• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indoctrination of college students continue

Quag said:
Article doesnt say what peopel are supposed to use instead of man/woman etc..
The whole idea is moronic
Click to expand...

Did you say moronic? I am triggered.

To my safe space, away!
 
ludin said:
Univ. of Northern Colorado students forced to use 'mandatory' gender-neutral language | Fox News

colleges violating the first amendment to push political ideology is a disaster.
this is absolute sickening and frankly these professors should be fired.
Click to expand...

Also very typical and telling: Once caught back off and away from it. If not caught, probably would be permanent.

Celebrity said:
Restrictions like this only serve a few by constricting free speech. This abuse of authority has a chilling effect on speech, and reduces the quality of communication by imposing strict oversight.
Click to expand...

Most certainly. The social justice warriors (or is it the excessively PC? Or are they the same?)

It's not just the speech these people want to suppress, it's the thoughts as well, and in addition, they feel fully justified that their ideology is superior to any other, and dissenters must be destroyed, most typically by government intervention and punishment.

It's really quite tyrannical.
 
TheGoverness said:
Well, of course. The federal government trumps the state governments.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true, either--there are a lot of matters in which federal and state governments have concurrent jurisdiction. What I was talking about, though, has nothing to do with supremacy. You seemed to be claiming that the First Amendment limits only what the federal government may do. But the Supreme Court student speech cases have involved actions by state governments. In those cases, the First Amendment applied to what a local school district, state university, etc. did through the Fourteenth Amendment, because its actions were in effect actions by the state.
 
matchlight said:
That's not necessarily true, either--there are a lot of matters in which federal and state governments have concurrent jurisdiction. What I was talking about, though, has nothing to do with supremacy. You seemed to be claiming that the First Amendment limits only what the federal government may do. But the Supreme Court student speech cases have involved actions by state governments. In those cases, the First Amendment applied to what a local school district, state university, etc. did through the Fourteenth Amendment, because its actions were in effect actions by the state.
Click to expand...

I wonder if TheGoverness was thinking of a similar issue which was recently in the news, Title IX federal funding being denied of public schools on the basis of sexual discrimination.

But the Bill of Rights should apply here, if we are to enjoy our civil liberties. As another example, I don't think there is a single authoritarian state in the Union that can get away with criminalizing abortion, as long as Roe v. Wade remains in effect as case law. There seems to be a great deal of the law which goes over our heads, or laws which we take for granted. Sometimes we have to stop and think about whether or not we are violating other peoples' rights in order to satisfy our own personal ambitions to be well respected in our communities.
 
eohrnberger said:
Most certainly. The social justice warriors (or is it the excessively PC? Or are they the same?)

It's not just the speech these people want to suppress, it's the thoughts as well, and in addition, they feel fully justified that their ideology is superior to any other, and dissenters must be destroyed, most typically by government intervention and punishment.

It's really quite tyrannical.
Click to expand...

  1. SJW's are not necessarily PC. We see this when they attack straight people for not being queer, or white people for not being brown. The excessively PC are just sniveling cowards who will do anything to be liked by anyone.
  2. I don't doubt they want to suppress the thoughts of people who don't agree with them. The scary thing is that they use the government to realize a means to a violently oppressive end.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the professors owned up to their mistake. Actually, sometimes professors intentionally make mistakes to see if we are paying attention in class. Academics are more reasonable than they are given credit for. It's the members of those academic communities; students, professors and administrators, who are trying to make a name for themselves, that are causing problems by intentionally creating conflict where conflict is neither necessary, nor academic.
 
Celebrity said:
I wonder if TheGoverness was thinking of a similar issue which was recently in the news, Title IX federal funding being denied of public schools on the basis of sexual discrimination.

But the Bill of Rights should apply here, if we are to enjoy our civil liberties. As another example, I don't think there is a single authoritarian state in the Union that can get away with criminalizing abortion, as long as Roe v. Wade remains in effect as case law. There seems to be a great deal of the law which goes over our heads, or laws which we take for granted. Sometimes we have to stop and think about whether or not we are violating other peoples' rights in order to satisfy our own personal ambitions to be well respected in our communities.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where, exactly, you are saying the Bill of Rights should apply. Not every part of the Bill of Rights applies against the states, in any case. For example, no one enjoys the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury for a serious crime in a state case, even though he would enjoy the right in federal court for a similarly serious crime.

