Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html?ex=1324098000&en=87af8b74af1e13cc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I have to agree with the student on this.  Although the teacher is entitled to his beliefs, to confuse faith with science in an academic setting is unprofessional to say the least.  I think serious action should be taken to assure that religion isn't forced on students.  I personally accept Evolution, but understand its shortcomings.  I have no problem identifying those shortcomings in a classroom, but to tell someone they're going to hell for having different beliefs is crossing the line.  Our taxes go to educate and better these children, not to tell them they're condemed to hell.

I don't think it's a big deal. If the class was paying attention then it would be unforgivable but this was in New Jersey - half the class was probably stoned and the other half was probably pregnant.

Using the word "probably" makes it not-defamation right?

Teachers have no right to preach politics or religion in school.


This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

so to now act like One religion is the only religion is ignorant.

No Ten Commandments, No Prayer in school and respect everyone's religion.


If you want to believe in what you believe that is great, but don't preach to me like I am some sort of freak who is on a one way ticket to hell cause I dont believe how you believe.


Fire that Teacher.


There was a jewish Girl in my High School, and when someone mentioned Jesus or started praying, she would leave.

Needless to say, the juvenile idiots in my school would ridicule her.


At ballgames, I do not pray as I find it is ignorant to pray at something as trivial as a sporting event and I would never push my beliefs on someone else.

Yes, but those words were written into law in a particular context. That context being that the founders sought to be free to practise protestant flavors of Christianity free from the persecution of other brands of that faith, specifically from the Catholic Church. Had the colonists been persecuted at that time  by some other religion,  such as Judaism or Islam, the wording would likely have been a little different. Moral of the story; Centuries-old words on paper only have as much power as the influence of the underlying ideas at any given time. I don't see too many white christians complaining about the racial profiling of brown muslims when they're being pulled out of the line at airport security, so maybe the idea of freedom of  religion holds less power today than 230-ish years ago. Maybe that particular example is flawed, it could be argued that it's more of a racial divide than a religious one. Though I'm sure there's something in the constitution about all men being equal. . . ?

Besides which, I'm pretty sure that the country was actually founded on more of a "no taxation without representation" platform. I'm pretty sure that the war of independance was about that, more than which hymns should be sung on sundays.

But we ended up paying more taxes than when we were under British control.  : ok:

On the plus side; better dentistry.

Another thing that destroys this country is bi partisan politics.


If i walked into a restaurant and there was a sign on the counter that said "We serve Republicans, or We Serve Democrats Only"

I wouldn't be shocked.


These Days people dont even care about the idea or the logic.

If you are a democrat, Democrats will agree.

If you are republican, Republicans will agree.

If you are a democrat, a republican will automatically dislike you, if you are a republican, democrats will automatically dislike you.

Nothing gets solved that  way.

If anyone goes into an election booth and pulls  a straight lever for either party, I think you are doing a huge injustice to the country or your state.

Same with religion, If you cant love someone cause their religion is different, or can't be friends or what have you, to me that is ignorant.

I think you meant partisan politics  : ok:  Bi-partisan suggests two groups working together, as opposed to against each other.

And yeah, it's ridiculous. It's kindergarten politics.
"Ew, liberal ideas smell!"
"Conservatives have cooties!"

It's a sign of the times that the last issue to divide the nation so severly was the ethicacy of the slave trade, whereas today it's whether gays are people too, or whether Presidents should get blow-jobs. Really, we're at war right now because Bill Clinton got head from an intern. Even before then, the parties were looking for more ways to seperate themselves and divide their supporters - because apparently people are more interested in your stance on flags (Wave them? Burn them? Does anyone really care?) than your ability to run a country.  They're picking sides just for the sake of it, and claiming the middle ground  has become akin to waving a burning flag while getting head from a gay intern.

I want to echo D's comments.  He's absolutely right.  People who vote straight line for one party or the other are morons.  More importantly, D made great points about the rights of minorities.  Too often people in this country want to view democracy as freedom of the majority to shove whatever they want into the mouths of the minority.  That's not America, or any democracy/republic. 

Understand all the issues.  Vote based on what you think is best for the country, state, county, or town you live in. 

