Can`t Bear `Um
Our friend from The-Great-Once-White-Now-Sort-of-Fuchia-North, the Sleepy Old Bear himself, David G. Mullin, has been in a deathstruggle over comments he made in his, well, deathwatch, about some commie lesbo feminazi and her iron rule over Comfortable Bed University (er, Cape Breton U.). It seems that the genteel Miss Celeste had taken a dislike to the Old Bear for exercising his rights to free speech on his own website, and she has pursued him with all commie lesbo feminazi vigor, filing a formal complaint against the Bear and bringing all sorts of ridiculous charges. Only in Academia and Canada (or Massachussetts, or Frisco) would the basic right to freedom of speech be challenged, but unfortunately Dr. Mullin is in both Academia and Canada, so he was in deep do-do.
Comfortable Bed University has apparently decided that freedom of speech means freedom from speech, and have fined the poor professor two weeks pay. The questions must be asked; is Canada a free nation, or should it be consigned to the realm of such stalwarts of civil liberties as Byelorus, Zimbabwe, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Peoples Republic of China? Do Canadians have free speech, or is that limited to liberal Canadians? Does Comfortable Bed University honor academic freedom, or is that merely something which only applies to commie lesbo feminazi babes?
In short, what kind of hellhole is being created up Chonder?
(By the way, I`ve noticed that I have a hell of a time getting into conservative websites from Canada; is the Canadian government doing something to slow loading times, something like spying on those subversive righties? All the Moore-ons were vowing to immigrate to the Fuchian Republic after the last election, after all!)
We need to rally around Professor Mullin in this; he is standing for the rights of free men!
Comfortable Bed University has apparently decided that freedom of speech means freedom from speech, and have fined the poor professor two weeks pay. The questions must be asked; is Canada a free nation, or should it be consigned to the realm of such stalwarts of civil liberties as Byelorus, Zimbabwe, North Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Peoples Republic of China? Do Canadians have free speech, or is that limited to liberal Canadians? Does Comfortable Bed University honor academic freedom, or is that merely something which only applies to commie lesbo feminazi babes?
In short, what kind of hellhole is being created up Chonder?
(By the way, I`ve noticed that I have a hell of a time getting into conservative websites from Canada; is the Canadian government doing something to slow loading times, something like spying on those subversive righties? All the Moore-ons were vowing to immigrate to the Fuchian Republic after the last election, after all!)
We need to rally around Professor Mullin in this; he is standing for the rights of free men!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 3:47 PM
21 Comments:
David Mullin was found guilty of violating Cape Breton University's discrimination and harassment policy. Yes, we all believe in freedom of speech; but Mr. Mullin is a faculty member and University teacher openly expressing his discust of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community at the school, many of which are his own students. I believe there is a fine line between having the right to speak your mind and being unecessarily disrespecful and rude. I myself was fairly close with Mr. Mullin and have always found him to be quite pleasant, but I have to say that I have lost much respect for him after this episode. It seems to me that his openly expressed opinions served no other purpose than to mark a personal attack on the community after a disagreement between he and a member of the University's Sexual Diversity Centre. On a side note, if you treasure this professor so much than maybe you could muster up the ability to address Cape Breton University by its proper name.
tiana,
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in the right to express discust of the gay, lesbian, bisexual,and transgendered communities, and the right to be unnecessarily rude and disrespectful. That is the whole point of free speech; it`s FREE. To tolerate the slings and arrows of those who disagree with what can only be described as an activist policy and community in an unflattering way is the price you pay. After all, doesn`t this gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community have the freedom to express their discust at Dr. Mullin? Freedom has to work both ways. (What about those homosexuals who threw condoms at Pope John Paul II, or who chant obscene things outside of Roman Catholic Churches; they have the right to express their views but the glbt community gets huffy when the shoe is on the other foot.)
By the way, why does CBU even have a Sexual Diversity Center? I`ll bet they don`t have a major Christian mission on campus, despite the University`s Catholic roots. The very fact of it`s existence proves that somebody is trying to ram a certain worldview down the collective throats of students and teachers at CBU, and the University is undoubtedly funding this at the expense of parents and students.
Sexual Diversity is not a legitimate object of study, but is advocacy masquerading as academics. It is amazing how hypocritical leftists can be; they attempt to use the force of law against those who opposes them in the interest of ``diversity`` and free speech. THEY are the ones who seek to eliminate alternate viewpoints, THEY are the ones who stifle free speech, THEY are the agressors. Why shouldn`t Professor Mullin fight back? HE was the one attacked by this member of the Sexual Diversity Center.
