…and this is a 
Academic freedom at San Jose/Evergreen Community College?
Category: Academics
Posted on: July 19, 2008 1:11 PM, by PZ Myers
June Sheldon was an adjunct professor of biology at San Jose/Evergreen Community College, teaching genetics. Here's one account of a lecture she gave.
On June 21, 2007, June Sheldon, an adjunct professor teaching a human heredity course, answered a question about how heredity affects homosexual behavior by citing the class textbook and a well-known German scientist. She noted that the scientist found a correlation between maternal stress and homosexual behavior in males but that the scientist's views are only one set of theories in the nature-versus-nurture debate mentioned by the textbook. Sheldon then explained that the class would learn in a later chapter of the textbook that homosexual behavior may be influenced by both genes and the environment.
In the class discussion, Sheldon noted that the nature/nurture question was complex. She said that from the nurture point of view, fathers who wanted heterosexual sons might choose to treat their wives with courtesy. She also argued that from the nurture point of view, a theoretical possibility is that some women might have chosen lesbian relationships after having had bad heterosexual relationships.
These all sound like reasonable discussions of the issue. Of course, they are all written after the fact, so maybe the presentation has been cleaned up a bit. After all, a student found the lecture to be grounds to make a formal complaint.
On June 21st, our session of Human Heredity class was based on a development chapter. Professor Sheldon began to talk about something that had no mention in the textbook. I found many parts of her lecture highly offensive and unscientific. She presented this information, however, as hard science.
She said that a German study found that pregnant mice, when subjected to severe stress, would produce gay male rates. She said that the scientists cut off part of the pregnant mouse's tail and dipped her in scalding water. I later found a website explaining what I'm quite sure is the study she was referencing. The study only used one mouse in the experimental group and one mouse in the control group. Not only that, the study did not explain how they determined the offspring were gay.
Professor Sheldon said that there are hardly any gay men in the Middle East because the women are treated very nicely. That comment was inaccurate, baseless, and offensive. First of all, determining a gay population is very difficult, and somewhat impossible if the atmosphere in that region is completely intolerant to gays. Also, I found it offensive that she thought women who must have written notes from a man to attend school are treated nicely.
A student asked Professor Sheldon what causes homosexuality in women. Professor Sheldon promptly replied that there aren't any real lesbians. According to her, women simply get tire of relationships with men and pursue them with women.
To conclude her lecture, she addressed the men in the classroom, saying that if they want a "nice," and strong son, they should treat their wives very nicely (do things like "open doors for them"). And she said, if they wanted a "sensitive" son, they should abuse their wives.
Even after a month of waiting to cool down, I am still horribly offended.
There are some things in that account that are bizarre: few gay men in the Middle East? Women who have sexual relationships with other women aren't "real" lesbians? Just by that account, I'd agree that there might have been some weird assertions in the lecture. However, I teach genetics, too, and I know that students often come away with very garbled interpretations of what I taught, and I have the exam scores to prove it.
It's also odd that the student doesn't like the study he or she thinks the professor referenced. The maternal stress theory of homosexuality is a real, if somewhat controversial (like every theory about homosexuality), idea that has conflicting evidence in support about a contributing factor to sexual orientation. It's perfectly appropriate to discuss it in class, especially if the professor also acknowledges other theories.
There are some red flags in that complaint, too. Complaining that she was lecturing about "something that had no mention in the textbook" is an argument that irritates me no end. That's the point of having a professor — they're there to discuss ideas with you. A class is not an exercise in regurgitating facts from the textbook. It's also suspicious that this is a subjective account written a month after the event. The student has been sitting there stewing in outrage for weeks, and then assembles a complaint? Bleh. Throw it out on those grounds alone.
Then there is the fact that the student complains over and over about being offended. What do you want? Feel-good pablum in which you're affirmed in what you already know? If you're offended, speak up and argue. This was a wonderful opportunity: ask the professor to back up details of the experiment in question (Sheldon has since said that she was talking about the work of Günter Dörner, which really does involve more than one pair of mice). If you've got information that says the numbers in the experiment were weak, say so, and ask her to look into it. This is another reason professors are kind of useful to have around — they're more responsive than your textbook, or should be.
I'd like to see more concrete evidence of invalid instruction than this. How about an exam question that is graded wrong if the student argues that homosexuals are not more rare in the Middle East than anywhere else? How about copies of powerpoint slides that assert nonsense? Let's see some evidence of errors of substance.
Unfortunately, this complaint has gotten Sheldon's contract terminated. She's an adjunct, the university has the privilege of not renewing her contract (although it looks like they didn't follow their own grievance procedures), so there's probably not much she can do to oppose this, but Sheldon has filed a legal complaint anyway. Good luck to her. If professors could be dismissed on the basis of a single student complaint that they were "offended" by the content of a lecture, there wouldn't be any of us around anymore.
