I think that most of our comments, have the unstated but presumed to be understood proviso "If the article is correct". Most of us are talking generalities and think that if someone is using their teaching position proselytize their own agenda they should not be supported by the taxpayers.
One would hope that such an issue would be investigated thoroughly before any action was taken. Very few of us on the list think that the news media is without their own agenda. So it seems that your arguments are, to quote someone or another, "Much Ado About Nothing". -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Aaron Reynolds wrote: > On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote: > >> I don't feel that my academic freedom would be infringed in the >> least if he got the boot. > > Keith, you wouldn't feel that your academic freedom would be infringed > if a professor were booted without an examination of the material or > even a single person knowing what his claims actually are? Just based > on a single line in a newspaper article describing what we can only > assume is the most sensational part of his intended lecture, and > without context? > > What if he's presenting it to be debunked by the class as an exercise > but loses his job on the strength of this newspaper article -- would > you still feel that your academic freedom had not been infringed then? > > What I've been trying to say (and for some reason this got me labeled > as a 9/11 Denier) is that someone should, you know, find out what he's > actually saying before the man is condemned for saying it. > > -Aaron > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
