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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (133354)	8/19/2005 11:00:32 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793931

What an innocent babe you are. You don't hear about these for the obvious reasons. But my guess is that the academy is better in dealing with its problem children than corporations.

To: JohnM who wrote (133354)	8/19/2005 11:53:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

But my guess is that the academy is better in dealing with its problem children than corporations. Corporations don't have any tenured employees, and cannot claim "academic freedom" when their employees break copyright laws, or any other laws for that matter. Corporate employees can be reassigned or fired at will. That makes the job of dealing with corporate problem children much much easier. For tenured professors, you must prove malfeasance and deal with the union.

To: JohnM who wrote (133354)	8/19/2005 1:51:33 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

I clearly stated that I wasn't the least bit interested in the politics of Ward Churchill or all the political gamesmanship being played about his public statements. I never even mentioned Pipes, except indirectly to state that I generally agreed with your points, but you brought him up here. I think I posted publicly known facts available in the public domain. Ward Churchill has publicly admitted that he is not an American Indian. Some of the paintings Churchill sold as original works of art can be viewed on-line along with some incredibly "similar" pieces done by other artist completed before Churchill's. (As I remember, one in particular appeared to be little more than the mirror image of the other.) But I guess you want to stay on your talking point of the day, which appears to be right-wing efforts to deny free speech to college professors. Speaking of ideological conformity, I went to a public university that subtly practiced ideological conformity and they continue to do it today. I have never been in a more ideologically rigid place in my life, and I have lived under dictators. I sat in on job interviews and affirmative action searches for four years. I know how it was done then and don't doubt it is done the same way now. I wonder, as an adjunct who probably travelled around a bit in your career, how many of the colleges you taught at had "speech codes?" I simply cannot fathom that colleges are so threatened by those who do not share the opinions of those in power in those college that they must deny the basic human right of free speech to their students lest one or two suffer hurt feelings because of that free expression. Can you? After reading your last reply, I would not be at all surprised that your reply to this would be something along the lines of "everything is in the details." I submit it is not. There is either free speech or there isn't. College speech codes are demands for ideological conformity and are every bit as damaging to society as the suppression of free speech commonly found in totalitarian societies. I witnessed, up close and personal, the very base tactics you attribute to Pipes, and worse, in the name of the same cause, when I was in college. It was unpleasant, suffocating, and traumatic. I found the active suppression of free speech as intolerable then as I do now and will to my dying day oppose those who attempt it, regardless of the cause, with everything I have. I don't meet the contemporary definitions of conservative, John, and am unlikely to do so any time soon. BTW, I write as a life-long contributor and supporter who acknowledges his debt to the university for the tremendous education provided, has never altered those contributions because of school policy or political disagreements, never taken advantage of any of the incredibly generous "freebies" offered every year in exchange for those gifts, and never attempted to influence the university about any issue except tenure for one friend not long after I graduated , and in support of a senior lectureship for a prof while in college. I could be wrong, and I could be all alone with my feelings, but I believe that when academia starts losing supporters such as me, whatever good reputation remains at large within society will be greatly diminished.