Professor calls cops on student


PDA






Judicator
February 28, 2009, 04:18 PM
Looks like Connecticut has gun registration, AND really touchy professors. Kudos to that kid for sticking to his guns and having the guts to get up in front of all his peers.


http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation/

If you enjoyed reading about "Professor calls cops on student" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbpautz762
February 28, 2009, 04:40 PM
I remember reading about this earlier today. makes me nervous, as I have a 45 minute presentation on gun safety in one of my classes later this month. of course, I live in SC, so I'm hopeful :rolleyes:

Kindrox
February 28, 2009, 04:44 PM
People got "uncomfortable" about firearms because firearm owners stopped talking about owning them.

Some people take pride that their closest friends arn't aware they own firearms. I take pride in not hiding the normalcy of owning firearms.

Good job sir.

rfwobbly
February 28, 2009, 05:19 PM
I thought the article presented the facts very well. However, the clincher was ending with the great last paragraph like it did.

Eyesac
February 28, 2009, 05:24 PM
Wow, calling the cops. What a reaction.

texas bulldog
February 28, 2009, 05:34 PM
yeah, the quote from sara alder at the end really puts the issue into perspective well. nice to read one without the obvious anti-gun slant for a change...

DocBoCook
February 28, 2009, 05:38 PM
College is no place for the free exchange of ideas. Everyone should know that by now. Surprising she didn't fail him from the class for disagreeing with HER opinion

TxState101
February 28, 2009, 05:44 PM
A well written article makes a beautiful Saturday that much better.

It's unfortunate that there even needed to be an article, but it presented everything very well.

It is sad that there are people that get threatened over a discussion like that, but I would be very interested to hear the conversation. It must have been pretty effective if it disturbed somebody.

DocBoCook
February 28, 2009, 05:47 PM
it's not hard to disturb weirdo lefties who think guns kill people all by theirselves.

HK G3
February 28, 2009, 06:42 PM
February 27, 2009 • 7:04 pm

As a student at CCSU i am deeply concerned. I do not agree with Wahlberg and I believe he should be put in prison for saying such things. When someone speaks of promoting guns they are promoting MURDER and should be punished. I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.

I'm actually at a loss for what to say when it comes to people like this, and stupidity of this magnitude. Hopefully it's just a troll, but I doubt it.

MikePGS
February 28, 2009, 06:45 PM
Hopefully it's just a troll, but I doubt it.
I'm willing to bet that this person is just that stupid.

Odd Job
February 28, 2009, 06:53 PM
Nice comment here:

http://feralgenius.blogspot.com/2009/02/professor-anderson-makes-me-scared-and.html

I would have liked this Professor's email address, would like to drop her a line from across the pond, give her a few comments.

Duke of Doubt
February 28, 2009, 07:07 PM
Connecti --- oh, never mind.

See you next Tuesday.

SCKimberFan
February 28, 2009, 07:32 PM
You should read the comments. A couple (like the one posted above)are just incredible, to say the least.

This professor has no business teaching anything, much less COMMUNICATIONS!

eye5600
February 28, 2009, 07:34 PM
As a far as I know, 1) CT does not have complete, mandatory gun registration, but they do like you to voluntarily register guns, and if you buy thru a dealer, the info in likely available to the police, 2) the College probably has a no-gun-on-campus rule, so the University cops were probably mostly interested that he had left the guns at home, 3) if they were really worried, they would have searched his room, 4) this is a big 1st amendment and academic freedom boo-boo, but University administrations are almost universally self-serving on this issues.

45Badger
February 28, 2009, 07:44 PM
Duke,

It's obvious that you can't understand normal thinking:neener:

The prof is a soft headed ninny...........

MagnumDweeb
February 28, 2009, 07:48 PM
Yankee country, it figures.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 28, 2009, 07:49 PM
"We request your presence at the station."

"And I request a home in Aspen, a Lamborghini, and a grand-a-night call girl - when should I expect them?"

cavman
February 28, 2009, 07:51 PM
I would have liked this Professor's email address, would like to drop her a line from across the pond, give her a few comments.

http://michiganhuntingtoday.com/hooksandbullets/index.php/2009/02/28/connecticut-student-questioned-by-police-over-firearm-beliefs/

" The campus police told him the reason they were questioning him was that his professor (Paula Anderson, Lecturer: andersonpau@ccsu.edu ) complained that his presentation made other students “scared and uncomfortable”.

MaterDei
February 28, 2009, 08:00 PM
People got "uncomfortable" about firearms because firearm owners stopped talking about owning them.

Some people take pride that their closest friends arn't aware they own firearms. I take pride in not hiding the normalcy of owning firearms.

I couldn't agree more. Well said!

What a blissninny that prof. is.

The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.

When did colleges start tracking attendance?

fd62
February 28, 2009, 08:01 PM
how scared and uncomfortable will they feel when someone is parading around with a gun in a classroom and nobody around is armed?

wrc376
February 28, 2009, 08:07 PM
never ever let liberal college chicks know you have a gun!

rainbowbob
February 28, 2009, 08:11 PM
...his professor complained that his presentation made other students “scared and uncomfortable”.

That's going to be a pretty quiet "communications" course if the students are limited to subjects that don't make anyone "uncomfortable."

That sort of eliminates discussions of politics, the economy, terrorism, global warming, poverty, population dynamics, disease epidemics, racism, etc, etc...

What will they talk about?

God forbid anyone should be...uncomfortable.

6_gunner
February 28, 2009, 08:24 PM
As a student at CCSU i am deeply concerned. I do not agree with Wahlberg and I believe he should be PUT IN PRISON (emphasis mine) for saying such things. When someone speaks of promoting guns they are promoting MURDER and should be punished. I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns.

She probably prides herself in being open-minded and tolerant, too.

What's scary, is that this young lady is preparing to enter the world as a professional of some sort. It is terrifying to think that a future leader in our society could fail to see the illogic of that statement.

That is the kind of person who could put her fellow citizens in concentration camps and sleep well thinking that she had done what's best for society.

This is precisely the reason why we need a pesky, stubborn, difficult-to-amend Constitution to stand between our rights and the whims of the ignorant mob.

dobrzemetal
February 28, 2009, 08:25 PM
this really inst surprising anymore, colleges are full of hardkore liberal profs. This guy should sue the police department and school, land a nice paycheck help the guy out, then buy more guns :)

22lr
February 28, 2009, 08:31 PM
I wish that would happen to me. I mean who can turn down a lawsuit like that:D. That teacher had better hope she doesn't get hammered big time for a false accusation and slander. I for one am against frivolous lawsuits but I would have her job and barred from teaching. But im at a college were I give speeches like that the professor agrees with me so that problem doesn't exist in my neck of the woods.

At minimum the teacher should lose her job.

Yosemite Sam
February 28, 2009, 08:32 PM
Did anyone catch this? 3rd Paragraph in the article:

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

Free gun zones? WOOHOO! :D I'm tired of saving up for my guns.

Hungry Seagull
February 28, 2009, 08:35 PM
Hmmm. THe Prof files a complaint asserting to the Policeman that if Guns were allowed IN HER CLASS.... there would be no butchery wanton murder and no problem....

But yet SHE has a problem with ONE student?

Please dont get me started on Susiero....

ThrottleJockey
February 28, 2009, 08:53 PM
Let's not even notice the obvious fact that the campus police broke the law, and refuse to comment because of it. If they handled this situation properly and legally, they would have happily commented.

sniper5
February 28, 2009, 08:53 PM
All I can think of is my inlaws. Father in law was a career college professor, retired and living on campus at an extremely liberal university. When you talk to either of the couple, it is clear they are detached and living in academic disneyland. For them the real world doesn't exist. The disconnect is actually frightening at times. And for them everyone is either a professor or a student (anyone not a professor is automatically thought of at the level of a student-even if they are 40 years old and have never been in a college). They have no concept of people who don't have degrees and are successful. For them those people don't exist. They are also the type of people who go out to dinner with others and make a big show of not being happy with the service, table, food, etc. They think it impresses people, but in my case, I feel embarrassed and sorry for the overworked waitresses and staff. How my wife and her siblings turned out to be decent, hardworking people who are fun to be around is beyond me. As for them, I gave them up a long time ago as a lost cause. Their heads would explode if they saw the inside of my safe, or watched their daughter/my wife shooting.

Crunker1337
February 28, 2009, 08:55 PM
And people think that gun owners are irrationally paranoid...

Hungry Seagull
February 28, 2009, 08:57 PM
I dont want to pick on College in general. But I find myself in a College event hosted by a Faculty for some kind of function I ceased to recall long ago.

When I realized the astounding amount of bull, ego stroking and other fondling sweetnothings designed to puff these peacocks up even further in thier sense of vital importance to the Students I walked out.

I rather be inside a truck stop hammering out with 5 other drivers how to handle a problem spouse on the telephone who needs to get money from 2000 miles away.

Officers'Wife
February 28, 2009, 09:12 PM
From 'Ravings of a Feral Genius'

CCSU is the same school whose president two years ago said that the first amendment does not apply to speech that is offensive.

What a short step it woul'd be from that attitude to the 're-education' camp.

Deltaboy
February 28, 2009, 09:13 PM
If I had gotten that message from Campus PD they would have been talking to my Lawyer!

daniel1113
February 28, 2009, 09:14 PM
That professor should be fired, not for being against guns, but for attempting to limit the free exchange of ideas in his classroom. That is unacceptable.

I gave a similar presentation for my final speech in public speaking, and even though my professor was less than thrilled with the topic, she was at least willing to listen to my arguments and allowed the class to discuss the speech openly with me. I was actually surprised at the number of students in the audience that agreed with my position.

cassandrasdaddy
February 28, 2009, 09:14 PM
Let's not even notice the obvious fact that the campus police broke the law, and refuse to comment because of it.


what law do you imagine was broken?

ThrottleJockey
February 28, 2009, 09:20 PM
Well, I doubt they really have legal access to the info about what this guy has. They are guilty of harassment, and they had no just cause to even call upon him. If the police could legally "question" you just because someone claims you made others uncomfortable, then I'm gonna call them about newscasters, weathermen, and politicians. By that standard, one could be subject to arrest because I said they made you uncomfortable.

Officers'Wife
February 28, 2009, 09:21 PM
" Susie
February 27, 2009 • 7:04 pm

As a student at CCSU i am deeply concerned. I do not agree with Wahlberg and I believe he should be put in prison for saying such things. When someone speaks of promoting guns they are promoting MURDER and should be punished. I’m all for free speech, just not when it comes to guns."

This is the second time this week I've heard someone arguing passionately for legal sanctions against people for holding opinions different than their own. When did human life become so cheap in the United States?

Walkalong
February 28, 2009, 09:21 PM
I emailed her.

Hello

A simpleton, or a gun hating fear monger. Which is it? Scared because someone in your class talked about real life campus violence and how the owning & carrying of guns by law abiding citizens helps reduce crime. How about getting tough on criminals and not harrasing law abiding Americans for a change. Thanks, AC

I was nice, asked a simple question, and made a reasonable request. It fell on deaf ears I am sure. :)

ThrottleJockey
February 28, 2009, 09:22 PM
Makes you wanna vomit doesn't it.

Hungry Seagull
February 28, 2009, 09:25 PM
:barf:

There. Done, I feel better now. 550 miles to go before sunrise.

wrc376
February 28, 2009, 09:26 PM
with the amount of college bashing on here it seems that you all would feel more comfortable without a university system at all

cassandrasdaddy
February 28, 2009, 09:39 PM
was he arrested?

