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

I only have time to address one thing here at the moment, and it's this:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

If what you mean by "you actually prove my point" in this awkwardly worded paragraph, given what you are saying is that I've somehow branded you a racist, I'm flabbergasted. You need to point out where I accused you of this.

Your use of the term "prejudicial" is unclear. Do you mean "biased" or do you mean I made an unjustifiable negative statement about a whole group of people?

I suspect (and still do) that you have a bone to pick with feminists, which does not mean you are a mysogynist.

Does it feel good to know you have successfully hijacked this thread and turned the issue into prejudice against men and Caucasians?

I have time to address one more thing:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Proof? There is a lot: Transgender woman can't be a diversity officer because she's a white man now.

Professor teaches all whites are racist

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

It isn't up to me to find the evidence that supports your wild accusation of academia "often" encouraging prejudice against men, and given the number of feminists out there you need to either post a) many more anecdotal type examples like the ones above, or b) a valid survey that found the large majority of feminists indicated they are not only prejudiced against men, they encourage it. I already said if you want to find feminists that are actually prejudiced look no further than the militant types, but to say these few represent feminists in general is no better than making the horrible overgeneraliztion (and prejudiced) statement that says Islam is a religion of violence because of a handful of terrorists.

You refuse to recognize even in your own language the degree to which you are overgeneralizing:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
--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.

Given this statement has no qualifier before the word "progressive," a reader is justified in interpreting this to mean if you disagree with "all progressives" or "any progressive." Knowing this, IF the statement doesn't mean "all progressives" in an unfair overgeneralized way a good writer would add a qualifier such as "most progressives" so that it does not become an offensive statement. I can see you intend to be offensive with the statement, but in college, you potentially offend a professor. As a student, if you don't care, then expect negative consequences.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Proof? There is a lot: Transgender woman can't be a diversity officer because she's a white man now.

Professor teaches all whites are racist

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

The first article you posted to support that academia encourage prejudice against men does not exactly support the premise that feminists "often encourage" prejudice toward men, certainly not if by men you mean males.

At Wellesley College, an all female school, a transgendered woman, who wants to consider herself male, was denied a position as "class diversity officer." From the article:

...some students thought that allowing Boatwright to have the position would just perpetuate patriarchy

1. In contrast to the case at UNM, STUDENTS do not qualify as the "academia" of concern who may or may not be "often encouraging" prejudice against men, unlike professors who are the authority. Its the students who need the education, and many of them have a lot to learn.

2. Notice the qualifier in the quote: SOME students. I bet SOME students at Wellesley are prejudiced. But I also bet SOME students at Wellesley who are feminists are not encouraging prejudice toward men.

3. The subject of the supposed discrimination here is not male. She is physiologically female with a masculine gender identity. Thus, the students opposed are not encouraging prejudice against a man. They believe the person is going to act like a man to the extent that she adopts a patriarchal ideology.

4. If you want to use the article to support that the students discriminated against someone who may have had a patriarchal ideology, I agree, but I also support it because a patriarchal ideology is oppressive toward women. That's not encouraging prejudice against men. It's discouragement of an ideology.

originally posted by: Petros312
I only have time to address one thing here at the moment, and it's this:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

If what you mean by "you actually prove my point" in this awkwardly worded paragraph, given what you are saying is that I've somehow branded you a racist, I'm flabbergasted. You need to point out where I accused you of this.

Your use of the term "prejudicial" is unclear. Do you mean "biased" or do you mean I made an unjustifiable negative statement about a whole group of people?

I suspect (and still do) that you have a bone to pick with feminists, which does not mean you are a mysogynist.

Does it feel good to know you have successfully hijacked this thread and turned the issue into prejudice against men and Caucasians?

Firstly, it is not a thread hijack nor was it intended to change the subject to prejudice against men and Caucasians. You have been leading us down that road by taking one point--that there are examples of hypocrisy in academia where "hateful speech" and "prejudice" are concerned--and struggling with it. When you extrapolate from that simple point some latent issues about me and insist that there is none, even when presented with examples of the same, then you pull the conversation off the rails.

It is in keeping of this thread to expand the discussion into the treatment of contrary thoughts and statements as a whole.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Proof? There is a lot: Transgender woman can't be a diversity officer because she's a white man now.

Professor teaches all whites are racist

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

The first article you posted to support that academia encourage prejudice against men does not exactly support the premise that feminists "often encourage" prejudice toward men, certainly not if by men you mean males.

At Wellesley College, an all female school, a transgendered woman, who wants to consider herself male, was denied a position as "class diversity officer." From the article:

...some students thought that allowing Boatwright to have the position would just perpetuate patriarchy

3. The subject of the supposed discrimination here is not male. She is physiologically female with a masculine gender identity. Thus, the students opposed are not encouraging prejudice against a man. They believe the person is going to act like a man to the extent that she adopts a patriarchal ideology.

Which is, in and of itself, a prejudiced stance. Where is your outrage of this prejudiced stance by these students at this university? You condemn the prejudiced statements of on students in a paper but I see no such condemnation and demand for discipline of these students who make remarks that are equally prejudiced. This is an example of the double standard that I have pointed out.

originally posted by: Petros312
I have time to address one more thing:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Proof? There is a lot: Transgender woman can't be a diversity officer because she's a white man now.

Professor teaches all whites are racist

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

It isn't up to me to find the evidence that supports your wild accusation of academia "often" encouraging prejudice against men, and given the number of feminists out there you need to either post a) many more anecdotal type examples like the ones above, or b) a valid survey that found the large majority of feminists indicated they are not only prejudiced against men, they encourage it. I already said if you want to find feminists that are actually prejudiced look no further than the militant types, but to say these few represent feminists in general is no better than making the horrible overgeneraliztion (and prejudiced) statement that says Islam is a religion of violence because of a handful of terrorists.

You refuse to recognize even in your own language the degree to which you are overgeneralizing:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
--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.

Given this statement has no qualifier before the word "progressive," a reader is justified in interpreting this to mean if you disagree with "all progressives" or "any progressive." Knowing this, IF the statement doesn't mean "all progressives" in an unfair overgeneralized way a good writer would add a qualifier such as "most progressives" so that it does not become an offensive statement. I can see you intend to be offensive with the statement, but in college, you potentially offend a professor. As a student, if you don't care, then expect negative consequences.

You are the one who assigned a label because I had a differing opinion than yourself. You still do and make an unfounded assumption. It is laughable to see someone demand evidence to support a position but then has a position that is not only based on lack of evidence but in contrary to offered explanations, which you soundly ignore.

I've neither said "all feminists" nor have I said anything hateful against feminists, I have simply pointed out that "women's studies" classes are but one example of some places where prejudiced and hateful language are permitted and encouraged. That's it. That's all I've said. You are the one who has extrapolated several pages and personal feelings.

I've also mentioned "African American's" studies and even quoted one tenured professor in the AA studies department of a university. You ignore that to focus on feminists which I would think that indicates an agenda or sore spot in your psyche rather than mine.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Firstly, it is not a thread hijack nor was it intended to change the subject to prejudice against men and Caucasians.

More denial, if not a lie. Thread topic is about a student accused of being inflammatory and offensive toward lesbians. You even posted links that supposedly prove that feminists "often encourage" prejudice toward men, which is still unsupported.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You have been leading us down that road by taking one point--that there are examples of hypocrisy in academia where "hateful speech" and "prejudice" are concerned--and struggling with it. When you extrapolate from that simple point some latent issues about me and insist that there is none, even when presented with examples of the same, then you pull the conversation off the rails.

In other words: You're going to accuse me of "derailing" the topic because I refuse to agree with your wild accusations of academia "often encouraging" prejudice against men. That's more than lame.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It is in keeping of this thread to expand the discussion into the treatment of contrary thoughts and statements as a whole.

Nice contradiction: You stick with the topic by introducing "contrary thoughts." Do you know what Freud said about rationalizations? He said they hide a deeper unconscious psychological issue. It's obvious at this point that you have a bone to pick with feminists. It's manifested by your own determination to focus on how feminists are "often encouraging" prejudice against men, which is a MYTH unless you are referring to militant feminism (extremism).

originally posted by: Petros312
The first article you posted to support that academia encourage prejudice against men does not exactly support the premise that feminists "often encourage" prejudice toward men, certainly not if by men you mean males.

At Wellesley College, an all female school, a transgendered woman, who wants to consider herself male, was denied a position as "class diversity officer." From the article:

"...some students thought that allowing Boatwright to have the position would just perpetuate patriarchy"

1. In contrast to the case at UNM, STUDENTS do not qualify as the "academia" of concern who may or may not be "often encouraging" prejudice against men, unlike professors who are the authority. Its the students who need the education, and many of them have a lot to learn.

2. Notice the qualifier in the quote: SOME students. I bet SOME students at Wellesley are prejudiced. But I also bet SOME students at Wellesley who are feminists are not encouraging prejudice toward men.

3. The subject of the supposed discrimination here is not male. She is physiologically female with a masculine gender identity. Thus, the students opposed are not encouraging prejudice against a man. They believe the person is going to act like a man to the extent that she adopts a patriarchal ideology.

4. If you want to use the article to support that the students discriminated against someone who may have had a patriarchal ideology, I agree, but I also support it because a patriarchal ideology is oppressive toward women. That's not encouraging prejudice against men. It's discouragement of an ideology.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Petros312

[Response to above quote] Which is, in and of itself, a prejudiced stance.

You are using the term "prejudiced" to mean "biased," and I said above that "prejudice" is an unjustifiable attitude toward a whole group. I am not being prejudiced in this manner. You however have attempted to stain all feminist academia by claiming it "often encourages" prejudice against men. And of course, you are just as "biased" as I am in your own opinions, whether there are facts to support these opinions or not.

originally posted by: NavyDoc Where is your outrage of this prejudiced stance by these students at this university? You condemn the prejudiced statements of on students in a paper but I see no such condemnation and demand for discipline of these students who make remarks that are equally prejudiced. This is an example of the double standard that I have pointed out.

You presented a link to an article that was supposedly evidence that feminists are "often encouraging" prejudice toward men. My only response was that the evidence you presented does not support your premise. I can't possibly be promoting a double standard by the ABSENCE of condemnation; it's just YOUR unrealistic prescription of what my response SHOULD be, and you're nobody to dictate how I should respond to the article. Personally, at an all-women's college, any student with a male gender identity is going to be out of place and treated with a degree of contempt. That qualifies for as much "prejudice" as there is in the creation of an all-women's college.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You are the one who assigned a label because I had a differing opinion than yourself.

You accused me above of calling you prejudice. I asked you already to show where I said this because I know I did no such thing. This is a false accusation craftily designed to have readers sympathize with you. I said, " Sounds like you are anti-feminist," and it's based on your accusing feminists of "often encouraging" prejudice against men, which is an extreme overgeneralized statement. I attempted to explain how your language made it an extreme statement, but of course you have nothing to learn from me.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
...It is laughable to see someone demand evidence to support a position but then has a position that is not only based on lack of evidence but in contrary to offered explanations, which you soundly ignore.

1. If I responded to the "evidence" for your premise, and clearly I explained why I believe it doesn't support the wild accusation that feminists "often encourage" prejudice against men, then clearly I did not "ignore" what you call "evidence."

2. I do not have a position that demands any evidence. If YOU are the one who says feminists "often encourage" prejudice against men then the burden of evidence is on YOU. From my perspective (i.e., all feminist academia certainly do not encourage prejudice against men) I can't provide evidence of the absence of something.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I've neither said "all feminists" nor have I said anything hateful against feminists, I have simply pointed out that "women's studies" classes are but one example of some places where prejudiced and hateful language are permitted and encouraged. That's it. That's all I've said. You are the one who has extrapolated several pages and personal feelings.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but this is a hateful statement toward feminists, particularly if they are professors:

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If she [Monica Pompeo] 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.

Logically, you are saying with this statement that feminists must commonly believe that "all men are rapists at heart." That's extremely rude and hateful, and it is NOT supported by any great fact.

originally posted by: Petros312
It's obvious at this point that you have a bone to pick with feminists.

Thank you.

I don't think they have to go so far as to be feminists. Just being women seems to be enough.

If I can be allowed to get on with the actual topic of the thread and the case at hand, I'd like to present a different perspective, a pedagogical one.

In a classroom where a student is indicating that she's prejudiced against some group, if a teacher directly confronts this, its highly likely it's going to disrupt any real chance of insight in the student. Teachers have all degrees of talent as teachers. What the professor at UNM could have done, instead of direct confrontation (i.e., telling the student her language was "inflammatory and offensive") is read the paper to the class to discuss the language. She could have wrote on the student's paper, "What exactly makes you say that the woman's sexuality is perverse? You need to explain further." This method may not have angered the student, who obviously shut down after being reprimanded. Learning is just not going to be possible when a student shuts down.

The approach above doesn't excuse the student's prejudice. It's the one that encourages self-reflection. Of course, if a student is accustomed to hastily dashing off a paper with minimal concern for anything beyond "freedom of speech," then no matter what disagreement the professor voices it will be met with the student making the same basic argument of being denied saying what the student wants to say the way the student wants to say it, even to the absurd point of a prejudiced statement.