RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events How Liberal Profs Harass Conservatives

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Clever.

---

predictable.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
If your theory was accurate, wouldn't Buchanan and Coulter want to teach, given the potential to oppress students, while enjoying a high paying tenured job?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Lawrence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz and/or Carl Sagan (to name just three college professors) probably make/made as much or more than Buchanan and/or Coulter.

So why wouldn't Pat and Ann want the additional benefit of the academic position?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that's my point: wouldn't a Coulter or a Buchanan be a "star" at any college, while still being able to make millions as pundits? So why wouldn't they want the additional security and/or prestige of being professors?

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that's my point: wouldn't a Coulter or a Buchanan be a "star" at any college, while still being able to make millions as pundits? So why wouldn't they want the additional security and/or prestige of being professors?

---

My point was that a tenured professor doesn't make that much money (at least not by urban California standards). Very few will have the opportunity to become a Sagan or Derschowitz. As for Coulter, can you honestly tell me you're impressed with her legal skills? Would you want her to be negotiating that big deal you're working. Her talents are best suited to what she does now. Having a brilliant legal mind isn't her strong point.

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Clever.

---

predictable.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that's my point: wouldn't a Coulter or a Buchanan be a "star" at any college, while still being able to make millions as pundits? So why wouldn't they want the additional security and/or prestige of being professors?

---

My point was that a tenured professor doesn't make that much money (at least not by urban California standards). Very few will have the opportunity to become a Sagan or Derschowitz. As for Coulter, can you honestly tell me you're impressed with her legal skills? Would you want her to be negotiating that big deal you're working. Her talents are best suited to what she does now. Having a brilliant legal mind isn't her strong point.

---

Are you saying that all conservitives automatically make Coulter cash just because they're conservitives. Conservitives do all kids of things, they're janitors window cleaners CEOs teachers and mail-men.

---

Of course you realize your statement makes no sense in the context of the discussion.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
plenty of conservitives would appreciate the money made by a prof.

---

Conservatives, by thier nature really aren't capable of climbing the economic ladder. The very fact that they are conservative belies the fact that they lack the faculties to adabt and progress.

Quote:

---

klinton said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
plenty of conservitives would appreciate the money made by a prof.

---

Conservatives, by thier nature really aren't capable of climbing the economic ladder. The very fact that they are conservative belies the fact that they lack the faculties to adabt and progress.

---

I'd like to see 90% of liberals tell thier bosses that and then see who still has a job

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I'd like to see 90% of liberals tell thier bosses that and then see who still has a job

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that's my point: wouldn't a Coulter or a Buchanan be a "star" at any college, while still being able to make millions as pundits? So why wouldn't they want the additional security and/or prestige of being professors?

---

Quote:

---

klinton said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I'd like to see 90% of liberals tell thier bosses that and then see who still has a job

---

That's just a nieve assumption, and you know it. Look at the truely wealthy people...they are innovators and outsiders. Read up on the lives of the successful (I'd give examples, but I'd be accused of picking and choosing...so pick your own, randomly) and you'll see what they almost always have in common.

I'll go a step farther and toss out the fact that liberal minded people are more adjusted socially too. True conservatism is the product of limited exposure to other forces and realities. When someone is truly subjected to things outside of thier personal bubble, they learn to understand and adapt.

---

I love how deeply we can read into labels invented and applied by opponents.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that's my point: wouldn't a Coulter or a Buchanan be a "star" at any college, while still being able to make millions as pundits? So why wouldn't they want the additional security and/or prestige of being professors?

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
If they have spent any public time deriding the entire concept of academia as a liberal wasteland, what would that say about them should they decide to enter that wasteland?

They'd have a lot of explaining to do.

---

Quote:

---

klinton said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I'd like to see 90% of liberals tell thier bosses that and then see who still has a job

---

That's just a nieve assumption, and you know it. Look at the truely wealthy people...they are innovators and outsiders. Read up on the lives of the successful (I'd give examples, but I'd be accused of picking and choosing...so pick your own, randomly) and you'll see what they almost always have in common.

I'll go a step farther and toss out the fact that liberal minded people are more adjusted socially too. True conservatism is the product of limited exposure to other forces and realities. When someone is truly subjected to things outside of thier personal bubble, they learn to understand and adapt.

---

The publicly funded William Paterson University (search) in New Jersey reprimanded Jihad Daniel for discrimination and sexual harassment. The 63-year-old Daniel, who is both an employee and a student at the university, is now at the center of a free speech controversy.

He is also a fine example of the sleight-of-hand being called "due process" by universities that quash politically incorrect speech.

The facts are uncontested.

