Once again, Canadian ID aficionado Denyse O'Leary puts her blogging fingers in motion before her brain is in gear:
Recently, columnist John Leo wrote on the way in which political correctness threatens free speech on campus. He notes,
Punishment for expressing an opinion is not unusual on the modern campus. Neither is the lack of protest among faculty and students for the kind of treatment Scheffler got. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which is defending the student, reports that it has failed to find a single Hamline student or faculty member who has spoken out in favor of Scheffler's right to free speech. So far, no protest from has been reported in the student newspaper or in outside internet outlets such as Myspace.
Now, I think many people misunderstand the reason for that. That is, they think it is the triumph of leftism, but it is really the triumph of materialism.
Or perhaps, Denyse, it's a triumph of sleazy, right-wing propaganda. Let's check in on John Leo and see exactly what his point is, shall we?
Who Will Stand Up For Campus Free Speech?
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Troy Scheffler, a graduate student at Hamline University in Minnesota, thinks that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been avoided if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons. After e-mailing this opinion to the university president, he was suspended and ordered to undergo "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school.
Yes, yes, let's skim through the vapid, neo-con whining to get to Leo's utterly predictable conclusion:
The process doesn't work in reverse - with liberals protesting the silencing of a conservative. It's one of the most obvious flaws of the modern PC university.
Really? Is that what happened here? You'd think so ... until you did some actual research, whereupon you learned ...
MINNESOTA'S PRIVATE COLLEGES
Hamline University
Hamline University, Minnesota's first university (founded 1854), is a selective, nationally recognized college of liberal arts and sciences. Its commitment is to academic excellence, diversity, intellectual freedom and making the liberal arts work within the personal and professional choices of its students and alumni. Hamline is coeducational, affiliated with the United Methodist Church ...
Well, now ... how about that? Not only is Hamline a private college, but it appears to have a decidedly religious bent. Which makes it hard to paint this as liberalism quashing a lone voice of conservative philosophy.
More to the point, isn't it the devout who are always bitching and moaning about people trampling on their rights to associate (or not) with whoever they want? And if Hamline -- a private, religious institution -- chooses to disassociate itself from a well-known instigator like Scheffler, one would think it's their right and it's hard to see how that constitutes an attack of politically correct liberalism.
But I'm sure none of this matters to Leo or O'Leary, mostly because Leo is a well-known, right-wing propagandist, and O'Leary is, well, she's just an idiot. I guess that means she has an excuse.
ONE GOOD TURN DESERVES ANOTHER. Heh. Indeed.
16 comments:
I've come to the conclusion that Denyse is really, really high when she writes her posts.
I wonder if she added the "O'" to her last name to hide her relationship to Timothy?
In all honesty, these discussions would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that she's only engaging them to bolster the big lie of intelligent design.
Its entirely possible that Scheffler was kicked out because he should not have got in in the first place. That letter looks like it was written by a 5th grader, from the grammar and spelling mistakes alone, not someone who was accepted and attends a "pretty good Liberal Arts College in the Twin Cities".
What a tool.
As I read a bit more about this, I got to this letter from the College president, and this quote:
The decision to place Mr. Scheffler on interim suspension, pending a psychological examination, was determined not only by the two emails he sent on April 17 and 19 and his subsequent silence in the face of our invitation to meet, but with additional critical input from various members of the Hamline community who had interaction with him. This included individuals who came forward on their own prior to the April emails, expressing their concerns about Mr. Scheffler.
It's obvious that the wingnuts are spinning this as some egregious assault on people's freedom of expression, when in fact it's really more a matter of an intervention with regard a student who might pose a problem in the future. Given the VTech massacre, I'm not faulting the College for being prudent.
Once again, wingnuts refuse to let facts get in the way of their persecution complexes.
I can't imagine how they'd react faced with genuine persecution. I'm pretty sure they'd capitulate in an instant.
Wow, CC.
Stupid really is as stupid does, isn't it?
Or in this case, fascist is as fascist does. And we knew you're all a bunch of little fascists, but you just had to prove it, didn't you?
Have a good one!
