CONTEST! Best Response to Professor Pompous Gets Free Copy of “The Nature of Nature”

_{Barry Arrington

July 20, 2011

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

UPDATE: WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL FANTASTIC ENTRIES ALREADY. BUT THERE IS STILL TIME TO POST AN ENTRY. I WILL JUDGE THE CONTEST ON 7-26-11

A couple of months ago a young university student contacted my law office seeking help in a dispute she was having with a university here in Colorado. [To protect my client’s privacy, I am using neither her name nor the name of the university. ] The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class. After hearing her story I sent a demand letter to the university seeking redress. Good news. We resolved the matter on very favorable terms.

One of the terms we insisted on was a letter of apology from the professor. This is the full text of that letter:

Ms. _____________:

With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology.

In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science. In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun, rather than the other way around which was, according to the Catholic Church ‘false and contrary to Scripture.’

In 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy’, forced to recant heliocentrism, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. As he was led away to begin his confinement, he said (to no one in particular) ‘and yet it still moves’.

NOW TO THE CONTEST: Even though the legal matter has been resolved, I will not allow the last two paragraphs of the letter, which, in my view, are equal parts smug and pompous, go un-rebutted. And I have decided to let UD readers participate in the fun! Readers are invited to propose responses to the professor in the comment section below. On July 26 I will judge the responses, and the best response will receive a free copy of The Nature of Nature edited by our very own William Dembski.

Comments

I relished the exercise of participating in this stimulating exercise and reading some of the other letters. In the spirit of full disclosure, I note that I already own a copy of "The Nature of Nature."StephenB_{July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Only beyond a certain point of willful, stubborn resistance to cogent correction.kairosfocus_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

"Selective hyperskepticism" Is that another way of saying "intellectual dishonesty"? Why, yes it is! I think someone needs to cool his jsts.Ilion_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Selective hyperskepticismkairosfocus_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

I am prepared to retract my arguments if someone can provide a transcript or recording of the conversation that shows the professor being abusive and screaming at the student. Evidence is always preferred to hearsay. Perhaps someone can find out who this Professor was and get his side of the story. As I've already illustrated, many students like to be challenging but don't like to be challenged, and a minority unfortunately resort to legal action when they encounter arguments they don't like. I went to university to learn new things, to have my assumptions and ideas - my world view - challenged, and to learn how to defend my own position. I had plenty of robust arguments with Professors, and on a few occasions embarrassed myself in front of the class with naive reasoning and a poor understanding of the facts. I never sued them for telling me when I was wrong - that was their job.DrBot_{July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

