By Thomas Gunther McNamara
I am offended. As a stakeholder in this once great university I should therefore be coddled and pampered as are all others who are offended.
On the other hand, by merely voicing my opinion against the actions of the university or members of, I am eligible for suspension, perhaps expulsion. Rather humorous, is it not? Regardless, I am willing to accept the possibilities given my "unalienable Right of liberty." Granted, this does not allow me to slander or libel someone, merely promulgate.
Seinfeld dealt with a hypocritical fastidious dentist. I would hate for Marquette University dental students to be regarded as such. Accordingly, it might be happening. Therefore, it could become the name of Marquette as a whole.
Many students came here expecting a superior education from a well regarded university. However, several events in the last year have compromised the university's image. This new image is quickly becoming the pinnacle of pompous neurotic megalomaniacal behavior.
Campus bar conversations, those in cafeterias and even forums sponsored by student government, have a disparaging vernacular toward professors. Some might warrant it, others do not. Conversely, blogging such ideas on personal Web space, where others outside Marquette University could read, is supposedly a violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, or the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Blogs are considered free press and personal speech, be it diatribe or not. Shouldn't anonymous professors sue attackers for defamation such as libel, rather than hiding behind bureaucracy?
Yes, private institutions can accept whomever they please, provided they do not discriminate on race, religion, etc. Furthermore, they can establish rules which govern independent of outside influence. However, suppression of speech is essentially fascist in nature. The social institution (Marquette) would be dictating, thus it has complete power to effectively stifle opposition and criticism. In this situation, students would be dominated by a single and self-perpetuating cant; in turn, all social activity could be censored. Moreover, in contradicting or questioning the social organization students will be dismissed as rebellious and disrespectful, thus compromising careers and livelihood.
Would it not be prudent to perhaps call for more accountability of faculty? Is it not contradictory to solicit formal faculty evaluations while condemning those who offer assessment willingly? Marquette has already suffered the damages of impractical political correctness; would the future not be better served by embracing a culture of opinion and free speech regardless of triteness?
The post-academic world is full of criticism and scrutiny. Someone may want to let the School of Dentistry know.
