I am GOD DAMN sick and tired of these muther-fucking snakes in this muther-fucking APPLE TREE!
You need to talk to more college students. They can be remarkably stupid. And being ‘Christian’ doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve even read the whole Bible, let alone learned about its formation. I don’t know for sure what made them drop out, but they did it when it was pretty clear that the teacher was indeed looking at outside sources rather than the Bible itself for an accurate account of Biblical history. I know at least one of them didn’t know that some books were chosen for inclusion over others.
As for students revealing their religions, this was not under pressure, and was prompted by a first-day discussion of what people knew of the Bible’s history. IIRC, the first few students revealed that they were atheist or agnostic on their own, and the rest followed suit (after the teacher assured them that they didn’t have to, but found it interesting to know what ‘mix’ he had. He was Christian, I believe, with some Native American mythology thrown in). I suppose the Christian kids may have felt a bit outnumbered, but it’s hard to believe they felt ostracized in a class examining little else but their religion’s fundamental text.
The University of Phoenix is also accredited.
That said, Community Colleges are GREAT places to earn some credits cheap - and even earn a degree. In CA, we push kids to community colleges, and then they transfer to the Cal State or UC system with 1-2 years covered for a LOT less money.
They use a LOT of rent-a-profs, as they are not under the same review as research universities. Some rent-a-profs are great teachers, some are arrogant blowhards, some are a half step above the dumb coach history teacher from high school (please pardon the archetype - no broad brush implied for reality).
I would love to get a copy of the class syllabus to see what he decided was the correct material for the course to cover, given his desire to spend a minute or two telling everyone to question their religion.
Now, it could be interesting to run a class discussion showing how many religions in the class were not represented in a particular year / era. It could be great to discuss the negative and positive impact the evolution of the Christian Church had on Western Civilization (The Reformation IS part of the official course description). Jumping into comments that students should take the whole Bible (or parts thereof) as a myth, however, accomplishes little other than starting a battle.
If you are going to warp young minds in the classroom, start slowly - don’t just jump in their face.
And you’d be misquoting me. I never said anything about their accreditation. What I said was that they probably don’t have an application:acceptance ratio that’s much higher than one.
I’m quite unconfused, thanks.
Let’s go back to the quote of ambushed that you were responding to:
The First Amendment says the government can’t shut you up, and the principles of academic freedom would presumably protect one’s ass from being fired or otherwise sanctioned. (But I don’t have a dog in that particular fight.)
Unless there’s a strong reason to believe otherwise, that’s how I’m interpreting ambushed’s meaning, since it concurs with reality and stuff.
Does that make sense? Because I’d rather ascertain that before I get into your qualifiers.
Ambushed was responding to this question of mine: ( by CP) :“What all do you get to mock openly without reprisal?”
I am not sure what “the principles of academic freedom” are except some naive soul’s view that somehow the purity of an academic environment supercedes an employer’s right to constrain behaviour of employees (FYI a college is an employer and a professor is an employee). Apparently Ambushed further believes that the First Amendment has something to do with it.
Alas; it’s time for Ambushed to grow up. The First Amendment, as I mentioned, does not mean that anything can be said anytime in any context with any degree of vulgarity or impropriety.
I can think of two practical situations which may help crystallize this concept for you and Ambushed. Should you find yourself in court, try calling the judge “Your Fuckwit” instead of “Your Honor,” and should you find yourself in the employ of a corporation try promoting White Supremacy at the annual meeting while you denigrate “niggers and kikes.”
Note that I am not commenting on either the merits of the college’s actions or the propriety of the professor. I am commenting on the irrelevance of the First Amendment.
There’s a provocative short article about academic freedom at
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html. If you scroll to the
bottom it lists the eight principles of academic freedom. They seem reasonable to me. It’s for the good of the university and the student – not just the protection of the professors.
Cat Fight, one doesn’t have to read the Bible to know that it was written by several different authors.
I need to know more college students? (Deliver me…)
I am a teacher. Such a question posed in a classroom setting is inappropriate. It is considered unprofessional.
The situation you have described is unlikely.
Lovely thoughts, all of them. It may surprise you to learn that within the license of the Pit I was making fun of an idea with which I am actually familiar. This is not GD. You are missing the point and the reason I was making fun of “academic freedom” in the context of a defense to say anything you want anytime you want.
A university is an employer. The professors are employees. The relationship between the two is voluntary.
Many universities and colleges choose to adhere to priniciples such as those in your cite; many of them may even make such noble tenets part of their specific regulations concerning behaviour. In the end, they are still part of an overall set of constraints, and like The First Amendment their purpose is not to create total chaos, with anything in any context being said anywhere with any degree of vulgarity or impropriety. The underlying purpose of both the First Amendment and Academic Freedom is provide environments that encourage the free expression of every person and the open examination of all ideas. This is accomplished only by creating constraints which avoid cacophony in some circumstances and crushing of the weak in others. While there is a place and time for both cacophony and ridicule, it is not every place and every time.
Unlikely but true, so there you go.
I’m aware of that.
Like I said, I don’t have a dog in that fight.
For the reasons I set forth in my previous post, it doesn’t appear to me that ambushed is claiming that the First Amendment constrains an employer’s ability to sanction an employee.
Damned if I can understand how the second example would help crystallize the concept for me. I’ve already stated that the “First Amendment says the government can’t shut you up.” Unless you claim that we effectively have government by corporation in this country…
And the first one, thanks, is the sort of microscopic exception that proves the rule.
I agree with you that the First Amendment is irrelevant to this particular situation. It’s your interpretation of its meaning that I disagree with.
Talking snakes shouldn’t be taken literally if they’re reading poetry, singing a popular song or telling a joke, but if they can back up their arguments with rigorous citation, it’s rude to treat what they say as figurative.
You are disagreeing with this “interpretation” of the First Amendment?:
**
(by CP):** “The First Amendment, as I mentioned, does not mean that anything can be said anytime in any context with any degree of vulgarity or impropriety.”
You are wrong.
Excuse me? I also quoted this little gem of yours:
About what? Neither time, context, vulgarity, or impropriety restrict the applicability of the First Amendment more than trivially.
Now if you’d included property rights, say, you might’ve had an argument, because you don’t have any free-speech rights in my yard.
That’s really just not true. Vulgarity/impropriety are minor restrictions, though still there. I already mentioned the Chaplinsky case to you.
But time/context lead to significant restrictions on free speech. It is kind of easy, for example, for a municipality to prevent a Klan rally that was scheduled to take place at 3 a.m., while it is often much harder to prevent such a rally at 3 p.m. Banning billboards in a historic neighborhood restricts the applicability of the First Amendment, but is certainly possible if done in the right fashion.
Why did the professor say what he said? Was it in response to a student, or did he just go off on religion one day?
I’ve seen college students do and say some amazingly stupid things in defense of their religion. I watched a guy in a philsophy class repeatedly tell the teacher that the Puritan’s philosophy was just wrong because of what the bible said, regardless of how many times the prof told him it didn’t matter what he believed about their beliefs. I watched a girl argue with a professor who was talking about what percentage of the world belongs to what religion, trying to tell him that the world was mostly Christian. She got angry when he got to the number of athiests, and wouldn’t even listen to him talking about countries where religion isn’t a big deal.
If this professor was responding to a student’s religious assertion, then I can see where his response might be appropriate. If he was just ranting against religion, that’s bad. But I can easily see a situation where his response was fine, even necessary.
By all means have at it then. Let me know how it works out for you.
Wow, Monty, you got me. Because obviously when I say one thing is like another thing, I must mean that it’s an exact duplicate in every way, even if I specifically state what aspect I feel is similar. So I must believe that Southwest Community College is a figment of Gary Trudeau’s imagination and that Mike, Mark, BD, and Zonker are all alumni.
How do the defenders of academic freedom here feel about the firing of Larry Summers from Harvard because he dared to say that the reason there are so fewer women than men in the sciences might have to do with the fact that females are drawn to different fields of study due to differences in the way females think?
I’ve got no dog in that fight, but I will point out that he was not fired* from an adminitrative/political (not a teching position) post for making a statement outside the classroom, so it is not going to be an exactly equivalent comparison.
- One of the faculties at Harvard held two non-binding resolutions criticizing him for multiple comments on multiple occasions involving economics, the environment, and mental capacities based on sex. The Harvard governing body continued to support him throughout.