Pharyngula

At a guess, they were already looking for a reason to show him the door. One hopes. It's still the sort of insufferable stupidity that gives academic administrators a bad name, but it makes a whole lot more sense than what they're saying.

Posted by: usagi | November 26, 2006 6:42 AM

You say:

The authorities have muddled the issue by saying he was kicked out for being "rude and belligerent", although the report does say that the woman who complained backed up Averill's story, and she has said that she didn't want him expelled.

What the article actually says:

According to an emailed letter from Engeldinger, Averill had violated the student conduct policy. The decision to dismiss Averill was "not the result of a single action on your part, but a series of actions. I believe that, in several instances, your actions have been aggressive, demeaning, and threatening and that this demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior," Engeldinger wrote.

The student who complained on November 8 wished to remain anonymous, but her account backs up Engeldinger's letter. Her complaint was not the only reason he was sent into the Dean's office. The teacher even told me that my complaint was the 'last straw' as SEVERAL other complaints were stated before mine."

However, she says she "did not wish for him to be expelled or get in trouble and I had no idea that it was going to happen until after the fact.""

Posted by: Harry | November 26, 2006 6:48 AM

You are so mean sometimes! Arguing with people like this is like beating up a blind, midget, quadrapalegic, nun without teeth. You need to learn when to pull your punches. So does Mr. Bob Averill. :-P

Posted by: Mike Fox | November 26, 2006 7:21 AM

Mike says: "...beating up a blind, midget, quadrapalegic, nun without teeth..."

Is there a video available?

Posted by: dveej | November 26, 2006 7:35 AM

Beside, wouldn't it be nice to have one person with an art degree that isn't a crystal wearing, Choprah reading, thinks-Shirley-McClane-is-anything-other-than-clinically-insane freak?

We'll get one of those the same time that we get an engineer or computer scientist that isn't into ID.

Posted by: Graculus | November 26, 2006 7:39 AM

We'll get one of those the same time that we get an engineer or computer scientist that isn't into ID

I am fairly sure that Tim Lambert and Mark Chu-Carroll aren't into ID....

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | November 26, 2006 7:52 AM

Ok, the above post would have made a little more sense if the quote I pasted in from cooper had actually shown up. Why oh why has my rock failed me? Is it because I have cavorted with shale? Oh, lamentation.

Posted by: A lemur | November 26, 2006 8:27 AM

I don't know any Computer Scientist or Engineers that are IDiots, some of them go to church, but then use devilish Darwininian evolutionary algorithms too design products and solves problems on Monday.
It is full blown creationists or rationalists not really much in between, the ID movement is 100% money and PR, the majority of them doesn't even believe it, but they get paid for it.

Posted by: Dan P | November 26, 2006 8:33 AM

Actually, disagree with you on this one PZ.

It sounded like the young woman was having a conversation with other people and he jumped in and started pushing the young woman on her beliefs. It also sounds like he makes a habit of this, and he's confrontational. How many other incidents and problems did he have with teachers? Three? How many times has he been reported? Sounds like several.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who aggressively pushes ANY belief on others, and that includes atheists.

Posted by: Shelley | November 26, 2006 8:45 AM

Belief exists, too. That doesn't necessarily make it accurate.

And Shelley, you're drawing a pattern from one incident? Or are you just assuming that if he's an atheist he must be an asshole?

The number of "incidents" is irrelevant if he cannot be clearly established to be at fault for them. I'm sure there were a lot of "incidents" surrounding the first black children at white schools, but that doesn't mean the black children deserved to be expelled for causing them.

Posted by: Chris | November 26, 2006 8:58 AM

Um... maybe the guy is just a jerk and may have real problems as well. Sounds to me that the leprechaun thing is incidental and Mr. Averill is just digging for support.
Reminds me of a guy kicked out of my school who was prone to espousing on morality and gods role. He turned out to be really sick and had to be asked to leave.

As Cooper suggested being a jerk may not be grounds for kicking someone out, but a repeat asshole who has made enemies among the teachers may very well be asking for it.

Posted by: Andrew | November 26, 2006 9:04 AM

We'll get one of those the same time that we get an engineer or computer scientist that isn't into ID.

