Aaron Reynolds wrote: > On Jul 26, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote: > >> I don't feel that my academic freedom would be infringed in the >> least if he got the boot. > > Keith, you wouldn't feel that your academic freedom would be infringed > if a professor were booted without an examination of the material or > even a single person knowing what his claims actually are? Just based > on a single line in a newspaper article describing what we can only > assume is the most sensational part of his intended lecture, and > without context? > > What if he's presenting it to be debunked by the class as an exercise > but loses his job on the strength of this newspaper article -- would > you still feel that your academic freedom had not been infringed then?
My remarks were in the context of whether or not academic freedom gives us the right to present anything we want, in any way we want. (Some seem to think it does.) I am/was assuming -- probably foolishly! -- that "due process" was/would be followed. I realise that, regrettably, "trial by media" is all too common, these days. > What I've been trying to say (and for some reason this got me labeled > as a 9/11 Denier) is that someone should, you know, find out what he's > actually saying before the man is condemned for saying it. Where's the fun in that? Actually, I think that it is reasonably likely that he is doing what people are accusing him of. Keith McG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
