So now we are changing the original complaint?

Did they go back to their constituents, the people paying for all of it, and explain to them that they took their money and now decided to change directions?

So if I'm reading this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you want to fire Professor Penn because someone in the 1800's didn't go back to constituents and explain to them why MSU became a public university? This is Professor Penn's transgression?

I'm sorry Torch but since Professor Penn wasn't even alive when MSU changed to a public university (now I'm just spit balling here) I think it would be hard to pin this on him.

Now is it fair to say you are 0 for 2 or would you like to continue on point 2? Tell me when you feel comfortable enough to go on to door number 3.

(09-06-2013 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now is it fair to say you are 0 for 2 or would you like to continue on point 2? Tell me when you feel comfortable enough to go on to door number 3.

Your scorekeeping is wrong mach. But then reality has never been of interest to you.

(09-06-2013 10:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So now we are changing the original complaint?

Did they go back to their constituents, the people paying for all of it, and explain to them that they took their money and now decided to change directions?

So if I'm reading this right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you want to fire Professor Penn because someone in the 1800's didn't go back to constituents and explain to them why MSU became a public university? This is Professor Penn's transgression?

No, you're not reading it right.

9-6-2013 8:51 a.m

To understand the three original complaints

As I've said before, there are plenty of controversial issues that could be used to teach people how to debate rationally and civilly, some of them in science. It's disgusting that you as teacher have no understanding of how to do this.

What he said was fireable because he wasn't doing his job, he was slandering people and he was violating the purpose of the land-grant university that employed him. Three reasons right there.

No, you're not reading it right.



Could you please inform why you typed this:
he was violating the purpose of the land-grant university that employed him.

Is his current employer a land grant university or has it changed.

Simple yes or no.

and should Professor Penn be fired for violating a purpose that was changed in the 1800's.

I would like to wrap up 2 Torch before we move on to 3. Give me some feedback here.

I see we want to contend the score????????

1. Is it possible to slander a group? If no 0 for 1.

2. Is MSU currently a land grant university? If no 0 for 2.

Bueller.................. Bueller

(09-06-2013 10:40 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I would like to wrap up 2 Torch before we move on to 3. Give me some feedback here.

Mach, argument with Torch aside - What p!sses me off about this clown (and tons of others in his position) is that he is using his position as a creative writing professor to bully pulpit his political views on students.

He is the teacher and they are the students and as such he holds a certain power over them so his diatribe is allowed to go on unquestioned. Given that his class has NOTHING to do with political science or politics - the classroom is not the place for his political feelings. If he wants to gain converts - he should invite his students to the student union (not class time) and then discuss politics.

He was out of line doing what he did and the only reason you have no problem with it is because he parrots your political views.

(09-06-2013 10:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So for those keeping score at home.

We have three main complaints.

1. Slander

2. Not doing his job

3. Violation of the code of Land Grant Universities. Morril Act of 1862.

4. douchebag

5. c0cksucker

(09-05-2013 11:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  ughhh it's not harassment........ Harassment is George Zimmerman tailing a black kid for being black in the wrong hood..........

If me making a joke that a cowoaker finds "offensive" can constitute harassment than *THIS* certainly rises to that level. Take off the tinted glasses and see it for what it is.

A person with "all of the power* in the room running down a set of beliefs.

Quote:This cute and cuddly ole codger just was being Socratic.....

No Mach, this instructor was being a bully...

Quote:Get with the program brown shirt and quit trying to silence intellectual debate.......

Debate requires (1) respect, (2) decorum, and (3) Reason.. NOne of which came from this professor.

(09-06-2013 08:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  worthless parasites on society, - slander

lash out at the society that hosts them- projection

Their self-loathing - If the shoe fits

angry, bitter and destructive. - pot meet kettle

And in this dynamic does the Bulletin board poster have any authority or power over the MSU professor?

I'm saying...... you can be fair to students who hold opposite political views than yours and guess what guys????????????????????????????????????

Sometimes they are the best students! It's a better class when you have kids who challenge an idea and bring something with their critique. Sometimes I will say something crazy just to stimulate debate. I think it's very unfair to take a 5 minute portrait of a 50 minute class and then tell me that guy needs fired. It's just wrong.

A person with "all of the power* in the room running down a set of beliefs.


Obviously you are not up to date with the current educational curricula' If he did have ALL of this power would he have been removed?????????????

Quote: Sometimes I will say something crazy just to stimulate debate.

So that's the excuse? Your posts have just been to stimulate debate?

Quote: I think it's very unfair to take a 5 minute portrait of a 50 minute class and then tell me that guy needs fired. It's just wrong.

Like I said earlier, there are many other ways to stimulate debate. And I believe it was said this was not the first one.

And that's not teaching creative writing (at this level).

(09-06-2013 11:57 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A person with "all of the power* in the room running down a set of beliefs.
Obviously you are not up to date with the current educational curricula' If he did have ALL of this power would he have been removed?????????????

He had all of the power in that room. The power that removed him came from outside that room.

This is something I struggle with. Teaching law, I have to be very careful that I don't even come remotely close to trying to browbeat students in the fashion on display here. I used to say that I would try to present things so that students could not tell my political views. But after a few conversations with students, I've decided it's better to tell then where I'm coming from but make sure that they understand that they are to make up their own minds. I tell them that a paper disagreeing with me on an issue, but supported with facts and logic, will get a better grade than one that kisses up to my viewpoint. One guideline that helps is that you don't enhance critical thinking unless multiple viewpoints are in discussion. I assign different students different sides of the same issue and then have them debate. To the extent I can determine it, I prefer to assign them the opposite side from what I think their beliefs are. There is no room in any classroom for this. This is grossly perverting the power that an instructor has. It's an ethical violation for which he should be fired, or at the very least reprimanded severely.

(09-06-2013 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I tell them that a paper disagreeing with me on an issue, but supported with facts and logic, will get a better grade than one that kisses up to my viewpoint. One guideline that helps is that you don't enhance critical thinking unless multiple viewpoints are in discussion.

Yes, it strengthens your own viewpoint to hear what the other side is saying, if you address those points with logic and fact.

Part of teaching controversy is insisting that people take the time to hear what the other side is saying, not substituting your own biases on what you think they're saying. (And I've met plenty of conservative Christians who have no understanding of this concept.)

Guiding them to use logic and rigor is what the Socratic method really is, not throwing out inflammatory comments to generate strife. It's not a surprise that one on the political left doesn't appreciate the difference.

It was a f...king literature class. Discuss literature.