Teacher taped preaching God in class

[pilferk]

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.

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.

[freedom78]

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.

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. 

[Surfrider]

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.

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.

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. 

[Surfrider]

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.?

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.

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.?

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. 

[Surfrider]

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.

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.?

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.

[pilferk]

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.?

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.

[freedom78]

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. 

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.

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.

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...).       

[Robman?]

That's disrespectful in my eyes coming from the mouth of a minor.

Oh, so its ok if a adult says it 

[Axl4Prez2004]

That's disrespectful in my eyes coming from the mouth of a minor.

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.   

[Surfrider]

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.?

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.

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. 

I'm attending the University of Illinois.

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? 

[Surfrider]

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.?

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.

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.

[freedom78]

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? 

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.