You know the drill. Anti-gun laws are about to be rolled back. Gun control agitators predict blood in the streets. Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria! The left-leaning media takes the fear and runs with it. And then . . . nothing. Oh yeah, life goes on. Long after the thrill of gun grabbing is gone. Case in point: the New York Times Education section article University Is Uneasy as Court Ruling Allows Guns on Campus . . .
Right. The entirety of the University of Colorado—from the cafeteria staff to the most learned professors—are experiencing high anxiety. Well, actually, it’s just the eggheads who can’t feel the fear and breed liberals anyway.
Nervous nellies like 19-years-and-counting-in-the-same-job-you-can’t-get-rid-of-her-unless-she-sleeps-with-a-student-and-probably-not-even-then Berklee grad and English teacher Karen Jacobs [above].
Ever since a State Supreme Court ruling in March forced the university to allow those with Colorado concealed weapon permits to carry their guns on campus, Ms. Jacobs and other faculty members have found themselves increasingly uneasy.
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said. “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
I love it when English teachers trot out fuzzy math to support their position. Or not. And what anti-gun argument is complete without valuing feelings over facts? None.
Thankfully, the NYT does provide some useful numbers in their useless recap of the University of Colorado teachers’ reluctance to respect State and Federal law (e.g., the Second Amendment protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution).
Some 21 states have an outright ban on concealed weapons on campuses, according to data compiled last month by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Two dozen states leave it up to individual universities and colleges to decide.
Five states — Oregon, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Utah and Colorado — now have provisions permitting the carrying of concealed weapons on campuses, the group said.
OK, back to feelings.
In the wake of the ruling, university officials have sought to soothe faculty fears, recently creating a policy that requires students who want to bring their firearms on campus to live in separate graduate student apartments and cottages . . .
The university has continued to ban guns at ticketed athletic and cultural events.
But that has not quieted the nervousness among faculty members. This month, the University of Colorado Boulder provost, Russell Moore, convened a widely attended town hall meeting to address the issue.
“What was explained to the faculty was first of all, we understand what you’re saying, your fears, your concerns and your doubts,” Mr. Hilliard said. “But just being concerned about the situation doesn’t allow any faculty member to simply cancel class or refuse to teach someone because of the mere concern that somebody is exercising their concealed carry rights in the classroom.”
Touchy feely this:
“The classroom is a place where judgment is levied upon individuals, not unlike a court of law,” said Noah Molotch, an assistant professor of geography. “You interject a firearm and there’s potential for a confrontation.”
Fear is the mind killer, eh?
“unless-she-sleeps-with-a-student”
No grade is worth that form of cruel & unusual punishment.
As to the topic,the implication that us legal gun owners will draw our pistols at the first sign of academic debate is offensive.
Not a very academic debate from the other side, huh?
Universities are not the proper place for opposing opinions. What kind of place do you think this is?
It’s a place where if a student’s opinion opposes a professor’s opinion, the student is penalized until they go with the flow of the professor.
Only classes that favor debate skills over “fact” tend to ignore that.
“You interject a firearm and there’s potential for a confrontation.”
Yes, of course, because anyone willing to pull their firearm to confront a teacher about the B they thought should be an A is really headed for a bright future after their education is over.
This Old West fantasy these people live in is indeed getting Old.
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said. “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
Breathtaking hypocrisy from a member of a faculty that creates a “climate of fear and intimidation” for any student or [God forbid] faculty member who would dare to express a “controversial” conservative opinion. Want to guess how many faculty members at U of Colo vote Republican, and are willing to admit it? Bet you could count them on the thumb of one hand.
Hypocrisy at its finest. Universities used to be a place of absolute freedom of thought. You could argue your stance and would be judged on factual evidence alone, not the emotions your opinion elicited from others or what some professor thought about its morality. Look what this transformation has done.
These profs claim students will whip out a gun in seconds to settle emotional debates. They think everyone else reacts with the emotional capacity of Daffy Duck just because they’re so used to doing it in their lectures. I understand there are some VERY irresponsible and rock-brained college students out there, but for a professor to think that every single person in class is a lit cannon fuse is absurd.
This is just another case in point of how liberals use projection to justify their unjustified fears. I would indeed be concerned if some of these professors had a firearm readily available to them, more so I suspect do their peers in academe. The students, not so much.
It seems that most universities have given up on the first two amendments to the Bill of Rights and most of the others are in peril.
I have this whole rant about supporting the Constitution and irrational fears running around in my head and seem to be unable to form it to a coherent thought. Doesn’t matter anyway. What it all comes down to IMHO is quit and move.
