UNLV Regent warns "Professors have to be careful what they say."

Economics Daily ^

[toaster]

She said she was not afraid to be controversial and that certain groups need to be protected. "If homosexuals are not defined as a protected group by federal law, they should be."

When asked if she believed in academic freedom, she said not for those attacking "protected groups."

She then explained that in 2001 before the Campus Student Environment Committee at UNLV she complained about an accounting professor who had a spread sheet up on a screen and when moving the cursor to another section of the screen he said of the cursor, "You drag this little black guy over here."

"That took the cake "she said. "This was highly offensive, especially given that it was during the trial of the men accused of dragging the black man, Charles Byrd, in Texas. "

She said of her complaint, "They didn't get rid of him right away, but they eventually did."

"Professors have to be careful what they say," Howard concluded

[boofus]

The politically correct idiots over here complained about the silhouette targets at the shooting range because they were in black ink. They said it encouraged shooting at black people.

So now they have blue silhouettes. I guess the mailmen might get all upset now.

[clyde asbury]

When asked if she believed in academic freedom, she said not for those attacking "protected groups."

If she knew American history, she would know the bill of rights exists to protect individuals regardless their "group."

[TXnMA]

I read the article, and if no one else is going to show their ignorance by asking, I will:

WTH is "high time preference"?

[Lorianne]

Silly. World Trade Center workers, delivery people, and passers-by were obviously not a "protected group".

Well some of them might have been gay or black, or one- armed lesbian single mothers ... but most of them weren't. So most of 'em had it comin' to 'em.

[Paleo Conservative]

The university system is in the business of creating "life estates" -- the granting of honorific titles such as B.A., Ph.D., etc. that last for the lifetime of the recipient. The Federal government is expressly prohibited in the Constitution from creating life estates and other kinds of noble award.

You should read about the "original thirteenth" amendment.

Google search on "original 13th amendment"

[Desron13]

"WTH is "high time preference"?"

I thought about asking this question myself but then realized that I probably didn't really want to know the answer.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Constitution states that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States..." It doesn't mention "life estates" (I don't know what those are, but would have guessed they had to do with landholding arrangements in England).

A B.A. or Ph.D. by itself doesn't provide the holder with any income. A person of a given intelligence with a Ph.D. often earns less than a person with the same IQ who doesn't have a Ph.D. If you're going to bar a university from requiring its faculty members from holding academic degrees, why not also forbid them from requiring their faculty to have high school diplomas?

Ward Churchill, by the way, got to be a tenured professor at Colorado without a Ph.D.

[Betis70]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[lostlakehiker]

First of all, universities are not part of the federal government. Second point: it is not the degree which employers want, it is the knowledge and skills behind the degree. You cannot get a job as a plumber without some sort of proof of skill at plumbing. Why should you expect to get a job as a doctor, say, without some sort of proof of knowledge of medicine? It is perfectly legal and proper for employers to pick and choose who they hire on the basis of who knows how to do the job. If that be discrimination, it's a good kind of discrimination.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Bill of Rights means whatever Linda Howard wants it to mean. After all, the Bill of Rights was written by a white male slaveholder.

[toaster]

HIGH TIME PREFERNCE=

Mature people have a low time preference, a longer time horizon. They have high rates of saving and capital accumulation and practice healthier lifestyles.

People with high time preference tend to live for the moment, spend more than they earn, and engage in risky activities and unhealthy lifestyles. Policies that promote free enterprise and individual responsibility have the positive effect of reducing time preferences while government nannyism, like the welfare state itself, increases time preference and exacerbates the problems of irresponsibility.

from http://216.239.57.104/u/Mises?q=cache:BkrPfBKIV9YJ:www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp%3Fcontrol%3D219%26sortorder%3Darticledate+high+time+preference&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Drango]

an accounting professor who had a spread sheet up on a screen and when moving the cursor to another section of the screen he said of the cursor, "You drag this little black guy over here."

"That took the cake "she said. "This was highly offensive,

Oh get a grip!

[Squantos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

All I got ....sorry !

[Desron13]

Thanks for the explanation. I was afraid that it might be something really disgusting.

[clyde asbury]

The Bill of Rights means whatever Linda Howard wants it to mean. After all, the Bill of Rights was written by a white male slaveholder.

You're right. I forgot about the "meaning of 'is'" loophole.

[clyde asbury]

Wow.

[muawiyah]

The titles of nobility are the equivalent of grants of privilege.

The creation of a "protected group" involves the grant of privilege to individuals in the designated group.

This ol'gal is anti-democratic and should be shipped out to a kingdom of her choice ~ preferably one far, far away.

[scott7278]

That's odd -- I'm sure most FReepers earned the B.A. degree they might have (it certainly wasn't "granted" to me like some knighthood). Same goes with the Master's degree I'm pursuing and eventually the Ph.D.

The free-market system expects a worker to be qualified for a position in which he or she is seeking. Your definition of "qualified" might not consider a degree a factor, but the workforce usually does. So if someone wants the job bad enough, they can EARN IT -- after all, they know beforehand what's required of them.

If they're not willing to get the degree like everyone else, they still have an opportunity to be noticed without the need of some law. There are all kind of success stories of people making it without degrees, but it wasn't because it was given to them, either. They had to work for it.

But they can't complain when they aren't hired for lack of a degree. There should be no "right to employment" without being qualified.

[Tax Government]

Life estates are an award of status that lasts for the life of the holder, and that cannot be inherited. To the extent that the Federal government funds or assists degree-awarding institutions, or gives any kind of preferential treatment in the award of employment or professional licenses to holders of such degrees, it is in violation of the Constitutional ban on creating a noble class.

[Tax Government]

The educational system that awards degrees is inherently unjust. Its purpose is to give the government an unwarranted amount of control over the economy and the employment prospects of ordinary citizens. It is a clear violationof the Constitution's ban on award of nobility, specifically of life estates.