Posts Tagged ‘credentials’

Want Rabid Intolerance? Go To A Liberal Arts University: U of I Professor Tells College Republicans to ‘F’ Off

April 21, 2011

You can come out as anything you want at college: a sexual “explorer” who pulls long sexual trains for frat boys (or for sorority sisters, for that matter); a militant homosexual activist; a private-property-destroying anarchist; a jihadist who shouts down Jewish speakers.  And, of course, in the case of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, an unashamed terrorist whose only regret is not planting even more bombs.

Just don’t you dare come out as a Republican, a conservative, a pro-lifer or a Christian, or else these “tolerant” “intellectuals” will bare their vampire fangs and leap at your throat like animals rather than the elitists they so arrogantly presume themselves to be.

To the extent that there is anything whatsoever that is funny about professors like Ellen Lewin, it is that academics such as herself actually pride themselves for their “tolerance,” on the one hand, while simultaneously priding themselves for rabidly attacking anyone who even remotely disagrees with their views.

University of Iowa Professor Tells College Republicans to “F” Off
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 0:01
By Craig Robinson

A University of Iowa professor felt the need to reply to a blast email by the College Republicans on Monday morning. Ellen Lewin, a professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, sent a vulgar response to a College Republican email about the group’s, “Conservative Coming Out Week.”

The College Republican email, which was sent to the entire University of Iowa Community, had been approved by a number of university officials before being sent out.

Lewin responded to email by writing, “#*@% [F-Word] YOU, REPUBLICANS” from her official university email account.

Natalie Ginty, a University of Iowa Student and Chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, demanded an apology from Lewin’s supervisors.  “We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Ginty wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology.

“Vile responses like Ellen’s need to end. Demonizing the other party through name-calling only further entrenches feelings of disdain for the other side. I am sure you understand that nothing is ever accomplished by aimless screams of attack,” Ginty concluded.

In an email to the College Republicans, Professor Lewin wrote, “This is a time when political passions are inflamed, and when I received your unsolicited email, I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government.  I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities.  I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, especially in these difficult times.”

Lewin sent that email at 10:51 a.m.

Lewin’s response is as inappropriate than her choice of language in her first email. At the bottom of the original mass email, a University of Iowa disclaimer reads, “Distribution of this message was approved by the VP for Student Services. Neither your name nor e-mail address was released to the sender. The policy and guidelines for the UI Mass Mail service, including information on how to filter messages, are available at: http://cs.its.uiowa.edu/email/massmail.”  The College Republicans didn’t even know who all would be receiving the message.

At 11:06 a.m. on Tuesday, Professor Lewin sent another email saying:

I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity.  Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event “conservative coming out day,” appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement.   Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work.  And the “Animal Rights BBQ” is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause.  Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted.  I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.

It’s strange that Professor Lewin is upset with a student for calling her by her first name AFTER she told them to “$%@& [F Word] OFF.”  Quite honestly, Lewin’s continued attacks make it seem like more serious punishment of the professor is called for rather just than the public apology that the College Republicans are demanding.

Professor Tim Hagel, the faculty advisor for the University of Iowa College Republicans, also interjected on behalf of the group.

The issue isn’t whether you found something in the message sent by the College Republicans to have been offensive, but how you chose to express yourself.  Although some would disagree with the reasons in the message immediately below, there would have been a more appropriate way for you to have expressed yourself.  Your initial apology, though qualified, was at least a step in the right direction.  The “additional note” only served to retract the apology and was an apparent attempt to justify your initial response.

It’s not my place at this point to debate the merits of whether the CR message was offense, but let me remind you that they have First Amendment rights as much as you do and that their message was approved for mass distribution by the VP for Student Services, as was indicated at the bottom of the original message.

Let me also note that I found your complaint about Ms. Ginty’s use of your first name to be rather ironic.  As much as I agree with you that it would have been better for her to have shown the respect for your position by referring to you as “Professor,” respect is a two way street and you clearly did not show respect for the College Republicans in your initial response.

-TH

Tim Hagle

Associate Professor

UICR Faculty Advisor

Update :University of Iowa President Sally Mason has responded to the incident by sending out a blast email.  Mason’s response was “spurred” by TheIowaRepublican.com’s story about the incident.

Dear Members of the University Community:

The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints.  This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect.  Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.

The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints.  Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs.  Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way.  Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.

Sally Mason
President

Below is the original email that includes Lewin’s response.

In 2010, Lewin’s salary from the University of Iowa was $94,800.00 plus benefits.  In her spare time, Professor Lewin was written books entitled, Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, and Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

Professor Ellen Lewis made sure to add her credentials and make the University of Iowa a part of her “views.”

I’m reminded of a paragraph from an article I wrote on postmodernism and the  fascism that invariably accompanies it:

Today, in universities across the country, we are seeing honored faculty fired for no better reason than that they disagree with one or another tenet of “political correctness.” Lawrence Summers was essentially fired from his position as president of Harvard University for raising the possibility that many factors apart from discrimination or bias could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. Guillermo Gonzalez, as assistant professor at Iowa State, was denied tenure and fired for having written articles arguing that a purposive cause is the best explanation for certain features of our cosmic habitat. David Eaton said, “As alumni at ISU, we are appalled that the current Iowa State administration would stoop to expelling a brilliant young scientist and gifted instructor from the classroom, not for teaching about intelligent design or even mentioning it in his classroom, but for simply committing the thought crime of advocating it [in a research paper] as science.” The documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents scientist after scientist who were fired merely for advocating the possibility of an intelligent cause to the universe. Ben Stein calls attention to the terrifying process of such a stifling of academic and scientific freedom. Fascists and Marxists had no qualms persecuting and stifling unwanted thought among their intellectuals; Western universities should have great qualms over such persecution, but increasingly do not

Will Professor Lewis be fired for harboring unacceptable views the way more so-called “conservative” faculty like Lawrence Summers and Guillermo Gonzalez?  If intellectual hypocrisy wasn’t the quintessential defining essence of modern universities, she certainly would be.

As it is, if you want to see true intolerance today, if you want to see true Marxism, if you want to see the most vile views defended and the most decent ones viciously attacked, just go to your nearest liberal arts university.

This is a state university.  The tax dollars of Reopublicans and other conservatives go to fund both this university and the salary and benefits of this professor whe turns around and denounces their ability to even have a voice.  How dare these damn liberals demand that we pay for their despicable attitudes?

Advertisements

Obama-Biden: Obama Not Strong, Not Ready. Just Ask His V.P.

August 23, 2008

Obama wanted to seem all “hip” and “now” but his text message system obviously totally flopped. After all the promises and all the hype, the only text anyone ever got was a fake – a suitable metaphor for the whole Obama campaign.

Barack Obama did a stupid thing by not asking Hillary Clinton to run with him. He should have publicly asked her, and then hoped like heck she said no (maybe he was afraid of having to have someone taste his food for the next four years?). Obama foolishly said that Hillary Clinton “would be on anyone’s short list” – and then clearly never put her on his. She was never even vetted. That looks bad. Hillary Clinton supporters got nothing but another snub.

Tim Kaine was a lightweight, and Evan Bayh just had that name issue: Obama, Bayh (pronounced “Bye”). You don’t want your VP pick to be metaphorically waving “good bye” to your presidential nominee.

So it’s Senator Joe Biden (D-DE).

Supposedly Joe Biden will bolster the foreign policy cred of a kid who clearly isn’t ready for prime time.

But there are problems, oh so many problems.

Ben Porrit, McCain spokesman, was able to point out the biggest one. During the primaries as a candidate for president:

Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing – that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”

What we’re going to see is a whitewashing of that record. But let me just quickly demonstrate that the McCain camp is telling the truth.

But The Associated Press story is, “Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence.”  So apparently at some level Obama agrees with Joe Biden and John McCain that he just isn’t really ready.

Beyond the fact that Biden is angry, he’s arrogant, he thinks he knows everything, he’s condescending, he’s aggressive and bullying, he says one stupid thing after another, and he absolutely positively will not shut his mouth, his foreign policy credentials actually serve to actually denounce Obama’s own puny record. That can’t be good.

Biden said Obama wasn’t ready to be President:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos: “You were asked is he ready. You said ‘I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'” Sen. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/19/07)

Sen. Biden: “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.” (“Biden Lashes Out At Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

At the same time Joe Biden acknowledged that John McCain was more than ready to be president, even saying of McCain that “I would be honored to be running with or against John Mccain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Biden voted to authorize the Iraq War Resolution. He voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. He voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act in 2006. But there’s another issue that looms even larger: troop funding, especially troop funding for armored vehicles. Barack Obama repeatedly voted against troop funding, marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party line in willingness to cut the troops off.

Our soldiers and Marines were dying due to IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and needed armored transports.

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Biden demanded those vehicles, voting against the radical-left Democratic lock-step:

In [the Des Moines Register], the author explains that the Democratic leaders are not happy with the MRAP program. Even when it was not tied to Iraq War Funding, Senators Clinton and Obama voted against it. Dem. Senator Biden voted for it and has said the vote made him “the bastard at the family picnic.” Anti-war activists held “Impeach Biden” signs when he visited Iowa City. His staffers warned he would “get his skin ripped off” if he attended an event in Council Bluffs. All because of the vote. And he says he doesn’t care.“As long as there’s one American kid over there, I’m voting the money for these things,” Biden said in a chat the other day during a stop in Des Moines. “It’s the one way we can save lives before getting them out.”

Biden literally said it was a matter of life and death for the troops:

“I have never begun a discussion of an amendment,” Mr. Biden told his fellow senators, “by saying something as graphic and as drastic as ‘this is literally a matter of life and death.’ But it is. This is not hyperbole. This is not an exaggeration.” He was right on all counts.

Biden’s supporters said the refusal on the part of Biden’s rivals for president – which very much included Barack Obama – “would come back to haunt them”:

“Just as Beau Biden, a captain in the Delaware National Guard, had predicted in August at the Iowa Democratic Party Veteran’s Caucus Presidential Extravaganza in Des Moines, the vote on the emergency funding for the war in Iraq war has come back into play. Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, spoke on behalf of his father, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, and told the room full of veterans that his father’s Democratic rivals’ “no” vote on the funding, despite the attached Biden amendment to fast track funding and production for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, would come back to haunt them.”

During the Democratic primary debates, Joe Biden accused Barack Obama of cutting off support that would save the lives of thousands of troops. Biden very articulately pointed out that, in effect, Obama had voted for our soldiers and Marines to continue to be killed by IEDs. Barack Obama voted against funding armored vehicles even when the whole focus of the bill was providing such armor (as opposed to some larger appropriation).

Interestingly, Joe Biden – who dropped out of the race early because the Democratic base wanted a candidate who would promise to cut and run from Iraq – somehow never really got around to endorsing Barack Obama.

If Joe Biden is the Vice Presidential selection because of his knowledge and experience, we might as well listen to what he said earlier, when he was looking at Obama critically, and take his words seriously.

Barack Obama isn’t ready. Even his own Vice President says so.