Eastern Washington Looking at Cutting Football and/or Athletics

[Cataholic]

I think this is only the first drop in the bucket. A lot of schools are going to take some major hits due to this thing, especially in the increasingly likely case of some kind of disruption to the 2020-21 season.

Okay I'll say it before anyone else and the board mediators will probably censor me. Why don't we drop a few liberal art major and keep the stem classes going. Maybe if you really pansy liberals actually got an education we might not be having these protesters and rioters destroying property.

BOOM

Just make sure REAL history is taught and a REAL knowledge of the Constitution. The next question to be asked/posed is who would be teaching?

So we tell people what they can learn.
So we choose who will teach what will be learned.
This thinking historically has NEVER gone wrong.

Isn’t that why liberals are tearing down monuments and statues?

Not sure how you made that connection from my post. To clarify it for you; my comment was in regard to Rick and Bob wanting to determine what people can learn and who can teach them that information. From your post; I presume you agree they shouldn't do that!

I pretty sure that you completely understood my comment. It is just your passive aggressive way of trying save face. Regardless, you disagree with “wanting to determine what people can learn and who can teach them that information” (in your words stated as above). Yet it is ironic that in your liberal opinions the past couple of weeks, you don’t have any problem with protestors tearing down statues or memorials because those parts of history should not be remembered.

[RickRund]

Who would we rather see teach the Constitution: Barack Obama/Sonya Sotomayor or Larry Arnn/Antonin Scalia. Someone that feels it changes with the times or someone that holds to its originality. Same can be said for the Bible. One of our youth group boys once said, well, it is 2010 and things have changed. Can the courts write law?

[The Butcher]

I pretty sure that you completely understood my comment. It is just your passive aggressive way of trying save face. Regardless, you disagree with “wanting to determine what people can learn and who can teach them that information” (in your words stated as above). Yet it is ironic that in your liberal opinions the past couple of weeks, you don’t have any problem with protestors tearing down statues or memorials because those parts of history should not be remembered.

So you are agree with Rick and Bob that people can only learn certain information from certain people? That is what my comment was based on, but yet you try to change the topic.

I would also note; I have not said I was okay with the destruction of property. I did suggest that the founder of the KKK statue should be removed from the Tennessee capitol by the State. I have also questioned why we celebrate the defeated Confederacy throughout our country with statues, names on military bases, etc. These opinions were formulated based on my education as a child, not seeing a statue... But you have chosen the lazy route and put words into my mouth to fit your narrative.

[RickRund]

I pretty sure that you completely understood my comment. It is just your passive aggressive way of trying save face. Regardless, you disagree with “wanting to determine what people can learn and who can teach them that information” (in your words stated as above). Yet it is ironic that in your liberal opinions the past couple of weeks, you don’t have any problem with protestors tearing down statues or memorials because those parts of history should not be remembered.

So you are agree with Rick and Bob that people can only learn certain information from certain people? That is what my comment was based on, but yet you try to change the topic.

I would also note; I have not said I was okay with the destruction of property. I did suggest that the founder of the KKK statue should be removed from the Tennessee capitol by the State. I have also questioned why we celebrate the defeated Confederacy throughout our country with statues, names on military bases, etc. These opinions were formulated based on my education as a child, not seeing a statue... But you have chosen the lazy route and put words into my mouth to fit your narrative.

Actually I asked who one would be more comfortable with teaching the Constitution. Maybe the teaching aspect should be having the two sides teaching in a debate type setting where the student would hear both sides. Something that IS NOT happening in todays schools.

Today's lesson will be: https://constitution.congress.gov/const ... endment-1/
Have both sides discuss. Are there agreements or disagreements to the present movement to shut down speakers we don't agree with?
Etc, etc, etc.

[Grizlaw]

I'll toss your question right back at you. What is the measure of any "real" knowledge? Should the State be called upon to subsidize the instruction of such knowledge? While a literate and learned society is of high value to a civil society, at what point does indoctrination take place when a government funds the learning?

All good questions, and admittedly I don't have all the answers.

No matter how higher education is funded, there will always be somebody who is in a position to exert control over what is taught (whether it's the government, or corporate America, or just a bunch of rich good ol' boys who can afford to donate). The only way to protect against that is to have rules in place that ensure that free speech on campuses is always protected, and that a broad range of viewpoints are represented.

As to the question about how one measures a professor's qualifications to teach a particular subject -- that probably varies by subject matter, but my general sense is that tenure-track professors in most subject areas are required to publish, and publication is generally subject to some form of a peer-review process, and that truly unqualified professors will generally be weeded out by the process. The more important concern, from my perspective, is that the "weeding out" process should not include litmus tests based on political views. Someone else in the thread asked if we'd be comfortable with Bernie Sanders teaching Constitutional law. They were being facetious, but honestly -- I don't know enough about Bernie to know if he's qualified to teach Constitutional law or not. Is he even a lawyer? (Honestly, I don't know if he is or not.). I am not a socialist, so I don't generally agree with his views on economics, but that doesn't inherently make him unqualified to teach the Constitution, does it?

[RickRund]

I'll toss your question right back at you. What is the measure of any "real" knowledge? Should the State be called upon to subsidize the instruction of such knowledge? While a literate and learned society is of high value to a civil society, at what point does indoctrination take place when a government funds the learning?

All good questions, and admittedly I don't have all the answers.

No matter how higher education is funded, there will always be somebody who is in a position to exert control over what is taught (whether it's the government, or corporate America, or just a bunch of rich good ol' boys who can afford to donate). The only way to protect against that is to have rules in place that ensure that free speech on campuses is always protected, and that a broad range of viewpoints are represented.

As to the question about how one measures a professor's qualifications to teach a particular subject -- that probably varies by subject matter, but my general sense is that tenure-track professors in most subject areas are required to publish, and publication is generally subject to some form of a peer-review process, and that truly unqualified professors will generally be weeded out by the process. The more important concern, from my perspective, is that the "weeding out" process should not include litmus tests based on political views. Someone else in the thread asked if we'd be comfortable with Bernie Sanders teaching Constitutional law. They were being facetious, but honestly -- I don't know enough about Bernie to know if he's qualified to teach Constitutional law or not. Is he even a lawyer? (Honestly, I don't know if he is or not.). I am not a socialist, so I don't generally agree with his views on economics, but that doesn't inherently make him unqualified to teach the Constitution, does it?

bernies thoughts on the Constitution is that it does not give enough of anything to anyone. His Constitutional thoughts are very extreme to the left. That is in contrast to what I consider many/myself and its originality. Then goes the meaning of originality. How far do we stretch its meanings? At least we don't teach common core Constitution??? Or do we

[allcat]

I pretty sure that you completely understood my comment. It is just your passive aggressive way of trying save face. Regardless, you disagree with “wanting to determine what people can learn and who can teach them that information” (in your words stated as above). Yet it is ironic that in your liberal opinions the past couple of weeks, you don’t have any problem with protestors tearing down statues or memorials because those parts of history should not be remembered.

So you are agree with Rick and Bob that people can only learn certain information from certain people? That is what my comment was based on, but yet you try to change the topic.

I would also note; I have not said I was okay with the destruction of property. I did suggest that the founder of the KKK statue should be removed from the Tennessee capitol by the State. I have also questioned why we celebrate the defeated Confederacy throughout our country with statues, names on military bases, etc. These opinions were formulated based on my education as a child, not seeing a statue... But you have chosen the lazy route and put words into my mouth to fit your narrative.

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

[Grizlaw]

bernies thoughts on the Constitution is that it does not give enough of anything to anyone. His Constitutional thoughts are very extreme to the left. That is in contrast to what I consider many/myself and its originality. Then goes the meaning of originality. How far do we stretch its meanings? At least we don't teach common core Constitution??? Or do we

Bernie's politics are pretty far to the left. I'm not aware of him having actually expressed a view about Constitutional interpretation, so I don't know what his view is on that. He's not a lawyer, so my guess is that, like most people, he probably hasn't given it much thought, and to the extent he has a view, it's probably more result-oriented than anything else.

[Grizlaw]

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

I understand why Confederate leaders were honored in the South in the years following the Civil War, and I understand why the North allowed those statues to be built. During the Reconstruction, the country was trying to heal, and in order for the North and the South to reconcile, the North had to allow the South to save face to some extent.

Having said that -- it is now 150 years later, and the country is now reaping the consequences of our past. Removing the statues honoring men who fought to defend the institution of slavery seems appropriate at this time, in my view. It should be done pursuant to an orderly process, following proper legal channels, and not pursuant to mob violence. But it should be done nonethelesss.

[RickRund]

If anything the statues should go to a Civil War Museum. With a complete history of why, where, how, etc? My Aunt Pearl married a man from Jackson Mississippi, Buford Lamar Rivers. I believe they had a Plantation. The Servants had their place in the family chain. I don't know of any in my family that cared for Buford but I was pretty young and only met him a few times. Really don't think we would have hit it off very well. His son, also Buford Lamar, who I have not seen since the 60s is I believe the same personality. I don't really know if they hated Blacks per se but they felt they should be in their place. Probably like a caste system.

Some here have said that we need to do "whatever" to rid our society of racism. That WILL NOT happen, ever. We will always have evil, nasty people. If fact it will get even worse as time goes on. Just look at those that want to pull down EVERY statue. I don't want to be around them as they are the evil, nasty people from "the other side of the tracks." They just have a difference opinion of how to go about their cleansing. Well, we will someday not have mean, racist people but that is for a Sunday sermon...

bernie has some pretty strong feelings on the Constitution from when he was elected mayor way back...

[Rich K]

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

I understand why Confederate leaders were honored in the South in the years following the Civil War, and I understand why the North allowed those statues to be built. During the Reconstruction, the country was trying to heal, and in order for the North and the South to reconcile, the North had to allow the South to save face to some extent.

Having said that -- it is now 150 years later, and the country is now reaping the consequences of our past. Removing the statues honoring men who fought to defend the institution of slavery seems appropriate at this time, in my view. It should be done pursuant to an orderly process, following proper legal channels, and not pursuant to mob violence. But it should be done nonetheless.

Kind of like in the westerns were the mob wants to hang the villain. The voice of reason prevails.... "First we'll have a trial, and then we will hang them!"

[RickRund]

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

I understand why Confederate leaders were honored in the South in the years following the Civil War, and I understand why the North allowed those statues to be built. During the Reconstruction, the country was trying to heal, and in order for the North and the South to reconcile, the North had to allow the South to save face to some extent.

Having said that -- it is now 150 years later, and the country is now reaping the consequences of our past. Removing the statues honoring men who fought to defend the institution of slavery seems appropriate at this time, in my view. It should be done pursuant to an orderly process, following proper legal channels, and not pursuant to mob violence. But it should be done nonetheless.

Kind of like in the westerns were the mob wants to hang the villain. The voice of reason prevails.... "First we'll have a trial, and then we will hang them!"

Kind of like "The Oxbow Incident."

[The Butcher]

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

Taking down statues celebrating the Confederacy does not equal the obliteration of the Civil War history. That is just a silly statement.

I find it kind of confusing that you think southern states that are part of the United States need statues to make them feel proud of where they live. I would also be curious the response from black southern families on that logic.

Once again; I do not think statues teach history...

[LTown Cat]

So an enemy defeated should be obliterated? The confederacy states had no right to be proud of those that fought for it? Isn't that thinking the same as someone that thinks only certain subjects should be taught?

Taking down statues celebrating the Confederacy does not equal the obliteration of the Civil War history. That is just a silly statement.

I find it kind of confusing that you think southern states that are part of the United States need statues to make them feel proud of where they live. I would also be curious the response from black southern families on that logic.

Once again; I do not think statues teach history...

I was in complete agreement with allcat. Then I watched the 4-part series "Reconstruction" online. Opened my eyes to why those statues exist. I've changed my view on them now.

[allcat]

When statues and monuments are torn down they are being celebrated. When Black Lives matter paints a street with that slogan it is celebrated. When someone paints over the slogan it is decried as tearing down a monument asking what kind of people would do this. Your monument is my sign of oppression. They also tore down a Frederic Douglas statue.

[RickRund]

Right on allcat...

I also take with a grain of salt anything on pbs. It could be a straight up decent documentary but then again???!!!

[LTown Cat]

Right on allcat...

I also take with a grain of salt anything on pbs. It could be a straight up decent documentary but then again???!!!

I agree. And I’ll still say these groups are going about it in the wrong way. But that documentary did open my eyes to some of the “whys”.

[Montanabob]

Red rag sale
https://www.khq.com/news/ewu-fans-can-n ... 0586b.html

[CelticCat]

Finally decided to venture off the hot mess that is the football board to see what else BN is chatting about, thought this might be something worth discussing. Nope, more political fighting.

[grizzh8r]

Finally decided to venture off the hot mess that is the football board to see what else BN is chatting about, thought this might be something worth discussing. Nope, more political fighting.

How is something pointing out that looting and thuggery in the name of "protesting" is wrong, political?