NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/od_nm/life_university_dc;_ylt=AhCCGZ_K2PLJRnD.V.h3O0us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/od_nm/life_university_dc;_ylt=AhCCGZ_K2PLJRnD.V.h3O0us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.
Explain to me why this is a bad thing, please. ( I think I already know the reasons, but humor me. ) :)

Explain to me why this is a bad thing, please. ( I think I already know the reasons, but humor me. ) :)

Why not explain how you are a "centrist" first. You always claim you are one then you make such radical conservative claims like this.

I am sure if a dirty commie lib group was posting a bounty for identify all Christian professors you would be silent. After all they might have the chance of "indoctrinating" people into Christianity.

Why is it these conservative groups seem to think everybody is retarded and listens to whatever is preeched to them?

I'm a little at a loss to understand the issue here? Many, maybe most, of the students that I’ve known over the years record their class lectures for their own study record, is it the fact that the recording is not for their own personal use the problem here?

I would think that 'selling' the teacher's lecture would be illegal (copyright laws), but letting someone else listen to the recordings could hardly be a breach of ethics. Why wouldn't they just take a class themselves instead of soliciting recordings?

The only reason you could argue this as being bad is if they sold the class material or used it for any other purpose other than showing exactly how the teacher feels about stuff. Useful if they're disseminating crackpot theories as truth. As for why the worst profs are left wing, how many truly conservative teacher are there at UCLA compared to left-wing teachers? Doubtful there's many.

I'd sue him for essentially bribing people to break policies, conspiring to break x rule, etc. etc. Idiotic right-wing nutjobs are more radical than the professors they irritatingly denounce...

If the Professors are good teachers doing their jobs, why would they be so alarmed? What's the problem with oversite? I think ALL professors should be held accountable for what they get payed for.

Why not explain how you are a "centrist" first. You always claim you are one then you make such radical conservative claims like this.

I am sure if a dirty commie lib group was posting a bounty for identify all Christian professors you would be silent. After all they might have the chance of "indoctrinating" people into Christianity.

Why is it these conservative groups seem to think everybody is retarded and listens to whatever is preeched to them?
Thank you for your application. Should we have a need for someone with your paticular background and experience, we will contact you.

It was a question, not a "claim." DUH!

If the Professors are good teachers doing their jobs, why would they be so alarmed? What's the problem with oversite? I think ALL professors should be held accountable for what they get payed for.
I agree. That is the primary reason why UCLA does not want this to happen. Sad to think that a healthy dose of reality might dare invade the cloistered halls of academie.

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.
Give me a fucking break. There is nothing at all wrong with this: People pay to receive instruction from their proffessor's, and they have every right to see what kind of information they'll get.

I am sure if a dirty commie lib group was posting a bounty for identify all Christian professors you would be silent.
I doubt he'd be silent. But then, if I were setting cows on fire and throwing them through people's windows, I doubt he'd say nothing is wrong with that.
In other words, the two things have nothing to do with each other. These people aren't identifying leftists, they are identifying people who "teach" leftist based on class notes and lectures.

I agree. That is the primary reason why UCLA does not want this to happen. Sad to think that a healthy dose of reality might dare invade the cloistered halls of academie.

And what was that you said about this not being a claim? :rolleyes:

What is wrong with radical professors? Should an individual be punished for both holding non-mainstream views and teaching?

Surely the public should be more trusting of students who by this age either have no desire to form political views in which case this is a non issue or who will have their own views in which case whatever political views these Professors express to their students will either genuinely be accepted because it corresponds to their own or will be rejected for the reverse reason.

I doubt these 'radicals' use hypnosis to persuade students of their beliefs and I find it concerning that some wish to punish those who hold alternative views....

And what was that you said about this not being a claim? :rolleyes:
You went on a rant about how I'm a conservative. I agreed with the statement that all professors should be held accountable for what they advocate in the classroom. BIG difference!

What is wrong with radical professors? Should an individual be punished for both holding non-mainstream views and teaching?

Surely the public should be more trusting of students who by this age either have no desire to form political views in which case this is a non issue or who will have their own views in which case whatever political views these Professors express to their students will either genuinely be accepted because it corresponds to their own or will be rejected for the reverse reason.

I doubt these 'radicals' use hypnosis to persuade students of their beliefs.
Some of the most intellectually challenged people I have ever met were recent college graduates. They represented every political stripe. Just because someone's daddy can afford to pay for them to go to college does not mean they are necessarily able to suddenly become intellectual giants.

If the Professors are good teachers doing their jobs, why would they be so alarmed? What's the problem with oversite? I think ALL professors should be held accountable for what they get payed for.

If you are not a criminal, why should you object to the police searching your home? What's the problem with oversight?

If you are not a criminal, why should you object to the police searching your home? What's the problem with oversight?
Specious analogy.

Explain to me why this is a bad thing, please. ( I think I already know the reasons, but humor me. ) :)

And here I thought you were at least as bright as James Rogan.

Or at least as "centrist."

If you are not a criminal, why should you object to the police searching your home? What's the problem with oversight?
It's a public university funded in part by the state and the feds, who in turn are funded by anyone who pays taxes. Why doesn't the public have a right to know what is being taught in a public school? Note, I wouldn't really care whether the teach was conservative or liberal.

As one who is employed within those "cloistered halls of academe" (as our faux-centrist threader puts it), I'll tell you why I don't like it. First off, it reeks of red-scare tactics. There's no doubt that this asshat is targeting people he perceives to be liberal--his list of the so-called "dirty thirty" has nothing but people he says are liberal on it, despite his claims that he wants to expose ideologues of all political color.

Secondly, there's context to deal with. Does anyone here seriously believe that this guy wouldn't hesitate to take a quote out of context to make a point and then refuse to release the rest of the surrounding transcript? Give me a fucking break. Plus, there are times where discussions of what are considered liberal political beliefs are absolutely necessary (like in a polysci class, for instance), but I'd put hard money on it that this asshat wouldn't make that part of any accusation known.

Specious analogy.

Um. No, it is not.

The "if you've got nothing to fear" logic is the same.

There maybe other reasons why the two situations are different, but MIB didn't refer to one.

It's a public university funded in part by the state and the feds, who in turn are funded by anyone who pays taxes. Why doesn't the public have a right to know what is being taught in a public school? Note, I wouldn't really care whether the teach was conservative or liberal.

Try to follow the line of logic from MIB to which I was responding.

Moreoever, if you can't see anything wrong with paying students to spy on their professors for "leftist" views, then I pity you.

And here I thought you were at least as bright as James Rogan.

Or at least as "centrist."
Oh, good riposte! Touche, touche! :rolleyes:

Why not explain how you are a "centrist" first. You always claim you are one then you make such radical conservative claims like this.

I am sure if a dirty commie lib group was posting a bounty for identify all Christian professors you would be silent. After all they might have the chance of "indoctrinating" people into Christianity.

Why is it these conservative groups seem to think everybody is retarded and listens to whatever is preeched to them?
Becarse its true.

If the Professors are good teachers doing their jobs, why would they be so alarmed? What's the problem with oversite? I think ALL professors should be held accountable for what they get payed for.
And you're in what field? Would you accept that someone, say me, asked your customers to report on your behavor on the job (Not your performance on the job, not your abilities or knowledge of the job, but anything you said), if they were disatisfied, and then used that information to rate and attack you?

Unless you're a teacher, I probably don't know the details of your field, but that's ok, right? I'm not invloved with your company, but that's ok, right? You have nothing to fear from MY oversite, right?

Oversite is a wonderful thing, but oversite should be handled by those who know what the hell they are talking about. Also, I have noted that all the cries of bias in the classroom tend to be about as real as the same cries of bias in Moderation.

Hmm, and usually it's the same sort of people doing it. I wonder if there's a connection somewhere.

Um. No, it is not.

The "if you've got nothing to fear" logic is the same.

There maybe other reasons why the two situations are different, but MIB didn't refer to one.
Heh! How about this: the right to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure" is written into the Constitution. The right to use your publicly paid position to advocate a particular political philosopy is not.

If the Professors are good teachers doing their jobs, why would they be so alarmed? What's the problem with oversite? I think ALL professors should be held accountable for what they get payed for.
1) This is aimed solely at left wing professors
2) Political monitoring of this sought has never ended well
3) Recording a lecture is grounds for expulsion at most universities -including my own- as it violates copyright
4) There has always been a certain level of respect for our university Professors, but this behaviour threatens to undermine that

Um. No, it is not.
Yes, yes it is. Unless I'm the only person who doesn't have a 100 some-odd people searching through my house everyday so they can learn how to properly keep things organized.

Jones told Reuters he is out to "restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus" and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal.
Jones' site describes his campaign as "dedicated to exposing UCLA's most radical professors" and his list of the university's "worst of the worst" singles out only professors he says hold left-wing views.
Well, we can see why certain people here are in line with this-the claim vs. action match up practicly mirrors thier actions here.

A friend of mine is fond of saying, "People can't wait to be nazis," and really this, with its support it's getting here, plays right into it. "Whats wrong with it" is that it is a witch hunt. Students are being asked to turn in thier teachers for their political views, very Maoist China for all you Communist-hating Conservatives.

It's good to see that the Conservative lawyer who supported the group has more sense then you all. There is hope.

1) This is aimed solely at left wing professors
2) Political monitoring of this sought has never ended well
3) Recording a lecture is grounds for expulsion at most universities -including my own- as it violates copyright
4) There has always been a certain level of respect for our university Professors, but this behaviour threatens to undermine that
1. This is unacceptable. I think the issue in this thread is whether oversight is acceptable at all ... ever.

2. Examples?

3. That's something new then. I recorded quite a few of the lectures when i was attending graduate school and no one ever said a word.

4. Really? I had respect for professors who actually taught their subjects well, but not those who sought acolytes. And how, exactly, does this sort of thing "undermine" whatever level of respect professors in general have?

3) Recording a lecture is grounds for expulsion at most universities -including my own- as it violates copyright

Thats true actually. Only the visually impaired are allowed to record lectures in my university.

And anyway, how fucking LAZY are these college students these days?!!? Ever heard of pen and paper!?

As for the article, I pity the lecturer that has to teach Marxism... he'll be shitting bricks in that university.... :p

It's a public university funded in part by the state and the feds, who in turn are funded by anyone who pays taxes. Why doesn't the public have a right to know what is being taught in a public school? Note, I wouldn't really care whether the teach was conservative or liberal.
The public can find out the course content at will. Every college I've ever run into publishes its course catalog listing and detailing all courses. Many professors do publish class syllabus, or will release it online. This isn't checking courses out, this is asking to record someone for the prupose of fetting his or her poltical throught, for payment.

Would you approve if I asked someone to record you to find out YOUR thoughts? And do so without informing you as to the reason behind this?

And again, this isn't faculty/staff of UCLA doing this, this is someone whose connection to the school is tenuous at best. If you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against (like if you were on this board), there is already procedures in place to go through. However, since most of these claims are nothing but grumbling, the ones who bring them don't want to use the offical channels.

It is sad to see how many have no respect for intellectual property rights.

Or academic freedom.

Anybody else noticed that the Bruin Alumni Association webpage hasn't even been able to find 30 leftist professors for its so-called 'Dirty Thirty' list? I guess they thought that the title 'The Somewhat Left-Of-American-Centre Twenty-Eight' just wasn't catchy enough.

The public can find out the course content at will. Every college I've ever run into publishes its course catalog listing and detailing all courses. Many professors do publish class syllabus, or will release it online. This isn't checking courses out, this is asking to record someone for the prupose of fetting his or her poltical throught, for payment.

Would you approve if I asked someone to record you to find out YOUR thoughts? And do so without informing you as to the reason behind this?

And again, this isn't faculty/staff of UCLA doing this, this is someone whose connection to the school is tenuous at best. If you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against (like if you were on this board), there is already procedures in place to go through. However, since most of these claims are nothing but grumbling, the ones who bring them don't want to use the offical channels.
This is how desperate the people who are running this show are (and I'm talking about the "liberal university" folks like Horowitz). They accuse professors of indoctrinating students, and then they fan out into universities to try to find examples, but every example they come up with is basically a kid who did shitty work and then blamed his grade on the "bias of the teacher."

But this is my favorite part--when faced with the fact that they can't find anyone to actually back them up, even with anecdotal evidence, they argue that the indoctrination is so thorough, so complete that the kids don't even know they're being indoctrinated.

It's very similar to the Group B theorists in the Reagan (and later Bush the Lesser) White House--they argued that since they couldn't see the weapons buildup in the Soviet Union (later Iraq), that the weapons buildup must be hidden and even larger than they had imagined. They never once considered that maybe they were just wrong, that it wasn't there.

If liberal university professors were really indoctrinating students, don't you think that the Democratic party would be doing a lot fucking better than it currently is? Jesus Christ, people--do we have to draw you a diagram?

It is sad to see how many have no respect for intellectual property rights.

Or academic freedom.
Ahhh! There it is! The ultimate non sequitur: academic freedom. A creation of the minds of those whose livelihoods depend upon their being able to say what they damned well please while simultaneously loudly demanding the State increase their pay.

Ahhh! There it is! The ultimate non sequitur: academic freedom. A creation of the minds of those whose livelihoods depend upon their being able to say what they damned well please while simultaneously loudly demanding the State increase their pay.

Ain't living in the free world a bitch?

Ahhh! There it is! The ultimate non sequitur: academic freedom. A creation of the minds of those whose livelihoods depend upon their being able to say what they damned well please while simultaneously loudly demanding the State increase their pay.

And you'd prefer what, exactly? Government approved scripts for every college course?

1. The public can find out the course content at will. Every college I've ever run into publishes its course catalog listing and detailing all courses.

2. Would you approve if I asked someone to record you to find out YOUR thoughts? And do so without informing you as to the reason behind this?

3. If you feel you're being unfairly discriminated against (like if you were on this board), there is already procedures in place to go through.
1. What is actually taught often bears little resemblance to what is published.

2. Specious argument. I'm not a professor, nor a publicly paid employee.

3. From what I have read, those procedures seldom work.

Ain't living in the free world a bitch?
Sometimes, especially when idiots masquerade as intellectuals ... or rational posters on a free forum.

And you'd prefer what, exactly? Government approved scripts for every college course?
Hell no! Who the hell is advocating that??

Ahhh! There it is! The ultimate non sequitur: academic freedom. A creation of the minds of those whose livelihoods depend upon their being able to say what they damned well please while simultaneously loudly demanding the State increase their pay.

Which is why here in Britain, our universities have a broad curriculum within our subjects that examine a wide range of opinions and theories, especially in political studies (I am doing International Relations and Politics at Aberystwyth).

Our Professors who lecture us may try to convince us (or not) of their political opinions; they will either be accepted or they will not be accepted.

In any case, regardless of our lecturers political opinions and personal academic theories, we still have to learn a syllabus which we will be tested on. We leave with an education regardless of our teacher's political persuasions...

Hell no! Who the hell is advocating that??

So, you are neither for academic freedom, nor the absence of academic freedom. What are you for then?

Sometimes, especially when idiots masquerade as intellectuals ... or rational posters on a free forum.

Better then they're out in the open, rather then quietly running govts.;)

Which is why here in Britain, our universities have a broad curriculum within our subjects that examine a wide range of opinions and theories, especially in political studies (I am doing International Relations and Politics at Aberystwyth).

Our Professors who lecture us may try to convince us (or not) of their political opinions; they will either be accepted or they will not be accepted.

