Guns

Prof Who Won't Recommend a Pro-Gun Student Is Everything That's Wrong with Academia

Liberal academics who say they want more diversity are often lying.

|

Gun
Dreamstime

A professor recently wrote a candid essay in which she confessed a secret: she didn't want to write a letter of recommendation for a student, solely because this student has different views (presumably) about gun rights.

Note that the situation made the professor feel uncomfortable—not because she saw anything wrong with her stance, but because the sheer awkwardness of it was frustrating. How do you tell a student—one who is satisfactory in all relevant ways—that you can't recommend them because you suspect their political opinions don't completely align with yours? 

The professor teaches at an unnamed college and used a pseudonym in her article for The Chronicle of Higher Education. Arrogant, intolerant, and oblivious to her biases (and how destructive they are), she is everything that is wrong with modern higher education. 

Seriously: 

She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don't know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don't know what she does on the weekends. I also don't know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun. 

So what do I do? Do I write her a recommendation because I originally said yes? Do I say no and explain myself? Do I ignore her email? 

Reading the full column, it quickly becomes clear that the professor believes everyone who has encountered a gun and not recoiled in horror is a sociopath. She doesn't have very well-developed reasons for thinking this—she says guns were part of her life growing up but does not suggest that they were ever used improperly. Her mother got rid of the family gun because they worried her father was suicidal, and no gun-related harm ever came to him or anyone else. If anything, the professor seems to have an inexplicable fear of guns, though she is entitled to feel that way. 

She is also entitled to decline to write a letter of recommendation. But—and this point needs to be stressed—her reasons for not wanting to recommend Sarah are abhorrent. Sarah's views about guns have nothing do with being a good student, and it's not even clear what her views are: she's merely made a couple vaguely pro-gun statements. It's cultural, rather than political: Sarah is the kind of person—a guns person—that the professor instinctively dislikes. 

As The Washington Free Beacon's Sonny Bunch notes

Obviously, Ms. "Payne" understands just how awful and bigoted she must sound—hence her hiding behind a pseudonym like a coward. Still, one imagines that she's far from the only garbage professor who discriminates against her students for holding different political beliefs. What's truly worrisome is just how many people like her there are in positions of authority on campuses around the country. 

Indeed, the ideological biases of the professoriate are a real problem—not just for out-and-proud conservative students, but for people like Sarah who evince no discernible disagreement with liberalism but nevertheless reveal themselves to be culturally different from left-wing academics. University professors skew so overwhelmingly left (particularly in the liberal arts and social sciences), and are so constantly surrounded by like-minded people, that they have become intolerant and distrustful of the most mild forms of dissent. 

Adding to the irony of all this is the fact that liberal members of campus often pretend to want more diversity. They say they want more diversity initiatives, more funding for diversity projects, hiring that reflects greater diversity, etc. But that's only true if "diversity" means "more of what I already think." As Georgetown University professor John Hasnas, a libertarian, wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed: 

In my experience, no search committee has ever been instructed to increase political or ideological diversity. On the contrary, I have been involved in searches in which the chairman of the selection committee stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered. Or the description of the position was changed when the best résumés appeared to be coming from applicants with right-of-center viewpoints. Or in which candidates were dismissed because of their association with conservative or libertarian institutions…. 

Predominantly liberal faculties identify merit with positions that are consistent with theirs, see little value in conservative and libertarian scholarship, and perpetuate the left-wing stranglehold on the academy. 

The professor who refuses to write a letter of recommendation for her pro-gun student provides an excellent reminder of why academia needs more diversity—just not the kind of diversity it is exclusively focused on obtaining. 

NEXT: Professors file lawsuit against academic association for allegedly violating corporate law in Israel boycott

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why would somebody want a letter of recommendation from a psycho nutjob?

      1. They need a nut job?

        1. and sometimes its required to get it form all of your professors.

        2. They need a job done on their nuts? (I have been in THAT spot!)

        3. hand job? blow job? rim job?

        4. One usually doesn’t need a letter of recommendation to get work on a gay porn shoot.

    1. Bingo. The best course of action is to admit to Sarah that you’re a crazy person and that it would be better for both of you if she found a less crazy person to recommend her.

    2. Or possibly to get into graduate school. So basically liberal professors are engaging in viewpoint discrimination on the taxpayers’ dollar.

      1. They could be engaging in career sabotage.

        1. No “could be” about it.

      2. …. which logically means they would be adamantly against the Second Amendment.

        This professor is afraid the student will shoot them if the student gets fucked over for a (basically boilerplate) recommendation because said professor wants to be a major asshole about gun control and wants to treat the student like shit.

        Make no mistake about it: the people against the Second Amendment are major assholes who are intent on treating other people like shit. In other words and to coin a phrase, if they were innocent they’d have nothing to fear. Such irony is lost on the so-called intelligentsia.