I can't say that I'm at all impressed with SJCC's commitment to academic freedom, or their excessive reaction to a single student's complaint. There is something more going on there, and they aren't being forthcoming about it.
Education & Careers
Comments
I know that some women do turn to lesbianism if they have bad experiences with men. Women are more prone to bisexuality than men - it just seems easier for them to accept. But there are also real lesbians who can only be happy in a relationship with another woman. Nature and nurture seem to both have an effect here, as in most things.
Personally, I suspect that homosexuality is a way of producing sons who will help keep the tribe prosperous without themselves producing children to strain the tribes resources - the study of german homosexuals showed that second sons were more likely to be gay than first sons, third sons more likely than second... so the first son's straight, the second son's gay, he doesn't have children but instead brings in food for his brother's kids, aiding in their survival without fathering their competitors... and also, gay men seem to be better at childcare than straight men (anecdotal evidence, I'll admit; it's common in Fiji to make gay men into childcarers, though) and that might be another aspect of the same selection for individuals more likely to produce homosexual children later in the family, in order to increase the chances for the firstborn son's children.
Lesbianism, on the other hand, is probably an outgrowth of a socially determined bisexuality in women; by engaging in social bonding through sex, women can hold the tribe together, and so the desire to have sex with as many people as possible would be adaptive; lesbianism would be as odd, and only as odd, as true heterosexuality (in my experience, mostly the result of post-christian social constructs amongst women) in this model.
Of course, I could be blowing smoke out of my ass, but considering the facts I've seen, this is the best explanation I could come up with.
Posted by: wazza | July 19, 2008 1:27 PM
Ah, the old "teaching material not in the textbook" trick!
I recall a story my high-school chemistry teacher once related about the time the principal received a giant list of complaints which a "concerned parent" had sent on their child's behalf, detailing all the ways the chemistry teacher was a horrible influence. On one page was the complaint, "She teaches us things which are not in the textbook", and a couple pages later, many items down the list, it said, "She does nothing except stand in front of class and read out of the book."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 19, 2008 1:36 PM
There are some things in that account that are bizarre: few gay men in the Middle East? Women who have sexual relationships with other women aren't "real" lesbians?
Also: Women in the Middle East are treated kindly?
Someone needs to talk to Leila Hussein- oops, wait, you can't. She was gunned down in Basra. OK, maybe Atefah Sahaaleh- nope, wait. Executed at age 16 for "crimes against chastity." Mehrangiz Kar? Ah! Still alive! There you go.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/dawkinssayswomenwilldefeatmilita.html
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/MullahJustice-X.gif
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 19, 2008 1:38 PM
Sounds like a few Death Cultist fundie morons in admin.
They think they are hunting for witches and can't tell the difference between witches and scientists. And don't care.
Reminds me of the recent case of the guy at Iowas SE (or SW) community college who was fired for refusing to teach that all of western civilization traces back to a walking, talking snake 6,000 years ago.
She should sue for being EXPELLED by religious bigots. Might have grounds on the basis of religious discrimination just like Chris Comers. If the facts are as presented, she was terminated on the basis of one complaint by some religious fanatic that contains nothing but a bunch of lies.
Posted by: raven | July 19, 2008 1:44 PM
I don't know if this is religiously motivated -- it could also be political correctness run amuck.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2008 1:49 PM
Does academic freedom mean teaching things that are demonstrably wrong, though? I would think that would be labeled under "incompetence". I'd say that "there's no such thing as a real lesbian" is as untrue as "the sun revolves around the earth".
Posted by: Carlie | July 19, 2008 1:49 PM
It is odd that this happened in San Jose, California. As far as I know, this isn't exactly Berkeley but it isn't Orange county either.
Be interesting to see what comes up in discovery.
Posted by: raven | July 19, 2008 1:51 PM
In all of the conversations about nature/nurture and the like causes for Teh Gay, one of the things that gets so overlooked is that throughout history there have been a hell of a lot of ways of institutionalizing a variety of sexual practices. In some societies, forms of same-sex activity are nearly universal (this is often during masculine initiation periods and "man-making" ritual activity).
There's a lot of social mediation between biological desires and social identities, and "Gayness" is a particular socio-historical category of being (as is Heterosexuality). This always frustrates somebody, but not everyone who desires or has sex with a member of the same-sex is Gay; there isn't some uniformity of desire activity and identity that can all be boiled down to fetal development or genetics. Hell, even some of the neural pathways that receive sense stimuli and produce sexual responses are produced through the course of life and social interaction.
Anyhoooo, I just find questions of social organization to be far more interesting--and far more useful and important politically--than whether or not there's some kind of gay gene or that we have a specific finger-length ratio (damn I'm fussy that one went away because soccer players supposedly had the same length and I thought I might have a shot at Lungberg), but that everyone should be free to choose whichever gender they desire.
