Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This is a subject I've been wanting to tackle for a while now... why are American universities in general so universally liberal? And beyond that, why are conservative and religious thought and expression not tolerated?

I've always found one of the more ironic aspects of liberalism to be how open-mindedness and acceptance are tolerance and diversity are good... as long as you're open-minded and accepting and tolerant of what we tell you.

I'd be fine with my professors being almost uniformly liberal as long as they were willing to listen to other viewpoints and discuss them. I'm fine with homosexual-rights groups being allowed to have groups on campus, as long as Christian groups are allowed as well. But far too often, that's not how it works.

Here's a trailer for a documentary some guys are doing on this topic. Looks interesting.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U2u9OJvw5wk

_________________

Lahi, you're certainly not the only one to notice this.

I often tried to understand how the "open-minded" crowd could be so closed minded.

The only time I had a problem with the political viewpoints of my professors was when they tried to interject them into the class.
Granted, this kind of thing is to be expected in classes like political science, human geography, etc, but they should still keep those classes as subjective as possible.

Also, calculus is not a place to rant about politics.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I can honestly say that my campus is is truly open to all ideas. There is no discrimination based on political stance or religious views. For example, my campus has a Gay-Straight Alliance but it also has a Bible Fellowship Group and a Christian Group. There really is no rejection of ideas in classes either.

There is no reason that I can see that college campuses should shun conservative and religious view points. They are ideas and ideas, no matter how much you may disagree with them, you not be rejected.

_________________

Far too often? I've yet to hear of any public universities disallowing Christian groups on the sole basis of their faith. Christian groups have been barred for other reasons, usually due to exclusionary membership requirements, but for the most part these groups have challenged university policies and won (Christian Legal Society vs. Southern Illinois University, Beta Upsilon Chi vs. the University of Florida and later the University of Georgia, Alpha Iota Omega vs. the University of North Carolina, and so forth).

Nondiscrimination policies are still relatively new to college campuses and these sorts of challenges are part of the maturation process. It's closely related to the way the American legal system works, with its tug of war between written policy and set precedent. Officials write down a policy and try to enforce it. In the process of this they are eventually exposed to the policy's flaws, which are typically corrected. Trial and error, all that.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

I attend a state university, and it's actually pretty even. We have at least three Christian-based groups, IIRC, and at least one Atheist/Agnostic group. There are both Republican and Democrat student societies. I guess I'm kind of removed from the issue. :\

_________________
Sincerely,

Vitruvian Zeno

As of this writing there's a healthy debate brewing here at UGA over a nondiscrimination policy issue. Basically, earlier this year a student used his evaluation form to personally insult his professor using homophobic slurs. University officials determined that the comments contained three violations of UGA's Code of Conduct, so they hired a handwriting analyst to identify the perpetrator.

The student was located, tried and found guilty by Judicial Programs, and sentenced to write a formal apology to his professor as well as a 1200 word essay on the impact of his actions to the LGBT community at UGA. Additionally, he will have to meet with the assistant dean of students who runs the LGBT Resource Center and enroll in the Safe Space program, a three hour course designed to teach people about LGBT issues.

Related article here, but be warned that it contains a bit of raw language:

http://tinyurl.com/2zvrv4

So, do you think UGA acted fairly by tracking this kid down and waiving the anonymity of his instructor evaluation form?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

That's a tough one. On one hand, the evaluation was anonymous. And they're supposed to be for the very reason that, if a student has a problem with a particular professor, he should be allowed to express that without fear of reprisal from that professor.

On the other hand, the remarks themselves had nothing to do with the professor's teaching ability, style, or classroom policies, but was a personal attack based on extraneous personal details not related to the teaching process.

On one hand, I find the student's comments boorish and completely irrelevant. On the other hand, he did it under the assumption of anonymity. I can't help but feel that this completely undermines the whole point of having anonymous evaluations, regardless of the childish and idiotic way he abused it.

Another issue to consider: why was the professor reviewing them personally? Shouldn't those people responsible for evaluating his performance be the ones looking at them? Granted, they should pass on relevant comments that could help improve the teacher's performance, but since these evaluations are for the purpose of deciding tenure, I'm not sure it's a great idea having the teacher review them personally. As such, those responsible for reviewing them could have (and should have) removed any irrelevant evaluations, such as the one in question, insuring that only valid relevant comments are brought to the teacher's attention.

I do think they're approach to discipline is an attempt to be fair. Rather than trying to throw the book at him (which would certainly end up treading dangerously close to First Amendment issues), they opted for remedial discipline. At the very least, this approach will show him the other side of the issue, without necessarily forcing him to abandon his own ideas (however idiotic they may be). Had they expelled him, it would have sent a very clear message that no contrary opinions are acceptable at this university. Rather than promoting diversity, it would have undermined it.

EDIT:

And one more thing: whatever you make think of the guy's actions, the teacher and the university still have an obligation to protect this student's anonymity. Leaking this story to the press is a violation of that. A person writing an anonymous evaluation ought to have at least some assurance that it's not going to make national headlines.

