Staver, chairman of the conservative Christian ministry Liberty Counsel, which advocates for anti-LGBTQ policies, said in a video appearance on World Prayer Network Wednesday night, that we’re at “a ripe time to overrule Obergefell.” He argued that “there is no so-called constitutional right in the Constitution to same-sex marriage, that’s ridiculous.” Staver then said, “It’s not an if, it’s just a matter of when” Obergefell will be overruled.
Earlier this month, Oklahoma State Senator David Bullard introduced a bill seeking to provide tax credits to families with “eligible dependent child” which it defines as someone under 19 years old and “is a natural child of both of the taxpayers.”
He spoke about the bill’s impetus Thursday on Jenna Ellis In the Morning, saying “The reality is we have to push back on Obergefell.”
He continued, “If we wait too long on that Obergefell ruling to start actually sending things back up and challenging that stance that somehow we have to all get along and say that same-sex marriage is okay, it’s going to be too late at some point for us to push back.”
Earlier this year, Idaho Representative Heather Scott, proposed a draft memorial urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges , in a bid to “restore federalism.”
They’re putting a cap on indirect research costs. It is now 15%. UPitt is running at 59%. Universities are bloated with useless stuff, trust me. Look at the admin costs versus what they actually spend on faculty hiring. It’s a disgrace.
So he wants to discriminate against adoptive parents, and parents who for whatever reason aren’t with the other parent but are with someone else, and possibly single parents.
Damn those university administrators for providing support staff, electricity, a library with access to ridiculously expensive research journals and books, building maintenance, heat and air conditioning, maintenance of the university grounds, network services, IT support, subsidized student support, faculty and student travel support, computers and so on.
ETA: also staff salary overhead costs.
Working in the Canadian Federal Government, if I hire a tech on one of my projects, I pay a 27% overhead charge on the employee’s salary and I think the regional admin tax is a further 19% on top of the salary + overhead and the cost for everything I need to do the research itself.
When I was at University of Michigan, it was a nightmare to get approval to do projects for NGOs where they often capped overhead at 10%. Projects like that would end up costing the University money.
A fundamental difference between our two countries is that certain issues will not be revisited in Canada whereas they will be in the US. Abortion access and same-sex marriages are two examples of settled issues in Canada. There is no political mileage in reopening these debates in Canada.
I’m not convinced on that. Both Pierre Poilievre and Danielle Smith seem to have actively sought out the support of social conservatives who want to pursue those objectives. At some point they’re going to want payment.
It’s going to hit graduate students (who do a lot of that research) before it hits faculty. Like, a lot of grad students i know are wondering whether they will have funding next year.
There are too many people in academia. Too many PhD students. Too much admin. Too much real estate. Just needs massive downsizing. Good faculty need to regain control of the beast.
I’m not an academic, but as an actuary I feel similarly about US Health Care.
It’s easy to say that the whole system is bloated. Too much money is involved, too much real estate and capital, too many doctors, nurses, researchers, admin, and we are paid too much.
And it’s easy to say that the funding mechanisms are inefficient. We should change the way in which we pay for it.
However.. the answer is to transition to some other better system. Not to, for example, literally cancel Medicare overnight and see what happens.
Academia has been scaled up. It was always the domain of rich eccentric geniuses. The whole thing is out of control and misguided. I’m telling that only a small % of researchers actually matter.
Academia is not as important as medicare. If you talk to good researchers in private, they will tell you how messed up the whole thing is. It’s an apple full of worms, as elon musk puts it. Doing research is a worthy thing but that’s not really what’s happening. Most Universities are paper machines. Everyone in academia knows this but the thing just continues because of the power structures. I’m aware that the Trump administration is anti-science, but let’s not pretend like academia is operating properly. There is a more subtle form of anti-science in academia, like a crippling careerism.
I agree on the too many PhD students overall, but I think some picking and choosing where to cut is needed. I’d note that the U.S. imports thousands of foreign PhD holders every year.
The over supply of PhDs is a bit overstated as there are a lot of really good jobs available for people getting them. Unfortunately, university graduate programs do a poor job of helping grad students set realistic expectations. In all likelihood, you aren’t going to get a tenure track research job like your advisor has. More likely you’ll end up in industry, government or consulting. Alternatively, you might end up in a teaching position. Many faculty on the other hand want their students to follow in their foot steps and get the tenure track faculty job and train them with that expectation.
The last time I looked, which was awhile ago, ~2% of people starting a PhD in the biological sciences end up in a tenure track research position at a university. The vast majority of people who finish their PhD end up somewhere else, but are usually doing work related to what they did for their PhD.
The example I remember is someone who did a woah is me story about how they were struggling to survive on piecing together low paying adjuncting and short term research jobs because they wanted a teaching/research position. However, they also mention turning down the 6 figure consulting job they were offered straight out of their PhD. They didn’t take it, because it wasn’t their dream.
I’m not convinced on the complaints about too many admins. It’s really easy to make the claim without having any idea on what the work is that people are actually doing. People love to shit on the work that other people do and say that they aren’t worth what they get paid.
As we’ve seen recently in the U.S., you don’t actually have to campaign on what you’re going to do if you get elected. You can also like about what you’re going to do and get elected.
So … parents adopted kids don’t get the tax credit? Even heterosexual married ones? That seems like a good way for the right to make enemies of friends.
What if the parents are divorced or one of the parents is dead?