This is going to be an interesting court case. I’d like my fellow Dopers to weigh in with their opinions. Personally, while I support the idea of college making you grow and examine new ideas, it seems that the ivory tower brigade has totally abandoned the whole idea of Free Speech that they once campaigned for. Is it really a case of “Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss?”
Considering the article linked in the OP consists almost entirely of allegations by the plaintiff, I have to ask if we’re getting all the facts in this case. For all we know, this could just be “lazy student blames poor grades on professor’s bias.”
No, but that has absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom.
But, you knew that.
Well, Emily Brooker is a twat. That much is already clear. However, her professor is just as clearly an asshole. He does not have the right to force her to not be a twat. Signing a petition is not legitimate class work for a college-level course, and punishing someone because of their political/religious beliefs is not appropriate in any setting, particularly a collegiate one. As the school is state funded, the asshole has pretty obviously violated the twat’s constitutional rights, so the twat should win the case and be awarded whatever damages are appropriate for the situation. I’m thinking court costs and tuition for that semester, as I don’t really see what sort of other damages she could legitimatly claim.
And then she should fall under a bus.
How is she a twat for refusing to sign a letter advocating a political cause she does not support? If you were in her shoes, and were asked to sign a letter advocating a Defense of Marriage law, would you also be a twat if you refused?
Or are people only twats for taking stands with which you disagree?
Wow, broad-brush much? AFAICT from your linked Fox News article, the lawsuit in question seems to be based entirely on a conflict between one student and one professor at one university.
Speaking as a card-carrying member of the “ivory tower brigade” (and an ACLU member) myself, I have no hesitation in saying that I strongly support free speech, and object to any professor’s attempting to force students into conformity with his/her own political beliefs.
On the other hand, if an academic institution or professional organization openly adheres to a particular policy on ethics, I don’t think that individuals have the right to demand exemption from that policy because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The case in question seems to hinge on whether it was wrong for a professor in MSU’s School of Social Work to require a student pursuing a degree in social work to sign a letter to the Missouri state legislature in support of gay adoption. The student declined to do this because the position conflicted with her Christian beliefs, which are opposed to gay adoption.
Now, IMO this student has a right to believe whatever she wants about gay adoption, even if I disagree with her, and I will defend to the death her right to believe it. The question is, does she have a right to be exempted from a particular MSU School of Social Work course assignment on the basis of her belief?
MSU has an official anti-discrimination policy that explicitly opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. AFAICT, that means that a student who voluntarily chooses to attend MSU, and agrees to comply with MSU policies, has agreed to oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I don’t think that assigning homework in college courses involving direct political activism, especially activism advocating one particular political position, is a good idea in general. But I’m not sure that the student in this case was being asked to do anything she hadn’t implicitly agreed to do when she became a student at MSU.
(Of course, just to make things more complicated, this depends in part on whether the school’s anti-discrimination policy actually forbade discrimination based on sexual orientation at the time when the student and professor collided over this assignment. That happened in Spring 2005, and the phrase “sexual orientation” was added to the official a.-d. policy in February 2006. But the university maintains that the term is not an “addition” but simply a “clarification” of a policy that was already in place.)
Huh? The MSU policy applies only to activities and decisions within the university, ie they won’t discriminate in hiring, admissions, etc. It has zero, zilch, nada to do with opposing discrimination in the outside world. Hell, by your logic, the fact that I went to a Catholic law school would mean I’m supposed to oppose abortion. Ridiculous.
She’s not a twat for refusing to sign a letter advocating a position she disagree with, she’s a twat for disagreeing with that position in the first place.
No, but I would be one if I agreed.
Depends on the stand they’re taking.
That’s simply ridiculous. The school’s anti-discrimination policy is part of a list of rules the student body is required to abide by during their attendence at the school. They are not required to agree with those rules, just follow them, and even then, only within the context of the academic setting. It does not compel them to hold or advocate any particular political stance outside the boundaries of the school’s campus.
Okay then, if so, ISTM there’s no justification for the professor’s policy.
The broadest one I could find. But the suppression of “politically incorrect” speech by colleges and universities in this country is hardly new or rare. Otherwise there wouldn’t be defense groups springing up like Hydra-heads.
I’m not following this. On preview, what Miller and Oakminster said.
To me, the question is whether the requirement to sign the letter was reasonable. The work had been done. The letter was drafted. What does signing the letter have to do with whether she could understand and articulate the knowledge for which the letter was a presumed test? It’s extortion, plain and simple.
It means that a student who attends MSU agrees not to discriminate. It does not require her to take a stand on discrimination. It by no means requires her to take action that is inconsistent with her core values, no matter how skewed her values may seem to you.
From your link –
- The previous policy included a sentence that barred discrimination on any basis not related to educational or job requirements.
The board voted to insert a parenthesis in that line that says banned grounds for discrimination could include, but are not limited to, political affiliation and sexual orientation.*
see no requirement to oppose discrimination. In fact, I see no prohibition against advocating discrimination. Any student should have the right to argue for whatever she chooses; she certainly should not be required to advocate a position to which she is morally opposed.
That seems to be the consensus. See post #9.
If you go deep enough, you’ll find the gay adoption letter campaign was dropped, and the ‘atypically bad’ grade was successfully appealed (raised I suppose). The lawsuit is a result of the professor filing an academic complaint considering the withdrawal of the student from the program, after having her for two different classes. Note that the letter assignment took place in the first class.
If she had such vitriol toward the professor, and he likewise, she shouldn’t have taken the second class with him. If another professor did not teach the class, she should have made it an issue for the dean, and sought some sort of independent study to partake in that would still receive credit, or have the professor tone down his inflammatory remarks in the interest of professionalism. Neither of them partook in anything resembling professionalism, and now they both look like idiots to the rest of us.
Nevertheless, I suggest Ms. Brooker point to the Bible passage that says “If a man lays with another man, and they adopt children, it is an abomination.” I figure that the teacher assumed she had the mindset that everyone is a sinner, and saw that as a conflict of interest with being a social worker. Neither of them seem that bright or tolerant.
Sorry. Should have previewed.
I did, but obviously not soon enough. Apologies.
No problem guys. On consideration, I think all of you are probably right.
It really doesn’t matter in which class it was assigned. The assignment is obviously not college-level, nor is it appropriate.
What vitriol? She disagreed with a patently unfair requirement for a passing grade.
Or she could have made it a matter for the dean by complaining about the unfairness of the requirement. This option is especially a good one if both courses are required to graduate from the program in which the student was enrolled.
The professor, by issuing the inappropriate assignment was not professional. The student, by appealing, was.
The basis of her beliefs are completely irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that the professor was requiring students to do something that violated that student’s beliefs.
I figure that you’re not a mind reader.
For what it’s worth, I have seen assignments given that were LADEN with political messaging. That has always bugged the crap out of me.
In my English Comp class last year, I was lucky. Our teacher tried HARD to keep politics out of class. My friend was not so lucky.
Her assignment? For College Comp, plain old vanilla English? Go through a popular Men’s magazine and write a paper on how the publication is demeaning to women. Garbage, utter and complete. I’m grateful for my teacher, as I would have dropped the other in a red hot minute.
You can’t downplay the fact that after this decidedly aggregious assault on her liberty, she decided to enroll in another class with this professor. After he filed a complaint against her, she got embarassed by the proceedings and decided to sue, using all the previous BS as ammunition. If it was so awful she would have sued earlier.
And you are? A hell of a lot of people who end up at social welfare offices or who interact with social workers would be pretty easy to discriminate against on the basis that they are sinners. Should gays not adopt because they are sinners, or because they are gay sinners?