[/babble]
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 1:51 PM
'...scientists cut off part of the pregnant mouse's tail and dipped her in scalding water.' And scientists wonder why many people don't like them? I can understand HUMANE research on animals in attempts to combat life-threatening diseases, but TORTURING animals for the purpose of scratching an intellectual itch seems rather psychopathic. The religious seem to justify such treatment of animals in the food and fashion industries as being sanctioned by their god (since they were supposedly created for no other purpose than our benefit); but what could the secular justification possibly be? Simply that we can? That because we have power over them we may exercise that power in any way we see fit? After all, 'might is right' has had such wonderful effects throughout history, so let's just keep functioning under the tyranny of that philosophical tenet.
Posted by: Lumographia | July 19, 2008 1:52 PM
Right...but the question is, did she actually teach that?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 19, 2008 1:53 PM
I have the strong suspicion that there's more going on than one student complaint. When I was a graduate student two entire classes complained about one untenured professor and nothing was done about him. Granted, anecdote does not equal data but ordinarily one complaint would mean, at most, a counselling session with the department head or some such response.
Posted by: JoJo | July 19, 2008 1:53 PM
MAJeff,
interesting, maybe homosexual behaviours/thoughts are totally 'normal' in most individuals and only repressed because of current social constraints. There is no way to know what even the most self asserted straight guy actually thinks in private.
Posted by: extatyzoma | July 19, 2008 1:57 PM
Lumographia, to echo PZ's point in # 10:
Right...but the question is, did anyone actually do that?
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 19, 2008 1:59 PM
I have the strong suspicion that there's more going on than one student complaint. When I was a graduate student two entire classes complained about one untenured professor and nothing was done about him. Granted, anecdote does not equal data but ordinarily one complaint would mean, at most, a counselling session with the department head or some such response.
There are also a number of other mediating factors (as I'm sure you know). Like, is it a tenure track line or a one-semester contract? Or, what's the type of complaint; is it that somebody said "fuck" or that they've consistently failed to even show up for class?
But, whatever.
I agree, though, in guessing that there would seem to be more than one class lecture here.(I certainly hope so.) I've heard of teachers being let go during a semester, (and I've had several complain to me about other adjuncts and tenured folks), but they had to be fucking up pretty bad to be let go in the middle of a term.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 1:59 PM
It is the issue of offence I find odd.
The complaint seems to be about bad teaching, or what the student claims was bad teaching. Now I can understand being upset if you think you are being taught badly, especially if you are paying for your education (*). Why and how is what you consider to be bad teaching offensive ?
*. I have never been very clear what a community college is in the US. Here in the UK they are secondary schools that also open some classes to the public. Any charge is normally only a few tens of pounds.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2008 2:00 PM
The Royal Society, and the market shelf Psychology Today, have both published articles offering Sexually Antagonistic Selection as an explanation for homosexuality. This explanation fits with all current homosexuality-related data (twin data, sibling data, birth order data, kin fitness data, brain differences data, etc) and provides a nice evolutionary justification for homosexuality.
Posted by: Anthony | July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
There is no way to know what even the most self asserted straight guy actually thinks in private
That's one thing that I think needs to be made clearer ("troubled" if I was getting all pomo and shit) in such studies (this is me getting all fussy about reification). They rely on self-identification, and there's something of an unproblematized assumption that identity is an external expression of (an assumed to be static) internal desire. There's a lot more in that relationship than often gets acknowledged.
I just want to make clear how much more complex it is than is often assumed. After all, I doubt there's a gene for finding leather harnesses or rubber body-suits erotic, but (some) people's bodies certainly do respond!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 2:04 PM
What's this "offended" crap? I hear people saying it all the time but I have no idea what it means. If you don't like what someone says, don't listen. If someone says something untrue, correct them. If someone tries to incite violence, report them. Other than that, what is there? What is "being offended"?
And why do people think they have a right not to be "offended"?
Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | July 19, 2008 2:05 PM
With regards the number of homosexuals in the Middle East, I wonder if there was confusion between the actual numbers and the numbers that are open about their sexuality.
Given the strong religious sentiments often expressed in the Middle East it would not be surprising if gay men were less open about their sexuality. I would suspect you would find the same if you compare States within the US. I imagine someone living in the Bible Belt is far less likely to be open than someone living on the East or West coast.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2008 2:05 PM
The comments from the professor are odd (and the Muslim ones are downright ignorant), but I've had professors introduce weird subjects. I enrolled in a class for Emotional Sociology, and the professor introduced us to The Secret in the first lecture. She wanted us to follow what The Secret says and keep a diary. I walked out from the class and enrolled with another professor. I was in the class to learn about sociology, not to be introduced to woo. Could that Genetics student have done the same thing instead? Walk out of the course and enroll with someone else? Maybe log it into ratemyprofessors.com
Posted by: miui | July 19, 2008 2:10 PM
I enrolled in a class for Emotional Sociology, and the professor introduced us to The Secret in the first lecture. She wanted us to follow what The Secret says and keep a diary.
Oh, please, tell me it was Sociology of Emotions.
The Secret? I could see doing an analysis of it as a social product and the role it plays in certain things (like how people use it or the ideas in it to construct communities and identities), or subjecting the ideas in it to sociological analysis.....but none of that sounds like what was going on, and--as a teacher of sociology--that annoys the shit out of me.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 2:15 PM
When I was a student I always jumped at the opportunity to argue with the prof in class. It greatly enriched my learning experience because I would receive either a no-holds-barred correction of my own thinking, or be put on the hot-seat to explain why I was correct. A pet peeve of mine has always been students who say nothing during class, or to the prof during office hours, yet complain about the class constantly to anyone who will listen. They are not engaging in education, they simply want confirmation of their own view.
Posted by: Dutchgirl | July 19, 2008 2:16 PM
Matt Penfold #16:
A community college in the U.S. is a postsecondary education institution that generally offers two-year degrees, and usually costs less than a larger university. People often attend them for a year or two before transferring to a university in order to save some money.
Posted by: Escuerd | July 19, 2008 2:16 PM
As Dr. Myers noted, the only facts we have about this story are the school, the instructor, the subject, a disgruntled student, and a firing. I do think that if this instructor spent more than two minutes discussing the genetics of homosexuality, then she made an error in judgment. I would have said that there have been numerous human observational studies and animal experimentation studies, most of them poorly designed, and none of them providing convincing evidence for or against a genetic basis for homosexuality.
To Lumographia: Torturing animals is not science. I don't know if the researcher did amputate rat tails and scald rats. If so, that was unnecessary cruelty. Scientists sometimes need to study animals in stressed conditions. In this study, the stress to the pregnant rat should have been continuous. Intermittent severe pain is not physiologically equivalent to chronic stress. Ways to achieve chronic stress include inducing fear of predators or fear of attack. That would be a much more realistic (and less cruel) way to mimic chronic stress in a human.
Posted by: Dr. T | July 19, 2008 2:17 PM
PZ, you are right; there is indeed something more going on here, and I would sure like to know what it is. Your first link, the one defending Sheldon's position, goes to lifesite news, which appears to be a Christian pro-life site linked to the Alliance Defense Fund (founded by Pat Robertson) which appears to be representing the professor in court. Why is the ADF going to court to defend academic freedom in a non-creationist case? The ACLU frequently defends the rights of those it disagrees with, including right wingers. But this would be a first for the ADF. I sure would like to know the rest of the story.
Posted by: Big Cat | July 19, 2008 2:19 PM
People often attend them for a year or two before transferring to a university in order to save some money.
Not all people transfer. Community Colleges also tend to offer more vocational and less liberal arts oriented education. That's not to say there's no liberal arts, but it has a lesser emphasis in the overall structure of education. A lot of para-professional and vocational training programs are also included within community college curricula. For a lot of people, an Associates Degree is a pathway to a career, not just to a university.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 2:19 PM
What puzzles me is that if we take the charges levelled at dr Sheldon at face value they make her sound like a religious conservative: homosexuality is a choice, no true
Scotsmanlesbian, women need to be treated with respect and reverence ...Something about this doesn't rhyme.
Posted by: Sili | July 19, 2008 2:20 PM
Lumographia, you seem to be presuming that 70% of the scientists, at least are what, faking being religious? And, a lot of prior experiment on animals was done before animal right laws, under the purview of scientists that where even less secular than they are today, which is why a *lot* of science, ranging from archeology that ignored certain kinds of items and considered them irrelevant in tombs and temples, like... mummies, or large dinosaur bones (this one was seriously sad when 50 years later they reviewed the documents, found that the temple was dedicated to worship of a giant, but that the bone found was thrown in the trash, or dumped in some crate, mislabeled, then thrown out as junk later), to male, Christian types trying to prove the validity of monogamy, by claiming that all birds exhibit it, having failed to note that the females may "nest with" a single male, but will/do mate more often with the ones that are not their nest mates. And those are just two idiocies, one of which was morally atrocious, and the other simply blinkering stupidity, which came out of presumptions about how the world worked, according to faith inserted into science.
This isn't to say that secularists wouldn't do something like the whole mouse tail stuff either, just that there are fewer of them willing to justify it with, "Well, god gave me dominion over them, so I can do what I want, then interpret the evidence in what ever way fits what I want to see. And, sadly, as much as we would like it to be otherwise, sometimes there are no other means to "test" certain theories, and the results *can* be important.
