Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:23:46 -0700, "Michael 182"
wrote in
::


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
semblance of creative thought.


Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

Larry Dighera wrote:




Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

Too bad there's no right to be heard.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that sparked
this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the lecture hall,
or even on the campus.

The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that
sparked this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the
lecture hall, or even on the campus.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...

The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.


I was just pointing out that this isn't an issue of academic freedom. This
isn't even an issue of free speech, as nobody is trying to silence
Churchill. The issue is whether anybody is required to provide him with a
soapbox.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for it.

"Matt Barrow"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts, he'll
eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts. This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Matt Barrow"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
quick look back at history shows where this leads.

If the guy's nuts, he'll eventually be ignored by everyone except other
nuts. .....


I would think a market-driven sort of society would embrace that concept....
or are we a market-driven society only when its our own stuff that is
selling to the exclusion of others?? :-)

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Matt Barrow"

"Michael 182" wrote in message
...
The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid
for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea.

True enough, but what this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
offensive, it's nownright demented. This is not the type of pereson we need,
of any persuasion, teaching our youth.

Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure.

Cite?

A
quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts,
he'll
eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts.

And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the purpose
of education, especially tax funded "education".

This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

Cite?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?


Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.



Can you quote any of his irrational statements?


I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.