I caught this in the paper – Hamline University’s president, Linda Hanson, declares that “Despite Emmer fiasco, Hamline embraces diversity“.
This should be interesting:
Given recent events involving former gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and Hamline University, I would like to bring perspective to the university’s continuous identity with the core values of our founders, the early Methodists of Minnesota, who envisioned Hamline as a place to educate citizens for lives of civic responsibility and service in an environment of open inquiry, critical thinking, civil discourse and high ethical standards.
Those remain our core values, lived out every day in our classrooms, on our campus, and in the business and civic community.
With an asterisk. Always, always the asterisk; “unless it’s a conservative”.
Regretfully, we acknowledge that our process in our dealings with Mr. Emmer did not rise to the standards that Hamline University upholds as an institution. We take responsibility for that and do not take our shortcoming lightly.
“We take responsibility for that?”
How?
In what way do you or your “university” take “responsibility” for what happened?
Go ahead – read the entire op-ed. There is not one more mention of the Emmer flap. (Emmer is mentioned in the context of a gubernatorial debate that Hamline hosted).
Here is the fact, President Hanson; your university hired (this seems to be clear; the deal was done, according to my sources) Tom Emmer, a conservative Republican and former GOP candidate for governor.
A pack of pristinely-liberal professors (according to some sources), including (according to some more sources) Professor David Schultz, your university’s answer to Larry Jacobs and contender for Jacobs’ throne as “the most over-quoted person in the Twin Cities media”, came to your office and demanded that the school not besmirch its faculty – who, to this observer and collector of stories, seem to fit Alan Dershowitz’ description of “diversity” in the Harvard Law School faculty, “people in skirts or with different-colored skin who think exactly the same” – laid down the PC law on you. You and your administration buckled to what was nothing more than a case of intellectual cleansing.
And so when you write, apparently with a straight face…:
This does not, however, define or change the foundation upon which Hamline was established and has thrived for 157 years: one of diversity, open debate and the expression of divergent points of view.
…I, and many of your students and alumni who’ve written me over the years, and people who are familiar with your school’s record for priggish, selective, and always PC-slathered intolerance, are perfectly justified to ask “Really? How do you figure?
Or, perhaps better yet, “What record of open debate and divergent points of view?”
Like most communities, Hamline has tension when we are discussing matters that pertain to civil and human rights.
While challenging discourse always is welcomed and heard, Hamline has and always will stand firm on its core value — one that goes back to the very founding of the university: the value and respect for the dignity of every individual.
As Minnesota’s first university, Hamline has a long record of the responsible, civil and open exchange of ideas.
As president, I am confident we will continue our respected tradition of preparing students to be independent thinkers, prepared to make a contribution to their communities as engaged citizens and leaders.
I’m sorry, President Hanson. Those are some nice-sounding words.
Your university’s record doesn’t support them any better than they supported the hiring of Tom Emmer. Or the airing of any conservative view, anywhere on your blinkered, PC-addled campus.
“Taking responsibility” would be showing some accountability – showing how it is that conservatives aren’t idea non grata on your campus.
But I don’t suspect you can.
I’d invite President Hanson’s response, but I’m sure her faculty would pinch a loaf at the thought of their president communicating, not only with a conservative blogger, but a non-academic peasant whose only contribution to Hamline is not macing every piece of Hamline frat trash that’s puked on his lawn over the years).;
Thanks for harping on the responsibility angle, Mitch. From Janet Reno (only because it’s the earliest fake “taking of responsibility” I can think of) right through to Linda Hanson, leftists are able to take responsibility, they just don’t seem to… hang on, this seems appropriate.
Schultz may be a bigot but unlike Jacobs he actually is relatively sharp.
We Hamline Alumni need to be returning the fundraising mailers we get.
the university’s continuous identity with the core values of our founders, the early Methodists of Minnesota
I wonder what those early Methodists thought about same-sex marriage; the topic that supposedly disqualified Emmer from such ethereal company?
Well, they likely never thought about it since it never would have occurred to them. If it did come up though, it’s worth noting that yesteryear Methodists – for all the wishy-washy progressivism of the modern breed – were the wild-eyed Evangelicals of their day and at the forefront of the Temperance movement.
As Tracy Byrd’s “The Truth About Men” says: we ain’t wrong, we ain’t sorry, and it’s probably gonna happen again!
Based on what I have heard regarding this incident, it appears that Emmer has grounds for a breach of contract lawsuit. If true, I hope that he hires the most ruthless attorney out there and sues them back to the early days of their “founding by the Methodists of Minnesota”. After all, lawsuits are the only thing that liberats understand.
Mitch wrote…
“A pack of pristinely-liberal professors (according to some sources), including (according to some more sources) Professor David Schultz”…
Not to tell you what to do, Mitch, but that would be a major ‘get’, as you folks in the industry say, if you could get him to come on the NARN to confirm or deny and ‘splain himself if he were to confirm.
