25-01-2015, 06:03 AM
Albert:
They didn't use any logic at all. Except that they had the power to do what they did, period.
The reason they got away with it was simple: the research community is so disorganized and undisciplined and splintered, they did not promote a legal fund to challenge this in court. I, and others I talked to, were certain we would have won. The reason being that since this was named a national monument back in 2003, the city did not have the right to cordon it off. I actually warned against this back in 2012. I wanted to hire a lawyer back then since I got wind of this early. I was pooh poohed. Which shows the sagacity of our community.
That does not at all relate to the Abbate point. And neither does your other rationale about McAdams and the critics.
Because, first of all, you and Drew do not render the actual facts of this case accurately. Evidently you have not read all the links we have at CTKA. Her class was not about gay marriage. It was about John Rawls' theory of universal liberty and equality under the law. She was just eliciting examples to start a discussion of that theory. That device is used all the time to begin to track toward the main subject. I have used it about a thousand times in my career. And I have seen it used masterfully by college professors I have studied under. They and I, NEVER lose site of the forest for the trees. And she did not want to either.
Your comparison with McAdams class is not an accurate one. Why? Because that class IS about the JFK case. So he has to address the critics. And he does. I have seen his syllabus. But further, the JFK case, and even the RFK case, have been taught in colleges and high schools for years. Without any interference from above. Phil Melanson arose to chair of his department even though he taught the RFK case and the JFK case. I taught the JFK case for 13 years. At times I had so many kids in my class I had to move it to the cafeteria. Never had any problems.
A more accurate comparison would be this: If I had taught the class and I went into detail about the sexual predilections of Shaw and Ferrie and said that one reason for the plot may have been those of a a homosexual nature against Kennedy's virile, handsome playboy image--I would have been in trouble if I had a gay student and he complained about it.
But that is the difference. In one case, we are talking about the realm of ideas and concepts. In the other, we are talking about singling out a specific GROUP OF PEOPLE. One that has been persecuted and discriminated against for generations based upon sexual orientation. They did not establish any kind of equality before the law until relatively recently. And as a case from just a few years ago, where a young man was literally beaten to death because of his homosexuality, this shows that this kind of extreme, near psychotic prejudice is still around.
So when you and Drew try and belittle the idea of "hate speech" and equate it with first amendment rights, I don't understand where you are coming from. Or did you also forget about the case in Texas a few years ago where three rednecks chained a black man to a truck and literally dismembered him? Do you think they addressed him as an "African American" before they tortured and killed him?
Any college freshman knows that there are limits to first amendment freedoms e.g. libel and slander, for just one. And thank God there are such limitations. And thanks God for instructors like Abbate who smells a ringer when she hears one.
They didn't use any logic at all. Except that they had the power to do what they did, period.
The reason they got away with it was simple: the research community is so disorganized and undisciplined and splintered, they did not promote a legal fund to challenge this in court. I, and others I talked to, were certain we would have won. The reason being that since this was named a national monument back in 2003, the city did not have the right to cordon it off. I actually warned against this back in 2012. I wanted to hire a lawyer back then since I got wind of this early. I was pooh poohed. Which shows the sagacity of our community.
That does not at all relate to the Abbate point. And neither does your other rationale about McAdams and the critics.
Because, first of all, you and Drew do not render the actual facts of this case accurately. Evidently you have not read all the links we have at CTKA. Her class was not about gay marriage. It was about John Rawls' theory of universal liberty and equality under the law. She was just eliciting examples to start a discussion of that theory. That device is used all the time to begin to track toward the main subject. I have used it about a thousand times in my career. And I have seen it used masterfully by college professors I have studied under. They and I, NEVER lose site of the forest for the trees. And she did not want to either.
Your comparison with McAdams class is not an accurate one. Why? Because that class IS about the JFK case. So he has to address the critics. And he does. I have seen his syllabus. But further, the JFK case, and even the RFK case, have been taught in colleges and high schools for years. Without any interference from above. Phil Melanson arose to chair of his department even though he taught the RFK case and the JFK case. I taught the JFK case for 13 years. At times I had so many kids in my class I had to move it to the cafeteria. Never had any problems.
A more accurate comparison would be this: If I had taught the class and I went into detail about the sexual predilections of Shaw and Ferrie and said that one reason for the plot may have been those of a a homosexual nature against Kennedy's virile, handsome playboy image--I would have been in trouble if I had a gay student and he complained about it.
But that is the difference. In one case, we are talking about the realm of ideas and concepts. In the other, we are talking about singling out a specific GROUP OF PEOPLE. One that has been persecuted and discriminated against for generations based upon sexual orientation. They did not establish any kind of equality before the law until relatively recently. And as a case from just a few years ago, where a young man was literally beaten to death because of his homosexuality, this shows that this kind of extreme, near psychotic prejudice is still around.
So when you and Drew try and belittle the idea of "hate speech" and equate it with first amendment rights, I don't understand where you are coming from. Or did you also forget about the case in Texas a few years ago where three rednecks chained a black man to a truck and literally dismembered him? Do you think they addressed him as an "African American" before they tortured and killed him?
Any college freshman knows that there are limits to first amendment freedoms e.g. libel and slander, for just one. And thank God there are such limitations. And thanks God for instructors like Abbate who smells a ringer when she hears one.