Posted by: Graculus

As an engineer, I find this offensive. I admit I've come across a few very religious engineers, but they're in a minority. There was one guy I worked with, a Dutchman, who gave up a good career to go rewrite the Bible. I've often wondered what happenned to him. After reading the bible in depth, he must've ralized what a load of crap it is, & come to his senses, surely? But if he wanted to get back into engineering, what would he put on his resume?

Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | November 26, 2006 9:31 AM

Chris, "And Shelley, you're drawing a pattern from one incident? Or are you just assuming that if he's an atheist he must be an asshole."

On the contrary, I don't believe atheists are assholes. My proof:

PZ is an atheist.
PZ supports Cephalopodmas.
People who support Cephalopodmas can't be assholes.
Therefore, PZ is not an asshole.

I have met assholes from all beliefs, and I imagine there are people who believe in Leprechauns who are also assholes (though the mental imagine of an asshole leprechaunist does give me pause).

I think PZ's further comment is the right one: we don't have enough facts to make a judgment one way or another. I can't help thinking, though, that a school, especially an art school, would be very hesitant about expelling a student, and certainly wouldn't do so because he engaged in thoughtful debate about whether leprechauns are real or not.

Where PZ and I may differ on this one is: if the young woman's belief was not causing her or anyone around her harm, who cares what she believes? If she wants to have a discussion on the topic, then of course, people have a right to disagree. Strenuously in fact (as she has a right to defend her position, strenuously). But no one has the right to berate her.

None of us have the right to berate others for their beliefs. Only for the actions they take based on those beliefs, if said actions impinge on others.

Posted by: Shelley | November 26, 2006 9:42 AM

According to the rest of the story:

According to an emailed letter from Engeldinger, Averill had violated the student conduct policy. The decision to dismiss Averill was "not the result of a single action on your part, but a series of actions. I believe that, in several instances, your actions have been aggressive, demeaning, and threatening and that this demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior," Engeldinger wrote.

The student who complained on November 8 wished to remain anonymous, but her account backs up Engeldinger's letter. Her complaint was not the only reason he was sent into the Dean's office. The teacher even told me that my complaint was the 'last straw' as SEVERAL other complaints were stated before mine."

However, she says she "did not wish for him to be expelled or get in trouble and I had no idea that it was going to happen until after the fact."

On Monday morning, November 20, Averill met with the school's president, Dr. Steven Goldman, to appeal his dismissal. "He upheld the dean's decision to throw me out," Averill says. "He offered to re-admit me if I underwent--get this--psychiatric evaluation."

Whether this is the Art Institute administration making things up or exaggerating things after the fact to cover its posterior or whether Averill really does have a problem is impossible to say from this story, but it does sound as though there's more going on here than this one incident. Whether that more is enough to justify expelling him or whether it is indeed discrimination against him for being an atheist is similarly impossible to say from this story. I'm sure a lawsuit would bring out the facts.

Posted by: Orac | November 26, 2006 9:54 AM

Shelly, even if he was berating someone, does that really qualify for expulsion? I mean, that's ridiculous. I've been annoyed and harassed by countless proselytizers on campus: I never once ever even considered reporting them or imagined that they could get expelled for it. If being obnoxious were against college rules at a liberal arts college, College Republicans basically wouldn't exist on campus. :)

Posted by: plunge | November 26, 2006 10:25 AM

So I guess the 'moral' to the story is that it doesn't matter what you believe in, just as long as you believe in something?
Sort of goes against what Thomas Jefferson said.

"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.

Honestly though, if this kid was a confrontationist in an art school class then maybe he is a problem student. Although I agree that he should not have been judged too harshly since he did not start the conversation.
Nevertheless if he's the kind of kid who can't let an issue slide by without trying to argue it then he probably is arrogant and confrontational, perhaps even rude.
He probably should have been given a warning first rather than being dismissed.

MYOB'
.

Posted by: MYOB | November 26, 2006 10:26 AM

"In the classroom that day, Averill says one young woman was talking about her belief in energy layers and astral beings. I jokingly asked her if she believed in leprechauns...."

The article fails to mention that she was posing naked at the time and that Bob, delicately dabbing his brush in a squib of prussian blue, was only trying to take his mind off of other things.

Give the guy a break!

Posted by: George | November 26, 2006 10:40 AM

Caledonian hit the nail on the head. In too many places, reducing complaints, regardless of merit, is the goal, not actually enforcing the rules. It isn't too far fetched to think that class was full of such nitwits, since it seems reasonable to conclude that he barged into the conversation for lack of criticism of the Leprechaunism. I've spent a good deal of time around woo-woos, and they as a rule do not take criticism of their positions well at all. Something as innocent as "how do you know that?" or "what is your evidence for that?" are perceived as serious personal attacks. If he did this on several occasions, even if he did so entirely politely and by invitation, they still would have reacted badly.

He did barge in however, and that's rude.

But let's get to the crux of the issue here. [sarcasm alert]. We can't disprove leprechauns. We can gather no data on leprechauns, pro or con. No one has found Peter McGrath's corpses (see post above, and thanks for the belly laugh Peter). So no one has any business saying Leprechaunism is wrong. We must be agnostic on the topic of leprechauns. It is beyond science.

Besdes, moderate Leprechaunists could be allies on issues like global warming. After all, they don't want the leprechauns to die. So why alienate them? Do they cite the opinions of leprechauns in their scientific papers? If not, then why not make them heads of science departments? What's the harm? People like PZ are just as bad as those pushing Fundamentalist Leprechaunism. PZ and his ilk just want to stamp out all religion. The Leprechaunists are just the target this time.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by: MarkP | November 26, 2006 11:25 AM

OK! My fiance is an Art Institute double graduate (computer animation) who is a lifelong atheist, and I am an engineering student who is an atheist. So there.

Now about the Art Institute thing... The Art Institutes are not so much an altruistic institution of higher learning as they are a for-profit business that regards its students as customers. I feel sure they had little interest in the source of confrontation or even in who was right. I really don't think they thought farther than "here's this one participant who's generating a lot of customer complaints, and that's bad for business." That would be typical behavior for them, based on our six-year experience with them.

Posted by: speedwell | November 26, 2006 11:42 AM

"So why alienate them?"

People are a lot more resilient than we sometimes give them credit for.

The proper solution would have been: have the offended student, Bob, his teacher, and the student affairs person discuss the issue openly and come to an understanding.

Instead, three Deans ganged up on Bob and ultimately came up with a draconian solution.

Way to go, Art Institute.

Posted by: George | November 26, 2006 11:56 AM

Mr. Averill, based on the evidence presented here, has grounds for legal action. Particularly troublesome is his claim that administrators asserted (falsely) that atheists were not a protected class. If they said that, then went ahead and expelled Mr. Averill, then he was discriminated against, pure and simple....SH

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | November 26, 2006 12:28 PM

I've spent a good deal of time around woo-woos, and they as a rule do not take criticism of their positions well at all. Something as innocent as "how do you know that?" or "what is your evidence for that?" are perceived as serious personal attacks.

Oh, this is very true indeed. My blog specialty is applying skepticism, science, and critical thought to the claims of alternative medicine, such as homeopathy. Believe me, just asking woos for evidence for their claims and pointing out that personal anecdotes do not constitute good scientific evidence will sometimes send them into paroxysms of hostility. Even if you do it politely, it is often perceived as a personal attack, and the usual response is to attack the skeptic and attack the shortcomings of evidence-based medicine, even though that's an obvious tu quoque fallacy and the shortcomings of EBM are not arguments for woo.

Frighteningly enough, I've recently attracted the attention of a physician who took umbrage at my criticism of woo that's infiltrating medical school curricula these days. He used a whole bunch of fallacies to defend his use of acupuncture and his use of woo in his practice. I find it truly frightening that fellow physicians fall for this stuff. Worse, as it infiltrates medical school curricula, those who criticize it as unscientific and without a basis in evidence are accused of being "close-minded" and "intolerant" of the alternate belief systems behind these "therapies."

Posted by: Orac | November 26, 2006 12:31 PM

As to the student: I agree with the others, if he feels he was discriminated against, then he should consider filing a discrimination lawsuit. IF,he hasn't signed an arbitration agreement with the school when he registered.

Someone mentioned about belief and harm. I personally don't believe in any of the beliefs,and that includes atheism. I don't believe in a God, I don't not believe in a God, I frankly don't care. Other than an intellectual and historical interest in religious beliefs, I frankly could care less.

I do make decisions based on facts that impact me. For instance, I've seen too much evidence of evolution, and I'm also aware of evolution's impact on biology and medicine. Therefore I believe that evolution is real, enough to support it. But I'm not going to find someone who doesn't agree with me and argue them into the ground until they do.

Now, if they try to make the study of it illegal, then that impacts on me, and I will push back. I will also write about my views on my weblog, or debate such when the issue arises elsewhere.

But I don't enter into a person's private sphere, tell them they're wrong on their beliefs, and then stick in their face until they come to their senses and believe me. Yes, this is rude. More than rude, though.

If this young man was aggressive in manner, as well as larger than the young woman, then what he did could have been seen as intimidation. I would assume no one on this list supports anyone who uses intimidation to get them to stop believing in fairies.

As to whether this is what happened, we don't know, because we don't have the full story. If it's wrong though to assume that he's automatically at fault because he's atheist, it's equally wrong to assume that he's automatically right because he's atheist.

(Quick note on this: I did want to apologize to PZ earlier for implying he would do this, because I don't _believe_ he would. I believe PZ would give a hell of a debate, but I would never see him berating anyone.)

As for freedom of speech, boy I wish people would get this right. No one has the freedom to be abusive. NO one, regardless of belief.

Freedom of speech in this country guarantees that we can speak out against the government, and not be oppressed,jailed, or killed by said government. This does not give you a right to be an asshole in school or on our jobs. You don't have a right to make everyone around you miserable.

Now, there are laws that protect us based on religion and sex and race, and I support these. But these laws do not mean I can go into a job or a school and be rude and offensive and intimidating, and then when I get kicked out, cry out "Sexist!" Well, I can say it, it doesn't make it true. Or right.

You don't even have a 'right' to be an asshole in comments. Well, unless you're reading Little Green Footballs and then not only do you have a right, you have an obligation.

Sorry for long comment.

Posted by: Shelley | November 26, 2006 12:40 PM

Nevertheless if he's the kind of kid who can't let an issue slide by without trying to argue it then he probably is arrogant and confrontational, perhaps even rude.

Arrogance, a huge ego and unfailing belief in your own abilities are all properties selected for by art schools. Whether we like it or not, those are the people that get first class degrees.

Posted by: Ithika | November 26, 2006 1:05 PM

We'll get one of those the same time that we get an engineer or computer scientist that isn't into ID

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this comment is an ironic illustration of the fact that a lot of art students are quite and skeptical and rationalistic, as there are probably just as many engineers and computer scientists who aren't into ID as art students who aren't into woo. I agree, this is an intelligent comment.

But in the event that you mean this literally: FUCK YOU!

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 26, 2006 1:08 PM

Mike Fox wrote:

You are so mean sometimes! Arguing with people like this is like beating up a blind, midget, quadrapalegic, nun without teeth.

Why worry? God was obviously mean to them first. Are we now obligated to be kinder than God?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 26, 2006 1:25 PM

No, reason. If we define what intimidation is based on how others react, then anything can be construed as intimidation.

The implicit claim is that a person who perceives another as being intimidating if they ask a hostile question while being physically larger can meaningfully be said to be a victim of intimidation, which is insane.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 26, 2006 1:51 PM

The implicit claim is that a person who perceives another as being intimidating if they ask a hostile question while being physically larger can meaningfully be said to be a victim of intimidation, which is insane.

Are you saying you believe it is 'insane' to use the target's perception to determine if they were a victim of intimidation? If so, why do you believe that?

Posted by: llewelly | November 26, 2006 2:34 PM

Not to go too much more off topic than Rikard and bPer actually have, why does it matter so much to you that you insist that Shelley is an atheist? How do you know more than she does what she feels and believes? This sort of atheistic insistence on being right could quite easily be the reason the young man was expelled from the art school, and it is something that I continue to see atheists doing.

I claim atheism for the reasons mentioned above, my lack of belief in god or gods. However, I am quite willing to admit that, having no proof for my belief, I'm as likely to be wrong as to be right. Am I less of an atheist because I accept that leprechauns and god just might exist? Am I somehow making your own belief/lack of belief somehow more tenuous?

I would personally wager, with no more proof than has already been mentioned in regards to the article, that the young man is an example of atheist fundamentalism that must insist loudly and often that they are right. This same atheist feels the need to demean people because of their beliefs in things unprovable. Is the disbelief in something that is neither provable nor unprovable any less irrational than the belief?

Your right to be what you see as rational is not greater, bigger or more valuable than my right to be what you see as irrational.

Posted by: sam | November 26, 2006 3:30 PM

PS and what Sam said

Posted by: Shelley | November 26, 2006 3:34 PM

Actually, atheism is just as much a 'belief' as any belief in some form of supreme being.

Wrong. Atheism implies only that a person lacks a belief in god.

Posted by: Caledonian | November 26, 2006 3:48 PM

PS and what Caledonian and Tukla in Iowa said

Posted by: yonatron | November 26, 2006 3:53 PM

having no proof for my belief, I'm as likely to be wrong as to be right.

Haven't we gone over this enough?

The fact that there is no proof either way as to the existence of leprechauns doesn't imply that the existence and nonexistence of leprechauns are both equally likely.

Posted by: Belathor | November 26, 2006 4:15 PM

Shelley, please explain how atheism is a belief as much as any belief in a supreme being. Does that mean that everyone who does NOT believe in leprechauns, alien anal probes, thetans etc. has defined a belief system in that non-belief? If that's the case, you're an atheist by your own definition - you said don't believe in THEIR supreme being and therefore... If that's not the case, you'll have to explain what makes the belief in a supreme being different from belief in leprechauns etc.

Also, free speech does not exist if unpopular speech is not protected. Assume this guy is a total jerk. Do you think he would have been expelled under these circumstances if he had been arguing christian v lepechaun?

Posted by: MHB | November 26, 2006 4:27 PM

I'm concerned that I've sidetracked the comments with a discussion on what I'm supposed to label myself with. PZ, hint if this is so. I do think, though, that the discussion related to me is germane to the greater topic as a whole.

And besides, I imagine that most people have moved on to the other topics. I couldn't believe one post: went from 0 comments to 71 in I think, less than ten minutes. I'm envious. I'd say green with envy, but that might make me seem a leprechaunite.

According to the dictionary on belief: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

I would say this describes atheism, no?

Let's look at the behavior that accompanies some beliefs. We've seen examples of bigotry and intolerance associated with most major religions. But we've also seen it associated with atheism.

Wouldn't you say that an atheist who perhaps treats another's belief with derision to be both bigoted and intolerant? I'm not talking about a neutral debate, or even meeting one person's silliness with silliness of our own: I'm talking snide remarks, sneers, humorous asides, guffaws of disbelief, and various other remarks meant to deride, when all a person does it say what they believe.

An example: you overhear someone talk about astral projection. You know its a bunch of hooey. You say, "You can't be serious" and they say they are. You say, "What's your proof", and perhaps they answer with whatever fact they consider proof.

You sense blood in the water--this fool is a just asking to be humiliated in front of her friends. You then ask if she believes in leprechauns. Perhaps she answers yes, because she finds you to be an annoying get who will not get out of our her face. Perhaps she answers yes, because she lives in a world where believing in leprechauns is the same as believing in the stars, and the goodness of man.

You don't hear this, though. What you hear is, "Yes, I believe in leprechauns", and you proceed to tear down her beliefs, and as a consequence tear down her--doing so implacably with your logic and your science and your knowledge, regardless of how embarrassed she is, and how demeaning your behavior.

This is just an example. Any similarity to real life is just a coincidence. But no, I don't want any part of this.

Posted by: Shelley | November 26, 2006 4:30 PM

About 65% of the population of the Netherlands believes in elves and trolls.

I don't believe in elves, but, like most people with significant online experience, I do believe in trolls.

Posted by: llewelly | November 26, 2006 4:44 PM

Personally, I believe in leprechauns, if only because I hope to acquire my own pot of gold, metaphorical or literal.
The former would be preferred, as acquisition of the latter tends to be difficult to explain on one's income tax.

Posted by: Stanton | November 26, 2006 5:03 PM

The mind boggles at people insisting that they don't have an opinion on a question, and that's the right opinion to have.

Posted by: Numad | November 26, 2006 5:07 PM

No, the attitude used on people like Shelley is that if they're against us, they're not with us.

Posted by: Caledonian |