UT Anti-Campus Carry Profs Are Courage-Challenged

UT Professor Lisa Moore (courtesy halvard-johnson.blogspot.com)

When I was a Tufts University Jumbo, I engaged my teachers in pointed, spirited debate. (Surprise!) None of my profs shied away from intellectual confrontation, nor punished me for refusing to tow the party line in class or on paper (something you write on with a pen or pencil. Google it). So I don’t get why University of Texas professor Lisa Moore [above] is up in metaphorical arms about campus carry, organizing her fellow educators to oppose Texas’s new concealed carry legislation. I reckon the chances of a UT prof being assaulted by an armed student pissed off about course content or grades are . . .

way less than the odds of a prof getting mowed down by drunk student driver. (More here.) For insight into the educator’s anti-gun anxiety, Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop arm The Trace submits Moore’s [edited] anecdotal evidence “proving” that campus carry is a bad, bad thing:

Has a student ever brought a gun into one of your classes?

No, but I’ve had some experiences that made me very grateful students weren’t allowed to carry guns on campus. I teach gay and lesbian studies. When I first got here in the early ’90s, I had an office on the ground floor of the English building, and I had a lot of posters up advocating for gay rights. One day, someone broke into the office, burned my gay rights posters, and then wrote “depravity kills” all over the windows. It was scary enough for me to know someone was willing to commit a serious act of vandalism. Were it the case that someone could have brought a gun into my office, during office hours, I think I wouldn’t have been able to do my job . . .

More recently, during the semester after the Virginia Tech shootings in 2008, I was teaching an LGBT literature class. Sometimes the class riles up students, and I had a student that semester who believed, among other things, that gay people were going to hell. After a while, I guess as a kind of protest, he started coming to class and lying on the floor. He also started posting things online about not doing the reading and said that he would stop other students from doing the reading. I got nervous and went to my supervisor, and it turned out this student had problems with mental illness and had, in the past, been taken out of other classes. Subsequently, he was removed from my class, and I wound up teaching the rest of the semester in an undisclosed location, with an armed guard stationed nearby.

An armed guard, eh? Can we infer, then, that a gun is a suitable tool for someone looking to defend themselves and other innocent life against seriously crazy, potentially violent people? Yes we can! Moore can’t, though. I’m sure the idea that she should carry a gun – instead of relying on an armed guard – never once occurred to her, either.

Although, clearly, the idea that her teaching riles people up does. In fact, it’s probably a badge of honor. See? I’m so damn progressive, I’m in danger! Don’t let people with guns on campus! Except the ones protecting me. Sigh.

So going forward, what will you do if you have a disruptive student who happens to be carrying a gun?

I don’t know. I’ve heard faculty say, ‘I’ll just give everyone A’s from now on. I’m not going to risk pissing someone off if they’re going to be armed.’ Others have said they’ll only lecture — they won’t allow classroom discussion because they don’t want things to get heated. Basically, we have to look at ruling out anything — any subject matter — that might seem provocative. It’s very strange. Shutting down dissent and free speech is the opposite of what should happen on a college campus. Personally, I don’t think I would confront a student who was disruptive if he was armed. I’d rather say, ‘Class is dismissed.’

Seriously? There are UT professors who are such cowards that they’ll award everyone in their class an A because someone in their class might be exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? They’ll stifle in-class debate, avoid presenting contentious material, thus shortchanging their students just in case someone’s legally armed therein? Remind me again: who’s “shutting down dissent and free speech”?

As for Moore having to confront an armed disruptive student, what would she do in the face of a really disruptive pistol-packing student like, say, spree killer like Chris Mercer? “Class dismissed” aint’ gonna cut it. At the risk of offending a Gay and Lesbian Studies professor, it’s time for UT profs to man-up. If they’re worried about armed aggression – and why wouldn’t they be? – they should consider learning how to use the most effective personal defense weapon, soon to be legally available to them. And thank the Texas legislature for giving them that option.

comments

  1. avatar 0351 says:

    How can they so obviously ignore the states where campus carry is legal? I mean, somehow colorado professors seem to have the intestinal fortitude to deal with it. I also can’t think of a single instance of a concealed carrier in colorado going off on a professor. My God the fear of these people is ridiculous.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Never let it be said that it doesn’t snow in Austin, because UT campus appears to be covered in spechul-snowflakes for most of the year.

    2. avatar B says:

      She seems completely oblivious to the fact that there was nothing stopping that vandal from having a gun.

      1. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        And that’s really at the heart of it, and I’ve mentioned it to professors over my years in undergrad and grad school, and they don’t have an answer for that very point. The fact is, they don’t like guns and it’s a way to push their worldview on everyone else. At the end of the day there are two types of people those who are pretty much okay leaving other people alone and those who just can’t seem to mind there own business.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        And furthermore, she states categorically that no one has ever brought a gun to her class! Concealed is concealed – how the hell would she know?

        Other than the fact that she teaches LGBT studies, that is, and since the vast majority of her students are likely Lib-Progs it is possible none ever thought of bringing a gun to class.

        And even more, who needs to exercise their RKBA more than LGBTs – and she pretends to teach them and about them while ignoring their vulnerability to attack and denying them the most effective means of protecting themselves against such attacks.

        One more example of the adage that having a degree in one subject does not prove that you are actually intelligent.

        1. avatar Galtha58 says:

          Very possible that some of her LGBT students do bring a concealed weapon to class from time to time without her knowledge. After all, they belong to a group that is at a fairly high risk of being attacked. As a group they would be pretty stupid if they did not do something to protect themselves. And I doubt that they are all that stupid. I know a few LGBT people and some that I know are very intelligent. Probably more intelligent that this “Intellectual” professor. Also, the point that someone else mentioned that the vandal that broke in could easily have been armed is well taken. She is not very smart to ignore that fact and to believe that the rules of her campus will protect her from someone that really is intent on doing harm to her or anyone else. Besides that, what about on her way to work, back home or in between when she stops to shop for groceries or a latte’ ? A student, or anyone else, that is intent on harming her would not have to do it at the school.

        2. avatar Dyspeptic says:

          Galtha58 said – “After all, they belong to a group that is at a fairly high risk of being attacked”

          Sorry, but I don’t buy that at all. What evidence do you have that gays are at substantially higher risk of physical violence than the general population. Your comment seems to be based on widespread progressive propaganda that gays are some sort of downtrodden victim group, which was certainly true in the past but is certainly not true today.

      3. avatar Steve in TX says:

        She seems completely oblivious to the fact that pretty much all universities are degree mills.

        1. avatar God says:

          So what’s your degree in? Basket weaving? Ammosexual studies?

    3. avatar Ethan says:

      How can they so obviously ignore the fact that NONE of the above red-herring doomsday blood-in-the-streets scenarios would be stopped by their CURRENT approach of sticking a sign on the door.

      Can you get more *derp* in one article?

  2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    “Were it the case that someone could have brought a gun into my office, during office hours, I think I wouldn’t have been able to do my job .” She thinks a homicidally inclined person was prevented from bringing a gun by the no firearms policy?

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      Yes. She is just that naive.

      That profound naivete guides her narrative.

      Stunning isn’t it? The lack of critical thinking skills.

      1. avatar terry says:

        She knows exactly what she is doing. She wants to get her way. Scum

    2. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

      No, she just needs an excuse to complain about the removal of restrictions on rights, typical of hypocritical leftists. At any point prior to this law, someone could have brought a handgun into her classroom and shot her, or even brought in a large knife and stabbed her. She’s either a hack, or a loon, or both.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Both. And probably additional pejorative adjectives not listed here.

  3. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    I teach, hence I know better.

  4. avatar Rokurota says:

    “Freedom from fear” is a “fundamental human right,” according to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    FDR declared it one of the Four Freedoms: “The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world. ”

    That was January, 1941. Eleven months later, he asked for a declaration of war. So it goes.

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      Fear is the body’s natural emotional risk control mechanism for survival.

      It evolved for a good reason.

      The legal term for her fear level is “bare fear.” Bare fear is phobia level fear.

      You cannot scale force in self defense from bare fear. There is no Jeopardy present on the Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy triad.

      Nor can you critically think from an emotional state of bare fear.

      What she is: a submissive, compliant and obedient victim that wishes to force this mindset on all.

      In the name of feeling safe.

