From the College Fix:
Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change
‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.
“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.
“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”
More here: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
Just look at these people. The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English (with old cooking recipe collections), and Sociology/Social Justice.
Brilliant minds, all, which probably explains why they couldn’t even get the much regurgitated 97% consensus correct, and instead say 98%.
Rich McKee’s cartoon from yesterday needs to be updated:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is entirely ludicrous! All three need to be removed from that institution immediately. America, I weep for you.
Disagreed. The professors are well within their rights to dictate the scope of discussion for the class and to suggest that people not comfortable with that scope of discussion go elsewhere.
You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether NOx emissions are harmful.
You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether other species can be intelligent.
The class may be pointless and unfounded, but it is their class. They get to set the rules for the discussion.
If professors couldn’t do this, every class could be turned into a theology discussion.
They can set the rules, but can they (should they) reject students who disagree?
Disagreed.
Also, if controversy is deliberately omitted from the curriculum, it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
Let me see if I’ve got this correct vboring: you believe it is the right of the professors to teach false propaganda at a taxpayer-funded institution? So then you would not object to a course that was about creationism where the professors stated there would be no discussion of evolution?
I don’t completely agree. Fracking, for example, is NOT climate change. If all their sources are anti-fracking (which is hard to do when most studies say it is safe), then it would be quite ridiculous for them to say they won’t look at any other sources on fracking or discuss/debate the merits and problems with it. Especially, since it cuts CO2 emissions if you burn natural gas instead of coal.
They have the authority to do so.
That doesn’t make it right.
How do you feel about the ban extending to discussions in the online forum?
vboring August 31, 2016 at 10:59 am
“The class may be pointless and unfounded, but it is their class. They get to set the rules for the discussion.”
Are you sure of that vboring? Did you check the legal and accrediting regulations to see if these teachers have this power?
There are standards and federal requirements they have to meet.
The only instance this type of behavior could be found appropriate and of benefit would be if they were teaching a class on Totalitarian governance.
michael
“Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change.”
This is wonderful news! The fact that a professor actually feels the need to proclaim that is an indication of just how strong and widespread the anti-AGW movement has become. It reveals the professor’s insecurity. We need many moresuch insecure man-made climate change hucksters.
vboring,
I would expect if you t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems or the search for extraterrestrial life, to use your examples, the classes would be taught by professors in e.g., engineering, physical science, astronomy, etc. with the appropriate education and experience in those fields.
As Just some guy points out below, if there is no allowance for disagreement and discussion, and the course is taught by professors with no experience in the discipline (it’s an course in “environment and health” and none of the listed faculty appear to have any background in “environment and health” or global warming/climate change) it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
A I’ve noted before:
Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.
Whoops! Way down the list! Just some guy, above…
I will admit I have not read every comment. But every comment here (and elsewhere) I have read did not deny them the right to set the syllabus for their class.
What most of the comments are about is ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry. And why waste you money taking a class from professors that are clearly clueless on their expounded subject.
You’re quite correct. And I can’t see the university doing anything to them. My beef with this is that it earns actual course credit. Propaganda efforts like this shouldn’t be on the course for credit list.
No debate should be off limits in an institute of higher learning — we can now question whether State U of Colorado is that.
There was even a kid that tried to argue against the geologic record using Biblical “logic” back in my Geol 101 in college. It was quite easy to logically quash his “reasoning” using the litany of science that the geologic record is based on, as it should be for any sound science. If their entire course is based on pseudo-science, then they should be bagging groceries, not brainwashing college students.
Well said. This a Science EDUCATION class, not Political science, or debate class. If the Neanderthals want to make up their own version of science, they can transfer out of the University.
My advice to any poor kid that has to deal with those censorious, eco-flake, hive-tool professors, described in the article, is to employ a jiu-jitsu flip on them. That is, slap an in-your-face, “PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!! fatwa on their undoubtedly brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie greenwashed-butts:
Hey Prof!–drive a fossil-fueled vehicle and/or do you take frivolous vacations in similarly powered conveyances? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
Hey Prof!–fly about to academic conferences that could easily be held as zero-carbon video conferences? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
Hey Prof!–partake of imported foods and beverages? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
Hey Prof!–denounce the IPCC’s annual CO2-spew conferences as veritable mass-slaughters of babies and privileged-white bears? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
And then, after you’ve softened up these Gaia-gofer, good-comrade academic-phonies with all that, move in for the “money-shot” (but remember also that international law requires you to first issue a trigger warning advising all lefties who might read or hear what you are about to say next to either put their fingers in their ears and spout sing-song LA!-LA!-LA!’s, or, alternatively don an adult diaper): Advise the professors that coercion and brainwashing will never succeed, but rather the only approach that will work is LEADERSHIP!!!–LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!