        1. She’s deathly afraid of guns… Is she, then, out there agitating for guns to be taken away from cops, DEA, FBI, NEA, ATF, soldiers, Lung Flute Police, Ass-Picking- During-the-National-Anthem-at-Football-Games Police, and our other ten billion Government Almighty “servants”? Somehow, I suspect not…

          1. It’s simple faith. They have an irrational faith that any servants of the government can contain their more base desires to kill everyone when they get really mad.

            Ergo, those who trust government actually worship it and it is a religion (of the absolutely worst kind).

      3. This sort of thing is why McCarthyism should never have ended.

  2. They’re ‘often’ lying? You’re too generous, Robby.

  3. “Liberal academics who say they want more diversity are often lying.”

    Maybe, but I think they’re mostly honest. Diversity genuinely means race, sex, orientation, etc… to them, viewpoints that come from those perspectives may be welcome but they don’t mean “diversity of thought”. You’d just be arguing past them.

    1. Right. It’s all about appearances. They want a collection of people who look different, but think the same way they think. This then validates their way of thinking because if all these diverse people from different backgrounds think the same way then this way of thinking must be superior. Never mind that the conformity of thought was achieved artificially.

      1. It’s all about appearances.

        Liberals are like Hyacinth Bucket?

        1. It’s pronounced “bouquet!”

      2. As diverse as the “Board” in Hudson Hawk. And about as useful.

    2. To test your hypothesis, a good experiment would be to see how a black or gay NRA member would get treated. We’ve already seen, in this case, anyway, that guns trump sex.

      1. They’d be treated worse. A black or gay NRA member is obviously a traitor to their group identity and deserves only contempt.

        1. Blacks and gays need to k ow their place on the progressive plantation. They must be taught to be ‘good ones’.

      2. Colion Noir has been called a “puppet”, a “prop”, a “token” and an “Uncle Tom”. As if he’s a moron without a mind of his own (which demonstrates the accusers’ thoughts about brown folks in a nutshell). So, yeah.

      3. Bingo.

        Honest they are not.

        Although I suspect most of the lying is done to themselves to soothe the dissonance.

    3. Diversity has a very specific meaning to them; diversity of race and sexual orientation is at least superficially favored, but any deviation from their social and political lines is nothing less than retrograde troglodytism [I think I just invented that word] and is labeled bigotry. There is no tolerance within the crowd that based it ascension on calling for acceptance and inclusion.

      1. …troglodytism [I think I just invented that word]

        Webster’s says “No.”

        Same as Oxford.

        Verily, if one isn’t part of the Hive, then any female or ethnic or racial “minority” X isn’t “a real X.”

        Kevin R

    4. What should we call it?

      An ideological melting pot? You take different looking people and blend them together to create a unified whole with the same ideology.

      Or maybe making ideological sausage?

      1. Diverse homogeneity?

        Homogenized diversity?

      2. Neototalitarianism.

      3. Marxist treason?

    5. What they want is a Benneton ad, but with everybody thinking the same.

      -jcr

      1. And for God’s sake, no minorities getting leaned on!!

  4. Diversity of thought is the only type of diversity that provides actual benefits. The advantages of physical diversity rely on the notion that people of different races and genders come from different backgrounds with different experiences and inherently have different ideas. Both of those basic and obvious concepts were abandoned by the champions of diversity decades ago.

    1. The more physical diversity the larger the bureaucracy, someone definitely benefits.

    2. ^ This. Their idea of diversity is purely superficial.

    3. Only, when someone looks different, they are supposed to have very specific ideas. If you dare to be a black Republican, you can expect white progressives to pull out Uncle Tom and watermelon jokes.

      1. And God forbid you be a woman with an (R) after your name.

        Then it’s rape jokes and suddenly – unlike women with (D) suffixes – looks are super important, and obviously they’re only there because of their husbands, etc.

        But that’s okay, because they’re gender-traitors and thus non-persons.

        1. I find it interesting that the concept of “all people of race X must exhibit traits a, b and c” was considered to be the basis, and glaring logical and moral flaw of, RACISM.

          And yet that is exactly what we see with the ‘purity tests’ applied to the political beliefs of blacks and women, and to a lesser extent, gay/trans/furry/pedo/fluid/amorphous/confused persons. Sadly, our “progressive” brethren and cistern (well…) seem to be unable to sense the strobing neon inconsistency, or the shrieking 100 decibel hypocrisy alarms that go with it.

          I guess it’s easy when you have enough practice sublimating reality to the requirements of The Narrative.

      1. Your silence is profound.

        1. and unassailable

          1. It’s just invisible.

            1. I see the fnords

    4. The advantages of physical diversity rely on the notion that people of different races and genders come from different backgrounds with different experiences and inherently have different ideas.

      Different ideas should result in diversity of thought?.

