another idiot RU prof bringing shame to our University
- Thread starter Piscataway
- Start date
- Status
Rutgers has been a lefty school (along with most Ivies) for as long as I can remember. I'm proud of my science and business degrees but am embarassed by the rest of the crap that goes on/is taught .. It's the reason I only wear Rutgers gear during football season.
It's really not that outrageous unfortunately m
US foreign policy is responsible for a remarkable amount of bloodshed and suffering in the 21st century to no particular purpose or benefit.
We've killed a lot of people and blowed up lots of stuff real good because reasons. Yay USA. I guess being less brutal than ISIS is something to be proud of.
US foreign policy is responsible for a remarkable amount of bloodshed and suffering in the 21st century to no particular purpose or benefit.
We've killed a lot of people and blowed up lots of stuff real good because reasons. Yay USA. I guess being less brutal than ISIS is something to be proud of.
Wow, more poor reading comprehension.
I agree with her that the US is more brutal than ISIS based on the post in which I say we are not as brutal as ISIS? Stop wasting my time, you right wing hack.
I agree with her that the US is more brutal than ISIS based on the post in which I say we are not as brutal as ISIS? Stop wasting my time, you right wing hack.
I don't agree with what she said, but there are others that make it look a lot worse.
Call them liberals or whatever, info is out there showing what you ask.
Whether it's correct or not, is another question.
But will say it's hard for me to accept the spin given in this 2007article :
Deaths In Other Nations Since WW II Due To Us Interventions , By James A. Lucas
>This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.
The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.
But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.<
http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm
That is too challenging a distinction for Cali to handle. He just know, yeah good, and boo bad. Subtlety is beyond him. He just knows he thinks he is right and someone else must then be wrong and he is too dug in to pivot as the topic changes.
Look, the bottom line is that it is not a fireable offense in academia to challenge the moral purity of the USA. In fact it's a time honored tradition. Dividing up the world into good guys and bad guys is for children.
I still maintain that concocting lies to support your position within the context of that "time honored tradition" should be a fireable offense.
This idiot woman is now part of the national news cycle claiming that U.S. troops killed 1.3 million civilians in Iraq.
Anybody with a brain will immediately say two things:
- She's an idiot.
- Oh, she teaches at Rutgers? Damn, that school must be a safe haven for idiots.
I'm pretty sure that can get you fired.
I am done donating to Rutgers. The incompetence of the administration knows no bounds. Money speaks louder than words. My son, a rising senior could easily get in and loves the football and lacrosse games- was planning to apply out of respect for me and who knows may have gone, but i will tell him not to bother. I do not want him exposed to sick twisted individuals such as Kumar.
It's equally nonsensical to paint Rutgers AND Fox News with broad brushes here.
One nutty prof spouts off and Rutgers is a bad place to send your kids.
One nutty talking head spouts off and Fox News wants her fired.
I happen to agree that Rutgers has long had more than it's share of ultra liberal profs who spout off nonsense to the media, but I think that just comes with the territory of being an elite university. The good news is that the students are learning to form their own opinions and viewpoints, and at some point after they graduate and have families, many of them use the thinking skills they developed to become more moderate or conservative.
This is not unique to Rutgers. If it were not for this, there would be almost none of us Republicans left.
One nutty prof spouts off and Rutgers is a bad place to send your kids.
One nutty talking head spouts off and Fox News wants her fired.
I happen to agree that Rutgers has long had more than it's share of ultra liberal profs who spout off nonsense to the media, but I think that just comes with the territory of being an elite university. The good news is that the students are learning to form their own opinions and viewpoints, and at some point after they graduate and have families, many of them use the thinking skills they developed to become more moderate or conservative.
This is not unique to Rutgers. If it were not for this, there would be almost none of us Republicans left.
That article is the most slanted piece of anti-American propaganda I've read in a long time. North Korea invaded South Korea "according to the Truman Administration"? The US was responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? The US was responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia?
Why doesn't he just say that the US is responsible for every death since WWII? Throw in auto accidents and AIDS for good measure.
Maybe she shouldn't be fired, but her department head should tell her the next time she puts Rutgers in a negative light, which she clearly has, will be the last time she is allowed to say she represents Rutgers when giving interviews.
She is using her position at Rutgers to qualify her, then she is going ahead and making RU look bad.
I'm surprised you don't agree that our nation is more barbaric. You are anti choice and believe every fetus is a full life, are you not? If that is the case we have put many more than 1.3 million to death.
Countercurrents.org?!?!?!? Wowzers, now all of your posts are starting to make sense
Again, is a "tweet" acting in the academy?
What makes her comments "academic" rather than patently inflammatory?
Is blatant hate speech protected under tenure?
- Certainly Prof.Kumar has the right to express her thoughts on the issues at hand....unfortunately her claims go well beyond the facts of the problem itself...Barchi's handling of the Condoleeza Rice fiasco only fuels these leftists to promote their personal agenda at a public institution... the Rutger's administration needs an overhaul B1G time...as a taxpayer in New Jersey , former military and RU grad I have a very difficult time feeling otherwise at this news ...this will become a bigger story than what is perceived by many on this board...that last comment , " well if I'm a parent of a student." ...not a good thing about this freedom of speech crap.
