Oh good, another person who has absolutely no idea what the first amendment means.
And he stopped going to the rest of his classes in protest? Ok…
If there is something going on with him mentally, I hope he gets the best treatment possible. His classmates should not have to suffer in the meantime, however.
Anyone who has knee jerk reaction to cause turmoil and incite conflict has something going on, in my opinion. He needs to talk with someone, spend quality time with friends, and develop hobbies that will allow him to flourish s a member of humanity. This “scandal” should not be the most fun you’ve had all year.
If this is abbérant compared to what he was like in high school, then perhaps he is going through some sort of crisis.
Or he could just be another teenager who isn’t as intelligent as he thinks he is.
19-year-old True said he’d only be interviewed if the writer agreed to make the N-word the first word of the article
Really?
He wasn’t banned from conference for his opinions, he was banned because he was repeatedly disruptive.
I expect that the prof tried everything else before banning a private school tuition paying student, and since Savery is no stranger to (?manufactured) controversy himself, I imagine that he had many strategies to play before he resorted to the final card.
There is often someone who insists on being THAT GUY in conference, but most realize that before they make a federal case about it.
This is a freshman, obviously a very bright kid since he’s at Reed. I hope that he is just immature, and will learn to express his opinions without alienating everyone else.
I’m sure he thinks he is clever, witty and provocative. Everyone else is thinking, “what an incredible jerk this kid is.”
Have you guys already forgotten about the UVA rape hoax? Or the Ohio University rape hoax? Or the woman carrying around the mattress to try to make people believe what seem to be absolute lies?
There is no rape culture. The solution to disputes over this is not to eject students who point out this truth, but rather to eject those students who make the false claim that there is.
Look, we found the apologist.
My daughter was warned about “roofies” as part of the curriculum in her seventh grade health class. They had an entire multi-page worksheet about date rape drugs. I think this says something really distressing about segments of our society. There does seem to be a problem with some members of some fraternity chapters at some schools and with some non-affiliated men. I don’t know that I would term it a “culture,” but it’s obviously wrong and it’s more widespread than most people of my age would have thought.
Looks like Reed isn’t the bastion of free thinking and free speech they’d like to pretend it is.
Lest you think this is hyperbole and a product of the liberal media, having been a former D1 athlete at a major program, I can say, without qualification, and with profound embarrassment, that rape culture does indeed exist. It is with no pride that I report, that a small contingent of players that I played with, has absolute no regard to women. Later in life, I have been involved with many athletic departments and student affairs departments, consulting on this very same issue, and I can tell you, while it represents a small a percentage of the college population, this same type of attitude and behavior, is still prevalent in both athletic teams as well as fraternities. You not only dilute a very serious issue, you marginalize women and society in the process—time to get a clue.
Regarding manner and method of speech, as opposed to content, I’ve come to really appreciate the way D’s classes are handled. She attends a small college where all classes are taught seminar style. She has no more than sixteen students in any one class, so there’s lots of discussion. Any opinion may be voiced as relates to the topic, but civility is strongly enforced. In fact, students are required to refer to one another as Mr. And Ms in class, as the administration has discovered that that automatically sets a more civil tone. Students also know up front that specificity, logic and rhetorical skill are expected. Plenty of offensive opinions are expressed, but once the speaker is required to provide primary sources or examples and use logic to back up said offensive opinion, it generally crumbles, and the class moves on. Finally, students receive a mid-term oral evaluation during which they meet with a complete panel of their instructors. Among other things, class participation is discussed, and they are given specific feedback as to how they can better participate in classroom discussions. As a result, D says she finds her classes to have a very open atmosphere, with wide-ranging opinions expressed, but with no one feeling intimidated. Seems like a good way to handle things, overall.
Here’s another article in which the prof says he was banned not for what he said but the way he said it.
And here is an article from the campus paper that adds a bit more context:
http://www.reedquest.org/freshman-excluded-from-conference-petition-sparks-controversy/
If this part is true, he deserves to be excluded. I think he deserves to be excluded even if he made the same demand of all the students in the class:
I hope the young man is getting support, it sounds like he has escalated his behavior over time, and perhaps can’t stop that trajectory.
Not his opinions, but his behavior.
Refusing to attend other classes, withdrawing from participation from his activities on campus, including the honor council and a theater production, ranting online about a lawsuit he will be bringing against Reed that he wants the blessings of the faculty for. ?
He states that he has endured woes that the " middle class white girls at Reed will never know"( not knowing anything about what they have actually experienced, because he is deaf to any voice but his own), however his behavior indicates that his childhood taught him to get his way by holding his breath until he turns blue, and he hasn’t apparently yet learned how to avoid painting himself into a corner.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/19/1372041/-The-making-of-a-new-RW-hero
A terrifying experience? Really? He claims that annoying people is the most fun ever, that lower class people can’t create art and Nazis didn’t know any better, and groups to support feminists on campus should be abolished.
What exactly is he terrified of?
Is it something on campus, or in his head?
I read both of these articles earlier.
The problem I have with this is that the professor cites only True’s opinions as being unacceptable. He says nothing about True’s behavior. If True’s behavior was unacceptable, why didn’t the professor say so? For example, he could have said “You repeatedly and forcefully inject your views on sexual assault into every topic we discuss, even after being asked to move on to another topic.” That would be a reason to remove him, IMHO.
In the Quest article, again, with the possible exception of his Honor Principle reading/demand, it is only the content of his opinion that people criticize. Not the manner or frequency of his stating the opinion. Not his behavior.
Maybe he is a jerk in class who gleefully derails every discussion by riding his personal hobby horse. But no one who was there has actually said so. Why not? Why do they only cite the content of his speech, not the manner of it?
FWIW, I recall being attacked in AP History by classmates in 1970/71 for stating during the course of a discussion that the Democratic Party had traditionally been the party of the urban working class. I was truly dumbfounded. Apparently it was in some way offensive to acknowledge the existence of a “working class”? They didn’t say that I was wrong, they just said that you “couldn’t say things like that.”
Because it’s kinda obvious. I know from people in that conference that no one could ever have a conversation about anything other than what this guy wanted to talk about and he was dominating class discussion with his drivel. It’s not really your business (or the internet’s) to be aware of every statement that’s been made on the subject at Reed, so I’m not sure why you think Jeremiah’s selective quoting of Pancho’s email constitutes the full story, or even the full email, but. Pancho has made it very clear that he reached the decision to ban Jeremiah from conference after discussing his disruptive behavior with other faculty members.
Like, people who talk about the Holocaust not being anybody’s fault don’t tend to voice their opinions in a polite, respectful, and non-repetitive manner.
Strangers rushing to wail that ~ZOMG the PC police is censoring this young man for his opinions~ need to decouple their reading comprehension skills from their political agenda.
Not to mention that when the “opinion” you’re expressing ad nauseum is that the people you’re supposed to be discussing Livy and Hesiod with are lying about being raped, your opinion constitutes harassment and doesn’t really fall under the umbrella of academic freedom. Especially when it has nothing to do with the course material and you keep bringing it up because you know it makes people feel bad about themselves.
The guy may have valid points to make but he is a self declared devil’s advocate who makes a complete nuisance of himself. He’s proud of being an argumentative jerk rather than someone with a valid opinion who states their case without antagonism. Even if I agreed with him I’d probably do as the professor did and say “no more”.
^ Agreed.
Professors are NOT trained in how to handle classes and disruptive students (at least where I work and places I have worked, and according to colleagues who have worked elsewhere) , we are barely trained at all in that realm (far less than K-12 public school teachers). Yet we are asked to “be a first line of defense” to report students who “in our opinion” (with us having NO training at all in mental health) present a danger to themselves or others.
You can certainly argue that, assuming Reed has a similar policy about mental health and the safety of all students, that the professor was well within his rights to exclude the student from this portion of the class.
What might I do in this case?
None of this has been specifically outlined to me, but the risk of a lawsuit by a student is a real risk and I have to CMA as well as cover the university’s posterior.
Note also - if he is an adult, and he is getting counseling, is it right, as well as legal, to mention his name? In retrospect, there are various mass murderers found not guilty by reason of insanity, who serve life terms in psychiatric institutions, but do the mentally ill (or suspected mentally ill) have a right to HIPAA privacy just like everyone else does?
I guess you could also think about it this way - he has a right to his opinion no matter how unpopular or apparently factually incorrect to many, BUT does he cross the line into mental illness with his behavior? I would say the behavior is the aberration, the opinion is distasteful, but he breaks the rules of the conference with his behavior, not the opinion.
@Ghostt, if that is indeed what was going on, I fully agree.
I just find it odd that none of the sources say anything about it. It’s obvious why True would leave that part out, but not why everyone else would. Maybe they are drawing their info from True’s email only.
I think there is a difference between having an opposing view point, or deliberately trying to stir up trouble by taking the opposing viewpoint and using it as a weapon.
I know of someone who did the same kind of thing with reference to affirmative action at a major company and they no longer work there.
From the Insider Higher Ed article,
(I’m guessing the CC filter will redact the “n” word in this quote. It’s the extremely unfortunate and offensive word you think it is.)
Clearly True is trying to provoke people. I would imagine it would be hard to have a productive class discussion about the course materials with this guy sucking up all the air in the room. It’s the professor’s responsibility to all the other tuition-paying students to at some point say that it’s time to move on and end the digressions.