Because I don't think he is going to allow it to be posted, here is the response I left over at Patty-boys blog:
_____________
"But it isn't because of the "religious bent" of the University. It's because they suspended a student for having differing political views."
Uh, no Patrick he was suspended because:
"The decision to place Mr. Scheffler on interim suspension, pending a psychological examination, was determined not only by the two emails he sent on April 17 and 19 and his subsequent silence in the face of our invitation to meet, but with additional critical input from various members of the Hamline community who had interaction with him. This included individuals who came forward on their own prior to the April emails, expressing their concerns about Mr. Scheffler." Emphasis mine.
They took action in this case because they saw warning signs. Like the ones that VA Tech saw but ignored with their shooter (and which guys like you criticized them for ignoring). He was suspended because the letter were merely part of a larger pattern of problem behaviour.
You seem to be defending a mentally unstable person because he happens to say something you mildly agree with.
If you were OK with the firing of Ward Churchill, then you ought to be ok with this suspension.
Of course I fully expect that if Hamline had ignored this guys and he did end up shooting someone, you'd be up in arms as to why this namby pamby "liberal" college didn't do anything about it when they had the chance.
BTW, you may wish to look up the word fascist because it is clear you have no idea what it means.
_______________________
Patty, you truly are one of the more pathetic conservative apologists I have ever read.
And yet, they waited until after Mr Scheffler expressed himself to take any action.
If this were merely a matter of due diligence, they should have acted before Scheffler's letter.
That particular argument doesn't seem to hold water. For example, Hanson originally referred to some "threat" in the letters. Where are they? They don't seem to exist at all.
Furthermore, Mikey, let's take a closer look at the facts.
Scheffler was invited on Friday, 20 April, to meet and discuss his concerns on Monday. Then, on Monday, he recieved a letter from the University, informing him that he was being suspended pending a psychological evaluation due to "threats" that a number of commentators have had to engage in protracted rhetorical gymnastics in order to identify them as threats.
Furthermore, the decision to suspend Scheffler was apparently made over the weekend. Anyone who has ever attended a post-secondary institution is well aware of the complete unlikelihood of this scenario. Given that the letter was delivered the following Monday, the general operating procedures of most Universities, which Hamline isn't likely to depart from, suggests this decision was made either on the preceding Friday (mere hours after the aforementioned invitation was issued), or early Monday (at which time it's entirely questionable as to whether or not Mr Scheffler viewed his emails over the weekend -- many people don't, especially university students).
All this being the case, why did the allegations of previous complaints against Mr Scheffler come out only after FIRE had addressed the matter? Why the original claims regarding threats? There were no threats in the letter.
Mikey, I'm not the one who needs to defend the indefensible. That falls clearly upon the shoulders of yourself and your cohorts.
Furthermore, I attend a pretty liberal university very happily. Nice try, though.
I think this hits close to home with Mr. Ross.
Are there a few letters at the U. of Alberta we need to know about, Pats?
Sorry, mr Dumas. I'm too busy between my classes, work, and having a good time to be too disgruntled about much of anything.
On the side, I just like pointing out to you fine folks what fucking hypocrites you are.
"And yet, they waited until after Mr Scheffler expressed himself to take any action."
Indeed, the rant provided them with yet another piece of evidence of a possible dangerous mental state. It alone was not the reason, but couple with the previous complaints lead the school to take action.
"If this were merely a matter of due diligence, they should have acted before Scheffler's letter."
But the letters were the final straw, the final act that led them to believe he was escalating, according to the school's letter.
"Scheffler was invited on Friday, 20 April, to meet and discuss his concerns on Monday. Then, on Monday, he recieved a letter from the University, informing him that he was being suspended pending a psychological evaluation due to "threats" that a number of commentators have had to engage in protracted rhetorical gymnastics in order to identify them as threats."
The threats, to my understanding, occurred not just in the letter, but in the previous complaints.
