It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Student Sues College After Being Punished for Her Anti-Gay Language

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SomePeople
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What is it that you think this little girl was challenging?


Looks like she was fulfilling the assignment as written to me.

She ended up, intentionally or not, challenging the preconceived notions and agenda of the teacher apparently as those "honest dialogue about sexual issues" are really just intended to be an echo chamber of a certain point of view and that is how they are run and that is really the convention in these sort of "gender studies" type classes, not really an honest dialogue. It's rather obvious she went and challenged that convention.




posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: 3u40r15m
For some reason this is a touchy subject espesially in college... I try and steer clear of it and stay neutral if a obvious pro gay teacher brought it up to write/talk about.... Unless it's a debate class, shutup.....


Do you think people should equally stay about from challenging religious beliefs? Example, a Christian teacher, can you not write about not believing in God?

Seems to me as soon as you are not allowed to challenge an idea because the professor has an issue and so won't grade your paper, that professor needs to look for a new job.


I don't think so, religion doesn't get you labeled and judged as badly as sexuality opinions these days. If you don't believe in God you're an atheist, big deal. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you're homophobic, which is kind of an insult.. I just learned to only give my honest opinion if it's specifically stated...
edit on 18-10-2014 by 3u40r15m because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 3u40r15m

Is it really such a bad thing to call people out for the ridiculous beliefs? Religion causes harm and for adherents of these religions - after thousands of years of treating people like absolutel and utter sht - to have a wah wah because they can't anymore. I just...I suppose it's a big fat too bad.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: SomePeople
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What is it that you think this little girl was challenging?


Looks like she was fulfilling the assignment as written to me.

She ended up, intentionally or not, challenging the preconceived notions and agenda of the teacher apparently as those "honest dialogue about sexual issues" are really just intended to be an echo chamber of a certain point of view and that is how they are run and that is really the convention in these sort of "gender studies" type classes, not really an honest dialogue. It's rather obvious she went and challenged that convention.


I'd like to believe that - but you and I know that isn't the likely case. It will be interesting to read her submission, should it ever be made public.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
that is really the convention in these sort of "gender studies" type classes, not really an honest dialogue.


Someone else who seems to have problems differentiating between free speech/opinion and hate speech.

There is a hell of a difference writing a constructive "critique", say, if you don't "agree" with homosexuality or whatever....and using words like "perverse".

Ironically, NO ONE in their right mind today would openly, say in an university, voice an opinion such like " I don't like blacks using public transportation or visiting movie theates", at least not without severe consequences.

BUT FOR SOME BIZARRE reason some think it's ok to openly voice a dislike of and call homosexuals "perverse", respective they need a judge to "decide" whether it's ok to do so.

The judge certainly would NOT be needed if she wrote an assignment saying she's disgusted that blacks are in her university, correct? Everyone would immediately agree she's racist and she'd be booted off univ faster than she can blink.

Also...claiming that the prof only wanted everyone else to agree with his stance..NONSENSE. There would be countless, constructive ways how she could've voiced her opposing opinion...without resorting to phrases like "perverse" etc.

Too bad she got kicked off the class because she, above anyone else, would have needed this type education URGENTLY. (And in addition to that maybe also some lessons in equality and the difference between free speech and openly discriminating).


edit on 10/18/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: NavyDoc
that is really the convention in these sort of "gender studies" type classes, not really an honest dialogue.


Someone else who seems to have problems differentiating between free speech/opinion and hate speech.

There is a hell of a difference writing a constructive "critique", say, if you don't "agree" with homosexuality or whatever....and using words like "perverse".

Ironically, NO ONE in their right mind today would openly, say in an university, voice an opinion such like " I don't like blacks using public transportation or visiting movie theates", at least not without severe consequences.

BUT FOR SOME BIZARRE reason some think it's ok to openly voice a dislike of and call homosexuals "perverse", respective they need a judge to "decide" whether it's ok to do so.

The judge certainly would NOT be needed if she wrote an assignment saying she's disgusted that blacks are in her university, correct? Everyone would immediately agree she's racist and she'd be booted off univ faster than she can blink.

Also...claiming that the prof only wanted everyone else to agree with his stance..NONSENSE. There would be countless, constructive ways how she could've voiced her opposing opinion...without resorting to phrases like "perverse" etc.

Too bad she got kicked off the class because she, above anyone else, would have needed this type education URGENTLY. (And in addition to that maybe also some lessons in equality and the difference between free speech and openly discriminating).