I doubt they really have legal access to the info about what this guy has

really? how do you figure that?



how do you figure they harassed him?


the cops, or anyone else, can ask anything they want up to you about answering. good luck with your plan about the newscasters weathermen and politiciuans post how that works out.

i don't see where he was arrested.... do you have info i don't?

now the teacher he might be able to jack up but i doubt it

Palo
February 28, 2009, 09:51 PM
I hope the student looks into suing the prof & University for violating his civil rights.

Also pulled this comment from the paper. LOL!! Be sure to read the whole thing:


Comment on Professor Called Police After Student Presentation by jack burton
Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:28 PM
The Professor was entirely correct in her decision.

Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, and shooting ranges means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members and seizing their guns will go a long way towards reducing crime.

If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norweigans to help rummage through people's property.

People who don't like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and no person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!

solareclipse
February 28, 2009, 10:04 PM
It has come to my attention that many people honestly dont know how to present things. You want to speak of guns, death, religion etc or any other issue that is touchy?

1. gauge your professor. If you cannot agree with his/her views (even if that means just writing nonsense for a grade) avoid the topic altogether, or you will pay for it

2. pick some far away land. Plenty of disturbed regions offer nice bases for case studies. This way you talk about the same things you always wanted but the focus is no longer "me you my neighbors and that cop over there" but some refugees and famined rebels in who knows where.

Worked for me all these years.

Tamlin
February 28, 2009, 10:05 PM
I'm appalled - I just emailed that Prof:

Professor Anderson,

I just came across the story about Mr. Wahlberg and your reporting of him to the
campus police for his presentation in your class regarding firearms. I have to
admit I am baffled. From my understanding, he was arguing why allowing
students to carry guns on campus could prevent violence such as what happened
at Virginia Tech. I didn't think that he was actually carrying firearms at
that time in violation of any school policy or state law, or that you had any
reason to believe that he was. Isn't what he did the proper and accepted way
of presenting his opinion? Non-violent, intelligent conversation? Isn't this
what college in general encourages? Doesn't the First Amendment protect speech
about the Second Amendment? I was always taught (from my liberal parents) that
being an American means that even though you don't like what someone else says,
you should always defend his right to say it - even if it makes other people
uncomfortable.

I am disappointed that our educators have failed America.

Hungry Seagull
February 28, 2009, 10:06 PM
How long will it take to process and finish Recruit training and graduate those tens of thousands of able bodied fighting age unemployeds and ship them to service of the Nation?

WardenWolf
February 28, 2009, 10:08 PM
When the campus police asked "where I stored my firearms", I'd have told them, "That's none of your business, and unless you have a warrant, I'm leaving."

rbernie
February 28, 2009, 10:11 PM
The article, in case it goes offline: Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
Posted by admin on 2/24/09 • Categorized as News

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Wahlberg believes that her complaint was filed without good reason.

“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly nonthreatening matter. Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat,” Wahlberg said in response. “The actions of Professor Anderson made me so uncomfortable, that I didn’t attend several classes. The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.”

Jim K
February 28, 2009, 10:19 PM
Hmmm. An unwarranted denial of the right of free speech, with the clear threat of an impact on a student's grades, then intimidation and harassment, plus more threats, by the police.

A lot of lawyers will love this one. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of CT might not.

Jim

Defense Minister
February 28, 2009, 10:22 PM
Instead of telling me how you feel about this, why don't you tell her!

andersonpau@ccsu.edu


Dear Ms. Anderson,
I am writing to you because I feel you overstepped your boundaries as a college professor in the way that you have treated Mr. Wahlberg. He was participating in your class like he was asked to do, and you filed a complaint against him simply because you don't agree with the subject matter he presented. It is not your place to decide whether you agree with him or not, but simply to grade him on his efforts and partictipation in the assignment. It shocks me that you have attempted to strip him of his Constitutional right to free speech because you disagree with his Constitutional right to "...keep and bear arms...". It is not your place to decide who gets to excercise those rights, nor to decide when or where it is done, and I am surprised that you, who are supposed to be an ecucator, are ignorant of this. I hope you will reconsider how you have handled this situation, and take a different approach should the "...right to keep and bear arms..." be discussed in your classroom in the future.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX
Concerned U.S. Citizen

bpsig
February 28, 2009, 10:22 PM
once again it show the stupidity of the pc crowd. What part of free speech does this college Professor not understand ? Call atf for *** on list ? call aclu 1st amedment violation file big federal suit on school , professor and college pd. Call local police dept not college pd file report of harassment and intimidation call fbi on treatment by local police agency. then call nra. fox news , glen beck. Call Then take money from case go to good school and raise billboard post sign proffess at college ____ no free speech.

Gamera
February 28, 2009, 10:29 PM
1. gauge your professor. If you cannot agree with his/her views (even if that means just writing nonsense for a grade) avoid the topic altogether, or you will pay for it

This completely defeats the purpose of the academic environment, which is to discuss ideas freely and gain knowledge. If I want to talk about a relevant topic in a class then why the hell shouldn't I?

Seminole
February 28, 2009, 10:53 PM
As a college professor, I am appalled. I can't imagine reporting a student to campus police because of a well-reasoned argument in class. But of course, I'm a gun owner, so there you go. . . !

I would like to think that this over-reaction is due to the fact that it happened in CT, but I have to admit that most academics don't have much experience with firearms and associate them only with violence. This knee-jerk reaction can be overcome, but only with a lot of patience and by people they know and trust. Unfortunately, they don't tend to know and trust people who are familiar with firearms, so the result is a vicious circle.

TxState101
February 28, 2009, 11:10 PM
There was a graduate student in my sociology class that sat in class and did the whole TA deal that asked us a few questions one time. They went along the lines of "How many have fired a handgun?" "How many have shot a rifle?" "How many own firearms?".

I'm happy to say that more than half the class raised their hands with any of the questions, but the look on the professor and the grad student's face said that they were surprised by the amount of people who had at least shot a firearm.

I don't know what they expected, being in Texas. But San Marcos is slowly but surely becoming Austin Jr, soon to be steeped in mystical and different lines of thought, I'm afraid.

N003k
February 28, 2009, 11:16 PM
Hmmm. An unwarranted denial of the right of free speech, with the clear threat of an impact on a student's grades, then intimidation and harassment, plus more threats, by the police.

A lot of lawyers will love this one. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of CT might not.

Jim

Well, I know quite a few CT Tax payers, myself included, that would be more then happy to see this go to court.

I wrote a letter to the professor myself, just real glad I didn't choose to go to CCSU now...

TAB
February 28, 2009, 11:25 PM
None of us where there, so we have no idea was said/ done. For all we know he could have had pics full of gore. Then again he also could have said "I carry every day rather its legal or not"

Get all the facts before you pass judgment.

Also remember in class the 1a, does not apply. While getting my degree I saw lots of people droped from classes/ failed for thier comments.

Odd Job
March 1, 2009, 05:48 AM
While getting my degree I saw lots of people droped from classes/ failed for thier comments.

Did you see them questioned by campus police for their comments?

WTBguns10kOK
March 1, 2009, 07:07 AM
I'd have asked the police why they wanted me to come down to the station. I guess going down there makes it look even worse for them, though, in terms of harassment. Sometimes cooperation with the police can backfire for them I guess.

Gamera
March 1, 2009, 08:28 AM
Good point. If the campus police "requested my presence" then I would kindly tell them that I had other plans for the evening.

earlthegoat2
March 1, 2009, 09:19 AM
Usually its not an Instructor but rather another student that raises issues like this. I would bet it was another student who went to the teacher and the teacher overreacted.

SCKimberFan
March 1, 2009, 09:41 AM
What a short step it woul'd be from that attitude to the 're-education' camp.

It appears that CCSU has already become just that.

chuckusaret
March 1, 2009, 10:10 AM
When I attended college most of my professors were rather naive to the manly things of the world i.e. guns, motocycles, tail gate parties etc. I would guess that they would have also gotten upset over a presentation about violence on campus by a student. But they had a little common sense and would not have panicked.

kentucky bucky
March 1, 2009, 10:14 AM
I'm sure the neurotic prof told all her liberal friends and got pats on the back.

chuckusaret
March 1, 2009, 10:21 AM
Did the student sue CCSU and the police for violating his rights?

KarenTOC
March 1, 2009, 10:37 AM
This is the letter I sent. I suspect she'll delete the emails she receives, but it made me feel better to write it.


Subject: an old lady would like to comment (politely, of course)

Dear Ms. Anderson,

I'm a former gun hater who has just recently learned that there is much more to gun ownership than killing people. I'm a few months shy of 60 years old, and I fired a gun for the first time eight months ago. It's great sport. I enjoy making holes in pieces of paper in a controlled environment. It's much like bowling, but without the big, heavy ball.

Many people are afraid of guns because they fear accidents. Happily, so far, none of my guns have jumped out of their storage containers and shot at me. I've learned that guns only do what you tell them to do. They're a lot like computers in that respect. Can there be accidents with guns? Of course. Just as there can be accidents with cars and sewing machines and swimming pools and electrical outlets and hammers and cows that fall from the sky.

Many years ago, my 15-year old cousin was killed when he tripped and fell on the shotgun he was carrying while hunting in the woods. Around the same time, another young cousin was killed when he was hit by a truck while riding a bicycle. If guns should be banned because people can be killed accidentally, why not ban trucks and bicycles?

Trucks, bicycles, and guns are inanimate objects. The fault lies, not with the object, but with the person using the object. In the two examples I cited, sadly, the fault belonged to the child who died. One boy was holding his gun in an unsafe manner; one rode his bicycle into the path of an oncoming truck.

Many people are afraid of guns because they fear violent crime. Is there violent crime using guns? Of course. Will banning guns help? Of course not. No criminal is going to say to himself "Oh darn, I was planning on robbing a bank and raping a few women today, but I can't legally own a gun, so I guess I'll have to go get a job instead." Personally, I have no desire to be raped at gunpoint. Oddly enough, I'm not comforted by the thought of being raped at knifepoint instead.

The intimidating weapon is an inanimate object. The true danger lies, not with the weapon, but with the person wielding it. A violent criminal, intent on harm, will use whatever weapon he can get - gun, knife, baseball bat. If guns should be banned because people can commit violent crimes with them, why not ban steak knives and baseball bats and duct tape?

Rest assured, the vast majority of gun owners are not irresponsible beer-swilling, bambi-killing, biker, gangsta-rapper, redneck thugs.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
my name
my city

Officers'Wife
March 1, 2009, 10:50 AM
Hi Jim Keenan

Hmmm. An unwarranted denial of the right of free speech, with the clear threat of an impact on a student's grades, then intimidation and harassment, plus more threats, by the police.

A lot of lawyers will love this one. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of CT might not.

Although a college is 'supported' by the state it is a private institution. The 1st amendment only covers acts of the state not that of private institutions.

If this person is a communications major or minor the better strategy would be to sue the college as a breach of contract as it's very hard to learn to communicate when everything you say could be used against you.

Selena

statelineblues
March 1, 2009, 10:54 AM
If I were in that class, my next project would be titled "Authority's Suppression of Thought and Speech on College Campuses Today"

searcher451
March 1, 2009, 12:01 PM
+1 to Seminole's comments. I've been a college professor for 16 years, and I'm frankly offended by the idiocy demonstrated by Prof. Anderson and by the campus police personnel.

But please keep in mind that not all college professors are anti-gun nuts, any more than all gun owners are the whackies that some people make us out to be. It's awfully easy to stereotype, and we see it all the time: in newspaper and magazine articles, on radio and television shows, even on credible gun boards such as THR.

At the same time, please keep in mind that the same Bill of Rights that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms also guarantees Paula Anderson's right to free speech. Sadly, neither amendment acts as a guarantee against stupidity.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 12:40 PM
Gamera: "This completely defeats the purpose of the academic environment, which is to discuss ideas freely and gain knowledge. If I want to talk about a relevant topic in a class then why the hell shouldn't I?"

