I've got this crazy professor

[sedonaman]

… I’ve mentioned various things in this topic that she has proclaimed in her class that are historically incorrect. …

You’re going to love this archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19942 .

 

[bentcurve]

I like how you took a suggestion to develop understanding as a tool as an attack of some sort. There is no liberal arts prof out there that does not have an agenda or a theory they promote. I mean someone compared her to Hitler, really?

I had a professor who was the opposite of yours, he was an older greek male who was staunch pro-white male, and anti any new theory at all. He was radically conservative. It was the same deal, just inverted. It will always happen, and there are all kinds of crazy theories that they base their critical theories on.

I am not saying having a PhD means you know all there is to know about something, but I am saying that it is a qualifier of position. She has one, you do not. She is the prof, you are not. You should have some respect for her station. You signed up to take the class, you did not drop the class when you could have. You choose to take her.

I hate people who think it is okay to judge others thoughts and ideas based on their own, especially when you weigh their quality simply by how in line with yours they are. Stop thinking everything is an attack on your, and that you are somehow at risk. I didn’t attack you, I actually agreed with you and offered a suggestion, and you came at me. Your prof didn’t attack you or your ideas, or she would not have give you A’s, much like my prof in college would not give me above a C on any paper, even though two of there were published in theory journals.

Respect others or don’t, but stop taking everything so personally.

 

[Darnrarejob]

WOW. This is so disgusting. Even worse, we aren’t even supost to eat meat on good Friday, let alone have a barbaque. But you can use this as an example of men (assuming that there are men on the Center for Inquiery) discriminating against religious minorities. (I think it is safe to say that Chatholics are a religious minority in your school . ) Her reaction should be interesting .

Actually, to that religious minority thing, she would probably say that she acknowledges the fact that Catholics are a minority, but wouldn’t care because in her mind, they hate women. In her mind, it’s OK to discriminate if the minority discriminates against you. She probably thinks half of all Catholics are racist too, since half of all Catholics didn’t vote for Obama.

 

[sedonaman]

… I am not saying having a PhD means you know all there is to know about something, but I am saying that it is a qualifier of position. …

Then we need to look at the qualifications for a teaching position. Someone who wears pink hair to class and thinks using the male pronoun for the generic is somehow “male oppression” has a screw loose and and agenda to promote, and therefore has no business in such a position.

BTW, in which post # was established her having a PhD ?

 

[sedonaman]

… There is no liberal arts prof out there that does not have an agenda or a theory they promote.

Then they should be fired, every last one of them, because the goal of higher ed is the pursuit of truth, not advocacy. Promoting an agenda or theory is saying, “I have all the answers.”

I mean someone compared her to Hitler, really?

I didn’t compare her to Hitler; I compared her to those professors in Germany who “promoted the agenda or theory” of Nazism and lent it academic credibility so they could be counted among the “politically correct” of their day. When some people dissented, the intelligencia faded to the background and let the Brown-shirted bullies do the dirty work and knock heads together. Untold millions suffered and died as a result, but not a single Nazi professor paid any price at all.

I had a professor who was the opposite of yours, he was an older greek male who was staunch pro-white male, and anti any new theory at all.

Perhaps he was saying the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change. Or perhaps he was saying that advocacy of social change is a political endeavor that belongs outside the university.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

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.

On that last point, your prof’s actually sort of…wrong. When democracy was first introduced in Europe, the Church wasn’t too crazy about it. In fact, Protestantism, both in Europe and in the US has often been linked to democracy/republicanism. Has this woman ever heard of Francisco Franco? The period in Spain in which he, a dictator and devout Catholic made Spain a nationally Catholic country was the one time in the 20th century in which Spain more resembled the monarchy of the previous several centuries than anything else. Shouldn’t she KNOW about that? I guess when you’re a talking head for a liberal establishment, actual knowledge and credentials don’t really matter.

 

[Contarini]

Here is a thought: The professor should be fired immediately, if not sooner, before she and people like her can do any more damage, .

So much for academic freedom. I try not to play the Nazi card, but I find it ironic that you did play it, right after promoting the fascist tactic of firing ideologically “incorrect” faculty.

If the professor is genuinely bullying the student, then that needs to be dealt with. But as a professor, I know what it’s like to be on the other side. It’s the job of professors to challenge students’ ideas. It sounds as if this professor is crossing the line, but frankly I want professors to get the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise any student can claim “this professor offended me” and terrorize professors into treating students’ prejudices with kid gloves.

Your distinction between advocacy and the pursuit of truth makes no sense. I am going to advocate for what I believe to be true. I am going to do so fairly and respectfully with the goal of provoking students to think for themselves, but where I see students not facing up to difficulties (ethical or intellectual) in their belief systems, I’m going to try to challenge them. That’s my job. It’s every professor’s job. And the current cultural climate, between the consumerist mentality that students bring to the classroom and the ideological polarization of our society, it’s a very hard job to do.

To the OP: how about going to the professor and saying something like, “Professor, I appreciate the new perspectives I’m hearing from you, but here are some specific things you have said that didn’t seem respectful to conservative Christians such as myself. I’d find it easier to learn from you if you didn’t speak this way.” If she doesn’t listen, then you should go over her head to the department chair or dean–not to get her fired, but to get some kind of arbitrator involved who can hear both sides and tell both of you where you may not be fair to the other one.

Of course, the problem is that you don’t seem to appreciate hearing anything that doesn’t fit your existing ideological map. And that’s a flaw in you, not the professor.

If you were in my class, I would appreciate you participating and challenging what I was saying.

But it goes both ways. It doesn’t challenge your Catholic faith to consider the possibility that her left-wing perspectives may have some value. There’s truth in just about everything. Prove all things, hold fast what is good.

Edwin

 

[Chocoholic]

I think professors often forget how influential they can be to students, and also how intimidating they can be. Many students are terrified to challenge a professor when the professor steps out of line. Remember, the professor assigns the grades. Grades are often what determines whether or not we get and/or keep a scholarship, can influence the jobs we can get later on, and certainly can make or break a graduate school application. And most students with a pulse know that any complaining to Department Heads can land the student in trouble regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps that’s not true at all Universities, but it was certainly true at mine.

I have had many professors I’ve disagreed with over the years. Fortunately, God blessed me with the ability to discuss my concerns in a tactful way that almost never made the professor feel put on the defensive. But there was a professor I had for Women’s Studies who could not be reasoned with. She advocated abortion in the classroom. Normally, I address concerns with professors during Office Hours (the professor is less likely to feel put on the spot this way, and so it is less likely the professor will respond in a hostile manner. This setting also is more conducive to a constructive discussion). I addressed my concerns in this particular matter using the same tactic -go to Office Hours, and calmly explain my point of view. I also tend not to open with anything that can be interpreted as criticism; I usually begin with a question I already had wanted to ask, start a friendly conversation, and then lead into my concern, which I usually introduce with a question! In this case, I started off with a question about how women are portrayed as sex symbols in the media (which was perfect, because I knew we shared some common ground in this particular area). She brought up abortion, as I knew she would. I then said, “You know, I saw a video of an abortion being performed. I could never support it because of seeing that video.”
She dismissed it as propaganda. Since I’d seen the video at the tender age of twelve, she seemed to be under the impression that I was some poor child brainwashed by a Catholic School. I did try to convince her otherwise, but she was too closed to alternative points of view to consider that my argument had any merit. My grade was spared -I didn’t push the issue too far, and she knew I agreed with her assesment on many other issues. I think this is why my grade was spared.

My Physics professor (with whom I am friends to this day), did a much better job of provoking thought. He and his wife (also a Physics professor) never attempted to influence me to think one way or the other on any issue, regardless of what that issue is (and we do talk about just about anything, including Science, Current Events, and History). They are far more likely to ask me a question that will challenge me and make me think about what I am saying. Orif I start quoting a fact, they will challenge me to verify it and make sure I understand the alternatives. That* is an appropriate way to get students to think and learn about issues. Bragging about giving pro-lifers a hard time is inappropriate, and this is not something that should be covered in academic freedom. Bragging about bullying a pro-lifer who is not your student could logically be interpreted by the student this way: if she did that to some random guy she really had no power over, I bet she’d give me a failing grade out of spite if I say anything.

In summary: Sudents, you professors may have a point about something even if you disagree with them. That doesn’t mean they have the right to do whatever they want.
Professors: Remember to make sure students don’t feel so intimidated they cannot speak. Think back to your student days, when you still had to worry about grades.*

 

[sedonaman]

So much for academic freedom. I try not to play the Nazi card, but I find it ironic that you did play it, right after promoting the fascist tactic of firing ideologically “incorrect” faculty.

I didn’t exactly play the Nazi card. See my post #104.

If the professor is genuinely bullying the student, then that needs to be dealt with. But as a professor, I know what it’s like to be on the other side. It’s the job of professors to challenge students’ ideas. It sounds as if this professor is crossing the line, but frankly I want professors to get the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise any student can claim “this professor offended me” and terrorize professors into treating students’ prejudices with kid gloves.

Who is going to “deal with the bullying”, the administration who hired her for her political bent? Gimme a break.

