Professor Called Police After Student Presentation

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation/


This happened at Central Connecticut State University

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
Posted by admin on 2/24/09 • Categorized as News

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.....

The best comment comes from further along in the article:

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

I'd say Wahlberg needs to seek legal action against this professor.

[midnight]

1. I wonder where common sense has gone?

[keopeli]

2. The professor has obligations to report any suspicious activity

The professor was in a very awkward situation and had to protect herself against recourse. All the professor did was inform the campus police of what occurred. The professor apparently also had to respond to other students who were indeed frightened by the presentation.

If the professor did nothing, she could have been held criminally liable had anything happened after this presentation revealed disconcerting information. NOT acting would have been completely irresponsible.

The professor is not an enforcement officer and the police could have chosen not to pursue the matter.

I can't see that anyone has done anything wrong in this situation. Our culture has become quite sensitive to guns on campuses. Many of these kids probably had metal detectors all through high school with zero tolerance policies regarding weapons of any kind.

This story is not surprising even if it is a sad statement on our society.

Blaming the professor seems very misguided. Unless you have been in a position as a teacher and know the EXTREME pressures and the way society works against you, you probably do not understand why she was obligated to report the event. I think most educators would empathize with the difficult position that the professor was in.

When we start taking responsibility for our own actions, perhaps we'll stop trying to blame teachers and authority figures for the actions of their students and start correcting our own behavior, laws and system of justice.

Peace

[X_Digger]

8. Without knowing the content of the presentaiton..

If the presentation had been about abortion and others had 'been uncomfortable' would you see the same actions as being justified?

Since when does 'comfort' or the lack thereof become something to report to police?

And I'm ashamed that our society has become so afraid of litigation that the _fear_ of a _possible_ action not directly advocated, hinted at, or even suggested- is more important than common sense. Sad state of affairs.

[iverglas]

19. gosh you're clever

If the presentation had been about abortion and others had 'been uncomfortable' would you see the same actions as being justified?

The disingenuousness just gets cuter by the day.

[X_Digger]

30. Smarminess unnecessary

I may not agree with what everyone says, but I'll defend everyone's right to say it.

[iverglas]

90. hell yeah!

People can say all the dishonest things they want to say, and you won't catch me calling for them to be tossed behind bars!

Your point?

[X_Digger]

91. My point?

Speech- not directly harmful- should not be stifled. Regardless of whatever political agenda the speaker represents, barring specific speech like incitement to riot, etc, a speaker should not be turned in to the cops for that speech.

I doubt that this speech would have resulted in a call to campus police had the topic been about legalizing marijuana, pro choice, capital punishment, etc.

We've become so scared of lawsuits (and so quick to look for someone to blame) that we're willing to trample students' rights. (Not in this specific case, but looking at some of the replies in this thread, there are some who are advocating it.)

[iverglas]

94. and for your next act

You could try going back to my original post and responding to something I actually said.

Or you could keep pretending not to get the point of what I said, and keep saying things like:

I doubt that this speech would have resulted in a call to campus police had the topic been about legalizing marijuana, pro choice, capital punishment, etc.

Freedom of choice! and all.

[X_Digger]

99. Have fun with your snarks..

irrelevant as they may be. What, you think it disingenuous to ask if any other topic would face the same treatment? I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU (that reminds me, need figure out how to change my email address there) so any curtailing of speech bothers me. *edit hit post accidentally.

[iverglas]

102. I don't care what card you carry

What, you think it disingenuous to ask if any other topic would face the same treatment?

Yes. Because no other topic that anyone has raised in this thread is like the presentation -- NOT the "topic" -- that is the subject of this thread.

And specifically, I think it disingenuous to pretend that the "uncomfortable" that anyone felt was the "uncomfortable" you want to pretend it was.

[X_Digger]

107. That's the thing with analogies..

You wouldn't need them if thing 'A' actually WAS thing 'B'.

Other topics could also raise irrational (or even rational) fear or discomfort. I'd imagine there are some scared kids in economics classes today. Shit, the pointlessness of life as a presentation in a philosophy class probably would have some considering suicide. Does that mean presentations about nihilism should be curbed?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Speaking as a prof, the prof blew this one. Hopefully she is not tenured.

[petronius]

47. I'm not so sure - it really depends on the content of the presentation

If he dropped hints that he was carrying during the talk, or suggested that he engaged in violations of the university firearm policy, I think she would have been obligated to report it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. A student gave a required presentation in her class, I guess she needs to quit teaching.

[slackmaster]

75. I don't see anything in this story that comes anywhere near what I think of as suspicious activity

It was just an oral presentation.

:eyes:

[TellTheTruth82]

112. suspicious activity....

what was suspicious about this? Since when does "uncomfortable" equal suspicious?

[chrisa]

134. What kind of moron would be,

Frightened by this conversation? You would have to be an absolute sheeple idiot, imo, who wets themselves whenever they see something that might look scary; and believes that law enforcement will always protect them.

[spin]

3. The officer listed the weapons registered in his name?

I'm glad I don't have to register my weapons in Florida.

While I suspect an overreaction on the part of the professor and the campus police, it's hard to say without knowing the contents of his presentation.

His presentation might have perfectly correct and still disturbed the professor and some students. Many people have very little understanding of firearms and the people who appreciate them. They view gun enthusiasts as inferior members of the human species.

It's not always easy to be pro-gun in a liberal environment.

[tangent90]

5. It's not easy to be pro-Constitution in what passes for (but isn't) a progressive community

these days.

Personal responsibility has become synonymous with bigotry and racism in some minds. How sad.

[mix]

4. she did the right thing

those are dangerous and inflammatory ideas in a learning environment, not solutions to campus violence (which is also tied to other social-cultural-psychological contexts)

[tangent90]

6. Discussing campus violence is dangerous and inflammatory?

That is an astounding and bizarre claim.

[iverglas]

20. "That is an astounding and bizarre claim."

It certainly is!!!

Who made it???

[X_Digger]

31. Had you read it before the edit, you wouldn't look confused. n/t

[X_Digger]

7. "dangerous and inflammatory ideas" - gotta ban ideas!

Seriously?? Thought police anyone?

[mix]

14. in an academic environment

it is a non-negotiable, introducing firearms beyond police/security, and the student went beyond presentation to advocacy

also, whether we like it or not some ideas are dangerous and inflammatory and must be curbed, as was the case here...i see this as common sense, given the level of gun violence in this country, this has little to do with the second amendment

and the student was simply questioned after a background check, that seems appropriate given the circumstance

and yes "dangerous and inflammatory ideas are the best kind" when put to the service of a progressive agenda, not a deeply reactionary one of introducing weapons into academe

[X_Digger]

16. *hangs head in shame*

This is what we've come to?

Not admitting that the concept of banning 'dangerous and inflammatory' ideas is good, but.. who decides? Fundies see evolution as a 'dangerous and inflammatory' idea. Banned?

One man's 'dangerous and inflammatory' ideas are another man's common sense, and vice versa.

Good luck with that.

[mix]

27. her one mistake was allowing the presentation to occur

when the student had an agenda...every now and then there does arise in the classroom and lecture hall the need to suppress speech, for example, holocaust deniers, racism, advocates of genocide/political violence, hate speech towards others, sexually denigrating language, homophobia

i would not usually argue against the suppression of someone's views, but on this matter--guns on campuses--the prof did the right thing

[X_Digger]

37. So who approves the agendas that are okay?

Where's this list of approved agendas or topics?

We do our college kids a disservice if we don't give them the tools to think critically. Being able to poke holes in arguments more substantial than 'Which is better, facebook or myspace?' might be a good thing, ya think?

I think that the curtailing of free speech has to have a compelling interest, and I'd say that the interest should have an increased hurdle at a university. In this case, this speech does no direct harm (fire in a crowded theater, slander, perjury) nor does it advocate harm (advocating genocide / political violence.)

[mix]

38. administration and faculty decide, as they should

on an institutional and ad hoc basis

your argument re "free speech" is nonsensical, advocating for arming students has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with destroying liberal education

this horse should never be let out the barn

[X_Digger]

40. Do you not see the irony?

"and everything to do with destroying liberal education"

College is all about being faced with new ideas. Embracing and rejecting whole buckets of new ideas, deciding what kind of person you'll be- that is the quintessential college experience, IMHO.

Heck, to me, being a liberal means listening to and evaluating all ideas. It's the close-mindedness, the insular smugness of "knowing what's right" that disgusts me more than anything about the repugnican party.

[mix]

41. you do not understand what a liberal education is

or what it takes to ensure its survival...liberal education does not mean all ideas are worthy of debate or that the principle of free speech is more important than the security of students

[X_Digger]

44. *shrug*

Someone who's willing disallow a _presentation_ about the legal changing of state law* to allow concealed carry on campus- that just boggles my mind. When I was in college, we had folks of all stripe and political bent- from dyed-in-the-wool communists, libertarians, and socialists to young democrats and republicans.

*same caveat as before- we don't know the specifics of the presentation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. You do realize you are advocating Ronald Reagan's position re free speech?

which is that free speech is a threat to the university and must be controlled.

Don't read much Santayana, do you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. Actually your are one who does not understqnd the meaning of liberal education

A liberal education is an inclusive and wide ranging. It encourages the discussion and consideration of unorthodox and non-mainstream ideas, such as guns on campus.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Only what those in power think is worthy of debate, huh.

[slackmaster]

77. Looks like someone has conflated the concept of liberal arts education with liberal politics

Main Entry: liberal arts
Function: noun plural
Date: 14th century

1 : the medieval studies comprising the trivium and quadrivium
2 : the studies (as language, philosophy, history, literature, abstract science) in a college or university intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop the general intellectual capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal%20arts

[HALO141]

141. You are not talking about education.

You're talking about INDOCTRINATION. No matter what the political ideology, it's an evil, insidious thing. You suggest that liberalism is fundamentally weak and inviable. That it can only survive by silencing opposing ideas and those that espouse them.

I disagree.

[X_Digger]

42. Forgot to add a point..

Would you be okay with a right leaning state institution saying that nobody can advocate an anti-christian or atheist position?

(Trying to figure out if it's this one issue, or do you think gov't funded schools should be able to set their own list of verbotten positions.)

[petronius]

50. Please telll me you're joking

Academia is a perfect place to discuss complex, crucial, controversial ideas. Faculty are obligated to protect students, but we're equally obligated to stand up for principles of free inquiry and academic freedom (no matter how we feel about a particular topic)...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. The discussion of guns on campus should be an exercise in critical thinking not censorship

which you are advocating.

[DrCory]

70. How on Earth...

Is a presentation advocating the concealed carrying of firearms on campus "destroying liberal education"?

"this horse should never be let out the barn"

What other topics would you prohibit?

[HALO141]

142. I think it must be akin to the idea that

gay marriage will destroy families and the institution of marriage as a whole.

The two statements sound practically identical to me.

[gorfle]

133. Nothing to do with critical thinking?

your argument re "free speech" is nonsensical, advocating for arming students has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with destroying liberal education

Understanding the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the reasoning behind its writing, and its relevance in the modern world would strike me as a poster child for critical thinking.

Critically analyzing and discussing the differences between legal concealed carry on and off campus would have to qualify as critical thinking.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Equating gun on campues with homophobia? That some of the most crass hyperbole I have seen on DU

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. So obviously you'd rather remain IGNORANT than know who advocated

things like holocaust denial, racism, genocide/political violence and hate speech.

Me? I'd rather know, so I could point out such foolishness to anyone who would listen.

Is it better to be BELIEVED to be a violent hater than to speak up and remove all doubt? I'm reminded of the neighbor with the reporter's microphone in his/her face after someone they've known all their life went on a killing spree: "But he SEEMED like a nice enough guy". Yeah. Because no one listened to his hatred in public and got him help for it. All his neighbors had their fingers in their ears, yelling NA NA NA NA NA in an effort to protect their weak minds from that which they are most afraid of.

[gorfle]

132. Wow.

Are you equating speech advocating for the right to keep and bear arms with "holocaust deniers, racism, advocates of genocide/political violence, hate speech towards others, sexually denigrating language, homophobia"?

[HALO141]

140. An agenda?

How do you know he had an agenda? If you have a copy of his presentation then please share with the rest of us. I'm sure everyone would love to read it first-hand.


"i would not usually argue against the suppression of someone's views..." No, I guess you wouldn't.


If you can't see the horrific consequences that result from beliefs such as yours then that's truly frightening.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuIbujpLWA

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. THAT'S the ticket! Ban ideas we disagree with in an academic environment!

That'll save us!

You're right. It has little to do with the Second Amendent, but EVERYTHING to do with the First!

You funny guy! So, I should be subject to a background check for expressing an idea in a classroom?

[iverglas]

21. "a progressive agenda, not a deeply reactionary one"

You probably know that "free speech" and this rkba thing are two of the clubs currently being used on campuses by the thugs pushing that agenda.

What a bonus: they got to combine the two in this case.

David Horowitz must be orgasmic.

[mix]

28. snark!

fucking horowitz

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. "They were dying from too much freedom"

Some people need to be reminded that the Republic of Gilead didn't get all of their
support from "right-wing misogynists"

Fancy becoming an Aunt, do you?

[DrCory]

72. Free Speech is a Club? N/T

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. It was a SPEECH class...and weapons are not inherently anti-progressive

[tburnsten]

87. It seems appropriate to you to interrogate someone after a class presentation?

[hack89]

126. What threat does advocy represent?

what threat is involved here? How is concealed carry dangerous and inflammatory and why does it have to be curbed?

[HALO141]

139. orly?

"also, whether we like it or not some ideas are dangerous and inflammatory and must be curbed, as was the case here...i see this as common sense, given the level of gun violence in this country, this has little to do with the second amendment"


WOW. That's EXACTLY what certain authoritative people said about desegregation. It's also the excuse by which MILLIONS of people throughout the world have been imprisoned and murdered.


But I understand where you're coming from so I'll cut you some slack. It's hard to find a good place to get your nazi on nowadays, isn't it?

[mike_c]

9. I disagree wholeheartedly, and I'm a stauch anti-gun university prof....

The student brought IDEAS to class, not weapons. That's our stock in trade in higher education. "Dangerous and inflammatory ideas?" THOSE are the best kind! :rofl:

[mix]

39. you want students with guns in your classroom?

this was the student's position, is it worthy of defense?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Can you read?

[mike_c]

80. of course it's worthy of discussion....

Sheesh.

[tanngrisnir3]

83. Excuse me, but what exactly are you missing here?

They brought in exactly that: a position, supported by ideas. Please read this very slowly: NO ONE BROUGHT GUNS INTO THE CLASSROOM.

Your advocacy of this sort of thought-police position isn't just indefensible, it's shameful.

[LuisCipher]

111. I have no issues with it

...considering that not one single school shooting has EVER been stopped by police action -- the shooter either killed themselves or were stopped by non law enforcement people. I was even in one in Sept '96 when I was getting my Masters in Penn State. Once again, a student wrestled the shooter to the ground and punched her out. I saw it with me own two eyes! Law enforcement showed up about ten or so minutes later.

[dashrif]

69. It was a weapon he brought

Unpopular ideas are weapons of stone in a glass house. How dare a serf question me, I am lord in my class! Remember it’s now sticks and stones may break my bones but dissension can kill me. It’s wrong it’s color of law and her holier than thou bubble needs to be popped.:puke:

[chrisa]

135. Exactly.

Why can't everybody in the world think exactly the same way? Arrest the rest. ;-)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. I disagree wholeheartedly, and I'm a stauch pro-gun university prof....

While ideas can be the most dangerous things on the planet, no one was at risk here. I do hope they are not tenured.

[mix]

33. do you want students in your classes, armed?

do you really feel this is worthy of debate in academia?

[AtheistCrusader]

43. These 'students' are adults.

In most states, adults with no criminal history are eligible to carry a firearm for personal protection. (many of these students are 21)

Can you think of a compelling reason they should NOT be allowed to?

[mix]

46. introducing guns into an academic environment

would poison the educational process and endanger everyone involved...universities are not like restaurants and malls, they are discrete islands with wide latitude in deciding what is best for students...regardless of their adult status, students are there to learn from those who know more than they do about what type of environment is required for an education

also, the student involved in this affair is incorrect to argue that if other students were armed, the bloodshed at VT would have been less...this is simply an assertion without evidence, an opinion at best and a distortion at worst

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. introducing guns into an academic environment is worth of academic debate

Lots of different angles on it. The DISCUSSION is not inherently poisonous.

Your description of a modern university is both funny and specious. It ignores much of the history of US higher education, including the Strawberry Statement. It falls right in line with the Repukes who think it is best not to discuss things outside the mainstream since it might upset people.

The student's argument is a microcosm of one happening all over the US. In case you missed it, currently the right to carry folks are winning. Not saying its right, either in malls or schools, but honest discussion is certainly a reasonable thing to have, especially in a university environment

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. There are several colleges where students are allowed to carry guns

But the legal gun carriers aren't the ones going on shooting sprees, so apparently
they do not exist for you.

[DrCory]

71. You Oppose the Idea...

Therefore you oppose discussion of it. That is not a liberal trait. No, it's something else entirely.

[slackmaster]

79. Introducing guns into an academic environment is not the issue here

:eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. The fact of the matter is that you have NO WAY to refute the assertion

that other armed students could have stopped the killing before the shooter did.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. When you consider in what class it was in, there was no threat or reason for concern

And it is a reasonable point for discussion.
- Should those licensed be allowed to carry concealed
- What about open carry
- Should students be treated differently than staff and faculty
- What liability does the school incur is they do not allow it

[benEzra]

15. Whether or not you agree with allowing adults state-licensed to carry firearms

to carry them on a university campus, labeling a civil and reasonable presentation of that idea in a discussion devoted to controversial issues of the day as so "dangerous and inflammatory" as to merit police censorship is pretty damn scary to me.

Do you honestly think that the police should bust any student who civilly and rationally expresses opinions that an authority figure considers subversive?

[mix]

29. what is "civil and reasonable"

about advocating for people to carry guns in a learning environment?

[benEzra]

45. How about if they have six weeks gun experience and a badge?

Because few have a problem with the idea of campus police.

The man was not advocating "guns for everyone"; he suggested, in a formal class discussion, that allowing adults who are already trained, licensed, and vetted by the state to carry guns everywhere except schools and universities, to be allowed to carry at universities as well, would result in a net security benefit against "lone wolf" and "black swan" attacks.

One can certainly disagree with that argument; obviously you do, and there are rational counterarguments that can be made. But to censor that argument from even being made in an open debate, and moreover using the police to do the censoring? He didn't threaten anyone; he advocated a debate position (informal security by state-licensed individuals) that the prof didn't like, and got busted by the police for it. This would be like having a student busted by the DEA because he/she advocated cannabis decriminalization, or investigated by alcohol-enforcement cops for critiquing the age-21 rule.

This is a university. Subversive ideas are supposed to be engaged on their merits with an open mind, evaluated, deconstructed if faulty. Not censored.

[X_Digger]

48. Thanks, you expressed that better than I could. n/t

[mix]

49. you are romanticizing

that is not how universities work...one cannot reasonably expect to find support for phrenology for example, or to expect them to allow individuals to advocate for ideas, just for the sake of "free speech," that would endanger everyone on campus or that were simply false

of course few have problems with the campus police, a monopoly of violence is appropriate here

but you know what? i think from the perspective of the prof, she felt that there was a threat, as did the police, for her it was not a free speech issue or anything like that, so what we are bantering about is purely academic

you could argue i suppose that the effects of getting the police involved would dampen later discussion of this issue...if so, i would not have a problem with that

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Ah, how quickly they forget....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

Got any other Ronald Reagan speeches you'd care to parrot?

[pipoman]

76. This is a very real topic of national debate

with some 48 states allowing law abiding adults to obtain a permit to carry a defensive firearm in public. There are supporters and opponents to the idea of allowing people with appropriate permits to carry a firearm on University campuses, the discussion is ongoing. The State of Utah has a statute allowing licensed students to carry on college campuses, have for several years, no mass shootings or even incidents I am aware of.

What do you think of the debate concerning Ward Churchill? Most here on DU disagreed with his positions and ideas at the time but came to his defense when it came to the pugs who tried to have him excommunicated from the world of higher education because of his statements.

Your desire to stifle the expression of controversial ideas is far, far more disturbing than the description of this presentation or anything espoused by Ward Churchill.

[DrCory]

85. Sounds To Me...

You favor the use of police intimidation to supress discussion of ideas you don't approve of. That ain't "liberal".

[tburnsten]

88. Might be acceptable, except for the fact that there is no monopoly of violence

Campus police certainly do not have a monopoly on violence, the only people on campus who do not have the capability to forcefully and effectively protect themselves from an attack are people who actually follow the rules.

[HALO141]

143. It might also be argued

that, in this case at least, the student deserved protection FROM the faculty and campus police.

[krispos42]

128. Except that phrenology has been scientifically discredited

However, discussion of phrenology does occur.

In a similar fashion, Holocaust denial is not allowed to be taught because it is not scientifically or historically valid. It is one of the better-documented events in history. However, the discussion of Holocaust denial occurs and is studied and discussed as a valid topic. Not to refine arguments to support Holocaust denial but to increase the knowledge of those fringe elements that do. Such study of Holocaust denial would be very useful in Middle East studies, for example.

The idea that adult students that already have state-issued concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry on campus has not been scientifically or statistically proven or disproven.



"Monopoly of violence" is not an appropriate argument here. Licenced and armed students would not be part of a "campus militia" or some sort of organization that would challenge the authority of the civil governments that have juristiction over the campus.


It seems that the professor in question simply intensely dislikes guns, perhaps rising to the level of "hate". That is her perogotive; however that is also her personal issue that she must deal with without forcing others to adjust their behavior.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. What is civil and reasonable about banning free speech?

[tburnsten]

86. There's nothing cultural or psychological about being shot at by a mass murderer

And no amount of social-cultural-psychological fixes will help the victims of a mass shooting, though if one or more of the intended victims is a good shot and is carrying a gun, they stand a great chance of being able to help themselves and in the process everyone else out of the situation by firing back. Generally mass shooters are known for committing suicide once someone shows up equipped to stop them.


Solutions to campus violence you are talking about are preventative measures, they don't have any impact at all during the moment.

[madrchsod]

10. after the northern illinois unversity murders

colleges and universities are not taking a chances. the professor does have an obligation if the students felt"scared and uncomfortable".

yes there is a big free speech issue here and the university has to decide where it stands on the issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. If the students felt "scared", they need to reconsider their enrollment in any higher than nursery

school. I believe it was a put on by the prof. No tenure for you!

[benEzra]

17. I'll bet a hardcore fundy would feel "scared and uncomfortable"

in a classroom discussion of gender issues, abortion, or sexuality. Would you be OK with a conservative professor using the police to censor such discussions?

If not, then I don't see why it would be OK to punish this guy for presenting a civil and rational argument for allowing adults state-licensed to carry firearms to carry on university property. Agree or disagree with it, but the presentation was supposed to be on a controversial issue of the day, and using the police as a club to punish opinions considered "subversive" is pretty chilling.

The guy made no threats; he merely advocated a policy that, if implemented, would have made the professor uncomfortable.

[iverglas]

23. yes, because ...

I'll bet a hardcore fundy would feel "scared and uncomfortable"
in a classroom discussion of gender issues, abortion, or sexuality.

... one of these days, somebody is going to bring an abortion to school and take out an entire class.

The disingenuousness (subspecies: equivocation) in this thread is just overflowing, ain't it?

[DoctorMyEyes]

25. Finally! Thank you!

And yes - it is just overflowing in this thread.

The bottom line is that if this student made this type of presentation and then next week or next year went on a campus shooting spree every parent of every student in that school and half of America would be calling for that teachers head for not erring on the side of caution and reporting the subject of his presentation.

Was it really just a presentation or was it a red warning flag? I don't blame her for not taking responsibility for deciding that all on her own.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Should we limit all debate if anyone finds it scary?

[DoctorMyEyes]

74. Duh!

Every time there's a school shooting investigators and the media start digging through the shooters school records and personal life looking to find a reason and "missed clues" to the shooters mindset. And a HUGE number of people start placing blame for the tragedy on the shooters parents, teachers, counselors, etc for not being able to see the tragedy coming and take steps to prevent it.

"My God, look at his MySpace photos - how could they have not KNOWN he was going to shoot a bunch of innocent people???"

"My God, he was on ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and his girlfriend broke up with him - how could they ignore such OBVIOUS RED FLAGS???"


The kid wasn't checked out to stifle debate. The kid was checked out because his presentation could have been construed/perceived as a "cry for help". He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been fined. His guns haven't been confiscated and the only reason you know about the incident is because he's crying to the media trying to sound like a victim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Why would you ask students to give a presentation on controversial topics then?

Sorry the guest lecturer is a dumbass.

David

[paulsby]

93. advocating for expansion of civil rights

he wrote a paper arguing for an expansion of civil rights.

a class of people (students) are prohibited from carrying on campus in his jurisdiction (not mine).

he was ASKED to write an article on a controversial topic in media.

he did so. he advocated for an expansion of civil right, and for that he is pilloried.

substitute his advocacy for a change in gun control policy towards a greater amount of rights recognized with ANY other civil right (whether or not mentioned in the bill or rights. right to carry certainly is) and see if you would have the same reaction.

1) he argues for an expansion of rights for immigrants
2) he argues for an expansion of rights against govt. searches
3) he argues for an expansion of rights to choose to die
4) he argues for an expansion of right to choose

etc.

and see if your same rationaliation applies

[iverglas]

96. now go back to post 23

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[paulsby]

97. irrelevant

he's not advocating for student murder.

he's advocating for the civil right of concealed carry being extended.

students have as much to fear from an advocation of concealed carry as they do from an advocation of abortion.

iow, zero

[iverglas]

103. blah blah

he's advocating for the civil right of concealed carry being extended.

I guess you can name just about any human activity you like and call it "a civil right" and just trump everything and everybody else, eh?

Nah.


typo fixed

[tisfortomi]

136. Disingenuous?

"I guess you can name just about any human activity you like and call it 'a civil right' and just trump everything and everybody else, eh?"

No, only the ones that are already codified as such in law.

Are you really, in good faith, arguing that discussion of gun laws constitutes threatening behavior? Here's a hint: "Yes," and "no" are both wrong answers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. You are advocating for the criminalization of unpopular speech

Without being willing to come out and say it directly.

That pesky First Amendment really chaps your ass, doesn't it?

Your constant irritation that Americans refuse to rearrange their legal system to suit
you stems from one source: You're a chauvinist.

Our refusal to kowtow to your numerous pronunciamentos on how we should conduct ourselves
only seem to make you crankier (in multiple senses of the word).

[paulsby]

109. canadians don't HAVE free speech

and my understanding is that iverglas is canadian.

for example, it is illegal in canada to use public speech to deny the holocaust.

or make various comments about race.

canada chooses "civility" over free exchange.

USA takes the approach of voltaire - defending to the death the right to say things we disagree with.

[iverglas]

114. got some proof?

canadians don't HAVE free speech

for example, it is illegal in canada to use public speech to deny the holocaust.

or make various comments about race.

canada chooses "civility" over free exchange.

I'll be waiting.

[paulsby]

115. sure section 319 criminal code. section 13 canadian human rights act

canada has no respect for free speech, criminalizing inciting "hatred" against any "identifiable group".

canada criminalizes "hate speech" (the USA Doesn't),

it criminalizes "inciting HATRED". lol

see : section (2) anybody who communicitates statements wuillfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group.

section 319:

Canadian law section 319 Outlawing Inciting Group Hatred
(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of: (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty of: (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2): (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(7) In this section,

section 13

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) empowers the Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet:


13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Interpretation


(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.


i've been trained by FLETC as a hate crimes investigator (actually i'm certified to train other investigators). canadian officers also attended the training. i was amazed at how much govt. power THEY had to limit speech. they were similarly amazed at how much free speech we had

per wikipedia
Canadian Provincial and Territorial Law
Canada's provinces and territories have human rights commissions or tribunals which can award compensation in matters of hate speech. Saskatchewan had the first legislation in North America (1947) to prohibit victimisation on account of race, religion, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin. Saskatchewan's legislation is more restrictive than the prevailing model of legislation in Canada. Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code says "No person shall publish or display ... any representation ... that ... affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons ...."<15>The prevailing model of legislation prohibits communication which victimises anyone, or which is likely to expose any individual or class of individuals to hatred or contempt.
In June 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that Hugh Owens had breached the Human Rights Code by placing in a newspaper an advertisement that gave citations for passages in the Bible. The passages condemn homosexual behaviour. Owens appealed. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Tribunal. Owens appealed. In 2006, the Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal's decision. <16>
In 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Bill Whatcott, leader of a small group called the Christian Truth Activists, $17,500 because he distributed flyers that had controversial comments about homosexuals.

also note : the Keegstra decision (keegstra's actions perfectly legal in the US. illegal in canada)

note the situation is even worse in ontario:
http://www.ccla.org/pos/columns/BAN%20DISCRIMINATORY%20ACTIONS%20NOT%20INFLAMMATORY%20WORDS%202008.doc
this is a paper by a leader of the CCLA Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Canada's version of the ACLU.

[iverglas]

113. you are uttering an outright falsehood that you know to be false

You are advocating for the criminalization of unpopular speech

What makes people tell lies?

Just a general question asked out of general curiosity, you know.

That pesky First Amendment really chaps your ass, doesn't it?

Why would I give a fuck one way or another about your first amendment?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

... Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Your constant irritation that Americans refuse to rearrange their legal system to suit you stems from one source: You're a chauvinist.

Your need to mumble irrelevancies shows that you have nothing worthwhile to say.

Our refusal to kowtow to your numerous pronunciamentos on how we should conduct ourselves only seem to make you crankier (in multiple senses of the word).

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. "Why would I give a fuck one way or another about your first amendment?"

Well, there's the chauvinism right there.

To answer the question, I might say: "Because this is a website for the discussion of issues
concerning progressives and liberal Democrats, 95%+ of the posters at same being US citizens and/or
residents."

Or: "Because the First Amendment protects Wahlberg's right to say what he did, regardless of
how you, the dipshit lecturer, or the campus flatfeet feel about it, thus making it fit subject
matter for discussion here."

Why you are here escapes me, as you are more Royalist then Progressive. Certainly you are not a
Democrat. Nor a democrat, as any gun ownership by the 'little people', and any statement supporting
that ownership meets with your oft-expressed contempt.

You are here seemingly only to ladle snark and excessive verbiage upon Americans
in general and American gun owners in particular.

But take heart!
You have good American company in your contempt for the US Constitution.
The Bushies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3763886

Your posting of the CDN Charter of Rights and Freedoms is negated by the law cited in
post #115. You know, the one you played coy about in msg. #114.

I guess you won't be advocating making 'inciting hatred' illegal in the States, then?
That would be 'criminalizing unpopular speech'.

Hold your reply for a few, I need to get some syrup and preserves to go with the waffles that
will be heading our way...

[DoctorMyEyes]

98. He wasn't "pilloried"

His house wasn't raided. He wasn't pulled out of class, his workplace, a bar or anywhere else he might have been. He was called on the telephone and asked to come to the police station pretty much at his own convenience so that they could have a talk with him in order to better ascertain whether he was just a student completing an assignment of a fucking loon of a powder keg on the verge of a shooting spree.

I don't know why so many people are having a such a hard time grasping this simple reality. I have to wonder if they're the same people who get so outraged after school shootings that none of the people in the shooters life were fucking clairvoyant enough to "pick up on the clues" that are really only "clues" in retrospect.

[paulsby]

100. not at all

most of those clues are rubbish.

he was reported by his teacher, called into the police station for questioning because he advocated for expanding civil rights.

would you be ok if he was called in for questioning based on advocacy for

1) abortion rights
2) treating muslim students better
3) immigrant rights
4) speech rights

of course not. but calling a kid into the police station and questioning him about his lawfully owned guns because he advocated that students should have the same rights ON campus, that citizens enjoy off campus is ok with you?

got it

[DoctorMyEyes]

101. Yes - that's A-fucking OK with me! n/t

[paulsby]

104. well at least you are honest

and admit that you support unfounded questioning by police agencies of those who advocate for civil rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Then you are OK with the idea of "thoughtcrime"?

Looks like some of the Bush Administration's ideas have rubbed off on you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

137. So you're quite okay with the police requesting your presence even though you've done nothing wrong.

What do you think the campus cops (Keystone Kops) would have done had he FLAT OUT REFUSED to go to the station? Would you have said "well... if he didn't have anything to hide..."?

You don't mind being hassled by authorities when you've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG and VIOLATED NO LAW WHATSOEVER? Glad to hear that.

[HALO141]

145. You're right about that.

"He was called on the telephone and asked to come to the police station pretty much at his own convenience..."

And he should have politely declined.

[iverglas]

95. ... eh?

That's "duh, eh?" Rhymes with "ditto". ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Every thread you are involved with is filled with disingenuousness.

[HALO141]

146. Yeah, well...

leopards....


spots...

[HALO141]

144. We don't know

that any students "felt scared." We have only the professor's assertion that it was so. I'd bet a week's pay that she was lying. Lying goes hand-in-glove with cowardice.

[BigBluenoser]

22. If I had any respect for my profession...

I'd be ashamed of this professor. However it is just par for the course.

That said, it is possible this guy's presentation was overtly threatening if it was overly gun ho cowboyish. However, I have not seen any information released to date that makes the prof look like she acted responsibly.

[rrneck]

24. There is nothing

wrong with discussing that subject in that venue. Pending more information, the teacher overracted. But I wouldn't put it past some smart ass undergrad to present the information in a way designed to creep everybody out. If that was the case, the teacher could have intervened right then and not waited to call the cops.

I would think there would have been a crit after the presentation. Surely she could have snapped them back then if they needed it.

[Taitertots]

26. What is the complaint

What is the problem? All they say is "making students scared and uncomfortable" without further explanation. That leads me to believe the scared and uncomfortable was idiot professor knowing students have guns and flipping out over nothing.

Kind of funny that the school has a riflery and marksmanship club on campus.


Another example of why people don't want registry. As soon as there is a registration there is police questioning you about where your guns are, and singling out gun owners.

[GhostofRichardRorty]

32. As a Comm Professor & Former Department Chair...

I think this professor overreacted. Unless there was reason to believe there was an actual threat, the professor should have consulted with the course supervisor or department chair/head and stopped there. None of us here heard the presentation so it is difficult to judge with confidence; however, the discomfort of some audience members is not a good trigger (so to speak) for the professor to react. One could imagine a whole range of issues to which some students would respond with fear or discomfort. This presentation could have been what we like to call a "teachable moment"--about how to talk about sensitive topics, what sort of evidence there is to support or refute the idea that conceal/carry laws promote public safety, and so forth. Instead, the professor acted in a way that I believe is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.

By the way, Dr. Anderson is NOT a "professor" there at Central Connecticut State University. She is not listed as such on the Communication Department webpage; the university's directory lists her as a Lecturer, which is typically a short-term position that is not eligible for tenure.

[mix]

34. yer a clown

eom

[DrCory]

73. Not a Very "Academic" Response.

Kinda reactionary actually. Another shining example of your "liberal" identity?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. One has to wonder just how much university experience

"mix" actually has.

[Shakespeare]

84. You're an illiterate, incoherent dingbat.

Care to offer a more substantive response?

Mmmm. Thought not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Appreciate the look up, may she never find tenure

[HALO141]

147. Ummm... Maybe not anymore.

As of a minute ago, Paula Anderson is not listed on the Communication Dept. page. Whether this little bru-ha-ha culminated in her dismissal or her assignment simply ended is anyone's guess.

[Furyataurus]

36. Another

sheep going BAAAAAA. Of course that "prof" and student's "felt" "scared and threatened", he's right!

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Bull Connor and Ronnie Raygun are sharing a chuckle over DUers adopting their philosophy

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Not all of us

Just those like Iverglass and Mix who like Ronnie seem to think that restricting speech on campus to that which they agree with is a good thing

[paulsby]

110. the philosophy

that it is govt's job to protect us from scary, offensive, controversial speech belongs neither to the right or the left.

it belongs to statists in both sides of the aisle.

that much has been proven over and over again.

[yay]

89. No good reason for this

What the hell is this teacher thinking. This whole situation is bloody retarded. That teacher needs to get a life, and accept the fact that people can own guns without going on shooting rampages in the schools....

[aikoaiko]

106. Feelings, policy, covering one's ass, and no harm - no foul

Is it possible that a student might allude in his presentation to want to carry a concealed weapon even if it were illegal to do so given the VATech shooting (and others)? Sure, but there is not report of such an allusion, veiled threats, or specific threats. If there were, I could understand notifying the police, and the police talking to the student.

Is it possible someone might imagine a student would want to do so given such a presentation, and this might make them feel uncomfortable and scared? Sure, but feelings are no reason to file a complaint with campus police.

Given recent colleges policies and some people's low threshold for covering their asses, it doesn't surprise me that a professor and campus police overreacted.