I disagree. College students pay a lot of money to receive instruction according to an established curriculum. As a college student in earlier times, back when Soviets and other dinosaurs roamed the earth, it never ceased to amaze me how loudmouthed ignoramuses felt it was somehow part of the curriculum for them to spout off whatever ill-conceived, half-baked lame-brained idea happened to enter their drug-addled, mentally-challenged thoughts.

Somehow, the 1960s never really came to an end on college campuses. The kids somehow imagine they will become educated by talking to one another. That's a load of crap. The professor knows more than you do about the subject you have paid considerable sums to study. That's why she's the professor. Shut up and listen, and keep your thoughts about guns, politics, art and the professor's legs to yourself.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 1, 2009, 12:45 PM
Let's not forget this important point:

Yes, the prof. is a blithering idiot, and definitely in the wrong. No question there.

But the police are far more culpable in their actions than the professor. The police get raving lunatics making raving lunatic reports to them all the time. The appropriate response is "sorry, there's no law broken; nothing we can do about it." Here we clearly have a raving lunatic reporting something perfectly legal, and a complete non-issue as far as the police are concerned. But, she's entitled to make her raving lunatic phone call. The police made a huge mistake in actually taking steps on a perfectly legal action - asking for an interview with "non-suspect" in an allegation of *speech promoting the lawful use of self-defense*. They should get slapped with a lawsuit, or at a minimum, uphold disciplinary action against the officer who authorized following up on a non-threat / non-crime.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 12:54 PM
The Kampus Kops are not a police agency. They are more akin to mall cops. Private security. NOT sworn law enforcement officers. They take their marching orders from the President of the College and his academic minions, and are not subject to those Constitutional restraints imposed on law enforcement agencies. I really don't blame the Kampus Kops here; they probably were as embarrassed about the situation as they could be, but weren't going to get fired over it. The student sounds like a nut case. He ditched class after all that, because he felt uncomfortable? After all that? He got his fifteen minutes of fame -- and exited, stage left? Wierd.

cassandrasdaddy
March 1, 2009, 01:02 PM
NOT sworn law enforcement officers.


not always true

cassandrasdaddy
March 1, 2009, 01:03 PM
They should get slapped with a lawsuit, or at a minimum, uphold disciplinary action against the officer who authorized following up on a non-threat / non-crime.



fail but it sounded good

ants
March 1, 2009, 01:11 PM
In my state, campus police are indeed sworn law enforcement officers, required to complete POST training like any and all other law enforcement officers.

ants
March 1, 2009, 01:18 PM
Perhaps the law enforcement officers on the Forum can help with these questions. I'm no LEO, so I can only surmise good judgement:

When a written complaint is received at the desk, do you just drop it because you believe there is no crime committed? Or are you obliged to investigate to determine whether a crime was committed or not?

If the investigation includes an interview with students, is it better to go to the student's dormitory to conduct an interview on a touchy subject (touchy because the complainant is probably out of line), or is it better to ask the student to meet at the station to conduct the interview more discreetly?

cassandrasdaddy
March 1, 2009, 01:24 PM
oh now you wanna interrupt the rant with logic and facts?! shame on you!

eye5600
March 1, 2009, 01:52 PM
Although a college is 'supported' by the state it is a private institution. The 1st amendment only covers acts of the state not that of private institutions.

The budget of the institution in question is part of the budget of the State of Connecticut. It's not private. And, the issue is the action of sworn LEO's.

SCKimberFan
March 1, 2009, 02:02 PM
The professor knows more than you do about the subject you have paid considerable sums to study. That's why she's the professor. Shut up and listen, and keep your thoughts about guns, politics, art and the professor's legs to yourself.

Wow, just, wow.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 02:03 PM
I learn something here every day. My college had a few security officers, but they were NOT sworn LEOs. They were good guys, but ...

My law school, part of a larger university, had an ENORMOUS security department, rumored to be, at the time, the largest private army outside of Lebanon. But they still weren't sworn LEOs. I'm not sure I really understand WHY the Kampus Kops should be sworn LEOs; from the standpoint of the college administration, it would make more sense to me, as the College President, to have them as my hired help rather than sworn officers with competing duties and loyalties. Praetorian Guard and all that.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 02:07 PM
SCKimberFan: "Wow, just, wow."

Hey, maybe I put it bluntly, but I'm quite serious about this. Either the professor knows more than you do about the subject or she does not. If not, then you shouldn't be paying huge amounts of money to hear her talk. If she does, then you and the other students need to listen in order to learn. We do not learn by talking, whether about guns or anything else. It really used to irritate the snot out of me that I was paying tens of thousands of dollars for professional instruction, and had to listen to teenagers opine about politics when the spirit moved them. I tended to take courses where that wasn't permitted to happen.

Claude Clay
March 1, 2009, 02:09 PM
in fact New Britain police officers.

New Britain Police -not in the story-told Wahlberg not to talk about guns within earshot of anybody on campus because it makes people feel uncomfortable.

left out of the posted quote were the last two paragraphs:

The university police were unavailable for comment.
"If you can't talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?" asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. "After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas."

At a Hartford area range, a open public shoot was held last night. Along with their female president, Sara Adler, 16 members of the CCSU Riflery and Marksmanship club were in attendance. A lot of ammo was sent downrange during the 5 hour event; and a safe and good time was had by all. Discussion amongst the two clubs was ongoing throughout the evening and this incident was central.

this issue has 'gone public' in a big way. "Keeping the issue on the front burner is making the teacher and the school uncomfortable" Ms. Adler said last night.

Perhaps change is occurring (and i ain't referring to DC politics).

JohnL2
March 1, 2009, 02:10 PM
God save us from the ignorant and the intellectuals.
I would rather hang out with people who have common sense any day.
I guess that's why I opt to work in the trades. Yeah, they are rough around the edges but they tell it like it is and I love that.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 02:16 PM
Claude Clay: ""After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.""

This idea gained currency in the 1960s. It makes no logical sense to me. I went to college to learn about a variety of subjects from people who knew more than I did. This was an expensive but worthwhile proposition. When I was finished learning, I left. I did not go to college in order to exchange ideas. At seventeen, I had none, and knew it. Nor did I expect freedom in a private institution. Their house, their rules. I was free to choose another college if I disliked their system. A university campus may be a lot of things, but "a place for the free and open exchange of ideas" it is not, nor was it originally intended as such. The fact that a bunch of silly people have been saying those things for a few decades does not make it so.

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 02:17 PM
SCKimberFan Wow aint gonna cut it if I aint told you about jacknifes prior to your experiencing one. Watching your trailer come around in the mirrior with no prior teaching is not the time to invent your own solution to the problem.

Ive had to sit and listen to MANY good teachers. As opionated as I am, Ive tried very hard to keep mouth shut and listen.

Did I say keeping mouth shut... Ive been told that is the very worst issue with me, that was then, still is. But when a Instructor is talking. I am quiet and listen. Instructor may either be a worn out 70 year old who was raised on Donner Pass while my grand pappy was in diapers or.... a freshly minted prof graduated with very big words on heavy paper running the first class.. Either way.. the teacher gets to talk.

What the problem I have now is with children. The text books in schools today are lacking in spice and controversary. They dont follow the basic tenets that our Nation was built upon all these years with many good lessons. But noooo.. these kids are taught how to be nice, to squeal on bullies and how not to chase girls (Or vice versa) etc in schools today.

How can I expect college to be any better? That is just me. Im too old to go to college these days.

Ive learned that I dont handle ... theory very well. I prefer to go forth and get into it with both hands and DO it. So, for me that meant the skid pad to get that 18 wheeler out of the jacknife. And later in the real world.

To that one profane little instructor with small words yelling in my ear 25 years ago... THANK you for saving my worthless life with your knowledge when I knew nothing about what I was to do for a living.

CDL trucking isnt the same as a normal College campus, just a class full of hungry, almost broke people ready to learn fast so that the next paycheck will start them on thier bright new future.

Response to Shooter's post and others in thread:

Comfortable is the word that I keep seeing here.

Maybe being UN-Comfortable is better.


+1 to Shooter429

shooter429
March 1, 2009, 02:29 PM
I knew a college student who was expelled for owning a gun in off-campus private housing. The school stated that a student who owns a gun is a danger to the student body, faculty and is not representative of the values of the institution.

Even in CJ classes with LEOs in attendance, there were professors who stated that they would not allow duty weapons on campus.

Further, another school I went to would not allow fully commissioned campus LEOs to carry weapons on duty because it made people uncomfortable. That is right, administration disarmed the police.

This kind of insanity continues all the way to keychains with toy guns on them.

Just insane

Shooter429

Claude Clay
March 1, 2009, 02:37 PM
in the here and now, some are trying to correct an injustice. course 301-communications: critical thinking- as it is being taught today-- the American democratic enviornment embraces a free and open marketplace of ideas.

Duke--this isn't about universities in the '60s nor whether one stayed there long enough. i do not know anyone who has 'finished learning' but you say you have and i shall not disagree

"" A university campus may be a lot of things, but "a place for the free and open exchange of ideas" it is not, nor was it originally intended as such.""
i think the Greek's would disagree:

"Education in schools in ancient Athens was at first limited to aristocratic boys. By the 4th century b.c. all 18-year-old males spent two years in a gymnasion, a state school devoted to the overall physical and intellectual development of a young man. More advanced education in philosophy, mathematics, logic and rhetoric was available to the aristocracy in highly select gymnasia like the Academy of Plato and the Lycaeum of Aristotle."

Geronimo45
March 1, 2009, 02:50 PM
The Kampus Kops are not a police agency. They are more akin to mall cops. Private security. NOT sworn law enforcement officers.
Then how in the hell did they get info on all the guns he owned?

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 03:02 PM
Claude Clay: "i think the Greek's would disagree: "Education in schools in ancient Athens was at first limited to aristocratic boys. By the 4th century b.c. all 18-year-old males spent two years in a gymnasion, a state school devoted to the overall physical and intellectual development of a young man. More advanced education in philosophy, mathematics, logic and rhetoric was available to the aristocracy in highly select gymnasia like the Academy of Plato and the Lycaeum of Aristotle.""

And nowhere in there do you see Greek kids showing up at the gymnasium telling Aristotle what they think politics is all about, and whether the Queen of Sparta is all that and a bag of chips. Equality in education is a latter twentieth century conceit. A big part of why I didn't become an academic is that I had a hard enough time taking some of the professors seriously; how was I supposed to take the ideas of a seventeen year old seriously?

Deanimator
March 1, 2009, 04:22 PM
This idea gained currency in the 1960s. It makes no logical sense to me. I went to college to learn about a variety of subjects from people who knew more than I did. This was an expensive but worthwhile proposition. When I was finished learning, I left. I did not go to college in order to exchange ideas.
I went to college to learn things, not WRONG things.

I didn't go to college to learn that 2+2=7, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that Stalin was a vegan pacifist, or that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the Federal Government to equip, man and direct the National Guard.

Funderb
March 1, 2009, 04:28 PM
He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.


free gun zones!!!??? why don't i know about this? where are the free guns?


The Kampus Kops are not a police agency. They are more akin to mall cops. Private security. NOT sworn law enforcement officers.
You are wrong, they are sworn officers of the law.
You might be thinking of "public safety" a common term used to describe university janitors.

SCKimberFan
March 1, 2009, 04:31 PM
SCKimberFan Wow aint gonna cut it if I aint told you about jacknifes prior to your experiencing one. Watching your trailer come around in the mirrior with no prior teaching is not the time to invent your own solution to the problem.

