|
Post by sader98 on Mar 28, 2018 21:41:13 GMT -5
There is a distinct difference between being provocative but respectful to spark a debate and being vulgar and controversial to get attention. My strong opinion is that this is the latter.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Mar 28, 2018 21:54:37 GMT -5
Iggy is banned. Liew is tenured.
Starting to wonder about the future of my relationship with alma mater.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Mar 28, 2018 22:59:26 GMT -5
The school has clearly lost its way....sad, just about everything that's been done to hurt the school in the last generation or so has been self-inflicted.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 29, 2018 6:18:23 GMT -5
Obviously it is perfectly all right to offend Christians at Holy Cross...but giving imagined offense via the Crusader muppet is strictly verboten. No wonder we're a punchline at this point.
If this Professor really wanted to be bravely provocative he would have tweaked Islam...the religion of peace. Just so second rate and commonplace to target Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:17:49 GMT -5
Alum I'm not ready to call you a 'fruitloop', but can I ask you a question ? Assuming you're a Christian, what do Holy Week and Easter mean to you ? I am a Catholic, and I will proudly admit, a cafeteria Catholic as I suspect most people here are if they are honest with themselves. Most of what I get out the life of Christ is found in the Sermon on the Mount. I think that it provides a good summary of how people should lead their lives. As far as I am concerned, people don't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth so long as they treat each other in accordance with those most well regarded teachings.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:19:23 GMT -5
Let's try to have a modicum of respect for our fellow graduates here. Alum is presenting a considered, well-meaning assessment of this situation, it may be different than yours but I would think, as Catholics, which most of us are, you would be above resorting to this name calling. Many of the posters clearly do not have any identity issues as they evidently never look in the mirror. If I offended Alum, I apologize. I will admit that I am offended by the characterization of My Lord and Savior as a ‘Drag King’ with ‘Queer Desires’. I find no scholarly purpose in these statements and I too want a public statement from Burroughs and/or the BoT as to their stance on this matter. I find it indefensible but Alum and others. To each their own.....suffice it to say and since you are not a PhD in Religious Studies, I suggest you are not qualified to decide what is "scholarship."
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:21:41 GMT -5
Let's try to have a modicum of respect for our fellow graduates here. Alum is presenting a considered, well-meaning assessment of this situation, it may be different than yours but I would think, as Catholics, which most of us are, you would be above resorting to this name calling. Many of the posters clearly do not have any identity issues as they evidently never look in the mirror. Did you miss the smiley face on my post? I intended no malice KY--You are good with me. I knew you were kidding.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 29, 2018 7:28:44 GMT -5
At least he professor has not taken photos of a crucifix immersed in urine...yet.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:34:04 GMT -5
"Christ is a fraud," would be provocative to that point, but not necessarily scholarly. W hile I don't think the professor should be censored per se, I think that such antagonizing opinions could bring about admonishment from the college, particularly given the religious association of the school. I think similar statements like, "Saddam Hussein had some pretty good ideas to keep a fragmented society in line," or, "Duterte has a great plan to stop crime," are a bit closer to semi-informed opinion, rather than paraphrase that "your God likes to dress up like a woman," or "He thinks about his father when he is sexually penetrated." It's vulgar almost for the sake of vulgarity... and I don't think it stirs up the critical thinking we might hope for. Let's say it this way: if the college has to make changes and consider references to the "Crusader" too offensive to continue with it (either in name or imagery), then how can they remain silent when even more provocative statements are made about Jesus? This is really just a twisted situation. I appreciate your understanding of the independence that must be granted to the faculty's work. I would only also want to point out that I have seen no evidence that the professor is going out of his way to antagonize anyone. Most of the works cited in the Fenwick Review article predate his hiring at HC and I found no evidence searching on line that he has gone out of his way to seek publicity or embarrass the College.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 29, 2018 7:35:24 GMT -5
PS: Alum, where does it say that only a professor of religious studies can determine what is "scholarly?" Perhaps you omitted the emoji smiley face. If not, that is so elitist as to almost defy belief. Scholarly is defined as "of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons." There are countless persons who meet that definition, both personally and in their work, who have not jumped through the hoops to receive a PhD. Please tell me you were kidding.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:37:25 GMT -5
Obviously it is perfectly all right to offend Christians at Holy Cross...but giving imagined offense via the Crusader muppet is strictly verboten. No wonder we're a punchline at this point. If this Professor really wanted to be bravely provocative he would have tweaked Islam...the religion of peace. Just so second rate and commonplace to target Christianity. I suspect that the professor does not think he is targeting Christianity. My admittedly cursory Google search does not indicate to me that he has a problem with Christianity at all. He just has a much different take than most. I would refer you back to 8485's point about how an 1830 slave in Georgia might read the Gospel differently than his master.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:39:08 GMT -5
PS: Alum, where does it say that only a professor of religious studies can determine what is "scholarly?" Perhaps you omitted the emoji smiley face. If not, that is so elitist as to almost defy belief. Scholarly is defined as "of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons." There are countless persons who meet that definition, both personally and in their work, who have not jumped through the hoops to receive a PhD. Please tell me you were kidding. I am not saying that only a professor can know what is scholarly, but I would say that they are more qualified than most. I would also point out, as I did above, that he has been teaching at a well known graduate level theological school in addition to HC. Somebody else found him qualified.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 29, 2018 7:43:01 GMT -5
Again alum, if this professor was on record as saying the earth was created by God in six days; if he said anything critical of Islam; if he said that abortion is the government sponsored murder of millions; if he said that there are two genders only, male and female HE WOULD BE GONE irrespective of the celebrated intellectual freedom of faculty
Do you really think that is untrue?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 29, 2018 7:43:36 GMT -5
"...since you are not a PhD in Religious Studies, I suggest you are not qualified to decide what is "scholarship."