On topic for me now...this teacher needs to be fired immediately.  Unfortunately, this kind of crap happens all the time.  Let's imagine the reverse happening, and a teacher was in front of class launching a diatribe against organized religion (especially the major religion of that particular area).  I would agree with that teacher's immediate dismissal as well.   :peace: 

As a teacher - science, among other subjects - that's just crazy to read about.  That guy has no business being in the profession (at least at a public school), and I'm sorry his students had to endure that.  Having said that, I've often been asked religious questions in science class - especially when discussing evolution, and some questions are much more challenging to respond to than others.  It's a fine line to walk at times, especially when questions are geared towards personal beliefs, but it's a line that no teacher can afford to ignore.  I would agree with the article in that it's really rare to find a teacher who would protmote his or her beliefs to such an extreme in a classroom setting...he needs to go.

Here's a better idea, this Matt kid is now allowed to stand on the pulpit and read from an array of science text books during his teacher's Sunday school classes.........

im sorry.. but persecution by the CC.... in a land that was largely founded from the UK, a land 99% devoid of catholics.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

dont see anything there that says its for christian relgions there.


racial profiling s what it is..... midle eastren descent is what is targeted not muslim in general... i know of several jewish people that are constantly pulled aside for closer inspecion... granted i do find it funny that you singled out white christians... and not including black christians..... as they are closing the gap rather quickly....... nor did you mention mexicans, or any other christian based minoriy of the country. beyond that one should ask...... does it ake sence to target white amercians...... black amercians...... when the precived threat is from middle eastren men.... the system is flawed, but untill it really is cost effective to screen everyone, then pofiling is what will happen.... its what should happen.

Well, there are two specific clauses in the Bill of Rights that deal with religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
This first clauses relates to a government established religion such as "the Church of England."  Most people are unaware that at the time the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was ratified many states did have established religions.  This clause was only originally understood and intended to apply to the federal government.  However, through a misreading of the 14th Amendment, we now apply this across the board.  The Supreme Court has also developed what is called a "coercion" type test to determine whether people are being coerced to follow a certain religion.  Many have read this clause to mean "a complete separation of church and state."  That statement, however, is merely from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote from France while the Bill of Rights was being ratified.  That statement contradicts what many people believed the establishment clause to mean.  Nevertheless, somehow Jefferson's quote has become the meaning of a clause that was actually intended to mean something quite different.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This clause prevents the government preventing someone to practice their religion.  This the reason Muslims can pray on planes and Christians can wear tee religions tee shirts to schools. 


How does this teacher's actions violate either two of these clauses?  How does the teacher's actions disrupt the freedom of religion?  People have the freedom to speak or believe whatever they want, we don't censor people because of that.  People also have the freedom to believe or speak whatever religion they want, we should not necessarily censor that either.  I will agree, however, that we do need to stand by some sort of cirriculum or else our elementary and highschools will turn into our colleges where each teacher has their own specific agenda no matter how wacky it may be.

he can preach his religion all he wants but not everywhere. school is not the right place to do it except if there are religion classes. but, if not, personal belief should be kept to one's self. a child that maybe does not agree with the teachers beliefs might be afraid to say his opinion because of the repercussions. that is limiting his freedom of speech. he has no choice but to listen to that teacher.

I don't see how a catholic discriminating against a protestant is any different than a muslim or Jews doing the same? ?I also think your statement about muslims being pulled out of line is pure BS. ?I fly all of the time, as do some of my friends that have middle eastern decent, we have found that a white person (being me) is more likely to be pulled out of line for a security check than they are. ?It happens all of the time, and we laugh about it. ?

Nevertheless, nothing in the Constitution is absolute. ?One just needs a compelling purpose to override provisions in the Constitution.

Besides which, I'm pretty sure that the country was actually founded on more of a "no taxation without representation" platform. I'm pretty sure that the war of independance was about that, more than which hymns should be sung on sundays.

The kids are legally obliged to be in school, and the teacher is paid by the government. I'm not claiming that legally violates the clauses but it certainly goes against the spirit of it in my opinion.

I agree that this stuff should be left out of school; although I disagree that the Constitution commands that this be so. ?I don't see how this inhibits the students freedom of speech. ?How is this any different than attending a college where a professor expresses opinions on the far left or the far right? ?Does that also inhbit one's freedom of speech?