      Because feeling safe and being safe necessarily and always intersect on a Venn diagram of both.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      “Freedom from fear” (or “freedom from” near-anything else) cannot exist, absent a commensurate freedom from liberty.

      I’ll take liberty, thanks.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Exactly. Their “freedom from” isn’t a right, it’s actually a license to coerce other people according to inscrutable emotional whims.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        @Chip, I am pretty sure I understand the distinction you are making here, but (as a caution to others if not you) in general I wouldn’t fixate on the word “from” as being the marker.

        Unfortunately the English language is flexible enough that you can’t just look at the words, say “ah ha! There’s a ‘from’ there!” You have to look at what they mean

        I could phrase genuine freedoms in such a way that they have the word “from” in them, and bogus ones such that they don’t, e.g., “Freedom from murder” (geniuine) “freedom to access paid-for healthcare” (bogus).

        What distinguishes a right (or freedom) from a bogus one is whether it imposes a positive obligation on other people. My freedom of speech imposes no obligation on you. My (alleged) freedom to speak on your website or otherwise at your expense, would. .

        Anyhow, my apologies if you understood that, Chip, but I figure it might do someone else some good even if you do.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I could phrase genuine freedoms in such a way that they have the word “from” in them, and bogus ones such that they don’t, e.g., “Freedom from murder” (geniuine)

          There is no such thing as “freedom from murder”, nor can any such “freedom” be ensured while liberty remains – and that’s the point.

          What there is, however, is a right to life, and therefore a right of self-defense. I cannot assert a “freedom from murder”, but I very much can assert my right of self-defense against someone who would try to murder me.

          What distinguishes a right (or freedom) from a bogus one is whether it imposes a positive obligation on other people.

          And how would the “freedom from murder” exist, without imposing a positive burden or obligation on other people – namely, the burden of protecting me from murder?

          I’m sure there are exceptions, but off the top of my head I cannot think of anything that one might assert a “freedom from“, that does not infringe upon someone else’s liberty.

        2. avatar BDub says:

          A freedom from reason.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Chip

          Point well made (and taken).

          FWIW I was thinking of “freedom from murder” as being a claim one should not be murdered, not that one gets to have 24/7 security. But your interpretation of the phrase seems more accurate, and is CERTAINLY more in line with the games Roosevelt was trying to play with “Freedom from Want,” etc. (Murder one could (and I did, mistakenly) argue, “don’t do this to Steve and he has that freedom” but “Want” one would have to provide Steve with stuff to meet that (alleged) Freedom.)

          I *think* we were and still are in agreement that a true right cannot impose a positive obligation on another (“Do X for…” or “Provide X for…”), only a negative (“Don’t do X to…”, “Don’t restrain…from doing X”) one. I’d still shy away from using the word “from” as a litmus test (though it certainly should run a red “check this!!” flag up the pole), simply because someone more clever than we are might come along someday.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I *think* we were and still are in agreement that a true right cannot impose a positive obligation on another…

          Oh, absolutely. That’s the gold-standard litmus test.

          I’d still shy away from using the word “from” as a litmus test (though it certainly should run a red “check this!!” flag up the pole)…

          I can buy that: declaring a right to “freedom from X” should, at a minimum, raise a serious red flag.

  5. avatar JohnO_inTX says:

    Well, she is correct. There is no way a lunatic would bring a gun to her class now. It is now a Gun Free Zone. /sarc

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      Academics seem to have lost 50 IQ points over this. Why on earth do they think a student who wants to shoot them wouldn’t carry to class right now?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Julie,

        What you pointed out simply illustrates the true, clinical hysteria of gun-grabbers. They are hysterical. They have an irrational fear of firearms. Their thinking brain has quite literally shut down. As such, there is no discussion or reasoning possible until something snaps them out of their hysteria.

        1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

          In case you were unaware:

          “an irrational fear of firearms” = ‘hoplophobia’

      2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        Honestly I think the iq levels of most academics is grossly exaggerated. Most seem to be about a thousand feet deep and only an inch wide. But they translate this to mean they really have the propensity to be experts at everything.

      3. avatar Wayne Michaels says:

        Intelligence and common sense are not, in most cases (particularly academia) mutually inclusive.

