<p>“The professor should not be interjecting personal things that could be misunderstood, or intimidate, or make someone feel uncomfortable, with a student: whether it’s “in Him”, “Go Sox”, or “Fondly”.”</p>
<p>You know, there is no right not to hear something you just don’t personally care for.
If someone is “uncomfortable” with a light-hearted “Go Sox,” they need to get a life. No one is obligated to tiptoe around them. There is no “right” not to hear your favorite team’s rival team be cheered. </p>
<p>@frazzled1 - Maybe what I said came out wrong. I do believe you; I just use the term differently, obviously, and wonder if a true moral relativist is fully accurate. OK, I am pushing this issue as an excuse to open a bottle of wine, even if I have the debate with myself. </p>
<p>These types of speech/behavior codes are so vague as to be humorous. The problem is ANY action has the potential of making SOMEONE uncomfortable.</p>
<p>@pizzagirl - agreed - there is absolutely ‘no right not to hear something’ that makes you feel uncomfortable. And the professor who wrote “in Him” is legally allowed to do so as well. We are not discussing rights here, at least I didn’t think so. The point is my husband felt that as an educator he wants his students to feel comfortable with him and therefore might say “go sox” to someone he knows is a redsox fan, but not to a kid from NYC who might take it personally. Kids do that, people do that, so to be safe, especially when in a position of authority, you just don’t go there…
But “rights”? yes, agree with you 150% that the prof has the right to say what he said.</p>
<p>"I have students that have worked for me, and I would never sign an email with “shalom”, no matter how innocuous I thought it was. It just doesn’t belong. JMO. "</p>
<p>On the other hand, just to play devil’s advocate (oops, was that too religious?), if a Jewish professor happens to know a student is Jewish, is it inappropriate for them to wish that student L’Shanah Tova (=like saying happy new year) right before Rosh Hoshanah? </p>
<p>“Go Sox” bugs me and I do have a life. But that’s a NE thing. Ha.
My young, very religious friend had the opposite issue- a big city prof who was resolutely hopeless. The reading list was the worst of bleak and in their written work, he expected kids to agree life was dominated by the ugly. She isn’t a knee-jerk God this and Bible that sort of kid, is intellectual and hard working. But her faith forms her approach to life. Interesting semester. Two intelligent individuals who circled each other, at first- but came to respect the other’s perspectives. She got an A, he probably went back to being a curmudgeon. No complaints about religious freedoms or suppression. </p>
<p>Before you post such aggressive, politically-tinged statements, you might want to pause and consider what would ensue if your targets replied in kind. Please.</p>
<p>I would take it as a piece of information into the professor and what he believes. And then I might see if that meant he treated students differently, and if he did, then I would complain.</p>
<p>My daughter goes to a public school and there is a prayer club and clubs for other kids of different faiths - these have to be student driven, and they do have a teacher who signs up to basically chaperone, but they are not the leader of the groups. In a multicultural society, it behooves us to stay calm until there is a legitimate challenge to our faith or lack thereof, and I don’t think this professor’s signature constitutes one. </p>
<p>@Consolation - Now, I am aggressive. And the liberals rise up and get offended. Just a matter of time. </p>
<p>What is ironic is people wanting to confront the professor and complain to the school about him signing “In Him” are not seen as aggressive, but my pointing out that not everyone is offended by particular statements is aggressive. Go figure. </p>
<p>Ive had at least two profs at a public school that brought religion into the classroom.
One was a philosophy prof, the other a historian. In both cases their life experience gave them their viewpoint and added to the material.
Every prof cannot help but bring their philosophy into the classroom, whether by inclusion or omission.
College students are adults and should be open to different experiences and opinions as long as it doesnt prevent them from learning.
I dont see how someone signs off an email infringes on the above.
By the way, I am a secular humanist.</p>
<p>@awcntdb It is not “now.” You are habitually aggressive in the political tone of your posts, and in your tendency to cast negative political aspersions: “liberals” all do this, “moral relativists” all do that. You may notice, if you are intellectually honest, that your targets are refraining from replying in kind. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would dial it back.</p>
<p>I’m active in my church, but would never sign a work email with any type of religious reference. I don’t think it’s professional, and unless the professor were at a private, religious college, it would surprise me. I probably wouldn’t do anything about it, but it would make me question the judgment of the signer. </p>
<p>Some recent court rulings on institutional emails, privacy, and one’s expression of religious beliefs as a government employee on government/taxpayer time have actually found the opposite of what you assert as:</p>
<p>Such rulings favored employers in monitoring and regulating email policies and employees were found to have no expectation of privacy against such monitoring. Especially when said emails were done on employer time and on employer computing resources…especially email/computer accounts which was ruled the property of the employers. </p>
<p>There were some articles some years ago about how a group of Air Force officers on a base were reprimanded and told to take down religious materials and political campaign posters from their workplace desks because it made subordinates uncomfortable and in some cases, was visible to the public which higher officials felt may call the officers’ status as government agents who are supposed to serve all Americans…not just one’s co-religionists or those of the same political party in question. </p>
<p>Also, an NCO tried using that very argument to claim his right to publicly criticize the POTUS and some politicians on a public internet forum. That would have been fine…provided he didn’t use cite his military status and do so during working hours while using military computer account and computing/internet resources to do so as he did. His violation was found to be so egregious that he was canned after 9 years and courts ruled against him when he tried suing for wrongful termination. </p>
<p>If one’s a government employee as a public U Prof would be and in an activity/writing in a context in which he could reasonably be construed as representing his/her institution, many court rulings tended to weigh the public interest in having government agents/employees who do not even give off an appearance of showing favoritism towards a given religion more heavily than the employee’s right of personal expression. Especially when serving the public or dealing with subordinates*, writing on government/taxpayer time, or using institutional email accounts which may be construed as modern equivalent of institutional letterhead. </p>
<ul>
<li>The student here would likely fall under the categories of the public and subordinate in a sense.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>OP here. A couple of thoughts. First, I really was only wondering what other parents thought. I was not offended, just thought it was odd and perhaps not appropriate. So far as I know, my son did not even notice, or if he did he didn’t say anything to me (and I didn’t say anything to him - he just forwarded me the email to let me know the prof had responded to his question). I for one have no intention of suing, or taking any other action - I was just curious how other people would see this. I do think that profs should want to be approachable to all of their students, and I do think that a prof that sends out overtly Christian messages in his emails to his students (assuming this was not a slip-up) risks being inaccessible to students who do not share his beliefs.</p>
<p>Also, for what it’s worth since some people have suggested that religion might be relevant to the course material, this is a physics professor.</p>
<p>cobrat, I understand what you are saying, but I still will say that based on my experience and knowledge as a lawyer for 30 years, and as somebody who pretty closely follows civil liberties cases, the Roberts Supreme Court would rule as I have predicted in the context of a public university professor’s individual e-mails. (Note: I’m talking about the “In Him” case. The “Allahu Akbar” case might come out differently with this particular Supreme Court.)</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 when my employer found a few employees were using company email/computing resources in ways which brought possible ill-repute and even potential liability to the company as the dubious conduct was done via corporate computing resources and thus…could be reasonably construed as being representative of the company unless the company moves to renounce it and hold the ones responsible accountable for misusing those resources. </p>
<p>I followed those court cases closely and was giving a briefing about them from corporate counsel when these issues first came up as while I personally had some misgivings about parts of those court rulings…it also confirmed what I’ve figured to be the case…one should never use one’s workplace email account for anything other than professional correspondence related to one’s job/institution’s business. </p>
<p>For personal emails, I use my personal email account which isn’t covered under those rulings. </p>
<p>@Consolation - Aggression, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We have many posts on many threads, which prove as much in all directions. </p>
<p>Interesting that it’s a physics prof.
There’s only so much one can speculate about religious intrusion into a public university setting- afaiui, there can be differences between what’s not acceptable in the k-12 setting (mandatory participation and all the etceteras) versus at a public post-secondary. But as OP said, that’s not the original point here. And for the record, I’d go with Hunt. </p>
<p>Law combines theoretical and practical aspects and is influenced by precedent. Imo, not much point in taking a firm and detailed stand on this thread, bringing in tangential examples to try to win some point- on.this.thread.</p>
<p>I would notice the phrase. If my kids weren’t bothered or affected, end of that. Because, it IS possible to have strong beliefs and not let them intrude. And possible to not let one’s personal reactions intrude, either.</p>
<p>So he’s a religious Christian? Why is that supposed to be more private than being, say, an agnostic? As a Christian myself, I can’t imagine being offended by a professor who signed his/her emails, “in the name of the goddess” or “in doubt.” I’d rather know something interesting about the person, and one’s religious choice (or lack thereof) is pretty interesting.</p>
</p>
</p>