What does this have to do with my response to the post I was responding to?

Its a frickin COMMUNICATIONS class. Communication means dialogue. Dialogue is more than one side's opinions. He did nothing to get this kind of treatment, except give his presentation. He didn't disagree with the prof, he gave his opinions during his assignment. He didn't speak when she was speaking. Read the frickin news story.

I guess we should all just cower and say nothing at any time about any thing?!?

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 04:36 PM
Hm. Focusing on the communications. Too easy to focus on the Police Station problem instead.

Sorry about it.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 04:43 PM
SCKimberFan: "Its a frickin COMMUNICATIONS class. Communication means dialogue. Dialogue is more than one side's opinions. He did nothing to get this kind of treatment, except give his presentation. He didn't disagree with the prof, he gave his opinions during his assignment. He didn't speak when she was speaking. Read the frickin news story."

Though as usual, the article doesn't really tell me what I'd most like to know.

There's a time and a place for everything. Guns are controversial enough without making a political statement about them in a college classroom. I know; these days it's considered strange, in a college classroom, NOT to be obsessed with politics. I was pretty brash and outspoken as a college student, yet even I would have known better than to do this.

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 04:47 PM
Shut up and listen, and keep your thoughts about guns, politics, art and the professor's legs to yourself.

In a "communications" class you are supposed to "shut up and listen"???

When you are assigned to give an oral presentation of a topic of your choice - you should stand in front of the class mute?

Duke: What are you talking about? Sorry...,you are not communicating anything of relevant value here.

I'm amazed you would even go there. Yes...there was a lot of self-indulgent blather promulgated by students in the sixties. What does that have to do with the suppression of 1st and 2nd amendment rights in a university setting in which the free exchange of ideas was presumably the POINT of the class?

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 04:57 PM
rainbowbob: "Yes...there was a lot of self-indulgent blather promulgated by students in the sixties. What does that have to do with the suppression of 1st and 2nd amendment rights in a university setting in which the free exchange of ideas was presumably the POINT of the class?"

I guess I don't see the suppression, or the rights. I'm used to thinking of a college as a private place, with its own sensibilities and values. Sort of like how my den is a private place with its own sensibilities and values. You have no rights in my den. Not really. But you can always leave. I disagreed with the leadership of my college about a lot of things, but that didn't really matter. I was a paying guest, and they made the rules. It never would have occurred to me to try and make a political statement about guns at my college. I was controversial enough without that deal. And again with this "free exchange of ideas". I don't get that at all. I went to college to learn things, not to teach things. As a seventeen year old my ideas, such as they were, were worth precisely squat.

cerberus65
March 1, 2009, 05:12 PM
Hey, maybe I put it bluntly, but I'm quite serious about this. Either the professor knows more than you do about the subject or she does not. If not, then you shouldn't be paying huge amounts of money to hear her talk. If she does, then you and the other students need to listen in order to learn. We do not learn by talking, whether about guns or anything else. It really used to irritate the snot out of me that I was paying tens of thousands of dollars for professional instruction, and had to listen to teenagers opine about politics when the spirit moved them. I tended to take courses where that wasn't permitted to happen.

Duke, I agree with you on not wanting to listen to idiot teenagers that think they know something. When the professor is in their area of expertise, that's what I paid to be listening to. If the professor in this case had a problem with the way the presentation was done, that would be useful feedback. She's supposedly the expert on how to communicate. But once she starts taking issue with the content then she's stepped outside her area of expertise (painfully obvious in this particular case) and her opinion ranks right up their with the idiot teenagers (i.e. not what I paid for).

BTW, no offense meant to any teenagers present here. Just because I was an idiot teenager doesn't mean all of you all are too. :-)

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 05:13 PM
And again with this "free exchange of ideas". I don't get that at all. I went to college to learn things, not to teach things. As a seventeen year old my ideas, such as they were, were worth precisely squat.


Yes...and the student in question here may be a flaming idiot as well (not casting aspersions on you or him - just agreeing that seventeen-year-olds often don't know squat). But the assumption here is that in a communications class, the student was REQUIRED to express his opinions about a subject of his choice. He would have - and should have - failed the course if he did NOT get up in front of the class and present his ideas. He did exactly that - and was harassed for it.

If you can't see the difference between speaking out of turn in a setting in which you are required to listen (e.g., a lecture) and one in which you are required to speak your mind (e.g., a communications class) - I don't know what else to say.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 05:23 PM
Well again, there's a lot we don't know, from the article.

I guess it just wouldn't have occurred to me to bring up a politically explosive subject like that. I knew in college I was surrounded by communists. I baited them. But I didn't expect not to be challenged, and I didn't publicly take positions which I knew full well were verboten. For example, at my college, civil rights were discussed as though they were the Second Coming. Personally, I didn't, and don't, think so highly of much of the civil rights leadership. But I did not choose that as the subject of a public speech. I made my views known in ways that could not easily be held against me, and which always carried that critical air of ambiguity. i.e., "does he really believe ..." It just sounds to me like the kid was asking for a world of trouble which I would have seen coming a mile away, and now he acts all oppressed. That irked me. Maybe more than it ought to have.

Claude Clay
March 1, 2009, 05:38 PM
" As a seventeen year old my ideas, such as they were, were worth precisely squat."

and while some things never change, for others they do with time. besides, if age is your criteria for ideas and teaching, at what age to you are these attributes acknowledged?. and the young man being discussed is not a 17 year old: he is 21. and his grade in that class last semester was an A.

Duke of Doubt-he is not acting oppressed at all. he has allowed the event to be made public.
this has nothing to do with his conviction or your professed lack of it. please try to stay on topic

cambeul41
March 1, 2009, 05:40 PM
As a teacher, I tell students what I am willing to accept. If students choose gun control as a topic, I make sure they understand that I am strongly 2A, and I offer to provide a number of informational sources. Most of them are already aware of my position on the subject and know that if they are anti, they would do well to choose another topic.

Officers'Wife
March 1, 2009, 05:40 PM
Hi JohnL2

God save us from the ignorant and the intellectuals.

When I started college my father told me to always remember that education does not equal common sense or superior insight. Purdue and Ohio State proved his point many times over. It would appear that college in Mass. is no different either.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 05:48 PM
Claude Clay: "if age is your criteria for ideas and teaching, at what age to you are these attributes acknowledged?. and the young man being discussed is not a 17 year old: he is 21."

Heh. I was worse at 21 than I was at 17. Ayn Rand and alcohol. Ugh.

It's not that age brings knowledge. It's that age brings the wisdom to know that your college professor probably isn't going to be too keen on a gun speech. The only female college professor I ever met who liked guns was a perverted foreignor and a closet fascist. God, how I miss her.

TAB
March 1, 2009, 05:50 PM
When I started college my father told me to always remember that education does not equal common sense or superior insight. Purdue and Ohio State proved his point many times over. It would appear that college in Mass. is no different either.



qouted for truth... some of the dumbest people I know are also the most educated.

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 05:50 PM
Duke: You chose to play it safe and avoid controversy while at school.

This student assumed (correctly in my opinion) that he should be permitted to speak his mind in a communications class without fear of harassment - regardless of the subject.

If everyone played it as safe as you chose to, no new ideas would ever be discussed.

An example (re: civil rights) would be that persons with certain racial or gender characteristics not have insisted on exercising the right to vote because it might offend those who preferred the status quo.

Duke of Doubt
March 1, 2009, 06:01 PM
rainbowbob: "Duke: You chose to play it safe and avoid controversy while at school. This student assumed (correctly in my opinion) that he should be permitted to speak his mind in a communications class without fear of harassment - regardless of the subject. If everyone played it as safe as you chose to, no new ideas would ever be discussed. An example (re: civil rights) would be that persons with certain racial or gender characteristics not have insisted on exercising the right to vote because it might offend those who preferred the status quo."

It would amuse anyone who suffered through my college years to hear me described as safe and non-controversial. I was a leading political figure and the bane of every parlor pink college marxist around. But I picked my battles and my opponents with great care. I have a couple of friends from those years who I still see regularly. They never understood how I could be such a polarizing figure with such controversial opinions, and yet graduate with honors, get elected to PBK, and consider myself friends with several leftist professors. Controversial need not be confrontational and threatening.

woad_yurt
March 1, 2009, 06:03 PM
As a teacher.... I make sure they understand that I am strongly 2A.... Most of them are already aware of my position on the subject and know that if they are anti, they would do well to choose another topic.

cambeul41:
As a teacher myself, I grade on how well they put forth & support their opinion, period. Why would your students do well to avoid disagreeing with you? Are you saying that they'll be penalized if their opinions clash with yours? If so, that's oppression.

If you're alluding to another reason that I've missed, please explain your statements. I'm all ears, hoping that you don't mean what I think you mean.

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 06:16 PM
Most of them are already aware of my position on the subject and know that if they are anti, they would do well to choose another topic.

cambeul41: May I ask what course you are instructing? If you are asking students to express themselves on a topic of their choice - and then penalize them for choosing a topic or position you don't personally agree with - you are as wrong as the instructor in the OP.

The only reason I can think of to fear opinions that don't agree with our own is if we are unsure of our own positions and are terrified of discovering we may be wrong on a particular issue. I have occasionally found myself changing positions on important issues once presented with facts, opinions, and logic that I had not previously considered. That, to me, is one of the most fundamental benefits of a democracy in which the free exchange of ideas is permitted. It makes it more likely that we will ultimately get it right.

I may not have known squat when I was 17 (or 21) - but I was "certain" I did. The older I get, the more comfortable I have become with the fact that uncertainty is the only thing we can be certain of.

cambeul41
March 1, 2009, 06:20 PM
I don't claim to be reasonable on every topic, but in writing to communicate one needs to consider the audience. My clarifying my stance makes it possible for them to do just that. Isn't a heads-up fair?

I do not grade anyone down for disagreeing with me; I would, however, grade someone down for distorting or ignoring facts -- especially if factual information has been provided. For example. I frequently recommend http://gunfacts.info/. Actually, I have never had a problem. I am teaching in Detroit and the majority of my students seem to favor shall issue CCW laws.

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 06:31 PM
...in writing to communicate one needs to consider the audience...Isn't a heads-up fair?

cambeul41:
Perhaps one must consider the level of intelligence and education of the audience to some degree (e.g., don't use esoteric technical terms with a general audience).

But instructing students to consider their audience's opinions on the subject being discussed and tailoring their presentation to garner approval from them is merely a course in demagoguery. What are you teaching...political science?

woad_yurt
March 1, 2009, 07:34 PM
I tell my students that, when arguing any opinion on any subject, they must take into account that there may be an informed listener present who disagrees and that they have to anticipate and address any possible contrary opinions. That guideline stands for any opinion essay.

Most of them are already aware of my position on the subject and know that if they are anti, they would do well to choose another topic.

Why would you say that about the 2nd Amendment? More specifically, why say that immediately following your voicing your own opinion about it? It seems like it's meant to intimidate one from disagreeing with you. And, if your students know that they'd do well to choose another topic, there will be some that will be intimidated enough to choose another topic.

If they'd do well to choose another topic, it follows that they'd do badly by choosing that topic. If they wouldn't do badly (or less well) by choosing that topic, why say that they'd do well by choosing another?

cambeul41
March 1, 2009, 08:15 PM
I primarily teach a basic composition class and a class that requires a research paper.

