Auto news on Youtube Feb 20 2019

This notion, that, that I'm talking about here.

This idea of maker's knowledge is going to be summed up in for,

for our purposes with the const, the, the term the workmanship ideal.

And this is the idea that the, whoever fashions something, whoever creates it,

whoever designs it has the,

the authorial knowledge of it.

And you'll see that this shapes not only

the view of science that we've been talking about.

We know what we make.

But also the theory of rights.

Remember I said.

Enlightenment thinkers are committed to both the theory of science and

the theory of rights.

Yeah.

So science says we know what we make, and

on the Doctrine of Individual Rights, it's going to be we own what we make.

And so it fits together in a kind of conceptual hull.

Here's this, this is Locke's formulation in the second, in the Second Treatise.

Locke says famously men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent,

and infinitely wise maker; are the servants of one sovereign master,

sent into the world by his order, and about his business.

They are his property, whose workmanship they are,

made to last during his, not one another's pleasure.

So we are God's property because he made us.

Right?

No, now.

He made us but he made us with a difference.

Unlike everything else God made, everything else God made,

Locke referred to with, under the heading of the common and we'll,

we'll talk about why he does that later.

But human beings, he gave the capacity to make things for themselves.

So human beings.

As, as Locke conceives of them, are kind of miniature gods.

We in the world can oc, act in a God-like fashion.

So we know what we make, we have Cartesian certainty.

Car, Cartesian comes from Descartes, the cogito we were referring to earlier.

We know what we make.

And we own what we make.

You'll see that Locke has a theory of property based on the common land that I'm

going to talk about later and the labor that we mix with the common land.

And he has a theory of the common wealth of

the society that we create through the social contract that we're going to be.

Talking about later.

So we know what we make and we own what we make.

We can have certain knowledge of it.

And we can have this maker's entitlement over it.

We are miniature gods, right?

Notice that it's an egalitarian idea.

Locke, in the two treaties on government, was actually arguing with a man

called Sir Robert Filmer, a theorist of absolutism.

Filmer's view had been that the king gets his power from God.

He has absolute authority because he gets his power from God.

The, the notion that Filmer embraced and was conventional for

his day, was that God gave the world to Adam and his heirs.

And so, it was inherited.

And there were actually people who used to run around Europe in,

in the 16th and 17th century, and for a fee.

They would, they would give you a lineage which proved that you had a closer

connection to Adam than somebody else.

It's this, this game of, of trying to show your, your, your connection to, to Adam.

That you would, somehow, be more important if you were more, more direct descendant.

You might think this is a.

Contradiction in terms, since we're all descendants of Adam.

But syste, a system of primogeniture to the oldest male,

meant that someone more directly connected than others.

And so there was this kind of money making scam.

They had people running around doing this kind of thing.

And if it meant all property came down through, through primogeniture, but

also political authority.

And so the idea was that the kings and

queens in Europe were the most direct living descendants of Adam.

Right?

Locke says nonsense.

Most of the first treatise is devoted to spelling out why he thinks it's nonsense.

So here this is actually from the Second Treatise,

a summary of his argument in the First Treatise.

He says, whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men,

being once born, have a right to their preservation.

And consequently to meat and drink, and

such other things as nature affords for their subsistence.

Or Revelation which gives us an account of those grants God made

of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his sons.

It is very clear that God, as King David says,

has given the earth to the children of man, has given it to mankind in common.

So on the one hand, you have the authoritarian view of Filmer,

that God gave the la, the world to Adam.

And it descended through his heirs to the current kings and queens and

landowners of the world as it existed in their day.

In Locke's view, no.

God gave the world to mankind in common.

And that supplies an underlying egalitarianism equalizing.

Because we all have the same claim on the common land.

So it's, it's, in its fundamental conceptual roots

at war with Filmer's notion.

And you do understand the two treaties as.

Defending this egalitarian notion against the hierarchical one.

So human beings are miniature gods.

We can act in the world, and we can create things

over which we have maker's knowledge, and we can own things because we make them.

But there's one important difference.

Hugely important difference.

And that is that we are God's property, right?

So human workmanship operates within the limits of the law of nature.

And the, the way you should think about this is.

What human beings perceive as natural law is really God's natural right.

We have rights over what we make.

That's the workmanship idea.

God has rights over everything he created.

So natural law is his wishes, his well.

That's what human beings perceive as natural law.

Is, is from God's point of view his right over his creation.

That's why we have to obey them.

And that's why in that earlier theological controversy I was telling you about from

the 1660s, it was so important for Locke to come down on the, on the volitional

side, on the will-based side of those debates and, and be able to say.

For something to be a law, it must be the product of a will.

>> Mm-hm. >> Okay?

So natural law is God's will.

Human beings perceive that it is timeless universals but that's what it really is.

And natural law constrains human workmanship.

So.

There are certain provisos.

We can own whatever we make, so long as we don't waste it.

And so long as, this reflects the egalitarianism, as much and

as good remains available to others in common.

We can't stop other people.

From using the common things that God has created the land,

the fruit, the resources, the natural resources, the animals.

They're all created and people have

a right to use them but not to excu, exclude others from using them.

And in politics it means we have liberty to create

a state over which we have authorial control but not license.

We can't do anything, in particular, what might you think we couldn't do?

>> Create life?

Create?

>> Create life.

>> Such as?

>> In this theory, it's the God who basically creates life and not the human.

>> Yeah. >> And not the people.

>> Certainly in the right direction.

So what we can't do is create a state that violates natural law.

Right. That means we

can't create a state that starves people.

We can't create a state that allows slavery.

We can't, if create a state that vi, because we,

we have liberty buy not license.

We're, we're.

God can do whatever God wants.

But we are God's creatures.

He has given us this creative capacity to make things, but

always within the limits of the law of nature.

Always within those limits, so if the state violates the law of nature,

we might have an obligation to resist.

What does this make you think of from last time?

>> Eichmann problem.

>> Eichmann problem.

Exactly, right?

So from a Lockean point of view,

once the German Third Reich was engaged in the extermination of people.

Eichmann wouldn't only have a right to resist, he might actually have

an affirmative obligation to resist dictated by natural law.

Right.

So liberty but not license.

We can't do anything we want only

anything we want within the limits of the law of nature.

Now those are pretty.

That still leaves a lot, and with, within the limits, we can do what we like.

And within the limits, we have a, a choice.

So if, if we conclude that this, the government we have created

is violating our rights, we can do something about it.

We might choose not to.

I'll get to that in a minute.

Obvious question.

If we can do what we like within the limits of the law of nature,

how do we recognize those limits?

How do we know when they've been breached?

This is a hugely important problem for Locke.

And again.

You might think it very arcane, but it really comes down to how we eh,

he, I put up there his theory of Biblical hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is a word that means the science of interpretation.