You contradict yourself in the same post so it is hard to make a comment back. Can you clarify your position?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Can you clarify his supposed contradiction? Maybe I'm just better at reading the spirit behind words than you because I saw no contradiction. I understood his point loud and clear but maybe I missed the slight logical/grammatical/semantic error that you will used to invalidate his entire point.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: NavyDoc

Can you clarify his supposed contradiction? Maybe I'm just better at reading the spirit behind words than you because I saw no contradiction. I understood his point loud and clear but maybe I missed the slight logical/grammatical/semantic error that you will used to invalidate his entire point.





Someone else who seems to have problems differentiating between free speech/opinion and hate speech. Text

Neither defined and still very objective.




There is a hell of a difference writing a constructive "critique", say, if you don't "agree" with homosexuality or whatever....and using words like "perverse".


No difference. Both are perfectly acceptable in a paper about opinions. They are subjective opinions.




Ironically, NO ONE in their right mind today would openly, say in an university, voice an opinion such like " I don't like blacks using public transportation or visiting movie theates", at least not without severe consequences.


Just because it is not politically correct to have an option does not make it unable to say such an opinion and it's pretty Stalinesque to demand "severe consequences" on a thought you don't like.




BUT FOR SOME BIZARRE reason some think it's ok to openly voice a dislike of and call homosexuals "perverse", respective they need a judge to "decide" whether it's ok to do so.


FOR SOME BIZARRE REASON someone is against the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought. That you support somoen who wants to punich someone for thought he does not agree with is a poor indication of our character.




The judge certainly would NOT be needed if she wrote an assignment saying she's disgusted that blacks are in her university, correct? Everyone would immediately agree she's racist and she'd be booted off univ faster than she can blink.


Considering that is not what she said about lesbians, that is a rather inane and stupid straw man you've created there. Even as such, she should not be booted out of the university for saying that just as the women who say that all men are rapists (very common in womyn's studies) or all whites are oppressors (very common in AA studies classes) without a single complaint. Hypocrisy, thy name is thee.


Also...claiming that the prof only wanted everyone else to agree with his stance..NONSENSE. There would be countless, constructive ways how she could've voiced her opposing opinion...without resorting to phrases like "perverse" etc.


Considering that this is exactly what happened in contradiction to the syllabus' statement to the contrary, this would be patently obvious to the non-biased.




Can you clarify his supposed contradiction? Maybe I'm just better at reading the spirit behind words than you because I saw no contradiction. I understood his point loud and clear but maybe I missed the slight logical/grammatical/semantic error that you will used to invalidate his entire point


The contradictions were obvious and apparent to those without an obvious agenda if they were thinking.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

You have no agenda? Hehe OK.

So by your line of thought I'm completely justified in saying "all blacks are savage beasts and should be killed"?

How about " all white people are greedy demonic bastards born with no souls? "

How about "all Christians are hypocritical pieces of garbage with less morality than hyenas"?

How about " all Jews are money grubbing goblins with the compassion of malaria carrying mosquitoes? "

These are all legitimate statements acceptable in a classroom? Because free speech?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: NavyDoc

You have no agenda? Hehe OK.

So by your line of thought I'm completely justified in saying "all blacks are savage beasts and should be killed"?

How about " all white people are greedy demonic bastards born with no souls? "

How about "all Christians are hypocritical pieces of garbage with less morality than hyenas"?

How about " all Jews are money grubbing goblins with the compassion of malaria carrying mosquitoes? "

These are all legitimate statements acceptable in a classroom? Because free speech?


I have no agenda and yes, all those comments are perfectly acceptable in a classroom where ":controversy and dissention is excepted and encouraged" as was put forth on the syllabus.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Lol so basically if I dressed up as Hitler and started spewing anti Jewish hate speech in a Judaism Theology class, you would applaud me?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: NavyDoc

Lol so basically if I dressed up as Hitler and started spewing anti Jewish hate speech in a Judaism Theology class, you would applaud me?


If the stated object of the class was to create controversy as was the stated object of this class was, then yes. Methinks you are trying to create a strawman and I will not bite. The object of this class, as stated in all of the referenced articles, was to create and discuss controversy. She did exactly that and she should not be punished for doing as instructed.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm not trying to create a straw man. I'm trying to get you to tell me where the line between hate speech and intelligent disagreement is.

The movie is not perverse unless you think homosexuals are perverse and that's hardly a brave and unique non mainstream opinion. It was the accepted view for the last few hundred years. It only shifted towards accepting gays in the last 5 or 10.

