The Scarlet R in Action
In my post on the Scarlet R, I noted that Republicans are often called vile names in response to their political leanings, especially in institutions of "higher learning." Here is a prime example at the Volokh Conspiracy of the type of denigrating behavior professors get away with at these paragons of diversity for the sole reason that the recipient is the wrong color and political orientation:
Now imagine the tables were turned and a white professor called a black student Democrat the same type of derogatory name in reverse? Would that professor still have a job? Maybe, but you better believe that the professor would be a pariah and the repercussions a lot worse than a reprimand.
Washington State University Professor Calls Student "White Shitbag" at Demonstration: The WSU investigation report is here. The College Republicans organized an anti-illegal-immigration event, featuring a "24-foot, chain-link, cyclone fence, later established as a representation of a 'Wall of Immigration.'" Professor John Streamas showed up, got into an argument with Dan Ryder, a College Republicans member, and in the process called him a "white shitbag."
Now imagine the tables were turned and a white professor called a black student Democrat the same type of derogatory name in reverse? Would that professor still have a job? Maybe, but you better believe that the professor would be a pariah and the repercussions a lot worse than a reprimand.
posted by Helen at 6:46 AM
50 Comments:
Gen.JC Christian, "patriot,"
Yes, it should. If you want to get into revenge from what happened years ago, then when will it end? People of all colors and political persuasions should be equal under the law and in universities if we really have "diversity." While I am a proponent of free speech and people have the right to call others what they wish, one group is not obligated to "take it" any more than any other.
"white shitbag", "nazi fascist", etc. are considered acceptable terms by the left to describe anyone to the right of their beliefs. The left has no solid rational foundation for their beliefs wo they spew venom instead.
The non-written rules imposed on us by the left since the 60s for black people, feminists, gays and the left are the same;
They can call white people on the right anything they want, but white conservatives can not do the same,
( they usually don't anyway )
It is a boxing match where one side makes the rules to its advantage, he can hit us below the belt, in the back or even after the bell, but we must obey the strictest code of conduct, we must be squeaky clean.
I'm no psychologist, but that behavior reminds me of dictators...
And that is how it often feels, to me anyway; the left is a legion of millions of little dictators who impose all sorts of things on us even the words we can use.
And just like dictators they say it is for the good of the people.
The more I look at it the more I see similiraties...
similiraties is similar to similarities...
I'm afraid that the more out of the mainstream leftness gets the more violent it will become.
Name calling, no matter the source, is childish and usually happens when a person is unable to respond with logical and rational discourse.
It has become all too common in this time of extreme divisiveness. Let's not pretend that one side does it more than the other.
I guess when the President and Vice President and many members of the Republican party call many distinguished and honorable Democrats, including, myself, traitors and terrorists its okay, right?
It is interesting to see the Leftwing Psychological Response to what is clearly an asymmetrical situation: "well, Republicans are bad, too."
Very nice.
It's mostly about power. I recall hearing some pretty vile things from Republicans about Clinton during his eight-year fun-fest. Now that they're in power, they're fairly cool - now it's the Democrats going off the deep end.
Watch what happens when/if the Dems keep their majority in Congress and win the next Presidential election. The moonbats will go back into hibernation and suddenly everything will be right with the world. The Republicans, on the other hand, will go back to their moral degeneracy attacks. It's all stupid and all vile, but hey...welcome to America.
As to calling Democrats traitors and terrorists - I think it depends on which Democrats you're talking about and how they express their views. Merely expressing opposition to the war or Bush don't call for that kind of rhetoric. Other behaviors certainly do.
What we could really use is for people to learn to express themselves forcefully without sounding completely out of control and out of touch with reality. Especially politicians - who are supposed to know something about expressing themselves effectively. Making outrageous statements and paranoid claims may make you feel heroic, but they don't inspire much confidence in your ability to govern.
So this is somehow different from Dick Cheney telling Patrick Leahy to "Go fuck yourself!" or Bush calling Adam Clymer " A major league asshole", to which Cheney responded "Big time"?
I think you also missed the point earlier that calling someone a black scumbag wouldn't have any consequences either.
anonymous 11:52:
I think Michael Richards would beg to differ.
"I think you also missed the point earlier that calling someone a black scumbag wouldn't have any consequences either."
And I think you're delusional if you really think such an idiocy. We just watched a legal lynch mob go after three men in NC over the accusations of a scheming whore of a stripper whose only claim to credibility or sympathy was that she was black and that they were white. So save your kumbaya-era moral exhibitionism for someone who will fall for it.
University speech codes are quite blatant in discrimination against certain groups and in favor of others.
On top of that, this was a professor speaking to students, someone clearly in the position of power, pulling out that preacher-ass old lie some one in a Black Studies Dept. somewhere, about how minority people can never be racist because racism is about a power differential.
The culture overall has become a lot coarser. When I first raised questions about why we were ignoring Afghanistan and sending our soliders to Iraq, I was called "Saddam Lover" and "Traitor" as well as such old standards as "idiot," and of course, "faggot," a favorite of people who inject sexuality into all sorts of arguments.
I grew up conservative because I was appalled by the coarseness of 60's protestors, even when they had valid points. I preferred the approach of William F. Buckley, who said he believed that if he is right, he should be sophisticated about it.
In the 1980s Newt Gingrich wrote the talking points that repubicans should describe Democrats with such words as "sick" and "traitor." President Bill Clinton was accused of being a rapist (the record seems to be that he attracted groupies, oddly enough), a mass murderer and a drug runner. These smears were spraed by the same people who now pitifully complain about how mean "the Bush haters" are.
Yes, there's inarticulate idiots on the left. But I don't think there's ever been a centrally directed call for rotten language to compare with that of Newt Gingrich.
"I think Michael Richards would beg to differ."
Puhleeez, Helen. You must be joking.
First off, Richards went on a racially motivated tirade at a comedy club. He said far worse than "black scumbag". Maybe you should watch the video.
But is he facing criminal or civil charges? Nope. Sorry.
The shadowy "left" is the convenient scapegoat for right wingers whenever they can't cope with the fact that it's the free market that's going to "punish" people like Richards. You know, capitalism at work.
But seriously, Richards is beside the point here. Is Streamas even black?
Anonymous 12:12
I propose you run an experiment. Attend a city council or county commission meeting where you live and refer to a black member of council or the commission or someone else as a "black scumbag." If you happen to be non-black, you'll find out the consequences.
And, a professor, who has much potential power and control over students, calling a student a "shitbag" of whatever color is quite different than Cheney telling someone over whom he has little if any power to "Go fuch yourself." If you don't understand the difference, I doubt you understand very much of anything except, obviously, how to make irrelevant arguments.
Sigh.
Everyone is missing the point. The point is a lack of reciprocity. I can assure that, as an academic, a white professor calling a black student "a black scumbag" would result in the firing of that professor.
Yet a black professor calling a white student "a white scumbag" will result in, at the most, a reprimand. And I frankly doubt that such will happen as time goes on.
The fact is that professors using such language on students is always wrong, if for no other reason the power differential the Left loves to bring up. ANY professor speaking that way should be reprimanded, fined, or worse.
And don't tell me that calling someone a scumbag, with a racial identifier, constitutes "free speech." Rights are not license. Otherwise the ACLU would be defending Mel Gibson and that Richards parakeet right now.
The responses from the Left on this blog are amazing. First is the statement that "everybody does it" (sounds familiar, doesn't it?). Then the statement mutates into how the Republicans are so much worse. My favorite was the person who took things said ostensibly privately by Bush and Cheney, picked up with a boom mike, and clearly not meant for public distribution---as the equivalent, somehow, of racial epithets.
All of this is beside the point. Take it back to the WSU professor's actions...and the one-sidedness of the response. And remember the original point here: how Republicans, on campus, are not treated the same way as Left-leaning organizations.
Don't believe it? Then try my experiment for a while: pretend to be a Republican professor on a campus, and see what happens. As opposed, again, to how the most outrageous Left-leaning statementsw are treated on campus.
The rest of this is reactive trollilng. But I am not surprised, since the trolling changes the subject.
Has it even been established that this professor was black? All I know is that he was born in Japan.
Secondly, if a white professor were say, attending a demonstration put on by black student activists who were calling for (as an example here) a policy which overwhelmingly negatively affected whites, with say symbology or props present to drive the point home, do you think he'd get fired for calling them "black shitbag"? I doubt it. Further, the college republicans would have protested it to the dean's office so fast that the demonstration would never get off the ground!
Get off your pathetic, tired right wing self pity trips. These guys had a giant chain link fence with them, and they were therefore looking to create controversy and/or turmoil, which they did.
As for "j. peden", he's an outright idiot with no knowledge of statistics. Blacks are far more likely to commit crimes against other blacks than whites. Furthermore, where do you get off reading the mugger's mind? You have experience in that area?
Republicans run to Mommy every time a leftie "insults" them.
Yet Republicans are the one who will protect us from terrorists.
Hilarious!
Robert
I wonder how many people have read through Helen's links to the WSU report on the incident?
Notably, the description of the event where, during the discourse, the student calls out the professor for what he says, the professor immediately apologizes for the insult, and says he shouldn't have said it... and, here's an important part, both sides then continued the debate, apparantly letting the isnult lay with that response.
I'm bringing this up because it seems a lot of the rhetoric I'm reading is calling this the ultimate example of how universities persecute Republicans and right-wingers. Somehow people aren't allowed to be people? Can anyone possibly expect that the display of such an "anti-immigration" fence in any public place wouldn't upset someone? And do people say things they normally wouldn't when they get upset? Of course they do.
I am not excusing the professor's actions. He was wrong. He said something he should not have.
However, it apparently wasn't so caustic as to completely derail the debate that the student and professor were having. And, it didn't provoke a fight. He apologized. That should be the end of it, yes? But not, for the folks on this blog? Why is that? The man apologized, and the debate continued. It isn't as if the professor sat there and chanted white shitbag over and over again. It isn't as if he burned this in the grass where the student was standing. But still, this is something that somehow is indicative of how Republicans are persecuted all over the United States?
I swear, trotting out this incident as proof that Republicans are persecuted in academia certainly isn't winning this person over to your argument.
OK, first, just what is a shitbag? I know what a scum bag is, but the only thing I can think of in terms of a shit bag is a colostomy bag. Rather useful those.
Then some anon wrote: "These guys had a giant chain link fence with them, and they were therefore looking to create controversy and/or turmoil, which they did."
Yep, your giant chain link is well known to start your riots. The link that started thos Chinese riots was a foot in diameter! Smaller chain link does not have the inherent insult that a big ass link does. And God knows that anyone who is looking to create a little controversy should be ethnically insulted. It is a community duty to do so. I know I do.
Besides, what is a self-respecting faculty member to do? Sit around when someone is toting a big ass chain link fence and have tea with them? Engage them in learned discorse? Have a debate? This is America! And here in America when someone throws down a big ass chain link we have but one option: illogical racial slurs.
Trey
Aha! I am betting that "greg" is our old friend "Greg Kuperberg." Doesn't matter either way.
Like "Eric Blair" said, folks are missing the points. I laughed out loud at the comment earlier that, when insulted, Republican Club members would run to the Dean and get a fair hearing. Go read up on campus follies before you say such things. Or more accurately, show me a single case where a Republican group on a campus has filed a complaint and gotten an apology when leftie types call them Nazis, etc. (apologies from the offending group or students, I mean---and remember the number of times righties need to write up long "I'm sorry" apologies when they "go over the line" on campus).
I'm waiting.
This just underscore's "Blair"s experiment: if you are an academic who thinks all of this is boohoo, then put on the pro-Republican button. Put up the pro-Bush cartoon on your office door. Give an interview in the school newspaper about how you are a "born again" Republican and now go to church weekly. In other words, do the mirror image of the leftie extremism on most campuses.
Then see what happens.
If you aren't willing to try this, then I am inclined to think that you know the truth---you just think "your side" is completely correct.
But if you REALLY believe in freedom of expression, I say give the experiment a try. After all, Republicans are just boohoo types, and there is no factual proof of anti-Republican bias on campus, right? So the experiment should be no big deal.
Just pay up on your unemployment first.
Dear Anonymous 2:57:
I agree with much of what you express (you are probably an teacher or professor, too). But there is an awful lot of heat and not enough light on this subject.
I think that readers should re-read Professor Volokh's posting on this subject, and read the comments below it:
http://volokh.com/posts/1166639678.shtml
As you can see, there is a similar quantity of vitriol and such there. And there is a photograph of Professor Streamas there, as well (who appears to be of Asian descent though I could be wrong).
Professor Volokh is a long standing proponent of the freest of free speech. So even when I disagree with him, I read his arguments carefully.