Did I misread that? Are professors in other fields than Religious Studies not able to decide what constitutes scholarship? I know such hires are typically by committee and the professor must have had serious accomplishments that led to a position at HC. However, I cannot agree with the nonsense that is being passed off as "scholarship" in this case.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:48:16 GMT -5
Having now replied to most of night's worth of posts, I am going to step away from this debate. Let me ask you to read the following blog post which seems to me to take a fair middle ground on the issues of free speech, safe space, and trigger warnings in the classroom
The University of Chicago made news recently because of a letter sent by its Dean of Students to inform its incoming class of freshmen that the University, given its commitment to “freedom of inquiry and expression,” does not support “trigger warnings,” cancel controversial Liew.Picture.2006 speakers, or condone creation of “safe spaces.” Responses to this letter run the whole gamut from celebratory cheers to condemnatory curses. Some see this as the University’s honorable refusal to shut down difficult discussions of sensitive subjects; others see it as the University’s hypocritical and covert attempt to forestall student activism on campus to challenge conservative speakers or oppressive rhetoric.
I have no way of knowing the “real” motivations or intentions of this letter. I do notice, however, that subsequent conversations, whether in support or in protest of the University of Chicago’s letter, tend to assume that “free speech” will necessarily trump or preclude “safe space” or “trigger warnings” without clarifying what those terms may mean or how they may be put into practice.
As an educator who likes to encourage and enable students as well as myself to think again and think differently, I am all for free speech; free speech is, in fact, indispensable to classroom discussion and learning. We do not learn well if we feel like our thoughts and ideas are being suppressed; we also cannot learn if we are not allowed to make mistakes. Nobody’s commitment to Black Lives Matter, neither mine or any of my student’s, should keep white students in my class from articulating their disagreements with or dislike of James Cone’s Black Theology and Black Power. Similarly, advocates for LGBTQ rights, including myself, cannot silence students who want to push back against Marcella Althaus-Reid’s Indecent Theology. Every student in my classroom should have the space and time to express their thoughts and views, even if I think they are dead wrong; to deprive students of such is to take away from them an opportunity to hear and learn through feedbacks and responses. We must also not forget that persons from traditionally marginalized groups do make mistakes and can also be misguided in their thinking.
Whether this commitment to free speech and the idea of the classroom being a safe space can coexist depends on what one means by the latter. I cannot guarantee that no one will feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or threatened in my classroom since I cannot control how one feels or deny what someone is feeling. Hearing new ideas that you have not considered before, especially if it contradicts or challenges what you have held dear deep down and for very long, can indeed be very alarming. I have also heard faculty of color and female professors saying that they themselves did not feel safe at times with their students. When students are even allowed to carry guns legally on some campuses, how can I feign the power or ability to keep everybody safe in my class?
I can, however, promise that students in my courses will have a safe space to speak freely, meaning only that they will be able to say what is on their mind and in their heart, including saying, “I am feeling rather threatened!” or “I feel under attack and unsafe right now.” This kind of safe space is not one that shields students from being challenged, feeling offended, or experiencing wound or harm; it is, however, one that does not frame “free speech” and “safe space” as mutually exclusive by definition.
Having a safe space to speak freely also does not, in my view and practice, necessarily cancel out the desire or the need for trigger warnings. A person does not have to run over other people verbally just because she or he has something important to say that others may find difficult to hear. I am not able to verify if it is true that persons of color, because of all the discrimination and marginalization, have developed thicker skins than average Whites, I will only say that some experiences, including oppressive and unjust ones, may also make someone more sensitive to other people’s feelings and she may hence become more thoughtful and more gracious about giving trigger warnings. Trigger warnings, when given clearly and concisely by a teacher on her own initiative in the classroom, do not function to shield students from but prepare students for difficult topics or challenging ideas. After giving a trigger warning, I have never once asked my students, “Is it okay to talk about this now?” or said to them, “You may leave the class if you do not want to hear or think anymore about this.” More importantly, those of us who are teachers should remember that we have the responsibility to guide and guard the tone and the emotion of a classroom even or especially when we push for honest and genuine exchange of views and opinions. Let’s remember also that what we do may become models for our students to emulate. They, like us, need to learn how to disagree, debate, and argue passionately, thoughtfully, and respectfully.
