Posted on 04/14/2008 7:56:23 AM PDT by no dems
A community college in New York has been presented with a demand letter from the American Center for Law and Justice to halt a professor's classroom practices that allegedly have damaged at least one student – so far.
The letter from the ACLJ targets Suffolk County Community College and will be the prelude to a federal lawsuit if the issue isn't resolved, the organization said.
At issue is a professor's demand that students "change their own personal viewpoints or state that they are unsure of whether their own personal beliefs are correct" on religious issues, according to the letter.
That is an expression of hostility to religion, the letter explains.
The ACLJ said it is representing Gina DeLuca, a student who has been punished with lower grades and has been labeled "closed-minded" by a professor, who remained unidentified in the letter, because he demands that students acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist in order to participate in his philosophy class, which is required for graduation.
"The ACLJ has sent a letter demanding that the school end its discriminatory actions against DeLuca or face a federal lawsuit," the organization's announcement said.
The school now has a deadline of April 14 to meet the requirements of the letter, the ACLJ said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
If true, this is WORSE than politically correct.
Ping for later
Needs to go to court and win a judgement. That is the only way they’ll fear to not do this.
Good old 50’s. Like to sig some of my parochial school nuns after this so called professor....
What gets me about this is that calling someone ‘intolerant and closed minded’ and demanding they switch to your world view is nothing more than a forced conversion to their system of moral beliefs, which is exactly what liberals supposedly hate as supposedly ‘intolerant and closed minded.’ Especially if Christians do it.
This isn’t just discrimination against religion, it’s outright hypocrisy, doing the very thing you are accusing someone else of. Which of course is the very foundation of Marxist atheism.
I fail to see how one must renounce any religious belief is required to successfully complete a course on philosophy of any sort.
"Politically Correct" aka, Speech Control - for Whitey - is the "Stealth Weapon" of the the Far Left, Muzzies and Black Liberationists.
It's meant, and indeed does, shut down dissent and two way debate of/with White Conservatives.
We allow it to continue at our peril.
Almost makes you believe there are Satanic influences afoot...
I’m not so sure about this. As I read it, the professor was insisting that the students admit that their views might be wrong. If you state that you are absolutely certain about some religious matter, that you could not be wrong, then you have left faith (and humility) behind. If you insist that it is not even possible that you might be wrong, then you are closed minded.
Scripture warned us the globalists would make this and worse not just a goal but a reality.
Weren’t some of the greatest philosophers in history devout Christians? Who in the hell does this guy think he is?
Almost?
What’s with almost?
It’s brazenly obviously grossly neon-light EVIDENT!
In keeping, in beliefs and attitude with
Noah
Moses
Ezekiel
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Micah
Jesus
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Paul
And a cast of millions of others.
I suppose you are still tentative about . . . gravity?
The need to breathe air and drink water?
Sigh.
Who does he think he is?
His own god.
From what the article says, it appears the professor doesn’t mind if students are close-minded so long as they hold views he agrees with. They have to “change their views or admit their views might be wrong.” If they change their views, that is, agree with the professor, they’re allowed to be close-minded.
Besides, since when is not being close-minded a graduation requirement? Every graduate has to be unsure of everything? No graduate can hold any truth as absolute, such as “It would be wrong for me to force my view on other people”? or “I was born a female”?
Key question here: Does the professor similarly demand that all students must admit the possibility that God DOES exist?
If his insistence is one-way-only, then HE is closed minded
You don’t make sense. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1) It is faith, through the Holy Spirit, that says that there is a God, and there is no possibility of being wrong. If we allow faith to be wrong on something like the exsistance of God, then we have no assurance of hope, and thus no assurance of salvation. Without salvation, religion is useless.
Isn't there a way to go after the professors personal assets? This is horrible.
Asking someone to accept a premise for the sake of argument is one thing, telling them they must change their internal beliefs to participate in your class is another.
The professor could have handled it differently and chose not to. He has no right to make them change their worldview just to pass his class.
