Texas A&M professor: "Repeal 2A"

[mojo84]

Not much I can do about private schools. If they want to be liberal and have tenure, that is their business. I dont have to send my money to them or support them.

The subject of the thread is a Texas A&M (publicly funded university) professor.

[chasfm11]

Tenure creates another protected class of elites that is not necessary.
When did you "earn" your tenure?

Most protected classes, IMHO, earned their status at one time or another. Protecting classes that don't need protecting doesn't have a strong historical basis. The problem is that we continue protecting them forever.

I think it's a bit like having unions. Generally, industries that got one unions deserved what they got at one time or another. When that changes years down the road, it's a bit hard to shake off - part of why Detroit got so screwed up a few years back. Paying guys $100k to do assembly line work with pensions, and heathcare / legal resources for life gets really expensive. No offense to our auto industry workers intended.

Academia is largely a place for liberal ideas. That's just how it is. Remember that some of these liberal ideas have had their place in history and contributed to the basis of our country too... Slavery, equality for women, property ownership rights - these were all "liberal" ideas at one time.

There are certainly tenure riding conservative professors, admittedly not as many. Trying to balance academia more towards the conservative side is not going to happen. You can't do that any more than you could balance leadership in conservative institutions like churches.

Good ideas come from both Liberals and Conservatives. The idea of having two different types of thinking helps us, not hurts us. The opposing point of few tends to temper the excesses of each side. What I object to is the intolerance from both sides and, right now, the Liberal academics have a corner on that market. There is no reason for the inmates to be running the asylum.

[Diesel42]

I've been reading this and feel I should add something.

When I was at A&M getting my undergraduate degree I had an English prof that challenged everything he thought "conservative." He openly challenged us and even ridiculed some of us that argued back. I saw him one night at the Dixie Chicken (a wonderful beer joint... still there too) and asked him if he was doing this on purpose. He laughed and said, "Of course!" He went on to tell me that he was more conservative than any of his students. He said command of the English language means being able to prove your point. So, when folks attacked his liberal statements, he encouraged them to improve their arguments by challenging them.

My point here is simple. Whether or not this professor is sincere or teaching by drama, her students are forced to argue and convince her. Students need to be challenged or you end up graduating "sheeple."

Carry on!
TAMU '79

[mojo84]

There's a difference between playing "devil's" advocate and going out in public lime this woman did and saying parts of our country's basis for being a free country be repealed.

I have a nephew and his wife that graduated from Texas A&M well after you. He says it's not the same A&M you remember. Things have changed considerably just since he graduated. A&M has a significant progressive liberal element that is growing rapidly.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I've been reading this and feel I should add something.

When I was at A&M getting my undergraduate degree I had an English prof that challenged everything he thought "conservative." He openly challenged us and even ridiculed some of us that argued back. I saw him one night at the Dixie Chicken (a wonderful beer joint... still there too) and asked him if he was doing this on purpose. He laughed and said, "Of course!" He went on to tell me that he was more conservative than any of his students. He said command of the English language means being able to prove your point. So, when folks attacked his liberal statements, he encouraged them to improve their arguments by challenging them.

My point here is simple. Whether or not this professor is sincere or teaching by drama, her students are forced to argue and convince her. Students need to be challenged or you end up graduating "sheeple."

Carry on!
TAMU '79

Alternatively one could argue what any of that had to do with an English class...

[cb1000rider]

Not much I can do about private schools. If they want to be liberal and have tenure, that is their business. I dont have to send my money to them or support them.
The subject of the thread is a Texas A&M (publicly funded university) professor.

Mojo, if it makes you feel any better, I attended A&M.. The actions of a single professor do not reflect the political leanings of the institution, trust me. If nothing else, if her statements garner more attention on the current plight of the 2nd amendment in Texas, then perhaps some good was done.

Are you proposing that we fire all the liberal college professors that teach in public institutions? Or just the ones that make provocative statements? Just curious... Would that fix the issue?

[mojo84]

No, it doesn't make me feel any better. I couldn't care less where you "attended".

I didn't say fire anyone. I'm talking about not guaranteeing someone a job for life. Other than federal judges, who else has that guarantee? Do you?

[VMI77]

Not much I can do about private schools. If they want to be liberal and have tenure, that is their business. I dont have to send my money to them or support them.
The subject of the thread is a Texas A&M (publicly funded university) professor.

Are you proposing that we fire all the liberal college professors that teach in public institutions? Or just the ones that make provocative statements? Just curious... Would that fix the issue?

I could go for that, but I don't think it's practical. Step 1, make college loans resolvable in bankruptcy. Step 2, make colleges responsible for what they teach by allowing students who aren't able to get employed in their field of study to be paid back their tuition costs. These two steps, perhaps just Step 1, will eliminate most of the garbage courses now being taught. Eliminating the garbage courses will also unemploy most of the radical leftists.

BTW, I think you're misusing the term "liberal." Hubert Humphrey was a liberal. The radicals calling themselves liberals today are authoritarians and better labeled as "progressives." In classical terms I am a liberal. I even used to identify as such back when the term meant something besides authoritarianism. Inside each progressive is an authoritarian screaming to get out.

[cb1000rider]

No, it doesn't make me feel any better. I couldn't care less where you "attended".

I only mention it because it might lend credence to me saying that the actions of one professor do not necessarily reflect the political climate of the institution, at least in this case. I understand completely that you don't care, just consider that it might be pertinent to the discussion of A&M.

I didn't say fire anyone. I'm talking about not guaranteeing someone a job for life. Other than federal judges, who else has that guarantee? Do you?

