>> There are two rejoinders. First, the vote to reinstate came from the
>> FULL faculty senate, not just the AFC. Second, the idea that teaching
>> professionals cannot sift through the data and reach an informed
>> decision without a specialist on baord is patent nonsense. These
>> people aren't stupid. If the issue was as stark as Hafernik would
>> have us believe, then the decision wouldn't have been as one sided as
>> it was.
Hard to say. If few of them were scientists, they may not know much
about biology. Or maybe they did agree that he was teaching "bogus"
stuff, but felt that his right to say whatever he wanted in class was a
more important principle.
>> Jim Foley quoted the AFC report, to wit:"there is a prior history of similar
>> complaints (from students) about teaching of evolution, but also about
>> 'women's issues'i.e. abortion and reproductive rights."
>> And then Jim says, "The AFC report mentioned a prior
>> history of complaints about abortion. That's not hearsay."
>> Well, of course it IS hearsay. It is the very definition of
>> hearsay. Who were these students? How many of them were there? Do you
>> know? Did they speak on the record? Were they questioned? Did they
>> give statements that they signed?
>> Please let me know the details about this. Otherwise, this is classic
>> hearsay--second hand accounts of what someone purportedly said.
This is a written statement from a committee. If they're half as smart
as you say they are, they would hardly talk about a "prior history of
similar complaints" without evidence. They probably looked at the
records of these complaints; I can't imagine anyone in their position
not doing so.
>> Further, we know nothing from this small snippet just what these
>> "complaints" about "women's issues" were based on. Given the PC
>> nature of the current academy, one wonders how "bad" these
>> "incidents" really were.
Agreed. I thought about saying in my last post that I doubt Kenyon
lectured for half an hour on the evils of abortion. It could have been
as little as a single sentence, for all I know, but I think even that is
inappropriate in a biology class.
>> <<What more do you need? Hafernik's letter, and the quote in it from the
>> AFC, is as first-hand as you can get without talking to Kenyon or his
>> students.>>
>> We need more than the characterization of the guy who lost (i.e., was
>> repudiated by the faculty senate) and second hand reports of
>> unidentified students making unspecified "complaints."
Contact the AFC then. Or Kenyon. Since he was apparently on this list
once, a number of reflectorites probably have his address. If you don't
like my information, find your own.
>> If you're going to smear someone you ought to have more substantial
>> information than this. Maybe it exists, but what you posted is not it.
>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I thought you were quite unfair to
>> Mr. Kenyon.
I'm not offended, but I beg to differ. I gave the information I had,
which I consider reliable. And I certainly don't consider it a "smear".
Even by Phillip Johnson's account, Kenyon was trying to teach his
students some Intelligent Design; is that also a "smear"?
You didn't address the other claim, about teaching young-earth
arguments. Since Hafernik was not a neutral observer you are not
unjustified in treating his statements with some caution, but a written
statement by someone who spoke to Kenyon and his students and examined
his lecture notes can hardly be called "unsubstantial" or "hearsay"
(which dictionaries define as "rumour" or "gossip"). Still, I don't
rule out the possibility that Hafernik's account may be one-sided; if
you find evidence of that, by all means share it.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder