Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

  1. #1
    God/dess RedZ28's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,519
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Arrow I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    BOULDER, Colorado (AP) -- As pressure mounts on a University of Colorado professor who ignited a furor by comparing the World Trade Center victims to Nazis, colleagues have come to his defense -- on free speech grounds.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02...er.protest.ap/

  2. #2
    Curious Guest Jocephus's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Thumbs up Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    I couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure the guy didn't mean the statement to sound like he was talking about everyone involved, but he picked his words poorly. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but I also have the right to think he's a moron.

  3. #3
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    He has the right to say whatever he wants, but I also have the right to think he's a moron.
    Yes, but do YOU as a Colorado taxpayer have the right to stop paying $90,000 per year of your tax money to facilitate this professor's ability to express his extreme opinion from a 'bully pulpit', as well as stop him from requiring his students to learn and regurgitate his extreme positions in order to pass his course and obtain their college degrees ? NO YOU DON'T ! His rights trump your rights !

  5. #5
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Yes, but do YOU as a Colorado taxpayer have the right to stop paying $90,000 per year of your tax money to facilitate this professor's ability to express his extreme opinion from a 'bully pulpit', as well as stop him from requiring his students to learn and regurgitate his extreme positions in order to pass his course and obtain their college degrees ? NO YOU DON'T ! His rights trump your rights !
    Melonie - this is because it is not the job of the taxpayers to act as thought police either. Taxpayers do not hold little referundums on academic or artistic subsidies, and it's a bloody good thing they don't. This is what "arms length" means. Saying that because, as a taxpayer, you indirectly pay is salary so you have the right to police his job is equivalent to saying that a police officer can't give you ticket for speeding for the same reason. It's ridiculous. In addition, whether you like his policitical opinions or not, you currently have no reason to believe that he demands his students regurgitate it to get passing/good grades. In addition to that, you have no reason to believe that his students are required to take his class. In college there was no class that I HAD to take - there were always options. (Like I was a Lit major, and I had to take one of three survey courses, but I had the choice between the three, if I really wanted to avoid one, you know?) If it is a required course for a polysci major, it really probably won't kill them to take a class that teaches unpalatable "angles" - in fact, all polysci majors I know have taken classes in political theory that they don't personally subscribe to. It doesn't hurt. I had to read plenty of books I didn't like, and frankly the majority of literature is in some way anti-feminist and anti-woman. It's just the way the canon works. It didn't hurt me. This (assuming that it is required) is no different.

    Someone did mention the very obvious point that professors are not in fact free to say anything they want, and that a Holocaust denier (for example, at least mostly) would be "fired" for espousing their beliefs. So there is criteria dictating what they are and aren't "allowed" to say. How would you (or anyone) create criteria that would exclude his remarks, exactly?
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    How would you (or anyone) create criteria that would exclude his remarks, exactly?
    That criteria already exists, almost. It's called the university chancellor or the state board of regents or whatever official organization operates the state university (system) in Colorado. Like corporate boards of directors or police commissioners, these oversight bodies supposedly have the authority to fire an employee who is 'way out of line' in regard to violating corporate or police dep't policy - for example a police commissioner firing a police captain who publicly proclaims that the victims of a serial killer deserved to die and that the killer was justified in murdering them because the victims somehow, supposedly, by some indirect means, made the killer's life worse than it otherwise would have been. However, because of the tenure system backed by the teacher's union, the good professor is free to justify the 9/11 attackers and condemn white collar World Trade Center workers who died in the attack.

    Fortunately, the state university may have found a loophole in the good professor's tenure. It turns out he lied about his 'race' on his employment application !




    (snip)"While UW-Whitewater was deciding to allow Churchill's talk on racism against American Indians to go forward, Churchill's status as an American Indian was under assault, again, closer to home.

    Churchill's original 1978 application to the school for a position as a lecturer in Native American studies included a completed federal affirmative action form, on which he claimed "American Indian" ethnicity, according to records obtained Thursday by KHOW radio talk show host Dan Caplis through open records law requests to CU.

    A second document obtained by Caplis, a 1990 application by Churchill for the position of associate professor of American Indian Studies, prior to his receiving tenure, also shows that Churchill claimed "American Indian" status.

    An affirmative action data collection form shows that 11 American Indians applied, but only two, including Churchill, were interviewed.

    Many questions have been raised, since the Churchill controversy erupted last month, about whether he can properly claim American Indian status. "(snip)

  7. #7
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    That criteria already exists, almost. It's called the university chancellor or the state board of regents or whatever official organization operates the state university (system) in Colorado. Like corporate boards of directors or police commissioners, these oversight bodies supposedly have the authority to fire an employee who is 'way out of line' in regard to violating corporate or police dep't policy
    I think it was more the policy I was inquiring about, rather than who enacted it. Many, many American intellectuals have made similar comments - i.e. that attacks on American soil, whether characterized as terrorist or military were the logical outcome (not desirable, but certainly far from unexpected) to America's foreign policy over the past fifty years which strategically undermines the sovereignty of other countries, both by direct and indirect intervention. - Note, the fact that America does this is not really under debate. What is under debate is whether or not it is justified by the self appointed role of guardians of democracy - sometimes.
    I'm off topic - it is no gift to the citizens of Colarado or the U.S. to look for reasons to fire professors or academics because of different opinions. In fact that is a good way to stifle all thought. You know... "we are at war with Eurasia... we have always been at war with Eurasia"
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    I'm off topic - it is no gift to the citizens of Colarado or the U.S. to look for reasons to fire professors or academics because of different opinions. In fact that is a good way to stifle all thought.
    I would agree if this principle did indeed apply to ALL schools of thought about a particular subject. However this is clearly not the case since the enactment of 'hate speech' laws which specifically silence particular viewpoints from being voiced on college campi ! IMHO it sets a new record for hypocracy when liberal academia cries out that their free speech rights are being violated when they voice an extreme opinion along politically correct lines and are criticized but not silenced, while someone else who voices an extreme opinion along politically incorrect lines will be silenced, arrested and charged with a crime !

  9. #9
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    I think that was precisely my question - what criteria would you use to "stifle" this kind of thought that would not promote a specific political agenda/viewpoint to the point of denying all others? I mean, as unpalatable as you find it, it is not hate speech - although it is certainly not "politically correct" or "non-offensive". Criticizing American foreign policy does not qualify as a hate crime or treason. It is actually a perfectly viable, supportable position. And hate speech isn't a crime unless they've actually deliberately incited violent action.
    I find lovely irony in the fact that so many people, military and otherwise, yap about how important American militarism is to protecting the freedoms of regular Americans, all the while impugning those who actually make use of them. It's like "we're here to protect your freedom of expression - hypothetically. And your freedom of association - as long as you don't want to actually use it." Actually (off topic again - I've had too much coffee, too much deadlining, and now I just want to share ALL of my thoughts) I looked on the TUSCL message board and there was a guy who said something that seemed to add up to: feminists shouldn't be allowed to work as strippers or anywhere else, and should in fact be shipped off to repressive muslim countries where they could learn to appreciate being oppressed at home. That's just some fucked up shit, man. I mean, in a way it's pretty cool - it's a perfect snake eating her own tail. But, still.
    Last edited by Jenny; 02-11-2005 at 07:15 PM.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  10. #10
    Veteran Member myssi's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    I think the board of regents are very affraid of being sued. The tax money used to run the
    University is only a small percentage of their money. It is going to be pretty hard to get rid of
    this guy.

    Colorado had a problem with a college official a few years back... a community college president
    if I remember correctly who was grossly incompetent... it took a lot of money (over a million)
    to pay her off to go away. What a waste.

    Sure this guy should have free speech... he should just get another soapbox for his lunacy.
    Criticising foreign policy is fine. What people question are statements made about the
    911 terrorists and their victims. I wouldn't call it hate speech, just stupid speech.

  11. #11
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste

    I generally don't have any quarrel with free speech, but every freedom has limits. In the U.S., "hate speech" has become off-limits, and although sometimes the application is too broad, it still stands.

    A college professor, one of the major influences of young minds, should not be engaging in hate speech to educate the young. He should not be teaching ethnic or racial supremacy, he should not be advancing bigotry, he should not be advocating illegal acts, including individual and mass murder, to further a political cause. To do so is to take the concept of free speech and twist it into a self-destructive lunacy.

    It's not just free speech, although that concept has been violated mercilessly by Professor Churchill. It's professorial competence, too.

  12. #12
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Many, many American intellectuals have made similar comments - i.e. that attacks on American soil, whether characterized as terrorist or military were the logical outcome (not desirable, but certainly far from unexpected) to America's foreign policy over the past fifty years which strategically undermines the sovereignty of other countries, both by direct and indirect intervention. - Note, the fact that America does this is not really under debate.
    Just because they're apologists and moral and cultural relativists looking for a place to grind their ax publically doesn't mean they're actually correct.

    It's not just free speech, although that concept has been violated mercilessly by Professor Churchill. It's professorial competence, too.
    Exactly. He's not only unprofessional, but arguably incompetent.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  13. #13
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    I generally don't have any quarrel with free speech, but every freedom has limits. In the U.S., "hate speech" has become off-limits, and although sometimes the application is too broad, it still stands.
    See, here, we have (at least in terms of governmental controls) "reasonable limitation". (We also have a notwithstanding clause that is seldom used). That means that the limitation on one's rights must be a) reasonable (more on this in a moment) b)prescribed by law and c)demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Reasonable is further broken down to the following components: a)the limitation must address an extant problem, not a hypothetical one that MAY come up in the future and b) must not infringe an individuals rights more than absolutely necessary and c) cannot create a greater problem than it solves. By that criteria (which I think is pretty good), the guy is clearly within bounds. Again, it isn't hate speech. He is not inciting violent action. Until he incites violent action, and someone actually performs the violent action that he incited, I think he is doing alright, legally speaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    A college professor, one of the major influences of young minds, should not be engaging in hate speech to educate the young. He should not be teaching ethnic or racial supremacy, he should not be advancing bigotry, he should not be advocating illegal acts, including individual and mass murder, to further a political cause. To do so is to take the concept of free speech and twist it into a self-destructive lunacy.
    Sure - but he wasn't doing any of those things. Unless I missed something pretty big, he didn't tell his students to blow anything up or shoot anyone. I thought what he was doing was trying to demonstrate how "everyday Americans" were complicit, if only by tacit agreement, in America's foreign policy and... how might you say? Economic dominance? Again, you may find it in bad taste - and I imagine that most people at the university would agree with you. But that does not make it illegal or even immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    It's not just free speech, although that concept has been violated mercilessly by Professor Churchill. It's professorial competence, too.
    But nobody has impugned or even discussed his professional competence - just his political views and how he espouses them. And again - free speech doesn't mean anything if it only applies to those things that you like.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  14. #14
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Just because they're apologists and moral and cultural relativists looking for a place to grind their ax publically doesn't mean they're actually correct.
    No. I don't know if there is a "correct" on that particular question. Don't tell me - there is, and they're not. But it is a very well supported position. One cannot rationally or intelligently just say "shut up you bastard - America rocks!" and expect it to go away, which seems to be what is happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Exactly. He's not only unprofessional, but arguably incompetent.
    Possibly - but I didn't notice anything about his competence. Last I saw they were digging around in his racial history to discredit him - it doesn't sound like they have too much ground to do it "competency wise".
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  15. #15
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    One cannot rationally or intelligently just say "shut up you bastard - America rocks!" and expect it to go away, which seems to be what is happening.
    I concur.

    But rational, dispassionate examination of their "insights" that hope to legitimize inhuman and terrorist motivations (particularly those of an Islamist nature) reveal a hatred of the very civilization that has provided them with their academic and intellectual insularity and comfortable hypocrisy.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  16. #16
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    ^^^
    Someday - but not today - you can give a "rational, dispassionate examination" of the "insights" of all the scholars and authors that have criticized America that reveals this hatred. I haven't noticed that it reveals much outside of a willingness to criticize America.
    Here's another little parallel (I think everything in analogies and parallels - really, you should be glad I'm not bringing up Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "It's like when Buffy was in the alternate universe...") I was reading memoirs of Ariel Dorfman and he said that the worst thing about the followers of Allende (including himself) was their willingness to turn their heads or outright deny human rights violations of communist governments, that they were unwilling to criticize the sympathetic ideology - on a personal, not a government level.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  17. #17
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste

    In summary, Professor Churchill has said that the hijackers of planes who killed thousands were combat teams who made gallant sacrifices to kill the Nazi-like perpetuators of the American system (i.e., the 3,000+ workers who happened to doing their jobs in the WTC that day), and has advocated more of the same.

    If another professor used the N-word, he'd be out on his ass, and rightly so. Yet this language is far more hateful, celebrating the deaths of thousands and violent attempts to overthrow the country. How many more murders does he have to approve of and encouage before it's "hate speech"?

    I grew up during the protest years, even participated in a march or two. I know the different between protest spech and hatemongering. I think most of us do.

    This guy is questionably qualified as a decent human being, let alone a college professor.

    Surreal.

  18. #18
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Perhaps unfortunately being qualified as a decent human being very seldom has anything to do with any paid job and I personally don't know whether I'm qualified to make that determination about someone based on a political viewpoint. I did read the part where he praised the hijackers but not the part where he recommended that anyone follow their example. I saw no advocacy, only an inversion of an accepted position - right now I'm wondering if we read the same article. And small, nearly irrelevant points - he wasn't celebrating anyone's death and he wasn't advocating attempts to overthrow the country. The hijackers themselves didn't even want to overthrow the country - the general demand is that the U.S. pull out of the middle east. Whether you think the U.S. ought to or not, it is certainly not equivalent to demanding that the U.S. dismantle it's government and start flying the black flag of islam. I think that hatemongering is pretty much defined by your viewpoint rather than by any external criteria. If you do define it by external criteria, I'd be interested in how.
    Also, my first question was about how one would go about drafting policy that would exclude this manner of political thought, without excluding all thought critical of American government. I'm not a big believer in arguments about floodgates, so I won't pounce all over it and say "yeah, but if you let them, then..." I just honestly don't see what is so wrong (in the greater political/pedegogical/moral sense - I do get what you don't like about it) with what he is doing.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  19. #19
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste

    I've seen numerous reports/articles/editorials/letters - the Colorado news outlets are stuffed with them. I've read some things in singular fashion that don't reflect well on the professor, but I haven't related them here because they don't seem to have so much foundation.

    So accepting, until refutation, the gist of what I've read, seen, and heard, I cannot describe such things as shouting "Yay! Way to go!" at the destruction of the WTC and the people in it as anything other than hate speech. My "external criteria" are the words that Professor Churchill has used and any ordinary interpretation of their meaning. By what external criteria, or parsing of definitions, is that not hate speech or hatemongering?

    What is protected speech by a University professor? Is there some fuzzy litmus test anywhere, or is it all acceptable?

    * Espousing white supremacy views?
    * Saying rape victims had it coming?
    * Calling for police to use deadly force to break up protests?
    * Using racial and ethnic slurs in sincere fashion in daily lessons?
    * Approving of bombing buildings, with people in them, to achieve political ends?
    * Saying men should be allowed to beat their wives?
    * Advocating insurance fraud to strike back at the corporations?

    I see the above as unacceptable education and would question the compentence of professors who would teach it.

    I'm quite sure that most teachers don't share my political views, point by point. That's dandy. As stated in another thread, I got my A from my Marxist macroeconomics teacher, and I sure would not call for his resignation, even though I think that he, and his tests that I answered the way he wanted me to, were full of shit. But it wasn't hate speech, much, and it wasn't dancing on the graves of innocents. The difference is pretty clear, however the analysis is wished to be dissected.

  20. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    this really made me start thinking about the liberal hypocracy issue in new directions ...

  21. #21
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    ^^^
    This has nothing to do with anyone's hypocrisy - it's two entirely separate situations and two entirely separate sets of people. It's not like you have the same people condemning Summers and applauding Churchill - I have yet to see any evidence of anyone applauding Churchill regardless of their political bent, so I don't see why you are harping on "liberals" at all.
    Although if the guy has tenure without a PhD, I wonder about the university who gave it to him - are we sure he has tenure?
    Larry Summers implied that women were less capable of men in areas of math and sciences - not just that there were cognitive differences. And believe it or not, despite the claims of the article "men are from mars, women are from venus" is not a respectable theory in any field. (and why WOULD it be taboo in economics?)
    What is protected speech by a University professor? Is there some fuzzy litmus test anywhere, or is it all acceptable?
    That was my question, exactly. What criteria would you use to exclude this? In your examples you cite some obviously unpalatable views - some of which are taught, used and considered perfectly respectable in universities - the woman asking to raped for example. Haven't you heard of Camille Paglia? (Honestly I kind of think Paglia is a caricature of Paglia, but she still has a job). Warren Farrell has publicly said that men beat their wives because of feminism. And all sorts of professors think bombing certain buildings (in Iraq for example) is very important and desirable. And they usually have people in them. Espousing white supremacist views - not so much. Advocating anything illegal - as in recommending people go and do it - is illegal. So again, not so much.
    So the only truly taboo area is espousing white supremacist views - although some of the rampant racism I've encountered here makes me question how taboo that truly is. So why do you think that is?
    My "external criteria" are the words that Professor Churchill has used and any ordinary interpretation of their meaning. By what external criteria, or parsing of definitions, is that not hate speech or hatemongering?
    I did not make myself clear - I meant how you define "hatemongering"? By what criteria does something become hatemongering, rather than just contentious, unpalatable or disagreeable? I'm actually asking questions here. Nobody seems to want to tell me. And saying "yay, way to go" is different from saying "now go out and do this" - the distinction may seem minor to you, but it is an important legal distinction.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  22. #22
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: I know we have freedom of speech, but there are some things are just in bad taste.

    Hatemongering is spreading hate. That is not the sole criterion by which I would wish to see Professor Churchill find employment elsewhere, where words and actions actually have accountability. I simply don't believe he's competent, and I believe he's adverse to good education. For that matter, I think he's adverse to mediocre education.

    I'll agree to disagree, Jenny. It's just so plain here, and I'm not up for a word-parsing to support something that is plain to me. It would be like me telling Lady Zeno, "I love you," and she starts saying, "Well, how do you define love? What circumstances are you placing around that?" And we could hatchet up your answers concerning good/bad speech for educators, but that doesn't serve the point as I see it, either.

    I see calling hijackers/murderers "gallant warriors," calling murder victims "little Eichmanns" who deserved what they got, and espousing the destruction of the U.S. - while cashing his government check every month - as unacceptable. You do not see it as unacceptable within the realm of academic freedom. Very good. Such a difference of opinon is just one aspect of our wide human diversity.

Similar Threads

  1. Freedom of speech
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 09:32 PM
  2. Redstone goes on a freedom of speech rampage
    By Deogol in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-17-2006, 04:33 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2005, 10:37 AM
  4. a curious 'Freedom of Speech' case ...
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 03:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •