UW Professor Triggers Free Speech Fight Over "Indigenous Land Acknowledgement"

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  48 comments

By:   Emily Mullin (JONATHAN TURLEY)

UW Professor Triggers Free Speech Fight Over "Indigenous Land Acknowledgement"
There is a major fight unfolding over free speech and academic freedom at the University of Washington where computer science Professor Stuart Reges has been ordered to remove a statement from his syllabus. After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten "Indigenous land acknowledgement" statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own…

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



There is a major fight unfolding over free speech and academic freedom at the University of Washington where computer science Professor Stuart Reges has been ordered to remove a statement from his syllabus. After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten "Indigenous land acknowledgement" statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people.

The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:


"The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations."

Professor Reges disagrees with that statement and expressed his doubts to the faculty while also noting that "Magda" did not want the faculty to discuss such reservations on the email system. That may be a reference to the Director of the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering Magdalena Balazinska.

Reges' alternative statement read:


"I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington."

The labor theory (which I teach) is generally a reference to the theory of John Locke. In this Second Treatise, Locke laid the foundation for property as a divine gift of God that began in the state of nature where all was created in common by God. Here is the key passage:


"The labor of his body, and the work of his hands we may say are properly his Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in he hath mixed his labor with, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."

Reges clearly believes that the claim of the university land was not sufficiently used or developed to bestow a claim upon the Coast Salish people, which is a broad collection of different groups that stretched from British Columbia to Oregon. The association is based on ethnic or linguistic associations.

At one time, this would have been treated as an interesting foundation for an academic debate over the meaning of ownership, Western v. indigenous views of property, and related issues. There is also the question of whether sweeping claims to such lands violates "Locke's Proviso" to leave "as good left in common for others."

Magdalena Balazinska wrote in the email to Reges that


"[i]t is offensive, and it creates a toxic environment in your course, which is a required course in our major. You are welcome to voice your opinion and opposition to land acknowledgements, as you have, in other settings. The current statement in your course syllabus is inappropriate and must be removed."

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) in a letterto UW, the university is supporting the dean in ordering the removal of the statement.

One can certainly disagree with the use of the labor theory in this or other contexts. It has been criticized as a Western rationalization for taking native lands. Others, however, have noted that Locke's theory supports indigenous groups in their claim to lands so long as they establish the labor element. One passage is particularly notable (and rarely referenced by those criticizing the theory) in defending the right of indigenous peoples:


the inhabitants of any country who are descended and derive a title to their estates from those who are subdued and had a government forced upon them against their free consents retain a right to the possession of their ancestors…for the first conqueror never having had a title to the land of that country, the people who are the descendants of, or claim under, those who were forced to submit to the yoke of a government by constraint have always a right to shake it off and free themselves from the usurpation or tyranny which the sword has brought in upon them… Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own and at their own disposal, and not at his'

Locke published those words in 1689.

That is a worthy debate to have but the school is having none of it as part of its syllabi policy. Dean Balazinska wrote to Fox News to say that "[t]he statement Stuart Reges included in his syllabus was inappropriate, offensive and not relevant to the content of the course he teaches." However, it was the university that was encouraging the inclusion of an "Indigenous land acknowledgement" in every course. It was deemed sufficiently important and relevant to be uniformly used. Professor Reges is making an opposing statement based on his deeply held intellectual views.

Moreover, one can argue that the labor theory is relevant to most courses as are other foundational theories. Leading universities are not trade schools that just teach skills. They ideally tie their subjects to a deeper theoretical foundation. Indeed, part of the new movement in academia is to incorporate diversity, social justice, and equity issues in every discipline. Such questions are viewed as relevant, if not imperative, for inclusion. We have previously discussed controversies at schools where professors are asserting that science and technology courses are shaped by "white privilege." Academics like Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis have declared that science and statistics are racist while others have declared math is racist. No one has suggested that such viewpoints are "not relevant to the content of the course[s]" being taught in these areas.

The University of Washington has encouraged faculty to deal with racial justice and equity in every aspect of their teaching, writing, and community work. It is not clear where the university is drawing the line on germaneness for a given subject matter in this context. The university sought to incorporate this issue in every course and this faculty member wants to do so from an opposing viewpoint.

The controversy at the University of Washington raises the concern that "voluntary" statements have a certain involuntary or even coercive element. It is not clear how an untenured faculty member would fare if the professor declined such invitations or suggestions. It is certainly precarious for an untenured person to openly disagree with such policies. Even if you prevail, you may find yourself unemployed when your contract is not renewed. We recently discussed that concern where St. John's professor prevailed in a fight over his questioning reparations, but was later denied the renewal of his contract. The termination sent a chilling message to all faculty members.

We previously discussed how acting Northwestern Law Dean declaring publicly "I am James Speta and I am a racist." He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced, "I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better." I have no problem with a dean making such statements based on his own convictions and would defend his right to do so under free speech and academic freedom principles. However, there is also a concern that such decanal statements create pressure on others (particularly untenured members) to begin remarks with such confessional statements. That is why schools must be vigilant and open in supporting a diversity of opinions and making clear that faculty will not be held to any de facto orthodoxy.

That brings us back to Professor Reges. Frankly, I would not have posted this statement because I find it gratuitous and peevish as part of a syllabus. However, ordering a faculty member to remove such a statement (after encouraging the inclusion of the official statement) is deeply concerning.

The key to this dispute, in my view, is that the underlying matter is a subject to debate. Indeed, some liberal writers have called these statements as "virtue signaling": "Land acknowledgments are similarly confected to stroke the sentiments of mostly non-Indigenous audiences—this time by enabling their preening self-criticism."

This controversy would be different if the university called for a statement that each professor recognizes the obligation not to engage in racial or other forms of discrimination. That is a requirement of federal law as well as university rules. If a faculty member instead posted a belief in the inferiority of certain groups and an intent to discriminate, he could reasonably be sanctioned. We have discussed such statements made by faculty, including controversial "who I am" statements or issuing "giant warnings" to those who disagree with anti-racist viewpoints.

Of course, faculty often espouse in many controversial viewpoints outside of the classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments "detonating white people," denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. Indeed, University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw "nothing wrong" with such acts of violence.

Even when faculty engage in such hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or "disingenuous" speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about "the importance of free speech," Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a "slaveholder" as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students). We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.

As noted, there is a great push to include social justice and equity elements in every course. I take no issue with such suggestions but I have considerable problem with compelled statements or positions for faculty members in their courses. There is little difference between requiring one statement or punishing an opposing statement. Both further an orthodoxy and hegemony of viewpoints.

The University of Washington wanted faculty to issue an indigenous land statement. Reges did so from an opposing viewpoint. That would seem a matter of academic freedom on a subject deemed "relevant" for syllabi. When you encourage such statements from faculty, you are in for a penny or a pound as they address the issue.

Rather than threaten to sanction Reges, why not debate him? These are interesting issues with historical, racial justice, free speech, and academic freedom elements. There was a time when such debates were not just welcomed but fostered on our campuses. This is clearly not those times.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

The next president must deal with the lack of freedom of speech at the university.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Free debate is not progressives' friend. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Instead of embracing debate, the university cracks down on dissent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I believe in private property, but property ownership is conferred by a government , not by God.  Anyway, was John Locke God? He had no more right to define the nature and parameters of property ownership than the man in the moon. 

The native Americans had their own ideas about property ownership. It was just a case of "might being right" by the whites. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago

And anyone else should be entitled to debate you or express an opposing view.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
JR wrote: "It was just a case of "might being right"
It's always been thus since the dawn of antiquity, and conqueror hasn't always been "white".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago

It's certainly the case in academia.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
It's certainly the case in academia

Pretty ironic...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

You mean that it was the rabble who demanded free speech on campus in the late 60's, that are now denying it today?

Yes, that is the epitome of irony!

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
4.3  zuksam  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
It was just a case of "might being right" by the whites. 

Might being right wasn't a White only thing the Natives lived by the same rule and liked it just fine until they met someone mightier.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago

For one thing, it turns out that there is no direct correspondence between labour and property, because one man can appropriate the labour of another. He can acquire a right of property in something by 'mixing' with it not his own labour but the labour of someone else whom he employs. It appears that the issue for Locke has less to do with the activity of labour as such than with its profitable use. In calculating the value of the acre in America, for instance, he talks not about the Indian's expenditure of effort, labour, but about the Indian's failure to realize a profit. The issue, in other words, is not the labour of a human being but the   productivity of property , its exchange value and its application to commercial profit.

" ordering a faculty member to remove such a statement (after encouraging the in clusion of the official statement) is deeply concerning."
If there was a class on social justice and the school wanted the syllabus to include a statement of support for law enforcement and that there are far more good apples than bad among our police, but the professor teaching the class instead included the statement "Fuck the police!" would any conservative here have any problem with the school saying the statement was " inappropriate, offensive and not relevant to the content of the course he teaches"? Sure the teacher could argue that, while aggressive the statement would spark debate but it's not up to the professor but the school at which they labor to determine the curriculum.
This seed is just more whiny conservative bullshit who thinks they should be able to inject their theories, beliefs and values in every aspect of society and when they get push back they gnash their teeth and roll on the ground crying "Woe is me! I'm under attack! I'm the victim here! I'm being silenced! My freedom of speech is being denied!". Of course it is a total fantasy, no one is silencing them, everyone hears their incessant fucking whining and congress has not made any law that denied them their free speech. We all know they just fight desperately against social justice because they believe that means taking something away from them. Why do they believe this? Likely because they know they have a lot of property and ownership they and their ancestors never labored for but simply took after realizing its application for commercial profit indigenous people be damned.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    2 weeks ago

It's not about Indigenous land. It's about the freedom to disagree.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    2 weeks ago
It's about the freedom to disagree.

Does an employee have the "freedom to disagree" with their employers and not expect immediate termination? This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is a school saying "Hey, we asked for a specific statement to be added to the course we're paying a professor to teach".

"The school provided a recommended statement for all faculty to post and/or read to their students at the first of every course:"

If the school had asked their faculty to post their own statements then perhaps you could call this a mild form of censorship but still well within the rights of the school to accept or deny. But in this case it was a prepared statement that a professor not only refused to use but replaced with his own that the school found "inappropriate, offensive and not relevant to the content of the course he teaches".

Again, just more useless conservative whining by self-diagnosed "victims" and conservative journalists who make their living off stirring the conservative victim pot with dumb fuck seeds like this one. Is this professor or his flawed reasonings being silenced? If so that's a pretty funny definition of "silenced" since I and everyone else in the fucking world can read his statement if they so choose, I'm sure it's being spread all over the right wing conservative alternate universe gaining ground as more and more conservative idiots try and claim they know what the fuck he was talking about in the first place when discussing John Locke and the labor theory of property.

No one is being silenced, there is no violation of free speech, this professor is allowed to disagree all he fucking wants, he just shouldn't expect the school to keep him employed if he continues to reject their authority. If a professor at a Christian college decided to change the schools recommended statement of objectives which were "To develop a scriptural self-awareness and confidence which produces a mature and vital testimony for Jesus Christ" to "To develop self-awareness and confidence which produces a mature and vital human to better humanity regardless of whether Jesus Christ or any other Gods exist or not". Do you think right wing conservative Christians would be out here trying to defend that professors supposed "free speech" at a Christian college? Of course not, they would be shaming him for ever even suggesting that Christ might not exist.

Everyone has the freedom to disagree, but that's not the issue here. It's about conservatives whining about being criticized when they disagree because everyone has the right to criticize just like they have a right to disagree. Conservatives want the right to disagree while also being shielded from criticism. If they stand up on the soap box and proclaim "Jesus is King!" it's anyone else's right in the crowd to stand on their own soap box and yell "Jesus is King of the Pedophiles!" or "Jesus never existed!" or "Jesus is Dead and is never coming back!". Of course when conservative Christians get shouted over they demand their right to be validated, not just heard. They demand the MSM repeat their bullshit stories about Hunter Biden, they demand the MSM cover their Mango Mussolini in a better light, they demand their faith and their white conservative Christian ideology be given as much time as rational thought on their media platforms. And of course in their doing so, they inspire more ridicule, more backlash and more rational thought telling them that only a brain damaged half wit would believe this was a freedom of speech issue.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Does an employee have the "freedom to disagree" with their employers and not expect immediate termination? This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is a school saying "Hey, we asked for a specific statement to be added to the course we're paying a professor to teach".

Here we go with the left's claim that freedom of speech only exists on government property. First of all the University gets federal funding. Second of all Whole Foods has told all employees that they are not to wear any political slogans. They made a few employees get rid of BLM masks. A federal agency is trying to get Whole Foods to allow this particular ideology:



Please tell us how it can be?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
e "freedom to disagree" with their employers and not expect immediate termination? This 

When the employer is the government, yes. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
Here we go with the left's claim that freedom of speech only exists on government property.

Where the fuck did anyone make that claim Vic? 

First of all the University gets federal funding.

So WHAT? Is it your posit that all Universities that get federal funding have to follow some sort of 'free speech' standard? If so, please post a link to that standard. 

Second of all Whole Foods

WTF does Whole Foods have to do with the topic of you seed Vic? Be specfic. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    2 weeks ago

good comment DP

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 weeks ago

It's called missing the point!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, you did. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  Kavika     2 weeks ago

The professor needs a history lesson. The John Locke reference is nutty at best, he should actually go to SCOTUS decisions on this and read the Marshall Trilogy which supports the RCC Doctrine of Discovery to disposes natives of their land.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7    2 weeks ago

Maybe he should, but he should also be entitled to an opinion, even if it's misguided. Everyone should be able to debate him/set him straight!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    2 weeks ago
Maybe he should, but he should also be entitled to an opinion, even if it's misguided. Everyone should be able to debate him/set him straight!

I didn't say anything about not having a right to his opinion, and the one thing he did show in his comment is that he is totally ignorant of the actual facts. 

He could go across town and discuss this with Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis of the Washington State Supreme Court, she would set him straight in a minute.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
I didn't say anything about not having a right to his opinion

I know you didn't. That's the whole point here. Not who's fucking right!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

d the one thing he did show in his comment is that he is totally ignorant of the actual facts. 

No, he applied Locke well enough. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    2 weeks ago
That's the whole point here. Not who's fucking right!!!

LOL, calm down, Vic if the professor wants to look like an uninformed idiot he has every right to do so. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.4    2 weeks ago
LOL, calm down, Vic

No you calm down, Kavika, the professor should have a right to make his case. The problem is he currently does not.

What is so hard for you to understand?

It's really a simple concept. It's called free speech.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

You should try reading and understanding by comments. I didn't say that he didn't have the right at all, he does have it. He also has the right to look like he has little or no knowledge of the subject matter. 

So, he was both rights, to voice his opinion and to look the idiot. 

He has accomplished both.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.6    2 weeks ago
You should try reading and understanding by comments.

I understood them perfectly. You did just what I expected. You made a case supporting the RCC Doctrine of Discovery to disposes natives of their land. The issue is, as you know, allowing others to express opposing views. The problem that you are not grasping is that the University of Washington is not allowing free speech.


So, he was both rights, to voice his opinion and to look the idiot. 

No Kavika, he was ordered to remove the statement from his syllabus. Reading is important. It was in the first sentence.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
7.1.8  zuksam  replied to  Kavika @7.1.6    2 weeks ago
So, he was both rights, to voice his opinion and to look the idiot

Not according to the University of Washington.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Kavika   replied to  zuksam @7.1.8    2 weeks ago

I was speaking for myself, zuksam. What the university does is their choice and the professor has the right to challenge it or whine about it, his choice.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.7    2 weeks ago
Reading is important. It was in the first sentence.

Yes, it is and the professor can challenge the decision by the university. 

You made a casesupporting the RCC Doctrine of Discovery to disposes natives of their land.

Actually, I didn't make a case it was SCOTUS that made it, I simply gave you and our readers the facts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @7.1.10    2 weeks ago
Yes, it is and the professor can challenge the decision by the university.

Yes, he can.

But as the article pointed out, we already know what will happen, right?

Even if he wins the case, the university will simply not renew his contract.

Free speech encouraged by the university (as long as you say precisely what they want you to say) shouldn't result in punishment. Kind of goes against the whole free speech thing.

If one can't speak about ideas at a college, what are they really teaching?

And WHY did the University have such a dumb thing added to each syllabus? What was the POINT?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.10    2 weeks ago
Yes, it is and the professor can challenge the decision by the university. 

Oh, isn't that nice. One side has to challenge the university and fight for their right to speech!


Actually, I didn't make a case it was SCOTUS that made it, I simply gave you and our readers the facts.

You simply fought the battle that is irrelevant to the topic. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.12    2 weeks ago
Oh, isn't that nice. One side has to challenge the university and fight for their right to speech!

Sure looks like it.

You simply fought the battle that is irrelevant to the topic. 

I didn't fight any battle and the professor's quote was in the article so it is relevant. 

Have a great day, Vic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @7.1.13    2 weeks ago
Sure looks like it.

That's a serious problem don't you think?


I didn't fight any battle

Oh yes you did.


Have a great day, Vic.

Good luck!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Not who's fucking right!!

So, your posit is that University Professors should be allowed to spew whatever bullshit they want, no matter how false and the Universities reaction should be limited to debate the Professor on the merits of his bullshit? 

BTFW, what if he was teaching CRT? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.1.15    2 weeks ago

oh, yeah that is exactly what he said and meant.

/s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @7.1.15    2 weeks ago
So, your posit is that University Professors should be allowed to spew whatever bullshit they want, no matter how false and the Universities reaction should be limited to debate the Professor on the merits of his bullshit? 

Why are you and others so afraid of an opposing opinion?

It's only 8:47 AM EST and I can see the morning news has caused many to bail.  There are no safe spaces in the real world!


BTFW, what if he was teaching CRT? 

Giving an opinion is far different that teaching based on opinion.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
7.1.18  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @7.1.15    2 weeks ago
your posit is that University Professors should be allowed to spew whatever bullshit they want, no matter how false and the Universities reaction should be limited to debate the Professor on the merits of his bullshit? 

actually yes, that is EXACTLY what the professors at Berzerkley in the 60's were doing... how do you think it got the nickname of Berzerkley?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.17    2 weeks ago
Why are you and others so afraid of an opposing opinion?

Strawman. 

Why are you and others so afraid of answering a fucking question? 

It's only 8:47 AM EST

I don't care where you live. 

and I can see the morning news has caused many to bail.  There are no safe spaces in the real world!

WTF does the morning news have to do with your seed Vic? Hint: NOTHING. 

Giving an opinion is far different that teaching based on opinion.

Your deflecting again Vic. It would behoove you to review the purpose of a syllabus. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @7.1.19    2 weeks ago
Why are you and others so afraid of answering a fucking question?

I answered it.


I don't care where you live. 

Touche!


WTF does the morning news have to do with your seed Vic? 

With this seed?  You're right on this one - NOTHING!


Your deflecting again Vic.

It was you who asked what If he taught CRT?  Clearly that wouldn't be giving an opinion. It would be teaching those impressionable young minds what to think. I was hoping you would know the difference.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.20    2 weeks ago
I answered it.

You haven't answered my first question Vic. 

It was you who asked what If he taught CRT? 

Yes it was. 

Clearly that wouldn't be giving an opinion. It would be teaching those impressionable young minds what to think.

So his statement in his syllabus was telling those same 'impressionable young minds what to think.' Yet you support it. 

It drips with hypocrisy. 

I was hoping you would know the difference.

Yes, I see the hypocrisy in your comments. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.1.18    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
7.1.23  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @7.1.22    2 weeks ago

You don't have to cry... Here's a hug...jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
7.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.1.23    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Universities are filled with the craziest people in the country.

Mao could have been a college administrator if the whole murderous dictator thing didn't work out.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    2 weeks ago

You have it so wrong I do not know where to begin. The first thing Mao did was purge intellectuals from universities and government. Which seems to be just what you and the Trumpists are advocating!

 
 

Who is online

al Jizzerror
Gordy327


41 visitors