On March 7, Arlene Holpp Scala (search), chair of the Women's Studies Department, sent Daniel an unsolicited e-mail announcement of an upcoming film event: "'Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House,' a lesbian relationship story." Scala advised those who wished to respond, "Please do not hit reply, click here," thus directing messages to her university e-mail address.

On March 8, Daniel clicked to privately reply, "Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." [His message is quoted in full. No other communication with Scala ensued.]

On March 10, Scala filed a complaint with the university claiming Daniel's message sounded "threatening."

"I don't want to feel threatened at my place of work," she explained.

On June 15, university President Arnold Speert (search) issued a letter of reprimand, to be placed in Daniel's permanent employment file.

The unsavory matter might have ended there, but the stakes were raised by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and by Peter C. Harvey, the attorney general of New Jersey.

FIRE's mission is "to defend and sustain individual rights at America's increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.

"These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience."

Greg Lukianoff of FIRE reminded Speert that his university, as a public institution, had a duty to protect the "constitutional rights of all its faculty, staff, and students … and that no federal, state, local, or university rule, policy, or regulation trumps the exercise" of those rights.

Lukianoff flatly stated, "No one here was 'harassed' or 'threatened' as defined by the law." Instead, the university "simply strongly disliked a student's point of view."

Interestingly, the first response to FIRE was not from Speert but from Attorney General Harvey, who replied "on behalf" of the university. Harvey said the penalty against Daniel would stand because, as an employee, he had violated New Jersey policies against discrimination, harassment and creating a hostile environment in the workplace.

Several aspects of the entire exchange are interesting.

First, the entire weight of the state's legal authority is being directed at quashing Daniel's personal response to an unsolicited e-mail — an e-mail that invited feedback by instructing recipients on how best to do so. The university obviously feels the need to draw a big gun on this little man.

Second, Lukianoff refers to Daniel as a student; both Speert and Harvey call him an employee. Daniel is legitimately both, but in the capacity of student he undoubtedly has more established procedural "rights" against the university. The attorney general's office clearly wishes to reduce the "rights" it needs to recognize.

But as Lukianoff states: "Even in a workplace, it is ridiculous to conclude that a one-time e-mail constitutes unlawful discrimination and harassment. It is especially ridiculous to apply such a policy to a working student at an institution of higher education that has a special responsibility to ensure academic freedom."

Here the concept of "due process" emerges in full. As with freedom of speech, the university's policies seem to reduce to the formula, "rights for me but not for thee."

For example, according to Speert's view of free speech, Scala has the right to send an unsolicited and unwanted promotion of a pro-lesbian film over the university's network. Daniel has no right to respond with his personal opinion and a request for no contact in the future.

According to Speert's view of due process, if Scala feels threatened by a moralistic dismissal of an issue she chose to raise, then the attorney general's office should flex its muscle to protect a frail woman so imperiled. Meanwhile, Daniel has no right to even examine the evidence brought against him. He merely has the right to appeal.

In his letter, Lukianoff stressed that "due process" was being disregarded in order to chill dissent. Both Speert and Harvey replied that "due process" was clearly in place and pointed to the administrative procedures to which Daniel could appeal.

Making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops that embody a biased procedure is not due process. A kangaroo court that includes the right of appeal to a higher kangaroo authority does not constitute due process. It is a travesty.

Due process does not reside in bureaucracy. It is a set of legal principles established through tradition to protect "the accused," who is innocent until proven guilty. Those principles include the right to face and question your accuser, the right to examine all evidence against you.

Daniel has been granted neither. And the most extraordinary aspect of this denial of free speech and due process is that the attorney general's office felt it necessary to so quickly and heavily weigh in on a small matter.

Or is it?

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
On Campus, Only Some Free Speech Protected



Second, Lukianoff refers to Daniel as a student; both Speert and Harvey call him an employee. Daniel is legitimately both, but in the capacity of student he undoubtedly has more established procedural "rights" against the university. The attorney general's office clearly wishes to reduce the "rights" it needs to recognize.

---

Well those bastards! They're acting just like prosecuting attorneys!

Quote:

---

from Inside Higher Ed News 07/18/05

Everyone’s a Critic


The curtain did not fall silently on the Devil. But rather to a chorus of “I am offended.”

In fact, the shouts by a group of Washington State University students pervaded the final performance in April of The Passion of the Musical — a show that has become the subject of a free speech disputemonths after its short run.

The protesters, angry at the satire depicting the last of two days of the life of Jesus, forced the show to stop several times. At the behest of campus security guards concerned about a potential riot, Chris Lee, a
theater major who wrote, directed, and portrayed the cross-dressing Lucifer in the play, self-censored one of the show’s songs. Instead of singing “I would do anything for God, but I won’t act black,” a parody of Meat Loaf’s “I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that,” the “black” was changed to “blank.”

Along with jokes about gay people, AIDS, Hitler, and the use of “nigger,” another chorus that roiled audience members was the “And I will always hate Jews” refrain in the parody of Whitney Houston’s hit “I Will Always Love You.” And of course there was the scene where newborn babies were shot onto the stage, apparently from a Mormon mother’s offstage womb, and Jesus, like a good outfielder, caught all 16 of them.
Lee, like many of those who organized the protests and disrupted the play, is black. “The whole point was to show people we’re not that different, we all have issues that can be made fun of,” Lee said.

Several months after the play, a free speech group is coming to Lee’s defense and demanding to know why college administrators appeared to support those who disrupted the production. The group cites an e-mail obtained by The Daily Evergreen, the Washington State paper, in which President Lane Rawlins wrote to a professor: “I too was concerned about the threat to safety but I must
say that our students, even though they were upset, exercised their rights of free speech in a very responsible manner by letting the writer and players know exactly how they felt.” Not everyone thought it was free speech that the 40 students exercised.

“The protesters were the people standing outside with signs,” Lee said. “Inside, they were hecklers. I wanted the play to cause discussion, but they didn’t even listen to it.”

Officials at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education strongly disagreed with Rawlins that the protesters were exercising free speech, rather than violating it. “Disrupting a play with mob censorship is not protected expression,” said Greg Lukianoff, director of legal and public advocacy at FIRE.

Similarly, Lukianoff argued, campus security should have protected Lee’s right to continue his play unchanged, rather than pushed him to self-censor to avoid an explosive situation. Washington State staff members and administrators who supported the protesters right to interrupt the play, including the president, contend that Lee created a public forum by engaging the crowd early in the play.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Unless WSU is a heretofore unknown stronghold for black conservative I would, therefore, suspect they were not conservatives at all.

---

A professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio has so much time on his hands this summer that he has taken to writing letters to the Toledo Blade complaining about how insensitive the funny pages are.

"Shame on The Blade for running the appalling July 28 "Dennis The Menace" cartoon, which was incredibly insensitive to all Native Americans," writes Jeffrey Gordon, an Associate Professor of Geography. "The cartoon depicts the Mitchell family in the Southwest visiting a 'Navajo Ruins.'"

"Dennis is standing on a lower wall of the ruins while lassoing a higher portion. His mother states, 'We should be thankful they were in ruins before he got here.' Despite clearly being aware of their child's destructive intent, Dennis' parents totally disregard his outrageous (and illegal) behavior and the serious physical damage he can cause to ancient and irreplaceable Native American sites - a legacy to be enjoyed by future generations.

"This cartoon, so disrespectful of Native Americans and their rich heritage, has no rightful place in our multicultural society."

A Washington University physics professor who expressed the opinion that homosexuality is sinful on a personal website is under fire from students who say such opinions shouln't be allowed on university servers, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In one of several opinion pieces hosted on his faculty web page, professor Jonathan Katz writes that homophobia is a moral judgment on acts engaged in by choice. Like incest and bestiality, he says, homosexuality is condemned by the Bible as a sin. After stating that homophobic people don't encourage violence against gays but just choose to stay away from them, he concludes, "I am a homophobe, and proud."

The site features a disclaimer reading, "These represent my personal views alone. Washington University would never take an official position which might deviate from the 'politically correct' line. I don't know how they find out what the line is each day, but they sure keep up-to-date."

Gay students have said they may feel uncomfortable taking Katz's class now that they are aware of his opinions, but Katz says politics never enters his science class and that the situation is no different from Republican students who might be uncomfortable taking a class taught by a professor that they know to be a Democrat.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
You mean other than trying to shut down his web site?

---

Looks like some students expressing their opinion. Have they done anything illegal in their requests?

EUGENE, Ore. — In an effort to promote diversity at the University of Oregon, a plan has been developed that would hire, fire and promote professors not just on the quality of their teaching and research, but on their so-called “cultural competency."

Freshmen would take a class on the subject and faculty would be trained in it. The problem is that nowhere in the 22-page diversity draft plan is “cultural competency” defined.

"I can imagine huge amounts of time that should be going to research and teaching being tied up with this sort of thing — and making life extremely unpleasant,” said Christopher Phillips, a University of Oregon professor.

Critics also worry about the cost. The plan calls for 800 diversity-building scholarships and dozens of new staff positions in order to add degree programs in fields like “queer studies” and “disabled studies.”

Supporters say they understand the challenges, but such a program is necessary because racism and discrimination persist.