OP:
"The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class."
DrBot:
Mr Arrington seems to accept the first paragraph – where the Professor apologizes for the conversation.
As per the agreement, I'm sure. DrBot:
what about apologizing for the screaming at her part?
Not specifically stipulated, apparently. It's not that hard to figure. DrBot:
If this Professor has screamed at her in front of a class he should not only apologize for that but face severe penalties from his University.
OP:
Good news. We resolved the matter on very favorable terms.
It would appear from a casual reading that a "favorable" sum of money has changed hands. The university has accepted the penalty on the professor's behalf via cold, hard cash. The professor's part was to offer an apology. It would be virtually axiomatic that the terms of the apology were agreed to by all parties. It would be no stretch to figure the professor fulfilled the very minimum of his obligation. Now the good part. DrBot:
"Why accept an apology for having a conversation when the OP suggests there was no such conversation?
And I thought Barry was the lawyer. Yes, there was no "conversation." That word is apparently the professor's Orwellian term for what occurred.
Perhaps because there was no screaming involved? Perhaps the Professor merely challenged the student to look at the evidence?"
What are you implying here, that the university paid a favorable sum of money and that the professor was made to issue an apology because he simply challenged a student to look at the evidence? From what universe do you hail? This is just bizarre! Let's see what the OP has to say:
"The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class."
You are suggesting that this didn't occur, from the content of a forced apology by an unrepentant perpetrator. You are suggesting rather strongly that either Mr. Arrington or the student is lying, or both are. DrBot:
"Without a recording of the conversation we don’t know."
Yes we do. What occurred is quite apparent if we extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt. The professor is due no such benefit, having admitted guilt. Here's a recap. OP:
"The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class."
Let's look at a few facts: 1) A student made a legal complaint against a university professor for behavior unbecoming. 2) A settlement was made, deemed here, "very favorable." 3) An apology (of sorts) was issued by the offending professor, as part of the settlement. 4) You've chosen to cast aspersions on the OP by challenging its veracity, and instead you issue benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator, who is clearly in the wrong. DrBot:
"...but claiming that the student was verbally raped is a gross and uncivil abuse of language and demands a retraction and apology"
Only if you're asserting that the contents of the OP are disingenuous, and that your convoluted interpetation of such is obvious to the casual reader. Again, the OP:
...who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class."
This clearly constitutes verbal rape, especially considering the circumstances: an older man in a position of power vs. a young woman under his authority. That being the case, you owe both Barry Arrington and KairosFocus an apology and you're owed nothing in the exchange.material.infantacy_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Some persons value somethings more highly than truth.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Dr BOT & Ilion: Kindly turn down the voltage. I think you will both find that you are not the sort of vulnerable person I am speaking of. Further to the matter, if you will look carefully at the claimed apology it is not actually an apology even in the first part. And the second part compounds the injury. Next, Dr Bot will you kindly take a moment and put yourself in the shoes of a vulnerable person subjected to the sort of screaming tirade by an authority figure, in front of her peers, that is summarised in the description by BA. Ask yourself what that sort of thing will do to a vulnerable person, of the ilk of the shy young lady I once knew who was reduced to weeping by trying to simply present her project to a panel in front of her peers; which, BTW, was a good one. Betrayal of trust by violent public verbal abuse is a violation of the dignity of the victim, period. In the case of the vulnerable of the ilk of some I have seen, the damage can be devastating. (Remember, I ALSO pointed out that I know incest-rape cases who were able to cope pretty well, though scarred inside. And, please do not forget the second rape, by blame the victim courtroom tactics, as correctly highlighted by the feminists. I am simply asking for consistency in recognising what is done by the sort of verbal violation assault we are describing, not politically incorrect hypocrisy.) And if you pick someone of the wrong, face-culture, if they go white faced at that point back off, explain yourself and apologise. The case I have in mind here was a negotiation where a Japanese firm presented to a company here in the Caribbean and someone on the other side tried the nasty violently abusive and dismissive trashing the presentation talk-down tactic. The young Japanese presenter, who was in front of his silent senior, froze and went dead white in the face. Someone senior who suddenly realised what had been unintentionally done, cut off and rebuked the person delivering a torrent of abuse [sending him out of the room], and explained what had happened, restoring calm. Otherwise within hours we would have probably had a suicide. That is an extreme case, indeed. But it should help underscore the force of the point I have been making all along. The resort to dismissal by ridicule just above is completely out of order, utterly insensitive and reflects an appalling ignorance of what sort of appalling damage can easily be done to the vulnerable, Dr Bot. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

And DrBot *is* a fool (which word is just a simpler way of denoting that he chooses to behave in an intellectually dishonest manner) -- he was/is attempting to dismiss what KF said *and* was/is attempting to assert that what KF said is immoral even to say, and that it is beneath contempt to have said it, on the grounds that: 1) the derived more narrow senses of the word 'rape' are employed more commonly in present-day usage than are the original broader senses; 2) someone he knows was raped (in the narrow and derived sense). His error on 1) was explained to him, and to all, and so he turned to 2). Thus, it is easily seen that he is uninterested in thinking clearly and thinking true thoughts; which is to say, it is easily seen that he is intellectually dishonest; in short, that he is a fool.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

.. stupid .. .. there is no arguing with fools. You’re a fool; you’re intellectually dishonest ...
YOU HAVE VERBALLY RAPED ME !!1!!111DrBot_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

No he isn't.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

You’re a fool; you’re intellectually dishonest — go away, go find someone who enjoys playing dishonest games.
I assume the moderators will uphold the usual high standards of discourse by moderating Ilion? Oh, wait I forgot, he's an ID supporter ;)DrBot_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

I'm pretty sure that I was drugged and sexually molested as a college freshman -- raped (even if not penetrated) -- and I am not freaking out over KF's correct use of the word.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

DrBot @ 73 "On to the most offensive part of this – I have a relative who was subject to real rape ..." You're a fool; you're intellectually dishonest -- go away, go find someone who enjoys playing dishonest games.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Re the stupid "shame on you for using the word 'rape'" attempted idstraction -- there is no arguing with fools.Ilion_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

First off, if I go by the OP then the student ought to complain about Mr Arrington:
The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class.
And the Professor apologizes:
With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology.
Mr Arrington seems to accept the first paragraph - where the Professor apologizes for the conversation. what about apologizing for the screaming at her part? If this Professor has screamed at her in front of a class he should not only apologize for that but face severe penalties from his University. Why accept an apology for having a conversation when the OP suggests there was no such conversation? Perhaps because there was no screaming involved? Perhaps the Professor merely challenged the student to look at the evidence? Without a recording of the conversation we don't know. Unfortunately I'm biased by my own experience. I once gave a talk to a group of school children about robotics, AI and engineering in which I discussed how genetic algorithms are used to solve problems. Afterwards I received a complaint from one set of parents that I had grossly offended their child's religion and subjected them to personal abuse and humiliation. All I did was talk about GA's in engineering, with only a brief mention of Biology, and had no direct conversation with the pupil about religion, and didn't mention religion in my talk. My university wanted me to apologize at first, but the talk had been filmed and they eventually backed my refusal when they saw the tape. Lucky for me! Unfortunately in my experience there are plenty of people who regard it (correctly) as their right to criticize the beliefs of others, yet take deep offense when others challenge their own beliefs. They seem to feel that the right to critique and question is theirs alone - An increasing number of students these days seem to think that 'I sincerely believe' is a good argument and will complain if you don't give them top marks for simply writing about what they believe, instead of actually doing some research (like reading books) and engaging critically with evidence. On to the most offensive part of this - I have a relative who was subject to real rape and sustained abuse by a 'man of the cloth', who was subsequently protected by their church whilst the real victim was cast as a perpetrator. Using incendiary language to describe what allegedly happened in the OP is deeply offensive and demeans those who have been subject to the very real and horrific experience of sexual violence. Perhaps the student in question did deserve an apology, without hearing what was actually said, as opposed to the claims being made I don't know, but claiming that the student was verbally raped is a gross and uncivil abuse of language and demands a retraction and apology.DrBot_{July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Onward comment.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

"All I can surmise is that you were profoundly affected by some behavior at some point that has clouded your sense of perspective on such issues." No, I think he slaughtered a sacred cow of yours by comparing something you don't find offensive to something you apparently take quite personally. Allow me to apologize to you on behalf of KF with the professor's own words: "...I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs." Going forward, it took several goading posts to get you to admit that the professor's behavior was reprehensible. Exactly how reprehensible was it? Since the OP is about institutional violations of dignity and trust, perhaps you could elaborate on that subject instead of misdirecting the discussion to address your personal offense to the rape metaphor. That would be redeeming.material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

"...and while I do find the professor’s behavior reprehensible..." Yes, even if this behavior doesn't rise to the offence of using an uncomfortable metaphor in an appropriate context. After all, the professor was merely guilty of forceful, abusive violation of his student's dignity and trust. Folks, you've been given front row seats to a show where metaphorical language is uncannily more offensive than the public humiliation and verbal abuse of a young woman by her guardian.material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

F/N: D et al, sadly, are inadvertently telling us that Plato was right.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Doveton: You are now caricaturing yourself, by way of reductio. Good evening. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

KF,
It is utterly telling that to date you have yet to utter a word of concern for the victim of abuse on several levels.
It tells you nothing other than I haven't commented on this topic. Honestly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of topics here on which a number of folks have not commented either - what does that tell you about them?
And, sorry, you have simply not adequately factored in the context of public humiliation by a trusted authority figure, with all sorts of implied threats of further abuse. (Nor, the impact of the likely “permission” to others of similar inclination given by that cruel example.)
The article I provided as reference deals with that. You are welcome to read it and regard the conclusions as you wish.
I am simply not impressed with your medicalised presentations above, as you seem to want to be seeing fern seed at a mile while missing the elephant in front of you. In not only my observation but on abundant history — think about Mao’s Red Guards as just one instance — it does not take more than one such public shredding of one’s dignity to do a LOT of damage to a vulnerable person; and I would not at all be surprised to see that the person in this case had the “aura” that so often signals to bullies that this is a likely target.
My presentation of research on the subject that contradicts your claims aside, are you seriously suggesting that this incident of public harassment in the form of a verbal reprimand is similar in context and magnitude to the physical and psychological abuse that Mao's Red Guards were shown to have engaged in? Such as this: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/riley/787/China/Cultural/Cultural.html and this: http://donlehmanjr.com/China/china%20chapters/china%20book3/china58.htm Do you really have no sense of proportion, KF? It's beyond stunning to me that you think there's even a remote comparison between the two?
Sorry, I simply do not buy your suggestion that it takes much repetition to do real damage.
It's not a suggestion; that's the conclusion drawn from multiple research studies. You're welcome to ignore or argue against them, but I really don't see how that helps your argument. All I can surmise is that you were profoundly affected by some behavior at some point that has clouded your sense of perspective on such issues. The facts of the differences speak for themselves however, and while I do find the professor's behavior reprehensible, I can find no justification to condemn him for the level of atrocities you seem to think his actions reflect.Doveton_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

