No, it's right. You're not comprehending, but I can see from your responses that you're a very slow learner. I'll be gentle with you, as you can't help that. See below. Look and learn....
That's exactly what the state is paying him for. You personally are not 'we'. That's the simple point you missed entirely. You are claiming to speak on behalf of all in the state, but you have no authority to do that, and that is very simply proven - you can't sack him. Only those who have the authority of the university vested in them can do so.
If you think that's wrong, try sacking him. You won't get far.
Once again, the word 'we'. The university determines whether or not his services are worthless, not 'we' (i.e., *you*). 'We' is just a convenient way for you to vent your own spleen.
Rot. Punishment in this case would be to sack him for speaking his mind (i.e., free speech). It is up to the university to determine his competence, not you. Get that into your head. I know it's encountering a lot of woolliness in there, but dumber people have managed it.
They ONLY have that freedom through the due processes, which you, in this part of your confused rhetoric, are advocating bypbutting, so you can silence someone you disagree with. It doesn't work like that!
...which, if true (and it's only your buttertion) is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he is doing his job.
No. You have to be a complete moron not to be able to test any hypothesis against the available evidence.
See above. They cannot do this directly, which is a good thing. They have to register their opinion through the normal political channels.
That's mighty generous of you!
There is a direct connection. He has to teach what he believes. He has to have the freedom either in clbutt or in the public arena to say what he believes.
Exactly! One relevant thing has made its way into your brain.
Only indirectly. If the university feels he is doing a bad job, then subject to their contractual obligations, it may choose to do so. The state and taxpayer do not decide this except through a much longer and vaguer process called voting.
It would be idiotic if I said there was a nexus between the two. I did not, but you are too slow to see that. They are two distinct statements and everything I said below shows that, except to you.
Ah! You are starting to see the light - you said that the university decides this matter. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in what you wrote previously, then there's no point trying to debate it further.
EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying.
Feel free to vent your spleen this way. Fortunately, that is a much more long-term process and things get put into perspective through it.
Normally, that is part of their contractual obligation - to respond to calls from the press to debate issues in their fields of competence in the public arena. To refuse to do so is to show either laziness or cowardice. Of course that's why you pay them - that's what a university is about!
One person's 'fair representation' is another's 'radical advocacy.' That's not for you to decide. Feel free to debate it with the person you are challenging, though. That's what it's about.
True, but you have a very strange notion of the duties of an academic. It is precisely because they have protection in their jobs that they can speak freely on issues and facilitate public debate - unlike many politicians, who are terrified of offending the voters.
So what have I written that makes me left wing? What you were not game to say was that universities are full of people who disagree with you. That sure as hell ain't because they're left wing, it's because they use logic and not bluster.
That's absolutely true. Sometimes they make lousy choices. And they get rid of those people if they do not perform their contractual obligations, which is how it should be - not some redneck who may have a completely misrepresented view of the expertise of the academic.
Uhah! Exactly as I said you would. It doesn't matter if the university is doing excellent research and teaching - you care nothing for that, you will bleed it dry till you get your victim, even though you won't debate his political position.
Of course. No-one said otherwise.
Someone you desperately want to silence, huh? You don't want to argue against his propositions, just toss him out. That's how they do it in countries run by despots. Fortunately, it's not yet America - well, parts of America, anyway.
Actually, I don't buy what anyone is saying, and I think it was pointed out clearly by another posting that this man's views were misrepresented - but frankly, I don't care what he says as long as he has the legal right to say it. What he says, or what *you say* he said was never my point, you ignoramus. It has everything to do with free speech and with your determination ot silence him. If you stifle dissent, you end up with a dictatorship. America, fortunately, is bigger than the dimensions of your narrow mind. So far.
Rifty
-- Academic and Computing Help
