The Academic Bill of Rights

Uh, yeah. Maybe a few complaints, but certainly no calls for intrusive legislation.See, that's the funny thing about freedom. People are occasionally going to use it to do or say things you don't like. Being pro-freedom means accepting this. So I guess we know where you stand, now don't we? Unless, of course, they're gay. That's when the gloves come off.

Maybe in your Orwellian double-speak it does, but it's obvious to any disinterested observer that this bill stifles the freedom of the classroom and chills any discussion of anything that a professor might suspect conflicts with the opinion of any one particular student.Which is naturally why you're in favor of it. Like most social conservatives the idea that someone might enjoy their freedom in ways you don't particularly like terrifies you. Oh, well. Eventually you'll grow up, I think. Look, let's not be ridiculous, ok?

If that claim is factual, why should it be suppressed just because someone erroneously believes it to be false?

You don't believe that there is an objective measure by which we might assess who is a war criminal and who is not? Or you believe that George Bush, by anointment of God, is above being set against any such measure?I don't find anything subjective about the term "war criminal", thus, I see the question of whether or not Bush is one as a matter of legal fact, not of political opinion.Not everything is politics or religion, Faith. And that was exactly my point. Your side claims it has a religious/political right to disagree with the facts and, ludicrously, have that disagreement be set on equal footing with the truth. Lies and truth are all the same to your ilk because there's absolutely nothing any of you take seriously.

Translation: "I have no rebuttal, so I'll just call Crash every name I can think of and hope no one notices."Could you answer the question, please? Do you believe that there's an objective legal standard one might use to determine who is a war criminal and who is not?

Who decides what's significant? Like creationists, the holocaust deniers can point to a large body of (their own) publications. I'm pleased that Sara correctly recognizes Holocaust denial as a fringe position, but her view really isn't relevant, now is it?

War criminal may be bandied about as a perjorative, but it's also a specific legal term with a specific, objective legal meaning, so its entirely appropriate to assess whether or not George Bush has met that meaning; and if he has, then it's entirely legitimate to ask a student to reiterate that legal reasoning.I don't see the problem; or rather I do, and it proves my point about this bill - it forces professors to grant someone's erroneous opinion the same weight as a factually true statement.

If I may jump in to defend them; I'm pretty sure they would tell you that it would be perfectly appropriate, if Bush's war criminality had not yet been factually established, to propose the question as a hypothetical. Which I agree with.Whether or not it was appropriate for a professor to pose the question from a basis of fact would depend on the extent to which that characterization had been factually defended during class. I too would fault the professor for busting that question out absent any preamble prior to the test; just like I would fault a professor for testing anything not covered or assigned in class.

But that's the thing. Yours is an extremist agenda.Look if there were merit to the conservative position, it would be held by professors. They're not hiring liberals. They're hiring experts in their fields, and those tend to be liberals, because, quite frankly, liberals just tend to be plain smarter and better than conservatives. Conservativism today is an anti-intellectual movement of selfishness, so its only natural that our best and brightest are so liberal.

Look, I'm Faith! You're a stoopid poo-poo head! No YOU are!I realize that this is the best you have to offer, Faith. Couldn't you at least try to rebut my arguments instead of acting like a baby? Please? It would mean a lot to me.Oh, by the way - if we're going to let Faith do whatever she wants around here, why don't we add that into the forum guidelines? That would at least make it less surprising for the new people when Faith flies off the handle and the admins do nothing.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-10-2005 07:43 PM

The conservatives would have us sacrifice morality and freedom, and receive nothing in return. What does that accomplish? No, we didn't. We traded morality for nothing. We're not more secure; we're demonstratably less so. What on Earth does that accomplish?

Re-evaluate what?Faith's tantrum means we all have to sit in the corner? We're calm and collected. She's the one that can't take the heat.God, could anything be more humiliating than group punishment? I thought I was done with that when I left middle school.

Ah-hah. So, contrary to both your assertion and that of Faith, students under this bill are entitled to demand equal treatment of their counter-factual views.Why is this a good idea?What does it take to get you conservatives to stop whining all the time?

You keep repeating that like it should mean something to me. Not so. I'm simply reading what is written in it, and as written, it grants students the "right" to object and reject facts presented to them in the classroom, and demands that the professor grant counter-factual positions the same level of respect as the truth.Does it get more stupid than that? If the students are so smart that they already know everything, and they're not going to allow themselves to be instructed, then why are they at college in the first place? If one or both of those positions are factually true, why should someone be allowed to take exception? Faith couldn't answer that; can you?

But they haven't been met. That's why we still have affirmative action. The problem is that conservatives don't know what equal opportunity actually means.