I don’t consider pushing your personal political agenda to be “challenging students’ ideas.” Nor is wearing pink hair and insisting the student use “his or her” as the generic pronoun. If the professor deserves the benefit of the doubt, then she should have enough abstract thought capability to realize that the masculine includes the feminine when gender is irrelevant to the discussion. One who cannot is the real sexist. One who will not is pushing an agenda. She should also respect the student’s academic freedom not to use “his or her”.

As a supervisor, I had to deal with the occasional non-professionally attired employee and concluded that outlandish sartorial taste has a message; and that message is, “I don’t care what you think of me; consequently, I don’t care about you." Do we want professors who don’t care about their students? If there is a genuine concern about “students claiming ‘this professor offended me’, then please explain how they have no trouble avoiding offending Muslim, minority, and women students. When entering freshmen are told to “be prepared to have your most cherished ideas challenged,” it seems that it never applies to Muslims or blacks.

Your distinction between advocacy and the pursuit of truth makes no sense. …

It’s not mine, but one I agree with. Here is the reasoning: www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/file_download/24 [Acrobat reader required]. In contrast, see also archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19942 that I posted before.

You might recall the case of Ward Churchill who was hired and promoted solely on his claim to be an American Indian. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni studied the question, “How Many Ward Churchills? Answer: Ward Churchills Abound.” IOW, they are everywhere.

ACTA finds that “the kinds of politically extreme opinions for which Ward Churchill has become justly infamous are not only quite common in academe, but enthusiastically embraced and rewarded by it.” The study concludes that “throughout American higher education, professors are using their classrooms to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically.” goactablog.org/blog/archives/2006/05/how_many_ward_c.html

“The privileges created by tenure are supposed to insulate faculty from political pressures in general and censorship in particular. Yet those of us in the academy, if we were candid, would have to admit that few places are more riddled with the distorting effects of politics and censorship than university faculties.

Academics claim to despise censorship, but the truth is we do a remarkably good job of censoring ourselves. This is especially true in regard to affirmative action. Who among us can claim to have spoken up every time a job candidate almost as preposterous as Churchill was submitted for our consideration?

“Campos: Freedom unused is abused”
February 15, 2005
Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado.
4veritas.blogspot.com/2005/02/freedom-unused-is-abused_110855949650669960.html

Falsifying a job application (resume) is grounds for immediate (if not sooner) dismissal anywhere but the academy. Apparently academic freedom protects even fraud.

P.S. It wouldn’t surprise me if the OP’s professor was hired for her pink hair to provide the so-called “much-needed diversity”, like Churchill was hired for his supposed skin color.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Just letting everyone know that the class is now done, and I secured an A for the term

The nice thing about summer courses is that they’re much shorter than regular terms. Thanks to everyone for the words of encouragement.

Now I get a month off (except for work) and then its full swing once again. Seeing as I’m nearly done with my major and have to take some random electives just for the sake of credit hours, I might be back on here complaining in a matter of weeks ha.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Just letting everyone know that the class is now done, and I secured an A for the term

The nice thing about summer courses is that they’re much shorter than regular terms. Thanks to everyone for the words of encouragement.

Now I get a month off (except for work) and then its full swing once again. Seeing as I’m nearly done with my major and have to take some random electives just for the sake of credit hours, I might be back on here complaining in a matter of weeks ha.

Good for you! If you have time, you should always take courses (art and music classes can be fun, and so can advanced classes in philosophy or psychology) outside of your major to enrich your knowledge!

 

[sedonaman]

… she gave heck to some guy at her daughter’s school who had a pro-life bumper sticker. …

Poor guy. Not having the benefit of her enlightenment, he probably didn’t realize that only the self-anointed are permitted free speech rights. There is even a section on the use of “he” for the generic. See p. 147.

 

[sedonaman]

…you should always take courses (art and music classes can be fun, and so can advanced classes in philosophy or psychology) outside of your major to enrich your knowledge!

Funny how liberal arts majors don’t have to take math and science to “round-out” their education.

Meanwhile, look what they are up to:

“Less Academics, More Narcissism”
Heather Mac Donald
14 July 2011

The University of California is cutting back on many things, but not useless diversity programs. One fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine:

• Not just protected, diversity numbers are growing.

• Master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering eliminated.

• Should a department fail to satisfy – as it inevitably will in every field with low minority participation – only one explanation is possible: a departmental or campus “climate” hostile to diversity, which then requires more intercessions from the diversity bureaucracy.

city-journal.org/2011/cjc0714hm.html

Meanwhile, China keeps graduating more and more engineers.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Funny how liberal arts majors don’t have to take math and science to “round-out” their education.

Oh, I agree! Watered-down science classes (Earth Science is the name of a class in high school!) should even not be an option for anyone at a university (my school even has “classes for non-majors” in the fine arts!). My school also requires everyone to take at least one mathematics classes (at the very least basic statistics or college algebra; those who truly are horrible at math must work their way up to that level, taking basic math classes that are graded but do not give you any credit). So if you are not an Ivy League school, making everyone take a year of calculus could pose a problem.