So if you won't respond to my questions because they are straw men, can you explain to me how saying "lesbians are gross" is an intelligent worthwhile contribution to the class worthy of praise?

I went to college for quite a while and most people there only know how to parrot the views of their family or social group in incredibly low brow uninspired ways. Ever take a history class in college? Most people don't know anything and have no idea how to provide any response to any question at all.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm not trying to create a straw man. I'm trying to get you to tell me where the line between hate speech and intelligent disagreement is.

The movie is not perverse unless you think homosexuals are perverse and that's hardly a brave and unique non mainstream opinion. It was the accepted view for the last few hundred years. It only shifted towards accepting gays in the last 5 or 10.

So if you won't respond to my questions because they are straw men, can you explain to me how saying "lesbians are gross" is an intelligent worthwhile contribution to the class worthy of praise?

I went to college for quite a while and most people there only know how to parrot the views of their family or social group in incredibly low brow uninspired ways. Ever take a history class in college? Most people don't know anything and have no idea how to provide any response to any question at all.


It certainly is a strawman. This was not a class, like a physics class where F=MA is not up to debate, this is a class where they were, by the syllabus, exploring controversy and encouraging controversy. From the class explanation: with open minds, representations of a plethora of genders and sexualities. I hope it's quite clear that we do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with the positions and arguments advanced in our work. There's controversy built right into the syllabus, and we can't wait to hash out our differences.'"

One cannot ask for controversy and then punish the student because one does not like the controversial position they raised. That is hypocritical.

I have taken many a class in university and students are often expected to parrot what the instructor says, just like you say people parrot what they learned in their family. That is disingenuous to condemn kids for blindly parroting what they learned in their family but then expecting them to blindly parrot what their professor wants especially when the professor explicitly requests controversy and debate of opposing positions. You seem to ignore that part,



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I dunno. I argued very controversial positions in college courses. The trick is to be intelligent about it. Calling lesbians perverse is not a well thought out position. But either way you're convinced of your certainty and I'm convinced of mine and both are opinions so whatever.

If you wanna respect someone for the courage of ignorant homophobia feel free. I generally find it in poor taste to advocate that one group is better or worse than another. I'm more for accepting people for their value as people. There's hundreds of far more perverse movies out there with no homosexuality so I think it's ridiculous. Did you read about the movie at all or are you just blindly supporting her right to low brow uninformed hatred?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
I argued very controversial positions in college courses. The trick is to be intelligent about it...I generally find it in poor taste to advocate that one group is better or worse than another.

I see where you're going with this, but there's a trend to protect "freedoms" at all cost these days, to the point of absurdity.

Others might disagree, but these are my own personal assumptions that pertain to American culture:

1. You can't support prejudice in the name of freedom.

2. The constitution does not protect your inalienable right to be unethical.

3. God has not endowed anyone with certain "rights" to be rude.


What a lot of students never quite learn about writing and speaking in a potentially unethical manner is that it's not what you say but how you say it. What I see from the article is an example of a student recklessly unconcerned about how she expresses herself on at least three levels:

1. A prejudiced statement. By definition, lesbians are sexually attracted to the same sex. Thus, if you write that a woman had a "perverse attraction to the same sex," you're essentially saying all lesbians are perverse UNLESS you make it clear that you are not saying all lesbians are perverse.

2. To associate having a "barren womb" (i.e., incapable of producing a baby, as in a plant being fruitless) with being a lesbian is negatively overgeneralizing because most lesbians can bear children.

3. If a teacher's syllabus invites discussion of a variety of views, this did not give students the license to be prejudiced.

I see mentioned in comments above there's the perspective that accuses teachers of classroom "indoctrination." From the Huff Post article: "Pompeo's professor told her to pick up her paper and 'ponder the responses' the professor gave her.' " The teacher accused the student of comments that were "inflammatory and offensive," specifically the notion that a lesbian portrayed in a film had a " 'perverse attraction to the same sex' " and a "barren womb." Given the students obvious anti-gay language, the professor eventually gave the student the logical suggestion that it might not be in her best interest to return to the class. That's no evidence of indoctrination. (Note also, despite misinformed posts, the professor is a woman.)

Before somebody opposes my comments above in reductio ad absurdum style (i.e., an argument in the extreme. In this case someone would say if it's prejudice to say something negative about a whole group of people then it must be wrong to say something negative about terrorists and other criminals, which is of course to the point of absurdity) take a look at this video: www.youtube.com...

