Where did you see that in the report? I re-read the report and aside from the claims of "disrespect" made by the professor (which may or may not be accurate descriptions, given the dispute clearly involves the professor) I wasn't seeing it.
I looked into a couple other sources Here are the reputed charges against Mr. Ingle. https://www.indianagazette.com/news...cle_20afcccc-2703-11e8-904c-57376ab518cf.html Sorry, forgot the link, but it was from a site called "Campus Reform" At the moment its mainly a he said-she said thing as I have not seen any quotes from other students in the class. Based on his reported interactions with other professors over the years it seems like someone looking to pick a fight in the interest of presenting more conservative viewpoints. I honestly don't care if he's right, but all the signals I get is that he's not particularly interested in discussing things in a calm manner.
Free speech has nothing to do with speech in a classroom. Or with who gets to talk. Or what they can say.. Oh, sorry. Sarcasm
I suggest Mr. Ingle join a debate team. Then he can take what he learns in the classroom and put it to practice.
He may not have wanted to. Sometimes students are REQUIRED to take stupid classes like this simply because the “geniuses that be” decided it HAS TO be part of the curriculum.
Things are getting past the point of “discussing things in a calm manner.” We’re getting more and more liberal filth tossed on us conservative folks (Christian or not) like monkeys flinging poo on a wall. And it takes two to have a discussion. You know as well as I do the professor WAS NOT interested in a discussion. She had the perfect opportunity to have one in class, with this student, but she simply wanted to shut things down because it ran contrary to her propaganda. That’s NOT a “discussion,” by the way...
This may come as a surprise to 'conservative' students enrolling - by choice or not - in humanities courses, but they are there to learn, even if that learning takes the form of something approaching (attempted) indoctrination rather than education. If those courses want to teach positions that are, perhaps, fundamentally at odds with the scientific consensus, then there is much to be learned about why without engaging in tirades, interruptions, disruptions, etc. If those courses teach controversial social theories, then the same as well. If a student is outlandishly accused for his views, then all the more (and there are avenues to deal with this). It is, after all, an education, and educations can be uncomfortable and inconvenient (no university is set up for forced indoctrination so long as a student is competent). If students expect to only be taught what they believe is the truth - whether it actually is or not - then they are acting no better than the positions they claim are teaching falsehood. If they are insulted in the process, then that's a matter for academic inquiries. (Having taken a Religious Studies program myself, my professors and I largely disagreed on just about everything - Christian belief generally wins you no favours. We still, however, managed to keep composure out of mutual respect despite rather heated academic disagreement. It might have helped that I didn't interrupt those professors just because I didn't like what they were saying.)
Agreed. When we speak, we're only repeating that which we already know. Being that he was enrolled in an institute of learning, I can think of only one way of accomplishing that. To listen in silence. It would be rare indeed to be able to speak and learn at the same time.
Which is exactly why I believe it’s absolute crap that students are often FORCED to take classes like this. If it’s something they WANT to learn, then, fine, let them take it. NOT all students want to learn things like boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Or that ALL women are victims of ALL men. The whole reason, of course, that these classes are often FORCED on students is because society is trying to indoctrinate people into these mindsets. These colleges know that not all students want to take these classes voluntarily, so, hey, just REQUIRE them to, regardless of what program of study they’re taking. Again, it’s utter crap and just another example of elitist “progressives” just trying to have their way...
What is exactly why you believe "it's absolute crap that students are FORCED to take classes like these"?
Teddy - thanks for the extra link. I'm still struggling to see much more than the "he-said-she-said" that you mention but one thing that does appear consistent is the notion of insisting that only women are allowed to speak for a time. I can only imagine the whingefest that would result had a male professor invited men to speak and expected women to remain silent for a time. Kierk - you make good points about a requirement to learn including opposing viewpoints. However objectionable we might find a viewpoint it is hard to dispute a position we don't understand, and hard to understand a position unless we're willing to listen to it and consider whether it has any merit. But still there's the issue of the "women only" time of speaking - surely either the floor needs to be opened to students to respond, or closed so students are not expected to respond. That seems to be a major part of the issue here. Looking at the things that are expected of the student it seems like an apology to the professor would be appropriate if it turns out he truly was unduly disruptive but the notion of delivering an apology to the class and then listening as anyone who wants to speak talks about how they felt seems like little more than ritual humiliation. I'm really struggling to see anything more in it than an attempt to use the disciplinary procedures to silence someone.
Absolutely (in which case, as I believe you mentioned, he ought to have simply identified mtf and let them deal with it. But it doesn't seem he was that clever).
That clever, or that willing to simply roll with it rather than taking a stand. I must admit I'm still undecided whether the most morally correct (as oppoed to the most effective) way to handle situations where this whole "privilege" concept is getting out of hand is really to simply identify as an allegedly oppressed group and let the proponents realise that, under their own definitions, privilege has become something little more than a social construct. It certainly seems like the most effective way to handle it but I wonder whether the requirements to pretend result in losing any claim to moral high ground. It is curious to think that if some genders and some races are inherently less "privileged" and yet we can choose to identify as a different gender or different race, the obvious solution for the allegedly oppressed groups is to simply identify as an allegedly oppressing group and be done with it. As a side note I wonder how long it will be before the feminist agenda clashes with the transgender agenda and what that will look like. All the work to provide "women only" spaces is undone at a stroke as soon as anyone can use them by doing nothing more than saying they are female. While it seems comical for someone with a beard to say they are female, apparently there's nothing to stop them because nobody else gets to define their gender.
My hope would be that identifying, the shallowness of the political/social philosophy that drives these ideas is exposed -- it's not merely an attempt to get a word in edge-wise.
I only see the 'insisting women speak first' was in this one instance. There are no statements that this is a regular occurrence in the class. Did he have to make an apology to class? I may have missed that - I thought it was only to the professor