Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Advocate wrote:

While I believe this teacher's actions to also be completely inappropriate, don't for a minute think that only liberal educators are guilty of this type of behavior.
My children come home frequently discussing pro-Bush, pro-Republican agendas forced on them by their teachers in elementary,middle and high schools. During the last presidential election, they were constantly bombarded with the benefits of the current administration by teachers in classes such as math, science, and Spanish.
The pendulum swings both ways.

From my original post:

"This is another clear-cut instance of an abuse of power by a member of the wacko fringe political movements."

Notice that I said "movements."

Date: Apr 12, 2006

TransLucent wrote:

How long will the academic community support this type of behavior through direct action (ie, vocal support) or through inaction?

C-Through:

Thanks for the information. I'm going to personally write the teacher in question and congratulate him for a courageous, if somewhat foolhardy, act of political action. He was reduced to this expedient because of the difficulty sane people have in trying to counter the flood of pro-administration propaganda from supposed "news organizations" that report presidential press releases as bona fide truth, rather than investigating to the heart of the matter. If pseudo-journalists like Judith Miller, at the NYTimes, had done their jobs, there would've been no Iraq war. Cripes, Bush wouldn't even have been declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election.

As far as how long the "academic community" will continue to support such "behavior," it will probably continue until America lives the truth of its creed, both at home and abroad. GWB, Rumsfeld, Rice and "Dead Eye" Cheney are worse than simple arse apertures: they're enemies of the human race. If anything, the Leary song is considerably understated. Bush and company should be standing in front of a human rights tribunal in the Hague.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

I don't see the purpose of this original post other than to somehow connect a completely non-USM event with teachers/professors in general and incite a response. Are we supposed to feel guilty by association? Or are you trying to allude to something specific at USM? Students at USM and at public schools in the Hattiesburg area are far more likely to be exposed to right-wing pleading and bullying than left-wing advocacy.

BTW: what in the h--l differennce does it make what Colmes on FOX News thinks? Fox News is not news nearly as much as it is partisan propaganda and appealing to the fantasies and fears of their viewers is their standard operating procedure.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Translucent, you imply that liberal educators "continue" to support incidents such as this, which is not true. Except for "off the plantation" of course. He must be related to Angeline. The notion of Cheney & Bush as war criminals is one of the most offensive ideas out there. Off the P, read John Hughes' editorial in the Christian Science Monitor today on the fact that Bush had reason to believe Hussein had WMD.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Republican wrote:

Translucent, you imply that liberal educators "continue" to support incidents such as this, which is not true. Except for "off the plantation" of course. He must be related to Angeline. The notion of Cheney & Bush as war criminals is one of the most offensive ideas out there. Off the P, read John Hughes' editorial in the Christian Science Monitor today on the fact that Bush had reason to believe Hussein had WMD.

Republican you are sadly deluded. Bush lied - people died. Is he a war criminal? Debatable. Should he be impeached for lying to the American people and breaking the law? Absolutely. Talk about guilt by association - being an American in the world these days is a very dangerous proposition thanks to our dimwit-in-chief.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of &amp;quot;Academic Freedom&amp;quot; by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Cossack wrote:

As I read the Bush hating posts, I am struck by the similarity of these posters to religious zealots. My religion is good and other religions are evil. If you believe in anything that differs from my belief, you are evil and stupid. There are many rational discussions that can be held regarding what is appropriate in the classroom and what policies and actions the U.S. should under take. Taking the corner solutions that anyone who holds an opposing view is to be held in contempt is not worthy of one who professes to be an academic. Moreover, slogans, such as Bush lied people died, make a nice political one liner, but are no substitute for thought. If these issues are to be discussed, leave emotions out of the discussion and focus on cogent arguments that are based on something more than feelings. The mark of an academic is being able to present an idea or issue that you personally disagree with accurately and fairly while refraining from expressing contempt.

Except this board ain't no classroom. Back in the late 1990s Republicans used to care when a president lied - why not now? Or, as is likely, is it not all about politics and attacking those you disagree with in order to score short-term political goals? The difference with Bush is that he is trying to change the US Constitution and seizing executive power in ways that may permanently damage our government if not challenged and changed soon. While I agree entirely that professors in the classroom or otherwise interacting with students must be professional and even-handed, my opinions on this board are under no such restriction. We all, no matter our occupations, need to speak out more and louder rather than remain cowering in the corner. If you think Bush has done the right thing with Iraq, Katrina, outing CIA officers, and so forth, then, please, by all means defend him. I would appreciate knowing the rationale behind your thinking. Can you defend Bush without using mere slogans and platitutdes?

