I finally found a faculty.... - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 17, 2006

I finally found a faculty....

Date: Apr 17, 2006

Remember my friend ,we are faculty. We hate moral values,we hate God,we hate George Bush ,we hate personal responsibility. We do love obscure,irrelevant ideas and above all we love merlot and we adore those afternoons on the links.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

In reality this sort of puts the USM faculty into prespective. The only USM faculty member I could see going along with this would be Kate Green.

Date: Apr 17, 2006

Seeker wrote:

In reality this sort of puts the USM faculty into prespective. The only USM faculty member I could see going along with this would be Kate Green.

I don't want to put it past my fellow human beings or even some colleagues in the profession to be foolish, but this thing you cite is so egregiously stupid on the face of it that I am inclined to distrust the reportage or suspect or the whole story hasn't been told. Considering the source -- and yes leftist sources can be every bit dishonest as conservative sources -- I'd caution waiting until we know more about this before concluding that it typlifies anything. I certainly consider myself a liberal . . . but as this thing is explained by the writer, even I'd consider it pretty far fetched. Al of which ought to lead you to be cautious when you note that so many faculty seem to support it.

That may not be a sign the mansfield faculty is liberal -- it is possibly a sign the story is being reported selectively by this source.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Here's a fuller account of the incident:

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/14/mansfield

Tucker Carlson had a good (if brief) segment on the issue last night, in which liberal commentator Rachel Madow (sp?) made some good points suggesting that the issue is more complicated than Seeker and others are suggesting. As anyone who has seen my nom before knows, I am not instinctively in sympathy with Rachel Madow, but she did an effective job of making her case (in fact, she usually does).

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Lest we forget wrote:

Here's a fuller account of the incident: http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/14/mansfield Tucker Carlson had a good (if brief) segment on the issue last night, in which liberal commentator Rachel Madow (sp?) made some good points suggesting that the issue is more complicated than Seeker and others are suggesting. As anyone who has seen my nom before knows, I am not instinctively in sympathy with Rachel Madow, but she did an effective job of making her case (in fact, she usually does).

Thanks for the link, LWF. We should get use to the fact that people who believe in the supernatural will always continue to cause problems in society. When you know Truth and the Word of God it's kind of hard to remain quiet and not step all over other people's rights.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Professor Judd,

At first I thought that this was so beyond the pale that it had to be a hoax. When I saw that the name of one of the professors bringing charges was named Hanibal Hamlin, I thought for sure it was a hoax. I googled the university and both professors Hanibal Hamlin and Norman Jones are on the English faculty at the university. I have no doubt that many are supportive of the actions of Professors Hamlin and Jones. But then there are many who are willing to suppress free speech by claiming that they have rights that are unavailable to others. I cannot wait to read the defense of Hamlin and Jones by those who see no problem with suppressing the free speech of others while claiming unlimited free speech for themselves.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Cossack:

Did you read the whole story on the link that Stephen Judd provided (including the response from the librarian?)? I don't think it's as easy of an issue to dismiss as one of "free speech" or lack thereof. I think it is more complicated than that (as most issues are). The facts that I can gather is that an email sent in jest was taken out of context, and, instead of working on communicating to each other, both sides inflamed the issue. I don't know if this speaks to this particular university (or these particular professors) or if it speaks more to our "sound bite" culture, where sides are taken so eagerly these days. Nevertheless, a little communication and less stridency on both sides is probably called for here.

Just my $.02,

Truth

Date: Apr 18, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

Cossack: Did you read the whole story on the link that Stephen Judd provided (including the response from the librarian?)? I don't think it's as easy of an issue to dismiss as one of "free speech" or lack thereof. I think it is more complicated than that (as most issues are). The facts that I can gather is that an email sent in jest was taken out of context, and, instead of working on communicating to each other, both sides inflamed the issue. I don't know if this speaks to this particular university (or these particular professors) or if it speaks more to our "sound bite" culture, where sides are taken so eagerly these days. Nevertheless, a little communication and less stridency on both sides is probably called for here. Just my $.02, Truth

I'd like to take credit for the link Truth but it was actually Lest We Forget who was kind enough to provide it.

And I agree -- the article makes it clear that the issues are, at least for some, a bit more nuanced.

Cossack, I'm not comfortable with shutting down controversial opinons . . . and I'm finding myself a bit on the fence on this one. However there are some folks who see this as the social equivilent of crying "fire" in a crowded theatre. I don't agree, but that is not the same as saying these people just want to shut out opinions that are unlike their own.

I think our society is defined not by the things we all agree on, nor by the clearcut disagreements we have, but on where territory between radical difference and complete agreement are negotiated. I think this is one of those examples because it pits a group of people whose rights within our culture are ambiguous at best to claim a right not to feel threatened against the right of free speech. Those of us who tend to be very pro free speech (I count myself one as an artist) still need to be careful not to assume absolutes that might need to be questioned.

This is a tricky area. It doesn't really help when an issue like this gets used as a way to misidentify people's political allegiences (with an intent to denigrate) rather than focus on the merits or demerits of the issue itself.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

Cossack:

Did you read the whole story on the link that Stephen Judd provided (including the response from the librarian?)? I don't think it's as easy of an issue to dismiss as one of "free speech" or lack thereof. I think it is more complicated than that (as most issues are). The facts that I can gather is that an email sent in jest was taken out of context, and, instead of working on communicating to each other, both sides inflamed the issue. I don't know if this speaks to this particular university (or these particular professors) or if it speaks more to our "sound bite" culture, where sides are taken so eagerly these days. Nevertheless, a little communication and less stridency on both sides is probably called for here.

Just my $.02,

Truth

A jestful email taken out of context, wow, what a Revalation. Certainly that would never happen with our fine faculty at Southern Miss. Wait, lest we forget that it already has - Robert "Toy" McLaughlin.

It's funny how things will more times than not come full circle.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Sorry, Lest We Forget! That's what I get for not previewing...

Truth

Date: Apr 18, 2006

A jestful email taken out of context, wow, what a Revalation. Certainly that would never happen with our fine faculty at Southern Miss. Wait, lest we forget that it already has - Robert "Toy" McLaughlin.

Big difference...this librarian wasn't "joking" about killing anyone.

Welcome back, Troll-er...er...I mean...Seeker.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Andrea

You really have to get over this unhealthy obsession you have with me. I am a happily married man, I am already taken.

Remember you only call me names because you lack the ability to debate me without personnel attacks.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Ah, Seeker, I suppose I have to burst your bubble AND let the cat out of the bag. I'm soon to be a happily married woman myself.

So, you'll have to try and dominate another woman on another board with your "personnel" attacks (does that entail throwing job applications at someone? Or perhaps other office supplies?)

Truth, the Queen of the Spell-Check (and soon-to-be Mrs. Truth)

Date: Apr 18, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

Ah, Seeker, I suppose I have to burst your bubble AND let the cat out of the bag. I'm soon to be a happily married woman myself.

So, you'll have to try and dominate another woman on another board with your "personnel" attacks (does that entail throwing job applications at someone? Or perhaps other office supplies?)

Truth, the Queen of the Spell-Check (and soon-to-be Mrs. Truth)

Andrea

I know you will find this hard to believe, but I am sincerely happy for you. Everyone deserves the opportunity to find someone to be happy with. Congraduations.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Andrea,

Congrats!

Date: Apr 18, 2006

This is a tricky area. It doesn't really help when an issue like this gets used as a way to misidentify people's political allegiences (with an intent to denigrate) rather than focus on the merits or demerits of the issue itself.

Professor Judd,

This issue is not about political alliances, nor is it tricky. It is about behavior beliefs. I also doubt that this issue started in jest and was misinterpreted. There is a great deal of ugliness involved here, and I am surprised that you are still waffling on the issue. If the parties that had been offend happened to be devoutly religious Christians and the offenders were liberals who were suggesting literature be read that included a explicit acts and behavior that offended the Christians, how would you react? How would many of your fellow liberals react? I think we know. If you remove the labels and measure only the actions taken, the two professors at OSU Mansfield behaved exactly like the holy roller preacher who wants to ban all of the things that he and his book find offensive. They are like peas in a pod. “If you do not think like I think, you are wrong and I will use my time and energy to get you banned”. Real freedom is to allow people you hate to speak words that you hate without trying to shut them up. If liberals cannot do that, then they are not liberal, they are fascists.

Date: Apr 18, 2006

truth4usm/AH wrote:

Ah, Seeker, I suppose I have to burst your bubble AND let the cat out of the bag. I'm soon to be a happily married woman myself.

Whoo-Hoo!!

Way to go, Truth!

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Thanks, Seeker. I knew you had a

somewhere in there.

And thanks to everyone else, too. It's a very cool thing to find someone worth taking the plunge for (and especially a second time)...believe me, he's worth it!

Truth

Date: Apr 18, 2006

Cossaack wrote:

I also doubt that this issue started in jest and was misinterpreted.

Did you read the response from Scott Savage himself? Those were his words (he sent the original list of books in an email as a "tongue-in-cheek" joke).

There is a great deal of ugliness involved here, and I am surprised that you are still waffling on the issue. If the parties that had been offend happened to be devoutly religious Christians and the offenders were liberals who were suggesting literature be read that included a explicit acts and behavior that offended the Christians, how would you react? How would many of your fellow liberals react? I think we know.

Why do you assume that Christians and liberals are mutually exclusive terms? That's your first mistake. Secondly, both the librarian (Scott Savage) and the English professor who first complained, Norman Jones, both identify as Christians. Sort of skews your point above, doesn't it?

Real freedom is to allow people you hate to speak words that you hate without trying to shut them up. If liberals cannot do that, then they are not liberal, they are fascists.

And here's your next mistake. There are limits to free speech (the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is but one. You may not like it, but there it is. Hate speech is but another example. If you don't like this, then work to elect legislators that will change the current laws. That's the real American way.

And don't get me started about conservatives who act like fascists...I really don't want to even go there right now!

