Unfortunately, Liberal Keep Being Liberals

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

OK, finally the motivation for your rant is revealed. you're tired of getting poor grades for your ill founded rants and figure it's some kind of conspiracy.

Joe, what precisely are you basing that conclusion upon.

I ask because there's nothing in the contribution which you cited as the subject of your conclusion, which could, on any level, lend to anything remotely akin to your conclusion. Such represents a a projection of unbridled conjecture.

My son just graduated college last fall from Florida Gulf Coast University, which exists in amongst the most conservative enclaves in the United States... and there's no potential foundation for an argument which claims that Academia, even in that University is not thoroughly infected with Leftist academics.

In truth scamp, it's not even a debatable point. Marxists have infected the US University System since Joe McCarthy RUINED himself trying to warn the nation of this... more than 60 YEARS AGO.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

OK, finally the motivation for your rant is revealed. you're tired of getting poor grades for your ill founded rants and figure it's some kind of conspiracy.

And you were able to glean that from this thread?

Actually, I did pretty well in a pretty good LIBERAL university, you moron.

I don't hide any motivations.....it's right there in the title.
Liberals hate free speech along with other American values: they despise the Founders, and the Constitution.


Understand now, you dope?

 

[Stephanie]

I ran across this site some might be interested in

Snip:
Below are selections from the book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

a snippet:
On the Psychopathology of the Liberal Mind:
Rather, the adult drive toward omnipotent control of others, in any arena whatever, is rooted in fears of separation, abandonment loss or abuse--the residual effects of early attachment gone wrong. The need to dominate others arises from the tyrant's need for absolute assurance that the catastrophic loss of dependency or the pain of abuse so devastating to him in his earliest years will not be repeated. In his determination to control the world, he constantly defends himself against what Karen Horney aptly described as the most basic of human fears: being alone and helpless in a dangerous, indifferent world, the nightmare of the abandoned, terrified child. Persons plagued with such fears easily conclude that it is in their greatest interest to dominate others, or to imagine that they can, and to set about achieving that goal through the manipulation of government power.

the site is:
The Liberal Mind The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle Rossiter Jr. MD

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Indeed... Stephanie, Left-think is a perversion of human reasoning, wherein such rejects the objectivity essential to recognizing truth, thus eliminates the potential for trust, inevitably ruling out the means to reason within a sound moral paradigm... precluding any means for such to serve justice.

And that is why wherever Left-think is found in power, justice fails and misery and death flourish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Universities....those institutions wholly owned and operated by Liberalism, Inc., have no problem with extreme viewpoints, as long as they are in support of Leftism.
Free speech is only for Leftists.
But if it is a strident voice on the Right....well, we can't have that:



16. "....at Fordham University, where President Joseph McShane scolded College Republicans for the sin of inviting Ann Coulter to speak. "To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement," Mr. McShane said in a Nov. 9 statement condemning the club's invitation to the caustic conservative pundit.

…the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level: "This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."



"The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won," Mr. Lukianoff says. "If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person.
As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."




[For Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, g]rowing up in an immigrant neighborhood in Danbury, Conn., sharpened his views. When "you had so many people from so many different backgrounds, free speech made intuitive sense," Mr. Lukianoff recalls. "In every genuinely diverse community I've ever lived in, freedom of speech had to be the rule. . . . I find it deeply ironic that on college campuses diversity is used as an argument against unbridled freedom of speech." The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ


Such is the result of Liberal ascendancy.

 

[JoeNormal]

yeah PoliticalSpice SERIOUSLY!!!

simple question for PoliticalSpice: You ever serve? when,where?

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

OK, finally the motivation for your rant is revealed. you're tired of getting poor grades for your ill founded rants and figure it's some kind of conspiracy.

And you were able to glean that from this thread?

Actually, I did pretty well in a pretty good LIBERAL university, you moron.

I don't hide any motivations.....it's right there in the title.
Liberals hate free speech along with other American values: they despise the Founders, and the Constitution.


Understand now, you dope?

My apologies. I was under the impression that you were still a student. Probably because I can't understand how anyone who's not either a student or retired could spend as much time as you do here.

Did you manage to score a job in your chosen field?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Universities....those institutions wholly owned and operated by Liberalism, Inc., have no problem with extreme viewpoints, as long as they are in support of Leftism.
Free speech is only for Leftists.
But if it is a strident voice on the Right....well, we can't have that:



16. "....at Fordham University, where President Joseph McShane scolded College Republicans for the sin of inviting Ann Coulter to speak. "To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement," Mr. McShane said in a Nov. 9 statement condemning the club's invitation to the caustic conservative pundit.

…the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level: "This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."



"The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won," Mr. Lukianoff says. "If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person.
As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."




[For Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, g]rowing up in an immigrant neighborhood in Danbury, Conn., sharpened his views. When "you had so many people from so many different backgrounds, free speech made intuitive sense," Mr. Lukianoff recalls. "In every genuinely diverse community I've ever lived in, freedom of speech had to be the rule. . . . I find it deeply ironic that on college campuses diversity is used as an argument against unbridled freedom of speech." The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ


Such is the result of Liberal ascendancy.

The Ideological Left is an embarrassment to the human species. Such is their intellectual misgivings that there's a good case to be made that the adherents to the Ideological Left simply do not make the minimal threshold required to establish one's self as 'human'. The argument holds such on the basis that humanity is separated from the lower species by its superior means to reason, which the Left, by its rejection of objectivity, simply does not possess.

 

[Stephanie]

Universities....those institutions wholly owned and operated by Liberalism, Inc., have no problem with extreme viewpoints, as long as they are in support of Leftism.
Free speech is only for Leftists.
But if it is a strident voice on the Right....well, we can't have that:



16. "....at Fordham University, where President Joseph McShane scolded College Republicans for the sin of inviting Ann Coulter to speak. "To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement," Mr. McShane said in a Nov. 9 statement condemning the club's invitation to the caustic conservative pundit.

…the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level: "This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."



"The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won," Mr. Lukianoff says. "If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person.
As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."




[For Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, g]rowing up in an immigrant neighborhood in Danbury, Conn., sharpened his views. When "you had so many people from so many different backgrounds, free speech made intuitive sense," Mr. Lukianoff recalls. "In every genuinely diverse community I've ever lived in, freedom of speech had to be the rule. . . . I find it deeply ironic that on college campuses diversity is used as an argument against unbridled freedom of speech." The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ


Such is the result of Liberal ascendancy.

Universities are becoming camps for teaching radicalism. I mean Bill Ayers once classified a Domestic terrorist is now teaching at one. What does that tell you?

your post reminded of this article when Condi Rice was going to speak
snip:
The Sixties’ Road to Rutgers and Beyond
Marcusian “tolerance” continues its Long March.

The Sixties Road to Rutgers and Beyond The American Spectator

 

[Coyote]

I think this situation got a bit mischaracterized in the OP, or perhaps stuff was left out....


Marquette TA sparks international controversy after squelching gay marriage discussion in ethics class - JSOnline

A controversy involving a teaching assistant, a tenured faculty member and a recorded conversation about whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of a discussion in an ethics theory class has put Marquette University in the international spotlight.

A student who objected to a teaching assistant's handling of the class discussion recorded his conversation with her after class, shared that recording with several faculty members, and the recording took on a life of its own. It ended up being the subject of a faculty member's blog, and landed in the hands of a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, a national online source for news, opinions and jobs in higher education.

Now an open letter to Marquette's top administrators written and posted online by a Louisana State University professor in support of the teaching assistant is gathering co-signatures from professors and graduate students around the world. The first to co-sign it is Bonnie Honig, a feminist and prominent political science professor at Brown University.

"Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her (which I do not grant), this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality," Honig wrote. "It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions."

Marquette responded in an email to The Journal Sentinel that it is "reviewing both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member. We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews."

The ethics theory class and the recorded conversation with a student over whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of the discussion occurred weeks ago.

The conflict became publicly ugly Nov. 9, when John McAdams, an associate professor of political science at Marquette, strongly criticized the teaching assistant on his conservative-leaning blog, Marquette Warrior, under the headline:“Marquette Philosophy Instructor: ‘Gay Rights’ Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students.”

In his blog post, McAdams accused teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate of limiting free speech by “using a tactic typical among liberals now."

"Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” McAdams alleged.

Abbate reportedly had been leading a class discussion about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. That principle says every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others.

When she asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs, one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle. Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, according to an email interview with her that Inside Higher Ed reported.

After class, another student approached Abbate to tell her that he was “very disappointed” and “personally offended” that she hadn’t considered his classmate's example about gay marriage more thoroughly, according to the student’s recording of the conversation obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

Inside Higher Ed characterized that conversation as follows:

"The student said he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life,” and that the topic merited more conversation. Abbate told the student that gay marriage and parenting were separate topics, since single people can have and adopt children. She also said she would “really question” data showing poor outcomes for children of gay parents, since peer-reviewed studies show the opposite (indeed, the major study showing negative outcomes for children of gay parents, by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, has been widely discredited).

"Regardless, the student said, “it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.” Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

"The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”

"His opinions weren’t homophobic, the student argued. Abbate said he could have whatever opinions he liked, but reiterated that homophobic, racist and sexist comments wouldn’t be tolerated in the class. She said the class discussion was centered on restricting the rights and liberties of individuals, but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited. She invited him to drop the course if he opposed her policy.
...

Kind of sounds like a group of students and/or faculty contrived to set someting up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I think this situation got a bit mischaracterized in the OP, or perhaps stuff was left out....


Marquette TA sparks international controversy after squelching gay marriage discussion in ethics class - JSOnline

A controversy involving a teaching assistant, a tenured faculty member and a recorded conversation about whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of a discussion in an ethics theory class has put Marquette University in the international spotlight.

A student who objected to a teaching assistant's handling of the class discussion recorded his conversation with her after class, shared that recording with several faculty members, and the recording took on a life of its own. It ended up being the subject of a faculty member's blog, and landed in the hands of a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, a national online source for news, opinions and jobs in higher education.

Now an open letter to Marquette's top administrators written and posted online by a Louisana State University professor in support of the teaching assistant is gathering co-signatures from professors and graduate students around the world. The first to co-sign it is Bonnie Honig, a feminist and prominent political science professor at Brown University.

"Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her (which I do not grant), this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality," Honig wrote. "It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions."

Marquette responded in an email to The Journal Sentinel that it is "reviewing both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member. We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews."

The ethics theory class and the recorded conversation with a student over whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of the discussion occurred weeks ago.

The conflict became publicly ugly Nov. 9, when John McAdams, an associate professor of political science at Marquette, strongly criticized the teaching assistant on his conservative-leaning blog, Marquette Warrior, under the headline:“Marquette Philosophy Instructor: ‘Gay Rights’ Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students.”

In his blog post, McAdams accused teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate of limiting free speech by “using a tactic typical among liberals now."

"Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” McAdams alleged.

Abbate reportedly had been leading a class discussion about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. That principle says every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others.

When she asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs, one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle. Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, according to an email interview with her that Inside Higher Ed reported.

After class, another student approached Abbate to tell her that he was “very disappointed” and “personally offended” that she hadn’t considered his classmate's example about gay marriage more thoroughly, according to the student’s recording of the conversation obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

Inside Higher Ed characterized that conversation as follows:

"The student said he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life,” and that the topic merited more conversation. Abbate told the student that gay marriage and parenting were separate topics, since single people can have and adopt children. She also said she would “really question” data showing poor outcomes for children of gay parents, since peer-reviewed studies show the opposite (indeed, the major study showing negative outcomes for children of gay parents, by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, has been widely discredited).

"Regardless, the student said, “it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.” Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

"The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”

"His opinions weren’t homophobic, the student argued. Abbate said he could have whatever opinions he liked, but reiterated that homophobic, racist and sexist comments wouldn’t be tolerated in the class. She said the class discussion was centered on restricting the rights and liberties of individuals, but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited. She invited him to drop the course if he opposed her policy.
...

Kind of sounds like a group of students and/or faculty contrived to set someting up.

Yes... a group of Leftists conspired (set sumpin' up) to squelch the means of those who oppose their 'feelings' to exercise their right to speak in opposition to the debauched perversion of human reasoning, OKA: Left-think.

 

[Nyvin]

I've noticed all you talk about in this thread is the generic notion of Universities "teaching liberalism" or "talking about liberalism" and never going much into detail as to "what" exactly they are teaching/talking about or WHY exactly they teach/talk about those issues.

If someone were to put on this forum a post vilifying some organization "teaching conservatism" in just the bare generic sense of "teaching conservatism" without any subjects or ideas to go behind it I'm pretty sure they'd be called out on it pretty fast.

To further on this there is a common saying that "truth has a liberal bias"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

I commented on your thread, what more do you want?

You want me to agree? Sorry, I will not, you are wrong.

Can I have some eggs with that spam?

In saying that I am 'wrong'....are you saying that you are just fine with Liberalism, the political view that controls the universities.....is behaving correctly in shutting down debate?

Is that your point, comrade?

BTW....you look lovely in that crisp new brown shirt.

OK, finally the motivation for your rant is revealed. you're tired of getting poor grades for your ill founded rants and figure it's some kind of conspiracy.

And you were able to glean that from this thread?

Actually, I did pretty well in a pretty good LIBERAL university, you moron.

I don't hide any motivations.....it's right there in the title.
Liberals hate free speech along with other American values: they despise the Founders, and the Constitution.


Understand now, you dope?

My apologies. I was under the impression that you were still a student. Probably because I can't understand how anyone who's not either a student or retired could spend as much time as you do here.

Did you manage to score a job in your chosen field?

Being independently and incalculably rich, I have no need for job, peasant.

I spend my time in study, I am an eternal student, .... and battling the forces of darkness: Liberalism.

Of course,supervising the serve-staff takes a large part of my time as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Universities....those institutions wholly owned and operated by Liberalism, Inc., have no problem with extreme viewpoints, as long as they are in support of Leftism.
Free speech is only for Leftists.
But if it is a strident voice on the Right....well, we can't have that:



16. "....at Fordham University, where President Joseph McShane scolded College Republicans for the sin of inviting Ann Coulter to speak. "To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement," Mr. McShane said in a Nov. 9 statement condemning the club's invitation to the caustic conservative pundit.

…the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level: "This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."



"The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won," Mr. Lukianoff says. "If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person.
As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."




[For Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, g]rowing up in an immigrant neighborhood in Danbury, Conn., sharpened his views. When "you had so many people from so many different backgrounds, free speech made intuitive sense," Mr. Lukianoff recalls. "In every genuinely diverse community I've ever lived in, freedom of speech had to be the rule. . . . I find it deeply ironic that on college campuses diversity is used as an argument against unbridled freedom of speech." The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ


Such is the result of Liberal ascendancy.

Universities are becoming camps for teaching radicalism. I mean Bill Ayers once classified a Domestic terrorist is now teaching at one. What does that tell you?

your post reminded of this article when Condi Rice was going to speak
snip:
The Sixties’ Road to Rutgers and Beyond
Marcusian “tolerance” continues its Long March.

The Sixties Road to Rutgers and Beyond The American Spectator

And, at Brandeis, where Kadijah Lynch is feted for wishing more police dead and America burned down....

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women who was supposed to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University only to have it withdrawn amid criticism of her political positions, told Megyn Kelly Wednesday that she wasn't surprised by the school's decision."
Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks out on Brandeis decision to withdraw degree Fox News


Liberalism in full effect: no free speech except for totalitarians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think this situation got a bit mischaracterized in the OP, or perhaps stuff was left out....


Marquette TA sparks international controversy after squelching gay marriage discussion in ethics class - JSOnline

A controversy involving a teaching assistant, a tenured faculty member and a recorded conversation about whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of a discussion in an ethics theory class has put Marquette University in the international spotlight.

A student who objected to a teaching assistant's handling of the class discussion recorded his conversation with her after class, shared that recording with several faculty members, and the recording took on a life of its own. It ended up being the subject of a faculty member's blog, and landed in the hands of a reporter for Inside Higher Ed, a national online source for news, opinions and jobs in higher education.

Now an open letter to Marquette's top administrators written and posted online by a Louisana State University professor in support of the teaching assistant is gathering co-signatures from professors and graduate students around the world. The first to co-sign it is Bonnie Honig, a feminist and prominent political science professor at Brown University.

"Even if everything printed were true and the grad student said and did everything attributed to her (which I do not grant), this response -- public calling out, exposure to public condemnation, political labeling-- by a faculty member violates every expectation of graduate training and collegiality," Honig wrote. "It is a betrayal of the trust invested in faculty to mentor and guide students, not to make of them casualties in larger battles whether inside or outside their institutions."

Marquette responded in an email to The Journal Sentinel that it is "reviewing both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member. We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews."

The ethics theory class and the recorded conversation with a student over whether gay marriage should have been allowed as part of the discussion occurred weeks ago.

The conflict became publicly ugly Nov. 9, when John McAdams, an associate professor of political science at Marquette, strongly criticized the teaching assistant on his conservative-leaning blog, Marquette Warrior, under the headline:“Marquette Philosophy Instructor: ‘Gay Rights’ Can’t Be Discussed in Class Since Any Disagreement Would Offend Gay Students.”

In his blog post, McAdams accused teaching assistant Cheryl Abbate of limiting free speech by “using a tactic typical among liberals now."

"Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” McAdams alleged.

Abbate reportedly had been leading a class discussion about the philosopher John Rawls’ equal liberty principle. That principle says every person has a right to as many basic liberties as possible, as long as they don’t conflict with those of others.

When she asked students to name possible violations of the principle, such as laws that require seat belts and laws that prevent people from selling their own organs, one student suggested that a ban on gay marriage violated the principle. Abbate quickly moved on to the next topic, as there were more nuanced examples to discuss before the end of class, according to an email interview with her that Inside Higher Ed reported.

After class, another student approached Abbate to tell her that he was “very disappointed” and “personally offended” that she hadn’t considered his classmate's example about gay marriage more thoroughly, according to the student’s recording of the conversation obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

Inside Higher Ed characterized that conversation as follows:

"The student said he had seen data suggesting that children of gay parents “do a lot worse in life,” and that the topic merited more conversation. Abbate told the student that gay marriage and parenting were separate topics, since single people can have and adopt children. She also said she would “really question” data showing poor outcomes for children of gay parents, since peer-reviewed studies show the opposite (indeed, the major study showing negative outcomes for children of gay parents, by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, has been widely discredited).

"Regardless, the student said, “it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions.” Abbate responded: “There are opinions that are not appropriate, that are harmful, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions, and quite honestly, do you know if someone in the class is homosexual? And do you not think it would be offensive to them, if you were to raise your hand and challenge this?”

"The student then said it was his “right as an American citizen” to challenge the idea. Abbate told the student he didn’t, in fact, “have the right, especially [in an ethics class], to make homophobic comments or racist comments.”

"His opinions weren’t homophobic, the student argued. Abbate said he could have whatever opinions he liked, but reiterated that homophobic, racist and sexist comments wouldn’t be tolerated in the class. She said the class discussion was centered on restricting the rights and liberties of individuals, but said that making arguments against gay marriage in the presence of a gay person was comparable to telling Abbate that women's professional options should be limited. She invited him to drop the course if he opposed her policy.
...

Kind of sounds like a group of students and/or faculty contrived to set someting up.

And just maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

Could be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The notion that liberals are not Americans is probably the most retarded idea I've heard in my entire life. Get a life, chickie.

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

The professor is a douchebag.

However, do you have anything other than anecdotes to conclude that liberals broadly don't want any discussion or debate about their beliefs such that any reasonable person would conclude that they are tantamount to Nazis or communists?

I'm trying to differentiate the professor's over-reaction and yours. I'm not seeing any.

"I'm not seeing any."

I'm responsible for what I post, not for the lack of comprehension you evince, as a result of your biases.

The professor is both courageous and correct.
In the thread, I've given not only the case of the university employee forbidding any exchange of opinion beyond that advanced by the Liberal agenda, but included the administration of the university taking the very livelihood of anyone....the professor....who dares to make the Liberal fascism known.

But...in the vain hope that yours was an honest post.....I will post more on this case.

Your OP reads that it was the instructor was suppressing dissent.

The conservative student should be allowed to express her views even if it offends others. Universities should be bastions of free thought, not straight jackets of political correctness. It's appalling that liberal universities would shackle discussion because they don't want someone's feelings hurt.

But you undermine your argument with your outlandish extremism.

That a reasonable post....

As for my style.....I have no intention of becoming wishy-washy.
As far as 'extreme'....nonsense.
You've agreed with the OP.....we both agree it is the truth, and that is the purpose of all of my posts.

Pretty much all of PoliticalChic's threads can be summed as:

"Demonize, Demonize, DEMONIZE!!!"

Well, in the case of Liberals, that is neither difficult nor untrue.


"Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses."
Survey shocker Liberal profs admit they d discriminate against conservatives in hiring advancement - Washington Times

How many liberal professors work at conservative colleges?

The professor is a douchebag.

However, do you have anything other than anecdotes to conclude that liberals broadly don't want any discussion or debate about their beliefs such that any reasonable person would conclude that they are tantamount to Nazis or communists?

I'm trying to differentiate the professor's over-reaction and yours. I'm not seeing any.

"I'm not seeing any."

I'm responsible for what I post, not for the lack of comprehension you evince, as a result of your biases.

The professor is both courageous and correct.
In the thread, I've given not only the case of the university employee forbidding any exchange of opinion beyond that advanced by the Liberal agenda, but included the administration of the university taking the very livelihood of anyone....the professor....who dares to make the Liberal fascism known.

But...in the vain hope that yours was an honest post.....I will post more on this case.

Why not make the thread about ONE individual who happened to do this, instead of making a wholly indefensible argument that this one individual's actions are representative of liberalism in general?

Because the actions highlighted in the OP are representative of liberalism in general.

True story.

And the shoe fit....that's why you're squealing like a stuck pig.

I'm trying to debate you on the facts of the issue.

To be representative of liberalism in general, an action would have to be characteristic of most liberals' actions in the same scenario on the same issue.

Prove that, please.

" [Steve] Hinkle attempted to post a flier in the common area of the campus Multicultural Center that advertised a speech by Mason Weaver, author of the book It’s OK to Leave the Plantation. Weaver argues that dependence on government puts many African Americans in circumstances similar to slavery. The flier displayed only the title of the book, the time and place of the event, and a picture of the author. Several students at the Multicultural Center objected that the poster was “offensive.” Hinkle offered to discuss the flier, but to no avail. After he left, a student called the university police, whose official report stated that officers had responded to complaints about “a suspicious white male passing out literature of an offensive racial nature.

The Cal Poly Judicial Affairs Office, after a seven-hour hearing in February 2003, found Hinkle guilty of “disruption of a campus event,” as several students in the Multicultural Center public area claimed that they were having a meeting at the time, although no sign, announcement, or record of that event existed. For engaging in constitutionally protected expression, he was ordered to write letters of apology to the offended students. Failure to do so could lead to severe disciplinary penalties. .... Cal Poly President Warren Baker and, after the university refused to restore Hinkle’s rights,...."
Major Victory for Free Speech at Cal Poly FIRE


Liberals inhibiting free speech and restrictions of opinions not authentically Liberal....proven.

Did you miss my post pointing out that the GOP wants to ban same sex marriage altogether, by law?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've noticed all you talk about in this thread is the generic notion of Universities "teaching liberalism" or "talking about liberalism" and never going much into detail as to "what" exactly they are teaching/talking about or WHY exactly they teach/talk about those issues.

If someone were to put on this forum a post vilifying some organization "teaching conservatism" in just the bare generic sense of "teaching conservatism" without any subjects or ideas to go behind it I'm pretty sure they'd be called out on it pretty fast.

To further on this there is a common saying that "truth has a liberal bias"

"I've noticed all you talk about in this thread is the generic notion of Universities "teaching liberalism" or "talking about liberalism" and never going much into detail as to "what" exactly they are teaching/talking about or WHY exactly they teach/talk about those issues."

Well, then...you really haven't 'noticed' anything, have you.

Liberalism, per this thread, is about depriving those with alternative views from having the right to express same.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've noticed all you talk about in this thread is the generic notion of Universities "teaching liberalism" or "talking about liberalism" and never going much into detail as to "what" exactly they are teaching/talking about or WHY exactly they teach/talk about those issues.

If someone were to put on this forum a post vilifying some organization "teaching conservatism" in just the bare generic sense of "teaching conservatism" without any subjects or ideas to go behind it I'm pretty sure they'd be called out on it pretty fast.

To further on this there is a common saying that "truth has a liberal bias"

So, if the thread were discussing the consequences of soaking one's self in gasoline and striking matches, you feel that for the discussion to be valid, we should discuss the downside to conversion of matter into energy??

I think the reason for academia pushing communism at the expense of debate is obvious... communists cannot win an open and honest debate. IF they could, they'd be debating openly and honestly... encouraging more OF IT... .

 

[orogenicman]

How can "liberals" not want any debate on their beliefs if not all liberals agree on the same thing? 1 in 5 liberals don't agree with gay marriage.

That implies that 80% do agree. So again, what was your point?

That her argument that liberals brook no dissent is a logical fallacy.

Clearly, since 100% of liberals don't agree on gay marriage, there is dissent amongst liberals.

No liberals on this forum have attempted to prevent her from keeping this thread up and thus making her argument,

so there are, what, a hundred times as many examples disproving her assertion as she provided in making it.

"No liberals on this forum have attempted to prevent her from keeping this thread up and thus making her argument,..."

See..you left out the comma...

I can help:

No, liberals on this forum have attempted to prevent her from keeping this thread up and thus making her argument,...

Now, it is correct.

Name one single person who has prevented you from keeping this thread up on the forum? Oh right, you were trying to be funny. Ha ha. (eyes roll).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... conservative colleges ...

LOL! OH! I get it...

OK... Let's play.

"Chevrolet!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Comments about everything except the point: Liberals are out to prevent any discussion or debate about their dictums.
Afraid to draw the obvious conclusion that Liberals like nothing better than censoring opposing views.....and no where is this less appropriate than in universities???

The professor is a douchebag.

However, do you have anything other than anecdotes to conclude that liberals broadly don't want any discussion or debate about their beliefs such that any reasonable person would conclude that they are tantamount to Nazis or communists?

I'm trying to differentiate the professor's over-reaction and yours. I'm not seeing any.

"I'm not seeing any."

I'm responsible for what I post, not for the lack of comprehension you evince, as a result of your biases.

The professor is both courageous and correct.
In the thread, I've given not only the case of the university employee forbidding any exchange of opinion beyond that advanced by the Liberal agenda, but included the administration of the university taking the very livelihood of anyone....the professor....who dares to make the Liberal fascism known.

But...in the vain hope that yours was an honest post.....I will post more on this case.

Your OP reads that it was the instructor was suppressing dissent.

The conservative student should be allowed to express her views even if it offends others. Universities should be bastions of free thought, not straight jackets of political correctness. It's appalling that liberal universities would shackle discussion because they don't want someone's feelings hurt.

But you undermine your argument with your outlandish extremism.

That a reasonable post....

As for my style.....I have no intention of becoming wishy-washy.
As far as 'extreme'....nonsense.
You've agreed with the OP.....we both agree it is the truth, and that is the purpose of all of my posts.

Pretty much all of PoliticalChic's threads can be summed as:

"Demonize, Demonize, DEMONIZE!!!"

Well, in the case of Liberals, that is neither difficult nor untrue.


"Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement....Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses."
Survey shocker Liberal profs admit they d discriminate against conservatives in hiring advancement - Washington Times

How many liberal professors work at conservative colleges?

"I'm not seeing any."

I'm responsible for what I post, not for the lack of comprehension you evince, as a result of your biases.

The professor is both courageous and correct.
In the thread, I've given not only the case of the university employee forbidding any exchange of opinion beyond that advanced by the Liberal agenda, but included the administration of the university taking the very livelihood of anyone....the professor....who dares to make the Liberal fascism known.

But...in the vain hope that yours was an honest post.....I will post more on this case.

Why not make the thread about ONE individual who happened to do this, instead of making a wholly indefensible argument that this one individual's actions are representative of liberalism in general?

Because the actions highlighted in the OP are representative of liberalism in general.

True story.

And the shoe fit....that's why you're squealing like a stuck pig.

I'm trying to debate you on the facts of the issue.

To be representative of liberalism in general, an action would have to be characteristic of most liberals' actions in the same scenario on the same issue.

Prove that, please.

" [Steve] Hinkle attempted to post a flier in the common area of the campus Multicultural Center that advertised a speech by Mason Weaver, author of the book It’s OK to Leave the Plantation. Weaver argues that dependence on government puts many African Americans in circumstances similar to slavery. The flier displayed only the title of the book, the time and place of the event, and a picture of the author. Several students at the Multicultural Center objected that the poster was “offensive.” Hinkle offered to discuss the flier, but to no avail. After he left, a student called the university police, whose official report stated that officers had responded to complaints about “a suspicious white male passing out literature of an offensive racial nature.

The Cal Poly Judicial Affairs Office, after a seven-hour hearing in February 2003, found Hinkle guilty of “disruption of a campus event,” as several students in the Multicultural Center public area claimed that they were having a meeting at the time, although no sign, announcement, or record of that event existed. For engaging in constitutionally protected expression, he was ordered to write letters of apology to the offended students. Failure to do so could lead to severe disciplinary penalties. .... Cal Poly President Warren Baker and, after the university refused to restore Hinkle’s rights,...."
Major Victory for Free Speech at Cal Poly FIRE


Liberals inhibiting free speech and restrictions of opinions not authentically Liberal....proven.

Did you miss my post pointing out that the GOP wants to ban same sex marriage altogether, by law?

I'm waiting for your supported and documented post where you find the GOP depriving Liberals of the right to express opposing viewpoints.
That would have something to do with the thread,wouldn't it....
....rather than your nonstop attempts to obfuscate and change the subject.