• 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!

Professor who said Otto Warmbier got ‘what he deserved’ loses job

ttwtt78640 said:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from any and all consequences of that speech. There is no right to continued public employment so what do you allege was taken from this person by the state?
Click to expand...

The freedom of speech does not mean much, if it does not at least mean that government normally may not impose negative consequences on a person based solely on the content of his speech. I don't allege anything. I only question whether Delaware, by declining to re-hire this woman in retaliation for an opinion she expressed away from campus, violated her freedom of speech. What if this state university had been declining to hire her the first time? And what if its reason was its disapproval of a letter she had written to a magazine, in which she'd said she thought a fraternity member who had just been killed was a child of privilege who'd treated college as one big party, and said further that she'd seen too many students like him at colleges where she'd taught?

There have been quite a few cases in the news of people being punished by public schools for unpopular views they expressed off campus, and I think they show a general disdain for the freedom of speech by officials who run those schools. The retaliation against this professor is not much different in that regard from UC Berkeley's recent treatment of Ann Coulter.
 
cuban smokes said:
never said Otto deserved what he got from his bad choice

however I did say the bigger majority of what the professor stated in the article is true

white American (I'm white) youth do have a certain level of arrogance that can lead to some feeling they are invincible

possibly Otto had some of that within himself; dunno ...........
Click to expand...

But it wasn't the bigger majority that got her canned. Also youthful invincibility really has nothing to do with race, more of a brain maturity thing.

White privilege did however probably play a role in his international travel abilities at age 21.
 
Absentglare said:
I think you're missing the distinction between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from consequences".
Click to expand...

nope not at all as they can be tied together.
she got her freedom of speech. no one prevented her from being an idiot and spouting stupidity.

the college had their freedom of speech and fired her.
 
cuban smokes said:
no red herring here buddy; I stand by every statement I have made in this thread

Otto died because he made a bad choice; his choice

like I said, go visit, tell us how that works out for you ............
Click to expand...

no he died because he was beaten and or drugged or whatever else they did to him in jail while in NK.
no trial no conviction or anything else.

that is why he died. victim blaming has never worked the fact you stand behind his abuse like that says
a lot about you.
 
matchlight said:
The freedom of speech does not mean much, if it does not at least mean that government normally may not impose negative consequences on a person based solely on the content of his speech. I don't allege anything. I only question whether Delaware, by declining to re-hire this woman in retaliation for an opinion she expressed away from campus, violated her freedom of speech. What if this state university had been declining to hire her the first time? And what if its reason was its disapproval of a letter she had written to a magazine, in which she'd said she thought a fraternity member who had just been killed was a child of privilege who'd treated college as one big party, and said further that she'd seen too many students like him at colleges where she'd taught?

There have been quite a few cases in the news of people being punished by public schools for unpopular views they expressed off campus, and I think they show a general disdain for the freedom of speech by officials who run those schools. The retaliation against this professor is not much different in that regard from UC Berkeley's recent treatment of Ann Coulter.
Click to expand...

Not just the government, if we as a society support the exacting of huge penalties for speech we dont like then we do not in fact practice free speech.

And we increasingly do not practice free speech.
 
radcen said:
Individual students based on their individual attitudes and actions, or entire groups with a broad brush? The difference is important.

Quotas are a different animal and a different topic.

And in this case she was taking about a specific student, as well as a group overall, so it would seem you would find her non-renewal justified based on your last sentence.
Click to expand...

She was talking about a person in the national news who happened to have been a student at another college, not a particular student at the University of Delaware. I'm sure many professors resent having to try to teach students who are not serious about their studies. I think they should be able to sound off about it, particularly away from campus, without having to worry that what they say will cost them their jobs.

I remember a statistics professor expressing his frustration to me after class one time about several students who were there only because their major required a statistics class. They had pleaded sickness as an excuse for missing a midterm exam. But he had happened to pass by their frat house on his way to his car, and there were the ones who had claimed to be sick that day out playing volleyball. I guess I should have reported him for running down his students.
 
matchlight said:
The freedom of speech does not mean much, if it does not at least mean that government normally may not impose negative consequences on a person based solely on the content of his speech. I don't allege anything. I only question whether Delaware, by declining to re-hire this woman in retaliation for an opinion she expressed away from campus, violated her freedom of speech. What if this state university had been declining to hire her the first time? And what if its reason was its disapproval of a letter she had written to a magazine, in which she'd said she thought a fraternity member who had just been killed was a child of privilege who'd treated college as one big party, and said further that she'd seen too many students like him at colleges where she'd taught?

There have been quite a few cases in the news of people being punished by public schools for unpopular views they expressed off campus, and I think they show a general disdain for the freedom of speech by officials who run those schools. The retaliation against this professor is not much different in that regard from UC Berkeley's recent treatment of Ann Coulter.
Click to expand...

OK, then let's flip the use of race a bit and consider the equally valid (or invalid) common association of race/ethnicity and crime statistics. Would you equally defend a state employee for their supposition (assertion?) that black or Hispanic folks are more apt to commit crime? IMHO, Otto chose to act as he pleased not because he was white, rich, under/over-educated or raised wrong but simply because he doubted that his actions would have such dire consequences - in other words, he was simply selfish and stupid in his assessment of the NK "justice" system. Once one starts voicing assumptions about an individual's behavior based on their race, class, ethnicity, religion or economic background then they would no longer continue to be employed by (thus represent) my business.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, then let's flip the use of race a bit and consider the equally valid (or invalid) common association of race/ethnicity and crime statistics. Would you equally defend a state employee for their supposition (assertion?) that black or Hispanic folks are more apt to commit crime? IMHO, Otto chose to act as he pleased not because he was white, rich, under/over-educated or raised wrong but simply because he doubted that his actions would have such dire consequences - in other words, he was simply selfish and stupid in his assessment of the NK "justice" system. Once one starts voicing assumptions about an individual's behavior based on their race, class, ethnicity, religion or economic background then they would no longer continue to be employed by (thus represent) my business.
Click to expand...

Private employers are pretty much free to terminate their employees for saying things they don't like. Public employers, though, are limited by the First Amendment. I would protect off-campus speech by public school teachers and students even further than the Supreme Court has protected it. I would not care about off-campus speech by a teacher derogating people because of their race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or anything else, as long as that teacher did not discriminate against students for any of those reasons.
 
Last edited:
It is one thing to say, "If you choose to travel to North Korea you deserve what you get." But she used it as an opportunity to attack an entire demographic of her students. That shows prejudice and that should be an unacceptable traight in a college professor.
 
matchlight said:
She was talking about a person in the national news who happened to have been a student at another college, not a particular student at the University of Delaware. I'm sure many professors resent having to try to teach students who are not serious about their studies. I think they should be able to sound off about it, particularly away from campus, without having to worry that what they say will cost them their jobs.

I remember a statistics professor expressing his frustration to me after class one time about several students who were there only because their major required a statistics class. They had pleaded sickness as an excuse for missing a midterm exam. But he had happened to pass by their frat house on his way to his car, and there were the ones who had claimed to be sick that day out playing volleyball. I guess I should have reported him for running down his students.
Click to expand...
By expanding from the one individual to all white people, she thus included her students, as well.

She could have said Warmbier was stupid, and all would be fine. She could have said that he brought it on himself, and been fine. She probably could have said he deserved it, and while a few eyebrows might have been raised, all would have been fine. When she expanded it to race, she brought in her own students as well, and included them in her perceived stupidity, and that's not ok. It's a window into how she perceives select groups of people, and indicates a good possibility that those groups don't get a fair shake from her from the very moment they walk through the door, simply based on being a member of a particular group.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It is one thing to say, "If you choose to travel to North Korea you deserve what you get." But she used it as an opportunity to attack an entire demographic of her students. That shows prejudice and that should be an unacceptable traight in a college professor.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, and you summed it up nicely.
 
radcen said:
By expanding from the one individual to all white people, she thus included her students, as well.

She could have said Warmbier was stupid, and all would be fine. She could have said that he brought it on himself, and been fine. She probably could have said he deserved it, and while a few eyebrows might have been raised, all would have been fine. When she expanded it to race, she brought in her own students as well, and included them in her perceived stupidity, and that's not ok. It's a window into how she perceives select groups of people, and indicates a good possibility that those groups don't get a fair shake from her from the very moment they walk through the door, simply based on being a member of a particular group.
Click to expand...

As I said in #59, I would not care whether a teacher made derogatory statements off-campus about a particular group--blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Mexicans, women, fraternity members, the rich, Republicans, Rastafarians, or whatever--as long as, on campus, that teacher did not discriminate against anyone on that basis.
 
matchlight said:
Private employers are pretty much free to terminate their employees for saying things they don't like. Public employers, though, are limited by the First Amendment. I would protect off-campus speech by public school teachers and students even further than the Supreme Court has protected it. I would not care about off-campus speech by a teacher derogating people because of their race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or anything else, as long as that teacher did not discriminate against students for any of those reasons.
Click to expand...

The following quote from the OP

Dettwyler wrote that Warmbier was ‘‘typical of the mindset of a lot of the young, white, rich, clueless males who come into my classes,’’ according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Click to expand...

is clear evidence of having prejudicial attitudes toward a certain subset of students on that campus.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The following quote from the OP



is clear evidence of having prejudicial attitudes toward a certain subset of students on that campus.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a lot of professors like this one who, for whatever reasons, dislike people like Mr. Warmbier. Maybe she used to dream about popular white frat boys when she was in college and secretly resents that they never asked her out. Who knows? So what? As long as they do not discriminate against those people in their jobs as professors, the fact they harbor that personal animosity toward them or express it off-campus is irrelevant.
 
matchlight said:
I'm sure there are a lot of professors like this one who, for whatever reasons, dislike people like Mr. Warmbier. Maybe she used to dream about popular white frat boys when she was in college and secretly resents that they never asked her out. Who knows? So what? As long as they do not discriminate against those people in their jobs as professors, the fact they harbor that personal animosity toward them or express it off-campus is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Hmm... my professor openly mocks and detests "my type" but surely would never let that attitude affect my grade. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... my professor openly mocks and detests "my type" but surely would never let that attitude affect my grade. ;)
Click to expand...

I think grading standards, at least in most college classes, are fairly objective. If a student believes a professor arbitrarily and unfairly gave his work too low a grade, means to appeal the grade are usually available. No professor wants to be overruled in a case like that, and the desire to avoid that tends to prevent too much subjectivity in grading.
 
ludin said:
nope not at all as they can be tied together.
she got her freedom of speech. no one prevented her from being an idiot and spouting stupidity.

the college had their freedom of speech and fired her.
Click to expand...

Milo got his freedom of speech. No one prevented him from being an idiot and spouting stupidity.

The college had their freedom of speech and canceled his event.

See how this works yet?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The following quote from the OP



is clear evidence of having prejudicial attitudes toward a certain subset of students on that campus.
Click to expand...

Appealing to racial stereotypes is surely racial pre-judgement, but the "clueless" for example may be considered post-judgement.
 
matchlight said:
I think grading standards, at least in most college classes, are fairly objective. If a student believes a professor arbitrarily and unfairly gave his work too low a grade, means to appeal the grade are usually available. No professor wants to be overruled in a case like that, and the desire to avoid that tends to prevent too much subjectivity in grading.
Click to expand...

It is far easier for an institution to maintain that appearance of objectivity by simply not tolerating open bigotry or stupid class based comments by the teaching staff. It would be far easier, and more efficient, for such a righteous and enlightened professor to give a "struggling" student a better grade than deserved rather than to give a "privileged" student a worse grade than deserved - not many methods of appealing that sort of decision are likely to exist.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... my professor openly mocks and detests "my type" but surely would never let that attitude affect my grade. ;)
Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly why i can understand that they let the professor's employment expire.

I wouldn't want any professor of mine harboring preference based on race.
 
Absentglare said:
Milo got his freedom of speech. No one prevented him from being an idiot and spouting stupidity.

The college had their freedom of speech and canceled his event.

See how this works yet?
Click to expand...

again you bring up something irrelevant. milo didn't get to speak. his speech was canceled or do you not remember that?
you probably didn't even know.

so please tell us where he got to speak since it was canceled?
I see you don't know what you are talking about as usual and bring up irrelevant material because you can't defend what this professor did.

she was over the top and incorrect. you could at least be someone honest about it.
 
Absentglare said:
That's pretty much exactly why i can understand that they let the professor's employment expire.

I wouldn't want any professor of mine harboring preference based on race.
Click to expand...
That's a key here: She was/is a contract employee. Once the contract expires she is no longer employed by them AT ALL. They are both free of each other. There is no tenure, there is no obligation to issue another contract.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is far easier for an institution to maintain that appearance of objectivity by simply not tolerating open bigotry or stupid class based comments by the teaching staff. It would be far easier, and more efficient, for such a righteous and enlightened professor to give a "struggling" student a better grade than deserved rather than to give a "privileged" student a worse grade than deserved - not many methods of appealing that sort of decision are likely to exist.
Click to expand...

It would be easier yet for state employers to prohibit their employees from expressing certain views, even in their own back yards, on the off chance the neighbor's child might overhear them and feel all yucky and invalidated because of it. Luckily, though, this is still a free country, and those employees do not need to completely surrender their freedom of speech to be hired or keep their jobs. I would protect that freedom even further than the Supreme Court has done.
 
TheGoverness said:
Article Here.




:applaud:applaud:applaud

Good decision on the university's part. This professor's remarks were absolutely disgusting. What a horrible thing to say.
Click to expand...

Disgusting and a horrible thing to say and he should have been fired for it but there is an ounce of truth to it. For the life of me I can't think of why any sane person would go to North Korea and then after being that stupid, to try stealing the propaganda poster. Of course kids this age, including myself when I was that age, do ridiculously stupid things. I could have died a few times myself out of my stupidity and, unfortunately, this kid paid the price and I and others got lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom