Search News


Browse Archives

News

College Bans Nietzsche Quote on Prof's Door

November 4, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

"God is dead." That phrase, from Friedrich Nietzsche's The Gay Science, is among the philosopher's most well known -- and most hotly debated.

At Temple College, a community college in Texas, the words in the original German -- Gott ist tot -- have been barred from a professor's office door. While the college says that to leave the phrase up would offend others and constitute and endorsement of the phrase, the professor and others see a double standard in place, and a violation of academic freedom.

Kerry Laird, a literature and composition professor who does not have tenure, is in his first year at Temple. He said that, as a student and instructor, he always enjoyed the way professors use their office doors to reveal bits of their personality and to challenge students with cartoons, artwork, and various phrases. So when he started at Temple, he put a cartoon up showing Smokey the Bear, a girl scout and a boy scout and the tag line: "Kids -- don't fuck with God or bears will eat you." He received a complaint and decided that he understood why the college "might not want the f-word" in the hallway, and so he decided to put up something else.

This time he turned to Nietzsche and, striving to challenge while being more subtle, he only used the German version of the quote, not the English translation. "I didn't want to be too blunt," he said.

But he was quickly told that Mark A. Smith, interim vice president of educational services, had ordered the saying removed. And Laird said he had no choice in the matter.

Smith outlined his views in an e-mail message he sent to a student who complained about the quote's removal. "Temple College as a public institution cannot be represented as showing preference toward any religious philosophy/perspective or toward the opposite, being atheism. The same practice goes for politics. The decision to have the quote removed was that the quote can be considered very controversial and offensive to others. In fact, other people have already expressed that the wording is offensive!" he wrote.

In a classroom setting, a professor would have the right to discuss such a quote, Smith said.

The student maintains that the college permits numerous professors to have "pro-religion" statements or images on their doors.

That argument doesn't fly with Misti Kennai, an agnostic student who wrote Smith to say she was "inundated daily with biblical quotes" in offices around the college. "Why is it that when a quote that contradicts the beliefs of the administration of Temple College is posted, it is forcibly removed? Are the Christians on campus that insecure in their religious beliefs? Although the majority of people on campus are Christian, it is not the only religion present on this campus. If this quote is removed by this administration, then I propose all quotes promoting Christianity on campus also be forcibly removed. I do not personally believe that 'with God all things are possible.' On the contrary, I believe God is indeed dead, or she may have never existed at all."

Smith, the interim vice president who made the decision, says that pro-Christian statements would be treated the same way as the Nietzsche quote. But he clarified to Inside Higher Ed that this means if someone complains about a specific quote -- as someone did about the Nietzsche quote -- the person would be asked to remove it.

Generally, public colleges and universities get in trouble when they try to censor professors' doors or office displays. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up the case of a professor at Lake Superior State University who was threatened with a reprimand over various right-leaning images on his door. The University of Minnesota at Duluth spent much of the 1990s defending itself with limited success against suits by two historians who said that their rights were violated when photos of one in a coonskin cap and the other in ancient Roman attire -- both holding period weapons -- were removed from a departmental display case. The university eventually agreed to pay the professors to settle their suits.

Laird, the Nietzsche fan at Temple College, said that he believes religious professors and non-religious professors should have equal rights to display images that reflect their views, regardless of whether someone is offended. "To me, this is a blatant disregard of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, agreed. "There is simply no justification for ordering the removal of a Nietzsche quote from a faculty member's door," he said. "The quote constitutes an intellectual challenge. That's why colleges and universities exist. This is a clear violation of academic freedom."

Laird and others have said that it is particularly troubling that a college administrator cited as reason to order the quote's removal that some found it "offensive." If quotes that some find offensive can't be displayed, how many philosophers would be safe to quote on a door at Temple?

William O. Stephens, a philosopher at Creighton University and chair of the American Philosophical Association Committee for the Defense of the Professional Rights of Philosophers, said that from ancient times on, great philosophers have caused offense. "That's why they put Socrates to death," he said. "He expressed non-traditional views."

