Hacker News Reader

I’m confused about how this all works together. There are a lot of gaps in this story and it sounds like a hysterical “outside people are moving into town” narrative.

How are these regents “hard left”?

How did the regents somehow attract “ a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans”?

Aren’t cost of living issues a local issue around these campuses, at least as far as housing goes? Montana can’t be short on space…

And what does any of that have to do with the bill in question? The bill is about k-12 education.

And if "a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans" has been attracted isn't that likely changing the political climate since MT is a low population state?

I’m not familiar with Montana specifically but gerrymandering could buffer the effects of that influx.

it sounds plausible, I lived there and visit every once in a while.

there is an influx of people for sure (just go check Wikipedia population numbers, esp. for towns mentioned) and it has nothing to do with the regents (and I don't think the parent said that)

habitable space, at least in bozeman, is very tight because you're bounded by the Gallatin Valley, everything outside has little to none infrastructure to accommodate any meaningful incoming number of people, same situation as the SFBA - there is plenty of cheap space in central valley but people pay 1.5m+ to live right in sf.

don't have enough info to vouch for the whole story, but sounds believable

I’m not sure any population increase really means any of the other post’s story is true.

Rural populations have been moving to suburban size towns for a long time now.

you can look up some links to back up your claim that this Bozeman movement is from rural places, but I really doubt that's the case for this one.

I’m not claiming anything. Another person seemed to claim they were from CA and CO…. somehow due to the action of some regents… without anything to backup the whole story.

I’m saying that any population increase doesn’t support any given theory. There can be all sorts of reasons for population changes.

I never claim it's due to the Regents, although school policies have probably contributed. But if you go back and read my comment, you will see I don't credit the regents with increasing the population of the college towns, but rather paint the picture that the college towns are growing less accessible to Montanans, and that there's some resentment over that which is being expressed by the legislature.

> although school policies have probably contributed

Like what?

Increasing enrollment, and the fraction of students from out of state. Both have increased quite a bit.

Have you looked at Gallatin County on a map? https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7139136,-111.2522263,97391m/...

It's nothing like SFBA, there are miles and miles of open land inside Gallatin Valley, all around Belgrade, Four Corners, and Manhattan.

If you meant that it's:

>everything outside [Bozeman] has little to none infrastructure to accommodate any meaningful incoming number of people

Then they can build it, because there is plenty of land. Outside SFBA in Central Valley, they are building tons in Tracy and Manteca, and that's separated by long unbuildable terrain, unlike west of Bozeman.

sure. a Manteca property is still less desirable than SF or a peninsula one, even though sfba is not dense by any means. That's not my fault.

> How are these regents “hard left”?

All Dem donors, all enacting policies at the schools that are widely considered "left" policies.

> How did the regents somehow attract “ a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans”?

By catering strongly to out-of-state students (presumably because the schools make more of them). Both U of M and MSU are at all time high out-of-state enrollment.

> Aren’t cost of living issues a local issue around these campuses, at least as far as housing goes? Montana can’t be short on space…

Yes. What you aren't considering is that Montana is big enough that if you don't live in the local valleys, you can't go to the school. The commutes are too long and too treacherous from outside the valleys. By taking both record freshman classes for the last few years, and record out of state students, plus the pandemic meaning Californians fleeing California anyways, cost of living in Bozeman and Missoula has skyrocketed, and campus housing is impossible to get.

Also, due too Montana's low population, tax revenue is low, money is especiay scarce, and now the local, taxpayer colleges are completely out of reach for most Montanans. I cannot describe with words how different the college towns like Bozeman and Missoula are from most of the state, which are places like Harlowtown or Havre. They are so unbelievably different, they might as well be on different planets.

> And what does any of that have to do with the bill in question? The bill is about k-12 education.

It's aimed specifically at the Montana Federation of Public Employees, and the Board, as described in the article:

>A legal note from legislative staff says the bill could overstep the Board of Public Education’s constitutional authority to oversee schools in the state.

It is another front to fight this war that is attempting to erode the Board's power.

"All Dem donors, all enacting policies at the schools that are widely considered "left" policies."

What policies?

I have comment further down the thread discussing it. Biggest one is suing to stop a ballot initiative over guns.

Your comment provides some interesting context, but your perspective is twisted. You're basically saying that the current Republican state government should be allowed to make a putsch on the Uni Goverment, so that's why they're justified in attacking science.

There's obviously multiple deficiencies of logic there.

All I'm saying is that this is the current climate. I'm not saying either side is right, just that when the Regents started exercising unilateral authority and ignoring the legislature, that this outcome was predictable.

Whatever the merits of what you're saying, the bill in question is about K-12 education, so I don't see how it relates to any effort to rein in the universities.

All of public education in Montana falls under the same clause in the state constitution. This is an attack on that clause.

> Anyways, until the Board of Regents is more in-touch with the average Montanan (who are not from Missoula or Bozeman)

Montana is a low population state (1.1 Million in 2021). If Missoula and Bozeman are growing as much as you say they are (" a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans") won't that have some effect on who the "average Montanan" is?

Probably eventually, but perhaps not quite yet. Montana is clearly in a transition phase.

The average Montanan is a cow, there are twice as many of them living there than people.

What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?

Evolution is a tyranny to small minded people.

Science is not the target (maybe to this one freshman congressman, but not the greater legislative agenda).