In this country, though, public schools certainly do have to watch their step when it comes to restricting or compelling student speech, and the cases suggest they have to watch it all the more closely the older the students involved are. What school districts can get away with in a junior high school, they may not be able to get away with in a junior college.
 
matchlight said:
I'm not sure where, exactly, you are saying the Bill of Rights should apply. Not every part of the Bill of Rights applies against the states, in any case. For example, no one enjoys the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury for a serious crime in a state case, even though he would enjoy the right in federal court for a similarly serious crime.

In this country, though, public schools certainly do have to watch their step when it comes to restricting or compelling student speech, and the cases suggest they have to watch it all the more closely the older the students involved are. What school districts can get away with in a junior high school, they may not be able to get away with in a junior college.
Click to expand...

Yes I suppose that's right.

If Congress doesn't make a law, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to enforce the rule in a classroom. I don't think this will go to a Federal court. If it's not obscene, then it's not against the law to use gender neutral pronouns.
 
ludin said:
First of sociology is usually required for 4 year degree students. I doesn't matter what it is. what is done is unconstitutional. I know you don't see it as a problem that is the view of most liberals to just ignore things. that was 1 Mark took it out of his class because of the things I mentioned. as it interferes with a students free speech rights. Actually it is becoming more and more common around campuses this is just one example of many.
Click to expand...

First of(f) there is more than one sociology course available, most degrees would only require 'intro' level course for most 'humanities' courses- like psyc 101 is pretty much it for most degrees. I know you see anything you don't agree with as unconstitutional but it is merely against your political lean.

But of course you ignore the examples I give where neither you nor Faux Noise have even found 'unconstitutional'- language courses that require the language being studied to be the only one spoken in the class... :roll:

Oh yes, a REAL plague in the higher education system, a few courses outside of French having speech requirements... :doh
 
notquiteright said:
First of(f) there is more than one sociology course available, most degrees would only require 'intro' level course for most 'humanities' courses- like psyc 101 is pretty much it for most degrees. I know you see anything you don't agree with as unconstitutional but it is merely against your political lean.
Click to expand...

Court rulings say that the state cannot interfere with the 1st amendment that includes using pronouns that some people don't like because they imply gender.

But of course you ignore the examples I give where neither you nor Faux Noise have even found 'unconstitutional'- language courses that require the language being studied to be the only one spoken in the class... :roll:[/QUITE]

What does the first amendment say again?

Oh yes, a REAL plague in the higher education system, a few courses outside of French having speech requirements... :doh
Click to expand...

I know most liberals don't like the constitution but please remind us what the 1st amendment says.
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
Court rulings say that the state cannot interfere with the 1st amendment that includes using pronouns that some people don't like because they imply gender.

But of course you ignore the examples I give where neither you nor Faux Noise have even found 'unconstitutional'- language courses that require the language being studied to be the only one spoken in the class... :roll:[/QUITE]
What does the first amendment say again?
I know most liberals don't like the constitution but please remind us what the 1st amendment says.
Click to expand...

Actually you need to cite a court ruling where they say the first amendment applies to pronouns in a VOLUNTARY course of education. Which of course would make french only classes 'unconstitutional'... :peace
Click to expand...
 
Celebrity said:
Yes I suppose that's right.

If Congress doesn't make a law, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to enforce the rule in a classroom. I don't think this will go to a Federal court. If it's not obscene, then it's not against the law to use gender neutral pronouns.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if this was a private or public college. If public, its actions are in effect actions by the state, and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech would apply through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. There are a number of public law firms with brilliant First Amendment lawyers which are constantly defending students against assaults on the freedom of speech, often carried out by the 1960's-type leftists who are prominent in the administration of various public schools. There have been hundreds of cases. These pseudo-liberals often despise the First Amendment almost as much as they despise the Second and the Tenth.

It might well violate the freedom of speech to forbid students to use certain language in their papers. Political correctness, originally cooked up by foreign Communists at the Frankfurt School, is one of the most illiberal[/] doctrines imaginable. The whole notion of professors forcing students to use only words that conform to the professors' political philosophy is repellent to individual liberty. Often I have found the people who pretend to be most liberal to be the very opposite. I had to be around a lot of these little would-be Gauleiters in graduate school, and most of them ain't nearly as bright or well-read as they like to imagine.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I am not sure if this was a private or public college. If public, its actions are in effect actions by the state, and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech would apply through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. There are a number of public law firms with brilliant First Amendment lawyers which are constantly defending students against assaults on the freedom of speech, often carried out by the 1960's-type leftists who are prominent in the administration of various public schools. There have been hundreds of cases. These pseudo-liberals often despise the First Amendment almost as much as they despise the Second and the Tenth.

It might well violate the freedom of speech to forbid students to use certain language in their papers. Political correctness, originally cooked up by foreign Communists at the Frankfurt School, is one of the most illiberal[/] doctrines imaginable. The whole notion of professors forcing students to use only words that conform to the professors' political philosophy is repellent to individual liberty. Often I have found the people who pretend to be most liberal to be the very opposite. I had to be around a lot of these little would-be Gauleiters in graduate school, and most of them ain't nearly as bright or well-read as they like to imagine.
Click to expand...


The University of Northern Colorado is a public institution. I assumed as much because it was named for that region of the State of Colorado. Thank you for sharing the information about the Due Process Clause. I am sure there's enough case law to back up that statement, since this has been an ongoing issue.

It's interesting to imagine this college as a hotbed of Communist activity. I don't care for restrictions on free speech, because I think it's of academic importance for students to be able to express themselves freely. Incidentally, I once failed a class for receiving poor marks on the final paper (and missing some homework assignments), because I used a word which is not typically thought of as obscene. I suspect that the professor had an aversion to the context in which I used the word in that paper in that class due to his heritage or community, but I just retook the class. At the time I didn't realize that my right to free speech had been abridged.

So it would appear that these restrictions are actually unconstitutional, and it may be the case that professors retract those requirements. It's sad to look back and see how my right was infringed because I was as politically disconnected as many of my peers. I think these sociology professors have taken advantage of their students like guinea pigs, albeit in a very benign and inoffensive way. It's possible they thought this would slip under the radar, as do many political bullies seeking to violate the rights of others in a culturally acceptable way. I find that the very young and the very old are often victims of this nature.
 
Celebrity said:
The University of Northern Colorado is a public institution. I assumed as much because it was named for that region of the State of Colorado. Thank you for sharing the information about the Due Process Clause. I am sure there's enough case law to back up that statement, since this has been an ongoing issue.

It's interesting to imagine this college as a hotbed of Communist activity. I don't care for restrictions on free speech, because I think it's of academic importance for students to be able to express themselves freely. Incidentally, I once failed a class for receiving poor marks on the final paper (and missing some homework assignments), because I used a word which is not typically thought of as obscene. I suspect that the professor had an aversion to the context in which I used the word in that paper in that class due to his heritage or community, but I just retook the class. At the time I didn't realize that my right to free speech had been abridged.

So it would appear that these restrictions are actually unconstitutional, and it may be the case that professors retract those requirements. It's sad to look back and see how my right was infringed because I was as politically disconnected as many of my peers. I think these sociology professors have taken advantage of their students like guinea pigs, albeit in a very benign and inoffensive way. It's possible they thought this would slip under the radar, as do many political bullies seeking to violate the rights of others in a culturally acceptable way. I find that the very young and the very old are often victims of this nature.
Click to expand...

My hunch is that a lot of these leftist professors in public schools don't know enough about constitutional rights--and don't care to learn about them--to know what they can and can't do. I've been around a lot of people with PhD.'s in social settings, and it is surprising how ignorant they are about basic constitutional law. In their zeal to spread the ideas they hold so dear, they sometimes step over the line--and get smacked. Luckily, students and other people without much money or power have some brilliant friends in public law firms who like a good fight. While these constitutional lawyers can't take up the cudgel in every case, they have helped a lot of people who were getting bullied by leftists on this or that campus. I think of that line in Gran Torino: "Ever notice how you run across somebody, once in a while, that you shouldn't have f----- with?" That's those lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom