moment for academic freedom’

[roguenuke]

What is the world's top sex researcher doing in Indiania anyway?

Studies of the sexually oppressed, those who feel shame from sexual activity or talking about it can be just as informing as studying those who are sexually free, liberated.

 

[CLAX1911]

Indeed they can, but call it what it is: ideologically-motivated censorship.

Not funding at publicly is not censoring it. They can do the research if they can find funding elsewhere.

It's the same with bans on stem-cell research.

Wait so not funding research with public funds is the same as banning something?

How?

There's nothing in the constitution that requires funding of stem-cell research, but deliberately banning it is motivated by ideological and political concerns, not anything in the public interest per se.

Sorry the public saying no public funding for something even if it's for ideological reasons that is the public's interest. And it's not banning it it's just not providing government funding.

To say the Publix interest in deciding who does and doesn't get funding isn't in the public interest is contradictory.

If you want this sort of thing funded convince people don't just lecture them on now they shouldn't have any interest and whether tax dollar goes.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm really saying that people who want the government to do things for political reasons should be ashamed of themselves,

That's all anybody wants any government to do anything for any time.

That's what they're for.

and are the group of people who are usually responsible when democracies fail.

Maybe democrats should work a little harder.

 

[CLAX1911]

He used anonymous sources to try to prove his theory on child sexuality to say the least he covered up pedophiles and encouraged it.

Yeah his research was dependent on such people never getting caught. A severe ethics violation. Perhaps he derived some sort of pleasure himself from it.

 

[samiam5211]

That's all anybody wants any government to do anything for any time.

I'm sure that is what it seems like to you.

 

[multivita-man]

Not funding at publicly is not censoring it. They can do the research if they can find funding elsewhere.

Sure they can find funding somewhere else, but if Kinsey is receiving government funding from the Indiana legislature in 2023 but then denied the same funding in 2024 by the same legislative body - because reasons - then that is a form of censorship. The legislature is attempting to interfere with academic freedom on purely political grounds, not the public interest. There's simply no other way to view it. I think the legislators who voted against would even acknowledge it is politically-motivated and that the intent is to prevent such research.

Wait so not funding research with public funds is the same as banning something?

The same concept/principle is involved here, yes. In both cases, a legislature is using its power to restrict research on ideological, not scientific, academic, or public safety grounds. Whether it's an outright ban on the conduct or simply restricting public funding, the desired impact is the same.

How?

Sorry the public saying no public funding for something even if it's for ideological reasons that is the public's interest. And it's not banning it it's just not providing government funding.

To say the Publix interest in deciding who does and doesn't get funding isn't in the public interest is contradictory.

If you want this sort of thing funded convince people don't just lecture them on now they shouldn't have any interest and whether tax dollar goes.

You're not processing what I'm telling you, so I'll cut our discussion short here.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm sure that is what it seems like to you.

The root word for political is policy. Policymakers are there to make policy hence the name.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure they can find funding somewhere else, but if Kinsey is receiving government funding from the Indiana legislature in 2023 but then denied the same funding in 2024 by the same legislative body - because reasons - then that is a form of censorship.

Disagree censorship is saying you can't do the research at all even if you can get private funding.

The legislature is attempting to interfere with academic freedom on purely political grounds, not the public interest.

It is not. If you need to be bankrolled for your academic freedom you were at the mercy of who's bankrolling you.

So really the interfered when they funded it in the first place. What they're doing here is they're no longer interfering

There's simply no other way to view it. I think the legislators who voted against would even acknowledge it is politically-motivated and that the intent is to prevent such research.

I'm not a communist I don't think that anybody is just entitled to gifts from the government.

The same concept/principle is involved here, yes. In both cases, a legislature is using its power to restrict research on ideological, not scientific, academic, or public safety grounds. Whether it's an outright ban on the conduct or simply restricting public funding, the desired impact is the same.

They're not restricting research do all the research you want they're just not paying you for it anymore and you shouldn't be paid for it first place.

You're not processing what I'm telling you, so I'll cut our discussion short here.

No I processed it you're lying clean and simple you or you are completely incompetent when it comes to what censorship is.

No academic endeavor is entitled to funding sorry.

 

[samiam5211]

The root word for political is policy. Policymakers are there to make policy hence the name.

ok captain semantics.

 

[multivita-man]

No I processed it you're lying clean and simple you or you are completely incompetent when it comes to what censorship is.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I know something which might possibly solve their financial problems.

Oh?

Do tell sir.

 

[j brown's body]

Disagree censorship is saying you can't do the research at all even if you can get private funding.

It is not. If you need to be bankrolled for your academic freedom you were at the mercy of who's bankrolling you.

So really the interfered when they funded it in the first place. What they're doing here is they're no longer interfering

I'm not a communist I don't think that anybody is just entitled to gifts from the government.

They're not restricting research do all the research you want they're just not paying you for it anymore and you shouldn't be paid for it first place.

No I processed it you're lying clean and simple you or you are completely incompetent when it comes to what censorship is.

No academic endeavor is entitled to funding sorry.

This is recipe for taking society backwards.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I watched a documentary on the Kinsey Institute what they tried to prove is that children as young as months old are able to enjoy sex. It was disgusting. They did testing on children who were from months old to a couple of years.

Welcome to 1940s America.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Also a lot of Kinsey's work is questionable.

This is true.