P. S. And, when you finish with that last pitch, step-back, because these hive-bubble bozos are goin’ to feel their virtue-signalling lifestyle; their fragile, safe-space sense of “specialiness”; and their hold on their flunky-grade troughs so profoundly threatened by your suggestion that they just might want to practice a little exemplary leadership, for once, that their inevitable response will be an involuntary-reflex, explosive, projectile-diarrhea bowel-movement.
vboring,
The course in question is “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”.
How did you come up with those examples you gave? How about these? ;
*You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether CO2 emissions are a grave threat to the earth’s ecosystems, so if the teacher feels like it, they should be able to ban any who don’t believe they are.*
*You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether “Climate deniers” can be intelligent, so professors have the right to exclude any who think they might be.*
???
Many many years ago while attending IU in Bloomington, IN I took a 200 level literature course on Russian Fairy Tales. We were not required to believe that the tales were factual.
However it is entirely stupid to premise a college course or pretend to base a college course on a totally unconfirmed assumption. As there is not a shred of defensible proof of man-made climate change, this course is a waste or money, time, and space and thus a fraud aimed at the students.
In the good ‘o 80’s I never had a science teacher once say this is the answer, if you don’t like it go to hell. Simply never. They said, state your position, and support it. Therefore, these are political science classes, not science classes. They have been placed in the wrong department. No wait, in political science, they said, state your opinion and justify it. Okay, this is just state Fascism. It is not even political science. If they have a Dept. Of Dogma, then they belong under that department.
The course is titled “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”. There is nothing about that subject matter that dictates anything about climate change. The professors are out of line to make demands of conformity in this case.
“You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether NOx emissions are harmful.”
Actually, that is one of the very things I would expect to be debated in such a class. Producing evidence before demanding expensive mitigation measures should be such an obvious thing it doesn’t need to be justified. Because the professors don’t allow debate over the very premise of their class, that is why it can be described as nothing more than a theology discussion.
The professors are unconfident regarding the subject matter such that they refuse to engage in the discussion. It also implies they are incompetent professors — presenting a class the foundations of which they do not fully understand. These instructor fit the working definition of “useful idiots.”
Re: “You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether other species can be intelligent.” You most certainly do – it’s a very interesting topic. See the Fermi paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether other species can be intelligent.
Why not? The scientists searching for extraterrestrial life do not, as far as I know, claim that it certain to exist. Some scientists think that because our universe is so vast there are probably quite a lot of planets with life. Others think that the combination of conditions needed for life to evolve is so extraordinary that life is unlikely elsewhere. However no side claims to “know” the answer. That is why they are searching for it. Even if our galaxy teems with life if most alien life forms had the intelligence of jellyfish we would still feel alone.
If professors couldn’t do this, every class could be turned into a theology discussion.
Ummm…this class has been turned in to a theology discussion.
As far as I can tell, climate change is irrelevant to the subject matter of the course and they obviously have no expertise in the topic. If they were not willing to discuss the “truth” of CAGW because they were not willing to discuss climate change, that is fine. But this is more to be a declaration that they are unfit to teach and there’s nothing wrong with removing professors who are unfit to teach.
What is needed is for a bunch of registrants to drop the class, inform the school of the reason for their decision and demand an immediate refund of registration fees
Once the school begins loosing revenue due to this, the course could be changed
RUBBISH!
My RUBBISH reply was to vboring. Your sentiment is also boring. If professors believe that the earth is flat and teach that if you want to debate this you should “drop this class” at an institution of higher learning, they do not have the right to do so. It’s academic fraud. Just like AGW is…. But to debate both sides is instructive.
Win the argument with facts. The point is – they have few if any – this modern version of Larry, Moe and Curly Joe.
When the premises cannot be challenged, it’s teaching an orthodoxy. Not really different from teaching religion.
It does seem like they’re conceding they can’t defend AGW/Climate Change on scientific grounds.
Why do they feel the need to have this rule in the first place? It is a very obvious sign of intellectual weakness.
Nice try, but what you suggest is not correct. The class is taught at a public supported University, and while the instructors do have a certain amount of latitude, they should not be allowed to exclude legitimate discussion regarding AGW. To suggest that 98% of “scientists” support their particular stance is of course not correct, and should be questioned. It appears these instructors only want those in the class who can be in agreement with a fallacious premise.
It also seemed like this seminar was a required course, but there were other seminars the students could select. However, having gone to a public college, I am aware that that alternate 3xxx course could be quite difficult to find, so in the end one would have to hold their nose and be indoctrinated.
If this is a mandatory course, there should be some pretext at presenting several sides of the argument, and not just ram a bunch of progressive pet issues together and teach one side.
Notice it’s a “humanities” class–not science.
That’s the real issue. This course is on “medical humanities in the digital age”. What on Earth could they be discussing that mandated climate change belief?
There was a geology professor in the 80’s who was well known to flunk students who believed in the new theory of plate tectonics. The students all spread it around. You believe in plate tectonics, keep you mouth shut if you want to pass. So for that jackass, oh gee, I never too his course. Same here. If you are forced to take their vomit, regurgitate it back and move on.
medical (not science) humanities (not science) in the digital age (not science).
Hey, let these clods run their theology course the way they like, maybe they’ll find they get the students they deserve (few .. or those who require a bib)
I’m glad they’ve nailed their flag to the post, it’ll be harder for them in the future to deny their complicity in this scam when real science regains a foothold and the AGW theory is smashed apart as eugenics was. Too many people were able to duck and hide from their participation in that one, and subsequently were able to evolve their anti-human stance into the current AGW scare. This time the scoundrels won’t be able to hide so easily and with luck will be prevented from holding any positions of influence or corrupting any more young minds.
Goldrider: When I was an Assistant Professor in the Natural Sciences Division of a major campus of the UC system, I taught Science Illustration in the Science Communication Program which qualified as for Humanities credits for science majors. In the class we discussed the use of science in propaganda and how scientific data was manipulated in political movements to forward agendas and influence the ignorant.
Well said. Debating science is like debating whether the number 5 is greater than 3. Or the proposition do owls exist. This is a class in science EDUCATION, not in politics or debate.
Let the Neanderthals have their own class.
That’s some mighty slipshod trolling there, sunshine.
This must be some new definition of “science EDUCATION” with which I am unfamiliar…
@catweazzle66
No doubt.
Tell me Winston, how many fingers am I holding up?
What utter nonsense. One of the fundamental principles of science is skepticism, even in the face of so-called “hard facts”. You seem to be confused between what constitutes education and what is little more than indoctrination. The process of education also requires asking difficult and unpopular questions. What these “professors” are touting is not a science course and it is not education.
I’ve already posted about this on my Facebook page.
My old college Alma mater’s motto comes to mind and how out of place it is on today’s college campuses.
Ceaseless Industry, Fearless Investigation, Unfettered Thought.
Graduated in 1984. I still have my alumni sticker with those words on my vehicle.
No Aggie Joakes
While it wasn’t when I attended, it is now part of the A&M system.
How do you keep Texas A&M Aggies out of your yard?
A: Put up goal posts.
Did you hear about the Texas Aggie who moved to Oklahoma and thus raised the mean IQ of both states?
Or the Aggie football player that was majoring in animal husbandry ’till they caught him at it?
No Aggie Joakes?
OK.
But this post seems to declare open season on to University of Colorado “Gagme” jokes. 😎
Have you heard the one about the “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs who refused to come in out of the rain?
She said it would change any decade now.
You know what you call an Aggie (Maggie) six months after he (she) graduates? Boss.
Boss? Or old Bossy?
…1984 huh… that is a coincidence! or irony?
I graduated from a small college in Colorado Springs in 1984. And Ronald Reagan personally handed me my diploma and officer’s commission.
It was a good year.
You’re a lucky (but no doubt fully deserving) person Joel.
Reagan was a true hero.
USAFA!
One of the greatest regrets in my life is turning down an appointment to West Point.
“MarkW September 1, 2016 at 8:54 am
One of the greatest regrets in my life is turning down an appointment to West Point.”