    5. Hence their real name being regressives.

  5. They don’t even know what diversity means, much less give a shit about it. All they care is punishing people they disagree with. They are soft fascists, that’s all.

    This was me on my first week of Junior College…. 12 years ago??? Fuck. Also note I have seen the light and no longer read WND

    http://www.wnd.com/2004/09/26428/

    1. They are soft fascists, that’s all.

      They’re not really soft fascists. Most of them would gladly load people into train cars bound for the re-education camps if they thought they could get away with it. The main reason they can’t (yet) is because too many of us wreckers and kulaks are armed and they’re not. That’s the real reason they’re so gung ho about gun control. It has nothing to do with “reducing violence” or any of the other bullshit justifications they claim.

      1. If they actually read any statistics on real crime they would know that; it is not us 99.9% of law abiding gun owners [Comrade Sander’s stats, by the way] that are contributing to societal violence, but a relatively small margin of those who own guns illegally that governments will no do anything about [see Chicago Tribune, Oct 8, 2015: “A coalition of Black and Hispanic Lawmakers” obstructed Rahm Emanuel’s and [former police commissioner] Gary Snyder’s efforts to impose mandatory sentencing on those who commit repeat weapons violations [have been let off 40+ times in some instances] because it would be a “recipe to lock of more minorities.”].

        I agree: these fucking fascists would like nothing more than to send people like you and me to the killing fields, complete with blue plastic bags.

        1. FYI: “weapons violation” is another way of saying “has a gun.” I have a CPD buddy who wrote someone up for a weapons violation – it was on the front seat of his car. The gun was not being used, nor loaded. No matter to the cop, it’s a “weapons violation”. Judge threw it out, totally pissing of my buddy. He went apeshit when I said I agreed with the judge.

          Gary Snyder can go fuck himself.

          1. one of the FBI agents in the Miami shootout long ago had his handgun on the seat of his car,and when he had to brake hard at the shootout,the gun slid onto the floor,out of his reach. He got shot up pretty bad,could not return fire because his gun was on the floor. I don’t recall if he was one of those that were killed by Platt and Matix,but I believe he was.

            BTW,”concealed carry” means just that,concealed.
            As for “not being loaded”,Number One rule of gun safety is that “every gun is loaded,until you personally check and clear it”. That officer MUST consider it a loaded gun,and a potential threat.

            1. That would be Agent Richard Manauzzi, whose revolver went flying in the original collision (not just braking hard). He received some wounds from shotgun pellets, but it doesn’t seem to have had much to do with the fact that he lost his gun (several FBI agents who did retain their guns were killed or seriously wounded). He’d actually taken his pistol out in order to have it more readily accessible, but the point that you have to be able to retain control of the weapon is well-taken.

          2. Why is that asshole a friend of yours?

            -jcr

            1. Maybe they don’t let their political beliefs get in the way of their friendship?

      2. Most of them would gladly load people into train cars bound for the re-education camps if they thought they could get away with it.

        They already get away with it. It’s called compulsory education.

      3. You are correct. This is why I advocate for the elimination of progressives through whatever means are expedient. The only way to reverse course is to reduce their numbers. Period. There really is no arguing, reasoning, or bargaining with their kind. And as their numbers increase, our freedom decreases.

        How much more are you all willing to give up to avoid the eventual conflict to stop them? I say that our freedom is worth more than their lives here. Force them onto boats bound for Antarctica. Or whatever it takes. Think of them as 21st century royalists.

  6. “It seems to me no person who has ever truly experienced the full impact of their full emotions would ever go near a gun.”

    Translation: I’m an emotionally unstable, vindictive puddle of shit who can’t be trusted not to murder somebody who angers me.

    It’s always projection with these fucking people. Always.

    1. And yes, I misquoted that.

      Poke fun at me for it and I’LL FUCKING KILL YOU!!!

      Or just smoke a bowl on the couch, it’s a toss up.

      1. Copy, paste, dude. What is this, 1982?

        1. You underestimate how limited the options are for Google Chrome on my antiquated mobile.

          …AND I WARNED YOU!!!

          *glances toward gun case in the closet, shrugs, goes back to couch*

          The home modem is acting up, mobile is a nightmare.

          1. You need to go cutting edge. Like CompuServe on a 1200 baud modem cutting edge.

    2. You just bottle up your feeling rather than feeling those feelings as hard as she does. She feels as hard as she can at all times. It’s the only path to enlightenment.

    3. Yep, I can’t find it now but a while back I read some gun grabber outright admitting that had she had a gun she would have killed someone over a parking spot,or something similarly trivial.