If a faculty member is unhappy or concerned with students carrying concealed, then quit and move to another institutional learning facility which is supportive of their favorite rights and suppresses the ones not liked.
“Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!”
——
Bill Murray, Ghostbusters.
Fear is the mind killer–Bene Gesserit, Dune
I think I got it.
+1 moonshine, i thought of the same quote when i read this. she should be call Dr. “chicken little.”
Why doesn’t she query her fellow academics in Utah, suffering under the regime of explicitly, legally armed students and faculty, to see how it’s going for them?
Or does the horizon from her ivory tower stop at the Colorado state line?
If/When C.U. becomes a private school — which they are working on, in order to get rid of the state government employee system — rather than a public school, then they can ban guns on their campuses.
The only thing holding up the conversion to a private school is the fact that they haven’t figured out how to continue sucking on the public tax tit after they go private. Those stinkin’ taxpayers would probably “create a climate of fear and intimidation”.
When they go private they will go broke. As for as our CCW laws in Colorado they have to follow the law. They went to court and lost. We have had enough “gun free” shootings in Colorado you would think they would get it.
Why do you say that?
Less than 5% of C.U.’s funding comes from the State of Colorado, a number that’s been dropping for years. Their funding comes from (1) tuition, (2) research grants, (3) private donations.
If/when they go private, they can get rid of the state employee system, which we’re supposed to believe is costing the university more money than if they were a private school. Something about the miracle of private enterprise, and all that.
Private entities don’t have to allow CCW on their private property. The reason C.U. lost the case was because they are currently a public entity.
How sad,supposedly bright people who are in an acute state of cerebral vapor lock. Have any of these folks done anything with their lives other than go to school?Is there one veteran among them ?Has just one of these denizens of the ivory tower broken a sweat that resulted from physical labor?I can’t imagine such a life.
Of course these people are unable,incapable and generally dis-inclined to defend themselves or anyone else if it involves anything more strenuous than blaa,blaa and blaa .They will rely upon some lesser mortal handle that .Someone is paying good money for their children to absorb the effluvia pouring forth from their mouths and from their $300 dollar text books.
At least now students will know which teachers are completely disconnected from reality and unable to hold coherent thoughts. It is not often that it is broadcast so clearly for the world to see.
Makes picking classes that much easier.
Intelligence & rationality don’t necessarily go hand in hand. An unfortunate trait seen more often within academia & government than elsewhere.
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said. “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
——
Allow me to translate:
“I’m afraid that students will no longer be afraid to confront me if I offer my controversial opinion as fact.”
Yes, I was fortunate enough to go to a real college, whereas family members went to CUNY. Offering of controversial opinions at CUNY was apparnetly fine so long as you agreed with the profressor, otherwise violence would be committed to your GPA.
I wonder which sort of school this one is?
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said.
Oh really? Then why are students restricted to “free speech zones” on many campuses ? And I believe the fear of offering “sometimes controversial opinions” comes from the fact that most houses of higher learning are left of far left. No problem denying ROTC free speech. No problem denying Right of center invited speakers free speech. I guess free speech must be that of ideas that align with the faculties.
“The classroom is a place where judgment is levied upon individuals, not unlike a court of law,” said Noah Molotch, an assistant professor of geography. “You interject a firearm and there’s potential for a confrontation.”
Really? Just like a courtroom? Who is judging whom? I thought in the halls of higher learning all opinions are ok and there is no judging? Maybe he is afraid his one sided opininon will no longer be accepted. So, this guy believes that someone is going to just shoot the professor or other students simply due to a difference in opinion?
These people have been so isolated behind the walls of academia that they have no clue and must cower like rabbits? Long tall drinks of liberal cool-aide have created irrational fear?
I really wonder how much this “fear” is real or made up. Making up FUD just to get what they want. It make me scared how intellectual these intellectuals are when they cannot rationalize the fact a weapon is for self defense of the person and you can have an all out shouting match about how Colorodo got its shape and not have anyone shoot you — either that or they have watched too much Bugs Bunny — I am lost to their line of thinking!
The reason you are lost is that it is not a line of “thinking” at all, but a purely emotional response (fear) to the presence of guns. If they took the time to think they would quickly–assuming they were being logical–come to a few conclusions. First, if “heated discussions” in class do not result in fisticuffs or knife fights, what makes then think they will result in gunfights? Second, the only people (most likely) carrying will be a very few of the older students–21 plus–who are legally allowed to carry in Colorado, meaning graduate students and ex-military just now attending college. The risk of harm to third persons is statistically insignificant.