Fortunately, the interrogation went well (i.e., didn't escalate into anything) and the student apparently is an upstanding student and gun owner and no harm was done except for the mistrust this student must feel about "the college experience".

I'm glad shit like this doesn't happen on my campus. We talk about guns, shooting, and how it would be nice if we could CCW on campus often with no one panicing.

[paulsby]

116. refer them to WA and Utah

i live in WA

both states have legal carry on campus.

it doesn't cause problems.

it's another baseless worry w/o evidentiary backing.

[spin]

117. Of course, honest people aren't the problem...

the criminal element and those with severe mental problems are.

[paulsby]

118. the UW

area has actually recently seen a pretty bad crime spree.

note this is OFF campus, so the CCW on campus isn't relevant. there are no "shoot-em-ups" on campus.

there was recently a nasty home invasion in the U district.

personally, i have carried on campus (when i go there, which is not too often) since i have lived here.

it is a beautiful campus, and i am sure that some anti-gunners would be apoplectic if they knew i was carrying. the reality is that plenty of people ARE carrying, but they "see no evil" since they don't SEE the concealed carriers weapons.

[spin]

119. I live in Florida...

currently there are 547,276 individuals with Florida concealed carry permits.

I'm sure a lot of the tourists who come to Florida each year are anti-gun. They have no idea as they travel about the state that they probably encounter a number of individuals who are "packing heat". As you say they "see no evil" as the weapons are concealed.

And they probably would be terrified if they knew how many Florida cars had unlicensed, unregistered and loaded firearms in the passenger compartment quite often in the glove box or center console.

The Brady Campaign did their best to warn tourist by posting signs like this:



I liked the signs. They didn't stop many tourists from coming to Florida. They warned a lot of criminals from the states with very restrictive laws that pursuing their profession in Florida might prove hazardous to their health.

[paulsby]

120. yes

it's similar to the fact that many people who are against gay rights have gay friends, but they just don't KNOW it, because they aren't "out". this is of course less common than it was 20 yrs ago because more gay people are out.

it is exactly that - an error in perception.

i would bet the VAST majority of people in WA state don't even know that there ARE legally carried concealed weapons on UW campus. the same people who don't SEE any gun problems on UW campus would support banning guns on campus. they "see no evil".

i walk downtown seattle, NOBODY knows i am carrying.

as a cop, i have on many occasions noticed the "tell tale bulge" or even underside of a holster as somebody bends over to get in the car. there are a LOT of people in seattle and outlying areas carrying and most people never know.

it would be interesting if one day this year, EVERYBODY who routinely carries concealed, carried OPENLY (that is legal here). anti-gunners would be SCHOCKED at how many people are carrying here

[spin]

123. Most people are not alert to their environment...

When a person firsts gets a concealed carry permit, he worries a lot about people realizing that he is carrying.

Because of your occupation and training you practice situational awareness. Most people have no clue what that means and wonder through their life with their ear stuck to a cell phone. They pay little attention to the people around them and would never realize that a person is "printing" (the tell tale bulge).

So that's probably why you do see a holster now and again. The individual with the concealed carry permit stops worrying about someone noticing that he is carrying and becomes sloppy. Obviously, this is not a good idea as sometimes the bad guys are also able to detect those who are carrying firearms and might decide to target them.

I try my best to make sure no one knows I am carrying. I also am careful of my surroundings and the people around me.

I don't go looking for trouble, because if I do it will find me.

Situational awareness is not only a good idea for self defense but can actually be fun. When you start paying attention to people, it's amazing how much you notice.

[paulsby]

125. i totally agree

it's like in the movie "they live" when the guy first puts on the glasses and sees what's REALLY around him. even after he takes them off, he is more aware of stuff he never noticed before.

it is true the reason i notice the bulge is because i LOOK for it, and due to my training and experience. the vast majority of people do walk through life in condition clueless. they are just very unaware of their surroundings.

i had the EXACT same experience when i first started carrying. i was always worried that if ANY bulge showed in ANY position (like bending over or whatever), that people would start pointing and be like "oh my god".

total unfounded fear.

and in regards to condition "clueless" or condition white, as it's commonly called. imo, if anybody is carrying concealed, they have a duty to always be condition "yellow". iow, aware and cautious. if you are going to carry a gun, you have the affirmative duty to be aware of your surroundings, and of your own actions.

[Furyataurus]

129. I agree

It's upsetting to see so many females gabbing on the phone completely unaware of their surroundings.

On another issue when I go to the range I'm seeing less and less LEO's going.......it's really fun to shoot with those guys esp. IDPA.......and I only shoot about twice a month.

[paulsby]

131. yes

i am a firearms instructor and an LEO and the reality is there is about maybe 5% or so who shoot frequently, and the rest of the people pretty much only shoot when they have to (assessments) which for us is twice a year.

[jody]

122. Many tourists from states with CCW and under FL reciprocity carry also, n/t

[spin]

124. True, so that increases the chances...

that an anti-gun tourist is very close to someone with a firearm.

[yay]

130. HA

For once I actually like something the brady campaign has done.

[aldo]

121. That teacher should be fired

The reaction to inability to exercise judgement should be termination not coddling incompetence or "zero tolerance."

[HALO141]

138. Paula Anderson...

can lick my taint.

(Wish I'd said it first but I saw it when I googled the whole thing.)


Yes, she should be terminated and the student should file a federal civil rights complaint against her.