How do we interpret the Bible?

And Locke.

Again arguing with Filmer, but

also with others we'll, we'll think about, which others in a minute.

It's emphatic that God speaks directly to each individual through the scriptures.

That means you read the Bible and you figure out what it means for you.

Raises a question, what happens if you,

you disagree with others about what it means.

And so you are of the view that the government is violating natural law,

and somebody else isn't of the view that the government is violating natural law.

How is it going to be resolved?

Locke insists there is no earthly authority who can settle that question.

Who do you think he might have had in mind?

17th century?

>> The Church?

>> Well not just the Church, but particularly he was thinking of.

The pope, right?

>> Awe, right.

>> He was thinking of The Pope.

They, the the notion was that The Pope you know,

was, was said to have decisive authority over what, what religion means.

And the you know, well what was going on in England was all connected to

rejecting the authority of Rome.

And indeed, in Locke's letter on toleration, which I'm going to get to very

soon, one of the things he says is, every, all views should be tolerated except for

atheists because you can't trust them to keep their promises, Mohammedans, and.

And Catholics, because they are beholden to outside authorities.

But he actually went further than that.

It's not just the, The Pope who,

who has no authority to tell you your reading of the Bible is wrong.

Nor does the magistrate.

So you were right to say the Church, but nor does the state.

On this the individual he says is sovereign.

The care of souls says Locke, cannot belong to the civil magistrate,

because his power consists only in outward force; but

true and saving religion consists.

Of the inward persuasion of the mind without which nothing can be

acceptable to God.

And upon this ground, I affirm that the magistrate's power

extends not to the establishment of any articles of faith, or

firms, forms of worship, by the force of his laws.

For laws are of no force at all without penalties.

And penalties in this case are absolutely impertinent.

Because they are not proper to convince the mind.

You can intimidate people into doing things, but not into believing them.

And true and saving religion consists of the inward

persuasion of the mind, authentic belief.

It can't be coerced by anyone.

So that then raises the question, what happens if you read the Bible, and

the Bible tells you the sovereign is indeed violating natural law?

And you have an obligation to resist or even you just conclude that you,

you have a right to resist and you think you should.

What if nobody agrees with you?

What Locke is going to say is we'll, we'll talk about this more later when we get

into the social contract but I'll give you a preview now, he's going to say, well.

If you think you have a, a moral obligation to resist the state, you do it.

If everybody else agrees with you, or if the vast majority agree with you,

you'll remove the monarch and you'll essentially have a revolution.

This is the right to resist, right?

Or the obligation to resist.

If others don't agree with you, you're going to be tried for

treason and executed, let's face it, right?

But then he says you know, but why worry, this life is short.

You'll get your reward in the next life, right.

So it and this is, this is, this is his view but, but

he gives some prudent advice.

He says.

Because the stakes are that high,

it is probably not wise to resist every five minutes.

And this is a famous phrase we will talk about in more detail later where he says,

unless there's a long train of abuses, all di, all tending in the same direction,

it's probably not a good idea because you're going to be out of luck if,

unless most other people came to the same conclusion as you.

So you always have a right to resist.

You always have a, and sometimes an obligation to, to resist.

And if others agree with you can, you can have a revolution.

If they don't, you're going to have to get your reward in the next life.

So let's sum up, Locke's views of the centrality of individual rights.

On the one hand, there's this idea of workmanship, that we are miniature gods,

entitled to create things over which we'll have indubitable knowledge.

Because we'll have maker's knowledge, and rights of ownership,

whether, whether it'd be property or political institutions.

Secondly, that we're all equal.

God gave the world to mankind in common.

And we can all use the common.

We have use rights to the common.

It's what sometimes called a use use frock.

We'll talk also more about that later.

We all have equal access to God's word.

We don't have to listen to a religious or secular authority.

In fact there is no authority on earth.

Who's entitled to tell us what God's word means.

And every individual is sovereign over themself.

Nobody can be owned by anyone else.

You might think parents would own their children.

After all, the parent makes the child in some sense and

Locke actually spends a good bit of time on that question.

In the first treatise and elsewhere, he says no.

Parents act out in animal instinct that God implants in them but

the, he the, they do, they don't fashion the child.

They don't shape it.

Its intricate parts.

And most important, of course,

for Locke is that they don't put the soul in the child.

It's God that puts the soul in the child, and so parents don't own their children.

Unlike fulfillment who thought parents could kill their children, or, or

sell their children.

No, children are God's property, not our property.

Parents are trustees, guardians,

but only for the, what he refers to as the child's ignorant non age.

As soon as they reach the age of reason, they're free and independent.

And so if, if upon achieving adulthood, your,

your child misbehaves you can't say all, after all I've done for

you all you can do, really, is conclude that you haven't been a very good parent.

Locke says the only control you have is to threaten to disinherit them.

Otherwise, yeah, it you, you're out of luck.

So the individual, the individual rights are sovereign, and

we have a right to resist, and sometimes even a duty to resist.

So that gives you the enlightenment background.

To the substance of doctrines we're going to start engaging with

next time by looking at the Utilitarian tradition made

famous by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

See you then.

For more infomation >> The Workmanship Ideal - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #7 - Duration: 19:26.

-------------------------------------------

Early vs. Mature Enlightenments - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #6 - Duration: 15:19.

Now I want to make a distinction that will turn out to, again, be consequential in

this course between what I'm going to call the early enlightenment and

the mature enlightenment.

And they, the, this is the particular has to do with the view of science that was

embraced, because the early enlightenment thinkers, while they

were committed to scientific principles, had a very different conception of

knowledge than we intuitively all have as creatures of the mature enlightenment.

And so we, we,

we're going to have to spend a little bit of time getting that straight.

The most important idea of the early enlightenment,

which you already mentioned in relation to Bacon, was a preoccupation with certainty.

They thought that knowledge can't be scientific unless it's indubitable,

unless it's beyond question, beyond doubt.

We only can think of something as scientifically established if

it's certain.

And this, so when we think of the early enlightenment it's, and

the early enlightenment commitment to science,

the scientific method is all about arriving at certainty.

One of the most famous philosophical propositions of, of,

French think, 17th century thinker of, by, of the name of Descartes

is the so-called Cogito, Cogito ergo sum,

is the Latin translation of the famous phrase, I think, therefore I am.

The, the longer version of this is that Descartes was looking for

propositions he could doubt because he wanted to throw them out and

only retain the things that couldn't be thrown out.

And in, in his Principles of Philosophy,

he says in rejecting everything which we can in any way doubt, it is easy for

us to suppose that there is no God and no heaven, that there are no bodies, and

even that we ourselves have no hands or feet, or indeed any body at all.

But we cannot for all that suppose that we,

who are having such thoughts are nothing.