You raise a good point on the possible coercion issue.  I think you are right that this may violate the spirit of the rules as they are interpreted today, but I don't think they violate the spirit of the rules as they were originally understood to mean. 

College is not compulsory, and (I would assume) professors have more legal protection than teachers for what they can say via the tenure system. Though I don't see why the student's freedom of speech is inhibited either.

You can substitute the word "high school" for "college."  Furthermore, elementary and high school teachers are also tenured.

i think that teachers should leave their personal beliefs out of the classroom because they are there to present the children facts and let them make up their own minds.
as far as freedom of speech. when i was in school/highschool we had religion classes. i personally don't believe in god but i had to learn about christianity and all that it implies so i can pass.

I'll take a crack at that.

The teacher is employed by, and a spokesperson and representative of, the federally, state, and locally funded public school.  In espousing their PERSONAL beliefs while leading a state, locally, and federally funded (and "approved")  curriculum, they are, in fact, in a de facto manner, establishing a religion for the state.  They have no right to do this (obviously) or even give the appearance of doing it.  Thus, they should be fired.

In addition, the teacher is, in general, discouraging the practicing of alternate faiths by preaching theirs as an absolute.  You have a government employee who is, again in a de facto manner, telling those with alternate viewpoints, as part of their job to educate, that their views are "wrong" and will send them to eternal damnation.

But tenure in high schools really means job security as I understand it, whereas in colleges it is tied up with academic freedom as well. I would think there is very little tolerance in high schools for (even tenured) teachers expressing far left or far right political opinions in class, much less than for expressing religious opinions. So I respectfully disagree with your substitution claim.

I go to college, and professors ALL the time try and slant liberal propoganda to us... I mean in my history class when discussing the fall of the cold war in my professors words "the russians kinda just turned around and started to fall apart, Reagan had nothing to do with it and just took credit for it"

yea sure, the arms race that made the Russian economy go bankrupt during reagans presidency had nothing to do with it ::)


kinda getting off topic, but I do understand how it can be said that college professors have more protection..

They do in other respects, too.  Mostly, I think, because college is viewed as "voluntary education", while the majority of the "public education process" is mandatory.  It's the difference between lecturing to a captive audience and a non-captive audience.

My issue with (and I know, this is slightly off topic) those that complain that college professors "preach" too liberal of an agenda is this:  Why aren't there more conservatives teaching? 

The profession, itself, is more attractive to liberals...that's certainly true.  But if conservatives really want their viewpoint better represented (and I'm talking political views, not religious ones), they need to get more involved in the process.

And please..spare me the conspiracy theories about "there are plenty of conservative applicants but administrations ask about ideology and don't hire them".  I've seen the selection process of hiring faculty first hand at a variety of institutions, from piddly community college to Ivy League school.  It's just not (widely) true.

There was a paper that suggested conservatives that complete levels of education required for professorship(PhD level) are much more likely to work in the private sector, whereas liberals were more likely to pursue a career in academia.  I'll try to find the paper and link it.

But let's be honest, the 60s was a total sweep in colleges.  Leftist of that era made it their agenda to take over college.  No one can dispute that college is overwhelmingly liberal, I believe some 90% of professors are affilated with the Democratic party or other more extreme socialist ideals. 

The most balanced was an economics department, but even that favored Democrats.  Again, I'll try to find the article.

I know I'm resurrecting here, but...

Your above statements prove my point, pretty much.

Conservatives complain that the educational system, and college in particular, are overwhelmingly liberal in their viewpoints and attitudes....

But then, when  presented with the opportunity to TEACH, choose, instead, not to.

So, the whole basis for their complaints are based on their own actions (or inaction).

The only time a teacher would ever told me his, or her personal opinion would be afterclass if there wasn't anyone else left in the classroom.

Teachers are supposed to be indifferent, and unbiased, however if your really curious about your teacher's opinion on something, there not afraid to tell you, it's just that they might only do it when its appropriate, or under suitable circumstances.

