Mouse: This comeback of yours is getting lamer everytime you use it. First of all, the first time you started flaming ME a year or so ago it was in response to an argument that wasn't yours so get off of this "mind your own business" trip and stop being a hypocrite. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is an open board. If you have a legitimate beef that you want to carry on with someone, be a man, exchange email addresses and have at it - You won't because you want the attention. If you choose to carry out your foolishness on this forum you are stuck with whatever comments the rest of us feel like adding. That's just the way it is.
Last semester, while I was giving a lecture on the landmark First Amendment case of Gitlow v. New York (1925), something very strange happened. In fact, one might say that it was rather queer.
Each semester, I use Gitlow to talk about the extent to which the First Amendment protects the advocacy of illegal conduct. I also use the case to explain how the First Amendment, once only binding on the federal government, was made binding on the States.
I usually begin my lecture on this topic by simulating a heated argument between a group of communists and a group of anti-communists. I sometimes run out into the hall shouting statements like “I’d like to kill myself a liberal commie” (doing my best imitation of a redneck) or “our capitalist government must be overthrown, by murderous violence if necessary” (doing my best imitation of a sociologist). I then ask my students to tell me which statements are not protected by the First Amendment and why. Then, I typically outline the specific facts of Gitlow.
The students here at UNC-Wilmington have responded very positively to my often-unorthodox style. In fact, students sometimes gather outside the classroom to listen to my lectures for fun while they are waiting on their next class. That’s one of the reasons I sometimes carry my lectures into the hallway.
But last semester when I went into the hall, I noticed that a faculty member was standing just outside the door listening as I discussed Gitlow. After the class, I told her that she was welcomed to come into my class anytime she heard something interesting from the hallway. I told her she didn’t have to stand outside with her ear pressed to the door. It was a sincere invitation. I was trying to be inclusive.
Unfortunately, my “colleague” was unable to conceal her irritation with my unorthodox teaching style. In fact, she said that she intended to send me an e-mail to discuss the limitations on “what we can and cannot say” inside the classroom. I kept waiting for the e-mail but it never came. I really wanted to hear a lecture on the First Amendment from this untenured sociology graduate student who teaches for us part-time.
About a week after the incident, a student informed me that the aforementioned faculty member was “ragging on me” in the classroom. For those unfamiliar with this campus slang, it isn’t a good thing to be “ragged on” in the classroom by another professor. And, of course, it isn’t very professional.
However, I have learned in my eleven years as a college professor to question student accounts of what transpires in the classroom. I usually assume that the student is lying or exaggerating until I hear the same story from several different students. Unfortunately, numerous other students enrolled in my “colleague’s” class corroborated the student I just mentioned. The accounts were the same: Adams is a right-wing professor using his classroom to indoctrinate students by making derogatory remarks about “commies.”
Every single teenager taking my class heard me conclude the Gitlow case by decrying his conviction for sedition. But, unfortunately, my “colleague” missed the point entirely. Maybe she had her bad ear pressed against the door. Or maybe she just didn’t want to hear anything exculpatory.
But since she raised the point, I have a few things to say about using the classroom to indoctrinate students. After all, it does happen. In fact, a couple of years ago as I was beginning a lecture, I noticed that the professor who had just finished giving a test in the same classroom had accidentally left a copy of his test behind. It was a true/false exam. It was loaded with questions like “True or false. The American criminal justice system is racist” and “True or false. The war on drugs is racist.” I thought the professor’s method was pretty direct. Just repeat my political views for points. Dissenters will repeat the course.
I considered mentioning that true/false exam to my eavesdropping “colleague,” in order to see whether she would decry that kind of classroom indoctrination. But then I discovered something queer. Or should I say strange? This semester she’s teaching a course called “queer theory.” That’s right ladies and gentlemen; she’s taking a stand against classroom indoctrination and teaching a course in “queer theory,” all in the same year. What a bargain for the taxpayer!
When I first heard about the course, I wondered what a person learns in a course called “queer theory.” I always thought that the “theory” was that “queerness” was genetically determined. I also thought that the term “queer” was offensive, but this semester it isn’t. I sure hope they tell us the next time it becomes offensive. The rest of us will just follow their lead. That seems fair, doesn’t it?
Fortunately, I recently got to look at the course syllabus for “queer theory.” It seems to be pretty rigorous. There are lots of required texts including “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” That book goes for $14.00, so I told my department chair that I would provide the “queer theory” students with a real Bible, if they couldn’t afford all the required books. The Bible is less expensive and it also tells the reader what the Bible really says about homosexuality. But my colleagues tell me they support the separation of church and state, so I’d better come up with another plan.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a course in “queer theory.” I’m sure that the course isn’t just about promoting gay politics. I’m sure that the professor and the students spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. And I’m sure that it’s a must for people who actually want to become “queer theorists” after they graduate.
Let’s face it; we really do have a shortage of “queer theorists.” In fact, I’ve never met one who didn’t teach at a university.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mike S. Adams is an associate professor at UNC-Wilmington. While he was jogging in 1998 he was nearly killed by a 90-pound woman who ran a stop sign in her 6000-pound SUV. She was talking on her cell phone and appeared to be running late. Dr. Adams still has nightmares about that woman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJ, my last post here about you clearly STUNG you, hence proving its veracity. Moreover, your obvious obsession with Kingpin and this Board indicates you also suffer from OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER. Get professional help before you break down completely.
Wow! "...The rush i get from all the attention and credibility Mousy gives me is overwhelming sometimes..." I didn't know I meant that much to you ASSWIPE - do you get a hard-on and whack-off too? INDEED, you are VERY, VERY LONELY. What happened to your stripper girlfriend or is the sex with her that bad3
ASSWIPE, moreover, I would be glad to send you some pictures of MINI-MOUSE to supplement YOUR BEASTIALITY FETISH. It's amazing what turns some people on, but in ASSWIPE's case I'm not surprised.
That was toooooooooo easy. It only took a mere two sentences to show that that Mousy could'nt follow his own advice. ....I think i need to step out and smoke a cigarette for a minute. The rush i get from all the attention and credibility Mousy gives me is overwhelming sometimes.
Niceass, when someone is acting like a child or sophomoric, like you were when you unilaterally blocked other people's posts, you got what you deserved - an admonition aimed at your rigid, immature, unenlightened, and VERY non-libertarian behavior. Grow-up!! - and, leave other people alone. It's easy to ignore RL or anyone else on this Board - just skip over their posts. What is posted can only be disruptive, if you let it be disruptive; and, obviously, you're more "disrupted" than anyone else is here. By paying attention to these posts you give them credibility. If you don't like their posts ignore them, or find another Board to you liking and leave us alone with your JavaScript and puerile self-righteous behavior.
Oh and one more thing, Mouse, I didn't censor anyone. Rather, I countered their speech with some of my own. The only difference was that I wrote my reponse in Javascript. Calling me a fascist was grossly overstated as well as erroneous.
Mouse, was that intended to be a commentary on Yoda's posts? ROTFLMFAOWSCTMN
I've been an advocate of fees speech all my life, and have followed the issue carefully. So, perhaps I should ake this opportunity to thank you for your condescention on the subject in giving me a very sophomoric lecture. Free speech is not absolute. It does not protect assault, libel, slander, copyright infringement, or conspiracy to commit a crime. Falsely yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theather is the often cited reference written by the great libertarian Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes. To allow such an extreme disruption would actually be an obsticle to free speech, not an aid. RL is using her speech purely for a disruptive effect, to drive others away.
Niceass, glad you see the importance of freedom of press and speech. It's taken mankind thousands of years to reach the freedoms we enjoy in the USA. These freedoms make us stronger, not weaker. In fact, it is only the confident and truly good & strong people who can tolerate and appreciate the opinions of others - even though we may disagree with them. There is TONS OF CRAP posted on this Board, but I would never dream of censoring it - not to worry, CRAP CENSORS ITSELF!
C&S, tha's the first time you've ever posted anything positive about anything or anyone on this board. Congratulations! Have you turned over a new leaf for good or is it just a temporary departure from your usual mean sprited self?
JimJazz, I'd very much like to. However, I don't want to risk Mouse calling me a fascist again. I think he's of the grasshopper mice variety. They can be formidable when they get they're hackles up. So, I'll write a prayer for C&S, instead.
<div style="font-size:14pt;font-family:times new roman; font weight:500;text-align:justify"><span style="float:left;font-size:75pt;color:#990000;font-weight:900;filter:Glow(Color='#000000', Strength='20')">O</span>ur Lord, God Almighty, we beseech thee: free us this noxious plague known as FUNDAMENTALIST Christians. For they reek havoc and destruction and bring desolation upon us. For they are niether true Christians nor followers of righteousness, but the brownshirted agents of Satan and his fallen angels. For they, like the wolf in sheep's clothes, appropriated and subrogated thine holy word and name. For they hath stolen the Bible and fashioned it into a club with which to beat others over the head. For they are desended from Cardinal Richelieu and the inquistion and seek to return us to medieval intolerance and ignorance. For they ignore that we are all God's children, but instead call people vermin. For they are vindictive flamers and receive pleasure from spite. For they are narrow minded and insist that "there can be only one dominant view" enforced by the government upon all people. For they lie to school children and endoctinate them in creation science. For they control children by fear and ignorance which make them weaks adults unable to deal with the world. For they condition boys against sex that some are so shamed that they never have fulfilling adult relationships.<p>Those wise amoung us see through their insidious guille. We pray to thee, Lord give us strength and wisdom that we may manage the many snares they have set for us. O! Lord, save us from the evil of their rigid, judgemental ways. Amen</div></td></tr></table>
26 comments
A queer theory of free speech
January 15, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Mike S. Adams, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last semester, while I was giving a lecture on the landmark First Amendment case of Gitlow v. New York (1925), something very strange happened. In fact, one might say that it was rather queer.
Each semester, I use Gitlow to talk about the extent to which the First Amendment protects the advocacy of illegal conduct. I also use the case to explain how the First Amendment, once only binding on the federal government, was made binding on the States.
I usually begin my lecture on this topic by simulating a heated argument between a group of communists and a group of anti-communists. I sometimes run out into the hall shouting statements like “I’d like to kill myself a liberal commie” (doing my best imitation of a redneck) or “our capitalist government must be overthrown, by murderous violence if necessary” (doing my best imitation of a sociologist). I then ask my students to tell me which statements are not protected by the First Amendment and why. Then, I typically outline the specific facts of Gitlow.
The students here at UNC-Wilmington have responded very positively to my often-unorthodox style. In fact, students sometimes gather outside the classroom to listen to my lectures for fun while they are waiting on their next class. That’s one of the reasons I sometimes carry my lectures into the hallway.
But last semester when I went into the hall, I noticed that a faculty member was standing just outside the door listening as I discussed Gitlow. After the class, I told her that she was welcomed to come into my class anytime she heard something interesting from the hallway. I told her she didn’t have to stand outside with her ear pressed to the door. It was a sincere invitation. I was trying to be inclusive.
Unfortunately, my “colleague” was unable to conceal her irritation with my unorthodox teaching style. In fact, she said that she intended to send me an e-mail to discuss the limitations on “what we can and cannot say” inside the classroom. I kept waiting for the e-mail but it never came. I really wanted to hear a lecture on the First Amendment from this untenured sociology graduate student who teaches for us part-time.
About a week after the incident, a student informed me that the aforementioned faculty member was “ragging on me” in the classroom. For those unfamiliar with this campus slang, it isn’t a good thing to be “ragged on” in the classroom by another professor. And, of course, it isn’t very professional.
However, I have learned in my eleven years as a college professor to question student accounts of what transpires in the classroom. I usually assume that the student is lying or exaggerating until I hear the same story from several different students. Unfortunately, numerous other students enrolled in my “colleague’s” class corroborated the student I just mentioned. The accounts were the same: Adams is a right-wing professor using his classroom to indoctrinate students by making derogatory remarks about “commies.”
Every single teenager taking my class heard me conclude the Gitlow case by decrying his conviction for sedition. But, unfortunately, my “colleague” missed the point entirely. Maybe she had her bad ear pressed against the door. Or maybe she just didn’t want to hear anything exculpatory.
But since she raised the point, I have a few things to say about using the classroom to indoctrinate students. After all, it does happen. In fact, a couple of years ago as I was beginning a lecture, I noticed that the professor who had just finished giving a test in the same classroom had accidentally left a copy of his test behind. It was a true/false exam. It was loaded with questions like “True or false. The American criminal justice system is racist” and “True or false. The war on drugs is racist.” I thought the professor’s method was pretty direct. Just repeat my political views for points. Dissenters will repeat the course.
I considered mentioning that true/false exam to my eavesdropping “colleague,” in order to see whether she would decry that kind of classroom indoctrination. But then I discovered something queer. Or should I say strange? This semester she’s teaching a course called “queer theory.” That’s right ladies and gentlemen; she’s taking a stand against classroom indoctrination and teaching a course in “queer theory,” all in the same year. What a bargain for the taxpayer!
When I first heard about the course, I wondered what a person learns in a course called “queer theory.” I always thought that the “theory” was that “queerness” was genetically determined. I also thought that the term “queer” was offensive, but this semester it isn’t. I sure hope they tell us the next time it becomes offensive. The rest of us will just follow their lead. That seems fair, doesn’t it?
Fortunately, I recently got to look at the course syllabus for “queer theory.” It seems to be pretty rigorous. There are lots of required texts including “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” That book goes for $14.00, so I told my department chair that I would provide the “queer theory” students with a real Bible, if they couldn’t afford all the required books. The Bible is less expensive and it also tells the reader what the Bible really says about homosexuality. But my colleagues tell me they support the separation of church and state, so I’d better come up with another plan.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a course in “queer theory.” I’m sure that the course isn’t just about promoting gay politics. I’m sure that the professor and the students spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. And I’m sure that it’s a must for people who actually want to become “queer theorists” after they graduate.
Let’s face it; we really do have a shortage of “queer theorists.” In fact, I’ve never met one who didn’t teach at a university.
Mike S. Adams
©2004 Mike S. Adams
Visit The Mike Adams 2003 Archive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mike S. Adams is an associate professor at UNC-Wilmington. While he was jogging in 1998 he was nearly killed by a 90-pound woman who ran a stop sign in her 6000-pound SUV. She was talking on her cell phone and appeared to be running late. Dr. Adams still has nightmares about that woman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mouse, was that intended to be a commentary on Yoda's posts? ROTFLMFAOWSCTMN
I've been an advocate of fees speech all my life, and have followed the issue carefully. So, perhaps I should ake this opportunity to thank you for your condescention on the subject in giving me a very sophomoric lecture. Free speech is not absolute. It does not protect assault, libel, slander, copyright infringement, or conspiracy to commit a crime. Falsely yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theather is the often cited reference written by the great libertarian Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes. To allow such an extreme disruption would actually be an obsticle to free speech, not an aid. RL is using her speech purely for a disruptive effect, to drive others away.
<div style="font-size:14pt;font-family:times new roman; font weight:500;text-align:justify"><span style="float:left;font-size:75pt;color:#990000;font-weight:900;filter:Glow(Color='#000000', Strength='20')">O</span>ur Lord, God Almighty, we beseech thee: free us this noxious plague known as FUNDAMENTALIST Christians. For they reek havoc and destruction and bring desolation upon us. For they are niether true Christians nor followers of righteousness, but the brownshirted agents of Satan and his fallen angels. For they, like the wolf in sheep's clothes, appropriated and subrogated thine holy word and name. For they hath stolen the Bible and fashioned it into a club with which to beat others over the head. For they are desended from Cardinal Richelieu and the inquistion and seek to return us to medieval intolerance and ignorance. For they ignore that we are all God's children, but instead call people vermin. For they are vindictive flamers and receive pleasure from spite. For they are narrow minded and insist that "there can be only one dominant view" enforced by the government upon all people. For they lie to school children and endoctinate them in creation science. For they control children by fear and ignorance which make them weaks adults unable to deal with the world. For they condition boys against sex that some are so shamed that they never have fulfilling adult relationships.<p>Those wise amoung us see through their insidious guille. We pray to thee, Lord give us strength and wisdom that we may manage the many snares they have set for us. O! Lord, save us from the evil of their rigid, judgemental ways. Amen</div></td></tr></table>