All right. Well, I have the top of the hour, so let's begin. Let me welcome everybody. Welcome to the Future Trends Forum. My name is Brian Alexander. I'm the Forum's creator. I'm your host. I'm your guide to the next hour of conversation. And conversation is what this is about. We have a terrific pair of guests on a vital topic. Every week, it seems to me, we've bounced off of the idea of what does it mean to have academic freedom? What does it mean for students, faculty, staff to express themselves in different places and in different venues, sometimes with different technologies? What are the parameters of that? What are the impacts? How do they play out in the real world? I'm just delighted to have two wonderful, wonderful people, two great scholars who can help us explore that topic. We have Jennifer Ruth, who is a professor of film studies at Portland State University. There's a lot of work on films that I'm really interested in, and I really admire that. And Michael Berube is a professor of English who has worked on everything from disability studies to helping run the Modern Language Association. Together, they have written several books, and most recently from Johns Hopkins University, press a new book called It's Not Free Speech. And if you're curious about it, look at the bottom left of your screen. You should see a little laws and shape button there that says It's Not Free Speech. Press that button, and you can take a look at the book. Vote makes it very provocative, and I think in many ways, radical argument about what academic freedom means in the 21st century. Now in order to get out of the way and let them talk, let me first of all bring them up on stage. So to begin with let's see if we can put the spotlight right on Professor Ruth. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me okay? Good just to hear you. I can hear you, and I can see you brilliantly. Great. How are you doing this afternoon? Or this morning, I should say, if you're on the list guys. Well, thank you for having me, and thank you to the Patreon to support this important program. Happy to be here. Here, here. Well, Jennifer, we have, if I can call you back, we have a wave introducing people. I'm happy to talk about your work in film, but this is the future transform. So what I'd like you to talk about, just to introduce yourself, is to talk about your next year. What's lying ahead for you? What are the big projects and the big ideas for you? Well, as far as film goes, which I know you're interested in, I have a piece coming out on Chinese art film from the sixth generation and a Rutledge anthology. I'm also working on a project on the Taiwan New Wave. However, the project that I want to mention here, because it's most salient, is a book project that I'm, I've undertaken with Ellen Shrecker, historian of the McCarthy era. Most famously, she wrote Know I Retoward about the McCarthy period and Valerie Johnson, who is a political scientist at DePaul University. We're co-editing a book on the legislative attacks on academic freedom. This is what I call the sub-national authoritarianism, because it's at the state level, to try to censor teaching about race, gender, and sexuality. Penn has coined this the education gag orders, and that has stuck, and that's a good sort of way to refer to it. But we have been listed at about 12 different contributors to write about these gag orders and to write about the different kinds of efforts that people are already undertaking to fight them. So that's the project that we're working on now that I hope will be out by spring and hopefully we have various conversations with presses, because we all need some guide books, some campaign strategies to fight this, which is the most serious threat on academic freedom since the McCarthy era. Agreed. I'm so happy to hear that. I'm a big fan of Ellen Shrecker. Please tell her, I've met her a couple of times, tell her I said hi. Her son, Michael was my roommate in college for two years. Oh, that's great. Very, very small. I'm going to talk to her later. Please do. Thank you. Thank you.  This is Michael Berrubé, and he is coming to us from Penn State University. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon, Brian. Thank you for having me. Oh, it's a real pleasure. It's a real pleasure to have both of you here. Michael, you know I'm going to be happy to talk about your praises of what you've accomplished so far, but if you could introduce yourself by talking about what you hope to do over the next year. Right now, I'm just hoping to get through a 70-student class in science fiction, but that actually ties into what I'm doing next. I'm working on a book. The main title is The Ex-Human about the end of the human civilization as imagined in various science fiction scenarios. So it was partly inflected by the pandemic. There aren't too many viral apocalypses in this book, but there are attacks by hostile AI, benevolent or not benevolent aliens, things like that. I actually wish I were part of this project that Jennifer just described, because I think no surprise that I think she's exactly right, but these attacks on things like critical race theory are in fact the most, as she said, the most dangerous threat to academic freedom since McCarthyism. I think Ellen Shrecker wrote a couple months ago that in some ways they're worse. McCarthyism went after individuals, fellow travelers, true believers, whatever. And this kind of campaign is trying to de-legitimate entire areas of thought. I do have a couple irons on that fire as well, but not in book form. But obviously, I think anyone interested in the topic of academic freedom will find that to be item agenda one for quite some time. If you could, if you could just make the distinction that you make in your book between the First Amendment right or free speech that all Americans enjoy versus the more narrowly construed version of academic freedom. Michael, you want me to go? Yes, please. Do you start? Okie doke. So, yeah, we all know we have the First Amendment. The First and Second Amendment seem to be sacrosanct in America. And yet, you know, just this week we found that Florida is trying to uphold the Stop Woke Act by invoking Garcetti. So let me back up and just say all of these legislations that we just were talking about, we've been sort of, those with whom I'm talking about these things have been somewhat, I wouldn't say complacent, but hopeful that the First Amendment was going to be able to strike these things down. And that's not necessarily the case. And we can get into that in more length, but more specifically with regard to the book, academic freedom is not free speech. They are not the same thing. It's a special consideration of the First Amendment as a certain legislative ruling said, academic freedom is a special consideration. But academic freedom is specific to university. It's the collective exercise of vetting each other's work, of peer review, so these kinds of things to say what's the search for truth and how do we maintain our disciplinary mechanisms to uphold it in a legitimate and defensible way. Free speech, you can say whatever you want. The legitimacy of the country relies on our being able to criticize anyone, any ordinary person being able to criticize the powers that be. Academic freedom is a different thing. While they overlap, and while they're both critical to the legitimacy of any democracy, they're not the same thing. And we're realizing more and more particularly with this legislation that we need to make that distinction. But you want to add to that, I haven't really covered. Yeah, I'm getting some weird sort of wave interference in the background. Can you hear me now? Yeah, I'm fine. I just switched networks and hopefully this would be better. Okay, great. I'll just add to that by saying we've done a couple of these joint interviews. My usual metaphor is in free speeches, the ocean on which we all sail without, it is the precondition for academic freedom. You actually can't have academic freedom without an underlying assumption that things you can say are not subject to prior restraint by the government. Again, Florida is challenging that because Florida is taking the lead in challenging every kind of open society freedom there is. And it'll be doing that for quite some time unless there's a change in leadership. But to underscore what Jennifer said, we rely on Robert Post's book, Democracy, Expertise and Academic Freedom, because we think as Post does, there's a difference between democratic legitimation, which is free speech, which is my right to go out on the street and warn people about the lizard people who control the world government. About time. It's David Ike's idea, but it's actually believed by millions of people. But if I try pulling that in the classroom, it's a different story altogether. I am calling it to question my fitness to teach anything, let alone theories of government, theories of media, what have you. And so the bar is much higher. So on that vast ocean of free speech we have this very fragile vessel called academic freedom that needs to stay afloat, but at the same time is distinct from it and actually does need to have guardrails that prevent it from becoming a sort of free for all. So that's, thank you. That's one of the major distinctions of the book. And friends, if you haven't read this book, again I strongly recommend that, not just because I'm hosting these folks, but because it's compellingly written. It's really, really hard to stop reading once you get into it. Given that distinction, then how does how should colleges and universities implement a sense of academic freedom now in a way that is just and also maximizes our ability to produce and share knowledge? I can lead and Jennifer can deliver the actual suggestion. Jennifer, I can't hear you. She muted herself. It's okay, we all do it. And I can sort of say scattered things and then you mop it all up for us. So you don't mind. I think that what we're, you know, you said that what we're proposing is in some ways radical perhaps, but in some ways it's quite conventional and it's a request to update the way we think about these things for a contemporary era in which the majority of instructors do not have tenure day and B, we have a social media world in which that is affecting the public sphere the sort of paradox of democracy. We can say whatever we want including we can say things to try to persuade us towards more authoritarian ways of being that way of that. And we also have an erosion of any ability to, with the erosion of tenure, I think they go hand in hand, an inability to think through even as faculty members, right? I mean the joke sort of is that the people you don't want an academic freedom issue to come to a trial because a jury not made up of faculty isn't going to understand academic freedom. Well, most faculty don't really understand academic freedom either in the sense that we it's sort of deteriorated to be conflated with one and the same as with free speech. So the book is a kind of intervention into making that distinction between academic freedom and free speech and then also explaining what we need to kind of update, bolster our guardrails because the kinds of processes that have been in place since, you know, AUPU was successful in promoting the gold standard of tenure and it's spread throughout the country that is eroded so profoundly. And so the kind of processes of peer review, peer evaluation, peer promotion those things in order don't happen in many