Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 09, 2010, 12:42:24 PM
-
Here it comes. I think we're going to see a lot more of this kind of thing. So much for the First Amendment.
University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
Published July 09, 2010
Associated Press
URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, has taught at the university for nine years. He says his firing violates his academic freedom.
A professor at the university who is also president of the American Association of University Professors agrees. Cary Nelson says teachers are allowed to express their own beliefs.
University spokeswoman Robin Kaler declined comment because Howell's firing is a personnel issue.
The student had a friend register his complaint and has remained anonymous.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/university-illinois-instructor-fired-catholic-beliefs/
-
If it's 'okay' to fire a woman from a catholic school who gets pregnant out of wedlock, it's okay to fire a catholic teacher for this.
Can't have it both ways.
-
A woman being fired by a private school for breaching her contract has absolutely nothing to do with a public university firing an employee for exercising First Amendment rights.
-
A woman being fired by a private school for breaching her contract has absolutely nothing to do with a public university firing an employee for exercising First Amendment rights.
He's breaching his contract in teaching with a bias. Like i said can't have it both ways wingnut...
-
He's breaching his contract in teaching with a bias. Like i said can't have it both ways wingnut...
lol. Took you a whole two posts to start with the insults/ad hominem.
This is a First Amendment issue because it involves a public university. Apples and oranges.
-
lol. Took you a whole two posts to start with the insults/ad hominem.
This is a First Amendment issue because it involves a public university. Apples and oranges.
Nope. It's a contract issue. As a teacher it is your duty to teach without bias of race, sex or creed. That is a breach of contract and cause for firing if you do not uphold that. Just as it was for that poor woman in Florida. Face it beach if you're okay with one, you're okay with the other.
-
Nope. It's a contract issue. As a teacher it is your duty to teach without bias of race, sex or creed. That is a breach of contract and cause for firing if you do not uphold that. Just as it was for that poor woman in Florida. Face it beach if you're okay with one, you're okay with the other.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Liberal professors teach with bias, especially AGAINST religion, as if there's no tomorrow. And Beach is right. This case is nothing like the Jaretta Hamilton case, where they state, point blank, that fornication is wrong (especially, when the student handbook states it's ground for expulsion).
If teaching without bias were a standard for employment, college campuses would have a shortage of university professors, by week's end.
Plus, this guy was teaching courses on CATHOLICISM. Agreeing or disagreeing with its teaching is no grounds for being fired.
-
Nope. It's a contract issue. As a teacher it is your duty to teach without bias of race, sex or creed. That is a breach of contract and cause for firing if you do not uphold that. Just as it was for that poor woman in Florida. Face it beach if you're okay with one, you're okay with the other.
What contract are you talking about? Have you seen his contract?
The story says nothing about teaching with or without bias. It says a professor who teaches a religious course was accused of hate speech because he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexuality is immoral. That's not hate speech.
And this has nothing to do with bias. There would be "bias" if he was treating/grading students differently based on some protected class, etc.
-
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Liberal professors teach with bias, especially AGAINST religion, as if there's no tomorrow. And Beach is right. This case is nothing like the Jaretta Hamilton case, where they state, point blank, that fornication is wrong (especially, when the student handbook states it's ground for expulsion).
If teaching without bias were a standard for employment, college campuses would have a shortage of university professors, by week's end.
Tell me about it. I have heard numerous stories about liberal ideas/agendas being crammed down students' throats.
-
Nope. It's a contract issue. As a teacher it is your duty to teach without bias of race, sex or creed. That is a breach of contract and cause for firing if you do not uphold that. Just as it was for that poor woman in Florida. Face it beach if you're okay with one, you're okay with the other.
Where does it say he was teaching that? The article only says he gave his opinion on it, for all we know it could have been at a football game.
It doesn't sound as though you've attended college. Instructors give their opinions all the time. Only if they're teaching it as factual material in class would it be a problem.
-
Where does it say he was teaching that? The article only says he gave his opinion on it, for all we know it could have been at a football game.
It doesn't sound as though you've attended college. Instructors give their opinions all the time. Only if they're teaching it as factual material in class would it be a problem.
;D
-
Where does it say he was teaching that? The article only says he gave his opinion on it, for all we know it could have been at a football game.
It doesn't sound as though you've attended college. Instructors give their opinions all the time. Only if they're teaching it as factual material in class would it be a problem.
Haha yeah okay it's out of the classroom that he said it ::)
I agree he should be allowed to voice his opinion if he wishes but the problem is for guys like beach it's only one way. It's okay to fire someone for having sex out of wedlock but then when someone shows sexual bias in the classroom and is fired it's not okay. Either both are okay or neither are okay.
-
;D
awww look who it is. 333's 'partner'. Is that the term you use? Or is it bottom b*tch? I always get confused with you guys. :)
-
Haha yeah okay it's out of the classroom that he said it ::)
Yes, it was outside of the classroom in an email. Here's exactly what was said according to another article:
"Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell's e-mail "hate speech." The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another."
Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."
-
I can see where it may be fuzzy, but I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
-
awww look who it is. 333's 'partner'. Is that the term you use? Or is it bottom b*tch? I always get confused with you guys. :)
Meltdown.
Watching you try to work your way out of this thread is amusing. Carry on with your idiotic comparisons between a private school and one funded by the taxpayers.
-
He's breaching his contract in teaching with a bias. Like i said can't have it both ways wingnut...
