I've got this crazy professor

[FaithBuild18]

You have not presented any inside knowledge about this particular university or this particular professor’s hiring process. Your claim that she was hired for her political bent is pure speculation based on the claims of right-wing propaganda.

I appreciate your comments. I’m not going to go into the level of speculation that you and others have been going into, but I will tell you what I know. She was handed a PhD by the history department of this very school a few years ago. Nobody else wanted to hire her, but this school did. That’s all I know. I don’t know why they hired her.

I repeat: you and the OP are the ones who show unremitting hostility to the very idea of faculty daring to hold positions with which you disapprove. No doubt secular institutions often behave unfairly and with prejudice. But your views seem to require you to behave unfairly and with prejudice across the board without exception… But I get the impression that the student is offended simply by the fact that the professor possesses these views and is up-front about them.

Sorry for giving that impression. I’ve never had a conservative professor. I’ve also never complained about a professor until now. So no, it isn’t about the mere possession of viewpoints different than mine. I’ve yet to have a professor that has viewpoints similar to mine, especially considering that this is not a religious University. I don’t care what views the professor has, it is sheerly the fact that she indoctrinates hers upon us.

I also suspect that the OP is selecting the most outrageous things she’s said and ignoring everything else. The professor isn’t posting on the forum, so I don’t hear her side of it.

As you also probably suspect, I will deny this claim and insist that I didn’t post even half of the garbage she committed. I suspect you will dismiss my insistence.

How is wearing pink hair remotely relevant to anything? The fact that the student even mentioned the color of the professor’s hair as part of his complaint does a lot to show how utterly prejudiced his perspective is. Note that the student himself said that he deliberately wore nationalistic and Christian symbols in order to affront the professor. The professor would be wrong if she objected to his doing so, but we know by his own admission that he was doing so with offensive intent. We have no way of knowing why the professor wears pink hair.

It’s relevant because it is not professional. And as I said before, that’s what all of this is about. Not her views, but her lack of professionalism. As you said, we have no way of knowing why she does it. Therefore it baffles me that you try intently to defend her and make her look innocent. You admit you have no knowledge of the situation. You should not speak of it then. You are guilty of as much speculation as any other poster here. Simply because your speculation opposes the speculation of other posters does not mean you are innocent of passing prejudicial judgement.

Like it or not, that’s standard linguistic usage at this point.

I disagree. I’ve never heard such a thing until this woman insisted upon it. I can recall back to high school, I had teachers (come to think of it, all of them were female), and when I’d write “he/she” in an essay they’d write in the margin something along the lines of “he” being sufficient to get the point across. It’s cumbersome and destroys the pacing to read “he slash she” or “he she” or “he or she” every single time you want to speak of a general individual whose sex is not specified. You and my professor don’t seem to understand, this has nothing to do with gender discrimination. It’s just about flow and pacing. By insisting that there is an associated gender discrimination you are in effect creating sexism and propelling further discrimination, and it’s incredibly annoying. Just let me write.

My understanding of using the word “he” to speak of an individual is not limited to just men but includes women as well. It’s the same train of thought as going up to a group of people and saying “hey guys,” even if there are girls present. The typical fully functional human being, even in my generation, doesn’t care if someone does that. Girls even call a group of girls “guys.” I consider masculine pronouns to be inclusive of women, and most people that live a life outside of the shelter of a university do too. You draw lines and put hatred on opposing sides when you insist that there is some sort of a sexist or racist issue when there is arguably no such issue present here.

 

[Chocoholic]

It’s not true at the places I’ve taught for, in my experience. Claims by students tend to be taken very seriously by administrators and professors are put immediately on the defensive if a student complains.

I understand that students aren’t aware of this and are often terrified by professors. My point is simply that students’ perceptions of the power relationships aren’t very accurate. Many professors are terrified of giving students bad grades, because an accusation of prejudice or unfairness can seriously hurt a professor’s career.
Edwin

This must vary by University. I never filed a formal complaint (never felt the need), but there were a few students who did. They were all retaliated against. At the University I went to (depending on the Department of course), the administration backed the professors and worked under the assumption that any complaint was rooted in a student not liking his/her grade. I can see it going to the other extreme, too, where students do retaliate against a professor who gave him/her a bad grade. It happens. It’s making assumptions before investigating that’s a problem for both sides.

True–as long as you are aware that the kinds of questions the professor asks is going to be shaped by his own perspective. My concern is that when faculty hide their bias, they wind up exercising more power over a student’s opinions than is appropriate.
Edwin

You have a fair point. I’ve encountered this behavior before as a student. I never saw that with my Physics professor, but I did see this with a few others. It’s important to note what kind of questions they ask, not just the fact that they ask questions. Body language can also be a dead give away.

 

[sedonaman]

… I didn’t post even half of the garbage she committed. …

There is, after all, a 6,000 character limit.

 

[sedonaman]

“Little Churchills” are everywhere.

The stereotype of the arrogant, leftist professor in the ivory tower occasionally shows up in real life in a manner that shows that the truth is stranger than fiction.

Recent case in point: a biology professor at a Colorado college … hotly ridiculed a student … in front of her entire class for her lack of belief in the theory of evolution. In order to avoid legal trouble for his immense misstep, he agreed to settle the case in advance of litigation. Part of the settlement required a written apology to the student. Here blog.speakupmovement.org/university/thought-reform/adf-allied-attorney-calls-out-colorado-professor-for-feeble-%E2%80%9Capology%E2%80%9D-to-student is the letter of “apology” from the professor, followed by a response from Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney Barry Arrington …

In his letter of “apology”, the professor tried to cast himself into the role of a “persecuted” Galileo, which backfired on him:

As between Ms. Smith [student] and you: (1) who is the pope (i.e., the authority figure with all of the power in the relationship)? (2) Who speaks for an unyielding established orthodoxy? (3) Who holds the minority dissenting view? (4) Who was willing to challenge the entrenched orthodoxy at significant personal risk to herself?

 

[James1215]

Not only did I get my first 100% on a written paper in my entire collegiate life, but I’ve gotten that score two consecutive times now.

Well done! Was that mark from this professor? What was her course called? My advice was going to be to engage with her approach and bias because if you make well-evidenced arguments against them, they usually like it more than agreement. This is academia, I would not anticipate that your or her thoughts on religion would impact the grade. Point-by-point, she will have a case. Capitalism, the Enlightenment and democracy always work out better for some people - are done in the interests of certain people - and working out ‘historical reality’ amid your conflicting perspectives is what it is all about.

I didn’t see anything too objectionable except for the impression that the issue of abortion was being closed by the prescriptive label ‘anti-choice’. Neither ‘pro-life’ nor ‘anti-choice’ captures all of the issues involved anyway. As to profanities and MTV, I guess she’s studying current culture, which makes it absolutely necessary to deal with that kind of media as source material, however objectionable!

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

There’s a way to eliminate left-wing radicalism in our universities. Institute random mandatory drug tests. One positive test and the professor gets fired. This should also be done in high schools and grade schools.

Recreational drug use changes a person’s thinking. I was surrounded by stoned liberals, both students and faculty, during my time in college in the 70s. I never met a religious conservative there who used drugs.

This post will not doubt produce howls of denial from liberals, but I can’t forget what I saw.
Harsh words, but true.

Sign me… been there, done that, but now clean, straight and sober for 35 years. And my thinking has returned to normal.

 

[Rock_Happy]

For a summer history class. I’m a science student, at a non-liberal arts college, so I’ve taken nothing but science classes and science labs. So this is my first time experiencing the artsy humanity side of education. I’ve gotta say: BIG difference. She has pink hair.

I wrote this paper on humanity, and she circled every single use of the word “man.” She then proceeded to tell the class that we’re not allowed to say “man” in order to refer to humankind, because it’s gender discrimination.

The other day she told us a story about how she gave heck to some guy at her daughter’s school who had a pro-life bumper sticker. But as she was saying the “pr” of “pro-life,” she stopped herself and said “anti-choice.” Wow. Really?

She does this thing all the time where she says “for whom?” after pretty much everything. For example, she’ll saying something like “The Enlightenment valued progress. But progress for whom?” And the answer is always something along the lines of “for white men, that’s who!”

So I wanted to raise my hand and be like “Hey professor, you’re pro-CHOICE with respect to whom? The choice of the irresponsible harlot who does not comprehend the word ‘consequence,’ or the choice of the defenseless child? Surely it’s not the latter.” But I figured she’d kill me on spot so I just held it in.

She hates men. Passionately. And she blames not just Christianity, but the Catholic Church in particular (she uses “Church” and “Christianity” interchangeably, which is historically incorrect of course) for a patriarchal society. But I sit there and ponder life before Christianity or religion for that matter, you know, when men went out and hunted for food and women stayed in the huts taking care of the children… I fail to see the difference. No matter, even if Christianity is responsible for patriarchal societies, it just makes me appreciate my religion a little bit more.

She says things everyday about the Church, about how it’s responsible for all of the evil things in the Western world like capitalism and democracy. But instead of sucking that in as “wow that darn Church!” like the rest of the class the way she wants, I, in my own little “narrow-minded” world think something along the lines of “Wow… my Church is responsible for all of the great things the Western world has to offer? That’s pretty cool.” Even though I think she is in historical error about the role of the Catholic Church in particular, but that’s ok, what do I know I’m just a science student.

Just jumping in here based on the the OP. But my take is that you are a bigot and that she is a bigot.

 

[sedonaman]

There’s a way to eliminate left-wing radicalism in our universities. Institute random mandatory drug tests. One positive test and the professor gets fired. This should also be done in high schools and grade schools.

Recreational drug use changes a person’s thinking. I was surrounded by stoned liberals, both students and faculty, during my time in college in the 70s. I never met a religious conservative there who used drugs.

…

LOL!!! I love it! How about possession of child pornography also?

You might be interested in reading this frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23293.

 

[cmforte]

Just jumping in here based on the the OP. But my take is that you are a bigot and that she is a bigot.

Why is your take that FaithBuild18 is a bigot?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Some on here seem to support the concept of “academic freedom,” that teachers and professors should have the freedom to express their opinions about the subjects they are teaching in the classroom. I disagree. I think they should only teach the facts in the classroom, period. Keep your personal opinions to yourself and express them outside the classroom, where they belong, while not acting in an official capacity. They can prejudice and can indeed indoctrinate students, and alienate students who disagree, like this one. The student is paying to get taught facts, not to be preached to.

And that goes for Conservative professors too.

-Chris

 

[sedonaman]

Some on here seem to support the concept of “academic freedom,” that teachers and professors should have the freedom to express their opinions about the subjects they are teaching in the classroom. I disagree. I think they should only teach the facts in the classroom, period. Keep your personal opinions to yourself and express them outside the classroom, where they belong, while not acting in an official capacity. They can prejudice and can indeed indoctrinate students, and alienate students who disagree, like this one. The student is paying to get taught facts, not to be preached to.

And that goes for Conservative professors too.

-Chris

The mission of education should be the pursuit of truth, and it was until recent years when it was changed to the advocacy for the politically “correct” causes. “Today, the notion of truth and objectivity is regarded by many professors as antiquated and an obstacle to social change. In this ‘postmodern’ view, all ideas are political, the classroom is an appropriate place for advocacy, and students should be molded into ‘change agents’ to promote a political agenda. The University of California recently abandoned the provision on academic freedom that cautioned against using the classroom as ‘a platform for propaganda.’ The president of the university argued in a letter to the Academic Senate that the regulation was ‘outdated’.” – Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, American Council of Trustees and Alumni Washington, DC,
December 2005.

Of course, any outside attempt to challenge such an outrageous idea is looked upon as an attack against academic freedom, which leads us to ask whether error has rights at all in the first place.

A good read on this is, “Abuse Of Academic Freedom: What Should Be Done?” by Kenneth H.W. Hilborn, Presented at the SAFS Annual General Meeting (May, 2004), in a symposium entitled: “Limits to Academic Freedom.” safs.ca/academicfreedom/hilborn.html