Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Education United States Your Rights Online

UCLA Students Urged to Expose 'Radical' Professors 1229

rts008 writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that a conservative alumni group is working hard to expose 'radical professors'. The group is a creation of 2003 UCLA graduate, Andrew Jones, who stated that he runs the organization on his own with $22,000 in private donations. From the article: "Jones told Reuters he is out to 'restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus' and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal. 'We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behavior,' Jones said on his Web site." The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UCLA Students Urged to Expose 'Radical' Professors

Comments Filter:
  • by general_re ( 8883 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:43PM (#14529549) Homepage
    ...does not include the right to speak without criticism.
    • by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:11PM (#14529721)
      I don't understand. Do you consider the actions Andrew Jones to be "criticism"? Please explain to me how bounties for outing "radical professors" is constructive criticism, or just plain criticism. Cuz to me, it simply smells of someone not being happy with what someone else told him, and decides to pressure that someone into silence. There is no debate, there is no exchange of ideas, just plain political arm twisting. This is not about furthering academic debate; it's about imposing political beliefs.

      Because you do know what this is going for, right? This is trying to establish that there is pervasive left-wing brainwashing going on in schools. Then Jones can look to Congress to rectify this problem by passing a law that forces all classes and professors to not discriminate against other political (i.e., right-wing) views. The end-result will be that everyone with a bad grade in a class will argue that they got that grade due to political discrimination, and professors will be forced to teach in the most inoffensive fashion possible.

      Between this and the insistence of people to teach ID as though it is a science, the future looks grim for US education. If I ever have kids, I can guarantee you that they won't go to school in the US. Because I refuse to sabotage their competitive future in the world just to satisfy some right-wing nutjobs who have no idea what real discrimination (or debate) is.
      • by general_re ( 8883 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:33PM (#14529845) Homepage
        Please explain to me how bounties for outing "radical professors" is constructive criticism, or just plain criticism.

        The criticism comes after that, I should think.

      • by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @11:07PM (#14530043) Homepage Journal
        FWIW, the attempts lobby a legislative body into something like what you're talking about have already happened []. Here is a snippet from the writeup:

        The bill, with language basically provided by Horowitz, would establish "free inquiry and free speech" in university classrooms throughout the state. The problem, as opponents see it, is that this free inquiry and free speech is going to come at the expense of valuable classroom time. The bill mandates that professors seriously consider and debate obscure, irrelevant, or counterintuitive theories that students might bring to class. According to Rep. Dan Gelber (D -- Miami Beach), one of the bill's opponents, opinions such as "abortion is a sin" or "the Holocaust never happened" would have to be given classroom time to discuss and debate. And, should a professor refuse to turn his or her classroom into an open-ended intellectual food fight, the bill would give students legal standing to take the school to court over the refusal.
    • by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @11:04PM (#14530030) Homepage Journal
      Criticism is one thing, but using such tactics by students, neighbors, etc. for the purpose of "turning people in" is exactly the thing that totalitarian regimes are known to do. They try to make it a hostile environment to any opinion that isn't sanctioned by the group that sets up this sort of thing.
    • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @11:21PM (#14530129) Homepage
      The students in the classrooms can interact and criticize all they like. The professors are probably poli-sci, philosophy, or socology teachers; i'd expect that all that they do is argue with students.

      "Without criticism"? This isn't criticism, this is rightist ideological monitoring with intent to intimidate and/or destroy professors who don't espouse rightist viewpoints. This is a program to shut people up. to create a rightist country. to eliminate even the slightist whiff of anything to the left of Ronald Reagan, who is today something of a commie by rightist standards.

      students today think that "60 Minutes" is a leftist TV program. They've already been indoctrinated with rightist viewpoints. The spectrum has been slammed to the right by intimidation just like this in the media and the schools. I don't know what an extremist would be, in this climate. Who's to the right of Cheney? What spectrum? It's bivalued: Bush and Cheney on the "right" and everyone else is the "left". The new definitions don't recognize extremism on the right.

      America doesn't even have a left, anymore. I don't see many socialists running around. And no, not being a rightist doesn't automatically make one a "socialist".

      Brings to mind that other article on slashdot about college students not being literate enough to parse a political argument. Might not be stupidity; might just mean they haven't been exposed to any real political thought besides Limbaugh for the last decade. Semantically mindwrecked, incapable of being reasoned with. Filled with Truthiness.

      Germany did this in the thirties. A little nip at a time. Now they come for the professors.

      This is fascism. Don't say it's not because a "private" group is doing it. Fascism BY DEFINITION is a partnership of government and private concerns acting in concert. The "non-government" types perform the deeds the government can't yet do; you'll find that the personel switch between government and private employment at will.