 

[Lisa]

Not funding at publicly is not censoring it. They can do the research if they can find funding elsewhere.

Wait so not funding research with public funds is the same as banning something?

How?

Sorry the public saying no public funding for something even if it's for ideological reasons that is the public's interest. And it's not banning it it's just not providing government funding.

To say the Publix interest in deciding who does and doesn't get funding isn't in the public interest is contradictory.

If you want this sort of thing funded convince people don't just lecture them on now they shouldn't have any interest and whether tax dollar goes.

Why shouldn't research that benefits the pubic not be funded by taxpayer dollars?

Alfred Kinsey was among the first sex researchers who came to the conclusion that gay people weren't degenerates and that being gay wasn't a mental disorder, but I would never expect you to be intellectually honest and admit that you have benefited from his work.

How Alfred Kinsey armed the early gay rights movement with research

Even early gay rights activists wouldn't have known just how many people they were fighting for without him.

www.lgbtqnation.com

 

[CLAX1911]

This is recipe for taking society backwards.

Or arresting the backward movement.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why shouldn't research that benefits the pubic not be funded by taxpayer dollars?

Because the public says no why shouldn't they be allowed to dictate where their money goes?

Alfred Kinsey was among the first sex researchers who came to the conclusion that gay people weren't degenerates and that being gay wasn't a mental disorder, but I would never expect you to be intellectually honest and admit that you have benefited from his work.

Didn't comment on that. Am I supposed to worship the guy and think he is infallible because of this or can I point out he was a flawed man while not condemning everything he ever did?

How Alfred Kinsey armed the early gay rights movement with research

Even early gay rights activists wouldn't have known just how many people they were fighting for without him.

www.lgbtqnation.com

This makes his ethically questionable acts Aokay?

 

[CLAX1911]

Why shouldn't research that benefits the pubic not be funded by taxpayer dollars?

Alfred Kinsey was among the first sex researchers who came to the conclusion that gay people weren't degenerates and that being gay wasn't a mental disorder, but I would never expect you to be intellectually honest and admit that you have benefited from his work.

How Alfred Kinsey armed the early gay rights movement with research

Even early gay rights activists wouldn't have known just how many people they were fighting for without him.

www.lgbtqnation.com

Your suggesting that because I'm gay and because I benefit from the work kinzey did that I must support child molestation or at least not turning in somebody who you know is molesting children.

What makes you any different than the westboro Baptist Church?

 

[Lisa]

Your suggesting that because I'm gay and because I benefit from the work kinzey did that I must support child molestation or at least not turning in somebody who you know is molesting children.

What makes you any different than the westboro Baptist Church?

You might want to tell the truth, if only occasionally. Kinsey didn't abuse children. He interviewed convicted criminals.

t has been suggested that some data in the reports could not have been obtained without collaborations with child molesters.[40] The Kinsey Institute denies this charge, though it acknowledges that men who have had sexual experiences with children were interviewed, with Kinsey balancing what he saw as the need for their anonymity to solicit "honest answers on such taboo subjects" against the likelihood that their crimes would continue.

Kinsey Reports - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[beefheart]

"The future of the Kinsey Institute, the world’s premier sex research center, is in limbo. Last April, lawmakers in Indiana’s Republican-dominated state legislature voted to block the Kinsey Institute from receiving any state funds through Indiana University (IU), which houses the institute. ...The outcome of the skirmish over the Kinsey Institute and Indiana University will signal whether conservative lawmakers can dictate the bounds of academic research into human sexuality, at a time when far-right politicians are rushing to exert unprecedented control over what is taught in schools and universities around the country.

The Kinsey Institute’s research into sex and sexuality has ignited controversy for decades, but this latest battle places it at the white-hot center of a national debate over schools, sexuality, and gender. Nationwide, hundreds of bills have been introduced in recent years aiming to ban certain topics from K-12 schools and universities. Since last year, instruction on issues relating to sex and gender has topped the rightwing’s target list. But the primary goal of Kinsey Institute, unlike many of the targets of those bills, is research. Its scholars investigate issues like sexual assault, disability and sexual health, and the history of human sexuality.

...An entirely different threat to Kinsey Institute researchers, and the rest of the university’s faculty, is on the horizon: the state legislature last week advanced a bill that hands university board of trustees the power to evaluate tenure appointments every five years for “criteria related to free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity” – effectively erasing the point of tenure.

Indiana isn’t alone – in 2023, at least six states introduced nine bills to undermine tenure, according to the American Association of University Professors. Tenure has long been believed to be essential to academic freedom, since it allows higher-education faculty to pursue potentially controversial work without fear of repercussions."

Link

The Republicans' use of government to curtail or eliminate academic freedom is growing and threatens the pursuit of knowledge that improves people's lives.

Dried up talibornagain theocrats in action.

 

[CLAX1911]

You might want to tell the truth, if only occasionally. Kinsey didn't abuse children.

I didn't say he did. He let it go on without reporting it. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

He interviewed convicted criminals.

Sometimes after their release. Kinsey being a flawed person doesn't mean everything he did was questionable.

 

[Lisa]

I didn't say he did. He let it go on without reporting it. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

They were already in prison when Kinsey interviewed them. Tell the truth.

 

[CLAX1911]

They were already in prison when Kinsey interviewed them. Tell the truth.

That doesn't mean anything. When you go to prison and get out again and go reoffend the reoffend is a new crime you didn't serve your sentence for the new crime.