Academic Freedom Bill of Rights: or, Doesn't Everyone Love Orwellian Language?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
How do you know?

Cause I... um.. read the words?

[Spiffor]

Oh, and I wholly agree with the fact that a professor shouldn't shouldn't hinder his students, in that he should teach everything that is teachworthy in his field. Marxist economy isn't teachworthy in liberal economics, and creationism is wholly off-topic in biology.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
That's funny. In economic courses (at least in my uni experience), there's pretty much a consensus that neoliberal crap is "science", and it's taught as truth.

I've always criticized this crap, and I often discussed with classmates (especially the ones that are economically illiterate) to explain them that the contents were neither scientific nor true. And that's exactly the way it should be. In the field of economic Academia, this law would force professors to teach about Marxist and Keynesian economy as much as neoliberal economy. I'm not sure our self-righteous right-wingers are so eager about it

Marxism and unorthodox economics is just as scientific or lack there of as orthodox economics. The thing is that orthodox economics is often presented as though it is more scientific or that other economic thought is unscientific.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Cause I... um.. read the words?

Try thinking about the words.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You might want to try that... it in NO WAY says he wants to make poly sci objective. He said that since poly sci is subjective, both views should be presented. In objective fields, that would be silly.

Sometimes I wonder if you turn your brain off before you come here... you can't be that bad, can you?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Um.. history? Political Science? Legal studies? Art (guess what most of the Western art from 1000-1600+ are about)?

Those that want to purge religion from the ciriculuum are delusional.

Nice twisting of my words, but no cigar.

I have never stated that religion as a background to history, art etc should not be learned - that would be absurd. What I have stated is that the education should not be based upon religious beliefs which is a totally different thing.

Just for the fun of it, try to replace religon with any political direction.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You might want to try that... it in NO WAY says he wants to make poly sci objective. He said that since poly sci is subjective, both views should be presented. In objective fields, that would be silly.

Sometimes I wonder if you turn your brain off before you come here... you can't be that bad, can you?

You can also take it that he wants to prevent professors from being subjective in their teachings. I prefer to take his word for it since you and I never see things the same way. Stop being a megalomaniac and let Odin say what he meant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have never stated that religion as a background to history, art etc should not be learned - that would be absurd

You said:

religion has only one place at a university, and that is at the theology faculty.

That's a far cry from saying education shouldn't be based upon religious beliefs. Perhaps you should be more clear next time.

And there was no twisting of words, just a logical reading of them.

[Agathon]

I had a good argument with a student today in class. I was trying to explain what competitive consumption is, and he kept confusing it with regular market competition (the difference is that the latter produces benefits for everyone, the former arguably losses).

He accused me of being a communist. I guess that means Thorstein Veblen was a communist, despite his analysis of consumerism being the opposite of the Marxist one..

Oh dear...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You can also take it that he wants to prevent professors from being subjective in their teachings. I prefer to take his word for it since you and I never see things the same way. Stop being a megalomaniac and let Odin say what he meant.

Seeing as Odin is a socialist, I seriously doubt he said he wanted professors to teach objective fact in Political Science classes. That would be absurd! How do you teach objective opinion? He said the right would have to had a point if they were focusing on subjective subjects like poly sci.

Just admit you read his statement incorrectly.

[Guynemer]

People get the government they deserve.

If I've learned anything in the last 6 years or so, it is that Florida richly deserves the government it has.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
I had a good argument with a student today in class. I was trying to explain what competitive consumption is, and he kept confusing it with regular market competition (the difference is that the latter produces benefits for everyone, the former arguably losses).

He accused me of being a communist. I guess that means Thorstein Veblen was a communist, despite his analysis of consumerism being the opposite of the Marxist one..

Oh dear...

What a bunch of crap! Flunk the little ****!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Seeing as Odin is a socialist, I seriously doubt he said he wanted professors to teach objective fact in Political Science classes. That would be absurd! How do you teach objective opinion? He said the right would have to had a point if they were focusing on subjective subjects like poly sci.

Just admit you read his statement incorrectly.

You are reading into what he said. Not to worry. That's a normal way to read. You just don't tolerate it in others. That's where you are at fault.

[Agathon]

What a bunch of crap! Flunk the little ****!

It wasn't his fault. I'd brought it up briefly as a means of objecting to some of Mill's claims about individual liberty (the objection is that excessive individualism in search of status is one of the causes of consumerism - so that we might actually be better off being conformists rather than daring nonconformists).

He's a right wing man, and thought I was impugning his right to exploit the masses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are reading into what he said.

No, I'm reading WHAT he said. You are the one reading into what he said.

You just don't tolerate it in others.

I don't tolerate wrongness in others.