  • Dumb idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by YIAAL ( 129110 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:43PM (#14529551) Homepage
    As I've noted elsewhere, [] it's OK to argue for more intellectual diversity on faculties, and it's okay to complain about faculty members who bully students with different views. But the UCLA effort sloppily confuses the two and winds up looking like a blacklist, blowing its credibility in the process.
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:44PM (#14529555) Journal
    When someone mentions a radical professor, I'm thinking of one pulling a 360 on a skateboard in a half pipe.

    But once you got someone pegged as radical, what do you do then? Just warn kids picking classes about him? Or what?
  • by thewldisntenuff ( 778302 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:45PM (#14529562) Homepage
    a way to balance classrooms as much as it's a witchhunt for "undesirables" and those who aren't quite right-of-center (Academia is considered to be more liberal than conservative, or at least it's presented as such). It shouldn't be allowed - What ever happened to the time when you could disagree with someone, but still respect their opinion? It's gotten disgusting in America - to the point now that you're either with us or just some asshole...

    But this kind of crap shouldn't be allowed. So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.

    • But this kind of crap shouldn't be allowed. So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.

      Just don't express your disagreement, is that it?

      • Not quite what I mean - I mean, you can agree to disagree with someone, right? And you can express that opinion if you wish - but what good does it do to get that person fired over a disagreement? If you've made your point known, then you're done, right? Is there a need to be that vindicative?
      • Precisely. Unless, of course, you want an F.

        The only way I ace political science classes is by parroting the pinko commie crap that the professor advocates right back to him in my assignments. Works every time.
        • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:40PM (#14529887)
          The only way I ace political science classes is by parroting the pinko commie crap that the professor advocates right back to him in my assignments. Works every time.

          You learn well, grasshopper. Now you only need switch to regurgitating Republican talking points and you have a bright future ahead of you.

    • by deanj ( 519759 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:18PM (#14529757)

      So you disagree with your professor? Big deal - take it like an adult and agree to disagree.

      Well, see that's the thing. If you have a disagree with the professor, you have to keep your damn mouth shut, or you'll end up paying for it. Some of these professors have decided to turn their classrooms into a platform for their political views, even though it has nothing to do with the subject they're teaching. Take a class on French History, and you're all of the sudden bombarded with political views that have nothing to do with French History, and then have the professor turn on you when you try and point this out?

      If you walked into a class you needed to have to graduate, and the professor turns out to be a radical right-wing nutcase (or a left-wing moonbat, take your pick) that you disagree with, what do you do? He spends more time yapping about his current axe to grind, rather than teaching the subject... what do you do?

      There's no "agreeing to disagree" with these people. You have to shut the hell up if you plan on passing the class. Meanwhile, there's nothing you can do.
      • by level_headed_midwest ( 888889 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @11:25PM (#14530151)
        I have had experience with this. I had to take an English class whose theme was "War and Society"...and this was in the fall of 2003, not too long after the Iraq operation started. My instructor (a master's student) was very far to the left- about every day he would say, "Did you hear what happened in our illegal invasion of Iraq today? F*** Bush!!!" We had to write largely opinion-based papers and I wrote one that several who read it thought was pretty politically neutral. I turned it in and got a C-. I am not that great of a writer, but I do better than that. So I went and talked to him about the paper. He said that I needed to write what I thought, and being a naive young freshman, I wrote what I thought, which was a little right of center. Bad move: D-. So I asked him for advice on the next paper and what I ended up writing literally made me sick, but I wrote a very left-wing paper and got a B+ on it. He liked to see that he "helped me see the light" and so from then on, I wrote what he wanted to hear and not what I really thought and I did well.

        However, I got the last laugh as when evaluations came around, I wrote a very accurate review of his class that was about as flattering as a miniskirt on Roseanne. (That makes my cringe just thinking about it! Gaaah!) Next semester came and he was not listed as a staff member. I inquired why and I was informed that he was terminated due to bad evaluations. He was let go from his TA position and now had to pay $30,000/year to continue his grad classes. He didn't have the money, so he quit school.

        So the moral of the story is that you have to be *tenured* to pull that crap off in the classroom. Otherwise, it just might catch up to you.
  • Tenure (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bobetov ( 448774 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:46PM (#14529569) Homepage
    You know, I'm generally against tenure, because, well, it lets lousy teachers stick around long after their sell-by date. But this is exactly what it's for. Screw this guy and the nutjobs who are sponsoring him, once you have tenure, there's jack-all people can do to you. Which (in this case) is as it should be.
  • Nazi party (Score:3, Insightful)

    by typical ( 886006 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:46PM (#14529576) Journal
    The Nazis didn't start out in control of the government. They and the groups that they sprang from (nationlist right-wingers with a good deal of support from the military) started out by intimidating opposition and those who spoke against them.

  • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:47PM (#14529579) Homepage
    While most professors encourage honest debate and discourse in their classes, there are always some who use their captive audiences, and discretion in grading, to further their political agendas.

    You're paying for your education. You have a right to critique your professors.
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:55PM (#14529632)
      This is not a critique of professors. This is strictly the creation of a list of shame to pressure schools to micromanage the teachings of professors. Specifically, it is designed to pressure professors to teach the least objectionable content possible - exactly the contrary of what schools are supposed to do.

      Don't like your school? Transfer. There is no monopoly on education. But accept that going to a crackpot school just to hear crackpot theories will impact your future earnings.
    • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

      Of course you have the right to critique your professors. They also have a right to fail you.

      Conservative students are discriminated against in academia. Yes it is true. []
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:48PM (#14529582)
    Indeed, it should be taken as an honour to be "exposed" by this fellow and his group. These are the kind of people that it's good to piss off. They're the sort who either have a vested (often financial) interest in the status quo, or are completely incapable of peacefully accepting the views of others (which in itself is completely anti-American).

    If I were a university student, I would think of this sort of group as a blessing. They'd show which professors have the guts to provide their views without trying to self-censor. Those are the sorts of professors who are worth learning from.

  • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:48PM (#14529583) Homepage

    Someone wake me when it's $1,000,000 and a Stanford grad.
  • Bias in academia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beeplet ( 735701 ) <> on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:50PM (#14529594) Journal
    I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias. When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you? (Hint: It's not that they were brainwashed and indoctrinated...)

    You can argue that academics are too detached from reality, but I think that's wishful thinking from bitter people. All the people I know in academia are well-informed, widely-read, and thoughtful voters. A lot of universities also have many international scholars, which contributes to a wider perspective on politics. They tend to take a less simplified view of things, and to be more open to ideas coming from Europe and elsewhere. And if all that taken together leads one to a more socialist stance, that view should be taken seriously.

    Now, if a professor were to mark down a student for expressing a different view (assuming they were able to defend their reasoning), that would be beyond the pale. But the things this group is talking about hardly rises to that level. There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.
    • by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:58PM (#14529641) Journal
      That statement assumes that those who teach are the best and the brightest...
    • by localman ( 111171 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:08PM (#14529700) Homepage
      No no! The correct answer is always halfway between the opposing viewpoints! Don't you know that if Jill wants half the cake and Jack wants the whole cake, then the right thing to do is give Jack 3/4? Claiming that one group of people might be right and the others wrong is just unfair!

    • There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.

      Depends on the circumstances. When I teach statistics I have no business injecting my opinions about the latest foibles of the administration into the dialogue, unless they illustrate a point related to the course. I do, for example, talk about Limbaugh's misrepresentation of the Democratic/Republican voting records for the 1964 civil rights act - it's an almost perfect example

    • > I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias.
      > When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean
      > towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?

      Respectfully, the days when academia represented the best and the brightest are long gone (if in fact, academia ever did). Standards have dropped disturbingly, even in the most prestigious universities. The top may still be very high, but the bottom is lower than ever, and the midpoint is fal
  • by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:51PM (#14529599) Journal

    At last, we can fill in the missing step!

    The Professor's Secret Plan To Wealth

    1. Tell your students to bring tape recorders to your next lecture
    2. Read Marx to them
    3. Tell them you will tell them were they can sell their tapes for $100 if they split it with you.
    4. Profit!


  • by smchris ( 464899 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @09:55PM (#14529626)
    I've heard of professors who dress up in period costume. Maybe Political Science 101 should be taught by four professors dressed as Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and Robert Owen each defending their systems.

    In just a nod to modern rationalism, it would nonetheless be nice if there were a fifth professor to provide commentary.

  • Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by nekdut ( 74793 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:07PM (#14529691) Journal
    A link to the site in question would help: []

    Not to be confused with the professor review site at []
  • Uh-oh! I think a whole lot og biology teachers are gonna get pegged for their radical views on the "controversy over evolution".
  • by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:12PM (#14529722)
    Academia is very biased. Bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It is hard to study a topic for years and not end of taking a stand on it. The issue is when your bias prevents you from teaching people who have a different bias. In 95% of the schools out there, it is completely and utterly impossible to go through the sociology program as a fiscal and/or moral conservative. At best, you will get poor grades, constantly have to defend your every breath, and receive little to no supporting reading material to back up your views. At worst you will be failed multiple times.

