Posted on 08/31/2016 6:00:44 AM PDT by george76
College profile says LaRoche grew up with a love of Shakespeare. Then be a good English professor, teach Shakespeare.
It’s really great to see such an honest professor. Most don’t display their ignorance until AFTER classes start.
This may sound dumb but if you DON’T dispute it, why the hell take the stupid class? Sounds like professor Marxist only wants to preach to the choir.
Had a chemistry professor in college who told us to drop his class if we did not believe in evolution, said the class was taught from the standpoint of evolution. Funny thing is, he never mentioned evolution again.
If anyone has ever noticed anything at all about evolution, it does not occur anywhere in the study of chemistry. I mean actual chemistry. When a chemist, dressed in his white lab coat, like the professor always wore, goes into his laboratory to do research, he never consults the theory of evolution.
:: Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill ::
Fred Rogers:
Can you say FemiNazi? Yes, I knew you could.
/Fred Rogers
If it's a required course, definitely. More than likely it's a soft, indoctrination elective. At least the snakes teaching it gave fair warning by hissing and rattling.
the larger problem is that this sort of propaganda has the de facto approval of the university higher ups. Professors are tenured whose main expertised is teaching complaints--from global warming to American oppression studies in feminism and race. This isn't higher learning, IMHO.
Doesn’t seem like climate change factors in to their course at all.
Evidently some people stand to rake in a lot of $$$ from it and they're not willing to do anything that would take their "cookies" away.
They do seem to be taking a few pages from the Muslim playbook.
Don’t challenge the fascists intelligentsia.
We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
A shame its not even science, but BS. How about just firing the propagandist pushing this totalitarianism?
:: More than likely it’s a soft, indoctrination elective ::
The “other face of that coin” is that students can elect this class to gain credits toward graduation in their stated degree of study (so-called “major” and “minor” are only for teaching degrees).
If it specifically is an “indoctrination” session, they still have standing for civil suit, but only after graduation and any legitimate and provable “harm”.
I especially enjoy throwing cans in the garbage.
Recycling actually creates a larger “carbon footprint” than simply tossing stuff in the trash. The only thing recycling does is reduce the volume of the trash stream; it’s energy-intensive, often moreso than manufacturing from raw material, and requires additional infrastructure to process. Plus, the range of products that can be made from recycled material is limited, and is sometimes inferior to “fresh” products. Glass and metal are particularly notable for being less useful after being recycled.
Here in New Mexico, we are not allowed to recycle glass. Can't go in the bin. Too expensive to deal with.
Metals, paper/cardboard (nothing with grease on it) and plastics. That's it.
Recycling is a pointless waste of money but the true believers won’t listen.
I do some token stuff at home to keep the spouse happy.
Probably not technical questions on the climate.
It appears the three ladies are Psychology, Sociology and English Lit. professors...:^)
Colorado requires colleges to teach global warming as a fact and that man creates it. The course is called, “Environmental Science and Sustainability”. It teaches that fresh water is nearly gone and that man has destroyed all fresh water supplies such that fresh water will not longer exist very soon. It teaches that the Earth is warming and that CO2 is the man-made cause.
The course lies about how much pollutants are actually released into the atmosphere from burning coal. It states the tons of pollutants are released from burning coal but only mentions “scrubbers prevent much of the pollutants from reaching the air”, but it does not mention that how much. The fact is nearly all pollutants are scrubbed and never reach the air.
I am not sure what “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” would be about, but it doesn’t sound like a class where the climate would even be a topic of discussion. Stick to the topic of the course, anything else is a waste of time and money... not that that matters to the ivory tower leftists.
Awhile back, I worked at a college for about 5 minutes. They used to lecture me (and others) on the value of cleaning recyclables before putting them in the bins.
At orientation, being an engineer and a troublemaker among "Studies" majors, I asked: "How much energy does it take to maintain the hot water needed to wash these recyclables? Does it exceed the amount of energy saved by recycling? What about wasting the clean water?"
Much discussion. Then, an answer: "Of course recycling is better."
Was a scene right out of the movie "Idiocracy".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.