Posted on 08/02/2008 5:28:03 PM PDT by madprof98
Letting the facts do the talking seems to be a lost art among university bureaucrats today, at least at Georgia Tech. Honesty takes a back seat to misinformation, distortions of the truth and the assumption that those with opposing views are inherently wrong and deserving of retribution. It doesn't help when some members of the media leave this unchallenged. But now a federal judge has made note of Tech's apparent "lack of candor."
In March 2006, the Alliance Defense Fund —- Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith —- filed a civil rights lawsuit against Tech officials on behalf of conservative students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, who suffered harassment, discrimination and violations of their constitutional rights at the hands of Tech faculty, students and administration.
In one incident that ultimately led to the filing of the lawsuit, Tech forced Malhotra to cover up quotes she placed on placards objecting to the perverse feminist play "Vagina Monologues" performed during Women's Awareness Week. The quotes were from the play.
In the name of tolerance, a campus group called CLAM (Conservatives and Liberals Against Malhotra) formed, and an anti-Malhotra Web site featured her swastika-covered "christo-fascist" face.
But many in the public would have no idea about such events. Tech will support what's politically correct even in the face of criminal harassment. They would have you believe Malhotra's and Sklar's intolerant "hate speech" is what creates the "hostile environment," not the university's policies and practices, even when they've been struck down by a court. Yes, Malhotra and Sklar sued over the policies that led to this environment, and they won.
A focus of the lawsuit was the unconstitutionality of a portion of Tech's "Safe Space" training manual, which endorsed some religions and denigrated others, based on their stance on homosexual behavior. In an April 2008 ruling, the court ordered Tech to eliminate that part of its "tolerance" training manual because it violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from this sort of politically correct denominational persecution.
The lawsuit also successfully forced Tech to discontinue its "free speech zone" —- which, despite its name, was designed to limit speech and functioned as a corral for students who wanted to express views with which Tech disagreed (read, conservative and Christian speech).
An earlier victory for the students came in August 2006, when a federal judge ordered Tech to repeal its unconstitutional speech code and prohibited Tech from changing it without court approval for five years.
Unwilling to concede a loss and admit to a decisive free speech courtroom victory for ADF and two of Tech's own students, Tech issued a press release May 1 that led many to believe the falsehood that Tech scored a major win. Some media outlets did not bother to question it. But the truth is now impossible to ignore, following another ruling from the court on July 23.
Instead of disclosing the plaintiffs' success in changing Tech's policies and practices for the benefit of all students, the May 1 Tech press release brazenly claimed, "Georgia Tech will not be required to take any actions as the result of today's court ruling. . . . The judge ruled in favor of the Georgia Tech free-speech-zone policy. . . . Georgia Tech practices are exactly the same as before the suit was filed."
But in his July 23 decision refusing Tech's request to reconsider the court's ruling against the school, U.S. District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester noted "the lack of candor of Georgia Tech throughout the litigation of this case."
Forrester wrote, "Anyone with passing familiarity of the instant litigation would not be faulted for questioning the accuracy of numerous portions of this short press release.
"In fact, all three of the four challenged policies are materially different than they were before the suit. As to the fourth, although the court did not order a change, the court did not discuss Georgia Tech's student activity fee program for 23 pages in any way to 'rule in favor' of the program."
Let's cut to the chase. Malhotra and Sklar won, Tech lost. Tech lost big. And considering what these two young women have been through, no one should be too gutless to say it.
> Jonathan D. Crumly is a Marietta attorney. He is not representing any party in the Georgia Tech litigation.
Going to have to ask a couple of GaTech colleagues about this. (One’s a graduate, one’s a manager there.)
And get rid of those pesky yellow jackets. And their football team.
Vagina Monlogues, big deal. When you find one that does standup and tells jokes, call me.
Obviously, GT is not afraid of its alumni refusing to donate to the school nor are their tenured professors and teachers afraid of losing their jobs. Any bets that all are democrats?
My non PC son is an incoming senior there. He loves the school. I will forward this to him and he can read during a leave from OCS.....
Watch it.
Be careful what you wish for, they can do amazing things with plastic surgery these days. ;^)
Sorry Groanup = I forgot - Tech doesn’t have a real football team. I don’t know what I was thinking!
This is a stunning read. I’ll have to finish it later.
How about one that smokes tobacco?
Its graduate programs are literally choked with foreign students because it makes Tech more diverse and it also garners those high out-of-state tuitions. It is a state school and is funded by the state of Georgia to a very large extent, supposedly for the betterment of Georgia business and Georgia citizens.
Don't get me wrong, it has a great tradition of excellent technical accomplishment and many of its faculty and staff are highly conservative (read those that work for the other non-traditional academic side involved in government research work).
Hmm, maybe the young women should sue Georgia Tech for damages. That might change things. There’s nothing universities loathe more than parting with money. (Think Duke and the lacrosse team.)
Our President at Georga Tech is leaving to head up the Smithsonian in D.C. I’m hoping we get someone totally different than this jackass, as anything would be better than a P.C.-pandering jerk like we had! We now have a new football coach, and I’m thinking we might surprise a few teams this year!
I also am glad to see him go. It unfortunate that he was, I believe, the only ‘Tech’ graduate among the past presidents. However, I don’t hold much hope for someone better. Tech is far more interested in building new buildings to drive its rates higher and to build more and more parking decks to increase revenue.
This whole article seems to have a biased spin to it, which is summarized in one very sweeping statement: “Tech will support what’s politically correct even in the face of criminal harassment.”
Are you psychic? Where did this come from? You’re article cites two incidences and *two* students views (out of 15,000+). “BAM. This is what Tech always does, and it’s how they always will be.”
Might as well just have typed, “Notice: Everyone at tech is out to get all us conservatives and christians!” That’s about as supported as your statements.
Here’s a big surprise:
Mr. Jonathan D. Crumly
Law School: University of Georgia
Fanboy much? Pander much?
As for the sweeping statement, "...support what's politically correct even in the face of criminal harasssment" -----that is not very difficult to believe at all. One example is the indignities and restrictions forced on right-to-lifers when protesting abortion clinics. However, with the situation reversed, there is virtually NO oversight/conditions on 'citizens' protesting religious (i.e., Christian) gatherings, organizations, etc.- even to the point that violence is oft times overlooked or not prosecuted.
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.