Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Another stupid Proffesor (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Another stupid Proffesor
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47520

Oh boy. Shades of Churchill here. Except this guy ain't tenured, so he can kiss his job goodbye.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All hail the speech police!
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like this stuff:

quote:
In his e-mail, Daly said he would ask his students to boycott the event and also vowed "to expose [her] right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like [Rebecca's] won't dare show their face on a college campus."
quote:
Young America's Foundation, which came to Beach's aid, said that besides organizing the event, Beach's offense was hanging up fliers contrasting the number of people killed under communism to those liberated under President Reagan.
quote:
Referring to the threat of being fired, Daly said his situation reflects a trend for non-tenured instructors.

"As more and more professors are teaching part time, this is a direct attack on our academic freedom," he said.

Daly's e-mail also claimed that "capitalism has killed many more" people than communism and that "poor and working class people" are recruited to "fight and die for EXXON and other corporations."

All hail the speech police, indeed, Zyne: glad to see we are on the same side in this issue - bye bye professor.

EDITED FOR CLARITY

[ November 22, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The guy sounds like a complete moron, and if he really did what the (highly credible....not) source says he did, then he SHOULD get canned. A professor may not embark on a crusade to make any student feel unwelcome on campus - definitely not someone who apparently did absolutely nothing beyond the pale.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All hail the speech police, indeed, Zyne: glad to see we are on the same side in this issue - bye bye professor.
Oh, we're not. And I certainly don't advocate expelling the young lady for her bad taste!
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yo, Zyne - you don't think a professor should be canned for expressing an intent to make a student feel unwelcome on campus because of her politics? Assuming that's what happened.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky--Nope, particularly when the student isn't even in the professor's class. There's not even an allegation of misconduct here. All the "proffesor" did was respond to the student's pro-war spam.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, he responded with a declaration of intent to make her feel unwelcome on campus. Not with "I think this is disgusting and we should boycott the event" but with that plus "I will hound this person for holding and expressing these views".

She's not in his class, but she may be next semester, and even if not, it's an improper use of his faculty position to intimidate.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I really don't care if he's in her class or not. I'd like to know what the student's email actually said, but his response, and his follow up quotes? If true, then sorry, but goodbye, and good riddance, professor. Trying to intimidate people into "staying off the campus" because of the speaker they invited is crap - and for faculty to be doing so is very very bad.

[ November 22, 2005, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the full text of his email,

quote:
The full unedited text of Daly’s email follows.

November 13, 2005

Dear Rebecca:

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1524835/posts

Here are apparently some of the posters she posted?

http://www.yaf.org/press/11_17_05.html

http://www.yaf.org/press/che.gif
http://www.yaf.org/press/100,000.gif
http://www.yaf.org/press/poster1.jpg
http://www.yaf.org/press/poster2.jpg
http://www.yaf.org/press/poster3.jpg

I'd be interested in the content of her email.

javelin,

quote:
Trying to intimidate people into "staying off the campus" is crap - and for faculty to be doing so is very very bad.
From his email - that doesn't appear to be what he stated at all.

RickyB,

quote:
Yeah, he responded with a declaration of intent to make her feel unwelcome on campus. Not with "I think this is disgusting and we should boycott the event" but with that plus "I will hound this person for holding and expressing these views".
That does not in fact appear to be what he said.

LetterRip

[ November 22, 2005, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LP - this isn't trying to intimidate people?

quote:
I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus.
Both what Ricky and I said are EXACTLY what's in the email. I don't understand why you are saying that "isn't what he said"?

[ November 22, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the posters she put up, according to your links, are bad propaganda, but I've seen worse on both sides. This gives the professor a right to threaten her? Call her names?

That's crap.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
javelin,

he can expose her politics without singling her out as an individual, and make such groups unwelcome, again without singling her out as an individual.

quote:
I think that the posters she put up, according to your links, are bad propaganda, but I've seen worse on both sides. This gives the professor a right to threaten her? Call her names?

That's crap.

Did I say his actions were right? I merely gave more information to improve context, I wasn't justifying. I feel that his actions demonstrated extremely poor judgement and I find his email repugnant. I disagree that he threatened her. As to calling her names - he gave his opinion of the political views she expressed. While I don't care for his expression, I don't see a compelling reason that he should not have.

Regarding his statement that he would encourage students not to attend. I'm a bit conflicted here - if students have the right to solicit instructors to encourage attendence of such things and that instructors are allowed to encourage student attendance, then it would seem hypocritical that the professor should not have equally the ability to discourage student attendance.

Personally I think there should be a policy against faculty encouragement or discouragement (at least during class time), and against contacting faculty for the purpose of soliciting attendance at an event. If a group want to drum up attendance they can advertise in the campus paper, put up flyers, and a number of other methods.

LetterRip

[ November 22, 2005, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with LR that he wasn't singling the student out (and he claims at any rate to have not to realized she was a student. He should apologize for the tone if he hasn't already), but the thing that bothers me is this:
quote:
Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors
I just don't see how this can be viewed as anything but a call for soldiers to turn against their superior officers in Iraq, which would, well, be bad. I don't have a problem with people believing that, but when he's using the school's network to distribute his message (again, he claims it was supposed to be to the original e-mailer rather than the entire student body) he has crossed the line. So if they want to justify firing him, then they can go ahead and do it for that. And frankly, if he doesn't issue an apology for both his tone when talking to a student and for using the school's network to distribute his message of what I'll just go ahead and call treason, he should be canned.
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he can expose her politics without singling her out as an individual, and make such groups unwelcome, again without singling her out as an individual.
Well, interesting enough - I'd say:

(a) he did single her out; and
(b) it's not better if it's pointed at a group

quote:
While I don't care for his expression, I don't see a compelling reason that he should not have.
He didn't just give his opinion - he said he wanted those who expressed her opinion to be ran off of campus. He's a professor there - part of the core of the college. It's wrong to run people off a university campus because you don't agree with them.

quote:
Personally I think there should be a policy against faculty encouragement or discouragement (at least during class time), and against contacting faculty for the purpose of soliciting attendance at an event. If a group want to drum up attendance they can advertise in the campus paper, put up flyers, and a number of other methods.
I agree. However, do we know the context of how and why he sent her that email? What prompted it? Was it a general announcement? Was she trying to drum up support? We don't know right now.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with LR that he wasn't singling the student out
Sorry, but bull. He says her name, and then says YOU, YOU, YOU - and in context, he isn't pluralizing that about her group, since he says "your group". This is singling her out.

And again, it really doesn't matter - group or individual.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to derail the thread but I'm not sure I'm understanding this:

quote:
The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina.
What is this 12 hours stuff? What exactly happened in 12 hours? Wasn't there a LOT of planning and preparing that took place before that 12 hour period happened?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just nit...considering...

"professor"

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would of thought his idea of soldiers killing their commanders would of been more upseting... you guys agree that he should be fired but for toatally different reasons.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
would have? perhaps.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
javelin,

quote:
Sorry, but bull. He says her name, and then says YOU, YOU, YOU - and in context, he isn't pluralizing that about her group, since he says "your group". This is singling her out.
No it really isn't clear that he is in fact 'singling her out'. It is pretty much open to interpretation. In this context 'your group' just means - the group she belonged to. If in fact he had mentioned her name when advising students not to attend (if he in fact followed through with the statement) then you would have a case that he was singling her out. As it is, all that can be said is that he responded directly to her email.

quote:
He didn't just give his opinion - he said he wanted those who expressed her opinion to be ran off of campus.
No he said
quote:
I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus.
Not 'daring to show their face' is not equivalent to 'ran off of campus'. The first is generally associated with shame (ie literally hiding ones face in shame), the second is angry mobs, those are drastically different conotations.

quote:
I agree. However, do we know the context of how and why he sent her that email? What prompted it? Was it a general announcement? Was she trying to drum up support? We don't know right now.
All we know is that she emailed a number of professors and it has been described as an announcement by the group complaining about his email.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"All we know is that she emailed a number of professors and it has been described as an announcement by the group complaining about his email."
I am very familar with YAF and their programs. Probably the email was an announcement for the speaker, with basic times, meeting place, and a picture of the advertised flyer for the event. While I can agree that some of YAF's posters can be over-the-top, they do not train their alumni and students to be overly offensive when dealing with school administrations and faculty.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the trick Rebecca Beach has pulled here is to come on like a robust campaigning politico and then once someone has responded to the bait she turns all timorous. Reading Daly's letter in full there's nothing that truly threatens or truly calls names. Hence if he does lose his job then this is a free speech issue.

Fragging; to misquote John Travolta in Broken Arrow. I'm not sure which disturbs me most encouraging soldiers to shoot their officers or that American's have a special word for it.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His views are scary, but come on, firing him for sending a private email to a student is ridiculous. The man has a right to express his views outside of class. He should apologize to the student, the school should warn him to be more cautious with his words, and then move on with life. I don't even think this should be news. What law or school rule did he break? The article certainly doesn't cite any. Yet you all call for him to be fired? Why? Because his views are extreme? I don't agree with his views and I think his actions were irresponsible, but IMHO firing would be nothing more than an unfair knee jerk reaction and a breach of his right to free speech.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really don't understand where the "not a big deal" is coming from.

This wasn't simply a private email. This was a message from a faculty member that states that he, as a faculty member, is going to use his power and podum to tell people to boycott her event.

Yes, the email can be taken in two ways - bad, or really bad. LR seems to feel that telling someone that "I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus." isn't a threat to run someone off campus, because he has this image of a mob when he says "run someone off campus". Well, sorry to conflict with your imagery, but when someone doesn't "dare to show their face", and you couple it with "exposing your right-wing, anti-people politics" - you aren't talking about shame. This professor clearly doesn't think he can SHAME this person - he thinks he can sway people against this group, so they can't show up on campus because people HATE them. That's "run off the campus", LR.

I don't even CARE what his views are. He responds to an email with personal comments, directed at this woman and the group she's working with, that threatens her, then lectures her - and calls her and her ideas, and the group she is part of, evil, for all intents and purposes.

And he brings to it his public podum that he has as a professor, and threatens to use it against the group.

This professor SHOULD be severely disciplined, if not fired.

Again, free speech - he can talk all he wants - but when he starts threatening ACTION - action that stifles Beach's free speech, he went over the edge. Why is it free speech if the professor wants to attack and expel this group, but not for the group who has their own speech to give? He's trying to use his power, given to him by the university, to SHUT THESE PEOPLE UP. This, alone, is the attack on free speech in this situation.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cytania:
I think the trick Rebecca Beach has pulled here is to come on like a robust campaigning politico and then once someone has responded to the bait she turns all timorous. Reading Daly's letter in full there's nothing that truly threatens or truly calls names. Hence if he does lose his job then this is a free speech issue.

Really?

1. You have no idea what Rebecca Beach did or didn't do.

2. Threat: "I am asking my students to boycott your event."

3. Threat: "I am also going to ask others to boycott it."

4. Calling of names (fascist): "Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive."

5. Threat AND calling of names (right-wing, anti people): "I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus."

WTF?

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Javelin

1) We have no idea of the intimate details of John Daly either but we've all been pitching in. To me YAF/Beach's political tactics are classic; goad, get a reaction, act violated. Straight out the agitprop style book.

2) How is that a threat? Professors ask their students to get essays in on time and not get drunk at parties but this doesn't threaten sorority functions

3) Asking people to boycott something is not a threat. In fact it's basic free speech.

4) Fascism may be a bankrupt political ideology but it is not a swearword or an expletive. If you believe this is name calling then you'll be mortified if I call you a blushing violet ;-)

5) Like-wise right-wing is another general tag. Anti-people is just a plain non-specific vague word.

The 'won't dare to show your face' line does not imply violence or even indirect (monetary or academic) punitive action. It suggests social distain, which is something we all have to be robust enough to take in life.

Is American academia so hyper-sensitive that it has to be protected from rough talk? Oh and don't go downtown where people in bars might use cusswords or start actual fights. Oh dearie me no...

[ November 23, 2005, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Cytania ]

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
canadian [Smile]

It's doubly ironic since the antecedent to "Proffesor (sic)" is "stupid" - triply ironic because of the source.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav:

quote:
2. Threat: "I am asking my students to boycott your event."

3. Threat: "I am also going to ask others to boycott it."

4. Calling of names (fascist): "Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive."

None of these is a threat. To say that something looks like this or that is not name calling. None of the above are problematic, imo. Boycotting an event is every bit as legitimate a form of expression as attending it.

LR -
quote:
Not 'daring to show their face' is not equivalent to 'ran off of campus'. The first is generally associated with shame (ie literally hiding ones face in shame), the second is angry mobs, those are drastically different conotations.
I think you're parsing too much. A professor vehemently vowing to shame a student to the point where said student would be embarrassed to appear on campus is attacking that student's free speech rights, using the intimidation factor inherent on the position of professor. He doesn't have to threaten a lynching in order to cross the line.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
None of these is a threat. To say that something looks like this or that is not name calling. None of the above are problematic, imo. Boycotting an event is every bit as legitimate a form of expression as attending it.
&

quote:
Originally posted by Cytania:
Hi Javelin

1) We have no idea of the intimate details of John Daly either but we've all been pitching in. To me YAF/Beach's political tactics are classic; goad, get a reaction, act violated. Straight out the agitprop style book.

2) How is that a threat? Professors ask their students to get essays in on time and not get drunk at parties but this doesn't threaten sorority functions

3) Asking people to boycott something is not a threat. In fact it's basic free speech.

4) Fascism may be a bankrupt political ideology but it is not a swearword or an expletive. If you believe this is name calling then you'll be mortified if I call you a blushing violet ;-)

5) Like-wise right-wing is another general tag. Anti-people is just a plain non-specific vague word.

The 'won't dare to show your face' line does not imply violence or even indirect (monetary or academic) punitive action. It suggests social distain, which is something we all have to be robust enough to take in life.

Is American academia so hyper-sensitive that it has to be protected from rough talk? Oh and don't go downtown where people in bars might use cusswords or start actual fights. Oh dearie me no...

Look, I don't actually care what either side's views are. Name calling is calling someone a name. Calling them a fascist? Whether the term bothers them or not, it's calling them a name. Threatening someone is basically saying "I will do this action that is detrimental to you.", and saying that he's going to use his influence as a professor to make sure the group can't show their face on campus? That's a threat.

You seem to think name calling is only when someone is called something that YOU find offensive. Threatening seems to mean, to you, that the person must be, what, phyisically harmed? So, basically, you have a high threshold - not wrong, but hopefully you can see that there are other viewpoints on this, that are also valid.

It is free speech to say "I am going to use my power to stifle your free speech." It's also completely against the principle of free speech. You are saying that you want to protect the professor's right to free speech, but ignore the woman's. I am saying that the professor has every right to say what he said, but none to actually do it. And he clearly had the intention of carrying through what I've labelled as threats - and doing so violates the group's right to free speech, and abuses the authority the university has lent the professor - thus censor, or firing, should follow.

As for point #1 - believe what you like - I'm sure you don't agree with the group's views, and so you are more likely to see sinister motives. And maybe there WERE sinister motives. But we don't know, and I try to deal in things that I can be reasonably assured to as being facts. I expect the same from those I'm having discussions with, where I am attempting to understand what is true.

quote:
I think you're parsing too much. A professor vehemently vowing to shame a student to the point where said student would be embarrassed to appear on campus is attacking that student's free speech rights, using the intimidation factor inherent on the position of professor. He doesn't have to threaten a lynching in order to cross the line.
And this sums up my concern, in total.

[ November 23, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Threatening someone is basically saying "I will do this action that is detrimental to you.", and saying that he's going to use his influence as a professor to make sure the group can't show their face on campus? That's a threat.
I believe what he implied is that he would confront them with "the truth" (which, admittedly, is his version of "truth"), rather than using any special use of his position as a professor. After all, his first paragraph is filled with "facts" (questionable ones, from what I've seen) that dispute what the student apparently said.

If shaming someone by speaking the truth is considered a threat, then what good is the First Amendment?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rebecca Beach's response should have been; 'Expose away, I have nothing to hide and our cause is just. I doubt you'll get anyone else on campus to share your view and I'll continue to show my face knowing that there's nothing you can do without getting yourself sacked'.

That you haven't at any point gone for a similar response suggests that your faith in the reality of free speech in America today is low.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin,

quote:

Look, I don't actually care what either side's views are. Name calling is calling someone a name. Calling them a fascist? Whether the term bothers them or not, it's calling them a name.

Name calling? You can't seriously think thats a fireable offense. Thats ridiculous. Name calling is rude yes, but hardly a scandal and its quite common in politics. This does nothing to strengthen the argument that he should be fired.

quote:

Threatening someone is basically saying "I will do this action that is detrimental to you.", and saying that he's going to use his influence as a professor to make sure the group can't show their face on campus? That's a threat.

If that were the case, then we all get near daily threats I'd imagine. No, your definition is flawed. See Below:

quote:

threat Audio pronunciation of "threat" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

See the wording for the real defintion? pain, menace, impending danger, injury, etc. Saying your going to speak out against someones political views and boycott their rallys is in NO WAY a threat. Its just a statement. Saying he'll shame them till they don't dare show up on campus probably is a threat, though a weak one, and almost certainly an idle one that shouldn't overly distress her.

quote:

It is free speech to say "I am going to use my power to stifle your free speech." It's also completely against the principle of free speech.

your interpreting and putting words into his mouth again and theres no way he could even do this. To stifle her free speech the professor would have to have power to shut her rally down and tear up her posters. Speaking out against her views does not stop her from speaking her views does it?

If your going to advocate firing him show us on what grounds. Name calling and being rude are not valid.

EDIT to clarify: I do agree he should be reprimanded and that his view is scary, I just don't think you can fire him for expressing it.

[ November 23, 2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Joe Schmoe ]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Threatening someone is basically saying "I will do this action that is detrimental to you.", and saying that he's going to use his influence as a professor to make sure the group can't show their face on campus? That's a threat.
I believe what he implied is that he would confront them with "the truth" (which, admittedly, is his version of "truth"), rather than using any special use of his position as a professor. After all, his first paragraph is filled with "facts" (questionable ones, from what I've seen) that dispute what the student apparently said.

If shaming someone by speaking the truth is considered a threat, then what good is the First Amendment?

That's not how I'd read this from a professor:

quote:
I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cytania:
Rebecca Beach's response should have been; 'Expose away, I have nothing to hide and our cause is just. I doubt you'll get anyone else on campus to share your view and I'll continue to show my face knowing that there's nothing you can do without getting yourself sacked'.

That you haven't at any point gone for a similar response suggests that your faith in the reality of free speech in America today is low.

That should be her response. And the college's response to their professor threatening and doing these things should be: "We don't want our college associated with that, and you represent us. Therefore, we are censoring you and/or we are firing you."

Easy enough.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If your going to advocate firing him show us on what grounds. Name calling and being rude are not valid.

EDIT to clarify: I do agree he should be reprimanded and that his view is scary, I just don't think you can fire him for expressing it.

Perhaps. This is why I say censoring and/or firing. If the professor is misusing his position (which is my contention - I don't care about name calling or threats - I care about actions), then the university needs to distance themselves from his attempts to stifle this group's free speech rights. I don't like the group's politics, and I don't like his, but that's irrelevant. I don't know if the professor should be fired or censored - it depends on what HE does. If he doesn't plan to change his behavior, he should be fired. If he does, then censoring him is enough.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, you keep saying censor. Censoring him would be the very definition of first amendment violation. What I think you mean is censure, is that correct? If so, I agree he should be censured for that bit about the soldiers turning their guns and shaming her till she can't show her face. But again, not fireable IMHO.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
your interpreting and putting words into his mouth again and theres no way he could even do this. To stifle her free speech the professor would have to have power to shut her rally down and tear up her posters. Speaking out against her views does not stop her from speaking her views does it?
That's not all he's doing. He's actively attempting to get her group effectively banned from campus:

quote:
I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Schmoe:
Jav, you keep saying censor. Censoring him would be the very definition of first amendment violation. What I think you mean is censure, is that correct? If so, I agree he should be censured for that bit about the soldiers turning their guns and shaming her till she can't show her face. But again, not fireable IMHO.

Yep. Sorry for the mispelling. They clearly can't censor something that's already out there, nor should they try.

[ November 23, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am disinclined to believe anything I read from this source. Can you confirm it with a golden standard source: a Pulitzer Prize winning paper, a four year university of some repute or a government organization?
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1