I’ve heard her show probably too many times and never cared for her advice. U think of her as a right wing Ann Landers. I thought it funny that after talking at Jade, she cut her show short and reported having trouble sleeping that night. Laura, that was probably your conscience trying to speak to you to let you know you had crossed a line somewhere and you need to examine your actions. I find it strange that a wealthy, entitled, Caucasian woman feels she can speak authoritatively about the personal effects of discrimination. I don’t think it is something that she can relate to, as evidenced by her response to Jade. One would need some experience or at least some empathy and/or imagination, and Laura seems to lack those qualities. Now, Laura is claiming victimhood. LOL. Maybe she can try to personalized it and maybe, just maybe, vet some idea of what life would be like for someone who deals with discrimination on a regular basis.
I don’t know how recently she claims to have been a faculty member at USC, or what she taught, but the Rossier School of Education does use working professionals as adjunct faculty. They’re basically glorified teaching assistants who are only responsible for one or two sections under the supervision of an actual professor. They do not develop their own curricula or syllabi; they have to use the ones the professor develops. It’s possible that Schlessinger was an adjunct who taught a section or two per semester, but who didn’t have any of the responsibilities typically done by a professor.
I was just reading that myself and I honestly am having a hard time understanding how she meets those qualifications in any way. She has no degree in psychology at all. USC does have a two year Master’s degree MFT program though that gets you everything you need to meet the licensing requirements. She has no Master’s in the field or I’m sure she’d say that rather than a certificate program if it were the case.
Don’t know, don’t care. All I do know is she’s a ridiculous, hypocritical shrew.
Some universities offer post-graduate certification programs that don’t lead to a degree in order for people to advance their professional careers. For example, in Pennsylvania, a prospective teacher can take a one-year post-bachelor program which fulfills the state requirement for entry-level certification, but which does not lead to a master’s (or any other) degree. The goal is to get the certification, and the program is just a means to this end.
I don’t know the specifics of the program Schlessinger claims to have completed, but I’m thinking it’s something similar, where the program led to licensure, but not to a degree. But according to the state of California, she would have to have completed an approved program to sit for the licensing exams, which are a prerequisite for actual licensure. (I called the State Board of Behavioral Sciences, who confirmed that last part. The woman I talked to didn’t have information about the specific USC program, however.)
BTW, I just checked the USC faculty directory, and she’s not listed, which means she’s not a current faculty or staff member. I couldn’t access much more of the directory because I’m not on a USC computer. (You need a USC login to access the current directories, which I have, but since I’m here and not there, I can’t find any old information.)
I have a friend who was an engineer, became tired of that life and decided to become a therapist, and is now a licensed MFT. He doesn’t have a degree in psychology either. It’s definitely possible.
Then she must have some other educational qualifications, ones that she has chosen not to mention, in order to qualify under California law as a licensed MFT.
So which is more likely: she modestly failed to disclose an additional academic qualification? Or that the certification program she refers to is much more than simply an undergraduate course of study?
You DO???
Man, nobody would ever have guessed that.
Dude, first rule of holes.
I’m just sayin’.
I for one have been convinced. Dr. Laura is a fully liscenced idiot. I concede my error in any statement I made to the contrary.
And It’s terribly shameful how her first amendment rights were taken from her, too. Darned government, hiring large portions of the population to go after her sponsors. Darned sponsors, pretending they have the right not to pay Dr. Laura to voice her opinions.
I’d like to revisit this statement:
Obviously (now) we all know this is not true.
My questions: What led you to make it? What were you relying upon when you made it? Did you just make it up? Did you misremember something you read? Get it from someone on the train next to you? What?
Wow, this thread really is exclusively about Dio. I had begun to suspect it a little while back, but now I know for sure.
And really, we do all care where Dio got his assumption/hyperbole. It matters. A lot. To us all.
Well, so much for discussing the incident in the OP…:rolleyes:
Go ahead. Who’s stopping you?
I just see an opportunity here. The vast majority of “My post is my cite” Dio moments don’t have the possibility of such a definitive conclusion.
Diogenes is not an idiot. But when he gets stubborn, there’s virtually no budging him. I’m hoping that this incident gives him a little insight into questioning the source of his information when he’s on a crusade of “I’m right, no matter what.”
But if there’s anything left to say about the original topic, have at it. So far as I can tell, there is near-unanimous support for the proposition that Schlessinger is a useless twit, credentialled though she obviously is. There is an intriguing discussion lurking in this incident about the use of the n-word, but that’s already being done elsewhere.
So those “Ten Stupid Things” books have each been subject to a rigorous peer-review process? (Besides a blurb from another pop-psychologist on the back cover)
Not really here to play devil’s advocate but I took not only the time but the effort to understand the whole conversation and it does not seem all that bad.
The caller comes off as completely disingenuous by first saying:
We’ve been around some of his friends and family members who start making racist comments as if I’m not there or if I’m not black.
And then when asked for example caller says:
*It’s, “Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?” And, “Do black people really like doing that?” *
How’s that being construed as if she’s not there and not black? Quite contrary, the question asked is exactly as if she is there and as if she is black. It may not be formed all that politely but maybe she is the first in the family and close enough to these people to actually ask the question.
The bit about Obama is about the fact that lot of voters did vote based on skin colour. Laura’s point is that’s fine and it’s not racist to vote based on skin colour.
Then comes the most controversial part where one really has to have an agenda not to see what Laura was saying as part of the context in which HBO you can hear it all you want. She might have used word “fuck” (if discussing use of the word “fuck” in a certain Tarantino movie) or “quack” (if discussing certain picture book) and she would still end the key sentence repeating it three times for a rhetorical effect. In my opinion, seeing anything else is just disingenuous and made up.
Worst of all, the caller did not have anything to reply to the actual point being made – point being that it is nonsensical that some group has a “right” to use it as if they know how to use it and go on and on about it’s history and why is it okay for them to use it like it really is self-evident truth. It isn’t.
Two things I find objectionable from the caller. First, the caller’s assertion:
“since Obama’s been in office racism has come to another level that’s unacceptable.”
Huh? Just because there is a black president that does not mean that all the racist people vanished over night. And that more important point is that there’s more people that do not care about color of skin. I hope we’re clear on that one.
And second, this pointed question she asked that to me appears as verbal provocation:
So it’s OK to say “n–”?
And when Laura answers quite reasonably that it depends how it’s said she still goes on with:
Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
This is not a discussion but rather desperate gotcha hunting moment. And looks like they got to her.
Look at the time stamps, deary – it’s called a simulpost.
Whatever, Guin. “Me too” is your thing—own it. Even when you think you’re making an original contribution to the thread, the universe conspires to have someone else say it before you do—own it.
Please, Schlessinger said it wasn’t racist to call black people “niggers” because she once saw black comedians saying the word 15 years ago on HBO (Def Comedy Jam – talk about a dated reference), and then she told the caller if she didn’t want to be called “nigger” and “didn’t have a sense of humor” (about being called “nigger”) then “you shouldn’t marry out of your race.” Schlessinger’s use of the word “nigger,” while stunningly stupid, off-point, useless and tactless, was one of the least offensive parts of the whole exchange.
In my reading of the transcript the discussion devolved when Dr. Laura was not getting the usual cowed obeisance from the caller after machine gunning out “nigger” multiple times, and decided to take it to the next level of defensive obnoxiousness. The caller saying (effectively) “What the hell are you doing using that word like that?” sent her into an even bigger tizzy.
Dr. Laura was extraordinary tone deaf to think she could play the “Why can’t I say ‘nigger’ too” game. The word is so loaded she was basically pouring gasoline over herself and lighting a match.
The “Why can’t I say ‘nigger’ too” discussion only works anonymously and online. Start throwing “nigger” around in real life and there will be hard consequences.
Ack- Palin tweets in support of Dr Laura: “don’t retreat…reload!”
"It’s a breathtakingly tone-deaf bit of provocation – even by Palin’s standards. "Sarah Palin Supports Dr. Laura Via Twitter: 'don't retreat ... reload!' | HuffPost Latest News