Notice, as well, he never appears to descend to name calling.
I think we all need to agree that Professor Streamas made a serious error, because of the power differential he possesses as a professor. That is independent of the strength of his arguments.
Although, as I read further, Professor Streamas appears to equate a border fence with the Nazi horrors. I do not believe that the two items are equivalent. I hope no one else does, either---regardless of partisanship or feelings about border politics.
1. "Black scumbag" is not equivalent to the "N" word. Thought it would be nice to level the equality playing field now, you can't deny history, Helen. And the word is nothing but loaded with history. That's the power of most words, you see.
2. Quite logically, there's a reason this professor used the identifier "white". Presumably, the words he chose also spoke of a message. My opinion is he thought the (white) student probably had no knowledge of what he was protesting because of who he was. You can debate that of course, but calling him "white" had a purpose. It wasn't just a slur alone, like the "N" word is. Hence it had to be paired with scumbag. (See, the N word presumes inferiority -- so comparing this professor to Michael Richards does not cut it).
---------
The problem with targeting language -- trying to compare situations -- is that not everything is equal and measures the same. Is it anti-PC to say that? I see a failure of logic in arguments like Professor Helen's here, and more reason to fear the PC sensitive right for what they find offensive to protect whites and men. Comparing apples and oranges may go over in the academic world, but not the real one with a knowledge of everyday injustices.
Not Professor Helen,
I meant "Doctor" Helen of course.
Which is to say, last anonymous is OK with racial discrimination as long as the "correct" people are discriminated against. Nice.
The problem with conservatives is that throughout history they have never been right on a single issue. Women's suffrage? Civil rights? Even women's rights to choose is suppported by a majority of Americans, which leads me to believe that history will deem you losers there too.
Conservatives are a bunch of bitter old dinosaurs incapable of adaptation and change.
Poor things, can't say "black scumbag." Systematically destroying this country for twelve years from habeas corpus to tax cuts for Paris Hilton and increased "clean skies" (meaning more global warming). Four years in which your every wildest legislative dream could come to fruition. And you're bitching about not being able to call someone a black bastard!?!
Apparently there is at least one academic institution that's not liberal, the good old redneck-as-hell university of Tennessee. When you make grads of UGA, such as myself, seem hyper-intelligent, you have a serious problem old rocky top.
I can't wait until you are politically irrelevant.
Dear Anonymous 5:43:
Puh-leeze.
You might want to be just a mite careful in your historical analysis of Conservative/Republican positions.
Such as slavery, for example. Go read a history book. We'll all wait.
Back? Great. The Republicans were the anti-slavery party. Now, you will shuck and jive and weave to avoid it. You will say that Conservatives are different than Republicans...but you surely aren't claiming that Conservatives are in the Democratic party, are you?
I guess you know better than the history books, don't you?
How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Ever look at who voted for and against it, and their party affiliations? Whoops! Some people still on the Democratic side of the Senate TODAY voted against it. Do you want to condemn them now?
We'll wait for you to criticize Robert Byrd, former officer in the KKK and user of the "N" word on national television a couple of years ago.
Imagine a current member of the Senate, Republican, who had been an officer in the KKK, voted against the Civil Rights Act, and used the "N" word two years ago? Why, such a person would not be tolerated in DC.
Comments on the consistency of your political convictions?
(sound of crickets, followed by a list of eeeevvvvviiiiiilllll Republicans---but no responsive answer).
As for the U of T being redneck (nice tolerant phrase, that), you might want to ask Dr. Helen and Professor Reynolds if they had bumper stickers on their cars during the last election....and if those bumper stickers were NOT pro-Democratic, what happened to them.
(sound of crickets, followed by sneers about "baby" Republicans who complain too much---unless, of course, the complainers are in a Democratic approved grievance group).
Peddle your trollsome attitudes elsewhere. You don't mean to be that extremist, or you are simply ignorant of history and reality. My guess is that you know better, and are just trolling
It's like your amazingly ignorant and insulting statement:
"The problem with conservatives is that throughout history they have never been right on a single issue."
Wow.
Then you follow it up with an interesting "majority rules" argument regarding abortion rights.
"Even women's rights to choose is suppported by a majority of Americans...."
So how do you feel about that whole "majority rules" business when it comes to affirmative action, immigration, or gay marriage?