As to BH429’s contention of a Breach of Contract suit – my slight experience in the world of hiring informs me that unless the offer was in writing and received by Emmer, he doesn’t have a case. Even so, it would be fun to watch the fine folks from F.I.R.E. to ‘make inquiry’ regarding Emmer’s case. F.I.R.E. treats intolerance on a college campus like the ACLU treats a creche at City Hall. If F.I.R.E. does get involved I have two words for the Hamline gang…lawyer up.
F.I.R.E. has been a good organization. And unlike the ACLU, they go after legitamete discrimination issues.
First and foremost, Hamline f’ed up. They acknowledged that. Kind of like Koch admitting she f’ed…er, screwed….,er made a mistake. Other than that, all the Repubs have thrown around are nice-sounding words. Again, my point is it happens on both sides of the spectrum. In trying to pretend it doesn’t, you just look silly.
And from every account I’ve seen, Emmer never got the written contract.6. If he had, I’m sure he’d be waving it around. So while he was certainly treated shabbily, I’d wait to see a little evidence before I ruled on the matter.
They acknowledged that.
Right. And…
No kidding, they screwed the pooch. That fact was obvious to anyone who paid attention. The real question is “why?” The answer – I suggest it’s because of “mainstream academia’s systematic “progressive” bias, which results in fact in no ideological diversity whatsoever – is a lot more interesting than the meaningless admission.
Again, my point is it happens on both sides of the spectrum. In trying to pretend it doesn’t, you just look silly.
Wait – you’re trying to equate alleged infidelity – a human error/mistake/sin/misdemeanor – with systematic institutional bias?
Fascinating.
And from every account I’ve seen, Emmer never got the written contract
Which is irrelevant, whether true or not. It was announced – one source tells me it was in the Hamline newspaper – and even according to Hamline’s administration it was generally-accepted as a done deal…
…and it’s irrelevant to the larger question – does Hamline engage in PC-based intellectual cleansing? Whether there was a contract or not, that’s the important question.
., I’d wait to see a little evidence before I ruled on the matter.
Oh, I’ll wait for evidence.
It’s just my experience that when the charge is “intellectual bigotry”, the evidence always ends up supporting the charge. I’ve never been let down yet.
I agree with Breitbart. Any victories in this country by the right will be inconsequential until conservatives make headway in popular education and popular media.
Despite the fall of authoritarian Marxism in the old USSR and China, the country is far to the left, culturally, of where it was when Reagan gained or left the Presidency.
Tax cuts for individuals and free trade agreements for corporations are meaningless if Emmer can be blackballed because of his belief, as a private citizen, in the traditional definition of marriage.
Schultz said that the faculty was concerned for two major reasons, including whether the political positions Emmer holds were incompatible with the university’s mission, specifically his stance on same-sex marriage.
http://hamlineoracle.com/2011/12/05/emmer-never-hired/
This is McCarthyism.
Emmer is not running for office. Whatever political positions he “holds” are not subject to examination by some peoples’ tribunal. When were Emmer’s “political positions” legitimately supposed to be examined, anyhow?
“Why, uh, no, nobody in our commercial organization blackballed Pearlstein. True, we had asked him about joining, but he was never given a formal offer, and, well, some members heard that we were thinking about reaching out to him and raised some procedural objections. See, it’s important to our organization that we’re all on the same page, culturally, and Pearlstein just wouldn’t have been a good fit.”
Earsall Mackbee wrote – “And from every account I’ve seen, Emmer never got the written contract”
MBerg wrote – “Which is irrelevant, whether true or not.”
Earlier I was thinking that it was relevant in my limited experience: it isn’t an offer until it’s in writing. But then I got to thinking that if Hamline was that public about it (noting it in a student newspaper, admin types being notified) Emmer could have relied on that information to intuit that he had an offer on the table but for the formal, written contract.
Recently, another local university lost (yet another) lawsuit with similar circumstances (offer made/implied, then rescinded). Although the university is appealing this decision, their track record in these suits would lead one to believe that they will lose again on appeal.
http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2011/11/07/u-of-m-to-appeal-jimmy-williams-verdict-to-supremes/
In the end it doesn’t matter. Members of an institution that claims it is open minded, diverse, Stuff White People Like, etc.; decide that they can’t bear the notion that someone who doesn’t believe the things they believe might get on the payroll. That’s not a personal failing ala Mme. Koch. That’s a sign of institutional cognitive dissonance.
this page:
http://www.hamline.edu/offices/misa/safe-zone-members.html
from the Hamline University website pretty much explains the bias of the campus.
Note that the acronym is no longer LGBT but LGBTQIA.
“ethereal company”
Mr. Night Writer nails it with two small words. Eff them.
I had to google LGBTQIA: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and asexual
intersex? new term for “hermaphrodite” apparently.
asexual? lack of sexual attraction to anyone? Since I’m not female, wouldn’t that make me “AFEMALE” and therefore subject to all the legal and social protections afforded the “fairer sex”?