CONTEST! Best Response to Professor Pompous Gets Free Copy of “The Nature of Nature”

_{Barry Arrington

July 20, 2011

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

UPDATE: WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL FANTASTIC ENTRIES ALREADY. BUT THERE IS STILL TIME TO POST AN ENTRY. I WILL JUDGE THE CONTEST ON 7-26-11

A couple of months ago a young university student contacted my law office seeking help in a dispute she was having with a university here in Colorado. [To protect my client’s privacy, I am using neither her name nor the name of the university. ] The previous week she had voiced opposition to Darwinism to her biology professor, who proceeded to scream at her, denigrate her religious views, and generally demean and humiliate her in front of the rest of the class. After hearing her story I sent a demand letter to the university seeking redress. Good news. We resolved the matter on very favorable terms.

One of the terms we insisted on was a letter of apology from the professor. This is the full text of that letter:

Ms. _____________:

With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology.

In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science. In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun, rather than the other way around which was, according to the Catholic Church ‘false and contrary to Scripture.’

In 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found ‘vehemently suspect of heresy’, forced to recant heliocentrism, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. As he was led away to begin his confinement, he said (to no one in particular) ‘and yet it still moves’.

NOW TO THE CONTEST: Even though the legal matter has been resolved, I will not allow the last two paragraphs of the letter, which, in my view, are equal parts smug and pompous, go un-rebutted. And I have decided to let UD readers participate in the fun! Readers are invited to propose responses to the professor in the comment section below. On July 26 I will judge the responses, and the best response will receive a free copy of The Nature of Nature edited by our very own William Dembski.

Comments

Show a little respect to and concern for deeply wounded people, please.
Yes, please do that KF. I've found your comments on this thread utterly disgusting and deeply offensive. You are a disgrace to Christianity. SHAME ON YOU!DrBot_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

KF,
So, you are wrong, it is you who plainly do not know what you are talking about, and — worse — you are trying to pile on in a context where it is obvious that you have not been able to deal with the issues on the merits elsewhere.
While I do have Psychology degree and while I did spend 3 years as a counselor with a medical department at Georgetown Hospital dealing with a variety of patient subjects, including some who where the victims verbal/emotional harassment and abuse, my experience doesn't much matter given volumes of documented professional assessments, records, and research on rape victims vs harassment victims. So here you go: Eby, K; Campbell, JC; Sullivan, CM; Davidson Ws, 2nd (1995). "Health effects of experiences of sexual violence for women with abusive partners". Health Care for Women International 16 (6): 563–576. doi:10.1080/07399339509516210. PMID 8707690. ^ Collett, BJ; Cordle, CJ; Stewart, CR; Jagger, C (1998). "A comparative study of women with chronic pelvic pain, chronic nonpelvic pain and those with no history of pain attending general practitioners". British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 105 (1): 87–92. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09356.x. PMID 9442168. ^ a b Mulugeta, E; Kassaye, M; Berhane, Y. (1998). "Prevalence and outcomes of sexual violence among high school students". Ethiopian Medical Journal 36 (3): 167–174. PMID 10214457. ^ Evaluacio´n de proyecto para educacio´n, capacitacio´n y atencio´n a mujeres y menores de edad en materia de violencia sexual, enero a diciembre 1990. [An evaluation of a project to provide education, training and care for women and minors affected by sexual violence, January–December 1990.] Mexico City, Asociacio´n Mexicana contra la Violencia a las Mujeres, 1990. ^ Carpeta de informacio´n ba´sica para la atencio´n solidaria y feminista a mujeres violadas. [Basic information file for mutually supportive feminist care for women rape victims.] Mexico City, Centro do Apoyo a Mujeres Violadas, 1985. ^ Holmes, MM; Resnick, HS; Kilpatrick, DG; Best, CL (1996). "Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women". American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175 (2): 320–324. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70141-2. PMID 8765248. ^ a b Jewkes, R; Vundule, C; Maforah, F; Jordaan, E (2001). "Relationship dynamics and teenage pregnancy in South Africa.". Social Science and Medicine 5 (5): 733–744. PMID 11218177. ^ Boyer, D; Fine, D. (1992). "Sexual abuse as a factor in adolescent pregnancy". Family Planning Perspectives 24 (1): 4–11. doi:10.2307/2135718. JSTOR 2135718. PMID 1601126. ^ Roosa, MW et al.; Tein, Jenn-Yun; Reinholtz, Cindy; Angelini, Patricia Jo (1997). "The relationship of childhood sexual abuse to teenage pregnancy". Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (1): 119–130. doi:10.2307/353666. ^ Stock, JL et al.; Bell, Michelle A; Boyer, Debra K; Connell, Frederick A (1997). "Adolescent pregnancy and sexual risk taking among sexually abused girls". Family Planning Perspectives 29 (5): 200–227. doi:10.2307/2953395. ^ Martin, SL; Kilgallen, B; Tsui, AO; Maitra, K; Singh, KK; Kupper, LL (1999). "Sexual behaviour and reproductive health outcomes: associations with wife abuse in India". Journal of the American Medical Association 282 (20): 1967–1972. doi:10.1001/jama.282.20.1967. PMID 10580466. ^ Jenny, C; Hooton, TM; Bowers, A; Copass, MK; Krieger, JN; Hillier, SL; Kiviat, N; Corey, L et al. (1990). "Sexually transmitted diseases in victims of rape". New England Journal of Medicine 322 (11): 713–716. doi:10.1056/NEJM199003153221101. PMID 2155389. ^ Wingood, G; DiClemente, R; Raj, A. (2000). "Adverse consequences of intimate partner abuse among women in non-urban domestic violence shelters". American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19 (4): 270–275. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00228-2. PMID 11064231. ^ a b Tangney, June Price and Dearing, Ronda L., Shame and Guilt, The Guilford Press, 2002 ISBN 1572309873 ^ Frazier, Patricia A.; Mortensen, Heather; Steward, Jason (2005). "Coping Strategies as Mediators of the Relations Among Perceived Control and Distress in Sexual Assault Survivors". Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (3): 267–278. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.267. ^ Matsushita-Arao, Yoshiko. (1997). Self-blame and depression among forcible rape survivors. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 57(9-B). pp. 5925. ^ Branscombe, Nyla; Wohl, Michael; Owen, Susan; Allison, Julie; N'gbala, Ahogni (2003). "Counterfactual Thinking, Blame Assignment, and Well-Being in Rape Victims". Basic & Applied Social Psychology 25 (4): 265–273. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2504_1. ^ Davidson, JR; Hughes, DC; George, LK; Blazer, DG (1996). "The association of sexual assault and attempted suicide within the community". Archives of General Psychiatry 53 (6): 550–555. PMID 8639039. And Harassment: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dQhz3uFOuaYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA127&dq=effects+of+harassment+and+bullying&ots=GM47jeKnzu&sig=La8WskakFrJucGeRGfRdUEWt038#v=onepage&q=effects%20of%20harassment%20and%20bullying&f=false The key to note in the research on harassment and bullying is that "Although single acts of aggression and harassment occur fairly often in everyday interaction at work they seem to be associated with severe health problems in the target when they occur on a regular basis (Einarsen and Raknes, 1997, Vartia 2001). Since this particular incident represents a one-time act, this is not even remotely similar to the effect of a rape. It is also interesting to note the difference in the assessment of rape and harassment by criminal psychologists - the professional field does not even consider harassment via verbal abuse as a action motivated by the same level of antisocial behavior, nor consider it even remotely the same level of transgression to warrant legal action.
Shame on you!
I feel no shame for pointing out the completely inaccurate, to say nothing of inappropriate, comparison between this one incident of harassment and an act of rape. The metaphor demonstrates a complete disconnect from volumes of documentation on the differences between the effects of both acts.Doveton_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

MI, You are going to have to make time in your schedule to post on UD more often. Sorry for any inconvenience, but thats the way its going to have to be. An increase of 50% over the next few weeks seems entirely reasonable. ;)Upright BiPed_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Doveton: Am HD:
rape 1 (rp) n.1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice. tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes 1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on. 2. To seize and carry off by force. 3. To plunder or pillage. [Middle English, from rapen, to rape, from Old French raper, to abduct, from Latin rapere, to seize; see rep- in Indo-European roots.]
I am plainly distinguishing the usage (right from the outset), and pointing to its psycho-spiritual effects and mechanisms in the different cases. Violation what is truly damaging, some can rebound relatively well, others are horribly maimed, whatever the means of violation used. Show a little respect to and concern for deeply wounded people, please. In this case, as in others, some measure of justice and restitution by the guilty party is a major step in the healing process. That is why the compounding of the offense under the name of an apology we see in the OP is so wrong. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, spot on again: "you (ie. Doveton and friends) are trying to pile on in a context where it is obvious that you have not been able to deal with the issues on the merits elsewhere." If Starbuck is telling the truth, then providing us with TMI purely to make a nasty personal attack (the kind that evolutionists often resort to on all those occasions that they lose the argument) on kairosfocus is particularly low indeed. Shame on them indeed. I wonder, can Doveton and friends provide us with equivalent examples of themselves piling on against a fellow evolutionist while leaping to the defence of a victimised ID proponent or creationist? In the absence of such evidence, we can conclude that Doveton and friends are trying to defend the indefensible when it comes to Professor Pompous. Why I wonder...Chris Doyle_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Ciphertext,
Why the offense to the metaphor? Surely kairosfocus wasn’t invoking the legal definition for rape. Most likely he’s using one of the other definitions. Based upon his context, I would say he is using the definition indicating rape as any violation or abuse.
Apparently your assumptions were wrong, Cipher.Doveton_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

KF, Not only so, but the two apparently endorse the professor's behavior. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

MI: Sad really, but sadly revealing. It is clear to me that S and D have not had to deal with the wreckage of an unjust public shaming. I have. It is not pretty nor easy. Gkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

"Dear Professor ____, I’m sorry that you had to go through this, even though you tried to do the right thing by telling your student the truth about what the data shows."
Translation: Dear victim, you were asking for it.
"Speaking as someone who has actually been raped before, I find your “metaphor” despicable."
Props on invoking victim status in defense of your blame-the-victim mentality. You fished in Doveton! Are there any other takers? Hey, what is it called when a person in a position of power victimizes another who is entrusted to their care. What do you call the person who offers defense of this exploitation, and all without any apparent concern for the victim. I'm laughing, don't know why. Starbuck praises the abuser, and Doveton mocks offense at a rape metaphor on a thread in which the OP exposes a serious charge of abuse: an older man in a position of power publicly humiliates a young female student who happens to be his charge. Priceless.material.infantacy_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Doveton: Have you ever had to deal as a counsellor with the wreckage left behind by the sort of public shaming tactics as I just described, on a vulnerable person? I have. And for what it is worth, I have dealt with incest-rape cases too, and the damage is unfortunately comparable when we deal with sufficiently vulnerable people. (There are people who bounce back from incestuous rape, with very little evident damage, though, deep down, there are issues that should be dealt with with a trusted counsellor, especially if death ideation or a tendency to promiscuity or a loss of prudence in behaviour [reflecting a diminished sense of self-worth] begin to manifest. Resort to drink or drugs is also a serious indicator. So would be a felt depressive spiral -- but, not all depressions are directly felt as sadness or heaviness of spirit.) That's because in both cases the key mechanism of damage is violation of a powerless person, triggering destructive inner messages and a down-spiral of self-destruction of self-image; with self-blame a common feature. If you are lucky, recovery takes months. If not, years, or maybe it's permanent. Do you think the sort of description I gave above is a product of mere imagination? It is not. The damage done through this sort of unjust public humiliation should not be underestimated, and can in fact be permanent and even suicidally depressive, if the wrong party is picked on like that. And unfortunately, the people who are likely to be vulnerable to such abuse, give off subtle cues in their behaviour that often invite the sort of verbal bully we are dealing with to act like that. He thinks he is likely to get away with it. And so the sadistic tongue comes out like a cracking, cutting, flaying whip, and strikes, again and again, mercilessly wounding the vulnerable soul deeply. Deeper than mere blows or scars can. " A man's spirit bears him up in adversity, but a wounded soul, who can bear?" What happened in this case is the young miss wisely went to her pastor, who had a line to Mr Arrington, so it has backfired. He never counted on that. He's probably got away with that sort of personalised, warped need for power, sadistic, highly machiavellian thing before. So, you are wrong, it is you who plainly do not know what you are talking about, and -- worse -- you are trying to pile on in a context where it is obvious that you have not been able to deal with the issues on the merits elsewhere. Shame on you! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

CT: First, I trust S understands that I have no wish to put her or him through the memory of a horrible event again. However, at the same time, S needs to understand what it is like to be publicly shamed and humiliated through an undeserved tongue-lashing that cuts to the core of one's worldview and personal values; delivered in front of one's peers, by an acid tongued high status superior who holds power over you so you have no right of effective reply under the circumstances. It is indeed a raping of your dignity [notice the carefully distinguished term I used above], and in fact -- on my experience of having to expose brainwashing cultic groups -- is a step in the brainwashing process; and not just for the direct victim. S too needs to recall the -- correct -- feminist protest that too often, the way rape trials were formerly conducted was a public verbal raping of the dignity of an already hurt victim, multiplying the victimisation. What was done was plainly utterly destructive and inexcusable, an abuse of power and violation of a person. That it was multiplied by adding insult to injury under the form of an UN-apology, shows that much stronger medicine than a letter of apology is needed. And if the prof now refuses to publicly and properly apologise, then he should be removed from his position of trust as an educator, as unfit to be in charge of students. That is how serious this is. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Starbuck,
Speaking as someone who has actually been raped before, I find your “metaphor” despicable.
As do I. KF, that comment was without question the most ignorant statement you could possibly make. I am utterly stunned that you think there's even a comparison. I am further stunned at the utter lack of actual awareness displayed not just by your statement, but by the lack of rebuke from any other quarters. If this is the type of comment this site feels is "civil" and appropriate, nothing here can ever be taken seriously.Doveton_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

@Starbuck Post # 45
Speaking as someone who has actually been raped before, I find your “metaphor” despicable.
Why the offense to the metaphor? Surely kairosfocus wasn't invoking the legal definition for rape. Most likely he's using one of the other definitions. Based upon his context, I would say he is using the definition indicating rape as any violation or abuse.ciphertext_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Speaking as someone who has actually been raped before, I find your "metaphor" despicable.Starbuck_{July 22, 2011
July
07
Jul
22
22
2011
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Starbuck, I hope you now begin to understand -- even a little bit -- just how wrong-headed, and wrong-hearted your remark above is. Would you spit in the face of a weeping rape victim on the witness stand by implying that "she asked for it"? Why then are you doing what you just did?kairosfocus_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Let us put this in context. Someone's dignity was publicly raped,* and it was not that of prof P. Indeed, it seems he was the rapist, now pretending to victimhood. And he wishes to do it again, by implying -- in the teeth of what the example he cites ACTUALLY shows -- that his victimised student is party to a theocratic, tyrannical, anti-science conspiracy. This is blaming the victim while raping her again, for daring to complain of rape: she asked for it. Shameless! _______ * It is sad that I have to use such a strong metaphor. But the key point of what rape does, is seen in an old phrase for it, "hot and forcing VIOLATION." Forceful and/or fraudulent violation, humiliation and terrorising of a person -- not just a body -- not in a position to successfully resist is the heart of rape.kairosfocus_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Lynch mobs are fun, but any chance we could have a little more info ?
I have a little more detail on what is going on here: No one's getting lynched.jjcassidy_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Here's something I'm sure you can appreciate: Galileo was not imprisoned by a student in his classroom that happened to hold a divergeant view. Why you would mention this, when you are are representing the authority of the school and the student represents the outsider, escapes me. Secondly, Galileo was a victim of a fixed consensus of experts of the time. And those who opposed him were a particularly hardline sect of Aristotelians. He had attacked Aristotelians in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World by naming the Aristotelian Simplicio who lost the various debates in the dialog. Shining some light on the true diagreement is the statment from Jesuit Father Melchior Inchoer, who accused: "The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable...the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; arguments against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves." This is often quoted for its sound of furious zeal, but often without awareness as to the exact object of that zeal. Melchior's statement expresses that a fixed earth is more "sacred" than the existence of God or His Son ("the incarnation"), or the immortality of the soul, very key in the "Good News" which is center to Christianity. It demonstrates at least a theoretical openness to question fundamental principles of the theology of Christianity, but NOT what was thought to be the bedrock of reality, that the earth was still. One can almost hear the refrain that the "Science was settled." What is often ignored by the people reading history from the end is that there were important theoretical problems in Copernicus' theory, and the evidence hadn't been gathered even at the time when Galileo wrote his Dialogue. So please, if you're going to invoke some trembling from an Andrew Dickson White nightmare, when you represent not only the authority but the consensus on your side, it would be more gracious to just apologize for berating a young lady instead of ending with irrelevant hand waving and not a single note on key.jjcassidy_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