In the basic comp class, they assign the out-of-class essay topics to themselves by choosing from the suggestions following the essays in their reader. I do “ask” that 1) they show understanding of the essay the topic follows, 2) they understand and appropriately respond to the topic they choose for themselves, and 3) they choose a topic that they can deal with without doing research. I have no problems with those that do so. I do have occasional problems with students who make up their own topics and then get indignant when I insist that they follow instructions. One young woman who wrote in response to none of the topics in the book that “all gun owners were cowards” became irate when 1) I requested that she choose a topic from the suggestions in the book as she had been assigned to do in the first place, but 2) if she really wanted to keep that topic she needed to rewrite her essay in such a way as to distinguish between lawful gun owners and unlawful gun owners. Do you think that “request” is out of line?

In the research class, they are to seek the truth. I have done sufficient reading about the subject to convince myself that we do have a constitutional RKBA and that society is better off for it. Not all opinions are equal in value. For example, I readily concede that almost anyone’s opinion about any professional sport has more merit than does mine. On some subjects, I think mine are better founded. It is quite possible that a student with sufficient diligence might convince me, after considering the facts and logic of the situation, that there is a reasonable argument advocating gun confiscation. However, I see it as only fair to let the student know what he was up against, and I see it as also fair -- since I provide very substantial amounts information on the subject to any student requesting it for any reason -- that they take a hit on the grade for totally ignoring the information provided. Note: I did not say that they have to agree with my conclusions, but they do have to look for the truth and show that they have done so.

Did I say anything to merit your insinuation that I was fearful of differing opinions? Have you no opinions that you would defend?

Your points are well taken that “uncertainty is the only thing we can be certain of,” and that we should be willing to change “positions on important issues once presented with facts, opinions, and logic . . . not previously considered.” Your apparent expectation, however, that I should refrain from using my own background and set of values – especially since I make them clear from start – when evaluating student work, I find to be unreasonable.

Your turn.

But instructing students to consider their audience's opinions on the subject being discussed and tailoring their presentation to garner approval from them is merely a course in demagoguery.

Nonsense!

----------------------------------------------------------

woad-yurt

I tell my students that, when arguing any opinion on any subject, they must take into account that there may be an informed listener present who disagrees and that they have to anticipate and address any possible contrary opinions. That guideline stands for any opinion essay.

Agreed. But I do hope that opinions resulting from research are fact based.


As a teacher myself, I grade on how well they put forth & support their opinion, period. Why would your students do well to avoid disagreeing with you? Are you saying that they'll be penalized if their opinions clash with yours? If so, that's oppression.

If you're alluding to another reason that I've missed, please explain your statements. I'm all ears, hoping that you don't mean what I think you mean.

Perhaps i might better have said "might want to choose another topic." I suspect that there are so many anti teachers around that they think that if i am a teacher i must be anti; and, therefore, anti opinions will be rewarded. I still think a heads-up is fair. Are you suggesting that I should not have a position? Are you suggesting that errors in fact and misrepresentations of fact should be acceptable -- perhaps because they are presented as "opinion"?

I have no idea what you think I mean. I do, however, challenge you to find any student that I have ever given an unfair grade -- especially based on opinion.

woad_yurt
March 1, 2009, 08:25 PM
cambeul41:
Are you saying that, since this one topic is one of your avid interests, the student had better be especially diligent as you're ultra-familiar with the topic and thus better able to evaluate/poke holes/scrutinize?

Like: I took a European history course and the instructor's pet area was Elizabethan England. No way would I ever do a term paper on that because it would be near impossible to impress a guy who had been neck deep in researching the subject for 30 years. So, I did something on the big chalk horse of Uffington. He knew something about it, but not too much. Because he knew little, he couldn't shoot me down too badly.

Is that you meant by saying that they'd do well to choose another topic?

cambeul41
March 1, 2009, 08:56 PM
No, and perhaps I should be embarrassed to say it, quite the opposite.

I do admit to being a bit of a propagandist. It is more like, "Choose this topic and I can provide a lot of help JUST DON'T SPIT IN MY FACE!!!!"

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 09:21 PM
it's amazing some of the teachers that get money from me in the for of tuition. I want a refund in one of my classes. It is a Political Science class, so we discuss politics. We were discussing the constitution and of course everything was rock solid in her eyes except the 2nd Amendment which needed to be looked at in perspective of the time it was written in. The follows this up with saying "I just don't think that people should have guns, so they can shoot their neighbor because they are playing their stereo to loud." I can't believe I have to pay to listen to this dumb bitch.....damnit! my neighbor is playing loud music again...I'll be right back *cocks gun*...

Floppy_D
March 1, 2009, 09:24 PM
I gave a similar speech on the same topic here at Old Dominion University, and it was well received. The professor stopped me afterwards to talk about her Lady Smith, and the class (for the most part) agreed with my presentation as a security solution. It's a shame this went south, but there are still good professors, schools and students out there. I hit the range regularly with my classmates, anything to share the hobby.

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 09:24 PM
it's amazing some of the teachers that get money from me in the form of tuition. I want a refund in one of my classes. It is a Political Science class, so we discuss politics. We were discussing the constitution and of course everything was rock solid in her eyes except the 2nd Amendment which needed to be looked at in perspective of the time it was written in. The follows this up with saying "I just don't think that people should have guns, so they can shoot their neighbor because they are playing their stereo to loud." I can't believe I have to pay to listen to this dumb bitch.....damnit! my neighbor is playing loud music again...I'll be right back *cocks gun*...

Officers'Wife
March 1, 2009, 09:25 PM
The budget of the institution in question is part of the budget of the State of Connecticut.

Irrelevant, universities are not public property. That would be akin to saying since the fed has part of it's budget going to arms research, Colt Industries is part of the federal government.

It's not private. And, the issue is the action of sworn LEO's.

Said LEO's were presented with a bona-fide complaint of a possible insult to the peace and dignity of the community. As such they were duty bound to investigate that complaint. Sorry, when an LEO is exceeding his or her authority I would be the first to condemn, in this case they were doing their job.

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 09:32 PM
SpecialKalltheway, call in a noise complaint to the Law and let them deal with it.

Or move out of the loud neighborhood and get yourself some quiet, and even some space to shoot practicing.

Cyborg
March 1, 2009, 09:35 PM
Much as it pains me to have to agree with His Lordship on anything, I have to agree with the Duke. Anybody who thinks college is about free exchange of ideas is living in a fantasy world. I suspect the Duke and I might've been in college at roughly the same time - I started in '69. But I went to a private, church supported school. Like the Duke I knew I was ignorant - figured I didn't even have a good grasp of the questions. BIIIIGGGGG MISTAKE! Did I mention I was a ministerial student? The very idea that a "preacher boy" wouldn't already pretty much know all the answers and just need supporting material was heresy. Got a lot of flack for asking "EVERYbody knows THAT!" questions.

Almost got booted from the ministerial program when a little piece I wrote in High School was published in the literary magazine of the Big State University down the street from us (a friend from HS asked to publish it, he remembered me reading it to a few friends when we were in school together). The piece was a rather broad satire on the racial situation of the 60's. I set it in Heaven. Yup. Had race riots in Heaven. The Bible faculty was not amused. If my psych prof (I double majored, Biblical Studies and Psychology) hadn't run an "Emperor's New Clothes" scam on them and "reminded" the assembled PhDs, DDs and such that satire can be subtle and often only intelligent, discerning people understand the real meaning, I would've been booted out on my maverick a**.

Gotta applaud the kid for chutzpah, though. That took some panache.

Cyborg

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 09:36 PM
they were doing their job I agree, but they weren't doing it very effectively. When the complaint was made the LEO could have right then and there solved this baffling case.

*ring ring, ring ring*
LEO: "Hell-o campus police"

Teacher: "Hell-o, I want to report a student that caused students in my class to feel uncomfortable."

LEO: "what did he do?"

Teacher: "he gave a presentation on how Concealed Carry on campus should be allowed"

LEO: "oh so he brought a gun to school?"

Teacher: "well no.."

LEO: "did he threaten anyone then?"

Teacher: "well no.."

LEO: "What did he do that was illegal that warrants our involvement?"

Teacher: "he mentioned other school shooting that had happened in the past!"

LEO: "That isn't a crime you stupid bitch!" *click*

What a waste of time and man power and a waste to a perfectly innocent civilians time as well.

SpecialKalltheway
March 1, 2009, 09:38 PM
Hungry, I was just kidding. I live in Colorado, plenty of places for me to go shoot and my neighbors are great people. Living here I even get to carry a gun to my classes on the CSU campus. What a shock I carry a gun to school everyday and no one gets shot!!!! Stupid liberals.

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 09:40 PM
:D

No worries. I recall Colorado! Cheers!

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 09:52 PM
cambeul41 wrote:

Your turn.

One young woman who wrote in response to none of the topics in the book that “all gun owners were cowards” became irate when 1) I requested that she choose a topic from the suggestions in the book as she had been assigned to do in the first place, but 2) if she really wanted to keep that topic she needed to rewrite her essay in such a way as to distinguish between lawful gun owners and unlawful gun owners. Do you think that “request” is out of line?


cambeul41:

If the instructions were to choose a topic from the book, requesting the student to follow instructions is clearly NOT out of line.

However, if using a topic not suggested in the book is an acceptable option, insisting she distinguish between lawful gun owners and unlawful gun owners should not have been a necessary precondition. The only requirement for a good grade should have been that she be able to present credible evidence to support her hypothesis that "all gun owners are cowards."

Regardless of one's position on the RKBA, proving that hypothesis would be impossible - and her failure to do so should have been reflected in her grade. From that she may have learned that making an unsupportable hypothesis will earn a poor grade - regardless of whether you agree with the idea or not.


In the research class, they are to seek the truth. I have done sufficient reading about the subject to convince myself that we do have a constitutional RKBA and that society is better off for it. Not all opinions are equal in value.

Not all opinions are equal in value - but all are entitled to their opinions on subjects in which differing subjective opinions are possible. For example, differing opinions on the RKBA are possible :eek: (no matter how wrong we believe them to be) - but not on the basic laws of mathematics and physics.


Did I say anything to merit your insinuation that I was fearful of differing opinions?

Yes...this:


Most of them are already aware of my position on the subject and know that if they are anti, they would do well to choose another topic.

And this:

Perhaps I might better have said "might want to choose another topic."

Both statements imply that they will NOT do well (i.e., receive a good grade) if they choose to defend a position you don't agree with.


Have you no opinions that you would defend?

Yes I have...supporting the RKBA for one. But if I was teaching a class in which students were required to choose a topic to discuss and a position or hypothesis to defend, I would make it clear that their grade depends on how well they present their position and defend their hypothesis. My opinion on the subject would not be the determining factor in their grade.


I suspect that there are so many anti teachers around that they think that if I am a teacher I must be anti; and, therefore, anti opinions will be rewarded. I still think a heads-up is fair. Are you suggesting that I should not have a position? Are you suggesting that errors in fact and misrepresentations of fact should be acceptable -- perhaps because they are presented as "opinion"?

Students writing about issues should NOT be taught to expect reward based on their teacher's positions on those issues - but rather on their ability to clearly and persuasively present their own positions on the issues.

I am not suggesting you shouldn't have a position. I AM suggesting you should not penalize your students for having positions that differ from yours.

Errors in fact and misrepresentations of fact should NOT be acceptable. However, in many cases, differing opinions and conclusions can be drawn from a set of facts.


Having said all of this, please allow me to express my admiration and gratitude for your choice of professions, and your obvious dedication and desire to teach them well.

woad_yurt
March 1, 2009, 11:18 PM
Oops.

If any of you read this before I wiped it out, please keep in mind that I had misunderstood something early on and was going on that.

I'm kinda deflated here. Some of it was pure gold and now it's gone.

cambeul41:
I thought that you had chosen the topic (gun owners = cowards) rather than her saying it to you. My apologies. Yeah, that was a spit in the face. Mea maxima culpa et expello baro!

rainbowbob
March 1, 2009, 11:32 PM
That topic choice, a paper expounding upon whether all gun owners are cowards...there must be at least one other assignment topic to be had, one that doesn’t get your goat.


