Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have free speech in this country. It was approved by the university. Nobody owns that phrase.
If anyone is offended by the phrase, it's on THEM.
But for this teacher to come unglued, and use her position of authority, and university funded tools, to hurl an obscenity at those she feels should be silenced, is wrong.[/QUOTE
Out of the closet is a term used by that community.
People who fundementally hate you should not use it, since obviously it is used to incite such a response. It's for shock.
Regardless of your views of homosexuality it's offensive when a person who hates you mocks you.
It's wrong on both sides.
Using a term is a FAR cry from owning it. And prohibiting anyone from using it, unless approved by you.
Fundamentally hate you? Where do you get that bit of misinformation.
It is offensive when someone that hates you mocks you. Conservatives live that fact every single day. Starting from the oval office, straight down through the former speaker of the house, into congress, and ending up in the cesspool of public sector unions.
Yes, it may be wrong on both sides, but when it happens, there should be ramifications. EVERY time, not just when conservatives speak their minds.
Using a term is a FAR cry from owning it. And prohibiting anyone from using it, unless approved by you.
Fundamentally hate you? Where do you get that bit of misinformation.
It is offensive when someone that hates you mocks you. Conservatives live that fact every single day. Starting from the oval office, straight down through the former speaker of the house, into congress, and ending up in the cesspool of public sector unions.
Yes, it may be wrong on both sides, but when it happens, there should be ramifications. EVERY time, not just when conservatives speak their minds.
1) Ownership is NOT the issue. The term is universally recognized as a term for LGBT community. The CR group more than likely knew this wanted to stir controversy. I used to write for the CRs on my campus from time to time. The trick is to stir just enough controversy and then claim an infringement of rights. It gets publicity for your side and makes your side seem oppressed.
2) Really? Umm...most Republicans do not want gay marriage. Many on the right hate gays. As in see the modern conservative movement. Read here on this forum. I'll give you a hint, those that are less accepting are more likely to be Republican.
3) The plight of the conservatives? Yes there is name calling, however, the dramatic tone that you use is ridiculous. Unions used to be aligned with the right. The right did that to themselves. The former speaker of the house gets more flack than the current speaker. When taking control, social issues were on the forefront while they promised that economic issues would be priority 1. Obama has been heckled for literally everything he does. From eating a hamburger wrong, to not eating a hamburger. Meanwhile he has tried to work with the right on key problems. The problem lies with the right in trying to take down the government (ironically, since they are in government, yet they continue to campaign on the "i hate government, vote me in" platform).
I think that there are more serious issues and this thread shows that the right is more concerned with mickey mouse stuff and social issues that should be left to the individual.
To be fair the left has engaged in mickey mouse issues as well. This bickering is what is harming our nation.
It just shows that some far left people can be just as OBNOXIOUS as many far right people.....but let's be honest/blunt here....the far right really wins this one hands down....just on their gay slurs alone they have an insurmountable lead on name calling!!!!!!!!
So where are all the conservatives SCREAMING about first amendment rights in the Kobe Bryant Gay Slur thread.....I guess you can dish it out but can't take it.....
Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot the first amendment and freedom of speech no longer applies......or is it that just you can call people names but nobody else is allowed???????
On Monday morning, one University of Iowa professor had three words to say to those conservative students at her university:
“F[%$&] YOU, REPUBLICANSâ€
The professor, Ellen Lewin, teaches Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies. The taxpayers of Iowa pay her $94,800 a year plus benefits for the value she presumably adds to their state university’s campus (when she is not cursing out her students).
Lewin used her university email to tell her university’s students to “F[#$^] OFF†because they used the term “coming out of the closet†in an email that had been previously approved by the university.
When a person “comes out of the closet†announcing that they are gay, they do that because of what they believe, and because they don’t want to hide how they feel anymore. Apparently Lewin has not considered the fact that a conservative on a college campus could feel the same way: tired of hiding feelings and opinions that many treat with disdain and disgust—tired of hiding opinions that could even get them academically punished. Professor Tells Conservatives: F$% OFF :: Accuracy In Academia
Why do conservos hate the 1st amendment?
Only conservative viewpoints should be allowed expression in our nation's universities.
Who cares what she said? I've had many profane professors. and Im not such a thin skin I could take it. get over it it doesnt pertain to you in any way, If you are a student there, don't take her classes otherwise ****.
Only conservative viewpoints should be allowed expression in our nation's universities.
Again- this is not an issue of "free speech". The professor COULD HAVE said or done anything she wanted. However, liberals feel as though free speech is the same thing as speech without consequences. One is perfectly free to shout racial slurs in Harlem, but there may be some consequences to such behavior.
Why is what she did so objectionable? Let's review-
1. She violated the U of I code of conduct. Again, as a former staff member, one signs an employment agreement that requires one to maintain the moral and ethical code guidelines of the University. Telling a group of students to F**K OFF is a violation of her contract.
2. She used her university email to respond. In doing so, she acted as a representative of the university in a personal manner. By this action, THE UNIVERSITY said F**K OFF to a group of students. Again, this is a violation of her contract, in that university official communication means are not to be used for personal matters.
3. She embarrassed her employer, causing them harm in the eyes of the nation. This is a black eye to the U of I and is not the message that the university would like to send to prospective students and donors. What is that message? We are a liberal indoctrination center that will cover for liberal extremists; further, we are not an objective institution and will persecute those who hold views contrary to liberal doctrine.
Bottom line- she exercised her "free speech". Now it is time for the U of I to fire her.
Again- this is not an issue of "free speech". The professor COULD HAVE said or done anything she wanted. However, liberals feel as though free speech is the same thing as speech without consequences. One is perfectly free to shout racial slurs in Harlem, but there may be some consequences to such behavior.
Why is what she did so objectionable? Let's review-
1. She violated the U of I code of conduct. Again, as a former staff member, one signs an employment agreement that requires one to maintain the moral and ethical code guidelines of the University. Telling a group of students to F**K OFF is a violation of her contract.
2. She used her university email to respond. In doing so, she acted as a representative of the university in a personal manner. By this action, THE UNIVERSITY said F**K OFF to a group of students. Again, this is a violation of her contract, in that university official communication means are not to be used for personal matters.
3. She embarrassed her employer, causing them harm in the eyes of the nation. This is a black eye to the U of I and is not the message that the university would like to send to prospective students and donors. What is that message? We are a liberal indoctrination center that will cover for liberal extremists; further, we are not an objective institution and will persecute those who hold views contrary to liberal doctrine.
Bottom line- she exercised her "free speech". Now it is time for the U of I to fire her.
I predict she will be fired for violating university policy. Buh-bye.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iowa - hotbed of liberalism
