Student Sues Professor

by Keli Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:00 am

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Student-Sues-Says-Prof-Called-Him-a-Fascist-Bastard.html

Student Jonathan Lopez says a professor, John Matteson, called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against gay marriage during a public speaking class.

A college student has filed a lawsuit saying a public speaking professor berated him in class for making a speech opposing same-sex marriage.

Student Jonathan Lopez told the Times that the professor, John Matteson, called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to college authorities.

Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., and co-founded by evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Alliance staff counsel David J. Hacker told The Times Lopez was a victim of religious discrimination.

"He was expressing his faith during an open-ended assignment, but when the professor disagreed with some minor things he mentioned, the professor shut him down," Hacker said. "Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students."

What if the professor had called a pro-gay student a "fascist faggot?" Think that there would be a lawsuit? In this age of "Fairness Doctrine" is this fair---reeeeaaalllly fair?

by TerryRC Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:56 am

Most universities have honor codes prohibiting hate speech. I don't agree with this, but the professor was likely legally within his rights.

The kid tried to use the podium as a pulpit and got burned. The professor is just as big an ass, however.

by Keli Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:30 am

TerryRC wrote:Most universities have honor codes prohibiting hate speech. I don't agree with this, but the professor was likely legally within his rights.

The kid tried to use the podium as a pulpit and got burned. The professor is just as big an ass, however.

Thank you for your expert view on assnissity, TerryRC.

by Cato Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:18 pm

TerryRC wrote:Most universities have honor codes prohibiting hate speech. I don't agree with this, but the professor was likely legally within his rights.

The kid tried to use the podium as a pulpit and got burned. The professor is just as big an ass, however.

Define "Hate Speach"

by Keli Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:33 pm

Cato wrote:
TerryRC wrote:Most universities have honor codes prohibiting hate speech. I don't agree with this, but the professor was likely legally within his rights.

The kid tried to use the podium as a pulpit and got burned. The professor is just as big an ass, however.

Define "Hate Speach"

"Hate speech" is any speech that a liberal disagrees with...

by **SheikBen** Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:16 pm

Perhaps they could bring the "fairness doctrine" to universities. It would, however, require that the institutions fire half of the faculty.

by **SheikBen** Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:17 pm

TerryRC wrote:Most universities have honor codes prohibiting hate speech. I don't agree with this, but the professor was likely legally within his rights.

The kid tried to use the podium as a pulpit and got burned. The professor is just as big an ass, however.

TerryRC,

The student was assigned a speech, was he not? Is only one point of view to be allowed on the matter? What other issue would you like one side to be completely silenced in speech class?

by ziggy Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:31 pm

Unless we know what the student was actually saying, this is just an exercise in semantics.

"Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students."

And there are almost always limits on what "other students" can say about other people, too.

by ziggy Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:36 pm

Unless we know what the student was actually saying, this is just an idle exercise in semantics.

"Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students."

And there are almost always limits on what "other students" can say about other people, too.

What if the professor had called a pro-gay student a "fascist faggot?"

What if this is what the student was saying about homosexuals?

by TerryRC Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:12 am

The student was assigned a speech, was he not? Is only one point of view to be allowed on the matter? What other issue would you like one side to be completely silenced in speech class?

He was proselytizing, plain and simple. The pulpit is the place for that, not the podium. He got burned.

If I gave a neo-nazi rant talking bans for jews marrying, I'd expect to be shut down, also.

Like I said, the professor was an ass about it but was likely following the letter of the school's rules even if not following their spirit.

I would have just given the kid some extra work in the form of research.

by Cato Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:31 am

TerryRC wrote:
He was proselytizing, plain and simple. The pulpit is the place for that, not the podium. He got burned.

If I gave a neo-nazi rant talking bans for jews marrying, I'd expect to be shut down, also.

Like I said, the professor was an ass about it but was likely following the letter of the school's rules even if not following their spirit.

I would have just given the kid some extra work in the form of research.

Do you know what he said exactly? Where you there? How can you judge him if you didn't hear what he said?

As far as the professor and the school's rules goes, I thought academia was suppose to a bastion of free speach and free thought, no matter how distasteful. I would think that the idea was to put ideas out for discussion and debate. Now of course that means having real thoughts and real ideas, not just towing the party line.

by TerryRC Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:08 am

As far as the professor and the school's rules goes, I thought academia was suppose to a bastion of free speach and free thought, no matter how distasteful. I would think that the idea was to put ideas out for discussion and debate. Now of course that means having real thoughts and real ideas, not just towing the party line.

Free speech doesn't trump signed contracts.

Like I said, most school have codes banning discriminatory speech. This kid agreed to this by enrolling.

This kid was holding that gays were not worthy of the same treatment that straight people were and he was using the bible as his justification.

Discriminatory and proselytizing.

He can say it on a street corner, but by the rules of the school, he likely can't say it from the podium.

Please note, I clearly stated that I don't agree with how the professor handled this.

I don't toe ANY party line, Willy. You should know better than to imply that I am being partisan over this.

by Cato Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:27 pm

TerryRC wrote:
Free speech doesn't trump signed contracts.

Like I said, most school have codes banning discriminatory speech. This kid agreed to this by enrolling.

This kid was holding that gays were not worthy of the same treatment that straight people were and he was using the bible as his justification.

Discriminatory and proselytizing.

So, the US Constitution is trumped by a contract? Interesting. I did not know that.

Further, are you saying that if one disagress with the policies of academia, society, or government and expresses their opinion in that regard, that is being Discriminatory and proselytizing.

TerryRC wrote: He can say it on a street corner, but by the rules of the school, he likely can't say it from the podium.

Please note, I clearly stated that I don't agree with how the professor handled this

And the difference between the street corner and classroom is exactly what?

TerryRC wrote:I don't toe ANY party line, Willy. You should know better than to imply that I am being partisan over this.

Actually there are only two party lines in this issue and you either hold one or the other. One is that speach can and should be censored. That is the view held by both the right and left. The other is that speach can never nor should ever be censored no matter who happens to be offended. That healthy debate is good and if one wises to express their views and another disagrees, they have every right to express their view. The government nor any agency of, or representative of the government has any right to silence the expressed opinion of another.

Which view are you Terry?

by Aaron Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:49 pm

The US constitution is trumped by a whole host of items, including a signed contract. The Bill of Rights only applies to governments and government institutions. A private company can censor many of your rights, including freedom of speech.

by Cato Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:29 pm

Aaron wrote:The US constitution is trumped by a whole host of items, including a signed contract. The Bill of Rights only applies to governments and government institutions. A private company can censor many of your rights, including freedom of speech.

Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear. I made the assumption the school was public or givernmental institution, like WVU. If I was wrong to do so, I'm sorry. However, even in a private school it illustrates the hypocracy of the left.

by TerryRC Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:25 pm

And the difference between the street corner and classroom is exactly what?

Because most universities have policies banning discriminatory speech.

If I sign a contract with you to not speak on an issue we have settled out of court, that trumps my right to free speech.

Get it?

In classrooms, speech is not necessarily free. The school has the right to set limits. If you don't like it, find a new school. I would suggest Bob Jones U. for this particular student.

On the street corner it is (within reason - I can't yell things that might endanger someone's life, for instance) and I will support your right to say any stupid old thing.

As I said, I do not agree with the way the professor handled this. It was a small-minded way to deal with the situation. He opposed zealotry with zealotry and came off as big an ass as the student.

He was still likely within his rights, though.

by Cato Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:45 pm

TerryRC wrote: And the difference between the street corner and classroom is exactly what?

Because most universities have policies banning discriminatory speech.

So if one's opinion isn't in line with the policies of academia, its discriminatory.

TerryRC wrote: If I sign a contract with you to not speak on an issue we have settled out of court, that trumps my right to free speech.

Get it?

So, I knew that. We not talking about a confidentality clause, we are talking about the right to speak against government policy.

TerryRC wrote: In classrooms, speech is not necessarily free. The school has the right to set limits. If you don't like it, find a new school. I would suggest Bob Jones U. for this particular student.

On the street corner it is (within reason - I can't yell things that might endanger someone's life, for instance) and I will support your right to say any stupid old thing.

