<p>Again, it goes back to the relative power of the parties involved. Does the student benefit by seeming receptive to the message–by being willing to hear the professor out if he brings up faith issues in office hours or class? If that’s the case, I think there’s a problem. If the signoff in email (which, by the way, might be his standard signature line, so he might not be putting any thought into it on every message he drafts) is as far as it goes, I’d say it would be no big deal to most people.</p>
<p>The problem is that professors in subjects like History, English, Sociology, and Psychology cross that line all the time. Professors might put forth personal opinions (pro or con) about the Catholic Church, the Christian right, Polygamous Mormons, Radical Islamists, Druids or Wiccans or Scientologists. And I can easily picture a Physics professor mocking Creationists, not just Creationist theory. Perhaps more often than not, a professor might toss out a throwaway line that indicates to the class where he stands on something that may hold significance to a fair number of students, like an opinion on the current or previous pope. </p>
<p>And adults should be able to tolerate that. I suspect some of them even appreciate knowing where the professor stands on certain topics. The whole idea behind college is that it’s a community where adults can freely share different ideas. It’s not a grade school or even a high school. While I might disagree with a professor’s particular belief, I’m an adult. If I truly find his belief so repulsive that I should want to change it, I should speak up to the professor and let the exchange of ideas begin. Curbing a professor’s free speech is a slippery slope of a line and I would be very careful before I deemed a particular line “inappropriate.” </p>
<p>What if the members of the Gay Student Groups and Gay professors on campus all started signing letters “In him”? Or the Bisexual Student group or professor signs “In him and/or in her”? </p>
<p>Is that okay? I think it is fine but annoying just like “In Him”, but I am guessing many of the “free speech” conservatives who say progressives are serial complainers would be complaining that it is “different” if it is a group they don’t support. </p>
<p>actingmt, the problem is many people DO get “worked up about it.” Witness the number of teachers/school administrators who have been fired once their personal relationships became known. There is a small but vocal subset of the population that thinks the very fact of being gay threatens their or their kids’ heterosexuality.</p>
<p>Be thankful that your student is being exposed to someone who has faith and isn’t afraid to show that it impacts their life fully. Even if that faith is a bit different from your own.</p>
Why should someone be thankful? What if that person is an atheist or an agnostic? If a person has something that is an important part of their life, that’s fine. But there is no need to see that as needing to be appreciative if they impose their belief system on others.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between proselytizing or seeking converts versus “testifying.” Not ALL religious Christians are out to save your soul. </p>
<p>I figure folks who sign some variant of “In Him” are attesting to their faith, not crossing any lines with me. </p>
<p>I dislike stereotyping and this thread makes me think if it were me or my kid, maybe we’d want to get to know this prof better. Look at how many here automatically think in extremes. C’mon, maybe there is a real person in there. Ya know? Not all these fearful images.</p>
<p>Feeling a need to chime in here. I’m a professor at a state university, and I’d be curious to know if the professor who did this was junior faculty (e.g., assistant professor) or senior faculty? As senior faculty in my department, I’d want to know if one of my junior faculty did this because I’d want to nip it in the bud. Yes, it’s inappropriate. Optimally, it would be addressed although I don’t think it’s worthy of a big to-do. Junior faculty often need to be “socialized” about their role as faculty and appropriate methods for interacting/communicating with students (and staff as well). If the student in question has a relationship with a full professor in the same department, it would be worth a casual conversation. Since the student in question is a freshman, however, I doubt that’s the case in this particular situation. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it’s a boundary issue. I’ve had to deal with similar issues in the past with junior faculty. Like I said, if I were senior faculty in this prof’s department, I’d want to know this is going on so it could be addressed.</p>
<p>Is “Adios”, offensive? What about the phrase “We all have our cross to bear?” How about “saints preserve us”. We are getting into the territory where “Merry Christmas” becomes fighting words. College more than anywhere should be free of the speech police. This scrubbing of language is getting Orwellian.</p>
<p>EXACTLY. Most of us are not asking to be “saved” or converted to another’s point of view. And again, it can be threatening if it is coming from a person in a position of power.</p>
<p>actingmt, if it was a skeevy straight guy calling her “babe,” I bet you’d have a different reaction</p>
<p>@halfemptypockets stated, “I am guessing many of the “free speech” conservatives who say progressives are serial complainers would be complaining that it is “different” if it is a group they don’t support.”</p>
<p>You guessed wrong, at least in my case, as I do not profess to speak for conservatives. </p>
<p>Free speech is exactly that; each group should be able to speak. And I do not complain about views with which I adamantly disagree. I listen; I debate; and, I engage. Shutting alternate views down is not something I even understand doing. </p>
<p>Driving an idea, thought, or concept underground does not eradicate it; it just changes the venue in which it is expressed. Want to eradicate something you do not like? Present a stronger, more convincing, more appealing alternative. </p>
<p>The fundamental problem with this “censor what I do not like to hear approach” is everyone does not like something; each person feels uncomfortable, threatened, intimidated, fearful etc. about something. There is a point where no substantive conversation will be had because everyone is on pins and needles and couching their views. What an intellectually restrictive way to exist. That would be one intellectually vapid world in which to live. </p>
<p>Fenway park:
My example is intentionally ambiguous. It could be for many different reasons, but a note recipient would not know them, just as with the “In Him” closing the OP posted, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. Maybe the OPs professor was referencing sex acts? Were they consensual? Where they underage? We do not really know for sure. Maybe in this example they are also Christian or Feminist or Gay. If you are taking a stand to support free speech, it really does not matter. </p>
<p>My point is that there are a lot of people who claim to be pro free speech when it is speech they support and like. In that case, they point to detractors as whining and complaining and overly sensitive. However, when it is free speech that they disagree with or that makes them uncomfortable, they then do the whining and complaining. It is easy to assert free speech and disparage complainers, when it is speech you support.</p>
<p>Its interesting that in another thread someone regarded a strange man grabbing her a$$ as annoying but not overly so, but in this thread posters are affronted by two closing words in an email.</p>
<p>I’m a pretty strong free speech advocate, and I have to say that I frequently see the commitment to free speech waver on both the left and the right when the message is repugnant enough. (Sometimes, the message can be so repugnant that both left AND right will waver in their support of free speech; see: Westboro Baptist Church.) I think this is a natural human response–it’s easy to support bland free speech.</p>
<p>I think it’s really important to teach young people that the way to respond to speech you don’t like is with more speech; not with rules limiting speech.</p>
</p>