Professor threatens students for use of the wrong words

[theDoctorisIn]

Colored is offensive to most African Americans. Tranny is offensive to anyone. Illegal is offensive to many immigrants, here with permission or not. There is absolutely no violation of anyone's liberty to be required, in a classroom, to avoid offensive language. I have the right to use the word Fuck here, on this site. Others sites do not allow that. If a professor required that students not use profane language in a classroom, when the same profane language is protected in speech outside the classroom, is a that a violation of the student's rights?

Colored was never offensive to any blacks I knew/know they just preferred black or AA so we can toss that out as an offensive word. Trannies call themselves trannies, there goes another one, illegal is not offensive to MANY, it's a contrived (for political reasons) offensive designation only a very few claim not to like, one more misrepresentation booted out the door. What about gender references, since when did that become offensive? Give me a fucking break.
Having the right to curse on a website, in someones place of business or in someones home is a different animal as it's private property and we can curtail free speech if we so desire, Schools that receive government funding cannot though they do all the time.
In my humble but accurate opinion this is an undisguised attempt at enforcing political correctness in usage simply because the professor doesn't like those words, social engineering at it's worse. People like that shouldn't be teaching they should be convalescing in a nuthouse.
Oh and if I, you, him, them, whomever have a problem with something, is offended by something (I'm not including things like pedophilia) then we are the one's with the problem and we need to overcome it in ourselves.

Cause the African Americans you knew knew their place, right? Don't dare object to your use of racially offensive terms. Perhaps they jsut accepted that you were a racist prick and did not want to bother fighting with you? And tranny is offensive. That some have so little respect for themselves that they use that term does not mean it is an acceptable description, particularly not in a classroom. And you are wholly ignorant of the First Amendment if you don't think that schools and other governmental entities cannot have rules regarding the use of offensive language. Your opinion is anything but humble. You arrogantly assume to know why this professor wants students to refrain from using language IN CLASS that might be offensive to others. You assume it is to control their opinions though it is clear from her syllabus that she wants all to express their opinions. Only morons like you and Mac are unable to express an opinion without denigrating others.

I see you have projection down to a science. I'm not assuming anything, it's obvious what the professor is doing, you're either too blind to see it or part of the process and are deflecting.
Oh and your pathetic attempt to label me a racist is exactly that, banal and pathetic, obviously the only racist here is you or that is the only way you think you can win the argument. Yup, pathetic.
Yes, schools and other government entities can have rules regarding offensive language, the problem here is you see something as offensive that the vast majority of the population doesn't, that's where the primary disagreement is between us.

Does not matter what the vast majority (a lie, by the way) find to be offensive. The professed gets to set the parameters for discussion in her classroom. She wants to ban profanity, she can. She wants to ban the use of terms that some in her class might find offensive, fine. There is no first amendment right to use offensive speech in a classroom.

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

 

[Ringel05]

Colored was never offensive to any blacks I knew/know they just preferred black or AA so we can toss that out as an offensive word. Trannies call themselves trannies, there goes another one, illegal is not offensive to MANY, it's a contrived (for political reasons) offensive designation only a very few claim not to like, one more misrepresentation booted out the door. What about gender references, since when did that become offensive? Give me a fucking break.
Having the right to curse on a website, in someones place of business or in someones home is a different animal as it's private property and we can curtail free speech if we so desire, Schools that receive government funding cannot though they do all the time.
In my humble but accurate opinion this is an undisguised attempt at enforcing political correctness in usage simply because the professor doesn't like those words, social engineering at it's worse. People like that shouldn't be teaching they should be convalescing in a nuthouse.
Oh and if I, you, him, them, whomever have a problem with something, is offended by something (I'm not including things like pedophilia) then we are the one's with the problem and we need to overcome it in ourselves.

Cause the African Americans you knew knew their place, right? Don't dare object to your use of racially offensive terms. Perhaps they jsut accepted that you were a racist prick and did not want to bother fighting with you? And tranny is offensive. That some have so little respect for themselves that they use that term does not mean it is an acceptable description, particularly not in a classroom. And you are wholly ignorant of the First Amendment if you don't think that schools and other governmental entities cannot have rules regarding the use of offensive language. Your opinion is anything but humble. You arrogantly assume to know why this professor wants students to refrain from using language IN CLASS that might be offensive to others. You assume it is to control their opinions though it is clear from her syllabus that she wants all to express their opinions. Only morons like you and Mac are unable to express an opinion without denigrating others.

I see you have projection down to a science. I'm not assuming anything, it's obvious what the professor is doing, you're either too blind to see it or part of the process and are deflecting.
Oh and your pathetic attempt to label me a racist is exactly that, banal and pathetic, obviously the only racist here is you or that is the only way you think you can win the argument. Yup, pathetic.
Yes, schools and other government entities can have rules regarding offensive language, the problem here is you see something as offensive that the vast majority of the population doesn't, that's where the primary disagreement is between us.

Does not matter what the vast majority (a lie, by the way) find to be offensive. The professed gets to set the parameters for discussion in her classroom. She wants to ban profanity, she can. She wants to ban the use of terms that some in her class might find offensive, fine. There is no first amendment right to use offensive speech in a classroom.

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Cause the African Americans you knew knew their place, right? Don't dare object to your use of racially offensive terms. Perhaps they jsut accepted that you were a racist prick and did not want to bother fighting with you? And tranny is offensive. That some have so little respect for themselves that they use that term does not mean it is an acceptable description, particularly not in a classroom. And you are wholly ignorant of the First Amendment if you don't think that schools and other governmental entities cannot have rules regarding the use of offensive language. Your opinion is anything but humble. You arrogantly assume to know why this professor wants students to refrain from using language IN CLASS that might be offensive to others. You assume it is to control their opinions though it is clear from her syllabus that she wants all to express their opinions. Only morons like you and Mac are unable to express an opinion without denigrating others.

I see you have projection down to a science. I'm not assuming anything, it's obvious what the professor is doing, you're either too blind to see it or part of the process and are deflecting.
Oh and your pathetic attempt to label me a racist is exactly that, banal and pathetic, obviously the only racist here is you or that is the only way you think you can win the argument. Yup, pathetic.
Yes, schools and other government entities can have rules regarding offensive language, the problem here is you see something as offensive that the vast majority of the population doesn't, that's where the primary disagreement is between us.

Does not matter what the vast majority (a lie, by the way) find to be offensive. The professed gets to set the parameters for discussion in her classroom. She wants to ban profanity, she can. She wants to ban the use of terms that some in her class might find offensive, fine. There is no first amendment right to use offensive speech in a classroom.

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteme.

Let me try to explain my analogy about math class.

In any class you take, there are fundamentals that you need to accept as fact in order to perform well in the class, even if they're not "true" in a larger context of reality. Even if you have an incredibly legitimate argument against a theory you are taught, you still need to know how to apply that theory to past the exam, and have to accept it in that context.

As or the words on the list, most of them are not the slightest bit "derogatory", in my opinion.

But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters in this context. I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people taking that class probably think that one or more of those terms are derogatory, and if the professor wants to prevent antagonistic fights in her class or even just to prevent herself from being offended, that's her right - it's her class. If you don't like it, don't take the class - instead, take a class on semantics and social norms - one in which you can explore why different groups of people find various choices of language offensive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ringel, your opinion of what does or does not constitute in appropriate language in that or any class does not matter.

The professor's decision is what matters.

 

[Ringel05]

I see you have projection down to a science. I'm not assuming anything, it's obvious what the professor is doing, you're either too blind to see it or part of the process and are deflecting.
Oh and your pathetic attempt to label me a racist is exactly that, banal and pathetic, obviously the only racist here is you or that is the only way you think you can win the argument. Yup, pathetic.
Yes, schools and other government entities can have rules regarding offensive language, the problem here is you see something as offensive that the vast majority of the population doesn't, that's where the primary disagreement is between us.