I can relate to that. The greatest regret of my life was that I got out after nearly 12 years of active duty. I was a shoe in to attend the next Physician Assistants course. But at the time it seemed like the best thing to do for my family and myself. It probably was the best thing for my daughter since I was facing multiple moves over the next couple years when she would be in her HS years. But it wasn’t the best thing for me or my wife. I would have retired with 30 years of service in 2010.
Yet another Department of Phrenology, Hitlerology, Stalinology.
In the old USSR you could not teach the Theory of Evolution – it contradicted Karl Marx’s Theory of History.
I imagine if you get a degree from this “University?”, your degree will be worthless.
Walt D. says:
“In the old USSR you could not teach the Theory of Evolution – it contradicted Karl Marx’s Theory of History.”
Not entirely true, Walt. Darwin’s theory was accepted in Soviet textbooks, though not discussed much, it was a slippery subject. Genetics was no-no in Stalin’s years (as it was proclaimed by Stalin to be a “bourgeois science”). Geneticists were ruthlessly persecuted in the 1930s. Nobody was allowed to ask, how evolution could be possible without mutation. Later, under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the basics of genetics were gradually introduced in biology classes.
Please, understand that Marx was just a figurehead in the USSR. What, exactly, was Karl Marx’s theory, almost nobody knew and nobody cared. Even his biography wasn’t generally known. For example, Russians didn’t know then (and most of them still don’t know) that Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew, one of the most rabid anti-Semites of his time.
A lot of words were spoken and printed about communism but nobody really gave a rat’s behind. The important thing was to always say and do what you were told to say and do (whatever it was at the moment), and then to shut up. Most of the people obeyed.
Most of the people do that in Western countries, too. Slavery is in their genes, whatever the color of their skin.
The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums.
And not a shot was fired…
+
I’m with Alan.
+
dbstealy, plus many . This type of stuff used to be hidden and now? it is out there in the open. If my child would ask if she could go to that school I would answer, “on your own dime” and then explain why.
I bet quite a few shots were fired, dbstealey . . but point taken.
John,
You probably know this, but for those who might have missed it, And Not A Shot Is Fired is an account of how communists took control of Checkoslovakia, by using its own democratic freedoms.
Well worth reading, because it’s happening right now.
Many youth are thinking of skipping the entire bother of getting a mortgage-sized debt, and businesses are thinking of educating their new employees on their own. College ain’t what it used to be, and the entire system may be a sort of financial bubble about to burst. Instead of ghost towns, imagine ghost universities.
The law and medicine, for two, are professions that one used to enter via apprenticeship. Engineering, as a formal discipline was late to the game and largely developed in a university environment, although some of it’s greatest practitioners (James Watt, instrument maker) did not receive formal training as engineers.
Engineering [back in the slide rule days] also used to be an apprenticeship process. The apprentice could start with surveying transitioning to civil engineering, or as a draftsman transitioning to mechanical engineering, naval architecture or even aviation.
This coexisted for a long time alongside engineering schools such as West Point [USMA or ‘Hudson High’] or RPI.
In both law and medicine, you still do. But you have to get a required license first before apprenticing.
There;s a reason you can’t get your Engineering license without 7 years of experience. No class can prepare you for the trials you face actually working as an engineer, so we don’t let any newbie have a stamp.
@Dave Levitt;
Law and medicine were regulated along the lines of the guild system for hundreds of years before universities got into the picture the way they are now, although medicine has been taught in the various European universities for quite some time. So there was a formal process for them that could see you enter the “guild” a full member without ever darkening the door of a lecture hall. There wasn’t the same regulation for engineers so their training was much more ad hoc and almost anyone could hang out a shingle and call themselves an engineer. In the US the first engineering licensure law was in Wyoming in 1907. That’s pretty late to the game.
Could happen. I went back to my old college a few years ago. What had been homes and businesses located conveniently near the college were now…more college. The new buildings are red brick, expensive, but they appear to be empty mausoleums in honor of someone or other whose heirs had too much money. I didn’t see anyone go in or come out as I walked the length of the huge complex. When I was in school, there was never a time that I couldn’t find an empty classroom to study in or use the blackboard to solve problems. Bigger is not better.
No need to imagine.
Much of what passes for higher education has been pretty spooky for quite some time.
I like that: “pretty spooky”.
It’s going that way in the UK too, with apprenticeships making an understandable come-back.
I’m extremely proud to say that my son is going to serve in the RAF. Understandably, he has no desire to go to university to amass a huge debt. If he wishes to study for a degree, the RAF will let him to do it ‘on the job’.