Most of my professors were very professional.? They were always willing to discuss other views and never "punished" me because my views were different.? In fact, I think I may have gotten slightly better grades, a few points here and there, because my views were in the minority of the social science classes.? The only blatanly biased professor I had was a Philosophy professor who also was the worst professor I had.? ? She had no control over the class and was always nervous and stuttering in lectures - never made eye contact.? I did well in the class, but she crossed the line of intellectual debate by stopping students who used certain examples of a philosophy gone too far - like slavery and the holocaust - under the excuse that it offends some students.? Nothing pisses me off more than when a 20 year old black person or Jew claims they should be lumped in with the millions of slaves or holocaust victims for special treatment.? No Black in America was ever a slave and very few Jews had to suffer the attrocities of the concentration camps - none of which are in college classes.  It's an insult to those who suffered those events to equate yourself, someone in college in a 400 level class, as one in the same or even having some remote similarity.

You bring up a valid point, but you have a bunch of people teaching with no real world experience in the fields they teach.  I don't know too many people that start college (education majors aside) that intend on entering academia.  Most people goto college to gain a skill to be more financially successful - or they should at least.  I myself was a dipshit and have a degree in a field that is worthless in a civilian occupation.

I don't think that conservatives are bitching that professors are overwhelmingly liberal, just that they offer views not pertinent to their class.  An example being a biology professor using class time to go on a rant on the war in Iraq.  They're supposed to teach objectively and be a professional, not serve as a mouth piece for moveon.org.   Now that being said, in my experience most professors were very professional and would welcome counter arguments to what they said.  A chemist calling George Bush a moron in his professional life isn't what his students are paying for.  I believe that is the argument most "conservatives" make.  Wouldn't you be bothered if Pat Robertson was given a professorship in Latin and spent his class time spouting off religous drivel?

By and large, most professors publish and teach...with some consulting on the side (the difference being in the legal and medical fields).  It would be no different, if conservatives went into teaching directly, than it is now, except the viewpoints given would be more balanced.


Those are not the arguments I typically see made and certainly not the one I was addressing.  The arguments made (and if you look back to the original post which sparked my comment you'll see a typical one) are much more about acedemia, in general, being too "liberal" in their viewpoints and, consequently,  biasing and shaping "young minds".  That the teachers try to "slant liberal propaganda to the students all the time".  Note that the argument wasn't "slanting propaganda"...it was "slanting LIBERAL propaganda".  And they used an example of a history teacher.  That's tied up, largely, in the types of arguments I see given.....not a biology professor calling GW an idiot out of turn...but a biology professor espousing the benefits of stem cell research and talking about the politicos blocking it's use.  Not a history teacher randomly screaming the conservatives are the devil, but the history teacher saying the cold war ended because the Russians went bankrupt and fell apart, minimizing Reagan's involvement. 

All the criticism I routinely see is that they are teaching their political viewpoints intertwined within the curriculum, as fact....not that they go on wild political tangents uninvolved with what they're teaching.  It's the line where fact and opinion gets blurred that seems to cause conservative out cry.

And that goes directly to my point:  If you want more conservative viewpoints represented in the classroom, get more conservatives at the head of the classroom.  If you want a more balanced education system, then balance it.

Well it seems like  a nice idea, but how would we balance it?  I'd be damned if good professors who had liberal views were denied jobs because the school needed conservatives to balance it out.  I'm against affirmative action, regardless of those being considered.  I have a friend who has finished his masters and is trying to get into a doctorate program for History, but is facing resistance.  Partly I believe because he was the chairman of the College Republicans for a few years and has been vocal and active with the county party.  He has a 3.8 GPA, so grades surely aren't an issue.  In all fairness, this  is his observation, not mine, and even if it's true it's not indicative of the entire system.

In a subjective subject as all social sciences are, personal bias plays a factor.  In the cut-throat world of graduate level and professorships, that little bias can be a deal breaker.  I think the effect that professors have on students is overhyped anyway.  I believe that wrongs do happen, but they're few and far between.  I like the idea of the Students for Academic Freedom, but I wonder how it would be enforced.  I don't want to see a Communist silenced in debate just because he is in the majority of a Sociology class. 

