As usual, the comments are insightful and compelling. They bring up the fact that it really isn’t that hard to get rid of “problem” teachers–all the administration has to do is harass them until they’ve had enough and leave. Done. Problem solved.
I’ve seen this in the state government, as well, so yeah, it’s not really that hard to get rid of someone. All you need is a bully in the midst while the administration looks the other way (or even worse–participates).
Urged on by conservative special interests such as Americans for Prosperity, Republican leaders pressed hard to eliminate due process rights for teachers.
~~~~~~~~
The handiwork of the Koch Brothers. Destroy public education so the Koch brothers don’t have to pay one more penny for unionized workers. More for me…poverty wages for you…
Dispatches from the Underclass has a post up on academic freedom and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
I clicked on the link to the letter, and the part about the union’s collective bargaining agreement stood out:
“institutional discipline or restraint in their discussion of relevant matters in the classroom…” [the CBA prohibits] “explicit or implicit threat of termination or discipline for the purpose of constraining a faculty member in the exercise of his or her rights under such principles of academic freedom.”
~~~~~~~~
“Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”
This was clarified later with the following:
“The intent of the 1940 statement is not to discourage what is “controversial”. Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”
~~~~
This is one of the reasons that teacher’s unions must be protected–they protect teachers that bring up uncomfortable subjects with passionate debate. The Vietnam War would probably still be going on if it weren’t for the passionate debates of that time. And the Afghan war would have ended long ago. The Iraq War would have never begun had there been passionate debate on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction and as I previously posted, the way that Iraq society was presented to us and the reality of their society.
As the letter continues, the use of the word “balance” is questionable (Faux News, anyone?). It’s a vague term that can be interpreted in many ways…it’s a word that anyone in power can use to silence those that present valid complaints. One student made a complaint against the professor. Then Dr. Corey had the student “spy” on the professor and report back on whether it was “balanced” or not. WTH?
I disagree, however, with the letter’s statement that “students don’t possess the training or expertise to challenge a professor”…this is not giving students enough credit. Again, I’m thinking of the 60s and the students questioning professors and all authority. They raised valid questions. It’s not that students don’t have the training or expertise, but that one single student, with biases, should not be allowed to shut down an entire class because he/she does not agree with the way the subject is presented. He/she is a student, and as such, has to take some responsibility towards his/her education, and that means not always agreeing with a professor.
If the student disagrees, then he/she has options: quit the class, or listen and perhaps examine why he/she is opposed to the professor/subject matter….and maybe, just maybe, change one’s mind after evaluating the subject. It’s known that Israel does not present the Palestinian side of things in their schools. I don’t think they speak of the Palestinians at all, but in negative terms. Where’s the balance there?
The assessment of Professor Chehade’s classroom was one of openness. He allowed differing viewpoints…which is what you want in…ahem…a balanced classroom. Other students’ assessments were one of openness.
Something else that nags at me while reading this–did this student purposely take this class in order to get it cancelled? Because a class such as this is probably an elective–one that a student has an option of taking among several in that particular subject matter–so I would question the student’s motives if that were the case. The more I read, the more it sounds like a set-up. And the spineless administration caved at the first “shove”.
Another thing that bothers me is that we don’t live in a vacuum–this is only one class in that student’s career. If the student wants to get at the truth, he/she can take more classes taught by other professors whom will offer a different perspective. The student can also take the initiative and read books on the subject to gain a broader perspective. There is also the community- other students, friends, parents, neighbors, whom also can offer their perspectives. My experience has been that the truth is somewhere in between.
It’s important to note that professors are not given free reign to do as they please in their classrooms–as the letter states–proselytizing (although I can state that some of my professors came close to this, thankfully, it was just a few of many good professionals); and teaching subjects that are not a part of that section.
And just for the record, I would love to attend Professor Chehade’s class.
I found 5 Broken Cameras on youtube:
In the next part of the report, the controversy about free speech about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict at the University of Michigan. Be sure to click on the link where Max Blumenthal writes about the smear campaign. There is a video by Dishell up that speaks volumes.
In the speech, Max is passionate. He is Jewish and yet is speaking out on what he calls apartheid by Israel. The whole idea of Israel being “pure” is so ludicrous. There is no such thing as a “pure” race. We’re all mutts, so to speak. And as Blumenthal illustrates, one couple can’t even be together because of this stupidity. Can you say Romeo and Juliet? Can we ever learn anything from history…?
Warrior Publications has this up on the Onondaga men marching against domestic violence and child abuse. A great way to publicly show support…but then the hard work comes to put it into action. Honoring women, respecting women, and treating them as equals all takes a conscious effort to go against a culture of violence and rape. It means going against other men, when men are taught to stick together no matter what. It means courage and compassion.
Diane Ravitch has a post up on the repubs and DFERs (Democrats in favor of charter schools).
She notes that in 1988, advocates were saying that charters would cost less because of less bureaucracy. Remember that, folks, when they say “less government meddling”…the actual results speak volumes…
Samantha Power is set to mark the 20th Anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda.
It doesn’t seem as though there has been a healing solution–that it could happen again if the conditions were right.
Hotel Rwanda is a graphic film about the genocide…that was ignored by Bill Clinton, even though he knew of the “final solution”. It’s sad to read the Catholic Church’s connection to the advancement of Tutsi…at the expense of the Hutu. Glad that they changed their thinking later, however, to help the Hutu.
Note how the Eugenics ideas are behind the Tutsi being put into power. And the acts of privatization caused poverty and slave labor.
They used identity cards to identify Hutu and Tutsi….the purpose can only be to keep Hutu in their “place”. Gah, it is so much like Nazi Germany…a holocaust not for religion, but for ancestry!
The use of rape as a war tool is highlighted in the piece. It’s often ignored as part of the war casualties numbers, as a woman’s issue, so its inclusion is hopefully a sign of measuring the true numbers of casualties of war. As I read this, I think about the resulting pregnancies…and it just seems so contradictory to their goals of eliminating the other–they ironically reproduce, mixing blood and genes and all they claim to find disgusting.
Warrior Publications has this up on the Mi’kmaq Warrior Trial. This is the first I have read of someone on the First Nations side having a gun. In the reports that I read, no one mentioned this…so this destroys some of the credibility of the reporting.
Because I am not down with bringing guns….you may not have the intention of using it, but bringing it makes it easier for someone to get hurt. You may only intend on using it in self-defense, but the other side does not know your intentions. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword, as they say.
If you are doing this for your children, be an example to them. Show them how to stand up for your rights without violence.
And the other side? Only an unethical coward would shoot someone whom is unarmed.
People have a right to protest, especially when their rights to their land are being pushed aside for dirty fracking, but I will not support violence on either side.
The New Yorker also has this up on a brief film on switched roles in sexism. Warning: There is an assault scene that may trigger.
I agree with the writer that it doesn’t present any sympathetic women, and that is problematic because then it diminishes the powerful message as being real. It does not take into account that men have been assaulted, too. They missed a teachable moment on that. The assaults are targeted towards those that are vulnerable. And the thing is–any of us can be vulnerable at any point in our lives….and society has yet to recognize that and be proactive with bullies.
Eagle 
You must be logged in to post a comment.