Instead of following or (even in dispute) allowing the University of Chicago’s letter to set the terms of the conversation, I see the possibility for “free speech,” “safe space,” and “trigger warnings” to exist alongside each other in my classroom and in my universe.
Oh, one more thing: While a school can—and should—refuse to cancel an invited speaker with controversial viewpoints (whether the speaker is Ann Coulter or Jeremiah Wright), students and teachers can also continue their activism to speak freely against what they understand to be unjust or unacceptable. The point of activism is not to shut people up or shut people down, but to push for rethinking, reexamination, and further conversation. After all, is this not what teaching and learning is about?
Anybody want to guess who wrote this fair minded piece?
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 29, 2018 7:52:36 GMT -5
We should more often step away from many of these debates. But how about taking 2 seconds to type a one word answer to my query above? You'll only need two letters.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Mar 29, 2018 7:57:04 GMT -5
I'll take a guess. The Dean of Students at the University of Chicago?
Just trying to lighten the mood a bit.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 7:58:46 GMT -5
Again alum, if this professor was on record as saying the earth was created by God in six days; if he said anything critical of Islam; if he said that abortion is the government sponsored murder of millions; if he said that there are two genders only, male and female HE WOULD BE GONE irrespective of the celebrated intellectual freedom of faculty Do you really think that is untrue? Yes, I think that is untrue. If he was tenured faculty, he would not lose his job. It is not employment at will and he would be able to successfully sue them if he was fired.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Mar 29, 2018 8:06:33 GMT -5
Anybody want to guess who wrote this fair minded piece?
...found the author!
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 29, 2018 8:17:38 GMT -5
alum, did you see the thread on the Wellesley professor?
I will reawaken this thread each time a tenured professor is dismissed for speech deemed offensive to the academy.
Ha, a thread that will never die............the HORROR
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Mar 29, 2018 8:21:50 GMT -5
Having now replied to most of night's worth of posts, I am going to step away from this debate. Perhaps you took criticisms of the Professor's highly offensive writings too personally. Is there any chance you are Professor Liew?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 29, 2018 8:36:16 GMT -5
alum, did you see the thread on the Wellesley professor? I will reawaken this thread each time a tenured professor is dismissed for speech deemed offensive to the academy. Ha, a thread that will never die............the HORROR Can't tell exactly what is going on, but per the Globe story he wasn't fired. Looks like he is taking a sabbatical. I wish he would tell us the whole story. Reading between the lines, I suspect that when Wellesley took the Koch money there was some sort of agreement as to how it could be used on both sides and now there is a dispute about that. Professor Cushman should clear it up for us and tell us exactly what the deal is.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Mar 29, 2018 8:51:03 GMT -5
stand by to stand by
|
|
|
Post by deep Purple on Mar 29, 2018 8:57:13 GMT -5
That reminds me of a comment long ago when a TV anchor reacted in astonishment to Reagan's first presidential victory since nobody she knew even considered voting for him. (He won 44 states in a landslide). Some suggested she widen her circle.
Since I support diversity of opinion I occasionally read Breitbart - I did notice they predicted Trump would win the election.
Best line yet! I wonder how Breitbart knew? How did they know? He ran against the worst candidate in history. It wasn’t exactly a “miracle on ice” prediction.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Mar 29, 2018 9:31:42 GMT -5
The question before the court here ultimately is whether Holy Cross is a Catholic college in name, principle, and practice or not?
For those who would view these written words -- AND the thought process of a professor in an Endowed Chair who penned them -- under the umbrella of a form of academic freedom, I guess there is absolutely NO line of demarcation as to what it is deemed unacceptable.
Would you want a son or daughter in a classroom where views of this sort or views influenced by this thought process are shared? Before you answer that question, I encourage you to go back and reread and ponder the quoted materials within the article at The Fenwick Review.
I have to assume that the Dean and Chair of the Department were involved in the hiring of Professor Liew. As such, I also would assume that they would have -- or should have -- reviewed all of his prior written works and research. They should be called on the carpet and share what they knew or did not know and what they revealed in the hiring process. The same goes for those involved in the tenure process. There were either serious breakdowns in both hiring and tenure OR we have a MUCH MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM/CANCER in our midsts.
I personally believe Fr. Boroughs should ultimately summarily dismiss Professor Liew and welcome meeting him in court if he so desires.
Those in positions of authority both on and off campus are going to be seriously tested here.
|
|