For it is a contradiction to suppose that what thinks does not,

at the very time of its thinking, exist.

Accordingly this piece of knowledge, I think, therefore I am, is the first and

most certain of all, to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way.

So that's the so-called Cogito argument.

Descartes says I'm going to find something it's impossible to doubt, and

that's then going to be my standard for what counts as true knowledge.

So the search for certainty was the, was the hallmark of genuine knowledge.

So let's turn up

the headlights on this idea in the following way.

I'm going to put three assertions up on the, on the slide here.

And I want to talk about each of them for a minute.

One assertion is that ocean tides are effected by the gravitational

forces of the moon.

A second assertion is that consent supplies the basis for

political legitimacy.

And a third assertion is that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle make,

add, add up to 180 degrees.

If I were to say to you, which of these propositions can be known with

the most certainty wh, which would you say?

>> Let me see.

I would say that the most certain is the sum of the interior

angles of the triangle.

This would be the most certain.

>> Okay, would you agree with that?

>> Without a doubt.

>> Okay, which is the least certain?

>> The consent that is the basis of-.

>> Consent is the least certain so that, do you agree with that?

>> Yes. >> So, and then and where would that, so

the ocean tides come in the middle?

Okay, why do the ocean tides

come before consent as the basis of political legitimacy?

Do you have a sense of that?

>> It's not, I mean if that's the way things are, but

it doesn't necessarily have to be.

I think gravitational forces can change, for whatever reason.

>> Okay, so that maybe why they're less certain than the triangles, but

why are they are more certain than the claim that consent

is the basis of political legitimacy?

>> Because not every political order has consent.

>> Okay.

All right.

So the way you guys ordered them

is exactly the way almost anybody in the modern would would order them.

And that we'll see later, when we, we have done more work

establishes that you are children of the mature enlightenment.

They, now if I were to say to you just,

just to underscore this a little bit more, what's at stake here.

>> Mm-hm.

>> Why is it?

Why is it that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equal

180 degrees goes to the top of the list?

>> Because we can measure it.

We can demonstrate that over and over and over again.

>> Okay.

So, so let's take that and run with it.

Imagine you, you, you find a triangle and you get a little, out your protractor.

And you measure the three angles and you add them up and it comes to 180 degrees.

And then you find a differently-shaped triangle.

You do that one and it comes to ano, and you see it comes.

And then, you know, 11, 12, 15, 130 triangles.

Are you still going to keep going and say

maybe the 131st triangle is going to be different, I better check, or not?

>> Well, I mi, I might say I, I, I'm going to check, but

there is still this mathematical truth to it.

>> It's a mathematical proof, okay.

So what does that mean?

>> It means that we've created a system to.

To figure it out, [CROSSTALK] so we don't have to keep asking.

>> So that you don't have to look at the 131st triangle.

You know that, right.

>> Yes. >> You know, you know with certainty.

>> Right?

>> So that is why you say it's the most certain.

So that's what we would think of as well, a mathma,

a mathematician would say there must be a theorem.

Maybe I can't prove it right, sitting right here now, but

there's gotta be a theorem that tells you why

the sum of the interior angles add up to 180 and not to 163, right?

And once you know there's a theorem you're going to, not going to keep going and

measuring the next triangle, you, there's no point.

Right?

And so if, another way of putting it is that it, it follows analytically,

it follows definitionally.

It's likewise if we said a bachelor is an unmarried man.

We wouldn't have to say, well, this, this person is a bachelor and he's not married.

This one is, is, what about the 15th bachelor?

Well, the 16th bachelor, will, will we find one?

No, you're not.

Right? It's, because it's, it's nonsense.

It, it follows definitionally.

Whereas when we look at the ocean tides this,

the current theory is that the moon affects them.

And it's probably right, but it might not be.

It cer, it's certainly no theorem, right?

And, and when we talk about consent as being the basis for

political legitimacy, well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

People disagree about such things, and some regimes are based on consent.

Some that are not seem to endure for a very long time.

So okay, so you know, what you said is very commonsensical and

comports with you know, if, if we had, if we'd gone through 300 students,

probably they all would have ordered these propositions in the ways that you did.

Now, you've got to make a big imaginative leap because

the theorists of the early enlightenment thought about them differently.

And you, you may find this hard to believe going in,

but you will find it easy to understand coming out.

So let's go through it like this.

The theorists of the early enlightenment would have put,

again, the mathematical proposition at the top.

They would have put the proposition that consent is the basis of political

legitimacy co-equal with that, which you might find shocking.

And then the empirical proposition about the tides would have come in last.

And understanding why they thought that way might seem like an arcane project,

but actually it's going to turn out to be central to their theories of politics.

So we need to dig into that.

And to explain what's driving them,

I want to go to Locke's contemporary who's actually somewhat older than Locke,

the other famous English philosopher who we'll talk about more later in the course,

Thomas Hobbes who wrote a book called Leviathan, which is

maybe the greatest work of political theory written in the English language.

Certainly was the first great work of political theory written in the English

language during the English civil war in the mid part of the century,

which terrified Hobbes, and which he was determined to try and help end.

But we're not going to talk about that part of Hobbes today,

we'll get to that when we get to the social contract.

Instead, we're going to talk about Hobbes' theory of science.

And I'm going to give you this rather remarkable passage to think about and ex,

and it'll help us explain why they order those propositions as I said they did.

The arts here, in the second word of this paragraph, refers to knowledge.

That, arts was a, a term that referred to knowledge.

So they said of the arts, some are demonstrable, others indemonstrable.

And the demonstrable are those the construction of the subject whereof is

in the power of the artist himself, who, in his demonstration,

does no more but deduce the consequences of his own operation.

The reason whereof is this, that the science of every subject is derived

from a precognition of the causes, generation, and construction of the same.

And consequently, where the causes are known there is place for

demonstration, but not where the causes are to seek for.

Geometry, we were just talking about geometry.

Geometry therefore, is demonstrable, for the lines and

figures from which we reason are drawn and described by ourselves.

Right? He, he doesn't say there's a theorem.

He doesn't say there's a proof.

He says it's because we make the triangles.

And civil philosophy is demonstrable

because we make the commonwealth ourselves.

But because of natural bodies, we know not the construction,

but seek them from the effects.

There lies no demonstration of what the causes be we seek for,

but only what they may be.

So.

Hobbes is saying here what the triangle and the commonwealth have in

common is that we make them, that they're the product of human wills.

Therefore, we can understand what it is that we made,

whereas when you look at the natural world, well, God made the natural world.

We, we have, you know?

We can, we can come up obviously the, the theory of the tidal influent

the moon's influence on the tide is long after Hobbes' time, maybe they would have

had some other theory at the, at, in, in the 17th century about the tides.

But we can observe more or less rigorously, but we can never get the kind

of certainty that we can get with, with the things that we ourselves make.

So it's not that it's a deductive proposition, or

that it's an analytic proposition it, that puts the triangle up at the top,

or the geometrical question up at the top.

It's because it's a product of human creation.

And because civil society, at civil institutions,

are also created by human beings, we can know them, as well.

Now just to,

to, I, I, did this partly because that's such a dramatic statement of this view.

But also I didn't want you to think that Locke's view, which is

on this particular point, identical to Hobbes' maybe the only thing they really

agreed on, because I didn't want you to think Locke's view was idiosyncratic.

This was a very standard view.

So Locke divides objective knowledge up in the following ways.

He, the, the natural world, which he calls ectype ideas, the world of ectype ideas.

He said, he says God knows the real essence, real essence being how it

really is, but human beings can only know what Locke called the nominal essence.

We, we, it's, here's Locke's analog with saying, as with Hobbes,

saying we can only guess.

We can't really know for sure, because we didn't make it.

Whereas when you turn to the social world, God knows the real essence,

because he knows everything.

He's omniscient, as we said.

But humans know the real essence as well.

So human beings can have a kind of maker's knowledge of the political and

social world that they can not have of the physical world.

And so that is why Locke, as I said,

on this particular question, agrees, all the way to the bottom,

with, with Hobbes' statement, that civil philosophy is demonstrable,

because we make the commonwealth ourselves.

But because of natural bodies we know not the construction, but

seek it from its effects, all we can do is yes.

Right?

So this, this is a very important thing to understand because it

shaped their whole worldview.

And as they started to shed that view in the 18th century and

the 19th century, the way in which they shed it had knock-on effects for

what they had to say about politics.

So, it's very important that we get our minds around this.

For more infomation >> Early vs. Mature Enlightenments - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #6 - Duration: 15:19.

-------------------------------------------

Australian National University – Leveraging Microsoft Azure for genetic breakthroughs - Duration: 2:44.

[orchestral music]

I'm a research fellow in the Department of Genome Sciences

at the John Curtin School of Medical Research

at the Australian National University.

The University has ranked consistently in the top 20

of research-intensive universities in the world.

In my research, I am trying to address the question

of how structural changes in the genome

can affect the regulation of a process that, in cancer,

is associated with metastasis.

For me and other researchers in the field,

the computer is the lab.

Genome science is probably one of the area of life sciences

that is most dependent on information technology.

The human genome contains about 7 billion base pairs of DNA.

Finding statistical correlations

among these pairs and diseases

is a very demanding computational task.

As we are gathering more and more samples

to conduct our research,

we're facing the challenge of an exponential growth

in data and demands for storing this data.

[orchestral music]

Using cloud computing enables us to access

state-of-the-art hardware

without upfront investment and on demand.

Which is in contrast to on-premise,

where the hardware will become obsolete within several years.

We were able to access four times the computational power

for half the price, compared to the on-premise

hardware we'd been using previously.

With Azure, we can actually limit our expenses

by only paying for the time that we need.

By storing our data in the cloud,

we're taking advantage of the virtually unlimited

storage capacity, and we are able

to easily move our research data

between on-demand access to archival storage,

where it is safely and securely stored for us.

Microsoft Azure has really enabled us

to reduce the time that we had to wait

for the analysis of our data,

which eventually leads to the faster publication

of our results.

Azure saves me probably two days of work

of setting up and configuring the server.

So instead, we can focus on performing analyses

and studying our data

and asking the interesting questions.

Microsoft has really embraced open source in recent years,

which makes it relatively easy to use other researchers'

methodologies in the cloud.

My research adds a little piece to the mosaic

of research that has been done in this field.

With Azure, sharing our data with other researchers

really enables us to move research along

faster than ever before.

[soft piano music]

For more infomation >> Australian National University – Leveraging Microsoft Azure for genetic breakthroughs - Duration: 2:44.

-------------------------------------------

University of Vienna: Science Talk 2019 - Duration: 1:23.

Did you know that ancient Mesopotamians left us thousands of cuneiform texts associated with the

prediction of the future? In my session, we will discuss how these texts give us an insight into a Mesopotamian

way of making sense of the world.

Did you know that Archaea are our closest microbial relatives? Find out how these microorganisms

help to recycle one of Earth's most important nutrients: nitrogen.

Did you know that governments are currently negotiating a new international binding instrument

for protecting marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction?

My research aims to understand new forms of power in the interaction between science and policy and how

they shape our efforts to protect our oceans.

Gelatinous and rich in proteins – but who wants to eat a jellyfish? Come to the science talk and find out.

For more infomation >> University of Vienna: Science Talk 2019 - Duration: 1:23.

-------------------------------------------

Sustainability at Deakin - Duration: 1:35.

By 2030 Deakin will be carbon neutral,

offset our buildings environmental impacts,

have most staff and students choosing

sustainable transport, achieve zero waste,

irrigate 25% of campus grounds with reclaimed water,

have biodiversity corridors allowing wildlife to thrive,

played a part in achieving the UN's

Sustainable Development Goals,

and embed those goals in teaching and research.

(upbeat instrumental music)

For more infomation >> Sustainability at Deakin - Duration: 1:35.

-------------------------------------------

Shape of the Course - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #1 - Duration: 6:16.

[MUSIC]

The Moral Foundations of Politics is a course for

people who are interested in making political arguments, analyzing

political arguments, and getting better at thinking about real life politics.

This is an updated version of Professor Shapiro's 2010 Open Yale course, and

while this serves as an introduction, and

assumes no prior knowledge of political philosophy.

No content has been removed, or watered down for Coursera.

Each lecture is a dialogue between Professor Shapiro and

two students, and will build a foundation for further study in political theory,

by presenting the philosophies of the greatest thinkers.

This is not a course about the history of political thought,

it is about practical political issues.

Once you've taken this course, you will hear echoes of the different traditions it

explores come out in everyday speech, in articles and debates, and you'll be able

to see through political deception much more easily, make stronger arguments about

politics, and judge the worth of the political arguments of others.

[MUSIC]

For more infomation >> Shape of the Course - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #1 - Duration: 6:16.

-------------------------------------------

Sacramento State University, Helping With Blood Donations To Northern California - Duration: 1:23.

For more infomation >> Sacramento State University, Helping With Blood Donations To Northern California - Duration: 1:23.

-------------------------------------------

Moral Foundations of Politics with Ian Shapiro by Yale University – Trailer - Duration: 1:20.

[MUSIC]

The Moral Foundations of Politics is a course for

people who are interested in making political arguments, analyzing

political arguments, and getting better at thinking about real life politics.

This is an updated version of Professor Shapiro's 2010 Open Yale course, and

while this serves as an introduction, and

assumes no prior knowledge of political philosophy.