Listen to the guy in this video (at 1:20) violently saying things like "Arabs are dirtbags" and tell me this is the kind of language that should justly be protected under the man's constitutional "right" to say whatever he wants with no negative consequences for what he says. Now imagine the same guy is in the professor's class and he declares in class or on paper, "Lesbians are perverse! I tell you they are perverse!" The teacher responds to the guy by saying: I think it's in your best interest not to return to the class. The guy screams back: Then I'm gonna sue the school for violating my first amendment rights! Others join in with the guy chanting, "No indoctrination! No indoctrination!"

That's my own reductio ad absurdum argument.


The more I think about it, the more I think the judge who suggests there's a case of First Amendment rights here is just humoring the student and the professor for the sake of an academic exercise.


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:28:53 -0500201453312 by Petros312 because: Formatting; additional thoughts



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: NavyDoc

I dunno. I argued very controversial positions in college courses. The trick is to be intelligent about it. Calling lesbians perverse is not a well thought out position. But either way you're convinced of your certainty and I'm convinced of mine and both are opinions so whatever.

If you wanna respect someone for the courage of ignorant homophobia feel free. I generally find it in poor taste to advocate that one group is better or worse than another. I'm more for accepting people for their value as people. There's hundreds of far more perverse movies out there with no homosexuality so I think it's ridiculous. Did you read about the movie at all or are you just blindly supporting her right to low brow uninformed hatred?


I think you make a rather large assumption that is not supported by anything I said. I don't think I supported any " low brow uninformed hatred." What I was doing was pointing out that, given the information presented, was that she was doing what was requested by the professor and the professor is upset because it was the "wrong kind" of controversy. Having spent a lot of time in academia, I have noticed there are certain hateful positions that are encouraged and supported and some that are not. If she wrote a paper about the evil patriarchy and that the film was a statement on that all men are rapists at heart, she probably would have done well.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...she [the student] was doing what was requested by the professor and the professor is upset because it was the "wrong kind" of controversy.

Fallacious. The teacher did not request that the students be prejudiced and rude. Having an "open mind" about a topic does not include to the absurd point of supporting oppression of a minority group. To welcome prejudice is to invite an unethical form of discussion. The teacher is still required to maintain certain decorum in the classroom.



originally posted by: NavyDoc Having spent a lot of time in academia, I have noticed there are certain hateful positions that are encouraged and supported and some that are not. If she wrote a paper about the evil patriarchy and that the film was a statement on that all men are rapists at heart, she probably would have done well.

Sounds like you are anti-feminist. If you have a bone to pick with feminists please don't derail the topic, which is the issue of a student trying to sue a college because she believes her First Amendment rights were violated if she's getting negative consequences for suggesting lesbians are perverse. Fill n the blank with anything you like (e.g., Arabs are dirtbags. Blacks are perverse.) and according to the student's argument her First Amendment rights are being violated.


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:47:52 -0500201452312 by Petros312 because: Correction; addition



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


The teacher is still required to maintain certain decorum in the classroom.

What decorum?

She wasn't standing on a soapbox, she turned in a paper that revealed a perspective that the professor didn't like and was punished for it.

"Think like us, or you're out on your ear!" That's "maintaining certain decorum"?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...she [the student] was doing what was requested by the professor and the professor is upset because it was the "wrong kind" of controversy.

Fallacious. The teacher did not request that the students be prejudiced and rude. Having an "open mind" about a topic does not include to the absurd point of supporting oppression of a minority group. To welcome prejudice is to invite an unethical form of discussion. The teacher is still required to maintain certain decorum in the classroom.



originally posted by: NavyDoc Having spent a lot of time in academia, I have noticed there are certain hateful positions that are encouraged and supported and some that are not. If she wrote a paper about the evil patriarchy and that the film was a statement on that all men are rapists at heart, she probably would have done well.

Sounds like you are anti-feminist. If you have a bone to pick with feminists please don't derail the topic, which is the issue of a student trying to sue a college because she believes her First Amendment rights were violated if she's getting negative consequences for suggesting lesbians are perverse. Fill n the blank with anything you like (e.g., Arabs are dirtbags. Blacks are perverse.) and according to the student's argument her First Amendment rights are being violated.



No, the teacher encouraged "controversy" and even alluded to the "controversy" being objectionable to some right in her syllabus. One person's "controversy" is "offensive" to some other people. That's the problem with some professors--that they encourage "controversy" that some may find offensive and then fall back on "freedom of expression" when said "controversy" offends. Some professors are quite hypocritical in this apparently.

Failed in the "ad hominum" attack. I', not anti-feminist, just pointing out an example where awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia. Thus the hypocrisy.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join