In any case, regardless of our lecturers political opinions and personal academic theories, we still have to learn a syllabus which we will be tested on. We leave with an education regardless of our teacher's political persuasions...
Excellent. We should take a page or five from that book of yours. :)

Better then they're out in the open, rather then quietly running govts.;)
Oh, I heartily agree! :)

Sometimes, especially when idiots masquerade as intellectuals ... or rational posters on a free forum.
Oh i see, so people who are experts in their field, having obtained PhD's are idiots masquerading as intellectuals because you disagree with them?

So, you are neither for academic freedom, nor the absence of academic freedom. What are you for then?
Uh ... how about honesty and truth? Or are those not to be factored into the equation?

Oh i see, so people who are experts in their field, having obtained PhD's are idiots masquerading as intellectuals because you disagree with them?
No, you don't "see" at all, apparently. It's only in disciplines which are largely matters of opinion or belief that the majority of the intellectually dishonest lurk. Science is far more rigorous than say, Sociology or Political Science ( an oxymoron if ever there was one! ).

Excellent. We should take a page or five from that book of yours. :)

Wait.... is that NOT how Universities are run in the United States, especially regards the teachings of politics/political science? Say it ain't so! :eek: :eek:

Wait.... is that NOT how Universities are run in the United States, especially regards the teachings of politics/political science? Say it ain't so! :eek: :eek:
Ok. It ain't so! Happy now? :D

1. This is unacceptable. I think the issue in this thread is whether oversight is acceptable at all ... ever.
<snip>
Oversight would be if the university were vetting all of their own professors to ensure adequate conformity with curricula (i.e. faculty review).

Or if academic and/or professional organizations in the professors' fields of expertise were vetting course materials for accuracy (i.e. peer review).

Or if government funding agencies wanted to avoid funding political indoctrination, so they randomly vetted all professors, looking for bias on both sides of the spectrum, right and left.

This is not what's happening. What's happening is that a private group is paying students to dig up what they consider to be dirt about professors, so they can blackball them. "Blackballing" is when you put a black mark on someone's reputation to warn others away from working with them. It is slightly less evil than blacklisting, but, in the working world's employee relations sphere, blackballing is already illegal. So, if any of these professors are fired because of these lists, they might have a lawsuit there.

1. What is actually taught often bears little resemblance to what is published.
Really? How odd. I, like you, have a Master (and MS actually). Except for random assignments popping up out of weird places, in 7 years I have yet to encounter a course that didn't cover what was on the syllabus or match the course catalog description to a reasonable degree. If your university was deviating that much, it must have been fun to go through. Was it accreditied? Because that is part of the oversight of accedidation, that the courses match the catalog.

2. Specious argument. I'm not a professor, nor a publicly paid employee.
No, you're currently retired, but how would you have liked it if I asked your company to record you while you were on active duty? The military REALLY shouldn't have poltical opinions now, hmm? And that IS a publically paid position sir.

Nor is it a specious argument, because the group doing so isn't a publically charged group, this is a private group witchunting.

3. From what I have read, those procedures seldom work.
Can you give me some real examples Eut, or will this be like your nomal rants of bias complaints in Moderation?

If liberal university professors were really indoctrinating students, don't you think that the Democratic party would be doing a lot fucking better than it currently is? Jesus Christ, people--do we have to draw you a diagram?

:D Actually I was going to post something along those lines but got distracted.

"Oversite" is Bullshit plain and simple. It is not needed especially in course work that involves multiple classes. Since each is a stepping stone to other; it would get noticed really fast if students weren't prepared for the next course.

Now as to having the right to know what is taught? As it was said, the coursework is not hidden. Now people do have the right to know when their children (ie primary school) are being taught for the simple reason that they lack the breath of experience to be able to tell if the teacher is full of it.

At the College and University levels, you are supposed to be adults and making your own viewpoints.

Why the concern there a dirty commie liberals. Hell I had one econ prof who was a marxist. He still taught economics. He injected his "garbage" and yet nobody converted to marxism.

Hmmm maybe we should challenge these con groups to prove that people are being indoctrinated?

Of the two I tend to prefer the dirty commie lib professors. Most of the time they don't mind being challenged. The Conservative teachers didn't seem to like that too much. There were some but the majority did not.

Wait.... is that NOT how Universities are run in the United States, especially regards the teachings of politics/political science? Say it ain't so! :eek: :eek:

Hence why I mentioned it. I felt pity for the American student if their education system wasn't ruled by a necessity for a balanced view in most subjects...

Ok. It ain't so! Happy now? :D

Very :D

No, you don't "see" at all, apparently. It's only in disciplines which are largely matters of opinion or belief that the majority of the intellectually dishonest lurk. Science is far more rigorous than say, Sociology or Political Science ( an oxymoron if ever there was one! ).
..You can still be an expert in those fields, having studied them your whole life, yet you brand them as being idiots because they disagree with you.

Uh ... how about honesty and truth? Or are those not to be factored into the equation?
Honesty and truth as determined by...you, perhaps? No thanks--I've seen your version of truth.

Again, I will ask all the people who actually think this indoctrination is happening--if liberal professors are really indoctrinating all these college students, then why the fuck aren't the Democrats doing better at the polls?

Uh ... how about honesty and truth? Or are those not to be factored into the equation?

And how would we define that? I have seen your versions and say no thank you.

1. Oversight would be if the university were vetting all of their own professors to ensure adequate conformity with curricula (i.e. faculty review).

2. Or if academic and/or professional organizations in the professors' fields of expertise were vetting course materials for accuracy (i.e. peer review).

3. Or if government funding agencies wanted to avoid funding political indoctrination, so they randomly vetted all professors, looking for bias on both sides of the spectrum, right and left.

4. What's happening is that a private group is paying students to dig up what they consider to be dirt about professors, so they can blackball them.
1. The trustys [ a prison term, not "trustees" ] rating the inmates? Hmmm.

2. The inmates rating the inmates?

3. That bothers me deeply. Govt = politics and politics = free-for-alls.

4. That's something I have a problem with in this particular instance. What I'm trying to discuss is the general issue of oversight.

What about a non-partisan, independent oversight group? Would that work?

..You can still be an expert in those fields, having studied them your whole life, yet you brand them as being idiots because they disagree with you.
That's how he rolls, baby. You've been here long enough to have noticed it. The world according to him is there are people who agree with him and idiots. We'd all be better off to him if we'd all convert to Eutruscianism, where sitting in the center means lobbing bombs and unsupportable claims and accusations on the left.

If this group paid kids to record lecutres simply based on the worst teachers, or even the teachers with the most extreme views, I would conseder that ok, even if it's illegal. But to be so obtuse and one0sided as to insult professors by calling them the worst solely because they aren't ridiculously conservative is pathetic. I don't care what side they're on, if they're singling highly educated professors out just because they have a political stance, then they should suffer every reprecussion possible

Honesty and truth as determined by...you, perhaps? No thanks--I've seen your version of truth.

Again, I will ask all the people who actually think this indoctrination is happening--if liberal professors are really indoctrinating all these college students, then why the fuck aren't the Democrats doing better at the polls?
Uh ... basic math? Liberal college students < all college students. College students < all voters. Ergo, liberal college students much less than all voters.

If this group paid kids to record lecutres simply based on the worst teachers, or even the teachers with the most extreme views, I would conseder that ok, even if it's illegal. But to be so obtuse and one0sided as to insult professors by calling them the worst solely because they aren't ridiculously conservative is pathetic. I don't care what side they're on, if they're singling highly educated professors out just because they have a political stance, then they should suffer every reprecussion possible
I agree. But the question is: should there be any oversight at all of academia, and if so, how should it be done and who should do it, yes?

Uh ... basic math? Liberal college students < all college students. College students < all voters. Ergo, liberal college students much less than all voters.
You don't even know what the word indoctrination means, do you?

What about a non-partisan, independent oversight group? Would that work?
I'm getting a vision of something... yes... I see it now... I'm seeing how every state's higher education system is controled by a group of people either elected by the people, appointed by the govenor, or a mixture of both (but in the end, accountable to the general public). I'm see that these folks are called (usually) THE BOARD OF REGENTS. And I see that they have some controls over the curricula of the schools they oversee.

Wow, problem solved. That was easy.

1. Really? How odd. I, like you, have a Master (and MS actually). Except for random assignments popping up out of weird places, in 7 years I have yet to encounter a course that didn't cover what was on the syllabus or match the course catalog description to a reasonable degree. If your university was deviating that much, it must have been fun to go through. Was it accreditied?

2. No, you're currently retired, but how would you have liked it if I asked your company to record you while you were on active duty? The military REALLY shouldn't have poltical opinions now, hmm? And that IS a publically paid position sir.

3. Can you give me some real examples Eut, or will this be like your nomal rants of bias complaints in Moderation?
1. Nice innuendo there. Your degree was in science, mine wasn't. As I stated earlier, science is much more rigorous than the humanities. I could cite you numerous instances where a professor went off on a rant at the mere mention of certain topics within the course content.

2. I never indicated that professors "shouldn't have political opinions." Every citizen of the United States has a perfect right to his or her political opinion. Where the problem comes in is when they use their publically paid position as a pulpit, as if I had ever used my position as a company commander to propagandize the men in my company toward some particular political position.

3. Sadly, no. I don't make a habit of saving things like that on my email client just in case something comes up on NS General.

This idea of 'oversight' is ridiculous and rightly pegged as McArthism.

As has been pointed out, class content, syllibi are all pretty much public record.

What is scary about this, where the abuse comes from and what is being avoided by its 'champion' here is how 'bias' and 'indoctronation' is determined. Or, even for that matter, what is considered 'right' or 'left.' It's champion here considers himself to be 'centrist,' while everyone else, having read his postings, disagrees. This is a perfect petree dish to examine the uniforcability of this so-called 'oversight.'

It has a slippery guideline, and bipartisan or not it is widely open to interpretation and therefore abuse, thus shackling teachers who must now censur what they say in an effort to avoid crossing a line that has no clear definition.

Curriculum is set forth, and if a teacher is grading on a 100 points to say that conservatives are t eh evil and fail if you say liberals are t eh evil there is already a way to sort that out. To ambiguiously infringe on the speech that a professor makes during the course of thier class in the name of 'oversight' is to go the Maoist route of rutting out teachers based on thier political beliefs and is well past the first step to a totalitarian state.

'Left' and 'Right' cannot clearly be defined, 'indoctronation' cannot clearly be defined, 'bias' cannot clearly be defined, 'oversight' cannot happen if it can't be agreed on what is being monitered and will lean towards abuse quicker than can be caught.

I'm getting a vision of something... yes... I see it now... I'm seeing how every state's higher education system is controled by a group of people either elected by the people, appointed by the govenor, or a mixture of both (but in the end, accountable to the general public). I'm see that these folks are called (usually) THE BOARD OF REGENTS. And I see that they have some controls over the curricula of the schools they oversee.

Wow, problem solved. That was easy.
And people think I'M sarcastic! :rolleyes:

I'm aware of the boards of regents for some publically funded universities, but their ability to "oversee" is very limited.

Why be sarcastic with me? Does the fact that I have my own opinions about things somehow offend you? Or perhaps it's that mine are different from yours?

1. Nice innuendo there. Your degree was in science, mine wasn't. As I stated earlier, science is much more rigorous than the humanities. I could cite you numerous instances where a professor went off on a rant at the mere mention of certain topics within the course content.
*sighs* Master of Science in Counseling and Educational Psychology with emphasis in Information Technologies in Education, don't ask me why an IT in Ed degree was in the CEP department, but it did mean I had to have a healthy mix of both hard IT and soft humanities. And I've never seen a course deviate from its syllabus. I've heard rants from both ends of the spectrum, but never have they taken over any course, been testable, or effected any of my grades. And as pointed out, as adults, we should be past the point where if someone mentions something, we follow them.

If college students were REALLY that impressionable, I feel very sorry for the ones on NS General, they'd be confused every time they logged in and looked at a thread.

2. I never indicated that professors "shouldn't have political opinions." Every citizen of the United States has a perfect right to his or her political opinion. Where the problem comes in is when they use their publically paid position as a pulpit, as if I had ever used my position as a company commander to propagandize the men in my company toward some particular political position.
I've never had a class that was an hour long sermon on a particular position, and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of classes are not either. So what this comes down to is potshots or short deviations from the lecture. Are you telling me that not once in all your time did you never make any sort of aside remark about ANYTHING?

3. Sadly, no. I don't make a habit of saving things like that on my email client just in case something comes up on NS General.
Well, now you have some research to do. Because I have yet to read anything that was a legtimate complaint about bias on the scale that these folks are claiming. Professors who HAVE been biased against students for various reasons have been punished though, I have indeed read about that.

1. What is scary about this, where the abuse comes from and what is being avoided by its 'champion' here is how 'bias' and 'indoctronation' is determined. Or, even for that matter, what is considered 'right' or 'left.' It's champion here considers himself to be 'centrist,' while everyone else, having read his postings, disagrees. This is a perfect petree dish to examine the uniforcability of this so-called 'oversight.'

2. It has a slippery guideline, and bipartisan or not it is widely open to interpretation and therefore abuse, thus shackling teachers who must now censur what they say in an effort to avoid crossing a line that has no clear definition.

3. To ambiguiously infringe on the speech that a professor makes during the course of thier class in the name of 'oversight' is to go the Maoist route of rutting out teachers based on thier political beliefs and is well past the first step to a totalitarian state.

4. 'Left' and 'Right' cannot clearly be defined, 'indoctronation' cannot clearly be defined, 'bias' cannot clearly be defined, 'oversight' cannot happen if it can't be agreed on what is being monitered and will lean towards abuse quicker than can be caught.
Here we go again. Sigh.

1. I am not the "champion" of anything dealing with this entire issue. I merely asked a question. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry, but don't expect me to stop asking questions. There are clearly abuses of this supposed "right" to academic freedom. I was wondering what could be done about it.

And while we're on the subject, I don't really give a damn what "everyone" thinks as long as I'm satisfied that my own position is valid. But just to set your mind at rest, why don't you prove that I'm not a centrist, since this seems to make you lose sleep at night and talk to walls in your spare time?

2. So far as I can tell, it currently has NO guideline, which I see as a major part of the problem.

3. First you say it's "McCarthyism" ( which is the second most insulting thing a liberal can accuse someone of, right behind Nazism ), then you say it's "a Maoist route." Care to settle somewhere? And how in God's name is attempting to impose a bit of intellecual honesty on politically motivated professors "well past the first step to a totalitarian state?" Surely even you can understand that, for example, as a parent I wouldn't appreciate my college age children being indoctrinated by a less than academically rigorous professor.

4. This may very well be true, in which case we'll revert to our "default" for this society and see each other in court.

1. The trustys [ a prison term, not "trustees" ] rating the inmates? Hmmm.

2. The inmates rating the inmates?

3. That bothers me deeply. Govt = politics and politics = free-for-alls.

4. That's something I have a problem with in this particular instance. What I'm trying to discuss is the general issue of oversight.

What about a non-partisan, independent oversight group? Would that work?
Re 1 and 2: You're comparing academics and review boards to prisons and prisoners? Does this mean that you think academics are akin to criminals? Then why should we have schools at all, if the teachers are so untrustworthy?

There is nothing wrong with faculty review and peer review in academics. In fact, many professors might not be professors if not for such reviews.

Re 3: I don't like government review, either. I just mentioned that as an example of what would constitute oversight, rather than "witchhunt."

Re 4: You want oversight, but you don't want peer or faculty reviews? Professional peers and fellow faculty are surely qualified to judge a professor's work. Why would you want a panel of people unfamiliar with that work to judge it?

And anyway, a general discussion of oversight per se would change the topic of the thread. My point was that the topic we're talking about is not oversight but "witchhunt." Why don't you address that?

