<p>I'm still waiting for the answer about Noam Chomsky. Any takers? My lord, folks, my comments were so over the top about Republicans being stupid and Christians at Harvard that I can't believe anyone on this board took them seriously. I've always had the impression that people were smarter than that here. Obviously I was wrong according to kluge. All I can say is that I'm not sure if that says more about me, more about you, or more about kluge.</p>
<p>SBmom, I don't understand why you have to keep throwing caveats into our discussions about left wingers who assault conservatives on college campuses. On the one hand you say "I think it is wrong so I won't defend it here" yet on the other hand you say "I understand the frustration and anger" with the obvious implication that Kristol and Buchanan are on the dark side so they probably deserve it. What's up too with " a candlelight vigil for TRUTH". TRUTH? Thank you for helping me understand why David Horowitz is doing what he's doing and having the success that he's had. TRUTH? God, it must be nice to have such great wisdom.</p>
<p>Can't you just say that people should let Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter et al speak at our colleges and universities without harassment or fear of physical assault and leave it at that? Why is that so hard to say? Why do you need to keep saying "people shouldn't do it, but...."</p>
<p>One can be justifiably frustrated or angry, yet not justified to act out on this anger. I am sorry, this point may have a complexity level only a liberal would understand. ;)</p>
<p>Re the candlelight vigil-- I was suggesting that a symbolic protest is a much better way to make a point than shouting or throwing rotten fruit, if you think a speaker is distorting the truth. (Isn't it obvious that protesters think this? Why else would they be protesting?) </p>
<p>I absolutely agree that any invited guest should be able to speak without fear of harassment or physical assault. I never implied anything about conservative speakers deserving ill treatment. </p>
<p>Gee, browninfall, your comments provide a good illlustration for anyone reading this thread on how a professor who was trying to be even handed and fair (yet had a point of view) might begin to become weary of a strident, agendized student.</p>
<p>As I have carefullly pointed out there are conservatives (like my friends mentioned above) who stick scrupulously to facts & truth and simply reach very different conclusions. I may think they are wrong, but I can respect their views. So obviously not every conservative speaker would 'deserve anger.'</p>
<p>But those (like Coulter) who routinely participate in the obfuscation of reality for narrow political purposes are simply <em>hurting our country</em>. If that isn't worthy of a little anger, I don't know what is.</p>
<p>I think it is about time - so many professors talk about academic freedom, such as the prof at U of Colorado, but take it out on students for believing a different philosophy. Case in point MANY years ago, as a student in a poli sci class, my professor made a very liberal statement of fact and his facts were wrong. We discussed the issue, and my grades dropped from an A to a B after that in this class. Back then, we didn't protest. At least this may give students an avenue for review by another prof. I didn't usually get B's - went to grad school. My D wants to study IR and she knows this story, and says she will check around at school and see if it's the kind of professor who likes opposing views, or not. If he/she doesn't then she will just spout back what is taught. This stults academic freedom and limits learning. As for Coulter, you don't have to buy her books, not do you have to read them. And it is quite clear she is narrow in her beliefs, but you don't have to pay for them. What I resent is that my D may have to pay for something she doesn't believe in, and not be able to express her beliefs, no matter how supported in fact they may be. Isn't true scholarship a give and take of ideas so everyone might learn from opposing views?</p>
<p>The problem is, this law does not suggest review by another prof but by a court of law.</p>
<p>I do not believe kids should be punished academically for drawing different conclusions from the same set of facts, if the facts could support either conclusion and if their scholarship is sound. Differing viewpoints should be the heart of a liberal arts education; people should be willing to reexamine their own point of view in light of the information provided by others.</p>
<p>When you get into what is 'paid for' -- I'd say a school filled with waste-of-time profs is not a place a kid would be compelled to stay, just like I am not compelled to buy the Coulter book. The <em>occasional</em> agendized prof is not much different than the occasional uninspired lecturer or the non-english-proficient TA. </p>
<p>Not every teacher is a "10." Should we sue the plain-old boring ones too?</p>
<p>I've been away. One of the problems as I see it is that you think you're being even handed and fair just as those on the Right think that they are. Don't you see that your view of an agendized and strident student contrasts with those who differ from you? Of course, you think that you're the clear thinker, just as those on the Right certainly believe that you need to be more open minded.</p>
<p>A little diversity - now there's a good thing that we can all agree on.</p>
<p>It's like trying to teach calculus to a dead canary, or the benefits of birth control to the pope.</p>
<p>(Was that a joke about his death or not???)</p>
<p>P.S. Pope, rest in peace, he was a good man.</p>
<p>P.P.S. The Catholic church is doing so much damage, denying contraception to Catholics especially in developing countries, its hard to stand by it as a force of good in this world.
To sin is human, to hope that abstinence will prevent the spread of AIDS in LEDs is ideal, yet foolhardy. One has to admit that there is the best way to deal with problems, and a realistic way. Hopefully a new Pope can make further leaps in helping catholics, and people of all faiths deal with the real world problems that dont have one word answers.</p>
<p>He mentions the Scientific America Apr 1 editorial as well.</p>
<p>Final paragraph:</p>
<p>"If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope--by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose."</p>
<p>If any parents are in Florida, please let us know if the bill passes.</p>
<p>a good point by Prof Juan Cole from his website:</p>
<p>"I am saying that "bent" is not a relevant category of analysis when evaluating university teaching. Everybody has some bent. The question is, whether students come out of the class having learned to reason about a set of problems or not. The content is not as important, since they'll forget a lot of the content anyway, and will receive it selectively, both during and after the class. But if you teach them to take things apart and see how they work, to think about social and political causation, to see how things work together, in a particular field, then they can produce their own knowledge and understanding about it thereafter. They can also question their own and the professor's premises because they will have learned about hidden premises and how to bring them out in the open and interrogate them.
All this is as true of left/right issues, as well."</p>