    My girlfriend is a sociologist. The worst case of abuse I have seen was when she took a class called "Capitalism and the Environment". Every single book and handout that she had was without exception Marxist. How in the hell you can justify teaching a class with the word 'capitalism' in it without reading a single pro-capitalist thinker is utterly beyond me. Not even addressing the opposition is the absolutely most dishonest form of teaching that you can do.

    The worst part about this is that it insulates an entire field of thinking from any sort of opposition thinking. A brain dead liberal can make it through the sociology program that my girlfriend made it through. Hell, my girlfriends best friend is sweet, but dumber then a sack full of bricks and made it through with a B. A conservative or libertarian on the other hand would have to fight every single step of the way. Teachers teach nothing but a single side and challenge conservative students every step of the way. I am sure the few conservatives that make it through are as tough as nails, but you shouldn't need an iron will and lead skin to make it through a sociology program.

    I am not sure that UCLA's methods are right or effective, but I am glad that they at least acknowledge a problem. A liberal kid should be able to learn economics. A conservative kid should be able to learn sociobiology. Certainly they should be challenged, but they shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail while others float past by simply nodding their heads in agreement with the subjective opinions of their teachers. Liberals have interest in economics and conservative have interest in sociology. It is a travesty that these programs at some school intentionally try and convert or fail the few brave souls willing to cross the lines.
    • A liberal kid should be able to learn economics.

      You seem to assume that economics professors tend to be conservative. I read an article in The Economist a year or two back (can't seem to find it now), that showed that economics professors tended to be left-of-center in their views on average.

      I guess it also depends on what you mean by "liberal". Professors can be socially liberal while fiscally "conservative", in the sense they favor free trade and other libertarian viewpoints.

      The more common stereotype (
    • by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @12:05AM (#14530360)
      Bullshit. "Bias" is just a way to silence people, without sounding like a Nazi. Thats all there is to this unfortunate word.

      And dont give me the stupid wining about "they teach marxism and therefore i got a bad grade". First of all I really doubt the sociology courses were as marxist as you say, since (i) i have taken some sociology and have not found that to be true (ii) conservatives see marxism in their alphabet soup.

      But lets assume that it is true. Even if it is true it is no excuse not to get a bad grade. If a "brain dead liberal" can understand Marxism and you cannot than you are just dumber than the brain dead liberal. Thats all there is to it. You do not have to agree with a theory to understand it and college classes always test understanding. Thus, you can always say in your exam "According to such and such marxist writer blah blah blah" and you do not need to say "it is my firm belief that blah blah blah". I myself have done this numerous times when I have not agreed with a certain writer.

      If you cannot understand a theory because you do not agree with it, then sorry you have not picked up an essential skill that college is supposed to teach you and therefore deserve your bad grade.

      It is funny how this neo-fascist practice of ostrasizing teachers that hold unpopular views is espoused by people that are supposedly "pro-capitalism". I am also pro-capitalism and realize that the best solution is to let every professor to do their own scholarship and their own research and let the market decide which professor's views more accurately match the reality of the natural world. After all, science is supposed to describe the natural world and not repeat opinions that are currently popular in congress or on the brain numbing political talk shows. And one would think that in a capitalist country, what is good science, i.e. what best matches the natural world would be decided by allowing every one to form their own opinion and then freely vote with their feet and wallets ... by taking or not taking the classes of a certain proffessor, buying or not buying his/her books, reading or not reading his/her research, etc. And the career of any proffessor depends mostly on those things -- how many students take their classes, how much books they sell, and how influencial their papers are.

      But instead these "pro-capitalists" would prefer that proffessors they do not like be singled out attacked and ostracised untill the schools that employ them have no choice but to fire them. These people are not pro-capitalists. Capitalism love it or hate it is entirely based on personal freedom. These people wish to enforce tight social control on individual speech and freedom.
  • Works for me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) * <> on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:13PM (#14529727) Homepage Journal
    Perfectly Capitaslistic plan to me.

    There are a lot of nut job professors... think Churchill [] Hell when I was at Stony Brook I tangled with some nutjob in Womyn's Studies and almost got throw out of school. Ultimately SUSB saw it my way and they gave me an A a I never went back but I'll bet a lot of kids forced into that class just got bullied or thrown out of it.

    Fuck them. Do you job. Don't waste the student's time telling them America is a corrupt regime of facists and that GWB should be impeached for stealing the last 3 elections, and being AWOL, and Katrina, and Plame, and Iraq, and the 9/11 was inside job, yadda fucking yadda. Or that Bill Clinton's Penis (Clenis) is evil and that the Left hates America, is shrill, is on the wrong side of history, is responsible for Wellstone's death, yadda yadda fucking yadda.