(PS: I'm going to break for the night, but I'll check in again tomorrow. Ciao till then.)

Could someone, before we have a ho-down, please define what makes someone 'left wing'? I've been labelled left wing before, and as many you know, I'm far from being left wing as I could possibly be!

How about a person who is against gay marriage but advocates public health care? are they a left winger? how about a an individual who is against abortion but supports gay marriage? are they a left winger?

It would be *NICE* to know *WHO* defines a left winger, beceause as the old story goes; an extremist to one person, is a moderate to another - the fact that this individual has not put up a matrix which outlines the criteria as to what makes someone left wing, makes me suspicious that this is yet another right wing wacko with an axe to grind and too much time on his hands.

3. First you say it's "McCarthyism" ( which is the second most insulting thing a liberal can accuse someone of, right behind Nazism ), then you say it's "a Maoist route." Care to settle somewhere? And how in God's name is attempting to impose a bit of intellecual honesty on politically motivated professors "well past the first step to a totalitarian state?" Surely even you can understand that, for example, as a parent I wouldn't appreciate my college age children being indoctrinated by a less than academically rigorous professor.

In this case--and you would know this if you knew anything about history--McCarthyism and Maoism are essentially the same. For all McCarthy's bloviating about the dangers of communism, he was all about the need to control what kids were taught and to ensure that teachers were toeing the government line. Call it nationalism, call it patriotism, call it Maoism or Mccarthyism, call it whatever the fuck you want--government control of what teachers teach--especially in political thought--is one of the first steps toward a totalitarian regime.

And people think I'M sarcastic! :rolleyes:
*heh* As I have been told, when I get annoyed I get bitingly sarcastic. And this is one of the few things that really pushes my buttons.

I'm aware of the boards of regents for some publically funded universities, but their ability to "oversee" is very limited.
Really? The Board of Regents usually controls such matters as allocations of funds, approval of tenure, hiring and fireing of top university positions (Presidents, Provosts, VPs, and in my state, Deans), which in turn controls the ones down the line. They control the approval of creating new colleges/departments within universities, and while they do not directly approve new courses, they are the ones who can censure said courses if they have issues with them.

Why be sarcastic with me? Does the fact that I have my own opinions about things somehow offend you? Or perhaps it's that mine are different from yours?
No, it's that there are layers upon layers of oversite on what is taught in classes at the university level. There is a lot of room for someone who isn't happy or believes that they have been discriminated aginst to get justice within the system, but instead I see many people complaining that a college professor didn't say what they wanted to hear and because they didn't get the grade they wanted, this is obviously bias. I see the freedom of thought, that has been the hallmark of the US higher education system, the reason why it has produced so much and is the best in the world, under attack because someone got their feelers hurt because some professor said "Bush is bad, I don't like him".

And I see these people running to state legislatures and the Congress in the hopes to get these 'Liberal Ivory Towers' broken instead of attempting to add into the ever raging debate that goes on across college campuses everyday. I've had liberal professors, I've had conservative professors, I've had ones I argued with every day I sat in their class, and ones I agreed wholeheartedly with, but never have I ever had a situation or heard ANYONE state that because of Dr. So and So believing thus and thus did they get a bad grade.

I have heard of, and been in, classes, where my fundamental beliefs were challenged, but that my friend is part of getting an education.

But if that offends, why go to college in the first place?

So no, I'm not annoyed with you, Eut, or your position, I am annoyed with the absolute silliness and idiocy of this issue.

Uh ... how about honesty and truth? Or are those not to be factored into the equation?

So you consider academic freedom to be incompatible with honesty and truth?

So you consider academic freedom to be incompatible with honesty and truth?

:)

And how in God's name is attempting to impose a bit of intellecual honesty on politically motivated professors



Ok. Why not define what "intellectual honesty" means in your opinion?

Also, do you have any numbers on the amount of college students that have be indoctrinated?

So you consider academic freedom to be incompatible with honesty and truth?
Gahh! WTF, over? How the hell did you get that out of what I said??? Jeeze!

Gahh! WTF, over? How the hell did you get that out of what I said??? Jeeze!

So, explain to me what problem you do actually have with academic freedom, then, because I can't seem to work it out for myself.

The idiot responsible for this idea shares a similar mindset like the jackasses in Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups who publish a list of physician names, phone numbers and addresses in hopes that some unhinged nutcase takes matters into their own hands from them.

But hey, nothing to worry about since only the Dirty Commie Liberal Professors who don't preach the Gospel of George W. Bush are going to get outed right Forrest?

:rolleyes:

This has turned into simply another attempt at intellectual gang-rape. It's a pity more of you self-styled advocates of "academic freedom" don't believe in free speech for anyone with whom you decide you disagree. I admire your tolerance for high levels of cognitive dissonance.

Working together, they have made UCLA a major organizing center for opposition to the War on Terror. (http://www.bruinalumni.com/aboutus.html)

This has turned into simply another attempt at intellectual gang-rape. It's a pity more of you self-styled advocates of "academic freedom" don't believe in free speech for anyone with whom you decide you disagree.
So explain, EXACTLY, how that theory jibes with this post, in high proximity of your post? V

explain to me what problem you do actually have with academic freedom, then, because I can't seem to work it out for myself.
--

I admire your tolerance for high levels of cognitive dissonance.Ya sound kinda wounded there. Isn't this like that "liberal whining" we keep hearing about? :rolleyes:

Working together, they have made UCLA a major organizing center for opposition to the War on Terror. (http://www.bruinalumni.com/aboutus.html)
Zounds.
That means, "God's wounds"
.

Here we go again. Sigh.
Sigh yourself, big guy.

1. I am not the "champion" of anything dealing with this entire issue. I merely asked a question. If that bothers you, then I'm sorry, but don't expect me to stop asking questions. There are clearly abuses of this supposed "right" to academic freedom. I was wondering what could be done about it.
Advocate, champion, what have you. You are advocating action, it is the action that I was questioning. Sorry, goes both ways-I will interogate your interogations. It's the way it works.

And while we're on the subject, I don't really give a damn what "everyone" thinks as long as I'm satisfied that my own position is valid. But just to set your mind at rest, why don't you prove that I'm not a centrist, since this seems to make you lose sleep at night and talk to walls in your spare time?
Such a self-important presumption you make on how my time is spent. I wonder if you think your feet touch the ground when you walk. Despite your inflated sense of value and importance in my life, this was brought up to illustrate that idea that positions of bias and leaning are not so clearly defined. I made the mistake of infering about you and thus it was 'all about the persecution of Eutrusca' while you conviniently sidestep the actual point.

2. So far as I can tell, it currently has NO guideline, which I see as a major part of the problem.
There is no guideline because there can be no clear guideline. If there can be no clear guideline than history has shown us wiht McCarthyism and Maoism, both of which have used this technique despite being on opposite sides of the fence, and you know it, has lead to abuse.

3. First you say it's "McCarthyism" ( which is the second most insulting thing a liberal can accuse someone of, right behind Nazism ), then you say it's "a Maoist route." Care to settle somewhere? And how in God's name is attempting to impose a bit of intellecual honesty on politically motivated professors "well past the first step to a totalitarian state?" Surely even you can understand that, for example, as a parent I wouldn't appreciate my college age children being indoctrinated by a less than academically rigorous professor.
So much for intellectual honesty, eh? You know full well that both of those used the technique of routing out professors based on their political beliefs, but instead you pretend to not notice and decide I've called it two opposed things. You have not imposed any intellectual honesty on yourself, certainly damages your case.

Again, as a parent I would be worried about bodies imposing vague and ill-defined standards about 'indoctrination' of my children on professors, shackling thier ability to actually educate my children. And as a friend to professors I would be concerned about a them being worried about crossing an ill-defined line or being fired by an easily abused 'oversight.' Who will over see the oversight commitee? And how far will that go? At what point will we have lost sight of the goal of educating?

4. This may very well be true, in which case we'll revert to our "default" for this society and see each other in court.
Even our 'default' isn't clearly defined, so it will all end in court, bloating the court system and depleating the already strained resources of schools battling over peoples political axes to grind. Who will be taught what then?

This has turned into simply another attempt at intellectual gang-rape. It's a pity more of you self-styled advocates of "academic freedom" don't believe in free speech for anyone with whom you decide you disagree. I admire your tolerance for high levels of cognitive dissonance.
Oh for the love of jeff...Dude, wanna come down off that thing? We need the wood...

Who is trying to 'silence' you? Give me a break...

Once more, with feeling-freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Disagreeing with someone and saying so is actually excersizing free speech, not inhibiting it. As has been argued, the ability to disagree loudly and often is what free speech is for. So please, enough with the "Why'z everyone pickin' on me, why don't they just roll over and accept what I say" routine. It's sad.

So explain, EXACTLY, how that theory jibes with this post, in high proximity of your post? V
--
Ya sound kinda wounded there. Isn't this like that "liberal whining" we keep hearing about? :rolleyes:
No. It's just that being gang-banged isn't my thing, especially since in my original post all I did was ask a question.

You can rest assured that the moment sweet folks like CannotThinkofaName, and Gauthier, and The Nazz all show up, things will quickly devolve into a flamefest. I refuse to be a party to such idiocy.

To respond to your question, though, I have no problem with academc freedom whatsoever. It's necessary for the pursuit of knowledge and truth. What I have a problem with is anyone ( whether professor or not ) using a position of public trust to propagandize and/or attempt to indoctrinate those to whom they have a responsibility.

Gauthier, bless his black little heart, insists that I'm a "Bushite," whatever that is, and will defend Bush's attempts to propagandize from the office of the President. This despite my having indicated numerous times that I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, and would do so again.

Cannotthinkofaname seems to be fixated on refuting my claim to being a centrist, probably because I don't toe the liberal line any moreso than I toe the conservative line, but does so by repetition rather than by any objective measure of what a centrist is and how I might not fit that measure.

This happens on a regular basis, which makes me wonder if they're not simply trying to get me to flame them so their favorite mods can then deleate my nation. But of course, they will then claim that I am being paranoid. Nice intellectual sophistry that. :)

...
Such a self-important presumption you make on how my time is spent. I wonder if you think your feet touch the ground when you walk. Despite your inflated sense of value and importance in my life ....

You have not imposed any intellectual honesty on yourself, certainly damages your case.

Oh for the love of jeff...Dude, wanna come down off that thing? We need the wood...

... enough with the "Why'z everyone pickin' on me, why don't they just roll over and accept what I say" routine. It's sad.
See what I mean?

No. It's just that being gang-banged isn't my thing, especially since in my original post all I did was ask a question.

You can rest assured that the moment sweet folks like CannotThinkofaName, and Gauthier, and The Nazz all show up, things will quickly devolve into a flamefest. I refuse to be a party to such idiocy.

To respond to your question, though, I have no problem with academc freedom whatsoever. It's necessary for the pursuit of knowledge and truth. What I have a problem with is anyone ( whether professor or not ) using a position of public trust to propagandize and/or attempt to indoctrinate those to whom they have a responsibility.

Gauthier, bless his black little heart, insists that I'm a "Bushite," whatever that is, and will defend Bush's attempts to propagandize from the office of the President. This despite my having indicated numerous times that I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, and would do so again.

Cannotthinkofaname seems to be fixated on refuting my claim to being a centrist, probably because I don't toe the liberal line any moreso than I toe the conservative line, but does so by repetition rather than by any objective measure of what a centrist is and how I might not fit that measure.

This happens on a regular basis, which makes me wonder if they're not simply trying to get me to flame them so their favorite mods can then deleate my nation. But of course, they will then claim that I am being paranoid. Nice intellectual sophistry that. :)
Site the flames, report them. I invite it.

Further, I brought up the centrist issue to illustrate a point that you sidesteped, presumably to demonstrate your intellectual honesty.

All of this seems like a feeble cry from the person who has called people who disagree with him as 'intellectually challenged.' I address arguements, if the arguements seem dishonest or poor, I address them. That you are on the recieving end of that has nothing to do with your self-important sense of persecution. You are a blip on the internet who does not cross my mind unless I'm reading your posts. Get over yourself, address the arguements.

This despite my having indicated numerous times that I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, and would do so again.

perhaps this is the problem...

See what I mean?
You mean as a response to this:
But just to set your mind at rest, why don't you prove that I'm not a centrist, since this seems to make you lose sleep at night and talk to walls in your spare time?
and
First you say it's "McCarthyism" ( which is the second most insulting thing a liberal can accuse someone of, right behind Nazism ), then you say it's "a Maoist route." Care to settle somewhere?
knowing full well both advocated the action under discussion.

No. *snips* But of course, they will then claim that I am being paranoid.
Wow, sounds like you need to think up a better online persona then. Seeing as how you yourself seem to feel you aren't getting anywhere and all.

Just as an aside, shouldn't it be 'Etrusca' anyways? The extra 'u' has always bugged the shit out of me.

perhaps this is the problem...
What? Telling the truth?

Wow, sounds like you need to think up a better online persona then. Seeing as how you yourself seem to feel you aren't getting anywhere and all.

Just as an aside, shouldn't it be 'Etrusca' anyways? The extra 'u' has always bugged the shit out of me.
Sorry about that, but it can't be changed now without allowing the nation to pass into oblivion.

I don't have an "online persona." Who I am is who I am. Apparently some have a problem with that, which is just that ... their problem, not mine. :)

No. It's just that being gang-banged isn't my thing, especially since in my original post all I did was ask a question.
It invariably leads deeper and deeper the more you stick with it, wouldn't you say?

I refuse to be a party to such idiocy.
Uhm, in all seriousness, then ... why do you even bother here?
If you've got a good point, then stick with it. No one will puncture it. If you don't, but you still have the wherewithal to stick to your attitude, then as can be the case IRL, it'll work itself out as it needs to. The difference here is the fisticuffs are of the Mods and not the brawn.



Gauthier, bless his black little heart, insists that I'm a "Bushite," whatever that is, and will defend Bush's attempts to propagandize from the office of the President. This despite my having indicated numerous times that I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, and would do so again.
I've noted the times you've disagreed with Bush (that i've seen). I don't presume to speak so much of what other posters' intent is, but i would say that some philosophical styles of support for the "president" are much less an effort of integrity than they are a contrast to earlier arseholes-in-chief ... to wit, it would often be summated with the "yeah, well Clinton did this, and Carter did this ..." and as such, they are a pass off of the argument to things that are impertinent to the current situation. Far too many people do it and they should be nailed for it. Rigorous arguments seem to reflect that.

Cannotthinkofaname seems to be fixated on refuting my claim to being a centrist, probably because I don't toe the liberal line any moreso than I toe the conservative line, but does so by repetition rather than by any objective measure of what a centrist is and how I might not fit that measure.
I would have to agree that from what i've read of you, you are far more on the conservative side of "centrist".

This happens on a regular basis, which makes me wonder if they're not simply trying to get me to flame them so their favorite mods can then deleate my nation. But of course, they will then claim that I am being paranoid. Nice intellectual sophistry that. :)
It goes under the same principle of the "liberal whining" scenario that i brought up earlier.
All in all, you don't need to react with hostility at all (note: i come across at times as hostile as well, i am aware) - if your point is valid then the facts will reflect that. If it's merely a matter of he said/she said and unsubstantiated assumptions of "others"' beliefs, then this is a great forum to discern the difference between the two.
For example, read the linkie provided by Bodies Without Organs.
Unless it's an EXCELLENT fabrication, that would be a supreme case of factual substance to back a side in an argument.

My fifthpence of a further sixpence.

If you are not a criminal, why should you object to the police searching your home? What's the problem with oversight?

There's a big difference. When you're teaching a class, with at least dozens of students, what possible expectation of privacy is there? Not to mention the fact that, if you're a teacher, you ought to want students to have accurate records of your lessons. Now, if there's a school policy against distributing recordings, I can see that, but let's not pretend this is somehow a privacy issue. This is, at most, an issue of the faculty wanting to protect any future book they might want to publish. That's it. (And I have my doubts that it's even legal in the first place. Seems to me that educational material falls under fair use rules.)

There's a big difference. When you're teaching a class, with at least dozens of students, what possible expectation of privacy is there? Not to mention the fact that, if you're a teacher, you ought to want students to have accurate records of your lessons. Now, if there's a school policy against distributing recordings, I can see that, but let's not pretend this is somehow a privacy issue. This is, at most, an issue of the faculty wanting to protect any future book they might want to publish. That's it. (And I have my doubts that it's even legal in the first place. Seems to me that educational material falls under fair use rules.)

Gee, there is a difference. I had no idea. :rolleyes: :headbang:

I thought I was clear that it is the "if you have nothing to fear, why not let them search" logic of MIB to which I objected. That and that alone was the point of the analogy. Obviously there are differences.

Try to follow the line of logic from MIB to which I was responding.

Moreoever, if you can't see anything wrong with paying students to spy on their professors for "leftist" views, then I pity you.

The only way I could see this being a problem is if the government was paying people to spy on teachers with liberal (or conservative) views. The students are taking the classes. The teachers are getting paid to teach. Despite the title of this thread, nobody's getting censored. The professor is free to say whatever he or she likes. If what they're saying is so mortifying that they wouldn't want it aired in public, why are they saying it in public in the first place?

What bothers me about this thread (and conservatives say the same nonsense, at times) is that people think they have a right not only to say what they like, but to not have what they say challenged. Celebrities have done this (although I can't remember in the context of Beatty): Say whatever they like, exercising their right to free speech, but then get pissed off when people exercise their right not to buy their CDs, read their books, see their movies, hire them, etc. Sorry, folks. The world doesn't work like that. If you say something, expect people who don't agree with you to call you on it, and to act on their beliefs. Saying someone else's free speech is "chilling" your free speech is just self-defeating and silly.

Gee, there is a difference. I had no idea. :rolleyes: :headbang:

I thought I was clear that it is the "if you have nothing to fear, why not let them search" logic of MIB to which I objected. That and that alone was the point of the analogy. Obviously there are differences.

The only point I was trying to make is that this isn't a search. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

No. It's just that being gang-banged isn't my thing, especially since in my original post all I did was ask a question.

You can rest assured that the moment sweet folks like CannotThinkofaName, and Gauthier, and The Nazz all show up, things will quickly devolve into a flamefest. I refuse to be a party to such idiocy.
You did considerably more than just "ask a question," Eutrusca, and I imagine you know it. And like CToaN said, if you can find the flames, post them to Moderation--I ain't skeered, because I know I haven't done anything here.

Here's what did happen though--when asked to define your terms, you replied with snark. When challenged on your version of events, you rolled your eyes and acted as though you'd said something different from what was quoted. And when shown that your ideas lacked intellectual rigor, you said that gauthier, CToaN and I all flamed you.

In short, par for the course.

The only way I could see this being a problem is if the government was paying people to spy on teachers with liberal (or conservative) views. The students are taking the classes. The teachers are getting paid to teach. Despite the title of this thread, nobody's getting censored. The professor is free to say whatever he or she likes. If what they're saying is so mortifying that they wouldn't want it aired in public, why are they saying it in public in the first place?

What bothers me about this thread (and conservatives say the same nonsense, at times) is that people think they have a right not only to say what they like, but to not have what they say challenged. Celebrities have done this (although I can't remember in the context of Beatty): Say whatever they like, exercising their right to free speech, but then get pissed off when people exercise their right not to buy their CDs, read their books, see their movies, hire them, etc. Sorry, folks. The world doesn't work like that. If you say something, expect people who don't agree with you to call you on it, and to act on their beliefs. Saying someone else's free speech is "chilling" your free speech is just self-defeating and silly.I suspect the Beatty reference is to Ned Beatty's character's speech to Howard Beale in the film "Network." Fascinating piece of prose, and very apropos to this discussion.

The only way I could see this being a problem is if the government was paying people to spy on teachers with liberal (or conservative) views. The students are taking the classes. The teachers are getting paid to teach. Despite the title of this thread, nobody's getting censored. The professor is free to say whatever he or she likes. If what they're saying is so mortifying that they wouldn't want it aired in public, why are they saying it in public in the first place?

What bothers me about this thread (and conservatives say the same nonsense, at times) is that people think they have a right not only to say what they like, but to not have what they say challenged. Celebrities have done this (although I can't remember in the context of Beatty): Say whatever they like, exercising their right to free speech, but then get pissed off when people exercise their right not to buy their CDs, read their books, see their movies, hire them, etc. Sorry, folks. The world doesn't work like that. If you say something, expect people who don't agree with you to call you on it, and to act on their beliefs. Saying someone else's free speech is "chilling" your free speech is just self-defeating and silly.
The problem is what I'll, for the heck of it, call the "Lenny Bruce Effect," despite the potential for that to go off the rails (but it would illustrate my point rather nicely).

Lenny Bruce's issue with his prosecution (if your not familiar with it, you're on the internet...) was that he was having to defend his routine as represented by someone else. Bruce didn't have a problem defending what he said, he had a problem defending what was being represented as what he said. When the officers would report the routine to the judges it ended up sounding like Bruce went on stage and just said "pussy ass fuck fuck shit cocksucker" without context and it appeared obscene for the sake of obscenity.

In essense, the fear is that the professors are going to be defending thier lectures as represented by someone else. And that standard is not something that can be clearly defined, much like the sketchy obscenity laws that gave Bruce his troubles. The sort of "I don't know what (bias, indoctrination) is but I know it when I see it" standard that makes this infinately abusable.

You can challenge the professor in the context of his lecture, but to question it outside the context of the class and through an ill-defined lense is questionable.

This has turned into simply another attempt at intellectual gang-rape. It's a pity more of you self-styled advocates of "academic freedom" don't believe in free speech for anyone with whom you decide you disagree. I admire your tolerance for high levels of cognitive dissonance.

Now for the traditional Eut pout.

Sorry, but free speech means you can say what you like and so do we. That may mean your opinion may be in the minority. Grow up and deal with it.

Lots of universities out there folks. Though I think their doing so is rather unethical, to say the least, there isn't much they can do about it. I'd file a protest first, then if that got nowhere, and my conscience would not allow me to stay there to be forced to listen to that crap, then the next thing to do is rather obvious. If you don't like the professors incorporation of politics in your first university of choice, you can always transfer to another university. Much as I hate to agree with Warren Beatty about anything, I think he is dead on with that comment, if he did indeed say it.

If enough people did that, they would force the professors to stop indulging in demagoguery in their classes.

This has turned into simply another attempt at intellectual gang-rape. It's a pity more of you self-styled advocates of "academic freedom" don't believe in free speech for anyone with whom you decide you disagree. I admire your tolerance for high levels of cognitive dissonance.

Oh come on. Now you are going off to pout?

Your freedom of speech is hardly impuned. Nobody here has started looking for you with duct tape.

You said something and many people called it bullshit.

1. This is unacceptable. I think the issue in this thread is whether oversight is acceptable at all ... ever.

2. Examples?

3. That's something new then. I recorded quite a few of the lectures when i was attending graduate school and no one ever said a word.

4. Really? I had respect for professors who actually taught their subjects well, but not those who sought acolytes. And how, exactly, does this sort of thing "undermine" whatever level of respect professors in general have?
1. That's not really the issue. But if you want to address it, I will. Oversight on the government is extremely necessary. However, universities need to be independent of government political agenda. Specifically, internal academic review of merit is sufficient.

2. Mao Tse Deung's China, Hitler's Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Hollywood "Communists".

3. I cannot comment because I don't know which university you attended, it's policies, or the specifics of your situation. But, I will say most people I have spoken to, have indicated they are aware of a similar policy in their university.

4. If they are sacrificing educational volume for political agenda, then they should subject to peer review and disciplinary action. However, recording your teachers during a lecture shows immense disrespect for their position and may be detrimental to your absorption of information critical to your course.

1. This is unacceptable. I think the issue in this thread is whether oversight is acceptable at all ... ever.

2. Examples?

3. That's something new then. I recorded quite a few of the lectures when i was attending graduate school and no one ever said a word.

4. Really? I had respect for professors who actually taught their subjects well, but not those who sought acolytes. And how, exactly, does this sort of thing "undermine" whatever level of respect professors in general have?
1. It's not. But let's address it anyway. Oversight for the government is necessary. However, academic review of educational merit should be handled internally.

2. Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Apartheid South Africa, Hollywood "Communists".

3. I cannot comment on your university. Specifically because I do not know where you attend(ed), it's policies or the nature of your situation there. However, that said, everyone I have spoken to in regards to this are aware of similar policies at their universities.

4. Again, if they are compromising academic weight in favour of a political agenda, then they should be subject to peer review and appropriate discipline. However, students recording lessons electronically is disrespectful and may cause them to miss information critical to their course.

[my $.02] Oversite and checking up on what the teachers teach is important for many reasons.

1) while alot of people do agree that Religious Beliefs cannot and should not be taught in schools (outside of Religous/thological/philosophical courses,) shouldn't the same be for Policital Beliefs? Instructors can put their polictial beliefs into what they are teaching. One person can spin the American Revolution as one Nation's valiant fight for freedom, and another can, while giving the same facts, spin the American Minutemen as nothing more than rebels and historical terrorists who did many acts of terrorism against the Nation who helped them get their start and who was owed alot by the colonists. Political thinking, like Religious beliefs can be dangerously spread and dangerously used as well.

a) of course, those that should do the investigating should be the University or those that the University itself contracts. having anyone do it without the University's consent is wrong.

2) with new facts coming out that may either disprove what was once known or proving what was once theory, oversight can be used to keep the academia up-to-date on the latest information.

3) Oversight can also detect undesirable actions on the part of the teacher. weather or not one student is being harrassed or singled out for race, religion sex/sexually. and if initiated by the neutral committee, it can be handled without the embarrassement of the student as well as protecting the Universitiy's interests and assets.

4) Syllibus does say what is being taught but what is being taught isn't limited to the Syllibus. so who knows what else is going on in that classroom :eek: [Cue dramatic music]

Recordings of lectures is legal as long as the person doing the recording is using it themselves and not for monitary gain. Fair use of the lecture does include recording it for reference. but selling it or sharing it with someone who is not taking the class is not "Fair Use" and should be discouraged.

Someone (Cat-Tribe I believe) brought up a parallel of the police searching your home. big difference is that the Police has to inform you and ask for your consent to search your home. They must produce a search warrant if the occupant does ask for one. Otherwise, permission from the owner to search their property is enough (unless justifyable cause can be established before the search takes place.) However, the Professor is lecturing the class, and knows that notes as well as recording instruments are being used. Thus anything he says is being taken down and thus can be reviewed upon, challanged as well as agreed upon... kinda like these forums.

(and to answer your question cat-tribe, yes, I won't mind if the police asks to search my apartment, provided they answer my questions easy and simple questions first... for example, what are you looking for officer?)

another point is that a landlord can place in the lease contract, a clause stating they have the right for unannounced as well as unattened visits. meaning weather you are home or not, the landlord can enter the place you are renting from him/her and do an inspection of the area. If the Univerisity has such a clause, that their teaching outline as well as their lectures can be reviewed by the University/those that the University contracts... then they must allow it. however, again I would like to state, that and outside entity like the BAA who are paying students to "spy" on them is wrong.

to answer one of Eut's points that others are also dealing with. (leave the others to deal with the other points.)

"1. This is unacceptable. I think the issue in this thread is whether oversight is acceptable at all ... ever." the issue is not just the oversight, but the fact that it's encouraged to be only on the "Dirty Thirty" the BAA has listed on their site. in other words publicily and specifically singling them out. if it was done for all teachers/professors, and only the "Dirty Thirty" were found to be pushing personal polictial agendas onto their students, and it was done with consent by the University... then I believe there can be no complaints.[/my $.02]

[my $.02] Oversite and checking up on what the teachers teach is important for many reasons.

I agree. At the K-12 level, it's essential. Elementary school teachers, especially, should always keep their own views separate from the syllabus. Many kids are simply not able to classify what they're hearing as opinion, when it comes from an aurthority figure.

At the University level, it's a more of a consumer issue to me:

If I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars a year of my hard-earned money on a college education, I'm going to make darned sure that I get what I'm paying for: the courses taught as advertised, by educated and engaging teachers who know the difference between fact and opinion, and the attention and resources I need in order to complete my coursework. My teachers can express themselves however they please as long as I get what I'm paying (an arm and a leg) for. At the point where my education takes a back seat to their "self-expression," however, I'm going to take action. There's too much at stake not to.

[my $.02](and to answer your question cat-tribe, yes, I won't mind if the police asks to search my apartment, provided they answer my questions easy and simple questions first... for example, what are you looking for officer?)

I mind. Nobody gets into my home without either an invitation or a warrant. Even if my own rights were not at stake, I have a child to raise and protect.

I agree. At the K-12 level, it's essential. Elementary school teachers, especially, should always keep their own views separate from the syllabus. Many kids are simply not able to classify what they're hearing as opinion, when it comes from an aurthority figure.

At the University level, it's a more of a consumer issue to me:

If I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars a year of my hard-earned money on a college education, I'm going to make darned sure that I get what I'm paying for: the courses taught as advertised, by educated and engaging teachers who know the difference between fact and opinion, and the attention and resources I need in order to complete my coursework. My teachers can express themselves however they please as long as I get what I'm paying (an arm and a leg) for. At the point where my education takes a back seat to their "self-expression," however, I'm going to take action. There's too much at stake not to.
I agree with this completely. However, you seem to be a cut above the average when it comes to most college students, especially first-year students. Some sort of oversight of academia is necessary, IMHO ( although certainly not the sort being done by the BAA ). Just as no one should be above the law, neither should anyone be above criticism ... or oversight. It's "academic freedom," not "academic license."

I agree with this completely. However, you seem to be a cut above the average when it comes to most college students, especially first-year students. Some sort of oversight of academia is necessary, IMHO ( although certainly not the sort being done by the BAA ). Just as no one should be above the law, neither should anyone be above criticism ... or oversight. It's "academic freedom," not "academic license."


Eut, why are you so anti college? I'm just curious, you always seem overly critical of students and professors for one reason or another. I don't know about America, but over here people good universities are generally quite smart, regardless of their degree - you need to get minimum grades on your A level exams to decide which ones you can go to. Is it very easy for dumb, rich kids to get into college over there, and for people who aren't intelligent themselves to become lecturers?

Sorry, I can't edit, I just meant to add that over here what you would call 'Less instructive' courses like sociology and psycology are harder to get into. For example, you need two As and a B to study sociology where I go, yet for pure chemistry it's something like two Bs and a C.

Eut, why are you so anti college? I'm just curious, you always seem overly critical of students and professors for one reason or another. I don't know about America, but over here people good universities are generally quite smart, regardless of their degree - you need to get minimum grades on your A level exams to decide which ones you can go to. Is it very easy for dumb, rich kids to get into college over there, and for people who aren't intelligent themselves to become lecturers?
Unfortunately, many of those who attend college here in the US ( and not a few of those who teach here ) have no business being anywhere near an institution of higher learning. Some of this is not their fault, since they've been told virtually since birth that they are great, fantastic and wonderfully gifted by teachers and parents who strive to "build their self-esteem." The emphasis on money in this society insures that even an idiot can become a college graduate, provided his mommie and daddy have enough of it.

Don't get me wrong, self-esteem is great. However, simply believing you're great because someone told you you are only leads to totally unrealistic expectations. There's a vast difference between being told you're great, and actually doing something which leads you to conclude that you're capabale of doing great things. I'm reminded of that miserable excuse of a TV show, American Idol, where people with zero talent make total idiots of themselves on national television, then cry on their parents' shoulders because someone finally told them the truth, although in far too nasty a way, IMHO.

This seems to be something we call "åsiktsregistrering," which means "opinion registration" and refers to "registers based without his [citizen's] consent solely on his political opinions," which is banned by our constitution, as it is indeed McCarthyism. So, umm, it's a shitty thing to do, to intimidate people like this for their political views.

Professors and tutors have no obligation to be politically objective, because it is assumed that the persons they are teaching are adult individuals that can decide for themselves if they buy into their political analysis, or not, instead of being whiners who go "waa, he's leftist, how dare he speak his mind!".

Professors and tutors have no obligation to be politically objective, because it is assumed that the persons they are teaching are adult individuals that can decide for themselves if they buy into their political analysis, or not, instead of being whiners who go "waa, he's leftist, how dare he speak his mind!".

I agree, they have no obligation to be objective. In fact, I don't care how objective they are or aren't, as long as they teach me the subject at hand well enough that I can use it effectively in the future.

If you're a professor, and your rain forest rant is cutting into my Fundamentals of Physics classroom time that I am paying thousands of dollars for, however... we're going to have words.

I agree, they have no obligation to be objective. In fact, I don't care how objective they are or aren't, as long as they teach me the subject at hand well enough that I can use it effectively in the future.

If you're a professor, and your rain forest rant is cutting into my Fundamentals of Physics classroom time that I am paying thousands of dollars for, however... we're going to have words.

Precisely - if they are teaching you what you paid for (or what your taxes paid for, in countries where universities are free) you have nothing to bitch about if they have a slant on it as per their own bias. You're an adult, sift through it and either accept it or reject it - that's an integral skill one needs to learn as an adult. It's only if they aren't teaching what the syllabus or curriculum demands they teach you that you have a point in whining, and then your little "oversight" does not become a witch hunt for political opinion, but one for poor pedagogy.

Precisely - if they are teaching you what you paid for (or what your taxes paid for, in countries where universities are free) you have nothing to bitch about if they have a slant on it as per their own bias. You're an adult, sift through it and either accept it or reject it - that's an integral skill one needs to learn as an adult. It's only if they aren't teaching what the syllabus or curriculum demands they teach you that you have a point in whining, and then your little "oversight" does not become a witch hunt for political opinion, but one for poor pedagogy.
You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who attends college is able to "learn as an adult." From my own experince with many who wind up in college, that's largely unwarranted.

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who attends college is able to "learn as an adult." From my own experince with many who wind up in college, that's largely unwarranted.

And what, your solution to that is more nannying of these people?

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who attends college is able to "learn as an adult." From my own experince with many who wind up in college, that's largely unwarranted.
Everyone, short of those with crippling learning disabilities, is able to learn as an adult. Some choose not to--you can't blame universities for that.

And what, your solution to that is more nannying of these people?
LOL! Uh ... no. The ideal solution would be to put an end to the so-called "self-esteem" propaganda in high schools ( even in grade schools ), and refuse to admit anyone to college who can't find Australia on a world map ( to take one example ). :)

Eut, why are you so anti college? I'm just curious, you always seem overly critical of students and professors for one reason or another. I don't know about America, but over here people good universities are generally quite smart, regardless of their degree - you need to get minimum grades on your A level exams to decide which ones you can go to. Is it very easy for dumb, rich kids to get into college over there, and for people who aren't intelligent themselves to become lecturers?

Yes, it is incredibly easy for dumb rich kids to get into college. And since these dumb rich kids have parents who contribute large sums of money to the universities, they have a degree of protection. Personally, I don't find college challenging in the slightest, but I'm getting an education, the VA is paying for it (courtesy of several military induced physical problems), and I have plenty of free time. As for professors including their political ideology in political science classes...ITS GOING TO HAPPEN. My American Government class was taught by someone who was very conservative (and being in the South, I was very much in the minority as a liberal). We traded barbs almost on a daily basis, but it was all in good fun, the learning still took place, and other students got to see some alternative views. If you don't agree with your professor, argue with them! Don't take up the whole class time with it, but challenge their arguments and make them back it up. If it's relevant to the class other students will learn something. If it's not relevant to the class, challenge them on that and get back to learning whatever you're supposed to be learning. That's what college is for...learning to think and question and challenge. Most classes that you don't end up working in the field of you'll forget all the facts you learned anyway, what you won't forget is how to think.

LOL! Uh ... no. The ideal solution would be to put an end to the so-called "self-esteem" propaganda in high schools ( even in grade schools ), and refuse to admit anyone to college who can't find Australia on a world map ( to take one example ). :)

That has nothing to do with universities.

Everyone, short of those with crippling learning disabilities, is able to learn as an adult. Some choose not to--you can't blame universities for that.
I don't. I blame universities for admitting those who have a total inability to distinguish truth from fiction, fact from falsehood, idiocy from reason, simply because their parents can afford the freight or their high school had no academic standards to speak of.

That has nothing to do with universities.
Not directly, no. But it does have to do with some of those who are admitted to universities.

I agree, they have no obligation to be objective. In fact, I don't care how objective they are or aren't, as long as they teach me the subject at hand well enough that I can use it effectively in the future.

If you're a professor, and your rain forest rant is cutting into my Fundamentals of Physics classroom time that I am paying thousands of dollars for, however... we're going to have words.ok, on the same level, a History Professor is teaching history classes and is presenting viewpoints and evidence that support his Ideals that the Democrats are ruining the country. Spinning the facts, not altering them, so that you find alot of students agreeing that the country is better off with the GOP in power. Are you are saying that is perfectly fine? that it shouldn't be stopped or at least investigated?

just as long as they teach their subject you're happy.

a friend of mine, a professor at a small college, got into a frightening debate with a couple of students. (College level mind you.)

They [students] believed that the best thing for America is not to teach that the USA once believed and owned slaves. They believed that if you write that out of the history books, racism will be removed almost immediately. They called him a racist for saying that History must be taught honestly and as impartially as possible because only by learning history correctly, can we prevent repeating the atrocities of the past.

Yes, it is incredibly easy for dumb rich kids to get into college. And since these dumb rich kids have parents who contribute large sums of money to the universities, they have a degree of protection. Personally, I don't find college challenging in the slightest, but I'm getting an education, the VA is paying for it (courtesy of several military induced physical problems), and I have plenty of free time. As for professors including their political ideology in political science classes...ITS GOING TO HAPPEN. My American Government class was taught by someone who was very conservative (and being in the South, I was very much in the minority as a liberal). We traded barbs almost on a daily basis, but it was all in good fun, the learning still took place, and other students got to see some alternative views. If you don't agree with your professor, argue with them! Don't take up the whole class time with it, but challenge their arguments and make them back it up. If it's relevant to the class other students will learn something. If it's not relevant to the class, challenge them on that and get back to learning whatever you're supposed to be learning. That's what college is for...learning to think and question and challenge. Most classes that you don't end up working in the field of you'll forget all the facts you learned anyway, what you won't forget is how to think.
I totally agree, but you have to admit that you're not the average college student. I went through my master's program on the GI bill and was absolutely astounded at the depth of ignorance and sheer inability to think even of many in graduate school.

I don't. I blame universities for admitting those who have a total inability to distinguish truth from fiction, fact from falsehood, idiocy from reason, simply because their parents can afford the freight or their high school had no academic standards to speak of.Many people (adults) here in Hawaii believe that when the Republicans take over the state, the people will be back working the plantations. :rolleyes: some people grew up hearing alot of fiction. where else but the Universities (and their impartial teachers) will they learn how to distinguish fact from fiction?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/od_nm/life_university_dc;_ylt=AhCCGZ_K2PLJRnD.V.h3O0us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.
Dude, $100 per class hour for class notes? Hell, I will turn over every single lesson plan I've got, as well as all my prep notes for my lectures, and they can just give the money straight to me. That would basically double my salary!

I'd be a great find for them, too...I'm not only an evil "Darwinist," I'm also a bisexual, unmarried, childless FEMALE academic! They should pay me double for my notes.

Many people (adults) here in Hawaii believe that when the Republicans take over the state, the people will be back working the plantations. :rolleyes: some people grew up hearing alot of fiction. where else but the Universities (and their impartial teachers) will they learn how to distinguish fact from fiction?
LOL! "Plantations." :D

Uh ... from parents? Just a silly thought. ;)

Dude, $100 per class hour for class notes? Hell, I will turn over every single lesson plan I've got, as well as all my prep notes for my lectures, and they can just give the money straight to me. That would basically double my salary!

I'd be a great find for them, too...I'm not only an evil "Darwinist," I'm also a bisexual, unmarried, childless FEMALE academic! They should pay me double for my notes.
Hell, I'd pay you double! :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/od_nm/life_university_dc;_ylt=AhCCGZ_K2PLJRnD.V.h3O0us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.

Look at the conditions:
Jones said he would only accept recordings from students whose professors consented in writing to have their lectures taped.

It's perfectly legal.

Just because a group holds up a few professors for public ridicule doesn't mean that anyone will pay any attention.

I'll say it again - it's perfectly legal.

just as long as they teach their subject you're happy.

Yes, as long as they teach me my subject - in such a way as it will be useful to me in my future - I am happy.

I take a physics class to learn physics. As long as my teacher is teaching me physics, in line with the syllabus and the standards of his university, he may do and say whatever he pleases.

Yes, I know the law favors the extraverted. And yes, as an introvert, that sucks. Others have a protected right to say, in public, whatever they please. I don't have an equal protected right, in public, to not have to hear them.

I am an adult, however, and I can take it. I know the value of noise-reduction headphones. I also know the power of taking my education dollar elsewhere if I'm not a satisfied customer.

So goes life.

Look at the conditions:


It's perfectly legal.

Just because a group holds up a few professors for public ridicule doesn't mean that anyone will pay any attention.

I'll say it again - it's perfectly legal.
Seriously, I am 100% positive that if they extended this offer of payment directly to the professors then they would get plenty of interest. Profs make lousy money, most of them, and I would bet my stipend that a good number would be eager to hand over their lecture notes for that kind of money. The fact that this organization is, instead, paying the students suggests that they are more interested in encouraging political activism in the students than in discouraging it in the profs.

Seriously, I am 100% positive that if they extended this offer of payment directly to the professors then they would get plenty of interest. Profs make lousy money, most of them, and I would bet my stipend that a good number would be eager to hand over their lecture notes for that kind of money. The fact that this organization is, instead, paying the students suggests that they are more interested in encouraging political activism in the students than in discouraging it in the profs.

Extending the offer to the profs wouldn't put the fear into them. This organization obviously wants to hold up a few idiots for public ridicule, not encourage student activism. If anything, the students in question are being used as tools.

Extending the offer to the profs wouldn't put the fear into them. This organization obviously wants to hold up a few idiots for public ridicule, not encourage student activism. If anything, the students in question are being used as tools.
Like I said, red scare tactics.

Extending the offer to the profs wouldn't put the fear into them. This organization obviously wants to hold up a few idiots for public ridicule, not encourage student activism. If anything, the students in question are being used as tools.
I dunno. I don't see why any prof would be the slightest bit frightened by this. I think it's more about convincing STUDENTS that the profs will be frightened of them. Convincing the "conservatives" (who, for some reason, are supporting big-government-type ideals in this case) that the "liberals" are going to be quaking in their boots before the Mighty Micro Tape-recorders Of Justice.

But I agree that the students are just being used. It's sad all around.

Like I said, red scare tactics.
Like I said, not illegal in any way, shape, or form based on the conditions established.

I dunno. I don't see why any prof would be the slightest bit frightened by this. I think it's more about convincing STUDENTS that the profs will be frightened of them. Convincing the "conservatives" (who, for some reason, are supporting big-government-type ideals in this case) that the "liberals" are going to be quaking in their boots before the Mighty Micro Tape-recorders Of Justice.

But I agree that the students are just being used. It's sad all around.

There are profs at George Mason University that forbid any recording of their lectures in any form, or posting of any of their course materials on any website (you have to have a userid and password to see their course materials) primarily because they don't want to be ridiculed.

They've told me this face to face.

Everyone, short of those with crippling learning disabilities, is able to learn as an adult. Some choose not to--you can't blame universities for that.
Bingo. If some college student wants to whine about his evil prof "forcing liberal values" on him, then I say he's just declared himself mentally incompetant and should have his adult status revoked. If an adult human claims they are powerless to think for themselves, and powerless to resist the opinions of another human, then they are clearly suffering from some form of mental incapacitation and should be regarded as a minor for their own protection.

It's a lot like the folks who claim that seeing Janet Jackson's boob caused them serious injury. If seeing a lady's breast is that big a problem for you, then you should probably be taken care of by some nice grownups who will file down all the corners, pad all the walls, and take away the sharp things so you don't injure yourself.

I dunno. I don't see why any prof would be the slightest bit frightened by this. I think it's more about convincing STUDENTS that the profs will be frightened of them. Convincing the "conservatives" (who, for some reason, are supporting big-government-type ideals in this case) that the "liberals" are going to be quaking in their boots before the Mighty Micro Tape-recorders Of Justice.

But I agree that the students are just being used. It's sad all around.
There's at least one member of the "dirty thirty" who isn't scared--I started a thread on his response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464885) last night.

There are profs at George Mason University that forbid any recording of their lectures in any form, or posting of any of their course materials on any website (you have to have a userid and password to see their course materials) primarily because they don't want to be ridiculed.

They've told me this face to face.
Unfortunately, I have no way of verifying what you say. I've basically lived in academia my whole life (as I have a parent who is a college prof, and am currently in grad school), and I have never once encountered a single professor who expressed such feelings. Granted, that is only my personal experience, and I am sure that somewhere there is probably a cowardly or timid prof who doesn't want to put their material up for such hostile criticism, but that kind of prof is not the kind who would be giving inflamatory and radical lectures anyhow.

I think the only reason profs would have reservations about handing their notes over to this group would be the high probability that the group would falsify the material and generate public lies aimed at defaming the profs. That would be my own chief concern, since groups like this one have repeatedly shown that they view facts and reality as nothing more than pesky obstacles to be hurdled as quickly as possible.

Bingo. If some college student wants to whine about his evil prof "forcing liberal values" on him, then I say he's just declared himself mentally incompetant and should have his adult status revoked. If an adult human claims they are powerless to think for themselves, and powerless to resist the opinions of another human, then they are clearly suffering from some form of mental incapacitation and should be regarded as a minor for their own protection.

It's a lot like the folks who claim that seeing Janet Jackson's boob caused them serious injury. If seeing a lady's breast is that big a problem for you, then you should probably be taken care of by some nice grownups who will file down all the corners, pad all the walls, and take away the sharp things so you don't injure yourself.

I got an F in a political science class because I wrote an extensive paper saying that "Communism was wrong".

According to the dean of the department, it was a great paper, but the professor's only comment was "based on an incorrect premise".

The dean allowed me to have the course record expunged, but the professor was allowed to continue in this biased vein forever.

If I had not been able to drop the grades from my record, I most certainly would have sued for damages. I don't anticipate going to college to be brainwashed into thinking that "Communism is the greatest school of political thought to have been conceived, now and forever, without question."

If you didn't parrot the party line dished out by the professor, you either had to drop the class in time, or ask the dean to drop the grade from your record. You were going to get an F if the professor got the impression during class conversations that you questioned the goodness of Communism.

Yes, as long as they teach me my subject - in such a way as it will be useful to me in my future - I am happy.

I take a physics class to learn physics. As long as my teacher is teaching me physics, in line with the syllabus and the standards of his university, he may do and say whatever he pleases.

Yes, I know the law favors the extraverted. And yes, as an introvert, that sucks. Others have a protected right to say, in public, whatever they please. I don't have an equal protected right, in public, to not have to hear them.

I am an adult, however, and I can take it. I know the value of noise-reduction headphones. I also know the power of taking my education dollar elsewhere if I'm not a satisfied customer.

So goes life. then you, my friend are one of us, the few who doesn't need the goverment or other groups to censor what others say. the world needs more of us. :D

Wow, Kimchi. I think any sane person, including your dean, would agree that's wrong. What a horrible thing to do. Gives the whole system a bad name.

Bingo. If some college student wants to whine about his evil prof "forcing liberal values" on him, then I say he's just declared himself mentally incompetant and should have his adult status revoked. If an adult human claims they are powerless to think for themselves, and powerless to resist the opinions of another human, then they are clearly suffering from some form of mental incapacitation and should be regarded as a minor for their own protection.

It's a lot like the folks who claim that seeing Janet Jackson's boob caused them serious injury. If seeing a lady's breast is that big a problem for you, then you should probably be taken care of by some nice grownups who will file down all the corners, pad all the walls, and take away the sharp things so you don't injure yourself.you know Bottle... it's nice to be able to agree with you once in a while. :D

I got an F in a political science class because I wrote an extensive paper saying that "Communism was wrong".

According to the dean of the department, it was a great paper, but the professor's only comment was "based on an incorrect premise".

The dean allowed me to have the course record expunged, but the professor was allowed to continue in this biased vein forever.

If I had not been able to drop the grades from my record, I most certainly would have sued for damages. I don't anticipate going to college to be brainwashed into thinking that "Communism is the greatest school of political thought to have been conceived, now and forever, without question."

If you didn't parrot the party line dished out by the professor, you either had to drop the class in time, or ask the dean to drop the grade from your record. You were going to get an F if the professor got the impression during class conversations that you questioned the goodness of Communism.
To be frank, if this really happened then you should leave that school. I've never heard of any prof getting away with anything close to that, and I know that such behavior would never be permitted at any of the institutions I've attended. It's not about ideology, it's about shoddy teaching, and I don't know of any university or college department that would put up with that kind of crappy performance from one of their staff. If your institution does put up with it, then it isn't a school worth going to.

I got an F in a political science class because I wrote an extensive paper saying that "Communism was wrong".

According to the dean of the department, it was a great paper, but the professor's only comment was "based on an incorrect premise".

The dean allowed me to have the course record expunged, but the professor was allowed to continue in this biased vein forever.

If I had not been able to drop the grades from my record, I most certainly would have sued for damages. I don't anticipate going to college to be brainwashed into thinking that "Communism is the greatest school of political thought to have been conceived, now and forever, without question."

If you didn't parrot the party line dished out by the professor, you either had to drop the class in time, or ask the dean to drop the grade from your record. You were going to get an F if the professor got the impression during class conversations that you questioned the goodness of Communism.
oooh.. dude, that hurts. :mad:

did you at least ask him to explain why your premise was "incorrect"?

interested to hear what he had to say.

then you, my friend are one of us, the few who doesn't need the goverment or other groups to censor what others say. the world needs more of us. :D

Amen.

(I used to live at Hickam, BTW. 3 1/2 years. I sure miss it in the winter!)

Wow, Kimchi. I think any sane person, including your dean, would agree that's wrong. What a horrible thing to do. Gives the whole system a bad name.
It's why the dean gave everyone the option of dropping the whole grade.
He knew the professor was an asswipe, but because of tenure, couldn't do a damn thing other than rescue students.

you know Bottle... it's nice to be able to agree with you once in a while. :D
I try to have a little something for everyone. :)

oooh.. dude, that hurts. :mad:

did you at least ask him to explain why your premise was "incorrect"?

interested to hear what he had to say.

He said that anyone who questioned Communism was obviously not fit to attend university. He said that reactionary forces had addled my mind.

To be frank, if this really happened then you should leave that school. I've never heard of any prof getting away with anything close to that, and I know that such behavior would never be permitted at any of the institutions I've attended. It's not about ideology, it's about shoddy teaching, and I don't know of any university or college department that would put up with that kind of crappy performance from one of their staff. If your institution does put up with it, then it isn't a school worth going to.
That's the key there. I've noticed a pattern with DK where these convenient and unverifiable personal anecdotes pop up in these conversations. He did it not long ago with the "profs at George Mason" comment too.

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a registered Independent who tends to vote for republicans.

Second, I am a university student in Civil engineering.

That being said, I am of the impression that use of critical thinking skills is encouraged in most public schools. Whether or not an instructor exhibits or professes a particular political viewpoint should be irrelevant to the student. It is the student's responsibility to view objectively all information being presented and use their own judgement as to whether they agree or disagree with the viewpoint being expressed.

Obviously, technical courses such as physics and calculus don't lend themselves well to ideological slant; whereas, philosophy and political science do. In the case of the latter, I propse that students going into those classes do or should expect to hear viewpoints that may differ from their own. That different viewpoint could come from other sudents as well as from the instructor. At the college level, objective listening and critical thinking are skills which should be cultivated and will become useful after graduation.

I think it is sufficient to let students know that when in college they will be exposed to people who think, look, act, and talk differently than them...including the instructors. Let's stop the hand-holding, PC bullshit associated with whether this or that instructor professes this or that political slant, and give the college students the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can identify an instructor who might be bias in some form or another.

Jones told Reuters he is out to "restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus"

Hahahahaha.

Restoring an atmosphere of respectful political discourse, by trying to get professors with whom I disagree fired.

Classic republican. Tell a lie so big that it discolors the air just to utter it, and then when anyone asks what the smell is, blame the libeals.

Obviously, technical courses such as physics and calculus don't lend themselves well to ideological slant; whereas, philosophy and political science do. In the case of the latter, I propse that students going into those classes do or should expect to hear viewpoints that may differ from their own. That different viewpoint could come from other sudents as well as from the instructor. At the college level, objective listening and critical thinking are skills which should be cultivated and will become useful after graduation.

This is a very important point. I majored in three fields, one of which was "technical" (Biology) and one which was "opinionated" (Philosophy/ethics). If a prof in one of my neuropharm lectures had started going off about his political opinions, I would have been very annoyed because it would have been a pointless diversion...we had separate lectures for "bioethics" and discussions about the political ramifications of research/methods, so I expected my "hard" lectures to be about the hard facts.

However, when it came to my philosophy classes, I expected debate. I expected personal opinions. I was, frankly, disappointed in profs who did NOT take a stand. Whether they are stating their own personal beliefs or simply being a devil's advocate to help with discussion, I WANT them to deal with the opinions and the viewpoints head-on. I don't want them to recite dry facts at me, and I certainly don't want their course to be about parroting back vocab terms and propper nouns.

I don't think there are many college students who sign up for poli-sci or philosphy looking for a bland, "hard-facts" education. They want the facts, to be sure, and they want to know the history and the work that others have done, but they also are looking for a subject where they can discuss, debate, and think critically. Or, at least, they THINK they want those things. It seems particularly silly for those people to be the ones who turn around and start bitching when a prof has an opinion.

If you want a subject that can be mastered without ever discussing personal opinions, be a math major. If you want a subject where the "truth" is not in dispute, go to an intro Chem lecture. But if you are opinion-phobic, or have a very tender "conservative" ego, don't go into political science or philosophy. Hell, you probably should avoid history, literature, and art as well, just to be on the safe side.

That's the key there. I've noticed a pattern with DK where these convenient and unverifiable personal anecdotes pop up in these conversations. He did it not long ago with the "profs at George Mason" comment too.
Why does this comment not surprise me? Answer: See my earlier post about your totally predictable assumptions. :rolleyes:

Why does this comment not surprise me? Answer: See my earlier post about your totally predictable assumptions. :rolleyes:
I made no assumptions in that post--I simply noted a pattern in DK's posting habits. You read into it what you wish.

And for the record, I'd say the same about someone I agreed with if he or she argued similarly--it's a bullshit tactic, akin to Fox News's "some people say" move when they want to introduce a subject for which they have no backing.

I made no assumptions in that post--I simply noted a pattern in DK's posting habits. You read into it what you wish.

And for the record, I'd say the same about someone I agreed with if he or she argued similarly--it's a bullshit tactic, akin to Fox News's "some people say" move when they want to introduce a subject for which they have no backing.
Face it: you're totally predictable in your responses to anyone you percieve as having a viewpoint different from your own. It's ok to be honest, especially with yourself. :D

Face it: you're totally predictable in your responses to anyone you percieve as having a viewpoint different from your own. It's ok to be honest, especially with yourself. :D
You ever stop to think that maybe the reason you perceive me in such a way is because you're feeling guilty for all the bullshit you toss around this place, and maybe you're lashing out at being continually busted for it?

I made no assumptions in that post--I simply noted a pattern in DK's posting habits. You read into it what you wish.

And for the record, I'd say the same about someone I agreed with if he or she argued similarly--it's a bullshit tactic, akin to Fox News's "some people say" move when they want to introduce a subject for which they have no backing.
Indeed. I mentioned my own, contradictory personal experiences in response to DK, but I did so with the caveat that I don't expect my personal experiences to be taken as a rule. I simply am amazed that he could have such outrageous experiences and I would never, not once, in over 20 years of academia, have come across anything approaching that level.

It's like if somebody insisted that a herd of elephants roams freely through Kenmore Square. I'm not saying they MUST be lying, since anything is possible, but I find it a bit hard to believe that I would have missed something like that after living in the area for many years.

You ever stop to think that maybe the reason you perceive me in such a way is because you're feeling guilty for all the bullshit you toss around this place, and maybe you're lashing out at being continually busted for it?
No.

He said that anyone who questioned Communism was obviously not fit to attend university. He said that reactionary forces had addled my mind.

*sigh* so because of one asswipe, the whole system has to be monitored?

Sorry DK, anybody who has attended Uni has an asswipe story.

I had one in physics lecture. He hated it and abused students because first year students were below his abilities.

He once publicly humiliated a Korean kid infront of 200 students. The kid actually told him "screw you!" and left the hall. I took a petition and visited the Dean. It was by chance he was also the advisory to the Korean Club and understood Korean Culture.

The professor had to teach lab for 2 years as a result of his attitude. He learned patience after that. ;)

Dimissing a paper simply because of Bias is BS and I don't know of any school that would not overturn it.

Ten year does protect the assholes but it also protects decent teachers who would get replaced simply because of what the make. After all a newbie is will to work for less......

I don't. I blame universities for admitting those who have a total inability to distinguish truth from fiction, fact from falsehood, idiocy from reason, simply because their parents can afford the freight or their high school had no academic standards to speak of.
The American system is strange in that regard, it is VERY easy to get into college in America. Someone, somewhere, will accept you, regardless of age, sex, or status.

It's just very, very hard to get OUT of an American university. The idiots get in, but the graduation rate shows that they don't get to leave with that $20,000 (or however much) peice of paper.

In essense, the fear is that the professrs are going to be defending thier lectures as represented by someone else. And that standard is not something that can be clearly defined, much like the sketchy obscenity laws that gave Bruce his troubles. The sort of "I don't know what (bias, indoctrination) is but I know it when I see it" standard that makes this infinately abusable.

You can challenge the professor in the context of his lecture, but to question it outside the context of the class and through an ill-defined lense is questionable.

Okay. That I can understand. But again, there's a difference that I'm having trouble with: In Bruce's case, he was brought to trial because of what he said. It would seem to me that there's a substantial difference between that and this. It goes back to what I said before: You can say what you like, but no one is forced to agree with it. No one is even necessarily forced to represent it the way you would. Isn't the answer for this for the teacher to say, "This is the full context of what I said. Here. I have it on the tape I use to record my lectures." (One assumes that a professor taking notes for a book would also be recording.) The point is this: The professor has ample opportunity to defend misrepresentations, and this isn't a Lenny Bruce situation where the government is going to lock you away for it. If the context is really the issue, put out your own tape, with the full context.

While I think there are more than a few teachers with your view, I suspect many of them are just reluctant to open themselves up to evaluation. I've been in more than a few classrooms where the ideological tilt (either to the right or left) wouldn't even be camoflauged. I've seen English Literature classes turned into Feminist English Literature classes, and U.S. History turned into Christianity in U.S. History, simply because that's what the professors used their academic freedom to do. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't be free to do that (although some truth in advertising would probably be welcome, before you took the class), but they shouldn't be able to use the force of the school behind them to hide what they're doing, either.

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who attends college is able to "learn as an adult." From my own experince with many who wind up in college, that's largely unwarranted.

Make up your mind.

On the one hand you complain that colleges are allowing such people in.

On the other hand you want nannying oversight to coddle such people and protect them from big bad professors.

Meethinks the truth is you just don't like academia. Tough shit.

While I think there are more than a few teachers with your view, I suspect many of them are just reluctant to open themselves up to evaluation. I've been in more than a few classrooms where the ideological tilt (either to the right or left) wouldn't even be camoflauged. I've seen English Literature classes turned into Feminist English Literature classes, and U.S. History turned into Christianity in U.S. History, simply because that's what the professors used their academic freedom to do. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't be free to do that (although some truth in advertising would probably be welcome, before you took the class), but they shouldn't be able to use the force of the school behind them to hide what they're doing, either.
The problem is, this isn't evaluation. Most schools have professors give students evaluation forms at the end of the semester, there students rate the professor. These forms are reviewed by deans, department heads, and the professor. Also, most schools have yearly evaluations via the department head and dean about the professor, his or her teaching and classes, resreach, and writings. This is used to determine tenure (which isn't automatic, BTW). And as Kimchi's story noted, there are proper channels in place should a student suspect that they are being discriminated against, or that the class wasn't true to the catalog or syllabus. Schools that want to keep their accedidation take these allogations seriously and make efforts to correct them.

This isn't even a public board appointed by an anthority to review problems and work with the university in question (UCLA) to correct the issue. They aren't even affiliated WITH UCLA.

This is a right wing group that admits it has an agenda, asking for disgruntled students to record their professors (for payment, mind you), for their own review, with the judging criteria to be their own feelings on the matter, and then holding these professors up for public riddicle.

They have not shown the problem to actually exist, beyond their own views on the matter either. This isn't oversite, this is witchhunting.

Show me that the problem existsm and that the multi-layered self correcting mechanisms in place are not doing their jobs, and I will be happy to work within the system to put more safeguards in place. But this isn't a safeguard.

You ever stop to think that maybe the reason you perceive me in such a way is because you're feeling guilty for all the bullshit you toss around this place, and maybe you're lashing out at being continually busted for it?

Come down to Fairfax and I'll introduce you to him. He's still teaching there.

Something makes me think that Bottle believes that professors NEVER do anything bad - ever.

Shall I recount the professors I've seen fucking their students, literally?

Heh! How about this: the right to be free from "unreasonable search and seizure" is written into the Constitution. The right to use your publicly paid position to advocate a particular political philosopy is not.

I forget -- something about the first amendment?

Besides, for God's sake, these are college students. They should be exposed to a variety of viewpoints so they can synthesize their own system of beliefs from them. If all they ever hear is a viewpoint they already hold, they're not going to grow intellectually. And how can they refute a viewpoint they are not familiar with?

Excellent. We should take a page or five from that book of yours. :)

Um, but that seems to be precisely what you are arguing AGAINST. You're all for "overseeing" the political views presented during a course... so which is it? Present all viewpoints or make lists of people who are, in the opinion of a third party which is very much NOT disinterested, "dirty" for presenting a viewpoint?

I suspect the Beatty reference is to Ned Beatty's character's speech to Howard Beale in the film "Network." Fascinating piece of prose, and very apropos to this discussion.

Actually, I was thinking more of Captain Beatty of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 -- not to be confused with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. He had a speech that I thought went particularly well with this notion of oversight...

An Excerpt from Beatty’s Speech, in Fahrenheit 451

“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man's mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won't stomach them for a minute. And so when houses were finally fireproofed completely, all over the world (you were correct in your assumption the other night) there was no longer need of firemen for the old purposes. They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior: official censors,) judges, and executors. That's you, Montag, and that's me.'…
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these."
"Yes. “…
"Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them, too. Five minutes after a person is dead he's on his way to the Big Flue, the Incinerators serviced by helicopters all over the country. Ten minutes after death a man's a speck of black dust. Let's not quibble over individuals with memoriums. Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean….
“If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can, nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it; to hell with it…
“The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don't let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don't think you realize how important you are, we are, to our happy world as it stands now."…
"One last thing," said Beatty. "At least once in his career, every fireman gets an itch. What do the books say, he wonders. Oh, to scratch that itch, eh? Well, Montag, take my word for it, I've had to read a few in my time, to know what I was about, and the books say nothing! Nothing you can teach or believe. They're about nonexistent people, figments of if they're fiction. And if they're imagination, nonfiction, it's worse, one professor calling another an idiot, one philosopher screaming down another's gullet. All of them running about, putting out the stars and extinguishing the sun. You come away lost."

Unfortunately, many of those who attend college here in the US ( and not a few of those who teach here ) have no business being anywhere near an institution of higher learning. Some of this is not their fault, since they've been told virtually since birth that they are great, fantastic and wonderfully gifted by teachers and parents who strive to "build their self-esteem." The emphasis on money in this society insures that even an idiot can become a college graduate, provided his mommie and daddy have enough of it.

Don't get me wrong, self-esteem is great. However, simply believing you're great because someone told you you are only leads to totally unrealistic expectations. There's a vast difference between being told you're great, and actually doing something which leads you to conclude that you're capabale of doing great things.

This actually explains a lot. This is an excellent example of Bush. *no smilie. I'm not kidding.*

Well, it had seemed you were like quite a few ex-military i know, who don't really care for people who have much schooling but little sense of how to deal with things on the ground. But to be fair, MANY get washed out not because they aren't "man" enough to handle the Corps or any other aspect of the Forces, but because they simply aren't qualified in the fashion that would make them a good enough soldier. You know it's boot's job to find the breaking point, and frankly, that's not how everyone goes.

I don't. I blame universities for admitting those who have a total inability to distinguish truth from fiction, fact from falsehood, idiocy from reason, simply because their parents can afford the freight or their high school had no academic standards to speak of.
That doesn't seem very capitalist of you ... ;)
Seriously though, it doesn't mean they'll earn a degree. It's not the admission that's an issue. And you'd be HARD-PRESSED to discern the deluded from the veracity-principled. You dig enough and you'll get an ideology that is better qualified by attitude than it is by experience. And since many don't have exactly a lot of real-life experience when they enter college ...

Dude, $100 per class hour for class notes? Hell, I will turn over every single lesson plan I've got, as well as all my prep notes for my lectures, and they can just give the money straight to me. That would basically double my salary!

I'd be a great find for them, too...I'm not only an evil "Darwinist," I'm also a bisexual, unmarried, childless FEMALE academic! They should pay me double for my notes.
I shall take this opportunity to publicly apologize for any ignorant statement i may have made in the past about anything that may have qualified a gender bias on my part about you, Bottle. I probably didn't but if i did at some point, again, i apologize.

I got an F in a political science class because I wrote an extensive paper saying that "Communism was wrong".
Ah, another of the spitting wounded.

According to the dean of the department, it was a great paper, but the professor's only comment was "based on an incorrect premise".

It could be you didn't understand the nature of the assignment, and you went beyond the parameters of the nature of the assignment by erroneously assuming you could place one economic structure in an absolute category of unprovable aesthetic and apparently personal value.
One might even construe that you could've done yourself a favour by thinking about the consequences a little more.

He said that anyone who questioned Communism was obviously not fit to attend university. He said that reactionary forces had addled my mind.
Well, if this actually happened, then, i suspect, you would actually have something to act on. But not because of claiming that communism is "wrong".

He said that anyone who questioned Communism was obviously not fit to attend university. He said that reactionary forces had addled my mind.

That's insane. I would counter with anyone who does not question things is not fit to attend university, and LESS fit to teach there.

I shall take this opportunity to publicly apologize for any ignorant statement i may have made in the past about anything that may have qualified a gender bias on my part about you, Bottle. I probably didn't but if i did at some point, again, i apologize.
Haha, don't worry about it. Pretty much every single person I've encountered on this forum initially assumes I'm male.

That's insane. I would counter with anyone who does not question things is not fit to attend university, and LESS fit to teach there.
Which is precisely what would happen at any real university. Which is also why I have a great deal of trouble believing any of this story.

The persecution complex again?

Jesus H. Motherf*cking Christ...why are some people so desperate to take this petty partisanship into the classroom? Because that's what you do if you start monitoring professors for what they say.

And for DK: It's perfectly possible for you to fail an essay in political science, despite saying that "Communism is Wrong", if you don't present your argument properly. You may very well have started of the wrong premise.
But then again, it certainly is much easier to blame communists for your own failings.

Make up your mind.

On the one hand you complain that colleges are allowing such people in.

On the other hand you want nannying oversight to coddle such people and protect them from big bad professors.

Meethinks the truth is you just don't like academia. Tough shit.
To which I must agree.

I think college SHOULD be open to anybody who wants to go. I like the current system (sort of) in which there's basically a college for anybody who wants to go...you can't automatically get in to whichever school you want, but if you don't get into one there's a hundred more to try. I like that anybody, of any range of ability, can at least get in the door. Of course, getting out with a degree is different. I believe in giving everybody the opportunity to try, but I don't believe in passing out degrees like candy. Once you're in college you should be regarded as an adult, and if you are unable to function as an adult then you should be given failing marks.

This includes the kind of behavior that these babies are whining about...if you are unable to deal with professors having opinions, you are not a grown up and should not be in grown up school. If you cannot think critically and evalutate what other people say, then you are not a grown up. If you cannot handle your tender ego coming into contact with ideas different from your own, then you are not a grown up. In these cases, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to walk away with a degree that might mislead others into thinking that you are a grown up.

I've sat in classes where the prof made no beans about believing that females shouldn't be in the sciences because females are innately less capable than males. I've been in classes where the profs made no beans about thinking that non-religious (or "non-spiritual") people are inherently immoral and wicked. I've sat through lectures that were entirely dedicated to trashing the political and economic beliefs I hold. So what?!

Damn, just get your learn on and quit being such dicks about it. Your prof's ideas cannot infect you unless you CHOOSE to let them. If you feel your prof is using completely unreasonable grading standards then go to the admin, and (contrary to what some are claiming) you WILL be heard. Any even remotely decent school will put a stop to profs who give out grades based on who is most willing to pander to their ideology.

If you find yourself in a school that fails to do this, then a degree from that school is worthless anyhow and you should pack up your bags and leave. You should also go to the media immediately, so that others can be warned away from that school...just be careful, because the prof can sue you when it comes out that you're just lying about the whole thing.

To which I must agree.

I think college SHOULD be open to anybody who wants to go. I like the current system (sort of) in which there's basically a college for anybody who wants to go...you can't automatically get in to whichever school you want, but if you don't get into one there's a hundred more to try. I like that anybody, of any range of ability, can at least get in the door. Of course, getting out with a degree is different. I believe in giving everybody the opportunity to try, but I don't believe in passing out degrees like candy. Once you're in college you should be regarded as an adult, and if you are unable to function as an adult then you should be given failing marks.

This includes the kind of behavior that these babies are whining about...if you are unable to deal with professors having opinions, you are not a grown up and should not be in grown up school. If you cannot think critically and evalutate what other people say, then you are not a grown up. If you cannot handle your tender ego coming into contact with ideas different from your own, then you are not a grown up. In these cases, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to walk away with a degree that might mislead others into thinking that you are a grown up.

I've sat in classes where the prof made no beans about believing that females shouldn't be in the sciences because females are innately less capable than males. I've been in classes where the profs made no beans about thinking that non-religious (or "non-spiritual") people are inherently immoral and wicked. I've sat through lectures that were entirely dedicated to trashing the political and economic beliefs I hold. So what?!

Damn, just get your learn on and quit being such dicks about it. Your prof's ideas cannot infect you unless you CHOOSE to let them. If you feel your prof is using completely unreasonable grading standards then go to the admin, and (contrary to what some are claiming) you WILL be heard. Any even remotely decent school will put a stop to profs who give out grades based on who is most willing to pander to their ideology.

If you find yourself in a school that fails to do this, then a degree from that school is worthless anyhow and you should pack up your bags and leave. You should also go to the media immediately, so that others can be warned away from that school...just be careful, because the prof can sue you when it comes out that you're just lying about the whole thing.
Damn skippy to the whole thing, but I wanted to especially note the bolded part up there. I find it interesting that the right-wing in the US--the Limbaughs, for instance--talk a lot of shit about how the left is always playing the victim card, and yet when it comes to academia, no one cries louder than the so-called conservatives.

Damn, just get your learn on and quit being such dicks about it. Your prof's ideas cannot infect you unless you CHOOSE to let them. If you feel your prof is using completely unreasonable grading standards then go to the admin, and (contrary to what some are claiming) you WILL be heard. Any even remotely decent school will put a stop to profs who give out grades based on who is most willing to pander to their ideology.

If you find yourself in a school that fails to do this, then a degree from that school is worthless anyhow and you should pack up your bags and leave. You should also go to the media immediately, so that others can be warned away from that school...just be careful, because the prof can sue you when it comes out that you're just lying about the whole thing.

I'm not worried about being infected by an idea. I just have a problem with professors who are unwilling to have their students question their assertions. In my personal experience, I've found that professors outside the sciences seem to be far more likely to get angry when you question their beliefs - they believe that they were sent to Earth to enlighten the ignorant, and that their way of thinking is the ONLY way to think - otherwise, you get an F.

I find it's much easier just to go to the dean, and have him laugh and tell me that he has that sort of trouble with that professor all the time, and would I like to drop the grade from my transcript?

Something makes me think that Bottle believes that professors NEVER do anything bad - ever.

Shall I recount the professors I've seen fucking their students, literally?
I know there are assholes in academia, just like there are assholes anywhere else. I'm absolutely positive that I've personally met more of them than you have. However, I also know that it's actually not very hard to bust the assholes. Yes, there are profs who fuck their students, and if a prof ever tries to fuck you then you can get them fired (and possibly jailed, depending on your age). I've done it, and I'm a wussy little librul.

Plenty of prof will try to push rules, or even break them, but that doesn't mean you have to let them and it sure as hell doesn't mean that you should be a whiney-ass baby about the whole mess. If a prof pull bullshit on you, don't whimper about how mean the liberal academics are and how your poor, tender, conservative mind has been brutally manhandled by their wicked Commie ways. Save the waterworks, and grow a spine.

I've stood up to profs who talked down to me because I'm female, profs who told me my system of morality is evil (yes, the word "evil" was actually used), and profs who told me to just give up because I was never going to make anything of myself. I don't have magical superpowers (yet...), and I managed just fine because of one simple reality: a professor's personal opinion is also utterly devoid of magical powers. A professor can believe whatever they like, and it doesn't mean I have to agree. If they grade me unfairly, or try to block me from succeeding using unfair methods, then I bust them.

If I feel I received an unfair grade, I take it to Academic Affairs and get an impartial review. If I feel a prof is letting their personal feelings rule their judgment, then I take my exam or assignment to three other members of the department and have them independently grade it. Believe me, if you go to your dean and say, "Three profs in the department believed my assignment deserved an 'A,' but the prof in question flunked me and won't give me constructive comments," the dean is going to pay attention. They can't afford not to.

For all that conservatives claim to be about "personal responsibility," they sure are acting like a bunch of spoilt children about this shite. Gimme a break. Quit expecting Daddy Gov'ment to step in and fight your battles for you.

When I sign up for (read: purchase) a US History class, and the only part of US History I am exposed to is that professor's one or two favorite parts (i.e. the Civil War and the Kennedy administration), there's a problem.

When I sign up for (again: purchase) a chemistry lab class, and we end up talking more about the socio-economic effects of chemical by-products than using the chemicals themselves, there's a problem.

If I write an opinion paper, and the professor grades it based on whether my views agree with his, instead of whether I made and carried my own argument, there's a problem.

When all we do in class is read the flippin book (which I could do much easier and more comfortably at home) and never engage in debate or seek to apply the knowledge we're gathering, there's a problem.

Professors are people, and people have issues. I get it. It's unrealistic to expect them to be otherwise. Most of my teachers have been effective, if not excellent. But some teachers (most of them college professors) seem to view their class as their own little intellectual sandbox in which they can build whatever they please. And if you try to argue that they can't, they hide behind free speech arguments.

My answer: umm... No. A professor is there to provide a specific service to a paying customer. That customer, just like any other, has the right receive his service as advertised... NOT as the professor would personally prefer. When the professor's freedom of speech and self-expression in "his" class are in some way preventing, rather than encouraging, the learning process I signed up for and paid good money for... well, you guessed it. There's a problem. And it's damned hard to address, which is another problem. Universities are rarely any help. They may change your grade in the end, but how does that give you what you paid for? The student gets screwed.

Students need a more effective way of having their grievances attended to, and schools need a better way to remove poor teachers. And the good teachers deserve a better reputation, which they would certainly get if the worst among them were forced out.

If I feel I received an unfair grade, I take it to Academic Affairs and get an impartial review. If I feel a prof is letting their personal feelings rule their judgment, then I take my exam or assignment to three other members of the department and have them independently grade it. Believe me, if you go to your dean and say, "Three profs in the department believed my assignment deserved an 'A,' but the prof in question flunked me and won't give me constructive comments," the dean is going to pay attention. They can't afford not to.

For all that conservatives claim to be about "personal responsibility," they sure are acting like a bunch of spoilt children about this shite. Gimme a break. Quit expecting Daddy Gov'ment to step in and fight your battles for you.

I haven't felt the need for courts or government - the dean does just fine for me.

Ah, another of the spitting wounded.

It could be you didn't understand the nature of the assignment, and you went beyond the parameters of the nature of the assignment by erroneously assuming you could place one economic structure in an absolute category of unprovable aesthetic and apparently personal value.
One might even construe that you could've done yourself a favour by thinking about the consequences a little more.

Hardly. The dean acknowledged that my paper was well written, deserving of an A (if it had been his class and assignment), and that he already knew that the prof in question was a blithering idiot.

Hardly. The dean acknowledged that my paper was well written, deserving of an A (if it had been his class and assignment), and that he already knew that the prof in question was a blithering idiot.

And yet the professor remains a professor. :mad:

And yet the professor remains a professor. :mad:
Tenure is everything. He would have had to rape my ass to have any real problems.

Maybe it's just my mood this morning, but all I've got for this is a big ol'
Who Cares!

