Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (222763)	3/8/2005 4:28:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576627

These are serious allegations and yet no where in the article are they confirmed to have happened. An article like this is not a trial, the author can't call witnesses and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone said something or didn't say something. The article directly quotes Massad as saying : “The Jews are not a nation. The Jewish state is a racist state that does not have the right to exist.” That isn't just a claim that someone else alleged something. Either it is known that Massad said this or the article is dishonest in a way that you can't tell without personal knowledge of the situation. The other "charge" is the allegation that "he refused to answer a question from an Israeli student unless that student told Massad how many Palestinians he had killed." This is not reported as fact but as an allegation. The standard for publishing this alegation would be lower then the previous claim of fact but if there is any reason to think the allegation isn't true the article should state that reason, or better yet not repeat the claim. Do you know any good reason to think the claim is false? If you do then please state it and we can than agree that this is a big hole in the story. "If you look closely at the two stories, you will note some substantial differences. One of the professors has been accused of actual unethical conduct in a classroom setting (refusing to permit a student to dissent from his teaching)." EDIT: Up above, it was "alleged".....now its become "actual". That's called stacking the deck. Not at all. It has not become "actual", its become "accused of actual", which is similar to "alleged". The reason for the word actual is to distinguish between charges which even if true are not unethical conduct in a classroom setting and charges which are unethical conduct in a classroom setting. If you accuse me of wearing an ugly sweater in the classroom you are not accusing me of actual misconduct. If you accuse me of hitting a student over the head with a baseball bat for no good reason in the classroom than you are accusing me of actual misconduct. Even if I didn't hit anyone with a bat I would be "accused of actual misconduct". If instead of saying "accused of actual misconduct", the author had said "committed actual misconduct", than you would have a point. I find it very hard to believe that this DePaul professor was the model of professional classroom behavior but exhibited very heated and inappropriate behavior at the student booth. I doubt that the student booth incident was an aberration. I don't find it that hard to believe that he maintained profesionalism in the classroom but got in to a heated argument somewhere else. In any case he is being attacked for the comments maid in the political argument outside the classroom. He is being hit with a charge of racism for comments that are not themselves racist. If he did behave inapproriately in the classroom than that should be what he is attacked for. His job shouldn't be at risk for disputing Palestinian claims to a distinct national identity in a political discussion. In fact, the above is a serious understatement. Mr. Massad is not tenured and the hearings continue. You might have a point here. Excuse me, but I am sure the GOP bake sale had its defenders. Where are they now when the issue of Churchill is on the block? I don't consider the two to be eqivilent. In fact, with Massad, there had been no retribution in terms of students and their grades. Why does this article ignore that fact? Do you have another source of information about Massad's actions? That specifically confirms this. I think that issue is in dispute with Massad saying one thing and some of his detractors saying another. Do you agree with the article's final statement? - "It is time to put a stop to the obsession with victimization and offense. Speech codes and ideological uniformity lead inevitably to naked abuses of power and double standards. A campus culture that for twenty-five years (at least) has used its intellectual energy to suppress dissent now finds itself under unprecedented national scrutiny, and the conduct that once spawned chuckles in the faculty lounge now leads to headlines and appearances on Fox News. Simply put, free speech needs room to breathe. So free Thomas Klocek from his suspension, and restrict any “investigation” of Massad to only those allegations involving actual violations of student academic freedom." Tim