Think about this. What if some pathogen was "suspected" to cause cancer, but not in everyone, but no one knew the trigger, and someone figured out, from an animal version, that what is needed is high stress, physical injury *and* the pathogen? How long is it likely to take to find that out, unless someone stumbles on it while doing the "hurtful" research? Whether or not you consider it a poor justification, the reality is, we simply don't have the tools yet to find out, never mind predict, what effects certain stresses *will* have on animals, never mind people, and your left with the choice of never knowing, and risking that the missing facts might be critical for something, or trying to get the information in a way that is as humane as you can be, while still doing the experiment. And, I would say that, compared to dunking half the mouse in, the tip of the tail is pretty tame, and "right thinking" Christian scientists have done far worse back when they where 80-90% of the scientific community.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 19, 2008 2:21 PM
Your first link, the one defending Sheldon's position, goes to lifesite news, which appears to be a Christian pro-life site linked to the Alliance Defense Fund (founded by Pat Robertson) which appears to be representing the professor in court. Why is the ADF going to court to defend academic freedom in a non-creationist case?
Robertson found the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). Yes, it was an intentional rip-off of ACLU. It's based in Virginia along with his "university."
ADF is based in Arizona and specializes in anti-gay work about as much or more often than it does creationist work. It's actually quite a bit less "respectable" than the ACLJ--even crazier than Robertson's outfit.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 2:23 PM
@MAJeff #22
Yes, it was indeed "sociology of emotions" and not "emotional sociology." I'm 27 but sometimes I makes mistakes of a senile ol' lady.
It bugged the hell out of me too at the time. I walked out of the lecture in the middle of the movie, right at the part where the kid got his bike through "positive" thinking.
Posted by: miui | July 19, 2008 2:25 PM
The student account is rather disturbing, but if her RateMyProfessors.com comments are in any way realistic, she wasn't the easiest professor to follow along with and she does have PowerPoint slides of the lectures. Also it would help to know what book she was using as required reading material.
I am reminded of a psychology course I took wherein the professor brought up Freud's theories, which are very similar to what Sheldon is being accused of espousing. Freudian psychology was not brought up as the truth but as historical fact and we did have to know about the basics of Freud's theories on one test.
Professors are not there to indoctrinate students but to facilitate their learning, yet it does seem to me that many students feel that professors must agree with students ideologically or else receive bad reviews (too liberal, too hard, too conservative, too stupid, etc.). This is even more pronounced in courses that cover global warming and politics, for instance. But this isn't Sunday School, as a student you're supposed to bear the burden of studying.
Posted by: aratina | July 19, 2008 2:29 PM
I sometimes do unconventional themes (like using Run Lola Run to explore causal relationships as a lead in to a lecture/discussion on experimental design while teaching a research methods course), but there's a pedagogical reason related to doing sociology. Sometimes I wonder what the hell some incompetent people get hired and rehired. It's very frustrating for those of us who do our jobs well, and quite a few students have told me how frustrating it is for them as well.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 2:29 PM
@MAJeff #22
Yes, it was indeed "sociology of emotions" and not "emotional sociology." I'm 27 but sometimes I makes mistakes of a senile ol' lady.
It bugged the hell out of me too at the time. I walked out of the lecture in the middle of the movie, right at the part where the kid got his bike through "positive" thinking. I don't think that the professor had an "analysis of The Secret as a social phenomena" in mind. I say this because she wrote her positive version of Ten Commandments on the board before she showed us the movie. Like, instead of "You shall not covet others' etc." it was "You shall use others' possessions as a positive goal for yourself..." or something cheesier. It's been a while. More preachy than academic. Definitely NOT sociology.
Posted by: miui | July 19, 2008 2:30 PM
I'm a community college faculty member in California. To expand on Escuerd's reply (@ #24) to Matt Penfold, the community colleges in most states (it's not completely uniform across the nation) have a four-fold mission:
(1) We provide instruction equivalent to the first two years of the four-year college/university bachelor's degree; students who seek these courses typically transfer to a four-year college or university upon completing their course work at our school.
(2) We provide technical/vocational training programs (several of which result in professional certificates of mastery) for people looking to enter or advance in various trades and occupations; these occupational aspects of community colleges tend to reflect the locale (the "community") in order to supply local businesses and industries with trained personnel. In many cases local businesses may contribute equipment (computers, electronic instruments, auto tech tools) or scholarships in sponsorship of these programs.
(3) We serve as an unofficial "continuation high school" for students who dropped out of (or did poorly in) high school, because our developmental (a euphemism for "remedial") courses cover all of the secondary school curriculum, including the basics of math, English, and history. Students who survive the developmental courses may then proceed to options (1) or (2).
(4) We have on-demand courses that local people want to take. These may not always be oriented toward future education or job advancement, but simply serve the community's interests. Examples include creative writing (possibly for publication, but also for personal enrichment), hand crafts, dancing (or other recreational physical activities), and classic movie appreciation.
It's a wide range of open-admission education.
Posted by: Zeno | July 19, 2008 2:35 PM
Teh
Please, no. That isn't cool, it isn't cutting edge. It's stupid.
