Another example of political prejudice in academia

[JSojourner]

Carl's attacks on me, personally, are not surprising.  He starts decently enough, attacking ideas and opinions -- which I celebrate.  Unfortunately, when he misses the entire point and becomes frustrated, he resorts to petulance and discourtesy.  I'm really sorry this is true, because I think he has much to offer.

That Carl has cited Daily Kos or Mother Jones as a reliable, unbiased source of news is just more proof of what I am saying.  While I am surprised that he regards them to be on the same plane as World Net Daily, I am a bit disappointed that he would take either seriously.

Extremist opinion magazines rarely shed light or bear positive fruit.  Yes, sometimes they do get it right.  But seldom. 

Mainstream media, as I have said repeatedly, certainly do get things wrong or miss stories entirely.  But on the whole, they still acquit themselves fairly well. 

Carl, since I have offended you and you are taking my responses personally, I will stop.  I have no desire to engage in the exchange of personal attacks or epithets.  I certainly have no shortage of contempt in reserve for pseudo-journalists.  But I really have none for you.

First, I will take you statement that you “have no desire to engage in ...personal attacks or epithets” and your statement that you “will stop” such attacks as a reasonable apology.  I presume that means you will stop making statements that “I realize you distrust intellect and education.”

Second, you challenged me to cite accurate articles I have seen on the Daily Kos and Mother Jones, and I noted that I have posted such citations previously on this forum. I did not say they were “unbiased” or that I regard “them to be on the same plane as World Net Daily.”  I don’t know whether you misunderstood my post or are simply misrepresenting what I said.  So, I am NOT a ‘hypocrite.’ as you previously implied.

I think you misunderstood me, Carl.  You made comments in previous posts about  people with degrees...how they are not to be trusted.  You intimated that talking heads on TV or in blogs, with no scientific training, are more qualified to comment on global climate change than are professors of climatology, biology and environmental science in academia.  I probably did make assumptions about you on that basis and for that, I apologize.  Did you mean something else? 

With regard to quoting news sources, I still don't understand.  You say liberally-biased news sources are not to be trusted...but still sometimes report the facts.  Are you then saying that conservative news sources are precisely the same?  If so, FINE.  We understand each other.

If, however, you are saying that conservative news sources are more to be trusted...then you have a problem.  That's hypocritical.  Let's move this away from World Net Daily and Mother Jones.

What about Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh (or Liddy or whomever you like of that ilk.)  What say you?

I don't trust Moore any more than I trust Limbaugh or Hannity or Liddy to "report" the truth.  Just because I share a general political world view with Moore, and not with the others, doesn't mean I can't spot a liar (or an obfuscator) when I see one.

Let's say Moore, Liddy and Peter Jennings (assuming he were still among us) each do a one hour report on your favorite issue -- immigration.  Which do you think will give you the straight dope?

Moore would spin it as I see it.  Liddy would spin it as you see it.  But as for facts and an overall lack of bias, Jennings would be the only one I trust to get it right...or mostly right.  Does that make sense?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it seems you misunderstood what I posted.  What I said was that having a degree did not make whatever someone said be correct.  Degreed people have made many incorrect statements in the past.  Also, I don't know where you got the idea I thought "talking heads" had any particular expertise.

Second, as I have repeatedly pointed out, so-called mainstream media sources do ignore information they don't like.  I have also pointed out to specific examples of where they completely got it wrong.  Remember Dan Rather and TANG?

Third, I don't believe in blind trust in any organization supposedly reporting news, which I why I peruse a wide variety of sources.  I don't know if you can remember an excellent PBS program on a couple of decades ago called "World Press"?  It was excellent and had some of the first information available to Americans about the weirdness occuring in Iran in the late seventies.

Fourth, all news sources should viewed with some degree of skepticism.  One means of judging a story is to look at the specifics.  Does it cite someone by name, does it identify documents, does it give a clear time-line, if money is involved does it give an amount, does it tell you how the event occured, does it tell you where the event(s) occured, does it offer a plausible explanation of why what occured, acutally occured, does it note at least an attempt to contact a variety of sources (and name them). You know, the old: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How and How Much.

 

[Joe Republic]

So did you find that NY Times article backing this story up or not?

[CARLHAYDEN]

So did you find that NY Times article backing this story up or not?

Here is the article.

The key material is buried well down in the article, which is rather lengthy, so I'll just post the relavant portion:

Film’s view of Islam stirs anger on campuses
by Karen Arenson


February 26, 2007

The New York Times

“The situation in the Middle East has been a major issue on campus for decades, but the heat has noticeably turned up lately,” said Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

At San Francisco State University, for example, College Republicans stomped on copies of the Hamas and Hezbollah flags last October at an “antiterrorism” rally.
----------

Oh, and here's further information from the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/08/EDGRJN76O61.DTL




 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Update

Students who 'desecrated Allah' acquitted
University decides not to punish stepping on makeshift Hezbollah, Hamas flags

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 21, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

After months of pressure, San Francisco State University has decided not to punish College Republicans it charged with desecrating the name of Allah by stepping on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags at an anti-terrorism rally.

Led by the non-profit advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the public and some media outlets had called on the school to "uphold the students' constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression.

"We are relieved that SFSU has come to its senses and recognized that it cannot punish students for constitutionally protected expression," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "But the fact remains that the university should never have investigated or tried them in the first place. This was a protected act of political protest, and it is impossible to believe the university did not know that from the start."

The trouble began at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in which the students stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Middle East terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The College Republicans say they simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn't know it bore the name of Allah in Arabic script.

University spokeswoman Ellen Griffin, however, told San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders the university "stands behind this process" of investigating the students for possible punishment.

"I don't believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag," Griffin said. "I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah."

Yesterday, SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan wrote to FIRE with news that the Student Organization Hearing Panel "unanimously concluded that the College Republicans organization had not violated the Student Code of Conduct and that there were no grounds to support the student complaint lodged against them."

"SFSU has finally done what it should have done months ago," FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Samantha Harris said. "The College Republicans should never have been dragged through an investigation and hearing for their protected political expression, and it is an outrage that SFSU carried on with this for so long when it had the power to dismiss the charges informally."

Prior to the decision, Lukianoff insisted the school had no basis for punishing the students.

"The College Republicans engaged in unequivocally protected political expression, and it strains all credibility to think the SFSU administration does not know this," he said. "There is nothing to try or investigate here other than protected expression."

Ten days after the incident, a student filed a formal complaint with the university against the campus group, alleging "attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment" and "actions of incivility."

FIRE argued the university's Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development could have settled the matter informally or dismissed the charges instead of pressing forward with a hearing.

The legal advocacy group sent a letter to Corrigan Jan. 23 arguing no American public institution can lawfully prosecute students for engaging in political protest or for desecrating religious symbols.

FIRE asserted "incitement" and creating a "hostile environment" are legal terms not applicable to the College Republicans' actions of stepping on flags.

"SFSU has a duty to uphold the First Amendment rights of all of its students, even if their expressive activity offends the religious sensibilities of some," the letter stated.

University officials wrote back Jan. 29, saying the school would continue to investigate the complaint "to give all parties the confidence that they will be heard and fairly treated by a panel that includes representatives of all the university's key constituencies."