Academia, Free Speech, Politics

California Professor Triggers Controversy Over Anti-Police Comments Captured On Videotape

There are growing complaints about faculty using classes for raw advocacy or political diatribes. The most recent such complaint arose at Cypress College where an instructor slammed a student, Braden Ellis, after he called police “heroes.” The unnamed adjunct professor insisted that police were created in the South to track down runaway slaves and represent a danger to her and others.  What is particularly ironic is that the presentation was on cancel culture.

The Cypress College communications professorWhat is most striking about the video below is that the student seems more balanced and reasonable than the professor. He states that he believes some officers deserve to be punished but that most are good and honorable people — precisely what figures like President Joe Biden have said.

The professor’s comments not only seem strikingly intemperate but inaccurate. The professor insists (wrongly) that the police were created to track down runaway slaves. There may be places where the first official law enforcement bodies were created for such a purpose, but most police departments were obviously not created for such a purpose.

The discussion focused on the Nickelodeon show Paw Patrol, which faced criticism because it showed police in a positive light. In the video, one student agrees that maybe police should not be included as heroes in a children’s show — a view clearly favored by the professor who said that she would never call police if she were in trouble because “my life’s more in danger in their presence… I wouldn’t call anybody.”

This discussion shows why students feel increasingly uncomfortable in speaking freely on our campuses.  We previously discussed a Gallup poll showing ninety percent of Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona but many of our colleges. This is not a problem for many students but an increasingly small percentage of self-identified conservatives. One recent poll shows the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half. The Crimson survey covered over 76 percent of the Harvard College Class of 2024 and found that the class contained 72.4 percent who self-identify as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Only 7.4 percent self-identify as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.”  Another Harvard study showed that 35 percent of conservatives felt that they could share their views on campus.

The shame is that the professor could have made this discussion far more thought-provoking by discussing the counter view of police not as fact but an alternative perspective. Many do fear the police and we should be able to discuss the source of those feelings.  Conversely, Ellis was making a reasoned argument that abuses by some officers should not lead to sweeping condemnations of the entire profession.  The professor however did not want to discuss as much as correct the student as if her view was based on unassailable facts.

Cypress College released the following statement:

Cypress College takes great pride in fostering a learning environment for students where ideas and opinions are exchanged as a vital piece of the educational journey.

Our community fully embraces this culture; students often defend one another’s rights to express themselves freely, even when opinions differ.

Any efforts to suppress free and respectful expression on our campus will not be tolerated.

The adjunct professor will be taking a leave of absence for the duration of her assignment at Cypress College. This was her first course at Cypress and she had previously indicated her intention to not return in the fall.

We are reviewing the full recording of the exchange between the adjunct professor and the student and will address it fully in the coming days.

Here is the video.

 

98 thoughts on “California Professor Triggers Controversy Over Anti-Police Comments Captured On Videotape”

  1. Wonder what third world hellhole our intellectually unarmed, unnamed professor hails from?

    1. Waziristan? I couldn’t be sure. I guess we’ll just have to list her as a POA (person of attitude).

  2. Meyer: “Jeff, you do not show that you understand the true meaning of honesty based on our discussions.“

    True meaning? Nah. Just the run-of-the-mill, Old-fashioned and common sense meaning is all.

    I don’t ever expect you to believe that Trump is an inveterate liar. I appreciate that you will never concede he is far worse than Obama. We have a stand-off. All we can do is let history weigh-in after all the facts have slowly emerged and historians can look back with 20/20 hindsight and make these judgments. In the meantime, I’m placing my bet that Trump will be regarded as a clinical liar at worse (likely pathological) or a cynical conman at best. Now that Trump is out of office and likely will remain so, the Democrats’ battle against him is over, but the battle over Trumpism within the Republican Party is just getting started. Republicans will be fighting over Trump’s legacy long after he is dead between those who say “good riddance” and those dead-enders who will never admit that they were duped.

    1. “I don’t ever expect you to believe that Trump is an inveterate liar.”

      Jeff, I expect you to be civilized and accept the fact that people have a variety of opinions. If you have a gripe provide the specifics, not the generalities. Honesty does not occur behind twisted words.

