General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy do some pro-gun advocates on DU want university faculty fired?
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SYFROYH (a host of the General Discussion forum).
I can't tell you how many times that I've had a pro-gun advocate tell me right here on DU on that I should be fired from my job teaching mathematics at a public university.
Do they just hate education?
Is it anti-intellectualism?
Have they been watching too many episodes of The Apprentice?
Is it part of some Faculty Union-Busting fantasy?
Why would people who claim to be Democrats want people fired?
We're only three weeks from the Democratic Caucus here in Iowa.
That's a hell of a time for folks on some Democratic website to start telling us that they want us fired from our jobs.
This is not the proper way to relate to voters.
branford
(4,462 posts)advocate firing university faculty for doing nothing else but teaching their assigned subjects, complying with all relevant federal and state laws and university policies, and otherwise properly performing their contractual duties?
Might you actually be referring to your own advocacy of openly disobeying state laws and school rules and policies concerning carrying firearms on campus, with your accompanying surprise that people would expect someone who engages in such blatant and intentional disobedience of student rights and campus rules to be disciplined?
stone space
(6,498 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and in classrooms, as numerous university's have, then you have the choice of either obeying the rules and regs, or disobeying them and suffering the consequences, or you can quit and go somewhere else.
branford
(4,462 posts)and I accurately characterized your real complaint - fear of discipline for not complying with state law and campus policies concerning firearms.
You most certainly are not required to teach anything in an armed classroom or under any circumstances. Similarly, you don't have a right to teach anywhere you please and set your own rules that conflict with state law or campus policies.
If you believe there should be a "professor exemption" to state law, feel free to contact your legislators. However, failure to comply with applicable laws and rules will almost certainly result in discipline, up to and including termination.
If you your current employer, consistent with state law, allows firearms in classrooms, and you cannot abide by such laws and policies, you might need to find new employment elsewhere compatible with your beliefs.
stone space
(6,498 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Response to stone space (Reply #9)
Post removed
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You were told that if you refuse to abide by the university's rules and regulations, then you can either be terminated or you could quit.
It's not in the least surprising that you would distort a conversation, as you have many, many times.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)edit: I was not the alerter, or on the jury, in case anybody was curious. I just happened to notice it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Wow... never seen someone openly brag about it but have at it
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)that the Feds do not enforce current law like mental health.
I want personality test administered to all people who want to bug a gun. That should solve many problems.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)On Fri Jan 15, 2016, 12:23 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
For an alleged calculus teacher,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7531254
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
> "you sure do lack any common sense and logic."
Personal insults just make DU suck.
Please hide.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 15, 2016, 12:33 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Be more civil
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: need thicker skin........
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Given the times that SS was asked to provide proof for his claims of DU members calling for him to be fired, and the number of times he 'somehow' couldn't back up his claims a callout of his dishonesty was necessary.
That said, a need for the OP to be called out for his dishonesty doesn't give carte blanche for personal attacks.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, not there on this one.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
stone space
(6,498 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you can't tell us how many times that's happened.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Now, how about some links to examples of this treatment you're claiming?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Fired"? Geez man, put down your weapons.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If so, you could stand to work on your meter.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Per the pinned thread at the top of GD by Skinner, threads complaining about DU or DU members are not allowed as OPs.