Letter to the Editor:Iesue needs to get the facts
Issue date: 2/10/05 Section: OpEd
Today's article on the legislation sponsored by Larry Mumper is especially fitting after Joe Iesue's letter to the editor last issue.
Joe Iesue makes a number of allegations that are based on what he hears around campus. There are no specifics. He is descriptive, with phrases like "reeks of
liberalism," "liberal philosophies," and "trying to recruit."
There are several things that initially come to mind on this topic:
First off, arguing is like warfare. You arm yourself to the teeth with as many facts as you can to bolster your opinion. If you do not, and the other guy does, you lose the battle.
Second, the legislation has an air of condescension and arrogance. It seems like he is implying that college students can't stand the strain of fending off ideas that he doesn't approve of. I didn't know that college students needed protection from ideas.
Third, it appears that with a broad paintbrush, professors in all colleges are being painted as radical left-wingers.
That's like saying all women want to be cared for by a husband, producing children in abundance and never having to balance checkbooks or work.
Most of the professors I've met over 30 years have been diverse, filled with ideas and opinions that vary tremendously.
No opinion is 100 percent correct but there are many valid viewpoints that we should at least listen to and explore.
You cannot really know your own position on any subject if you don't learn everything there is to know about it, which means knowing what opposing viewpoints are and what the facts are.
Mumper's legislation is about stifling dissent, not "protecting" college students. College students are adult enough to hear opposing viewpoints and discard the ones that have no validity.
Isn't that part of maturity?
Susan Easter
YSU Alumnae
Joe Iesue makes a number of allegations that are based on what he hears around campus. There are no specifics. He is descriptive, with phrases like "reeks of
liberalism," "liberal philosophies," and "trying to recruit."
There are several things that initially come to mind on this topic:
First off, arguing is like warfare. You arm yourself to the teeth with as many facts as you can to bolster your opinion. If you do not, and the other guy does, you lose the battle.
Second, the legislation has an air of condescension and arrogance. It seems like he is implying that college students can't stand the strain of fending off ideas that he doesn't approve of. I didn't know that college students needed protection from ideas.
Third, it appears that with a broad paintbrush, professors in all colleges are being painted as radical left-wingers.
That's like saying all women want to be cared for by a husband, producing children in abundance and never having to balance checkbooks or work.
Most of the professors I've met over 30 years have been diverse, filled with ideas and opinions that vary tremendously.
No opinion is 100 percent correct but there are many valid viewpoints that we should at least listen to and explore.
You cannot really know your own position on any subject if you don't learn everything there is to know about it, which means knowing what opposing viewpoints are and what the facts are.
Mumper's legislation is about stifling dissent, not "protecting" college students. College students are adult enough to hear opposing viewpoints and discard the ones that have no validity.
Isn't that part of maturity?
Susan Easter
YSU Alumnae