Fact.
It is absolutely hilarious that when it’s a pet progressive project the steps you guys will take to turn the course of conversation from facts to ‘prejudice and superstition’
So, you really Dr. Boudin is currently a threat to society? I suppose it’s possible, but no more likely than any of the rest of us.
If you change the way you frame the question, you get a different answer.
My personal views on the issue are she was hired by a private university and it is on them to justify to their students why. I don’t attend their University nor do I have kids attending. End.
The question originally posed wasn’t that cut and dried though. It was a question of whether there was any reason to doubt her rehabilitation.
Of course there was and is.
Because you refuse to take in and evaluate any information about her personally, you can just treat her as a stereotype? Do you do this with any other large groups of people?
I don’t want to treat her as a stereotype. I don’t see what good it does to say, blithely, “All cons are terrible.” If that’s the case, why do we even let them out of prison? Let’s just execute them post-haste. Obviously we can’t let them back into our world and god forbid we allow them near our children.
Never mind the fact that maybe they might have something to teach our children. When you listen to someone teaching you, do you listen to the person who’s been there done that, or do you listen to the sanctimonious twat who’s never done anything in their lives and feels they can tell you not to do anything, too?
I don’t think they should put her entire resume on the website, but it’s out there in cyberspace for anyone to find out. And who knows? Maybe she’s teaching her kids, “I did a horrible thing. I went to prison for it. In prison I learned how much I can give back to the world.”
Or maybe she’s teaching them how to commit terrorist acts. We’ll hear about that soon enough, I’m sure.
No University that allows an ROTC on campus should be looking for specks in other hires’ eyes, as it were.
:rolleyes:
I expected no less…and no more.
What you have both failed, spectacularly, in realizing is that I am casting no judgement on her other than having reason to doubt her rehabilitation.
Not whether or not she was a good hire, not whether or not it was a bad decision. And definitely not whether she herself has been effectively rehabilitated, only time will tell that.
I said I had reason to doubt that rehabilitation worked for her.
Obviously the English Department.
The implication is that the University should be subject to criticism for hiring someone when there is doubt about whether she has been rehabilitated. Otherwise, why chime in at all?
Uh, they are subject to criticism but like I said earlier they are responsible for their own actions.
See: This thread
Personally I don’t have a lot of information about her personally. Has Boudin ever said something like, “I deeply regret my role in all the violent crimes that I committed. I feel horribly guilty about the fact that my actions inflicted so much pain on the victims and their family and friends”? I’m asking honestly, since I don’t know.
Is this the same thing as ‘my post is my cite’?
In any event, the way I see this disagreement is that you are saying that you have a reason to doubt her rehabilitation, whereas everyone else seems to be saying that you have no good reason to doubt her rehabilitation.
If you reason to doubt her essentially boils down to a comment on everyone that has ever been convicted of a crime ever, then it really says nothing about her, or this particular case, does it? If you disagree, then what does your comment say about her specifically, and this story in particular? If it says nothing about this particular case, then I would echo another poster’s question to you: why chime in at all?
Probably to answer Ravenman’s assertion
The answer to that was to cite the horrific rehabilitation rate in the US.
Is that enough for doubt? Most assuredly.