<p>So looking back at the posts from this afternoon, I agree wholeheartedly with irishmom’s post and the OPs comment about approachability. To call that “nonsense”, to conflate people feeling uncomfortable with people having faux outrage, and to describe uninformed fear as immature is IMO being inflammatory. Yes it engenders annoyance, aggravated by the lawn guy cutting my cable . Grrrr </p>
<p>In the absence of anything to suggest that the prof is either proselytizing or discriminatory, I suppose a student <em>could</em> sign himself as you suggest, but I think that’s rather immature behavior to try to “tweak” the professor like that. It reminds me of how I think someone on this forum likely interacts with people – already trying to get a rise out of “authority” because getting a rise is “funny.” I would not advise my kid to do so - I’d counsel him or her to be a little more classy about the whole thing. Also, I really think you do have to take people in good faith (no pun intended) until or unless there were other reasons to suspect that the prof meant anything more than a personal expression.</p>
<p>"Keep in mind many of the rulings…especially on employer computing resources/emails came out only within the last 15 or so years.</p>
<p>I ended up dealing with some of the issues/fallout (snip)
I followed those court cases closely and was giving a briefing about them from corporate counsel when these issues first came up."</p>
<p>YEAH, Hunt. Keep that in mind. You’re only a lawyer with an admitted interest in civil liberties case. You can’t possibly know as much as Cobrat, who is in IT and got a briefing from corporate counsel on the matter. I think he has some cousins on the Supreme Court, for that matter.</p>
<p>@jym626 - Apology accepted. I just read it. I figured as much. No problem. However, you did bring up a salient point, see below. </p>
<p>@jym626 stated, “Consolation asked politely that they be dialed back a tad. Thanks”</p>
<p>My first thought was “Welcome to the world created by the serially offended.”</p>
<p>The problem with the dial back concept is no one has a clue what that means except those who ask for it to be done; and then it is still a moving target because they move it when they feel offended again. </p>
<p>In 2014, people seem to be offended by whatever they decide to be offended of at the moment. And frankly, I have not a clue what people are offended by anymore. I would have never thought anyone would be offended by “In Him.” Not in a million years. </p>
<p>Years ago, curse words would have done it - I get that. Also giving the finger would have done it - I get that. Now, saying Hello seems to be offensive, if the person thinks you used a weird inflection.</p>
<p>May I remind you of the thread about micro-aggressions - people who are nice and just wanted to start a conversation were called racist and all sorts of names. Great. </p>
<p>Bottom line - The serially offended will always find offense. This strikes me more as a fishing expedition to control what others say. I have never thought that re the need tell others what to say or how to say it. Censoring others speech is not something I do or believe in. The thought would never even cross my mind. But then again, I also know I have no right not to be offended, and I do not pretend that I do.</p>
<p>If I disagree with something and ask straight-forward sentences or questions, then let the people who are offended answer in full sentences with logic. But, if they are offended by the straight-forward, then it might be a signal for them to examine why they are always so easy to offend. </p>
<p>I can grant you one thing - you will never see me say I am offended by what a poster says, and you will never see me ask any poster to censor his speech. Not something I believe healthy for a free society. I may not like what someone says. In fact, I may find it despicable and beyond-the-pail, but I will defend, to the end, their right to say it. </p>
<p>I guess the defining difference is I am extremely comfortable with beliefs and thoughts that are contrary to my own, and find no need to ask others to dial back their speech and to dial back expressing their views. We do differ greatly in that regard it seems, which is cool. But understand, I am comfortable as a clam reading the wonderful free speech of everyone, whatever they write.</p>
<p>This should explain fully why I do not see “In Him,” as an issue, and it would never have crossed my mind.</p>
<p>That’s just it. Don’t recall posters saying they were offended . They said they found it weird or it made them uncomfortable. How did that become blown out of proportion to becoming some outrage by the “serially offended”, whoever that is. </p>
<p>Uncomfortable, weird, offended - seems like all the same manifestations to me, just semantics.</p>
<p>If someone is uncomfortable with free speech, not sure what anyone can do for them. Seriously, I am not bugged by anything any poster writes because I am just thrilled they have the right to say it. And I rather they be open and say it if they believe it. </p>
<p>Even more interesting though - who gets to define weird? May I chime in? I think it is weird that free speech gets people up in arms. Does my definition count? </p>
<p>I really do not get this issue at all. </p>
<p>Sounds like hyperbole. Don’t see people up in arms. But do feel that a professor using a religious reference in an email to a student is not appropriate. Lets not beat a dead horse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By asking this question, it seems you’re ignoring some critical factors such as:</p>
<p>The student is not an employee of the public university in most cases whereas a Professor of a PUBLIC university most certainly is. As a government employee, he is likely signed on as a condition of employment to observe Constitutionally based government agency/institutional policies to ensure there’s not even the appearance of favoritism towards a religion or faith. </p>
<p>Policies put into place to ensure government institutions and its employees will not show favoritism for or discrimination against particular religions or faiths…especially considering we’re still having issues with this in the 2010s as shown here:</p>
