It will definitely vary with the environment. I would expect to see more discussion about God in a Catholic University or other religious institution. At the secular institution, not so much.
Are you kidding? Man is God to the secular social studies. [BTW, they are not “sciences”.]
Georgetown University removed crosses from its classrooms.
LMAODitto.
It depends very much upon who is teaching the class, and what we mean by “welcome”.
Consider the following cases:
The first teacher evidently failed to account for the natural variety of students, while the second and third were so unprofessional as to warrant disciplinary action, and I say that as someone who is enthusiastically pro-gay rights: perhaps things are different in the US, but I am used to institutions which have very firm rules against acting in the manner described.
This is what happens as a result of changing the objective of education from the pursuit of truth to political advocacy.
What are gay rights? “If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.” – Dr. Thomas Sowell
It depends on which country. From what I’ve read, things are much worse in England. See the gay horse case.
It is interesting that Dr Sowell is a political advocate who advocates particular political objectives.
Pointing out an inconsistency in reasoning is now political advocacy? That’s rich, although I could understand how that conclusion was reached if one believes that reality must conform to ideology.
If that is true, then why were the students punished in the examples I gave in post #5?
A long time ago [in the '60s], a fellow student told me that essays should be written supporting the liberal point of view if the professor was liberal, or if you were in doubt about his persuasion [99.44% are liberal]. If he was a known conservative, it didn’t matter. I passed that advice on to my two kids, and they later told me it worked. One didn’t believe a word he wrote and got an A.
That’s a wonderful idealised image of education, but the reality of the last two and a half millennia of institutionalised education is that it has been dominated by the concerns of governments, wealthy patrons, school boards, teachers’ pet topics, and students’ need to find employment. Anti-women, anti-communist, anti-intellectual, anti-rationalist, anti-religious, and anti-foreign concerns have stood so firmly in the way of the pursuit of truth that the pursuit has frequently been left to extra-curricular study.
Sure, gay rights and women’s rights are subsets of equal rights, and, just as soon as gay people actually have the same rights as straight people (e.g., the right to marry) and women have the same rights as men (e.g., the right to expect not to be sexually harassed) and people who are not of northern European ancestry have the same rights as people of northern European ancestry (e.g., the right not to be labelled “people of color”), they shall be subsumed into the general equality.
Oh, you mean the one which the Crown prosecutor decided not to take any further? If your idea of a worse society is one in which the police can pick someone up for being drunk and obnoxious, and leave them in the cells for a night to cool down, that’s just fine with me.
My impression of the US system is that it only uses internal examiners (i.e. ones from the same school), in which case you could ask the relevant people.
Maybe weeding out those areas might be part of the pursuit of truth. BTW, if finding employment should not be a dominating concern, how would you justify the immense amount that is “invested” into education?
Got any examples of these?
People don’t want equality; that’s why they work so hard to rise above. Why did all those professors get PhDs? If academia practiced what it preached about equality, they would donate all their incomes above median to the government for proper re-distribution. The law cannot treat everyone exactly the same; its very purpose is to discriminate between individuals for different treatment. You are advocating radical egalitarianism, but an eighty year old woman cannot be treated the same as an eighteen year old man. What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a Leftist demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes. Justice Benjamin Cardozo once said, "there is a tendency of a principle to expand itself beyond the limit of its logic.” That’s how we ended up with a worse society.
You obviously missed the author’s point. My idea of a worse society is one that places the trivial above the serious. Apparently, in England, making a “homophobic” comment [about a horse no less] is a more serious crime than inflicting great bodily harm on another human being.
Mystophilus answered in post #6. I agree with his answer.
That is your suspicion.
That I am a liberal is an unsupported conclusion on your part.
He didn’t answer the question as to why they were punished.
I didn’t say you were a liberal, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
Did you ask the question “why were they punished?”
See post #5.
I don’t think what I posted is as bad for the human race as what those professors did to their students.
Sorry I took you too literally. Mystophilus told you what he thought of the teachers and even that two of them should be disciplined for their actions. We could speculate why they, the teachers, were not punished but you need to ask their superiors why they were not.
Undoubtedly they were following the lead of their administrations. That is what subordinates do. This sort of thing is not without precedent:
Looks like Klemperer might get his chance in the not-too-distant future. “Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.”