Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

I can't see where it says that he was disciplined for not doing it.

The article seems to say that it was his complaint to the college itself about the experiment that got him kicked out of the class. It would be interesting to know what his complaint entailed and why the school did what it did.

If a college is dedicated to rigorous debate then why should he have been disciplined for reporting a situation he felt was intolerant and disrespectful? That would seem to have contrary to the stated nature of the class.
Link to comment

If a college is dedicated to rigorous debate then why should he have been disciplined for reporting a situation he felt was intolerant and disrespectful? That would seem to have contrary to the stated nature of the class.

I'm just guessing but we are probably not getting the whole story behind his removal from the class.

Link to comment

I'm just guessing but we are probably not getting the whole story behind his removal from the class.

I don't often disagree with you but this is one of those times. I do suspect he was adamant in his refusal. I would be too.

Link to comment

I don't often disagree with you but this is one of those times. I do suspect he was adamant in his refusal. I would be too.

I don't disagree with you. But it wasn't his refusal that he got suspended for. No one was forced to do it, and other students refused but didn't get in trouble.

That seems to imply that there is more to the story than we are getting.

Link to comment

Additional info:

“I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I just do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate, I believe it was unprofessional, and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’” Rotela told WPEC-TV.

Rotela, who identifies himself as a Mormon, said that he put the paper back on his desk instead of stomping on it....

Rotela told the station that after telling Poole’s supervisor, associate professor Noemi Marin, about the incident, he was suspended from the class.

“I’m being punished,” Rotela said. “And like I said, I’m still waiting for an apology from somebody.”...

WPEC reported on Friday that The Liberty Institute, a faith-based law firm based out of Texas, has offered pro bono services to Rotella in the event he pursues a lawsuit against Poole or the university.

“I was very shocked by what the professor had the students do,” said the firm’s director of legal services, Hiram Sasser. “And equally shocked that the university would back such an assignment and that they would take action against a student for reporting it.”

In January, another faculty member, James Tracy, was criticized for suggesting that recent mass shootings like the December 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut were staged by the government.

Update, 3:36 p.m. EST: Fox News commentator Todd Starnes reported on Thursday that Fox had obtained a synopsis of the lesson, but that, while it asked students to write ‘Jesus’ on a piece of a paper and put it on the floor before asking them to step on it, objections such as Rotela’s are part of the lesson plan.

“Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper,” the synopsis said. “Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/22/florida-college-student-suspended-for-not-stomping-on-jesus/
Link to comment

http://www.palmbeach...ss-to-st/nW2YF/

Florida Atlantic University said Friday night it will no longer ask students in an intercultural communications class to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper and step on it.

The exercise created an uproar after a student complained. Ryan Rotela of Coral Springs said he objected during a March 4 class at FAU’s Davie campus taught by Deandre Poole, who is vice chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.

After he complained, Rotela said, FAU accused him of threatening Poole.

FAU officials issued a statement of apology, saying the exercise was optional and that no students had been disciplined as a result of it.

“This exercise will not be used again,” the statement continued. “The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs.”

Poole did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s the second time in less than a year that a county Democratic official has been accused of offending Christians. Former Chairman Mark Alan Siegel resigned last year after saying fundamentalist Christians who support Israel really “want us to be there so we can all be slaughtered or converted on the second coming of Jesus Christ.” Siegel apologized for the remark.

County Democratic Chairwoman Terrie Rizzo said Poole was merely following an exercise in a textbook.

The exercise, Rizzo said, is meant “to encourage discussion among the students about how different cultures apply different meanings to symbols. … It encourages a healthy discussion.”

She added: “Deandre himself is a Christian. He goes to church.”

The exercise is included in the instructor’s manual for the textbook, “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach.”

“This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings,” says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can’t step on the paper and “discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.

After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole’s supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

After complaining to Poole’s supervisor at FAU’s main campus in Boca Raton, Rotela said he met with a hearing officer who questioned his account in a “hostile” way and accused Rotela of threatening Poole. Rotela received a letter dated March 8 telling him he had been charged with violating FAU’s code of conduct. The letter tells him not to attend Poole’s class or contact any students involved until the matter is resolved.

Rotela says he didn’t threaten Poole and doesn’t think his words could have been interpreted that way.

“I know I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rotela said. “I don’t believe letting things be known and letting people know what happened is a threat.”

