Graduation Stories

[Vas Deferens]

I told Rudy to **** off to his face when he came to speak at my college under the guise of a digital warfare expert. But I’m the bad guy with his feelings hurt on my hands as opposed to I’ll be shit he’s incited.

Any guiliani defenders out there?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2019, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, we all can't be experts on everything. But to me one of their implied duties would be to attend the school's graduation ceremony. Pence gave pretty much the same speech at Liberty the week prior. Do you know why that one wasn't political?

Members of the staff and student body didn't make it so. 

But you've already indicated you're good with educators sharing their political bias while on the clock. Perhaps that's part of what their job "really is".

The staff most certainly did make it political.  It would be hard to pick a university that doesn't mix their politics and religion with their educational programs as much as Liberty.  Certainly Notre Dame and BYU give Liberty a run for their money with the religious instruction, but not the political.

Founded by Jerry Falwell, Liberty pushes a right wing, conservative Christian world view; "training champions for Christ is what we do."

Pence, Trump, H.W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Romney, Jindal, Fox News reporter Bream, Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson are some of their commencement speakers.  Clearly nothing political.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2019, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, we all can't be experts on everything. But to me one of their implied duties would be to attend the school's graduation ceremony. Pence gave pretty much the same speech at Liberty the week prior. Do you know why that one wasn't political?

Members of the staff and student body didn't make it so. 

But you've already indicated you're good with educators sharing their political bias while on the clock. Perhaps that's part of what their job "really is".

It has already been said, but Liberty is a bit of a different animal. They absolutely WOULD have punished anyone that walked out, likely by firing them. They are seriously strict about these sorts of things. I think the main difference, though, is that most students and employees at Liberty only really know Pence as VP. People at Taylor, which is in Indiana, will have a longer term opinion of Pence based upon his actions as Governor and Congressman. So when you combine the understanding of Liberty as a much stricter right-wing school and the differences in their relationship, for lack of a better word, with Pence, it makes sense that you would have different reactions.

Also, had anything like that happened at Liberty, Falwell would've made sure it didn't hit the press. They're good at that sort of thing.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 01:02 AM)Dill Wrote: Unless Taylor university has a specific (and unusual) policy requiring attendance (written into contracts), only a few professors would actually be "on the clock" at a graduation, namely those tasked with introducing the speaker or otherwise saddled with administrative duties, like a dept. chair who introduced his/her department's students. 

But the administrators who invited Pence to speak were certainly on the clock when they did so.

Do you think that walking out of a Pence speech shows bias, while inviting him does not?  No politics if "staff" and students don't protest? 

If so, then you have defined any behavior other than quiet submission to an administration's choice as "biased" and "political."

If Taylor University is indeed a university, then its mission quite exceeds vocational training and includes imparting to students a capacity for critical thinking, for questioning the status quo rather than reflexively upholding it.

So sharing "political bias" while on the clock can indeed be part of what a professor's job "really is." 

Inculcating blind submission to authority is not.

When you are salaried and representing an organization you are "on the clock". Taylor is a Christian University and Pence is known as a high-profile devout Christian. You nor anyone else knew if the speech was to be political; as they walked out before a word was uttered. If Pence kept his comments to Religious views then he, nor the administrators made it political; however, the ones that walked out did, because they disagree with his politics.

We will further disagree that part of an educator's job is to make known their political bias.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 08:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It has already been said, but Liberty is a bit of a different animal. They absolutely WOULD have punished anyone that walked out, likely by firing them. They are seriously strict about these sorts of things. I think the main difference, though, is that most students and employees at Liberty only really know Pence as VP. People at Taylor, which is in Indiana, will have a longer term opinion of Pence based upon his actions as Governor and Congressman. So when you combine the understanding of Liberty as a much stricter right-wing school and the differences in their relationship, for lack of a better word, with Pence, it makes sense that you would have different reactions.

Also, had anything like that happened at Liberty, Falwell would've made sure it didn't hit the press. They're good at that sort of thing.

So they walked out because they disagreed with an employer's decision.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 02:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The staff most certainly did make it political.  It would be hard to pick a university that doesn't mix their politics and religion with their educational programs as much as Liberty.  Certainly Notre Dame and BYU give Liberty a run for their money with the religious instruction, but not the political.

Founded by Jerry Falwell, Liberty pushes a right wing, conservative Christian world view; "training champions for Christ is what we do."

Pence, Trump, H.W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Romney, Jindal, Fox News reporter Bream, Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson are some of their commencement speakers.  Clearly nothing political.

As I said: I have 0 issue with the kids walking out. The employees had no business "upstaging" their employer and should be disciplined. If you don't agree with the decision either suck it up and do your job or stay away.

[Dill]

(05-21-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When you are salaried and representing an organization you are "on the clock". Taylor is a Christian University and Pence is known as a high-profile devout Christian. You nor anyone else knew if the speech was to be political; as they walked out before a word was uttered. If Pence kept his comments to Religious views then he, nor the administrators made it political; however, the ones that walked out did, because they disagree with his politics.

We will further disagree that part of an educator's job is to make known their political bias.

Of course we will disagree. You don't see a university as a university.

For you professors are "employees" on the clock, bringing politics to the workplace.  
Or are they more like soldiers, who represent the US whenever in uniform?

That's why their actions are "political" but their employers' is not.
If you manage a McDonald's, you don't want the kids at the cash register wearing "Go Biden" buttons on their uniform or refusing to serve Sarah Sanders.

We will further disagree that a university professor's job is to teach submission to authority--to employers.

And that submission is not political, but resistance is.

[BmorePat87]

(05-21-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course we will disagree. You don't see a university as a university.

For you professors are "employees" on the clock, bringing politics to the workplace.  
Or are they more like soldiers, who represent the US whenever in uniform?

That's why their actions are "political" but their employers' is not.
If you manage a McDonald's, you don't want the kids at the cash register wearing "Go Biden" buttons on their uniform or refusing to serve Sarah Sanders.

We will further disagree that a university professor's job is to teach submission to authority--to employers.

And that submission is not political, but resistance is.

I think viewing schools or universities as businesses/corporations and not something completely different gets a lot of people hung up when they start talking about how they should operate. 

It also ignores the history of these institutions and how political protest and the free expression of ideas has shaped their importance. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-21-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: We will further disagree that a university professor's job is to teach submission to authority--to employers.

And that submission is not political, but resistance is.

What happened to leading by example and teaching "tolerance" of others view points that you disagree with?

I believe the professors should be punished as well, this is a school function and they are representatives of their school.

This was not a political rally (where they have the right to protest), it was a graduation ceremony. Not a place for a protest of any kind, they're actions ruined the ceremony for others when this is supposed to be a very important day.


As far as the Native American trying to Alter her cap, well it's in the code that alterations is not allowed. At the same time, nothing in the code that prevented her from wearing it under her cap, or around her neck etc. Plenty of people graduate and wear something special and doesn't require altering their outfits. I feel bad for her though, she didn't get to feel the joy of the accomplishment of doing the walk.

[Belsnickel]

(05-21-2019, 02:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What happened to leading by example and teaching "tolerance" of others view points that you disagree with?

Being tolerant doesn't mean you have to just sit there and listen.

(05-21-2019, 02:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I believe the professors should be punished as well, this is a school function and they are representatives of their school.

On this we can agree, though whether they should be punished or not is something I would really need more information on.

(05-21-2019, 02:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This was not a political rally (where they have the right to protest), it was a graduation ceremony. Not a place for a protest of any kind, they're actions ruined the ceremony for others when this is supposed to be a very important day.

When you introduce a political figure into an event, it becomes political. That's the nature of it. Even if it isn't a political event, you ALWAYS have the right to protest. Now, as a private university they could put restrictions on that, but that isn't an infringement of their rights and it doesn't take away those rights.

As for how it affected the ceremony itself, reports indicate that the majority of both the student body (and the graduates) as well as faculty were not in favor of Pence speaking. While most remained in their seats, the majority sat in silence, refusing to applaud throughout and during the standing ovation. One could say that the university choosing to invite Pence was in itself something that ruined this important day for most of the graduates.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-21-2019, 02:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being tolerant doesn't mean you have to just sit there and listen.


On this we can agree, though whether they should be punished or not is something I would really need more information on.


When you introduce a political figure into an event, it becomes political. That's the nature of it. Even if it isn't a political event, you ALWAYS have the right to protest. Now, as a private university they could put restrictions on that, but that isn't an infringement of their rights and it doesn't take away those rights.

As for how it affected the ceremony itself, reports indicate that the majority of both the student body (and the graduates) as well as faculty were not in favor of Pence speaking. While most remained in their seats, the majority sat in silence, refusing to applaud throughout and during the standing ovation. One could say that the university choosing to invite Pence was in itself something that ruined this important day for most of the graduates.

When did the definition of Tolerant change?
As far as I know it's the ability to accept others for their different point of views and listening to them even if you disagree.

Intolerant behavior would be walking out or not even hearing what they have to say, you know unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression to those with different beliefs than your own, aka Bigoted behavior.

No mater who would've been invited there is no perfect speaker, anyone can always be twisted into a political thing. Having a powerful figure such as the VP speaking at your commencement is unique, they don't speak at many, only a select few, so respect should always be shown if not for the person then the position of power they hold. If Hillary/Obama was speaking at my graduation, I would endure quietly their speech  (you know tolerance) and wait for it to be over so I can move on with the commencement ceremony. Respect is something both sides fail to show a lot and it's sickening.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course we will disagree. You don't see a university as a university.

For you professors are "employees" on the clock, bringing politics to the workplace.  
Or are they more like soldiers, who represent the US whenever in uniform?

That's why their actions are "political" but their employers' is not.
If you manage a McDonald's, you don't want the kids at the cash register wearing "Go Biden" buttons on their uniform or refusing to serve Sarah Sanders.

We will further disagree that a university professor's job is to teach submission to authority--to employers.

And that submission is not political, but resistance is.

(05-21-2019, 02:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think viewing schools or universities as businesses/corporations and not something completely different gets a lot of people hung up when they start talking about how they should operate. 

It also ignores the history of these institutions and how political protest and the free expression of ideas has shaped their importance. 

Does it matter to either of you that the University in question is a Private Institution?

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 02:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Being tolerant doesn't mean you have to just sit there and listen.


2. On this we can agree, though whether they should be punished or not is something I would really need more information on.


3. When you introduce a political figure into an event, it becomes political. That's the nature of it. Even if it isn't a political event, you ALWAYS have the right to protest. Now, as a private university they could put restrictions on that, but that isn't an infringement of their rights and it doesn't take away those rights.

4. As for how it affected the ceremony itself, reports indicate that the majority of both the student body (and the graduates) as well as faculty were not in favor of Pence speaking. While most remained in their seats, the majority sat in silence, refusing to applaud throughout and during the standing ovation. One could say that the university choosing to invite Pence was in itself something that ruined this important day for most of the graduates.

1&2: It is why I said it would be a good day to take a sick day. When you come with the intent of publicly demonstrating against your employer's (pretty sure that's the right word; although, I've been corrected) decisions. IMO you reap what you sow.

3. No you don't. It only becomes a political event when politics are discussed or in this case select students and faculty choose to make it so before a single word was uttered. If they would have stayed and walked out once Pence turned political then they may have a point; although, I probably still disagree with it but that's a personal bias.

4. And I've read most were happy to have him there and even made "I Like Mike" T-Shirts, but the point is moot. The University invited someone they wanted to speak at a graduation and some got mad because their thoughts were "ignored". As I said I have 0 issue with the kids walking out; they ruined their own day. But what about that kid that remained and saw one of his/her favorite professors leave? Who short-changed him/her?

[Dill]

(05-21-2019, 02:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What happened to leading by example and teaching "tolerance" of others view points that you disagree with?

I believe the professors should be punished as well, this is a school function and they are representatives of their school.

This was not a political rally (where they have the right to protest), it was a graduation ceremony. Not a place for a protest of any kind, they're actions ruined the ceremony for others when this is supposed to be a very important day.

Disciplining faculty for a mild protest certainly teaches something, but it is not tolerance of others' view points.

And on the issue of "representation" here--if these "employees" should be representing the school, then who is "the school"?

Do you think it is the administration? The board of directors?

The ideal of the modern university makes faculty, and the faculty student relation, the essence of the university. It is the faculty, not the administrators, who know Chemistry, History, Biology, Computer Science, Mathematics, literature, Art and how to teach these subjects.

It is the faculty who decide who to hire, who is qualified, and who is not doing his/her job--not the administration. It is the faculty who decide what counts as "education" and which students meet the standard.  In a good university, the "employees" run the firm. The administrators simply manage a platform which allows educators to educate. Disturbing that over the last four decades, so much power has shifted to administration, and the so much of the public is fine with that.

Pence went to a football game so he could walk out when players protested. Faculty certainly have the same right to do so at THEIR university, on their own turf. Ok to spoil graduation for those who dislike the homophobic Pence by inviting him to speak, but not ok to spoil it for Pence supporters?

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2019, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They weren't at a political speech; they were at their school's graduation ceremony.

It was both.

[Belsnickel]

(05-21-2019, 03:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: When did the definition of Tolerant change?
As far as I know it's the ability to accept others for their different point of views and listening to them even if you disagree.

Intolerant behavior would be walking out or not even hearing what they have to say, you know unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression to those with different beliefs than your own, aka Bigoted behavior.

No mater who would've been invited there is no perfect speaker, anyone can always be twisted into a political thing. Having a powerful figure such as the VP speaking at your commencement is unique, they don't speak at many, only a select few, so respect should always be shown if not for the person then the position of power they hold. If Hillary/Obama was speaking at my graduation, I would endure quietly their speech  (you know tolerance) and wait for it to be over so I can move on with the commencement ceremony. Respect is something both sides fail to show a lot and it's sickening.

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?

(05-21-2019, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. No you don't. It only becomes a political event when politics are discussed or in this case select students and faculty choose to make it so before a single word was uttered. If they would have stayed and walked out once Pence turned political then they may have a point; although, I probably still disagree with it but that's a personal bias.

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.

(05-21-2019, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. And I've read most were happy to have him there and even made "I Like Mike" T-Shirts, but the point is moot. The University invited someone they wanted to speak at a graduation and some got mad because their thoughts were "ignored". As I said I have 0 issue with the kids walking out; they ruined their own day. But what about that kid that remained and saw one of his/her favorite professors leave? Who short-changed him/her?

The university, by making the commencement political.

[Dill]

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

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.  

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2019, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
If Pence kept his comments to Religious views then he, nor the administrators made it political; however, the ones that walked out did, because they disagree with his politics.

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."

[Dill]

(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.

I could add that, unlike random speakers invited to campus to provide diverse viewpoints, a commencement speaker has the endorsement of the administration. It is a statement about the mission of the university, and this statement can often be out of line with the majority of faculty and student body.

If it is maintained that faculty present at graduation "represent" their university, it is rather odd to suppose, on the other hand, that the controversial Pence does not represent his party--even before he speaks. That would be like assuming the faculty don't represent their university until they walk out. That would be like assuming the Democratic party is political but the Republican party is not, at least not until a member of the party speaks.

Endorsing order and authority can become such a habit that one assumes the "boss" has a right to decide whatever, and employees are mostly wrong to contest such decisions and should keep their "bias" off the job. The kid working the cash register at Wendy's doesn't have a right to walk out in protest if Mitch McConnell walks in and orders french fries. Translate that from the workplace to a university, and, in the Taylor case, you have "employees" disobeying orders while "on the clock." 

However, if the university agrees, then you don't have a university anymore.

[Dill]

(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.

That is the problem with some Christians. They try to model their lives on Jesus. Even while "on the clock" LOL.