many faculty in fact. So and of course after tenure they for the most part stop happening. So we would like to see academic freedom committees. These already exist in many places. They don't always have the same kind of charge that we would ask them to sort of shoulder but an academic freedom committee so that look at issues that come up when people are academic freedom might be violated in one way or the other or it might be being used as a pretext or a weapon to defend what would be more typically because it wouldn't be able to withstand your scrutiny free speech. So the, if you have an adjunct instructor who has said something controversial that a parent or an alumni or you know, a legislator has ginned up a campaign about that person could bring her as her case to an academic freedom committee as opposed to simply a chair saying it's easier not to rehire that adjunct instructor next term. If we have situations where we have opportunists in the public's faculty opportunists who are in many ways peddling misinformation and disinformation we can convene faculty in that person's areas to weigh in on whether what they're doing deserves the protection of academic freedom. So in many ways what we're suggesting is just a bull string of what should already be there which is faculty authority over our work. So the most important point I think is to make it to sort of preempt misunderstandings is that we're not in the big question is who gets to say what is true what isn't true in this post-truth world who gets to say what is too far left too far right well state legislators politicians don't get to say administrators don't get to say we have to say well that always be foolproof of course not but faculty as bodies in the areas of the discipline we're the authorities and that is what academic freedom is the source of the authority is within that peer community. Thank you. I want to ask two more questions that I need to get out of the way and let everybody else and these have to do with some of the distinctions that you make that I think are so important. The first is the one that you just touched on between tenure track and adjunct faculty depending on your statistics adjunct faculty are roughly 70% of the instructional faculty in the United States now they lack all the protections that tenure track especially tenure faculty have what do you recommend to shield them would this committee be sufficient protection or should universities and colleges do more? Well one of the things I think short answer is unionization would also help and we're strong advocates and Jennifer has an easier road to hold than I do because she's already unionized but on top of that we thought of these academic freedom committees as Jennifer says as things that would not pay no attention to whether a person is tenure of the tenure track the question is whether they're doing legitimate work so if I can back up for just a second I'll just start with a book does the book opens with the question does academic freedom extend to white supremacist professors now this has led a couple people down the primrose path here part garden path we've gotten some pushback that says well there aren't that many as if that's the issue or we've been caricatured as you know woke social justice warriors our argument has nothing to do with hurt feelings or words that wound or whatever our argument is that the theories of white supremacy have no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever they should be over there in the bin alongside the theories of the lizard people the fake moon landings COVID is a hoax there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and Sandy Hook was a false flag by the way there are many and we discussed them in the book who believe some of those things and actually teach them so the question about white supremacy is something that's I think immediate moment to people in the United States but the larger question here that opens onto is what constitutes fitness to teach and that's why we draw that distinction between free speech and academic freedom because academic freedom does not cover all those things now so the other pushback we've gotten is well this is basically calling for star changers is calling for committees to vet the utterances of people on social media and so forth and Jennifer and I went back and forth a good deal even before we sat down to write about that because I think Jennifer had the definitive answer I'm just going to say what she said this is already going on when faculty are disciplined for controversial speech there's already an apparatus for disciplining them it's the wrong one it's DEI offices it's H human resources offices it's upper or middle registration or sometimes it's campaigns led by donors trustees alumni parents whatever that's not the way we want to educate these things and part of our response to the critics we've already accumulated is what else you've got how else would you like to adjudicate these disputes over what constitutes a legitimate idea other than with faculty expertise because nothing else is really adequate and right now we have people especially off the tenure track being disciplined with no recourse whatsoever not even to a jury of their intellectual views and so then that comes back again to that question of pure review if you will very broad and pure support and as Jennifer says not that it's foolproof but it's the worst alternative except for the all the others just like democracy thank you thank you which it's a lie right yeah and then the last distinction that I wanted to ask you about in fact let me stop let me stop asking because I'll just there's just so many good things in this but I'd like to open the floor to everybody and again if you're new to the forum you can ask a question either by clicking the raise hand button to join us on stage or you can click the question mark to give us a question or if you're more comfortable in the chat let me know and I can hoist your question from the chat we have one question right now from our good friend Tom Hames let me just bring this up on the screen for everyone to see how has digital transformation changed the conversation academic freedom these things are a lot less visible before they're to go sure I thought Jennifer you said you wanted to go first but this is we actually do have a section in the book it touches on matters broader than we can address here or anywhere because let us go to the part of the book that we discussed because we had more or less a Habermasian belief in the public sphere and in rational and rational debate with reciprocal recognition among more or less you know people operating in good faith and again one of our critics has said look just the fact that there's you know there's always been anonymous pamphlets there's always been yeah but I'm sorry media are not a difference in degree their difference in kind what we have now is basically a flood of disinformation that you know Facebook Twitter are just barely trying to get their arms around and the fact that something can go viral you know within seconds whether it's a cat video or a controversial remark offhand remark either on Twitter or in a classroom I think is game changing we both think is game changing that means that I mean what I hope this term is caught on we call Twitter a decontextualization device very very hard whether it's the Steven Saleta de-hiring in Illinois or a remark about all I want for Christmas is white genocide or just some toss off remark about an election very very hard to reestablish the conversational context and intellectual context in which those tweets occur in the sounds that we have not faced before so I do think we're in new territory thank you thank you this question about social media and voice the way that different platforms amplify different voices it also gets at the problem of conflating free speech and academic freedom and that there's that unfortunate phrase that is powerful in some contexts and disabling in others of the marketplace of ideas but when you have more money behind your loudest voices is not always the most honest or accurate voice right so putting things back into the deliberative discourses of the academic world and sort of bracketing the social media world seems really critical and figuring out how to have some guardrails so that people can't use their academic positions to promote misinformation disinformation okay thank you thank you both great question again that's an example of a q&a box question thank you both for that answer based on the question of context we have a good friend of the program who I don't think can make it right now maybe coming in later this hour but he wanted to put this question to you specifically about context collapse George station says quote several educator researchers Dana Boyd Douglas Rushkoff I think Mike Wesh talk about context collapse in different contexts I wonder how were you using the term here we don't use the term context collapse we actually have a bit of a chapter in chapter one about the oldie debate about context and intention in literary theory and this came up so I don't know how many people know this or want to revisit it but the idea of cancel culture began in 2014 with the cancel coal bear campaign and the person behind the cancel coal bear campaign had no intention of canceling coal bear it was a much more nuanced argument than that but twitter is not always a good place for nuance I understate slightly so I don't know we don't have anything to say specifically about the heading of context collapse we do have to we do take issue with the claim that effect is elevated over intent we understand why people would believe that because we actually cite the philosopher Harry Shearer on the concept of if apologies oh I'm sorry if you were offended right which is another reason we don't go to the harm argument we saw this with Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania which she came out with various white supremacist nonsense the response to it was well I'm sorry that the truth hurts suck it up alright so even when but at the same time you can't say well you intended X but it took on the meaning of Y and therefore we will punish you we have a number of cases in chapter one that are pretty tough that require difficult calls and that's why it's the first chapter it's sort of setting the table for an understanding of how to adjudicate claims when someone is especially in social media because as we've just touched on there the interplay between academic freedom and free speech is incredibly complex very hard to parse if I can just cut to the chase on it basically professors have more protection for what they say on Twitter if they don't know what they're talking about then they're speaking as citizens when they start to speak as experts then they have less protection because the thought is that if you're an electrical engineer who denies the Holocaust you're a crank but if you're a historian who denies the Holocaust you're obviously prima facie unfit so that's the reason we took some pain to try to establish what kind of weight should we give to context and intention where it's not just another literary theory debate in critical inquiry from 1977 but something we see play out every single day usually in social media that was thank you George always asks really deep questions and I hope he can come in and follow that up but that was the other distinction by the way that I wanted to get at earlier that you made between the