Leftist Censorship?

[layoutshooter]

Like I said before [to someone else, but it applies]: if you still believe that the professor is a 'liberal scuz' [sp], it's because that's what you want to believe, not because the facts support it.
Just admit it, and I'll promise to either feed the ducks [or not, whichever you say is better] next time I'm in Pure Michigan.

I said I was BORED due to members sniping at each other. That is the fact.

Get caught feeding ducks in Michigan and you will get arrested. It is illegal to do so, for VERY good reason, and should be heavily enforced. SO DON'T DO IT!!

As to the scuz ball liberal, communist, socialist pig "professor", IF she were NOT all that she WOULD have just said, this is not a class that uses parody. Maybe next semester we will explore those issues in regards to current events, and nothing more.

I learned the lesson of "leftist" (for lack of a better term) profs in college. I won a bet with one in a similar argument.

I had a VERY 'left wing' instructor, physc class. He was one of those who could NEVER place the blame on a criminal for his/her/it's actions. It was ALWAYS a case the the criminal was the victim.

When I wrote a paper arguing that point, the audacity of contradicting him, I got an "F". I went to him and told him he marked it that way because I had values different than his and not because it was academically wrong.

He said, NO WAY! NO prof would EVER do that. SO, I bet him I could PROVE it.

I told him next semester I would ONLY mimic what other profs said, regardless of my personal beliefs, and I would get a 4.0. I also said I would learn nothing but get great grades. Just a bet for a dinner.

SO, I did that. I did NOTHING that semester. I even turned in a couple of old high school papers. It was an EASY semester. I got my 4.0. I learned nothing and ate a LOT of crow eating and bowing to pompous butt profs, a couple of whom took GREAT PLEASURE in running down people with values.

It was a great dinner. His wife was a great cook. I do give him credit, he never tipped off the other profs to what I was doing. He reread the paper and said that IF he could it would have been remarked as a B. He agreed that his "ideas" got in the way of reading it in the first place. He admitted that HIS ideas got in the way of MY learning.

The came can, and does, happen with "right wing" (for lack of a better term) profs.

Scuz is scuz. Scuz CAN change, that prof did.

 

[muttly]

Nope, it got boring. It just became more of a finger pointing session. SO, when I get bored, I ignore.

Yeah, but don't most of the threads progress,err,digress,err, regress to that point eventually?

 

[layoutshooter]

Yeah, but don't most of the threads progress,err,digress,err, regress to that point eventually?

Yeah, some more than others. It's Obama's fault.

 

[Monty]

Did I miss something? The original post was concerning the qualifications, or the lack thereof, of a professor.

As for me, I have been of the belief for many years the institute's of higher learning are indeed very liberal. The fact this professor may have given such instructions is not surprising, and certainly within her prevue to do so.

But it seems, (to me anyway), the thread forgot all about her and the original contention she was being .... uh .... unfair? By stating her preferences as to study and research material to be included in the paper to be submitted, she certainly biased it.

Instead the thread went into pages of the value and credibility of the various news sources.

Now, what would be said that the professor was indeed biased, and not Fox, MSNBC, CNS, ABC .... they live on their merit.

 

[cheri1122]

It wasn't the qualifications of the professor being questioned, but the perceived bias in prohibiting Fox News as a source, but no equivalent 'left leaning' sources. That was supported by a photo of a torn bit of paper with two typewritten rules [no Fox News and no Onion sources] and a "media source" who "got complaints from upset students and parents".
It was rebutted in a comment following the story [in the OP's link] written by a student in the class, who said the Professor disallowed biased sources both left and right leaning, and would allow either if the student could make a convincing case for them.
Given the lack of substantiation in the Fox News page cited, and the fact that the self proclaimed student's comment following the story was both much more believable [what professor would be so openly and blatantly biased?!] and remained unchallenged [if the student were being disingenuous, someone would have jumped in to say so, and no one did], the bottom line is that the Fox News piece was a hastily published bit of half baked nonsense that would embarrass any reputable 'news' outlet.
Which led to the merits of various news outlets being compared, which [as usual] led to the merits of various personalities here being likewise dissected.
Lost in the verbiage [as usual] is that the OP's 'newsflash' was utter nonsense.

 

[Humble2drive]

Did I miss something?

Yes.

BTW - Thanks for supporting organ donation.