No content has been removed, or watered down for Coursera.

Each lecture is a dialogue between Professor Shapiro and

two students, and will build a foundation for further study in political theory,

by presenting the philosophies of the greatest thinkers.

This is not a course about the history of political thought,

it is about practical political issues.

Once you've taken this course, you will hear echoes of the different traditions it

explores come out in everyday speech, in articles and debates, and you'll be able

to see through political deception much more easily, make stronger arguments about

politics, and judge the worth of the political arguments of others.

[MUSIC]

For more infomation >> Moral Foundations of Politics with Ian Shapiro by Yale University – Trailer - Duration: 1:20.

-------------------------------------------

Inspiring through Creativity // University of Huddersfield - Duration: 2:40.

For more infomation >> Inspiring through Creativity // University of Huddersfield - Duration: 2:40.

-------------------------------------------

The Death of the University | Scott Walter - Duration: 2:44.

Higher education is in a bad state.

Many answers worry about the rising cost of a degree and a growing student

debt crisis.

The average cost of a 4-year degree more than doubled from 1985 to 2015.

Many also worry about divisive extremist ideas coming out of academia. Yet for many avoiding

college is impossible.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of jobs requiring a bachelor's

degree or more is growing rapidly.

Luckily, this may all change soon.

Degree granting universities have existed since at least the 800's.

In recent times they've been entrenched by government action, as governments have founded

public universities and guaranteed student loans.

But free market innovation is breaking down this ancient method of education.

According to Harvard Business School professor Clay Christensen, half of colleges may fail

in the next decade.

Why?

New technology is creating new, convenient, and affordable models for education.

Moody's Investor Service says 25% of private colleges now run deficits.

Public universities are even worse.

Education expert Michael Horn believes colleges will attempt to attract more tuition dollars

by continuing their arms race of hiring more faculty and building more extravagant facilities,

but that will only further strain their business model, and lead to failure.

Students can instead gravitate towards new education alternatives that build practical

job skills without the fluff of fancy facilities, and gen-ed requirements unrelated to their

field of study.

Online classes are the biggest innovation, but other models exist.

For example, look at Praxis, where instead of going to college, participants have paid

apprenticeships in their field of interest.

96% of Praxis graduates receive a full time job offer immediately after completing the

program.

Or look at Paul Quinn College.

10 years ago the school nearly went bankrupt.

Now it's succeeding under a model where all students work eight hours a week in addition

to their studies, first on campus, then with participating employers; part of the students'

pay goes toward their tuition, the rest they get in cash.

That's a big difference from traditional universities, where students pay to get credit

for unpaid internships!

One day, we could one day live in a world no longer shackled to a centuries old education

model.

But first, the US Department of Education needs to relax its accreditation standards,

so innovative educational providers are allowed to grant degrees.

In addition, employers and society at large need to end their idea that a four-year university

degree means success.

Let's judge people based on their skills, not time and money spent on frivolous classes.

With those minor changes, the future looks bright.

I'm Scott Walter.

If you liked this video, watch our video on how academia is protecting unscientific bigotry.

Thanks for watching!

For more infomation >> The Death of the University | Scott Walter - Duration: 2:44.

-------------------------------------------

Kennesaw State University student calls for change after classmate posts racist video on social medi - Duration: 8:21.

For more infomation >> Kennesaw State University student calls for change after classmate posts racist video on social medi - Duration: 8:21.

-------------------------------------------

The Paradox of Discomfort - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #4 - Duration: 14:35.

Let me mention one other case, a political scientist by the name of Ian Hurd,

who teaches at Northwestern University, was commenting on the debate about whether

the US should become involved in bombing Syria to stop the effort

to basically kill the opposition that the Assad regime was engaged in.

And Hurd was on the side of intervening.

He said we should bomb Syria.

But he said nobody should pretend that this is a legal act,

it's an illegal act but it's none-the-less the right thing to do.

So all of these kind of cases create what I call, here, a paradox of discomfort.

Because if we go back to the Eichmann problem,

think about our earlier discussion.

On the one hand, when you talked about what made you uncomfortable

about Eichmann, your basic complaint was that he didn't

make a moral judgement about what he was doing, that he didn't question authority.

That he didn't pay any attention to who it was he was transporting,

whether it was the right thing to do.

That he just wanted to be a good manager, to be applauded, to get an A.

On the other hand, when we talk about what Israel did, they

did what you faulted Eichmann for not doing.

They ignored the prevailing legal and political institutions of the day,

because they made their own moral judgment.

So, on the one hand, Eichmann does not resist the prevailing legal order,

does not resist, does not make his own judgement about it.

On the other hand, the Israelis do make their own judgement about it.

And that seems to create something of a tension, or a paradox.

How do you wrestle with that?

How do you think about that?

>> Well, it's a very difficult question.

It's a moral question.

Because you ask yourself, who's your employer?

So if I need to work for you, how I can separate myself and

my action from who you actually are?

So in this way, it's very important, at least for me, to question that but

they are not my employer, whether the state is legitimate or not.

>> Okay, legitimate?

So we're coming back to this difficult notion of legitimacy.

Why does that matter for wrestling with this question?

>> Legitimacy?

Yeah.

>> You always want to be viewed by the outside community as legitimate, but

I think legitimacy boils down to some sort of a moral foundation.

>> Legitimacy boils down to a moral foundation.

You're certainly close there to the basic question.

Because whether or not the prevailing order is legitimate,

is going to condition what we think about the appropriate response to it as being.

So if we think back again to the Third Reich, the Eichmann case, of course

it was morally a very difficult case, but conceptually it's a very easy case.

And the reason it's an easy case conceptually is nobody today has,

or virtually nobody, small Nazi fringe parties still in Germany, but

basically, nobody has any doubt that the Nazi regime was a criminal regime.

That it was engaged in an indefensible actions

on such a scale that it was simply an evil regime.

And so saying I was only obeying orders,

I was doing what I was supposed to do according to the rules, doesn't cut much

ice with us in that circumstance as a justification for what he did.

These other cases we've been talking about are much more complex.

They're much more ambiguous.

Because after all, if you think about what Israel did, yeah they didn't give Eichmann

his due process in every sense of the word but certainly he got some process.

He had a defense attorney, there were rules of evidence.

He certainly got some process.

There is this problem of needing to, everybody recognizing the need to ask for

forgiveness rather than permission, otherwise he was gonna escape scot-free.

And when we think of the NATO action in Kosovo,

particularly in the light of what had gone on in Rwanda, and

indeed I think it was still after all the Clinton administration in Kosovo,

part of the reason President Clinton decided to act was the criticism

he had taken after the failure to act in Rwanda in 1994.