The row precipitated over a ballot initiative that gave Montanans the right to carry firearms on public property, including college campuses. The ballot initiative instructed the legislature to craft law outlining this. The legislature worked with the colleges for months coming up with a number of compromises in exchange for the university system not fighting the bill. After the bill was passed (remember, it was mandated by a direct public ballot initiative), the unelected Board of Regents sued to stop it on the grounds that they have complete authority over all policy on state campuses. The legislate argues that state law (and the state constitution gaurantees a right to bear arms) supercedes it. There have since been a number of minor skirmishes, while that main case is tied up in court. This is an attempt by the legislature to further erode the constitutional clause governing public education being seperately governed.

Had the Board of Regents respected the ballot initiative, this likely would not be getting introduced, because the House leaders would have stopped it.

Seems like they must sue if that’s the law? Otherwise they’re not independent as the law requires?

Tyrannical seems like a stretch?

Ummm... sounds great.

Except that scientific facts are not democratic; they exist as they are, regardless of your or my opinion, I've never seen scientific theory presented as anything but "this is the current most effective explanation of the facts", and academic freedom is a subset of protected free speech.

Politicians should not be even in the same continent as setting curricula.

This is a general assertion that "regent picks were as hard left as possible", without the slightest bit of context as to the actual meaning of that statement. What "hard left" policies are they pursuing? Or is it just as "hard left as possible" in the context of an entirely anti-science right-wing caucus, meaning that they still have a slight tether to reality? (and sorry, but the entire basis of right wing rhetoric has been entirely anti-science and anti-education for the past decade; there is zero credibility there.)

Let us be clear: In a democracy, all of the institutions of a society are independent, starting with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govt, and also the societal components of the press, academy, industry, religion, charity, etc.

In an autocracy, all of these societal institutions are coerced and restructured to bend to the will of the executive or religious leaders.

This is nothing less than a key component of a broad attempt to destroy democracy.

Stop trying to justify it; it makes you look like an autocrat.

I am a PhD research scientist at one of these Montana universities. I am merely commenting on how the situation has played politically. But thank you for explaining to me what "scientific fact" is.

Congratulations — an impressive achievement!

Yet how is it that you are here publicly writing and posting multiple paragraphs defending the existence and authors of a bill that would ban teaching scientific theories?

There is little that is more anti-scientific than attempting to ban science.

Whatever local politics may have lead to this, the larger and most relevant context is that the right wing in this country and internationally is making a major anti-science push, against every part of science from evolution to vaccines, in the interest of installing quasi- or actual Christo-fascist governments.

This bill is part and parcel of that push, and no local politics, however heinous, can excuse that; yet here you are attempting to excuse it.

Failing to recognize the borader anti-science context and not wholly objecting to it (despite some perceived positives regarding your resented board of regents) quite obscures and contradicts your scientific background and achievements. The appearance is that your local political outlook is more core to your being than all your laudable scientific work, to the point that it is not even evident that you did any.

>Yet how is it that you are here publicly writing and posting multiple paragraphs defending the existence and authors of a bill that would ban teaching scientific theories?

I must be missing the part where I'm defending it. Perhaps a reading comprehension issue on my side? I'm pointing out that with the Board's actions, this type of reaction from the legislature was predictable. And all the Board had to do was act differently and they could have avoided it. How is that a defense of this bill? In my very first comment, I end with the term "lose-lose". The way the Board acted was bad - they overturned a public ballot initiative and claimed they have no public recourse. Obviously the way legislature reacted is also bad. Hence the term "lose-lose".

>This bill is part and parcel of that push, and no local politics, however heinous, can excuse that; yet here you are attempting to excuse it.

You've provided no evidence for this claim. I've provided substantial evidence to the contrary.

>>missing the part where I'm defending it.

OK, 1) pointing out that both houses, the Gov, and Exec suite are all Repubs does not lead to the conclusion that it cannot pass, but increases it's liklihood (unless something unspecified and unusual is going on). 2) "MUS Board of Regents ... are doing the state a great disservice. And their behavior begets crap like this. That sounds an awful lot like "what skirt was she wearing"?

To your credit, you do also say "Which is also stupid and awful". But the whole thing is effectively excusing the existence of this bill, as if it were a trivial annoying response to some local/state issue, when it in fact is part o a global movement to install Christofascism and destroy science for all time.

Maybe you're not intending to defend it, but the result is that you certainly are at best, framing it as trivial rather than the serious issue that it is. and that amounts to at least a weak defense of a voice permitting it to continue to exist, rather than directly opposing it.

Evidence? I've been following this for years. Just type "antiscience aggression movement" into DDG and start scrolling. Here's a few of the first results [0,1,2,3].

We are already effectively in a hot war with global authoritarian movements, not only in Ukraine, but also in locally and foreign-pushed attempts to undermine the democracy at home.

A key component of democracy is the independence of all key institutions, the govt executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but also the academy, industry, religion, commerce, localities, charities, etc.

Under Authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced and/or corrupted to serve the will of the ruling executive or religion.

Ending science (which requires independent thought) and reigning in the Academy under the rule of the state are two of these components.

You may see this as just a local tempest in a teapot, just as people might see local gerrymandering as just a local issue.

But, make no mistake: both the anti-science bill and the corralling the university leadership moves are just part of this much larger goal of implementing and consolidating authoritarian power.

Your Regents are not playing offense, but defense, and your hot tempest is just one ember in the global fire.

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-m...

[1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/10/what-caused-t...

[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...

[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-belie...

Thank you for providing some local perspective. These things don't just happen in a vacuum but it can be hard to discern the threads that got us here without eyewitness accounts.