Replies

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.

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?

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.