Ethics and schools

[FireDancer]

I believe speakers who have a specific point of view should be invited for the exchange of ideas. But the public university itself should NOT be promoting any points of view.

I think the point that is lost is that those two things are completely different things. Presenting a POV is not promoting it. I have seen no evidence anywhere in this thread that a University is promoting anything and don't see anywhere that public funds are being used. The OP seems to think that a public University has no private funding.

If this really is about having Palin come and speak it is much ado about nothing.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Sometimes that includes tolerating certain speakers on public grounds spouting off diatribes.

At my dd's university they have "speakers circle" and everyday Brother Jed preaches about sinning.

He is quite the interest. Students hold drinking games and go there and taunt him. They can be really mean to him and it is sad but he does it everyday for the most part.

He is on YOUTUBE of course because students film him and put it up there.

 

[ZeitgeistDuck]

This is not a simple yes or no question simply becuase I don't trust YOU to define 'promoting' a point of view.

Public universities aren't made up of a single individual with an agenda, or even a committee with an agenda. They are directed by a board of trustees who are elected by the citizens. Any so-called 'agenda' is subject to referendum by voters who can toss those trustees out at election time.

In additon, in my experience public universities don't 'promote' anything as a collective. Individual professors might talk about thier own ideologies, but are not reflecting the opinions of the institution. I had some crazy way lefty professors and some crazy way righty ones.

Distrubing would be in a public university is censoring student body groups, like specific political and religious groups, to prevent a point of view from being heard.

So when you say that this university is an promoting anti- cat stance- HOW are they promoting it?

 

[Mickey's Minion]

OK, lets say I have huge University names the University of Happy. Now I take a huge amount of public funding and enjoy a great deal of success. Suppose my directors all despise cats. Would it be ethical for them to use their position of authority and control over funding to further their own personal distaste for felines? Would it be ethical? Or, would it be more ethical to fund people looking to ban kitty cats on their own time with their own personal money?

I don't see the problem.

Before I supported this university with my tuition money, I would have done my research. I would have sat down with my adult child and discussed whether he/she could live in an environment that did not support kitties. That would be a decision if the degree program offered was worth supporting causes that might not be a priority in life.

Universities fund all sorts of programs that some might feel ethical and some might not. Programs can be political, religious or research based. Med schools might fund medical research that some might not feel ethical. Physics departments might fund research into the creation of the universe that might offend some people with a more religious belief of the creation of the universe. Some universities may fund a political leaning. There are all sorts of funding that universities do.

It is the student's responsibility to know the philosophy of the university before they give them their tuition.

The only way I would find it unethical is, as the others have said, that pro-kitty groups were banned from campus. Or if you had to sign some anti-kitty proclamation before admittance or you were assessed separate, mandatory anti-kitty fees.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

At my dd's university they have "speakers circle" and everyday Brother Jed preaches about sinning.

He is quite the interest. Students hold drinking games and go there and taunt him. They can be really mean to him and it is sad but he does it everyday for the most part.

He is on YOUTUBE of course because students film him and put it up there.

Not sure if it is the same..but in my day--this was done at "the rock" in Turlington Plaza.

I can say that sometimes it was upsetting b/c I had found that those speakers really do push buttons in the name of their message. So it never bothered me if a student reciprocated by trying to push the buttons of the speaker.

The "lawn" or whatever that green space towards the front of campus was called was "reserved" (not really) for the free vegetarian lunches from a local group.


Accent brought the real speakers but there were some interesting moments. One time we had William Shatner--so the O'Dome became a mini-trekki convention.

Another time we had OJ's prosecuting attorney--packed house and a very disappointed crowd b/c at the time she had a book deal and was prevented by contract from talking about the case. Not sure why we brought her when it should have been obvious that folks would have expected that.

 

[beck0321]

I think the point that is lost is that those two things are completely different things. Presenting a POV is not promoting it. I have seen no evidence anywhere in this thread that a University is promoting anything and don't see anywhere that public funds are being used.