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of &quot;Academic Freedom&quot; by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Just remember ,we're intellectuals. We hate God,we hate Bush,we love merlot. To hell with the plebians.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Let me see if I can respond at the same level. Of course Bush was right to invade Iraq. He will be right to bomb Iran until they are not a nuclear threat. Having a chance to turn Iraq into a forward-looking democracy rather than what it has been is well worth the effort. I firmly believe that helping a society change from a backward nation where woman are no more than chattel who are covered from head to toe and forced to wear veils and have very few freedoms to one where there is freedom for all people is very worth while. The scenes where women proudly raised their finger covered with purple ink signifying they had voted were very moving to me. The fact that you are happy and satisfied to watch women mistreated and degraded bothers me greatly. I find it shameful.

Well, why didn't Bush present these reasons to the United Nations and American people before the invasion? I'm sure these reasons would have convinced the rest of the world to do their part and invade also. On the other hand, if God really wants a society where women are held down, as it was in biblical times and God didn't complain about it, then maybe these are not good reasons for invasion. Could it be just one culture (of sinners) trying to impose their culture on the people of God? How do I tell objectively which side God is on?

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of &quot;Academic Freedom&quot; by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Mr. Wizard wrote:

And back in the late 1990's Democrats didn't care when a president lied- why now?

In principle a good point. But we all know it has to do with the underlying seriousness of the action that led to the lying - in one case oral sex in another war.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Angeline wrote:

Bush's illegal (by international standards) invasion of Iraq

one traditional liberal activity is to tell children that they shouldn't try to conform to society, that they should be themselves, and that they should value their individuality. we see that all the time. now the defender of the poor little libs on this board is telling us that we should allow international sentiment to dictate our actions?

there is no such thing as international standards. you do what you think is the best thing to do, regardless of who else agrees with you. your type of groupthink leads to dangerous ends. iraq under hussein was a corrupt regime, as is iran, as was afghanistan, as are many more. if you want to start talking about american corruption, you'd better do more than some sound bites about bush. you'd better start explaining secrets sold to the chinese under clinton, the white house hotel under clinton, the mysterious deaths under clinton, etc. clinton put the "c" in corruption.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Angeline wrote:

But we all know it has to do with the underlying seriousness of the action that led to the lying - in one case oral sex in another war.

so a lie is not always a lie? some lies are not as serious as others? perjury is forgivable but an unsworn misrepresentation is worthy of the hague? it seems that you are very comfortable with your own double standard system and, as cossack has said, you are acting like a religious zealot whose doctrine is the only correct one.

by the way, i'd like to see someone try to put an american president up to a hague tribunal. i have a feeling that wouldn't turn out so well for the "international community."

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Angeline states,

Except this board ain't no classroom.

I would assume from your statement that once you leave the classroom you are no longer an academic. If that is so, what do you become when you leave the classroom and engage in objective research in your area of academic expertise?

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Those who perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States of America had (and still have) no regard for American lives lost as a result of their actions. My response is that we should show the same level of regard for their supporters and bomb them back to the Stone Age which, for most of the countries that harbor terrorists, isn't that far back in time. We should make the consequences of attacking Americans so drastic that terrorism against U.S. citizens becomes unthinkable. If you're a citizen of the U.S., then you have protections and responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. If you're not a U.S. citizen, then you have only the protection of the grace and favor of whatever god you pray to or, if you're lucky, the country that harbors you. If you're caught aiding and abetting terrorists, you should be tortured. If you resist arrest in a terrorism case, you should be shot. Those who live lives that may marginally help terrorists need to be forced to a decision: you're with the U.S. or you're with terrorists. Terrorists feed on the weakness that is shown in places like this messsage board, where hand-wringing individuals want to avoid hurting anyone's feelings or minimizing the importance of anyone's culture. One day when there's not even a little part of the world left that is a place for freedom, you'll be sorry that you were so mealy-mouthed and weak. I suppose you'd rather take the Islamic Jihad's record on academic freedom over George Bush's or Bill Clinton's, though.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Earth to Angeline and Off the Plantation...come back to us.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Let's not forget that Tony Blair (hardly a conservative) was the most articulate defender and proponent of the war in Iraq, and that he still believes to this day that invasion was the right policy. Let's also not forget that nearly every intelligence service in the world believed that Saddam did indeed have WMDs. Let's additionally not forget that Saddam was in constant violation of the treaty that ended the first Gulf war, that Saddam could easily have prevented war by allowing inspectors full and unhampered access to his weapons programs, that Saddam could also easily have avoided war by taking advantage of numerous opportunities to abdicate, that the Kurds (at least) are quite grateful to have been liberated, that most of the country is actually enjoying (relative) peace, and that Christopher Hitchens (hardly a conservative) is perhaps the most passionate and intelligent defender of the war even to this day.

