MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Herman Cain on May 25, 2018, 09:19:44 PM
-
MU continues to move away from its roots.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10936
Edit: Title
-
MU continues to move away from its roots.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10936
.
Bye. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$.
Seriously, the guy came to school to get his philosophies validated. He didn't come here to be challenged. So the guy snowflaked out and will head somewhere else where he will feel warm and cozy.
-
sounds pretty much like this message board
sad but not surprising. maybe that's the new way to show their "love" and "tolerance" and acceptance of "opposing views"
-
Bye. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$.
Seriously, the guy came to school to get his philosophies validated. He didn't come here to be challenged. So the guy snowflaked out and will head somewhere else where he will feel warm and cozy.
well i guess the part where his "family will be hunted down" would bother me a little. maybe they were just joking with him though??
who wouldn't want to be in the same fox hole with sully here-he's one tough hombre-eyn'a?
-
Sorry that student felt that way. If the accusations of threats being made against him for him are true than that is particularly disturbing. But the rest of what he described was not "getting away from its roots." That all sounded like Jesuit values to me.
-
Sorry that student felt that way. If the accusations of threats being made against him for him are true than that is particularly disturbing. But the rest of what he described was not "getting away from its roots." That all sounded like Jesuit values to me.
I had 10 Jesuit professors through my 4 years at MU. How many Jesuits still teach at MU?
-
I had 10 Jesuit professors through my 4 years at MU. How many Jesuits still teach at MU?
http://www.marquette.edu/jesres/members-2.shtml
Not sure how to view this in light of the overall priest shortage though...
-
So, the kid makes a video bashing Marquette administrators, and then gets his feels hurt when those same administrators don't greet him enthusiastically when they cross paths on campus?
What a snowflake.
His first mistake was going to Marquette thinking it would be an echo chamber for his conservatism. Marquette never was that.
-
Jesuit values, particularly in regards to service to others and preferential treatment for the poor, are not consistent with what is considered 'conservative' in the current political lexicon.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/StudentServices/SLIC/LEAD_Center/Jesuit_Values_PDF.pdf
-
So, the kid makes a video bashing Marquette administrators, and then gets his feels hurt when those same administrators don't greet him enthusiastically when they cross paths on campus?
What a snowflake.
His first mistake was going to Marquette thinking it would be an echo chamber for his conservatism. Marquette never was that.
Exactly. Its like he did zero research about Jesuits and never visited campus before arriving.
Likely, he read the word, "Catholic" and came up with his own ideas of what college was going to be like at Marquette.
I mean, I'd love to know what this kid's view of the current pontiff are, and does he agree?
-
I had already seen that article. Someone who for 4 years had complained about Marquette's "lack of Catholic values" on the Marquette Parents Facebook page posted it as a final Eff You to the school after her daughter's graduation.
Make that the second to last Eff You. She also posted an article from a dubious website about the ten colleges with the highest rate of STDs. Marquette was number 4. Although there were stats galore, the article did not cite any sources.
-
I had already seen that article. Someone who for 4 years had complained about Marquette's "lack of Catholic values" on the Marquette Parents Facebook page posted it as a final Eff You to the school after her daughter's graduation.
Make that the second to last Eff You. She also posted an article from a dubious website about the ten colleges with the highest rate of STDs. Marquette was number 4. Although there were stats galore, he article did not cite any sources.
Owning the libs by paying $200K in tuition over 4 years.
-
This guy's expectations seem out of whack. The humanities and the social sciences aren't exactly hotbeds of open-ended discussion, which is generally true at any university.
And if he was hoping to attend a devoutly Catholic school, he should have consulted the list from the Cardinal Newman Society.
-
Jesuit values, particularly in regards to service to others and preferential treatment for the poor, are not consistent with what is considered 'conservative' in the current political lexicon.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/StudentServices/SLIC/LEAD_Center/Jesuit_Values_PDF.pdf
Brilliantly said.
-
sounds pretty much like this message board
sad but not surprising. maybe that's the new way to show their "love" and "tolerance" and acceptance of "opposing views"
You don't seem to have a clue what "acceptance of opposing views" is. We accept that you *have* an opposing point of view, but that doesn't mean we are required to treat it as if it is logical, intelligent, or immune from critical analysis.
But anytime someone doesn't agree with your 1950s era ideas you cry and play the victim card. Sorry, tolerance doesn't mean stupid ideas can't be criticized.
-
When have the Jesuits ever been "conservative"?
-
When have the Jesuits ever been "conservative"?
The Inquisition?
-
Jesuit values, particularly in regards to service to others and preferential treatment for the poor, are not consistent with what is considered 'conservative' in the current political lexicon.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/StudentServices/SLIC/LEAD_Center/Jesuit_Values_PDF.pdf
Very true! Call me crazy but from my vantage point here in the Northeast Marquette seems to be far more Catholic and mission oriented than it's ever been and substaintally more than it's Jesuit and Catholic peer institutions. Someone posted in another thread that MU today seems to be far more interested in being a social service organization that saves the world than a university and that certainly seems to be the case from where I sit too. Hell every NYC Alum event these days has a mass or some kind of religious programming and it's really starting to get annoying. I mean every once in while is ok but it's literally every event so I guess whoever runs it clearly is very religious. The Fordham, BC and Gtwon and ND events aren't like that at all (I know because I have siblings that attended 2 of the schools I mentioned) so if this kid thinks a Catholic school on the east or west coast is going to be more conservative (at least religiously if not politically) he's going to be in for a rude awakening. He'll it was only 5 years ago or so that Wild rescinded the Arts and Sciences deanship to that woman from Seattle U, another Jesuit university if I'm not mistaken. With regard to the McAdams thing, I'm firmly in the administration's camp and anyone that knows anything about the history of MU knows their position is not about free speech suppression. To see press coverage comparing MU to these other schools on the east and west coasts where suppression of free speech is a really serious issue is laughable to anyone that knows anything about Marquette's history. Any competent journalist with minimal effort would learn very quickly that Marquette isn't anything like some of these liberal hotbeds like Wesleyan and Middlebury, etc. They need to do their jobs better.
-
Very true! Call me crazy but from my vantage point here in the Northeast Marquette seems to be far more Catholic and mission oriented than it's ever been and substaintally more than it's Jesuit and Catholic peer institutions. Someone posted in another thread that MU today seems to be far more interested in being a social service organization that saves the world than a university and that certainly seems to be the case from where I sit too. Hell every NYC Alum event these days has a mass or some kind of religious programming and it's really starting to get annoying. I mean every once in while is ok but it's literally every event so I guess whoever runs it clearly is very religious. The Fordham, BC and Gtwon and ND events aren't like that at all (I know because I have siblings that attended 2 of the schools I mentioned) so if this kid thinks a Catholic school on the east or west coast is going to be more conservative (at least religiously if not politically) he's going to be in for a rude awakening. He'll it was only 5 years ago or so that Wild rescinded the Arts and Sciences deanship to that woman from Seattle U, another Jesuit university if I'm not mistaken. With regard to the McAdams thing, I'm firmly in the administration's camp and anyone that knows anything about the history of MU knows their position is not about free speech suppression. To see press coverage comparing MU to these other schools on the east and west coasts where suppression of free speech is a really serious issue is laughable to anyone that knows anything about Marquette's history. Any competent journalist with minimal effort would learn very quickly that Marquette isn't anything like some of these liberal hotbeds like Wesleyan and Middlebury, etc. They need to do their jobs better.
Man you would be simply awful at running Marquette.
-
The Inquisition?
Mainly the Dominicans who started it 60 years before the Jesuits existed. Although, the Jesuits certainly helped finish it.