(sound of crickets, followed by hypocritical elitist statements about how the average American is ignorant when they disagree with your ideas.).
Sheesh.
Which is to say, last anonymous is OK with racial discrimination as long as the "correct" people are discriminated against. Nice.
I don't think calling someone a white scumbag qualifies as "discrimination".
It's namecalling folks. You want to outlaw namecalling now, because some boys are being trained to be sensitive? Sheesh
Does anybody remember the humor skit, Doug and Wendy Whiiiiiiiner?
I can think of another qualifying couple.
Dear Anonymous 6:50:
It's not about namecalling alone. It is about the subject the left loves when convenient: a differential power structure. The professor screwed up. Why not admit it, and move on?
Namecalling is just fine. You do it quite a bit, in fact. But professors should not, because they have true power over students (saying that the offended party wasn't in the offensive's professor's class is beside the point, as you know quite well). Off campus, of course the professors can call people whatever they like. But on campus, they are paid to have MORE responsibility and MORE self control.
As for Anonymous 6:53, I can see that he or she has no answer to the criticisms above, and resorts to juvenile humor. This is as expected, since he or she cannot debate intelligently.
Like was said in the thread, originally, I expected the lithium-free Kos types to come troll, and see if they could get people upset.
Oh, and Anonymous 6:50? My father thinks that the "N" word is not offensive, either. Who decides if he is right or wrong? Do we vote on it?
Why do YOU get to choose what is offensive language, more than the people to whom the offensive language is directed?
Sounds like more elitism to me. YOU get to decide when and how people can be offended, or when they are petty whiners.
Not very consistent of you. And elitist. Here I thought those eeeevvvviiiil Republicans, what with Halliburton and no taxes and such, were the elitists?
As tempted as I am to say that any race should equally be able to be called pretty nasty names if they're republican, that's not my view.
I do think it's worth mentioning that not all the groups are 'equal' in terms of what names they deserve to be called. When a democrat speaks out for helping the poor and a republican says 'let them starve, the world will be a better place' (offered for illustration of my point, not meant to accurately portray republican views), the names the democrat and republican deserve to be called are not the same.
The republicans are for some foolish and evil policies, and deserve more names. However, I also understand that they *think* the same of democrats, and it leaves us with the issue that both sides throwing names at each other, even when one of them is correct, makes discussion difficult.
For the reason that I think this sort of name is unhelpful, and the reason above, I'll condemn the name-calling in the article; and note the hypocrisy of the right on the excesses of their side.
Please, link for me your blog condemning Cheney for "go fuck yourself" to the distinguished Sen. Patrick Leahy. I condemn both; few on the right do.
No, this is merely the sort of whining that you see a group of evildoiers do to escape the guilt they deserve to feel for their policies, so they get to criticize someone else.
It's not that you're wrong, but that you are wrongly selective.
Hey, Craig:
Speaking of selective, you seem to assume that everyone opposed to you is in the same camp. Not true.
Some Republican/conservatives detest Ann Coulter's histrionics, for example.
Again, I would love to hear some high profile Democrats attack (for example) Robert Byrd's use of the "N" word just a couple of years ago. Heck, Charlie Rangel and the Black Caucus were silent on the issue.
So please don't paint with a broad brush. I am particularly disturbed by this statement of yours:
"The republicans are for some foolish and evil policies, and deserve more names."
Wow. Pretty broad tent there, friend. And yet you say that ALL of us "deserve" nasty names...and you claim that we are "worse" than the not so nice people in your own group.
Again, why do YOU get to decide this? YOU get to judge, for example, my mother and father, as well as John McCain and Arnold Schwartzenegger. And so forth. YOU get to do that?
Sorry, but I don't judge all "Democrats" by the bizarre and hateful language I see on Daily Kos.
Strange you are willing to lump so many people together into one group. But not surprising. Look at the posts above---lots of name calling, misstatements of history (always blaming eeeevvvvvillll Republicans, just as you do).
Let's condemn ALL the name-calling, and start thinking about common solutions. Despite what one poster was (and inconsistently so) regarding "majority rules" roughly half the population disagrees with you.
So that half "deserves" all the vitriol and name calling? I thought that "majority rules"?
Now, of course, you will trot out examples of bad Republicans. So what? It's time to find common ground, instead of the scorched earth that you appear to favor.