      1. It’s the same reason why anyone ever wants to ban an inanimate object or harmless activity.

        “I can’t hold my liquor, so no one should be able to drink.”
        “I don’t like the smell of weed, so make it illegal.”
        “I don’t like blue shutters, so I’ll just become chair of the HOA…”

      2. They are all children with no control over their basest impulses.

      3. Same reason why smokers vote for smoking bans. “Stop me before I smoke again!”

    4. Should of perused the comments before posting mine below. Oh well.

    5. Translation: I’m an emotionally unstable, vindictive puddle of shit who can’t be trusted not to murder somebody who angers me.

      That or: I’m a child who’s intellectual and emotional range extends from Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood to The Joy Of Painting and the mere existence of guns in my reality voids the reality at large. The notion that you could value something more than life itself, even your own, is pure fiction and should remain that way, always.

      1. The problem is the police have basically behaved the same way for longer than professors have. The mere existence of something that has a horizontal element to it, like a quarter-eaten pop tart, sends police into violent convulsions about weapons violations.

      2. But what are you all going to DO about it?

  7. This is almost too good to be true. Almost.

    1. Oh, I agree, but I wish I could share your optimism that this will result in a reassessment of policy. A few people outside of the academy will be outraged, but it this story will disappear quicker than climategate. Also, the fact that she published this anonymously is a problem. If she could be identified she could be sued.

      1. I agree with the author quoted from the Washington Free Beacon on that one.

        The author is hiding behind a pseudonym simply because she probably is aware, on some level, that’s she’s engaging in the very thing she claims to dislike most. They felt uncomfortable, perhaps for the first time ever, and like any academic decided to write it down.

        Essentially, I think this person finally experienced that moment of cognitive dissonance. If they weren’t a coward, they might then go back and examine some of those beliefs. Perhaps she really will do so, but I think the chances are good that the echo chamber she works in will probably reinforce her back into the fold.

        1. No, the author more likely views herself as akin to an abolitionist living in the south during slavery. She has to hide her true identity for fear of her life. She’s nobly fighting the good fight and because of that the NRA and its goons would try to ruin her if they knew who she is. She is doubtless wallowing in self-pity rather than self-loathing.

          1. That’s probably more accurate, now that you mention it.

          2. She has to hide her true identity for fear of her life.

            Yet another cognitive dissonance: If the NRA or gun owners in general were really as vindictive and unstable as anti-gun folks imagine us to be we would have finished them off decades ago.

  8. Robbie avoided any and all weasel words in this article. I feel cheated of getting to insult him.

    1. He’s learning. This is a good thing.

    2. That, or he got kicked out of the cocktail party circuit after he cut his hair.

      1. Robby doesn’t cut his hair. If anything, it cuts HIM.

        1. Why does every thread have to end up being about circumcision?

  9. t seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.

    Translation: “Because I have the self control and discipline of a toddler, and would totally kill someone if they pissed me off and I had gun, then no one else could possibly avoid killing someone either.”

    Wow… Project much, bitch?

    1. ” no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a car”

      ” no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a knife”

      ” no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a baseball bat”

      ” no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a woodchipper”

      ad inifitum

    2. Yeah, I saw that line, too. What the fuck? “Every time I see a weapon, I cannot help the urge to injure or kill someone. I assume everyone else is exactly like me in this respect.”

      1. In the gun-rights crowd, this is sometimes called “why are anti-gun activists so violent?”

        It makes sense, in a way.

        I mean, some people have real, serious anger and impulse control issues.

        And most people think “everyone is a lot like me” (the “typical mind fallacy”).

        Thus they assume guns must be super dangerous in normal people’s hands and want them banned…

        (Thus the people who argue back that it’s not a problem are just lying, because otherwise the first person’s got problems, and that can’t be so, because they’re obviously just normal.)

        1. My step-mom is this way. She would never suppress an impulse to scream at somebody during a conversation if she felt strongly about the issue. She believes it is the only healthy way to live – get the emotions out rather than letting them fester. She is also – of course – very anti-gun.

          1. I’ve seen a lot of video about step-moms giving into their impulses. Usually in “Mom’s Bang Teens” videos. Of which I approve.

    1. Like half of those chicks are AZN, yo.

      1. They work for AstraZeneca?

        1. Obviously.

          1. I’ll check with my AZ rep.

    2. This could be clarified to be “college girls and gang signs”.

      Plus, some o’ them bitches ain’t white.

      1. Listen, I didn’t name the song!

  10. …hence her hiding behind a pseudonym like a coward.

    Uh, she’s doing it because her student was a gun nut, and all gun nuts have hair triggers? Don’t you read the right news sources?

    1. She was in fear of her life.

      1. Exactly. This line is 100% effective for cops, so you know the lower castes will try to co-opt it for themselves.

    2. Well, if that’s true, wouldn’t she have written a recommendation, to avoid the gun nut hunting her down for refusing?

  11. If Educators are supposed to fight for social justice and change the world then why not fail students with unacceptably reactionary views?

    1. That’s what my “Values and Ethics*” professor did. If you were as big a left-tard as he was, you got an A. Unless you were in ROTC, then you got no higher than a C; probably because he assumed that you were lying in class to try and get a better grade. I mean how could a baby killer in training possibly be as good and virtuous a proggie as he was? The further away from his views you were the lower your grade (I got a D). Luckily he was at an engineering school, so he couldn’t do much damage. Fucker probably felt that it was his duty to try and indoctrinate as many of us EVUL STEM people as possible in goodthink.

      *It was a required course for my AE degree. I thought it would be case studies of engineering disasters caused by stupid human errors (like the Challenger disaster, etc.) but it wasn’t. It was complete bullshit.

      1. He got one:

        Myrtle Lynn Payne is the pseudonym of an instructor in the sciences at a college in the western United States.

        In the article Payne insinuates she went to MIT, or close by (Havard? Tufts?). Were you an “Engineer” too? If so, how many Smoots tall are you?

      2. I took a (required) Software Engineering Values and Ethics class, too. It was exactly what you thought yours would be.

        We discussed the Ariane 5, Therac-25, Patriot Missile Battery, etc., failures, the bugs that caused them to happen and what could have been done to prevent them. Quite a fascinating class.

        Success Through Failure was required reading for that class.

      3. The USSR simply erased their failures from history? I wonder what grade a student advocating that would get?

        1. A bullet? Nah, I’m kidding.

          You can reuse a rope, comrade!

      4. I was in college when the Challenger disaster occurred. The next year they added a one credit-hour course to the curriculum on Ethics in Engineering.

        Also, I too went to a predominantly engineering school. I signed up for one of the very few electives that I thought was somewhat of a history course titled Man and His Machines. Instead, it was a beginning course in paleontology. They knew they needed to trick the engineering students to get them to take the course–and trick me they did. Nonetheless, I did learn some interesting tidbits and it was a good exposure to the silly conjecture that’s built into too many pseudo-science studies.

        1. Which underscores the issue. The engineers had ethics. The problem, as always, is management.

        2. You should have taken ‘intro to phrenology’ instead.

      5. If I had to put up with that crap, I would be ultra right wing in class to goad the prof into failing me. Just to set the university up for a massive law suit.

  12. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.

    Sounds like a personal problem.

  13. People of this sort exhibit a severe psychoemotional infirmity which normal, functional individuals are not afflicted by. The presence of certain inanimate objects, or the introduction of ideas they view as objectionable into a conversation, is sufficient to inflict trauma upon their frail, immature minds. They behave as if they were completely base and animalistic, incapable of controlling themselves, and desperately in need of protection from controversial stimuli. They are demonstrably retarded, both functionally and morally.

    She’s a sensitive, broken flower whose reactions are cartoonishly idiotic, and she assumes, because she’s a fucking moron, that others must necessarily respond the same way she does.

    A letter of recommendation from this overgrown infant is an indictment, not an advantage.

  14. It’s not just what’s wrong with academia, it’s what’s wrong with a society that politicizes so many issues.

    When people think that the private opinions of others impact their lives through the political process, then they feel justified in taking action for or against people because of those private political opinions. And maybe on some level they are justified if everyone is impacting everyone else through politics.

    But that just shows what is so horribly wrong and destructive an all-encompassing political sphere is to civil society. Maybe, maybe in some culturally very homogenous countries the negative impact is minimal. But that isn’t the country we live in, and it’s not the country that I think many people would want to live in.

    1. Exactly. Whoever said “the personal is political” or whatever the saying is was an awful person.

  15. “Arrogant, intolerant, and oblivious to her biases (and how destructive they are), she is everything that is wrong with modern higher education.”

    Yes. Yes, she is. Screw her with commie-kid’s dick.

    1. Jackandace? Or Amsoc? In either case I don’t imagine the equipment will be adequate.

      God, I love ad hominems.

      1. They’re both despicable pantomimes of human being. But then, Marxists have no souls.

  16. She should resign because she can’t do her job effectively. What a sorry, sorry excuse for a teacher.

  17. Does this professor check the gun-position status of those she’s supplying the recommendations TO to make sure that those who are requesting recommendations aren’t subject to evil gun toting employers? I’d think, since she’s so concerned about it all, that she’d make sure here recommended student isn’t put in harms way.

    I’d think a simply email to the future recipient of the recommendation would be glad to let her know their side in the matter – “Hi, I’ve been asked by Sandie Snowflake, to supply a recommendation to you. In so doing, I MUST know your stance on gun rights. There is no way I can put her in harms way, by being a party in any way, to a gun nut. So, please, where do you stand on the issue of crazy, uncontrolled, redneck having access to guns?”

    If the recommendation is to go by mail, I’d want to be sure to know the stance on gun rights of every USPS employee who will handle the recommendation.

    Just to be on the safe side.

  18. But that’s only true if “diversity” means “more of what I already think.”

    Of course.

