Feds Investigate 'Hate Speech' Incident at UNC-Chapel Hill

wtvd ^

[Esther Ruth]

"Can feel entitled to make violent hetero sexist comments and not feel MARKED or THREATENED or VULNERABLE."

If there is a hate crime any where it is on her part, WOW! She definitely is stirring up her witches brew and coaxing these students into putting a MARK on this Christian man, she wants them to THREATEN him and make him feel VULNERABLE. She is taunting them as if to say "how dare he hold these belief, are you going to let him get away with this, come on - do something about it!"

[Swanks]

Dont be fooled. this was done only because the University has undergone a great deal of negative publicity lately because of its reading assignments.

No this is legit. I know because I filed the initial complaint. It's not UNC, or even the State investigating, its Federal. So, much to UNC's dismay, this has gone far beyond their ability to control. Which they thought they would neatly do, by having the English Dep't monitor it's racists in the English Dep't.

Even DOE has to watch it's step; because Cass Ballanger (R-NC-Goodguy) in part controls DOEs purse strings on subcommittee appropriations. Which I am sure, they don't want to see a reduction in, in budget. And , there is no more blatant a case than this - complete with a tidy audit trail, to 'box' both DOE and UNC.

It will be like swallowing poison to UNC but Ms. Crystall has to go. By removing her, UNC will lose favor among it's peers, since white, male Christian bashing should be rewarded, not punished. So they run the risk of disdain among the Liberal elite for canning what should be rewarded. But....money is money. And THAT won't be sacrificed for Ms. Crystall; racist Christ-o-phobe that she is. See? They're all Capitalists at heart, in the end.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I find it pretty bizarre that there's no description at all of what the student originally said, beyond the extremely vague a student said he opposed homosexuality. Did he really just raise his hand and say "I oppose homosexuality"? Did he explain why he opposes it (e.g. religious belief, necessary to social order), as would be expected in an academic setting? Or did he say something really offensive and hostile and clearly inappropriate for a classroom or workplace? Though the prof's response was overblown and inappropriate in any case, inquiring minds still want to know why this key info is being withheld.

[ASTM366]

OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

[GovernmentShrinker]

Can you answer my question in post #23, since it sounds like you were in the class?

[Swanks]

I find it pretty bizarre that there's no description at all of what the student originally said, beyond the extremely vague a student said he opposed homosexuality. Did he really just raise his hand and say "I oppose homosexuality"?

The press wants this to be about homosexuality. However what blew the Prof's cork was the student's comments that he made his own way and earned his own money.

See, the day's lecture was on how white males has priviledge and power while keeping minorities down. (This is what they are paying tuition dollars for). The kid took exception, gave examples of his wealth, and she went nutz.

However, the student should be dinged, for even going to a useless class such as hers; and find something else to fill his academic requirements. My daughter is a UNC grad, and managed to avoid these classes. She actually registered for one, went to class 1st time and read the opening line of the sylibus: "God is a women and she is pi**ed" DShe rolled her eyes, left, and withdrew.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Weird. Is the prof claiming that her e-mail message was in response to his comments about homosexuality (did her e-mail even make reference to it)? If so, I'd think she'd have been required to quote or paraphrase his comments in order to defend herself (then the "he said, she said" debate could begin). And if not, where did the press get this focus?

[beckett]

Your explanation doesn't quite square with the way the story is being presented. Are you saying that the student never mentioned homosexuality, and that he only discussed the merits of entrepreneurship, or something, and that the instructor became so incensed by his praise for self-sufficiency that she falsely accused him of "heterosexist hate speech?"

Was the topic of homosexuality discussed in any way, and if it was, what exactly did the student say about homosexuality? Was there any justification whatsoever for the instructor to characterize his remarks as "violent," as she did in the first email?

This is a crucial point. If the student said anything that can remotely be interpreted as "violent," his standing is diminished. But if the instructor was the first one to talk about "violence, threats and intimidation," her own remarks qualify as "hate speech" more readily than his do.

[taxesareforever]

Thanks for your input. I agree that an incident such as this should be investigated and action taken against the teacher for it. However, my point is why is this the first time that I have heard of the DOE getting itself involved? I have heard of many such situations and the DOE hasn't even touched them. That is why I insinuate that there must be more to this than what we are hearing.

[Eva]

My son did nothing, but participate in the group with the homosexuals and read their garbage. It just made him more anti-homosexual. It sure didn't help their cause. He hated every minute of the class.

He had another class that was taught by a Black woman, that never spoke more than five minutes a period on the subject and the rest of the time on Black issues. It was supposed to be a communications class, but everything that they were assigned was by Black writers, in Black slang. I told him he should demand a refund of the tuition, because he wasn't paying to learn how to speak ebonics.