UCF Prof accuses students of "Religious Arrogance And Bigotry" in letter posted on reddit

[Gismo]

http://www.huffingto..._n_1789406.html

Its' hard to tell if the professor or the students or maybe both are bigots in this case. Is it safe to say UCF is full of bigots?

Hello, Cross-Cultural students, I am writing to express my views on how some of you have conducted yourself in this university course you are taking with me. It is not uncommon for some-to-many American students, who typically, are first-generation college students, to not fully understand, and maybe not even appreciate the purpose of a university. Some students erroneously believe a university is just an extension of high school, where students are spoon-fed “soft†topics and dilemmas to confront, regurgitate the “right†answers on exams (right answers as deemed by the instructor or a textbook), and then move on to the next course.

Not only is this not the purpose of a university (although it may feel like it is in some of your other courses), it clearly is not the purpose of my upper-division course on Cross-Cultural Psychology. The purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to struggle intellectually with some of life's most difficult topics that may not have one right answer, and try to come to some conclusion about what may be “the better answer†(It typically is not the case that all views are equally valid; some views are more defensible than others). Another purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to engage in open discussion in order to critically examine beliefs, behaviors, and customs. Finally, another purpose of a university education is to help students who typically are not accustomed to thinking independently or applying a critical analysis to views or beliefs, to start learning how to do so. We are not in class to learn “facts†and simply regurgitate the facts in a mindless way to items on a test. Critical thinking is a skill that develops over time. Independent thinking does not occur overnight. Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend†their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply “pounding their chest†and merely proclaiming that their views are “valid.†One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence.

Last class meeting and for 15 minutes today, we addressed “religious bigotry.†Several points are worth contemplating:

Religion and culture go “hand in hand.†For some cultures, they are so intertwined that it is difficult to know with certainty if a specific belief or custom is “cultural†or “religious†in origin. The student in class tonight who proclaimed that my class was supposed to be about different cultures (and not religion) lacks an understanding about what constitutes “culture.†(of course, I think her real agenda was to stop my comments about religion).

Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct. For the Christians in my class who argued the validity of Christianity last week, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like. It seems to have not even occurred to you (I'm directing this comment to those students who manifested such bigotry), as I tried to point out in class tonight, how such bigotry is perceived and experienced by the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the non-believers, and so on, in class, to have to sit and endure the tyranny of the masses (the dominant group, that is, which in this case, are Christians).

The male student who stood up in class and directed the rest of the class to “not participate†by not responding to my challenge, represented the worst of education. For starters, the idea that a person—student or instructor—would instruct other students on how to behave, is pretty arrogant and grossly disrespects the rights of other students who can and want to think for themselves and decide for themselves whether they want to engage in the exchange of ideas or not. Moreover, this “let's just put our fingers in our ears so we will not hear what we disagree with†is appallingly childish and exemplifies “anti-intellectualism.†The purpose of a university is to engage in dialogue, debate, and exchange ideas in order to try and come to some meaningful conclusion about an issue at hand. Not to shut ourselves off from ideas we find threatening.

Universities hold a special place in society where scholarly-minded folks can come together and discuss controversial, polemic, and often uncomfortable topics. Universities, including UCF, have special policies in place to protect our (both professors’ and students’) freedom to express ourselves. Neither students nor professors have a right to censor speech that makes us uncomfortable. We're adults. We're at a university. There is no topic that is “off-limits†for us to address in class, if even only remotely related to the course topic. I hope you will digest this message, and just as important, will take it to heart as it may apply to you.

Charles Negy

[Triple B]

This probably should be in the MC .... and I can't move it.

[CPR]

It was a great reactionary article. The student that stood up was a bigot. The teacher isn't one because religion isn't based on fact, it's a belief. Sounds like a great professor to have.

[Triple B]

It was a great reactionary article. The student that stood up was a bigot. The teacher isn't one because religion isn't based on fact, it's a belief. Sounds like a great professor to have.

Technically, the teacher is bigoted against religious bigots .... which is a positive.

[SRQ]

easy to love our own bigot, eh

[Gismo]

Yes, the professor in this case may not realize he himself is doing in his email what he is accusing his students of. That it's not okay for profs or students to give instruction, except when he's doing it of course. He said ther are policies in place to ensure that teachers and students have freedom to express themselves but it seems he didn't like it when Christians were doing that. But without having been in the class you can't know if he is overreacting to polite assertions of faith or if the students were going westboro church up in there.

I just think emails from professors to students like this must be very uncommon. Calling your Christian students bigots and mocking them by thanking them for showing the class what bigotry looks like? Rate my prof review are positive for the most part but some say he's an out right atheist that has no problems offending students. Not necessarily negative as just the statement that the bible isn't true, which is his expression of belief, some will find offensive, but kind of hypocritical to say Christians aren't allowed to assert their beliefs. It would be inappropriate to condone outright hate speech in a class however. We can't know which is the case without being there.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Gismo

[Gismo]

It was a great reactionary article. The student that stood up was a bigot. The teacher isn't one because religion isn't based on fact, it's a belief. Sounds like a great professor to have.

I cannot help but reply to your notion of what constitutes a fact and what constitutes a belief. I thought the latter was based on the former.

Christianity is based on facts. Atheism is probably better put as being based on a lack of facts, as most assert insufficient evidence. Most believers assert there is sufficient evidence. Does a non-theistic world view based on the lack of facts, well, does that itself constitute a fact or a belief? Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything.

Athethism would also constitute a belief as you have defined it above. It is based on lack of evidence which is not evidence of anything.

It's a pissing match between theists and non-theists at times. Atheists say "show me proof and I will believe, you cannot prove god exists" and theists will say likewise to an atheists "you cannot prove god does not exist".

In totality I believe the philosophical and historical case for theism is much stronger. All based on facts and reason, that an atheist would however assert are not sufficient. Therefore atheists belief is an "I haven't seen it, so it does not exist" mentality.

Theism nor atheism can be scientifically evaluated. It is by the very nature of God such that science cannot repeatedly test him in any manner. There is no attribute of god that can be measured; what scale is there that can measure the attributes of love, justice, morality, mercy, grace, knowledge, etc? How these concepts are perceived is dependent almost entirely on the experiences of the observer, yet at the same time founded in some universal understanding of what these ought to look like. Can a miracle be measured? No because it is by definition not scientifically repeatable, were it, it would no longer be a miracle but science, and there would also be the risk of the scientists believing the power to perform this miracle comes from himself.

It is impossible to test God in a scientifically repeatable way and would be logically inconsistent with the nature of God. To have a scientific test for God would mean that God would be bound in some manner by the physical, his own creation, and that is impossible for an all powerful God. God has power over the physical, not the other way around.

Claiming that there is no scientific proof for God is consistent with his nature. I hope any atheists or agnostics reading this come to realize the profoundness of this statement and logical inconsistency with the nature of God and the request for scientific evidence.

To demand a miracle from God for belief is also a notion I find absurd and arrogant, to assert that God is obliged to comply with your request in exchange for your belief! There are so many things wrong with this demand that it honestly is the most laughable of any argument an atheist makes. What standing does the creation have to demand anything from God that he doesn't already provide? Were God to grant every request this would likewise make Him subject to his own creation. God is not obliged in such a manner as atheists would like. The creation is subject to the creator, not the other way around.

Asking for scientific proof of God is like asking can God create a rock so massive that even He cannot lift? The question itself is logically inconsistent and complete nonsense. Of course God cannot do something that is against his very nature, but this is the burden placed upon him by atheists.

God however has provided us with enough reasoning power and miraculous interventions (past and present) to deduce his existence. I tend to believe however one of the most powerful undeniable evidence comes when an individual receives his undeserving love, and that it is the calling of his disciples to spread his love throughout as long as hearts are open to it (many are not). As I asked earlier, how can an attribute of God such a love be measured? It cannot, it must be experienced, and for those who have experienced it and come to know it His existence is undeniable. There is no past or present sin or behavior that will keep God from loving anyone. Unfortunately many have not experienced or witnessed this first hand, or perhaps their hearts have hardened to this message, and unfortunately sometimes the misguided notions of his supposed believers are to blame.

[Triple B]

easy to love our own bigot, eh

Of course ... It's all relative. I assume you're bigoted against pedophiles,rapists, racists, etc, right?

[Triple B]

Yes, the professor in this case may not realize he himself is doing in his email what he is accusing his students of. That it's not okay for profs or students to give instruction, except when he's doing it of course. He said ther are policies in place to ensure that teachers and students have freedom to express themselves but it seems he didn't like it when Christians were doing that. But without having been in the class you can't know if he is overreacting to polite assertions of faith or if the students were going westboro church up in there.

I just think emails from professors to students like this must be very uncommon. Calling your Christian students bigots and mocking them by thanking them for showing the class what bigotry looks like? Rate my prof review are positive for the most part but some say he's an out right atheist that has no problems offending students. Not necessarily negative as just the statement that the bible isn't true, which is his expression of belief, some will find offensive, but kind of hypocritical to say Christians aren't allowed to assert their beliefs. It would be inappropriate to condone outright hate speech in a class however. We can't know which is the case without being there.

Not real sure by not being there but it sounds like he was wanting to talk about ALL religions and the effect on different cultures. From this statement, The male student who stood up in class and directed the rest of the class to “not participate†by not responding to my challenge, represented the worst of education, sounds like at least one Christian wasn't having any of that "ALL religion" stuff ... and it doesn't take a real stretch to imagine that happening.

[outrunner]

I don't think the subject matter of religion or challenging notions is the problem here. The real problem is a professor, someone in a position of power, is publicly chastising and calling out students as "bigots". To me that is highly inappropriate and unprofessional. Even if the students had said something bigoted and hateful, the appropriate thing to do would be to talk to those students privately.