First they came for the college professors..., Professors offices marked with red star Options

[rox63]

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dl...303/1033/NEWS01

SRJC uproar over Republican protest
Several instructors targeted by student's posting of red stars, state code on teaching of communism
Wednesday, March 2, 2005

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Santa Rosa Junior College's oak-studded campus is aflame with controversy triggered by the anonymous posting of red stars and a reference to communist indoctrination on 10 faculty office doors.

Instructors quickly saw the action as a threat to academic freedom, but the student who claimed credit for the protest said it was about left-leaning bias in the lecture hall.

The stars, which unnerved some instructors, were accompanied by a copy of a state Education Code section prohibiting the teaching of communism with the "intent to indoctrinate" students.

"It makes me a little anxious," philosophy instructor Michael Aparicio said.

Ed Buckley, the college's vice president of academic affairs, weighed in with a defense of academic freedom, saying in an e-mail to SRJC faculty that it includes teaching "difficult and controversial material."

But political science major Molly McPherson of Rohnert Park said she had only intended to start a discussion about the personal politics of SRJC humanities instructors by posting the stars.

"It's a big issue," said McPherson, president of the SRJC Republicans, a campus club. "The opinion of the far left is presented as fact, with no alternative."

Some students fear their grades will suffer if they express a contrary view, she said.

The red stars were not intended as a personal attack on individual instructors, she said. "I regret that it was taken that way."

German instructor Sylvia Wasson, said her colleagues were "overreacting" in a flurry of e-mails exchanged on campus since the stars and code citation were discovered on the doors in Emeritus Hall on Friday morning.

Wasson, who had McPherson in four German classes, described her as an A student, a "very bright woman" and a "critical thinker who happens to belong to the wrong party on campus."

Aparicio and others said they found McPherson's tactics "sensationalist," intended to get media attention.

When faculty members called a news conference to discuss the stars, McPherson came forward to acknowledge her action on behalf of the SRJC Republicans, a 75-member chapter of the California College Republicans, a statewide group.

SRJC's Academic Senate is scheduled to discuss the matter at 3:15 p.m. today in the Dyle Student Center and may start a move to repeal the Education Code section cited by the student Republicans, said George Freund, a philosophy instructor.

Faculty members were outraged by the stealthy posting and surprised to find the code prohibition on the advocacy of communism, he said.

The code's first sentence says: "No teacher giving instruction in any school ... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism."

"You can't teach social theory without teaching Marxism," Freund said. In all his lectures, Freund said he covers "the best argument for and against" any philosophy.

Marco Giordano, an English instructor, called the code section "antithetical to academic freedom."

"The accusation of teaching communism in the classroom is laughable," Giordano said, noting communism is not illegal and the U.S. Constitution is "indifferent" to both communism and capitalism.

Still, he said, the student Republican's actions were "a little creepy" and a "revival of McCarthyist tactics."

Buckley called the protest "an unhelpful way to express their dissatisfaction" with instructors.

McPherson said the Republicans hope to hold a public forum on the issue. "One-sided education is indoctrination," she said.

[searchingforsani...]

The GOP should come out with a list of all the freedoms they'd like to limit or retract. So many of today's posts here are about Bush and the GOP pursuing some cray scheme---like the Texas Rep. who is pushing the cable indecency act---and comiing up against stiff opposition. The pattern is scary.

[rox63]

This is just a bit too reminiscent of another movement that marked people with stars.

[heritage]

""The accusation of teaching communism in the classroom is laughable," Giordano said, noting communism is not illegal and the U.S. Constitution is "indifferent" to both communism and capitalism.

Still, he said, the student Republican's actions were "a little creepy" and a "revival of McCarthyist tactics.""

[My sentiments exactly. Horowitz and Coulter go around promoting protests against liberal professors. ]

[Frenchy]

Are you against the right of peaceful free expression?

[heritage]

Outwardly labeling someone is a form of intimidation.

[Frenchy]

Outwardly labeling someone is a form of intimidation.

Wouldn't a protest sign do the same thing?

[heritage]

I think a protest sign in a public area is different from a label on a professors office door.

[seekingtruth]

The democrtaic party better get its butt in gear now!!!!!!!!

[piccadilly]

I guess if communism is to be ignored, like it never existed, political science major Molly McPherson of Rohnert Park should be given the assignment to rewrite 70 years of 20th century US history, another republican La-La fantasy.

[Frenchy]

It is a form of protest based on what some students feel is wrong. As long as it remains peaceful and non-destructive, I don't have a problem with it.

[Pegatha]

(sorry, image wouldn't post)

This post has been edited by Pegatha: Mar 2 2005, 08:32 PM

[Frenchy]

(sorry, image wouldn't post)

And here I thought the red X was the image!

[Pegatha]

The image I was trying to post was the emoticon of the little guy poking the big steaming pile with a stick. You be the stick poker!

-P

[Frenchy]

The image I was trying to post was the emoticon of the little guy poking the big steaming pile with a stick.  You be the stick poker!

-P

...or a Hornet's nest...take your pick!

[heritage]

I posted this is another forum today...

Religious right is working at the local level.....

