Student kicked out for telling professor there are only two genders

[Juvenal]

There's a problem with using "there's" like that.

There is a couple.
There are problems.



Of course, if you'd prefer cookies ...

[Juvenal]

Point out one liberal who while getting heckled didn't pretty much freak out or over-react in response

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26950[/ATTACH]

How about an entire panel. Check the Q&A after the talk. I assume all the panelists are politically liberal.

Just a suggestion, next time try to stick with what most liberals do, not what most right-wing propaganda outlets say most liberals do. Cause, ya know, they lie about the mainstream because if folks don't mistrust the mainstream, they're out of a job.

[Juvenal]

What part of "does not seem to be a degree worth pursuing" do you not understand?

I wouldn't be so quick to go there.

[Juvenal]

Good to see Mountain Man's suddenly a world expert on mental disorders. The real question is, who is dumber, MM or the two clowns in his avatar?

I choose not to allow this in my threads. Not my thread, not my rules. But it does seem you've just given MM permission to return the compliment. Reconsider, please.

C. "Liberals" are tolerance/free-speech hypocrites.

It's always difficult to explain why going there can't work.

Structurally, it's a negative self-reference, e.g.,

The set of all sets that do not contain themselves as a member.
The book of titles of all books that don't reference their own titles.
All Cretans are liars, said (the Cretan) Epimenides.
Giving love to those who hate being loved.

Or in this instance, that tolerance should embrace intolerance of tolerance.

It's a known paradox, like dividing by zero, and as such, cannot be used in any deductive sequence without getting marks off from this professor.

[Starlight]

I choose not to allow this in my threads. Not my thread, not my rules. But it does seem you've just given MM permission to return the compliment. Reconsider, please.

I consider MM's post in which he baselessly accused a group of people of having a mental disorder to be well outside the bounds of acceptable conduct and somewhere on the continuum of unacceptable personal attack on others through to illegal hate speech. He did not provide a logical argument that might be considered or discussed, he provided nothing but a vicious personal and attack on others. I would not allow such a post if I were setting the rules here. He is a serial offender in this regard. I consider his behaviour totally unacceptable, think it reflects badly on his character, and hope my reposinse to him conveyed at least a little of my contempt and disgust for his approach, the validity of the 'ideas' he's putting forth, and my disgust at his stupidity and mmoral character that he reveals through such posts.

If he is going to vilely attack transgender people with ad hominems, then I feel a moral obligation to throw a few back at him in their defense.

[Terraceth]

For those rejecting the report from being from Fox News, a more neutral report of the situation than the original post can be found here.

To me, the question isn't whether the student was right or wrong in his objections on things like biology of genders or wage gap, but whether the manner in which he expressed them was reasonable or not, as that was what got him kicked out. As I said earlier in the topic, most of the information being reported is from the student's personal account of what happened, meaning that our information principally comes from someone with a rather big self-interest in it. This doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does make me pause before immediately accepting everything he says. And apparently, the college is on spring break this week, making alternate accounts slower and less likely to emerge until classes be
hence no one else being around to give any alternate accounts. Actually, I'm left wondering if the fact it broke during spring break, when any confirmations or denials of the student's account would be much harder to get, is a coincidence or not.

In the meantime, the only source about the conflict besides the student is the description of the alleged violation from the teacher, which makes claims of "disrespectful objection to the professor's class discussion structure," "refusal to stop talking out of turn" and "angry outbursts" do seem like, if true, are valid complaints. Although I will note that the requested sanction in that document seems inappropriate. A written apology to the professor is reasonable. Even the requirement that they address all the points is in the realm of plausibility. But "Lake will begin class with an apology to the class for his behavior and then listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake's disrespectful and disruptive outbursts"? It's not clear whether this was a request of the teacher or the provost, but it feels like it serves only as an attempt at shaming rather than serving a constructive purpose.

Nevertheless, the post the student made (and later deleted) shown in the article does contain this:

I am someone who has built the reputation of openly voicing my opinion, often in opposition of the opinions of my Religious Studies instructors. During my time as a Religious Studies major, I have had professors insult me for opposing views, call me names such as ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’, and have had my views discredited due to my race, gender, and sexual orientation. In short- this is not the first time an instructor and I have had a disagreement over course material or that I have objected to the views being pushed on the class. That being said, the wording in the documents below is not only exaggerated, but more than one line is entirely untruthful and is done so purposefully to discredit my views and paint me as intolerant and ignorant.

So by his own admission, other professors have had issues with him. Is this because they were also being close-minded and disliking dissent (possible, they're university professors after all), or because the student was, irrespective of the quality of his arguments, being legitimately disruptive to the class? It's unclear.

I did look up the professor in question on the Rate My Professors site to see what previous students have said; you can find her page here. Notably, the reviews--all of them--are positive. Granted, if you read the comments, they're mostly praising the teacher being an easy grader, but at any rate no one left a negative review. In case you're wondering what's going on with the huge number of votes for each review being "not useful", I should point out that (thanks to Google's cache service letting me see the page as it appeared in February 25 for comparison), it appears that all of those votes occurred after this story broke.

That's really all the information I can find right now that could corroborate or contradict the student's claim as to what happened. Perhaps, once spring break ends, we'll be able to see statements from others, including classmates, that may be able to give us more insight as to exactly what his behavior was like. But at present, I don't think there's enough information available right now to us to make a real judgment on the topic of whether his behavior warranted kicking him out or not.

Though, there is one thing that bothers me, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it before. The class in question was called "Self, Sin and Salvation". Now I tried looking at the university's website to see if a more detailed description of the course was available, but was unable to find any, so admittedly I am going solely off the title. But here's the question I have: What in the world do things like the alleged gender wage gap have to do with the apparent topic of the course?

[Mountain Man]

Snowflake meltdown commences in 3... 2... 1...

And we have liftoff!

I consider MM's post in which he baselessly accused a group of people of having a mental disorder to be well outside the bounds of acceptable conduct and somewhere on the continuum of unacceptable personal attack on others through to illegal hate speech. He did not provide a logical argument that might be considered or discussed, he provided nothing but a vicious personal and attack on others. I would not allow such a post if I were setting the rules here. He is a serial offender in this regard. I consider his behaviour totally unacceptable, think it reflects badly on his character, and hope my reposinse to him conveyed at least a little of my contempt and disgust for his approach, the validity of the 'ideas' he's putting forth, and my disgust at his stupidity and mmoral character that he reveals through such posts.

If he is going to vilely attack transgender people with ad hominems, then I feel a moral obligation to throw a few back at him in their defense.

Y'all are so easily triggered, it almost takes the fun out of it.

[Starlight]

Nevertheless, the post the student made (and later deleted) shown in the article does contain this:

I am someone who has built the reputation of openly voicing my opinion, often in opposition of the opinions of my Religious Studies instructors. During my time as a Religious Studies major, I have had professors insult me for opposing views, call me names such as ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’, and have had my views discredited due to my race, gender, and sexual orientation. In short- this is not the first time an instructor and I have had a disagreement over course material or that I have objected to the views being pushed on the class.

So by his own admission, other professors have had issues with him.

Ah, good spot.

I had been wondering whether or not to mention in a post that I found that to implied from the university's comments:

Officials at IUP declined to comment, citing privacy rules regarding a student’s academic record.

Their implication that his previous academic record has some bearing on this seems bizarre, unless there are previous complaints against him that are on file. So I would read their comments as implying there are previous complaints about him on file in their records, and that this is an escalated response by them due to his history of previous offending. As you note above, it appears he basically admitted he has a history of class disruption with multiple different professors in his now-deleted post.

[Terraceth]

I had been wondering whether or not to mention in a post that I found that to implied from the university's comments:

Officials at IUP declined to comment, citing privacy rules regarding a student’s academic record.

Their implication that his previous academic record has some bearing on this seems bizarre, unless there are previous complaints against him that are on file. So I would read their comments as implying there are previous complaints about him on file in their records, and that this is an escalated response by them due to his history of previous offending.

I'm not sure about that. I just figured that the "student's academic record" referred to the fact that the case is still being adjudicated and a final decision isn't to be handed down until next week.

That or it's just a generic "we don't comment on things like that" statement. I don't think it says anything about him in particular.

[JimL]

I gave you another link to an independent news source. Said the same thing.

I don't expect you to believe anything I post a link to. You are prejudiced.

The source doesn't matter, it's the same story, the students word against the professors, with a hearing on it scheduled for the 19th of March. I tend to believe the professor, you tend to believe the student, but how about you wait for some actual evidence as to who may be telling the truth before smearing the professor due to your persecution complex.

[Mountain Man]

The source doesn't matter...

Then why did you so vehemently object to Sparko citing FOX News if the source doesn't matter?

[JimL]

Then why did you so vehemently object to Sparko citing FOX News if the source doesn't matter?

Because, though the source in this case doesn't really matter, because at this point it is only a he said she said argument, Fox news, as is it's forte, is pitching one side of the case to their targeted lunk headed viewers in order to instill in their empty skulls that their poor persecuted conservative selves are being attacked and repressed by those horrible liberal college professors. It's ridiculous of course, but that's what Fox (so called) News does.

[Mountain Man]

[Cow Poke]

Because, though the source in this case doesn't really matter, because at this point it is only a he said she said argument, Fox news, as is it's forte, is pitching one side of the case to their targeted lunk headed viewers in order to instill in their empty skulls that their poor persecuted conservative selves are being attacked and repressed by those horrible liberal college professors. It's ridiculous of course, but that's what Fox (so called) News does.

Replace "Fox News" with "CNN", and you've burned your own butt like mega.

[Sparko]

I consider MM's post in which he baselessly accused a group of people of having a mental disorder to be well outside the bounds of acceptable conduct and somewhere on the continuum of unacceptable personal attack on others through to illegal hate speech. He did not provide a logical argument that might be considered or discussed, he provided nothing but a vicious personal and attack on others. I would not allow such a post if I were setting the rules here. He is a serial offender in this regard. I consider his behaviour totally unacceptable, think it reflects badly on his character, and hope my reposinse to him conveyed at least a little of my contempt and disgust for his approach, the validity of the 'ideas' he's putting forth, and my disgust at his stupidity and mmoral character that he reveals through such posts.

If he is going to vilely attack transgender people with ad hominems, then I feel a moral obligation to throw a few back at him in their defense.

Again. this thread is not about gender or transgender or homosexuality. Start your own thread and bash away.