Did anyone see the CNN documentary series on the Popes? I thought it was very well done and found it informative. The Jesuits had a prominent portion in there, and not just on Francis.
-
You don't seem to have a clue what "acceptance of opposing views" is. We accept that you *have* an opposing point of view, but that doesn't mean we are required to treat it as if it is logical, intelligent, or immune from critical analysis.
But anytime someone doesn't agree with your 1950s era ideas you cry and play the victim card. Sorry, tolerance doesn't mean stupid ideas can't be criticized.
i wasn't attacking you personally-why the need to attack me personally?
i wasn't around in the 50's but from what i've read and heard about that time isn't/wasn't all that bad. as a matter of fact, you could use a little of that 50's era manners or discipline yourself.
you and sully and the victim card-you guys take the same debate class? oh, enough with the personal stuff though, right?
-
MU continues to move away from its roots.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10936
.
Sorry, I find this nonsensical
-
i wasn't attacking you personally-why the need to attack me personally?
i wasn't around in the 50's but from what i've read and heard about that time isn't/wasn't all that bad. as a matter of fact, you could use a little of that 50's era manners or discipline yourself.
you and sully and the victim card-you guys take the same debate class? oh, enough with the personal stuff though, right?
Perhaps you’re failing to read/hear the perspective of anyone who wasn’t a white male in the 50s
-
Jesuit values, particularly in regards to service to others and preferential treatment for the poor, are not consistent with what is considered 'conservative' in the current political lexicon.
https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/StudentServices/SLIC/LEAD_Center/Jesuit_Values_PDF.pdf
Thank you. Profound statement.
-
Perhaps you’re failing to read/hear the perspective of anyone who wasn’t a white male in the 50s
ummm...no. i'm reading/hearing everyone on the board here, regardless of what their perspective is. perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know me and/or my responses. if smith, sully and 82 are your references, you have some homework to do-
you do realize that the 50's were considered the "golden age" of america, right? stable families, low crime, economic growth and prosperity, wholesome tv shows...hate when that happens though, eyn'er?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-25/news/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225_1_golden-age-crime-and-property-crime-homicide-rate
have a nice memorial weekend ;) ;)
-
ummm...no. i'm reading/hearing everyone on the board here, regardless of what their perspective is. perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know me and/or my responses. if smith, sully and 82 are your references, you have some homework to do-
you do realize that the 50's were considered the "golden age" of america, right? stable families, low crime, economic growth and prosperity, wholesome tv shows...hate when that happens though, eyn'er?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-25/news/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225_1_golden-age-crime-and-property-crime-homicide-rate
have a nice memorial weekend ;) ;)
The 50s were great...if you were white, heterosexual and male. Not to mention that if you were poor, you were very poor. Poverty rate was nearly 25% at the end of the decade.
Way over-romanticized.
-
ummm...no. i'm reading/hearing everyone on the board here, regardless of what their perspective is. perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know me and/or my responses. if smith, sully and 82 are your references, you have some homework to do-
you do realize that the 50's were considered the "golden age" of america, right? stable families, low crime, economic growth and prosperity, wholesome tv shows...hate when that happens though, eyn'er?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-25/news/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225_1_golden-age-crime-and-property-crime-homicide-rate
have a nice memorial weekend ;) ;)
Ah yes, the 50's with its 10x infant mortality rate compared to now, pre Brown v. Board, effective tax rates for the richest around 60-70%.
-
The whole "away from its roots" argument has so many issues on so many levels that it's hard to address them all in Scoop. The key ones though and this Scooper's Take are:
1) If the young man was so disgusted by Marquette's liberalness, what was he doing there? Seems as though he needed to do a better job of due diligence before he enrolled.
2) There are fundamental differences between theological liberalism, political liberalism and social liberalism. Ditto for conservatism. More than a few politicians and social activists have been driven crazy because they don't understand the differences among the three and the implication for Catholic support.
3) Marquette is not the government and therefore a professor/student or administrator is not having their freedom of speech impaired if the university regulates what you can say or do. Period.
4) If, as the disgruntled student alleges, there are Planned Parenthood signs and posters up at Marquette (and I'm not sure I buy it, but OK, let's suppose), then the university should have a problem with that. It is indeed a Catholic university and our faith indeed has a problem with Planned Parenthood.
5) Now, suppose that the professors are as liberal as the poster says they are. So what? Part of learning is to critically assess what's being asserted and to accept that which is truth and to reject those things that are not. The writer comes from a conservative background. I get it. But I also am guessing, he is very uncomfortable being challenged. Wait until he gets out in the real world!!!
6) The poster acts if professors are teaching Gospel truth. They aren't, except maybe in the Theology Department. I think back on some of the urban affairs style political science I learned when I was at Marquette years ago and realize how wrong most of it was. Time moves on and what a university does is to give you a foundation to think and to evaluate. The key word is foundation and I suspect the complainer Brother Herman introduced us to didn't get the concept of foundation and continuous learning.
Ultimately, one hopes the McAdams incident and some of the things we've heard about in recent years are isolated incidents. My expectation is that Marquette, as it was years ago, will always be a mechanism for respectful debate and acceptance of divergent views within the spirit of the Catholicism it espouses.
-
The whole "away from its roots" argument has so many issues on so many levels that it's hard to address them all in Scoop. The key ones though and this Scooper's Take are:
1) If the young man was so disgusted by Marquette's liberalness, what was he doing there? Seems as though he needed to do a better job of due diligence before he enrolled.
2) There are fundamental differences between theological liberalism, political liberalism and social liberalism. Ditto for conservatism. More than a few politicians and social activists have been driven crazy because they don't understand the differences among the three and the implication for Catholic support.
3) Marquette is not the government and therefore a professor/student or administrator is not having their freedom of speech impaired if the university regulates what you can say or do. Period.
4) If, as the disgruntled student alleges, there are Planned Parenthood signs and posters up at Marquette (and I'm not sure I buy it, but OK, let's suppose), then the university should have a problem with that. It is indeed a Catholic university and our faith indeed has a problem with Planned Parenthood.
5) Now, suppose that the professors are as liberal as the poster says they are. So what? Part of learning is to critically assess what's being asserted and to accept that which is truth and to reject those things that are not. The writer comes from a conservative background. I get it. But I also am guessing, he is very uncomfortable being challenged. Wait until he gets out in the real world!!!
6) The poster acts if professors are teaching Gospel truth. They aren't, except maybe in the Theology Department. I think back on some of the urban affairs style political science I learned when I was at Marquette years ago and realize how wrong most of it was. Time moves on and what a university does is to give you a foundation to think and to evaluate. The key word is foundation and I suspect the complainer Brother Herman introduced us to didn't get the concept of foundation and continuous learning.
Ultimately, one hopes the McAdams incident and some of the things we've heard about in recent years are isolated incidents. My expectation is that Marquette, as it was years ago, will always be a mechanism for respectful debate and acceptance of divergent views within the spirit of the Catholicism it espouses.
This is very good.
The only issues I have are with #3 and #4. Regarding #3, it isn't good for any institution to repress freedom of speech in general. However my experience tell me that some students often feel that this freedom is unlimited. That they have a right to say whatever they want whenever they want - and they just don't. (I've noticed this with students on every side of the political spectrum.)
Regarding #4, there may be Planned Parenthood signs on campus. Is that being promoted by the University? Doubtful. Are they signs of support by other students? It could be, and the Marquette community should be OK with that.
-
This is very good.
The only issues I have are with #3 and #4. Regarding #3, it isn't good for any institution to repress freedom of speech in general. However my experience tell me that some students often feel that this freedom is unlimited. That they have a right to say whatever they want whenever they want - and they just don't. (I've noticed this with students on every side of the political spectrum.)
Regarding #4, there may be Planned Parenthood signs on campus. Is that being promoted by the University? Doubtful. Are they signs of support by other students? It could be, and the Marquette community should be OK with that.
Thank you Brother Sultan.
On 3, every institution regulates speech and printed word. There are certain incendiary words, phrases and language that are inherently offensive and an organization has to regulate. Even the landmark Near vs. Minnesota case in the 1940s allowed the government certain First Amendment exceptions to unlimited free speech. At issue, to your point, is how far it goes.
On 4, I agree the university is not promoting Planned Parenthood. But to allow signage on university property and in offices sanctioned by the university leads to confusion about its position. That, to some degree, is the point of conservatives. Is it worth fighting over? Probably not. Should the university encourage good judgment within the framework of the values it espouses? Of course.
-
Thank you Brother Sultan.
On 3, every institution regulates speech and printed word. There are certain incendiary words, phrases and language that are inherently offensive and an organization has to regulate. Even the landmark Near vs. Minnesota case in the 1940s allowed the government certain First Amendment exceptions to unlimited free speech. At issue, to your point, is how far it goes.
On 4, I agree the university is not promoting Planned Parenthood. But to allow signage on university property and in offices sanctioned by the university leads to confusion about its position. That, to some degree, is the point of conservatives. Is it worth fighting over? Probably not. Should the university encourage good judgment within the framework of the values it espouses? Of course.
Regarding #3, we are in agreement.
Regarding #4, I went back and re-read the article. The student was complaining about professors putting up Planned Parenthood posters on their office doors. Let me tell you something about professors office doors - they are like billboards. Unless something is way outside the bounds, a University isn't going to regulate what a professor puts there. Christopher Wolfe, who was the best professor I had at MU, used to have pictures of aborted fetuses on his door.
And the University doesn't have to respond to that. In fact it would be nonsensical to respond to something anytime a student got upset when a professor put something on their door that they didn't like.
If these signs were on the door of the student health center or something similar, I would agree that it would be out of place for a Catholic university.
-
So the student says he is upset that McAdams had his free speech limited but then wants to limit the free speech of other professors? Seems a tad inconsistent.
-
ummm...no. i'm reading/hearing everyone on the board here, regardless of what their perspective is. perhaps you haven't been around long enough to know me and/or my responses. if smith, sully and 82 are your references, you have some homework to do-
you do realize that the 50's were considered the "golden age" of america, right? stable families, low crime, economic growth and prosperity, wholesome tv shows...hate when that happens though, eyn'er?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-25/news/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225_1_golden-age-crime-and-property-crime-homicide-rate
have a nice memorial weekend ;) ;)
(https://psibrone.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/2010-05-17-facepalm-hi-res.jpg)
-
The Inquisition?
Funny because I was watching History of the World Part I last night and have had the Mel Brooks' Inquisition song stuck in my head since watching.
-
I had 10 Jesuit professors through my 4 years at MU. How many Jesuits still teach at MU?
I had 4. Graduated in 2008. The history department still had a few floating around...Zeps, Morrison, Donnelly
Avela is a priest, though not a Jesuit
-
I actually feel sorry for this kid, although he is certainly a spoiled brat. I feel sorry for him because he will ultimately be worse off for skipping town the first time his beliefs and values are questioned. His experience sounds like a common one for a freshman in college. Many of us held pre conceived notions (liberal or conservative) from our upbringing, which was largely a product of our parents and/or high school community. I certainly did. My views as a high school graduate were not that different from this kid. Marquette challenged many of these beliefs for me by exposing me to a much wider breadth of experiences, cultures, and beliefs. I graduated a more thoughtful person, who learned to see nuance and depth in every moral issue. I don't know whether I am a liberal now, as I tend to hate labels, although many would probably call me one. I am still very much a Catholic, probably a better one than I was before Marquette. Whatever side of the political spectrum you are on, four years at Marquette will undoubtedly make you a better citizen and moral being.
-
Many of us held pre conceived notions (liberal or conservative) from our upbringing, which was largely a product of our parents and/or high school community. I certainly did. My views as a high school graduate were not that different from this kid. Marquette challenged many of these beliefs for me by exposing me to a much wider breadth of experiences, cultures, and beliefs.
I'd say you're correct about that being a common experience. James Marcia has a theory about you.
https://www.learning-theories.com/identity-status-theory-marcia.html
I'm sure TAMU can take you to church on other relevant theories and the like.
-
.......
4) If, as the disgruntled student alleges, there are Planned Parenthood signs and posters up at Marquette (and I'm not sure I buy it, but OK, let's suppose), then the university should have a problem with that. It is indeed a Catholic university and our faith indeed has a problem with Planned Parenthood.....
Out of pure non-catholic inquisitiveness.....Is this a problem with PP because of all the services they provide, a problem specifically related to abortion and/or contraception services, or is it that the abortion/contraception services overshadow any of the other services and the issue is with all of PP?
I assume its an issue with abortion services specifically but i could read the bolded as more of a blanket statement
-
Out of pure non-catholic inquisitiveness.....Is this a problem with PP because of all the services they provide, a problem specifically related to abortion and/or contraception services, or is it that the abortion/contraception services overshadow any of the other services and the issue is with all of PP?
I assume its an issue with abortion services specifically but i could read the bolded as more of a blanket statement
Its abortion. Women's health shouldn't be an issue.
-
Its abortion. Women's health shouldn't be an issue.
Thanks. I figured as much. The committed Catholics that i'm close with are pretty socially liberal and I assumed that was the norm but sometimes get the impression, from a few vocals (frequents?) here, that the church hasn't moved passed the hard line on certain issues. I totally understand the hard line on abortion....may disagree with exactly where the line is drawn, but understand it....i don't get opposition to women's health or contraception. I appreciate you clarifying.
EDIT: i also posed the question on this thread before i saw the whole M2N thread derailment - was not meant to be antagonistic. but yeah.....wow
-
I actually feel sorry for this kid, although he is certainly a spoiled brat. I feel sorry for him because he will ultimately be worse off for skipping town the first time his beliefs and values are questioned. His experience sounds like a common one for a freshman in college. Many of us held pre conceived notions (liberal or conservative) from our upbringing, which was largely a product of our parents and/or high school community. I certainly did. My views as a high school graduate were not that different from this kid. Marquette challenged many of these beliefs for me by exposing me to a much wider breadth of experiences, cultures, and beliefs. I graduated a more thoughtful person, who learned to see nuance and depth in every moral issue. I don't know whether I am a liberal now, as I tend to hate labels, although many would probably call me one. I am still very much a Catholic, probably a better one than I was before Marquette. Whatever side of the political spectrum you are on, four years at Marquette will undoubtedly make you a better citizen and moral being.
This is what college is supposed to be about.
There was a guy, extremely conservative, and extremely religious that used to walk my floor and want to "fix people" by preaching to them. Everyone sent him away. I always welcomed him in and we would politely discuss/debate issues. Often we would reach a point where he didn't know what to say/confused (most of his thoughts came directly from his preacher: Deep South southern baptist), and he would ask if he could consult with his preacher and come back the next week.
We would meet most weeks for essentially my entire freshman year and much of my sophomore year. Most of my friends asked why I even bothered with him, as he was clearly nuts (he wasn't, just very devote).
I learned a lot from him, and he has told me our discussions were important to him developing his own ability to critically examine issues. He is still quite devote, actually worked at the Vatican for awhile. We are still friends, and neither of us would give up those discussions even thought our beliefs/stances were quite the opposite each other.
This kid will miss out on such opportunities. It is actually quite a shame.
-
Regarding #4, I went back and re-read the articlle. Christopher Wolfe, who was the best professor I had at MU, used to have pictures of aborted fetuses on his door.
And the University doesn't have to respond to that. In fact it would be nonsensical to respond to something anytime a student got upset when a professor put something on their door that they didn't like.
If these signs were on the door of the student health center or something similar, I would agree that it would be out of place for a Catholic university.
I remember Wolfe (my advisor) having a number of pro-life propaganda articles posted, including the oft discredited “abortion causes breast cancer” article prominently featured.
This kid will fit in well at Liberty, Hillsdale or Bob Jones. A place where his views aren’t challenged but rather validated. Where everyone looks like him, dresses like him, acts him and thinks like him. He’ll get a nice internship with YAF or a like organization that thrives on the “conservative persecution” myth. Infeel sorry fir the kid and believe Marquette is a better place with him leaving.
-
Ah yes, the 50's with its 10x infant mortality rate compared to now, pre Brown v. Board, effective tax rates for the richest around 60-70%.
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
-
Regarding #3, we are in agreement.
Regarding #4, I went back and re-read the article. The student was complaining about professors putting up Planned Parenthood posters on their office doors. Let me tell you something about professors office doors - they are like billboards. Unless something is way outside the bounds, a University isn't going to regulate what a professor puts there. Christopher Wolfe, who was the best professor I had at MU, used to have pictures of aborted fetuses on his door.
And the University doesn't have to respond to that. In fact it would be nonsensical to respond to something anytime a student got upset when a professor put something on their door that they didn't like.
If these signs were on the door of the student health center or something similar, I would agree that it would be out of place for a Catholic university.
This. I remember Wolfe well. His Constitutional Law class was something I looked forward to. He made no apologies for his Conservatism, but he treated all sides fairly, and I was a raging leftist back then, so I would know. He just demanded that your arguments were well-constructed. I don't recall the fetus pictures, but then i didn't meet with Wolfe much. I am impressed when a person's favorites don't match others' stereotypes of them. I wouldn't have pegged you a Wolfe fan. Like the young black man I once worked with who was the biggest Heavy Metal fan I've ever known. Or Jimmy Butler with the boots and Country playlist.
-
Dr. Wolfe has been mentioned as many posters favorite prof (mine too) for many of the reasons listed. Conservative, fair, funny, compassionate. Took what could have been a tedious class and made it riveting. I was fortunate to have two classes with him.
-
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
Wow. "Morality and wholesome attitudes" = state sponsored segregation. Good to understand where you're coming from. Your posts make a lot more sense now.
-
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
:o
-
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
Institutional racism and sexism was wholesome? And removing segregation was bad?
Are you trolling, or really this ignorant?
-
Dr. Wolfe has been mentioned as many posters favorite prof (mine too) for many of the reasons listed. Conservative, fair, funny, compassionate. Took what have been a tedious class and made it riveting. I was fortunate to have two classes with him.
I had two as well. Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties. And they were hard. But you are correct - he made it riveting. I remember spending hours in the Library reading those court cases trying to figure out what they were about. He would have a quiz every Friday on the readings for the week - and he wouldn't get around to talking about those cases until the *next* week.
-
Institutional racism and sexism was wholesome? And removing segregation was bad?
Are you trolling, or really this ignorant?
Nah its called being, "old fashioned". Don't you get it?
-
as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
Oh?
Please, do tell more.
-
Institutional racism and sexism was wholesome, while integration was bad?
Are you trolling, or really this ignorant?
There's a lot more than that that was messed up. See lavender scare, or McCarthyism.
-
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
Wow.
Anyway yes. While it has solved the issue of segregation by law, it has not solved the issue of de facto segregation. People with means, who are mostly white, have largely abandoned large city school districts for suburban public schools and private schools. On top of that, we have had tax policies that favor the two latter at the expense of the former.
-
I had two as well. Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties. And they were hard. But you are correct - he made it riveting. I remember spending hours in the Library reading those court cases trying to figure out what they were about. He would have a quiz every Friday on the readings for the week - and he wouldn't get around to talking about those cases until the *next* week.
I had friends who went on to law school after, and said that Wolfe's classes were as difficult, if not more than their constitutional law classes.
Civil Liberties and the JFK Assassination course were my two favorite classes I had at MU. Very, very interesting discussions and coursework.
-
I wouldn't have pegged you a Wolfe fan.
I am all about college challenging your world view. I was a west side Madison leftist when I got to MU and I was surprised by how conservative the place was. But that helped me. Going somewhere to simply reinforce your views doesn't educate you. That's why I have zero sympathy to the guy who wrote this article.
-
I am all about college challenging your world view. I was a west side Madison leftist when I got to MU and I was surprised by how conservative the place was. But that helped me. Going somewhere to simply reinforce your views doesn't educate you. That's why I have zero sympathy to the guy who wrote this article.
+1 went to one of the most liberal high schools imaginable. Had only met 2 conservative non family members in my life and was majorly culture shocked by how conservative everyone my age was at MU freshman year. I didn't leave and go to Art school or anything.
-
+1 went to one of the most liberal high schools imaginable. Had only met 2 conservative non family members in my life and was majorly culture shocked by how conservative everyone my age was at MU freshman year. I didn't leave and go to Art school or anything.
I'm interested, do you have a few examples how how conservative everyone your age was? Trying to gauge what this means.
edit: As I think about it prob best to message me to prevent a thread lock :)
-
Wow. "Morality and wholesome attitudes" = state sponsored segregation. Good to understand where you're coming from. Your posts make a lot more sense now.
I've been saying it for a while. Plain as day.
-
I had two as well. Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties. And they were hard. But you are correct - he made it riveting. I remember spending hours in the Library reading those court cases trying to figure out what they were about. He would have a quiz every Friday on the readings for the week - and he wouldn't get around to talking about those cases until the *next* week.
Yep, those damn quizzes. I'd get up early on Friday mornings to study at Stone Creek Coffee to prepare for them.....after studying at the law library the night before. He'd have quotes and might change one word and you had to catch that. I worked harder for an A in that class than any other at MU, with the possible exception of Western Civ with Naylor.
Looking back on my Poli Sci days, the professors that were on the right advertised it (McAdams, Wolfe, Dobbs and the other Poli Sci 080 prof, can't remember his name), but other than Boles (and maybe O'Brien, though he left for Aspin midway through my time there), those who weren't that I had we didn't know where they fell on the spectrum (Steger, McCormick, Friman and one other I cannot remember - Congress class).
The right has instilled such a persecution complex in students today, it's how they keep them around. Challenging their worldview is "bias" and "discrimination." They call leftists snowflakes and yet here's this kid leaving school because he doesn't like signs that a professor has on their door or that a professor was disciplined for causing a TA to get death threats! But, it will work out for the kid - he has likely been put up to this by some organization and he'll become the new poster child for the education hating right. He'll get a nice internship, speak at their organizations, probably go to work at some bogus "think tank" to warn kids of the dangers of higher education.
-
Wow.