Yet nearly 95% of professors have a liberal bias and you have no issue with that. ::) ::)
-
awww look who it is. 333's 'partner'. Is that the term you use? Or is it bottom b*tch? I always get confused with you guys. :)
BF disagrees with me on many issues, and agrees with me on some.
The fact that we both agree that 99% of the time you are borderline insane do not = us being BFFs.
-
URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.
The history of the Catholic Church as well as the many abused children would prove him wrong.
On the issue of hate speech though, I don't see how saying that homosexual sex is "immoral" constitutes hate speech. Theoretically the Catholic Church believes many things are "immoral" (according to their "beliefs") though they certainly do seem to have a tendency for immorality themselves. It would be a whole different story if he called for killing people (like some muslims do or how the Black Panthers did, as it was discussed in another topic).
-
BF disagrees with me on many issues, and agrees with me on some.
The fact that we both agree that 99% of the time you are borderline insane do not = us being BFFs.
This is his new go-to insult as he's incapable of backing up any of the fallacious points he makes.
-
How can a religion course be taught without bias?
Let's ignore that most major religions disapprove of homosexuality for a minute.
-
How can a religion course be taught without bias?
Let's ignore that most major religions disapprove of homosexuality for a minute.
A survey of world religions can be taught without "bias."
But this story has nothing to do with "bias." (I know you didn't bring it up.)
-
A survey of world religions can be taught without "bias."
But this story has nothing to do with "bias." (I know you didn't bring it up.)
I was responding to KC's comment.
People really need to grow the fvck up. If someone can't handle a teacher's comment in college and find it to he "hate speech" WTF are they gonna do in the real world?!
We're raising a generation of vaginas. :'(
-
I was responding to KC's comment.
People really need to grow the fvck up. If someone can't handle a teacher's comment in college and find it to he "hate speech" WTF are they gonna do in the real world?!
We're raising a generation of vaginas. :'(
Ain't that the (sad) truth. :-\
-
Ain't that the (sad) truth. :-\
We're definitely declining as a culture and I blame the cancer of political correctness.
Someone should have given that kid a smack in the head, some Vagisil and said STFU.
-
I was responding to KC's comment.
People really need to grow the fvck up. If someone can't handle a teacher's comment in college and find it to he "hate speech" WTF are they gonna do in the real world?!
We're raising a generation of vaginas. :'(
That's a great point, and brings some perspective. I was thinking along the lines of was he teaching opinion as fact, but from his comments above, I think your post really puts it in the right light.
Throwing the guys career into the shitter over that, I can only hope karma bites this kid in the ass.
-
That's a great point, and brings some perspective. I was thinking along the lines of was he teaching opinion as fact, but from his comments above, I think your post really puts it in the right light.
Throwing the guys career into the shitter over that, I can only hope karma bites this kid in the ass.
Queef'll probably end up getting paid for emotional trauma, LOL!
-
I say tough titties
I'm sure if this guy were a Muslim and saying he agrees with all the nutty shit in that religion and got canned no one would give it a second thought.
This guy was not fired mid-term and as an adjunct professor here is what the school had to say:
Kaler declined to comment on the specifics of a personnel matter. She said adjunct lecturers are hired on a semester-by-semester basis, and they have no expectation that their employment will last longer than that semester.
Kaler also said the UI is "absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism, but it's up to the department as to who teaches a class."
-
I say tough titties
I'm sure if this guy were a Muslim and saying he agrees with all the nutty shit in that religion and got canned no one would give it a second thought.
This guy was not fired mid-term and as an adjunct professor here is what the school had to say:
So instructors should take a poll before class and censor the information so no one will get sand in their vaginas?!
-
LMAO if this was the other way around and a adjunct professor was let go b/c of their expressing their views of disbelief in religion the liberal goof troop would be at a boil with rage...
I cant tell you how many professors I had that spoke out against religion, it was almost expected in many classes I took. I had one professor actually give hand outs with the title "unintelligent design" lol if you think that didnt have an agenda...
KC this is a public university not a private school but youre right the only problem is the schools for the most part only persecute one side of the isle for this... ::)
-
Drkaje is right: we're raising a generation of hypersensitive sissies.
-
Drkaje is right: we're raising a generation of hypersensitive sissies.
I agree to me thats the main reason you go to college in order to be exposed to different ideas and concepts...youre not going to agree with everyone but that doesnt mean you shouldnt be exposed to them and make up your own mind...
-
I agree to me thats the main reason you go to college in order to be exposed to different ideas and concepts...youre not going to agree with everyone but that doesnt mean you shouldnt be exposed to them and make up your own mind...
Correct. That's the one place you're supposed to have an exchange of ideas, debate, etc., including "offensive" opinions. Except liberals believe in censoring things they find offensive.
-
Drkaje is right: we're raising a generation of hypersensitive sissies.
That must've been painful to type, LOL!
-
That must've been painful to type, LOL!
Not at all. :)
-
So instructors should take a poll before class and censor the information so no one will get sand in their vaginas?!
how did you arrive at that conclusion?
-
what about the mexican teacher in cali talking about hating white people and promoting la raza to his high school kids? he didnt get fired!! how is that any diff from this catholic teacher???
-
what about the mexican teacher in cali talking about hating white people and promoting la raza to his high school kids? he didnt get fired!! how is that any diff from this catholic teacher???
Probably the reasons..
-
Probably the reasons..
yep i know but the liberal goof troop will defend that double standard
-
This phenomenon was perfectly summed up in King of the Hill. :)
Dale Gribble: 9.13.09 “In the future both men and women will visit the gynecologist but only women will be getting their money’s worth”
-
;D
This phenomenon was perfectly summed up in King of the Hill. :)
Dale Gribble: 9.13.09 “In the future both men and women will visit the gynecologist but only women will be getting their money’s worth”
;D
;D ;D ;D
-
This phenomenon was perfectly summed up in King of the Hill. :)
Dale Gribble: 9.13.09 “In the future both men and women will visit the gynecologist but only women will be getting their money’s worth”
Lol so true. I want to be able to call a guy a guy when he/she acts like one. If I act like a cracker I don't care if I am called a cracker. We need to get away from the pussyfied atmosphere it is stifling and embarrassing.
-
This phenomenon was perfectly summed up in King of the Hill. :)
Dale Gribble: 9.13.09 “In the future both men and women will visit the gynecologist but only women will be getting their money’s worth”
lol there are so many good quotes from that show...one of my favorites was when peggy was selling health supplements and the guys were in the ally drinking and she asked dale if he wanted a shake and he responded with beer in hand "no thanks Im going the other way thank you"
LOL ;D ;D ;D
-
Lol so true. I want to be able to call a guy a guy when he/she acts like one. If I act like a cracker I don't care if I am called a cracker. We need to get away from the pussyfied atmosphere it is stifling and embarrassing.
hey cracker
how does a guy act?
-
Lol so true. I want to be able to call a guy a guy when he/she acts like one. If I act like a cracker I don't care if I am called a cracker. We need to get away from the pussyfied atmosphere it is stifling and embarrassing.
Do you mind being called a guy when your actions or behavior merits the label?
-
I was responding to KC's comment.
People really need to grow the fvck up. If someone can't handle a teacher's comment in college and find it to he "hate speech" WTF are they gonna do in the real world?!
We're raising a generation of vaginas. :'(
Notice that it was a guy who would rather have a vagina than a penis that got the teacher fired.
-
Do you mind being called a guy when your actions or behavior merits the label?
no.
-
hey cracker
how does a guy act?
Acting in the way of a guy in a public place. Examples include talking loud, being obnoxious, stealing, not paying your bill, and all other behavior that is associated with normal guy group behavior.
Matt: "Why are those black kids protesting at that restaurant?"
Jim: "Ah, a bunch of them were in there guy'n it up and the manager told them to leave. Now they are saying the place is racist."
Pissing in public. Throwing trash out of the car window in their own neighborhood. Burning homes down in their own neighborhood.
Whites can be n|ggers too - however blacks have the market cornered.
-
Acting in the way of a guy in a public place. Examples include talking loud, being obnoxious, stealing, not paying your bill, and all other behavior that is associated with normal guy group behavior.
Matt: "Why are those black kids protesting at that restaurant?"
Jim: "Ah, a bunch of them were in there guy'n it up and the manager told them to leave. Now they are saying the place is racist."
Pissing in public. Throwing trash out of the car window in their own neighborhood. Burning homes down in their own neighborhood.
Whites can be n|ggers too - however blacks have the market cornered.
you really are a dumb cracker
-
you really are a dumb cracker
On the way to launching the jet ski today I saw three ..... walking down the street with their pants down their asses and underwear hanging out just mozying down the street. The best part is this savages will cross a street during a green light holding up traffic intentionally just to get attention.
We need re-education camps and work farms for these people. Otherwise, the bronx zoo is a more suitable place for these morons.
-
On the way to launching the jet ski today I saw three ..... walking down the street with their pants down their asses and underwear hanging out just mozying down the street. The best part is this savages will cross a street during a green light holding up traffic intentionally just to get attention.
We need re-education camps and work farms for these people. Otherwise, the bronx zoo is a more suitable place for these morons.
you should just run them over, nobody will miss them, and you would have done america a favor
-
Pussydom is the real issue, not homosexuality. We're becoming so emotionally week that even knowing someone may have a different opinion causes lost sleep.
This isn't something that can be blamed on gays either. People should have been saying "STFU" when stupid crap like this all along. This crap has gone on so long that the line between political correctness and actually being correct has been blurred beyond recognition.
In terms of speech, free will probably be changed to audience dependent in our lifetimes. And it'll all be because at some magical point we've allowed absolute idiots to advance the notion that any disagreeable content is tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
-
Pussydom is the real issue, not homosexuality. We're becoming so emotionally week that even knowing someone may have a different opinion causes lost sleep.
This isn't something that can be blamed on gays either. People should have been saying "STFU" when stupid crap like this all along. This crap has gone on so long that the line between political correctness and actually being correct has been blurred beyond recognition.
In terms of speech, free will probably be changed to audience dependent in our lifetimes. And it'll all be because at some magical point we've allowed absolute idiots to advance the notion that any disagreeable content is tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
you're so right.
that teacher is a pussy and crying like a bitch when he knows full well that the school can decide who to hire or not rehire whenever they want
-
you're so right.
that teacher is a pussy and crying like a bitch when he knows full well that the school can decide who to hire or not rehire whenever they want
Spoken like a true leftist douche.
-
Spoken like a true leftist douche.
spoken like a moron who thinks adjunct professors have some entitlement to a job when they don't.
-
you're so right.
that teacher is a pussy and crying like a bitch when he knows full well that the school can decide who to hire or not rehire whenever they want
Perhaps universities shouldn't even bother with having professors because kids these days know everything. :)
The parents should probably die from the embarrassment associated with having a kid that weak-minded. But not in America, they'll coddle him and say how mean that man was for hurting his poor widdle feelings.
We need to bring the draft back and weed out some of these twats.
Arguing only a tenured professor can risk offending some douche is too stupid for serious discussion.
