This is getting ridiculous

[contrarymary]

WESTERVILLE, Ohio - College sophomore Charis Bridgman tends to keep quiet in class if she thinks her professor might disagree with her Christian-influenced ideas. The 19-year-old says schools such as her Otterbein College in suburban Columbus should be a place for open discussion, but she feels some professors make students afraid to speak up.

"They might chastise me, or not even listen to my opinion or give me a chance to explain," she said.

Professors would have to include diverse opinions in classrooms under legislation being pushed in Ohio and several other states by conservatives who fear too many professors indoctrinate young minds with liberal propaganda. Such measures have had little success getting approval in the other states.


"I see students coming out having gone in without any ideological leanings one way or another, coming out with an indoctrination of a lot of left-wing issues," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Mumper, a former high school teacher whose Republican party controls the Legislature.


The proposal in Ohio to create an academic "bill of rights" would prohibit public and private college professors from presenting opinions as fact or penalizing students for expressing their views. Professors would not be allowed to introduce controversial material unrelated to the course.


Professors dismissed the bill as unnecessary and questioned whether its supporters had ulterior motives, such as wanting more conservative professors.


Similar legislation failed in California and Colorado last year, while the Georgia Senate passed a resolution, which is less binding than a bill, that suggests adoption. The California bill, which would affect only public schools, has been reintroduced and faces opposition from professors and student groups. An Indiana bill is nearly identical to Ohio's.


The Ohio legislation is based on principles advocated by Students for Academic Freedom, a Washington, D.C.-based student network founded by conservative activist David Horowitz.


"It doesn't matter a professor's viewpoint," Horowitz said in an interview. "They can be a good professor, liberal or conservative, provided they pursue an educational mission and not a political agenda."


Mumper said he is concerned universities are not teaching the values held by taxpaying parents and students.


He questioned why lawmakers should approve funding for universities with "professors who would send some students out in the world to vote against the very public policy that their parents have elected us for."


A faculty group or school committee could oversee complaints from students who believe their grades were affected by a professor's bias, Mumper said.


Joe White, a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said students could use perceived discrimination as an excuse to refuse to learn.


"We're not supposed to teach for their comfort," he said.


Other opponents, including the American Association of University Professors, say such bills could stifle debate.


"We see nothing but mischief if we invite people from outside of the university to somehow start monitoring what goes on inside the classroom," said David Patton, an AAUP member and professor emeritus of Ohio State University.


Sen. Teresa Fedor, a Democrat from Toledo, agrees: "Can we say 21st century witch hunt and book burning?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050212/ap_on_re_us/college_debate_2

Sigh.  And, of course, it's a female doing the whining.    :roll:

I don't care what one's views are, liberal or conservative, one needs to learn to express them articulately, in a respectful manner, and not run screaming for legislation every time something doesn't go one's way.

[fezzik]

The article doesn't say - what are the opinions this student is feeling put down about?

Is this creationism again?

[LSBeene]

True Mary, I do think the "Students Bill of Rights" might be the answer.  But I would have to read up on it more.

These two quotes stuck out:

Other opponents, including the American Association of University Professors, say such bills could stifle debate.

As opposed to ONLY liberal speakers being invited, how comments made by men are sexual harassment (but not the same comments made by women or gays/lesbians), or that Christian Groups are regularly stifled.

Professors dismissed the bill as unnecessary and questioned whether its supporters had ulterior motives, such as wanting more conservative professors.

Versus the 80-95% liberal professors we NOW have.  Which, to them, is ok.

Ahhhhh, got it.

Steven

[The Gonzman]

Is this creationism again?

I rather imagine that most people who are proponents of "Intellegent design" wouldn't object to the Theory of evolution being taught, if it wasn't taught by some snotty secular humanist who implied (or even said explicitly, as was my case) "This proves the concept of "Gawd" is bunk."

Which is equally unsupportable, logically indefensible, and unscientific...

[scarbo]

I rather imagine that most people who are proponents of "Intellegent design" wouldn't object to the Theory of evolution being taught, if it wasn't taught by some snotty secular humanist who implied (or even said explicitly, as was my case) "This proves the concept of "Gawd" is bunk." Which is equally unsupportable, logically indefensible, and unscientific...

You can count me among your "most people".

[LSBeene]

Gonzo,

Get off you lazy butt and post more stuff to you blog!  I'm unfulfilled!

(sorry, I'm on leave and just bored buddy!)

Steven

[The Gonzman]

Gonzo,

Get off you lazy butt and post more stuff to you blog!  I'm unfulfilled!

(sorry, I'm on leave and just bored buddy!)

Steven

Sorry mate.

It's been Flu, followed by cold, followed by strep.  I watched the nieces for a week, and caught every virus and germ they could bring me from school.

Thanks a lot, girls.

[Q]

Can you imagine this in Womens Studies class?

Lecturer:  "All men are rapists"

Voice Of Sanity:   "Really?  So why are women so eager for marrige and commitment?"

Lecturer: "Because they've been duped by the Patrical media to believe that sex with men is a good, positive thing."

Voice of Sanity (to audience):  "Who here has ever enjoyed sex with a boyfriend.  Raise your hands"  <wait>  "Thats quite a lot of you."

Voice of Sanity (to Lecturer):  "So your saying rape can be fun and enjoyable?"

Lecturer:  "No!  Of course not.  rape is a disgusting despicable act that demans women!"

Voice of Sanity: "So all hetrosexual sex can't be rape.  Not all men are rapists.  Please, continue......"

[alien]

Lecturer: But I have a reliable source!

[Q]

Voice of Sanity: "And you believe that because one women has never had a positive sexual encounter, despite having had a boyfriend in the past, no women can?"

[alien]

Lecturer: "A woman is raped every six seconds in the U.S, and every 17 minutes in Canada. Under the patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

[Q]

Voice of Sanity:  A women every 6 seconds?  365*24*60*60/6 = 5.5 million women a year.  Thats about one in 35 of the female population.

Where as the reported rate of rape is about 100,000.  So your saying a reporting rate of about 1.8%?   When do the men get the time to feed the dog, go to work....?

' the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.'  So all men will rape or exploit a women.  Hold it, didn't you say all men rape?  Arn't we sliding?  So all men are not rapists, by your own adsmission.

How do we term exploit?  What is exploitation?  

More to the point, whats this patriarcy you say about?  Where do I join?  Whats its tax number?  Show me a leaked memo, or a tax receord."

[alien]

Lecturer:

[Q]

Voice of Sanity: "Sorry, say again?"

[fezzik]

Is this creationism again?

I rather imagine that most people who are proponents of "Intellegent design" wouldn't object to the Theory of evolution being taught, if it wasn't taught by some snotty secular humanist who implied (or even said explicitly, as was my case) "This proves the concept of "Gawd" is bunk."

Which is equally unsupportable, logically indefensible, and unscientific...

So yes, it's creationism again.