<p><a href=“Lane v. Sabine Parish School Board | American Civil Liberties Union”>https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/lane-v-sabine-parish-school-board</a></p>
<p>The Professor is in a superior power relationship to the student…especially considering he has the power to grade, provide/deny LORs, etc.</p>
<p>While the Professor has the right to express his religious beliefs as a private citizen, he does not have the right to do so using governmental resources, on government time, or in the context of writing as a Professor of a public university (a.k.a. Government employee working on behalf of a governmental institution). </p>
<p>Especially when doing so may reasonably cause others to get the impression he is writing on behalf of his institution by virtue of using government owned resources such as public college computers, email accounts, internet access at the office, etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asking someone who is on the weaker side of an inherently unequal power relationship such as Professor to student, supervisor to subordinate, or school administration to student is not always the most prudent course of action as a Buddhist family in Louisiana found to their dismay within the last year or few…</p>
<p>If what I say is hyperbole, then there must be nothing to dial back then. I am at a loss and that’s OK. Yep, the horse is dead. I am moving on, and sticking to the subject.</p>
<p>@jym626 I am a Seahawkfan if the truth were known. Saintfan is a now vestigial name related to one of kid #1’s primary activities. :D/ </p>
<p>Of course I can be offended or made uncomfortable by free speech. That’s part of having free speech at all - people get broad latitude to say any number of things that will justifiably be seen as offensive to many. I can be offended by Holocaust denial without saying that Holocaust deniers should be prohibited from airing their views in public.</p>
<p>“Especially when doing so may reasonably cause others to get the impression he is writing on behalf of his institution by virtue of using government owned resources such as public college computers, email accounts, internet access at the office, etc.”</p>
<p>But no one but an idiot would assume that this prof was writing ON BEHALF of his institution. It’s clear that he’s writing on his own behalf and expressing his own beliefs. </p>
<p>“As a government employee, he is likely signed on as a condition of employment to observe Constitutionally based government agency/institutional policies to ensure there’s not even the appearance of favoritism towards a religion or faith.”</p>
<p>So can he wear ashes on his forehead on Ash Wednesday? Can he put a bowl of Cadbury crème eggs on his desk around Easter and invite students to take one? Can he tell the class that he is rescheduling Monday’s class to Wednesday because it’s Yom Kippur and he will be off?</p>
<p>Normal people are able to distinguish between evidence and favoritism. </p>
<p>Cobrat, if this were all as clear-cut as you say, public employees would be barred from giving any indication of their religious affiliation in the context of their public duties, and that clearly isn’t the case. It isn’t even the case in schools, where teachers can wear religious garb. As far as I know, there has also never been a case in which separation between church and state has been interpreted as preventing public school teachers from acknowledging their own religion in appropriate ways. Teachers can tell students that their stomach just growled because they are fasting for Eid, or mention that they missed class for a religious observance, or use an appropriate story or example from their religious tradition. The problem comes in when what they are doing could be reasonably (not in someone’s paranoid fantasies) construed as proselytizing or promoting their religious beliefs. Sure, that requires a certain level of judgment, but that’s why we appoint judges and justices rather than just hanging up a copy of the constitution and pointing to it whenever we think there’s been a violation. </p>
<p>As I’ve said, I don’t think signing an e-mail intended to communicate with another person “In Him” is appropriate. I’m not sure if it would pass muster in a K-12 district. College professors have somewhat greater latitude, but I’m not sure that a department couldn’t request an employee to stop using that signature, either; I’ll leave that to people who know the law better. I do know that there’s a big difference between a signature on an e-mail and a campaign of intimidation, and I agree with whoever said that there’s no need to assume bad faith until we’re given some reason.</p>
<p>Well FWIW…the UC system changed the start date for fall 2014 in order to accommodate the Jewish High Holidays. Now THAT is the State and Religion sleeping in a very small bed.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ve had it.</p>
<p>Look, @awcntdb, I asked you politely to stop making negative remarks about “liberals” at almost every turn and engaging in political aggression. Why? Not because I was “offended” by anything. I don’t go around being “offended,” a word that I have grown to hate almost as much as “entitled.” I asked you because your constant slurs made me as mad as hell, but if I responded to them in kind it would be against the TOS and get the thread(s) shut down. Get it? </p>
<p>You and I are both choosing to participate in this forum, where there are rules. You either censor yourself, or it will be done for you. Some of us realize this and refrain from making provocative statements. You don’t. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the TOS and cut it out. Act like a grownup. </p>
<p>Is that plain enough to penetrate you consciousness? </p>
<p>@razorsharp
“I find it really annoying to see female muslims wearing headdress because I know it is really a symbol of men controlling women even though most muslim women are incapable of realizing this. I cannot image a court upholding a rule preventing muslim women from wearing headdress.”
Yes, tell me more about your innate knowledge of the Islamic faith. Wearing a hijab is a means of a women preserving modesty -an important aspect of Islam. I know several Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab on their upon their own volition, without the prompting of a parent, husband, etc. </p>
<p>In regards tot he original post; honestly this is not something worth worrying about. If he begins proselytizing in class or something, then we can talk about legal action. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a crucial difference between wearing religious garb or symbol, discussing it as a reason for taking time off/fasting, or discussing one’s religion when it is germane to the topic of the course/class and done for a legitimate educational purpose and doing so using governmental/public agency letterhead or email account. </p>
<p>The latter bit is such a serious concern even in many private sector companies that many such employers have strict terms of service which explicitly prohibit the use of company email accounts for personal purposes. </p>
<p>Especially in ways which may bring ill-repute to the company, subject it to potential legal liability, or could potentially result in complaints from clients, colleagues, and subordinates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This type of policy would likely be dealt with at the higher admin/dean levels of the university than the department as it is an issue which could bring potential liability and legal issues for the public university as an whole. </p>
<p>As for stopping the use of a signature, some government agencies friends work for actually restrict email signatures to ones which fit their stipulated format or require approval of such signatures before being implemented to ensure it doesn’t violate their own policies, conflict with laws, cause concerns the user may be viewed as showing favoritism towards a religion/faith or political group, or incur potential legal liability or bring ill-repute upon the agency/institution concerned. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My understanding is that in cases of religious holidays or displays…the doctrine is either a given governmental institution/property must accommodate all religious faiths/groups if if is reasonably able and doesn’t impair the institution’s business/mission or it cannot do so for any. </p>
<p>A reason why some government buildings/publicly owned areas do have displays like the Ten Commandments, The Menorah during Hanukkah, etc. </p>
<p>If they do so, however, they need to allow for displays of other religious monuments at the site in question when requested by residents or interested citizens. </p>
<p>Hence, a reason why some Satanists are lobbying to get their statue of Baphomet erected beside the Ten Commandments monument in the Oklahoma Capitol. They’re trying to publicly test to see if those who lobbied for the erection of that Ten Commandment monument are willing to honor the same constitutional principles they used to get it approved and erected when another religious group…especially one in disfavor attempt the sameor whether they show themselves to be Constitutional hypocrites. </p>
<p>Cobrat, just find us a public U policy statement that covers this issue of self identifying as OP described. Not religious holidays or govt displays, “some government agencies friends work for” or what those friends told you. Just find some policies and then it converts from what you think or what friends say, to what the U’s themselves state and expect. i didn’t see anything in the Berkeley link. </p>
<p>I totally agree one can be offended and made uncomfortable by free speech, and do understand that does happen.</p>
<p>But, it quite different to say or act like one has a right not to be offended or to made uncomfortable. There are many things I do not like about a lot of things, but the parties doing them are free to do so, and I respect their freedom.</p>
<p>There is a marked intellectual and constitutional distinction to how I feel, and what others are free to do. The difference being discussed here is when I am in such a situation I do not complain nor do I tell or ask the person / people to stop what they are free to do. If I do not want to hear it or be around it, I leave, as I am the one with no constitutionally-protected rights there. Again, I do not have the right not to be offended, not to be uncomfortable, or not to be made to feel weird, but they do have the right of free speech. I respect that right, and I would never ask others to censor themselves or never ask that they be censored by any other authority. Just not part of my mindset.</p>