Does not matter what the vast majority (a lie, by the way) find to be offensive. The professed gets to set the parameters for discussion in her classroom. She wants to ban profanity, she can. She wants to ban the use of terms that some in her class might find offensive, fine. There is no first amendment right to use offensive speech in a classroom.

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteme.

Let me try to explain my analogy about math class.

In any class you take, there are fundamentals that you need to accept as fact in order to perform well in the class, even if they're not "true" in a larger context of reality. Even if you have an incredibly legitimate argument against a theory you are taught, you still need to know how to apply that theory to past the exam, and have to accept it in that context.

As or the words on the list, most of them are not the slightest bit "derogatory", in my opinion.

But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters in this context. I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people taking that class probably think that one or more of those terms are derogatory, and if the professor wants to prevent antagonistic fights in her class or even just to prevent herself from being offended, that's her right - it's her class. If you don't like it, don't take the class - instead, take a class on semantics and social norms - one in which you can explore why different groups of people find various choices of language offensive.

Fair enough.
However in one aspect we will have to agree to disagree, the social engineering aspect of why those words were specifically included, it's an ongoing process that has been picking up steam for a couple of decades now where some (on both sides of the political spectrum) want to control what we think and say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Social engineering" is a term narrowly applied.

In fact, that has been a signal purpose of higher education since the beginning and is much broader in purpose and action than implied by Ringel. Go to Patrick Henry or Liberty universities to see specified social engineering.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does not matter what the vast majority (a lie, by the way) find to be offensive. The professed gets to set the parameters for discussion in her classroom. She wants to ban profanity, she can. She wants to ban the use of terms that some in her class might find offensive, fine. There is no first amendment right to use offensive speech in a classroom.

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteme.

Let me try to explain my analogy about math class.

In any class you take, there are fundamentals that you need to accept as fact in order to perform well in the class, even if they're not "true" in a larger context of reality. Even if you have an incredibly legitimate argument against a theory you are taught, you still need to know how to apply that theory to past the exam, and have to accept it in that context.

As or the words on the list, most of them are not the slightest bit "derogatory", in my opinion.

But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters in this context. I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people taking that class probably think that one or more of those terms are derogatory, and if the professor wants to prevent antagonistic fights in her class or even just to prevent herself from being offended, that's her right - it's her class. If you don't like it, don't take the class - instead, take a class on semantics and social norms - one in which you can explore why different groups of people find various choices of language offensive.

Fair enough.
However in one aspect we will have to agree to disagree, the social engineering aspect of why those words were specifically included, it's an ongoing process that has been picking up steam for a couple of decades now where some (on both sides of the political spectrum) want to control what we think and say.

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nonsense.

Americans are at liberty to say anything they wish, to exhibit their ignorance and hate, their racism and stupidity, their bigotry and nativism absent punitive measures by the state; indeed, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state. (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul)

Consequently, no one will 'pay' for what he says, no 'arrest,' no 'trial,' no 'conviction,' the notion is ignorant idiocy – a product of the myth of 'political correctness,' and those frightened of unfettered debate in a free and democratic society.

Saul, you're dumb as a dog turd - as always.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

From the Enlightenment forward. Universities in free countries have be bastions of free thought and the exploration of ideas.

But the key element is "free countries." The left has occupied most of the Universities in this nation, and put a jack boot on the neck of free expression and intellectual curiosity. The left will not tolerate a thinking population, as thinking people question the dogma put forth by the party. Questioning is not allowed in Academia, rote recitation of dogma is the hallmark of leftist controlled Academia. The left is quite literally ushering in a new dark ages.

 

[paddymurphy]

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

From the Enlightenment forward. Universities in free countries have be bastions of free thought and the exploration of ideas.

But the key element is "free countries." The left has occupied most of the Universities in this nation, and put a jack boot on the neck of free expression and intellectual curiosity. The left will not tolerate a thinking population, as thinking people question the dogma put forth by the party. Questioning is not allowed in Academia, rote recitation of dogma is the hallmark of leftist controlled Academia. The left is quite literally ushering in a new dark ages.

The left is the only reason there is free expression on college campuses today.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shutting our universities would result in more people like you.

You mean articulate and able to process ideas?

As opposed to those like you who spew dogma and refuse to consider any information at odds with party mantras?

Voltaire spins in his grave as leftist professors declare "I may not approve of what you have to say, so I will fight to the death to silence you."

 

[Ringel05]

"Social engineering" is a term narrowly applied.

In fact, that has been a signal purpose of higher education since the beginning and is much broader in purpose and action than implied by Ringel. Go to Patrick Henry or Liberty universities to see specified social engineering.

I'm well aware of that aspect, what I'm referring to and what thedoc pointed out is it's use for political thought control, in my educated opinion specifically in this instance which is what we are discussing.
Granted I strongly disagree with these types of reclassifications of words phrases but I'm one of those, maybe one of the few, who is secure in who and what I am and can't be offended by what anyone calls me. Obviously I would be deluded to think that if I was a "race realist" of an instigator of violence, etc but I'm not.

 

[paddymurphy]

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

From the Enlightenment forward. Universities in free countries have be bastions of free thought and the exploration of ideas.

But the key element is "free countries." The left has occupied most of the Universities in this nation, and put a jack boot on the neck of free expression and intellectual curiosity. The left will not tolerate a thinking population, as thinking people question the dogma put forth by the party. Questioning is not allowed in Academia, rote recitation of dogma is the hallmark of leftist controlled Academia. The left is quite literally ushering in a new dark ages.

"The Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California at Berkeley during the Fall 1964 semester was the first of the 1960s campus student movements to make headlines all over the world. Lasting a little over two months, it ended with the arrest of 773 persons for occupying the administration building, the removal of the campus administration, and a vast enlargement of student rights to use the University campus for political activity and debate. In the longer term it contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan as Governor of California in 1966, and the firing of University President Clark Kerr the following January.


From the 1930s onward, largely in response to fears generated by Communism, the University-wide administration imposed numerous rules designed to keep politics off of all the University campuses. By the time Berkeley Chancellor Clark Kerr became University President in 1958, student groups could not operate on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical. At the Berkeley campus students spoke, leafleted and tabled on the city sidewalk at the campus edge. When the campus border was moved a block away, this activity moved with it. Since the sidewalk at the new boundary was too narrow for much activity, Kerr authorized the creation of a small plaza just inside the new boundary for student political groups to use. The Regents of the University voted to give the 26 x 40 foot strip at Bancroft and Telegraph to the City of Berkeley, but the transfer never took place. For the next few years student groups of all persuasions used this strip as though it was public property when legally it was still part of the University.

In the Fall of 1963 and the Spring of 1964 the Bay Area was rocked with civil rights demonstrations against employers who practiced racial discrimination. Vast numbers of Berkeley students were recruited for these protests from Bancroft and Telegraph, and they were numerous among the 500 arrests made over several months. This led to demands by some state legislators that the University discipline and control its students. In July, students were recruited to demonstrate at the Republican Convention being held just outside of San Francisco, as well as at several employers in Oakland. An Oakland Tribune reporter found out that this political activity was taking place on the campus proper; when word reached the campus administration, it decided to put a stop to it.

AFTERMATH


Symbolically, the FSM had won, but the struggle was not over; only the Regents could set policy. When they met on December 18, they voted to support the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but insisted on law and order. The faculty felt the spirit of their resolution had been met, but the FSM did not. When the new campus administration wrote detailed regulations, content of advocacy was ignored in favor of stringent time, place and manner rules. Scuffling over the rules and how they were applied continued for some time.

In the Spring, Art Goldberg and eight others (but only three students) were arrested for displaying and saying the word "fuck" at the Bancroft plaza. The incident was precipitated by a young man just arrived from New York who was arrested for holding up a piece of paper with that word on it while on campus. There were three rather small support rallies, but apart from these few arrests, little action from either students or faculty. However, some Regents were outraged and told President Kerr to expel the students. Instead, he and the new acting Chancellor offered their resignations. These were withdrawn at an acrimonious Regents' meeting three days later, but the press had a field day. The student newspaper editorialized that "there is absolutely no need for a Filthy Speech Movement." That phrase was copied all over the country. The FSM, which had voted to stay out of this conflict, was permanently stuck with the label.

The nine were convicted in municipal court and sentenced without incident. The FSM only objected when the campus administration appointed a disciplinary committee, which the FSM charged was double jeopardy. Lacking support from students or faculty, only verbal protests were made when that committee recommended that Art Goldberg be expelled and three other students (two of whom had also been arrested) be suspended. However, the "fuck" incident convinced the Regents, the Legislature, and the public at large that the Berkeley students were irresponsible and needed more discipline, not more freedom.

The "800" were tried in the Spring before a judge and convicted on two of three counts. Most got probation and fines; FSM leaders were sentenced to 30 to 120 days. After two years the final appeal was denied and the "800" paid their fines and served their time. The FSM dissolved. Its place was taken by new campus groups, especially the Vietnam Day Committee, which organized one of the first campus teach-ins in May of 1965. Protest against the war largely replaced civil rights demonstrations, though some new issues also emerged.

The FSM was the beginning of what came to be called the "six-year war" on the Berkeley campus. While student groups could now meet, set up tables, distribute literature, raise money, and pretty much say what they pleased at rallies and demonstrations on campus, skirmishes continued over time, place and manner rules, as well as what non-students, including drop-outs and alumni, could do on the campus proper.

Three decades later, a multimillion dollar grant from an alumnus paid for a student cafeteria which memorialized the FSM and for putting the FSM archives on line. The steps of the administration building were officially named the "Mario Savio" steps, and an adjacent campus was called the Clark Kerr campus of the University of California."
The Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Your ignorance of history is showing.

 

[paddymurphy]

Shutting our universities would result in more people like you.

You mean articulate and able to process ideas?

As opposed to those like you who spew dogma and refuse to consider any information at odds with party mantras?

Voltaire spins in his grave as leftist professors declare "I may not approve of what you have to say, so I will fight to the death to silence you."

You do not articulate ideas. You simply repeat the same tired attacks on liberals and moderates that have been used for decades. To you, freedom is license; it is conduct without responsibility. A classroom is a place for a respectful exchange of ideas and only those who cannot present their ideas without the use of derogatory words about to towards others think otherwise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The left is the only reason there is free expression on college campuses today.

The polar opposite from truth.

The left is a clear and present danger to freedom in all respects, particularly freedom of thought and speech.

You model yourselves after Pol Pot and Josef Stalin, too many American Universities have less intellectual freedom than North Korea. The greatest crime a Harvard student can commit is to actually think.

 

[Ringel05]

Again, the problem is you have decided these words are derogatory, you and a very small minority, word that until relatively recently were never considered even remotely derogatory (offensive)...... When I was in college we were challenged to question everything, to leave anything and everything open for discussion and examination.
And no, you only see it as a lie because you want to, not because it is.
Let's look at the phrase illegal alien for instance. Those that fit that category are not citizens therefore aliens, those that are in any country without permission are there illegally hence illegal aliens. Calling them undocumented immigrants is only partially true and simply nothing more than an attempt to reclassify those falling under the illegal alien category in what some consider a more positive light. Like calling a janitor a custodial engineer, doesn't change the fact that a janitor is a janitor. It's not like their being called a n*gger, sp*c, w*p, etc, those words are meant to be derogatory therefore offensive. Not allowing gender specific is a fairly new attempt to redefine how people look at gender classifications, it's bull shit and by no means offensive except to those playing at social engineering.
These are aspects of culture I've studied from school onward so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, take a couple of years of psych and sociology then get back to me.

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteme.

Let me try to explain my analogy about math class.

In any class you take, there are fundamentals that you need to accept as fact in order to perform well in the class, even if they're not "true" in a larger context of reality. Even if you have an incredibly legitimate argument against a theory you are taught, you still need to know how to apply that theory to past the exam, and have to accept it in that context.

As or the words on the list, most of them are not the slightest bit "derogatory", in my opinion.

But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters in this context. I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people taking that class probably think that one or more of those terms are derogatory, and if the professor wants to prevent antagonistic fights in her class or even just to prevent herself from being offended, that's her right - it's her class. If you don't like it, don't take the class - instead, take a class on semantics and social norms - one in which you can explore why different groups of people find various choices of language offensive.

Fair enough.
However in one aspect we will have to agree to disagree, the social engineering aspect of why those words were specifically included, it's an ongoing process that has been picking up steam for a couple of decades now where some (on both sides of the political spectrum) want to control what we think and say.

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

I was referring to the latest movement in this country that began a couple of decades ago, not the ongoing ones or ones that succeeded or failed in the past. Yes there are ongoing ones, short term ones and cyclical ones.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

From the Enlightenment forward. Universities in free countries have be bastions of free thought and the exploration of ideas.

But the key element is "free countries." The left has occupied most of the Universities in this nation, and put a jack boot on the neck of free expression and intellectual curiosity. The left will not tolerate a thinking population, as thinking people question the dogma put forth by the party. Questioning is not allowed in Academia, rote recitation of dogma is the hallmark of leftist controlled Academia. The left is quite literally ushering in a new dark ages.

"The Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California at Berkeley during the Fall 1964 semester was the first of the 1960s campus student movements to make headlines all over the world. Lasting a little over two months, it ended with the arrest of 773 persons for occupying the administration building, the removal of the campus administration, and a vast enlargement of student rights to use the University campus for political activity and debate. In the longer term it contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan as Governor of California in 1966, and the firing of University President Clark Kerr the following January.


From the 1930s onward, largely in response to fears generated by Communism, the University-wide administration imposed numerous rules designed to keep politics off of all the University campuses. By the time Berkeley Chancellor Clark Kerr became University President in 1958, student groups could not operate on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical. At the Berkeley campus students spoke, leafleted and tabled on the city sidewalk at the campus edge. When the campus border was moved a block away, this activity moved with it. Since the sidewalk at the new boundary was too narrow for much activity, Kerr authorized the creation of a small plaza just inside the new boundary for student political groups to use. The Regents of the University voted to give the 26 x 40 foot strip at Bancroft and Telegraph to the City of Berkeley, but the transfer never took place. For the next few years student groups of all persuasions used this strip as though it was public property when legally it was still part of the University.

In the Fall of 1963 and the Spring of 1964 the Bay Area was rocked with civil rights demonstrations against employers who practiced racial discrimination. Vast numbers of Berkeley students were recruited for these protests from Bancroft and Telegraph, and they were numerous among the 500 arrests made over several months. This led to demands by some state legislators that the University discipline and control its students. In July, students were recruited to demonstrate at the Republican Convention being held just outside of San Francisco, as well as at several employers in Oakland. An Oakland Tribune reporter found out that this political activity was taking place on the campus proper; when word reached the campus administration, it decided to put a stop to it.

AFTERMATH


Symbolically, the FSM had won, but the struggle was not over; only the Regents could set policy. When they met on December 18, they voted to support the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but insisted on law and order. The faculty felt the spirit of their resolution had been met, but the FSM did not. When the new campus administration wrote detailed regulations, content of advocacy was ignored in favor of stringent time, place and manner rules. Scuffling over the rules and how they were applied continued for some time.

In the Spring, Art Goldberg and eight others (but only three students) were arrested for displaying and saying the word "fuck" at the Bancroft plaza. The incident was precipitated by a young man just arrived from New York who was arrested for holding up a piece of paper with that word on it while on campus. There were three rather small support rallies, but apart from these few arrests, little action from either students or faculty. However, some Regents were outraged and told President Kerr to expel the students. Instead, he and the new acting Chancellor offered their resignations. These were withdrawn at an acrimonious Regents' meeting three days later, but the press had a field day. The student newspaper editorialized that "there is absolutely no need for a Filthy Speech Movement." That phrase was copied all over the country. The FSM, which had voted to stay out of this conflict, was permanently stuck with the label.

The nine were convicted in municipal court and sentenced without incident. The FSM only objected when the campus administration appointed a disciplinary committee, which the FSM charged was double jeopardy. Lacking support from students or faculty, only verbal protests were made when that committee recommended that Art Goldberg be expelled and three other students (two of whom had also been arrested) be suspended. However, the "fuck" incident convinced the Regents, the Legislature, and the public at large that the Berkeley students were irresponsible and needed more discipline, not more freedom.

The "800" were tried in the Spring before a judge and convicted on two of three counts. Most got probation and fines; FSM leaders were sentenced to 30 to 120 days. After two years the final appeal was denied and the "800" paid their fines and served their time. The FSM dissolved. Its place was taken by new campus groups, especially the Vietnam Day Committee, which organized one of the first campus teach-ins in May of 1965. Protest against the war largely replaced civil rights demonstrations, though some new issues also emerged.

The FSM was the beginning of what came to be called the "six-year war" on the Berkeley campus. While student groups could now meet, set up tables, distribute literature, raise money, and pretty much say what they pleased at rallies and demonstrations on campus, skirmishes continued over time, place and manner rules, as well as what non-students, including drop-outs and alumni, could do on the campus proper.

Three decades later, a multimillion dollar grant from an alumnus paid for a student cafeteria which memorialized the FSM and for putting the FSM archives on line. The steps of the administration building were officially named the "Mario Savio" steps, and an adjacent campus was called the Clark Kerr campus of the University of California."
The Berkeley Free Speech Movement

Your ignorance of history is showing.

Now this has all been reversed. Free speech is one thing Berkley has zero tolerance for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do not articulate ideas.

You lack basic reading comprehension. I am not KG.

You simply repeat the same tired attacks on liberals and moderates that have been used for decades.

You are not a liberal. You have nothing in common with liberals. Your ideas directly clash with those of Jefferson, Mason, Paine, et al.

No, you are a leftist. You promote the ideas of Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Chavez, et al.

I am a liberal, you are a leftist.

To you, freedom is license; it is conduct without responsibility. A classroom is a place for a respectful exchange of ideas and only those who cannot present their ideas without the use of derogatory words about to towards others think otherwise.

To the left, a classroom is for the blind recitation of leftist orthodoxy. Any deviance from the dogma of the left is met with severe punishment.

It didn't used to be this way, but from the 90's to present, a creeping hostility to thought has permeated the furthest left of the institutions that once offered learning.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Were you taught to "question everything" you learned in math class?

This isn't a University policy - it's a class policy - a Gender, Race, and Sexuality studies class. The class exists to "question" some things - but it's not a venue to "question" the foundations of class itself.

I took a number of religious studies classes, and in all of them, we were instructed in the beginning of the semester that respect for all the religions discussed was required in class discussions, even if your religion decreed that the teachings of another religion that we studied was blasphemous - to prevent the class from turning into a fight.

I see this as exactly the same.

Math and cultural studies, yup that's apples and apples........
Again here's the problem, your, the professor's and some others interpretation of what constitutes derogatory (offensive) and most everyone else. Look at the words, phrases being "banned' and tell me with a straight face that those are derogatory to anyone who is not in serious need of psychiatric counseling to help with their low self esteme.

Let me try to explain my analogy about math class.

In any class you take, there are fundamentals that you need to accept as fact in order to perform well in the class, even if they're not "true" in a larger context of reality. Even if you have an incredibly legitimate argument against a theory you are taught, you still need to know how to apply that theory to past the exam, and have to accept it in that context.

As or the words on the list, most of them are not the slightest bit "derogatory", in my opinion.

But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters in this context. I'm pretty confident that the majority of the people taking that class probably think that one or more of those terms are derogatory, and if the professor wants to prevent antagonistic fights in her class or even just to prevent herself from being offended, that's her right - it's her class. If you don't like it, don't take the class - instead, take a class on semantics and social norms - one in which you can explore why different groups of people find various choices of language offensive.

Fair enough.
However in one aspect we will have to agree to disagree, the social engineering aspect of why those words were specifically included, it's an ongoing process that has been picking up steam for a couple of decades now where some (on both sides of the political spectrum) want to control what we think and say.

This isn't something new. It's not "a couple of decades" old, it's thousands of years old. People have always tried to control how people think and what they say - that's the definition of political power. What you may refer to as the "politically correct" is no different from the hundreds of various movements to control what we think and say throughout history - including, in a way, every religion.

Here's the thing, though - there's legitimate social science in "gender studies", and the viewpoint of the people doing the research is the viewpoint from which the subject is taught, because that's where the research comes from.

The only way to change academia is to be an academic.

I was referring to the latest movement in this country that began a couple of decades ago, not the ongoing ones or ones that succeeded or failed in the past. Yes there are ongoing ones, short term ones and cyclical ones.

The "PC" movement came as a result of shifting social norms - as a repudiation of outdated ideas. Like every other ideological movements, it can and has fallen victims to the power plays of it's "leading lights" who push their cause too far.

I see those same symptoms in the "anti-PC" movement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. I am stating the obvious. That this single case proves nothing. How often are you on a college campus these days?

We agree. A single case proves nothing. An ongoing flurry of them do, but you're not going to admit to any of that.

I'm on campuses once in a while, but not to any degree, thanks for asking. I am paying attention, though.
.

Paying attention? No, you are not. This is one class. And, if you read the entire syllabus, there is nothing wrong with this class or the admonition to not use words that some in the class might find offensive. Tranny is offensive; colored is offensive; illegal is offensive. The class is not mandatory if some student were raised by someone like you and taught to arrogantly decide what shoul or should not offend others, they don't have to take the class. I have two in college. I visited a dozen different schools and studied what they had to offer my kids. I reviewed a couple dozen more schools and their curricula on line. the notion that education at the college level is some monolithic liberal entity is beyond stupid.

Exactly.

Conservatives try to propagate the lie of 'political correctness' because they fear open, unfettered debate where errant conservative dogma is challenged; conservatives try to propagate the lie of 'liberal colleges' because the facts and truth taught in colleges expose conservative dogma to be false.

It's no mistake that educated people.....and especially those trained in the practice of critical thinking.....lean left.

Nutters call it indoctrination. They fear what happens at colleges because they can't grasp these concepts.

---
Almost by definition, conservatives don't question dogma; they eat it like a dog swallowing any food given it, esp by its master.
.

Correct.

The 'PC' lie/myth is designed to safeguard rightist dogma from being challenged and having its flaws exposed; simply accuse those challenging conservative rhetoric of being the 'PC police' in an effort to deflect from rightists' references to 'thugs,' 'free stuff,' and 'entitlement mentality,' for example.

Americans are at liberty in our free and democratic society to speak out concerning any subject they so desire, and have the right in the context of private society to be critical of that which they oppose or find offensive, where such opposition or criticism in no way manifests in the myth of 'political correctness.'