If the goal is simply to make the professor's blood boil, all one would need to do is forward a link to this thread.SteveGoss_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Dear Professor ____, I'm sorry that you had to go through this, even though you tried to do the right thing by telling your student the truth about what the data shows.Starbuck_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Galileo Galilei [ LUCID ] Neo-Darwinism [ NOT ] Visual reference: http://www.3requisite.com/lucID.jpg Main Entry: lu·cid Pronunciation: \?lü-s?d\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin lucidus, from luc?re Date: 1591 - having full use of one's faculties : sane - clear to the understanding : intelligible Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luciddna2u_{July 21, 2011
July
07
Jul
21
21
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Dr. Prof. limp####, Surely your Darwinian beliefs require that you pass on your genes at every available opportunity. So how do you explain your actions in my presence, an attractive fertile female? Was it some exotic mating ritual? Why didn't you just rape me in front of the class? Or is that precisely what you tried to do? Sir, have you heard of memetic rape? Papers will be served soon. Regards...Mung_{July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

CT: Well said. This was indeed an adding of insult to injury, carrying the implication that the prof figured the young miss would miss the substance in the form. That is, he thinks she is stupid, as in "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." GEM of TKI PS: (And with those who imagine that by making false and vile accusations against me they can justify implicitly threatening my family mafioso style: we know you, we know where you are and we know those you care for . . . in mind) My suggestion: _______ Professor Pompous: I am in receipt of your "apology" of dddd, which is your response to the administrative demand that you apologise for publicly insulting me, your student, in front of my peers; for daring to actually express sincerely held questions regarding your shibboleths. Even as I had sincerely hoped that you would have treated me with some measure of civility and respect as your student, only to be deeply disappointed, so also it now seems that I unfortunately have reason for further disappointment. Your letter is in the general form of an apology, but its substance is that of adding insult to injury. So, not just on my own behalf but that of others you may similarly abuse in future, I must refuse this "apology," copying to the University Administration and the Senate that hired you. For, you did not merely "appear" to insult and humiliate me in the presence of my peers; that is what you patently, publicly, willfully and gleefully did, exploiting your prestigious status and position of power over me. Nor did you merely denigrate my beliefs, you denigrated me, showing a want of basic professionalism and even common courtesy. Perhaps, I need to remind you of what transpired: [list, by bullet points] In what wise was your worldviews harrassment by public humiliation through hate speech, as just described, materially different from sexual harassment? Sir, you publicly raped my dignity as a person. That is what you needed to apologise for, and utterly failed to do. Now, the letter you have communicated further tells me you are trying to compound the first offense by twisting the circumstances and pretending that you are an innocent Galileo being pounced on by a wicked and theocratic inquisition. You have your facts wrong about Galileo -- who BTW was a design thinker who held the Christian Scriptures in high esteem -- but that is not the main issue. That main issue, sadly, sir, is that you are patently an unrepentant, publicly abusive bigot; one who has now repeatedly abused the privilege of being a professor. Your remarks were deeply disrespectful and were plainly intended to create a climate of hostility and intimidation; i.e. they are a case of bullying. Bullying by a perpetrator holding a position of prestige, trust and power, who now wishes to imagine and portray himself as instead the "real" victim. The opportunity of the requested letter of apology was an occasion for you to reflect and amend your ways. This is -- as I know from my own experience as a fellow finite, fallible, morally fallen human being, quite hard to do. But, for our own good and the good of the community, it is a struggle we must take up. But, you, sir, have not taken opportunity of correction -- not even by instruction of your employer (much less the reasonable expectation of those who pay your salary through fees and/or taxes) -- to change for the better. Accordingly, I must now act in defence of civility in the university as a part of the wider community. I therefore must require a proper apology, one to be read out by you to the class in front of which you bullied me. And, this in the presence of a representative of the University Senate as well as my attorney. If you refuse to do so, that will be further proof of bad intent on your part, and will leave me no option but to initiate action. SGD: Ms XXXXXkairosfocus_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