    You know what? If a professor is doing their job they have nothing to worry about.
  • by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:25PM (#14529803) Homepage Journal
    The best anecdote I remember from my university days was a literature class. This was in the 80s. A student once asked the professor "what's a libertine?" The professor then gave the text book answer, witha couple of examples drawn form the French plays we were studying. He then said "Reagan. Reagan is a libertine. He as no morality."

    Looking around the class room, I was shocked to see many students dutifully writing down that answer.
  • by Gary Destruction ( 683101 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @10:59PM (#14529999) Journal
    Emma Goldman's words on war and free speech is not allowed at University of California Berkeley as of 2003. This is the same school where the 1960's Free Speech Movement started and apparently ended 0115a.htm []
  • by Slur ( 61510 ) on Saturday January 21, 2006 @11:06PM (#14530035) Homepage Journal
    These Brownshirt students have brought to my attention critical academics and activists I would not have otherwise known about. The way they play these professors up is rather silly, in my view. But then, I'm twice their age, so maybe it's just an aesthetic thing on my part. Still, idealists like Douglas Kellner ( []) are hardly "radical" in any sense. At least, they're no Weathermen. These academics, having a nuanced view of history and a strong affinity with common people, come across to me as concerned individuals of a Liberal mindset - like me the computer geek. Like my mother the folk artist. Like anyone concerned with the direction of our society in the midst of power abuses, rising populism, an obfuscating media, and unjustified wars.

    This student group's attacks are full of cute asides, winks and nods to their compatriots: those sorts of people who think that protesting the Vietnam or Gulf Wars amounts to treason (they like to call it "treason" because it carries the death penalty). The writer makes a lot of fun of Kellner, for example, for doing what many young people did in the sixties - growing his hair, smoking weed, and rebelling against symbols of authority. (I like to remind such people that Jesus Christ himself preached open rebellion against authority, but not all these kids call themselves Christians. Still, they almost universally cite "authority" to back their views, and what better authority than the penultimate divine, right?)

    As near as I can tell this student group is really just a bunch of kids who have glommed onto the extreme right-wing because it makes them feel powerful. They can go around pointing fingers at professors who are unhappy with the direction of American politics - those who refuse to applaud every time Bush tells a whopper or the corporate media cites American mythology - and count themselves among the "tough, rugged individualists" represented by such bastions of goodness as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. They have taken the short road to authority by becoming like-minded sycophants of the Regimented Order. Instead of having a truly nuanced view of human affairs and the politics of power they have attitudes based largely on pure style founded in nothing. Toughness for its own sake. Their kind of strength requires someone else to be weak, and they've chosen professors as an easy target.

    If these students had truly critical minds they would be more like these so-called "radical" professors. They would be more interested in undermining authority, taking the road of self-discovery, and after gaining some experience, perhaps taking part in the unglamorous social movement to restore social balance. They would be less interested in ridiculing professors, who have about as much political power as your friendly neighborhood bartender, and more interested in restoring honor to our representatives in Washington by freeing them from special interests that run increasingly counter to the general welfare.

    Have I said anything too "radical" here?
  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @12:48AM (#14530588)
    In a couple quick looks over the comments I see alot of hand-wringing and talking about how this is a slippery slope to Nazism and oh nos about the Conservatives beating up the Liberals and how the profs need to be able to speak freely.

    What about the student's rights to an education and to speak freely?

    I'm a Graduate Student in History, I focus on the Military History in the Middle East since 1918 and the American West from 1865 to the close of the Frontier in 1900. I've been graded down for writing about the Israeli Defense Forces vs. Egypt and Syria rather than focusing on the Palestinian "cause" in the Arab-Israeli Wars. I've been told flat out lies about the Conquistadors and when I tried to cite facts have been shouted down for it.

    I'm not paticularly Conversative and I don't spout off in classes but I know that I can't take any class I want from any professor I want because there are some who do grade you down for your outlook on History and the subject matter you write about. In Israeli-Palestinian classes as I said before, I've been docked for looking at Arab-Israeli conflicts and history rather than the "occupation and resistance" even after clearing the subject with the Professors. I've had papers returned with a lower grade with the justifaction of "you pay for your focus". I've had TAs stop speaking to me and refusing to let me ask questions because I told them I lived in Israel, was attacked by Hezbollah and have more of an Israeli viewpoint to the Golan Heights.

    Today, in Public Universities I don't see where a Student, at least in History, can study what they want and look at a subject from all sides because many professors either won't let you or punish you for it.

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.