A Tale of Two Payne's
Peculiar Pair of "Paynefully" Progressive, Proficient, Pontificating Professors, ...Prolifically Professing Partisan Politics?
Profess-v. to admit or declare openly; to make a vow.
Professor-n. a faculty member of the highest rank at a college or university; a highly skilled teacher.
Rodger A Payne is a professor of political science at Louisville University.
Rodger M Payne is a professor of religious studies at Louisiana State University.
Both are highly respected in their field and their work is widely published.
I confused them for the same person (and apologized) in the post below ("scoreboard"), but they do have similarities besides their almost identical names.
Rodger “A” professes that… "US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail". (note: Rodger "A" links to his own blog post as the source for the claim)
Rodger “M” enlightens “southern folk” by professing… “the south is backward and religion is part of that”.
While Rodger "M" does not seem to get off topic and go political in his writings, the above statement does give some clue as to his leanings and conclusions.
They are both a possible source of “pain” in the side of those who support non-partisan academic ethics.
Professor Ward Churchill (CU) (pictured) doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with teaching his anti-American personal views in the classroom and one must wonder about the two pontificating Payne’s as well.
Rodger “A” (University of Louisville) certainly has no problem with publishing his anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-conservative views on the world wide web and also “encourages” his students to read his book(s) as part of the curriculum. At one of his other blogsites (did I mention he is prolific?) "Duck of Minerva", he admits... "I'm not really a "tenured radical," though my politics are probably well to the left of your average blue state voter".
Rodger "M" is more reserved (thankfully) and sticks to Religion as it should be. Aside from the statement that southerners are backward and religion is largely to blame, Rodge M doesn't stir the water much.
Now before you get off on the wrong foot here, I have no problem with any teacher presenting all legitimate sides of issues, in fact that is the way it should be…however what we now know is that professors across the country are presenting radical liberal anti-American views and yet calling conservative views “hate speech”. Such is the new definition of “diversity”.
I could be completely wrong about the two Payne's… (I hope I am) and they might be able to hide their personal views from students and they might be able to be "fair and balanced" in the classroom…(they would be in the extreme minority) …but if so, (good for them) why are they unable or unwilling do the same when NOT in the classroom?
Sure I believe in free speech (1st Amendment) and if any professor wants to get into the “opinion business” or the ideology business or partisan politics then he/she needs to get out of the "teaching facts to kids business" first.
Then he/she can spout whatever he/she wants.
Unless the class he/she is teaching is called “Liberal Indoctrination 101”, then of course he/she would be “free” to do just that.
(and- NO I am not a teacher, although I have held a teaching certificate in the past but I assure you we never discussed my political views on or off the field.)
SO, are students (and concerned citizens/bloggers) supposed to ignore these outrageous statements made outside the classroom and simply have faith in the integrity of these men and women not to bring their personal political agenda into the classroom?
Based on what we see, read and hear...I think not.
The left realized a long time ago that they couldn’t win the open debate on issues unless they redefine the issues, redefine the answers and redefine debate itself. The best way to do that is in the schools by teaching kids their way of thinking at an early age and continuing it through college. What a great idea huh?
This redefinition asserts that progressive views are …well “progressive”, forward thinking and scientific while conservative views are presented as “backward”, hateful and therefore not to be tolerated in the debate. The new definition of diversity on campus means no diversity of opinion.
They are teaching a liberal ideology along with “2+2” and “the history of history”. The number of incidences of this occurring is staggering. These two websites are dedicated to fairness in the schools… I encourage everyone to visit them, you will be amazed.
College- SAF: Students For Academic Freedom
Here is David Horowitz’s list of the 101 most dangerous professors in America.
(Sorry Professors' Payne…you didn’t make the cut- better luck next year)
Imagine the outcry if a majority of teachers were teaching students about “prayer”, or about Jesus (the philosopher), or the fact that conservatives are more generous with charitable donations than liberals, or that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, it was a Republican who ended the Vietnam war and a Democrat who started it or that Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq resulting in defeat for America. How do you spell ACLU?
You don’t have to imagine it. Teachers who support prayer have been fired for it, teachers who are conservative don’t get hired in many cases and teachers who are conservative are few and far between to begin with.(it’s the capitalism thing)
Somebody needs to get a grip on these professors. They certainly have plenty of “book sense” but many have absolutely no “common sense” and they are paid with our dollars and cents.
The tale of two “Payne’s” is but one of thousands of such tales.
Until Americans start holding institutions of academia accountable for their “product”, they will continue to try and produce “good little liberals” and thus affect American politics (from the classroom) for generations to come.
Dr. Ward Churchill is merely the tiny, teeny tip of the academic iceberg that is attempting to sink the unsinkable (but titanic) luxury liner called “America”.
What a Payne.
UPDATE: 9:25pm- This just keeps getting better and better...(or worse and worser).
This is from a supporter of Professor Payne, Dave at The Glittering Eye who wrote...
"Associate blogger and professor of political science Rodger Payne is showing the John Milius cult film Red Dawn as part of a course on politics in film. The merits of the film aside I had a small problem with his explanation:
"Those who have seen it know that “Red Dawn” is not an especially good movie.
So why did I select it?
Well, I wanted a film that highlights the great difficulty of counterinsurgency warfare — and I wanted a movie that would make students sympathize with the insurgents."
Is this a good example of how Professor Rodger A Payne keeps his personal views out of the classroom?
Check the comments (below) for more...
UPDATE: 12/30- Well, after lots of comments here AND on two of Professor Rodger A. Payne's personal blogs, (links above) where he tried every trick in the book (including bait and switch and false choice) to avoid answering the very question he came here to answer in the first place, ...We finally have narrowed it down to this.
It is safe to say (from his own words- not mine) that...
One of University of Louisville's leftist professors (Rodger A. Payne) does NOT support victory for US troops in Iraq, but instead makes college students sympathize with the insurgents.
-glad that's finally settled...whew!
UPDATE: 12/31- As Gomer Pyle liked to say... "surpriiiize- suuuuurpriiiiiize".
In an attempt to garner the flip-flop satire of the year award, Prolific Pundit Payne, (Rodger "A"- U of Louisville) awakened this morning to now declare VICTORY in Iraq.
"Victory is ours! When can we pop the champagne?"
"I've plainly written several times that I support victory, given the meaning I attach to the term -- and my interpretation of the situation. Just a few screens up, you defined winning as "victory in the fight." I say that the US can best "win" by bringing the fighting to a hasty end.
Given that the war is bad policy and ending that war would likely bring the best policy result available, it would be foolish to support continued (and presumably escalated) fighting".
Professor Payne finally sums up his position fairly well when he says he supports "victory" as long as it means "defeat"... ie: "cutting and running" and not fighting back.
UPDATE 01/08/07-"Weekend Homework" - On Friday the 13th (October 2006) Professor Payne wondered aloud on his blog if he should ask a certain set of questions to graduate students on their exam.
At the end of the sample test Payne asks readers to ignore that the questions were originally asked at the UN by Iranian "Al Presidente" Mahmoud Amadinejad. (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain)
The "exam" did not ask for debating or for offering a different view, merely to respond to the insane questions about how unfair it is for a superpower to have nuclear weapons and not let small radical totalitarian religious fanatics have them.
However, there is no mention of any thoughts of asking students to recite one of President Bush's speeches on what happens to Panye's students if Ahmadinejad does get nukes.