<p>Agreed. It’s also important to teach them how to shrug off minor annoyances. Otherwise, they will be perpetually grumpy and never get anything done. Move on to the next email. Geez.</p>
<p>The a$$ grabbing example above represents a good range of what makes people uncomfortable, and that is why trying to censor everyone’s view one does not like is impossible - unless a speech and behavior authoritarian state is what is desired. No other way to really accomplish the task. </p>
<p>I would also point out that issues of free speech inevitably require line-drawing, because speech can conflict with other rights and interests. Thus, I think it’s entirely sensible that an elementary school could ban a t-shirt that a college couldn’t ban, for example. This need to draw lines inevitably sparks controversy, because people value the affected interests differently.</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>This is fine as a general rule, but there re two reasons I think it doesn’t answer the question in this case.</p>
<p>First, it is a professor speaking to a student. Big power difference here. (And also, it’s not that the listener might not like the speech, it’s just not the place for it - my son was asking about prerequisites for enrolling in a physics class, not for a discussion of theology. My son doesn’t care what the professor’s religious beliefs are, but by adding a religious message to his emails, the professor suggested that he might care about my son’s religious beliefs. Why is religion an appropriate topic for an email about a physics class?)</p>
<p>And second, certainly an employer has a right to control what empolyees say using the employer’s resources. The professor sent the email as a representative of the university - he was not speaking in his purely personal capacity.</p>
<p>Am I “offended”? No. Do I think it is a bad idea for professors to send overtly religious messages to students? I am beginning to think yes, it is a bad idea.</p>
<p>In this case I think most posters aren’t saying that they are affronted or offended just that it’s weird and, as Hunt said, discourteous in the given context. I doubt Emily Post would approve.</p>
<p>When something is so over the the top it is repulsed on the basis of basic humanity. Like pornography, you know when you see it. The Westboro Baptist group crossed send a line, and a super majority knew it when they heard what they were saying. </p>
<p>Having good manners and email etiquette is not the harbinger of a totalitarian state. </p>
<p>Assuming that this is a public college, and you are the student who received this message, what is your best option if your goal is to get this professor to stop doing this? You could complain to his superiors–but they might think you are being oversensitive, and they also might realize that he has the right to do this if he wants to. There is a good chance they will care more about annoying him than placating you. You could write a letter to the college newspaper–and if they printed it, there’s some chance it would become a cause celebre, but you might also find that a lot of people would take his side, not yours. Finally, you could go to him and tell him how you feel about it. I think that’s what I’d do–if my goal was getting him to stop.</p>
<p>Get over it OP… The world is full of multiple faiths and beliefs. </p>
<p>@jym626 Do you really think the sign off “in him” “impose(s) their belief system” ?</p>
<p>Webster says “Impose” means :</p>
<p>to cause (something, such as a tax, fine, rule, or punishment) to affect someone or something by using your authority</p>
<p>to establish or create (something unwanted) in a forceful or harmful way</p>
<p>to force someone to accept (something or yourself)</p>
<p>In the end if a student feels “compelled” to act or behave in a certain way i could consider that a valid concern, otherwise it seems this is just about accepting people with differing view and respecting them as we hope they will accept us… </p>
<p>I am not sure the “power differential” works here. In theory, sure. But is this prof asserting that power beyond what we consider ordinary classroom and teacher authority? We don’t know that. Not yet. I think some are letting their imaginations run wild. “Aack, he wants to intrude on my personal religious values” or “Oh, No, he’s going to grade me differently.” Every Westboro or Liberty U image seems to flash before people’s eyes. </p>
<p>I think a fair start would be telling my kids to respect that it seems religion is important to this guy. Not to assume, before the facts are in. Maybe go look on rate my professors. </p>
<p>Suppose he had closed with “Shalom.” Wouldn’t you just say, that’s who he is? It could even seem warm, to some. Should Muslims freak? Or “Peace.” Should someone from a military family assume the class will be dominated by an anti-war philosophy? </p>
<p>@saintfan Yes it is, if only one group gets to determine what is good manners and what is good email etiquette. </p>
<p>The “In Him” issue is a perfect example. Some see it as nothing; some see it as a bit odd, but OK; some see it as preaching; some see it as good manners respecting his religion; and, some see it as bad manners and disrespecting the recipient. </p>
<p>Therefore, if there were only one enforced way that was deemed good manners and proper email etiquette, then I posit that is a totalitarian state. It all starts somewhere. It is completely different, however, if people voluntarily decide to do something one way, as there is no state telling others what to do.</p>
<p>I would also point out that there is a big difference between Free Speech and Consequence Free Speech. Free Speech means you can’t go to jail for what you say. It does not mean that there will not be consequences for what you say. </p>
<p>For example, Donald Sterling the LA Clippers Owner learned last week that he can’t go to jail for what he said about African Americans, but the NBA is still enforcing significant consequences for that speech. </p>
<p>I think that is the same situation in this example. Many employers would instruct employees not to insert personal religious or political views into work email. In the OPs situation, that would be up to the particular University. There is not a legal issue, but if the University wanted to fire someone for violating their policy in work related emails, that is their right also. </p>
<p>@Much2learn There are consequences for everything, as nothing occurs in a vacuum. I do not think anyone is saying speech is without a consequence, i.e., a reaction. Dealing with a reaction is part of living, but what is important is the person was free to speak. </p>
<p>I get your drift, but the Sterling situation really should not be used as an example for it is not the same thing. That was a private conversation that was released to the public by another party, not the person who said it. Sterling was not making a public announcement. </p>
<p>In contrast, the prof email used the school email and servers of his employer; nothing private about that legally, as your employer can read your email. Not the same at all. I am not a lawyer, so if I am missing something the first amendment attorneys on here can weigh in and clarify / correct. I am quite sure they may have differing views among themselves as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think three things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think your response does not explain the thought process for your suggestion that bi-sexual Christians could be expected to close letters with “In Him and/or in Her”. Or if your suggestion was a joke, whether the humor derives from a reference to consensual or non-consensual coitus or sodomy</p></li>
<li><p>I think anyone who closes a communication with a religious expression should be mature enough to assume the risk that the recipient of the message might not have a positive reaction to it. If the purpose of the message is to sell a service or product, or to persuade someone to accept a point of view, then I think the risk is not worth it. I don’t want my salesmen or op-ed writers ending their professional communications with personal religious exhortations.</p></li>
<li><p>I think, similarly to #2 above, that students and educators should be mature enough to assume the risk that messages sent to each other that include religious expressions might not engender positive personal feelings on the part of the recipient, and that this could lead to deleterious effects on the student-educator relationship.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
If it’s a public university, its ability to limit speech is restricted by the First Amendment. As I said upthread, in my opinion, the current Supreme Court would rule that a university couldn’t penalize a professor in any way for this sign-off. If it was a private university, they could.</p>
<p>Singersdad,
While it seems to be wordsmithing, yes, by the first definition you posted, the professor is using their authority, whether intentionally or not, whether overtly or covertly, to interject their belief system where, IMO, it doesnt belong.</p>
<p>What if the professor said in class"something like (and please dont dissect the example, just please understand its intent)“this is a physics class but I believe there can be situations in which physics and creationism overlap. If a group of you would like to discuss this further and meet to discuss the theology of physics, I am happy to participate in that discussion” Is that ok? Might some students feel compelled at some level to attend or participate, lest they worry that if they don’t participate the professor might think badly of them on some level? They might reasonably worry that not attending could have ramifications in the power dynamic between faculty and student, even if none was intended.</p>
<p>But jym, what if the teacher, on the first day, stated that he intended to have a discussion of the overlap of physics and creationism as part of the class? While some students might not like this, would it be out of bounds for a college course? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>@jyms626 I totally appreciate your view but feel differently… Thank goodness (purposefully avoiding inclusion of a higher power reference here) we have the freedom to express our own opinions. </p>
<p>BTW this is an interesting thread. It is easy to understand opinions on both sides and is highly personal. The respectful discourse speaks volumes about the quality of CC posters. I’m honored to have a chance to state my opinion.</p>
<p>The issue is whether the students who dont believe in creationism or are not interested in participating in such a discussion would feel somehow covertly pressured to participate, especially if this professor somehow made his religious beliefs clear to students in some manner.</p>