 

[muttly]

It wasn't the qualifications of the professor being questioned, but the perceived bias in prohibiting Fox News as a source, but no equivalent 'left leaning' sources. That was supported by a photo of a torn bit of paper with two typewritten rules [no Fox News and no Onion sources] and a "media source" who "got complaints from upset students and parents".
It was rebutted in a comment following the story [in the OP's link] written by a student in the class, who said the Professor disallowed biased sources both left and right leaning, and would allow either if the student could make a convincing case for them.
Given the lack of substantiation in the Fox News page cited, and the fact that the self proclaimed student's comment following the story was both much more believable [what professor would be so openly and blatantly biased?!] and remained unchallenged [if the student were being disingenuous, someone would have jumped in to say so, and no one did], the bottom line is that the Fox News piece was a hastily published bit of half baked nonsense that would embarrass any reputable 'news' outlet.
Which led to the merits of various news outlets being compared, which [as usual] led to the merits of various personalities here being likewise dissected.
Lost in the verbiage [as usual] is that the OP's 'newsflash' was utter nonsense.

Since you believe the self proclaimed student's account, can you say for sure that she is even a student in that class? You claim that her comments have remained unchallenged. Do you know if anyone such as a student or someone in the know has actually seen her comment? In the comment section that you referred to, the complete syllabus was requested by another commenter from your "source", but she has yet to post it.

Given that there have been many posts claiming that Fox News is so 'openly and blatantly biased', you find it hard to believe an actual political science professor could be so openly and blatantly biased? Just trying to be fair and balanced.

 

[Turtle]

You can't believe the student or the Blog post at face value, regardless of which one floats yer boat. If EO doesn't teach people anything, it'll teach them that there are two sides to every story, and the truth usually lies somewhere in between.

 

[muttly]

Yes I could believe a post at face value. Not saying I do in this instance because there are concerns with the veracity and possible bias of the post. Just questioning some of Cheri's assertions and conclusions is all. Like the conclusion that a professor could NOT be so blatantly biased for one. For two, her stating that since no one in the comment section refuted "unbiased's" account it must be true. Just questioning the veracity of that statement. I checked the comment section. No, it doesn't look like another student in the class refuted her account. Just questioning the plausibility and the likelihood that nobody from the class, or in the know, seen the comment. You would have to scroll down a few comments to see it for one. For two, the comment section was on a news website where it lasted a little under three days and was locked after two hundred comments were posted from around the country. Additionally your post in the first paragraph of post 29 of this thread describes most readers habits of reading the story headline and the first four paragraphs of a story in general. And finally given your own comment previously that YOU generally don't even read comments in comment's sections( please correct me if I'm wrong on that account), which would be in line with most people generally. One could reasonably conclude that the comment wasn't refuted because it wasn't likely seen by someone in the class.

 

[cheri1122]

Muttly: you're quite welcome to question my assertions & conclusions, [that's why we're here, innit?] but I do insist that you read them carefully first.
1: I do assert that professors do not exhibit the blatant and one sided bias alleged in the OP's story, because that would be contrary to the job they're paid to perform. If the students didn't object, the admin and/or parents [who often foot the bills] certainly would. As this story points out: upset parents get involved. I mentioned earlier that everyone [including professors] has biases, but a professor of political science who displays such a blatant bias would not be tolerated in any reputable educational setting. It's not their job to tell the students what to think, but how to arrive at a conclusion.
2: As neither side offers concrete proof in the article, one needs to use reason & common sense to arrive at a conclusion. Both suggest [to me] that the lack of proof is evidence that there is none for Fox to present. The lack of contradiction to the alleged student's rebuttal suggests that it's accurate. Because if anyone of those 200+ commenters had reason to suggest the comment was untruthful, they would. Just as the student suggested the article itself was misleading - people will say 'that's not true!' when they confront a lie. Your suggestion that no one else who could have contradicted the alleged student's comment saw the comment is not plausible - you can bet the article was viewed by many people with personal knowledge, especially after the comment I posted.
I don't recall reading here that people don't read the comments following a story, but I do, and highly recommend it. As this story shows, there's a good chance of learning details not included in the original .There's usually a lot of blahblahblah to wade through looking for it, but it's worth the effort - even if just for the amusement that's in it.

 

[Turtle]

Yes I could believe a post at face value.

You are correct, of course. I should have chosen my words more carefully. One most certainly can believe a post at face value, it's just that's it is generally not very wise to do so.

Just questioning some of Cheri's assertions and conclusions is all. Like the conclusion that a professor could NOT be so blatantly biased for one.

I would certainly question that assertion, as well. When she and I (and maybe you, I don't know) were in school, teachers exhibited far less bias than they do today. These days, it's rather rare to find teachers involved in any of the humanities courses who do not slant their courses in favor of their own personal biases. It's kinda what they do now. Living in a small college town like I do, you can see it quite clearly. Higher education always has been, by and large, a bastion of liberalism, but it's far more blatant these days. There is no doubt in my mind that the teacher in the OP exhibited her own personal bias in this case, but after a little research, and using some common sense about human nature, the level of bias is nowhere near that which some believe it is.

For two, her stating that since no one in the comment section refuted "unbiased's" account it must be true. Just questioning the veracity of that statement.

I agree. Faulty logic yields a faulty (assumed) conclusion.

I checked the comment section. No, it doesn't look like another student in the class refuted her account. Just questioning the plausibility and the likelihood that nobody from the class, or in the know, seen the comment.

There's simply no way to know. Everyone in the class may have seen it. "Unbiased" may have run to class and told everyone about it. It's possible that no one disagreed with "unbiased" and chose to remain silent. It's all speculation either way.

Additionally your post in the first paragraph of post 29 of this thread describes most readers habits of reading the story headline and the first four paragraphs of a story in general.

Yes. It's a well known axiom in journalism that it's all about the headline and those First Four. Very often, the "rest of the story" or the explanation of things are not to be found until deep into the article, which most people never read. Writers can use that fact (the propensity of people to stop reading after the First Four) to influence opinion in the early part of an article with blatant bias, while at the same time claiming an unimpassioned bias because somewhere in that article they presented all of the facts in proper context.

And finally given your own comment previously that YOU generally don't even read comments in comment's sections( please correct me if I'm wrong on that account), which would be in line with most people generally.

It's true, I rarely read the comments section. I don't know if that's indicative of most people in general or not. I would think that the reason I don't read them probably puts me in the minority, actually. Most of the comments come from the choir. If the site itself has a liberal slant, most of the comments will be from people who also have a liberal slant. The same is true for a conservative site, where most of the comments are from conservatives. On both types of sites there is always the usual smattering of trolls to get people all bent out of shape. As well, there are the rare comments from someone introducing sanity, realism and pragmatism, all of which gets ignored by the ever-faithful choir. This isn't just true of liberal and conservative sites, but of any site that caters to a special interest of a political nature, be it a homosexual site, a gun control site, a religious site, or RonPaul dot com (where the choir can be almost as rabid as a homosexual choir).

One could reasonably conclude that the comment wasn't refuted because it wasn't likely seen by someone in the class.

Like I said before, there's simply no way to know, and given that there's no way to know, there's no reasonable conclusion that can be reached as to why the comment wasn't refuted. All you can do is go to independent sources for more facts, and then draw your conclusions.

 

[muttly]

Muttly: you're quite welcome to question my assertions & conclusions, [that's why we're here, innit?] but I do insist that you read them carefully first.
1: I do assert that professors do not exhibit the blatant and one sided bias alleged in the OP's story, because that would be contrary to the job they're paid to perform. If the students didn't object, the admin and/or parents [who often foot the bills] certainly would. As this story points out: upset parents get involved. I mentioned earlier that everyone [including professors] has biases, but a professor of political science who displays such a blatant bias would not be tolerated in any reputable educational setting. It's not their job to tell the students what to think, but how to arrive at a conclusion.
2: As neither side offers concrete proof in the article, one needs to use reason & common sense to arrive at a conclusion. Both suggest [to me] that the lack of proof is evidence that there is none for Fox to present. The lack of contradiction to the alleged student's rebuttal suggests that it's accurate. Because if anyone of those 200+ commenters had reason to suggest the comment was untruthful, they would. Just as the student suggested the article itself was misleading - people will say 'that's not true!' when they confront a lie. Your suggestion that no one else who could have contradicted the alleged student's comment saw the comment is not plausible - you can bet the article was viewed by many people with personal knowledge, especially after the comment I posted.
I don't recall reading here that people don't read the comments following a story, but I do, and highly recommend it. As this story shows, there's a good chance of learning details not included in the original .There's usually a lot of blahblahblah to wade through looking for it, but it's worth the effort - even if just for the amusement that's in it.

Regarding your first paragraph, Where is Layout on this one?
Regarding the rest, I never said of the 200 comments that she wasn't challenged. Actually there are was quite a few that challenged her remarks,and one requested the entire syllabus.. I said "nobody from the class" appears to have challenged her comments within the three days the comment section was open.

 

[layoutshooter]

I had LOTS of very biased college profs. None in high school that I noticed. Grade school I had nuns that beat us whether we needed it or not.

I had problems when my kids were in school. I had to go speak with them on more than one occasion. By the then left had truly begun to take over the public indoctrination system.

If I had kids today they would be home schooled. There is no way I would expose them to the garbage in schools today.

 

[muttly]

Ask and you shall receive. What Layout said. Thanks Layout.