Student Sues College After Being Punished for Her Anti-Gay Language

Hey...everyone. This is just a bigoted little bitch that nobody knows and here everyone is with their feathers ruffled by what is likely a badly written peice of # of an assignment!

Let's move on and not give her or her teacher's view any more of our energy.

a reply to: Petros312

It's only freedom of speech as long as that speech is the popular one. I hope this chick wins big time. Quelling free speech in favor of political correctness is the lowest of low. Let the ones offended put their big boy/girl pants on and deal with it. We're adults, if we can't handle someone saying something stupid, our parents f***d up.

originally posted by: SomePeople
Hey...everyone. This is just a bigoted little bitch that nobody knows and here everyone is with their feathers ruffled by what is likely a badly written peice of sht of an assignment!

Let's move on and not give her or her teacher's view any more of our energy.

Read above.

few more links mostly rehashing what we have been told
www.wnd.com... WND so take that for what its worth but i think they are citing other articles but if this is part of the reasoning of the judge and "views opposing homosexuality" are in fact protected speech it will make this case a bit more clear cut then it appears.either way it will be an interesting case to follow as it has many implications for the first amendment regardless of how it ends up being

The judge concluded that “views opposing homosexuality are protected by the First Amendment and that the government is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.” Read more at www.wnd.com...

collegeinsurrection.com... only two comments on this site and i have no idea of its level of credibility but i found the first comment on the article interesting

www.sfgate.com... SF gate take on the matter

www.towleroad.com... posted mostly for a different prospective in the comments section

judgepedia.org... info on the judge who made the ruling,and ironically went to the same college i think where this case is all taking place. she seems to only have two notable rulings in her term as a judge one on horses and another related to airlines

I think it's clear now that people simply wish to argue and make mountains out of molehills, to suit whatever their perspective or agenda is.

it's not about anything other than that, or we'd all have been over this a long, long time ago.

Get over it and move on.

a reply to: SomePeople

Why are you so insistent on stifling this discussion?

If you're not interested, go read something else and stop trying to derail the conversation.

I'm not so sure that the professor wasn't rightfully offended. I read one of the original articles the other day that painted a different picture of the contents of the review. In that article they claim she used the word "cock" a few times as well. I just can't seem to find it on Google anymore because its been buried by all of the recent articles.

I'm also left wondering why she signed up for the class in the first place. This is sounding more and more like something a gay rights activist would pull. Perhaps in her mind she's fighting fire with fire.

a reply to: SomePeople

And here we see that the "pro" side can be equally as inane and uneducated as the "con" side.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Petros312

The teacher is still required to maintain certain decorum in the classroom.

What decorum? ... "Think like us, or you're out on your ear!" That's "maintaining certain decorum"?

No. The obvious decorum to not be RUDE and PREJUDICED in a classroom or in an academic paper.

I think another illustration is in order here:

In a class on American Politics the teacher writes in her syllabus that she invites "open minds" to examine "a plethora of political perspectives." One day the teacher is discussing Operation Iraqi Freedom. Consider these two students' responses to the teacher after mentioning that the tactics used during Operation Shock and Awe were only employed to free the Iraqi people:

Student A: I always found it highly questionable that many Americans were openly supporting this kind of violence even though thousands of Iraqi civilians were being killed.

Student B: Americans are so perverse! How could they support such violence! Politics is so barren when it comes to ethics in the USA.

Do I need to point out which student above has improper decorum for a college class, or are you going to insist that in a class that "invites controversy," somehow this means that Student B is justified to blurt out this opinion with there being no negative consequences for such a rude and prejudiced statement?

