I would furthermore find the substitute material offesive, and the substitute for that offensive, until my college assignments consisted of writing lines. Don't you interfere with my consitutional right to a college degree!
My first thought when reading of this regulation, prompted apparently by some students being offended by 'The Ice Storm', apart from that it takes stupidity to new heights, is that I can't imagine how the offended students would have reacted to the 2nd year English Lit class I had at Glasgow. Which included, among others:
Exhibit 1: Katherine Dunn's totally awesome 'Geek Love' - narrated by an albino hunch back dwarf stalking her own daughter, the product of a bizarre impregnation by her own brother, all the while trying to prevent her daughter being mutilated by a dykey millionaire who gets off on that sort of thing. One of the greatest novels, ever.
Exhibit 2: Lolita - 'nuff said
Exhibit 3: Choderlos De Laclos, Les liasons dangereuses.
Exhibit 4: James Kelman, A Disaffection: Kelman has largely given up punctuation in favour of swearing - a lot. The darkest work of Irvine Welsh is a lot like Kelman, with the bleakness of Kelman taken out.
I could go on.
Seriously, when did people come to believe they had a right not to be offended? And are a significant percentage of undergraduates really such pathetic losers?
So... you think science classes will have to stop teaching biology because the IDers might find it offensive? No showing how the Third Way fails as an argument for the existence of God?
("Shit, women's studies didn't turn out to be what I thought it would.")
In one of the first undergraduate tutorials I ever taught, my student turned up having written a paper on a topic other than the one I asked him to write upon because he thought the topic was boring and (he strongly implied) beneath him.
I'm familiar with the occasional exasperating student but it would seem like it would take more than the occasional one or two in order for that type of student to set policy.
Unless the offended students are merely a useful expedient for right-wing legislators wanting to acquire control over what is taught in colleges by the back door.
Unless the offended students are merely a useful expedient for right-wing legislators wanting to acquire control over what is taught in colleges by the back door.
Which, of course, they are. We're talking about Arizona here.
Q: Seriously, when did people come to believe they had a right not to be offended? And are a significant percentage of undergraduates really such pathetic losers?
A: No, I don't think so. But there are a small number of really pathetic students.
Perhaps some hockey sticks need to be distributed, IYKWIM.
Here at Unfogged we certainly don't believe we have a right not to be offended. Perhaps one day the benighted souls of Arizona will be similarly enlightened.
I just checked back through the thread linked in 9, and no one seemed to indicate that we have such a right. Rather, a number of people told the guy that his post was racist, that it wasn't "speaking truth" against those evil P.C. people, and he decided to take it down. Or am I misreading comment 9?
Not your usual level of criticism, Wolfson. You seem to have replaced your normal straightforwardness with obviousness and condescension. I guess you really are in graduate school.
I'm still between things officially, but I've recently started the process of getting back in (to start in the fall). My intent is still to do something nonacademic when I'm done. Actually, because of the way funding works a certain amount of "something nonacademic" and the dissertation are very likely to overlap. There's a lot left to be worked out.
I suppose that the bill, if it becomes a law, could also be read quite narrowly. I can't seem to find much legislative history on this, besides the vote count in the committee.
Curious timing, given the recent conservative orgiastic celebration of freedom of speech.
Good luck with that. Because of funding issues I spent two years of my doctorate working more or less full-time -- 1 year in a non academic job and 1 year as a philosophy lecturer.
Right now, although my thesis has been submitted I'm still waiting for my viva so am doing part-time teaching and non-academic work -- it's not easy balancing out all the commitments and finding time to try to write as well so good luck with yours, hope it goes well.
I suspect the orgiastic celebration of free speech is only because the target are people the conservatives hope to be killing. Not to be overly cynical.
And frankly, I'd rather not have a bad law enacted and hope that everyone interprets it in a harmless way. It's a stupid law. If you're offended by the subject material, here's a hint -- read the course syllabus.
Of course, if you're taking the course so halfway through you can stand up and proclaim the course is offensive to you, as I suspect will happen, then, really, just fuck off.
And Arizona has such a good philosophy department, too. Not that I'd have a chance to get hired there, I'm going to end up in East Podunk, Gulchville adjuncting for sixty cents a class, but yeesh, state of Arizona. Stop being fuckups.
I would furthermore find the substitute material offesive, and the substitute for that offensive, until my college assignments consisted of writing lines. Don't you interfere with my consitutional right to a college degree!
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 11:42 AM
My first thought when reading of this regulation, prompted apparently by some students being offended by 'The Ice Storm', apart from that it takes stupidity to new heights, is that I can't imagine how the offended students would have reacted to the 2nd year English Lit class I had at Glasgow. Which included, among others:
Exhibit 1: Katherine Dunn's totally awesome 'Geek Love' - narrated by an albino hunch back dwarf stalking her own daughter, the product of a bizarre impregnation by her own brother, all the while trying to prevent her daughter being mutilated by a dykey millionaire who gets off on that sort of thing. One of the greatest novels, ever.
Exhibit 2: Lolita - 'nuff said
Exhibit 3: Choderlos De Laclos, Les liasons dangereuses.
Exhibit 4: James Kelman, A Disaffection: Kelman has largely given up punctuation in favour of swearing - a lot. The darkest work of Irvine Welsh is a lot like Kelman, with the bleakness of Kelman taken out.
I could go on.
Seriously, when did people come to believe they had a right not to be offended? And are a significant percentage of undergraduates really such pathetic losers?
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 12:11 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 12:29 PM
So... you think science classes will have to stop teaching biology because the IDers might find it offensive? No showing how the Third Way fails as an argument for the existence of God?
("Shit, women's studies didn't turn out to be what I thought it would.")
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 12:32 PM
In one of the first undergraduate tutorials I ever taught, my student turned up having written a paper on a topic other than the one I asked him to write upon because he thought the topic was boring and (he strongly implied) beneath him.
I'm familiar with the occasional exasperating student but it would seem like it would take more than the occasional one or two in order for that type of student to set policy.
Unless the offended students are merely a useful expedient for right-wing legislators wanting to acquire control over what is taught in colleges by the back door.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:14 PM
Unless the offended students are merely a useful expedient for right-wing legislators wanting to acquire control over what is taught in colleges by the back door.
Which, of course, they are. We're talking about Arizona here.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:20 PM
I'm hoping that the more creative students will declare that they are offended by reading anything written by a dead white guy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:26 PM
Q: Seriously, when did people come to believe they had a right not to be offended? And are a significant percentage of undergraduates really such pathetic losers?
A: No, I don't think so. But there are a small number of really pathetic students.
Perhaps some hockey sticks need to be distributed, IYKWIM.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:27 PM
Here at Unfogged we certainly don't believe we have a right not to be offended. Perhaps one day the benighted souls of Arizona will be similarly enlightened.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:33 PM
I'm hoping that the more creative students will declare that they are offended by reading anything written by a dead white guy.
I'm puzzled by your use of "creative" here—seemed crashingly obvious to me.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:36 PM
It is crashingly obvious to you, Ben, because you are, of course, a genius.
By "creative," I meant, "capable of realizing that the text of the law can be read in ways that undermine its intent."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:49 PM
I just checked back through the thread linked in 9, and no one seemed to indicate that we have such a right. Rather, a number of people told the guy that his post was racist, that it wasn't "speaking truth" against those evil P.C. people, and he decided to take it down. Or am I misreading comment 9?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:51 PM
Not your usual level of criticism, Wolfson. You seem to have replaced your normal straightforwardness with obviousness and condescension. I guess you really are in graduate school.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:53 PM
Do you really want to insult all the graduate students here by saying they are condescending? Why, it's a wonder they even talk to those such as you.
(What with the various misreadings lately I feel compelled to not that this is not a serious comment.)
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:56 PM
"compelled to note"
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 1:57 PM
eb - you're not back in, are you?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 2:01 PM
9 was a joke.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 2:06 PM
My bad, over-sensitive today I guess.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 2:10 PM
I'm still between things officially, but I've recently started the process of getting back in (to start in the fall). My intent is still to do something nonacademic when I'm done. Actually, because of the way funding works a certain amount of "something nonacademic" and the dissertation are very likely to overlap. There's a lot left to be worked out.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 2:13 PM
I suppose that the bill, if it becomes a law, could also be read quite narrowly. I can't seem to find much legislative history on this, besides the vote count in the committee.
Curious timing, given the recent conservative orgiastic celebration of freedom of speech.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 3:13 PM
re: 19
Good luck with that. Because of funding issues I spent two years of my doctorate working more or less full-time -- 1 year in a non academic job and 1 year as a philosophy lecturer.
Right now, although my thesis has been submitted I'm still waiting for my viva so am doing part-time teaching and non-academic work -- it's not easy balancing out all the commitments and finding time to try to write as well so good luck with yours, hope it goes well.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 3:21 PM
I suspect the orgiastic celebration of free speech is only because the target are people the conservatives hope to be killing. Not to be overly cynical.
And frankly, I'd rather not have a bad law enacted and hope that everyone interprets it in a harmless way. It's a stupid law. If you're offended by the subject material, here's a hint -- read the course syllabus.
Of course, if you're taking the course so halfway through you can stand up and proclaim the course is offensive to you, as I suspect will happen, then, really, just fuck off.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 3:24 PM
I completely agree Cala. Just thinking to how universities might try to avoid any really harmful effects.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 3:47 PM
If you're offended by the subject material, here's a hint
...Bob Jones, Liberty, and Oral Roberts Universities are accepting applications.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 3:52 PM
Fuck them, too.
And Arizona has such a good philosophy department, too. Not that I'd have a chance to get hired there, I'm going to end up in East Podunk, Gulchville adjuncting for sixty cents a class, but yeesh, state of Arizona. Stop being fuckups.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-19-06 6:26 PM