It is interesting and perhaps ironic to consider the Oliver Wendall Holmes opinion about the line over which free speech should be restricted. We should not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. In my case, that is exactly what the anonymous letter writer and the administrators here have been doing.
Bill Scott >>> Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/02/08 2:24 PM >>> At 7:04 PM -0600 3/1/08, William Scott wrote: >I have been told by the College of Wooster that my reinstatement now >depends on passing a mental exam that the College has set up for me >on Wednesday. I will therefore not be able to teach until I meet >with a psychiatrist and convince him that I am not violent on >Wednesday. The students will have to wait another while to get back >to business with me. A real question here: should I give all of the >students in my classes a grade of A or should I punish them for any >lack of performance based on their failure to understand the >material that I have not taught them? > >I don't think I need any more letters to the president for this >although you should know about it. Message is, don't ever do >anything provacative. Free speech is a fiction. Unfortunately, 'free speech' in the constitutional sense is very limited. It simply says that the Federal (and usually state) government cannot penalize you for stating your opinions unless it can show that those statements constitute a clear and present danger to others. It says nothing about civil actions taken by private (or corporate) individuals taken by colleges. The real problem is the woeful ignorance of basic risk analysis, not only in the general population, but by administrators in responsible positions who are either ignorant of real risks, or choose to pander to the popular (mis)conception of risk. I suspect that more college students are killed by food poisoning in college cafeterias than by on campus shootings. I also suspect that (like murders in general) most shootings are done in the course of an argument between friends, not by a demented stranger. -- The best argument against intelligent design is that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Department 507-389-6217 * * 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