Does this mean that in a court of law, any witness should be afraid of giving any testimony that contradicts the testimony given by police officers, who are armed?
I’m referring to police officers acting as witnesses, not the deputies who are acting as court house security. The bailiffs should be armed.
The reason that nobody is allowed to carry a gun in a court room in Colorado — except for police officers — is that back in 1986, a guy named Gerald Utesch shot his wife’s divorce attorney in court. The fact that Gerald Utesch was a police officer at the time he shot Jeanne Elliot in a court room was somehow lost on the secureaucrats.
He was a litigant. And he was a litigant in a domestic dissolution action. The fact that he was also a police officer is irrelevant. The highest number of shootings in courthouses are by divorcing males, and victims include their attorneys, her attorneys and the judge. Even in rural California we have had them, and more than a few benches are armor plated just in case, to allow the judge a place to duck. The local court rules in my county also require police officers who are parties to be disarmed, although they are allowed to carry when they are merely testifying as witnesses.
In CA, you must disarm as a defendent, LEO or otherwise. You may (in our agency, shall) be armed as a witness for the state. I’ve also had defendants try to assault the judge after a ruling. Makes court much more interesting.
“The fact that he was also a police officer is irrelevant.”
Except that it disproves the assertion that only police officers can be trusted with guns in court, while the rest of us have to go through metal detectors and remove our belts.
As far as I know, this was the only court room shooting in Colorado for as long as I can remember.
Fortunately there are other schools to choose from. And teachers too. I think we need more competition in some areas of higher education and more people should vote with their wallets.
Don’t worry Karen, your tenured position is nice and safe. And since I don’t pay taxes in your state or send a kid to UofC I’m not directly responsible for your salary so I won’t care if they keep you and your class around.
Well so much for open debates when a professor cancels class or refuses to teach a student who is lawfully carrying a weapon. They will be the first to cry out about protection if something happens in class. Also if they were good instructors or food service people (cooks) they might not have to worry about students who carry guns. lol
“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
― G.K. Chesterton
It’s horrifying that young people are being educated by these idiots who are not only ridiculously hypocritical but can’t seem to wrap their supposedly professorial minds around simple numbers, statistics, and logic. No wonder so many of this generation are lazy, dishonest, morally bankrupt cowards.
This is the kind of hypocrisy where, when it’s uttered, you just sit there with raised eyebrows and stare, waiting for the light bulb to go off in their head…but it never does. Leftist professors do nothing but create a climate of fear and intimidation for students who have different views. There’s not a doubt in my mind that a leftist professor would destroy the grades of a student he/she knew was carrying. And let’s not even get into the whole “free and open while restricting freedom” thing.
Frankly, it all just sounds like typical gun-grabber projection. The professors know that they’re the types who can’t handle other opinions and would gladly get violent to suppress others, so they fear others will do it as well.
The stoners go to CU and the Engineers go to CSU. Funny how nobody at CSU is having vapors over concealed or open carry. I will leave the implication as an exerise for the reader.
I get it! (Careful about being anti-stoner on TTAG, though…)
you can be an anti-stoner and still go with TTAG drug flow…
I am not a stoner, nor do I drink or smoke. I do believe that weed should be legal. However I vote against making it legal as a FU to the libs that want my guns.
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said”
— Today’s modern politically correct universities are not so free and open. The least tolerant places I have ever known (outside of the US military) are San Francisco and Berkeley California.
The End of Free Speech at University of Colorado?
Sep 18 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/the-end-of-free-speech-at-university-of-colorado/262494/
“With its ruling in the Ward Churchill case, a court has effectively given the university’s board of regents the power to fire whomever they want, whenever they want, for unpopular political speech.”
“Free speech advocates are rightly dismayed by this ruling, which advances an awful trend. Academic freedom is declining. The belief that that free speech rights don’t include the right to speak offensively is now firmly entrenched on campuses and enforced by repressive speech or harassment codes.”
“Campus censors don’t generally riot in response to presumptively offensive speech, but they do steal newspapers containing articles they don’t like, vandalize displays they find offensive, and disrupt speeches they’d rather not hear. They insist that hate speech isn’t free speech and that people who indulge in it should be punished.”
I bet if Ward Churchill had a gun, C.U. would have thought twice about firing him.
But in all seriousness, how many conservative critics of college censorship — including readers here — were in favor of firing Ward Churchill for what he said?