True Believers.
If you don’t drink the flavor aid, we have armed guards at the door.
Putting aside the fact that the IPCC doesn’t actually do any peer review, one has to wonder what “inside” resources are being used for this course.
My thoughts exactly.
mpcraig,
That statement just shows the overall level of both course knowledge and (I hate to say it) intelligence of the instructors (they don’t deserve to be referred to as professors).
Only 1 of them is a professor, Laroche. Skahill is a Lecturer, and Haggren is a Senior Instructor.
Haggrin. HAHAHA.
Actually, if you dig into the IPCC reports and the citations of the papers used, and their citations(I know, a lot of digging. They bury it pretty deep) there is quite a bit of material to take to this class. Things like the quote about climate being a chaotic, unpredictable system, climate models being a chaotic and unsolvable, no way to make predictions to test, study only of the human causes of climate change which makes it impossible to study the actual climate, and more. Also, all the differences between the summary for policy makers and the actual statements in the various working group papers. Lots of material for discussion there.
An enterprising student willing to risk and F(tape all the classroom discussion and office consultations) it could be very productive.
Any quotes from the IPCC that disagree with the incoming climatpokalypse will be ignored.
They actually aren’t that bad, if you read past the Summary for Policymakers. The real issue is the people who honestly think we are all going to die due to this.
Also, in IPCC AR4 (report of Working Group 1) one finds the assertion that the doctrine of falsifiability has been replaced by the doctrine of peer review. Our new masters are sacrosanct peer reviewers!
That such people continue to use the junk-level claim of ‘97%’ (or ‘98% in this case…) reveals their own alarmist advocacy. Oh, and Eileen sounds a whole barrel of fun!
Maybe, before the ladies joined The Team it was 97% and when you add the three of them to the other 97% it’s now 98%.
I said “maybe”.
The original study was 76/78 people – or 97.4%
The question was something like “Do you believe the earth is experiencing a period of global warming” Well duh, it has been warming for 12000 years now – I was surprised two people answered no.
[75 replies from 77 selected answers. .mod]
Marque2, you are close. I believe the questions were;
1) Do you believe the climate is changing?
2) Do you believe man has influenced the climate.
There was much discussion here at the time because these are questions that most people with knowledge of the climate would answer in the affirmative.
Thus, the deception is two fold. First, the 76 scientists do not comprise “97% of ALL climate scientist” and second, answering yes to both questions does not indicate support for the proposition of AGW.
From our host’s Dec 2013 article:
Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”
Thee threw out the 3 responders who answered “no” or “don’t know” before asking the 2nd question.
IMO both questions were beneath the level of a real academic;
– in the first, what scientist would NOT say temps are higher than “pre-1800 levels”. Little Ice Age anyone? Who were the 3 dopes of the “elite 79” who did not say “yes”?
– when talking to only the “highest qualified” climate scientists, what is the meaning of the word “significant”? Does it mean something like “more than could have happened by chance”? If so any measurable (say 5%) impact by humans (deforestation, UHI etc) would require one to agree with the pro
position.
I think I once dated Eileen for twenty minutes.
@ur momisugly brans, wow you most have tremendous tolerance for BS or did she just sit there and look smart?
Sorry brians of course
Where does that put the Anasazi who built entire villages in the cliffs of the American southwest starting around 500 AD, only to abandon them in the 13th century when the climate turned too dry for their subsistence farming methods?
I guess the tourists who view the quaint remains of those cliff dwellings at for example Mesa Verde are left with the impression that their SUVs are responsible for such devastating (maybe genocidal) climate change. Not up for debate. The science is settled.
see:
http://www.livescience.com/27360-mesa-verde.html
This is prevalent in academia, at least on the East Coast of America. The management now is in the business of “telling what the student is to think”. And that is considered “Critical Thinking”. This is why I am no longer teaching in a local community college. I wanted my students to be able to sort things out for themselves, so I taught them all sides. They often were able, on their own, to realize the truth. I taught geography.
I’ve just put two kids through school in Colorado. This is their MO. They offer these ‘Indoctrination courses’ that take very little to get an A, Kids take them because it’s a quick way to boost your GPA. I’ve had to say to my kids: “you’re welcome to take such courses, but I’m not paying for them”.
It’s best to take engineering where there are no electives.
Uh, there are plenty of electives… all engineering or math, of course. 🙂
Don’t forget the computer science
I went to CU Boulder. There were far too many electives in the humanities that were required for an engineering degree – so I thought at the time. Now I regret not taking more.
Sly humor like Judy’s does not belong on a circle jerk like this.
Yes sir -eeee folks,
Spend your life savings to send you treasured children to a university to have their minds destroyed by Stalinists.
It is important that we record the names of these people who intellectually harm our children and damage our society.
Please put them in the database for future considerations at a time of our choosing.
Better to put them on paper or carve their names into the sides of cliffs (private property ones, of course). Those zeros and ones are far too easy to manipulate. It’s an excellent idea to keep track of who caused this mess, but make sure the medium used is permanent.
In their overly idealistic minds, they want it to be 98% now, (growing from 97%) imagining that they are winning over more believers to the Cause. Leftist thought police scare me, but they will not win.
I’ve had trolls just go for 100% agreement. What a couple of percentages, anyway?
Won’t be long until it reaches 100% as those who failed to agree are “disappeared” from the record.
Reminds me of the way the Soviets would doctor existing photographs to disappear those who were no longer in favor.
“Reminds me of the way the Soviets would doctor existing photographs to disappear those who were no longer in favor.”
My guess is that it’s got to be down to around 90-92% by now.
They’re losing ground.
To say that there is no debate allowed in science is to say there is no science.
Winston Smith was caught by the thought police by beauty and the rhyme “Oranges and Lemons ring the bells of St. Clements.”
Evil can be very devious.
Eileen Skahill’s LinkedIn page shows that she also brings an English degree to the table.
Note : That first word is probably not a typo. Unversity – a place where your brain prises open your skull and flees.
very clever
LOL. Too funny for words, however I’m using words here.
98% versus 97% demonstrates innumeracy.
So on top of that, she can’t spell? A person with a Bachelor’s degree in English language?
Would it be ok to debate the spelling of university (unversity)?
And how about this:
From (Midsummer Night’s Dream – 2, 1)
Would it be ok to quote Shakespeare as saying the moon was responsible for floods?
Does this mean no discussion of Shakespeare?
Probably refers to the moon’s influence on “flood tide”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flood%20tide
And 10 years to complete a master’s degree – perhaps?
Hey, it took me 10 years to complete my master’s degree! However, I have an excuse. I blame it on beer.
Master’s degree, Sociology
2010 – 20
???
Typo or time travel? started in the year 2010 and finished in the year 20. Darn who were her professors?
michael
I’m guessing she’s still working on it and expects to finish in 2020.
That would seem to indicate she isn’t finished.
Does that make her unqualified?
Who will be checking the work of this apprentice then?
“Master’s degree, Sociology 2010 – 20”
Sounds like she has another 4 1/2 years yet to go before she gets her masters
Have to hurry – most curricula expire in 7 years – that’s typically how long you can use the course catalog you started with as a “contract” for the school to provide you with exactly those courses.
“Eileen Skahill’s LinkedIn page shows that she also brings an English degree to the table.”
Steven Mosher has one of those, on the strength he too pontificates on the absolute certainty of anthropogenic global warming.
I have one of those as well, but the only job I could find was sports reporter and in a land where they wanted me to cover cricket, which I still haven’t a clue about. Was OK as my girlfriend of the time was there …
I don’t buy AGW, however, even though my degree was = McKibben and from same school. Then turned to engineering.
Of the 2500 “leading scientists” who ostensibly signed on as supporting the IPCC’s First Assessment, most were not climate scientists, but sociologists, political scientists, and the like.
“Her research is early modern recipe collections” WTF?
“Her area of expertise is the sociology of climate change, with emphasis on SJW’s.”
But does not emphasize the science….
I bet we could actually find a course on Underwater Basket Weaving at THE UofC…..
@DayHay
Underwater basket weaving? You’re too late!
(This from 2013. I stopped clicking links before I found a CSU college course to avoid an unpleasant barfing episode.)
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/09/23/making-a-case-for-underwater-basket-weaving-in-colorado-schools/41678/
Un-bee-lievable!
Damn!
Who’dathunkit?
Basket weaving is a useful skill. If they took the course, at least they would learn something. The underwater part, is to get really tight weave of the fibers you need to keep them wet and do the weave in a bucket of water. It isn’t a swimming course as many imagine.
Dang, there go my fantasies of co-eds in bikinis.
I recall one graduation I attended at UNT, and someone actually did graduate with a masters in basketweaving. My wife didn’t understand why I found it so hillarious.
GA Tech has a PE class 1010, nicknamed drownproofing. It was actually started during WWII and was targeted at navy fliers. Needless to say we spent a lot of our time in swim wear.
One day, while leaving the Baptist Student Union with a bunch of friends, I spotted a young lady that I knew from that class. I greeted her, she looked at me for a few seconds, then declared “Mark, I didn’t recognize you with your clothes on.”
The image of poor Mary’s face, a few seconds later when she realized what she had just said, will stick with me for the rest of my life.
So, three barking mad, terribly caring, female “humanities” professors, teaching a non-course, want to shut down debate.
I really believe that if the higher education budget was reduced by 25%, quality would be improved immesurably. I saw this when I was at Imperial college, London which had a 17% budget cut during one of the periodic financial crises to affect the UK. People ran around like headless chickens for a week, all the Dr Deadwoods were retired and much of the administrative procedures that made trying to do anything a nightmare were slashed. The place flourished and went from strength to strength.
Cut educational funding. Save paper! Save academic waste! Improve standards. Even save CO2!
I think this is a brazen publicity stunt, a desperate attempt to boost course enrollment.
“So, three barking mad, terribly caring, female “humanitics”…”
There, fixed that for you.
RCS,
You might be right. But, your 25% budget cut may only work if the top level administrators come from private enterprise. If their only management experience is from within government their first reaction to any budget cut is practically always to cut those services that are most obvious and beneficial to the public (e.g., school administrators cut teachers not office staff). They cut those areas that will cause the public to scream the most. I don’t think I have ever met or even read about government administrators capable of operating in what is referred to in private enterprise as the “lean and mean” mode. I would be curious to see the backgrounds of the administrators at Imperial College London at the time of those cuts.
Constipated old farts!
One of the most celebrated example was the access to the computer centre. Money for computing was gained in research grants. This was eventually allocated to departments who allocated it to students or the researchers who had obtained the grant. Students spent this money that was finally returned to the department one year later for allocation to further computer time units. At the time, major academic computing facilities did not do anything so mundane as use to computers to keep track of the administrrtion by using automated systems. This was expensive and time consuming (I well remember going with a bit of paper and begging for more computer units). External institutions, however, had unlimited units.
After a near riot, the Rector explained the logic of this system. “You have to realise that at Imperial we have some of the most advanced computers in the World and that you will will not have access to this sort of power once you leave. This enforces discipline in the use of computers; after all, where else would you be able to use 128K of core with 10 10 Mflop capability?”
I promise you that this is true (c1982)
@Joe Kirklin Crawford.
You hit a fundamental difference between government and business on the head. Indeed, businesses have to cut costs all the time, and the ones that survive are the ones that make the cuts invisible to their customers. But when government makes cuts, they make them the most painful for their customers. After all, what option do government customers have? There is not another government they can go to for the services.
“… at University of Colorado”
So, what is the required ganja intake required to complete the course ?
It’s not just in the intake, the course will provide instruction on preparation.
Note, 1 is skilled in yeast fermentation. 1 is skilled in old English recipes, and the other in indigenous peoples altered mental states for perceiving the natural world (peyote, magic mushroom identifications and preparations).
Peyton Manning, who owns many Pappa John’s pizza places in Colorado, claims business has boomed since recreational MJ was voted in and gave new meaning to Mile High Stadium (where Broncos play football).
The Rector was right. I ran Space Shuttle trajectory Monte Carlo simulations in the 64k of memory the mainframe computer had at that time.
Too bad Mark Steyn is off-line these days — he would be merciless.
This exercise in book-burning contradicts the meaning of “university”.
…but maybe not “university”.
I’m guessing you meant to say “unversity”, but your wonderful computing device “corrected” it for you.
Closed-minded bigots! Send us your young impressionable minds so we might instill shame and self-loathing for the unspeakable crimes of white privilege and the exhalation of plant food!
Orwell’s 1984 stands as a chilling reminder of the dangers of abusive authority in quashing free thought.
Fire the lot!
I think it should be noted that this is not a required course for any students at that university. As a matter of fact, they have a number of other options from which to choose to receive the necessary Humanities credit.
Personally, I am pleased that the instructors were up-front and honest about the direction they want the class to take and the starting point from which they will approach their topic. Every course needs to start somewhere and they’re very clearly stating their starting point. Extraneous topics (like debating the veracity of the starting point) will only get in the way of where the instructors wish to take the discussion over the course of the semester and detract from the lesson plans.
Debating science can really get in the way of a humanities discussion.
I’m fine with instructors choosing to teach a special topics course that will be available for those who wish to study that topic from a particular point of view, as long as the instructors are honest about what they want to teach and how they want to teach it. If it’s not required, as most special topics courses aren’t, then it shouldn’t be problem to share that idea. Students can choose to take it or not, however they desire.
Agreed… but they shouldn’t grandstand with the 98% bullcrap though.
Willard misses the point. See attorneys general Democratic Party.
===============
Agreed. Anyone attending college in Boulder Colorado has already accepted its left-wing bias.
Elective. How many of these students could elect out of viewing ‘A Convenient Untruth’ as elementary students?
================
An A -F grading scheme is so .
The natural progression from childhood sports “participation trophies” for fragile minds.
No, today’s academia are tending towards everyone who attends (watches online) and submits minimally required work gets a Pass.
Agree. Besides, they will only be preaching to their choir.
I disagree.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring.
The statement “that human climate change is valid and occurring,” is such a vague statement. It’s not even a valid scientific statement because it lacks quantity; how much warming? I would agree that AGW is valid and occurring but I know of no scientifically credible evidence indicating that it will be any different in the future than it was in the past, i.e. very mild and mostly beneficial to humans and the biosphere to which we are inextricably linked.
I read the syllabus and the course doesn’t even deal with the question of global warming. The final written assignment is to, “Contextualize the idea of plant spirit medicine with the other forms of traditional and “non- traditional” medicinal treatment and healing”
Are students also not allowed to question or debate the question of the existence of plant spirits?
This is a major point of confusion for me. If this class is about medicine, why are they talking about global warming? One of these “professors” teaches English, shouldn’t she know the meaning of words? If the class is not about the medical field, why is it called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”? From the Dictionary app on my Mac:
3 (humanities) learning or literature concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.
The class title is word salad, and none of it indicates any connection to AGW. None of this makes sense. Is it a joke?
I would tell you surely that you should not question the existence of plant spirits.
Especially the spirits from barley, hops, corn, grapes, or (if in the carribean) sugar plants.
I could agree to a point. If they said “this class is not about debating climate change, we will not get sidetracked” then that would be more than acceptable. I had at least one class back in college that said flat out that they would not discuss abortion, as it’s another topic that subsumes everything.
However, they crush down on this harder than anything I’ve seen. Even anti-vaccine enthusiasts get a lighter treatment. The only thing I’ve heard that’s close is the moon-hoax group (the Flat Earth society would probably get that too if they were real instead of a bunch of trolls). It’s like they truly believe there is no debate on any aspect of the matter.
If Scary Hillary gets in and has all the Supreme Court justices on her side this will become the norm. The once great US is crumbling before our eyes and China is laughing all the way to the bank. It is also happening in Canada with Trudeau 2.0 in office, the master of political fluff.
Where will we be in 5, 10 years, the outlook is scary.
About the only hint of hope is the political turn around in England hopefully will expand.
so right you are!
China has plenty of termites eating away at their economy. They too live in an imaginary universe.
State owned enterprises is one example. These have been called Zombie businesses because they crank out products no one will ever buy. These can’t be shut down because millions will become unemployed, breaking the promise made by the current regime.
The building boom left China with entire cities with no inhabitants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e891GBy7yZM
.
The end is near and Hillary picked the bad ones on there now from her first unofficial presidency.
john,
That video led me to this one. I couldn’t really believe the shot at the very beginning wasn’t just a clip that was edited and re-played a few times. But after watching the people in the background, it’s clear that it’s an unedited video.
Just watching the first ten seconds was a real shocker. No wonder it went viral—more than 3,700,000 views. I really wonder now if she can make it to the finish line?
@nc, you are right on the mark but I doubt w’ll make it to 10 years, maybe not even 5.
They were laughed at in Grad school because they were “sub-par” now that they have a little authority they become control freaks. Think? Or the can’t think for themselves. Think/ or no think?
So the academic union gives you the power to harm others now. That’s a new twist on justification of academic freedom.