I question why this is news now, and not in 2008 when they first hired her.
Also, she is teaching classes that are clearly specific to her experience, on the difficulties facing prisoners and their families while in prison and when released. She’s not teaching ‘How to be a terrorist 101’.
Yes, the current rehabilitation success rate in the United States of America speaks, loudly.
What’s the rehabilitation rate for priviliged white people?
(Here I assume the lady’s white though…)
By that logic, if someone is charged with a crime, they must be guilty; because the conviction rate is so high.
Therefore, if someone has ever been arrested, they should be barred from most jobs, because it’s likely that they actually did what they were accused of. It’s just statistics, people!!
I doubt she’s a terrorist anymore. She’s an ex-terrorist at best. As one of those, I think she might be ideally suited to teach young people about the dangers of getting wrapped up in criminal activities. If I believed she regretted her past actions, and if she was otherwise qualified, I’d hire her in a second to teach at the University (or high school) level. But that’s just me, I don’t hold grudges.
Your question was "Do you have reason to doubt her rehabilitation rate? to which I answered yes.
Yes there is reason to doubt her rehabilitation due to the failures of the current system. Unless you need to restate your question, maybe you think the rehabilitation rate should have us believe that everyone we release from prison is rehabilitated? By your logic maybe?
You gave no reason why you doubted her rehabilitation. Looking at what her crimes were and what she has done since then, why do you doubt her rehabilitation?
I think you were joking, but your comment gives me a good leaping off point to list what she did in prison (from wiki):
Son of Sam she is not. She tried to make things better, really tried.
Again, our rehabilitation rate gives us reason to doubt everyone when they get out. Why would it be different with her?
Did you read about what she has done?
The world isn’t as myopic as all that. You can narrow your scrutiny until you have a sample size of 1 (which you are trying to do)
It doesn’t change how the real world sees her, or a whole host of others.
Yes, I read what she has done. She has done some good where she was imprisoned. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she should be granted a position of power. You evidently disagree, can you explain why you feel she should?
College professors need not be saints. They need to have something to say and a way to say it.
Columbia was under no obligation to give this woman a position, but I think it was a good idea.
I don’t have to. The proposition put forth, that you support, is that she shouldn’t, and I’m not seeing any actual reason why.
No, the proposition put forth by me is that there is some doubt as to whether or not she should.
You keep trying to assign a position to me that you want me to argue for, I won’t.
You’re Just Asking Questions.
What is your argument for your position, besides the fact that rehabilitation has a a poor record overall? She was hired back in 2008-what has come up, either before or after she was hired, that has you doubting her rehabilitation?
So you feel the judgment of a private institution that appears to have taken the time to talk to the ex-convict in question and deliberate on her own personal circumstances should be vetoed on the basis that you think the American prison system is, on the whole, not as effective as it should be. You can’t show why this private institution may have erred in their judgment, because you have no reason to examine the substance of their conclusion. You just think they’re wrong.
I would be embarrassed to put forth such a lame, appeal to ignorance type of argument.
Of course, let’s just keep pretending that politics has nothing – NOTHING – to do with this issue.
The same thing that has me doubting it now.
Honestly, is my position so very hard for you to grasp? Ravenman put forth a question of “Do you have reason to doubt her rehabilitation?”. I answered with yes due to the rehabilitation rate failures we have in the US. Why is this not a good enough answer for you?
My answer would be the same if I had answered in 2008, 2013 or 2304
You keep repeating these things that you say I said, why is that?
Can you not demolish my argument as it stands on it’s own merit?
Doubt. Was there a reason to doubt her rehabilitation? Yes there was. Why? The current failures of the rehabilitation rate in the current US prison system.
End.
You can keep stacking up those scarecrows if you want but I won’t be defending a position I didn’t take.
Not doubt. Reason. The discrimination of facts and logic from prejudice and supersitition.