A study of Metaphysic can be reasonably approached in several ways
Genuinely searching for Truth (a seeker)
Genuinely honoring the possibility of multiple viewpoints
Curiosity of other viewpoints when one has a well defined “belief”
None of these statements can be made of this “Teacher”
Bump!
THX THX.
BTTT
Excellent points.
Great points.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb. 11:1)
If we have something already, then there is no place for hoping to get it. If we believe what we see with our own eyes, there is no need for faith in things unseen.
Revelation, prayer, and personal experience can give us some assurance of salvation, but they cannot give us absolute certainty. To face that is not to admit that our faith is wrong, but humbly acknowledging the possibility that we may be wrong (while hoping and believing that we are not).
imho,
he has no ‘right’ to expose youth to his idiocies.
Alas, his crew will be in charge for a time . . . thankfully a very limited time.
But the horror of it will more than make up for the shortness of it.
The trouble with humanities as well as social sciences is that the grades are subjective. Even if this professor is made to alter his approach, he can assign whatever (lower) grade he chooses and invent the necessary justifications. He can also subjectively grade homework and exams to generate whatever grade he wants to inflict. had this happen to me once in a cultural anthropology course.
Explains why I went into natrual science. 1+1 will always equal 2 (except in binary, where it woll equal 10).
Note English is a humanity (sorry for mis-types)
Actually, my grading in my Intro to Psych class is rather objective. Not strictly so but overwhelmingly so.
And, I give grade sheets with constantly updated grades on an Xcel sheet every class session.
And, I make it mostly easy to succeed and a bit difficult to fail. Students have no complaint with my grading.
You better re-check the definition of faith.
That's what I thought. I can see the necessity of following a line of thinking like "Suppose God does not exist, suppose your religion is false, then..." Just following a line of thinking doesn't mean actually changing your beliefs.
As much as I dislike the ALCU, this is probably a case they would actually take. Being a Chrsitian. I assume the student would probably prefer to work with the ACLJ.
I guess that’s where I have such a problem with this instructor.
When one goes into a course like philosophy, You are there to examine the line of thinking. Whether it is Thales to Aristotle or logic or some other metaphysical thought. You are asked to examine it for completeness, where there are faults, and if a deeper meaning, if any, can be assigned to it.
They were never presented as an alternative to any religion...just as something to think about. Whatever esoteric meanings of any philosophy be it Aristotle, or Descartes’ were the point of the class based on the knowledge of the thinker, their time, and how well their thought has stood up to scrutiny and time.
.
This will probably be settled out of court and the student can probably retire if she wishes.
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.
Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen.
Your life shall hang in doubt before you. Night and day you shall be in dread and have no assurance of your life.
I may be wrong and you may be right about faith. I think that what the Gospel was talking about was the strength of faith, meaning that if we really rely on our beliefs mountains could move. But the power to transform that faith has is one thing and it’s being impossible that the thing believed in be false is another. I may believe strongly that when I go to the bank I will be able to get my money. That belief may even be true. But, if challenged, I must admit that there is some chance that the bank will not be there for me. There is even a slight chance that there never was a bank or any money and that I imagined the whole thing. Such doubts are unreasonable, but they remain logical possibilities. Similarly, I don’t think it detracts from the real power of faith, the ability to to be transformed by fully relying on it, to acknowledge that you are taking a chance on something that might not be true, or that might not be exactly as you believe it is. In fact, that leap of faith into a potential abyss with no net is what gives faith much its power. If it were fully guaranteed, it wouldn’t be a leap at all.
The only other thing I can say is that basically the teacher is just out of line. I've been taught at a place (trying to keep somewhat anonymous at this point) that an educator's role is not to fundamentally change what people believe. The example that was cited was a case where one person is a racist or sexist. Our job is to evaluate the arguments in papers and class, not to dismiss them as flat out wrong and say they have to change. We even need to challenge ideas that we may fully agree with. This teacher failed when he was incapable of challenging her ideas and having her give a defense of them.
Well, I've got to run off again, but it's been a pleasure chatting with you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.