I just asked if that would take care of the issue from your perspective. No, I don't have guaranteed employment of any kind. I also don't think that you fire someone from a place of employment due to their political leanings, at least not necessarily. Firing her for politically protected speech, tenure or not, is a bad idea. It mattes not if you agree with her speech.

I do think some union employees have pretty good employment guarantees in many cases. Unions may provide more protection than tenure in some cases.

Honestly, the tenure system is changing. I don't know anything first hand, but my friends that are life-long academics recognize it as a dinosaur and it's being impacted by online education and the financial realities of education at both publicly funded and private institutions. What always got me riled up about tenure was professors that would get it and then would shift to private practice, while drawing full salary and benefits for years. I knew professors that were at the university (not A&M) 1-2 days a week and worked on their "other job" the rest of the time. I saw this mainly a smaller (public) institutions as I had departmental access. Institutions like A&M and those up the chain forced professors to produce (research or income) in order for them to be considered to be on staff.. Although I suspect a few of those at A&M eventually faded into pre-retirement levels of activity also.

[Dragonfighter]

Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.

Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.

I'm not "denying" her anything. If tenure is so critical and good, why aren't all professors given tenure? Why would one need protection from "administration" and others not? Tenure is bad. That's all there is to it and that's me excercising my 1st Amendment right. You being hypocritical and denying me my right?

This has gone a might OT but I agree. Tenure like a lifetime appointment removes any real sense of accountability.

That said, tenure is not equal to all. One example from the documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is of a Baylor (founded as a Christian University) revoked the tenure of a professor who wrote an essay, not promoting intelligent design but exploring the intellectual process of the intelligent design movement. So there it is, let's see what happens if another "tenured" professor comes out vocally rebutting her opinion.

[mojo84]

Institutions like A&M and those up the chain forced professors to produce (research or income) in order for them to be considered to be on staff.. Although I suspect a few of those at A&M eventually faded into pre-retirement levels of activity also.

Not necessarily. Recently data that has come out via freedom of information requests that suggest the contrary. Information that I am sure even your friends from academia would rather not be published unless they are one of the more productive professors.

Here's a good start on some of the information. Notice the one doing the study was "fired" from his adviser position for shedding light on some of the flaws within public higher education. It's a shame he wasn't tenured so he could speak out publicly as the professor that is the subject of this topic did. (sarcasm)

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/07/20/ ... ty-analys/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There is much more info out there and plenty of arguments on both sides of the subject if you google "texas higher education reform". Tenure place a big part in the abuse of the system that is going on.

[SQLGeek]

It strikes me that those who usually scream the loudest about the 2nd Amendment being misunderstood are usually the ones guilty of such a claim.

[oohrah]

Tenure creates another protected class of elites that is not necessary.

When did you "earn" your tenure?

Since you asked, I am not tenured. I chose a teaching position not eligible for tenure because I am near retirement and didn't want the hassle.

However, while we will disagree, I am a strong supporter of academic freedom and I believe tenure is an important part of that.

And btw, the Baylor intelligent design prof who was let go did not have tenure. However, the Prof who hired him does have tenure and is still there.

[The Annoyed Man]

My parents were both tenured professors at Caltech. Tenure exists for a fairly good reason, but it is not written in stone. One can have tenure revoked for a reasonable cause. Generally speaking that cause would have to be something that reflected poorly on the institution's academic reputation. However, tenure at public universities means one thing, and it means something entirely different at private institutions. Example...... Ward Churchill was a tenured professor of ethnic studies at University of Colorado, who faked his membership in a Native American tribe, and like other noted liberals, tried to use his faked minority status to his advantage. He was a steaming pile of immoral poo. Among many inflammatory and crapulent statements he had made over the years, he made one in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, in which he called the people killed in the World Trade Towers a bunch of "little Eichmans" who basically deserved what they got.

Under tremendous pressure, the university finally revoked Churchill's tenure, and deservedly so. . . .but he deserved revocation not for being a decidedly evil little man of vile words. He deserved it because the quality of his academic output was abysmal—SO bad that it reflected badly on the institution's academic reputation. But that isn't why they revoked his tenure. They revoked it for exercising is 1st Amendment right to say terribly wrong and immoral things. He sued the university, saying that his freed speech right had been infringed, and the court found in his favor. The university was forced to restore his tenure. If they had revoked his tenure for the right reason: that he was a bad scholar who reflected badly on the school's academic reputation, they could have made it stick.

How is this different in a private school? It's because a private school does not have to guarantee your right to be a feckless piece of poo and speak it. The analogy would be your 1st Amendment rights inside my private home. You can curse out my wife, and I can and WILL bust open your lip and throw you out of my house. . . . .and you cannot accuse me of violating your free speech rights, because my property rights exceed your speech rights inside the confines of my home. A private university which does not receive public funds is free to actually enforce the integrity of its academic standards. This is why a liberal arts education at a institution like Hillsdale College will always be of a higher caliber than at a place like University of Colorado Boulder, where charlatans hold forth in safe tenure, protecting the shoddy quality of their academic "work" behind the the 1st Amendment, paid for in part by the taxpayers whom they defraud. Since schools like Hillsdale do not accept money from the government, they are not impeded in their efforts to guarantee the integrity of their academic product.

So tenure has its place. Unfortunately, tenure is like racial quotas. It is used by bad people to extract what isn't rightfully theirs by playing on the emotional guilt of people who buy into the self loathing it requires to believe academic frauds.

[Purplehood]

A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

Lets make all Amendments subject to each States discretion. In fact, lets have each state use only its own constitution. Oops, that sounds like a really poor Union to me.