  6. avatar Another Robert says:

    Sorry, RF, but it’s one of those pet grammar peeves: one of those professors maybe should have told you that the expression is “toe the line”, not “tow the line”. Nobody tows a line, although they often use lines to tow something else.

    1. avatar bobmcd says:

      My other brother Robert beat me to it.

      A boxer in an improvised, outdoor ring signals that he is ready to fight by “toeing the line,” i.e., putting his toe on a line scratched in the dirt. AKA being “up to scratch.”

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    This is nothing new. The social justice warriors masquerading as academics have always been leery of open discussion. They are quick to shut down any disagreement and persecute people who don’t agree with them. I wonder how many actual academics in real fields of study (such as medicine or engineering) share the opinions of this pampered socialist idiot?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “I wonder how many actual academics in real fields of study (such as medicine or engineering) …”

      (pffffffft … snicker)

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “It’s very strange. Shutting down dissent and free speech is the opposite of what should happen on a college campus.” — University of Texas Professor Lisa Moore

      And pwrserge posted the same exact response that I was thinking

      “They [academia] are quick to shut down any disagreement and persecute people who don’t agree with them.”

      So, professor, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of your tactics? (Note: no one is actually threatening to shut down the professor — that is her perception.)

    3. avatar JSJ says:

      ” I wonder how many actual academics in real fields of study (such as medicine or engineering) share the opinions of this pampered socialist idiot?”

      I can’t speak for MD’s, but us engineers are often chided for having no emotion. That isn’t true of course, it’s just that we don’t do things based on emotion, preferring logic and solutions that can be supported by fact.
      That may explain why there seem to be more of us (and IT guys) at the range than any of the liberal arts professions.

  8. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “With an armed guard stationed nearby”.

    hyp·o·crite
    ˈhipəˌkrit/
    noun
    a person who indulges in hypocrisy.
    synonyms: pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, plaster saint; More

    1. avatar Lance F says:

      Maybe it was an orangutan with large arms?

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Do you mean Librarian?

  9. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    “Gay and lesbian studies” professor = hard-core leftist who hates the Western civilization. Yeah, call me names, you know I’m right on this one.

    1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

      “I teach gay and lesbian studies.”
      Say what? Guess I need to revisit schools. Never had these sort of classes when I went…

  10. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I don’t wish to malign an entire profession – I know many fine, intelligent, hard-working teachers and college professors. But I’m convinced that occupation is a magnet for those who are too stupid, too incompetent or too lazy to hold a job in the private sector.

    Professor Moore wouldn’t last a day in the real world.

    1. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

      Nicely put. I focused my comment on the specific area of study in a stronger fashion and it’s stuck as “awaiting moderator”. I did not use any foul language, however.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      I’ve known plenty of private sector morons as well.

      It’s groupthink. They’re all reinforcing ideas together, using each other as supporting evidence in a closed loop where outside influence can’t penetrate. That’s why you get them repeating the same lines over and over, like about giving everyone an A, or just lecturing, or what have you. They never stop to consider that maybe some number of their students have been carrying all this time, just illegally, and that anyone they would have to worry about in any way would never have paid attention to the policy before. Those ideas are from outside the circle, and have no way to enter.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      “teach” gay and lesbian studies.

      Who would have the chutzpa to pull of such a scam? Or stupid enough to waste their time sitting thru such drivel.

    4. avatar pwrserge says:

      It’s more field aligned than you would think. Most hard science professors are at least neutral on the issue of guns. It’s the crazy social justice warriors whose fields exist to perpetuate socialist BS that are outspoken against rights. (ironically enough)

    5. avatar Royal Tony says:

      “I’ve worked in the private sector, they expect results” – Ray

  11. avatar BDub says:

    How the hell do you wind up “teaching the rest of the semester in an undisclosed location”? Doesn’t that make it hard for students to attend the class, and if it doesn’t can you really call it an undisclosed location. Who buys any of this bullshit?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

    2. avatar Galtha58 says:

      @BDub: Wondered about that myself. Guessing she must have given her students notes about the location or posted it in her office or another “secret” place where this “stalker” could not get that information. Wonder why she would think that a determined person would not be able to find it though ? Another one of her not so real world fantasies, I suppose. Seems like a crazy way to run a class.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Occam’s razor says its all bullshit, made up on the spot to sound harrowing.

  12. avatar Mike says:

    Bunch of fear-mongering cowards.

    It’s funny that the only thing that has changed as a result of this law is that people will have the option of defending themselves. Without the law, anyone could still walk into the class with a firearm and mal-intent. Sort of like UCC.

  13. avatar Hank_Scorpio says:

    A Gay and Lesbian Studies professor? What could she be possibly teaching kids? Is anyone surprised that a gay and lesbian studies professor has such a demented view of a person’s right to defend themselves?

    Meanwhile, these kinds of people always think their empty hyperbole and fictional scenarios are more important than facts. Gun ownership has increased by 62% since 1993, gun homicides have declined by 49% during the same period.

    http://ace.mu.nu/Windows-Live-Writer/Overnight-O_F8CD/newgunchart_2.jpg

  14. avatar John L. says:

    Shutting down dissent and free speech is the opposite of what should happen on a college campus.

    Really? Pray explain, then, why just about all of the liberal arts-based classes I’ve taken at undergraduate level or higher, showed a clear correlation between the degree of agreement with the professor’s opinions and one’s grade. Or at least that’s what my classmates and I found when comparing notes at the end of the quarter.

    When it comes to expressing opinion (guns are evil, say) vs fact (AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not Assault Rifle) there should be room for dissenting opinions, and, if expressed cogently and well, graded as highly as similarly expressed agreeing opinions.

    But then, this world often confuses agreement with correct.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      The part of the equation that is missing there is that the professor is never wrong. Since the professor is never wrong agreeing with them means you are also correct. Just like any test correct answers give you points, incorrect answers take away points.

      That is the demented and extremely biased world of academics. My best class in college was some throwaway requirement in which the adjunct professor continually talked about how wacked out the university system was. As he put it, the professors truly think of their classroom as an impenetrable fortress and they are inevitably its king. As king (or queen) they really don’t like when things (or ideas) they don’t like come through the gate, and if they’re from you they consider you a spy and smuggler of all the world’s evils.

  15. avatar Fred says:

    There are two main paths to safety and security.
    1. You take personal responsibility for your own safety and security. You must have the means, the will, and the foresight to stay aware and engaged wherever you go. Everywhere you go you are in a bubble of security you provide yourself.

    2. Everyone else is responsible for your safety. You trust that everyone else in the world takes your personal safety and security as seriously as you do. In order for this to work everyone else in the world must be sane, law-abiding, level-headed at all times, emotionally and socially stable, and benevolent.

    Some people are more drawn to path 2 because they obviously are the most important person in the world and everyone else in the world should view them as such. Those that pick option 2 need everyone else to allow them to stay safe and having a disparity in potential power threatens that. It’s a rewrite of the same old thinking; in order for their utopia to function everyone has to subscribe to it. Instead of realizing the reality that there will always be criminals, psychotic individuals, or others that won’t conform they go deeper into denial. That denial blocks certain parts of reality and certain logical threads, that’s where these nonsensical arguments come from for the most part. The logical gaps are where denial lies, trying to protect the utopia in their mind, saying “the world is a safe place where everyone cares about you” when it is a thin veneer of peace over a violent and dangerous world.

  16. Bring a gun to class, get an A!
    Too bad engineering professors don’t take that approach.
    I’d go back to school tomorrow.
    Can’t do shit with a degree in queer studies. Actually, don’t understand why college is required to learn about it. Just watch network television and get all the gayness anyone can endure.

    1. avatar Katy says:

      You’re missing the point – you don’t even have to bring the gun to class. If they think someone might possibly maybe be thinking about being armed, everybody gets an A.

      If this spreads, I might have to go back to school and for degrees in rocket science and blindfolded brain surgery.

    2. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      “Can’t do shit with a degree in queer studies.”

      Actually, these days there are all-too-many employers who require a minimum of a Bachelors Degree for employment…regardless of the degree field for which it was awarded. 😐

      Too many potential employers will hire a new grad with a “sheepskin” over a many-year-experienced person who has been doing the exact job being offered…just because the “newby” has the diploma. 🙁

  17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Without knowing the precise numbers, based on anecdotal recollection, it would seem that professors have a greater likelihood of being killed by an unhinged, fellow professor (carrying a firearm with or against the law or school policy), than by a student with a concealed carry permit, carrying lawfully.

    1. avatar TX Gungal says:

      Bingo! “Alabama ex-professor Amy Bishop gets life for killing 3 colleagues”
      LA Times reported “Professor’s arrest roils Alabama campus after shootings.
      Amy Bishop is charged with capital murder in the shooting deaths of three fellow biology professors. A Massachusetts police chief discloses that Bishop fatally shot her own brother in 1986.”
      Ms. bedhead, Professor Moore, should be glad of campus carry, in case some psychopath decides to do a one time audit of her class.

    2. avatar Five says:

      Bingo!

    3. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Your omission of generality and lack of statistics is against the liberal agenda. Your are banned from… Oh, wait, you are. Gun rights SUPPORTERS! We now return you to our normal media stream of lies.

  18. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    You know, lady, if campus carry is that obtrusive to your doing your job, you could always find a new job which will better suit your unique skill set…

    I hear the local park’s in Austin are in need of new, qualified dog waste disposal personnel.

  19. avatar James St. John says:

    Another liberal threatening to shut down free speech, how would’ve thought.

  20. avatar fishydude says:

    Big surprise. Someone teaching a useless subject in no-your-grievance Studies is afraid of people.
    She suffers from projection because she would like nothing better than to kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with her, as is typical of people with no marketable skill and become professors instead.

  21. avatar Scorpion says:

    And what, pray tell, is keeping any of her students from bringing a gun to class now? Nothing but the size of their backpacks! Will Texas’ imprimatur on allowing 21 y.o. adults with CHLs to carry at UT suddenly create a new group of murderous psychopaths? Good thing Prof. Moore isn’t teaching logic.

  22. avatar rick3 says:

    So…what’s the story with colleges/universities in Colo, Utah, and Idaho (the three states which allow concealed carry on campus without restriction)? How many irate students (who are legal concealed carriers) have shot or even threatened to shoot, their profs for disagreements about the subjects of their classes? I don’t find any in my research…anyone else find any?

    Or is this just “much ado about nothing”…?

  23. avatar DaveL says:

    Were it the case that someone could have brought a gun into my office, during office hours

    Oh my. Is one of you guys going to break the bad news to her, or should I?

  24. avatar Bob says:

    “Were it the case that someone could have brought a gun into my office, during office hours, I think I wouldn’t have been able to do my job . . .”

    So you think because it was not legal before to carry a gun on campus, that if someone were so angry with you that they planned to harm you, they would not have ignored that law in the process of ignoring the other laws they were about to break?

    Besides, you were always at risk. There was nothing to stop this same potential student from physically attacking you, with knife, bat or hands, as I’m sure all those items were “legal” to carry on campus.

  25. avatar Mikial says:

    This is just another case where a Liberal professor is stupid enough to think that a sign will protect them from a criminal or psychopath with a gun. Where I went to graduate school, students and professors alike carried concealed. I have never heard of a single instance where an angry student shot another student or a professor over a grade or argument.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    I teach gay and lesbian studies.

    That explains everything. Hey, gay guys and lesbian girls, I have nothing against you. I like you. Some of you are my friends. But any “professor” who teaches a course based on you needs to find a real job. And yeah, I’d feel the same way about a professor who teaches a course on “Straight Studies.” It’s just stupid.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Hear, hear!

  27. avatar James in Florida says:

    Not surprised…this is the direct result of a tofu and almond milk diet.
    Enjoy your flax seeds while your beef fed security guard watches over you!
    Done with this squabble.

  28. avatar Roscoe says:

    What a waste of time and resources. More political correctness run amok, as usual, in education.

    Gay and lesbian studies…give me a break. More ‘enlightenment’ lifestyle propaganda passed off as a useful educational course of studies. About as useful as basket weaving.

    Is there a ‘heterosexual studies’ department at this institute of ‘higher learning’, UT, or other colleges? If you’re gonna be P/C, then best go all the way and not be discriminatory by ignoring the by far most pervasive lifestyle on the planet.

    A ‘real world experiences department’ would be much more useful in these institutions to disabuse fantasizing people like this naively imaginative prof and other anti-gun utopian dreamers of their make believe frenzied hysterical notions about lawful gun owners and their disposition.

    The loons they can’t do anything about other than to arm up and be prepared.

    If she’s so fearful, this prof should limit her instruction to online courses.

  29. avatar Joe S says:

    “Shutting down dissent and free speech is the opposite of what should happen on a college campus.” And this was written without a trace of irony…

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Linguistically anemic, in fact.

  30. avatar Five says:

    I get the feeling that many of the professors at UT opposed to allowing licensed concealed carry really don’t understand the licensing process, who can, and what’s involved with concealed carry. I also get the distinct impression that they don’t realize that their anecdotal examples, when thought about logically either don’t apply to licensed concealed carry, or are actually supportive reasons for allowing concealed carry (not just for students, professor too, maybe more so for professors).

  31. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I have a feeling anyone that swallows her point of view in her classes gets an “A” anyway and those opposed get something less. Hence the fear. Curriculum like this is nothing but mental masturbation. There doesn’t need to be “LGBT studies” anymore that “straight” studies.

  32. avatar Jim Benton says:

    Not having a gun means that someone else with the courage and ability to do so must do it for you!

  33. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    Remember when people used to use underwater basket weaving as an example of a worthless class? Those folks would crap themselves if knew what reality had delivered.

  34. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

    Someone needs to “introduce” this obviously Gay-Liberal-Progrogressive professor to the ‘Pink Pistols’:

    “Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber”
    http://www.pinkpistols.org/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

    BTW:

    “It’s not ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Progress’ but ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Cancer’.”
    ~SteveInCO

  35. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “I don’t know. I’ve heard faculty say, ‘I’ll just give everyone A’s from now on.'”

    Riiggghhht…..and I hear every four years a chorus of morons vowing that they’ll move overseas if [insert name of that year’s GOP Presidential candidate] gets in. Neeeevvvvver happens…….

    How do these ideation free marketeers reconcile large men and heated classroom discussions? More people are killed each year by “personal weapons”, i.e., hands and feet, than by long guns, to put those risks in context. How can a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred ideas contend in her classroom, if there are large men in attendance who could snap necks faster than a LGBT professor can Z snap?

    What a disgrace of critical thinking skills on her part, and what a waste a education budget resources on U.T.’s part.

  36. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    I have encouraged my LBGT friends to learn how to be proficient in firearms use. Most already are. Let me say that again… Most already are. It seems this professor doesn’t really know anything about the subject she professes about (big surprise).

  37. avatar BobS says:

    Why did she bother to move the class and post an armed guard? If this student was such a threat, and had a well documented history, the University should have been able to find a judge to issue a restraining order to keep him away. They could post it on the door, right beside the “no guns” sign. There, problem solved!

  38. avatar Paelorian says:

    So the campus policy banning vandalism didn’t stop the vandal, yet a campus policy banning guns would stop criminals from bringing their guns. Hm. Looks like we’ve got a highly educated moron here.

    I like that she felt safe because she knew the vandal couldn’t possibly have brought a gun with him during his crime, due to the anti-gun policy. As he was breaking the law to vandalize a classroom. Had there not been an anti-gun policy in place, this law-abiding lawbreaker might have had a gun! I expect people who are no longer toddlers to be more robustly logical.

  39. avatar Ed says:

    Give an academic a fish and she’ll pet it for a day. Teach an academic to fish and she’ll run away screaming about animal rights and hire a bodyguard to protect her from fishermen.

  40. The dumbing down of America. How does one teach gay and lesbian studies?, use the Constitution, first Amendment? Who is this stupid teacher teaching an LGBT literature class. Where did she find material in literature?
    Isn’t the Constitution part of history, a college course I took? The only way to be safe is to move into the future thousands of years where enlightenment has evolved into ALL sentient beings. She is STUPID and I call her and any other moron that doesn’t understand the right to self defense.

    Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.
    There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence. Because of the winey few we are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit.
    The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

  41. avatar LordGopu says:

    The fact that she isn’t fired for making such illogical statements, the kinds of things so dumb that no “teacher” should be able to make, tells us a lot about the quality of the school and it’s political bias.

    She thinks people aren’t carrying guns now? How can she know that? She can’t. So either she’s so dumb that it’s pretty much mental illness or she’s lying to try and push a political point. Either way, she’s worthless.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email