I think you should go the straight up route. Appeal to the heart. Any humble response would almost certaily begin reconcilliation. I have to admit, I started with the whole "thank you for you usefull analogy" bit. But in the end, we want him on our team. Submission: ------------- Dear Sir, I'm sorry that they forced you to apologize to me against your will. I respect and understand that you don't want to and that you maintain your position. But could you at least tell the rest of the class that you are not angry at me. I do want to learn about biology, and I would like to hold my head up in class so I can at least see the board. I'm sorry for openly questioning you. I'll try not to ask disruptive questions. Love, Ms. _______John D_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

I would like to make specific mention to the uncontested disparaging comments, however, as they are not provided in the original post; I shall use "placeholders" to be filled in by the plaintiff. "Response Contest" Entry: ------------------------------------ RE: Apology Letter Prof. Pompous, I have both received and read the letter of formal apology you have submitted to me per the requirement of the resolution reached between myself and Anonymous University. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept this letter as an apology. The reason being both the tone and content of the letter indicate a lack of sincerity. You should know that such insincerity only compounds the offense. Such responses, apologies in name only, indicate to me that you most likely will repeat the unacceptable verbal assault in the future; if not against me (your current object of scorn) then against some other individual. It provides further proof that you are unable to conduct yourself with civility and composure in the face of disagreement. I do not believe you need any references as to what would qualify this apology as insincere. As you most likely wrote how you truly felt concerning the situation. However, for posterity and an understanding of my perception of the document. I shall illuminate some of the offending statements. "I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs." There was no "appearance" of denigration. Your speech was clearly denigrating. [cite specific examples] As it was directed towards me, your speech served to denigrate me. I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view. That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology. I expected an apology for your offensive speech [cite specific examples]. It would be illogical for you to apologize for my perceptions. However, one could interpret this as an additional insult, implying a deficit in cognitive faculties to derive an "appropriate perception". In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science. Let us set aside, for the time being, the inaccurate historical narrative you provided for Galileo. As the details of Galileo's circumstances and sentencing aren't the important element as to why I find this reference an example of your insincerity. Rather, the "idea" you attempt to convey by invoking reference to Galileo and the Inquisition is perhaps the most "damning" of evidence as proof of your insincerity. I realize that it is most likely embarrassing to you that you must make an apology. Indeed, you are entitled to think how you so choose. However, the fact that your speech offended, humiliated, and denigrated me and occurred within full view of my classmates cannot be disputed. It should be known that the apology is only partially for my sake. The humiliation and denigration has already occurred. It cannot be undone. In truth, I have already forgiven you for what you have done to me. The act of apology is therefore an "antonement" for a transgression you have committed. The humiliation and embarrassement you endure while making a public apology are part and parsel. It is when you knowingly subject yourself to humiliation and embarrassement without having to be told to do so in order to effect the apology; that the recipient of the apology can have confidence in the sincerity of the apology. This condition is known as penitence. Your apology, therefore, can only be acceptable when it stems from a penitent heart. In closing, I will leave you with a quote. You should know that my worldview, which you similarly denigrated [cite specific example] clearly instructs in a method as to how we can identify those with penitent hearts. It (the method) is the source of this quote. Ironically, it stems from warnings to beware against false "prophets"
Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. -- Matthew 7:20 (ESV)
When I examine this apology in light of that lense, I do not see any "good fruit". Do you Professor? Sincerly, Ms. _____________ciphertext_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

That she would feel hurt by the experience or perceive it as an assault on her personal dignity was, no doubt, a mere unfortunate and unintended side effect.
No doubt it's merely an emergent property.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

