Originally Posted By woody It used to be that only government officials as representatives or agents speak for the government. This extends the agent status to RA's. It's getting more and more ridiculous. The RA's are not agents. They don't represent the university.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It used to be that only government officials as representatives or agents speak for the government. This extends the agent status to RA's. It's getting more and more ridiculous. The RA's are not agents. They don't represent the university." They most certainly do. It's obvious you're not a government employee. I am. Anyone who draws a check from the taxpayer represents the government. I imagine you have a job. Wherever and whoever that is, aren't you considered a representative of that employer?
Originally Posted By woody "I imagine you have a job. Wherever and whoever that is, aren't you considered a representative of that employer?" No. I can only do things based from whatever authority is given by that employer. There is NO expectation that I'm representing that employer in negotiations or anything else. I do think RA must make clear when he is working and when he isn't, but this 24/7 requirement is a bit ridiculous on it's face. The RA should respect the conditions of his employment. I just think RA are not representatives or agents. The 24/7 requirement also implies servitude.
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ "I certainly agree. But why not use one of the easy solutions suggested on this thread? 1) Have someone else lead the group. 2) Move the sessions out of the dorm." Those two considerations are certainly not equal to what the rights other students have. Even RA's should be able to be involved in other activities besides their dorm duties. Living and working at the same place should not require that you are representing the dorm 24/7, and they should certainly be allowed to use the dorm facilities just like any other student at the dorm. To say that they can't meet or lead some meeting in the same building where they live and where other residents can, is preposterous. To tell them to meet off campus is certainly not fair or equal.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I just thought that college campuses are supposed to encourage and welcome other points of view. But apparently that's doesn't seem to be the case, especially here in Wisconsin. Check this out: From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Just when Marquette University had started to recover from one controversy over the Warriors, an alternative student publication named The Warrior has surfaced, sparking a new wave of fiery debate on campus and beyond. Brandon Henak thinks critics of The Warrior, a new conservative paper he works on at Marquette University, vandalized his house Friday. A group of Republican students launched The Warrior this week, arguing that liberal bias in the student newspaper and classroom had created the need for a conservative outlet. Immediately Republicans and Democrats began battling over it in the world of blogs. The tension turned to vandalism at the week's end. Senior Brandon Henak, business manager of The Warrior, awoke Friday morning to discover that the front of his house had been plastered with eggs and ketchup. A sheet of paper with the name The Warrior crossed out was among the derogatory signs tacked to his windows. "I can't believe it," said Henak. "We're just trying to give a voice to everyone, and then my house gets egged. People are violently opposed to free speech." Ryan Alexander, a leader of the College Democrats, said his group had nothing to do with the vandalism, but he said that the launch of the publication "has increased tension" between Democrats and Republicans at the Jesuit university. History of clashes over moniker Controversy over the new publication comes after the campus was roiled once again in spring by a heated debate over its athletics nickname. Marquette officials dropped the Warriors moniker a decade ago amid concerns that the name was insensitive to American Indians. Under pressure, they reopened the debate in 2004 but eventually stuck with Golden Eagles after a voting process for alumni and students and one failed attempt to change the school's nickname to The Gold. Officials maintained that the Warriors nickname was insensitive. The Marquette Tribune did not favor a return to the Warriors nickname. An informal, online survey taken in November 2004 showed that a majority of students who responded thought the nickname was consistent with the college's mission. The Tribune's position upset several Republican students so much that they decided to launch an alternative publication in May devoted to their own coverage of the nickname debate. The students had come to view the student newspaper as a mouthpiece for both the administration and the left, Henak said - contentions the Marquette Tribune and the administration deny. With funding from the Delaware-based Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Republican students printed 1,000 copies of a 10-page publication and decided to call it The Warrior. They were proud of the result but saw it as practice more than anything else. This fall, the group voted to make The Warrior a regular, independent conservative news magazine. The students assembled a staff of 23 and a collection of articles and opinion pieces. Henak sold $350 in advertising space to a handful of bars and restaurants near campus. On Wednesday, they distributed 2,000 copies of their first independently funded issue up and down Wisconsin Ave. They launched a Web site at www.thewarrior.org. The issue included a cover story on a man who had served in Iraq and news items about efforts to rally support for President Bush and Wisconsin Republicans who are preparing for primaries. In an opinion piece, a student bemoaned "liberal professors, liberal administrators and liberal speakers who elevate their liberal friends as the Marquette alumni we should emulate." A letter from the editor stated: "We are here to tell those stories to the rest of the campus and stand up for you when your opinion is opposed." 'To provide a real student voice' "Our purpose," Henak explained Friday, "is to provide a real student voice." But the publication also is providing fodder for spats between Republicans and Democrats on and off campus. "The Warrior is clearly nothing more than a right-wing propaganda piece," Alexander wrote in a long statement posted on a blog he helps run called 1832.blogspot.com. Mike, who was among dozens to weigh in on the blog, agreed. He wrote that The Warrior was "another right-wing rag spewing Republican talking points that I wouldn't wipe my (expletive) with." But others defended the news magazine. One, who called himself the General, lambasted Alexander and other critics, calling them "sad soul diversity loving cronies." Conservative talk-show host Charlie Sykes, meanwhile, complimented the Warrior on its first issue. "Apparently, campus liberals are already apoplectic about the new publication," Sykes wrote on his blog. "A very good sign." John McAdams, a Marquette professor, also heaped praise on The Warrior on his conservative blog, mu-warrior.blogspot.com. He said Friday that the vandalism of Henak's house showcased the vehemence of liberals on campus. "What we have here, quite simply, is a culture of intolerance," McAdams wrote on his blog. Administration silent Absent so far from debate over The Warrior are Marquette administrators. "I think there should be a statement made saying that this type of behavior is unacceptable," Henak said of the vandalism to his house. Mark McCarthy, dean of student development, said his office would review the incident after receiving a report from the school's public safety officers. He said he has seen a variety of alternative publications pop up during his 23 years at the college. The Warrior, McCarthy said, "is no big deal."
