University Conservatives Take Stronger Stand on Campus, Liberal Intolerance Increases

Agape Press ^ | 4-14-04 | Jason Collum

[Huber]

TROLL!

[RightWingAtheist]

Beg your pardon? If you examine my post history, stretching all the way back to September, you will see that I am no troll, but a (mostly) serious participant in an ongoing dialogue with fellow conservatives.

[mollynme]

45 percent of students in 2003 said they've drunk beer in the past year, down from 69 percent in 1966. Fewer students are smoking now, too.

I'm wracking my widdle brain trying to figure out what either statistic has to do with being liberal or conservative.

Maybe it's because those that drink less have more time for rational thought & are therefore more prone to be conservative??? (More likely they are just stereotyping conservatives.)

[metesky]

Or more students are lying to the poll takers.

[Republican Ruth]

> University Conservatives Take Stronger Stand on Campus, Liberal Intolerance Increases

--


As many of you are aware, the academic bias situation at Georgia Tech remains heated, as the recent coverage of the Academic Bill of Rights and my experience on campus is obviously drawing controversial feedback from different directions. Although much of the coverage on this issue has focused on a specific incident with one of my professors and a comment she made in a public policy class, it is simply indicative of the much larger problem on college campuses around the country.

I testified at the Georgia Senate Higher Education Committee hearing on February 23, 2004 on the issue of Academic Freedom. I firmly believe that professors should not teach personal opinion as fact, treat students in a disrespectful manner, or threaten to lower grades based on their personal beliefs. So far I have been in several classes where the professors have had well-defined political views and radical differences from the students, but they have listened to the students’ viewpoints and promoted healthy discussion when dealing with controversial issues without being derogatory or sarcastic.

I recognize the fact that the pursuit of academic freedom is indispensable to the teacher and the student, and that the classroom is an effective platform to generate healthy dialogue. I also recognize that teachers need freedom to design their courses without limiting constraints, and to foster creativity and originality. However, when the imposition of strong political biases becomes a pattern and derogation becomes the style (regardless of which group is defended or disparaged), it stifles freedom and creates hostilities within a class, and leads to extremism and confusion. I value the chance in class for lively discussion and educated debate when relevant, and realize that students and professors alike must commit to a mutual level of professionalism and respect in order to ensure a meaningful academic experience. My decision to confront this problem is not an emotional issue; it is based on the principle that the basic dignity of certain students in the class has been violated. It is against this vindictiveness that I take a stand, and voice my convictions with confidence.

Situations of political and religious discrimination are not isolated incidents, but unfortunately they are prevalent and something must be done. I consider it my responsibility to address these difficult issues in the appropriate manner. I stand by my statements and hope for a constructive resolution to this specific situation, as well as a greater awareness of academic freedom in general. I continue my loyal support for Georgia Tech, and endeavor to make a positive contribution to the program.

~ Ruth Malhotra

[Huber]

The word troll was, in this instance, specific to this thread although perhaps the noun "disrupter" would have been a better choice. After your post, the topic of the thread switched from academic diversity to evolution, effectively disrupting the tread. This is a shame, as the subject of academic diversity should be of interest to all, including honest atheists. Unfortunately, the atheism/evolution threads on FR become tiresome with participants firmly entrenched in their camps.

A question for you... Would it be possible for you to even consider the perspective of the other side in this debate without changing your screen name? It seems that objectivity could cause a contradiction with the atheist persona that you have cultivated. Perhaps an incremental screen name evolution to rightwingagnostic and then onward and upward from there might be possible.

[Prov3456]

Evolution by natural is not just a theory; it's a proven fact.

Have you ever heard of Phillip Johnson? Perhaps you should read some of his materials before you state your theory as fact.

[RightWingAtheist]

Yes, I have read Philip Johnson, and while he may be a perfectly fine professor of law, he is not at all competent in the realm if biology. I encounter many other creation advocates in my academic field (rhetorical studies), and none of them have even the slightest bit of expertise in biology or any relevant field of science. And, quite incidentally, they all also tend to be members of the multiculturalist, postmodernist left.

[RightWingAtheist]

OK, I apologize for inadverantly switching the focus of the thread. And like I said, as a grad student I know all too well the stifiling atmosphere which exists on campus, where you can't reveal your politics for fear of ruining your friendships. But I'm not about to change my nom d'ecran-yet. Just a little over thirty years ago, it would have been considered sacrilege for a Catholic to vote for anyone other than a Democrat. Twenty years ago, it was viewed as an anamoly for a Jew to vote Republican. I stand for the silent majority in the godless population, and once my fellow brethren finally get fed up with The American Inhumanist Society and the Michael Newdoh's of the world pretending to speak for them, and let their own voices be ehard I'll no longer need my screen name.

[RebelTex]

I guess you missed my post to you, # 33. Perhaps you just chose to ignore it, or you accept my points as valid, which?

I acknowlege your mostly conservative viewpoints, but I feel you let your anti-religious bias cloud the issue of the student's right to express his opinion. The professor should not demean or belittle students for their opinions, nor grade down for expressing them, as long as they also demonstrate their knowledge of the subject matter.

Do you agree?

FReegards,
RebelTex

[RightWingAtheist]

If it was an English or political science professor who was punishing a student for expressing religious views, then it would indeed be a clear violation of the student's rights, as religion is indeed a valid prism for critical analysis in those areas. In the case of a biology class, however, the student must clearly demonstrate that he knows and understands the science-and if he starts mouthing Intelligent Design talking points, then he clearly does not understand evolution well enough. And if you don't understand evolution, it becomes impossible to understand nearly all of biology.
Please note that student may not necessarily be religious. Although small in number, there are non-religious folks who oppose evolutionary theory out of an anti-authoritarian impulse.

[RebelTex]

Granted. You have valid points, & I concur. The student may not necessarily be religious. He may have been acting as "devil's advocate" for any number of reasons. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, if he demonstrated a good knowledge of the subject matter (ie. evolution and all facts, theories, and hypothesis) and indicated that evolution is the generally accepted theory, he should not then be downgraded for also mentioning opposing theories along with appropriate facts and reasonings. Even better would be if he could quote sources and research on both sides.

On the other hand, if he could not demonstrate a good understanding of evolution and all it's finer points, then he should not have brought Intelligent Design into the mix and deserved to be graded down. ( I still think the professor's harsh rebuke was overkill and out of line.)

I enjoyed our discussion and hope you did, too. Even though we may disagree on some things, as conservatives, we probably do agree on a whole lot of things.

FReegards,
RebelTex

[BloomNTn]

Ping