Truth

Date: Apr 18, 2006

truth4usm/AH,

Below are two quotes I have copied from web sites commenting on this issue,

According to the ADF's cease and desist request:
"...at the routine faculty meeting, several faculty members...made a motion to file formal charges against [Mr. Savage]. The faculty unanimously passed the motion... Two days later the faculty met again and rescinded the motion (due to confusion as to whether the faculty had the authority to pass the original motion), but instructed the complaining professors to notify OSU's sexual harassment officer individually."

Ohio State University officials on Friday cleared Scott Savage, a librarian at the Mansfield campus, of harassment charges filed against him based on his recommendation of an anti-gay book for a freshman reading assignment.

Are you saying that these statements are factually wrong, that these actions are trivial, or that the librarian deserved to have charges filed against him?

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Are you saying that these statements are factually wrong, that these actions are trivial, or that the librarian deserved to have charges filed against him?

No, Cossack. I was simply responding to your rant against liberals and your misguided notion that Christians are under attack in your post above.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

truth4usm/AH,

Could you take time out from pointing out my deficiencies and bad form to answer my question about the two quotes I posted? Thanks.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Cossack wrote:

truth4usm/AH,

Could you take time out from pointing out my deficiencies and bad form to answer my question about the two quotes I posted? Thanks.

I answered your questions, Cossack. No and no and no.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

See, here's the problem, Cossack. You want to take an isolated incident that started with an email that was characterized by its author (who identifies as a Christian) as "tongue-in-cheek" and "provocative" and was taken out of context by a faculty member (who also identifies as a Christian) and you want to blow this up into some free speech/liberals hate Christians sort of thing. It isn't. From what I can tell, it was miscommunication run amok, and who knows what other sorts of background information we don't have about this particular situation?

The charges were dropped. I don't know what you're still ranting about.

Truth

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Cossack and others,

How would the situation be different if the book was written by the KKK and criticized African Americans? Would you consider the situation equivalent to the current problem?

Date: Apr 19, 2006

truth4usm/AH,

Allow me to rant on with another question. Are you comfortable with the idea of a faculty member filing formal charges (within the university) against another faculty (librarian) based on what transpired? What you term a simple miscommunication had some serious consequences for the accused? We disagree over issues and have had a lengthy discussion. However, I do not take your disagreement as a reason to claim you are discriminating against me because of my age. In my mind, the person filing the charge at OSU Mansfield has violated the long honored informal code of academics. That is, disagreements over curriculum are intellectual disagreements, not personal disagreements. In this case, the faculty filing the charges turned an intellectual argument into a personal argument and then enlisted the powers of the organization to weigh in on his side. That puts a chill on intellectual discussion within a university and actually is counter to the mission of this Board.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Cossack wrote:

truth4usm/AH,

Allow me to rant on with another question. Are you comfortable with the idea of a faculty member filing formal charges (within the university) against another faculty (librarian) based on what transpired? What you term a simple miscommunication had some serious consequences for the accused? We disagree over issues and have had a lengthy discussion. However, I do not take your disagreement as a reason to claim you are discriminating against me because of my age. In my mind, the person filing the charge at OSU Mansfield has violated the long honored informal code of academics. That is, disagreements over curriculum are intellectual disagreements, not personal disagreements. In this case, the faculty filing the charges turned an intellectual argument into a personal argument and then enlisted the powers of the organization to weigh in on his side. That puts a chill on intellectual discussion within a university and actually is counter to the mission of this Board.

If I may interject a though.

What we see playing out a OSU-Mansfield is a microchasm of the current political landscape we see in American today. For more than 200 years our framers, legislators and leaders were able to conduct themselves and debate issues on a fundamental level.

But, sadly that all changed in the mid-90's with the rise of personnel destruction politics. Some individuals (named Clinton) decided that it would be easier to dispatch their political foes if they attacked the person and not the idea. Is that not what has happened at Mansfield?

Individuals disagreed with Savage, so instead of debating and discussing the issue, they filed idiotic charges in attempts to damage his character and reputation.

Even your beloved AKL would have formed 14 committies before he allowed something like this to happen.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Seeker wrote:

. . . For more than 200 years our framers, legislators and leaders were able to conduct themselves and debate issues on a fundamental level.

I am particularly mindful of the fundamental level on which Alexander Hamilton and former Vice-President Aaron Burr were able to "conduct themselves and debate issues."

Yep, there's quite a "microchasm" out there, all right.

Date: Apr 19, 2006

Seeker wrote:
For more than 200 years our framers, legislators and leaders were able to conduct themselves and debate issues on a fundamental level.

Besides Burr and Hamilton conducting themselves civilly and debating issues with pistols at 10 paces, there's the equally dignified exchange between Senator Charles Sumner ( R-MA) and South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in 1856.

After Sumner gave an absolutely scurrilous speech in the Senate attacking Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, Congressman Brooks, (D-SC) a relative of Butler's, stole into Sumner's office and beat him with a metal headed cane. Beat him so seriously, in fact, that Sumner was an invalid for over a year. The general topic of the Sumner speech was slavery, specifically its extension into the trans-Missouri west.

This question, of course, would in a few years be the subject of a "debate" on a very "fundamental level" in venues such as Bull Run, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Gettysburg.

Unless I'm mistaken, Bill Clinton didn't have anything to do with all this incivility did he?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm