Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Dean Faces Bad News for Banning Good News

Dear Dean (Name Withheld):

I am writing today with some very bad news for you. It would appear that, by the end of the year, you may be removed from your position as Dean of Students at (University Name Withheld). But, first, let me share the Good News – that is, if you will promise not to prosecute me for it.

I used to be an atheist. When people tried to share the Gospel with me, I would hurl profanity at them. I would even use a word that begins with “f” and ends with “u-c-k.” (I’m not talking about “fire-truck,” by the way). The Gospel offended me, so I told people to take a hike whenever they tried to share it with me. Now that I have converted, I no longer suffer from that kind of extreme emotional insecurity. And that is Good News. Now it’s time for the bad news.

Recently, a student at your university tried to share the Gospel with another student at your university. That makes sense. You do work at a Christian University. But then three things happened that made little sense. I will present them in chronological order – and in order from the least to most ridiculous event:

1. The student who was hearing the Gospel told the one sharing the Gospel that it was “offensive.” Of course, the Gospel has always been offensive. They would not have nailed Jesus to a cross if it were not. Then, the student demanded that the sharer of the Good News end the conversation. Fair enough. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

2. The next day, the still-offended student filed a speech code complaint over the Gospel sharing incident. The conduct he was engaged in, by the way, is considered sin by the Bible and “diversity” by the student handbook. At many “Christian” universities, the pages of the student handbook that deal with diversity carry more weight than the pages of the Bible that deal with sin. So the real sin is often using the word sin. And that is tantamount to banning the Gospel, which is the only means of dealing with sin – in part, because it confronts sin directly. So you have a choice between the speech code and the Gospel – unless, of course, you were born with the speech code gene.

3. Finally, and most ridiculously, you actually took the complaint seriously and forced the student to stop sharing the Gospel unless someone specifically asked to hear it. The incident was isolated. There was no accusation of harassment. The offending student had no intention of speaking to the offended student again. But you had to permanently ban him from initiating conversations about salvation at a so-call Christian university. The more universities speak of tolerance, the more they reek of intolerance. The paradox is that you’ve demonstrated that principle with your indifference to principle.

But this is the last time you are ever going to silence a student who wishes to share the Gospel. By my count – I have been talking with and mentoring the “offending” student daily - you had approximately five meetings in which you threatened disciplinary action. At each one of these meetings you spoke. Each time you spoke, you offended the Gospel-sharing student. And, worse, now that other Christians are hearing of the incident, they are also offended and intimidated into silence. Put simply, they are now afraid to share the Gospel at your “Christian” university. One could say you are bullying them with the speech code. And you can’t defend yourself by saying this was an “isolated” incident. You prosecuted the Gospel-sharer based on an isolated incident. Remember?

So I have done what I must do. I have begun by organizing a series of five counter-claims against you – one for each time you spoke to the Gospel-sharing student. These five claims will come from five different students whose speech has been chilled by your conduct. They will all be delivered at once in the form of hate speech charges. In other words, you have used the speech code as a sword against others and now the sword is about to be taken from you. And it will be pointed directly toward your heart. Unless you relinquish it voluntarily you will die by it.

Let me be very specific – even at risk of repeating myself: If you don’t get rid of the campus speech code within the next ten weeks we are coming after your job. That is only bad news if you do not repent of your sinfully censorious ways and allow students to share the Good News. As always, your fate depends upon your courage and willingness to do the right thing. It is my fervent prayer that you will learn from the example of your student-accusers. They are showing what it means to be bold in the face of emotional weakness masquerading as intellectual diversity.

You’ll be hearing from us soon,

Mike S. Adams


Nasty British teachers refuse to help five-year-old girl rub eczema cream into her back over "child protection fears"

What they say makes no sense. They just don't want to help the little girl

A school has refused to rub eczema cream on to a five-year-old's back because staff say they're not allowed to touch her over child protection fears.

Leah Johnston, a pupil at at Woolston Infant School, near Southamton, Hampshire, has such a severe form of the condition that she has to apply the medication to her entire body four times a day. If it goes untreated, specialists say the schoolgirl's sores can become badly infected, meaning she has to apply the cream during the school day at least once.

Naturally, she can't cover her own back but the school's head teacher, Julie Swanston, says staff can only supervise her because their child protection policy makes it ‘inappropriate' for them to help apply the cream.

Leah's mother, Kerry Webb, has described the decision as ‘crazy' and wants the school to show some common sense. The 24-year-old, from Woolston, said: 'Leah is really good at remembering to rub the cream in. She is able to do it herself over her arms and legs and chest but she physically cannot reach her back. 'She is just five years old. All I am asking for is a bit of common sense for them to just help with her back.

'I can't understand them saying they can't touch her, it's crazy. What happens if a child falls over or needs some other sort of treatment. Would they not touch them too?

'Leah also suffers from asthma and needs to use inhalers at school every day - a process that is overseen by staff.

'It has been suggested that a simple solution would be to have a second member of staff supervising as one applies the cream. 'This is a policy used at other schools when child protection is an issue.'

The National Eczema Society has also called for the school to take a ‘sensible approach' to Leah's situation. Chief executive Margaret Cox said: 'Unfortunately we do hear of such cases where schools have a ‘non-touch' policy. 'This is a serious problem for eczema sufferers who really do need this medication applied. I would call for a sensible approach here so that in such cases the rules could be relaxed to allow for the medication to be given.'

Head bitch teacher Julie Swanston said: 'There have never in the past been any issues or concerns from any parents, pupils or teachers in how we help to administer medication to children.

'In this particular case we have supervised the child putting on her medication and have been in regular communication with the child's parents and doctor.

'In normal circumstances when administering things like creams we would either ask the parents to administer them or, like in this instance, we would help the child to administer it themselves under our supervision, as long as we get prior agreement from the child's parents. 'I'm very sorry to hear there is some concern, and we will continue to ask the parents to come in and talk to us to see how we can address those concerns.'


Wicked web of British university funding

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive

The tangled web that has become university funding in the UK is already throwing up early evidence of what a fraud the whole thing will prove to be.

In last week’s Times Higher Education, an article purports that students would be foolish to repay their loans early, even after the government’s scrapping of early-repayment penalties. It quotes Tim Leunig of CentreForum and a lecturer at the London School of Economics as saying graduates should think twice about paying off their debts early because most will never repay the full amount within 30 years, after which time arrears are written off.

He’s quoted as saying “Every penny of their early repayment is a gift to the government.” A gift to the government!!! That heavenly body showering us all with free goodies? What he really means is that failing to repay is a good kick in the ass to every hardworking taxpayer now stumping up the cash.

Putting yet another boot into the taxpayer is Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students who’s quoted as saying “Ministers must come clean on student finance that those on low and middle income are not duped into chipping away at their outstanding debt.” Duped!!! Doesn’t he mean reneging on a promise?

So the government whips up a scheme for which it has no plans to fully collect unpaid debt, a teacher of our young advises against doing so and a student leader fans the flame of irresponsibility.

How morally bankrupt our body politic has become.


No comments: