Well the Dean in my school thought otherwise as did the students who stood up for themselves.
But if you think colleges exist for the purposes of research then best of luck running one with no students.
Common sense FTW!
Or we could go with some of that dadgum book larnin, where they might try to tell us that an institution can have multiple purposes.
Yes and one would conclude the purpose of a teacher giving a lecture is to teach.
The Dean at your school was a lily-livered dick. As for the students…
Sorry no, the teacher was a dick. And he was called on it. That you think professors are free to treat students any way they like is appalling.
Cite or retract where I said that.
“One” would, yes. But that dadgum book larnin might tell you that teaching is a complex, multifaceted job done by complex, multifaceted people. Sometimes establishing a rapport with students is crucial; sometimes tangents can increase student interest in the subject (today in teaching students about gravity I launched into a tangent about SpaceX and the difficulties of landing a rocket so that it could be reused; I think it worked). Sometimes teachers say controversial things as discussion starters.
Sometimes teachers do these things and fail. Sometimes teachers rant in a way that doesn’t engage students or lead to interesting discussions. But if we want teachers to be able to engage students and provoke critical thought and rich discussions, we must make allowances for teachers who swing and miss sometimes.
If you have no patience with this sort of nuanced take, if you have no patience with the experts who codify ethics for professors after thoughtful reflection and discussion, that’s cool beans–but in that case, you probably won’t find college a very helpful place, either, because protip that’s what they focus on in college.
No, the professors work for the university. You’re the professor’s customer. You give the university money, and they give you a service - an education. If you don’t like the service, you can take your business somewhere else. If you go to a restaurant, and the waiter calls you a dickhead, you can’t fire the waiter. You can demand the manager fire the waiter for you - but if the manager doesn’t want to, you can’t sue him to make him do it.
If your precious little snowflake doesn’t want to hear his professors talk about politics, he can take his business to a different college where they don’t allow that. The university is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to alter the service they offer to suit the whims of every student who enrolls.
If your precious little professor doesn’t like being exposed as a ranting lunatic he can take his business elsewhere. The university is under no obligation to pay for political bullshit.
You called the Dean a lily-livered dick. and then trailed off the same name calling so as to avoid calling me the same thing. You supported the teacher’s behavior carte-blanche.
The professor works for the student in the same sense that the police officer giving you a ticket for a moving violation works for you. To be clear they both don’t.
The student wasn’t a snowflake. He never said he couldn’t handle hearing contrarian views. It was inappropriate for the situation. I think it’s a form deception to call a class Human Sexuality and then delve into politics. One could even called it larceny. In fact, a lawsuit would be very appropriate on that basis alone. What does the course catalog say? Lesbians, bestiality, and why Trump sucks?
You forget that this isn’t a private conversation, and others can read your posts and see that that is not based upon the facts in evidence in this thread.
You alleged this: “That you think professors are free to treat students any way they like is appalling.” Something absolutely not supported either in a specific case, and especially not in the generic case you have invented above.
You have no evidence, let alone proof. Time to finally own up and issue your retraction.
The only people who have argued that the university is “obligated” to do anything are you, UrbanRedneck, and this whiny little fuck who’s suing a university because they won’t fire someone for saying mean things about the president. He has absolutely no basis for his lawsuit, even by your mercenary interpretations of the student-teacher relationship. If he doesn’t like the product the schoool is offering, then he shouldn’t buy the product the school is offering.
They work for the public at large and are expected to act as such. I had an officer write me a bogus ticket and then did not show up in court. He was being a dick. According to the judge it wasn’t the first time he’d done it. He dismissed the ticket and said he was going to deal with the officer.
While I personally didn’t pay the officer’s wage he was very much working for the public at large. It was an abuse of power he could have gotten away with if his superiors let him but they didn’t.
She called the election of the president an “act of terrorism”. That isnt any kind of “truth”.
Yes she did. BUT, other students gave conflicting statements so you tell me how the “truth” would be found without evidence?
A professor shouldn’t say or do anything in their class they wouldn’t want to do in front of parents, fellow academics, or administrators. This crazy lunatic with a Phd got caught and cant stand the heat. If she would have just admitted she was wrong and apologized the whole thing would have gone away but she didnt so this is where we are at.
Well it looks like the pressure on the college finally won out. The college has dropped his suspension.
Orange Coast College Lifts Suspension Of Student Who Recorded Nutty Anti-Trump Professor
Which is very different from working directly for the students in their classes (in the case of professors) or the people they’re ticketing or arresting (in the case of police officers).
We don’t let students and lawbreakers, respectively, make the rules for what professors and police officers can and cannot do. That’s because an important part of the job in those professions is sometimes doing things that the people you’re dealing with do not like.
Such as giving failing grades to students who want to pass, or writing tickets for speeders who don’t want to get tickets.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I had an officer write me a bogus ticket and then did not show up in court. He was being a dick. According to the judge it wasn’t the first time he’d done it. He dismissed the ticket and said he was going to deal with the officer.
While I personally didn’t pay the officer’s wage he was very much working for the public at large. It was an abuse of power he could have gotten away with if his superiors let him but they didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
The point is that it wasn’t your call to determine whether that was in fact an abuse of power. And the fact that you thought it was an abuse of power didn’t entitle you to violate the rules in retaliation.
If you had assaulted the officer for giving you a bogus ticket, or broken into the officer’s house to plant a mike in the hopes of recording him chortling about how he screwed you over by writing a bogus ticket, you would be the one deservedly in hot water for it. None of your whining about how the officer was being a dick and abusing his power would have gotten you off the hook for your own lawbreaking.
Nope. This is where you veer off from just legitimately complaining about behavior you don’t like into the batshit-crazy zone of arguing that if you encounter behavior you don’t like, it magically entitles you to disregard the rules constraining your own behavior.
And your disingenuous use of “abusing” doesn’t improve your argument. The professor in question wasn’t engaging in “abuse” in any legal sense of the term. The student simply got upset because the professor was saying something he didn’t like, and unilaterally decided that it magically entitled him to disregard the rules constraining his own behavior. He was wrong about that, and so are you.
I’d like to go back to the articles I linked above.
-
The school ADMITS it wasnt totally clear that recording was illegal. It was hit or miss depending on the class and teacher and situation. Thats why when they got back from break they suddenly had notices posted everywhere.
-
The whole case against the student was thrown out because the school ADMITS the student had a motive for recording.
The whole thing should now be chalked up to “lessons learned”.
What if the officer issued the ticket in Massachusetts, and bragged about how bogus it was right on the scene, and was recorded doing so. . . but then the person who did the recording was arrested for violating Massachusetts wiretap laws?
Maybe the individual thus arrested would argue that there’s a First Amendment right to record “… information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others,” which “serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
Is that a possible argument?