On a side note, humor is often the best medicine, and I don`t think you understand the concepts of irony and satire. Of course, I`ve never seen you here at Birdblog before, so I assume you are out trolling for your cause.
Hi, Tiana. And there is was thinking that you are a good Catholic lass. Anyway, you have learned quickly that to make it in the profession of social work you had better shed your better instincts in one hell of a hurry. Tiana, as you know I don't ask my students about 'sexual orientation', and none of this would ever have happened if one SW had not tried to muscle me into removing my open letters to my erstwhile bishop from MY OWN PRIVATE WEB SITE. I hope you can still find a little bit of fondness in your heart for me; you will forever be in mine (in an appropriate manner).
Who the hell are you to comment on this? You know nothing of this matter except what David Mullan wants you to know. You are a pawn in this silly little game that he is playing to rescue himself from a catastrophe of his own making. Free speech means nothing to David Mullan ... not being held responsible for his actions means everything to him. He will run and hide now behind some beuracratic manouvering just like he did in the Scott affair.
Gee -- last time I checked, freedom of speech meant you were free to, well, speak or write on subjects of one's choosing. That includes freedom from censorship.
Mullan engaged in speech. He has been hauled before a star chamber proceeding and punished because that someone objected to that speech. That really is the long and the short of it.
I really am baffled by Anonymous. People know lots more than I tell them because I have placed ALL the relevant documents on my web site--showing my warts and all. So that accusation is false.
My second point is that in the affair with a former president (I think it unnecessary to resurrect names in that ancient business) I did not engage in bureaucratic manoeuvering. The institution failed to prove its case, everyone, including the arbiter, knew it--and that was even before I got to present my own evidence. So your statement about that is completely false.
Clearly, ANONYMOUS is a COWARD. He/she lacks the guts to reveal her/his name.
Furthermore, anonymous, this just proves that people like you are waging a vendetta against Professor Mullin. I had suspected this was the case, and you have thoughtfully confirmed my suspicions. The dripping bile in your comment shows you for what you are!
Re: "The institution failed to prove its case"
Apparently you also failed to prove your case ..."3. Mullan, FAUT [my association], and CAUT do not challenge the integrity of Scott's Curriculum vita[e]; " http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/mullan2.html
Call me a coward if you wish. In fact you seem to have quite a passion for name calling. Is this what you mean when you write, "my commitment is to a different type of society which is capable of a more sophisticated level of discourse"?
Who, exactly are these people like me? Your perceptive abilities are astounding! With a few meagre sentences you have figured out what kind of "people" I am. So tell me - what am I?
Anomie:
I did not challenge the c.v. That was a painless end to a long affair. My initial complaint was about an article in the Cape Breton Post. It was not about the c.v. in which I had no interest at all. Get the facts, bro, just the facts. As for your previous comment, you are doing your darnedest to turn yourself into a stereotype.
And furthermore ...
... the sole purpose of the grievance and arbitration processes was to have the letter of discipline removed from my file.
That sole purpose was achieved.
Such quasi-legal (and many legal) processes are not generally intended to change the entire working of the solar system. One keeps them focussed to give at a mininum level of satisfaction.
Again, mission accomplished.
Anonymous, I would think my last statement was clear, and you would understand what kind of person I am saying you are. If you are unable to grasp it, let me state it boldly:
You are a person who launches personal attacks on someone whom you disagree with while hiding behind the mantle of anonymity. You allude to deep, dark things, but you offer no new information, nothing to substantiate your claims. This is called ad hominem, and that is precisely what you are doing. You tell me to shut up because you don`t like what I`m saying, but make no effort to actually PROVE anything. You are angry. You are almost certainly someone in sympathy with Dr. Mullen`s accusers, but you are too chicken to put your name out there. Tiana didn`t fear this! She proclaimed herself, and made her case. Why are you so afraid?
In short, you are a partisan. I suspect you are a left-wing partisan, too, and your hatred of Dr. Mullen stems from your rage at his political views. You are the type of person who wants to force others to conform to your views, and you are happy to use whatever means that can be employed.
If I am wrong about any of this, it is up to you to disprove it. This is, after all, my blog, and you chose to come here and bitch about the way I run it, so you have to make your case. You aren`t going to get anywhere by being an ignor-anonymous-you have to show some of yourself, give something concrete, or there is no reason to take you the least bit seriously.