"Furthermore, the decision to suspend Scheffler was apparently made over the weekend. Anyone who has ever attended a post-secondary institution is well aware of the complete unlikelihood of this scenario. Given that the letter was delivered the following Monday, the general operating procedures of most Universities, which Hamline isn't likely to depart from, suggests this decision was made either on the preceding Friday (mere hours after the aforementioned invitation was issued), or early Monday (at which time it's entirely questionable as to whether or not Mr Scheffler viewed his emails over the weekend -- many people don't, especially university students)."
Well, I have been to University and when they thought their was danger, they would act over the weekend. Further, I suspect they thought there was a danger due to the fact that he was acting like the VA shooter AND it was April 20th. Imagine, being worried about a school shooting on April 20th. Or maybe Patrick, you aren't old enough to remember the significance of that date.
It is also clear from the letter that Scheffler was invited to discuss the letter and did not attend, resulting in an immediate letter of suspension, for the reasons above.
"All this being the case, why did the allegations of previous complaints against Mr Scheffler come out only after FIRE had addressed the matter? Why the original claims regarding threats? There were no threats in the letter"
So you are asking the university to violate both Scheffler's privacy and the privacy of the other complainants? Right.
"Mikey, I'm not the one who needs to defend the indefensible. That falls clearly upon the shoulders of yourself and your cohorts."
Indefensible? Hmm, let see here:
Patrick Ross' position: "Scheffler was suspended for speaking his mind and all you lefties that disagree are fascists! Fascists, do you hear me!"
Mike's position: "Hamline University, after having received previous complaints about Scheffler, got an inflammatory, rambling letter from him containing a diatribe against the concealed carry ban, "bums", Jews, atheists and "other non-Christian staff" and bemoaning the treatment and underrepresentation of "privileged white folks" in this school in Minnesota. They got this letter on April 19th and attempted to contact and arrange a meeting with him on April 20th. These are both dates of some historical significance, especially pertaining to school shootings and other violent right-wing acts. Scheffler did not show for his meeting and was suspended."
Now, which position is indefensible? For what its worth, I happen to agree that the concealed weapon ban is a bad idea, but that is irrelevant. Scheffler was clearly suspended because of the situation in total, not merely the letters. Yes, the letters played a part, but this is not censorship or political correctness gone awry - taken with his apparent previous threats and the schools previous knowledge of him, they choose to suspend him.
He is welcome to come back when he gets a clean bill of health.
Now you can argue that Hamline overreacted because of the date. You can argue they should have acted sooner (as you seem to). That they should have done a different course of action. But you certainly can't say this is oppression and censorship because there was a lot more than the letters involved. The letters were merely the final straw.
I also would add that Hamline University, as a private institution on private property, can do whatever they deem fit with Scheffler, since he clearly violated the code of conduct he agreed to before coming to the university. Or are you now against private property and contracts because you don't like a particular outcome?
It takes a real ideologue and opportunist to turn this guy into a victim.
"On the side, I just like pointing out to you fine folks what fucking hypocrites you are."
I see no hypocrisy at all, but I do see a kid who ought to pay more attention in history and poli sci.
Sorry, mr Dumas. I'm too busy between my classes, work, and having a good time to be too disgruntled about much of anything.
Dumas? Oh we're back to that again. (Mr. Ross thinks my last name is Dumas...I wish it were, since my real last name is kind of bizarre).
You really do have a rather cavalier approach to evidence, don't you, Pats?
...and to think my taxes are subsidising this mediocrity's education.
I weep.
"Indeed, the rant provided them with yet another piece of evidence of a possible dangerous mental state. It alone was not the reason, but couple with the previous complaints lead the school to take action."
If the previous complaints alone weren't enough to suspend him on, then I doubt a letter full of principally political differences would make the difference to anyone motivated by anything other than politics.
"But the letters were the final straw, the final act that led them to believe he was escalating, according to the school's letter."
Once again, there's nothing in the letters significant enough to constitute a "final straw" in regards to any sort of suspension, interim or otherwise. He has different political opinions. That's not a crime, and certainly shouldn't be considered threatening to anyone secure in their political beliefs.
"The threats, to my understanding, occurred not just in the letter, but in the previous complaints."
"Not just in the letter? They aren't in the letter to begin with."
"Well, I have been to University and when they thought their was danger, they would act over the weekend."
In this particular case, they made an offer to meet with Scheffler and discuss the matter. If they legitimately believed there was danger, they should have acted immediately.
Furthermore, you clearly haven't been to University. If you had been, you'd know that it's nigh-impossible to get University offices to stay open past 4:00 to collect tuition, let alone get a University official to make decisions, and follow the proper course of action to implement them, on a weekend.
"Further, I suspect they thought there was a danger due to the fact that he was acting like the VA shooter AND it was April 20th. Imagine, being worried about a school shooting on April 20th. Or maybe Patrick, you aren't old enough to remember the significance of that date."
If you're going to allege he was acting like the VA shooter, you need to prove that.
"It is also clear from the letter that Scheffler was invited to discuss the letter and did not attend, resulting in an immediate letter of suspension, for the reasons above."
The letter entailed an invitation to come discuss the matter, not an instruction to. Suspending someone for declining an invitation is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.
"So you are asking the university to violate both Scheffler's privacy and the privacy of the other complainants? Right."
They have a responsibility to address those complaints toward the subject, at the very least. Apparently, that wasn't done.
In most democracies, people have the right to face their accusers. But we know you aren't too big on democracy, obviously...
"Indefensible? Hmm, let see here:
Patrick Ross' position: "Scheffler was suspended for speaking his mind and all you lefties that disagree are fascists! Fascists, do you hear me!"
Mike's position: "Hamline University, after having received previous complaints about Scheffler, got an inflammatory, rambling letter from him containing a diatribe against the concealed carry ban, "bums", Jews, atheists and "other non-Christian staff" and bemoaning the treatment and underrepresentation of "privileged white folks" in this school in Minnesota. They got this letter on April 19th and attempted to contact and arrange a meeting with him on April 20th. These are both dates of some historical significance, especially pertaining to school shootings and other violent right-wing acts. Scheffler did not show for his meeting and was suspended.""
Those are Scheffler's opinions. Whether you or I like them or not, he has the right to have them.
Expressing those opinions alone is not cause to suspend him, and given that the earlier complaints were clearly deemed insufficient cause, his political opinions should have been considered perhaps crass, but largely immaterial as to his status at the school.
"Now, which position is indefensible? For what its worth, I happen to agree that the concealed weapon ban is a bad idea, but that is irrelevant. Scheffler was clearly suspended because of the situation in total, not merely the letters. Yes, the letters played a part, but this is not censorship or political correctness gone awry - taken with his apparent previous threats and the schools previous knowledge of him, they choose to suspend him.
He is welcome to come back when he gets a clean bill of health.
Now you can argue that Hamline overreacted because of the date. You can argue they should have acted sooner (as you seem to). That they should have done a different course of action. But you certainly can't say this is oppression and censorship because there was a lot more than the letters involved. The letters were merely the final straw."
Frankly, we have yet to be granted any proof, aside from the University's claims, that there were any other complaints against Scheffler.
Considering that they sited threats in the letters (no threats are contained in the letters) we've already determined the reliability of such claims.
Scheffler, at the very least, is entitled to know the nature of the complaints, and is entitled to be allowed to defend himself. He wasn't afforded that.
"I also would add that Hamline University, as a private institution on private property, can do whatever they deem fit with Scheffler, since he clearly violated the code of conduct he agreed to before coming to the university. Or are you now against private property and contracts because you don't like a particular outcome?"
Once again, it can easily be demonstrated that the claimed violations of the code of conduct didn't happen as claimed.
Have you even read the letters? Quote the threats. Go ahead.
But we know you can't do that, because they aren't there.
"It takes a real ideologue and opportunist to turn this guy into a victim."
It takes a real ideologue to pretend that it isn't unjust to suspend someone over their political beliefs, which is frankly, where all the actual evidence points.
"I see no hypocrisy at all, but I do see a kid who ought to pay more attention in history and poli sci."
ROTFL
If you say so.
The hilarious thing, Mikey, is this: you keep trying to forward the same disproven thesis in regards to this matter, despite the fact that, at this point, you know you're wrong about these alleged code of conduct violations.
Either the initial complaints were enough to warrant the suspension, or they weren't. The University didn't move to suspend, so that's self-indicative.
The letter, on the other hand, is an expression of political beliefs. Even if the letter only "iced the cake", so to speak, this remains a politically-motivated decision, because the final disagreement is political in nature, and clearly has little, if anything, to do with the previous complaints.
Nice try, though.
OMG, I can't believed you typed that.
Rosshole...yer a psycho!. Get help.
...or marry Werner at least, so the two of you could look like you're talking to each other.
now the rosshole is just going to keep yammering about his intellectual prowess n' how he's "pwned" everyone here, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
the decision to suspend Scheffler was apparently made over the weekend. Anyone who has ever attended a post-secondary institution is well aware of the complete unlikelihood of this scenario.
there's nothing in the letters significant enough to constitute a "final straw"
That Patrick. Is there anything that he isn't an authority on?
At any rate, this isn't a contest to see how many times someone can write "political beliefs". Is every belief political? If I think that Dan Rather is disrupting my sanity by beaming television news into my skull, is that a "political belief"?
I read the letter and - while I'm not an expert - I see a guy with a persecution complex and serious race issues. Given the question of who to believe about Scheffler's other activities, in the absence of evidence, I don't mind erring on the side of caution and suspecting that the university acted in good faith.
Oh, and as for your lessons in due process, Patrick, maybe you should pass them on to your buddy Patels first. Nobody's locking Scheffler up, much less torturing him. Why don't you pack up your "hypocritical fascist" routine and go home.
"Either the initial complaints were enough to warrant the suspension, or they weren't. The University didn't move to suspend, so that's self-indicative.
The letter, on the other hand, is an expression of political beliefs. Even if the letter only "iced the cake", so to speak, this remains a politically-motivated decision, because the final disagreement is political in nature, and clearly has little, if anything, to do with the previous complaints."
Clearly indicating, Patrick, that you lack the ability to comprehend English.
The previous complaints against him may not have been enough, on their own. The letters may not have been enough, on their own. But the two combined, happening soon after VA Tech and on or around April 20th, was enough to warrant at least confronting him. And then he did not show. Don't play by the procedural rules of the University, you are suspended - rules you agreed to abide by before entering.
Try as you might, this is not just about the letter, it is a bout a larger and longer pattern of behaviour on the part of Scheffler. The University has stated that and I expect that if and when Mr. Scheffler appeals this decision, or applies for re-admittance, the facts of this, including the previous complaints, will be brought up.
Only you seem to be trying to make this soley about the letter, for a partisan political purpose because, somehow, it makes lefties look like fascists. None of that even makes sense.
And I reiterate, that as a private institution on private property, the regent of Hamline can deal with Scheffler any way they please - especially if that way is spelled out in their code of conduct with every student agrees to before entering. They've had policies to this effect sine 1994.
Or are you arguing that Hamline can't deal with a student who violates their policies (which he agreed to follow) by applying a penalty (which he agreed to)?
Not only is Hamline a private college, but it appears to have a decidedly religious bent.
Not only is Hamline a private college, but it appears to have a decidedly religious bent.
Very true that. Hamline is a private Methodist college. I went to Augsburg College, which is a private Lutheran college and a "sister" college to Hamline. They are both part of an affiliation of several private religious colleges.
When I was accepted to Augsburg I agreed to abide by a certain code of conduct and that code was probably a little stricter than say a public college. I believe that Mr. Scheffler agreed to whatever code of conduct Hamline had him sign, no?
Reading Mr. Patrick's rants is just pure fictitious hilarity. It reads to me like Hamline asked to discuss Mr. Scheffler's issues and he was a no show so they suspended him. Mr. Patrick seems to almost be arguing that Hamline wasn't aggressive enough. That maybe Hamline should have taken a "preemptive" strike against this guy.
But all of this is moot. This Scheffler guy obviously has some issues and was unwilling to work with Hamline in squaring them away. If he had such a problem with Hamline then maybe he should have chosen a different university to attend. Perhaps a public college that was not as expensive?
Post a Comment