Immediate topic aside, I'm pretty sure that a bit more subtle prodding will cause @LevaosLectures to reveal which banned poster he used to be.
Refusing to donate because a professor expressed their personal opinion and made use of their right to academic freedom? You're probably one of those "PC" people who thinks that some thoughts should be illegal.
These are all questions worth considering, certainly. I think it's dangerous to make distinctions in what venues fall under the protections of academic freedom, but I do think that part of the problem with what Kumar said IS the venue. A context free tweet, relying on an unsourced figure, leaves her vulnerable to charges of capricious or inflammatory rhetoric. The same argument in a scholarly paper would have at least had to provide footnotes and additional analysis and context. As liberal as I am, as skeptical as I am about the wisdom of US foreign policy, even I find her hastily dashed off factoid to be somewhat implausible.
So only some Americans are "allowed" to point out the cruelty of US foreign policy? I doubt US Grant would agree with you there.
It's not "dangerous" it's common sense.
Are you seriously arguing that a tweet not linked to some original scholarship is protected academic speech?
I am calling complete bullshit on this one. They would line up alright...... to help kick the offender in the ass on the way out. You are only free to speak out when it doesn't offend (feigned or otherwise) the left or any of those under the umbrella. "In short,no effing way this happens." The silence would be deafening. They would justify it by saying the person was "dangerous" or "extreme".
Make sure to post here the next time the lib profs are in the streets protesting to defend a conservative's right to speak his or her views. I would go to witness that in person. I won't hold my breath waiting though.
The problem I will have with all of this will be if nobody from her own department or RU speaks up and says her statement is complete nonsense. She has the right to be a moron, even a tenured one , and say whatever she wants .But, her peers have an obligation to speak up and contradict something that is obviously fabricated. She should have just made the number of killed a GAZILLION. It would be just as believable. Have there even been a million casualties of any kind on all sides combined? I would bet quite a bit the answer is no without any research at all. 1.3M ? Not a chance . The US worse than ISIS? Really? The statement is ludicrous and should be called out as such.
The entire department and the university lose credibility when stupidity like this is not called out for what it is. Like above, I won't hold my breath waiting.
Again your reading comprehension fails and like most fools ,you start acting stupid adding a petty insult instead of trying to discuss the issue in an intelligent manner
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here. I will grant you that liberals would criticize the professor, but NO union member would ever support tenure charges filed by the administration against another union member for speaking his or her mind, within the usual bounds of common sense (threats of violence, etc.)
I am an officer in such a union and I can tell you it would never happen.
The rest of the post I have no probem with, but the tenure charges would be fought tooth and nail by the union.
I am an officer in such a union and I can tell you it would never happen.
The rest of the post I have no probem with, but the tenure charges would be fought tooth and nail by the union.
Levaos you are getting lit up here like an early Tyson opponent. Retreat.
Have someone explain what this means :
"Call them liberals or whatever, info is out there showing what you ask.
Whether it's correct or not, is another question.
But will say it's hard for me to accept the spin given in this 2007article :"
Seems what I said is beyond your level of reading comprehension.
EDIT: back to the issue .
I found the way the President of Boston University handled a controversial tweet by an incoming BU professor was an excellent way to express displeasure, while explaining that professor has a right to express her opinion , even if no one likes or agrees with it.
President Condemns Racially Charged Tweets by Professor Saida Grundy | BU Today | Boston University
In his letter to the community, Brown defended Grundy’s “right to pursue her research, formulate her views, and challenge the rest of us to think differently about race relations.
“But,” Brown wrote, “we also must recognize that words have power and the words in her Twitter feed were powerful in the way they stereotyped and condemned other people. As a university president, I am accustomed to living in a world where faculty do—and should—have great latitude to express their opinions and provoke discussion. But I also have an obligation to speak up when words become hurtful to one group or another in the way they typecast and label its members. That is why I weigh in on this issue today.
http://www.bu.edu/today/2015/racially-charged-tweets-saida-grundy/
Last edited:
This post disturbs me more than anything the "professor" has to say. No department should be a scary place for any student. Debate the facts (both sides no matter how touchy the subject) on the merits and let students decide where they fall. I'm all for it. But never should fear enter the equation. That is troubling.
Are there any points of view/classes being presented in the department to counter this? If not, why not? If not, is RU saying that this line of thought is the only truth out there? I am very curious about this. Lack of information can leave disinformation as the only "truth" available to be learned. We all know that with competing points of view the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. What happens when there is no opposing view presented?
My oldest graduates next year and if this atmosphere is pervasive anywhere @ RU I will certainly think twice about letting her choose go there. This is only one student's assessment, granted, but it is disturbing none the less.
Why is it?
Any tweet by an academic is protected speech?
I'll try and make the point again.
Protected academic speech came to be as a safeguard to ensure that professor's scholarship was not censored by a disproving administration. It gives professors the ability to pursue a RESEARCH AGENDA that is unpopular or controversial, but necessary to advance the ball in a discipline. It was never intended to give activist professors, of either political ideology, carte blanche to make inflammatory, and in this case, factually untrue, commentary.
So, I'll ask again.
Should an inflammatory tweet, which doesn't provide a link to a piece of scholarship, be protected?
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
It wouldn't be Rutgers w/o some stupid prof from some worthless discipline opening his/her self important mouth off...Rutgers is lousy with "these" people..:joy:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