Whoa...I say whoa, woad yurt!


Go back and re-read cambeul41's post. That topic wasn't one assigned, rather it was something the student chose contrary to the instructions.

woad_yurt
March 1, 2009, 11:37 PM
Oh poop. I was on a roll. I'll edit! Sorry, peeps.

rainbowbob:
Thank you for the heads up. I owe you one.

I was kind of sad to see it go, though. That was some great stuff there. Too bad it was all in response to something that hadn't been said. Holy crap.

Hugo
March 2, 2009, 01:31 AM
The student needs to sue the idiot Professor, the college, and possibly the police for violating his First Amendment rights. Later talk about the 2nd Amendment rights but for the lawsuit keep it VERY focused on the 1st amendment rights. Sadly money is the only way to get these foolish institutions attention and take you (and all your civil rights) seriously. Racial discrimination and gays and lesbians had to sue, it seems it's the turn for 2nd amendment rights as well. Getting the Media involved and some civil rights organizations might be a good idea too.

This does really suck and is ridiculous that this is necessary to keep ones 1st amendment rights, but one step at a time gets the journey done. Get walking on the right path.

cambeul41
March 2, 2009, 07:29 AM
I AM suggesting you should not penalize your students for having positions that differ from yours.

Agreed. Rather than go through your post line by line, I will simply plead "Not Guilty." Thank you for post 124.

I suspect that you, woad_yurt, and I are in fundamental agreement on most points.

woad_yurt
March 2, 2009, 08:08 PM
What follows is for those that are shouting "sue!"

In order to sue successfully, one has to prove that they were damaged. They must suffer an injury to their body, their property, their wallet, their career, etc.

TAB
March 2, 2009, 08:12 PM
I'm still waiting to know what was said...

paintballdude902
March 2, 2009, 08:14 PM
very good last quote

Claude Clay
March 2, 2009, 08:26 PM
contact was made today by a Hartford area TV station to Mr. Wahlberg and Ms. Adler for interviews. both he and club president Ms. Adler expressed a desire to focus on the schools treatment of students second and first amendment rights. the reporter wished to focus on Wahlbergs story. there will be no interview.
on another note: interest in Ms. Adler's quote is raising and the Marksmanship and Riflery Club is exploring the marketing of silk screened t-shirts to raise funds for the club. this is to finance a trip to the NRA museum in Virginia in the fall.

SpecialKalltheway
March 2, 2009, 08:32 PM
Woads_Yurt "What follows is for those that are shouting "sue!"

In order to sue successfully, one has to prove that they were damaged. They must suffer an injury to their body, their property, their wallet, their career, etc."

Not one of the sue crazy here, but you don't have to "win" to have a successful lawsuit if your only goal is to create awareness.

SCKimberFan
March 2, 2009, 08:35 PM
We're talking Civil Rights violation here. The student's civil rights were infringed upon - freedom of speech without government interference (ie: po-po requesting his presence).

cassandrasdaddy
March 2, 2009, 08:52 PM
We're talking Civil Rights violation here.


no

Officers'Wife
March 2, 2009, 09:33 PM
In order to sue successfully, one has to prove that they were damaged. They must suffer an injury to their body, their property, their wallet, their career, etc.

Depends on your desired outcome, if the goal is a multi-million dollar settlement - no case. If the goal is to have court transcripts of the prof defending her actions... As my dear cousin is fond of saying- it costs less than a hundred dollars to file a civil suit. It costs thousands to defend yourself from one.

TAB
March 2, 2009, 09:39 PM
yeah but if it actually goes to trial and you lose, you pay the other guys legal fees... I know what my lawyer bills out per hour, a month of her working is more then average house hold income in the US.

The Deer Hunter
March 2, 2009, 09:49 PM
I can't beleive how un-secure some people feel just hearing people own guns. Imagine if every gun owner had some sort of Identifying mark? Anti gunners would go absolutely bonkers.

Strings
March 3, 2009, 07:29 AM
>In order to sue successfully, one has to prove that they were damaged. They must suffer an injury to their body, their property, their wallet, their career, etc.<

Ahhh... but you have the Prof's own words to use against her...

Her complaint to the police hinged on students feeling "uncomfortable". And that was exactly the reason Mr Wahlberg gave for missing a few classes: that her actions made him "feel uncomfortable". I'd sue for reimbursement of lost tuition fees from the missed classes. The university either has to hand over the cash, or admit that the prof was out of line... ;)

SCKimberFan
March 3, 2009, 08:24 AM
no

Yes. He was questioned by the police for a stance he took during his presentation. IANAL, but how is that not a violation of 1A?

woad_yurt
March 3, 2009, 09:00 AM
....that was exactly the reason Mr Wahlberg gave for missing a few classes: that her actions made him "feel uncomfortable".

Right now, one doesn't know if this will affect him negatively. Now, if he gets his grades and she slams him, that may be another story.

chuckusaret
March 3, 2009, 09:19 AM
Bottom line is that the well educated professor has no common sense. A communications class where you can not express your opinion---Oppression

cassandrasdaddy
March 3, 2009, 09:58 AM
Yes. He was questioned by the police for a stance he took during his presentation. IANAL, but how is that not a violation of 1A?

was he arrested? detained? did he get a call and drive down to talk to them voluntarily?

after the va tech shooting there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the teachers and students who knew cho was disturbed "shoulda done more". Not knowing the student or how he presented i can't say that the teacher and the cops were outa line to check him out. i know there was one teacher at va tech that was judged and convicted on the net for not having done more about cho.

Duke of Doubt
March 3, 2009, 01:00 PM
I'm still laughing at the idea some here insist on that the dim student somehow was deprived of his First and Second Amendment rights by the nutty professor. If you start telling me in my own home that my .45 has inadequate stopping power, and that .44 Magnum is the only ticket, and I throw you out of my house, have I deprived you of your First and Second Amendment rights, too?

Hungry Seagull
March 3, 2009, 01:14 PM
I feel that people being made uncomfortable around those with legal guns is the real issue and it needs to be addressed. THEY too can get a gun if they are uncomfortable.

In fact, I think education from Kindergarden all the way up through Highschool is some kind of Alice the No-Gun, No Amendment Wonderland where all is milk and honey and no dis-comfort.

No wonder Marine Boot is Life-Changing.

The children are not growing up the way they ought to.

Claude Clay
March 3, 2009, 01:26 PM
^---------- ua, its kinda hard for many of today's youth to transition from helicopter parents to helicopter gunship

Deanimator
March 3, 2009, 01:34 PM
Not knowing the student or how he presented i can't say that the teacher and the cops were outa line to check him out.
I'll bet you know the media well enough to know that if he said anything in the least bit threatening, or which advocated unlawful violence, that the media would have been running that 24/7. That they HAVEN'T been, is pretty solid evidence that he did nothing more than present an argument as a class assignment.

This was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate someone from having an opinion different from that of the instructor.

He should have lawyered up from the git.

Legal aspects aside, this is fundamentally a political fight and he needs to fight it like one. He needs to drag the instructor's name through the 1st Amendment mud for everything he's worth. He needs to portray her as an anti-intellectual bully, which is exactly what she is. Enough of that and she becomes a liability to the institution.

Strings
March 3, 2009, 02:59 PM
DoD, you seem to be trying desperately to portray this as something it's not...

This was not a case of the student being in the professor's home, or office, or some exclusive club. He was in a classroom, which he had paid good money to be in, and was allowed to be in.

The student was asked to present an opinion piece, which he did. The professor disagreed with his opinion (which is fine), and used force (the police) to express her disagreement (which is NOT fine, except in the Aerosmith definition).

To use your analogy, it would be you drawing a weapon on me in your home, after inviting me over, because you disagreed with an opinion I expressed. Somehow, I doubt that would be your course of action...

woad_yurt
March 4, 2009, 01:05 AM
I wish I knew what what the student said in that class.

209
March 4, 2009, 03:55 AM
First, the University Police Deparments within the CSU system, which consists of ECSU, SCSU, WCSU, and CCSU [and by the way, also UCONN although UCONN is a separate school] employ certified municipal police officers hired by the State of CT to work at the universities. They have a job description that differs a bit from what most municipal police officers have and they have additional duties as part of their job. One of those is to enforce the policies of the institution and they also document violations of the same and forward those reports to the appropriate university office for review.

All very legal and their police powers are covered under 10a-142: The members of each "special police force" shall have the same duties, responsibilities and authority under sections 7-281, 14-8, 54-1f and 54-33a and title 53a as members of a duly organized local police department. In essence, that law made each campus its own “little city” and formed a police department for that “city”. Those statutes referred to in that excerpt are the same ones that apply to municipal officers working in any town or city in CT.

So, yes Virginia- they are "real" police officers. ;)

They investigate complaints of both statutory violations and also policy violations. They arrest people for crimes. They also refer people to Student Affairs for policy violations. Because they are employed by a institution of higher education, they are also mandated to follow certain federal laws, one main one being the Clery Act.

Since I haven't had a chance to ask anyone at CCSU PD exactly happened in this incident, I can't vouch for the veracity of the complaint or the information in the articles. Unless someone here has any more information regarding exactly what the professor told the police, we are blowing hot air at alleged police misconduct. The complaint may have been sufficient in content to require police investigation.

Trust me, any university police department that fails to investigate a complaint alleging potential violence will soon have some open slots to fill. People will lose their job, and if the complaint is blown off and something actually does occur, those involved lose much more than their jobs. Until we know what the substance of the complaint was, we don't know, and frankly shouldn't be saying, there was misconduct. In the meantime, I assume the police used due diligence and investigated the complaint. I also assume since the student wasn't arrested, the complaint was found to be somewhat overblown, maybe even unfounded. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, there may be some some student judicial matters ongoing that involve FERPA concerns which can eliminate the ability of the police to comment. Welcome to procedure created by badly written laws- both federal and state.

Going hand-in-hand with that, I doubt too many people here know the exact procedure the CSU Police are required to follow when receiving complaints that allege threats and/or violence. If you want to spend some time going brain dead, try reading the mandated procedure set forth by Clery for investigating complaints- and that's just one law that needs to be adhered to. Between the federal laws, the state laws, and the university policies University Police must follow, they are well within policy to investigate many things a normal municipal PD wouldn't. It's all very legal and, because of those mandates, they are, in fact, required to do so.

ChCx2744
March 4, 2009, 05:29 AM
WOW. So let me get this straight...

Government employees (the teacher AND the campus police) violated NOT ONLY the guy's FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, but his SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS WELL!!!!

First of all, that sounds like an awful case of irony.

Secondly, coming from a government employee's opinion (mine), Maybe the aforementioned school needs to reconsider who they hire to supervise, teach and/or enforce on the campus.

0.02

SCKimberFan
March 4, 2009, 08:13 AM
Trust me, any university police department that fails to investigate a complaint alleging potential violence will soon have some open slots to fill.

Where was the potential violence? He never advocated any violence. None. (Based on the article as written.)

IN>IL
March 4, 2009, 08:29 AM
Fortunately, my students feel safe discussing guns with me either during class or during office hours!

Unfortunately, my students know they can get me off topic by saying a Glock is superior to the 1911, or by mentioning guns in general.

That's the way this professor rolls!

mrh

rbernie
March 4, 2009, 09:29 AM
Where was the potential violence? He never advocated any violence. None. (Based on the article as written.)
We are now to the point where the mere mention of a firearm is institutionally treated as a potential threat or source of violence.