Tenure is everything. He would have had to rape my ass to have any real problems.
Utterly and completely untrue. Tenure simply does not work that way. Believe me, because I'd always dreamed of one day getting tenure and being invincible, until my program director explained to me exactly what tenure is really worth...sadly, it does NOT render you "unfireable."

Maybe it's just my mood this morning, but all I've got for this is a big ol'
Who Cares!

Uh, the people who are posting.

Der. :rolleyes:

I haven't felt the need for courts or government - the dean does just fine for me.
Clearly not. If he did, you wouldn't be bitching about this.

If you still have a bug up your arse about what the prof did, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If you don't still have a bug up your arse, then STOP WHINING ABOUT IT. Either way, sitting around complaining about evil liberal bias in academia is a waste of your time.

Utterly and completely untrue. Tenure simply does not work that way. Believe me, because I'd always dreamed of one day getting tenure and being invincible, until my program director explained to me exactly what tenure is really worth...sadly, it does NOT render you "unfireable."
Yep. Where I teach, it offers roughly the same protection a union rep offers. Hell, I'm not tenure track and I have that protection. I just don't have a long term contract.

Yep. Where I teach, [tenure] offers roughly the same protection a union rep offers. Hell, I'm not tenure track and I have that protection. I just don't have a long term contract.

Pardon my ignorance... what's the difference?

It seems that both sides complain of unfair proselytizing in regards to the other side.

The conservatives complain of university's allowing professors to unfairly teach their ideology from their podiums, and the liberals complain of pastors unfairly preaching politics from their pulpits. Both are fair, IMO, if you don’t like it. Don’t listen.

If you don’t like to fight it out, take a different class or go to a different school. If you can’t influence the pastor/minister/imam, go to a different church or not go at all. Both are tax exempt institutions, and both should remain free of outside interference aimed at nothing but curtailing their freedom of speech.

Yep. Where I teach, it offers roughly the same protection a union rep offers. Hell, I'm not tenure track and I have that protection. I just don't have a long term contract.
I found out that I basically have more job security (as a TAing grad student) than many of the full professors in my department. This is not an encouraging thought, considering that my plan was to become a prof one day...

It seems that both sides complain of unfair proselytizing in regards to the other side.

The conservatives complain of university's allowing professors to unfairly teach their ideology from their podiums, and the liberals complain of pastors unfairly preaching politics from their pulpits. Both are fair, IMO, if you don’t like it. Don’t listen.
In one sense, I completely agree with you. However, there is a crucial difference to keep in mind:

Liberals mainly complain about pastors preaching politics because religious organizations enjoy tax-exempt status that is (supposedly) contingent upon their remaining OUT of politics. I have no problem with a religious leader involving himself in politics, so long as his organization is held to precisely the same standards as all other organizations...the IRS should not extend tax-exemptions to religious organizations that refuse to play by the rules.

College professors, contrary to what I might hope, are not tax-exempt. College profs, particularly those in the field of political science or history, are REQUIRED to directly address political matters in their subject material. A person who signs up for a poli-sci class should probably be prepared to hear discussions of a political nature. They also should probably expect the teacher to be a human adult, and human adults are known for their ability to generate opinions and feelings on various topics, and to discuss those opinions with other humans.


If you don’t like to fight it out, take a different class or go to a different school. If you can’t influence the pastor/minister/imam, go to a different church or not go at all. Both are tax exempt institutions, and both should remain free of outside interference aimed at nothing but curtailing their freedom of speech.
Um, academics are NOT tax-exempt. Universities are held to very strict standards regarding the taxes they pay and the federal funding they receive, and these financial breaks can be yanked for a wide range of reasons. I see no reason why religious organizations should be exempt from the laws that govern all other organizations.

In one sense, I completely agree with you. However, there is a crucial difference to keep in mind:

Liberals mainly complain about pastors preaching politics because religious organizations enjoy tax-exempt status that is (supposedly) contingent upon their remaining OUT of politics. I have no problem with a religious leader involving himself in politics, so long as his organization is held to precisely the same standards as all other organizations...the IRS should not extend tax-exemptions to religious organizations that refuse to play by the rules.

That sounds a lot like the argument against them as well. The argument that says we don’t have to allow professors talk about anything outside of their curriculums, and if they do, we can and should punish them.

The preacher/minister etc., makes no agreement to stay out of politics, they are collectively punished as political organizations if they don’t abide by the rules. The same way that the conservative now want to ‘punish’ the university and the professors whom stray outside of academics. I see no difference; they both are political arguments to punish the other for speaking ‘out of turn.’

College professors, contrary to what I might hope, are not tax-exempt.

And neither are the personal earnings of ministers, priests, etc.

Um, academics are NOT tax-exempt. Universities are held to very strict standards regarding the taxes they pay and the federal funding they receive, and these financial breaks can be yanked for a wide range of reasons. I see no reason why religious organizations should be exempt from the laws that govern all other organizations.

Universities are tax exempt. What taxes do you think they pay? When they purchase supplies, they will list their tax exempt number instead of pay sales tax, when they accept charitable donations, they can give you your tax exception number for your IRS form.

When they appeal for monies they appeal to the tax payer. Unless you are talking about some obscure private college I am unaware of, the Universities themselves are tax exempt institutions.

If you didn't parrot the party line dished out by the professor, you either had to drop the class in time, or ask the dean to drop the grade from your record. You were going to get an F if the professor got the impression during class conversations that you questioned the goodness of Communism.I have to agree with this. In my undergraduate degree, if you did not spout the lecturer's line, you did badly. No matter how well sourced, balanced or well-written your argument was, if it did not ultimately come down on the side that the relevant lecturer supported, you were told it was biased and wrong. This was from a well respected academic institution.

Furthermore, my boyfriend, who taught Irish History for some time at one of NI's universities, received a number of essays that genuinely were biased; he, expecting a balanced argument, marked them accordingly. On a number of occasions, however, on second and subsequently third markings, higher marks were awarded to these essays and his were disregarded, because it seemed to suit the higher-ups in the department in question. This kind of bias was one of the reasons he left academia.

Luckily for me, my postgraduate course has not exhibited the same poor standards that my BSc did, but the point is, anecdotal claims or not, DK is not the only one to experience it; it does happen.

In theory, the solution would be to move to another university, but that assumes that (a) you have the finances to do so, (b) that the area you wish to be in has a (decent) university with your subject (and that credits are transferable to it, depending on how much you have studied to that point) and (c) that the same thing is guaranteed not to happen at another institution.

That sounds a lot like the argument against them as well. The argument that says we don’t have to allow professors talk about anything outside of their curriculums, and if they do, we can and should punish them.

And, contrary to what the whining might lead you to believe, WE DO.


The preacher/minister etc., makes no agreement to stay out of politics, they are collectively punished as political organizations if they don’t abide by the rules. The same way that the conservative now want to ‘punish’ the university and the professors whom stray outside of academics. I see no difference; they both are political arguments to punish the other for speaking ‘out of turn.’

They do make an agreement to stay out of politics, when they apply for their tax exemption. The rules are made VERY clear by the IRS. If you want to apply for tax-exempt status for your church/temple/whatever, there are certain qualifications you must meet and certain rules you must agree to. Very simple.


Universities are tax exempt. What taxes do you think they pay? When they purchase supplies, they will list their tax exempt number instead of pay sales tax, when they accept charitable donations, they can give you your tax exception number for your IRS form.

My own undergrad university was bitching to high heaven about the taxes they had to pay on developing the campus. Universities are, by and large, at least nominally tax-exempt, but there are way more loopholes than you might think. Particularly for the "fuzzy areas" like properties owned by a university that are not specifically used for university functions.

Furthermore, and more to the point, they have to abide by a very specific set of rules if they want to have tax exemptions, just like religious organizations have to abide by certain rules if they want tax exemptions. I don't see the problem. The rules for institutions of higher learning are not identical to those for religious organizations (which I think makes perfect sense), so what's the scuffle about?


When they appeal for monies they appeal to the tax payer. Unless you are talking about some obscure private college I am unaware of, the Universities themselves are tax exempt institutions.
And they have to play by the rules to keep those tax-exemptions. What's your point?

I have been very clear on the fact that I believe professors should not have the right to compell their students to follow a particular ideology, nor should they be permitted to punish students who refuse to agree with their own political or moral beliefs. So what's the freaking beef?!

...
Furthermore, and more to the point, they have to abide by a very specific set of rules if they want to have tax exemptions, just like religious organizations have to abide by certain rules if they want tax exemptions. I don't see the problem. The rules for institutions of higher learning are not identical to those for religious organizations (which I think makes perfect sense), so what's the scuffle about?


And they have to play by the rules to keep those tax-exemptions. What's your point?

I have been very clear on the fact that I believe professors should not have the right to compell their students to follow a particular ideology, nor should they be permitted to punish students who refuse to agree with their own political or moral beliefs. So what's the freaking beef?!


Yes you have been clear. I'm not misunderstanding you. I just fall on the other side of the line for my conclusion. You would have the University AND the Church regulated for speech content, I would liberate the speech of both and allow them to regulate themselves.

The professor that is too much of an idiot should be regulated by the University, the pastor that is too much of an idiot should be regulated by the church or membership. I would allow both institutions to talk about anything they wanted and not allow government interference into their private affairs and I would allow both to retain their tax exempt status without trying to use the threat of taxes or the promise of tax exemptiveness as a carrot or a stick to force them to perform only in the realm of what the government discerns as ‘acceptable’ standards of conduct (if I had my way).

My way is liberty, you endorse continued regulation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/od_nm/life_university_dc;_ylt=AhCCGZ_K2PLJRnD.V.h3O0us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Looks like McCarthyism is alive and well... all I can say is good for the folks like James Rogan who pulled out of this mess.

Well there we go. Some accountability perhaps! How refreshing.

The "blogger mentality" applied to the classroom! Fantastic!

The reason the left hates this, as they should from their standpoint, is that
they might be held accountable for their behaviors and results.

Lord knows the results of the education system are a model of
wonderfulness..!

So "University Policy" is to not allow free speech and the dissemination of
information? How amazing that is..! I would never have expected such a thng
from so "non-leftist" a group of organizations..!!

Don't I constantly hear "Turn over your papers, Mr./Mrs./Ms. <republican
person>!" coming from the secrecy hating left..!!?

Such amazing consistency..!!

-Iakeo

Pardon my ignorance... what's the difference?
Well, the tenured professors at my university have basically an open-ended contract once tenure is awarded--before tenure is awarded, you can be cut loose with an academic year's notice. You're basically on a six or seven year probationary period where you have to publish your ass off to prove you'll be a credit to the university. But even once you have tenure, you can be fired for cause--failure to keep up with your teaching or service requirements, inappropriate behavior with students or fellow staff, academic dishonesty, among other things.

My position is a bit less secure--I work on a renewable one-year contract, but my university, and my department in particular, has a reputation for keeping instructors on for long stretches, and for occasionally promoting from within to the tenure track. Most universities don't do that.

Maybe it's just my mood this morning, but all I've got for this is a big ol'
Who Cares!


Good morning sunshine! :fluffle:

Well there we go. Some accountability perhaps! How refreshing.

The "blogger mentality" applied to the classroom! Fantastic!

The reason the left hates this, as they should from their standpoint, is that
they might be held accountable for their behaviors and results.


Woooowwww speaking of blogger mentality.

Yea only the right and middle want to be held accountable for their behavior and results. :rolleyes:


Lord knows the results of the education system are a model of
wonderfulness..!


True. However is it the institution?, the students?, or both?

For example, I have noticed a trend in IT where newly graduated new hires don't want to know why or how something works, they simply want to "push a button" and get paid a great deal of money for doing it. Not all but I have come across many....


So "University Policy" is to not allow free speech and the dissemination of
information? How amazing that is..! I would never have expected such a thng
from so "non-leftist" a group of organizations..!!

Don't I constantly hear "Turn over your papers, Mr./Mrs./Ms. <republican
person>!" coming from the secrecy hating left..!!?


Well what do you expect? Sorry you can't see the Presidential Daily Briefs because they are restricted due to national security. Sorry you can't see the meeting notes between the VP and the energy companies because they pertain to policy and national security.



Such amazing consistency..!!

-Iakeo

I will grant you that one. You are consistent. ;)

Explain to me why this is a bad thing, please. ( I think I already know the reasons, but humor me. ) :)
Because people are allowed to be left-wing without losing their jobs. It shouldn't matter that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist socialist; he seems to be a good linguistics professor and that's what matters.

Haha, don't worry about it. Pretty much every single person I've encountered on this forum initially assumes I'm male.
You certainly don't spend much time talking about it here!
I think the incident(s) i was ref'ing would be when the thread came up a while back about why the names for our nations .... ;)

But even once you have tenure, you can be fired for cause--failure to keep up with your teaching or service requirements, inappropriate behavior with students or fellow staff, academic dishonesty, among other things.

Bombastic behavior towards students and grading without justification doesn't usually get you fired - you have to do worse than that.

Fucking your students for real, for example, or the intellectual dishonesty (like that Korean scientist recently).

Just because you routinely act like an asshat in class is usually regarded with amusement - you're just a colorful personality, and the dean knows it. He grants students reprieve from your idiocy, and you continue on.

Hardly. The dean acknowledged that my paper was well written, deserving of an A (if it had been his class and assignment), and that he already knew that the prof in question was a blithering idiot.
That's not a hardly instance, seeing as how i'm not the only one to call you on the exact same parameters of behaviour.
You know you would do well to substantiate your case of collegiate integrity by perhaps sharing this essay of yours ... if you had it someplace and a scanner then you could very easily show it to us, and then after everyone here reacts, you can call them blithering idiots for pointing out that your premise was faulty (which it is) unless your paper actually qualifies that faulty premise. Peer review?
He may or may not have "already known" that the prof was a "blithering idiot" (according to you) but nonetheless you are hard pressed to actually verify your premise. You should've known better than that.
For example ... Bush is WRONG.
No, he's incompetent.
No, he's misunderstood.
So which one of those premises do you think can be substantiated? The ones that are about a gleaning of personal opinion? Or the one that actually shows what the parameters of behaviour and performance are required, for which the subject in question doesn't fulfill enough obligations of success and integrity to qualify as anything OTHER than the premise?

Bombastic behavior towards students and grading without justification doesn't usually get you fired - you have to do worse than that.

Fucking your students for real, for example, or the intellectual dishonesty (like that Korean scientist recently).

Just because you routinely act like an asshat in class is usually regarded with amusement - you're just a colorful personality, and the dean knows it. He grants students reprieve from your idiocy, and you continue on.
Well, a greater emphasis on evaluations is changing that. In the case of a professor who has been around for a long time, who may be on the verge of becoming Emeritus, for instance, I can see that happening. And I can also see it happening ten years ago. But a new professor today, even one with full tenure, can't get away with that kind of stuff so much anymore.

Well, a greater emphasis on evaluations is changing that. In the case of a professor who has been around for a long time, who may be on the verge of becoming Emeritus, for instance, I can see that happening. And I can also see it happening ten years ago. But a new professor today, even one with full tenure, can't get away with that kind of stuff so much anymore.

A lot has to do with what your colleagues think of you. If they don't mind what you're doing, you have allies and friends. If they mind what you're doing, they throw you to the wolves.

I would say that it is silly to go to court or to try to start a website to ridicule the prof.

It's much easier to talk to the dean.

Because people are allowed to be left-wing without losing their jobs. It shouldn't matter that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist socialist; he seems to be a good linguistics professor and that's what matters.

But they are indoctrinating the students you dirty commie liberal bastard!


Just in case! :p