If you ask me, what happened with Galileo was just an early form of peer review. Is this guy objecting to peer review?Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor Pompous: Thank you for your recent letter to Mary. We appreciate the fact that you are sorry for “appearing” to denigrate her strongly held beliefs as opposed to being sorry for really doing it. Under the circumstances, it is uncommonly noble of you to apologize for something that you are not sure really happened. Perhaps that would explain why you indulged in the comfort of writing a private memo to atone for the trauma of a public humiliation. Still, we recognize that you did not, as you say, “intend to offend her.” You simply meant to demean her, intimidate her into silence, and curb her natural desire for self expression. That she would feel hurt by the experience or perceive it as an assault on her personal dignity was, no doubt, a mere unfortunate and unintended side effect. We also note the significance of your historical references and their relationship to your own attitudes. Just as Galileo sulked because he was forced to recant against his will, you sulked because you were forced to apologize against your will. We get it. Fear, it would seem, was your dominant motive. Thanks to your colorful analogy, Mary now understands that neither compassion nor remorse played any role at all in your decision to apologize. Finally, we are impressed that you would end with the words of Galileo’s famous protest, “and yet it still moves.” So much so, that we hesitate to inform you that he never said them. Alas, politically correct myths have ruined more sign offs than misplaced prepositions. It may further surprise you to know that Galileo was, of all things, a design thinker. Surely you can appreciate the irony in the fact that the person you claim to esteem so highly would not have been welcome in your own classroom. Such a distasteful idea would likely be as appealing to you as the prospect of apologizing to Mary in front of everyone who witnessed and shared her humiliation.StephenB_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor, Thank you for the attempted apology concerning the matter of your behavior in class when the issue of evolution came up. Many view Galileo’s conflict with the church as a great triumph of science over religion and, by extension, over the Bible. However, as we shall see in the next article, this simplistic conclusion ignores many facts. Galileo unnecessarily made powerful enemies for himself by his quick wit and cutting sarcasm. Also, by arguing that the heliocentric concept harmonized with Scripture, he presented himself as an authority on religion, which further provoked the church. Let's put aside our differences for the moment and discuss scientific history. The seeds of the clash between Galileo and the Catholic Church were sown centuries before Copernicus and Galileo were born. The earth-centered, or geocentric, view of the universe was adopted by the ancient Greeks and made famous by the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) and the astronomer-astrologer Ptolemy (second century C.E.). By the time of Galileo, says Wade Rowland in his book Galileo’s Mistake, “the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Thomas Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome.” Keep in mind, too, that in those days there was no scientific community as such. Education was largely in the hands of the church. The authority on religion and science was often one and the same. The foregoing should not discourage an interest in science; really, the Bible makes statements that harmonize with proven science. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” In his defense, Galileo affirmed his strong faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. He also argued that the Scriptures were written for ordinary people and that Biblical references to the apparent movement of the sun were not to be interpreted literally. His arguments were futile. Because Galileo rejected an interpretation of Scripture based on Greek philosophy, he stood condemned! Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church officially admit to error in its judgment of Galileo. I am certainly glad I didn't have to wait 500 years for an apology! Yours, Anonymous StudentBarb_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Dear Professor Pompous: Thank you for your apology. I am writing to let you know that it has been accepted with all the sincerity with which it was offered. However, I am curious as to why this affair should remind you of what happened to Galileo. As I recall, Galileo was not tried for averring heliocentricism, but for violating his 1616 agreement not to discuss heliocentricism as literally true. You were not tried for heresy, but were merely asked to issue an apology for behaving like a jerk. Further, if you’re trying to imply that you are in some way the Galileo figure in this affair, I should remind you that when Galileo met with Urban VIII, he at least refrained from having a public snit-fit about it. If anything, you’re more like the Inquisition (or, rather, the monstrous, cowled figures you’ve conjured in your anti-religious mind to represent the Inquisition), attacking the heretic who doubts Our Lord Darwin. What you did to me was the academic analog of an ape flinging his poop. Lastly, I believe the phrase that Galileo was rumored to have muttered was “Eppur si muove”--“and yet it moves.” It was also rumored that immediately after he uttered these words, fellow Italian Leonardo da Vinci suddenly appeared in a water-powered time machine, and the pair boldly zipped off into space to prove that there was no Heaven. I say rumored because neither of these events is supported by factual evidence. However, it comes as no real surprise that you would believe in something for which there is no evidence, hence your adherence to Darwinism. The only surprise is that you call yourself a scientist. By the way, did you see the headline in today’s paper? “Missing Link Still Missing!” Say it ain’t so, Joe!terrylmirll_{July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply