Unhinged UR Professor
- Thread starter MolivaManiac
- Start date
Yes this person can't figure out that free speech includes those who hold opinions that he doesn't share. Calling viewpoints with which he disagrees "hate speech" says it all. The fact that he has a forum for his viewpoint fails to make him appreciative. Saying he has "an axe to grind" is an understatement.
racism exists in every place on earth though only coming from a small, a very small % of the populace. individuals like this seem to think it is around every corner and that all people who share anything conservative are bigots and racists, which is sad and laugable at the same time. that is small thinking and not sure he or she should be denied tenure based on his or her remarks, has every right to make them but maybe based on the inability to think outside the narrow thought process and tunnel in which he or she is trapped. know many conservatives and none are what he thinks and also know many lib dems who are racist. worked with a huge lib dem from new york city and we used to debate, argue and laugh at each other but one day he told me that he hated blacks which shocked me, did not act that way or show it but he admitted it to me. you cannot judge a book by its cover, think alfred e. newman said that, must peruse inside. people like this prof promulgate the left thought that all conservatives are homophobes, bigots, racists and so on which is not even close but it keeps blacks and gays voting dem and that is the only truth to his thoughts. feel sad for this person that they are unable to jettison prejudices which are false but seems he or she is unable to accept any other scenario. also not sure i would personally have wanted to be taught by a prof with such closed thoughts.
My wife had the same thought.
There is a very strange stew cooking on college campuses these days.
you think? many definitions and thoughts about what fascism is but these leftist, socialist, communists in the streets, on the campi and in the media come very close to being the poster children of it
It's not often you get a chance to read an example of everything that is wrong with higher education in one essay but this guy made it happen! How about this.....I don't care what you think about anything except whatever SUBJECT you are supposed to be teaching my child. Parent's are not spending all of this money to send their children to be indoctrinated, they are spending it for them to be educated. No one should know who you voted for, what you think about global warming, who you sleep next to at night, etc. Just do you damn job and leave all the other stuff out of it. If you choose to bring it into your classroom then you must face whatever consequences - positive and negative - may arise. This guy, and people like him, will NEVER be happy or satisfied with their treatment, pay, office location, student population, attention, etc. I hope they let someone else deal with this guy for the next 40 years.
bottom line, why should there be tenure? why not abolish this structure completely. when i hear all the leftists and socialists crying out for free education, wonder if all the profs who think this is great are willing to work for free?
Meh, I don't have much of a beef with this blog, although I agree that there may very well be some of a preemptive shot across the bow regarding tenure.
Personally, I think it comes down to a simple phrase that comes not from our Constitution, but our Declaration of Independence: All Men Are Created Equal. If all of our arguments (on either side) are including THIS particular assumption, then, yes, free speech is a perfectly correct thing. If something is not assuming this baseline that all men (not gendered men, but humanity in general, of course) are created equal, then free speech is not exactly what is necessary. What I understand that Prof. Grollman is saying is that you cannot simply let someone walk in to dehumanize others, because that is deviating from the "self-evident truth." That is not what free speech is about.
It is a moral situation, and that is a major part of what university is about, I would think, and I think that that is what many of you are arguing here, even from a different angle than I have.
Personally, I think it comes down to a simple phrase that comes not from our Constitution, but our Declaration of Independence: All Men Are Created Equal. If all of our arguments (on either side) are including THIS particular assumption, then, yes, free speech is a perfectly correct thing. If something is not assuming this baseline that all men (not gendered men, but humanity in general, of course) are created equal, then free speech is not exactly what is necessary. What I understand that Prof. Grollman is saying is that you cannot simply let someone walk in to dehumanize others, because that is deviating from the "self-evident truth." That is not what free speech is about.
It is a moral situation, and that is a major part of what university is about, I would think, and I think that that is what many of you are arguing here, even from a different angle than I have.
This guy is looking to indoctrinate, not teach. He has an agenda and he is going to be vocal and aggressive towards anyone he thinks runs afoul of it. I'm sure he chose to be an "academic" because it represents a safe place to complain and be offended every day without repercussions. As I said before - let him go somewhere else. He does not add anything positive to our students or our University community.
Belonging to the "perpetually offended" class is a choice the professor has made. That is his prerogative but it certainly does not mean that one has to give it any credence. Complaining about persons being invited to speak who hold divergent viewpoints from one's own is a weak argument. To state the professor used exaggerated hyperbole is to state a blatantly obvious fact.
At minimum, this is a straw man argument. When has this occurred at UR? Particularly in a manner that would have him calling out his boss? Its BS.
Hardly a strawman argument -- think more, dismiss less. Much like Grollman, we have some very abrasive people here too!
I am basing this on what I am reading from the blog entry that you brought to our attention. What I interpret that he is saying is exactly what I said before. And, he is responding to what his boss wrote in an opinion column. Universities have never been a place where people sit idly by (in either direction), and Dr. Crutcher, an academic, also can and should understand that. He almost certainly knows that he was certainly opening a can of worms by bravely writing that column (as a man of color).
We are not producing widgets at UR -- the bossman is not here to tell faculty to shut the hell up and make more widgets. We are creating minds, that can and should be able to disagree (as Crutcher says), assuming that the person who is sharing their point of view is not considering different groups to be unequal, which Grollman says. I also think these young adults (i.e., UR students) are old enough to begin to think for themselves and not get "indoctrinated." They can, and do, form their own thoughts and opinions, like we all do, based on what we read, see, experience.
Unlike most of us here on the forums, from what I can gather, very few of us identify with any of the ways that he self-identifies (black, queer, non-binary). I don't know what it's like to be him -- I assume that he legitimately has an axe to grind, though. Certainly more than I have as a straight, white male.
One of the people he cited is Charles Murray, which is the crux of the point that I mentioned. If he dehumanizes someone (i.e., the black person who is "less" than the white person), then he is not someone who is welcome at the table. I am not black, but I find his rhetoric extremely offensive (and racist, to boot). Why should we continue to give someone like him space, and therefore, credibility? That's the point here.
So - if I follow that logic KWeaver - one's emotional response to an issue should cause others to snap to and carry out the order. When will it be my turn to rely on my emotions and order others to follow my wishes? And here I thought the purpose of education was reasoned debate with each person free to follow the dictates of their own conscience. But if viewpoints based on opposition from those who disagree are not allowed to be voiced where is the exchange of ideas? Saying one's own ego is too fragile to even hear other viewpoints is a very weak argument. And "identity politics" is a losing proposition that starts with the premise that my identity is more important than yours. Certainly does nothing to promote any semblance of cooperation other than the premise you need to capitulate to my preferences.
Because we live in a free society. Censoring ideas or research just because it happens to make you sad or uncomfortable is not the way our society works. It is the antithesis of everything the Western Educational model represents. If this guy can't handle a free society, he's the one who needs to change or get out. We have humored these nut jobs for far too long. The fact this guy (who would seem more at place in a community college) was even hired in the first place is an embarrassment to the University. Who hired this guy? That's the inquiry I'm making if I'm the President.
yet, he will be tenured and thus safe no matter what he may think, do or act out on in the future. good time for the boards at all institutions of so-called higher learning to deep six this dinosaur of a system.
You missed the most basic premise, yet again. All men are created equal. If you do not accept that, whatever other argument you have holds no water (if it makes you happy, sad, angry, fearful, or otherwise). Without all men being considered equal as the baseline, there is no discussion to be had here, no logic to be followed.
Yes all men are created equal and I have no need to resort to condescension as your post does. You are free to believe whatever you want if that makes you happy.
Your argument fits more into the premise of Animal Farm:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ...
Your argument fits more into the premise of Animal Farm:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ...
You may have a fair point worthy of consideration, but you totally miss the point in your quote of Orwell's satire and cynicism--
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
And what is that, Comrade Spinner? Sorry to call you out, but these simpleton Americans sometimes need to have you spell it out. Be courageous, tell them exactly what you mean. Do not worry, Comrade, it will be well received by these ignorant Americans...and our movement will be advanced, So let's hear it, comrade.