Rotela, 21, said he works for a landscaping service and takes courses part time in pursuit of a communications degree. He hopes to go to law school.

Asked about his religious beliefs, Rotela said he attends a Mormon church but “I identify myself as just Ryan, Christian, believes in God.”

Link to comment

Had I been in the class I would have written the name Mohammed on the paper and given it to the prof. and said " I will if you will and I can video your action and put it on youtube." That would have been a great object lesson on the power of symbols .

Link to comment

It is always easy to blame the victim, for goodness sakes, if wasn't so thin-skinned he would have understood the value of the lesson being taught! However, it is impossible to also understand that the author of the text was more than culpable when there are hundred, if not thousands, of alternative symbols that could have been used. What was the agenda in choosing the name of Jesus Christ? Additionally, for this bed of left-wing nut jobs posing as a professors in an institution of higher learning, alleging the student was "threatening" the professor and should be thrown out of the class? No, that is a prime example of using total strong arm tactics to shut-up the victim, I mean problem. This fits so perfectly into the stereotype of the Left allowing everyone to think and believe as they choose as long as they strictly toe the line and believe and think what they tell you to believe and think. Why does this type of behavior never fail to surprise?

Link to comment

Personally I think rotela blew the whole thing out if proportion. I had a kid that sounds just like him in one of my religion classes and it was not fun.

I wonder how differently you would have taught the lesson or responded to the a similar student's response? There are so many different ways this could have been handled. Why do you think it was handled in this specific manner? What does it say about the institution and the individuals involved?

Link to comment

Personally I think rotela blew the whole thing out if proportion. I had a kid that sounds just like him in one of my religion classes and it was not fun.

Whether he blew it out of proportion or not is a highly subjective judgement call.

Hypothetically, of course, let's say that I had a relationship with Christ where I know He was my Savior, I was acutely aware of what He has done for me, I knew what He had suffered out of His love for me, and I loved Him deeply. It's hard to see how, if a professor told me to write His name on a piece of paper and stomp on it, I could not be deeply offended and disturbed by such a request - especially as others in the room did what the professor told them to do. I would have a hard time, given what we know, of saying that he "blew the whole thing out of proportion", especially since there was no evidence of any physical violence involved.. Such an accusation must, by its nature, ignore the deep and living effect that sacred experiences and relationships have on people.

To take it up a level, perhaps you would be able to look at it in a detached manner if he wrote your mother's name (I'm assuming you have a deep and loving relationship with your mother) on pieces of paper and had the whole class stomp on those pieces of paper. I personally think that there would be very little I could do at that point to blow my response to him "out of proportion", no matter how I responded (short of physical violence). Yet the relationships some have with Christ go even deeper. It's not "just" a symbol for some people. It's a very real and personal attack.

I'm having trouble seeing, in this situation, how even a blunt condemnation of the professor, the class, and the university is in any way "blowing things out of proportion". I'm aware of nothing that requires us, as Latter-day Saints to meekly submit to blatant denigration of our Savior. On the contrary, we are told to stand as witnesses at all times and places for Him.

That others in the class were not "disciplined" for refusing to stomp on the paper (which is something that we cannot verify; perhaps they were penalized in their grades, for all we know) is irrelevant. They may choose not to make an issue of it. However, to indicate that they were doing the "right" thing while condemning someone for taking a firm stand in opposition to such a situation simply makes no sense in the context of the relationship I've described here.

Link to comment

Whether he blew it out of proportion or not is a highly subjective judgement call.

That would be why i said 'personally'.

Hypothetically, of course, let's say that I had a relationship with Christ where I know He was my Savior, I was acutely aware of what He has done for me, I knew what He had suffered out of His love for me, and I loved Him deeply. It's hard to see how, if a professor told me to write His name on a piece of paper and stomp on it, I could not be deeply offended and disturbed by such a request - especially as others in the room did what the professor told them to do. I would have a hard time, given what we know, of saying that he "blew the whole thing out of proportion", especially since there was no evidence of any physical violence involved.. Such an accusation must, by its nature, ignore the deep and living effect that sacred experiences and relationships have on people.

And that's your opinion.

To take it up a level, perhaps you would be able to look at it in a detached manner if he wrote your mother's name (I'm assuming you have a deep and loving relationship with your mother) on pieces of paper and had the whole class stomp on those pieces of paper. I personally think that there would be very little I could do at that point to blow my response to him "out of proportion", no matter how I responded (short of physical violence). Yet the relationships some have with Christ go even deeper. It's not "just" a symbol for some people. It's a very real and personal attack.

