<p>In answer to the OP, absolutely odd. I however have a different view though. If college is to be a place of growth and exposure to the ideas of others, the realization that other people, including professors, maintain their own beliefs, espouse a multitude of viewpoints, and occasionally advocate or express those thoughts in unique ways, may be central to the collegiate experience.</p>
<p>Last year I attended a presentation by Emlyn Hughes, a distinguished professor of physics at Columbia. Hughes’ presentation was transformative. He is also known as “the stripping professor.” One day he started class and told his students “In order to learn quantum mechanics, you have to strip to your raw, erase all the garbage from your brain and start over again,” he proceeded to undress and eat a banana in his underwear and sunglasses as images of 9/11 were projected on the overhead screen, blaring rock music played, and T/A’s sawed a stuffed animal in half.</p>
<p>Dr Hughes is one of the principal investigators who discovered proof of the Higgs boson.</p>
<p>Perhaps the email signature “in him” isn’t too odd after all ?</p>
<p>One idea that came to mind is that the professor has self- identified as a scientist who is religious. In my college days, the science vs religion was not as prominent a debate as it is today. Although we have examples in history of people who were both scientists and religious, I don’t know if a student on campus would likely know if any of their science professors were.
Perhaps this professor of physics is self-identifying as a man of science and faith, so that college students who are religious and may be struggling with current ideas know that they can talk to him if they wish to. </p>
<p>Dietz,
If colleges and universities have routinely set holiday schedules to be off for most major Christian holidays ( Christmas, Easter, etc) it’s common courtesy to be sensitive to others’ belief systems and not set move in day on a high holy day. This was an issue at another school last year, though apologies that I cannot recall which one. To be sensitive to one religious holiday but not another is potentially discriminatory at worst and insensitive at best. </p>
<p>As for hyperbole, that exactly what should be dialed back. Purposeful embellishment or exaggeration can be inflammatory. To conflate comments of something being odd or weird or making one uncomfortable with people being “up in arms” or outraged is silly. If someone steps on your toe you don’t have to sink your teeth into their jugular. Just sayin’</p>
<p>Post timed out. Just to add that people who disagree with a comment or share an opinion about a topic are not “serial complainers.” You might call it “free speech” but others might consider it name-calling or baiting. </p>
<p>"As a pancake-eating boy I feel marginalized by “pizzagirl’s” choice of screen name. "</p>
<p>And we’ve both managed to offend all those who need to be gluten-free!</p>
<p>Look, there are contexts to this. Cobrat’s fantasies and pretensions to having superior understanding of the law notwithstanding (apparently “having coworkers who have told you something” is the equivalent of going to law school), there are <em>differences</em> between a prof wearing a cross or yarmulke, having a religious quote in a sig line, telling the students he’ll be off for Yom Kippur so the test is postponed, replying “you have a Merry Christmas too!” to a student who says “Merry Christmas,” inviting the students to join in prayer before the test, or telling students that they’ll be doomed to hell if they don’t accept Jesus Christ. Nothing is served in these discussions by pretending these things are all the same. </p>
<p>Likewise, I am a stickler in my own life for distinguishing between Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas with my clients, etc., but I am just not going to assume ill will of everyone who wishes me a Merry Christmas. I am easily able to tell the difference between a well-meant wish for a nice holiday season by someone who reflexively but not meanly thinks most people celebrate it, and an evangelical freak who is bound and determined to tell me I’m going to hell for not being Christian, and given that 99.9% of people I encounter are the first, I’m just not going to worry about the second.</p>
<p>And a happy female parental unit to all of you celebrating this Sunday. Apologies in advance if I have offended any single sex families.</p>
<p>Having lost my mom 10 years ago, I am outraged and incensed that anyone would be so insensitive as to say " happy Mother’s Day" in my presence. Oh wait. I have 2 kids. Never mind. They better call or I will be up in arms, I say. Up in arms.</p>
<p>So I turned to ‘the google’ and this is what I got from an evangelical web site:</p>
<p>"When a Christian emails another Christian, they are likely to use a signoff that acknowledges the Lord. If a secular signoff is “Sincerely” or “Best,” a spiritual signoff is “In Christ” or “Blessings.” It can also present itself in the following varieties:</p>
<p>In Him,
Your servant in Christ,
Complete in Him,
In His Service,
Covered in the blood,
In His grip,
Grace and peace,
His,
<>< (an ichtheuse [that’s “ Jesus fish” to the non-seminaried hoi polloi])"</p>
<p>Note the opening . . . when a Christian emails another Christian . . . I think that says it all right there. It is fine in context and a little “off” when the sender is making assumptions about the receiver or just being tone deaf . . . as as if a business email ended in “Love Bob” or something.</p>
<p>This, to me, is why “In Him” crosses a line. It doesn’t matter whether the recipient wants to hear the message. And in full disclosure, I attended a fundamentalist Christian school from grades 7-12. We heard this stuff all the time.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be an expectation to hear those words in a fundamentalist Christian school, though? I am presuming that your family knew what they signed up for – that they knew the school was this type. I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation to be free from proselytizing in a fundamentalist Christian school. A public school, of course, is a different beast. </p>
<p>I can see that those of us who had more secular school experiences don’t react to the “In Him” as strongly as you might. </p>
<p>And I agree it’s probably not a wise choice for a professor. I guess that on my scale of outrage, where 1 = prof wears a cross (yawn) and 10 = prof tells a student he’s going to hell and getting an F if he doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as his savior (=outrage), I’m just more towards the 1 than the 10. I would need more context about this particular prof’s actions to move along the scale.</p>
<p>I don’t know how I’d handle it if it were an employee of my company. I guess I’d tell them it was inappropriate. </p>
<p>A professor “feels” a bit different, though, because they are a bit more “independent contractors” within a university setting compared to how my employees are to my company.</p>
<p>Yes, of course I expected that in my school. I am saying that part of the “mission” of such Christians is to share their faith and convert others in the secular world. As it says above: “We must speak God’s word to the lost whether they listen or fail to listen.” In other words, it DOESN’T MATTER what the recipient of the message might want to hear.</p>
<p>Meanwhile in other news, a Bergen Comm College professor was suspended for this …
(per Amptoons’ blog, so I can’t link)</p>
<hr>
<p>Francis Schmidt […] posted a picture of his young daughter doing yoga in a T-shirt with the new “Game of Thrones” season tagline in January, upon release of the trailer. The T-shirt reads, “I will take what is mine in fire and blood,” and Schmidt’s cat lurks in the photo background.</p>
<p>But one contact — a dean — who was notified automatically via Google that the picture had been posted apparently took it as a threat. In an email, Jim Miller, the college’s executive director for human resources, told Schmidt to meet with him and two other administrators immediately in light of the “threatening email.”</p>
<p>I think it’s necessary to distinguish between issues of manners and issues of rights. People have the right to do many things that, in my opinion, anyway, are discourteous. Aggressive proselytizing is an example. Or even minimally aggressive proselytizing, which the “In Him” might be. I do think that many people need to be more willing to roll their eyes and say, “Well, it’s a free country” when somebody does or says something we don’t like.</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody has suggested that somebody receiving this message might want to go to the professor’s office hours and tell him, in a nice way, that they would prefer that he not use that sign-off in school-related communications to them.</p>
<p>“I do think that many people need to be more willing to roll their eyes and say, “Well, it’s a free country” when somebody does or says something we don’t like.”</p>
<p>Yes. Thank you! It seems that these days, “offended” and “triggered” are the new “well, I just don’t like that.” And I think that being perpetually offended (and expecting never to be offended) can be victimhood, too. </p>
</p>