Graduation Stories

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: On this we just have to disagree. If you invite a person who holds an elected office to a function to speak, you have turned it into a political event. That's my position no matter the event type or the political ideology of the speaker. By putting a politico on the agenda you make it about politics.


The university, by making the commencement political.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. The Mayor used to award my kids soccer trophies in youth league and speak. I had no idea I was attending a political event. As I said, nothing wrong with disagreeing.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 04:04 PM)Dill Wrote: If it claims to be a university, and a non-profit one at that, then no.

When universities are accredited, the question is what and how they will teach.

Bpat has alluded to the history of universities. In the late 19th early 20th century, research universities were legally detached from the kind of corporate/military style control you are projecting into them now--even private universities.

If private universities like Stanford and Vanderbilt wanted to be real universities, then they had to get their own "employers" under control and out of the business of deciding for faculty what they should teach and how they should behave.  Since WWII, that has extended to professors' (and students') freedom to protest as well.

Some private religious schools still think of professors as employees on the early 19th-century model, when professors at denominational colleges were required to meet religious tests, discouraged from research, their private lives subject to scrutiny, and given no "academic freedom." But those institutions pay a price in their rankings. They are universities at best in the pre-research, Medieval sense of the term.  

Yeah, I get that you and Bpat know more about the educational system and it's inner-workings than I. I just cannot grasp the concept of someone employed by a private organization is not that organization's employee. But of course that's most likely because my experience is in business. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 04:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well since Pence didn't then he was the one that made it political.

The controversy started before he arrived because some Christians at Taylor claimed that asking Pence to speak at commencement would make it seem that they endorsed the Trump/Pence policies that conflict with their Christian beliefs of love, forgiveness, and acceptance.

Pence endorses discrimination against the LGBTQ community.  No Christian should be required to tacitly endorse a position like that.

If I had been a student I would have probably stayed.  But no way would I sit up there as a staff member as a symbol of support for the school that invited him.

Pence is a perfect example of how some Christians are completely out of touch with reality.  People would not hate on Christians if they did not use their beliefs to support discrimination against women, interracial couples, other religions, and the LGBTQ community.  So while Pence is warning the kids about how it will be "tough to be a Christian" he is one of the ones making it tough by claiming Christians should have the right to discriminate against others based on their Christian beliefs.

Christian churches do a lot of good work, but they piss people off when they try to use their beliefs to justify controlling everyone else's behavior.


"Don't hate us just because our God is always right."

And as I've said constantly. It would have been a good day to use a sick day. You're not supporting the speaker you're supporting your institution and the students. I've listened to many folks I disagree with. 

I don't how many times I can say Pence was not a wise choice for speaker, but none of that excuses the employees' behavior. But I'm a conservative with a focus on business workings. I can see how a Liberal with a focus on social workings could differ. 

IMO these employees defied their employer and should be disciplined. To what level can be argued. 

[Dill]

(05-21-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I get that you and Bpat know more about the educational system and it's inner-workings than I. I just cannot grasp the concept of someone employed by a private organization is not that organization's employee. But of course that's most likely because my experience is in business. 

I think that is exactly it. You have difficulty understanding/imagining other kinds of organizational relationships.

So the inner workings of universities, the ideals and codes by which they work, are a mystery to you--though maybe not much longer as they continue adopting corporate (TQM)models of management, replace tenure with non-tenure tracks, become dependent upon corporate grants, and expand administration to the point they outnumber faculty.

If you are curious as to why your "employee" model doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to universities, recall the post above where I note that it is faculty, not administration, who decide who should be hired or promoted, what students should learn, and whether they have learned it.  It is the administration's job to make sure the classrooms are heated in winter, there are enough beds in the dorm, and the English dept. has funding for a Medievalist. It is NOT to police faculty/student politics.

And when administrations cross the line, it is the duty of faculty to step forward and hold their "employers" (lol) accountable. Make them step down, if necessary. Tenure was created to protect faculty from employers --private and public alike--who think THEY should run the university and faculty are simply employees. But faculty are custodians of knowledge and tradition, and to be protected as such.THEY are the university; they MAKE the university a university, not the administrators. Administrators come and go. And are not tenured.

When I began college back in 69-70, students held a sit in to protest a curfew applied only to women students; next year I went to another college where the war in Cambodia was protested. It would be a rare college/university which went a year without some form of protest--part of teaching students about civic engagement. Any given month there are protests involving faculty over myriad issues on campuses across the the US. A very sad day when that is NOT the case.

Mt. San Antonio College faculty protest proposed health insurance switch
https://www.sgvtribune.com/2019/03/16/mt-san-antonio-college-teachers-protest-proposed-health-insurance-switch/
CCSU students, faculty protest racism, homophobia on campus
http://www.newbritainherald.com/NBH-New+Britain+News/348679/ccsu-students-faculty-protest-racism-homophobia-on-campus
Georgetown Law School Faculty, Students Protest Sessions Free Speech Event
USC students, faculty protest school for naming only men as presidential finalists
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/education/article229545974.html
Faculty, students protest consolidation plan for colleges
https://ctmirror.org/2019/03/08/faculty-students-protest-consolidation-plan-for-colleges/
Students, faculty protest confederate statue on Ole Miss campus
https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Students-faculty-protest-confederate-statue-on-Ole-Miss-campus-506253491.html
University of Arizona students, faculty hold protest over charges in Border Patrol incident
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2019/04/10/protest-ua-campus-tucson-over-charges-border-patrol-incident/3425425002/
“Show us the money”: CSU faculty protest for living wages
https://collegian.com/2019/05/show-us-the-money-csu-faculty-protest-for-living-wages/

Sure, you could not run the postal service this way, or a chain of fast food restaurants, or a branch of the military. Because a university is different from churches, government institutions, the military, and business, different because its "employees" are tasked with teaching higher order knowledge and modes of inquiry, and to do so must have autonomy (non-interference) from those who do not know how to teach that knowledge or those modes, who don't know what's required. I.e., those you call "employers."

[BmorePat87]

(05-21-2019, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Does it matter to either of you that the University in question is a Private Institution?

No. As you said, it's a "university". That's kind of the point. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 11:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No. As you said, it's a "university". That's kind of the point. 

Interesting. You and Dill both say it doesn't matter if the institution is private. You learn something new everyday. 

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting. You and Dill both say it doesn't matter if the institution is private. You learn something new everyday. 

I wish that was a sincere statement from you.

One thing I have learned is that some people have better information and more knowledge of a subject.  When that happens it's best to learn while questioning rather than be hurt that someone knows more.

It helps me grow in knowledge and as a person who likes debate.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2019, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting. You and Dill both say it doesn't matter if the institution is private. You learn something new everyday. 

Correct, private universities and public universities are both... universities...

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2019, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting. You and Dill both say it doesn't matter if the institution is private. You learn something new everyday. 

(05-22-2019, 09:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Correct, private universities and public universities are both... universities...

The difference between a public and private university is only that a public university has the potential to infringe on the right to free speech. Neither type of university should do it. They are both there for the free exchange of ideas and that includes the freedom to dissent and protest.

Commencement speeches shouldn't be political. Speakers at those events should take that into account. Other times at the university? Fine. It should be a place for that exchange of ideas. But a commencement address should be about encouragement, congratulations, moving on to the real world, etc. It should be about the graduates, not about politics. Pence's speech was political, and it was written before anyone stood up and walked out.

Were Pence there at the university to talk about things for any other purpose, I would be saying that those protesting him even being there were in the wrong, that he should be able to express his views and engage in that discussion. Commencement is not the place for that, though, and those that protested have every right to do so. Protesting is about making a public statement, and staying home doesn't send the same message as walking out, not applauding, or turning your back. That is free expression, something all universities, public and private, should foster. If you're going to bring in a contentious, political speaker for an event like this, then you should be willing to allow for the expression of dissent by those in the audience.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The difference between a public and private university is only that a public university has the potential to infringe on the right to free speech. Neither type of university should do it. They are both there for the free exchange of ideas and that includes the freedom to dissent and protest.

Commencement speeches shouldn't be political. Speakers at those events should take that into account. Other times at the university? Fine. It should be a place for that exchange of ideas. But a commencement address should be about encouragement, congratulations, moving on to the real world, etc. It should be about the graduates, not about politics. Pence's speech was political, and it was written before anyone stood up and walked out.

Were Pence there at the university to talk about things for any other purpose, I would be saying that those protesting him even being there were in the wrong, that he should be able to express his views and engage in that discussion. Commencement is not the place for that, though, and those that protested have every right to do so. Protesting is about making a public statement, and staying home doesn't send the same message as walking out, not applauding, or turning your back. That is free expression, something all universities, public and private, should foster. If you're going to bring in a contentious, political speaker for an event like this, then you should be willing to allow for the expression of dissent by those in the audience.

As I've said I have 0 issue with members of the audience expressing their dissent publicly.  My issue is with the staff doing so and how the university should discipline such acts of overt criticism of the institution on the day of celebration.  

Other applaud it, I condemn it. but disagreement is what makes the board go round.  

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I've said I have 0 issue with members of the audience expressing their dissent publicly.  My issue is with the staff doing so and how the university should discipline such acts of overt criticism of the institution on the day of celebration.  

Other applaud it, I condemn it. but disagreement is what makes the board go round.  

That's a funny way to spin it.

Should they have been "punished" for speaking out about the selection long before the speech?  Or just for walking out?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 11:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's a funny way to spin it.

Should they have been "punished" for speaking out about the selection long before the speech?  Or just for walking out?

Of course not as long as their speaking out was directly to the institution. Disagreeing can be productive as it helps to limit group think. But there's a time and place for it. IMO in the middle of this recognition ceremony was not the time or place. 

BTW, perhaps it would have been a less funny spin if you would have bolded the whole sentence instead of only a portion.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 11:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course not as long as their speaking out was directly to the institution. Disagreeing can be productive as it helps to limit group think. But there's a time and place for it. IMO in the middle of this recognition ceremony was not the time or place. 

"opinion"

What is someone had to go to the bathroom "in the middle"?

Why is it "overt criticism" by leaving before he speaks but not speaking out against it before he speaks?  Any speaking against Pence being invited would by its very nature be "directly to the institution" that made the decision to have him there.  One of the complaints was that staff and the student body didn't have much say in it at all.  Fair or not that is a "directly to the institution".

So what is the difference other than Pence saw a few people walk out.

Should the ones who did not applaud be punished?  What if they stayed and played on their phones the whole time and didn't give him the attention?  If they had booed?  

Where do you draw the line on "criticism" that should be punished?

[Dill]

(05-22-2019, 12:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Interesting. You and Dill both say it doesn't matter if the institution is private. You learn something new everyday. 

Well I said quite a bit more than "it doesn't matter." 

I explained some of the bases for professorial autonomy which make a university a university, private or public.

Private or public, a university professor is not employed in the same manner as a groundsman or someone managing the dining hall. For that manager, the employer-employee relationship as you understand it holds.

But with faculty it is quite otherwise. Universities are organized around something called SHARED GOVERNANCE, which doesn't really exist in a business run from the top down. As I said before, in a university, it is not "employers" who decide what is taught and who teaches it. Private or public, FACULTY are the university, not "the management."

That is why faculty have a say in who gets to be president, and the power to force one's resignation, EVEN AT PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES. And that's why their "employers" can't just fire/discipline them for walking out of a graduation.

Ithaca College president to resign following student, faculty backlash
https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2016/01/14/ithaca-college-president-to-resign-following-student-faculty-backlash/37410891/

One of my favorites from 2006 lol

President of Harvard Resigns, Ending Stormy 5-Year Tenure
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/education/22harvard.html

Lawrence H. Summers resigned yesterday as president of Harvard University after a relatively brief and turbulent tenure of five years, nudged by Harvard's governing corporation and facing a vote of no confidence from the influential Faculty of Arts and Sciences....

At the same time, several prominent donors said they were aghast at Dr. Summers's fall.

"How can anyone govern a university where a fraction of faculty members can force a president out?" said Joseph O'Donnell, a Boston business executive who is a former member of Harvard's Board of Overseers and a prominent donor.

Whaaaa. . . . ???   The employees fired the employer??
You, Bfine, aren't the only business person confused about employer-employee relations at universities--even private ones.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: "opinion"

What is someone had to go to the bathroom "in the middle"?

Why is it "overt criticism" by leaving before he speaks but not speaking out against it before he speaks?  Any speaking against Pence being invited would by its very nature be "directly to the institution" that made the decision to have him there.  One of the complaints was that staff and the student body didn't have much say in it at all.  Fair or not that is a "directly to the institution".

So what is the difference other than Pence saw a few people walk out.

Should the ones who did not applaud be punished?  What if they stayed and played on their phones the whole time and didn't give him the attention?  If they had booed?  

Where do you draw the line on "criticism" that should be punished?

This is the 3rd time I've had to point to my issue being where it happened. I don't know if you're missing that part on purpose or by accident but it is a very important element. 

The difference is a few educators took it upon themselves to make this celebration about themselves, the speaker, and their disagreement with the university instead of about the kids and their families. If they did things such as boo or play on their phones they are also making it more about them than the kids. Nothing wrong with not applauding point of which you disagree. 

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the 3rd time I've had to point to my issue being where it happened. I don't know if you're missing that part on purpose or by accident but it is a very important element. 

The difference is a few educators took it upon themselves to make this celebration about themselves, the speaker, and their disagreement with the university instead of about the kids and their families. If they did things such as boo or play on their phones they are also making it more about them than the kids. Nothing wrong with not applauding point of which you disagree. 

Yet you said they should be punished (in your "opinion") because of them criticizing their employer.  Where that happened should not matter in your scenario.

I am ignoring the inane point that it was somehow disrespectful to the students and their families.  I'd bet your salary that most of the students who stayed didn't even know which people walked out, or they didn't care because they were staying.  

I really think (in my "opinion") that you care only because it was Pence.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2019, 12:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yet you said they should be punished (in your "opinion") because of them criticizing their employer.  Where that happened should not matter in your scenario.

I am ignoring the inane point that it was somehow disrespectful to the students and their families.  I'd bet your salary that most of the students who stayed didn't even know which people walked out, or they didn't care because they were staying.  

I really think (in my "opinion") that you care only because it was Pence.

The title of the thread is Graduate Stories so I think where it happened mattered in my scenario. But you did solve the mystery whether you were ignoring here it happened on purpose or accidentally. You're changing the whole issue to I'm upset they criticized their employer, while I've constantly said nothing wrong with it in the proper forum. My view would be unchanged if the walked out on a Clinton. 

So in synapse: You are arguing a point not made. Something that is very prevalent around here. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-21-2019, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being tolerant just means that you're willing to allow the existence of those opinions. It doesn't mean you have to listen to them. That's not something that has changed as far as I know. I would agree that respect is something that is lacking in today's political discourse, but in the eyes of many, Pence doesn't respect them based upon his policy positions. To put yourself in their shoes, why should they show him respect when he has shown disrespect for them?

We are going to have to respectfully disagree.

The commencement ceremony is not about who speaks, but the students who have put in the hard work to reach this point. Those walking out are insulting everyone who stays, not just the speaker.  Like it our not, the students are also representatives of this school and it's teachings.

As I said, I would sit thru it quietly, and after, I would take an advantage of the opportunity presented and ask questions to Pence (if he stays and is available). It's really simple.

As far as respect goes, Pence has accomplished a lot and like his views or not his position should be respected. These kids haven't "earned" any respect yet.

Can't wait for these kids to get employed and walk out on the boss during a meeting. They are in for a real surprise and lesson about respect.

[fredtoast]

(05-22-2019, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The difference is a few educators took it upon themselves to make this celebration about themselves, the speaker, and their disagreement with the university instead of about the kids and their families

The University started the problem by inviting speaker who was more concerned with pimping Donald Trump than talking about the students.

  

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2019, 01:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We are going to have to respectfully disagree.

The commencement ceremony is not about who speaks, but the students who have put in the hard work to reach this point. Those walking out are insulting everyone who stays, not just the speaker.  Like it our not, the students are also representatives of this school and it's teachings.

I agree that it is about the graduates, I've even said as much in other posts. Inviting Pence is a political move, and Pence's speech itself was political. That makes the ceremony not about the graduates.

(05-22-2019, 01:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As far as respect goes, Pence has accomplished a lot and like his views or not his position should be respected. These kids haven't "earned" any respect yet.

I'm a firm believer in this view of respect being one of the problems with our society. No one should have to earn respect, it should be the default. Instead of looking at people as earning respect we should approach them with respect until they lose it. Everything deserves to be treated with respect. Everything. Many things Pence has accomplished, however, codify people not being treated with respect. That is a big problem a lot of people have with him, and something that can cause people to lose respect they hold for him.

(05-22-2019, 01:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Can't wait for these kids to get employed and walk out on the boss during a meeting. They are in for a real surprise and lesson about respect.

Completely different scenarios.