    Same ideas, same values, same beliefs – but in all manner of skin colors, all sexualities and gender identities, and all faiths or non-faiths (except Christianity, of course – that’s different).

    This is the natural, unavoidable side effect of “the personal is political” – it makes (as noted above) everything political, and nothing personal … and the natural tendency is thus to demand political conformity above all else.

  19. That makes a lot of sense dud.e

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  20. A professor recently wrote a candid essay in which she confessed a secret: she didn’t want to write a letter of recommendation for a student, solely because this student has different views (presumably) about gun rights.

    The Progressive Theocrats talk about tolerance, it means you tolerating them screwing you. Who doesn’t see Progressives screwing the Unbelievers everyday?

  21. Can we just threaten to cut funding to schools unless they eliminate all progressive indoctrination coursework? Additionally make college only about degrees that are valued in the work force. Then you don’t have to worry about political motives behind grading a student. No more BA’s. If you want a degree in interpetive dance start your own private university with safe spaces and all.

  22. The far left have always seen themselves as compassionate, and supporters of the oppressed. Of course the far left has just as much history of oppression, horror, and mass murder as the far right. They just have convinced themselves that it isn’t so. It can be something of a shock to slowly realize that you are on the side of oppression.

    During my academic career, I spent a bunch of time interviewing people in Europe about their WW2 experiences. Not just military veterans, but civilian participants and victims as well. I was interviewing them specifically about industrial processes and technologies, but there was always a human story there that was not the subject of my research, but still intensely interesting to me. One thing I learned is that very few people are monsters. Often the people who commit the worst horrors are people who really did start with good intentions. it is usually a slow process that involves a bunch of self delusion. They almost always keep believing that they are on the “good” side, right up until the moment of clarity when they look down at the pistol in their hand, and realize that rounding all those people up, making them dig a trench, then shooting them in the back of the head, is probably a good indicator that somewhere back there, they crossed a line.

    1. Re: MaxBlancke,

      One thing I learned is that very few people are monsters. Often the people who commit the worst horrors are people who really did start with good intentions.

      A lot of people end up acting like monsters after they’re given power to suspend their moral restraint when it comes to how they are to treat others, very like the Stanford prison experiment. Most leftist academics act like that because they’re the ones who give the grades.

    2. They almost always keep believing that they are on the “good” side, right up until the moment of clarity…

      “Their honor precarious, their liberty provisional, lasting only until the discovery of their crime;…” Proust.

      1. The problem is that the evil in their good is always stronger than the good in their evil.

  23. From the picture:

    “Hey, girl, love those buns of yours!”
    “What are you saying, you sexist pig? You’re clearly part of the patriarchy that teaches boys to rape and treat women like sexual objects!”
    “Hey, woman, chill! I was talking about the buns you made with your hair! God!”
    “YOU SEXIST PIG! How dare you talk about my hair as if it was a sexual toy for your enjoyment?”

    1. What kind of dumb bitch does not understand that they are sexual playthings for male enjoyment, and possibly breeding? IT is the biological definition of their existence.

  24. Isn’t this in the same category as not baking a cake for a gay wedding or not issuing a marriage license to a gay couple? Liberal hypocrisy run amok I think.

  25. socialists targeted education in the early 1900’s;
    they’ve been working at it a long time,have been wildly successful at gaining control of it,and now we’re seeing the effects of that,all across our society.
    Legislators, JUDGES, doctors, scientists, MEDIA, teachers,etc,all a product of a socialist education system. All indoctrinated in socialism,and applying it in their everyday lives.
    Never forget that the socialists have a dominance at nearly every university,and at most every public grade school.
    socialist indoctrination begins at an early age and continues throughout high school and college.
    THAT is what is really hurting America,and I’m not so sure we can overcome it,it may already be too late. it took a long time for the commies to become entrenched in education,and it will take a long time to weed them out,if it can be done at all. America,IMO,does not have that much time left,not enough to do what needs to be done.

  26. Sounds like she was bleeding from her eye… her nose… wherever. She was in full thrall to her full emotions.

    A little Mydol would allow her to be less hysterical.

  27. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  28. The further away from his views you were the lower your grade (I got a D). Luckily he was at an engineering school, so he couldn’t do much damage.

    1. A lawsuit with an overly invasive discovery phase would be educational to a progtarded piece of shit like that.

  29. As a french guy, i now think that your university are as useless as ours. Filled with “teachers” whose only qualification is to be marxist. Just dump that shit, you will not learn anything in that kind of place.

  30. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  32. If you read the underlying article, did you also catch the teacher’s mantra that it is his/her job to “create a safe space” for the students rather than challenging them. That combined with the weirdly intollerant attitude towards a student with a hobby the teacher disagrees with is sufficient, in my mind, such that if this teacher can be identified he or she should be terminated — especially as at only 6 years teaching, it is likely that we’re talking about adjunct faculty who can be freely fired.

    1. All progressives should be on blacklists. Like in the forties.

  33. Those shit holes are slowly safe-spacing and PCing themselves into complete irrelevance. Fuck em.

  34. Likely this professor hasn’t had substantial exposer to we in the ‘gun culture.’ I was raised among the many who owned fire arms, hunted and target practiced. Never knew anyone who ever shot another person accidentally or on purpose other than in the line of duty. Have been exposed to those responsible for the preventable deaths of many millions of people by creating wars, banning DDT and allowing abortion. Who are these people: politicians. But that’s OK, right Prof? Politicians speak only to God?

  35. So because her reason is “abhorrent” its not ok for her to refuse to not write a free letter of rec based on what she believes, and she is a bad person?

    But we all say the bakery should be able to refuse to bake a gay couples wedding cake and not be harassed based on their belief even though that belief has nothing to do with how good of a couple the gay couple is or could be.

    So, as a libertarian, who’s freedoms should I support? Who’s freedoms should I be mad at. Depending on the point of view taken, neither group should be dogged for following their own personal belief of a person.

    1. The essence of being a libertarian is not whether you agree or disagree with a given action or opinion, but whether or not you believe force should be used to back up your position.

      I think it’s ridiculous to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But I don’t think force should be used to compel the baker to bake the cake, while statists insist that force be used.

      Likewise, I think what this professor did is ridiculous. But I don’t think the force of the State should be used to make her issue the letter.

      1. Ok. Thank you for a well written response. I appreciate it. Lately I have felt a lot of commenters and even some stories are incredibly hypocritical and have become a bash fest in the same regards as liberals, progressives, and conservatives use.

        For instance we have this story where people are trouncing all over this lady who seemed to genuinely be struggling over her own beliefs and thoughts, but on the other hand if someone said something negative about the bakers and not liking their attitudes or beliefs there would be a storm of often hateful or degrading posts from a majority of the commentaries on these pages in their defense.

        Why is this particular story so negative even though this woman is just exercising the same right, to no harm of anyone, for her own personal belief? .

        I guess I need to think more about how I can fit in to this group because honestly, to me, they are both examples of people using their rights. I may not like their choices but I don’t feel the need to bash one and praise the other, or say that it is a failure of academia, because it is not, she was not holding a meeting and spreading the word against all pro-gun people, she simply exercised her own right not to write a free letter of recommendation for a single student and expressed her own opinion about guns (she did say “to me”), to no impact on the student who could easily find another source for the letter.

        I guess I just don’t understand people when it comes to this stuff.

        1. I highly dislike this professor’s actions not so much because her political view on this subject is not parallel to mine but because of how she acts on it.

          Her recommendation as an achademic has nothing to do with her political views. The student’s political view on this issue – as far as the professor has mentioned – has nothing to do with the subject of the recommendation. The prof won’t even discuss the problem she has with the student, she’s just going to shoot the student down without a fight. I would have some modicum of respect for the prof if she had at least made her disagreement with the student known.

          You say that there is no impact on the student – really? Maybe the impact is minimal but I wouldn’t say that there is no impact. I have been in the position where I requested (and was granted) a recommendation from a professor for graduate school because the subject she had instructed was the best fit to my chosen field of graduate study from any course I had taken before – it would have been a huge impact to me had I been refused.

          1. It is, as a matter of fact, far easier for a gay couple to find another suitable baker than it is for a student to find another professor capable of writing an appropriate recommendation.

            What’s more, a most likely publicly funded university enabling this kind of ideological discrimination is, imo, more egregious than a baker who gets no taxpayer money choosing not to bake a cake.

            Of course, this professor should be allowed to discriminate as she pleases, but she absolutely is not entitled to do get paid by the taxpayers to do so. And I’m willing to bet she is, at least in part, paid by taxpayers.

        2. The situations are only vaguely congruent, not perfectly analogous. I won’t question that the “moral quandary” of both teacher and bakers are faith-based and irrational, but there the similarity breaks down.

          The gay couple may have been mildly inconvenienced (if we ignore the fact that they were being deliberately, and obnoxiously, provocative). Plenty of bakers in Portland would gladly bake their cake.

          By comparison, the student needs the letter of recommendation (which the teacher admits her coursework earned her) from the teacher who taught her. The freedom of choice is not there.

          The obligations of teachers and businessmen to their clients/students are also substantially different. A businessperson loses income and reputation if they reject customers. THEY are the ones who suffer a penalty for any such decision (in the case, they lost their business for their wrongthink). This dynamic does not exist with the teacher/pupil dynamic. The teacher indulges her “faith” without penalty, only the student suffers.

          But it sounds like you are making this harder than it really is out of some misplaced sympathy for the progressive view. Strong intellectual purgatives are called for.

        3. I hope, etrock, that the replies you’ve received will help you edit your post down somewhat. I’ve gone so far as to help you by removing the excess verbiage:

          Etrock08|4.21.16 @ 3:45PM|#

          [edit]

          I guess I need to think more…

          [edit]

          You’re welcome.

    2. You are wrong twice.

      First : It’s not like there is any link between righting a recommendation letter and being anti-gun right, you can’t claim any personal belief that make you unable to right a letter of recommandation for a student that earn it.
      But, if you are christian, it’s more likely that you are opposed to gay mariage, therefor forcing you to participate in a gay wedding is completly against your personal belief. The equivalent would be a cake maker that don’t want to make a random cake to a gay person, only because he is gay.

      Second : If the owner of the university don’t want pro-gun people in his university, i’m totally ok with it. It have to be stated to anyone before getting in this uni.
      But since she is an employee, and her professional duty as a teacher is to be impartial and the university get public money, she cannot claim freedom of discrimination.

  36. In the original article referenced, the author writes, ” I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.”

    What the author missed was that most firearms owners have never gone into a “real rage” before and probably never will. They are mentally stable and regular people who are comfortable with their own existence.

    What that line in the article tells me is that the author has mental issues. Not sure if she’s doing everything she can to get the help she needs, but she clearly has unresolved mental issues and admitted to it in her article.

    The problem isn’t a student with a gun, it’s an educator with mental issues that are affecting her ability to teach, evaluate and support her students.

  37. It’s a bitch when people exercise their Freedom of Association in a way you don’t like, no?

    1. Did someone here call the professor to be arrested or fined, and denied the right to work as a professor, the way you think bakers should be fined and denied the right to be bakers for exercising their freedom of association? No? You’re pedantic hypocrite who doesn’t grasp the difference between the words ‘can’ and should? That’s what I figured.

  38. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7179 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site….

    +++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

  39. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7179 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site….

    +++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

  40. The comments to the original article were interesting. Given the nature of the site I expected at least some progressive derp about “gun nuts” but the comments were all against the professor. They were generally well-written comments too, without any unnecessary nastiness.

    1. That’s actually pretty characteristic of comments in the unfortunately-acronymed CHE.

    2. Who is is that claims that pro-gun people are crude types. Actually some are, but no more nor less than some from the anti gun side.

      Re a passing thought, I noted the following post.

      I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7179 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site….

      +++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

      There are other similar posts here. I don’t know what level of truth, if any, there is or might be re the claims made. That being said, what possible connection might exist between such posts and what one would take to be the thrust of the article and comments on it. Am I missing an important point here? Just curious.

  41. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  42. Nathan . if you think Gloria `s posting is astonishing… yesterday I bought a brand new Land Rover Defender after bringing in $8648 this-past/5 weeks and even more than 10-k this past munth . with-out any question its the most-rewarding I have ever done . I actually started five months/ago and right away started making a cool more than $85… per/hr .
    try here ??? http://www.ny-reports.com

  43. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  44. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  45. William . I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.fox-88.com

  46. Likely, a bunch of academics, people who preach diversity and others who wouldn’t recognize it is if walked up and shook hands.

  47. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  48. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  49. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  50. Hi,
    Thanks for the information about this Really nice Post.

    watch got fun episodes online free
    watch game of thrones season 6 stream online

  51. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  52. Man, I wish I was in here class. I would were this shirt everyday.

    1. *wear

    2. *her

      I guess I can’t spell today.

    3. I just ordered one.

  53. This kind of biased action affecting a student’s academic record is exactly why tenure should not exist.

    1. You read about talented adjunct faculty with a unique but valuable skillset but no hope of tenure anywhere. If they want it, they’d best suck up to the tenured faculty though. Yeah, universities need tenure like Detroit and the rest of the rust belt needs mandatory unionization.

  54. Her mindset is typical not only of academics but any person who considers themselves to be more “well read” and “educated” than most…even if that person isn’t particularly employable.

  55. Progressives think their irrational fear of an inanimate object rumps the rights and desires of everyone else. This professor is just another example of how the left which claims to be so focused on tolerance and diversity is not. Progressives love free speech and freedom in general as long as everyone thinks, acts and does as they deem “correct”. The more the left pushes, the more the country is being set up for a very strong, potentially violent push back. This morning my wife and I had this discussion and she beleives the left will attempt to outlaw guns incrementally using the same format as drug laws. As a avid shooter and reloader, our house is not one that fears guns. My kids shoot and so does my wife. The gun debate is one that will likely become more intenses and ultimately divide the US into very polarized regions. I am just happy to live in Texas. SAw a Tshirt that says it all… ” Texas, A state where the 2nd amendment needs no explanation”

  56. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————- http://www.online.factoryofincome.com

  57. They want people who look different but want all else to be the same, like Barbies.

  58. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  59. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.