Iowa State Prof Reportedly Warned Students Not to Criticize Gay Marriage, Abortion, BLM
“grounds for dismissal from the classroom”
After this came to light, the school responded saying this was ‘inconsistent with the university’s standards.’
The YAF Blog reports:
Iowa State Professor Threatens to “Dismiss” Pro-Life, Conservative Students From Her Class
An English professor at Iowa State University has threatened to dismiss students who voice opposition to abortion or the Marxist Black Lives Matter organization from her upcoming class this fall. She falsely claims students who resist leftist orthodoxy hold a viewpoint “that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do.”
According to the syllabus obtained exclusively by Young America’s Foundation, Chloe Clark includes a “GIANT WARNING,” for her English 250 class bolded near the top of the document:
“GIANT WARNING: any instances of othering that you participate in intentionally (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc) in class are grounds for dismissal from the classroom. The same goes for any papers/projects: you cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc). I take this seriously.”
This was the school’s response:
“The syllabus statement as written was inconsistent with the university’s standards and its commitment to the First Amendment rights of students. After reviewing this issue with the faculty member, the syllabus has been corrected to ensure it is consistent with university policy. Moreover, the faculty member is being provided additional information regarding the First Amendment policies of the university.
Iowa State is firmly committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of its students, faculty, and staff. With respect to student expression in the classroom, including the completion of assignments, the university does not take disciplinary action against students based on the content or viewpoints expressed in their speech.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Of course, the professor will completely internalize this rebuke and not engage in any sort of passive aggressive acts against students who run afoul of her previously stated positions.
Changing the syllabus will not make this person less of an idiot. It just slightly changes the way it (the GIANT WARNING, not the idiocy) will be introduced in court.
Hmmm. I’m not seeing a lot of “academic freedom” in that syllabus.
“Academic freedom” is, of course, the shield Stalinist profs hide behind whenever their indoctrination agenda is examined. It’s no coincidence that talk of “academic freedom” in the US became fashionable simultaneously with the infiltration of Stalinists into the academy in the 1930s.
Rather lame report, as not even the name of this tyrantess, Chloe Clark, is given:
So the class requires discussion of assigned reading, but a student may only agree with the material?
In case you were wondering what “sorophobia” might be:
A commenter points out: The word for “sister” in Latin is soror, sororis. Its combining form would be sorori-. So, sororiphobia. Although even that objectionably combines Latin and Greek roots. Technically, it should either be sororitimor or adelphephobia.
I thought it was fear or sororities.
Thanks for the attempted explanation but I am not sure it clears anything up. Is it a typo and she meant serophobia or is there such a thing as sorophobia?
Who knows? Both are equally possible. It seems there really are such things as both “sorophobia” and “serophobia”, each of which about five people have actually heard of, and neither of which make any sense, so take your pick.
I guess she didn’t count on everyone who is not in her class actively mocking her mental health issues. I live to serve.
So only HIS opinion matters?
The class explores “monster theory” and the use of monsters throughout history to “other” people. has she not “othered” people who hold traditional Christian values or who consider themselves pro-life?