And I agree with the part about finding another school. Hopefully my grandkids will be educated outside the public school system. My daughter, a math teacher, destest the public school system for many reasons, her two top reasons reasons however, is the lack of discipline and the fact the public school system is little more than a socialistic, left thinking indoctrination center.

TerryRC wrote:As I said, I do not agree with the way the professor handled this. It was a small-minded way to deal with the situation. He opposed zealotry with zealotry and came off as big an ass as the student.

He was still likely within his rights, though.

Did you hear what the student said? If you didn't, how do you know he was a zealot or is everyone that has a different opinion from you a zealot, who should be silenced.

by TerryRC Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:54 pm

Did you hear what the student said? If you didn't, how do you know he was a zealot or is everyone that has a different opinion from you a zealot, who should be silenced.

He was proposing legislation based upon the bible, using quotes from the bible as "references". This is something that all sources agree on.

The kid isn't content to live the way he thinks the bible dictates, he wants to force others to, also. That is zealotry by most definitions.

So, I knew that. We not talking about a confidentality clause, we are talking about the right to speak against government policy.

We are referring to a code of conduct that you agree to when you enroll. This kid agreed to it then tried to break his word. Schools shouldn't be allowed to make their own policies? Schools shouldn't expect students to honor their word?

You want to attack me, for whatever reason, by insinuating I don't support the First Amendment. Never mind the fact that I have said multiple times that I do not agree with the way the professor handled the situation.

Whatever.

by TerryRC Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:55 pm

So if one's opinion isn't in line with the policies of academia, its discriminatory.

No, but saying that gays are undeserving of the same rights as heteros is.

by Cato Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:34 pm

TerryRC wrote:So if one's opinion isn't in line with the policies of academia, its discriminatory.

No, but saying that gays are undeserving of the same rights as heteros is.

You do know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if government hadn't become so intrusive and grant certain privilages to certain groups.

by TerryRC Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:37 pm

You do know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if government hadn't become so intrusive and grant certain privilages to certain groups.

Privileges? Such as? The right to marry the adult of your choice?

I fail to see what rights gays have that are forbidden you and I.

by Cato Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:11 am

TerryRC wrote:You do know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if government hadn't become so intrusive and grant certain privilages to certain groups.

Privileges? Such as? The right to marry the adult of your choice?

I fail to see what rights gays have that are forbidden you and I.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. What I saying is that if government kept to what its original intent, on the federal level as found in the US Constitution, the sections covering the duties and authority of each branch of government, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because government wouldn't be involved in the personal affairs of individuals or in making policy that has a direct affect in an individual's life or the choices they make.

That private citizens should have the freedom to act as they wish provided their actions do not harm others. This comes from the Society for individual liberty. I agree with the statement, completely. I have no right to force another to live as I would or as I expect society to live. Neither does society have the right to force me to bow to policy for which I disagree. I wish I could remember which of our founders made this very observation.

That an efficient free-market economy benefits all, and that the State's economic function should mainly be limited to the prevention of violence and fraud and similar obstacles to honest competition and co-operation. (Also from the Society for Individaul Liberty) Though this is speaking mainly to economic issues, I believe it describes quite well the only function the State should have. That being the prevention of violence and fraud and other obstacles to one's free choice.

What we have today, is a government on all three levels, that plays to the whims of people solely for the sake of votes. They use polls, not the rule of law, nor the guide of wisdom to govern. One group wants to force their brand of lifestyle on other and they have a ready made gun to do it in the form of politicians, who want to remain in power. Thus we have laws that discriminate between groups of people.

On a personal note, I don't care what anyone prays to or how they choose to live so long as they do not harm others. If a person want to be a wiccan or muslim or they want to marry in the same sex or goat for that matter, more power to them, because I have no right to use the government to force them to do otherwise, simply because aI believe it to be wrong.

On the other side of the coin, they have no right to force me to accept the lifestyle they have chosen. That means I should not be forced to support though my taxes things I find unexceptable, nor should I be required as an employer to provide healthcare to a homosexual's partner, nor should I be required to rent to a homosexual couple, if I choose not to so. Afterall, we are talking about a two way street here.

The only solution to this is to shrink the state down to where it no long has influance in the lifes of individuals in any manner. That way people can choose their own destiny. It then becomes of little matter what others think or believe.

by TerryRC Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:33 am

That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

Then what were you saying, Willy?

You are saying that gays have more privileges than straights. Name one.

On the other side of the coin, they have no right to force me to accept the lifestyle they have chosen. That means I should not be forced to support though my taxes things I find unexceptable, nor should I be required as an employer to provide healthcare to a homosexual's partner, nor should I be required to rent to a homosexual couple, if I choose not to so. Afterall, we are talking about a two way street here.

Do you do this for straight marriages? Then you should do it for gay marriages.

If you are in the rental business, you rent to people that will take care of the place and pay their bills. I guess you don't really want to rent.

Whatever.

In this state, you are allowed to discriminate gays in this way. You can't discriminate against blacks or asians that way, but you can discriminate against gays in that way, for now.

I thought you were keen on equal protection for people under the law? Or is it that just for straight people?

The federal constitution doesn't forbid gay marriage. All rights belong to the states and the people. The federal constitution DOES give all of us, gay or straight, black or white, the same protections.

You haven't shown that gays want MORE privileges and rights. Every example you have listed shows they just want the same ones that straight people have.

Regardless, Back to the thread. My opinion is that the professor was morally wrong but likely legally within his rights.

by Cato Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am

TerryRC wrote:

Do you do this for straight marriages? Then you should do it for gay marriages.

No, the government, ie politicians, use the force of law to require it. The real question is, why should government be involved at all?

TerryRC wrote:
If you are in the rental business, you rent to people that will take care of the place and pay their bills. I guess you don't really want to rent.

Whatever.

In this state, you are allowed to discriminate gays in this way. You can't discriminate against blacks or asians that way, but you can discriminate against gays in that way, for now.

Again, where does the state get off tell me who I can and can't rent to. Should it be my decision. If I choose not to rent to homosexuals, that's my choice and if it costs me money, then it cost me money. The key is is that it is my choice.

TerryRC wrote: I thought you were keen on equal protection for people under the law? Or is it that just for straight people?

The federal constitution doesn't forbid gay marriage. All rights belong to the states and the people. The federal constitution DOES give all of us, gay or straight, black or white, the same protections.

If you force me to participate in or support with my tax dollars policy to which I disagree that is tyranny.

TerryRC wrote:You haven't shown that gays want MORE privileges and rights. Every example you have listed shows they just want the same ones that straight people have.

You are the one saying that is what I said. The fact of the matter is I didn't.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless, Back to the thread. My opinion is that the professor was morally wrong but likely legally within his rights.

Without knowing what the kid actually said, my opinion is that the professor deprived the kid his constitutional right to free speach. Additionally, the professor proves beyond doubt just how hypocritical much of academia is when it comes to rights and liberty.

by TerryRC Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:50 pm

No, the government, ie politicians, use the force of law to require it. The real question is, why should government be involved at all?

That is not the question. The question is, that if you do it for married heteros, under what grounds do you deny it to married homos.

Again, where does the state get off tell me who I can and can't rent to. Should it be my decision. If I choose not to rent to homosexuals, that's my choice and if it costs me money, then it cost me money. The key is is that it is my choice.

Get your neighbors together and you can keep those queers entirely out of the neighborhood...

If you force me to participate in or support with my tax dollars policy to which I disagree that is tyranny.

Then stop paying taxes. I don't like my money going to faith-based charities. Didn't get much support from you all on that one...

You are the one saying that is what I said. The fact of the matter is I didn't.

Yes, you did. Every example you gave of a "privilege" that gays want is something that straight people already receive.

Without knowing what the kid actually said, my opinion is that the professor deprived the kid his constitutional right to free speach. Additionally, the professor proves beyond doubt just how hypocritical much of academia is when it comes to rights and liberty.

We know the kid used the bible to call for legislation to deny gays rights that straight people have.

Had this kid used the book of mormon to call for legislation to ban blacks from marrying, you would not be this worked up.

It is clear that you do not believe that gays should have the same rights that you have.

By the way, approving of someones lifestyle is not the same as accepting it. Nobody is asking you to approve.

by Sponsored content

Student Sues Professor

Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor

Re: Student Sues Professor