In other words, things are never quite as simple as one or two of the leftists on this board like to claim.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of &quot;Academic Freedom&quot; by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of &amp;quot;Academic Freedom&amp;quot; by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

RE: Latest Abuse of "Academic Freedom" by Educator

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Outside Observer wrote:

Earth to Angeline and Off the Plantation...come back to us.

I'm back . . .I always promise myself that I won't get drawn into this sort of thing anymore . . .

But . . . I've been out against the war since Fall of 2001 when it became clear to me that the xenophobes and religious fanatics in my country were bound and determined to launch a jihad of their own--as if the 500,000 dead Iraqi children killed by US sanctions in the 1990's wasn't enough--against anyone who wasn't Christian, capitalist, and of European descent. In the interim I've learned that it's pretty much ludicrous to try to convince my fellow Mississippians that declaring war on a tactic, terrorism, and an ideological tendency, fundamentalist Islam, is wrong and stupid, even when all evidence shows such wars as bloody debacles. I don't know why you guys are so thickheaded; maybe it's as a Gore Vidal character said: " Perhaps there's something demonic about our fellow countrymen, after all."

Snide assessments of national temper aside, suffice it to say that the positions of Cossack and other blood thirsty bellophiles on this board are being proven more and more wrong with every passing day, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and in the "war on terror" generally. Iraq is in full blown civil war and has become a training ground for terrorist fighters and tactics that will one day bloom bloody in our own backyards, mainly because we've exhausted ourselves trying to democratize Iraq, at the point of a bayonet, at a cost of $1.5 billion a week. That's an expensive bayonet. The whole time the USA is winning converts to Islamist jihad, through its bungling, brutal and sadistic occupation, much faster than even the most high tech counter insurgency tactics can kill them.

Three years after the Bellophile in Chief declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, huge portions of Iraq still have no consistent electrical power, no clean water, and no security, not even relatively. Ah, and there are now about 100,000 more dead Iraqi civilians, killed by American munitions, than there were before March 20 2003. Even Saddam didn't kill 'em that fast. Now that's winning some hearts and minds!

In Afghanistan, the Kharzai government controls only Kabul, and only during daylight. The countryside is still run by the same set of characters who filled the ranks of the Taliban. The opium trade is flourishing, soon the Taliban will be as well. Osama bin Laden is still at large. So is Zacarias al Zaqarhwi. The much vaunted elimination of the al-Qaeda leadership always touted by Bushlovers as an example of the success of the anti-terror war is merely another example of how little such folks understand the structure and intent of terrorist organizations. They don't need centralized leadership, they don't need extensive financial support: they've organized in small, independent, autonomous cells, each with its own action plan and resources: this is what happened in London last summer and in Madrid two years ago. It's what will happen soon enough, again, right here in the USA: every expert will tell you you can depend on it. Good job George. Good job Cossuck and the rest of you bloody handed vicarious imperialists. Ward Churchill was right; some more bad a** chickens are about to come home to roost.

Luckily, about 60 percent of Americans have had enough of the Iraq misadventure, however. So you guys are about to eat the biggest helping of crow ( pardon the recurring avian metaphor) of your entire lives. (Maybe, I suspect that Jim Crow still has some supporters here, and many are still spitting feathers from that one) Face it y'all: Iraq is a racist, illegal war of empire that Americans were lied into supporting and that has had nothing but a negative effect on our security. Admit you made a mistake now, and maybe you won't have to take seconds at the big crow buffet that's a' coming. And Iraq is only the tip of the Bush-berg. Outside Observer, who's the "us" you're referring to?

Dammit! There I went and did it again . . .

Date: Apr 12, 2006

I suspect it is pointless to try to engage in a discussion with you, OTP, because you seem to love to toss around epithets and use emotional verbiage. However, I will ask this question:

What would YOU have done in response to 9/11?

I can comprehend opposition to the war in Iraq, but I am curious to hear you explain your preferred method of dealing with Al Quaeda.

Thanks.

Date: Apr 12, 2006

Sorry about the typo: that should have been "Al Qaeda."

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Lest we forget,

All those people you listed are just wannabe Republicans. Anyway, they did not believe what they said, they lied to get votes. Those wannabe Republicans lied and people died.