      History will add to our knowledge, but for the time being, we are left without history so we have to learn to deal with one another. Honesty is a big component of learning to deal with one another. Throwing out generalities over and over again is not honesty.

      My bet is based on Obama’s administration’s spying, the IRS scandal, and other scandals along with his inability to adequately deal with the economy and foreign affairs eventually Obama will become a nobody in history except one that started the downward trend of American society. However, if there is a reversal Trump will be found to be one of our great Presidents who reversed the downward trend set in motion by overall bad policy from both parties. History will remember the economy shooting up (not down) lasting even into the Biden Administration. History will remember Trump did not start wars and pulled us away from conflict along with resolving multiple ones, especially in the Mideast. History will remember how the border situation changed radically through Trump’s policies and became hellholes again with the change in policy by Biden. History will remember Covid and recognize a viral illness for what it is and the fantasies from the left will be left undressed and ugly. The high point will be Trump’s ability to rally the nation in providing a vaccine in less than a year something the Democrats even tried to delay. History will not forget the phony impeachments and how the left acted against the interests of the middle-class families that suffered from lockdowns, economic hardship, and an overall elite that tried to convert a great constitutional republic into a fascist oligarchy run by elites.

      1. The problem is the views of ‘historians’ like Michael Beschloss. He’s horrid. He’s given airtime to spew his mixed up opinions on MSNBC almost weekly. Enough said.

        1. “Historian” John Meacham was a regular on MSDNC until he deceived viewers by offering his “analysis” without letting on that he actually helped write Joe Biden’s inaugural address.

          1. Not unlike Turley who describes himself in his bio as a “legal analyst” without forthrightly informing his readers that he is a “Fox contributor.”

    2. Sure Trump lied. Or at least strained credulity with many of his pronouncements on things vital to the preservation of our republic like the size of his inauguration crowd.
      Biden on the other hand only only made trivial misstatements like lying about the content of the GA election law, or about our existing gun laws in an effort shape new legislation.
      Biden is far more unifying. He only calls everyone with an opposing viewpoint racist and white Supremacist.

  3. Cypress College was right to publicly admonish unprofessional behavior by faculty. This WOKE INTOLERANCE backfired horribly on Evergreen State.

    But at the same time, I hope this foolish woman is leaving of her own accord and not being forced out. I suppose she has a right to her opinion, and she could be forgiven ONCE for unprofessional conduct. Maybe she would rather leave than be forgiven. That wouldn’t surprise me.

    For those on this comment board who are attacking the rest of us instead of condemning abusive behavior by a leftwing educator, I hope our kids are never instructed by you. If they are, they’ll wind up like her–mad and broke for nothing.

  4. Awww….that’s so cute to have this utopian view of society where the police will arrive to save the day and protect all citizens, regardless or race, creed, color and/or religion. The first thing everyone has to do is realize that the police will react differently when dealing with White people in White neighborhoods than they do with all others on non-White neighborhoods. We have to also admit that racism exists in this country and the police departments are microcosms of this society. Whomever cannot admit/acknowledge those 2 facts is not a part of the solution, but underline the problem: The inability or refusal to acknowledge the problems within the police departments.

    The police are not omnipresent so they cannot be everywhere at all times to protect anyone. IF someone was to break into the above student’s home and stuck a gun in the face, would the offending criminal stupidly let their victim make a phone call to the police and wait for the police to arrive ….AS IF they’re trying to have a shoot-out with them??!! OF COURSE NOT….!! NONE of this is happening. The student will be told what to do and, if they even have half a brain and want to live, they’ll do EXACTLY as that criminal says.

    When the criminal leaves, the student can THEN call the police, but that criminal is long gone. When the police arrives, they’re only there to do a report. That, in itself, is NOT protection of the student.

    As a law-abiding citizen, I’ve taken it upon myself to arm myself and become a firearms instructor. If some fool breaks in my house, I have no intention of siting around the fireplace singing kum-by;yah with them criminal(s).He/they will IMMEDIATELY learn that they chose the EXACT WRONG house to break into.

    2. “The first thing everyone has to do is realize that the police will react differently when dealing with White people in White neighborhoods than they do with all others on non-White neighborhoods.”

      No, some neighborhoods react poorly to the police and then lawyer up or riot.

      “As a law-abiding citizen, I’ve taken it upon myself to arm myself and become a firearms instructor.”

      Better, but I’m still struggling to understand how these two statements came from the same brain.

  5. Look, unless we parents do something about it, there is no reason for professors and teachers to stop dragging Leftist politics into the classroom. Conservative viewpoint are punished. Leftist viewpoints are put forth as Gospel. All the complaining in the world won’t change anything unless we take action.

    Sue schools, take students out of class, protest, and/or choose a university that actually is tolerant. Parents are afraid to criticize Democrats taking over education, because they fear being financially ruined, canceled, fired, driven out of business, or any of the other cutthroat means the Left employs to punish political dissent.

    Educators should leave their personal political beliefs at the door. It shouldn’t matter if a math or science teacher is a communist or capitalist. Personal beliefs should not be voiced in class. Stop brining up politics in classes that have nothing to do with politics. Classes that do concern politics must be non biased and tolerant of opposing views. K-grad schools have devolved to indoctrination Youth Camps.

    The alternative is to enable a single party propaganda machine to encompass education.

    This harassment must not be allowed to continue.

    1. It also bears adding that this professor is ignorant if she thinks that law enforcement was created to catch runaway slaves. If she’d spent the slightest bit of effort reading about early settlers, she would have read about primitive jails, courts, and constables. Get a group of people together, and someone will eventually run afoul of the rest.

      This furthers the reputation for ignorance and disregard for facts of this anti-police BLM movement.

        1. Aninny:
          Police forces predated the Civil War genius. Richmond had one in 1805 and less than 2% of the population owned slaves. Philly had one in 1751. Quit the make believe. You look stupider than usual and that’s saying something.

          1. Et Al:

            Some people/attorneys might consider passing this info along to others & saving it for themselves.

            ***

            Emergency Saturday Broadcast: The Next Phase Of The Great Reset Is Here

            122,614 views

            May 1, 2021
            Share
            Download
            The Alex Jones Show
            The Alex Jones Show

            Globalist are now announcing permanent lockdowns and forced inoculations including the military. Professor Francis Boyle breaks down international and national law on how forced inoculations are illegal and how you can stop them.

            Save 40% on our hottest products during our Restocked & Reloaded Sale!

            https://banned.video/watch?id=608dc8a8af877908d6e983a1

          2. “Police forces predated the Civil War genius.”

            Duh. I’ve never suggested otherwise.

            “Quit the make believe.”

            I have not started any make believe, so there’s nothing to quit.

            I have now posted 3 different links (one in my 7:01 PM comment, two in my 12:35 PM comment) for those who want to read some non-make-believe history. Do you want to do that, mespo727272?

  6. I worked in university accreditation (program) for more than a decade and evaluated programs for site visits, reading documents, writing reports and evaluating policies. Our reports were entered into the public record for the USDE and CHEA (Council for Higher Education). The reason programs face rigorous accreditation is a quality assurance that when a student goes into debt and invests precious time into an academic career, the institution they are attending must meet educational standards which are stated in the program’s published MGOs (mission goals and objectives).

    Universities should tread lightly and stick to their stated educational policies. Alumni and students can vote with their pocketbooks. Funding, especially for university research, is scarce and if the rogue professors are not reigned in to provide the educational experience the student is paying for they may face a backlash not only for the institution for which they work but for their university careers.

    If I saw this kind of behavior at my Alma Matters, I would cut off any present or future support.

    It would be most interesting to see what the “professor” would actually do in case of an emergency. The student was the grownup in the room.

  7. What can we do with such ignorant professors. Like many of our bloggers on this blog she doesn’t know her history.

    Police predate slavery in the US, predate the US. In fact police predate the West as we know it.

    The Egyptians and the Chinese had police. We are talking about a thousand or two thousand BC. I wonder if that professor ever heard of the ancient country Babylonia that no longer exists. Babylonia had police.

    For the Western word Greece had police as did Rome, but the police in Greece in part were actually slaves.

    The ignorance of the left is astounding and we can hear such ignorance repeated day after day on this blog.