professional speech in professional context like a scholarly speech on their own topic versus on social media talking about whatever thank you. Jennifer do you want to add to that as well ok more questions are coming up and I want to give everyone a chance to bash them around so here comes a question this is from David Huld the discretion of former professor Jordan Petersen strongly claimed academic freedom in his refusal to use non cisgendered pronouns while tenured at the University of Ottawa what is your take on this? my take on this is worked out in part by working closely with my friend Valerie Johnson at DePaul University who is very active and like me at Portland State at DePaul she's very active and shared governance and faculty senate kinds of committees she also has a much stronger background in diversity and equity and works with her diversity and equity office much more closely I worked with the diversity and equity office as a union steward who would come with faculty who were being investigated for various things but so with Valerie Johnson and I increasingly argue and it's very interesting I think with the values and premises of Michael and my book is that these things can't be legislated by DEI offices they have to have buy in on campuses with shared through shared governance with faculty so what I would like to see and what I would like to see on campuses is for faculty senates there's two things here there are unsaid rules that faculty are violating that then get them investigated by DEI offices but that have not been actually publicly stated in a way that faculty even understand that these rules exist that's very problematic and then the second thing is that if it's a shared values kind of thing if faculty on each campus and different campuses Brigham Young might have a very different take on this important state but faculty on campuses say it should be our practice we sort of collectively will vote on this right we'll vote on this but we believe that you should respect the pronouns that any particular person asks to be identified with and so we're going to pass a resolution about this it's going to be the standard practice and if you violate it there will be repercussions so at Penn State there is a policy on this and yeah you're supposed to respect people's pronouns now I'm I just turned 61 so I don't understand these kids and their pronouns the point is that it's not my thing to get and I watched a colleague this actually happened in real time on Facebook I was sitting there fascinated a colleague of mine said I don't really understand what dead naming is can someone explain to me why that's an issue and as this unfolded he was a little older than myself he said oh I think I get this if there were sports writers by the mid to late 60s who were still calling Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay that would tell me everything I needed to know about that person good that's not a bad that's not a bad analogy in fact the more you go down that rabbit hole you realize them with this guy Luel Cinder changed his name almost no one cared Ali drew all that fire for being joining the nation of Islam for being for resisting the draft and by the time it became a general thing no one good went around calling Jabbar Luel Cinder right it is also part of being a minimally decent person if someone comes along and asks you could you refer to me in this way to say no is just again Jennifer and I actually don't fire anybody in the course of this book we make no decisions about what should be done we actually think there appears at the university or in some consortium should make that call personally I don't think misgendering or mispronouncing someone is a firing offense but it's not good it's suggesting that you're just not respecting someone's right to be hailed and recognized as a fellow human and I would just add to that fitness should also include saying somewhat up to date and good pedagogical practices so if you have a more diverse you know over the decades as campuses have become more diverse I do think it's within reason to say I'm going to continue to learn about the best ways to conduct an inclusive classroom that can be considered part of your continuing to prove your fitness which sounds like it leads to a slightly different topic than one's professional speech in one's field I mean that's not talking lizard people or sandy hook that's more how you talk about lizard people or sandy hook we have more questions coming up and friends you can tell that our guest Jennifer and Michael are superb respondents to your great questions and Michael is already doing the multitasking genius of responding in chat which is great so let me just bring up one more question this is from Annie and Annie asks would our guest address the continuum from public and school library book challenges into and through what we're talking about in higher ed perhaps they would opine on first amendment audits and if you're mic and camera working if you want to join us on stage talk about that too I'd be happy to Jennifer have you heard the term first amendment audits I have a funny my spider sense tells me it's not good but I've not heard the term I have not and my initial reaction so I'm going to keep it brief Michael and let you respond my initial reaction is that this is very tricky because K through 12 operates under a different set of rules than higher education traditionally and we can claim academic freedom and the freedom from political interference state interference and higher ed we can and should claim that it's what distinguishes a democratic country from total authoritarian one but K through 12 doesn't have that kind of it's more through labor it's authority so it's a difficult one although there too Florida is like leaving the way pushing the edge of that envelope stop woke act and a lot of what's being passed in Florida Zain bit K 12 don't say gay but it also had tendrils that reached beyond as we as we're seeing I mean it never intended despite the disingenuous claims of its proponents it never intended to stop at third grade fifth grade whatever and I think that's especially obvious in book bands book bands also have a long long tail I'm sorry I got all these tendrils but you start banning things in K 12 people will not have written in college I mean that's the idea right so yeah no I think we're seeing I mean if I'd known I would live so long as to see the American right start rooting for Putin and Victor Orban yep but here we are here we are well any that's a very very pregnant question with a lot going on now I'm adding embryonic metaphors to the tendrils I'm sorry but thank you for that and we have more and still more questions coming in so this is one that we've got from Joseph Robert Shaw hang on let me just bring this one up on the stage here what ideas about a f have come forward and grown in this book from the days of the humanities high education academic freedom three necessary arguments how would you connect that work and this what a lovely question that's so nice to look back at our earlier work and our early days yeah to think about the relationship so that book was very much focused on the rise of contingency and the exploitation of adjunct labor and how that affected academic freedom for faculty as a whole so tenure track faculty as well as adjunct faculty so that in that book it is through faculty activism faculty shared governance that we hope to propose something that could turn the tide on the exploitation of contingent faculty and the loss of academic freedom that resulted from the overuse of contingent faculty we very much hoped to propose a track for teaching given the fact that so many state universities and so many sort of aspiring second tier third tier universities who decided that they wanted to be research won over the decades and they gave their tenure track faculty lower class class loads and gave adjunct faculty and then sort of outsourced everything onto non-tenure track faculty given that the budgets were such that it was very hard to imagine being able to turn this around and give real job security real voice a real voice in academic freedom to share governance to non-tenure track faculty by simply reproducing all of the same kinds of jobs in terms of service research teaching we should at least value if we need to have some tracks if there's some universities that have some tracks with higher teaching loads and less research expectations which has already been implemented and established in many places those people need to have the same job security so that they can enter into shared governance and faculty participation around curriculum decisions or on any number of decisions that are running their university so we wanted there to be a teaching intensive tenure track that book had a kind of slow burn I think where first there was a really strong negative reaction as if we had said some people deserve to research and some people don't of course that was far from our motivation our motivation was to create a tenure track that had equity at pay and equity in job security to reverse this trend that was decimating universities in academic freedom but that was the first initial reaction and then slowly it has kind of built and there have been different campuses that have let us know that they have implemented something along these lines and so that's wonderful and I think that it does go to show our fundamental stance in terms of faculty run universities and faculty need to make these changes now we've been a little personally it was a little disappointed in that a tenure track faculty didn't take on that fight to the degree that we should have unions have picked it up and it's going to be through unions that that fight for contingent faculty equity happens but nonetheless it goes back to this sense of what's faculty responsibility for the running of a university and for the protection of academic freedom which of course is at the heart of this more recent book just to add to that I think there are any number of ways you can come to an argument that the people off the tenure track should be converted to a tenure track there are any number of arguments from equity or academic freedom the Pennsylvania state system of which Penn State is not a member actually has a collective bargaining agreement that covers the Pashie system and one of its clauses does provide for conversion to tenure after 10 consecutive semesters of teaching California Faculty Association has something as like a doodoro tenure like clause for people who get through the I have the needle review after six years so we were incorporating all these ideas but I just want to give Jennifer credit for basically running to be 10 years ago with like the wonkiest argument I had ever heard namely that the only way to guarantee academic freedom and job security for non-tenure track faculty participating in shared governance was to move them to a tenure track I remember writing back and saying okay we're going to write a book about this but no one's going to understand this unless they already know what a provost is ordinary folks who are not an academic are not going to get this whole what do you mean shared governance thing because shared governance is the least well understood aspect of academic freedom but I can tell you at Penn State where the non-tenure track faculty we call them the teaching faculty now they serve on the faculty senate they have shared the faculty senate they have all the voting rights and yet they are much less likely actually to speak up on the senate floor when we passed our reforms for non-tenure track faculty basically giving them a promotion and review system that they run themselves basically people would speak to me privately they don't want to go on record they don't want to put their jobs in jeopardy and speaking of such and such a thing because they don't have a guarantee that doing so they can do so without fear of reprisal again it's in our academic clause our policy AC64 you can speak out on institutional matters without fear of reprisal but a lot of teaching faculty don't believe it and they have good reason not to believe it so we actually came at this from the perspective as Jennifer says of strengthening shared governance and we thought moving non-tenure faculty onto a tenure track would not only strengthen their job security but would strengthen shared governance in institutions because of course one of the things that's eroded shared governance in American higher education is the erosion of the tenure track so there is actually a through line and again thank you for the question takes us back to the early days when we were first emailing in 2013 whatever it was and coming up with the idea for the first book because the through line is this proposal too this academic freedom committee proposal also would affect it doesn't again it doesn't matter whether you're teaching on the tenure track or not the question is was your academic freedom violated or were your activities actually covered by academic freedom regardless of your tenure status so that has been an abiding concern about is there actually is a connecting tissue between the two books thank you I appreciate the labor oriented answer the question and the answers just thank you very much always good to see someone following multiple books through we have by the way in the chat I don't know if I'll be able to summarize this later any very very nicely laid out what a First Amendment audit is she gave some links she doesn't have video right now so she can't take the stage but there's she she answers that question very nicely so any thank you for introducing us to this that sounds like a pretty spooky idea we I mentioned George station earlier from Cal State Monterey he asked an earlier question and he did join us with a follow up so I think he's in a car let's see if we can get him on stage hello George okay hi and can you hear me alright perfectly okay great I'm in my car I got kicked out of the empty classroom I was in so I rushed to the parking lot well yeah because my class time overlaps FTTE and so that's at this semester anyway as a lecturer speaking of shared governments right which everybody just was I know so thanks for taking my question and I heard part of Michael's earlier response I think I think we're good there was a kind of a stray mention of context collapsing in your intro which is the part of the book that was quickly accessible when I heard about this session and so I got managed to read your introduction and so that's it was you know just a quick mention and no worries about I'm with you on your response and I appreciate that so my other question is actually about how you gathered resources and whose voices you may have included and so here I'll if I can just say what you said we know that to many the thought of handling judgments or handling judgments involving questions of discrimination over to a group coming out of a still white majority faculty is troubling at best and downright obtuse at worst and I know what you're saying about shared governance I share many of those thoughts because I'm in the CSU and we have a really strong faculty union and so shared governance is kind of a constant discussion with us here so in terms of though that argument I'm wondering how that informed your books argument and how you included BIPOC resources and maybe sources in your text and if that went as you expected did it work would you do it differently you know in a revised edition etc etc? Jennifer do you mind if I set you up for this one because this was I have to set the table for Jennifer because it was largely her doing we were humming along I mean George Floyd's murder was one of the I mean we were thinking about this over the summer of 2020 when that hit us as it hit so many people and of course it was not an isolated incident which was part of the point of the protests and we decided to carry that forward into the question about white supremacy in the academy the Princeton letter of 2020 followed a couple months later and we got you know we were bandying that back and forth that's when Jennifer said everyone's freaking out about this Princeton letter but they're not realizing that there are various mechanisms already going on on campus for trying to adjudicate these questions so here we were we originally had divvied up okay you do this part of the book you do that part of the book and I was a good deal I was busy than Jennifer was that semester so I started I was like I'm going to hand this off to Jennifer and Jennifer says you know what first of all she put me on to something I've been meaning to read for a long time the work of Charles Mills and so that part of our introduction from which that passage is drawn is a sort of check I was already familiar with the disability studies critique of the liberal social contract tradition I had not read Charles Mills's critique of racial liberalism but it's an interesting sort of companion parallel argument about the structural failures of social contract theory anyway at a certain point like October November Jennifer writes back to me and says you know we're actually basically rehearsing some things that critical race theory was arguing 30 years ago we really should be showing the receipts and paying our respects and you know yeah entirely right let's go back and let's let's let's dig deep we basically dug under what's now chapter five to write chapter four which Jennifer titled who's afraid of critical race theory today so in one case it was just a matter of doing our due diligence and working in the work of BIPOC scholars that have been you know not only foundational for that branch of legal theory but as we were watching it was turned into a national side show by Christopher Rufo and the grifters who found him and so the weird thing was we thought at first anthology over my shoulder that we were going back okay let's go back over the the early work of Derek Bell let's go back over words that wound let's go back over where disparate impact theory came from you know and at the same time we were dealing with an incredibly almost hallucinatory moving target as we watch critical race theory turned into something unrecognizable in the fever dreams of the right Jennifer have I got that yeah it was pretty unreal because we literally had started writing the chapter on critical race theory I think we'd even finished when we had finished it when Chris Rufo is sort of exposed although he wouldn't consider it exposed because he's quite proud of it as he explicitly said we're going to empty critical race theory of all of its actual content and put every boogie man we can think of in its place and so that sort of it just when we started working on incorporating critical race theory it was literally like there was this thing and then Henry Lewis Gates said this thing and then all of a sudden it was exploding in our in real time in front of us and so it was a really surreal experience but I think another instructive moment to speak to your question the George about how the process worked is that yes there was very much a reaction a very much a visceral reaction to the George Floyd's murder and witnessing the ways in which some people were treating that murder and the way in which it was it was contributing to a really ugly polarized debate society there was that but there was also the snowflakes remember this Michael there's also the whole snowflake stuff there had written a book about what the snowflakes get right and so I was on committee a academic freedom and I was talking I was sort of defending snowflakes and saying you know well there might be good reason to be more thoughtful about pronouns etc and I was told by another by a academic freedom scholar well Bear is great but he comes out of a German tradition and that's very different from our sitting with that for a while we did we did bring in Bear we have a chapter on Bear and his book but sitting with that for a while we thought all the more pity us in America that we have a record with our own traditions of racial fascism to the point that we're borrowing some insights from a German from the German tradition when in fact we have our own internal history we've got our own black experts who have been calling calling this out for decades and yet we want to say like the Holocaust over there versus reckoning with our reality here and so beginning to realize that there's an internal tradition and it goes you know it predates critical race theories of course but it's a their critical pivot point it doesn't it doesn't because one of the things that led us to is not in the critical race theory tradition but inspired by it was Susan Damon's book Learning from the Germans in which she's again this is not Holocaust comparison we don't we don't want anywhere near that nonsense but Damon's argument is that the kind of denial and defensiveness she experienced among Germans in the late 70s early 80s had eerie parallels to southern denial and and deflection we were the real victims here let's not forget what happened to us I don't see why you keep bringing that up and it took quite some time for Germany to come around and it took basically the post of Elmer Kohl era before they came around and the German stone were not there in Berlin until fairly recently the Holocaust Museum was not there until fairly recently it took a wrenching really polarizing kind of debate to which now AFD the far right German party is a reaction there is reaction both to immigration from Middle East and a reaction to facing the past honestly and I think the parallels to the backlash against CRT are pretty clear without getting into the Holocaust with anything else so once we open that door I think also that whole train of what do we have to learn about our own history of racial fascism again going back to the question of how many white supremacist professors there are right now not really the question what about the fact that we had an entire branch of historiography in the Dunning school that basically was the academic branch of southern redemption devoted to carrying out the project of rolling back reconstruction in inflectual terms and arguing against black self-government so that's where it really that opened the whole book up for and also made it harder to write because now we had a lot more work to do but also was the work that absolutely needed to be done by us well thank you George well great question yeah thank you I'm going to oh there were just a few minutes left so tell you what let me just thank you and maybe get a couple of other questions in because I know this has been a fascinating conversation so I appreciate both Michael and Jennifer thank you thank you well thank you George especially for your admirable persistence and racing to the parking lot yeah I don't know who won that one but I appreciate you bringing me up at the last second there always good to see you my friend thank you we have a pair of we have only a couple of minutes left and by the way that's a great example of video question also example of just how incredibly brilliant the forum community can be but we have time for one last question and I think two questions came up to ask more or less the same question so let me just flash these right after the other so you can see what I mean this is from John who says I find striking that learners are left out of the discussion academic freedom why do we not advocate for academic freedom for all so hang on there's that question and then what followed is all is really similar from Gail Hamner who asks Kim could our guest address the impact of student as consumer on academic freedom easy to valuations of student push back academic freedom so putting the next two questions put the students on the table here do we have enough time to tackle that is that I'll do it very briefly students strictly speaking don't have academic freedom they don't have expertise they do have various kinds of rights to learn that's a very different thing but I'm leery of it because I am having flashbacks to David Hurd which is campaign about 15-20 years ago where he had the academic bill of rights basically trying to shoehorn an idea of free expression for students in order to erode the academic freedom of faculty it's really dicey but it's very much a give and take my own position is that students learn best when their faculty are free to teach in their expertise wherever the questions may go and also be a good idea for them to recognize their students' pronouns. Jennifer? Yeah I I agree with that you know it's kind of a one of those moments I'm in conversations where I always have to see like I would love to say academic freedom for everybody but that's actually not what academic freedom is it's not it is Michael said I don't have any expertise yet and academic freedom is connected maybe needs a rebranding of something like faculty freedom but friends we've come to the end of the hour which amazes me I think we just started five minutes ago and yet we have covered so much great stuff thank you first of all Jennifer and Michael thank you for being fantastic guests I'm glad to hear you managed to express with great succinctness enormous swaths of knowledge and reflection thank you thank you both what's the best way to keep up with the two of you is it through your Twitter feed Michael or how else? We have no idea Jennifer's been in Taiwan for three months I haven't seen her but yeah I tweet whenever I can I no longer have a blog Jennifer how does one keep up with you? I don't do social media at all but I do have a web page where every new thing that I write I put up there it's not the most effective way to but it's certainly if you're kind enough to be curious about what I'm doing that would probably be the place to go and thank you Brian so much for being such a wonderful host thank you oh my pleasure and we really look forward to the work that you're going to be doing over the next year and I'll follow up and if you're up for it I'll bring you back thank you and above all take it and be safe you too but don't run away you friends I need to point you to where we're headed next and let me thank you again for the terrific stream of questions if you want to keep talking about this and some of you already are on Twitter just head to Twitter and use the hashtag FTTE or tweet at me Brian Alexander or at Shindig events or attack my blog at Brian Alexander.org to look into the past into our previous sessions or if you want to review this one in about 24 hours just go to tinyurl.com slash FTF archive where we have recordings freely available if you want to see what we're up to next just go to forum that future of education.us you can get a sketch of the next sessions coming up and if you want to share any of your own work please email me so I can share it with everybody else I'm really proud of everything you all do and I want to spread the word thank you all for a very invigorating thoughtful provocative I think discussion we may have solved some serious problems here or at least address them in a deep way the fall semester is rattling on I hope you all stay safe and keep working well and next time we'll see you online bye bye


What we're going to look at now is what's called central force motion. It's the dynamic that goes into orbital and mechanics, why things go in the orbits that they do. And it's because there's always a force directed toward a central point, which we looked at when we looked at circular motion and the like. We really didn't take that much beyond circular motion, maybe with a little bit of acceleration. We didn't look into all the possibilities of what that business could do. So let me lay out just a little bit of a background reminder. Gravitational force between two masses is an attractive force, and it's a situation where it's equal in opposite forces. And given Newton's law of gravitation, you probably remember that it's also a factor of the distance squared between the two objects, and then that G, the universal gravitational constant. I think it's called 673. Very small, the gravitational force is not a very big one. It's the weakest of the fundamental forces. And to make everything work, it's got kind of odd units. It's experimentally determined. I don't know that anybody's ever been able to derive that from empirical work. And it's possible, I guess. So if we take that to be, then let's let M2 be maybe the mass of the Earth. And then if M1 is U, for example, then the weight is M1 Mp, and then D squared becomes the radius of the Earth, the distance from the center. Now this is all assuming, remember, that the Earth is a uniform homogeneous sphere, which it isn't quite. So a lot of this is approximate, but it does lead to then, if you put in the values, cancel the M1, put in the values that are just right out of the book, you do get something about like the strength of the gravitational field that we use for all of our classes. And then the mass of the Earth, and what we use in these numbers, 5976, and then the radius of the Earth is 6, oh, I have the diameter of the Earth, 12,742 kilometers. So we'll divide that by 2 to get the radius, and then put it in meters. And if you use those numbers, you get the gravitational acceleration that we're so used to for what we do. It comes out actually a little bit higher. That comes out very close to what we use, so the numbers are all good. At locations above the Earth's surface, which is what we need to look at when we're talking about orbital mechanics, then the acceleration itself is reduced a little bit because you're getting farther from the Earth, and it turns out that it's as the square, the ratio where r then is the distance from the Earth's center, which then would be of course the radius of the Earth plus the height of the distance above the surface, I guess, if you will. So we'll call that h. So we can start looking at orbits at different heights and the different speeds that go into them. All right. That's physics, too, stuff, I believe, right? That's chapter nine of physics, too. Did you do anything with orbital mechanics? Well, you probably didn't do what we're going to go through, so we're going to beef it up a little bit. All right. So that's just a bit of a reminder of the background. Now, the setup that we're going to use, let's see, the Earth, the Earth is blue, of course. Blue marble, but it is spring, so we need to draw in there's Florida, all the people coming back from Florida now that the weather's nice. That's pretty generalistic, that looks like a picture from the space station or something. So we're going to start things from a point where our satellite, whatever it might be, will have velocity, v zero at a particular point where the velocity is perpendicular to the line connecting the two, and so we'll call that our fundamental distance, r zero. And then the path of the satellite, which may or may not be circular, may or may not be elliptical, we'll look at all those possibilities as we go here, then the rest of the definitions we need is the angle will be taken from this initial spot where the two are perpendicular, because after that they're not quite perpendicular anymore. So if the velocity and the line joining the object in the center are always perpendicular, then you can only get circular motion, and we have to allow for the possibility of other kinds of orbit, as we'll see once we get all the way through it, as you probably remember from some of what you set up in physics too. Alright, so that's the basis for our setup for what we're going to do, and oh no, we need a little bit more, just a little bit more, because we do have then, let me, for a coordinate system, so we'll use polar coordinates where we have a radial component straight out and a tangential component in the direction of motion, oh that's not tangential, for polar coordinates we use e theta there, we're not going to have those long, we're going to break it into two different directions in a second anyway. Okay, so that's our setup using polar coordinates, so we'll need to pull a little bit of that out of our memory as well. So we sum the forces in the r direction, the radial direction, well that is the gravitational acceleration, so that's a minus because the force is directed towards the center in the opposite direction of our radial direction, and so we have the original piece, that's just essentially the weight at places other than the earth's surface. If we're at the earth's surface, this would be r e over r e, that would cancel, we just have m g, and the minus just means it's directed opposite to our r direction. But if you remember our radial component of the acceleration, we established this the day we did polar coordinates, so it should look a little bit familiar, and we did that, a lot of this came about if you remember, we also had to have the time rate of change of the unit vectors themselves, and a lot of that led to the pieces that we have here if you remember, because unlike x y coordinates, we have changing unit vectors in polar coordinates when we're doing this kind of motion. And then in the theta direction, we have no forces in the theta direction, so that side is just zero, and then the other side is the acceleration component in the theta direction that we also established on that day a couple months ago when we did the polar coordinates. Plus 2 r dot, theta dot. We've got to be real careful, we can't lose any dots. Okay, we're on. In the book, just for reference sake, this is equation 214, and that's back when we did it, we did that in probably February or so. Alright, in the second part though, we can simplify a little bit in that, well actually for both of them, notice the masses cancel all through the mass of this object, does not matter, does not have anything to do with any bearing on what the orbit will be. And so the second part that can simplify to 1 over r times the time rate of change of r squared theta dot. And that r squared theta dot should also look a little bit familiar, so that all equals zero. Alright, so that in itself, I don't think there's much new here other than we're allowing for the fact that gravity, the gravitational field strength diminishes as we get above the Earth's surface a significant distance. Alright, since this business equals zero, then this piece right here must be a constant. So r squared theta dot must itself be a constant, but we also know that the velocity in the theta direction is r omega, and omega is theta dot. So we then have, we can put that in here so that we know that r, we take one r, one theta dot out, we know that r v theta equals a constant itself. And we can find out precisely what that constant is by going to the initial position where we have v zero and r zero, and they will also equal that constant because that's what the product of those two are at that initial position. At the very initial place where our distance r zero away from the center of the Earth, our theta velocity is v zero, our initial velocity, and so we know that then to be a constant. So we're going to need that several times with the remaining, so that's one of the little things we can't lose as we go through this. Alright, so the next little step, we're going to take, we're going to take this, let's see, we're going to take all that. So theta dot equals that constant r zero v zero over r, sorry over r squared, yeah we have the square there. So that's just saying that this side equals the constant and that constant also equals this side. So we just solve for theta dot because that we can put in over here on the first equation. So that's our next step. We've got minus g over r e r quantity squared then equals r double dot minus r theta dot squared which is that piece up there. Alright, that's combining this little piece here with that piece right there. Oh, r squared on the bottom, yeah. Yeah, we can't lose any of these things over on a side track for powers. Okay, so we can reduce this other side a little bit, just clean things up because we've got a lot of r's around here, a bunch of squares, r zero squared v zero squared over r cubed then. And now we're going to set aside four a little bit and we'll come back to it. That's a bit, we've got a little more work to do until we come back to that. Alright, it's going to look like this is at a left field but it comes back in the end. So we're going to introduce this new quantity, we'll call it u, is just one over r because we have a lot of one over r's over there and so it's going to help us bring something back together, put them together here and there. So now we can work on the, it's too bad I have to erase those equations. I always have those boards that slip up so we can leave them here. But we have that theta component, so I mean the r component that we're working on. Oh, this one, this one's here so we're working on it more now we want to work on that r double dot part. Let's see, that's d theta dot's just d r d theta. So d, not d r d theta, d r d t. But r is one over u, introducing our new term there and so that's minus u squared, sorry one over u squared, just doing the derivative of this with respect to time. So just taking that derivative so that's what the chain rule is. But we're not so much interested in how u varies with time, we're much more interested in how u varies with theta. So we want to go to the u d theta, d theta d t. Because d theta d t we have and now we're going to see how u varies with theta which is much more useful to us.  Remember though that r squared theta dot which we have here is equal to that constant and that constant is also equal to r zero v zero. So then we can say that r dot equals minus r zero v zero, our initial conditions at the place where we started.  And that is going to be equation number two that we need to set aside, we'll bring it back in a minute. So there's, there's, now we've got r dot which is the first step here, we can do now r theta dot, sorry r double dot which is that piece right there that we just did. So this is d d t of minus r zero v zero. Now remember those are constants, those are not variables, those are constant values that's where we started our problem. So this just then means we need to take the chain rule on this part, the minus r zero v zero comes out and we have d d t of d u d theta which is d theta d t theta of d u d theta. Okay that's the little bit of the chain rule in there. But we can clean that up a little bit too. This front part just constant theta dot for that part and then d squared u d theta squared. So that's r double dot. Oh wait we can do even a little bit more with it because we've got, we've got, we've got this piece here that we can use here because we have r zero v zero as part of it and then the r square and then the theta dot part that what we want, let's see, yeah. So then this becomes, remember this is r double dot.  We're just putting in theta dot for that. That piece over there is theta dot. We're just putting that in so that squares that term. We've got r squared on the bottom which is u squared and then the d squared u d theta squared is untouched. So all I did was took this piece here for theta dot and put it in there for theta dot. And now we can put that piece, remember this is r double dot. We can put that piece in right there. Maybe I'll just continue that right below it.  That came from taking this and putting in the r double dot we just came up with. We just came up with r double dot here. That's what that string is. So now I've just put it in there. There we go. I explained it. It's going to simplify greatly even though checking the algebra can take hours. Well at least it did me. So there's a couple places where I'm going to wave my hands. I'm saying simplifying gives and then you go home because you have hours and you check that. So let's see where I am. So we've got this whole business here. We've got minus g.   Alright and here's one of the places where I'm going to say it simplifies to and then you go home, make a pot of coffee and spend three hours checking this like I did yesterday. Unless you're faster at this stuff than I am. It simplifies to g over quantity r e r zero v zero squared. So that's just a matter of dividing through by the minus r zero v zero squared which remembers a constant which makes all of this stuff on this side a constant equals d squared u d theta squared plus u squared. No more than a sentence missing. No squared missing. We're okay. And you guys are all in Diffie Q, right? So you've got this solved already. This is just you? Yeah. Because you've got r cubed and you're left by which is u cubed. Oh yeah, just you.  It was u squared but we took one of the one over r squareds and used that. Alright. So this has solution which I'm sure you've all done already in your heads. a sine theta plus b sine b cosine theta plus that quantity on that side which is a constant remember. Alright. And so to find out what those constants are a and b we need to look at initial conditions. So that theta equals zero degrees we have u equals one over r zero. So that whole side has equal one over r zero. Well that part that gives us the a equals zero. If I got the right piece it is zero. We know that v are the velocity in the radial direction. At this point remember it was perpendicular to the radial direction itself. So that is itself zero. And so we need to erase the second equation. I've got one equation there. The second equation I needed remember was r dot d r dt equals minus r zero v. I'll just write down the second one that I had to erase. Okay. So that means then see that's what we got right here. So that all equals zero which means du d theta equals zero. Alright. That's using that second equation over there. We now know or at that point r dot is zero so du d theta is zero at the same as one spot. So now we can finish that because that gives us v the second constant in the solution to the differential equation is one over r zero minus g quantity re over r zero to zero squared. So that gives us the full solution to the differential equation. We're getting down to the meat of it. I'm going to get down to the solution that comes. Okay. So let's get all those things in. And this I couldn't derive directly but I could take it put in what I've got here and come back to this. So maybe you can derive it directly when you put this in. I couldn't but maybe you can. Where we take the constant terms and combine them all into this one piece called the eccentricity which is a term probably remember. So it's r zero v zero squared not quantity squared over r e minus one. And this is the eccentricity. Did you talk about that in physics too? A little bit. Okay. It gives what it gives us is the orbital shape. It's heading up on what its value is. If the eccentricity is zero then it's a circular orbit. And if you put it in there as one you get essentially all the way back you get a uniform circular motion. If it's between zero and one then we get an elliptical orbit. It limps. If it is one we get a parabolic orbit. And then if it's greater than one we get a hyperbolic orbit. And if you remember your conic sections that's the difference between those. No r naught is not squared. See I told you it's simplified greatly. It's just going to take you a couple hours to prove that it does. But like I said the easiest way out or the way I finally did it is I just took this put it back in there and then I can back out the solution to the differential equation. I couldn't do it directly from the differential equation. Alright the most interesting orbits are the elliptical ones. The parabolic ones are very useful. They use that when they slingshot satellites past other bodies like Mars or something to give them some pickups of speed. So there's the earth with a nice elliptical orbit. I'll make it a little bit bigger. With the earth at one focus of the ellipse which if you remember was one of Kepler's laws. Kepler's first law I believe. Alright so we have a couple things we need to define here. This distance remember was our original r zero. That was our initial point. This point here of closest approach is called the perigee. It's the point of closest approach. It's also the point of highest velocity. This is the apple g. The point farthest away. And then the axes, the major axes. That distance we'll call 2a. So a is just a semi major axis. And then across here, across the minor axis is b. So b is the semi, b itself is the semi major axis. Remember this assumes uniform masses or at least we're far enough away from the earth that can be taken as uniform masses. No other forces so we don't have perturbation effects from other planets. And of course it's far enough. There's no drag. And assuming too that this mass is fixed in space. If we want to do it in an external frame of reference we have to add in other effects that we have to play with. Alright so the last little bit is the orbital period itself. And this you can get from playing further with the equations. And I think you've had enough algebra for now. So there it is. 2 pi a to the 3 halves. Remember a is the semi major axis over r e square root of g. And if you move that around a little bit you'll see that's Kepler's third law. Alright so we'll do a quick problem just so we get an idea of the kinds of things we're talking about. So imagine it's pretty easy to make sure you get those initial conditions from which all this stuff came by launching such that right when it reaches a particular point it then has that velocity. And the orbit itself is a ballistic orbit meaning it's non-powered. So this would be the place where you want to have burnout where the rockets themselves are out of fuel and usually jettison. You've seen those pictures as they do that with the space shuttle. So we'll give a couple values to this and then figure a couple things and then we're done. So we'll take a speed at that point, the speed of burnout of just under 37,000 kilometers per hour and an altitude of 500 kilometers. And we'll take it to find a couple things. Find the maximum altitude which of course is at this point over here at apogee and also find the orbital period. It's when we can expect it to come back into view and closest approach later. Okay first thing we can do is even check that it is an elliptical orbit. So calculate the eccentricity, make sure that it's in those bounds for an elliptical orbit, which it will be since that's what I was talking about here. Kepler's second law, if you remember, is equal areas in equal time. So we could also calculate the rate at which areas are swept out and prove that but the metal gymnastics get even more severe. So check the eccentricity. Remember it's R0V0 squared which you are given. G is 9.81. We came up with something close to 9.82 with the numbers before but that was, remember, not using actual measurements like the 9.81 is minus 1. So check that eccentricity. Make sure it is an elliptical orbit and then use the solution that we came up with a little bit ago and find the maximum altitude using that eccentricity. So check those and then that will give you A because that's related to this maximum altitude and then you can find the orbital period using Kepler's third law there. The orbits with the main body at one focus is Kepler's first law. The second law is equal areas in equal times and the third law is the square of the period is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis which I believe Kepler came up with first by pure observation of orbital times and positions. Do you know the radius of view of them? I do which I'll sell you for a small price. These are numbers in the book. 637, here's 6370 kilometers. What else do you got all the other pieces? After that just make sure your units work. R, are you asking what R is? R is just the distance from the Earth's center at any one particular point. And then the theta is the angle made from perigee because only a perigee and apogee are the velocities perpendicular to the radius. It's moving much slower at apogee than it is perigee. Essentially after apogee it falls towards the Earth and falls around it. So for R not, you just have a factor of 7.5 plus the radius of the Earth. No, R not is the radius of the Earth plus the height of the orbit which is the altitude of the 500 kilometers. So R equals the radius of the Earth plus the height of the orbit. And this is a bit different than the way the book did it. I thought the way the book did it wasn't very easily followed. So what's zero? Is it E back? For the eccentricity? Yeah 0.699999 Does anybody else have 0.399? I got 0.813 That's what I got. Are you watching your units? What's up? Because you've got kilometers per hour and kilometers. So I guess you could leave it in kilometers, I guess. Now, what G is in meters, so it's easier to put everything in meters in seconds and then I get 0, 8, 3, 8, 1, 3, the traffic's just confirmed, too. Anybody else? It's the 500 plus the height, the 500 plus the radius of the years, and then when you find out maximum amount to remember, you've got to take the radius of the earth out of that. Can it positive this time? The units even work on this piece over here. The higher the eccentricity, the more elliptical the orbit. And at maximum amount, you're going to have to put in theta equals 180 degrees for the rest of the work. You can use either one, which depends on how your calculator is set. Then you want to fix that. You can see how the freehand ellipsis look. That's pretty good. How much is this? I'll just use a 90 for theta, whatever, zero. No, theta for the maximum altitude would be all the way over here, 180 degrees. 180. Yep. In the book, David, I've got this down. It's in the book somewhere. I don't remember. I didn't take note of it, I guess. It's probably somewhere near the end of chapter three, maybe. What was chapter three? Kinetics of particles. Let's see. Maybe it's in kinetics. It wouldn't be rigid body though. It'd be for particle kinetics. To check on the index and the back for orbits. We'll wait for it. I don't know. That's right. That's work energy. Well, maybe here. Special applications. Yeah, central force motion right there. We got some of the pieces then. Not only this problem, but the class of that. What do you get? Okay, you got that. Now that you've got the eccentricity, you can put it in here. R zero is the altitude plus the radius of the earth is R zero. So you can then put in the eccentricity, solve for R at 180 degrees. That'll give you the full distance from the center of the earth.  The two of those together is 2a. You can solve for R max using theta equals 180 degrees.  You're still not getting eccentricity? Okay, let's space and try that. Okay, so R zero is the radius of the earth plus the altitude. I see my problem. What was it? Not square. Oh, yeah. You square the velocity, but not the tool. Just the velocity. And as long as your units are all the same, it's just huge. Yeah. What kind of max height? About 60,300 and 32 kilometers. 60,000 what? 332,333. I had 6,200 so it may just be round off. You had 60,200. Yeah, as the height. You had the maximum radius as 66. 702. Yeah. And then you have to take the radius of the earth out of that and get the maximum altitude. Oh, that's probably good. Yeah, I think so. It's probably some round off. So I got an R max of 66,600. Times 10 to the sixth meters. Somebody else just said they got that? Okay. So the altitude then to take the radius of the earth off of that is 60,200 kilometers. So that's maximum R, maximum H, 60,200 kilometers. And then 2A is R0 plus R max. It's 2A. And then that A is what goes in here. And R e raised to here must be in meters for that to work. Yeah, that's right. Is that 19? That's taking the radius of the earth off of R max. So R max minus R e. You had this in meters. That's course 9.81. Let's then check what you have for A. A equals R max plus R0 over 2. Because 2A is all the way across. R0 I think is very small compared to that. So it's actually not much significant. 36.7. Really? I had 33.3 for A. That's 10 to the sixth meters. That's what I had. That's R max plus R0. Yeah, I don't think that's, mine 33 is right because that would be just R max divided by 2. What do you have for that then? 36.7. But it shouldn't take the time down to whatever you had. 14 hours? 19.5. 19.5 hours? 19.7? No, it really makes a big effect. Because with the 33 in here, instead of 36, I had 42 hours. That is a huge, huge effect, I guess, because of three halves. Anyway, so you had an orbital period of, you said, what, 19 hours? 19.5 hours. How is it at the end of four hours? Let's look all this together. You only had to go an hour. So that's it. Any questions about that? Anything else on the term for next week? Remember, next week will just be the last three chapters. So the last two. So there will be some bit on the relative, oh, I know, Joey's at the Clarkson campus, isn't it? That's what Joey is. Okay, so some relative velocity. Remember, we used a method in the center. It's just one way to do it. You don't have to do it that way. Two a hand. I have two, if you have two a hand again. Is that 42? You do it for four hours a week. Because that was after all the double checking, all the algebra in there. Road down? Oh, no. Road down, eh? We're done anyway.


So, in the previous lecture I have discussed in details about the sheet pile walls particularly the anchored heads. I have also discussed about the analysis of anchored bulk heads by using different methods. The first one which we discussed was the simplified method and the second one was the pre-urse support method and the fixed earth support method and the statement of the problem is for a given height of the bulk head or the retaining wall or the sheet pile wall you are supposed to find out the depth of embedment. And at the same time I also introduced this concept of how anchoring is done by using tie rods or the cables attached to the anchorage systems to enhance the stability of the sheet pile walls or the anchored bulk heads. I will go a bit more into the details of the analysis of anchored bulk heads because these systems are becoming very contemporary in today's infrastructure development and I wish that all of you should become an expert in this subject for analyzing these anchored bulk heads. So by definition an anchored bulk head is you have a retaining wall say this is the sheet pile and this is the dredge level we call it as BL, this is the ground surface and this is the backfill. So the whole idea was to attain much higher heights of H all right above the dredge level so that I can make a higher wall and which can retain lot of soil mass. So what we did is we introduced a tie rod or anchorage so this is a tie rod at the depth of say about A from the top of the bulk head. Now without having an anchor this tie rod or the bar is not going to be affected so what is done is this tie rod is connected to an anchor so this becomes an anchor. Now these anchors could be the independent units you know this could be an anchor a block and this block will be connected to the tie rod like this let us say. This could also be a beam of length L so this could be a continuous beam of length L also. So otherwise the spacing between the two blocks all right so if I consider another block over here the spacing could be S so S is the spacing between the anchors in case you are having a continuous beam then the length of the beam is L. Now one of the most critical question here is what should be the length of the tie rod in other words where this block should be located within the back bell why it is so. As far as analysis is concerned what we have done is we have obtained the d value the depth of embedment by using different methods we can obtain T also we can optimize A also depending upon the parameters which are known and unknown. Now the question is where should be the anchor placed in the back bell why this question is being asked suppose if this anchor is very close to the tie rod in such a way that this sits in the active wedge all right. So suppose if this is the failure slip surface all right and this becomes the active wedge so if this is the active wedge do you think that this anchor is going to be active or going to be useful no why at the time of failure this entire rigid body is going to fail by deflecting the wall so what you have to do is you have to make sure that this anchor is sitting in the passive block not in the active block all right that means what I have to do is graphically I should find out what is the zone of active pressure and what is the zone of passive pressure and then locate the anchor in the passive pressure zone fine big question is what is this point through with the slip surface is passive so this point normally defined as X could be at the tip of the wall we can obtain from D or this could be 75% of the D value which is obtained by fixed earth metal so there are two ways of obtaining the value of X or the point of point X so the location of X is either this is D which you get from pre earth support method this could be 0.75 times D when we are using a fixed earth support method now once the point X is fixed what I can do I can draw the location of the active earth pressure zone this would be 45 plus 5 by 2 so say this is the active earth pressure zone so A B X is the active earth pressure zone what will be this an angle this angle will be 45 plus 5 by 2 okay remember the Mohr circle if I want to find out the conjugate plane on which the passive earth pressure conditions are acting what I should be doing from this line if I draw a perpendicular so this angle is 90 degree what will be the inclination of this line this will be 45 minus 5 by 2 so this block B no let us see not be there B and B onwards let us say so this goes up to BC so this zone is going to be the passive earth pressure zone so this is 45 minus 5 by 2 so what we have done is by using the simple concept of analysis of the sheet pile walls anchored bulkhead we have obtained the value of D I can take either D as the location of X that could become the pile tip or 0.75 D the location of X start from here horizontal line 45 plus 5 by 2 this becomes the active earth pressure zone and having obtained this perpendicular to this plane would be the flip surface for passive earth pressure zone okay what about the zone in between X B and C so all this zone which you are seeing over here this is this is KA condition this is KP condition so what about the in between zone this becomes K naught alright nice so this is how we analyze the anchorage and position of the tie bar with the anchors there is one more thing suppose if I consider that B is the height of the block and depth of embedment is let us say normally we define this as the DA the free body diagram is like this now suppose if I magnify the pressure which are acting on the anchors I hope you will realize that this is how I can draw the anchor this is the ground surface anchor is being pulled up towards the left hand side with respect to horizontal what would be this surface this zone active zone correct so this is equal to 45 plus 5 by 2 and what about the passive zone when you are pulling the anchor on the left hand side this soil mass is trying to resist the movement of the anchor block so this is going to be 45 minus 5 by 2 this is okay the height of the anchorage is B which should be not less than DA by 2 where DA is this whole thing this is the first condition that means there should be enough overburden on the anchor so that active and passive earth pressure mobilize the more and more passive earth pressure gets mobilized the anchor is going to be more effective I think now you can realize the tension in the anchorage comes because of two things one is because of the deflection of the sheet pile which is not acceptable clear so how is going to come it is going to come because of the passive resistance which is being mobilized by the soil mass so that means the net pressure which is acting on the bar would be T multiplied by S, S is the spacing between the two anchor blocks and T is normally in kilo Newtons per meter tension per unit length of the wire and that length defines you know how much these blocks are going to be spaced with each other so this is T and this is T I hope you can realize we can go for the equivalent forces which are going to act on the anchor so I can take at S by 2 and S by 2 1T so T into S is the total force in the tie bar and this will be equal to what is the net pressure half kp-ka unit weight of the soil into da square depth of embedment multiplied by L now one thing is missing over here we are not very sure about how much the passive earth pressure is getting mobilized in fact we are not sure about how much kp get mobilized so put a penalty function or put a factor of safety on this so far what we did we applied only factor of safety uncertainty in terms to kp only now the net kp-ka we are applying a factor of safety of F and hence we are equilibrating the forces which are going to come in the tie rod and the force which is getting exerted on to the anchorage system so I hope you can realize if it is a continuous beam what is going to happen S will be equal to L so this normally gets cancelled out and we are left with total tension equal to this now I can convert it into a design problem for a given tension which I am expecting for a anchored bulkhead to mobilize would depend upon the kp-ka that means in other terms phi value the unit weight which can be obtained by compacting the soil mass or by changing the water table correct so there could be a situation where you have a water table over here only thing is going to change is that your gamma term is going to change and depth of embedment or burial so this is the depth of burial is this fine we have discussed lot of concepts over here regarding the anchored bulkheads now few more concepts before I switch over to another topic you must have realized that installation of this anchor tie bar is not so easy is this correct what we have to do is we have to keep on filling the soil if you are doing stage wise construction this is not possible you are doing dredging let us say you brought the soil mass by cutting from this level to this level it is extremely difficult to put an anchor bar over here or an anchorage system over here okay so this type of systems can be done only when you are back filling something stage wise layer and then you can lay the system over here and again bury it and then compact it hope you are realizing so a better way would be what any idea next time when you pass by a highway or in the hilly terrain or maybe sometimes the systems where you are seeing a retention of the soil mass nowadays what is being practiced is people are inserting nails now this is what is known as nailing the purpose is same to stabilize the retaining wall so these red systems what I have shown are the soil nails and what you must have realized is intentionally I have been lowering down or decreasing the length of the soil nails why look at the zone of influence of active pressure these nails are going to be effective once they are extending beyond the active pressure zone so as if you are stitching this block ABX with the parent body is stitching you know if you remove this what is going to happen this block has a tendency to get detached from the system so soil nailing is quite prevalent in today's infrastructure development projects what is normally done is you define the angle of inclination with respect to horizontal and the length of the anchor or the soil nails so length of nails and their inclination is normally fixed I wish to show you some of the videos in this case so in the simple form this is how a soil nail wall looks like there is an existing road and you wanted to widen it so you have cut down the hill this portion has been cut and then there is a face here and then the entire slope has been nailed followed by grouts in most of the airport projects tunneling projects retaining wall projects highway projects these type of structures are being designed this is a typical anchor you know they are after creating a cavity you put the steel bar grout it use a nut and bolt and fix it at the base of the base here this is how the installation is done this is how the finished product looks like so sometimes there is a wire mesh which is placed you know somewhere here not for the vertical section but for the inclined section so sometimes you know a heavy duty steel mesh is also provided which gives more strength to the retention several projects are being executed by using these concepts I would also like to show you a video on a typical sheet file failure which causes excessive loss of up to the time money and populace could be fatal even systematically if I explain there is a deep excavation very close to multi-storey buildings alright suppose you are constructing a swimming pool quite deep or maybe some carpark area alright in the basement so you can see the coming in has already started the soil mass is almost on the verge of failure such type of failures are quite challenging to control and they could be disastrous few years back there was a major failure which was in the national network very close to IIT Bombay alright during the rains I am sure you must have come across that one has to be very very careful while designing such systems which is the entire infrastructure road parking lot or the facility which has been created has already collapsed and fortunately these buildings are not sitting on this pad you know or the foundation was not provided within this pad otherwise this would have been really fatal you can type on net and see several failures which have occurred in the recent past


James, preces yn well under way now, have you found it so far? Yeah it's been tough but really good, we've done some really good work over the last week and the lads are getting into the ball work now so the lads are always finding that more enjoyable. Yeah obviously you're one of our new players, we're our new signings. How much have you enjoyed coming in and getting to know the lads and getting to know Gary and his staff obviously as well? It's been really good, I've really enjoyed my first week. There's been a lot of emphasis on team spirit and you can see the lads coming together already and you know, going full 12 for the rest of the season I think. Gary spoke a lot about very physically demanding preces and a lot of intense work, can you echo that how tough have you found it, how much have you enjoyed it? Yeah it's been really tough, we've done a lot of different things and working really hard so it's been good. You spoke a lot personally about wanting to bring a lot of character to the side, how much has that been apparent in the training both from what Gary's demanding of you and what you're demanding of yourself as well, have you tried putting yourself about there and be a leader for the SC team mates a little bit? Yeah definitely, I mean I'm definitely one of the older heads now so it's a case of helping the lads get through it, you know, we've all been helping each other out, you can see when the lads are doing the running, we're all cheering each other on and getting through it so it's been a really good first week and you know, we just need to stick together and get through the rest of the work and then it should be good. And obviously like we say, you're one of the new signings, there's a lot of new signings, older new signings as well that are in there as well, how much have you helped them even though you're a new signing yourself to sort of settling as well as a few trial lists in there as well where you'll be helping them and again like we say, hoping to be a leader on the pitch and helping them settling. Yeah definitely, I enjoy that side of things, helping the younger lads and getting through it but it's a case of we all need to stick together, you know, it's going to be a long season and we need a lot of team spirit and like I say, we've emphasised that a lot this season so far and we want to take that forward. Yeah and finally, a first friendly against Gaisley just around the corner, can we expecting to see the training sort of build up towards that and the intensity go up but as the week goes on is it a case of preparing for that game, preparing for the rest of the friendlies do you think? Yeah definitely, I think you know the balls will be introduced a lot more this week, a lot more football based training, a lot of hard running last week so I'm hoping that we do a little bit more football but you know the games are important but it's still pre-season so we've got to get our working and take it going into the season. And how much are you looking forward to the friendlies then obviously they say that there's no training like match training, you can do all the running in the world but it must be good to get back on the pitch and have that feeling back in you. Yeah that's what we all train for, we train for the matches and although it's a pre-season game you know we want to start on the right foot and get a positive result and take that forward.