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I will discuss more later. I have to go watch Wisconsin beat Penn State, and then the Bucks beat the Heat.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I just thought that college campuses are supposed to encourage and welcome other points of view. But apparently that's doesn't seem to be the case, especially here in Wisconsin" << The article you posted doesn't support this view at all. In fact, it serves as a pretty good illustration that free speech is alive and well, at least at Marquette. Reading through that article, it sounds like the students running the campus newspaper put out a publication that reflects their viewpoint while another group of students with a different view, finding that they didn't have the ability to shift the tone of the official publication, are now putting out an alternate one. Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the university has made any attempt to suppress either publication or its point-of-view. Yes, the article does include a report of vandalism against one of the principals of the conservative publication, but it certainly doesn't give any indication about that criminal act being encouraged or known perpetrators failing to be prosecuted. The article does indicate that a fair number of people have used blogs or other similar means to oppose either or both publication, but that too is an expression of free speech. Don't forget that freedom of speech goes both ways and protects both an opinion and responses to that opinion. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The RA should respect the conditions of his employment.> Bingo. And one condition is that he is not allowed to lead Bible study in the dorm because he is considered a government employee, etc. You may think it's a dumb law, or a dumb condition of employment, but that's a separate question. As it currently stands, the law is the law. And if this guy wants to lead Bible study he can do it elsewhere; if he wants to do it in his dorm, he can stop being an RA. But right now it's a condition of his employment that he can't do both.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Bingo. And one condition is that he is not allowed to lead Bible study in the dorm because he is considered a government employee, etc.>> STPH and Dabob2 really have this thing nailed. Government agencies have to be EXTEREMLY careful in these areas just because they are so public and subject to litigation. I'm also sure many of you will be very pleased to hear that it does not just apply to Christians. The college my wife works for at the University has a fairly large number of Muslim students. Because of this they set aside a small place for Muslims to pray in the building where the college had its administrative offices. Once word of this got to central administration they were ordered to close it. They were told that there were places off-campus where the Muslim students could pray, and that the University could not be seen as endorsing any religion. As for the RA... yes, they are considered "on the job" 24 hours a day, much like the caretaker of an apartment building would be. In this case I think conservatives and conservative Christians are really blowing this thing way out of proportion.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Bottom line is that Christianity is somehow threatening to a group of people and that's very sad.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Bottom line is that Christianity is somehow threatening to a group of people and that's very sad.>> No. Government endorsement of a specific religion is very threatening, and I'm very glad that America does everything it can to prevent it. Show me ONE country that has a state supported religion where it has not caused constant turmoil and strife. That is the one thing this country’s founder got right more than ANTHING else. Freedom to worship the way you choose? Absolutely! But government endorsement of ANY religion? No way.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 But if you read what the first part of the first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The University, which is part of the government is doing the second part.
Originally Posted By Spree ^Exactly.... "make no law".....how is letting this man continue making a law establishing religon. The line clearly says "make no law respecting an establishment of religon"....by letting him read the bible a law is being made????? Once again the lefties are reading what isn't there and not reading what clearly is.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Once again the lefties are reading what isn't there and not reading what clearly is. >> Once again the 'righties' can't come close to making a point so they call names. Learn to put a couple of sentences together without the use of "lib", "socialist" or "leftie" and we MIGHT take you seriously.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Once again the lefties are reading what isn't there and not reading what clearly is." Yeah, that John Adams, what a "lefty". The university is not prohibiting anyone from studying religion. The Constitution does not allow government entitities to be seen as endorsing one form of religion over another. Allowing this R.A. to lead a group, on campus, under the Constitution, would be doing that. That isn't prohibiting the free exercise of religion, it's ensuring that they aren't endorsing any. Your apparent interpretation of the second part involving free exercise is incorrect. If the R.A. quit his job, any of the principals involved would be free to study on campus. Or, they could all take it off campus. This has all been plainly said before. If the government were preventing the free exercise, then they couldn't do it anywhere. THAT'S how the second part is interpreted.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 You mean to tell me that he couldn't be in his OWN dorm room. Where he lives and where he sleeps and not hold a bible discussion. Am I reading that right?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And if the R.A. takes his bible study off campus, what good does that do the students who may need him. It's a lose lose situation for the R.A.