Posted by: Notorious P.A.T. | July 19, 2008 2:37 PM
In Virginia, if you earn an associate degree at a community college with a GPA of 3.0m or better, you can transfer to a four-year state school and earn the bachelor's while still paying community college fees.
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 19, 2008 2:38 PM
It sounds to me like the professor was making tongue-in-cheek statements poking fun at anti-gay, anti-woman attitudes, which the student is, either actually or ostensibly, interpreting as anti-gay and anti-woman.
So, either the complainant genuinely misinterpreted the prof's intended meaning (which makes her a moron), or she's misconstruing meaning to harm the professor for some other reason...
Posted by: outlier | July 19, 2008 2:54 PM
Not if you keep spelling it like that... it's Ljungberg ;)
Posted by: windy | July 19, 2008 2:57 PM
What a dubious complaint!
Posted by: Kobra | July 19, 2008 3:01 PM
Not if you keep spelling it like that... it's Ljungberg ;)
I noticed the missing j as soon as it was posted.
*sigh* Freddie *sigh*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 3:03 PM
"[F]ew gay men in the Middle East?"
Everybody knows that there are no gay men in Iran!
Posted by: Numad | July 19, 2008 3:04 PM
that little tinkertoy box of codons is full of suprises.
Posted by: genesgalore | July 19, 2008 3:07 PM
@ #15
A community college in the United States is a post-secondary(After high-school). It is an eclectic but small scale version of a University. The one I take some classes at usually has about a half dozen people per department.
At the one I go to the tuition for 2 semesters is about $3500 which is about as much as a ten year old used Honda Civic.
The University I also go to charges about $400 dollars per credit. Average of $1200 PER CLASS. 1200 x 4 =4800
4800 x two = $9600
Which is about how much an emergency spleenectomy and ambulance service costs if you don't have health insurance.
America is a strange place
Posted by: Amplexus | July 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Everybody knows that there are no gay men in Iran!
not yet anyhow.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 19, 2008 3:07 PM
There has to be more going on with that teacher than just one student's complaint. However, if she did say what the student claims that's pretty messed up. If she said it, then she should have been penalized.
Posted by: sleepers | July 19, 2008 3:12 PM
So Ted Haggard's Iranian?!!
Posted by: Sili | July 19, 2008 3:12 PM
Oh, give me a frigging break! I cannot believe that this woman lost her position based on one student complaint. And let's face it, undergrads should not have this kind of power - they tend to think they know everything when they really don't know what's good for them or what a good teacher really is. I was one not too long ago, so I should know!
I don't think it should even be up for debate that this woman should be fired for what she supposedly said based on this one student's account. Even if she did say those things in class (which I doubt that she did, at least not to the exaggerated extent this student claims), the students should be encouraged to get their heads out of their asses and start asking questions and create a dialogue with their teacher, not write complaint letters. Ridiculous!
Posted by: LisaJ | July 19, 2008 3:13 PM
Here is a summary of the investigation:
http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/072372588722ef496a1916957eb84e87.pdf
...The complaint seems to be that out of a gazillion studies on homosexuality she picked a few that just happen to fit nicely into the religious view of homosexuality as an avoidable disease. There is no mention in any of these documents on the FIRE site that she mentioned any of the tons of other studies that point to different mechanisms.
I don't know about academic freedom, but its hard not to get away with the impression that Ms. Sheldon was not really trying to give her class the big picture of the research on the issue.
Posted by: Michael | July 19, 2008 3:21 PM
There are more gay Muslims than some might suggest. Here is an example of why the measure of them are so low. It is a bit long, but in the end,,, you'll get the point.
I used to post on Spymac under the same name. I was considered an atheist by most of the religious people, even though I am actually agnostic.
I was attacked with the same strawmen we are all attacked with in here, with one group claiming I was intolerant when I pointed out flaws in Christianity's supposed compassion for our fellow man, and others for my supposed lack of balls to make similar comments about the Muslim faith. My questioning of their tolerance got one guy so mad he demanded Spymac get rid of me or he was going to have the Canadian government charge them with hate crimes in an international court. Of course this did not fly, especially when the people from Spymac saw my argument.
My argument (which was actually a question):
I would ask if an Old Jewish woman, who worked her whole life helping her fellow man, and believed with all of her heart she was doing the work of God, should go to hell, while Jeffery Dahmer, who died a Christian, should go to heaven? And if the answer was "yes," I asked them to justify this action on moral grounds other than, "because God says so."
The above question had Christians flipping out and calling me intolerant over and over again. Even Spymac had to ask them how my question qualified as any type of intolerance. None of them could answer this, but they yelled as loud as they could anyways.
They finally settled down to claiming I would not dare say similar things about the Islamic religion. I tried to tell them the only reason I was not talking about problems with the Muslim faith, was simply due to the fact that there were no muslims posting on the threads. Due to this revelation, the Christians called in some Muslims. To their shock, I started in on the muslims as well on their lack of tolerance. Several times Spymac had threatened me with being banned for this, but numerous people came and posted in defense of me and demanded that Spymac show where I had been intolerant. Each time Spymac backed down, ...until the gay Muslim showed up.
One day a Muslim came in and started to spout on about how great Islam was, and how it was about peace. The odd thing was that he had a Brad Pitt avatar with Pitt with his shirt off. I clicked onto the Muslim's bio and his picture section was mostly of half naked men in various poses. I had to double check if this was guy or not, because, for a second, it seemed this had to be a girl. Then I saw he had pictures of himself, and sure enough, he was a he. It was a bit beyond obvious I was dealing with a gay man. All his links were to do with "sexy men" and he had written adoring love poems about different guys.
I decided to simply ask the guy straight out (sorry, bad pun(s)) and asked, "How is your religion so peaceful if your fellow country men would kill you just for being gay?" Spyman flipped out and said I was now being intolerant of gays. How this was so, I never figured out. The Muslim was so shocked that I had figured him out that he disappeared. About a day later...I was banned for a week. I simply told Spymac to screw themselves, and never went back. People tried to defend me, but no one listened at Spymac.
Posted by: Lago | July 19, 2008 3:23 PM
#44 MAJeff wrote:
You beat me to it! Classic SNL short!
I know you say there's no gays in Iran
but you're in New York now, baby!
Posted by: James F | July 19, 2008 3:24 PM
You missed the "gay." The "Teh" needs to be accompanied of "gays" right after. Although I believe that if spelled "gayz", it is probably a more accepted usage.
Posted by: andyo | July 19, 2008 3:25 PM
One of my pet peeves. College and universities have gotten ridiculously expensive. When I went to a good state U., it was heavily subsidized by the state. I think tuition was a few hundred a quarter, been a while and it kept changing (going up of course). They did that because they thought an educated population was more valuable and would eventually pay it back in taxes through increased job skills, productivity, and staying off the streets.
I managed to graduate debt free with no loans through the usual various means of students everywhere.
I'd really hate to try that again. The community colleges allow people to take the first 2 years and even live at home before entering the adult world of perpetual indebtedness. I know people hitting 30 who are still paying off their student loans.
Posted by: raven | July 19, 2008 3:26 PM
Well, I don't agree with her claims. I never even heard the one about mistreating pregnant women. The one about no female lesbians is odd since there are quite a few on the WC, especially the bay area, and they aren't exactly hidden.
But so what? This is college not sunday school and any student has the right to disagree.
Posted by: raven | July 19, 2008 3:36 PM
andyo @51:
To be fair, he's doing it for teh lulz.
Posted by: James F | July 19, 2008 3:39 PM
I don't know about community colleges in general, but those in the south San Francisco Bay Area such as Evergreen/SJCC are packed to the roof. Even if there are multiple sections of a class taught, the chance of changing sections is nil.
On the other hand, classes aren't so enormous that you can't engage the instructor in a good argument. But if the student is young, she may not have the self-confidence to do so.
Posted by: Karen | July 19, 2008 3:54 PM
PZ actually does acknowledge the existence of "political correctness", outside of right-wingers' fantasies. Good for him. He is an exceedingly more intelligent and respectable person than many of his followers around here, who have become positively deranged by their obsessive devotion to political correctness and far-left politics.
Posted by: J | July 19, 2008 4:03 PM
PZ, you've lost the plot this time. I don't understand your support for Sheldon. If there's any truth in any of the ridiculous comments Sheldon made (whether they were sarcastic or serious), at the very least she needed to have been suspended pending an investigation. Either she is lacking in scientific integrity or she has poor judgment in public lecturing.
I agree with that there is more to this case than has been released, but if anything, it seems like there's a liberal bias here - pretty impressive for you Atlantic cousins. I really can't understand why you seem to be taking Sheldon's side.
Posted by: Drew | July 19, 2008 4:06 PM
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that all this woman did was suggest that maybe there are few gay men in the Middle East as compared with the West. This alone seems sufficient to arouse the wrath of the PC diehards (or the "Voices of Reason", as I like to ironically call them). Academia could really be in the grip of an intolerant and draconian sort of politically correct thought police.
Posted by: J | July 19, 2008 4:11 PM
Here is her side of the story....
http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/a6f1b9619ae3e2307b59d05edf01b346.pdf
Posted by: eyerock | July 19, 2008 4:11 PM
And also the opinion of other students in her classes
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=427805&page=2
Posted by: eyerock | July 19, 2008 4:13 PM
HMMM. A professor fired for obstinate stupidity after complaints? Sound a bit familiar? I'm amazed you had the guts to post this with what is going on in your own life, or is this a frightened plea for support.
Posted by: john | July 19, 2008 4:14 PM
eyerock @ #59
That document lays out her view on procedural mistakes that were in her view made in the process. Unfortunately the exhibits are missing and her views on the subject of the lectures is not really included.
Posted by: Michael | July 19, 2008 4:19 PM
From the link Eyerock provided, it seems the majority of her students seem to hate her guts. But aren't they just students from one class?
Posted by: J | July 19, 2008 4:23 PM
Who ever is responsible for the "Professor Sheldon said that there are hardly any gay men in the Middle East because the women are treated very nicely." comment apparently hasn't been to the Middle East.
Homosexual behavior appeared to be common the parts of the Muslim world that I traveled through. A western male in Saudi Arabia is constantly accosted in public by gay men cruising for hook ups. I accidentally caught my male staff in Pakistan engaging in a naked group-grope in the shower. The same types of thing occurred in my travels through Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia. A Indian Muslim college in Singapore explained to me that "women are for children, boys are for fun."
I came the the conclusion that the tighter the women-folk were locked up by a culture, the more gay the men became. I suspect the ladies were doing the same kind of things behind closed doors.
I wasn't overly impressed with the way the Muslim men treated their women either.
Posted by: Steve D | July 19, 2008 4:25 PM
@ 61
Did you read any of PZ's commentary on this? I guess not because you will see that he came to the defense of this professor on multiple fronts.
Pz affirms that there some unknowns in the field of biology now and this can be an area of discussion.
John, check out the dungeon tab.
Posted by: Amplexus | July 19, 2008 4:25 PM
@ john # 61
I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I missed the part where your post was relevent to... well... anything.
But I'll give it a whirl...
you think it's ironic cause PZ spouted his recent tirade regarding catholic crackers in his classroom to students... oh wait, that didn't happen.
Hmmm... so you must think it's ironic cause you think PZ is in some danger of losing his job over comments made on his personal blog... oh wait... that isn't going to happen either... you know, tenure and all.
OK, I give up... there's actually no relevent comparison. You're just an idiot. Glad we cleared that up.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 19, 2008 4:32 PM
That is absolutely true. They keep the women away from the guys on pain of death to the women if they get laid. They guys often turn to each other or children to channel their sex drive. In Afghanistan it is so common it is part of the culture.
Women can't even drive cars in Saudi Arabia.
It's all very medieval and counterproductive.
Posted by: raven | July 19, 2008 4:35 PM
But but but OFFENSIVE!
Posted by: John | July 19, 2008 4:38 PM
Assuming the student's report is accurate:
A statement like "there are no true lesbians" is not merely wrong; it is also very often coming from bigotry. If my money were going to support bigots, and so making the world a worse place to be, I'd be offended. A bit of investigation is necessary, but then if the school has can save money by getting rid of someone who's teaching bigoted bullshit, great.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 19, 2008 5:07 PM
This is an inevitable result of treating students like customers. College is not fast food, even though it is often marketed in terms of convenience.
I've read course evaluations for faculty where students complain about having to attend class, about having to read a textbook, about having to know something that wasn't mentioned it lecture (but was in aforementioned textbook), about having to attend class on time. about having to shut up so others in class can hear, having to learn about things that "bore" them, etc.
I love teaching but the environment has really shifted so that a small but very vocal subset of students can influence decisions on promotion and tenure. These students fervently believe they are entitled to what they have not earned, and their parents often back them up.
Posted by: hje | July 19, 2008 5:17 PM
They are customers. College is not cheap. People go because it is an investment that will usually allow them to negotiate for more money later. Educational institutions render a service for a fee. If you don't like it, change the economic system of the nation. ;)
Posted by: Grammar RWA | July 19, 2008 5:24 PM
Evaluations on Rate My Professor should be taken with a huge grain of salt. They do not always reflect a consensus of the type that would be obtained by reading a faculty member's course evaluations. Even for this faculty member mentioned in this post, they are all over the place.
Sometimes they are little more than legal libel espoused by some disgruntled student "consumer" hiding behind of anonymity of the internet.
Posted by: hje | July 19, 2008 5:26 PM
I agree that offending someone is not and should not be grounds for dismissal as an educator. But if the allegations made by the student are true, at the least it would mean that an authority tasked with educating students about a complex issue selectively presented evidence to support a number of conclusions which, ideologically-motivated or not, are not widely supported (and in some cases, such as, "there are no true lesbians," largely rejected) by the scientific community of the field she teaches. It is one thing to have a theory that contradicts the established orthodoxy (and more power to ya, if you topple an idea and replace it with a better one - you'd just better have some damned good evidence), it is quite another to approach the teaching of a complex and contentious issue with selective evidence and unsupported conclusions and assumptions, and to present this to your students as fact. We rail against creationists trying to sneak in absolute pablum by selective evidence presentation and screaming oppression on the part of the scientific establishment, why should we not be equally upset when an educator similarly narrows the scope