To summarize:

1. What the student did was boorish and stupid.

2. UGA has violated his anonymity, both by their investigation and by allowing this story to become national news.

3. Their discipline of the student - while itself still a violation of anonymity - at least attempts to work toward a fair solution. Those who demand stricter punishment are only making him an object of their own hatred.

_________________

The other side of the issue is this: when any student comes to the University they agree to its Code of Conduct, including the nondiscrimination policy. (Most don't read the Code, but that's their problem.) As with virtually all colleges, the Code of Conduct is essentially a voluntary contract; students who disagree with a given school's policies are free to take their business elsewhere. Beck (the student in question) willfully violated the nondiscrimination policy and tried to hide behind the anonymity of course evaluations; a rather flagrant abuse of the system. If UGA let him get away with it the course evaluation system would become a complete circus; students would think they had carte blanche to abuse their professors any old way they felt like and no one could touch them for it.

Personally, I don't think UGA is beholden to respect the anonymity of a student who attempts to use it to violate code. Otherwise, as I understand it this didn't become public until the case appeared before Judicial Affairs last week. Once something's being tried in Judicial it's public business.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

Nevertheless, they overstepped their boundaries. Regardless of how he may have abused the system, an "anonymous evaluation" still ought to have remained that: anonymous. Otherwise, the system doesn't work at all.

Think about it: if you're in a class with a lousy professor, and you knew about this case, don't you think it's going to shade how you evaluate that professor, considering that they now have precedent for tracking you down, despite it being anonymous?

And furthermore, it was still inappropriate for them to leak this to the press, regardless of the judicial committee outcome. By leaking it to the press, all they did was make this guy a target. Regardless of his actions, this was irresponsible on their part.

_________________

I view this like I view most "they're watching you" type things.
They only have a precedent to track you down if you do something boneheaded like he did.

Well, he made the choice to do this.
He made a choice to make homophobic remarks instead of doing something constructive with the form. This is one of those things where I'd look at him and say "The grown-ups are trying to do something useless here. Please leave"
He made an action.
This is the reaction.

Also, I don't know that there's any sort of promise (on paper) that these things stay anonymous, regardless of what they say. If there's not, then they did nothing wrong.

Also, the professors (at least at Western Kentucky University and at The University of Alabama-Huntsville) don't get the evaluations until after they have submitted grades (a way to cut down on retaliation, should they figure out who submitted a negative comment). If that's the case at other schools, this still isn't a disincentive to tell the truth if you've got a cruddy professor. With the prices you pay and/or the debt you accumulate in college, you deserve the best instructors you can get.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I would think that by having the evaluation done anonymously, they are in fact implying that they will handled anonymously. Otherwise, wouldn't the term "anonymous" pretty much become meaningless?

I can tell you from the perspective of my own profession: if someone shares something privately with me, I'm under obligation to keep it private (barring such cases where someone's life or safety may be endangered). And if I fail to do so, I can be sued for breech of professional ethics. I feel this to be the case with UGA: they violated professional ethics in not keeping these evaluations confidential.

I can understand how the professor would be hurt by these remarks. Which is why the evaluations ought to be reviewed by an impartial third party beforehand. Not only to keep out irrelevant idiocy like this, but also to ensure that the evaluation process is fair. (What's to keep a prof from submitting a bunch of faked evals?)


I'm not saying that the response was undeserved, but rather inappropriate. It was inappropriate for this to be leaked to the press. It was completely unnecessary, and does nothing but make this student a further target for hostility.

_________________

As StrongRad mentions, this does not set a precedent for UGA to track down just anyone who gives a negative evaluation; only those who violate University policy via their evaluation forms. There is a significant difference. Beck abused the evaluation system and via this abuse violated the Code of Conduct that he swore to maintain when he enrolled; in strict point of fact, he signed a legally binding document stating his unequivocal agreement to uphold all University policy. Is it then right for him to turn around and hide behind an anonymity clause and get away with multiple infractions? Overall, I believe Beck essentially waived his own right to anonymity by abusing the review system.

As for the newspaper coverage, everything that hits the Judicial docket is public, so all the local papers have to do is take a look for themselves. There's no evidence that anything was leaked inappropriately. The professor's initial complaint was in January, but there's been absolutely no press about this until now...a full week after Judicial's decision. Beck is an adult and has to live with the consequences of his actions, and in America one of those consequences is press coverage.

From the other thread:


Most of the Lambda people are OK with Beck's sentence, largely because he's going to have a sit down with Assistant Dean Shutt, their faculty advisor. Dr. Shutt is an extremely reasonable person and will definitely make his best effort to work with Beck and try to understand his issues. Lambda is much more concerned with UGA's slow response to this; they worry that if one of them gets harassed they'll also get the runaround for ten months before anything is resolved.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

Perhaps it would serve the university well to make it known, perhaps in the Code of Conduct, that efforts will be made to make sure evaluations stay anonymous, provided the evaluator does not make threatening or harassing statements or something like that.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.