In the end it's all about being responsible.  Someone's political affiliation shouldn't even be a factor for 90% of college professors.  I think it merits some attention for Political Science and Economics.  I want true diversity; which is diversity of opinion.  But I don't want to hire sub-par conservative professors over qualifed and better "liberal" professors.  Until someone can show that qualified conservatives are being discriminated against for tenure and professor positions, I think it's alot of hog wash.  My complaint isn't what these professors are saying, but the fact that they're saying anything related to it.  A biology professor who addresses politicos in stem-cell research should be open to educated and responsible responses that disagree.  I'm not talking about some red neck idiot quoting scripture or what his momma told him, but an educated person who has a different opinion.  I've seen it happen where professors make a blatant biased and often inaccuarte comment, and when questioned ignore it.  An example being in 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban failed to pass through Congress.  A sociology prof came into class atacking Bush for vetoing it and all the dangers it would provide.  I raised my hand and corrected her on the status of the bill and the fact it never made it to Bush's office to be vetoed.  She shut up, stood there, and replied I'm not here to discuss what bills were passed and not passed.

To me, the highlights the problem with some professors in college.  They just happen to be liberal, so it's labeled as a liberal problem.  But as the original article I posted pointed out, conservatives are just as capable of being biased and unprofessional.

1) You balance it by, as a conservative, choosing to go into the profession.  You don't need affirmative action, mandates, etc, etc.  You just need qualified applicants.  You cited numbers, yourself, that would seem to indicate conservatives gravitate to a different direction.  My assertion is, was, and always will be: Don't complain unless you're willing to work to fix the problem.  Conservatives, as a whole, don't seem to want to do that.  If they don't like the current climate, change it.  But don't simply bitch about it.  It's just not productive.

2) I'd advise your friend that he is, perhaps, projecting more than a bit.  Having been involved in selection committees, having discussed the process with others who are constantly involved in selection committees, and knowing just how competitive acedemia is at that level of scholarship......I'd say his politics have very little to do with any "resistance" he's facing.  Of course, I can't comment on the specific institution he's applying to, but I can say that at the Ivy League level it's not even considered for a split second. 


Politics aren't even considered during the interview process.  I supose on a cursory, roundabout level when discussing curriculum, but...unless the applicant brought it up in some obvious manner (the best example I could think of would be discussing creationism being a large part of the curriculum over evolutionary theory), it woudn't, in all the committee's I've been involved in, hdirectly or in an ancillary fasion, be a factor.


You're sort of dragging us off the point and in a new direction (at least on the point I was trying to make to the poster I responded to...I realize it's on topic in relation to the article you posted).  I don't disagree with anything you say, above.   And I certainly agree that some profs are pigheaded, obstinate, and unwilling to discuss or entertain alternate viewpoints.  THAT does come from tenure, and it stagnates the education process, not just in terms of political views, but in new acedamia that progresses and changes their fields.

 My point (and you supported it earlier with the numbers you posted) is that the problem with arguing that a liberal viewpoint pervades the educational system is that those arguing the point aren't willing to do anything to change it.  They just bitch.  Those conservatives decrying the "liberalization" of our youth and educational system could very easily help change it...by becoming, or encouraging other conservatives to become, teachers themselves.  Then, their viewpoints could be presented right along side those of the liberal profs.

If a teacher did that to me in class, I'd tell her to fuck off and then I'd get up and leave

 :yes:

I'd bet you'd sit there and bitch quietly amongst your friends.

Maybe I would, I'd point and laugh at her. :hihi:

The behavior of the teacher in the original post is unacceptable, but in other parts of the country, teachers are subject to ridiculous scrutiny. ?

My wife teaches Italian and in a class exercise where students were asked to recite simple sentences using an adjective, one student says "George Bush e' stupido." ?My wife didn't say anything positive or negative in response, just called on the next student to recite his/her sentence.

So what happens? ?A kid in the class takes offense, goes back to his parents and tells them what happened. ?The parents, amazingly enough, are also offended, so they complain to school administration, demanding to know why my wife did not lecture the student for being so disrespectful of the President. ?The administration officials then have a "talk" with my wife and instruct that in the future she should require students to use "positive" adjectives. ?So in the next exam, one of the students wrote "Satan e' fantastico." ?OK, I made that last sentence up. ? But, unfortunately, the rest really happened. ?

Mr. Steele, what kind of woman did you marry?  Just kidding.  :hihi:  On your case, my only problem was that she didn't correct the child for calling any adult "stupid."  That's disrespectful in my eyes coming from the mouth of a minor.

Back to the original post, no teacher should be preaching religion, any religion, in class.  I don't care if it's a class on religions of the world.  The curriculum should be absolutely objective.  This is what Group A believes and why.  This is what Group B believes and why.  Etc., etc.  God damn it's not rocket science.  It's not, "Group D believes this, and this is why they are wrong."  Those a-holes need to be tossed on their ass from public schools over to the lower-paying private schools.

I'm sorry Pilferk, but I completely disagree.  I am involved with several prominent academic institutions, and I am close with several of my former professors who will tell you quite the opposite.  When I get a chance - and remeber where it is - I will point you to an interesting discussion on the subject.

Whether it's a violation of the establishment clause is completely dependent on your interpretation of the US Constitution.  If you're a textualist or formalist, then it does not.  They tend to believe that the exact words are important, and the words are interpreted (by them) as meaning the establishment of a state church, like the Church of England.  If you're a believer in functionalism, then it is a violation.  The majority opinion in the McCollum case, for example, argued that, over time, public schools and education had become an important secular symbol and, because school is compulsory, teaching religion as fact is a violation of the establishment clause. 

I'm sorry, Berkeley, but...disagree all you want...I'll take my front line experience, over a decades worth, covering institutions from Community College to Ivy league institution as a bit more compelling as any anecdotal horror/war stories you can bring to light.  We've had this conversation, before, I think....while I understand the basis for your disagreement, I don't find it particularly compelling.  I'm sure, given the anonymous nature of the net, you don't find THAT very compelling...and I'm OK with that.  Just realize that I'm not talking from a position of complete ignorance on this subject, either.

Look, I'm certainly not going to comment on the sum total of human experience and say it never, ever, ever happens.  I'm sure it does.  I'm sure there's anecdotal war stories about the poor PHD candidate who was passed over because of their political leanings.  I'm sure there's anecdotal horror stories about selection committees who've chosen to hire the obvious liberal over the obvious conservative.  I'm sure there's  3rd hand in-depth conversations with professors who tell stories of secret cabals entrenched in the fabric of their institutions ensuring that liberal values pervade both the curriculum and the minds of the students.  And maybe there are at schools like Cal-Berkely (no relation, right?), Mills, Bard,  and other historically liberal schools....just as the opposite is probably true at historically conservative colleges like BYU and Wheaton.

But, from having served, advised, and collaborated on a whole SLEW of these types of committees, for about a decade, on both academic fellowship and faculty hirings....and from discussing, with long time faculty and staff, who've served for over 2 decades, who have been on the front lines of that process,  I can tell you, without a single doubt, I've never seen it or heard about it from people ACTUALLY SERVING on the committees. (And yes, I've asked.  And yes, I'm as sure as possible they've been honest about it.)  I've never seen a candidate's political leanings even discussed, never mind been a consideration for selection.  I'm sure you'll point out that that, too, is anecdotal in nature.  But it's an overwhelmingly large amount of anecdotal experience....and not just from one institution, and not just a few, either.

I KNOW there are those out there who harbor a secret conspiracy theory that the administrations of the colleges and universities set out to ensure that they remain bastions of liberal thinking.  I KNOW there are faculty who SWEAR that it's an ingrained, but never spoken of, mandate to hire those who espouse liberal values.  I've heard it all before.  But, the fact is, in my experience...it's just not true.  From the colleges I've been involved with, I've not seen it  at the community college level, not at the state university level, not at the baby Ivy level, and not at the Ivy level.....Considering the sheer NUMBER of times I've been through this process, now....if it was as prevalent as many people assert it is accross the country, wouldn't simple rules of probability bear out on this one?

I think it's far more likely that incidents are few and far between....but get more "tongue time" from those discussing this kind of thing because they're "sexier".  In my opinion, it's far more LIKELY that, the vast majority of the time, political creedo doesn't factor in one iota. Does the system break down sometimes? Sure it does...and those are the cases that everyone hears about, titters about with the profs, and talks about around the watercooler.

Not that one story proves anything one way or the other, but I'm currently in a PhD. program in political science, and was accepted after being raised in conservative Indiana and attending one of two all-male colleges left in the US.  If that wouldn't make a liberal cringe, I don't know what would.  But I've never been given any hassle about it.  Whether the programs that denied me admission did so out of spite, I'll never know.