Now imagine that when Student B receives a reprimand by the professor for writing the same comments in a paper the student is told it might be in her best interest not to return to the class. The student then pursues a law suit against the college claiming to have said what she did is protected by the First Amendment. That's the kind of absurd situation going on here in the class called "Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts"

Student B does NOT need to accept the "indoctrination" of a teacher discussing Operation Shock and Awe as if it was no more than a military strategy designed to free the Iraqi people. The student needed to voice her opinion in a way that was not RUDE and PREJUDICED (see Student A). Likewise, the student in the class on Images of Women does NOT have to accept some supposed indoctrination of pro-lesbianism or "the evils of patriarchy." She needed to say something like:

"Although I personally find same-sex sex to be contrary to what nature intended, I could see the lesbian character in the film definitely had a strong and lustful sexual attraction to the same sex." Did the student hastily conclude a re-write is not in order? She obviously stands by her generalized statement, i.e., that a woman had a "perverse attraction to the same sex," and she wants to defend this prejudiced language in the name of free speech. I know I'm speculating here, but there are plenty of college students who quickly dash off a paper with little consideration for how they are writing something and then they are offended when the teacher reprimands them for poor work.

There is no denial of free speech in the case illustrated above with Student B, and there was no denial of free speech in the case of the class "Images of Women." However, there's plenty of assumptions that a student has the "right" to say whatever he or she wants without there being negative consequences. The negative consequences result from students who blurt out an opinion with no consideration for what they are saying. They refuse to learn a simple maxim: It's not what you say; it's how you say it.

originally posted by: Bone75
I'm not so sure that the professor wasn't rightfully offended. I read one of the original articles the other day that painted a different picture of the contents of the review. In that article they claim she used the word "cock" a few times as well.

Speaking from some experience, this isn't necessarily offensive in a paper on the topic of feminism or gender studies; especially if the paper is specifically critiquing and investigating language.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...One person's "controversy" is "offensive" to some other people. That's the problem with some professors--that they encourage "controversy" that some may find offensive and then fall back on "freedom of expression" when said "controversy" offends. Some professors are quite hypocritical in this apparently.

...I', [sic] not anti-feminist,just pointing out an example where awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia. Thus the hypocrisy.

Let's get the definitions of "controversy" and "prejudiced" straight:

Controversy: disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.

Prejudiced: having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice.

Prejudice (definition according to social psychologists) An unjustifiable negative attitude or statement about an entire group of people. *Note "prejudice" does not simply mean "bias," as in law (a form of harm or injury resulting from judgment) or in common usage (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience).



You continue to confound "controversy" with something (i.e., the student's language) that is obviously prejudiced, and something prejudiced is 1) always offensive, 2) rude to a whole group of people, and 3) has no place in a classroom except to point out as unethical. It is quite possible to discuss controversial topics GIVEN all parties care about HOW they say something. It is not possible to discuss controversial topics when someone is making it clear that the language being used is "inflammatory and offensive." Hence, a teacher (a good teacher) will discourage remarks made by students that are not merely controversial but that are rude and prejudiced. This discouragement is not "indoctrination." It's done in an effort to heighten awareness, in part because oppressors (i.e., people who are prejudiced) rarely can see themselves as oppressors...

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... Having spent a lot of time in academia, I have noticed there are certain hateful positions that are encouraged and supported and some that are not. If she wrote a paper about the evil patriarchy and that the film was a statement on that all men are rapists at heart, she probably would have done well.

This is your original statement that you say is simply "just pointing out an example where awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia" (in the first quote box above). Are you saying all feminist academia encourage "awful and prejudiced thinking" of a certain type supposedly encouraging the notion that "all men are rapists at heart?" Still sounds like you have a big bone to pick with feminists, particularly militant feminists (late 60s early 70s version - the "down with men" perspective, which is not popular). That's fine, but recognize that these kinds of overgeneralized statements: "Awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia" are better expressed by the more accurate statement:

"...just pointing out that in some cases awful and prejudiced thinking is encouraged by certain academia," which is a statement I would agree with. Your chosen words are something I have to disagree with (as well as academia generally encouraging the notion that all men are rapists at heart). It's not what you say; it's how you say it.

Sorry if I'm being too didactic for you...

An interesting case.

I'd love to read the student's paper, just out of curiosity and comparisons between the US and SA.

Universities will probably see a lot more of this as students are exposed to all kinds of hardcore ideas dressed up in academic language (and probably written by people who had some academic training) via the Internet.

Some students might not realize that because some topics have academics with highly controversial views, for example: AIDS dissidence; holocaust revisionism; creationism or using notions of humanistic "relativism" to defend racial segregation or heterosexism, such ideas are pushed by people outside the academy, or some individuals who have earned the academic clout to be controversial over many years.

University eduction is voluntary, and it comes from a historic system similar to an apprenticeship, where one respectfully approaches a tutor (or "master") with the willingness to learn about a certain topic, or to learn a certain empowering discourse that you can later choose to use as you wish (within liberal academia or without).
Those who do not know the discourse or rhetoric remain at a disadvantage to those who do, although academia has tried to be more inclusive.

If you come there with a closed-minded attitude that you already know everything then the teaching relationship is impossible.
I guess there's a fine line between a junior student being ignorant on certain topics and thus somewhat offensive, and a student who is clearly just trying to broadcast their bigotry with no intention about learning from the course.
If somebody came to an African literature course while writing racially offensive "Stormfront" ideas into their papers that student is not material for such a class, and could furthermore even be considered as threatening by the Professor.

At least in South Africa all universities have codes of conduct that forbid discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation (in line with our Constitution).
If somebody doesn't understand that when they finished high school, then they shouldn't be on a liberal academic campus.

If their mind is made up already, then nobody can spank a young adult who is studying voluntarily back into line.
It would be just as useless as trying to teach a medical student who believes that diseases are caused by demons and can be cured by exorcisms (a mental dead-end as far as biomedical education is concerned), or giving classical music classes to somebody who just wants to play Sex Pistols songs.
School teachers need to bear certain behavior from their students, but the same does not apply to academic staff.
They can simply refuse a student by following certain channels.
I've also witnessed them simply walking out of classes that hadn't done their readings or prepared their seminars, or became filled with smart-asses.
Academic education is a privilege, not a right or a duty.

Of course there's a certain irony in that academia today is largely a counter-reaction to previous academia, and thus focuses on the minority voices that were once silenced and ignored.
Academia is never static and actually needs opinionated up-starts at a certain stage.
However you're not going to march in there and think you're going to demolish Foucault; Fanon; Marx; Darwin; Freud or decades of gender work.
In a post-graduate phase one can engage in polemics, but you need to have the expertise to push your point within the discourse (and there are ways to make your point without being offensive). One also needs to know the existing material and views well enough to substantiate one's arguments, and how to read and write within that discourse, which is often quite obscure and full of jargon.
There's a time to keep personal views apart from academia, and try to be open-minded to all the communities on campus.
In fact, later one may discover that some Professors are far more conservative and unhappy with some current streams than one thought.

If I had a paper that called gay people, or a gay character "perverse", then I'd draw the attention of that student to a long history of academic debates about "perversity", and within the discourse there's multiple uses of the term.

It has specific meanings that need to be unpacked, or it's as big a fail as a sexist writing that women are "mad" (also a term that has specific meanings in different contexts).

If the student refuses to rework the paper, or he or she isn't at least advanced enough to give the contexts of Freud or Foucault regarding "perversion" (in which case I'd expect a mini-thesis rather than an under-graduate paper), then they'd be better off somewhere they can simply use it as a slur.

Such a student clearly thinks they speak an academic language they cannot speak at all, and they don't want to learn.
So what's the point?
I'm sure there's lots of other places that would welcome young people with those views (perhaps religious organizations where they can work for free from dawn to dusk, and use homophobic slurs all day long).

However, if a student wrote something like, "I was taught that lesbians are 'perverse' and gender studies are new to myself, but I'm willing to learn more about other views" that would be an excellent start.

originally posted by: halfoldman
If the student refuses to rework the paper, or he or she isn't at least advanced enough to give the contexts of Freud or Foucault regarding "perversion" (in which case I'd expect a mini-thesis rather than an under-graduate paper), then they'd be better off somewhere they can simply use it as a slur.

Such a student clearly thinks they speak an academic language they cannot speak at all, and they don't want to learn.
So what's the point?
I'm sure there's lots of other places that would welcome young people with those views (perhaps religious organizations where they can work for free from dawn to dusk, and use homophobic slurs all day long).

