Jerry, I understand the problem you are trying to solve. It's just that your solution leads to waaaaay worse. It's already an adventure for adjunct faculty to teach Keynesian economics. What about astronomy, how long before Texas colleges are required to teach creationism as an alternate theory to the Big Bang? Or to evolution in biology? What about the professor who wants to teach, I don't know, political science? Is he required to teach Ayn Rand? See my point? What about glaobal warming, is that taboo?
Now what about the universities in, oh, Berkely. What if someone wants to teach the Laffer curve there? What if some philosophy professor thinks he can prove the existence of god? The problem of regulating academic speech is much the same as that of letting the government allocate resources. Who exactly does it? And how? It's something that sounds good the first time you hear it but breaks down over the details. Dana On 3/1/07, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I'm for less government, fewer laws, less thought policing, more > personal responsibility, more personal choice, more personal > accountability." > > Good. I am too. > > "Your solution (if there's even a problem, which I don't think there > is) stands against all those things I'm for." > > Wrong. Nice straw man again. I can't see how wanting professors to > actually teach and being accountable for that stands against any of > the items in your list of what you say your are for. > > So, let me summarize what has happened. > > 1. You believe professors at public university should be able to say > anything they want in class, even if it does not have anything to do > with the class. > > Problem: Professors are hired to teach and do research. While 99% of > Americans are expected to peform their job, you are giving college > faculty a free pass. This free pass is at the expense of tax payers > by the way. > > 2. You say that the only instance the government can interfere with a > runaway professor is if he or she is advocating hate crimes or using > hate speech. > > Problem 1: An agenda of hate and politics are not disjoint. A lot of > overlap. Where do you draw the line? You have already allowed the > gov't to stick it's foot in the door with the ability to stop the hate > agenda. Now you want to draw an imaginary line somewhere and tell > them to stop. > > Problem 2: If a person has a PhD, it would have to be mail order if > they ever managed to back themself in a corner with rhetoric. Change > a few words here or there and hate speech becomes a class lesson. > > 3. People can punish colleges that allow runaway professors by > choosing different colleges. > > Problem: For most people a college degree is a requirement for a > better life. Sometimes the local public university is the only viable > option. Private college may not be an option since they are usually > much more expensive. Or, a person may want an engineering dregree > from E-tech because they are the best in state and 99% of their > graduates are hired within 6 months. Might be worth sitting through a > couple of English classes where all they do is bash politicians. > > Tough choice: Minimum wage or attend Communist U (and hence give > unintentional support to rogue professors) so I can a piece of paper > that says I am more employeeable than others. > > 4. Let the students or parents sue the school if the schools don't do > what they are supposed to do. > > Problem: Great. Let's put the burden on the students and families. > I am sure most 17-23 year old students have enough motivation and the > means to hire a lawyer and get after that school, which probably has > deep pockets. I am sure most parents can afford to hire a lawyer as > well. Sarcasm intended. Earlier on, we were discussing doing right > because it's right, not because of the stick. Seems like a lot of > people need the stick. If you are counting on a bunch of college > student to weld the stick, the system will never change. > > Let's get more lawyers involved as well (somewhere John Edwards > smiles). We all know that they make things better and more clear. > > > If a state is funding a university directly (not through student > loans), the state should have the right to demand teaching, not > rhetoric. Allowing professors to shun their duties is unacceptable. > The first line in order to stop this in the university itself. Make > the professors teach. If they do not, the state can simply withhold > funds. That'll learn 'm real quick. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:229294 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