Anyway yes. While it has solved the issue of segregation by law, it has not solved the issue of de facto segregation. People with means, who are mostly white, have largely abandoned large city school districts for suburban public schools and private schools. On top of that, we have had tax policies that favor the two latter at the expense of the former.
what i was saying was, the 50's have always been looked back upon as a wholesome time. it was a good time to raise a family. were there issues? absolutely. i'm just saying, they had ozzie and harriet and leave it beaver. today we have the kardashians. as for brown vs board-i knew this would be picked upon. i never sad it was good, bad or indifferent. i never said it shouldn't have occured.
so predictable as the usual suspects are quick to try to shine the racist light on me-feel better? listen-at least sully got what i was saying...i think. the supreme court wanted to try to end school segregation, which it did. i have no problems with that-sorry to disappoint our resident cop-hater et.al. now, as sully also pointed out, many people fled the inner city schools for a variety of reasons which kind of defeated the purpose of brown vs board. i don't care whether or not tax policies favored people fleeing anything-it happened for a variety of reasons. even black people left-shock!
-
I'm interested, do you have a few examples how how conservative everyone your age was? Trying to gauge what this means.
edit: As I think about it prob best to message me to prevent a thread lock :)
Done
-
i'm just saying, they had ozzie and harriet and leave it beaver. today we have the kardashians.
FYI ... these are television shows, not accurate reflections of American life.
-
I knew a statement would be picked on. Some familiar names picked on it. I am a victim and not what they allege based on the statement I made that I knew would draw reactions.
-
what i was saying was, the 50's have always been looked back upon as a wholesome time. it was a good time to raise a family. were there issues? absolutely. i'm just saying, they had ozzie and harriet and leave it beaver. today we have the kardashians. as for brown vs board-i knew this would be picked upon. i never sad it was good, bad or indifferent. i never said it shouldn't have occured.
so predictable as the usual suspects are quick to try to shine the racist light on me-feel better? listen-at least sully got what i was saying...i think. the supreme court wanted to try to end school segregation, which it did. i have no problems with that-sorry to disappoint our resident cop-hater et.al. now, as sully also pointed out, many people fled the inner city schools for a variety of reasons which kind of defeated the purpose of brown vs board. i don't care whether or not tax policies favored people fleeing anything-it happened for a variety of reasons. even black people left-shock!
Do you honestly believe non-whites or non-heterosexuals would view the 50s as "wholesome"?
-
what i was saying was, the 50's have always been looked back upon as a wholesome time. it was a good time to raise a family. were there issues? absolutely. i'm just saying, they had ozzie and harriet and leave it beaver. today we have the kardashians. as for brown vs board-i knew this would be picked upon. i never sad it was good, bad or indifferent. i never said it shouldn't have occured.
so predictable as the usual suspects are quick to try to shine the racist light on me-feel better? listen-at least sully got what i was saying...i think. the supreme court wanted to try to end school segregation, which it did. i have no problems with that-sorry to disappoint our resident cop-hater et.al. now, as sully also pointed out, many people fled the inner city schools for a variety of reasons which kind of defeated the purpose of brown vs board. i don't care whether or not tax policies favored people fleeing anything-it happened for a variety of reasons. even black people left-shock!
the right loves to romanticize the 50's and represent it as something that didn't actually exist.
Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver? You mean two shows that did not have any characters that weren't white or straight of have women that worked outside the home? Yes, very "wholesome." How about The Honeymooners and Jackie's constant threats of domestic violence against Alice, which drew laughs and cheers. Yes, what a family-friendly and wholesome show.
As for fleeing the cities, that was because highways and the interstate system along with more affordability of cars allowed people to do so. Of course, thanks to redlining, neighborhood watch groups and other racist policies, African-Americans weren't allowed to follow whites out to the suburbs while their neighbourhoods were destroyed through racist land use and development policies.
And let's not forget the great environmental policies of the 50's, such as dumping anything and everything into the air, lakes, rivers, and land. Because toxic chemicals would just disappear when you did that.
And it was great to be a woman. If you were somehow allowed to work outside of the home it was in the most menial role not reserved for an African-American). And if your husband was abusive or unfaithful, well, tough luck, you knew what you signed up for. And forget about workplace protections (unless you were in a union).
Oh yeah, interracial marriage was illegal across the country, lynchings were commonplace in the south, "Separate but Equal" was in effect for public facilities and accommodations, most African-Americans had to attend HBCU's if they wanted to go to college. What a time to be alive. ::)
-
the right loves to romanticize the 50's and represent it as something that didn't actually exist.
Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver? You mean two shows that did not have any characters that weren't white or straight of have women that worked outside the home? Yes, very "wholesome." How about The Honeymooners and Jackie's constant threats of domestic violence against Alice, which drew laughs and cheers. Yes, what a family-friendly and wholesome show.
As for fleeing the cities, that was because highways and the interstate system along with more affordability of cars allowed people to do so. Of course, thanks to redlining, neighborhood watch groups and other racist policies, African-Americans weren't allowed to follow whites out to the suburbs while their neighbourhoods were destroyed through racist land use and development policies.
And let's not forget the great environmental policies of the 50's, such as dumping anything and everything into the air, lakes, rivers, and land. Because toxic chemicals would just disappear when you did that.
And it was great to be a woman. If you were somehow allowed to work outside of the home it was in the most menial role not reserved for an African-American). And if your husband was abusive or unfaithful, well, tough luck, you knew what you signed up for. And forget about workplace protections (unless you were in a union).
Oh yeah, interracial marriage was illegal across the country, lynchings were commonplace in the south, "Separate but Equal" was in effect for public facilities and accommodations, most African-Americans had to attend HBCU's if they wanted to go to college. What a time to be alive. ::)
very easy to do in retrospect billy. you make that all sound so easy. foresight and hindsight are beautiful things. "the right loves to romaticize the 50's..." most articles written about the 50's do call it the golden age. were things perfect? absolutely not. 2 can play your game however. the left loves to doom and gloom everything. one can give fill in the blank program x amount of money and it will never be enough-touche!
i am not a victim, but speaking of which billy, your whole statement was loaded with victims, the honeymooners, pollution, misogyny, racism...what a terrible world we live in. man i almost feel sorry for you how miserable everything is in your world. my previous statement which drew all kinds of gasps was neither right nor left. wasn't racist, wasn't stating an opinion. i bring up brown vs board and the red lights all go off :o
-
Rocket, it's okay to say that there were good aspects of the 50s while also acknowledging that there were bad aspects for those from different backgrounds than yourself.
-
nm
-
as for brown vs board-i knew this would be picked upon. i never sad it was good, bad or indifferent.
How on God's green earth could Brown v. Board of Education be considered anything but good?
-
How on God's green earth could Brown v. Board of Education be considered anything but good?
come on sully, you're a smart fella- because, you have to admit there were some unintended consequences. i would try to list a few but pardon me while i duck back into my bunker here while the rest of you get ready to unload on rocket da racist
-
come on sully, you're a smart fella- because, you have to admit there were some unintended consequences. i would try to list a few but pardon me while i duck back into my bunker here while the rest of you get ready to unload on rocket da racist
Like what? What unintended consequences are you talking about?
-
Like what? What unintended consequences are you talking about?
It's just the Ambien talking again. :-X
-
I had 10 Jesuit professors through my 4 years at MU. How many Jesuits still teach at MU?
About that number for me, a few taught multiple classes so it was something like 10 Jebbies for 14 classes.
-
i've got to think that it was in fact the prevailing morality and wholesome attitudes of the 50's along with the economic growth and prosperity that set the basis for improvement within the fields of medicine, birth rates and continued improvement in race relations. as we are seeing today, brown vs. the board, although it had nothing but good intentions, is not turning out to be what they had envisioned, eyn'a?
::) What were the bad results, exactly?
-
the right loves to romanticize the 50's and represent it as something that didn't actually exist.
The 1950s that were versus the 1950s that people think was clearly are different as night and day. Think about it in terms not of television but of what we know from our history and our experience:
* We began the decade in a war where our leadership so badly misjudged the geopolitical situation that we ended up with a near nuclear war with the world's third largest land power and ended in a stalemate that left us with Kim Jung-un.
* We spent close to 15 years wrestling with the meaning of Brown vs. Board as community after community interpreted "all due haste" to mean "never, ever, never."
* President Eisenhower sent the troops to Little Rock because the governor would not enforce the law.
* Thousands of people were blackballed from their profession because a loudmouth Senator from Wisconsin, a vile director of the FBI that blackmailed half of Washington and a host of other opportunists could not tell the difference between socialism and communism.
* Baseball was ruled by the New York Yankees until a Milwaukee team that doesn't exist in Milwaukee anymore dethroned them, for a time.
I don't know what's romantic about any of this. When you add to that the fact that the country was in the midst of its biggest population boom in history and half the world was rebuilding from a war that that was 5 to 15 years in the past and we had limited infrastructure to deal with the population boom at home and abroad and we had some real challenges.
Fortunately, our nation was up to the challenge. But it wasn't romantic!
-
as for brown vs board-i knew this would be picked upon.
ALWAYS play the victim card. Yup.
"I repeated some idiotic thing I heard implying integration of schools wasn't such a great thing and people pointed out it was idiotic and more than a little racist. Poor me."
-
I had two as well. Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties. And they were hard. But you are correct - he made it riveting. I remember spending hours in the Library reading those court cases trying to figure out what they were about. He would have a quiz every Friday on the readings for the week - and he wouldn't get around to talking about those cases until the *next* week.
It's all coming back to me now. At the time it was frustrating....we were so focused on fine-tooth combing the current week's cases, and that week's classroom lectures were based on the prior week's cases. Now I see how this was by design. I loved Constitutional Law, and it was due to Wolfe's rigor that I aced Const Law in law school. Other than Products Liability, Const Law was the only class I enjoyed in law school, and prof Wolfe definitely had something to do with this. I could not stand Contracts, as we had an arrogant professor from Texas who basically required us to recite from memory the War and Peace-sized (but contents were dry legalese) UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. UUUUGGGGHHH.
-
The 1950s that were versus the 1950s that people think was clearly are different as night and day. Think about it in terms not of television but of what we know from our history and our experience:
Also interesting that the kids who grew up in the "wonderful" '50s, turned out to be the hippies and counter-culture who wanted to trash everything their parents stood for.
-
Also interesting that the kids who grew up in the "wonderful" '50s, turned out to be the hippies and counter-culture who wanted to trash everything their parents stood for.
My comment doesn't concern "rating" the 50s, but I wouldn't say hippie counter-culture was simply about trashing how they were raised. In fact, many were very well-informed young adults morally at odds with the proliferating war machine around them. Ike Eisenhower was respected by many of them for his candidness about the burgeoning military industrial complex. And some of them were conscientious enough to realize, albeit years later, that some of their means of protest were alienating and offensive to the brave men on the front lines. And that was not their intended target.
I guess I wish kids today had some of the anti-establishment (and I don't mean anti-Trump) awareness of the Vietnam era generation. A needed sense of the technology industrial complex completing its dangerous merger with the military.
I think today's youth are smarter than we soon-to-be "get off our lawn"-ers give them credit for. However, the one area I truly worry about with Millenials is the bowing-down to all things Google and AI. There is almost zero awareness of the dangers of the misuse of technology re military applications and privacy protections. If it weren't for a couple appalled Google employees who quit in protest, their latest Drone application, developed in tandem with the DOD (which allowed kill patterns to be based on nothing more than algorithms predicting the daily foot traffic routines of human targets) would be moving full steam ahead.
-
Like what? What unintended consequences are you talking about?
sully-you as one who i believe is very involved in education,(exactly what i don't know) would know this unless you are just trying to further bait me into walking right into a trap for the feeding frenzy to continue. for you guys from rio linda-further victimize me cuz ya'll know i love me some victimization ::)
very simple-the intended consequence was to integrate schools-right? brown vs board accomplished everything and nothing at the same time. as integration was the goal, segregation has become the end...so far anyway.
it removed many black children from their own neighborhoods, bused them across town, thereby making it more difficult for their parent(s) to play a more active role in their education
then there was the "white flight" for whatever reasons you may have, caused the schools to become composed mainly of minority children. back to square one as i see it.
the drop in the enrollments due to the departure of families to the suburbs led to a drop in the money the schools received, which caused the quality of the teachers and thus the quality of the education to decline.
then there is the violence; it has affected all the students. it has disrupted many kids from getting a good education. many families would love to have the opportunity to place their children elsewhere but lack the means, again for many reasons. logistics, economical, etc
the emergence of school choice and the debate to allow public funds for private schools
and probably one of the saddest things to have occurred is the decline of the number of black teachers- thanks to the NEA and the federal government-
"Although the NEA and teacher unions sponsored legal action, success varied mainly because of the tactics used by districts to lay off black teachers (Fultz 2004).
For example the NEA 1965 survey of teacher displacement in the South found that districts simply did not renew teaching contracts for the upcoming school term (NEA 1965; Fultz 2004). Districts could also escape legal repercussions by involuntarily reassigning black teachers to white schools (Tillman 2004), while white teachers could choose their school of transfer. The hostility and discrimination that black teachers faced in these transfers resulted in many leaving their jobs (Orfield 1969).
"The classification of the general teaching position, held by most black teachers, was reclassified under the special support category of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that provided poverty aid to schools (Haney 1978). This meant that, when school systems failed to comply with federal requirements for this aid, funds were cut and black teachers were told that their jobs were eliminated by the federal government. Other tactics included: abolishing tenure laws where there were high percentages of black teachers; allowing dismissal of teachers without cause; failing to replace retiring black teachers with other black teachers; and assigning black teachers to teach out of their content field and evaluating them as incompetent (Futrell 2004, p. 87)."
please understand that i am not saying brown vs board was good nor BAD. it had good intentions which got mucked up due to politics and race as many things usually do
-
Dude, a lot of the problems with public higher education exist in the north too. You know, where legal segregation was never the law.
Blaming the problems of public higher education, and there are many and they are complex, on the removal of legal segregation is short-sighted at best.
I literally have NEVER heard anyone who wasn't a virulent racist say Brown v. Board of Education was anything but good. How you can say "it was neither good nor bad" blows my f*cking mind. It really does.
-
Rocket, I get there were unintended consequences with Brown v. BOE and not all the problems it sought to correct have been corrected....but they way you are presenting your argument makes it sound like you think that it would be better if segregation was still legalized.
-
Rocket, I get there were unintended consequences with Brown v. BOE and not all the problems it sought to correct have been corrected....but they way you are presenting your argument makes it sound like you think that it would be better if segregation was still legalized.
At best he is taking a neutral position on it. He has repeated said it was neither good nor bad. :o
-
The 1950s were good for about 25% of the American population.
If you were a middle class (or rich), white, Christian, heterosexual male, yes it was a good time to be alive.
Of course those are the people who romanticize the era.
Society as a whole was no better than it is today, and in many ways it was worse. Violent crime was roughly the same. People were less educated. People had less income and wealth (adjusted for inflation). People did not live as long. White, heterosexual, Christian males were better off RELATIVE to people not in that group. But they were not better off than they are today.
Today's White Christian heterosexual males aren't resentful because they were better off in the 1950s. They actually have more opportunity than ever before. They are resentful because other groups are no longer as far worse off. The playing field is far more level. This angers the privileged.
-
If it ain't the 50's, what's the best decade? I say the 90's.
-
If it ain't the 50's, what's the best decade? I say the 90's.
It all depends on your ranking criteria, but all things being equal even with all the growing pains we're experiencing. I wouldn't change places with any era from right now. We tend to lose sight of how truly unique our experience in the human condition is right now. Yes there are issues and problems that are taking up our attention but we've never had it so good across so many segments of humanity.
A lot of the the current noise we see is the necessary death (albeit slow) of tribalism within the human experience which will open us to the next evolution of our race and unprecedented expansion.....we're on the cusp with technology and capabilities, we just need to get out of our own way and find common cause as a society.
-
It all depends on your ranking criteria, but all things being equal even with all the growing pains we're experiencing. I wouldn't change places with any era from right now. We tend to lose sight of how truly unique our experience in the human condition is right now. Yes there are issues and problems that are taking up our attention but we've never had it so good across so many segments of humanity.
A lot of the the current noise we see is the necessary death (albeit slow) of tribalism within the human experience which will open us to the next evolution of our race and unprecedented expansion.....we're on the cusp with technology and capabilities, we just need to get out of our own way and find common cause as a society.
I was born in the '50s, and grew up in the 60's. But I agree that this decade is the best ever.
The '60s were close because of the huge upheavals during that decade.
-
very easy to do in retrospect billy. you make that all sound so easy. foresight and hindsight are beautiful things. "the right loves to romaticize the 50's..." most articles written about the 50's do call it the golden age. were things perfect? absolutely not. 2 can play your game however. the left loves to doom and gloom everything. one can give fill in the blank program x amount of money and it will never be enough-touche!
i am not a victim, but speaking of which billy, your whole statement was loaded with victims, the honeymooners, pollution, misogyny, racism...what a terrible world we live in. man i almost feel sorry for you how miserable everything is in your world. my previous statement which drew all kinds of gasps was neither right nor left. wasn't racist, wasn't stating an opinion. i bring up brown vs board and the red lights all go off :o
Woah there, snowflake. Nothing I said was "doom and gloom" just actual (not alternative) facts. Nice job refuting them though.
let me guess, you're not racist, you have black friends.
-
and probably one of the saddest things to have occurred is the decline of the number of black teachers- thanks to the NEA and the federal government-
"Although the NEA and teacher unions sponsored legal action, success varied mainly because of the tactics used by districts to lay off black teachers (Fultz 2004).
For example the NEA 1965 survey of teacher displacement in the South found that districts simply did not renew teaching contracts for the upcoming school term (NEA 1965; Fultz 2004). Districts could also escape legal repercussions by involuntarily reassigning black teachers to white schools (Tillman 2004), while white teachers could choose their school of transfer. The hostility and discrimination that black teachers faced in these transfers resulted in many leaving their jobs (Orfield 1969).
"The classification of the general teaching position, held by most black teachers, was reclassified under the special support category of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that provided poverty aid to schools (Haney 1978). This meant that, when school systems failed to comply with federal requirements for this aid, funds were cut and black teachers were told that their jobs were eliminated by the federal government. Other tactics included: abolishing tenure laws where there were high percentages of black teachers; allowing dismissal of teachers without cause; failing to replace retiring black teachers with other black teachers; and assigning black teachers to teach out of their content field and evaluating them as incompetent (Futrell 2004, p. 87)."
please understand that i am not saying brown vs board was good nor BAD. it had good intentions which got mucked up due to politics and race as many things usually do
Huh. So because racists figured out a way to game the system and get around the law and still be racists, it means the law itself wasn't good or bad?
Again, whoever you are listening to is making this argument to essentially claim that because the law didn't do everything, we shouldn't have bothered, and by extension we shouldn't bother with any laws to fight racism because they can't do everything and have unintended consequences. It is a racist argument, pure and simple.
-
Today's White Christian heterosexual males aren't resentful because they were better off in the 1950s. They actually have more opportunity than ever before. They are resentful because other groups are no longer as far worse off. The playing field is far more level. This angers the privileged.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon Johnson
This has been the strategy in place for sometime. Give them a boogey man to hate -- blacks, Muslims, women, immigrants, liberals-- and they'll flock to you while you take their wealth and shove it upwards.
-
It all depends on your ranking criteria, but all things being equal even with all the growing pains we're experiencing. I wouldn't change places with any era from right now. We tend to lose sight of how truly unique our experience in the human condition is right now. Yes there are issues and problems that are taking up our attention but we've never had it so good across so many segments of humanity.
A lot of the the current noise we see is the necessary death (albeit slow) of tribalism within the human experience which will open us to the next evolution of our race and unprecedented expansion.....we're on the cusp with technology and capabilities, we just need to get out of our own way and find common cause as a society.
I totally agree on all accounts - as long as the death throws of tribalism doesn't trigger an extinction event we have the opportunity to evolve as a collective species.
-
There are so many facets to this thread I thought I could add to it even though as you see I am not a frequent poster here.
First, my dad graduated from MU in 1952 and then while his five sons were at and graduated from MU in the 1980s he wondered many times aloud if we were getting the Catholic MU education he received. In short, how could we? It was the 1980s and not the 1950s. Nonetheless, all five of us did enjoy and learn from our THEO classes if taught by a Jesuit or not, and are still faithful church-going Catholics. Why? Simple. Because faith was important to us as a family and those values have passed on. Fatih is not a passive process, anymore than just showing up at MU will get you a diploma and a good job in four years.
Second, if there is one thing I have learned over the years from living in different parts of the country is that what is liberal and conservative in politics in no way really explains or applies to the Catholic church. Perhaps a better dichotomy is "traditional" vs "nontraditional" than conservative or liberal. I have encountered many Catholics who are quite committed (i.e regular mass attendance, help out at church , teach CCD and flip pancakes ) who come from both sides of the political spectrum. Put it this way, if you are a conservative R type , would you be upset to have a MU faculty member and SJW type teach your kid if you knew the SJW prof was regularly seen at Gesu as a lector and was a KC member?
Last, thing is nothing wrong with asking is MU Catholic, or how are they getting the faith to a new generation. Sometimes a different approach works better. Heck, my old med school curriculum today is vastly different than the way I was taught 30 yrs ago, yet their board scores are higher. So if more SJW teaching gets kids into the seats at Gesu and St Joan of Arc I'm all for it. But if not, well......
-
There are so many facets to this thread I thought I could add to it even though as you see I am not a frequent poster here.
First, my dad graduated from MU in 1952 and then while his five sons were at and graduated from MU in the 1980s he wondered many times aloud if we were getting the Catholic MU education he received. In short, how could we? It was the 1980s and not the 1950s. Nonetheless, all five of us did enjoy and learn from our THEO classes if taught by a Jesuit or not, and are still faithful church-going Catholics. Why? Simple. Because faith was important to us as a family and those values have passed on. Fatih is not a passive process, anymore than just showing up at MU will get you a diploma and a good job in four years.
Second, if there is one thing I have learned over the years from living in different parts of the country is that what is liberal and conservative in politics in no way really explains or applies to the Catholic church. Perhaps a better dichotomy is "traditional" vs "nontraditional" than conservative or liberal. I have encountered many Catholics who are quite committed (i.e regular mass attendance, help out at church , teach CCD and flip pancakes ) who come from both sides of the political spectrum. Put it this way, if you are a conservative R type , would you be upset to have a MU faculty member and SJW type teach your kid if you knew the SJW prof was regularly seen at Gesu as a lector and was a KC member?
Last, thing is nothing wrong with asking is MU Catholic, or how are they getting the faith to a new generation. Sometimes a different approach works better. Heck, my old med school curriculum today is vastly different than the way I was taught 30 yrs ago, yet their board scores are higher. So if more SJW teaching gets kids into the seats at Gesu and St Joan of Arc I'm all for it. But if not, well......
First, great post, please feel free to post more.
Second, is part of the mission of Marquette to passing the Catholic faith on to it's students? Being non-Catholic I never got the impression it was but maybe I wasn't looking for it.
-
An optimist believes now is the best time to be alive.
A pessimist fears this is true.
-
First, great post, please feel free to post more.
Second, is part of the mission of Marquette to passing the Catholic faith on to it's students? Being non-Catholic I never got the impression it was but maybe I wasn't looking for it.
Sounds like a good place to link in the MU Mission Statement for reference.
http://www.marquette.edu/about/mission.php (http://www.marquette.edu/about/mission.php)
-
First, great post, please feel free to post more.
Second, is part of the mission of Marquette to passing the Catholic faith on to it's students? Being non-Catholic I never got the impression it was but maybe I wasn't looking for it.
Not exactly. It is a complex mandate, to be sure.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae.html
-
An optimist believes now is the best time to be alive.
A pessimist fears this is true.
An optimist believes the glass is half full, the pessimist that the glass is half empty, the pragmatist believes it's just the right amount of space for booze.
-
Sounds like a good place to link in the MU Mission Statement for reference.
http://www.marquette.edu/about/mission.php (http://www.marquette.edu/about/mission.php)
Please see the quote in my profile....perfect.
-
To at least give some credence to what I think rocket may be getting at, or perhaps just because it's on a related note and I find it fascinating...
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/22/206622688/the-legacy-of-dunbar-high-school
An interesting case that is worthy of study today - Dunbar High School in DC, the first black high school in the country, was an academic powerhouse from its founding. The number of prominent and successful graduates is hard to fathom, probably only matched today by the most elite prep schools. In a sad and ironic twist, Brown v. Board actually was the biggest contributor in its sharp decline.
Of course that's a sample of one versus the larger net benefit for the entire country. Have read some fascinating work on education reform when they pose the question "What lessons can we learn from Dunbar to apply today?" There are even some statistical outliers today; under-funded, minority schools in places like Georgia and Louisiana whose records compare and exceed most white suburban schools. Common themes appear to be strong leaders who are anything but "by the book", and enforcing standards to promote a culture of achievement, rather than to print the highest percentage of diplomas. There are many places (DC area in particular) where they throw money into schools and nothing happens...other than incompetent administrators building up their pensions.
-
Please see the quote in my profile....perfect.
I noticed, and it was perfect. ;D
-
To at least give some credence to what I think rocket may be getting at, or perhaps just because it's on a related note and I find it fascinating...
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/22/206622688/the-legacy-of-dunbar-high-school
An interesting case that is worthy of study today - Dunbar High School in DC, the first black high school in the country, was an academic powerhouse from its founding. The number of prominent and successful graduates is hard to fathom, probably only matched today by the most elite prep schools. In a sad and ironic twist, Brown v. Board actually was the biggest contributor in its sharp decline.
Of course that's a sample of one versus the larger net benefit for the entire country. Have read some fascinating work on education reform when they pose the question "What lessons can we learn from Dunbar to apply today?" There are even some statistical outliers today; under-funded, minority schools in places like Georgia and Louisiana whose records compare and exceed most white suburban schools. Common themes appear to be strong leaders who are anything but "by the book", and enforcing standards to promote a culture of achievement, rather than to print the highest percentage of diplomas. There are many places (DC area in particular) where they throw money into schools and nothing happens...other than incompetent administrators building up their pensions.
thank you mr. chapman.
i really wasn't trying to argue with anyone. i was merely trying to throw some more food for thought if you will. you see how some here get pretty unwound and that is unfortunate
sully:
"I literally have NEVER heard anyone who wasn't a virulent racist say Brown v. Board of Education was anything but good. How you can say "it was neither good nor bad" blows my f*cking mind. It really does."
i feel honored to be the first because i am not a racist-not even close. it doesn't matter how many here want so badly to plaster that label on me and others. i feel sorry for those who need to denigrate others so they may feel better themselves. i know what i am
tamu:
"Rocket, I get there were unintended consequences with Brown v. BOE and not all the problems it sought to correct have been corrected....but they way you are presenting your argument makes it sound like you think that it would be better if segregation was still legalized."
i appreciate the benefit of doubt tamu, but let me be very clear-i was merely putting out a different angle to the ruling and where it has gotten us today. those who deny the past are doomed to repeat it-i actually feel that black people got a raw deal here. it diminished family involvement in their children's education and black teachers got the shaft, along with probably other things as well. in my mind, of course segregation should have been legalized just as allowing all people to eat, drink and fraternize within and throughout all of society. even drink from the same bubbler(water fountain). there should be no debate about that. as a matter of fact, real human beings should embrace others, regardless of race, color....we can learn from each other if we allow it
-
thank you mr. chapman.
i really wasn't trying to argue with anyone. i was merely trying to throw some more food for thought if you will. you see how some here get pretty unwound and that is unfortunate
sully:
"I literally have NEVER heard anyone who wasn't a virulent racist say Brown v. Board of Education was anything but good. How you can say "it was neither good nor bad" blows my f*cking mind. It really does."
i feel honored to be the first because i am not a racist-not even close. it doesn't matter how many here want so badly to plaster that label on me and others. i feel sorry for those who need to denigrate others so they may feel better themselves. i know what i am
Never said you were a racist. Stop being the eternal victim.
I think the idea that you are neutral on Brown v. Board of Education says more about you than I could.
-
Rocket longs for those good old days.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/f6/1b/7df61b8739052cdd7da7fb190f6fede2.jpg)
-
Never said you were a racist. Stop being the eternal victim.
I think the idea that you are neutral on Brown v. Board of Education says more about you than I could.
you are a piece of work man! you love to take things out of context, use parts of what defends your argument and then conveniently leave out the rest of the story. btw, i see what you are doing when you throw the "victim" card at people-projection eyn'a?
-
Rocket longs for those good old days.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/f6/1b/7df61b8739052cdd7da7fb190f6fede2.jpg)
I don't agree with much of what Mr. Rocket says, but this is crap and should stop. Absolutely uncalled for.
-
you are a piece of work man! you love to take things out of context, use parts of what defends your argument and then conveniently leave out the rest of the story. btw, i see what you are doing when you throw the "victim" card at people-projection eyn'a?
Yeah I don't think so. When you say dumb things, don't be upset when people call you out for saying dumb things.
And I took nothing out of context. You said multiple times that you weren’t saying that Brown v Board was good or bad.
-
I don't agree with much of what Mr. Rocket says, but this is crap and should stop. Absolutely uncalled for.
Report it to the mods and let them handle it.
-
I don't agree with much of what Mr. Rocket says, but this is crap and should stop. Absolutely uncalled for.
Guy says nothing when the Chicos and Rockets come on here and spew their bigotry but is suddenly Mr. Snowflake when they get called on it.
Do yourself a favor and read this and then think about some guy in 2018 questioning it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html
-
Guy says nothing when the Chicos and Rockets come on here and spew their bigotry but is suddenly Mr. Snowflake when they get called on it.
Do yourself a favor and read this and then think about some guy in 2018 questioning it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html
I challenge Rockets just yesterday? What are you talking about? He and I agree on about 20% of stuff. Your picture was classless. Yes, I sent to the moderator. What is wrong with you?
-
What is wrong with you?
I suffer neither bigots nor fools gladly.
-
This is why we can't have nice things.