If you would care to lay your cards on the table, then do so! I suspect the cards you hold are merely ``diversity``, ``tolerance``, and general liberal vacuuity, and that you have nothing you can win with. If I am wrong-prove your case!
Good morning Professor.
Re:
I did not challenge the c.v. That was a painless end to a long affair.
(To be more precise – a painless, pointless, and non-responsive end.)
My initial complaint was about an article in the Cape Breton Post.
It was not about the c.v. in which I had no interest at all.
(Correct me if I am wrong but, was not your initial complaint the belief that Scotts’ claimed authorship was overstated in the article? And would this not make her c.v. central to the issue? Will you post copies of the original article and your subsequent letter to the editor on your website, please?)
Get the facts, bro, just the facts.
(bro?)
As for your previous comment, you are doing your darnedest to turn yourself into a stereotype.
(More prejudice – will you or Mr. Birdnow please describe to me this type of “people”, this “stereotype” with which I am so easily identified?)
And furthermore ...
... the sole purpose of the grievance and arbitration processes was to have the letter of discipline removed from my file.
(Of course it was, that’s the point! Here’s the thing Professor; the difference between a martyr and a dilittante is that a martyr is willing to sacrifice everything for the cause. A dilittante retreats to the shadows at the first sign of any real inconvenience. Why did you agree to the negotiated settlement? Why didn’t you force the university administrations’ hand and leave the matter for the arbitrator to decide? According to you the administration had not proved its’ case. Surely he would have found in your favour, thus affirming your contention that you were excercising your priviledged academic freedom in criticing Scott. In the end this was neither affirmed nor refuted.)
That sole purpose was achieved.
(But the grand purpose was betrayed.)
Such quasi-legal (and many legal) processes are not generally intended to change the entire working of the solar system. One keeps them focussed to give at a mininum level of satisfaction.
(I think you will find that the court of public opinion takes a much wider view. )
Again, mission accomplished.
(Not yet. It seems there are more missions underway. How will these play out? Will you seek absolute vindication or will you settle for getting your money back?)
P.S. Tim, just noticed your comment there and haven't read it yet. Let me do this first then I'll have a look at your contribution.
Re: “I would think my last statement…”
Well thanks Tim. I have a much better sense of self now. You obviously put a lot of thought into that and I appreciate your efforts to help me.
As for Ad Hominem … I quess I have come to the right place to learn that delicate art.
Most of what you say is either so accurate or so puerile that there is really no need for me to comment further on it.
I would like to set the record on a few things though.
1. I never told you to shut-up.
2. I was and remain angry at your total lack of even the pretense of objectivity.
3. I am not happy to use whatever means possible as I stop short of deceit and dishonourable behaviour.
4. You are correct, this is your blogaganda site and you are free to kick me off whenever you want… have at it.
5. I have no cards to lay on the table because I don’t view any of this as a game.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Animus:
I have no interest in reposting all that stuff. It began six years ago, and I would regard it as ungentlemanly to repost it now, especially since there are no ongoing repercussions. If you want it, try www.safs.ca, or discard your mask of anonymity and send me your email. If I can find the stuff (I think I have it saved somewhere) I will send it to you.
The university pulled the plug on the third day of the arbitration hearing. There was nothing left to continue. Yes, the affair grew out of an article in the local paper. It was that which I challenged, nothing else. My letter about the article did not even address the president per se, but rather the story. Sure, there are lots of legal fictions, but that is the way public discourse plays out. If the then president had done nothing the whole thing would have been forgotten, except among faculty, in two weeks. As it stands, people still bring it up now and again. I don't. I had no need of anything like 'absolute vindication'. I and the faculty association won, and CAUT was paying the bills. Case closed. I have no personal need to beat every opponent to a pulp.
So, there you go, Sis. Oh, and next time you refer to someone as a dilettante, get the spelling right, please.
Anima:
Will I settle for getting my money back?
Yes.
Please understand that one can use the system only to do certain things. Right now I have filed a grievance, and the scope of such an action is merely to undo something, in this case the punitive action taken by the administration.
Would I like more? Yes, I want the Human Rights Policy/fiasco to be chucked into the garbage skip. But that is not in view in this narrowly defined process. There are a number of folk, including those who do not agree with my social views, who recognize the perils inherent in this policy for every member of faculty, and who understand the need to go after it. But that must occur in the context of a different process, perhaps before the Board of Governors, which imposed this policy unilaterally upon the CBU community. I hope the admin will understand the problems and act responsibly.
Otherwise I could launch a legal action in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to have it overturned. Would you like to contribute to the costs of taking such action?
I don't mind being a martyr if necessary, and I have no intention of backing down on this issue. But if I can avoid cashing all my retirement funds, so much the better. I assure you that you will not be disappointed by my commitment to this cause.
May I count on your support?
Professor:
Re: “If the then president had done nothing the whole thing would have been forgotten, except among faculty, in two weeks.”
See also: “Perhaps the individual involved will decide he has had enough and drop the case.”
See also: “The Bear has indicated that the initiator has until 1800 tonight to make the whole thing go away”
What’s the lesson here Professor? Should we conclude that you have the right to say whatever you want but don’t wish to be challenged in an impartial forum?
Re: “If you want it…”
Thanks just the same. I already have copies.
Re: “Please understand that one can use the system only to do certain things.”
Well… thanks for the condescension. Are the possibilities unlimited when one abuses the system (e.g. the priviledge of academic freedom)?
Re: “But that is not in view in this narrowly defined process.”
Hang on! Isn’t that what this whole thing is about? Were you not found quilty and punished as the result of the application of an unjust policy? Was not your right to free expression suppressed by these draconian policies? Will you not use your grievance as a spring board into the bigger issue? Seems to me that the best thing that can happen is that you will lose the eventual arbitration and will be forced to appeal to the courts for redress. Eventually you will be able to recover your costs through a court order.
Re: “…perhaps before the Board of Governors”
As a faculty member do you not have the right to sit on the Board of Governors? Since you seem to have the interests of the faculty en masse so close to your heart I am sure they will gladly nominate you for that seat. There you will be able to address this matter personally. Wouldn’t that be better than just thumbing your nose at the policy and proceeding to belittle, insult, offend, and marginalize certain of your students?
Re: “May I count on your support?”
Ummm …. No. I’m afraid you are on your own now. I don’t think CAUT will come to the rescue on this one.
Re: “I assure you that you will not be disappointed by my commitment to this cause.”
I have already been disappointed by the Scott affair. It is clear to me now that you do not have what it takes to go the distance. Perhaps your friend Mr. O’Neil will be successful in his fishing expeditions for a court case of his own and we will finally get an answer to the question of what constitutes legitimate freedom of expression in the world of blogoganda.
In any event you shall not hear from me again. I am going to dog-paddle my way out of this cesspool and return to the civilised place I came from.
You may have the last word if you feel the need.
P.S. Please run this through your spell checker…. Mines’ brocken.
Well, I may as well have the last word. You really don't know what you are talking about. Your knowledge base is tissue-thin, and you have no awareness of how these processes work. But you insist in trying to find fault with what I have done. Now, I am sure it is not difficult to find lots of faults in me, but you have yet to demonstrate one. You just don't like me. Fair enough.
Ah Professor:
You have goaded me into breaking a promise to my spouse and here I am again. Well, these really will be my last words.
I had really hoped you would use your last words (though I imagine they will be your penultimate words now) to address some of the questions I had raised in my earlier posts. But you seem intent on not doing that.
Re: “you have no awareness of how these processes work”
On the contrary, I have a deep understanding of how they work and I fully understand that you will use these processes to save your own bacon once again. In fact I caution your adversaries not to expect satisfaction from these processes as I am well aware of your ability to manipulate them.
Re: “But you insist in trying to find fault with what I have done.”
It is irrelevant whether or not I find fault with what you have done. The fact is that you will never accept the responsibility for what you have done no matter who finds fault with it. You could lose this in the Supreme Court of Canada and you would still not accept that you were wrong.
Re: “You just don't like me.”
There you go Professor… you get to play the victim again.
One final question. How do the members of your current congregation feel about all of this? I especially wonder about their attitude toward the filth that comes from Mr. O’Neils’ keyboard.
Animus -- It is difficult to engage with someone who is so studiedly irrational. Your mind is filled with cant and you cannot express anything meaningful. I do not have a 'congregation', and Huggy Bear's comments are his own. In any event, most of the folks I know are not prudish, and, again, most of them have probably never visited the Bear Blog.
And now, I shall leave the last word to whoever wants it.
Post a Comment
<< Home