-
Perhaps universities shouldn't even bother with having professors because kids these days know everything. :)
The parents should probably die from the embarrassment associated with having a kid that weak-minded. But not in America, they'll coddle him and say how mean that man was for hurting his poor widdle feelings.
We need to bring the draft back and weed out some of these twats.
Arguing only a tenured professor can risk offending some douche is too stupid for serious discussion.
adjunct professors are the very definition of a part-time worker
any employer who's been around for awhile knows the benefits of hiring someone as part-time rather than full time and one of those benefit is the ease at which you can lay them off or just reducing their hours until they quit on their own.
As usual on this site people run off in the direction of their own bias without even having the facts.
this thread is based on one story on Fox about a guy who claims he was not RE-HIRED due to remarks he made. This is his claim and not necessarily the fact and the case and even if it were completely true the nature of his position makes this perfectly acceptable. It could just as easily be office politics or budegting or any of a bunch of different reasons including budgeting, changes in curriculim, etc...
I see nothing in the definition of his type of employment that gives him any reason to expect to be rehired and that makes him nothing but a whining little pussy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States#Adjunct_professor
-
Perhaps universities shouldn't even bother with having professors because kids these days know everything. :)
The parents should probably die from the embarrassment associated with having a kid that weak-minded. But not in America, they'll coddle him and say how mean that man was for hurting his poor widdle feelings.
We need to bring the draft back and weed out some of these twats.
Arguing only a tenured professor can risk offending some douche is too stupid for serious discussion.
that's not the "argument" I'm making at all
-
These people are suicide bombers of free speech and we should all be worried.
-
These people are suicide bombers of free speech and we should all be worried.
you can't be serious
-
These people are suicide bombers of free speech and we should all be worried.
Without a doubt. What precedent does this set? Should professors not be allowed to give their opinion on a subject they're teaching?
Amazing how leftists only care about free speech when they're using it to oppress and subjugate.
-
Without a doubt. What precedent does this set? Should professors not be allowed to give their opinion on a subject they're teaching?
Amazing how leftists only care about free speech when they're using it to oppress and subjugate.
of course they are allowed to give an opinion but they shouldn't be suprised if their employer objects
in this guys case he was not fired mid-term. He was told at the end of the semester that he would not have a job the following semester and we (the public) have no idea what the reason was and it doesn't even matter as he is basically a contractor and his contract was over at the end of the semester. This is to be expected at the end of any term which is why adjunct professors can qualify for unemployment between terms. When the term is over they are, by definition, unemployed.
At this point he's just another religious nut bitching about persecution when in reality he's too stupid to understand the nature of his employment.
-
you can't be serious
Ultimately: if that teacher has no rights, neither do you.
-
The student had a friend register his complaint
Pussydom is the real issue
-
Ultimately: if that teacher has no rights, neither do you.
how did you arrive at that conclusion?
-
how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Most are too myopic to see all of our rights are tied together. Maybe PC speech can be added to the Patriot Act.
-
of course they are allowed to give an opinion but they shouldn't be suprised if their employer objects
in this guys case he was not fired mid-term. He was told at the end of the semester that he would not have a job the following semester and we (the public) have no idea what the reason was and it doesn't even matter as he is basically a contractor and his contract was over at the end of the semester. This is to be expected at the end of any term which is why adjunct professors can qualify for unemployment between terms. When the term is over they are, by definition, unemployed.
At this point he's just another religious nut bitching about persecution when in reality he's too stupid to understand the nature of his employment.
Yet if the teacher were fired for voicing the opposite opinion , you and the rest of the left wing circus act would be up in arms.
According to the left free open exchange of ideas and opinions only applies when you agree with them.
-
I was responding to KC's comment.
People really need to grow the fvck up. If someone can't handle a teacher's comment in college and find it to he "hate speech" WTF are they gonna do in the real world?!
We're raising a generation of vaginas. :'(
You've taken it all wrong. I have no problem with bias or using that language. I have a problem with the christian double standard where by you can fire someone for being immoral it's okay but when someone gets fired for using what some may deem hate speech it's against the church.
It's a stupid double standard that beach is adding in.
I am in no way against the alternative views of professors, it's disagreement and difference which make learning possible. But when people like the christian right try to have their cake (firing for so called immoral acts) and eat it too, i like to point out how this is pretty similar (a potentially inflammatory remark deemed by some as hate speech) in that it's a stupid reason to fire someone. But if you can do it for having sex, then you can do it for speaking against homosexuality.
-
You've taken it all wrong. I have no problem with bias or using that language. I have a problem with the christian double standard where by you can fire someone for being immoral it's okay but when someone gets fired for using what some may deem hate speech it's against the church.
It's a stupid double standard that beach is adding in.
I am in no way against the alternative views of professors, it's disagreement and difference which make learning possible. But when people like the christian right try to have their cake (firing for so called immoral acts) and eat it too, i like to point out how this is pretty similar (a potentially inflammatory remark deemed by some as hate speech) in that it's a stupid reason to fire someone. But if you can do it for having sex, then you can do it for speaking against homosexuality.
Your entire argument revolves around the notion that public and private institutions are subject to the same rules regarding contracts and the like. They're not so your entire argument is pointless.
-
Your entire argument revolves around the notion that public and private institutions are subject to the same rules regarding contracts and the like. They're not so your entire argument is pointless.
::) It's a matter of principal not legal. Perhaps you could pick this up but maybe 333's dick is in your face too much for you to notice such things.
-
::) It's a matter of principal not legal. Perhaps you could pick this up but maybe 333's dick is in your face too much for you to notice such things.
Principles are nothing more than opinion and vary from person-to-person. Nice argument, retard. ::)
-
::) It's a matter of principal not legal. Perhaps you could pick this up but maybe 333's dick is in your face too much for you to notice such things.
KC - BF is not my BFF. He and I agree on some issues and disagree on others.
-
KC - BF is not my BFF. He and I agree on some issues and disagree on others.
KC has been getting knocked around this board by a multitude of people recently. He's just throwing a temper tantrum as he's been exposed for uneducated trash.
-
Principles are nothing more than opinion and vary from person-to-person. Nice argument, retard. ::)
Haha coming from the guy who lives on opinion when it comes to all Muslims. Classic post right there.
-
KC - BF is not my BFF. He and I agree on some issues and disagree on others.
Haha i know 333 BF is just too easy to mess with. His posts are always so retarded i can't help but insult him. You have to admit though the fem has been nut hugging you a lot recently. Maybe you should start your own political team, he'd join in a heartbeat!
-
Haha coming from the guy who lives on opinion when it comes to all Muslims. Classic post right there.
There you go lying again like the little far-left rat that you are. I do little more than post news stories of atrocities carried out by Muslims. I know this bothers you as your pro-Muslim ideologies warrants playing deaf, blind and dumb to what they do while bashing Christians and Jews.
You're really embarrassing yourself now. I'm lost as to why you even bother to post here? You clearly don't read anything and every point you argue is heavy on opinions and low on facts.
-
Haha i know 333 BF is just too easy to mess with. His posts are always so retarded i can't help but insult him. You have to admit though the fem has been nut hugging you a lot recently. Maybe you should start your own political team, he'd join in a heartbeat!
No, its issue related. Name an issue and maybe agree, maybe disagree.
BF is more liberal than I am. But when it comes to this admn, even people who are otherwise liberal, and even voted for Obama, are appaulled at a lot of decisions that have been made the direction we are going.
-
No, its issue related. Name an issue and maybe agree, maybe disagree.
BF is more liberal than I am. But when it comes to this admn, even people who are otherwise liberal, and even voted for Obama, are appaulled at a lot of decisions that have been made the direction we are going.
He doesn't seem to comprehend that. People like him who blindly shill for Obama and applaud everything the guy does disgust me. They're no better than the people on the right that did the same thing with Bush.
-
There you go lying again like the little far-left rat that you are. I do little more than post news stories of atrocities carried out by Muslims. I know this bothers you as your pro-Muslim ideologies warrants playing deaf, blind and dumb to what they do while bashing Christians and Jews.
You're really embarrassing yourself now. I'm lost as to why you even bother to post here? You clearly don't read anything and every point you argue is heavy on opinions and low on facts.
::) yeah okay little miss 'all muslims are evil' keep posting the atrocities which i always comment are bad and evil however, i don't then jump to the false conclusion that all followers are implicit in it and/or evil as well.
Keep trolling 8)
-
Your entire argument revolves around the notion that public and private institutions are subject to the same rules regarding contracts and the like. They're not so your entire argument is pointless.
Correct. One has zero to do with the other.
The issues here are whether the professor's comments amounted to "hate speech" and whether he lost his job due to censorship.
-
::) yeah okay little miss 'all muslims are evil' keep posting the atrocities which i always comment are bad and evil however, i don't then jump to the false conclusion that all followers are implicit in it and/or evil as well.
Keep trolling 8)
Nice meltdown. I like that you keep putting words in my mouth yet when asked to provide hard evidence of your claim that I said, "all Muslims are evil" you scurry like the lying rat that you are.
Keep embarrassing yourself. 8)
-
Most are too myopic to see all of our rights are tied together. Maybe PC speech can be added to the Patriot Act.
this guy has no "right" to a job
he's a part timer and when the semester is over he's unemployed
if the school chooses not to renew his contract, for whatever reason, that is perfectly within their rights and has nothing to do with me or my right to free speech outside of the work place.
this whole thread it lame
-
There is also no proof of why this guy was not rehired other than his own claim that it was becasue of HIS Catholic beliefs. Seems kind of hard to believe this given the fact that he was teaching a class about Catholicism.
There must be some other reason why he was not re-hired. Maybe the head of the department doesn't agree with how or what he was teaching and, if so, I can't see how anyone would think that the head of the department doesn't have the right to make that choice
-
There is also no proof of why this guy was not rehired other than his own claim that it was becasue of HIS Catholic beliefs. Seems kind of hard to believe this given the fact that he was teaching a class about Catholicism.
There must be some other reason why he was not re-hired. Maybe the head of the department doesn't agree with how or what he was teaching and, if so, I can't see how anyone would think that the head of the department doesn't have the right to make that choice
The associate dean of his college put out an email stating that the college was justified in firing him for his words. There's no question they can fire him for anything, but if the reason is for what he wrote, which has been put out, then it seems pretty sad that a college would fire him over it.
-
The associate dean of his college put out an email stating that the college was justified in firing him for his words. There's no question they can fire him for anything, but if the reason is for what he wrote, which has been put out, then it seems pretty sad that a college would fire him over it.
do you have a copy of the email saying he was "fired"
and what were the "words" that the associate Dean was referring to?
-
do you have a copy of the email saying he was "fired"
No, it's up to you as to whether or not you believe the news reports. It's an AP story so be your own judge.
and what were the "words" that the associate Dean was referring to?
I think this is why BeachBum refers to you as one of the dumbest posters around. It's in the article, and if you missed it in the article, I posted them in this thread.
-
No, it's up to you as to whether or not you believe the news reports. It's an AP story so be your own judge.
I've read all the news stories that I could locate on the subject and I never saw the word "fired"
Not renewing the guys contract is not the same as being fired
I think this is why BeachBum refers to you as one of the dumbest posters around. It's in the article, and if you missed it in the article, I posted them in this thread.
It always cracks me up when people are too lazy answer a question or simply copy/link their own post
Here is the only response I can find from the associate dean and it wasn't from the Fox News article linked in this thread and she didn't detail exactly which of his "words" were the actual problem
In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes "the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."
-
I've read all the news stories that I could locate on the subject and I never saw the word "fired"
Not renewing the guys contract is not the same as being fired
Yes, the terms are used interchangeably and the fact that you're attempting to pretend they are not speaks mounds. Just as General McChrystal was fired even though he "technically" resigned.
It always cracks me up when people are too lazy answer a question or simply copy/link their own post
Here is the only response I can find from the associate dean and it wasn't from the Fox News article linked in this thread and she didn't detail exactly which of his "words" were the actual problem
I'll stand by my earlier comment.
-
Yes, the terms are used interchangeably and the fact that you're attempting to pretend they are not speaks mounds. Just as General McChrystal was fired even though he "technically" resigned.
hardly the same
the man was a contractor and when the term ended his employment ended.
the university chose not to renew his contract
that is distinctly different from being fired or terminated
I'll stand by my earlier comment.
makes no difference to me
the bottom line is that the university was completely within their right to choose to no longer offer this guy a teaching job in the next term
end of story
-
the bottom line is that the university was completely within their right to choose to no longer offer this guy a teaching job in the next term
end of story
No, the bottom line is that nobody is saying the university is not within their rights, you're just not bright enough to figure that out. The discussion has focused on whether or not it was a right or wrong decision to fire him or, if you prefer, not renew his contract.
-
No, the bottom line is that nobody is saying the university is not within their rights, you're just not bright enough to figure that out. The discussion has focused on whether or not it was a right or wrong decision to fire him or, if you prefer, not renew his contract.
when the term ended his employment officially ended
if the university was within their legal right not to offer this guy a job again next year then the question right or wrong decision is a moot point. The university thought it was right and that's all that matters
-
when the term ended his employment officially ended
if the university was within their legal right not to offer this guy a job again next year then the question right or wrong decision is a moot point. The university thought it was right and that's all that matters
I see. So you must be a big fan of corporations and their free speech rights? Oh no, that's right, you're not.
Wait, corporations are well within their rights to influence elections, but that's wrong. But a college is well within its rights and that makes it right.
Gotta love the liberal double standard.
Just because they are legally within their rights, doesn't necessarily mean it was the right decision.
I guess since the Patriot Act passed you're a big supporter right? Oh, no that's right... ::)
-
I see. So you must be a big fan of corporations and their free speech rights? Oh no, that's right, you're not.
Wait, corporations are well within their rights to influence elections, but that's wrong. But a college is well within its rights and that makes it right.
Gotta love the liberal double standard.
Just because they are legally within their rights, doesn't necessarily mean it was the right decision.
I guess since the Patriot Act passed you're a big supporter right? Oh, no that's right... ::)
man you're all over the place
what does this have to do wtih corporate personhood or teh Patriot Act.
the school employed this guy on a temporary basis and decided that they'd prefer not to have him teach there next year. They decided it was the right thing to do.
I won't be losing any sleep over it
-
man you're all over the place
what does this have to do wtih corporate personhood or teh Patriot Act.
the school employed this guy on a temporary basis and decided that they'd prefer not to have him teach there next year. They decided it was the right thing to do.
I won't be losing any sleep over it
Sorry, did that go over your head? The point is in this sentence right here:
"Just because they are legally within their rights, doesn't necessarily mean it was the right decision. "
-
Sorry, did that go over your head? The point is in this sentence right here:
"Just because they are legally within their rights, doesn't necessarily mean it was the right decision. "
yep I saw that
the only perspective on right or wrong that is relevent is the school's
they are the one paying the guys salary and they are the one that has to deal with the fallout of his actions
I can't believe you've spent 4 pages whining about this
can't you find something serious to be upset about?
-
yep I saw that
the only perspective on right or wrong that is relevent is the school's
they are the one paying the guys salary and they are the one that has to deal with the fallout of his actions
No, as far as his employment goes, that's the only opinion that matters. As far as a discussion board goes, we can freely discuss it at will. I know you're slow, but don't worry, I'm carefully bringing you up to the level of logical thought.
I can't believe you've spent 4 pages whining about this
can't you find something serious to be upset about?
I haven't spent four pages on here, nor am I upset. Like I said, it's a discussion board and we're just...discussing. You're not bright enough to understand that yet, but I'm getting you there.
-
No, as far as his employment goes, that's the only opinion that matters.
finally we agree on something
I'm sure the school has another 50 people who can teach this lame class without dragging the school through the news.
I'm sure another school can't wait to hire this douche so that that the next time he fails to get a renewal of his contract he can drag them through the news media too
-
Here is the professor's comment:
"Natural Moral Law says that morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000013018.cfm
And this is "hate speech"?? In the context of a religion course no less? This is an example of liberal censorship at its worst.
-
Here is the professor's comment:
"Natural Moral Law says that morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000013018.cfm
And this is "hate speech"?? In the context of a religion course no less? This is an example of liberal censorship at its worst.
LoL
this is the "worst"?
how was he censored?
-
Here is the professor's comment:
"Natural Moral Law says that morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000013018.cfm
And this is "hate speech"?? In the context of a religion course no less? This is an example of liberal censorship at its worst.
I would love to ask him for a clarification; since reality always changes, does true morality even exist?
-
I would love to ask him for a clarification; since reality always changes, does true morality even exist?
questions about morality as it pertains to religion are all completely subjective
some christians think dancing is immoral or drinking on alchohol or having sex without the intent to procreate, or in Muslim country a woman going outside without a head scarf, etc...
it's all just a bunch of arbitrary rules
still the statement that this guy was censored (much less liberal censorship at it's worst is fucking laughable. Just a complete paranoid delusion
-
questions about morality as it pertains to religion are all completely subjective
some christians think dancing is immoral or drinking on alchohol or having sex without the intent to procreate, or in Muslim country a woman going outside without a head scarf, etc...
it's all just a bunch of arbitrary rules
still the statement that this guy was censored (much less liberal censorship at it's worst is fucking laughable. Just a complete paranoid delusion
The left wingers like yourself are usually the ones seeking to stifle speech on campuses.
The left hates free speech with a passion. Whether its "hate speech codes", banning speakers from campuses, attacking speakers at colleges, etc, the left wingers are far morte intolerant of those they disagree with than those they point the finger at.
They can't debate a topic on the merits, so they seek to squash it.
-
I would love to ask him for a clarification; since reality always changes, does true morality even exist?
Yes, it does exist. I think we've had this discussion before? There is a lot of black and white it comes to morality.
-
The left wingers like yourself are usually the ones seeking to stifle speech on campuses.
The left hates free speech with a passion. Whether its "hate speech codes", banning speakers from campuses, attacking speakers at colleges, etc, the left wingers are far morte intolerant of those they disagree with than those they point the finger at.
They can't debate a topic on the merits, so they seek to squash it.
I'm all for free speech and I think that's pretty evident from everything I've ever posted on this site
this has nothing to do with free speech or censorship.
this guy was not censored
he is free to say or write or publish whatever he would like
the school is free to choose not to offer this guy a job next year for any reason they like whether or for absolutely no reason at all. Thats the nature of his emloyment
-
The left wingers like yourself are usually the ones seeking to stifle speech on campuses.
The left hates free speech with a passion. Whether its "hate speech codes", banning speakers from campuses, attacking speakers at colleges, etc, the left wingers are far morte intolerant of those they disagree with than those they point the finger at.
They can't debate a topic on the merits, so they seek to squash it.
Absolutely correct. They try and shout down/silence people with opposing viewpoints. Remember the left-wing hate speech thread I created? Numerous examples of liberals trying to censor things they disagree with. Look at how liberals in Canada tried to intimidate Ann Coulter. Threatened her with prosecution. ::)
The fact a religious professor was let go because he made a garden variety comment about a religious issue that offended a homosexual student (assuming the student was homosexual) is just crazy.
-
Absolutely correct. They try and shout down/silence people with opposing viewpoints. Remember the left-wing hate speech thread I created? Numerous examples of liberals trying to censor things they disagree with. Look at what liberals in Canada tried to intimidate Ann Coulter. Threatened her with prosecution. ::)
The fact a religious professor was let go because he made a garden variety comment about a religious issue that offended a homosexual student (assuming the student was homosexual) is just crazy.
only problem with your statement is that he wasn't "silenced' and he wasn't "let go"
what is it about Christians (and Muslims too) that they love to feel persercuted so much that they actually make it up where it doesn't even exist at all. Muslim are much worse then christians. They are constantly finding ways they feel insulted and use that as justification for all their violent and nutty actions
-
For the benefit of those who are not paranoid anti-religious extremists and are capable of critical thinking, an adjunct signs a semester/quarter or yearly contract with no guarantee of future employment. But, when the adjunct is good and is repeatedly rehired for years, there is an expectation that he or she will continue to be offered a new contract. In fact, the adjunct’s name will often appear on the school calendar for future terms before the contract is signed. An adjunct who has worked continuously for nine years at the same school is a fixture. Universities are dependent on adjuncts to teach courses.
So yes, an adjunct whose contract is not renewed in this kind of situation was essentially let go.
-
Yes, it does exist. I think we've had this discussion before? There is a lot of black and white it comes to morality.
I'm relatively convinced it (true morality) doesn't exist.
From the perspective of his Catholic faith, sex is for reproductive purposes. Obviously homosexuality (or any other practices that do not result in children) would be in conflict with their reality and therefore immoral.
Maybe he thinks gays aren't real.
-
I'm relatively convinced it (true morality) doesn't exist.
From the perspective of his Catholic faith, sex is for reproductive purposes. Obviously homosexuality (or any other practices that do not result in children) would be in conflict with their reality and therefore immoral.
Maybe he thinks gays aren't real.
Only in Iran.
-
I'm relatively convinced it (true morality) doesn't exist.
From the perspective of his Catholic faith, sex is for reproductive purposes. Obviously homosexuality (or any other practices that do not result in children) would be in conflict with their reality and therefore immoral.
Maybe he thinks gays aren't real.
I'm absolutely convinced it does exist and I bet we would agree on whether a number of issues are moral/immoral.
What part of his Catholic faith says sex is only for reproductive purposes?
The religious basis for concluding homosexuality is immoral is not limited to reproduction. From a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear about homosexuality, both in the Old Testament and New.
-
Only in Iran.
lol :)
-
I'm absolutely convinced it does exist and I bet we would agree on whether a number of issues are moral/immoral.
What part of his Catholic faith says sex is only for reproductive purposes?
The religious basis for concluding homosexuality is immoral is not limited to reproduction. From a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear about homosexuality, both in the Old Testament and New.
Anything that thwarts pregnancy is a sin, including pulling out, BJs anal, condoms, etc... You remember Onan, right?
Most major religions prohibit homosexuality so that's probably not relevant to what we're discussing. In the context of when they started out having children was very important and also a great way to control women. Even something like not eating pork made sense because there was no way to keep it fresh.
-
Anything that thwarts pregnancy is a sin, including pulling out, BJs anal, condoms, etc... You remember Onan, right?
Most major religions prohibit homosexuality so that's probably not relevant to what we're discussing. In the context of when they started out having children was very important and also a great way to control women. Even something like not eating pork made sense because there was no way to keep it fresh.
I disagree. I remember Onan. Had nothing to do whether pulling out was a sin. He was supposed to get a woman pregnant and refused by pulling out. His sin was disobedience. There is no teaching in the Bible or mainstream Christianity that sex is solely for procreation. Not sure about Catholicism.
You said: "Obviously homosexuality (or any other practices that do not result in children) would be in conflict with their reality and therefore immoral."
That's not accurate. Homosexuality is in conflict with crystal clear Biblical teaching, which is why it is considered immoral by many (if not most) Christians.
-
I disagree. I remember Onan. Had nothing to do whether pulling out was a sin. He was supposed to get a woman pregnant and refused by pulling out. His sin was disobedience. There is no teaching in the Bible or mainstream Christianity that sex is solely for procreation. Not sure about Catholicism.
You said: "Obviously homosexuality (or any other practices that do not result in children) would be in conflict with their reality and therefore immoral."
That's not accurate. Homosexuality is in conflict with crystal clear Biblical teaching, which is why it is considered immoral by many (if not most) Christians.
I wrote "their reality", LOL! There's a difference.
-
I wrote "their reality", LOL! There's a difference.
There are people out there with warped realities. :)
-
There are people out there with warped realities. :)
Put enough of them together and it becomes a religion. :)
-
For the benefit of those who are not paranoid anti-religious extremists and are capable of critical thinking, an adjunct signs a semester/quarter or yearly contract with no guarantee of future employment. But, when the adjunct is good and is repeatedly rehired for years, there is an expectation that he or she will continue to be offered a new contract. In fact, the adjunct’s name will often appear on the school calendar for future terms before the contract is signed. An adjunct who has worked continuously for nine years at the same school is a fixture. Universities are dependent on adjuncts to teach courses.
So yes, an adjunct whose contract is not renewed in this kind of situation was essentially let go.
he can expect a job all he wants but he's still a contractor and his temporary employer can choose not to rehire him next year and he can't say shit about it
that's how it works when you're a contractor
no one is stopping him from saying whaterve he wants and no one has redacted or censored his writing
his employer could have just decided that this guy is a pain in the ass and is causing problems that the head of the department doesn't want to deal with and ........end of story
the head of the department could also personally disagree or object to something this guy wrote an .....end of story
everyone on this board is free to go into their job and express whatever opinion they want and their employer is just as free to respond in whatever way they want within the legal confines of that employment agreement
-
They have seen the light. :)
University of Illinois Reinstates Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
By Diane Macedo
Published July 09, 2010 | FoxNews.com
A Catholicism instructor fired from the the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral has been reinstated.
Adjunct professor Kenneth Howell said he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining Catholic beliefs on homosexuality to his students preparing for an exam.
Now the University of Illinois says Howell will return next semester.
"The department of religion will continue Kenneth Howell's adjunct appointment for the fall semester, and has offered him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism," school spokesman Robin Kaler said in a statement.
Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his teaching duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent to university officials on May 13 saying an e-mail Howell sent to his class amounted to "hate speech."
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," Howell wrote in the May 4 e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
Howell was then called into a meeting on May 28 with Robert McKim, the Head of the Department of Religion, at which McKim told Howell that, due to complaints generated by the e-mail, a "higher official" decided Howell would no longer be able to teach at the university, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Howell.
The Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter to university officials on July 12 requesting he be reinstated on the grounds that the university's actions violated his First Amendment rights.
The school responded with a July 28 letter that admitted no wrongdoing but stated, "The School of Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics will be contacting Dr. Howell to offer him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism, on a visiting instructional appointment at the University of Illinois, for the fall 2010 semester."
The University says it will continue its review of the situation surrounding the earlier decision not to offer Dr. Howell a teaching assignment for the fall semester.
"This offer of appointment does not affect the process or outcome of a review by the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure," Kaler said. "The University of Illinois is committed to upholding principles of academic freedom and the requirements of the First Amendment."
The school also says it will begin paying the salary of instructors teaching any Catholic studies courses that can be taken for university credit; they were previously funded by an on-campus Catholic Center.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/university-illinois-reinstates-instructor-fired-catholic-beliefs/
-
Did common sense actually win here?!?!
-
Did common sense actually win here?!?!
Yep. :)
-
Yep. :)
Didn't think that was possible in this day and age. :)
-
Didn't think that was possible in this day and age. :)
I think the negative publicity and risk of getting sued played a role.
-
Yep. :)
haha...I think it may be better to say "we'll see".
-
haha...I think it may be better to say "we'll see".
True.
-
Cases like this are such a waste of time that it's impossible it could be resolved quickly and with any common sense.