http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951

 

what's everyone think? is it fair to suspend this guy?

 

as for me, since its a private uni, i have no problem. it's their university. at least, i think byu is a private uni.

I don't think I like him being put on suspension for it...but it is a paid suspension...and the university has had trouble with him before. If it were a publically funded university I'd be pretty darn angry.

 

It'd be real disappointing though, and say a lot about that particular university, if it dismissed a professor permanently for holding views that were unpopular...no matter how unpopular those views are.

I don't think I like him being put on suspension for it...but it is a paid suspension...and the university has had trouble with him before. If it were a publically funded university I'd be pretty darn angry.

 

It'd be real disappointing though, and say a lot about that particular university, if it dismissed a professor permanently for holding views that were unpopular...no matter how unpopular those views are.

 

 

So you'd be cool with a prof who was a Nazi?

 

 

 

"The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones' theory in a 10-thousand page report. "

 

That's a whole lotta rebuttal.

Edited September 8, 200619 yr by Jenksismybitch

So you'd be cool with a prof who was a Nazi?

If he was tenured and did not violate any university policies otherwise, yes. Presumably there would be quite a few obstacles for such a man earning tenure however...universities do have the rights to choose who they hire, whether the work being done by people they hire is good work, and whether the people they hire deserve tenure.

 

If a professor earns tenure from a university, he should not be fired for his views no matter what his views become. That is the heart of academic freedom. If he were to violate other university policy, i.e. having covered up parts of his beliefs to get tenure or something like that, then the university might have cause, but that's a specific case.

Eh, private university, private business. I don't really care what they do with him. They can fire him for having a bad hair cut if they want to.

If he was tenured and did not violate any university policies otherwise, yes. Presumably there would be quite a few obstacles for such a man earning tenure however...universities do have the rights to choose who they hire, whether the work being done by people they hire is good work, and whether the people they hire deserve tenure.

 

If a professor earns tenure from a university, he should not be fired for his views no matter what his views become. That is the heart of academic freedom. If he were to violate other university policy, i.e. having covered up parts of his beliefs to get tenure or something like that, then the university might have cause, but that's a specific case.

 

Wow.

 

So lets assume that a prof teaches economics for 10 years, gains tenure, and then decides he wants to express his opinions about the wonderful economic benefits of slavery and how we were wrong for abolishing it. Is that something that should be protected under 'academic freedom?'

Edited September 8, 200619 yr by Jenksismybitch

Wow.

 

So lets assume that a prof teaches economics for 10 years, gains tenure, and then decides he wants to express his opinions about the wonderful economic benefits of slavery and how we were wrong for abolishing it. Is that something that should be protected under 'academic freedom?'

Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in.

 

I'll give you geology as an example, because I know it fairly well for some reason. There's a guy down the hall from me who about 10 years ago started pushing the idea that the Earth froze over completely, all the way down to the equator, at various positions in history. At the time, it was considered quite ludicrous. Now, it's become quite accepted. On the other hand, there are still people who refuse to believe in plate tectonics, for whatever reason. Both of those points of view might seem to the majority of people to be wrong, and significantly so, but in the end, more evidence comes out, and it looks like one of them turned out to be right.

 

That a person advocates a theory, no matter how unpopular, should not on its own be a reason for firing a professor. If the professor you're talking about decides to purchase a couple slaves to prove his theory right...then you should be able to fire that prof. Or if the Nazi prof goes out and starts organizing violence against Jews, then of course you can fire them. But the principle of tenure/academic freedom has so many benefits that the few problems and hypotheticals people come up with against it simply aren't strong arguments.

 

It's sort of the same way I view free speech. We might be better off if there were no Nazis or hate groups out espousing their ideology. But we wouldn't be better off if the government told them they couldn't say that.

Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in.

 

I'll give you geology as an example, because I know it fairly well for some reason. There's a guy down the hall from me who about 10 years ago started pushing the idea that the Earth froze over completely, all the way down to the equator, at various positions in history. At the time, it was considered quite ludicrous. Now, it's become quite accepted. On the other hand, there are still people who refuse to believe in plate tectonics, for whatever reason. Both of those points of view might seem to the majority of people to be wrong, and significantly so, but in the end, more evidence comes out, and it looks like one of them turned out to be right.

 

That a person advocates a theory, no matter how unpopular, should not on its own be a reason for firing a professor. If the professor you're talking about decides to purchase a couple slaves to prove his theory right...then you should be able to fire that prof. Or if the Nazi prof goes out and starts organizing violence against Jews, then of course you can fire them. But the principle of tenure/academic freedom has so many benefits that the few problems and hypotheticals people come up with against it simply aren't strong arguments.

 

It's sort of the same way I view free speech. We might be better off if there were no Nazis or hate groups out espousing their ideology. But we wouldn't be better off if the government told them they couldn't say that.

 

until moveon.org told you to change your mind. then you would protest that university.

 

 

just messing with you

Yes. I believe it is. There's a reason tenured faculty positions exist...because they give professors a right to come forwards with unpopular views which are often incorrect but sometimes do wind up advancing the field they're in.

But should this same geologist be off spouting views about economic theory, or slavery, when they have nothing to do with advancing the field they are in? The guy in the story is a cold fusion specialist. What does 9-11 have to do with advancing any ideas in cold fusion?

He didn't make his views in his class. He made his view in papers he has presented elsewhere, unrelated to his work at BYU. Why should that matter?

The guy was a physics professor, correct?

 

And he ranted about jet fuel not being hot enough to melt steel, therefore the building couldn't collapse?

 

That's basic mechanics of materials, the guy doesn't even know his field. I have no problem with them putting a guy who doesn't know WTF he's talking about on paid leave.

Actually, isn't he correct, in a way? I thought the failure had to due with the weakening of the steel and the floor design (trusses and such), not that it needed to melt the steel persay.

Actually, his points are based upon materials discovered in the wreckage of 9/11 that may not jibe with the idea of a jet crash.

 

He cites research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero, asserting those materials show evidence of thermite, a compound used in military detonations. He says terrorists could have never set those charges.

 

I think he's full of s***, but so is half of academe. Just because its controversial or wrong doesn't mean it's fireable.

Actually, his points are based upon materials discovered in the wreckage of 9/11 that may not jibe with the idea of a jet crash.

I think he's full of s***, but so is half of academe. Just because its controversial or wrong doesn't mean it's fireable.

He works for a private institution. Anything is fireable (unless he claims he was fired because he was a member of a protected group).

 

Two different things here, though. Is the University allowed to fire him? Absolutely. Would I run a University that way if it were up to me? No.

Actually, isn't he correct, in a way? I thought the failure had to due with the weakening of the steel and the floor design (trusses and such), not that it needed to melt the steel persay.

 

 

The common claim among doubters of 9/11 is that there is no way that the towers should have collapsed because the burning jet fuel wouldn't have been hot enough to melt steel, so therefore sinister forces must be at work.

 

While technically true (steel will not be melted by burning kerosene), there are many factors this theory ignores. First, kerosene wasn't the only thing burning. Everything in that office building would have went up. Second, buring kerosene will seriously weaken the steel, as you said.

 

This guy also claimed to have produced nuclear cold fusion before. He's completely full of crap. He should rightfully be fired if this is the material he researches and publishes. I wouldn't want my University associated with this man's 'work'

Edited September 9, 200619 yr by StrangeSox

The common claim among doubters of 9/11 is that there is no way that the towers should have collapsed because the burning jet fuel wouldn't have been hot enough to melt steel, so therefore sinister forces must be at work.

 

While technically true (steel will not be melted by burning kerosene), there are many factors this theory ignores. First, kerosene wasn't the only thing burning. Everything in that office building would have went up. Second, buring kerosene will seriously weaken the steel, as you said.

 

This guy also claimed to have produced nuclear cold fusion before. He's completely full of crap. He should rightfully be fired if this is the material he researches and publishes. I wouldn't want my University associated with this man's 'work'

I saw a beautiful demonstration last night on the Discovery Channel of the actual physics involved. They spent a while talking about the pre-911 status of the fireproofing, and how it had been found to be very, very poor in both buildings well before the attacks, to the point that they were re-doing floors 1 at a time. Literally, gaps in the fireproofing all over the place before the retrofits.

 

Their little Feynman-esque experiment was to put weight on a metal truss, and light a flame underneath it with a gas stove. On a piece that was fully fire-proofed, it was able to hold a lot of weight. They then moved the same weights and fire onto a truss that had exactly 1 small segment, about an inch long, that was un-coated with fire-proofing. That point began to bend, and it totally failed right there because it couldn't hold the weight.

 

In tower 1, which stood several hours longer, most of the floors that were hit had been re-coated with new fireproofing. In tower 2, none of the floors had been redone, and it only lasted about 28 minutes, IIRC.

That is what I was referring to Balta. Thanks for expounding on it.