Don't change the rules of the experiement to try to make your point, because then your point becomes irrelevent to the issue.

The experiment did not require the whole class to step on the paper, it required the entire class to thinking about stepping on the paper and to acknowledge how the thought made them feel, and to figure out why. The students could choose to do so or not. And the fact that the teacher also is a Christian and still thought it was an acceptable experiment (in effect, he told the class to stomp on his mother's name), should help us to understand that the point of the experiment was to make the students think, not to be anti-Christian.

People get offended and that is their right (and may sometimes be called for) but when the intent of something isn't to be offensive, then i truly believe we should take that into consideration in our response and not try to force people to accept that our reaction is the only correct one for anyone to have.

I'm having trouble seeing, in this situation, how even a blunt condemnation of the professor, the class, and the university is in any way "blowing things out of proportion". I'm aware of nothing that requires us, as Latter-day Saints to meekly submit to blatant denigration of our Savior. On the contrary, we are told to stand as witnesses at all times and places for Him.

Again, your opinion and that's fine. I'm having trouble understanding how the experiment is at all a 'blatant denigration of our Savior', which shows that our opinions disagree. So be it. :pardon:

That others in the class were not "disciplined" for refusing to stomp on the paper (which is something that we cannot verify; perhaps they were penalized in their grades, for all we know) is irrelevant.

Let's not make up scenerios we have absolutely no proof of just to make our reactions to the experiment appear more valid.

Link to comment

And that's your opinion.

I gather, then, that you don't agree that respect for deeply held, sacred, personal experiences and beliefs should be taken into account in such "experiments".

Don't change the rules of the experiement to try to make your point, because then your point becomes irrelevent to the issue.

Balderdash. The whole methodology of experimentation is to change the parameters - including the hypotheticals - to evaluate the results. My hypothetical was similar enough to look at what was really going on here from another angle.

The experiment did not require the whole class to step on the paper, it required the entire class to thinking about stepping on the paper and to acknowledge how the thought made them feel, and to figure out why. The students could choose to do so or not. And the fact that the teacher also is a Christian and still thought it was an acceptable experiment (in effect, he told the class to stomp on his mother's name), should help us to understand that the point of the experiment was to make the students think, not to be anti-Christian

I disagree with how you've characterized the situation. The way you portray the professor and the intent of the experiment is not totally consistent with how its been reported. The mere fact of claiming to be a Christian and finding an experiment "acceptable" does not make it so, since it is clear that there are a wide variety of "Christians" in the world who find very reprehensible things to be acceptable - including being anti-Christian.

People get offended and that is their right (and may sometimes be called for) but when the intent of something isn't to be offensive, then i truly believe we should take that into consideration in our response and not try to force people to accept that our reaction is the only correct one for anyone to have.

How do you know the intent wasn't to be offensive? The rationalization of "I didn't intend to do it" isn't valid as a justification for anything. That should be clear if you've ever raised children.

Again, your opinion and that's fine. I'm having trouble understanding how the experiment is at all a 'blatant denigration of our Savior', which shows that our opinions disagree. So be it. :pardon:

I explained my hypothetical about relationships with the Savior in some detail; any Latter-day Saint should not have any trouble understanding that. If you are unwilling to make the connection of how that relationship could heavily affect the response of someone who is told to stomp on a piece of paper with His name on it, then that's your choice.

Let's not make up scenerios we have absolutely no proof of just to make our reactions to the experiment appear more valid

By the same token, let's not justify what the professor did and how the university responded by dismissing plausible explanations that contradict our world views.

Most of us have gone to public schools and universities, and we are well aware of the heavy handedness of professors and administrators in pushing their own agendas and viewpoints on their captive audiences. Not all are like that, of course, but it is clear that there is an increasing willingness of more and more professors to propagandize their students and to stifle dissenting viewpoints. There is also an increasing willingness of administrators to protect their political turf if it is in any way challenged. Both of those scenarios seem to have come into play to some extent in this situation; I do not view this as simply a "benign" thought experiment, especially when certain lines are crossed - as they were in this case.

Link to comment

I myself am torn though I am more willing to give the professor a pass than not. A couple of important considerations -

1) The professor does not appear to have compelled the students to stomp on the paper but rather the students were afforded the option of not following through with the invitation. This is a big deal and makes a big difference. Perhaps the exercise could have gone about it in a different way. Maybe by attaching the name Jesus to the front board and simply asking who would find it difficult to step on it? What about having everyone write a cross on their paper? What about a picture of Jesus? What about pictures of the professor's mother? Hmmmm..... Who knows...

2) The exercise itself seems to invite dissent and/or commentary from the students as part of the lesson. This is also good. Was our young man a bit reactionary and allowed his own commentary to escalate inappropriately so? I would not have stepped on the word and would have been deeply hurt by the exercise. Se la vie. And yes, when do we get to the point in the semester when we step on Mohammed? ;) By the way, I would not step on Mohammed either. Anything near and dear to myself and/or someone else I treat with deference. The thought of hurting another in such a way offends my sensibilities. Yes, symbols are important.

3) Because other students did not step on the paper it appears the student in question may have said something to incite a powerful response from the university. The nature of this student's exchange with his professor is not known. I can think of plenty scenarios where the student could have reacted inappropriately thereby triggering a disciplinary action. Whether he did or not will be a matter for the university and said student to flesh out. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt though.

Link to comment

I gather, then, that you don't agree that respect for deeply held, sacred, personal experiences and beliefs should be taken into account in such "experiments".

Balderdash. The whole methodology of experimentation is to change the parameters - including the hypotheticals - to evaluate the results. My hypothetical was similar enough to look at what was really going on here from another angle.

I disagree with how you've characterized the situation. The way you portray the professor and the intent of the experiment is not totally consistent with how its been reported. The mere fact of claiming to be a Christian and finding an experiment "acceptable" does not make it so, since it is clear that there are a wide variety of "Christians" in the world who find very reprehensible things to be acceptable - including being anti-Christian.

How do you know the intent wasn't to be offensive? The rationalization of "I didn't intend to do it" isn't valid as a justification for anything. That should be clear if you've ever raised children.

I explained my hypothetical about relationships with the Savior in some detail; any Latter-day Saint should not have any trouble understanding that. If you are unwilling to make the connection of how that relationship could heavily affect the response of someone who is told to stomp on a piece of paper with His name on it, then that's your choice.

By the same token, let's not justify what the professor did and how the university responded by dismissing plausible explanations that contradict our world views.

Most of us have gone to public schools and universities, and we are well aware of the heavy handedness of professors and administrators in pushing their own agendas and viewpoints on their captive audiences. Not all are like that, of course, but it is clear that there is an increasing willingness of more and more professors to propagandize their students and to stifle dissenting viewpoints. There is also an increasing willingness of administrators to protect their political turf if it is in any way challenged. Both of those scenarios seem to have come into play to some extent in this situation; I do not view this as simply a "benign" thought experiment, especially when certain lines are crossed - as they were in this case.

Jwhitlock, we disagree. You can get as self righteous as you want with me and its not going to convince me you are right.

Probably better just to agree to disagree and move on. :)

Link to comment

Jwhitlock, we disagree. You can get as self righteous as you want with me and its not going to convince me you are right.

Probably better just to agree to disagree and move on. :)

Evidently someone who points out the flaws in your perspective - and offers alternative explanations - becomes "self righteous" since they disagree with you.

It's difficult to "agree to disagree" when you want to end with this kind of personal epithet. Perhaps you should review your own posts and look in the mirror before you make that kind of accusation.

And please don't think that adding a little smiley face makes everything just peachy after such an accusation, as if you can just "move on". It doesn't.

Link to comment

The problem with this exercise is that it's subjecting people to what they consider to be sacrilegious behavior whether they choose to stomp on it or not. Just to witness other people doing it could be extremely upsetting.

Link to comment

One of the rationalizations that has been used on this thread in defense of the professor is that the lesson wasn't intended to offend anyone. I find it difficult to support such a claim. An experienced professor teaching this lesson could not be unaware that at least some deeply believing Christians would find the exercise offensive. Even someone new to the lessons would, if they had any kind of coherent thought process, realize that it could be potentially offensive. Hence, if the professor made the claim that this exercise wasn't intended to offend, but let the exercise flow without prior explanation, it would be disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

Link to comment
Had I been in the class I would have written the name Mohammed on the paper and given it to the prof. and said " I will if you will and I can video your action and put it on youtube." That would have been a great object lesson on the power of symbols .

And perhaps cowardice on the professor's part.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...