Professor fired over Va. Tech discussion
MrBrian
Posts: 2,672
Mon Apr 23, 8:28 AM ET
BOSTON - An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."
The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.
"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.
He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.
Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.
The college issued a statement saying: "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone the use of discriminatory or obscene language."
Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_re_us/professor_fired
BOSTON - An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."
The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.
"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.
He said administrators had asked the faculty to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.
Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.
The college issued a statement saying: "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone the use of discriminatory or obscene language."
Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070423/ap_on_re_us/professor_fired
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"No one cares about climbing stairs, Nothing at the top no more." Chris Cornell
seriously... that sounds so stupid. if you cannot say what you like in the classroom/lecture room then where can you? if the students have any sort of backbone they will join together and demand his reinstatement.
at our uni a few yuears back they refused to renew the contract of the best lecturer we had for no reason, so most of the 3rd year (i was in the 1st year at the time) converged on the office and demanded he be offered a new contract.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Typical of university campuses, though. Some viewpoints are OK, some aren't ... Despite universities being a "bastion of free speech". They are a bastion of leftist political thinking, in reality.
that is, of course, unless you're dumb enough to actually try it.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
i guess the pen was loaded
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I think it also said that most students did'nt have an issue with it. I think that's an important thing.
Poor taste depending on context and intent maybe but that's pretty lame if they actually fire him for it.
Any student complaining about that is ridiculous period. Find something more productive to do with your life than to find insignificant things to be afraid of.
No, it is not.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Admittedly, my experience is based solely on Canadian campuses.
Exactly. This is liberalism run amok!
(Is there an eyrolling smiley?)
I really don't think this is a freedom of speech issue. If this is an innapropriate act, then it should be treated as such, like a sexual gesture or something. In any case, the reaction was an over-reaction. I think 20 seconds with the him would have been enough to make sure he does not do this again.
This kind of reminds of of a mock trial I was a "juror" for in college. A law professor and law students were putting on a mock trial and the "murder weapon" was represented by a bright green squirt gun. One of the law students ("prosecutor") in his closing remarks pointed the "gun" right at me to get his point across. It was almost unsettling, but no big thing. After that portion of it, the professor said "...and by the way, an attorney would never point a gun at a juror." I am sure that student did not need more than that. This was the University of Wisconsin, so it's hard to believe this very liberal and possibly communist university did not fire him, make him issue an apology to me and some animal rights groups, force him to donate money to the United Negro College Fund and order him to replace the Camp Randall (football stadium) astroturf with natural grass while being taunted by a "Take Back the Night" crowd.
BTW, I know nothing about this college, but most of the big liberal schools in the united states are not catholic: http://www.emmanuel.edu/about/default.asp
Your sarcasm makes me laugh ...
My point re. liberalism still stands. My initial hunch was that the point this prof tried making fed into the firing. Maybe it did not. I agree that the behavior itself was in very poor taste ... I also agree that a reprimand would have sufficed, as opposed to a firing.
I thank you.
Unless you were rolling your eyes at me, in which case..."Hey, screw you!"
(Is there a winky smiley--Yes there is
There are plenty of people on this board to roll eyes at, but you're not one of them
Neither am I, mind.
And so they should be. Although, in my experience this is no longer the case.
http://www.publicanthropology.org/Journals/Engaging-Ideas/chomsky.htm
Or check this out sometime:
http://www.amazon.com/Representations-Intellectual-1993-Reith-Lectures/dp/0679761276
I can agree with the view that universities should lean toward so-called liberal thought. But this means accepting some degree of centrism or middle-of-the-road thinking as a good starting point for rational discussion. Things often swing too far in one direction. Trust me ... People on campuses can be just as dogmatic and ignorant as some dude in a trailer park somewhere who never reads the newspaper.
Yes, we are all missing what he said before and after. This action, taken out of context, has been seen to be offensive. In context, who knows what it was. Maybe he was asking students if they would have been able to point a gun and shoot Cho in self-defense. We will probably never know.
IN any event, stifling discussion about gun control seems to be a hallmark feature of teh US reaction to all of these incidents, wensuring that teh defensive position on "rights to bear arms" is maintained, any dissenter are howled down and demonised.
I believe that it means accepting a general consensus as a result of rational debate and discussion - a dialectal discussion. If the end result happens to be considered by some to be in the shape of so-called 'liberal thought', 'middle-of-the-road centrism', or 'conservatism', is neither here nor there.
I seriously disagree with this statement. Its not even close ... There is always a HUGE amount of press about gun control after every school shooting on this continent. In fact, the gun control lobby are the first people you here from. Notably absent from the discussion are people who lobby for increased funding for mental health care.
Indeed ... A rigidly-held a priori ideological position completely abnegates the possibility of having a true dialectical discussion, though.
I agree about the need for mental health care.
There may be a huge amount of press about gun control, but NOTHING happens. HAve you already forgotten what happened to that gun guy who dared say you don't need assault weapons to hunt woodchucks. Remember, fired, dead and buried, never to be heard from ever again !!!!!
My beef with increased gun control is simple ... It won't work to prevent this sort of crime. Existing controls are already doing all they can do ... All that is it reasonable to expect them to do. What do you want to happen, and why do you think it'll help?
In the short term, not much will change. But if America adopted a national mindset toward eliminating gun crime, over a few decades, the number of guns in circulation will decline, and the problem will eventually be manageable.
At present, you have so many guns in circulation, that the prospect of a gun0-free country is beyond anyones comprehension.
It is a big problem, but not insurmountable, but there is no political will.
Really, it is a lot like racism. In teh early days racism was entrenched and endemic. Slowly over several generations, attitudes are slowly changing. It will take a while yet, but the trend is against racism, and eventually equality will prevail. The same thing could happen with your gun culture, but it is not likely to.
Hmmm ... Are you basically saying that attitudes towards violence need to change? If so, we are 100% in agreement. This is more fundamental than any amount of guns in circulation, though.
Absolutely attitudes toward violence need to change. Starting with education to reduce poverty, followed by jail programmes that release prisoners that are better people rather than worse ones. Prisons are currently punitive in nature, not rehabilitative, and violence always begets violence !!
The number of guns in circulation is important to the "crims can always get guns", or the "only teh crims will have guns" argumanet against gun control.. that will only continue to be true while there is a large number of guns in circulation. Hand gun crime is practcally non-existent in Australia, because hand-guns are uncommon, their sale is strictly contoleed, and teh laws about storage etc are stricly enforced.
All guns in Australia must be kept in an approved locked cabinet with the ammunition kept separate from the weapon.
ONce the number of guns out there starts to fall, crims will not be able to get them.
With only a knife or machete, Cho could not have killed 32 people.
I predict that these incidents will increase in frequency in the USA.
Seriously though, big over reaction.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"