Anonymous has a point for both sides, really. If half of the population is in the John Kerry orbit, and the other half in the George W. Bush orbit, then we have to accept several things:
1. The "other side" isn't crazy.
2. The "other side" is stupid.
3. The "other side" isn't evil.
It's time to start removing all the extremist nonsense from the political debate. Look at the posts above to see deeply insulting and (more importantly) inaccurate comments---all because one "side" thinks that their own belief system is 100% perfect.
My guess is that the electorate would dearly love to see a moderate or two--on both sides of the Divide---in 2008. If the primary system won't let us have some moderate candidates, perhaps we need to rethink the system. All of us, together.
Think of it this way: if we all starting working together, the trolls will go away.
"To paraphrase freud...sometimes a shitbag is just a shitbag..."
10:14 AM
... the student calls out the professor for what he says, the professor immediately apologizes for the insult, (snip) both sides then continued the debate, apparantly letting the insult lay with that response.
2:34 PM
Sounds good to me!
*sheesh*
"Don't believe it? Then try my experiment for a while: pretend to be a Republican professor on a campus, and see what happens."
1:12 PM
Oooo, "Conservitive like me!" Could be a big seller!
OT,in an attempt to be as silly as the
phenomina.
"OK, first, just what is a shitbag?
Trey
2:53 PM
Dogs in cities and suburbs know,if they have their owners well trained!
Also, think paper bag of poop on the doorstep, light on fire, ring the door bell. Run around the house and ring the BACK door bell.(again, suburbs)
Forward Observers in a strange land may have an explination as well.
Perhaps manure (of all sorts)packaged for retail? Nah....that's usefull stuff too!
I'll risk a guess that a throw away "shitbag" used here is about the same as pendejo in spanish, in that there's obviously something recognised as "the truth hurts" irksome to the user if they take the trouble to say it to a targets face.
But that's just me!
and resorts to juvenile humor.
Hey -- that was a great skit. Pre steroid Joe Piscopo.
See, when you nitpick the words and humor, everything in society becomes an argument.
Plus you get stressed out and tend to have health troubles and die young. Laugh and get over yourself, eh? Scumbag!
Not safe to be a Republican or a Christian these days.
Why do YOU get to choose what is offensive language, more than the people to whom the offensive language is directed?
Sounds like more elitism to me. YOU get to decide when and how people can be offended, or when they are petty whiners.
Whiiiiiine. Whiiiiiine. Whiiiiiiine...
Words aren't criminalized.
Michael Richards was charged, convicted and is being tarred in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. There's a diff, get it?
I decide if I want. You decide if you want. Religious organizations, lobbying organizations... everybody gets a piece. If your say is loud enough, you end up "convicted" like Richards. Words have histories, like I said earlier. They're not equal, no matter what the do-good p.c. or whiiiiny white boys (yep, I can say that!) may tell you. White scumbag, society says, floats. Other words with a past don't right now. Look at the Holocaust. Used to be untouchable, now you can joke a bit more. Same with the N word you hear now in rap songs.
Listen, if the Republicans want to imitate Tipper Gore from a few years back and fight for pc nonsense like making such a big deal that a 20 year old student is called a "white scumbag" by a professor out of class who immediately apologized, go for it. Makes em look like Whiiiiiiiners. Makes me wonder, hey -- that all you got? Eh. fuck em
Not safe to be a Republican or a Christian these days.
Lol!
Don't fret for the true Christians any. They're always prepared to gird their loins and follow the Messiah's words. Takes a bit more than namecalling to daunt the best of them. :)
(and I predict you'll lose the Catholic vote)
and this is so unlike bush & cheney calling the reporter a "major asshole"? when people get passionate, they start using obscenities -- regardless of political leanings. yawn. more important things going on don't you think?
I believe the professor in question is Japanese, not African-American.
"You will say that Conservatives are different than Republicans...but you surely aren't claiming that Conservatives are in the Democratic party, are you?"
In 1861 they were. And again in 1964, which is why most of them were Republicans by 1972. The Dems didn't become the home of all the liberals until that generation of John Lindsey/Nelson Rockefeller Republicans went away by the mid-70s.
As to the point,
I guess I don't buy that its as tough for conservatives on campus as is being portrayed here. I went to Michigan State in the late 90s and I had professors who were righty and loud and proud about it. One, who was fairly open about being an evangelical and being disapproving of his student's sinful ways, devoted an entire class section of Introduction to Biologocial Sciences to tell us about STDs and how condoms were a bill of goods sold to the American people. He was a pretty good guy, despite his an my many, deep disagreements, but he didn't get run off campus for this.
The president of MSU at the time, was by the by, an official in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan Administrations who was later called on by the current president to fix the currency of Iraq, M. Peter McPherson. (McPete finally figured out a way to appear before large numbers of studnets and not be booed, in 2003, when he came out at half time of a football game with three of four veterans of Afghanistan. That's as much about beer as politics, though.)
So I don't know if things have hugely changed, or if you're all hanging out at small liberal arts colleges, but that wasn't my experience.
Hey, Witless Chum:
Ah...Robert Byrd is a Republican? Not. And remember, he was the great guy who led the filibuster against the Civil Rights amendment. I notice that you don't reply to the business of how the media treated Byrd for using the "N" word on national television. That is a good recent example of the differential treatment that the right and left receive in the media. Again, stick to the subject of Robert Byrd. Go show me anyone in the Black Caucus in congress who spoke against him.
Why not name some names at Michigan State? I am particularly interested in a biology prof who is openly religious in the classroom there. It's not that I don't believe you. I just want to check it out.
But honestly, read the FIRE website (www.thefire.org) and learn that open debate and free expression are not common on college campuses anywhere.
As for all the other recent posters, carrying on about "whining" and such, listen: do the experiment. My guess is that most of the people acting all butch on the subject are actually pretty quiet and withdrawn away from a keyboard. It's easy to sound tough on a website.
So do the experiment. "Pretend" to be a right wing conservative on campus, and be as "in your face" as the Left is on campus. After all, free expression is what is championed on campus, right?
Or you can just continue trying to sound all tough here and call people names. After all, you don't take any risk by doing so. Try it on campus.
I think the point is that I at least thought you people were all about ragging the liberals for their attempts to limit speech for PC purposes. If that is wrong, then you are wrong to suggest that anything should be done to this professor.
You can say he made a mistake (he did) and he's an ass (quite possibly), but shouldn't you be fighting for his right to speak his mind?
If you want to say that these matters aren't handled equally (ok to say "white shitbag" but not the N word) then I would agree with you--these sorts of statements aren't treated the same and probably should be. But I think in fairness, you should be clear that you believe this man has the right to say whatever bullshit he wants. And so does Michael Richards. And so does Ward Churchill.
But you can't be an apologist for Michael Richards and Mel Gibson and Jerry Falwell, and not for this man--without looking like you have an axe to grind and are biased beyond reason.
Actually, the point is that professors have a power differential on campus.
And in fact lots of people at WSU are making precisely your argument about the Ethnic Studies professor in question. Where many of us differ is that college communities do not generally support "right of center" freedom of speech the way they do "left of center" speech.
But even if the fellow was verbose, we should applaud the President at Columbia for stating is wrong to suppress speech.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications%20files/updatesoncampusseechissues.htm
It makes me hopeful, even if the grammar is unusual. The students who tried to silence the Minutemen spokesman were wrong. The correct thing to do is debate opponents, not shout them down or physicallly threaten them.
If you believe in freedom of expression on campus (again, professors need to be more carefu because of power differentials; the focus should be on students), you should read up on and support FIRE.
www.thefire.org
They don't just support "right of center" issues, friends. They do support the concept of a campus as being a place where free speech should exist...regardless of party affiliation.
"The students who tried to silence the Minutemen spokesman were wrong. The correct thing to do is debate opponents, not shout them down or physicallly threaten them."
hahahahahahahahaha
just like these "minutemen" want to do to mexicans legal and illegal. yeah. dialogue, baby.
white scumbags.
Why aren't you blonde?
Anon the brave wrote "just like these "minutemen" want to do to mexicans legal and illegal. yeah. dialogue, baby."
My understanding of Minutemen procedures is that they just call in the pros when they see people that they think are breaking the law. What is the problem with that? Are you also against people calling the police to report that someone is selling crack next door?
Also, why mention Mexicans? It seems as if you are attempting to slur the organization as racist. You will have to do more than make an offhand comment for anyone to be persuaded by your post.
Trey
If you missed it, that was someone asking why mention mexicans in relation to the minutemen, who as we know are also known for their bowling.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home