Quantcast The Red and Black
College Media Network

The Red and Black

Search the Archives

 

Views vary on keynote speaker Thomas

Abstract:
Student and faculty reactions remain mixed about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaking at graduation due to past allegations of sexual harassment against him. During a semester in which sexual harassment allegations involving University faculty have come to light, many people have said Thomas is not an appropriate keynote speaker....

  • Displaying 1 - 36 of 36

Janet Frick

posted 4/22/08 @ 6:43 AM EST

Thanks to the student writers at the red and black for their continued excellent media coverage. I'm glad that we are having a campus conversation about this; universities have historically been places where ideas are debated passionately. I think one of the greatest strengths of the university setting is that it can be a place where people on opposing sides of issues can debate, and hopefully listen as well, without resorting to ad hominem attacks (as have been posted on the comment board for the previous story about this topic). I'm sorry that some students are seeing this controversy as a liberal/conservative issue, or as a referendum on the guilt or innocence of people for actions which took place 20 years ago. I chose to talk about this issue in my classes on Monday because many of the students had seen me quoted in Monday's paper, and they had no idea why there would be any controversy over the selection of Justice Thomas (indeed, sadly, a fair number of students couldn't tell me who Clarence Thomas was). I did my best to talk about the reasons behind the opposition while being fair to both sides of the controversy. Under ideal classroom circumstances I would have kept my own personal opinion private while encouraging students to discuss the issue; however, in this case my own opinion was clear because of the news coverage. Still, I welcomed comments from students who disagreed with me; my goal was simply to make them aware of past history and encourage those who are interested to investigate further. I had several students state their support of Justice Thomas in class; I had other students email me after class asking how they could join in a peaceful protest of this decision. For the record, my disagreement with this choice of commencement speaker is about TIMING. I am appreciative of what Justice Thomas has done to help our law students and our honors program. His judicial voting record, while not one I personally agree with, is irrelevant here. But it is clear that he was the center of one of the most public sexual harassment controversies in recent history, and in his 2007 biography and associated interviews he continued to make demeaning comments about his accuser. People are free to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions (let's be clear that there are a lot more substantiating witnesses than there were in the Duke case); I simply feel that in a year where our institution has been been in the national media for our woeful response to sexual harassment, choosing a speaker who was at the center of one of the most public sexual harassment scandals in recent political history is poor judgment.

Dr. Janet Frick
Dept of Psychology
Post a reply to this comment

LimbaughMan

posted 4/22/08 @ 12:05 PM EST

Dr. Frick,

You are sadly mistaken in that there were anymore "significant" witnesses in Justice Thomas' hearings than there were in the Duke case. Your babbling about this not being a political issue is ridiculous. You are just as liberal as the rest. How is a conservative student to survive?
Post a reply to this comment

Daniel

posted 4/22/08 @ 4:40 PM EST

For Dr. Frick to argue that her problem with Justice Thomas is only about timing is quite disengenuous at best. In the quote from the original R&B article she indicated that she felt his selection was controversial because of his voting record and then mentioned his invovlement in the sexual harrassment claims. So which is it Dr. Frick? Is it just timing related to the sexual harrassment? Or is it his voting record and the timing? I have a sneaking suspicion that if Justice Thomas voted like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we would not hear a peep from Dr. Frick or her cohorts.

If Dr. Frick cares to go back and revisit the facts of the confirmation, and not simply what she recalls from the media coverage, she will find that Thomas had been confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals with not a peep from Anita Hill or anyone else about sexual harrasment allegations. Then he gets nominated to Supreme Court and on the literal eve of the vote for his confirmation, suddenly these allegations come out in an affidavit that was leaked to the media after an FBI investigation had CLEARED HIM OF ALL CHARGES, finding inconsistencies in Prof. Hill's statements and an utter lack of support for her allegations.

As a UGA Law grad who was there when Prof. Wilkes threw his hissy fit the first time Justice Thomas came to speak to the law school, I've had enough of supposedly open minded academics who continue to drag Justice Thomas' name through the mud simply because you have a ideological bone to pick with the man. Please spare me the sanctimony about "campus discussion." Anyone who hides behind 17 year old allegations which were disproved long ago is clearly more interested in mud slinging than an academic discussion.
Post a reply to this comment

Nick Ambrose

posted 4/22/08 @ 9:43 AM EST

I, for one, am very excited to have Justice Thomas speak at this year's commencement exercises. Its not because he and I have the same political viewpoint, its because his story is an inspiration to a new wave of graduates heading out into the world. Thomas' story personifies hard work, determination, dedication, and faith... qualities which seem to be severely lacking in this generation of Americans.
The accusations of Anita Hill, and they were and still are nothing more than accusations, did shed a lot of light onto the issue of sexual harassment in the United States. However, the allegations came at the end of a Senate confirmation process that would have been a major victory for the outgoing Bush administration... Anita Hill was gussied up by Democratic leadership and sent to the floor of the Senate with allegations which were largely fabricated. Had the sexual harassment really been that bad, why didn't Anita Hill (who was immensely qualified for any job in the nation) change jobs. Why didn't Anita Hill ask to be relocated to a different department in Washington DC?
Anita Hill's allegations had as much weight as the allegations in the Kobe Bryant and Duke Lacrosse cases.

Clarence Thomas is a true testament to the American dream in an era where that notion is going largely by the wayside. I for one hope that everyone gets a chance to hear him address this wave of graduates.

Nick Ambrose
Post a reply to this comment

Bryan Tackett

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:50 AM EST

"Had the sexual harassment really been that bad, why didn't Anita Hill (who was immensely qualified for any job in the nation) change jobs. Why didn't Anita Hill ask to be relocated to a different department in Washington DC?"

oh, my friend, you have so much to learn... please take an Employment Law class at some point in the VERY near future or you'll be in some SERIOUS trouble. Justice Thomas got off easily because he had connections that i am afraid you do not...
Post a reply to this comment

James

posted 4/22/08 @ 10:09 AM EST

It would be nice if some college professors would "grow up". Better yet, try to get a job in the private sector instead of playing "school" for your entire life. Some of you need a taste of the real world. For those who object to Judge Thomas, I bet you wouldn't have a problem with Bill Clinton.
Post a reply to this comment

Concerned Student

posted 4/22/08 @ 10:33 AM EST

For anyone interested in opposing or commenting on the fundamental arguments that Dr. Frick is making, please revisit your Intro to Logic textbook before posting. Look under informal fallacies and find "Strawman" and "Red Herring." Many of the posts from yesterday and today are either attacking claims that no one is making (Strawman) or they are misdirecting the conversation towards unrelated information (Red Herring). Claiming that Anita Hill should have looked for a job somewhere else is at best a misguided argument and at worst, an attempt to intentionally mislead. Speculating on whether someone would support Bill Clinton as a commencement speaker is yet another example of wrongly framing this debate as conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat, or some other false dichotomy which can be used in lieu of an actual, comprehensive, and thoughtful response.
Post a reply to this comment

Steven

posted 4/23/08 @ 12:49 AM EST

You might want to open up a common sense while you're at it. No one said that someone suggested Bill Clinton as a commencement speaker candidate. The person simply stated that he/she thought that most people who oppose Thomas would approve of Clinton. This was said because Clinton publicly stated (after lying) that he had inappropriate relations with Lewinski. This IS relevant to the argument because a lot of people are saying that they would rather Thomas not speak because of his ALLEGED sexual harassment and that most people would advocate Clinton speaking, even though he admitted to his wrong doings. Put your stupid book away and use some common sense.
Post a reply to this comment

Student

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:12 AM EST

I'm sorry, but James, do you even attend this school? If not, you really have no place in this debate. Ditto if you are not graduating or participating in graduation as a faculty member. I am graduating, and I have a big problem with Thomas as a commencement speaker. Note that I said a *commencement* speaker specifically. I think bringing him to campus at another time for a forum, debate, or speaking engagement unrelated to graduation would be a brilliant idea. He has a lot of things to say, and his achievements are impressive - but for commencement, in light of the year UGA has had, it is in very poor taste to have him here.

I know you really want to believe this is a partisan issue, but for once it's not, and I get the distinct sense that it isn't for most of those who oppose UGA's choice of speaker. For the record, I would be just as vehemently opposed to Bill Clinton as a commencement speaker. Moreover, other commentators on this board, some faculty, have explicitly said the very same thing. So your snotty assumption about detractors really doesn't hold water.

By the way, I'm curious: just what do you think would happen if all these college professors took your advice and "grew up" and "tried to get a job in the private sector"? I know you can't be suggesting that what they do on a college campus (training future psychologists, teachers, historians, theologians, and on and on) isn't valuable. Number one, if we followed your suggestion, we might as well just eradicate liberal arts departments altogether, right? They don't REALLY teach students anything of any worth. And number two, do you know how hard it is to get a job at a university, how much work people do to earn it? Your suggestion that a college professor's life is just "playing school" is not only inaccurate - it's insulting to the scholars at our university.
Post a reply to this comment

CoastalDawg

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:16 AM EST

Wow, I don't often make personal comments related to the posts of others but "Concerned Student" has my head swimming trying to find a logical and concluding point to the post. Aside from that, those who can remember the hearing regarding Justice Thomas' appointment to the supreme court will know that Anita Hill was a last ditch effort to derail that appointment. Her accusations never gained enough weight to cause Justice Thomas not to get the appointment; but his story is about way more than any of that - it is about coming out of a poor black neighborhood outside Savannah and making it to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It's about family, determination, and not being sidetracked by irrelevant issues in life. If one can't see that in Justice Thomas' life that individual isn't looking far past his/her own prejudices. Ask the Duke University lacrosse players and their former coach what false accusations can do to an individual. Justice Thomas didn't allow that - people will believe what they want to believe, truth or fiction. He didn't let the non-believers determine his destiny in life. For that if for no other reason, he's an excellent choice to be the keynote speaker at graduation. To protest is to show your lack of respect for an individual who has made the American dream his by God's grace and by putting all that he had into seizing the opportunity. Personally I wouldn't want to show my ignorance by being put into that negative category of people who strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.
Post a reply to this comment

zdawg8

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:19 AM EST

Justice Thomas has never been found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and especially sexual harrassment. Why attack him like he has been? How would Janet Frick like to be called false names? The whole deal is that she does not agree with him on his decisions and will believe anything bad about him. Just a reminder to some: Slick Willy Clinton was did all of those above charges; even paid sexual harrassment settlment payments. Justice Thomas never did. Thank you for your time.
Post a reply to this comment

FET

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:34 AM EST

Originally posted by

zdawg8

 Justice Thomas has never been found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and especially sexual harrassment. Why attack him like he has been? How would Janet Frick like to be called false names? The whole deal is that she does not agree with him on his decisions and will believe anything bad about him. Just a reminder to some: Slick Willy Clinton was did all of those above charges; even paid sexual harrassment settlment payments. Justice Thomas never did. Thank you for your time.


Right, and no one is suggesting that Clinton should speak at commencement - in fact, they're saying they'd be just as upset about that, so your comment is a complete non sequitur. Keep up with the discussion.
Post a reply to this comment

Erica Crawford

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:41 AM EST

I am a graduating senior and I was pleased to hear that Supreme Court Justice Thomas was going to be speaking at my graduation. Yes, there were hearings back when I was a child, but he was not found guilty; and I feel that this being an issue today is to bring up an issue that has nothing to do with graduation. I know that the University has been going through its own ordeal with sexual harassment and that is why everyone is stirred up; but I feel that he would be a great speaker and I do not want my graduation to be marred by protests and controversy.
Post a reply to this comment

Grad Student

posted 4/22/08 @ 12:38 PM EST

If timing were Dr. Frick's only concern, I could see the potential validity of her argument. But based upon the article it seems there may be other motivations for the opposition to Justice Clarence Thomas as a commencement speaker.

How long shall he carry the ball and chain of alleged sexual harrassment. The answer is for all his life and until absolute death erases him from recorded history (a long time).

Though moral standards are good and right and make possible the civilized society in which we live, they must be tempered by tolerance. Disqualifying possible speakers based upon our own self righteous moral indignation would ultimately leave us without any speaker.

I think a better plan is to let Justice Thomas come and speak while all the while allowing those without moral blemish to cast their metaphorical stones.
Post a reply to this comment

Fearfully Anonymous

posted 4/22/08 @ 1:24 PM EST

Originally posted by

Grad Student

 If timing were Dr. Frick's only concern, I could see the potential validity of her argument. B

How long shall he carry the ball and chain of alleged sexual harrassment.


Yes, that's the core of the matter. First, allegations are not convictions .... HOWEVER ...If a person is accused and convicted of a crime and then pays his debt to society by taking the punishment meted out, do we continue to punish that person?

This is what we have seen this semester. Some of the cases were adjudicated and the person accused was actually punished ... and the events occurred years ago. And, we now want to re-punish? we want to put the Scarlet Letter on all Offenders? Just for Sexual Harassment? or, for all crimes?

The Red and Black did not report on all the cases of sexual harassment and their outcomes over the past 20 years. So, how is it that we are so sure these cases were not handled properly?

Do you really believe the university is not vigilant about accusations of sexual harassment? Maybe, if those charges were leveled against you, you would want to have "your day in court". Do we really have a gripe with the legal system in the USA? You know, the one in which a person gets to face his accuser, to have evidence presented, to be able to answer that evidence. Are we angry because we can not just take these alleged offenders and punish them based on our revulsion?
Post a reply to this comment

Brandon Register

posted 4/22/08 @ 2:11 PM EST

I just wish that the faculty who oppose the speech would be honest as to why they are opposed: because they are ultra liberal and Justice Thomas is a well-known conservative. If it were Bill Clinton (one of the world's best known womanizers) who had been invited to speak, these same faculty would be fighting over who got to roll out the red carpet for him. This lame attempt to defend their opposition as based on sesitivity toward women's issues is so transparent that it makes me want to throw up. But it's also pretty typical, so I think I'll go have a Coke instead. I can't wait for the new bumper stickers...
Post a reply to this comment

required

posted 4/22/08 @ 3:29 PM EST

"But it's also pretty typical, so I think I'll go have a Coke instead."

Don't forget to ask the woman next to you if she sees any pubic hairs in your coke.
Post a reply to this comment

Alumni that will attend

posted 4/22/08 @ 4:10 PM EST

Mrs. Frick, you make the statement: "Under ideal classroom circumstances I would have kept my own personal opinion private while encouraging students to discuss the issue;" . You make this statement despite the fact that you have inserted yourself into the discussion, on at least two occasions.
So, from that I can only come to two conclusions: your ideal classroom circumstances are that everyone hold the same opinion as yourself, ie you don't have to insert your personal opinion because it is one shared by all or you intentionally made a misleading statement that you don't like to insert your own opinions into you classroom. You knew full well once you got your name in the paper that you would have to talk about YOUR opinion in class, this despite the fact (that you admit in your post above) that those psychology students couldn't give a hoot about it.
I would be interested to hear from your students if you routinely give your personal stance on issues in your class.

Oh, yeah, student, you can disregard this comment, as well as Mrs. Frick's, Costaldawg's, and Brian Tackett's, as we are all non-students.
Post a reply to this comment

Student

posted 4/22/08 @ 4:33 PM EST

Originally posted by

Alumni that will attend

 Mrs. Frick, you make the statement: "Under ideal classroom circumstances I would have kept my own personal opinion private while encouraging students to discuss the issue;" . You make this statement despite the fact that you have inserted yourself into the discussion, on at least two occasions.
So, from that I can only come to two conclusions: your ideal classroom circumstances are that everyone hold the same opinion as yourself, ie you don't have to insert your personal opinion because it is one shared by all or you intentionally made a misleading statement that you don't like to insert your own opinions into you classroom. You knew full well once you got your name in the paper that you would have to talk about YOUR opinion in class, this despite the fact (that you admit in your post above) that those psychology students couldn't give a hoot about it.
I would be interested to hear from your students if you routinely give your personal stance on issues in your class.

Oh, yeah, student, you can disregard this comment, as well as Mrs. Frick's, Costaldawg's, and Brian Tackett's, as we are all non-students.


DOCTOR Frick is a faculty member who will most likely be participating in graduation, so her views are certainly germane to this discussion.
Post a reply to this comment

Alumni that will attend

posted 4/22/08 @ 4:49 PM EST

When Frick is talking psychology, I will call her DOCTOR. When she is espousing politics, history, or any other subject in which she has not attained doctorate level training, I will call her Mrs.
BTW, didn't I say that you could disregard my post? Looks like someone needs help following directions.
Post a reply to this comment

Student

posted 4/22/08 @ 5:06 PM EST

Originally posted by

Alumni that will attend

 When Frick is talking psychology, I will call her DOCTOR. When she is espousing politics, history, or any other subject in which she has not attained doctorate level training, I will call her Mrs.
BTW, didn't I say that you could disregard my post? Looks like someone needs help following directions.


I'm curious - how do you know she's married?
Post a reply to this comment

MRJ

posted 4/22/08 @ 7:20 PM EST

I'd love to hear a student's account of Prof. Frick's class discussion on Thomas.
Post a reply to this comment

ME

posted 4/22/08 @ 7:38 PM EST

Maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal if the Univerity hadn't had so many issues with sexual harrassment over the past year. But we have, and we have answered those by asking a person whose name many students have only read about in Sociology and Women's Studies classes as the main character in a classic case of sexual harrassment to speak at the Graduation Commencement--the goal of every student's (including women's!) college career. To make it into a Liberal/Conservative debate is silly. That's not it at all. It's disrespectful, insensitive, and it shows the University's ultimate lack of interest in sexual harrassment.

I am a woman, and I will be graduating this May. I will attend the commencement ceremony with pride, but also with a great sense of disappointment in the University of Georgia.
Post a reply to this comment

Limbaughman

posted 4/22/08 @ 10:40 PM EST

Hey "me",

spare everyone your feminist crap. It is a political issue and for you to not believe that it is shows how ignorant you are. Graduating? UGA should think again.
Post a reply to this comment

ME

posted 4/23/08 @ 1:26 PM EST

Limbaughman,
Making derisive comments about the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you doesn't exactly lend to your credibility. You make yourself sound like a pretty close-minded, hateful person. I realize that the issue has taken on political issues; my point is that it shouldn't. The basic issue is about respect in light of recent sexual harrassment cases. If you think that's ignorant "feminist crap", well, ok. But I can assure you that dismissing the opinions of others and insulting the intelligence of people you have never met makes you sound much more ingnorant than anyone else on this board. It is amazing how the internet allows people to lose any sense of respect for other humans. Congratulations, you are a prime example of that.
Post a reply to this comment

Estelle

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:26 PM EST

I am looking forward to hearing Justice Thomas speak. He is a great leader whose qualities should inspire young people to great heights. A native Georgian makes it all the more appropriate that we receive inspiration from him. He sits on the bench of the highest court in the land. There should be no question of his integrity. Please do not deny us the privilege to be in his presence on graduation day
Post a reply to this comment

hmmm

posted 4/23/08 @ 3:03 PM EST

Originally posted by

Estelle

 I am looking forward to hearing Justice Thomas speak. He is a great leader whose qualities should inspire young people to great heights. A native Georgian makes it all the more appropriate that we receive inspiration from him. He sits on the bench of the highest court in the land. There should be no question of his integrity. Please do not deny us the privilege to be in his presence on graduation day


there should be, but there is - based on his past and his recent book. Attainment of a powerful position does not in any way equate with integrity or morality - especially in America.
Post a reply to this comment

ugalaw

posted 4/22/08 @ 11:34 PM EST

As a recent law school graduate who's read more than a few Thomas decisions, I can say he and I differ greatly when it comes to our legal opinions. However, despite my disagreement with Thomas, what cannot be denied is that he is one of the most influential jurists of the last 50 years. For a school that has been academically on the rise for the past 10 years and is trying to break into the national elite of institutions, having a Supreme Court Justice speak at graduation is great way to get UGA nationwide exposure as a school that can attract speakers of Thomas's level. Kudos to the UGA administration for making this happen.
Post a reply to this comment

Student

posted 4/23/08 @ 12:05 AM EST

In response to the quote in the article Truthfully, as a conservative Republican at a liberal University, it kind of insulted me because we've had liberal speakers in the past"

Since when are we at a "liberal" university? Last time I checked, we were the last university in the state to add sexual orientation into the Anti-Discrimination policy here. Other things go on at UGA that truly show that the campus body is NOT liberal. The College Republicans is one of the biggest organizations in the COUNTRY. The professors might be liberal, but that does not mean we as a student body are...actually we are quite the opposite.
Post a reply to this comment

M

posted 4/23/08 @ 3:17 AM EST

I was incredibly lucky to have Clarence Thomas as my high school graduation speaker last year. And I could not think of someone more respectable, noble, and worthy of giving a motivational speech. He has transcended such adversity to be where he is today, and it disgusts me that people wouldn't fully recognize this. It is sad that anyone would even attempt to malign his name. Justice Thomas represents a figure of the highest integrity and character. And there is no validity in trying to debase him on allegations that occurred almost two decades ago. It is very easy for someone of his prominence to be accused of something in this corrupt country, but you stand oblivious to the fact that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Give him the respect that he deserves, and stop trying to conjure up ill-will towards a decision that the majority favors
Post a reply to this comment

Katie

posted 4/23/08 @ 3:26 PM EST

I am a student in Dr. Frick's class and when we had the discussion she was very careful not to include her political views. She simply wanted us to understand why there was controversy by explaining the allegations, which most of the students in the class were not familiar with. She also opened the floor for students to give their opinions. Obviously the topic had nothing to do with our class material, so I can understand why some might be frustrated at that, but there is no reason to berate Dr. Frick for supposedly trying to promote her politcal opinions.
Post a reply to this comment

MRJ

posted 4/23/08 @ 3:41 PM EST

Thanks for the description. I haven't really seen anyone belittle Dr. Frick, but considering her willingness to question the character of a sitting justice of the SC, I certainly think it is acceptable for members of the UGA community to criticize her take on this situation. Educators are given the privilege to teach, and it certainly is worrisome if they begin to use that role as an outlet for their ideological beliefs.

As a follow up, did Professor Frick discuss the allegations and the defenses presented? I hope and suspect she did, but you mentioned only that she explained the allegations...and her posts display a complete disregard for the evidence supporting Thomas.




Originally posted by

Katie

 I am a student in Dr. Frick's class and when we had the discussion she was very careful not to include her political views. She simply wanted us to understand why there was controversy by explaining the allegations, which most of the students in the class were not familiar with. She also opened the floor for students to give their opinions. Obviously the topic had nothing to do with our class material, so I can understand why some might be frustrated at that, but there is no reason to berate Dr. Frick for supposedly trying to promote her politcal opinions.
Post a reply to this comment

Student

posted 4/23/08 @ 4:55 PM EST

Originally posted by

Katie

 I am a student in Dr. Frick's class and when we had the discussion she was very careful not to include her political views. She simply wanted us to understand why there was controversy by explaining the allegations, which most of the students in the class were not familiar with. She also opened the floor for students to give their opinions. Obviously the topic had nothing to do with our class material, so I can understand why some might be frustrated at that, but there is no reason to berate Dr. Frick for supposedly trying to promote her politcal opinions.


MRJ, I understand that you're upset at what Dr. Frick is arguing, but, yes, there are people on this message board who have most assuredly belittled her. Refusing to address someone by her hard-earned title (ahem, "Alumni who will attend") simply because you disagree with her point of view is deliberately insulting and prevents civil discussion. Those of you who have managed to keep it on the up-and-up, thanks. Your courtesy is appreciated and admired, whether we agree on the issue or not.
Post a reply to this comment

MRJ

posted 4/23/08 @ 8:04 PM EST

Student, fair enough. While I don't necessarily believe Prof. Frick has gone about this in a professional manner, I certainly don't agree with her being personally insulted.

That said, when someone steps out of their realm into something different (a political discussion, for example), I do think they make themselves vulnerable to confrontation. I agree that she should be treated with civility, but she is certainly entitled to no deference in such discussions.

Originally posted by

Katie

 I am a student in Dr. Frick's class and when we had the discussion she was very careful not to include her political views. She simply wanted us to understand why there was controversy by explaining the allegations, which most of the students in the class were not familiar with. She also opened the floor for students to give their opinions. Obviously the topic had nothing to do with our class material, so I can understand why some might be frustrated at that, but there is no reason to berate Dr. Frick for supposedly trying to promote her politcal opinions.
Post a reply to this comment

KF73

posted 4/23/08 @ 5:42 PM EST

I am a student in Dr. Frick's class and I would like for all of you to know that she made it quite clear that diverse opinions were welcome. She did not address judicial opinions written by Thomas. She simply informed the class who he was, and only after asking if anyone knew who he was, because she was more than willing to allow students to identify him. She is very kind and welcoming in class and provides an environment in which students who do not agree with her would not be afraid to voice their opinion.

As a side note: "playing school"...really? Dr. Frick, along with the majority of professors at this University have attained honorable degrees and spend their lives seeking knowledge and educating young people. I would say that is just as reputable, if not more so, than any job one may have in the "private sector"
Post a reply to this comment

Female student

posted 4/23/08 @ 6:26 PM EST

Okay, Limbaughman, you give me one good reason why having female reproductive organs and higher levels of estrogen should lead to me being paid less for doing the same job as you. Then I'll stop being a feminist and stop trying to get equal rights and pay.
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 36 of 36

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

 

 

Advertisement

Poll

Hmm, what to make of Kentucky vs. Georgia:
Submit Vote

View Results



Advertisement