ITA. I wanted to ask that as well. Is the issue the fact that said university is promoting the ideas of said speaker (or are they just promoting the speech/event)? If they are promoting ideas, through what medium are they doing this?

ETA: Also, is it the university promoting the views of the speaker, or is it the special interest group that brought the speaker? Special interest groups made up of students are probably using their own money to fund promotional materials I would think. They don't get a budget from the university, do they?

There's just too many scenarios; I think that is why no one can give a definite YES or NO answer.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Not sure if it is the same..but in my day--this was done at "the rock" in Turlington Plaza.

I can say that sometimes it was upsetting b/c I had found that those speakers really do push buttons in the name of their message. So it never bothered me if a student reciprocated by trying to push the buttons of the speaker.

The "lawn" or whatever that green space towards the front of campus was called was "reserved" (not really) for the free vegetarian lunches from a local group.


Accent brought the real speakers but there were some interesting moments. One time we had William Shatner--so the O'Dome became a mini-trekki convention.

Another time we had OJ's prosecuting attorney--packed house and a very disappointed crowd b/c at the time she had a book deal and was prevented by contract from talking about the case. Not sure why we brought her when it should have been obvious that folks would have expected that.

Wow!

Speakers Circle is free to preach whatever from whomever. My dd's loves it too much and spends too much time there, I think listening to Brother Jed. Although the tales of him and the students are interesting to listen to.

I also went to Mizzou 20+yrs ago and while speakers circle existed people preached all over the campus.

Now I guess they HAVE TO go to speakers circle. It is open to anyone.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Wow!

Speakers Circle is free to preach whatever from whomever. My dd's loves it too much and spends too much time there, I think listening to Brother Jed. Although the tales of him and the students are interesting to listen to.

I also went to Mizzou 20+yrs ago and while speakers circle existed people preached all over the campus.

Now I guess they HAVE TO go to speakers circle. It is open to anyone.

I didn't mean to imply that they aren't permitted...or that they shouldn't be.

Our "speakers" at the rock tended to get very mouthy and students with convictions of their own would engage in debate. But usually--it was all button pushing.

No drinking games though and it was pre-youtube and cell phones.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I didn't mean to imply that they aren't permitted...or that they shouldn't be.

Our "speakers" at the rock tended to get very mouthy and students with convictions of their own would engage in debate. But usually--it was all button pushing.

No drinking games though and it was pre-youtube and cell phones.

I was not addressing "permitted" so no worries there.

My dd says it gets ugly with the debating but they keep the pranks low key.

Yes they are doing drinking games there. She said the last time she was there they would all drink everytime he said fornication.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I was not addressing "permitted" so no worries there.

My dd says it gets ugly with the debating but they keep the pranks low key.

Yes they are doing drinking games there. She said the last time she was there they would all drink everytime he said fornication.

IIRC, on our campus--that would be grounds for arrest if it were...alcohol. No open containers on campus though a couple of places on campus served beer inside the restaurant.

 

[golfgal]

Obviously. That is why my children will not go to a private religious college or a public university that is known as heavily Christian. And we do have to watch since a lot of colleges here are in the bible belt.

Hopefully your dd makes the right match for herself.

What if your child WANTED to go to a Catholic University???

I've got 2 kids and they can go where they wish, more or less, as long as the institution is more interested in exposing them than molding them. This is why I loved going to CUNY and living in NYC, but exposure is different. There is no undercurrent in exposure, it's natural. This is not what I am talking about.

CUNY has their own agenda, just like every other university, the problem is that it agreed with what you believe so you didn't see the "agenda". I am sure if you polled other students they would tell you all about the agenda that they didn't agree with.

Quite frankly, you are being ridiculous not putting forth the issue with which you have a problem so people can give informed responses.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

What if your child WANTED to go to a Catholic University???

That is an interesting question because I would have an ethical issue with that. She would need to take up her religion again and be serious about it. Although not a chance in heck that is going to happen, so not really a real "issue" here.

A real issue we see is with my 19yodd. We have already told her if she wants to get married Catholic we will not pay for the "wedding part", church, flowers, etc. unless she recommits to being a practicing Catholic.

She is currently with someone who is "Catholic" but does not practice at all. I don't even think he is confirmed. But you know Catholics, the mother still goes to church. I could see some pressure there for them to get married Catholic.

So yes, this has already been discussed in my house.

 

[NotUrsula]

Wow!

Speakers Circle is free to preach whatever from whomever. My dd's loves it too much and spends too much time there, I think listening to Brother Jed. Although the tales of him and the students are interesting to listen to.

I also went to Mizzou 20+yrs ago and while speakers circle existed people preached all over the campus.

Now I guess they HAVE TO go to speakers circle. It is open to anyone.

OT, but is this Brother Jed of "Brother Jed and Sister Cindy" fame? LOL, I remember heckling them in Free Speech Alley at LSU 30 years ago -- they ALWAYS rose to the bait. They must be absolutely ancient by now; they were not that young then. (Sister Cindy's repentance story back then was that she had been a "Disco Queen" until she saw the Light.)

As to the OP's question: of course it is ethical. Anyone who is controversial is a good choice as an invited speaker, because being exposed to such folks makes students think. It doesn't matter what their "persuasion" is -- the point of having speakers on campus is to get people talking. Quashing certain points of view because one does not agree with them is anathematic in an atmosphere of higher learning.

Now then, is it ethical to kowtow to demands for first-class airfare or private jets by such speakers? No. A policy should be established setting a ceiling on expenses, and if they want upgrades, they can finance that out of their honorarium or just not come.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

That is an interesting question because I would have an ethical issue with that. She would need to take up her religion again and be serious about it. Although not a chance in heck that is going to happen, so not really a real "issue" here.

A real issue we see is with my 19yodd. We have already told her if she wants to get married Catholic we will not pay for the "wedding part", church, flowers, etc. unless she recommits to being a practicing Catholic.

She is currently with someone who is "Catholic" but does not practice at all. I don't even think he is confirmed. But you know Catholics, the mother still goes to church. I could see some pressure there for them to get married Catholic.

So yes, this has already been discussed in my house.

Most American Catholic universities do not have a religious litmus test. Even Notre Dame has a Jewish student organization and a Muslim student organization. Why would she have to return to her faith to attend a Catholic college/university?

As for the original post, there is but one response: Up with speech!
Bringing big-name people from all political and religious persuasions to campus should be encouraged, not discouraged.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

In that case, I'd go along with it. I remember when the president of Iran came to speak at a school here, people were outraged, but I said let him speak. It was a learning experience no matter how vile the man is. Banning people from speaking at universities is is telling us what we're allowed and not allowed to hear. That's scary.
____________


Ok, so I read the entire thread and I think I'm ready.

The example above I have a HUGE problem with. His country has been characterized as harboring and promoting hate for our country. They have harbored terrorists, and publicly have issues with our basic way of life. I have a problem with that. A big one.

However..... Palin, Bush, Obama, Biden, I don't really care. I am partial to a couple of these, but it doesn't have any place in this discussion. These people are major players in our political arena, and if you don't like what Obama has to say, then vote differently next time. If you don't like what Palin has to say, don't go or turn the channel. Or get involved in some other way.

Two very different examples of speakers. People who outwardly despise not only our country but our way of life should not have the same opportunities ON OUR SOIL.

JMHO

Other than that, yes, I believe that universities or schools that receive public funding should be allowed to invite speakers representing different points of view to speak. Education is not limited to one's own personal beliefs. Unfortuately both sides of the political aisle seem to have forgotten this.

Remember, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (Sorry, bad "Usual Suspects" reference )

 

[golfgal]

That is an interesting question because I would have an ethical issue with that. She would need to take up her religion again and be serious about it. Although not a chance in heck that is going to happen, so not really a real "issue" here.

A real issue we see is with my 19yodd. We have already told her if she wants to get married Catholic we will not pay for the "wedding part", church, flowers, etc. unless she recommits to being a practicing Catholic.

She is currently with someone who is "Catholic" but does not practice at all. I don't even think he is confirmed. But you know Catholics, the mother still goes to church. I could see some pressure there for them to get married Catholic.

So yes, this has already been discussed in my house.

I went to a Catholic College and we were required to take a Theology class but it wasn't necessarily a "Catholic" class by any means, it was more a history of theology. There were plenty of non-Catholics on campus and they were not in any way, shape or form "required" to act Catholic. And, yes I know Catholics being one myself and I would NEVER require my child to do anything they didn't want to do. Yes, I would prefer they got married in the Catholic church but I certainly wouldn't withhold money if they didn't. I find that statement very offensive.

 

[Wall-E1]

I can't believe I'm even posting on this thread. Many posters have already politely asked for more details on this question. I can't see any reason why the OP can't provide the details (even out of common courtesy, just to satisfy our curiosity). OP has stated that it is not a question of politics or religion, but ethics. OP could easily give the university name and tell us to type it into google news. Instead, here we are, pages into the thread, unsure of what we are discussing, or if the op has misunderstood a news story. The OP has every right not to tell us the university name, or who the speaker is. But then, why even post on this thread? We have no idea what the actual facts of the story are. It seems pointless to discuss.

To the op: Months ago, I was in a discussion with you on another thread that you started. You felt that hate crimes only protected certain groups of people and that when white heterosexuals are attacked by certain groups, those crimes are not prosecuted under the hate crimes law. You then laid down a specific challenge for somebody to find cases where non-whites were convicted of crimes against whites under the hate crimes law. You said if anybody could find cases of this, you would "gladly and humbly" apologize. So, I found several cases and provided links to the news source where I found them. You never apologized and instead abandoned the thread entirely. Here's the link again if you wish to respond... http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2345480&highlight=hate+crimes+law&page=4 (see post #48).

Some on this thread have speculated that perhaps the money was not coming from public funds, or that perhaps the university was not pushing an ideology on students, but merely presenting a speaker. These are legitimate scenarios. Unfortunately, we can not have an informed discussion on this topic, since we don't know what we are discussing.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Most American Catholic universities do not have a religious litmus test. Even Notre Dame has a Jewish student organization and a Muslim student organization. Why would she have to return to her faith to attend a Catholic college/university?

As for the original post, there is but one response: Up with speech!
Bringing big-name people from all political and religious persuasions to campus should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Because both of them are outspoken against the Catholic Church & the social policies. I don't think that would mesh well.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I went to a Catholic College and we were required to take a Theology class but it wasn't necessarily a "Catholic" class by any means, it was more a history of theology. There were plenty of non-Catholics on campus and they were not in any way, shape or form "required" to act Catholic. And, yes I know Catholics being one myself and I would NEVER require my child to do anything they didn't want to do. Yes, I would prefer they got married in the Catholic church but I certainly wouldn't withhold money if they didn't. I find that statement very offensive.

How do you find my rules, for my children offensive?

 

[golfgal]

That is an interesting question because I would have an ethical issue with that. She would need to take up her religion again and be serious about it. Although not a chance in heck that is going to happen, so not really a real "issue" here.

A real issue we see is with my 19yodd. We have already told her if she wants to get married Catholic we will not pay for the "wedding part", church, flowers, etc. unless she recommits to being a practicing Catholic.

She is currently with someone who is "Catholic" but does not practice at all. I don't even think he is confirmed. But you know Catholics, the mother still goes to church. I could see some pressure there for them to get married Catholic.

So yes, this has already been discussed in my house.

How do you find my rules, for my children offensive?

This is what I find offensive. Most Catholics I know are much more open minded about things then you seem to be.