Added Stephens: "Fortunately philosophers aren't being executed in the United States for articulating non-traditional views on religion, but this should still be embarrassing to that college. You should be able to express your academic and intellectual views without reprisal."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on College Bans Nietzsche Quote on Prof's Door

  • Welcome to Temple
  • Posted by JB on November 4, 2008 at 6:25am EST
  • You are now aware of the Biblical Bible Belt of Central Texas. As one who lived in that town and isnow out I can state my own belief that it is int he water. The closed mindedness you see exhibited in the article and the challenges that other want to bring to the people of the college probably will not amount to much because teh town itself believes it is still the keeper of the kingdom and whoa be to those who would indicate any other view than the Judao-Christian philosophy. Higher Education is meant to stimulate thinking and questioning of one's own beliefs and more's. If a student is not exposed to other view points how cna the student determine that their own previously developed view points are still correct for themselves?
    Yes the F-word is probably not appropriate bit “Gott ist tot” - public school students hear that almost every day in Texas. They need to be prepared for the world that is outside teeir comfort zone and be prepared to defend their view points.
    College si not high school -- college si a thinking man's world and a thinking woman's world -- unfortunately Central Texas sometimes cann ot see beyond Bell County to the rest of the world.

  • Ripping Nietsczhe while Banning Expletives
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Assistant Provost at Indiana Wesleyan University on November 4, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • This is a rather intriguing case, on the one hand for the seriousness of the academic freedom charge and on the other for how mundane this particular issue appears while some of our ROTC students are risking their lives in IRAQ. And, I suppose that’s the tension—“Why risk one’s life for democratic values if they’re not being upheld?” While I think censoring most door messages and cartoons (esp. while allowing the same professor to discuss views during class) is a bit nonsensical, so is thinking that a paid educator finds it prudent to post the “F” word (regardless of the language). “Sic et non” taken to such an extreme not only vulgarizes Abelard’s liberal learning model, but reflects poorly on one’s maturation level. If we have any hope of moving our country forward, we need to take seriously the need to be concerned for whole-person development, for some sensible standards of civility. During a meeting at the D.C. NEA office I enjoyed reading the assorted postings in offices—one office had dozens and none were imprudent, and all were tactfully provocative. Temple College purports to help “students reach their full potential by developing their academic competencies, integrity, critical thinking skills, communication proficiency, civic responsibility, and global awareness. . . .” It’s one thing to rip a cartoon for its disregard for civic sensibility, and quite another to prohibit personal views. There are many good folks at Temple, and I suppose the professor in question is likely a student favorite. My only hope is that in such grave and troubling times, and especially on a day in which we have a ballot with one presidential candidate atop the charts of requisite intellectual capacity and another venerated for heroic character, we need to be giving first-rate priorities to first rate causes. And I suppose the one positive in all of this is that the students could read German.

  • Posted by very sensitive, tender heart on November 4, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • I am a sensitive, tender hearted person with the delicate nature of a poet. Just about everything has the potential to be offensive to my delicate sensibilities. If I were to travel to Temple and stroll around campus, I am sure I would be offended by many cartoons, sayings, stickers, statuary (that non-representative modernistic stuff), political advertisements, and boneheaded administrators. It sounds as though all I have to do is be offended, and the offender has to go. I could merely point my delicate but offended finger and poof! My first voyage would be to the administration building. I am definitely offended (small mindedness bothers me), and I want to make a complaint about them.

  • This dog's been barking . . .
  • Posted by NotOnYourLife , Dr. on November 4, 2008 at 7:50am EST
  • I know that we like to think that those evil, close-minded Christians are out to get all of us enlightened Thinkers, but here's a thought experiment: Imagine yourself in a local coffee shop having a conversation about cultural matters with a close and trusted friend. Your friend--a thoughtful intellectual type, like yourself--begins to speak about a number of contemporary issues. Would you be uncomfortable if she began to reveal that she believes that, say, gay marriage should be legalized? Or that the choice to have an abortion is solely the woman's choice? Or that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance? Would you want your friend to speak quietly? Would you suggest to your friend that perhaps the two of you should continue the conversation in a less public (more private) setting?

    Now, imagine that your friend held opinions exactly the opposite, counter to each of
    those listed above. Would her willingness to speak loudly enough to be overheard make you a little uneasy? ("I believe that the government has precedence to determine who can legally marry, and I also believe that the wisest political choice is to limit marriage to the adult heterosexual union." "Human rights extend to the unborn and, thus, should be protected by our Constitution." "Having studied contemporary Islam, I find the religion to be incompatible with the objectives of democratic regimes.")

    My suspicion is that you would feel greater discomfort in the latter scenario. Yes, one should be free to hold certain opinions, and those freedoms should be protected by law. But, culturally speaking, this fight is over and it has been for some time now. The non-traditionalist, as she sips her latte, better pay attention to what she says and, even more importantly, to those who might be listening.

  • thoughts
  • Posted by Steven S. Clark, PhD on November 4, 2008 at 8:25am EST
  • A couple of thoughts:

    --Since when is a door message protected under the rubric of academic freedom? If it is, then tenure committees ought to take into account door decorations.

    --I agree with a previous poster's point that people are more emotionally resilient than they sometimes act. I submit that people ought to rejoice in experience offense--it means that you have values.

    --I question the maturity level of the professor who felt the need to post either message on his door. It smacks of a self-serving, attention seeking issue. I know that if my prof showed such immaturity, it could diminish my respect for him. Tasteful is good.

    Steven S. Clark, PhD

    http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

  • Solution
  • Posted by BP on November 4, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • He should have posted the entire quote, since everything the institution is doing supports Nietzsche's claim: "God is dead, and we have killed him."

  • Posted by JW on November 4, 2008 at 8:35am EST
  • First year, untenured, composition prof? Sheesh, it sounds like someone needs to sit down with Kerry Laird and explain how the university and the market works in English departments. There's a long line of very qualified people who will be happy to take his place and who won't create negative publicity for Temple.

  • Oh My GOD!
  • Posted by kgotthardt on November 4, 2008 at 8:40am EST
  • So next we aren't going to teach things people find offensive?

    It's not illegal to be offensive.

  • Furthermore....
  • Posted by kgotthardt on November 4, 2008 at 8:51am EST
  • It's apparent to me the Admin. has it out for this guy.

  • Sweet Jesus, God is dead?
  • Posted by feudi pandola on November 4, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • I was startled to hear the news. Hell, I didn't even know god was sick, much less dead. Seriously, regardless of how immature this professor might be, this is America, and until we repeal the First Amendment, he has a right to post whatever he wants on his office door. Isn't that a long, time-honored academic tradition?

  • Hmmmm...
  • Posted by Alfonso El Sabio on November 4, 2008 at 9:20am EST
  • Here's another Teutonic gem for Temple:

    "Hoch die Fahne!"

    ...because "die Gedanken sind frei" is definitely not appropriate.

    Signed,

    A Texas expat

  • Posted by Lon on November 4, 2008 at 9:25am EST
  • Speaking as a believer, my approach would be pretty simple: post on my door, "Nietzche is dead. -- God"

  • Posted by Contrarian on November 4, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • As an atheist, I have no problem with it, but it does seem tacky.

    Try to think of it from another perspective - one that would offend liberal sensitivities... suppose one put a graph of Black versus White IQ scores. Or how about having a long list of "progressive" intellectuals spouting their anti-Semitic beliefs?

  • What about the law?
  • Posted by TM on November 4, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • I'm surprised that there is no mention of the significant body of case law concerning personal expression of religious belief in the workplace that has developed based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that legally protects personal religious expression.

    Simply put, if the college (employer) allows employees (no matter whom) to decorate their doors with personal items, they must allow any personal item that is not obscene (hence the removal of the F word) and/or does not violate sexual harrassment laws. So both Scripture and Nietzsche should be allowed - or both (in fact, all personal items no matter what they are) be removed.

    For the record, I am a practicing Christian, and I've done extensive research on personal expression of religious belief in the workplace for my own protection.

  • Posted by Elisha on November 4, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • The cartoon should have been "Don't fuck with God's prophets or the bears will eat you." More accurate...

    2 Kings 2:23-25
    23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

  • Gott langweilt sich
  • Posted by CaN on November 4, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • Oh, please. What is the academic value of having this partial quotation on the office door? No one is saying don't teach it in your (philosophy) class. Your door should have your name, your office hours, and that's it. "Academic freedom" does not include the right to say anything, anywhere, for any reason, at any time. Grow the fuck up.

  • Answering Misti's question
  • Posted by Ron George , Technical Writer at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi on November 4, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Yes, Misti, banning an inocuous quotation asserting God's demise indicates deep insecurity not great faith. Banning the quotation gives only more notoriety to the assertion, giving rise to even more insecurities; e.g., that "the liberal, elite media will make a big deal" out of a state educational institution's ridiculous and unconstitutional effort to breach an untenured teacher's freedom of speech. How pathetic.

  • Protected speech
  • Posted by Dr. Tim Gottleber , Professor at North Lake College on November 4, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Speech that is inoffensive, doesn't need to be protected. The whole idea of protected speech is that unpopular ideas still need an outlet. We, in the academy, should unite behind this gentleman lest tomorrow they decide that Democratic ideas are unacceptable, or that it is wrong to vote for a socialist president! God forbid! (oops, sorry, I should have said, "The supreme deity in which you may or may not believe forbid." ) The administration can try to censor our voices, so we must, while we don't necessarily agree with him, defend to the end his right to say what he believes is appropriate. If we let them muzzle him, are not we next?

  • Let's just all go for coffee
  • Posted by Prof Ed on November 4, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Dr. NotOnYourLife, a university is not a coffee shop. It is where people go to learn, think and have ideas challenged--not where they form a coffee-klatch and expect to sit with like-minded friends.

    To post a controversial statement from a philosopher that every educated person should know about seems appropriate. A temporary VP who tears Nietzsche quotes from doors might be just as likely to take away books he finds offensive from the library--assuming Temple owns anything written by Nietzsche. Both are acts of censorship.

    However, posting cartoons with the F--- word interchangeably with Nietzsche quotes seems to show the professor can't tell much difference in value between the two either. This paints a pathetic situation. A student who wants an education should flee that place. Maybe going to Starbucks and striking up a conversation with a stranger would be a step up.

  • It's a sad day...
  • Posted by ALP on November 4, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • ...when we are all so insecure in our beliefs that we are so easily offended by ideas. I am an evangelical Christian. I am a Texan. I would back the prof's right to have the Nietzche quote on the door. Just as I would want the right to put a Bible verse on my door. It's not insiting to riot or directly condemning anyone. "God is dead" is a famous quote that characterizes a view. (it's not a magical incantation that makes the idea true.) Yes, I'm glad the prof removed the profanity -- that's just common descency, maturity, and taste. But if my belief (whether theism, atheism, or agnosticism) is so weak that it can be shaken and offended by a simple contradictory statement, then I need a better belief system.

  • Just a little equality
  • Posted by Jason on November 4, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • I don't really care if they let him keep the sign or made him drop it; the important thing is that things are fair and equal all around. Deny the anti-god signs, deny the pro-god signs. It's very underhanded to say that they will order any religious propaganda removed once someone complains about it, because that is biased in their favor (as fundamentalists are prone to complaining about secular or atheist comments, while the secular students/faculty would be more apt to support free speech). In the spirit of previous posts, it is much like comparing white power posters to black pride posters; there is just a disproportionate number of people who will complain about the former versus the latter.

    All they have to do is be fair across the board - is that so hard?

  • Youthful mediocrity
  • Posted by Bob S. on November 4, 2008 at 12:05pm EST
  • Whose door is involved? Does this guy think it's HIS oen personal door? He certainly gives new meaning to the word "professor" in that it shows where the profession has gone.

    Why is it that every kid who has yet to grow up must show his self defiance by saying things simply to agitate or by using the fuck word? Academic freedom has at its core the right to say all seven tasteless words in an academic setting. Long live academic freedom. Long live the "professor" who operates at this level. Long live the schools as they continue to decline in such mediocricy.

  • Posted by Red Stapler on November 4, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • For goodness sake, a college is a place for adults. I think most of us will look at the stupid quote, know exactly what type of windbag we're dealing with and move on. We're not talking about telling kindergartners that God is Dead. We all need to suck this crap up. College students, faculty, and staff are adults. I hope we are not so weak as to get a case of the vapors from a stupid quotation. Argh!

  • Posted by Kim on November 4, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Well, JB, first of all, you need spell check. Second, "woe" is the word, not "whoa". I disagree with what you have to say about Temple. I do agree, however, that it is wrong to ban ANY religios beliefs in schools and colleges. I was at a high school football game the other night, and instead of the usual prayer before the game, we had "a moment of silence". I was pissed. I think it is Communist that we can't even pray for our students who are out there playing a dangerous game such as football. Professors and teachers should have the right to express whatever they want in their classrooms and on their doors. So what if it offends a few people? They will certainly get over it.

  • Nietzsche -- always a crowd pleasure
  • Posted by dk on November 4, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • Clearly this incident stirs up some concerns and issues about what sort of academic freedom and freedom of speech we have on campus. But what concerns me is the total misunderstanding of Nietzsche's quote and that the administration was a) not sensitive to this misunderstanding when an objection was raised and b) didn't seek another course of action where they pushed for the full quote (and the intellectual richness that stands behind it.)

    This quote is popularly shortened into the "sound bite" that we have at the top of this article. BP is correct that the quote is longer (both times it occurs in the Gay Science) and rest of the quote(s) reflects Nietzsche's commentary on the misuse of God and theology to create oppressive, unthoughtful power structures that have nothing to do with God. Nietzsche's point is akin to "using the Lord's name in vain." That is, we have killed God in so much as we misuse the name and the idea of God for purposes very separate from spiritual and transcendental ones.

    We can get rialed up on the basis of academic freedom and freedom of speech, but I think this issue has more to do with a lack of intellectual patience and rigor on the part of the professor and administration. It is foolish of me to hope that an administrator would seek a little more depth in responding to a complaint before taking punitive action. (In my foolish "ideal" world, that administrator would have sat down with the concerned student/faculty/staff and had a chat about what the quote actually means.) Again, I am a fool -- I know. Maybe it should be a comfort that the abyss is staring back.

  • Posted by Laura on November 4, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • Dr. Tim Gottleber, would you draw the line anywhere? If one of your colleagues says ANYTHING AT ALL you MUST support him or her? Wow.

    My personal opinion is that the "f" word sincerely irritated somebody and made the crackdown on the next sign more likely. Welcome to the real world, where the prudent person realizes that self-expression sometimes comes with a cost that should be counted ahead of time. I could sometimes say "f" and a whole lot of other things to my boss, (who is an atheist,) but I can't guarantee that I'd care for the results. Before anyone says "academic freedom" let me point out that, as others have said, an office door isn't a classroom.

  • Academic freedom?
  • Posted by keith on November 4, 2008 at 2:10pm EST
  • This is the most blatant attack on academic freedom I've ever seen. How is it that people complain about the so-called "radical liberalism" of professors in "silencing" conservative voices? Clearly, the religious right has been influential to a politically correct, don't-offend-anybody academic administration to the point where anybody being critical of an unproven metaphysical being called "god" is 'offensive' and 'wrong'. Sorry, but that's called education.

  • No worries
  • Posted by Offenders will be punished on November 4, 2008 at 2:25pm EST
  • The administrator in question was just bucking for a job in Obama's Department of Education, that's all.

  • Hmmm......
  • Posted by Boom on November 4, 2008 at 2:25pm EST
  • I hope this guy does not get tenure (or contract renewal). Not because there is anything morally wrong with that quote being posted on the door (there isn't, afaic), but because insisting on having the quote there shows a failure of having even the minimal degree of realism in assessing one's situation as a non-tenured faculty. And that is a bad sign, indicating (to my mind) a potentially undiplomatic, annoying, inconsiderate and abrasive future colleague.

  • Posted by Inri , Dr. on November 4, 2008 at 4:10pm EST
  • I'd like him to put up a new sign on his door at waist height, "Gott mit uns" and see how long it takes for anyone to get the irony.

  • "Pissed" at a moment of silence?
  • Posted by A. Prof on November 4, 2008 at 4:10pm EST
  • Kim,

    Pray tell, what did you do during the "moment of silence" before the football game? Seethe? Make nasty comments to your companions? Or did you pray?

    You still have the right to pray for all of those young men playing that dangerous game, you know. The only difference is that the school district (I'm assuming this was a game between public high schools) can't tell you when to pray, or have a person pray "officially" over the P.A. system, which is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

  • Posted by Brian Manhire , Professor Emeritus at Ohio University on November 5, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • Gott ist tot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

  • Just A Little Off The Subject
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on November 5, 2008 at 4:10pm EST
  • Four things ...

    First, I must admit that by the time I read this article and all the posts, I had a smile on my face. You’ve got to admit that (1) violation of free speech and academic freedom on college and university campuses in these United States is so ubiquitous there is no need to be bent out of shape by this incident and (2) there is nothing like religion – i.e., the organization of individuals who accept the truth of a common body of ancient superstitions on the basis of faith – to inspire a bunch of educated individuals to seem ... well, uneducated.

    Second, I wish Lon would at least have told us where we could purchase a t-shirt with his clever retort emblazoned on it ...

    http://www.zazzle.com/nietzsche+is+dead+god+gifts

    only let’s try to get the correct spelling of “Nietzsche.”

    http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/21/fo-shizzle-my-nietsizzle-on-morality/

    Third, much of the “confusion” about this particular quotation stems from the fact that Nietzsche was both a philosopher and a satirist ... a deadly combination, because if there’s anything academics have difficulty understanding it’s satire.

    Speaking of deadly combinations, Mark Twain, a philosopher, social critic, satirist, and humorist. did not say “It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself to go and humble myself to a nigger” ... Huckleberry Finn said it. Nietzsche did not say “God is dead,” the madman said it first in “The Gay Science” and Zarathustra said it later in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (read dk’s post above).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lemr_p5Ozk&feature=related

    Then add the fact that the vast majority of times I hear “God is dead” or see it written, it is taken out of context, invariable confusing Nietzsche’s criticism of religion with his sense of an Unmoved Mover.

    Finally remember the old joke about our getting a response from outer space after NASA sent that golden record out “there” on Voyager ... the one with cultural images from Earth. The response received from a hip alien somewhere said “Send more Chuck Berry!”

    That’s how I feel today, IHE, please send more responses from academics criticizing Professor Laird and defending his intellectually challenged interim vice president of educational services. No wait, let me go make myself a scotch on the rocks first.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Chuck+Berry&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

  • Posted by another john galt on November 6, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • Added Stephens: “Fortunately philosophers aren’t being executed in the United States for articulating non-traditional views on religion, but this should still be embarrassing to that college. You should be able to express your academic and intellectual views without reprisal.”

    Sure. Try defending CreationIntelligent Design, presenting the Global Warming myths or Pro-Life rights, or (like the energizer bunny, the list just goes on and on...). There is ony one allowed way/one allowed reasoning on campus. Ridicule, loss of tenure, loss of grade, loss of doctorate status. Welcome to the true world of PC.

  • Posted by Gene Scaramella , Dean at Ellis University on November 7, 2008 at 11:50am EST
  • I do not understand why so many professors are claiming the action taken by the College to be restrictive of academic freedom. How is posting a sign on an office door, done intentionally to elicit conflict, relevant to academic freedom?

    This sign was posted on the office door which the professor in question occupies. It is not his personal property...it belongs to the College. I think the administration acted wisely.

    If the professor in question would like to raise this issue or discuss any other issue relevant to a course he is teaching, that's fine. The classroom is where this type of discourse should occur, not the hallways of an office building. Similarly, these issues should be raised in scholarly journals, not on paper signs hung on doorways.

    To support this professor's actions and to link them as freedom of speech and/or academic freedom restrictions is an attempt to mask what really occurred here.

    Keep in mind, his classroom activities or ideas were not restricted...only his unknown desire to act foolishly was.

    Thanks,

    Gene Scaramella

  • Academic Freedom or Hostile Environment
  • Posted by Thus Spoke Ms. Texas , Instructor on November 7, 2008 at 2:25pm EST
  • Imagine yourself an instructor at an institution. You post a Nietzsche quote on your door. On your way to class you are told that since a student complained about the quote on your office door, you are guilty of creating a hostile environment. Do you now feel free to discuss the Nietsche quote in class? Originally, you hoped to spark a discussion in your essay-writing course about how provocative statements can be taken out of context in order to silence a certain point of view. Now, however, you fear creating a "hostile environment," so you go the safe route and ask students to write a persuasive essay on a less controversial topic like the need for world peace.

    Thus Spoke Ms. Texas

  • Temple College Controversy
  • Posted by Gerald Amada, Ph.D. at City College of San Francisco, retired on November 8, 2008 at 6:35pm EST
  • Interim Vice President Smith defends his position by stating that he would remove any public display of a controversial opinion if he receives a complaint that it is offensive. This is of course a patently nonsensical and parochial administrative philosophy. Would he require, for example, the removal of a display that stated,"Please clean up after yourself," because some nitwit decided to register an objection to it? Come on, get with it, Smith, healthy controversy is the lifeblood of our nation's institutions of higher education. At least those that aren't run by benighted administrators.

  • Intellectual Destimulation
  • Posted by Chris Sullivan , TA at University of Virginia on December 28, 2008 at 7:15am EST
  • You can look at this issue from as many perspectives and angles as you want and argue about larger implications for religious messages around the university, but it really comes down to this particular decision on a common sense level. Restricting a short quote from being shown by a professor when the quote has every meaning to that professor's field of study is absolutely ridiculous. Should we also censor mathematical equations from calculus professors' doors if some people disagree with a mathematical theory? Should we ban funny college quotes from being posted on the internet by students from a particular university? Should we tell anthropologists to destroy any pictures of supposed dinosaur bones around their offices?

    It's all a matter of appropriate context and this obviously goes beyond the realm of practicality.

  • Save it for class
  • Posted by Taylor White , Student at Boston College on December 28, 2008 at 8:00pm EST
  • There's a better place for this type of discussion and it's in the classroom. If this guy wants to go around spreading offensive messages, maybe he should post them online with the rest, http://www.pointsincase.com/quotes Otherwise save God for the actual class and not a public forum like the halls of a public college, where religion has no place.

  • The correct German is...
  • Posted by dobra david on December 30, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • The correct German is "Gott ist todt" or more correctly, "Gott todt ist" - which anyone with any pretentions to literature and/or philosophy should know.

    Guess a new emphasis on foreign languages can't come soon enough.

  • Faculty mobbing
  • Posted by Randall Pouwels , Dr. at Univ. of Central Arkansas on December 31, 2008 at 6:40am EST
  • Faculty at many universities censor their collleagues' academic freedom -- or even personal dislikes -- by employing a tactic called "mobbing." Essentially, what it amounts to is enforcement of a "group think" mentality by ostracizing the victim through complaints, signed petitions, and exclusion from faculty committees. This usually is done with the cooperation, even the instigation, of persons in positions of authority (e.g. department chairs, deans). FIRE should look into this phenomenon and try to do something about it.