Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Rosen cynically plays the victim card

Scott Putnam, Littleton

Published February 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Letters to the Editor

More stories »

It must be a slow day in the life of a victimized and outraged conservative columnist if he has to look at a small college 1,800 miles away to find a suitable target for his wrath ("Incubators for progressives," Feb. 8).

While the president of Bergen Community College has clearly overstepped his authority when trying to impose his "Code of Responsibility" on his college, Rocky columnist Mike Rosen somehow turns the well-intentioned but misguided attempt at restoring some civility to the college community into an attack on the Constitution and an example of the Great Anti-Conservative Conspiracy at U.S. colleges.

By focusing on extreme examples, he leads the reader to the conclusion that a "promise to respect every member of the college community" is akin to advocating the use of North Vietnamese-style re-education camps to force everyone to think and act alike.

Only someone cynically playing the victim card to get his troops riled up could turn a call for open-mindedness into a call for complete intolerance.

Comments

  • February 22, 2008

    7:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Old_Grouch writes:

    Earl,

    Interesting reply you have there; especially since Rosen is - or is supposed to be, anyway - a "conservative". And, that's just what he's doing, "screaming about . . . freedoms and rights being taken away", "conservative" ones, of course. As that bunch of whiners, and cryers of rivers of crocodile tears always do anyway.

    Are you supporting Rosen, the letter writer, or . . . ? Do you even know what was written?

  • February 22, 2008

    7:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    You cannot legislate tolerance as BCC attempted. Rosen's example wasn't extreme, it actually happened. The call for intolerance was from the leaders at BCC, not Rosen. Scott, your problem isn't with what was said but the person making the comment.

  • February 22, 2008

    9:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    What happened at little bitty BCC across the country already occurs in our own backyard. According to FIRE (thefire.org), these Colorado colleges have "speech codes" that are so restrictive as to censor student speech: Adams State, Fort Lewis, Mesa State, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Western State College of Colorado, and University of Denver. The "speech codes" at Colorado State, CU, and Colorado College are only somewhat less restrictive.

  • February 22, 2008

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    You mean you can't make public displays of bigotry without someone saying something about it?

  • February 22, 2008

    1:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    Anderson that is exactly the point. What every happened to the idea "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?". The majority view (PC speech only) should not be able to silence the minority even if the minority is an idiot, bigot, racist etc. Sometime the best ideas come from outside of convential wisdom in place at the time. Blacks have the same rights, women are equal etc. were not the majority opinion at one time. Should those ideas have been silenced?

  • February 22, 2008

    3:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    HydroMan, I can certainly agree with your statement, "I don't agree with what you say..." but I'm also reminded of another aphorism: "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill". I briefly reviewed Rosen's article again and it looks like the Bergen CC wants people to agree to an aspiration: "I will respect others, etc. etc." I don't see how general aspirations curtail speech. Even if I were to say something that others find offensive, what is the penalty? None, that I can see. Maybe I'm missing something.

    Contrast to Ward Churchill losing his job for his speech (forget about the other excuses offered).

  • February 22, 2008

    3:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    When the government defines "Hate Speech" they begin begin to allow certain speech and ban other speech. I am quite certain that if you really tried you could get arrested at many American Universities for saying certain things. If what you said falls under the title of hate speech that is designed to intimidate my guess that you would find a penalty. Hate speech is vile and usually always used by highly bigoted and misinformed individuals, however being an idiot or bigot should not be against the law. To say that it is against the law because it intimidates an entire class of people allows the majority to silence the minority.

  • February 22, 2008

    9:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    Anderson, it's fine if the college asks students to CONSIDER the code as an aspiration. But BCC wants students and faculty to AGREE TO it. And that's otherwise known as a contract.

  • February 22, 2008

    9:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    If you think Rosen was overreacting, take note:

    A professor at San Jose Evergreen Community College was fired in December for presenting a "nature vs. nurture" discussion regarding sexual orientation in her Human Heredity class. A student complained that the discussion was "offensive." That's all it took to get the professor fired--without a hearing.

    A student at Valdosta State College was EXPELLED for peacefully and legally protesting the building of a parking garage using student fees.

    And there are more...

  • February 23, 2008

    11:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    HydroMan, you're conflating a college's aspirational agreement to not engage in bad behavior, and the law. They are not the same. No, you cannot be arrested at a university for your speech. They don't have that power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think hate speech is against the law anywhere in these United States. And the reason for that would be our 1st amendment right to free speech.

    Kathy, as far as I can tell by Rosen's article, the agreement is not enforceable.

    The accounts you give from San Jose and Valdosta State (taken from the link you posted earlier) are highly suspect on their face. Student expelled for protesting. Hmm, it seems she would have to do more. Notably, we are not given *any* other perspective on this story--something that should raise a flag. As for the San Jose teacher allegedly fired from a public school without a hearing: it seems to me I learned in school that you *cannot* terminate a teacher without a hearing, because of their rights under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

  • February 23, 2008

    11:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

  • February 23, 2008

    8:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    Anderson, the Evergreen Comm. College story was also covered on KGO-TV, the San Francisco ABC affiliate. Since the story broke in the past few days, I'm sure there will be more coverage soon. The Valdosta State story, which broke in October, has been covered by the Valdosta Daily Times, WCTV (the Valdosta CBS affiliate), the Augusta Chronicle, the Student Press Law Center, the First Amendment Center, and the Chronicle of Higher Education--among many others.

    Your effort to impugn my argument by innuendo is just as pathetic as the outright name-calling on these posts.

  • February 23, 2008

    8:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    And get your facts straight: The Evergreen CC teacher is a professor, not a public school teacher. The blatant disregard of her right to free speech is exactly why the story is so chilling.

    Of course the BCC agreement is not enforceable--outside the college! But tell that to a 19-year-old who dares to speak his mind and then finds himself standing before the college president, regents, and a herd of college lawyers--expected to defend himself with no representation, no due process, and a presumption of guilt.

  • February 24, 2008

    10:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    A instructor at a public university is not a public school teacher?
    There may be a distinction if she is only in a temporary position but I don't know off the top of my head.

    You can believe whatever you want, Kathy. Obviously Fire__ is preaching to the choir and you are part of the choir. I, on the other hand, am not in the choir. Their single-view, one sided, stories do nothing for me. In fact, that sort of presentation is usually a sign that someone is trying to sell a bill of goods.

    Do you know something we don't know about the process at Bergen CC? I didn't see anything in Rosen's article that said anyone would face a tribunal based on their speech. That's why I asked whether it was enforceable--meaning in school.

  • February 24, 2008

    11:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    Life sure would be good for contract (non-tenured) college instructors if they were under the same contract as public k-12 school teachers. It's not the case in California--nor Colorado. Last I checked, CU is a public university. Colorado's community college system is also public. These faculty do not have the same contract as the K-12 teachers.

    FIRE takes on cases defending everyone from campus ACLU chapters to LGBT organization members to Muslim student groups to fundamentalist Christians. Yes, FIRE has an agenda--defending students' and professors' constitutional rights. That's an agenda I can subscribe to.

    You claim these cases are one-sided. PROVE IT.

  • February 24, 2008

    11:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    Anderson, I've substantiated my claims--now it's time for you to substantiate yours.

  • February 24, 2008

    12:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    This discussion isn't really going anywhere. If you feel so strongly about this issue, perhaps you should do what Fire wants you to do, that is, DONATE NOW to their cause.

  • February 24, 2008

    2:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    YOU'RE the one who refuses to engage by proving your claims. Well, maybe you just can't, so you revert to the Archie Bunker argument: "Because I said so!" Truly pathetic.