In my experience, though, intra-departmental politics is FAR more time consuming for the profs than any vendetta against students who don't share their views.  And, the power struggles in the department tend to have little to do with personal politics and much more to do with the direction the field is going, etc.  I'm sure there are exceptions.  Some people are just assholes, and would take a personal approach to their students' politics. 

In my own teaching, I think it IS important to share my views, and to get students to share theirs.  Political science can't be taught well in an apolitical classroom.  I'm much more concerned that my students have views, are passionate about them, and can make well reasoned arguments in their defense, than about whether or not their views and mine coincide. 

I will respectfully disagree.  I have experience in this area myself with several prominent academic institutions, including an Ivy League School.  I can only speak from my experience, and you can only speak from yours. 

What the heck is functionalism?  Whatever meaning serves the function that the justice wants it to serve?  I come from the mold that the only way to properly interpret the Constitution is from the original understanding of those that adopted the clauses.  The Supreme Court has turned that original meaning on its head. 

What school are you attending for your PHD?  I am curious because I applied to grad programs for political science at one time, but I decided to take different route.  I think you nail it dead on in your second paragraph.  It's more of a groupthink mentality.  One of the best professors I ever had was a far left wing professor that displayed his views every single day in his classroom.  However, he was open to debate in class.  There are plenty of professors - which I have had - that don't allow themselves do be challenged.  They would rather indoctrinate than debate.

That succinctly sums up my experiences and views, too.

I can't speak for what Berkeley has seen, or heard, or done.  But I'm confident enough that whatever that may be, it's isolated incidents rather than overwhelmingly prevalent.

Formalism is the belief that each body has a specific function enumerated by the Constitution, and must operate in the specific ways detailed in the Constitution.  This differs from a functional approach, wherein government is allowed to operate, within some boundaries, as is necessary for government to adequately function.  This is largely derivative from the "necessary and proper" clause.


I'm attending the University of Illinois.  It's unfortunate that some want to indoctrinate their students, and I hope I never slip into that.  I agree that the best profs really encourage a lively debate of political ideals.  If anything, I want students to break down the indoctrination they've received their entire lives, and to rethink their values and beliefs.  If they arrive back where they started, that's great.  So few of us truly believe, with reason, the exact things that we accepted so easily when growing up, and I think college students, with being away from those same influences they've had for 18 years, have an excellent opportunity to truly forge their own beliefs for the first time.  What those beliefs are doesn't matter to me (well, I don't want them deciding that White Power or radical Islam or whatnot are really attractive ideologies, but OTHER than things like that...).       

Oh, so its ok if a adult says it  ::)

Robman, I'm afraid I didn't specify in what setting.  I meant inside the school for adults, and anywhere for the minors.  I hope that clarifies things.   : ok:

The good old necessary and proper clause - the Article I section 8 clause that englufs all of the other clauses in section 8 (of course along with its sister "the commerce clause").  Can you show me one case where a functional approach was necessary - other than Marbury v. Madison?  I am not sure how functionalism - as you define it - should be used at all in relation to any of the religion clauses?  How do those cases affect the government's ability to adequately function.  As previously stated, I believe that the Consitution should be interpreted in based on its text, supplemented by its original understanding.  Any other way - in my opinion - is based on an individual judge's subjective interpretation of what is "functional" or what should be the law. 


Good school.  I almost went to U of C relatively nearby before I decided to do something else.  Sometimes I find myself wanting to go back and get my doctrate in political science.  What is your concentration? 

When I was in school I was an editor for a relatively prominent publication that publishes scholarly articles.  There is certainly a mentality that scholarship on certain subjects or based on certain ideology is not as scholarly or as worthy of publication than others.  I have also been at the other end of it - submitting articles - and I can tell you the same.

It's not so much that functionalism says anything about religion in public schools, as much as it's the opposite of formalism.  So, as formalists take the "it's not expressly stated..." approach, and reach the conclusion that it isn't unconstitutional, functionalists don't take that approach, and so come to different conclusions (sometimes).  It's not so much that they ARE functionalists, as that they are NOT formalists, that matters.

Anyway, I'm hardly a Constitutional/Supreme Court scholar.  My focus is international relations, but we all teach Intro American Gov. from time to time.