SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Professors worried students will share lectures with 'right wing sites'
Jon Street
Managing Editor
@JonStreet
on Mar 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM EDTProfessors across the country are expressing concern over courses being moved online as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
One professor expressed concern that "right wing sites" could expose what is being taught in college courses.Professors across the country are taking to social media to express their concern over being forced to deliver their course lectures online amid the coronavirus outbreak, sharing with each other tips on how to limit the number of people who are able to see what they're teaching students, and criticizing "right wing sites" and even Campus Reform, specifically.
Texas Christian University Associate Professor of Political Science Emily Farris tweeted Thursday, "if you are recording a lecture on anything controversial, be prepared for right wing sites to ask students to share it." Campus Reform reached out to Farris via Twitter Direct Messaging to allow her the opportunity to further explain her comments or to clarify. She later blocked the author of this article on Twitter.
LaSalle University Assistant Professor of Public Health Christen Rexing replied to Farris' tweet, asking why others could find topics such as "gun safety, women's health, elections, etc." to be "controversial, as they are "evidence-based."
"Seems like the flood gates could open," Rexing commented in response to courses moving online.
University of North Carolina political science graduate student Stephanie Shady also weighed in, saying, "Annnnd I just realized that the second half of my course focuses on public opinion towards and politicization of immigration. This will be interesting." Another user with the Twitter name "Prof CWO" replied "Sigh, I teach about white nationalism and this has been my biggest fear since we began transitioning to online instruction."
Columbia University political science professor Jeffrey Lax said he has been "thinking about" how students would be able to record classes.
Trinity College Associate Professor of Political Science Isaac Kamola who, as Campus Reform previously reported sought to hire a "Campus Reform Early Responder," specifically mentioned Campus Reform in his reply to Farris.
"If Campus Reform harasses you or someone you know, the best response is to 'follow the money.' Campus Reform receives $1.4 million from the Leadership Institute, a Koch-funded organization designed to delegitimize academics they consider too left. They are not a new [sic] source," Kamola tweeted.
A user whose website says they are a history professor at a "community college in North Texas" wrote, "I'm taking steps to limit this but nothing is foolproof."
Farris asked how Gunter was working to ensure her lectures are not made public, to which Gunter responded with one tip for her colleague.
"Instead of posting videos direct to LMS (which would then own them) I'm posting links to the videos on youtube. The videos themselves are 'unlisted' meaning you can't find them in a search or if you go to my page-only if you have the direct link. Doesn't stop link sharing though," Gunter said.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14563
So, here I am, trying to wrap my head around the fact that liberals FEAR the possibility of the public learning what they are teaching. Does that make any sense at all? If I want to shape the world, wouldn't I WANT more people to hear the word, to understand my thoughts and goals, and hopefully to get on board with my agenda?
Instead, we have liberals who FEAR the idea that their thoughts might go viral.
Imagine that. We might suspect that liberal college professors are actually just propaganda indoctrination technicians. Brainwash the kids while they are young, before they develop critical thinking skills, right?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:27AM (5 children)
I agree that classrooms aren't the appropriate setting for instructors to be promoting political views. But there are a couple of problems here:
1) Turning Point USA maintains a "professor watchlist" [professorwatchlist.org] that's supposed to be a list of professors pushing liberal views in the classroom. If you look at why the professors have landed on the watchlist, many are on it for things they've said in TV interviews or written in op-eds, not things they've done in the classroom. Putting faculty on a watchlist for expressing their opinions outside of the classroom has a chilling effect on free speech.
2) Why are they only concerned about liberal professors pushing their political views in the classroom? Shouldn't it also be out of bounds for professors using the classroom to push conservative views? It seems like organizations like TPUSA support free speech just as long as it's speech they agree with.
3) Some of the faculty are on the watchlist because they've told students to do assignments about topics or political positions they disagree with. This can mean being expected to write persuasive essays supporting positions they personally disagree with. However, that can be valid as a critical thinking exercise, to give students practice understanding positions they don't personally agree with. For example, a journalist reporting on politics will need to be able to understand all sides of political issues regardless of which side they personally support. They need to be able to ask tough questions of people whether or not they agree with those people. Such assignments have landed professors on the watchlist, but there are very valid reasons why a professor might assign something like that. It doesn't necessarily constitute using the classroom to push political views on students.
4) Why is it that some conservatives who staunchly support second amendment rights don't seem particularly concerned about first amendment rights? Consider the case of University of Kansas professor David Guth [bearingarms.com], who tweeted a comment expressing his outrage about the NRA's position on gun control amid school shootings. What he tweeted wasn't very nice, but he wasn't actually calling for people to shoot the children of NRA leaders. He was harshly pointing out that the NRA leadership might view the issue differently if their children had been the victims of school shootings. Whether you support or oppose gun control, it seems clear that Guth's tweet wasn't a very nice thing to say, but it's protected political speech. It seems that some second amendment rights advocates were willing to dispense with first amendment protections for speech, yet they seem to resist just about every effort to increase gun control. Why is freedom of speech less important than the right to keep and bear arms?
5) People often conflate politics with matters of science. For example, they object that professors might teach that humans are causing much of the global climate change observed over the past few decades, but not present the opposing view. The reason is that one of these sides is supported by a very large majority of climatologists and is backed by substantial evidence, while the other has neither. There's a similar issue regarding the teaching of evolution versus creationism in the classroom. One is both theory and fact, while the other is simply not science. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a matter of religion, is not testable in principle, and therefore has no place in a science class. For that matter, evolution and creation, including by the Christian God, are not mutually exclusive. Yet people have difficulty separating science for political issues. Saying that humans are causing global warming is a statement of science, not expressing a political view. But many people don't understand the distinction.
6) Campus Reform has a history of misleading reporting [merionwest.com]. Moreover, many of the professors placed on the TPUSA watchlist were added because of Campus Reform reporting.
So while I don't agree with using the classroom to push political views on students, I see plenty of reasons why faculty are wary.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 22 2020, @07:52PM (3 children)
Seems to me like whether the professor in question could be fired for that speech is all about his employment contract with the university (which quite often do restrict the ability to fire professors for speech), not about the first amendment.
I don't see where that says you can't or shouldn't be fired for speech, even political speech. He absolutely has a right to say that, but where does it give him a right to keep his job afterwards?
Sure, but it doesn't even matter. Even if he literally meant "I hate you so much I hope someone shoots your kids in their fucking faces", he still has the absolute right to say it. And the first amendment still doesn't give him a right not to be fired for it.
Finally, even though I don't see that the case you cited evidences this 2A > 1A preference at all:
If they cared more about the first amendment than the second, they'd be "first amendment rights advocates" instead. It's a self-selected sample, of course you're bound to find some people who care more (or only) about the second as well as those who care more-or-less equally about both.
Personally, I care deeply about both, but as I see it, the first amendment rights are in much better shape, so I find myself comparatively less concerned about them. Believe me, I want free speech to stay that way, and I do resist abridgements of the first amendment, but if you manage to contrive a situation where I had to choose one or the other, I'd favor the second without hesitation.
If felons who've served their time were kept muzzled from political speech against the war on drugs and the prison industry, as they are kept disarmed against violence in their communities; if most Americans had to wait for a state-issued permit before they were allowed to utter political speech in public, as they do to carry a handgun; if there were a $200 tax, a federal registry, and a background check (which entails a 6-month bureaucratic wait because fuck you) to start any organ of journalism from a blog up, as there is for NFA firearms; if it were illegal to found a new civilian-owned newspaper, with only those already in business before 1986 permitted to change hands, as it now is with machineguns; and if, on top of all that, one political party was still crying "More, more restrictions! That speech is only suitable for governments; it has no place in our streets!", you can bet I and many others would "resist every effort" to abridge the first with the same fervor we oppose yet one more infringement of the second.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 23 2020, @03:50PM (1 child)
Whoa. That is very well said. First amendment rights are in little danger, today, in comparison with second amendment rights. Great post!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24 2020, @08:48AM
If someone is disqualified from government employment on the basis of their political speech, surely that does infringe upon the right to free speech. I agree that nobody is entitled to a government job. But it's an attack on free speech to remove someone from a government job on the basis of their political speech.
Conservative groups like Campus Reform and TPUSA don't believe that conservatives have free speech on college campuses. If free speech isn't under attack, how can this be?
Cancel culture is toxic, whether it's coming from the right or from the left. The real test of whether you support free speech is whether you support the right to say things you find truly repugnant. Everyone supports free speech when it's speech they agree with. And too many people are willing to censor speech just because they disagree with it. Are you sure that free speech isn't under attack?
The bottom line is that we shouldn't pick and choose which rights are more important than others. I support second amendment rights. But it's unreasonable to call for someone's first amendment rights to be violated because they spoke out against second amendment rights. All of our rights are essential.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 05 2020, @05:32PM
There's two factors to consider here. First, who's paying for that university? If it's outright a state university, for example, they're subject to the First Amendment. That has priority over any contracts and they can't fire someone merely for speech. And I'd wager that universities dependent on government funding are somewhat constrained as well (for example, no firing people by proxy in order to preserve government funding). Second, a number of universities advertise their free speech environment and have it codified into their rules. Even when free speech isn't part of the contract with the professor, false advertising still constrains them.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Bot on Sunday March 22 2020, @09:26PM
Seems to me that the watchlist mirrors what the lefty have done in the latest 10 years. Yes, it's a bad thing, it is also eating own dogfood for a leftie prof.
Account abandoned.