CT, the matter should have been plain from the beginning -- notice my actual phrasing in 36 above:
Sir, you publicly raped my dignity as a person. That is what you needed to apologise for, and utterly failed to do. Now, the letter you have communicated further tells me you are trying to compound the first offense by twisting the circumstances and pretending that you are an innocent Galileo being pounced on by a wicked and theocratic inquisition . . . . That main issue, sadly, sir, is that you are patently an unrepentant, publicly abusive bigot; one who has now repeatedly abused the privilege of being a professor. Your remarks were deeply disrespectful and were plainly intended to create a climate of hostility and intimidation; i.e. they are a case of bullying. Bullying by a perpetrator holding a position of prestige, trust and power, who now wishes to imagine and portray himself as instead the “real” victim
. . . backed up by the modicum or research needed to look up the key word in a good dictionary. Sadly, that was not done and a game of pile on is being played to divert attention from the substantive issue: yet another case of abusive amoral factionism by evolutionary materialist power wielders, here in the form of the abusive professor. GEM of TKI PS: And, on Christian ethics [a point I briefly mentioned by some allusive words in 36], turn the other cheek is a response to a personal insult. Rom 13:1 - 10 deals with the more serious context of violation of the civil peace of justice. In that context, instruments and agents of government and governance are required to defend the innocent from harm. It is the citizen's duty to act in concert with such magistrates in that course. or else civil society itself will eventually break down.kairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

I just wanted to take a moment and thank KF for putting an appropriate metaphor to the situation here. The red-faced, fist-shaking objections from the otherwise silent protesters convinced me about the efficacy of that term to describe what is probably a not-infrequent abuse of our up-and-coming youth at the hands of tenured idealogues. Also, UB had asked for more content. Thanks to him, I'm now neglecting my responsibilities, not unlike the professor did (in kind, not degree, of course).material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Dr Bot No, it is your response that is patently regrettable. You -- by shifting the subject to let's shoot the messenger -- are in effect enabling public violation of someone's dignity as a person (which as repeated dictionary citations have shown is a precisely correct use of the term, rape . . . and, for sadly good reason). CD has rightly called you on it. Thank you CD. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

@Doveton / Starbuck So you are convinced his metaphor is one of "a forced sexual act", rather than "an abuse or violation"?ciphertext_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

UB, I was just thinking the same about you. Get busy. xpmaterial.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Doveton: It is utterly telling that to date you have yet to utter a word of concern for the victim of abuse on several levels. And, sorry, you have simply not adequately factored in the context of public humiliation by a trusted authority figure, with all sorts of implied threats of further abuse. (Nor, the impact of the likely "permission" to others of similar inclination given by that cruel example.) I am simply not impressed with your medicalised presentations above, as you seem to want to be seeing fern seed at a mile while missing the elephant in front of you. In not only my observation but on abundant history -- think about Mao's Red Guards as just one instance -- it does not take more than one such public shredding of one's dignity to do a LOT of damage to a vulnerable person; and I would not at all be surprised to see that the person in this case had the "aura" that so often signals to bullies that this is a likely target. Sorry, I simply do not buy your suggestion that it takes much repetition to do real damage. I was not born yesterday, and I have seen the sort of person this sort of bullying can hurt badly, hurt badly indeed. (You will note that I also pointed out that I have known incest-rape cases that have weathered the storm pretty well, considering. But deep inside even these people were damaged, wounded deeply. Those are the "strong" women. There are those who are not like that at all, and are far more easily crushed. That is why I take a very dim view of abuse, one incident or multiple.) This was a violation, an unprovoked and intentionally wounding violation of an innocent person's dignity as a human being; one pregnant with all sorts of implications, and an apology was a minimal corrective. The perpetrator then took advantage of the apology to subtly compound the assault on the victim, playing off precisely the sort of blame the victim card that is so well known to dig the wounds in deeper. This already strongly suggests a highly machiavellian character trait compounding a twisted, personalised socially acquired need for power; i.e. the sort of persona commonly termed a "bully." (Notice, here, my reference above to the feminists and their correct observation that such tactics in the courtrooms of former days was a second rape, of the victim's dignity as a person.) So, for justice and for healing, a much more serious intervention is now appropriate. And, one who is a serial abuser like the OP outlines, if unrepentant, should be removed from a position where he could do damage to this young miss or other vulnerable people. Period. And you, sir, if you cannot see this, that is telling, absolutely telling. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

rape ? [reyp] noun, verb, raped, rap·ing. –noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. 3. statutory rape. 4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. 5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force. –verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse. 7. to plunder (a place); despoil. 8. to seize, take, or carry off by force. –verb (used without object) 9.to commit rape. Use rape in a Sentence
Use rape in a sentence. OK. The professor, seeking advantage for his ideology instead of putting first his responsibility as a role model and a guide of young minds, verbally raped his student -- a woman in the youth of her years whose exuberant spirit was yet unspoiled -- publicly, when for the purpose of ridicule, berated her mercilessly in front of her peers -- those whose acceptance was nearly as important to her as the acceptance of her teacher -- seeking to humiliate her in to silence, in order to save himself the embarrassment of his ignorance and quash any dissent of the views he held in higher regard than his hallowed role as a instructor; he violated the trust not only of the girl, but of any connected to her who put their trust in the professor for the care of their beloved.material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

I expected better from you, Bot. Put aside your issues with KF and tell us what you think of the Professor's behaviour.Chris Doyle_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply