Kolek planning to go pro
And what about all those students who were honing their masturbation skills as part of the FEMSEX practicum? No doubt they are worked into a lather about this! We need to lend them a hand and probe this very deeply and thoroughly. Finally, we need to know who fingered Susannah Bartlow. Something is definitely fishy in all this.
Yeah but, some of these students are masterbatin' at only a 3rd grade level, hey?
It was for a voluntary workshop. Not a class for credit.
Nobody is "justifying his murder." Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
Before the fact this is most certainly true. The difficulty, though, is sticking to the plan when actually facing the heat. Actual heat is much hotter than would-be heat from elsewhere.
Did the administration consider the chilling impact of the erasure of the image within the context of present conversations about police brutality and black life? To disappear the mural with no engagement or conversation was to deny the role of such symbols in the social critique of police and to selectively erase some difficult histories while leaving others untouched. For a university to adopt a position informed solely by police is problematic in that they are but one stakeholder in our community. Students, staff and faculty are the other stakeholders on this campus, and their perspective and knowledge ought to have been weighed.When Officer Foester pulled them over on the Turnpike it was in the dark of night. He had no idea what color or who they were. Yet he was gunned down in cold blood. I'm a resident and native of New Jersey and perhaps just a little too close of the issue at hand. Talk about erasing some difficult histories, she was found guilty in a court of law so in my book the University just didn't take a position informed solely by the police and quite frankly there is nothing to debate. Obviously they did not teach that to the students, as the sorority said they had no idea she killed a cop. So to me they are justifying it in the name of police brutality which has absolutely nothing to do with this officers death.
That's the role that faculty play. They don't have to deal with the external issues that the University is facing, so they can say this stuff with little consequence to them.
Interesting you say that with so much confidence, given the administration's position on free speech.
I don't know what you mean by that.EDIT: Oh McAdams? McAdams wasn't a free speech issue. Never was.
You're right, just a professor fired for what he wrote. Just saying that if I were a professor is have serious concerns about serving about serving as a check on the administration by speaking out.
I'd hardly classify a couple of unpersuasive letters from no-name A&S faculty lefties as "heat."
Down 1 w 5 seconds left. Doable.
These people have a 20-year old unquenchable desire to see themselves as Bobby Kennedy reincarnate. I wouldn't underestimate their perseverance.
He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to. Keep pretending that didn't happen.Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs. Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.
Oh, I get it. You can say whatever you like as long as you don't do it in a way that the administration disagrees with: seems like a bright line rule.
I will admit that I didn't read the entire 14 page thread on this, but a few initial posts caught my attention and I wanted to comment on them. First, let me also be clear that I though this was a bad idea to have painted on a wall, because of sensitivities, but we would be right in revisiting Assata as a person. There is a different side to the story than the wikipedia article.It is well known that Assata was a target of secret surveillance programs by J. Edgar Hoover and that he was specifically targeting black organizations. She was falsely accused of crimes 6 times with manufactured data to try and get her in jail.It was those that led her to flee police. The shootout is heavily contested. All forensic evidence say she never held nor shot a gun at the scene of the shootout. The FBI forensic evidence indicated that she had her hands up and was surrendering when she was shot twice, with the second shot being into her back.The officer who told the story of her starting the gunfight has admitted to making the entire story up.Prior to her court case she spent 4-years in jail awaiting trial. 2-years of it in solitary for no actual reason. After trying to acquire evidence against her and not being able to show that she even held a gun at the shootout, they went to trial by handpicking a jury composed of close friends and family members of the deceased state trooper.She was convicted. If this side of the story is correct then she should be more celebrated as an individual. Unfortunately there is no way to know for sure. The lack of evidence and the rigged jury though are a matter of public record.
No, you can say what you want as long as you don't call out students in your blog after being warned not to - and after McAdams admitted he was wrong. Pretty simple.I mean, do you think the administration likes the letters these faculty are sending around? I doubt it. Will the authors be fired? Not a chance.You can continue to see this as a left/right issue, but you would be wrong. If you can't see the substantive differences between the two instances, I have no idea what to say.
I see this as a free speech issue. McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either. The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides. Now the campus's liberals shouldn't be surprised by the university's actions here. When the university's rule of decision is the court of public opinion, the results can be disheartening.
I see this as a free speech issue. McAdams shouldn't have been fired and I'm not sure this woman should have either. The problem with the McAdams firing is that it injected the administration into left/right debate over legitimate academic discussion, with the university taking sides.
She was convicted of murder in a lawful court by her peers serving on the jury. There is no need for further debate. Our society has correctly classified Shakur as a felon. And we don't honor felons with murals. That's it. No further discussion warranted. The crazed liberal faculty can go pound sand. My God, this isn't Berkeley.
No it didn't. It was a workplace issue. Not a free speech one.
I'll take your ipse dixit statement for what it's worth.
Jesus was a criminal. MLK was a criminal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.