And recognizing that the peculiar structure of the Security Council which

gave the Russians, as they by then were,

a veto, and they were allied with the Serbians in this conflict,

meant that there wasn't going to be an authorization, and

so it becomes morally more ambiguous.

Likewise when we're now still struggling with what to do in Syria,

again, it's much less clear because we have

less in the way of settled convictions about whether or

not the rules should be obeyed because we have less in the way of settled

convictions about the orders that they protect and whether they are legitimate.

So, it was because the Third Reich was not a legitimate state,

that we think Eichmann should have resisted it, on the one hand, but

in these other cases where there do seem to be somewhat legitimate institutions,

it becomes more morally ambiguous.

Well, so that is the central organizing question of the course.

We're gonna ask, what is it that make government legitimate?

A fully legitimate government should obviously be obeyed at all times,

one might say, and a fully illegitimate government need not be obeyed, but, and,

in fact, maybe sometimes you have an affirmative obligation to disobey.

This is what people were imputing to Eichmann.

But then the question is, the 64 million dollar question becomes,

what is it that make governments legitimate?

That is the question this course is designed to explore.

And we are going to organize our exploration of it

by looking at it through the lens of five different traditions.

We're gonna ask what are the sources of state legitimacy first, and

three traditions that are part and parcel of what I'm gonna call the Enlightenment.

The first of those is the Utilitarian tradition.

And the central idea that informs the Utilitarian

tradition is maximizing the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

This is a doctrine that was formulated first in the 18th century and

enormously influential in Anglo-American political thinking ever since.

And legitimate governments act in the interest of the greatest happiness

of the greatest number.

Of course, different Utilitarian thinkers differ a great deal on what they mean by

happiness, whether they think it can be measured in one way rather than another.

Whether you can compare happiness across people, across individuals,

between peoples, whether we should consider

the happiness of creatures other than human beings, such as animals.

All of those sorts of considerations

get dealt with in different ways by different Utilitarian thinkers.

And so we will spend a good deal of time considering different ways of thinking

about the meaning of Utilitarianism and the pluses and minuses of them.

But still at the end of the day, Utilitarian thinkers are all

committed to some variant of the view that legitimate governments

promote happiness or utility of the people who they govern.

The second Enlightenment tradition we're gonna talk to is the Marxist

tradition named for perhaps the world's most famous revolutionary,

Karl Marx, who wrote in the 19th century.

And the Marxist tradition revolves around the concept of exploitation or

more precisely of limiting or eliminating, in the best possible case, exploitation.

Again as with the Utilitarian tradition, there's huge disagreement within

the Marxist tradition as to what counts as exploitation, how you know it when you

see it, just who exploits who in different circumstances, what can be done about it,

whether exploitation can indeed be eliminated in a communist utopia

as Karl Marx himself believed, or whether it can only be ameliorated.

And if so, if we're only gonna be talking about different degrees of exploitation,

and how do we calibrate those degrees.

All those sorts of questions occupy people who operate in the Marxist tradition.

But their basic framing preoccupation is with the concept of exploitation.

And then the third Enlightenment tradition we're gonna attend to

is the social contract tradition.

This is a tradition which, in its modern form,

begins in the 17th century with the works of Thomas Hobbes and

John Locke and is later developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and

modern social contract theorists, like Robert Nozick, and John Rawls.

All of whom we will attend to,

as we trace the evolution of the social contract tradition.

We'll discover that they have many disagreements among themselves, again,

but what they all affirm at some level is the notion of consent.

If you ask a social contract theorist what makes a government legitimate,

it's the extent to which it is authorized by the consent

of those over whom it exercises political power.

So those three Enlightenment traditions, the Utilitarian tradition geared

toward promoting happiness or utility, the Marxist tradition geared towards

limiting or getting rid of exploitation and the social contract tradition

which wants to constrain governments by the consent of the government,

are the three enlightenment traditions that we're going to explore for

the first two-thirds or so, of the course.

Then we're gonna look at the reaction against the Enlightenment, where

the core Enlightenment values are rejected and instead,

what anti-Enlightenment thinkers tend to appeal to is the notion of tradition.

What makes a government legitimate to the degree that it respects

the traditions that gave life to it in the first place.

We see this in the U.S.

for example in debates about the original intent of the framers.

So a justice like the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,

appeals to the traditions that were established in the creation of

the American Constitution as what should constrain us.

And so anti-Enlightenment thinkers, we're gonna start with Edmund Burke,

the Irish thinker in the 18th century who was appalled by the French Revolution and

particularly the aspiration of the French Revolutionaries to sweep away

everything that had previously existed and build new institutions.

And we'll see that anti-Enlightenment thinkers

are convinced that that's always a mistake.

That you need to affirm the traditions that you've inherited and

use them as a guide to what counts as legitimate action.

Again, they will understand and interpret the meaning of the term,

tradition, very differently from one another.

But tradition is the central organizing concept,

the center of gravity, if you like, of anti-enlightenment thinking.

And then in the last part of the course we're gonna look at the democratic

tradition, which says, in contrast to all of these other appeals,

such as utility, getting rid of exploitation, consent, and tradition,

that no, in fact, what matters now is the principle of affected interest.

That governments are legitimate to the extent that they govern

in accordance with the interest of those over whom the power is exercised.

And that's the notion that gave rise to the democratic revolutions of the 19th,

20th and now 21st centuries and have become seen as the main

font of legitimacy in the modern world, this idea that

those people who have interest at stake should play a role in decision making.

Now all of these traditions to some extent overlap with one another,

at least at the margins.

And we'll talk to some extent about those questions, but

they're also importantly distinct.

And it's therefore useful to consider them separately.

So we will begin starting next time with the Enlightenment

tradition as a background to the three

Enlightenment sub-traditions that are going to occupy us.

Namely, Utilitarianism, Marxism, and the social contract.

See you then.

For more infomation >> The Paradox of Discomfort - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #4 - Duration: 14:35.

-------------------------------------------

Jenny "Cancer Free University" Hrbacek: stem-cell-therapy (out-take). - Duration: 1:47.

Hi I'm Jenny Hrbacek and a few years ago, wait, start over I'm gonna say months,

not been a year, about a year ago. Hi I'm Jenny Hrbacek ... you know what

let me turn this off ... the noise is ... okay ... okay ... 'cos all I hear is her talking to me

it does bother me ... just turn the volume down, top top button, top button.

all I hear is her and it's me and her talking in the back

there you go perfect that's good ... okay.

Hi I'm Jenny Hrbacek and about a year ago I started having hip pain.

I first noticed it when I would be sitting at my desk or sitting at an

event or even sitting at church and I noticed my hip would start aching and I

would be shifting from side to side and I just wanted to get up and stand up and stretch,

and the problem seem to get worse until it started waking me up

in the middle of the night with this chronic aching pain in my right hip.

I actually was thinking I was what's going to end up having a hip replacement.

Instead I tried stem cell therapy. I had just half a CC injected in my right hip and it took

about 90 days but 90 days later I was walking through my kitchen and I felt

something pop. All the pain, all the chronic aching disappeared that day and

has not come back. Because of that I really believe in the restorative

regenerative power of stem cell therapy and I sent everyone I know to Achieve chiropractic.

that's not right, Achieve ...

For more infomation >> Jenny "Cancer Free University" Hrbacek: stem-cell-therapy (out-take). - Duration: 1:47.

-------------------------------------------

Politics in the Enlightenment - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #5 - Duration: 13:43.

Last time I mentioned to you that the first three traditions

we're gonna be discussing in this course, the utilitarian tradition,

the Marxist tradition, and the social contract tradition,

are all really encapsulated in a larger tradition which I call the Enlightenment.

Now that's a term we often hear bandied about.

What comes to mind when you hear the word enlightenment?

>> It comes the shift from the natural law theory to knowledge.

>> Okay what comes to mind when you hear the word enlightenment?

>> I think separation of church and

state and I think artistic development and freedom.

>> Those are all part and parcel of the Enlightenment and

it was after all a massive movement that had its

effects on every walk of thinking on every, on arts, on the sciences, on music.

You name it, the Enlightenment reordered it.

But we of course in this course are only interested in one dimension of it

which I'm calling the Political Enlightenment.

And so we're going to zero in on that and

we're going to talk about the basic assumptions of the Enlightenment which

shaped those three traditions that we're going to be looking at starting next time,

namely the utilitarian, the Marxist and the social contract traditions.

The Political Enlightenment as I'm gonna talk about it has 17th century roots.

This is important because generally speaking people think of the Enlightenment

as an 18th century phenomenon.

But one of the things we're gonna see in this course is that it actually

starts importantly for thinking about politics in the 17th century.

And it had an enduring impact on the 19th, 20th, and even into the 21st century as

we will see we are still all in important respects creatures of the Enlightenment.

So let's focus first on it's 17th century roots and

here we're gonna look at its roots through the eyes of John Locke.

And let me say a couple of things about John Locke because

John Locke is gonna have a long shadow in this course.

He is a famous 17th century political theorist, but

he's gonna play three distinct roles in the course.

He lived throughout much of the 17th century.

He died in 1704.

And he's gonna be seen in this course first and

foremost as an early Enlightenment thinker about science.

I'll get to that in a minute.

But secondly as a classical exponent of the social contract,

when we get to the social contract tradition later.

And then finally, although often less commented upon by scholars,

John Locke is one of the most important early theorists of democracy.

So he's gonna come back to us again in the last part of the course

when we get into issues of democratic theory.

Who was John Locke?

When you hear the word John Locke what comes to mind?

>> It comes to mind that he was a theorist of natural law.

>> He was a theorist of natural law, so that's certainly one of the things

that he was and we're gonna talk about his theory of natural law today.

But Locke, also, he was a multifaceted person.

He, for much of his life,

actually was a rather something of an underachieving academic, but towards

the second half of his adult life he became associated with Lord Shaftesbury.

Who was a leader of the discontented faction

in English politics that would eventually remove the king from the throne.

So Locke although in many respects for most of his life had been quite

conservative, became associated with a radical political grouping

in 17th century English politics as a member of Shaftesbury's Circle.

And actually, Shaftesbury always felt greatly indebted to Locke

because Locke performed surgery on him and, at least in his belief,

saved his life at one point.

He, John Locke, was the author of two of the most important works of political

theory ever written in the last several centuries.

His Two Treatises on Government were for a long time thought

to have been published in 1690 as a justification or

legitimation or in defense of the revolution of 1688.

More recently scholars have discovered that it

was actually written in 1681 so it was not anything to do with 1688.

However it was written in the course of planning for something called

the Monmouth Rebellion, which was a failed version of 1688.

So it's not that surprising that it turns out to have

been confused as a justification for 1688.

He's also the author of something called A Letter Concerning Toleration.

It's actually his third letter concerning toleration, the famous one.

Published in 1690, we're not entirely sure when it was first written.

The tremendously important document in the history of the modern west and

we'll also talk about that some later on today.

But finally, he was the quintessential theorist of the early Enlightenment.

And we're gonna talk about that aspect of his thinking first.

Enlightenment political theory, as I'm gonna talk about it,

really revolves around two central ideas.

And I want to put them out and talk about each of them a little bit

because they're gonna come back to us again and again and again in looking

at all of the Enlightenment traditions that we're going to be considering.

So the first one, let's see if you guys can guess what it is.

I'll give you a clue.

Do you know who this gentleman was?

Does that help?

>> Yes it is Francis Bacon.

>> You got it right.

Francis Bacon.

And what do we associate Francis Bacon with?

>> With the theory of knowledge [LAUGH] >> What kind of theory of knowledge?

That's exactly right >> Certainty.

>> Okay, certainty but we'll get to certainty in a little while.

But Bacon was famous as a revolutionary scientist, right?

And a good part of the Enlightenment is commitment to the idea of science.

Not tradition, not superstition,

not religion, not traditional natural law, but science.

Science is the basis for reorganizing every aspect of human life.

And the Enlightenment political thinkers are all famous for,

in one way or another, wanting to come up with theories of politics

that are based on the appeal to science.

So this is a sort of one set point or center of

gravity in all Enlightenment thinking is to look for scientific principles.

Different Enlightenment thinkers will understand

the meaning of science very differently.

We'll see Marx has a very different view of what science is than Jeremy Bentham

does, for example but one way or another they're all

committed to the notion of reordering the political world on scientific principles.

Let's talk about the other central idea, we'll try and give you a clue here.

What does this document call to mind?

>> Constitutions.

>> Yeah, what about the constitution?

I'll give you a little more of a hint here.

>> Rights.

>> Right, the idea of, who has rights?

When we think about rights.

>> Concerning constitutions, everybody.

>> Every.

>> Everyone.

>> Every person, every individual.

So individual freedom,

usually expressed in some doctrine of individual rights is the greatest good,

the Summum bonum, as traditional political philosophers sometimes talked about it.

So, individual freedom is expressed politically in a doctrine that

people have rights as embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

Not the Constitution actually was the document you were looking at.

But every Enlightenment thinker

is committed to some version of both of these ideas.

Every single one of them.

You might be shocked by this.

Most people don't think about, for instance,

Karl Marx as a theorist of individual rights.

But we will see that he was.

And one of the other things we're gonna discover in the course of digging

into these different arguments is that a commitment to science

lives in some tension with a commitment to individual rights or freedom.

Because after all if you think about science is about determinism.

It's about coming up with laws that specify what must be the case.

And if everything is known in a deterministic way what room is there for

individual freedom?

Maybe none.

Maybe not, and indeed we will see that this debate about

the tension between a deterministic theory of the universe and the idea of agency or

freedom or the capacity to choose to do things one way or another,

which defies determinism, is actually even older than the Enlightenment.

In fact, John Locke was tormented

by it in a somewhat different vein in his theological writings.

John Locke, we'll see, was a religious thinker.

And one of the huge debates among theologists in the 16th and

17th century concerned the question whether or

not God was omnipotent.

You might think this is a pretty arcane question and

doesn't have much to do with anything that we're going to be talking about.

But in fact we'll see that this debate in the Enlightenment is

a secular analogue of the logical debate that concerned Locke.

Here was the problem.

If you said God is omniscient,

that means that God knows everything, right?

Right?

What about the notion of omnipotent?

>> That he basically can do everything if he's the most powerful.

>> God can do everything, so on the face of it

that doesn't seem like a contradiction in terms right?

God knows everything and God can do anything.

But theologians were also concerned with the question whether

the laws of nature are timeless universals, whether they can change.

And one strand of thinking said something can't be a law unless it's

a timeless universal.

But others said, well if natural law is timeless universal,

that would mean it binds even God, and God wouldn't be able to change his mind.

They always thought about God in the masculine.

God wouldn't be able to change his mind if he was bound by universal laws that

are unchanging by definition.

And so there was sort of two camps.

There were those who said no for something to be a law it must be timeless and

universal and permanent.

And we don't know what to say about God's omnipotence.

And there were others who said, no, God has to be omnipotent.

And that means, we have to live with the possibility that natural law isn't

timeless, because God might change his mind tomorrow about something.

And Locke wrestled with this problem in some essays we're not gonna talk about.

His essays on the law of nature published in the 1660s.

And he tormented himself over this question and

ended up just throwing his hands up and being unable to resolve it.

But we'll see that he decided that he had to come down on the omnipotent side,

he had to come down on the omnipotent side because he thought that something can

only be a law if it's the product of a will, a volition, a choice, or a decision.

And so we'll see how this played out later on today.

But this is just to give you an indication that the Enlightenment

tension between science and individual rights is a secular transposition

of an older theological debate about whether God is omnipotent or

whether the laws of nature are permanent and unchanging.

For more infomation >> Politics in the Enlightenment - Moral Foundations of Politics by Yale University #5 - Duration: 13:43.

-------------------------------------------

10 Ways We Can Make The University of Alabama More Accessible - Duration: 2:10.

[Music]

10 Ways We Can Make The University of Alabama More Accessible

Number 1:

Convey content in multiple ways;

don't just use images, color, video, or audio.

Number 2:

Foster awareness of accessibility and accommodations.

If you notice an opportunity to address accessibility, please bring it up!

Number 3:

Keep lines of communication with your users open and available.

Number 4:

Tell vendors, publishers or third-parties that accessibility is important

and ask how they are planning for accessibility.

Number 5:

Ask for or create a captioned or transcribed version of any media you use.

Captioning grants are available to caption and/or transcribe UA-owned audio and video

Number 6:

Avoid "click here", "read more," or other generic link or menu text.

Number 7:

Communicate clearly and concisely.

Number 8:

Build accessibility into your work practices for any content you create or share.

Acrobat, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook on the web have built-in accessibility

checkers, as do many other authoring tools.

Number 9:

Check out the assistive tools on your Macs, PCs, and mobile

devices, and think about why someone would use them.

Number 10:

Learn more on the Technology Accessibility website, "accessibility.ua.edu"

Questions? Comments? Need accessibility help?

Contact "accessibility@ua.edu"

For more infomation >> 10 Ways We Can Make The University of Alabama More Accessible - Duration: 2:10.

-------------------------------------------

Bucknell University expanding - Duration: 2:37.

For more infomation >> Bucknell University expanding - Duration: 2:37.

-------------------------------------------

Why we play together | Christopher Power, Associate Professor, University of York (UK) - Duration: 33:59.

For more infomation >> Why we play together | Christopher Power, Associate Professor, University of York (UK) - Duration: 33:59.

-------------------------------------------

University Police conduct training - Duration: 0:22.

For more infomation >> University Police conduct training - Duration: 0:22.

-------------------------------------------

Proposal to research 'trans regret' rejected by university for fear of backlash, claims psychotherap - Duration: 4:46.

 A psychotherapist who wanted to research reverse gender reassignment claimed that he had his academic proposal rejected because his university was scared of backlash from trans community, the High Court heard

 James Caspian, 59, planned to study the experiences of people who have detransitioned as part of an MA at Bath Spa University, but his idea was rejected because it was "too ethically complex for a piece of research at master's level"

 When Mr Caspian proposed the project, the university's ethics subcommittee said: "attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university

"   On Tuesday, Mr Diamond told the court: "That is not academic judgment, that is terror on the streets of our universities

"  Mr Caspian's barrister, Paul Diamond, argued that the Bath Spa had rejected the proposal on the grounds that "engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the university" and was seeking a judicial review of the process

 However, the judge, Michael Kent QC, quashed their case, saying: "I entirely accept that there are important issues of freedom of expression

I just do not accept that, on the facts of this particular case, there is an arguable case made out

 He added that the application was brought too late after the university's decision, and said: "I accept that it could be said that this is pedantic and it is far removed from the underlying decision, but I can't see any way round that

"  Speaking afterwards, Mr Caspian told The Telegraph: "I think this sets a dangerous precedent in that research into sensitive areas will not be carried out because universities don't want to take ownership

"  Mr Caspian was described by his barrister as "a psychotherapist with an esteemed reputation in the field of gender transition and gender dysphoria", and as a "highly qualified and experienced professional" who is "clearly objectively qualified to do research on this subject matter"

 "He's not a spotty-nosed adolescent student. He's the real McCoy," said Mr Diamond

 He argued that "research in this complex field is needed as there are pressing social pressures on wider society to commence the procedure of gender realignment", but added: "There is an atmosphere of fear in the academic community on researching this phenomenon

"  The psychotherapist had worked with transgender patients for eight years when he enrolled for the MA at Bath Spa University, and was a trustee of the transgender charity the Beaumont Trust

 He previously told BBC's Radio 4 that he was "astonished" at the university's decision to stop him studying people who regret changing their gender

 "I think that a university exists to encourage discussion, research - dissent even, challenging perhaps ideas that are out of date or not particularly useful," he said

 Since 2017, when his case first gained public attention, more than 50 people have approached Mr Caspian after deciding to reverse their gender reassignment surgery

 Now, having failed in his bid for a judicial review, he says: "I will be discussing with our lawyers the next steps which may include going to the court of appeal

"