However, if a student wrote something like, "I was taught that lesbians are 'perverse' and gender studies are new to myself, but I'm willing to learn more about other views" that would be an excellent start.

So glad to see you post this. It's exactly what I mean when I say it's not what you say but how you say it that matters. The problem is that the issue of "free speech" is clouding the brains of people like Monica Pompeo to the point of absurdity.

All that being said, it is a difficult issue, especially if the Professors made the topic sound unintentionally controversial and confusing.
They may have worded their topic in such a way that a student may have felt prompted to read against the grain.

Complete misunderstandings can happen.

It happened to me more than once.

One time a topic was "Describe the Social Function of the Xhosa Intsomi" (an oral form of tribal story-telling).
So here I was thinking they wanted me to describe the "function" or the role of story-telling in Xhosa society.
I thought this was rather difficult, because we hadn't been taught it, but I stringed together an argument that it empowered women in Xhosa society.

I was shocked when I got the paper back, because I'd just failed with 45 percent.
The comment was that he just wanted me to describe the "social function" - or the ritual of story-telling - from lighting the fire, to calling the children, to the hand clapping to encourage the story-teller to continue, which was what we'd done in drama class.

He said I should come to see him, but I never did, because I thought he was a waste of space for posing such an ambiguous question, and he clearly wasn't qualified to be a lecturer.
Luckily the paper only counted for 25 percent, and I still passed the course.

So I understand it's not always the student's fault, and badly phrased topics can lead to disastrous results.

When staff screw up like that they usually try to cover it up.

The more I read the original story (the little that is available) the more I think this student has a case.

Inviting people to speak their minds and even to be controversial, and then punish them for it is something akin to a sadistic Captain Bligh in Mutiny On The Bounty.

It could all encourage a student to experiment with contrarian views, when that student is not actually prejudiced.

It's one thing to find obstinate bigots in well formulated course-work, but quite another to confuse students.

War may be deception at times, but academics should always be totally clear and concise.
Without that no tutor can simply expect all students to share their conclusions.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...One person's "controversy" is "offensive" to some other people. That's the problem with some professors--that they encourage "controversy" that some may find offensive and then fall back on "freedom of expression" when said "controversy" offends. Some professors are quite hypocritical in this apparently.

...I', [sic] not anti-feminist,just pointing out an example where awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia. Thus the hypocrisy.

Let's get the definitions of "controversy" and "prejudiced" straight:

Controversy: disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.

Prejudiced: having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice.

Prejudice (definition according to social psychologists) An unjustifiable negative attitude or statement about an entire group of people. *Note "prejudice" does not simply mean "bias," as in law (a form of harm or injury resulting from judgment) or in common usage (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience).



You continue to confound "controversy" with something (i.e., the student's language) that is obviously prejudiced, and something prejudiced is 1) always offensive, 2) rude to a whole group of people, and 3) has no place in a classroom except to point out as unethical. It is quite possible to discuss controversial topics GIVEN all parties care about HOW they say something. It is not possible to discuss controversial topics when someone is making it clear that the language being used is "inflammatory and offensive." Hence, a teacher (a good teacher) will discourage remarks made by students that are not merely controversial but that are rude and prejudiced. This discouragement is not "indoctrination." It's done in an effort to heighten awareness, in part because oppressors (i.e., people who are prejudiced) rarely can see themselves as oppressors...

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... Having spent a lot of time in academia, I have noticed there are certain hateful positions that are encouraged and supported and some that are not. If she wrote a paper about the evil patriarchy and that the film was a statement on that all men are rapists at heart, she probably would have done well.

This is your original statement that you say is simply "just pointing out an example where awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia" (in the first quote box above). Are you saying all feminist academia encourage "awful and prejudiced thinking" of a certain type supposedly encouraging the notion that "all men are rapists at heart?" Still sounds like you have a big bone to pick with feminists, particularly militant feminists (late 60s early 70s version - the "down with men" perspective, which is not popular). That's fine, but recognize that these kinds of overgeneralized statements: "Awful and prejudiced thinking is not only allowed, but encouraged by academia" are better expressed by the more accurate statement:

"...just pointing out that in some cases awful and prejudiced thinking is encouraged by certain academia," which is a statement I would agree with. Your chosen words are something I have to disagree with (as well as academia generally encouraging the notion that all men are rapists at heart). It's not what you say; it's how you say it.

Sorry if I'm being too didactic for you...

This is where you totally miss the point. Prejudicial statements and beliefs are often encouraged in academia and just labeled "controversy" but are none the less prejudicial and offensive, just the "correct" prejudice and thus is allowed if not encouraged.

You state that there is no place for prejudice in the classroom, then you would also have to agree that the prejudice from a lot of "women's studies" and "African American" studies classes must be removed as well in order to be more consistent. Why is a "prejudicial" comment against lesbians an awful horror that must be punished but "prejudicial" comments against men or Caucasians acceptable? I know, I know, "it's different." It's to "heighten awareness." You cannot make one statement that it must not be tolerated on one hand then make excuses to tolerate such behavior on the other.

You may think you are being didactic, but I'd suggest reading comprehension. I don't think that I said "all of academia" nor "all of women's studies." It's not there. What I said is that there are plenty of examples IN academia. That is neither too broad nor vague as a single example in academia would still be IN academia.

Methinks you try too hard to appear clever.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't know Doc. These days its looks like we are talking to truly brainwashed folks who have been coached into a corner and don't have the perspective to understand what you are talking about. That the are in fact perpetuating perpetuating and stereotype.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
This is where you totally miss the point. Prejudicial statements and beliefs are often encouraged in academia and just labeled "controversy" but are none the less prejudicial and offensive, just the "correct" prejudice and thus is allowed if not encouraged.

Again, I'm waiting for you to stop confounding what is truly prejudice with what is controversial. These are two different things, and most professors know this as well. Hence, when prejudice surfaces they discourage it. If you continue to make a wild accusation like "Prejudicial statements and beliefs are often encouraged in academia" I strongly suggest you provide some concrete evidence or nobody will believe you.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You state that there is no place for prejudice in the classroom...

No, wrong again. I said it has no place in the classroom except to uncover it as unethical, which is important for learning especially when a student has no awareness that she's making a prejudiced statement.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...the prejudice from a lot of "women's studies" and "African American" studies classes must be removed as well in order to be more consistent. Why is a "prejudicial" comment against lesbians an awful horror that must be punished but "prejudicial" comments against men or Caucasians acceptable? I know, I know, "it's different." It's to "heighten awareness."

That's the third piece of evidence, despite your denial, that you have a bone to pick with feminists. And yes it is quite different to reveal oppressors as a group conforming to a patriarchal ideology compared to saying something like lesbians are perverse because of their sexual orientation. Completely different.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You cannot make one statement that it must not be tolerated on one hand then make excuses to tolerate such behavior on the other.

Yes you can, because what you believe are " 'prejudicial' comments against men or Caucasians" only reveal a) the large majority of males having conformed to a patriarchal ideology that oppresses women, and b) negative statements made against a cultural ideology about an ideology, which do not need to be overgeneralized in a discussion. If a feminist begins a statement by saying, "Men are always..." then the person is guilty of overgeneralizing. I never said a feminist would never make a prejudiced statement. But If a feminist says, "There are many men who..." then that's qualifying a statement without overgeneralizing, and any negative statement that follows is not prejudiced because it doesn't imply a whole group.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You may think you are being didactic, but I'd suggest reading comprehension. I don't think that I said "all of academia" nor "all of women's studies." It's not there. What I said is that there are plenty of examples IN academia...

You did not qualify your statement as "plenty of examples" until just now. Glad to see you do this. If you simply write the word "academia" without a qualifier, then you are not making it clear that you do not mean all of academia, which is one valid way to "comprehend" what you wrote. In fact, it's very much like what the student Monica Pompeo likely has a problem with. She assumes that what she writes will be interpreted as she intends but she does not understand that the person reading her chosen words does not have the same mind. To ignore this leads to poorly expressing yourself.

It pisses me off when people indicate that they don't think hard enough about what they choose to write. Rather than admit they may have been wrong, they say "It's a free country and I can say whatever I want." There is no protection of personal liberty in the USA to the extent that you can support prejudice with no negative consequences for it, and I hope there never is.

originally posted by: Petros312
Again, I'm waiting for you to stop confounding what is truly prejudice with what is controversial. These are two different things, and most professors know this as well. Hence, when prejudice surfaces they discourage it. If you continue to make a wild accusation like "Prejudicial statements and beliefs are often encouraged in academia" I strongly suggest you provide some concrete evidence or nobody will believe you.

No you are the one being disingenuous. "Prejudicial" and "controversial" are often matters of opinion. Saying something cruel about white males is encouraged as "controversial" but saying the same thing about another racial group would be condemned as "prejudicial."

That you think that this does not happen is ludicrous.
Proof? There is a lot: Transgender woman can't be a diversity officer because she's a white man now.

But some students thought that allowing Boatwright to have the position would just perpetuate patriarchy. They were so opposed, in fact, that when the other three candidates (all women of color) dropped out, they started an anonymous Facebook campaign encouraging people not to vote at all to keep him from winning the position.

“I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there,” the student behind the so-called “Campaign to Abstain” said.

"Inappropriate to have a white man there." How is that not a prejudicial statement?

Professor teaches all whites are racist

Speaking as a guest lecturer at Dartmouth College this week, Duke University professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva shared his skewed take on racism in today’s America.

Ignoring decades of progress, he told his audience the U.S. is “not post-racial,” calling assertions to the contrary “suave but deadly.”

Bonilla-Silva claimed minorities are still being mistreated on a scale comparable to the 1960s, though modern whites have cleverly disguised their racism. In his opinion, a Caucasian’s embrace of inclusion and tolerance is actually proof of his or her hatred of non-whites.

When whites defend themselves against false accusations of racism, he said they are doing nothing more than blaming “descrimination on the victim and the incomprehensible response to the topic of race.”

Read more at www.westernjournalism.com...

To this professor, the majority race is stuck in a catch-22. Even whites who took an active role in the fight for civil rights, he contends, did so in hopes to cover up their own “personal prejudice

How is that not prejudiced? "All whites are racist" is a very prejudicial thing to say.

And that's just two examples of many, many if you bother to look.

originally posted by: Petros312

That's the third piece of evidence, despite your denial, that you have a bone to pick with feminists. And yes it is quite different to reveal oppressors as a group conforming to a patriarchal ideology compared to saying something like lesbians are perverse because of their sexual orientation. Completely different.

Nonsense. I have used women's studies AND (as you conveniently forget) AA studies as examples where prejudicial thought is permitted because of the politically correct nature (and thus acceptable) prejudice of that. You illogically and unfoundedly extrapolate that in a prejudicial way and you actually prove my point--disagree with a "progressive" and you are automatically branded a racist or misogynist or any other sort of "ist" they want to throw out there.

originally posted by: Petros312
Yes you can, because what you believe are " 'prejudicial' comments against men or Caucasians are actually about revealing how a) the large majority of males having conformed to a patriarchal ideology that oppresses women, and b) negative statements made against a cultural ideology about an ideology, which do not need to be overgeneralized in a discussion. If a feminist begins a statement by saying, "Men are always..." then the person is guilty of overgeneralizing. I never said a feminist would never make a prejudiced statement. But If a feminist says, "There are many men who..." then that's qualifying a statement without overgeneralizing, and any negative statement that follows is not prejudiced because it doesn't imply a whole group.

Exactly what I said. You excuse prejudicial things you agree with and make excuses for saying horrible things as long as you agree with them.

originally posted by: Petros312

It pisses me off when people indicate that they don't think hard enough about what they choose to write. Rather than admit they may have been wrong, they say "It's a free country and I can say whatever I want." There is no protection of personal liberty in the USA to the extent that you can support prejudice with no negative consequences for it, and I hope there never is.

I also, which is why I find your issue with me very, very ironic. If one was to say "There are a lot of dishonest politicians in government," only a foolish person would interpret that as "all politicians are dishonest." One can write well, but if one only comprehends what he wants to comprehend, then you cannot get anywhere.