This is why a lot of folk in the RKBA community have been harping on the notion of a 'culture war'. It *is* a culture war, in which firearms are slowly being purged from our culture and interest in them is stigmatized.

And this war is being fought in the schools moreso than anywhere else.

Gamera
March 4, 2009, 09:42 AM
Well said rbernie. Well said.

IN>IL
March 4, 2009, 11:43 AM
You are exactally right rbernie... I am a professor and before school started we had an inservice on how to recognize "assault guns" (yes, assault guns) in case a student had one on campus. We were told to at least document anytime a student talks about guns openly on campus.

I just stood on my soapbox for 20 minutes this morning yelling about constitutional rights and how Illinois is "pi$$ing on the ENTIRE Bill of Rights" by acknowleging a bill in the general assembly requiring a $1,000,000 insurance policy for firearms owners. One kid even said, "the only purpose of guns is to kill people so I see no problem banning them It's just the same as requiring insurance for your car."

I am lucky enough to have a core group of students who know me and know my stance on Second Amendment issues and told the kid who made the comment that he, "probably just failed this class." ;)

Perhaps I need to document myself for speaking openly about guns!

Texian
March 4, 2009, 12:13 PM
This is just sad....

Duke of Doubt
March 4, 2009, 12:51 PM
In>IL: " I am a professor and before school started we had an inservice on how to recognize "assault guns" (yes, assault guns) in case a student had one on campus."

I'll remember to keep my StuG III across the Indiana state line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun

rainbowbob
March 4, 2009, 01:35 PM
I am lucky enough to have a core group of students who know me and know my stance on Second Amendment issues and told the kid who made the comment that he, "probably just failed this class."


Oh boy...Here we go again.

IN>IL: I'm trying to imagine what course you could possibly be teaching that would result in a failing grade for a student who doesn't hold the same views that you do (on the 2A or any other issue). Apparently you require your students to parrot your positions on political and cultural issues or flunk the course. Please explain how that kind of "intellectual" coercion is helpful to the cause of either first or second amendment rights? It sounds like you are as guilty as the instructor in the OP of bullying your students into "getting their minds right". Perhaps you should focus more on engendering critical thinking skills in your students. I thought that was the point of this thread

IN>IL
March 4, 2009, 01:59 PM
Rainbowbob... you're the guy who ruins boards like this by reading a little too far into things! The point of that entire post was to show that I am a pro second amendment professor on a campus that hates guns and I do nothing to hide my stance.

Are you that stupid to actually believe I can fail a student for not agreeing with me about the Second Amendment? Another student in my class made that "you fail" comment, which simply means he knows my stance on the Second Amendment, and not that it has some magical power to effect a student's grade. Nor does it mean the student who does not understand our constitutionally protected activities actually gets a failing grade.

As for critical thinking, you have no idea where I took the rest of that lecture beyond that one comment the student made, so settle down a bit and quit jumping the gun looking for a keyboard fight on some annonymous message board. I know you probably get off by "winning" keyboard battles on these boards, but at the end of the day Rainbowbob, you're just fighting amongst your own peers with simular thoughts and actions, which does nothing in our fight for the RKBA.

rainbowbob
March 4, 2009, 02:05 PM
Another student in my class made that "you fail" comment


IN>IL: My bad...I misread your post and thought it was you who made that comment to the offending student.




Nevermind....:o

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 4, 2009, 02:20 PM
IN/IL, you need to edit. :p

DCR
March 4, 2009, 04:45 PM
The offending professor should be required to participate in a one-year university exchange program with Idaho State University in Pocatello. As part of her rehabilitation and sensitivity training, she should be required to attend the annual Pocatello gun show, held in the Student Union Building ballroom , and assist admission staff in checking firearms coming in and going out the door. Immersion programs work well for learning language - why not for Second Amendment/political science education:neener:?

Claude Clay
March 4, 2009, 05:08 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html

anyone who knows how to drag it over in its entirety, please do so.

fox went ahead with a 'report' after contacting Wahlberg and Adler for interviews sunday and monday and both declining.
i rather think it is neutral reporting though Duquette sure has a lot of a$$ to cover.

Thank You SCKimber

Deanimator
March 4, 2009, 05:19 PM
You are exactally right rbernie... I am a professor and before school started we had an inservice on how to recognize "assault guns" (yes, assault guns) in case a student had one on campus.
A major clue is the absence of a turret, coupled with a direct fire, large bore gun.

One of the great joys in life is mocking buffoons, especially when they don't know they're being mocked. If I were you, I'd put together a poster of an SU-152 or an StuG III, with text advising students to IMMEDIATELY notify campus security if they suspect someone might have one on campus. It'd be worth the money to have it printed up at Kinkos.

SCKimberFan
March 4, 2009, 05:44 PM
A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professor’s actions are what really need to be investigated.

Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.

“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly non-threatening matter,” Wahlberg told The Recorder, the CCSU student newspaper that first reported the story. “Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat.”

Wahlberg declined to comment further to FOXNews.com, saying he did not want more media attention.

According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police.

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she told The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Anderson did not respond to calls from FOXNews.com. Campus police forwarded requests to university spokesman Mark McLaughlin, who declined to comment, citing Wahlberg’s privacy.

Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said Anderson's actions appeared to be out of line.

“If all he did was discuss reasons for allowing guns on campus, it seems a bit much to call the police and grill him about it,” Shibley said. “If you go after students for just discussing an idea, that goes against everything a university is supposed to stand for.”

Shibley said FIRE has seen many more cases of hair-trigger responses by administrators over anything gun-related since the Virginia Tech shooting.

In 2007, Shibley noted, a student at Hamline University in Minnesota was suspended after writing a letter to an administrator arguing that carrying concealed weapons on campus may help prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. The student was allowed to return only after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he said.

Shibley also cited an incident at Colorado College last year in which campus administrators denounced a flyer as "threatening and demeaning content" because it mentioned guns. He said the students who produced the flyer were found guilty of violating the school’s violence policy, which was added to their school records.

“It is, of course, important that administrators identify real threats to students,” Shibley said. “But they need to use logic to discern whether a threat is real.”

But Jerold Duquette, an associate professor of political science at CCSU who sits on the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, say the Wahlberg case is not so clear-cut.

“This is a situation where both sides can come up with a reasonable explanation,” Duquette said.

“[Wahlberg] certainly has a reason to complain, since he didn’t do anything directly threatening. But I wouldn’t say the administration has a reason to sanction or punish the professor or the police.... I don’t know if I would have done anything differently in the situation.”

Katie Kasprzak, a spokeswoman for the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, suggested that the professor called the police because she disagreed with Wahlberg’s political views.

"Critics of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argue that colleges and universities are dedicated to the free flow of ideas,” she said. “Yet when a student gives a class presentation on a relevant issue in the media, it is acceptable to label the student as a threat? The only threat posed was a threat to the professor’s personal beliefs.”

Duquette said there was no evidence to support that.

“I think a lot of people see this as a liberal professor going after a student because he likes guns. I don’t know if that’s the case,” Duquette said, adding that more would need to be known about the incident.

Here is the story from Fox News.

Deanimator
March 4, 2009, 06:36 PM
http://memweb.newsguy.com/~cmorton/Assault%20Gun%202.jpg

shooter429
March 4, 2009, 08:52 PM
I wonder if someone did a presentation questioning counterterrorism and Muslims on campus, if she would call the cops? Just rediculous.

Dashman010
March 5, 2009, 12:08 AM
I'm still laughing at the idea some here insist on that the dim student somehow was deprived of his First and Second Amendment rights by the nutty professor. If you start telling me in my own home that my .45 has inadequate stopping power, and that .44 Magnum is the only ticket, and I throw you out of my house, have I deprived you of your First and Second Amendment rights, too?

A few things to clarify the standing of a student with regard to legal action under the 1st amendment. CCSU is a state funded University. Under the law of CT, they are funded by the tax dollars, and I'm assuming the Board of Regents (or similar board) is selected by State Officials. This makes the university a "state actor." Being a state actor, the University, and the professor in her official capacity, are subject to a 42 USC 1983 action for violation of civil rights. In that case that would be first amendment rights.

Bottom line, a state run and funded university is not the same as a private university (which would equate more with your home example). The university is absolutely subject to the Bill of Rights.

As to whether second amendment rights have been violated, I don't believe they have, but suit could still be filed, with standing, alleging so.

209
March 5, 2009, 12:43 AM
Quote:
Trust me, any university police department that fails to investigate a complaint alleging potential violence will soon have some open slots to fill.

Where was the potential violence? He never advocated any violence. None. (Based on the article as written.)



Have you seen a copy of the professor's complaint? Probably not. Neither have I. And I rarely use a media source when determining the complete story. Usually there are pieces missing.

Now... today... days after the incident occurred...., based on the newest article, it indicates the student did not advocate violence. However, none of us were there when the professor talked to the police and none of us know what the gist of that conservation was. We don't know what she reported. My statement stands- if the police received a complaint alleging potential violence, they must investigate if they believe the complaint has any substance to it.

Since there are obviously a lot of people working on assumptions around here, I guess I get to make my own. So, I assume the complaint received by the police warranted investigation. I also assume the professor exaggerated. But that doesn't mean when the complaint is received, the police don't have to investigate. I assume the police did an investigation. That would mean they did their job.

Duke of Doubt
March 5, 2009, 12:48 AM
Dashman010: "A few things to clarify the standing of a student with regard to legal action under the 1st amendment. CCSU is a state funded University. Under the law of CT, they are funded by the tax dollars, and I'm assuming the Board of Regents (or similar board) is selected by State Officials. This makes the university a "state actor." Being a state actor, the University, and the professor in her official capacity, are subject to a 42 USC 1983 action for violation of civil rights. In that case that would be first amendment rights."

During times like this winter when most of my private clients are making mayhem in warmer climes, I take court appointed cases too, for which I am paid by the court, using tax dollars, as an officer of the court. Am I a "state actor," too?

"Doubt it, doubt it, doubt it, doubt it, Disco Doubt ...."

rbernie
March 5, 2009, 12:49 AM
When you're generating billable hours to the state, I would imagine so. When you're browsing THR - not so much. :)

jard
March 5, 2009, 12:59 AM
Hey DCR, I had no idea that Idaho State University has a gun show every year in the Student Union Bldg!!


That is awsome.

Duke of Doubt
March 5, 2009, 01:01 AM
"When you're browsing THR - not so much."

rbernie, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Claude Clay
March 5, 2009, 01:31 AM
209---""Now... today... days after the incident occurred.... ""

event occured Oct, 3, 2008

his final grade was an 'A'

--besides Fox News there is now another news organization interested. this could get rather interesting as they have a very large readership.
bet ya wonder how i know:D:D

ComradeBurg
March 5, 2009, 01:47 AM
All I can say is I'm not surprised. Of course I'm rather sad that I'm not surprised because this kind of thing should never happen.

There is a HUGE difference between talking about the benefits of allowing students to conceal and carry on campus and talking about any violent action. Just mentioning guns doesn't imply violence.

But I know what this guy has to put up with being a member of the campus Students for Concealed Carry on Campus group (a very very small group on my campus) when I was in college.

209
March 5, 2009, 05:50 AM
209---""Now... today... days after the incident occurred.... ""

event occured Oct, 3, 2008

his final grade was an 'A'

--besides Fox News there is now another news organization interested. this could get rather interesting as they have a very large readership.
bet ya wonder how i know



Actually, the article was on the net before that. I first saw it on 02/28. The way the school newspaper works is the date used is the day the hardcopy is issued. Many articles are available on line well before the paper itself is printed.

It doesn't surprise me in the least he got an "A". There appears to be some damage control going on at the university. Who the admin will blame is still up in the air.

gossamer
March 5, 2009, 12:30 PM
I'm reading a LOT of people blaming the Prof for this and I've seen little to no attention to the part of the article where the professor says:

I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Translation: I talked to my Dean, Dept. Chair and Campus Security. They agreed I should call the cops.

The professor followed the right protocol for a situation that made her uptight. Is she an uptight person? Sure. But guess what fellow gun owners, the world is full of uptight people. We can either spend our time maligning THEIR world view and buying into the idea that it's some kind of cultural war or we can spend our time educating them as this kid did.

College campuses in this day are not just liberal AND conservative havens (I had both types of professors in plenty) they are also places where parents send their CHILDREN to live with little or no supervision. And they are places where mass-shootings have happened (some perpetrated by police even).

That whole shooting thing, it makes for bad PR for any college. I seriously doubt this professor reported the kid to stifle his speech, she did it because she's uptight with the idea of firearms and when she talked to her chain of command, they told her to call the police.

The police investigated for the possibility of a violation of the School's rules on firearms, found no problems, and dropped it.

We should be thinking of ways to change the school's policy on weapons. We should be thinking of ways that we can educate the understandably nervous parents who send their kids here and worry for their safety FROM ALL SORTS OF THINGS, including school shootings. But standing around pointing fingers at the professor and the police is really beside the point.

I DO NOT want to create any disincentives for my daughter's professors to investigate what they think is a threat. I'd rather they call the police, and I'd rather pressure the police departments to do the right things within the law.

THEN I'd rather pressure the schools to re-evaluate their policy for weapons on campus.

But to beat up on a professor for doing what she thought was right is absurd.

I'd also like to point out that I don't read anywhere where the professor or the police stopped Whalberg from giving a speech about firearms on campus. He should make the speech again, repeatedly, and given that this is a communications class, this reads like an object lesson in how to speak about this issue.

We had all better understand that some people are going to be uptight when we bring it up, if we can't deal with that, then shut up about it. Or we can complain about it.

As my dad said, complain in one hand and sh*t in the other and let's see which one fills up first.

Or we can find was to communicate and advocate for our rights within the context that it makes people uncomfortable in the abstract and figure out ways to minimize the discomfort.

divemedic
March 5, 2009, 01:17 PM
I'd also like to point out that I don't read anywhere where the professor or the police stopped Whalberg from giving a speech about firearms on campus.


Before you continue on that line of thought, do you know what a "chilling effect" is? If every time you spoke, the cops paid you a visit and read off personal facts about you, you don't think that is a form of intimidation?

"I see that you own these guns. You aren't unbalanced, are you?"

"Nice looking daughter there. It would be a shame if her father was in jail and missed her first words."

While not exactly a prohibition on speech, it certainly tends to put a damper on it.

Alcohol kills far more college students than mass shootings. I bet a student doing a speech about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 wouldn't get you reported to the cops.

Ben86
March 5, 2009, 01:48 PM
Isn't there a term for fear of guns, or fear of weapons? That would be this lady and many other "intellectuals."

It's people like her that make me a little apprehensive about even visiting this website while at college. Not that I have anything to hide, but I'd rather not get any negative attention.

Gamera
March 5, 2009, 01:52 PM
But to beat up on a professor for doing what she thought was right is absurd.

The implication being that we shouldn't criticize anyone as long as they believe they were doing the right thing?

Ben, it's called hoplophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia)!

gossamer
March 5, 2009, 02:41 PM
So we advocate admonishing a professor taking it to her boss if she feels uncomfortable? Really? That's what we're going to go with? "she was wrong for going to her dean and dept chair and security. She was wrong for going to police if that's what her employer recommended. The police were wrong for looking into a possible infraction."

As for the "chilling effect" argument; is there any evidence this caused him to stop advocating for guns? So far I see quite the opposite. The dialog is increasing on that campus thanks to this event. Also, I see no reason to chill the professors liklihood to report the next incident by beating up on her for doing her job as directed by her employer.

Deanimator
March 5, 2009, 03:05 PM
As for the "chilling effect" argument; is there any evidence this caused him to stop advocating for guns? So far I see quite the opposite. The dialog is increasing on that campus thanks to this event. Also, I see no reason to chill the professors liklihood to report the next incident by beating up on her for doing her job as directed by her employer.
The only "incident" was her ham handed attempt to intimidate him from PEACEFULLY AND LAWFULLY expressing an opinion she didn't like.

She's a malignant narcissist and a passive-aggressive bully.

boom boom
March 5, 2009, 03:07 PM
I teach both political science and public law and am appalled at the CCSU's cavalier treatment of the First Amendment.

First, the constitutional cases are clear regarding the First Amendment, from a long line of cases too long to cite, state universities are "public" fora. Second, classroom speech may be regulated to the extent of "disruptive" speech such as personal insults, speech not pertaining to the assignment, threats, etc. If what is reported is true, neither of these conditions existed in this student's academic presentation. Then, the question becomes regulation of speech content and given that the class in question is a Communications class, and this assignment was given apparently for a grade, then it appears to be protected speech. As a professor, I may dislike or disagree with a student's protected speech content but I should not downgrade on that basis as a matter of constitutional law.

BTW, as a practical matter, I am quite comfortable with ambiguity while some colleagues are less so. Perhaps at least part of this perspective may be because I have had other careers before academia and can imagine a life outside of it. As a general rule, I try to avoid bringing my personal opinions into classes, (other than the desirability of the rule of law, constitutional rights, etc) as that is not what the public pays me for. However, I do correct erroneous assertions of fact and law by students as part of my job. I also frequently play devil's advocate to those asserting a stance as part of my job is to teach students how to improve their arguments, research, etc.

In this case, my humble opinion is that this instructor was not seriously motivated by desire to preserve campus safety, but instead resembles a police-state informer reporting a "thought crime" and hoping to curry favor from gun-averse students, administrators and her colleagues. Perhaps that is because, I have seen administrators act far more circumspectly than in this case when actual threats to other instructors have been made. In these cases, a highly developed sense of "due process" shielded these individuals from much punishment. Hmm. Thus, a student throwing a chalk eraser at an instructor was punished less than this student apparently was for merely stating an opinion. Morally and constitutionally, this is wrong.

Gelgoog
March 5, 2009, 03:17 PM
For once I would love for something like this to happen to me, so I could make a big stink about it and embarrass the crap out of my college. Anytime I've had a professor make some sort of anti-gun comment, I quickly harp on the issue to make sure anti-gun sentiments are left unchecked without facts. Liberal professors are fine, except when they use their authority to trash on civil rights. Then again I live in a conservative state where if anything, pro-CCP protests are held....

Officers'Wife
March 5, 2009, 04:32 PM
Translation: I talked to my Dean, Dept. Chair and Campus Security. They agreed I should call the cops.

Or perhaps she is a big enough pain they told her that so she would leave?

Dashman010
March 5, 2009, 04:38 PM
During times like this winter when most of my private clients are making mayhem in warmer climes, I take court appointed cases too, for which I am paid by the court, using tax dollars, as an officer of the court. Am I a "state actor," too?

If you are acting on behalf of the state, then yes you are. If you are acting on behalf of a client who is being prosecuted by the state, then no, you aren't. But a state university, that is necessarily funded by appropriation of the legislature, and who Board of Regents are picked by the state legislature or the governor, is a state actor. If the University was funded from a different source, of was incorporated independently, the story may well be different. But if it is like the bulk of "public universities," they are created expressly by statute and therefore are bound by the bill of rights.

gossamer
March 5, 2009, 04:41 PM
The only "incident" was her ham handed attempt to intimidate him from PEACEFULLY AND LAWFULLY expressing an opinion she didn't like.

She's a malignant narcissist and a passive-aggressive bully.

Let's look at a few facts we actually know from the article:

John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

That night, police called Wahlberg.


If this professor was REALLY interested in infringing on the free speech rights of pro-RKBA/2a people, why don't we read anything about ALL of the pro-RKBA students who gave the speech with Walberg being "harrassed" and having their first amendment rights abused or being visited by police?

The article plainly states there were two other students giving the speech who held the same opinion about the fact that guns should be allowed.

So why is there nothing about those two others being intimidated?

I'm guessing that it's because it's not about their right to speak. It's about the fear that this ONE GUY of the THREE might have guns on campus - in infraction.

I'm sorry, but too many people here are reading WAAAAY to much into this story than what's there. The facts as reported in the story support little more than an uptight professor worrying about some kid who she knew or found out had guns and might have them on campus. Her fear of those guns and her fear that he might have them on campus or could do something harmful with them. There's nothing in the article about the other two being intimidated because of their pro-2a stance. Which begs the question, why not them? Why single this guy out when all three held the same position and they ALL gave a speech stating such?

Strings
March 5, 2009, 05:56 PM
Which only means, gossamer, that nothing has been mentioned in the media about them.

It's possible they argued counterpoint to Mr Wahlberg. It's possible they were contacted by law enforcement too, and simply haven't complained (I get to see that a LOT). It's possible they were mentioned to the police, but didn't own guns themselves...

As for this:

"As for the "chilling effect" argument; is there any evidence this caused him to stop advocating for guns?"

He stated that he missed several class sessions, because the fear that he would face more repercussions. That sounds like one hell of a "chilling effect" to me...

Claude Clay
March 5, 2009, 08:49 PM
it may be because only he spoke strongly on the subject and of the two others: perhaps because they are female the teacher did not feel that they were threatening.

conw
March 5, 2009, 09:13 PM
To: andersonpau@ccsu.edu
From: My college email address

Professor Anderson,

I am wondering whether the subject line made you uncomfortable. However, I am not threatening you; I am a law-abiding citizen who considers the second amendment in the Bill of Rights a priority
along with the first. One would have presumed you respected the first, whether or not you respected the second, but your actions have said otherwise.


What is the purpose of Communications, the department in which you teach, if not to make people consider their views and encourage or persuade them? It's inevitable that
some people - perhaps even you - will become uncomfortable at some point while communicating, as you stated in your call to the police.
This is doubly true when communicating in college. Adults learn to live with being uncomfortable now and again.

To be blunt, if you and some of your students can't communicate - communication is a two-way street - without becoming uncomfortable, you may want to consider another field. I imagine if you worked with elderly people with degenerative brain diseases your narrow views wouldn't be challenged. I nearly suggested teaching kindergarten classes, but that job is too important and I'm not so sure that you would emerge triumphant with your lofty ideals intact as you seem to so urgently wish to do at the expense of an open and free learning environment.

I suggest giving Mr. Wahlberg an A+ for his well-communicated presentation and perhaps even a public apology...that is, if you feel up to that level of communication. If not, perhaps you can persuade Mr. Wahlberg to give you some lessons.

***** ******
Student
******** College, North Carolina

Dave Workman
March 6, 2009, 01:16 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Hostility-on-college-campuses-against-Second-Amendment-threatens-First


That guy Workman talks about a college campus affront to free speech and gun rights

Seenterman
March 6, 2009, 02:17 PM
I wonder if someone did a presentation questioning counterterrorism and Muslims on campus, if she would call the cops? Just rediculous.

No she would have called Department of Homeland Security and reported an Al-Queda sleeper cell on campus.

I still dont get why the 1st is null and void on a college campus, they receive gov. funding doesn't that mean they cant discriminate or they'd lose their funding. Not particularly about this case only but such as the female that wrote a letter to her dean about CCW for students and was then suspened pending a psyh evaluation. WoW that seems crazy.

Im probably misunderstanding it, but it still seems a little totalitarian in nature to me.

Claude Clay
March 6, 2009, 02:33 PM
live interview at 10pm with CCSU member(s).

not entirely finalized but looking good to go

If you enjoyed reading about "Professor calls cops on student" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!