Meanwhile, look what they are up to:

Meanwhile, China keeps graduating more and more engineers.

The East Asian spirit of competition freaks me out a little! And to be honest, I love to joke about the stereotypical engineer or mathematician’s mechanical mindset and lack of real creativity (in short, an intelligent but boring person with no imagination or interest in intellectual activity!).

 

[maria711]

I feel so relieved that I’m not the only Catholic college kid struggling with the worldly views that many are striving to impose. :extrahappy:

At my own college, I don’t have as many problems with the professors as I do with the material being taught. Many of my professors themselves act like what they’re teaching is just the only way they’ve learned and they are very interested when I produce a different view. It’s so sad!

I am being force-fed evolution and Darwinism in my Bio classes and even my Psych class as the only logical way we all came to be. When I started my first semester, you bet I was surprised…and angry.

I just vented it all out in my assignments and it worked. My professors were shocked that someone actually wasn’t a drone and giving them the answers that they wanted to hear. When we had discussions on “the greenhouse effect” and global warming, I went bananas and did my research. Turns out, the carbon emissions we are producing with all of our cars and whatnot are actually helping our environment thrive better than it did before industrialism came to be. And it was a much more thorough observation than that, I assure you. My professor became so interested in what I had to say that he actually messaged me and was *asking me *questions about it.

Just don’t be afraid to be yourself. I liked that “one would argue” line. I’ve gotta use that in the future! Thanks for your post. It’s a comfort to know I’m not alone.

 

[sedonaman]

…I am being force-fed evolution and Darwinism in my Bio classes and even my Psych class as the only logical way we all came to be. …

Evolution needs matter before it can work. No matter, no evolution. How do they explain where all the matter came from?

 

[Young_Thinker]

I am being force-fed evolution and Darwinism in my Bio classes and even my Psych class as the only logical way we all came to be. When I started my first semester, you bet I was surprised…and angry.

Hello, Maria! I struggled with evolution for a while. Before taking any biology classes in college, I was basically a Young Earth Creationist, having been raised as an evangelical Protestant. However, within my first year of biology, my views on evolution and the age of the earth changed, with me realizing that evolutionary theory was the most logical idea that science could come up with (thus it is true as for far as we can know in this lifetime), but that evolution may or may not be true in absolute reality. And one of my professors pointed out, “you accept evolution; you don’t believe in it” (though I am sure that someone like Richard Dawkins would disagree with that claim!). I also found out that the Big Bang theory really is not far-fetched like Christian fundamentalists often make it out to be and that the theory was developed by a Catholic priest (Fr. Georges Lamaitre)! And using evolutionary theory in science can even be fun (the days in my upper-level personality class when we talked about evolutionary psychology was pretty interesting); it is a rather exciting idea if you think about it!

 

[Young_Thinker]

Evolution needs matter before it can work. No matter, no evolution. How do they explain where all the matter came from?

The Big Bang, for starters.

 

[Chocoholic]

As scientists, we never “prove” anything. What we do is come up with a hypothesis and confirm whether or not it makes sense through a highly structured laboratory environment and extensive testing. For the moment, theories like Evolution and the Big Bang are the best quantifiable measures we can use to understand certain natural processes. In time, as our technology and understanding become more sophisticated, we may adopt new models provided they provide better models that accurately predict processes observed in nature. Any scientist worth his or her salt will tell you the same thing. My point is, if you are being taught Evolution or the Big Bang, and you think that can’t be right, investigate it. Prove that it is wrong. If you can’t, just use those theories as a model for predicting, say, the rate of genetic variations in Bacteria or for a better understanding of Genetic disease. The models can always be updated and refined as we get more information. Scientific theories and models are ALWAYS a work in progress.

The only absolute truth is the Bible. Scientific theories can always be disproven and modified (to say a scientific theory is unquestionable truth prevents us from advancing. What if we’re wrong?) You can’t say that about moral truths.

There are supporters of the Theory of Evolution and The Big Bang Theory who are athiests, but that does not make the theories themselves bad. Both theories can be understood without abandoning our religious principles (after all, someone had to create the Big Bang). I can only think of God doing something like that! And when you think about scientific laws and principles, they line up with our understanding of God. We believe that God is logical, unchanging, and predictable (He won’t change the rules -good is good and evil is evil no matter what). When you study science, you find the Universe is consistent with our understanding of God. The Universe is predictable, and follows logical, quantifiable laws. The Laws of Physics do not change; only our understanding of them changes.

 

[sedonaman]

The Big Bang, for starters.

e = mc^2 → m = e/c^2.

Where did the e [energy] come from?