3 oppose W. Jefferson Hills history book update but it wins board's OK
Wednesday, March 02, 2005

By Margaret Smykla, Tri-State Sports and News Service

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05061/464775.stm

[DWB04]

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dl...303/1033/NEWS01

SRJC uproar over Republican protest
Several instructors targeted by student's posting of red stars, state code on teaching of communism
Wednesday, March 2, 2005

First they came for the media.......then they came for the educational institutions
it might be worth a look to see what is perhaps a bigger picture here....and just who may be a player.....take a look at this article......and then research The American Council of Trustees and Alumni ......make up your own minds.....dated 12/01

Lynne Cheney-Joe Lieberman Group Puts Out a Blacklist
by Roberto J. Gonzalez

AN aggressive attack on freedom has been launched upon America's college campuses. Its perpetrators seek the elimination of ideas and activities that place Sept. 11 in historical context, or critique the so-called war on terrorism.
The offensive, spearheaded by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based group, threatens free speech, democratic debate and the integrity of higher education. In an incendiary report, ``Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,'' the American Council claims that ``colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America's response'' to Sept. 11. It also asserts that ``when a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries.''

The report documents 117 campus incidents as ``evidence'' of anti-Americanism. More than 40 professors are named, including the president of Wesleyan University, who suggested in an open letter that ``disparities and injustices'' in American society and the world can lead to hatred and violence.

Other examples abound. A Yale professor is criticized for saying, ``It is from the desperate, angry and bereaved that these suicide pilots came.'' A professor emeritus from the University of Oregon is listed for recommending that ``we need to understand the reasons behind the terrifying hatred directed against the U.S. and find ways to act that will not foment more hatred for generations to come.''

Dozens more comments, taken out of context and culled from secondary sources, are presented as examples of an unpatriotic academy.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni was founded in 1995 by Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Its Website claims that it contributed $3.4 billion to colleges and universities last year, making it ``the largest private source of support for higher education.'' Cheney is cited several times in the report, and is reportedly a close associate of its authors, Jerry Martin and Anne Neal.

Although the council's stated objectives include the protection of academic freedom, the report resembles a blacklist. In a chilling use of doublespeak, it affirms the right of professors to speak out, yet condemns those who have attempted to give context to Sept. 11, encourage critical thinking, or share knowledge about other cultures. Faculty are accused of being ``short on patriotism'' for attempting to give students the analytical tools they need to become informed citizens.

Many of those blacklisted are top scholars in their fields, and it appears that the report represents a kind of academic terrorism designed to strike fear into other academics by making examples of respected professors.

The report might also function to extend control over sites of democratic debate -- our universities -- where freedom of expression is not only permitted but encouraged.

At my campus, symposiums, teach-ins and lectures about religion, terrorism, central Asia, the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy have been organized recently. A teach-in entitled ``Background for Understanding'' drew hundreds of students, faculty and citizens from many political and intellectual perspectives. The audience had the opportunity to ask questions and comment freely. The discussion was lively and at times contentious.

As a microcosm of society, the university is a place where people of different ethnicities, religions, generations, and class backgrounds exchange ideas and opinions. Anyone who has visited Bay Area colleges knows that they are especially rich places for intercultural exchange.

The vigorous and often heated debates typical of such encounters are a hallmark of democratic processes. On most campuses this can still be done freely, but official accusations of anti-Americanism might intimidate and silence some voices.

That is not patriotism, but fascism. The American Council's position is inaccurate and irresponsible. Critique, debate, and exchange -- not blind consensus or self-censorship -- have characterized America since its inception.

Our universities are not failing America. On the contrary, they are among the few institutions offering alternatives to canned mainstream media reports.

The targeting of scholars who participate in civic debates might signal the emergence of a new McCarthyism directed at the academy. Before it escalates into a full-blown witch hunt in the name of ``defending civilization,'' faculty, students and citizens should speak out against these acts of academic terrorism.


Roberto J. Gonzalez is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at San Jose State University.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1213-05.htm

This post has been edited by DWB04: Mar 2 2005, 08:44 PM

[CeilidhSeisuns]

Are you against the right of peaceful free expression?

Peaceful expression?

What would you call it if I targeted individuals I disagree with, such as yourself and I stuck a swastika or a KKK sign on the front door of your home, or the door of your business or work place or your automobile?

Would you consider that as "peaceful expression" and defend my "right" to target you in such a manner?"

This post has been edited by CeilidhSeisuns: Mar 2 2005, 08:49 PM

[Edie]

It is a form of protest based on what some students feel is wrong. As long as it remains peaceful and non-destructive, I don't have a problem with it.

I too think there is a big difference between protest signs that do not target particular individuals, and this tactic, which is obviously meant to intimidate and possibly invite administrative action against the professor if the administration at SRJC has no guts.

But it's good to know, Frenchy, that you don't mind being singled out for such tactics yourself next time some group is targeting people they don't like. Do you have a preference as to how you'd like to be "recognized?" Would a red triangle be okay? Or do you prefer pink? Or do you think your wardrobe might be better served by a yellow star? Or perhaps a black square?

[Frenchy]

I too think there is a big difference between protest signs that do not target particular individuals, and this tactic, which is obviously meant to intimidate and possibly invite administrative action against the professor if the administration at SRJC has no guts.

But it's good to know, Frenchy, that you don't mind being singled out for such tactics yourself next time some group is targeting people they don't like. Do you have a preference as to how you'd like to be "recognized?" Would a red triangle be okay? Or do you prefer pink? Or do you think your wardrobe might be better served by a yellow star? Or perhaps a black square?

Again Edie...It is a form of free expression, and thus open to equal criticism.
It certainly has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with the student agenda.