Also, an idea that's spur of the moment isn't necessarily poorly thought out. It's hardly poorly thought out to take a look at this not from an emotional, "holy shit look at those dead guys, tragedy, terrorism" standpoint, and think about it rationally as collateral damage in an ongoing religious and economic war. If anything it's poorly thought out to, three years later, not take an objective fucking look at this.
On top of which, if this was really about publishing poorly expressed ideas or points that haven't been thought out, it would have been addressed when he first wrote the goddamn thing.
What are you guys
not seeing about this situation that would make it as bad as I'm saying it is? Because it's really fucking getting there.
Did either of you even check on any of the links I included?
Here, I'll make it really easy for you:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NCAC
While the government has no obligation to fund educational institutions, once it provides funding it cannot dictate what ideas may be expressed in the classroom or in professors' published work. The university is a special kind of marketplace where all kinds of ideas can be voiced and argued, error discovered, and truth affirmed. If academia became subservient to political concerns, if controversial and oppositional ideas were banned, education would become indoctrination. Thus, the announcement by the University of Colorado Board of Regents and Chancellor they have launched a "thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works," searching for "cause for dismissal" is particularly distressing.
|
Hybrid Mode