  8. The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    “In Birmingham they love the governor (boo-hoo-hoo)”
    “Now we all did what we could do
    “Now Watergate does not bother me
    “Does your conscience bother you?
    “Tell the truth”

    – Lynyrd Skynyrd
    ______________

    “It’s time to get on Olde Paint,”
    “And get the —- where you ain’t!”

    – Anonymous
    ___________

    “They said they wanted freedom.”
    “What they really wanted was ‘free-stuff’ from the white man’s money!”

    – Anonymous
    ___________

    Affirmative action, quotas, generational welfare, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HHS, HUD, Obamacare, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination,” etc., are all unconstitutional, even for foreign-invader, Islamic, striking, hyphenate pseudo-professors.

    1. George:

      You stated: “Affirmative action, quotas, generational welfare, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HHS, HUD, Obamacare, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination,” etc., are all unconstitutional, even for foreign-invader, Islamic, striking, hyphenate pseudo-professors.”

      Ironically, there are more poor White people then poor Black people on these SAME programs that you listed. This fact was made publicly known during the 2008 campaign season where then-candidate Barack Obama was running for president. Are you also claiming that discrimination IS constitutional?

      On the religion diatribe…..are you also admitting that there are foreign-invader Christian, hyphenate pseudo-professors in the USA??!! Jesus/`Isa was CLEARLY not born in the USA or even in this hemisphere!! A person, in fact, can migrate here from ANY country in the world, and continue to practice their cultures, language, religion and there’s NOTHING in the US Constitution that claims otherwise.

      1. Galen, let me introduce you to George, one of the regulars here. If you read more of his comments, you’ll learn that George is a white nationalist and a misogynist

        1. You forgot the truth and fact of the matter, comrade parasite, strict constitutionalist.

          1. You are not a strict Constitutionalist, George. If you were, you’d accept that the Constitution can be amended. You are a bigot who picks and chooses what parts of the Constitution you want to accept.

            1. The unconstitutional deployment of armed force and brutal post-war military occupation are not part of the amendment process.

              1. Ratifying three amendments would be, nay, is impossible.

                One is difficult enough.

                Tyranny, oppression and brute military force were absolutely necessary for the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) successors of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln to raze the original intent of the Founders, nullify the “manifest tenor” of their Constitution and begin the forcible imposition of the Communist Manifesto.

        2. “Galen, let me introduce you to George…”

          Galen, this character is Anonymous the Stupid known for being on the blog most of the 24 hour day. He pretends that many of his posts aren’t his but most are. He even posts using pretend friends. He isn’t very smart and you can see that in his posts. He will now respond to me and then a pretend friend will write +100 and another pretend friend will write a note agreeing with Anonymous the Stupid. He has an anti-social personality best suited for anonymous insults.

          Why does he think he has to introduce you to George? That is part of his pathology.

        3. Which is to say, dear deluded Galen, that George eats aninny’s lunch most every day.

          1. On the contrary, deluded mespo, we mostly ignore each other.

            I doubt that George would approve of my world cuisine lunches anyway.

      2. Freedom of speech, thought, press, propagation, religion, belief, assembly, segregation and every other, conceivable, natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment, and General Secretary Galen posits that Americans may not differentiate or, otherwise, hold an opinion, which, by definition, comprises the act of discriminating. Are you out of your —-ing mind, comrade? You subscribe to the Communist Manifesto and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” You don’t like freedom, go back to the —-hole country you came from (I hope that’s not too harsh, I do so love etiquette – like the American Founders did vis-à-vis the British in 1776).

        And, need I remind you, everything “Crazy Abe” and his despotic successors did in their “Reign of Terror” was, and remains, unconstitutional, including the imposed-by-military-force “Reconstruction Amendments.”. Your words, “black people” became illegal aliens requiring immediate deportation upon the illicit issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation, as the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect in 1863 requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s).” A definitive, dispositive conundrum; wouldn’t you agree? Interestingly, illegal deportation is no more legal or moral than illegal importation. Illegal emigration is no more legal or moral than illegal immigration and communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) do illegal immigration as a regular exercise in national dilution, election fraud and vote tampering. But then communism is designed to be global, right. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln had no power or authority to deny secession not prohibited by the Constitution, prosecute a war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, suspend Habeas Corpus, confiscate legal and deeded property, or improperly amend the Constitution by brute military force, read the amendment process in the Constitution.

        You suggest there was no restriction on the American concept of religion yet citizens must have been “…free white person(s)…” per the Naturalization Acts of the Founders, and voters must have generally been male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres, understanding that Americans and Europeans were distinctly Christian, and that religious freedom was designed to persist among Christian denominations. What could possibly be the point of introducing the mortal enemies of Christians into to the obviously Christian United States. You are patently treasonous and insidious as an anti-American mortal enemy yourself, “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

        Allow me to introduce you to the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 provides Congress the power to tax for only “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific Welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article restricts regulation to money, the “flow” of commerce among the states, and land and naval Forces, while the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, denying Congress any power to “claim or exercise dominion” over any and/or all private property. Welfare, affirmative action, quotas, food stamps, forced busing, social services, rent control, minimum wage, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Obamacare, “Unfair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, “hate crime” laws and all other aspects and facets of the American welfare state are irrefutably unconstitutional.

        The unconstitutional nullification of the Constitution and the Founders’ America began in 1860.

        The unconstitutional imposition of the Communist Manifesto began in 1860.
        ____________________________________________________________

        “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

        – Declaration of Independence, 1776
        _____________________________

        Next question.

  9. I have been an adjunct professor at the local University teaching a specialized structural engineering class. Paid $5000 a semester. Never once did any lecture or conversation devolve into politics. Same when I took my engineering classes 40 years ago. We always discussed stress, strain, modulus of elasticity, and other engineering principles. Gee I wonder why? I did graduate Cum Laude from University of Missouri with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Proud of it. Engineering is a difficult discipline. Should be that way.

    1. OMG!

      The dreaded reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic!!!

      Oh, and Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison et al. and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        1. Of course.

          I digress for effect and now defer.

          Your charges leave campus laden with product sans indoctrination.

          Congratulations, Professor.

    2. Did you take any social science courses as part of your breadth requirements, or did UM not require that?

  10. Music
    California here I come!
    Right back where I started from.
    I’m a Nazi and. Commie..
    I blame it both…
    On my mommie!

  11. Turley; “… abuses by some officers should not lead to *sweeping condemnations of the entire profession.*”

    Case in point:

    Turley: “Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona *but many of our colleges.*

    2. SIlberman gives false equivalency in a clear attempt to deflect from a correct analysis.

      Why visit here all the time if you don’t like what’s written? We can read your sort of “thoughts” everywhere else if we so choose.

    3. “Turley: ‘Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona *but many of our colleges.*'”

      JS, meet the Turley blog — where its host, Jonathan Turley, has blogged countless times about such issues at colleges around the country. And whose host, as a keen observer of the culture, no doubt knows of countless other such cases.

      (Seek and ye shall find.)

  12. Even in the wildest reaches of the imagination, I could not have foreseen that the Marxist would come to endorse the white supremacist view of history. It seemed inconceivable that Marx could be seduced by Hitler. And yet “critical race theory” is as obsessed with race as were the Nazis. According to the new generation of Marxists, the political struggle is not about class war but race war; it’s not about a struggle between the classes but a struggle between the races. Like the Nazis, the critical race theorists don’t believe that racism is a prejudice in individuals but is something determined by history. It is not something evil in the heart of men but something systemic in history itself. Since this is so, the solution is not teaching and preaching the love of neighbour but the destruction of the “system.” And since the “system” is history itself, the final solution is the cancelling of the past, the utter erasing of the collective cultural memory of the people.
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/04/when-hitler-seduces-marx-joseph-pearce.html?mc_cid=163892e296&mc_eid=c1f326aae5

    1. Boom! We’re headed in the same direction. January 20, 2021 = January 30, 1933. When will people wake up to realize that fascism is the flip side of the same coin as communism. Oppression, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right is evil.

  14. “There are growing complaints about faculty using classes for raw advocacy or political diatribes.”

    Yep. It’s inappropriate on the right and the left.

    Here’s an example on the right, where the substitute teacher — who is also an elected state representative — not only introduced a variety of inappropriate religious content, but assaulted a student and has now been arrested –
    https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article251069219.html

  15. Once again, JT embeds a video that cannot be viewed without creating a Google account.

  16. “The professor insists (wrongly) that the police were created to track down runaway slaves. There may be places where the first official law enforcement bodies were created for such a purpose, but most police departments were obviously not created for such a purpose.”

    It was widespread in the South:
    “In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path [than in the North]. The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel 1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an agricultural caste system, and enforcing “Jim Crow” segregation laws, designed to deny freed slaves equal rights and access to the political system.”
    https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf

    “Policing in southern slave-holding states followed a different trajectory—one that has roots in slave patrols of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and police enforcement of Jim Crow laws in the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.”
    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/how-you-start-is-how-you-finish/

    1. I don’t think anyone is denying that there were slave patrols in the South during the time of slavery. Also, I think people agree that SOME of the roots of policing in the South were slave patrols and policing of Jim Crow laws. But these truths have been morphed into naive claims that “policing was created out of the slave patrols”.
      Actually, there are crimes where ever there are civilizations and so the roots of policing goes back thousand of years and can be seen in multiple continents. You can read about the history of policing in England, the primary country where the people in leadership in the colonies came from.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#History

      1. Perpetua of Carthage was cool. I don’t know what she would have made of today’s snowflakes.

  17. I think it may be a lie that this woman wouldn’t call for police assistance if a man was breaking into her home. She may be telling the truth but it is my opinion that she what she is saying is true then she is so naïve as to honestly not even able to imagine what hearing strange sounds from her basement would feel like.

    I am guessing, only guessing, but I assume that this woman is also a righteous crusader against violence against women, as we should all be. I also assume that she is anti-gun and this begs the question of how she would help women against violent men.

    1. Among the non-violent ways to prevent violence is to raise children not to be violent, to encourage lawmakers to pass relevant legislation, and to shun people who advocate violence.

      1. Well the next time you think someone is breaking into your home please make sure to “raise children not to be violent, to encourage lawmakers to pass relevant legislation, and to shun people who advocate violence”. This is the ideas of a blackboard philosopher. This is the kind of mindless feel good baloney that solves a problem in a macro simplistic way while at the same time ignoring the issue at hand and the actual safety of real people.

        1. I should have said “reduce” rather than “prevent,” as there is no way to absolutely prevent violence, even policing doesn’t do that.

          Reducing violence requires a multipronged approach that includes policing AND also includes the things I mentioned. If you are unable to join me in saying so, I feel sorry for you.

      2. Among the non-violent ways to prevent violence is to raise children not to be violent

        Thats the way things were since the pilgrims. People formed families, and families formed churches, and then they formed communities. The communities formed Peace officers, to enforce the laws formed by the people.
        Families sought moral teachings (non-violence) from the churches.
        I’m glad you are ready to bring God back into the public schools.

        1. No, I’m a non-violent atheist, and given the amount of religious violence in the world — both present-day and historical (think of the Crusades, for example) — you’d better double-check your assumption that religion is helpful in countering violence.

          1. Pilgrims, churches, moral teachings, bring God back into our lives. Clearly Iowan2 was speaking of Christianity. Evil isn’t embedded in the teachings of Jesus Christ any more than a firearm is embedded with evil use. Evil comes from human nature. You better double check your Marxist assumptions that Christianity isn’t helpful in countering violence.

            1. “Evil comes from human nature.”

              Which is irrelevant to someone’s desire to unconstitutionally bring bring their “God” into the public schools.

              Some religious people are moral and some aren’t. Some non-religious people are moral and some aren’t. I haven’t seen any evidence that religious people are more moral on average than non-religious people. If you have evidence of that, I’d love to see it.

              If Iowan2 were more moral, he wouldn’t use dishonest rhetoric like “I’m glad you are ready to bring God back into the public schools,” when I believe nothing of the sort.

              “You better double check your Marxist assumptions that Christianity isn’t helpful in countering violence.”

              You’d better (re)read the history of religiously-motivated Christian violence, such as The Crusades.

            2. “. . . check your Marxist assumptions that Christianity isn’t helpful in countering violence.”

              How is Christianity helpful in “countering violence”?

              The logic of its ideology and its history speak otherwise. (And to believe so is not just a “Marxist assumption.”)

              (With due respect, I think you know that I am an atheist, but not a militant one.)

              1. The logic of its ideology and its history speak otherwise.

                How so? What is the logic of Christianity that you perceive doesn’t teach non-violence? Atheism and Christianity are no guarantors of nonviolence. History has proven that. Yet to this day, oppression, violence and genocide are not found in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is however found in countries hostile to Christianity.

                1. “How so? What is the logic of Christianity that you perceive doesn’t teach non-violence?”

                  There are a number of such elements. Here’s just one, in a highly abbreviated form: Christianity places faith over reason. That leaves only one means of settling disputes — physical force, i.e., the use of violence. See, for instance, the bloody history of religious wars and of theocracies.

                  1. Christianity places faith over reason. That leaves only one means of settling disputes — physical force, i.e., the use of violence.

                    If you’re going to abbreviate, at least leave in the part that’s rational. Cite where in Christianity it tells people that faith trumps reason, and the only way to settle disputes is through violence? Humanity does have a bloody history. Pre-enlightenment era was certainly the low point for “Christian” leaders. However since, inhumanity has been the hallmark of those hostile to people that won’t elevate the state above God. And it’s not even close.

                    1. Why do you put “Christian” in quotation marks there? How do you distinguish between “Christians” and Christians?

                      As for “inhumanity has been the hallmark of those hostile to people that won’t elevate the state above God,” inhumanity has also been a hallmark of those hostile to people who won’t elevate the former’s God above all sorts of things, including the state and the latter’s God (if different).

                      Inhumanity is a hallmark of hostile peoples of all sorts.

                    2. Why do you put “Christian” in quotation marks there?

                      For emphasis.

                    3. “Cite where in Christianity it tells people that faith trumps reason . . .”

                      That’s standard Christianity. See Augustine, et al.

                      “and the only way to settle disputes is through violence?”

                      That’s a logical consequence of putting faith (or anything) above reason. And that logic can be seen in the ideology’s history.

                      “However since, inhumanity has been the hallmark of those hostile to people that won’t elevate the state above God.”

                      Submit to the voice of God or to the voice of the state are flip sides of the same coin.

                      “Pre-enlightenment era . . .”

                      What you’re missing in the history of Christianity (and of all religion) in the West, is that Christianity’s push for faith and obedience to a higher authority were neutered by the Enlightenment values of reason individualism, and capitalism.

                    4. What you’re missing in the history of Christianity (and of all religion) in the West, is that Christianity’s push for faith and obedience to a higher authority were neutered by the Enlightenment values of reason individualism, and capitalism.

                      It had the opposite effect on me. I spent most of my adult life as an agnostic, trying to be an atheist. I also spent that time ignorant of history, our nation’s founding and U.S. civics. So in 2007 I began studying. And the more I learned, the more I realized the brilliance and humility of those that founded this nation. I then asked myself one question that changed my life; how could the founders be so right about our constitutional republic and at the same time, be absolutely wrong about the existence of God. It was worth studying as well.

                      Submit to the voice of God or to the voice of the state are flip sides of the same coin.

                      No doubt some unenlightened people believe that. I believe we have rights that preexist any form of government. They exist because we exist. They exist regardless of how we believe we were created.

                    6. You don’t have to choose between them. Many people are agnostic atheists.

                      Sure. I could have remained ignorant and arrogant. I chose humility instead.

                    7. Being an agnostic atheist isn’t “ignorant and arrogant.”

                      It recognizes that we don’t know whether any gods exist, whether any afterlife exists, what various gods believe if they exist, what various afterlives look like if they exist, …

                      People can have faith in those things, but any intellectually honest person should be agnostic (whether an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist), because we do not KNOW.

                    8. Being an agnostic atheist isn’t “ignorant and arrogant.”

                      An intellectually honest person would seek to know what they don’t know. And they certainly wouldn’t tell others what they should be, in the same breath admitting they don’t know.

                    9. “An intellectually honest person would seek to know what they don’t know.”

                      The existence of gods and their desires, the existence and nature of afterlives isn’t something we can know.
                      That’s why these things are a matter of faith rather than knowledge.
                      Intellectually honest people don’t confuse the two, and if they’re seeking to know something they don’t know, then they choose an area where it’s possible to develop knowledge. They can seek faith too, but again, they don’t confuse the two and claim to be “seeking to know what they don’t know.” Because faith isn’t knowing.

                      “they certainly wouldn’t tell others what they should be, in the same breath admitting they don’t know.”

                      But all agnosticism is is the admission that we do not know. It’s the only intellectually honest stance. One can be an agnostic believer or an agnostic non-believer, just don’t treat faith as knowledge, because it isn’t.

                    10. One can be an agnostic believer or an agnostic non-believer, just don’t treat faith as knowledge, because it isn’t.

                      For some odd reason, you seem to believe your understanding of my faith is that it is not rooted in knowledge; i.e. logic, data, evidence. That is the arrogance I referred to previously. You have no idea what I know and how I came to know it. That is the ignorance I referred to previously as well. Try being humble. You may come to understand that freedom of conscience is a natural right to believe however one chooses to believe. Good luck.

                    11. Of course people can believe however they choose to believe. I said nothing to the contrary.

                      Again: faith is not knowledge. Whatever you have “logic, data, evidence” for, it may intertwine with your faith, but it’s distinct from faith. Just like opinions can intertwine with facts but are distinct from facts.

                    12. Just like opinions can intertwine with facts but are distinct from facts.

                      🤔 So, all those opinions issued in the name of justice, are issued distinct from the facts presented? Hmm, and here I thought facts/evidence are what distinguishes informed opinions from opinions of feelings.

                      You’ve had several opportunities now to simply accept the fact you and I believe differently. Apparently that’s not acceptable to you. Your effort highlights the Left’s assault on religious freedom. Instead of respecting the natural right of others to freely follow their conscience, you ignorantly and arrogantly assert only your opinion is acceptable.

                      No wonder you’re anonymous.

                    13. “Instead of respecting the natural right of others to freely follow their conscience, you ignorantly and arrogantly assert only your opinion is acceptable.”

                      People often aren’t free to follow their conscience. People are free to BELIEVE what they want, but not to ACT however they want on those beliefs.

                      Lots of opinions are acceptable. Just don’t confuse opinions with facts.

                      You ignorantly and arrogantly assert that your interpretations are my actual beliefs. They are not. Those are your interpretations, not mine.

                  2. “[H]ow could the founders be so right about our constitutional republic and at the same time, be absolutely wrong about the existence of God.”

                    With respect to the existence of God, that’s an appeal to authority. You’re better served following Jefferson’s advice: “Fix reason firmly in her seat.”

                    1. With respect to the existence of God, that’s an appeal to authority.

                      In context, it’s the very definition of using reason in the process of gaining an understanding. It’s the opposite of appealing to authority. I wasn’t asserting the framers were right about the existence of God because I understood them to be right about our form of government. It’s a reasonable question. What became apparent to me is the framers created a product rooted in natural law. As Cicero said, True law is right reason in agreement with nature; What’s interesting is whatever their beliefs were, we did not get a theocracy. We got a form of government designed for the security of natural rights. Of those rights, freedom of conscience is listed first in the Bill of Rights. This means I can argue in defense of the atheist, as well as the believer in God.

                    2. “I wasn’t asserting the framers were right about the existence of God because I understood them to be right about our form of government.”

                      My appeal to authority point was in reply to John Oliver’s statement.

  18. The video is much worse than how she’s portrayed in writing. Truly rude and unprofessional. Very glad she won’t be returning to teaching at Cypress, and hope she doesn’t find any other teaching job. She clearly hates students who don’t agree with her ideology.

  19. “the professor who said that she would never call police if she were in trouble because “my life’s more in danger in their presence… I wouldn’t call anybody.”

    ***
    So she is pro-gun?

    On another point, many of the big-mouth, police-hating ‘celebrities always seem to travel in a protective cloud of police officers.

  20. Ignorant and authoritarian.

    More and more Lefty academics have embraced these characteristics.

    Sad, but more importantly, wrong.

    Schools should be places of (polite) debate and learning.

    Unfortunately, many posters here have learned to browbeat, to the detriment of discourse.

    Several of us have commented that those individuals hurt the column – an asset that we all value.

    Fortunately, just as we are learning how to handle those trolls, society will develop ways to handle those academics.

Comments are closed.