Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
You were the one who turned me on to it!
And you want to complain about it now??
I certainly thank you for giving me the name of the site. It's articles are fairly insightful and well written as well as pertinent to the I/P situation. I really thank for that.
Now to the accusation that I am trying to "get virtually all of their articles re-posted here" is just a flat out untruth. I'm posting relevant and recent articles since 972mag is pretty good with their reporting, but let's get to the heart of the matter. I don't usually post lifestyle links or superfluous articles not pertaining to I/P, and 972 has its share of those.
So I am really not sorry that it bothers you so much. There are a few choices that I see you can take. You can either act like an adult and respond to the article, make noise about it "ugh 972mag! Do you own stock in it?", or ignore it altogether.
I have a two year old that I deal with at home, oberliner. I do not need to deal with another one on I/P.
Here's Dersh's argument:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/does-brooklyn-college-pas_b_2600342.html
What would these administrators say if the department of philosophy were to officially endorse the right to life and oppose a woman's right to choose abortion? What if the economics department had officially endorsed Mitt Romney during last year's election? What if the Spanish department had voted to endorse an academic boycott against Cuban or Venezuelan professors? What if the department of religion were to officially condemn homosexuality?
I can assure you that both the lyrics and the music would be very different. The chairman of the political science department, a radical leftist, would be complaining that his academic freedom was being denied by these departments officially endorsing positions with which he disagrees. The president of the college, known for her feminist views, would not likely remain silent in the face of an official departmental endorsement of the right to life. Nor would many faculty members justify a departmental condemnation of homosexuality on the ground of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
These invocations of free speech and academic freedoms are merely a smokescreen to cover the hypocrisy of those who claim that they are committed to open dialogue and the expression of all points of view. That is so much hooey. Of course, the event should go forward, but it should be sponsored by students and outside groups, not by a department of the college. The same should be true of pro-Israel events.
The very same professors who demand the right to advocate BDS against Israel would demand the right to suppress the free speech and academic freedom of those who support Israeli settlements and the denial of statehoods to the Palestinians. 'Free speech for me but not for thee" has always been the hallmark of extremists on both the left and right. These extremists believe they know the truth and that there is no reason for supporting, endorsing or even tolerating opposing viewpoints. They cannot be trusted to grade students neutrally and without bias.
...There are only two reasonable approaches to what departments should be entitled to do: either they should sponsor and endorse events on all sides of controversial issues, or they should get out of the business of selectively sponsoring and endorsing only one side of such issues. The approach taken by the political science department at Brooklyn College is absolutely unacceptable: namely, to endorse and sponsor only one side of a controversial issue while refusing to cosponsor and endorse the other side of the issue. The president of Brooklyn College is wrong when she says that departments should have the right to selectively sponsor and endorse only one side of a controversy. That is a long step on the road to turning academic departments into biased, partisan and one-sided propaganda centers, reminiscent of "political science" departments in the former Soviet Union that "encouraged" their students to follow the official party line.
I can assure you that both the lyrics and the music would be very different. The chairman of the political science department, a radical leftist, would be complaining that his academic freedom was being denied by these departments officially endorsing positions with which he disagrees. The president of the college, known for her feminist views, would not likely remain silent in the face of an official departmental endorsement of the right to life. Nor would many faculty members justify a departmental condemnation of homosexuality on the ground of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
These invocations of free speech and academic freedoms are merely a smokescreen to cover the hypocrisy of those who claim that they are committed to open dialogue and the expression of all points of view. That is so much hooey. Of course, the event should go forward, but it should be sponsored by students and outside groups, not by a department of the college. The same should be true of pro-Israel events.
The very same professors who demand the right to advocate BDS against Israel would demand the right to suppress the free speech and academic freedom of those who support Israeli settlements and the denial of statehoods to the Palestinians. 'Free speech for me but not for thee" has always been the hallmark of extremists on both the left and right. These extremists believe they know the truth and that there is no reason for supporting, endorsing or even tolerating opposing viewpoints. They cannot be trusted to grade students neutrally and without bias.
...There are only two reasonable approaches to what departments should be entitled to do: either they should sponsor and endorse events on all sides of controversial issues, or they should get out of the business of selectively sponsoring and endorsing only one side of such issues. The approach taken by the political science department at Brooklyn College is absolutely unacceptable: namely, to endorse and sponsor only one side of a controversial issue while refusing to cosponsor and endorse the other side of the issue. The president of Brooklyn College is wrong when she says that departments should have the right to selectively sponsor and endorse only one side of a controversy. That is a long step on the road to turning academic departments into biased, partisan and one-sided propaganda centers, reminiscent of "political science" departments in the former Soviet Union that "encouraged" their students to follow the official party line.
There's +972 rag for you...
Propaganda for the gullibles...
He firstly sets up hypotheticals then tells us what would happen afterwards.
What a clairvoyant!
He then goes forth with "Of course, the event should go forward..." then tells us how it should go forward and be sponsored.
He then has the temerity to claim that "Free speech for me but not for thee" while telling us how it should be is a joke.
Frankly, fu@k him.
Had he even considered that there is no such thing as bad press, and that by his outbursts has raised the level of this event?
Probably not. Egotists never think about others first.
So do you want to answer my question that you ran away from in the other posts?