Conversely, how many liberals who defended Churchill calling the 9/11 victims “little Eichmanns” were self-righteously indignant about calling BATF agents “jack-booted government thugs” after the Oklahoma City bombing? And blamed Rush Limbaugh and the NRA for the bombing? Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
The only reason that I’m glad that CU fired Churchill is that he’s a complete idiot and an utter fraud. I’m sad that it took them so damned long.
Sly little John Mellencamp reference ya sneaked in there. Glad you didn’t ask Karen Jacobs to dribble off her Bobby Brooks’.
Hmm. That doesn’t fit with my guess. Recalculating…
‘Shine, the benefit of having Oldtimer’s Disease is that things that happened 30 years ago seem like yesterday, and things that happened yesterday seem like 30 years ago.
I wonder if these people enjoy living in America because they must have forgotten about the Constitution and how we got it. Maybe they wish we were still under British rule. I just can’t fathom how they can dismiss so many parts of the constitution? The University should just revoke their tenure.
I’m also a college English teacher, and I see that my profession is seen as being only a step up from cops here. If I may,
1. Professors are human beings, too. That includes all the foibles, petty jealousies, and quirks of personality that everyone else has. I’d like to believe that we have the usual mix of good qualities as well. We do get paid for working in a field that we love, so I can see why some would despise us.
2. We are not monolithic in our views about guns. Anyone who knows me, reads my blog, or reads my comments here will recognize that I’m a gun-rights supporter, and I’m not alone in my profession. It was a colleague of mine in Nashville, TN who convinced me to get my first gun. I know gun owners at my present college in Arkansas.
3. Tenure is a necessary part of academic life, since it protects all points of view, not just those on the left.
Rock on, pro-2A college professor! I’d like to do that in a non-CA school after I retire, actually.
FWIW, I was once a guest speaker at a liberal college regarding the psychology and temperament of police officers, and the LEO selection process. Ok, flame suit on…
“Professors are human beings, too. That includes all the foibles, petty jealousies, and quirks of personality that everyone else has.”
I agree 100%. The problem is that most professors arrogantly insist that their views are the only right views … and most of the public buys into that.
Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!
Ah ha, Ghostbusters!
Dune reference.
Also, I thought it was odd that a musician would teaching English, then I clicked through to her bio and saw she graduated from Berkeley, not Berklee. Berklee College of Music in Boston is one of the best music schools in the country, if not the world. University of California, Berkeley is the famously liberal UC school clear across the country from Berklee.
Hm.
I carry every day, and have done so ever since the ban was lifted at CU Denver. I haven’t committed mass murder, assaulted a teacher, or threatened anyone. About the only interaction I have with my CM9 during the day is checking to make sure the IWB holster is properly canted for easy access from the 3 o clock position, and then shifting my backpack to my off hand shoulder as I walk to and from the train at night. Aside from that, I don’t even think about my weapon between strapping it on the morning and putting it on the bedside table at night. Everything is the same as it was before, except I have a much better chance of effectively defending myself. About the only hostile environment to learning I’ve encountered are teachers at CU threatening to cancel class because free men choose to exercise their rights.
Professor Jacobs can be excused for her credulity. After all, her PhD is from UC Berkeley. And since she has a PhD, it is her divine right to pontificate on all manner of subjects in which she has absolutely no qualification, knowledge or understanding. The real world, it’s for the little people.
“This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place,” she said. “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
And now let’s look at the perspective of students where universities PROMISE to expel and imprison them for having the means to defend themselves from violent attackers:
“This is a place where we depend on being able to defend ourselves from violent attackers in a free and open place. The feeling among a percentage of students who wish to be armed is that campus police will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
So apparently it is okay if campus police — with public policies and track records of imprisoning anyone armed on campus — create a climate of fear and intimidation for students who wish to exercise their right to self defense. But it is not okay for students — who have never had a public policy or track record of harming people who speak controversial opinions — to be armed because faculty do not like them to be armed.
Does anyone not see the insanity?
Ms. Jacobs will remain a “Ms.” for a very, very long time.
She says: “This is a place where we depend on being able to speak our minds and offer sometimes controversial opinions in a free and open place.” “The feeling among a percentage of faculty is that this will create a climate of fear and intimidation.”
Uh, try thinking outside that gilded box, professor. Who says that a deranged student who takes extreme exception to your views wouldn’t follow you home and shoot you in your driveway?
Dont’ be an imbecile. Oops. Sorry. Silly me. That’s like asking a dogpile not to stink.
Comments are closed.