A Tale of Two Payne's
Peculiar Pair of "Paynefully" Progressive, Proficient, Pontificating Professors, ...Prolifically Professing Partisan Politics?
Webster’s:
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
K 2-12 PSAF: Parents and 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”.
-redstater
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!
Who's next?
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.
The End.
(ie: moonbat)
Labels: partisan politics, pathetic, payne, politcal prize, pundit professor
posted by RD at 4:10 PM
AOL Sports Hottest Athlete
18 Comments:
You have absolutely no idea about anything I say in the classroom, do you?
Kentucky is a fairly conservative state and I have taught here for 15 years. Students have frequently asked me about my personal politics at the end of the semester because they cannot tell from class.
Have you read any of my academic articles?
The "anti-Bush" journal articles I have written generally appear in relatively conservative security studies journals and are coauthored with a professor at the Naval War College. They are critical of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, which is a very controversial idea in international politics.
My blog is a space for my personal politics, yes, but I do not even tell students that it exists. I'd bet that most do not know about it. Moreover, the blog is the blog and my classroom is a completely separate entity.
Feel free to write whatever tripe you want about the blog posts, but you lose all credibility if you talk about the classroom without a shred of evidence backing your claims.
Of course I don't have any idea what you say in the classroom...that's why i ask the question and say i hope i'm wrong, but i do know that you are unable to keep it to yourself out here in the "real" world.
Therefore... I do wonder.
You must admit, you wouldn't be the first.
Yes, I have read a good deal of your work and also the required reading for your courses... which did nothing to answer the question or ease my mind.
It doesn't ease my mind that the anti bush articles were coauthored by other anti-bush'ers even if you did find one at the "naval war college".
I understand that your blog is your blog... I also understand that your views are your views wherever you may go.
It does not surprize me that many students would say that... if i wanted a good grade in your class, i might say the same thing...
as I said in my post... I don't know what you teach, I just hope it isn't what you preach.
My "evidence" is that you would be in the minority if that is the case.
So please forgive me if I unfairly lumped you in with the large number who DOES recite their personal politics as fact in the classroom.
I tell ya'what... lets see what the College Republicans at LU have to say... and if you don't indocrinate, then I will be the first to sing your praises.
-red
Rodger, you said...
"You have absolutely no idea about anything I say in the classroom, do you?"
To which I did a small amount of research to find this...
http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=2386
regarding why you chose to show the film Red dawn to your students...
"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."
again...your words... not mine..."MAKE students sympathize with the insrugents".
Where is the part about them deciding for themselves?
Would this be a good example of how you don't bring your personal views on the Iraq war into the classroom?
Just wondering...
-red
and yes, i know you responded to criticism of that remark with this...
“Finally, and this seems to be the main criticism, I picked a film with American insurgents because I wanted the students to challenge some of the assumptions they may have about Iraq and the “war on terror” and to think about how occupying forces might be viewed by local populations”...
okay, you wanted students to think of American troops as occupying forces and sympathize with the terrorists.
fine.
Is this a better example of how you don't even realize that you bring your political views into the classroom (during a film studies class?)
-red
Did you read the rest of the thread and my responses?
Hey, "Red Dawn" is a right wing fantasy movie. I selected it because my students are mostly American and the insurgents in the movie are insurgents.
You know...offer perspective, *make* them think. That's my job.
yes rodger, thats why I already posted your lame response ahead of your complaint that I had not read it.
okay you continue to play this game of "i'm just trying to make them think"... when it is obvious.
It's not THAT you are trying to make them think,...it's WHAT you are trying to make them think that is the issue.
Is it possible that you are not even aware of your bias and how it infiltrates your entire thought process?
Is it possible that you don't even know that you attempt to indoctrinate students to your point of view?
I suppose anything's possible Rodger... but not likely.
-red
Lets wrap this up Rodger...
One more time... the original question which you have avoided answering...
Do you support the defeat of your own country or Victory in Iraq?
It's a very simple question.
Victory or defeat?
Pick-one...(a tie isn't an option)
I don't care whether you agree with the war, whether you know who the enemy is, or whether you like Bush or not. It doesn't matter now.
Do you support Victory now that we are there or do you "Sympathize with the insurgents" and support our defeat?
You responded to that post and that question, but have ranted about everything except providing your answer.
What's it gonna be?
-red
Red
May I suggest a different approach?
The military political situation in Iraq has changed over the past year. It is the current fad to say it is all bad, but is that true? Fads in public opinion are not very reliable. It could also be a major opportunity. Certainly a good argument could be made that there is a significant opportunity. Why not explain how there is an opportunity. It would be far more convincing.
Certainly people are more likely to sign on to a program is you explain why it would succeed.
Hey hank...you sound like a reasonable guy.
Here's the deal.
People should do their own research and pick one...Victory or Defeat.
It's an easy question, unless you don't like hearing your own answer.
I wrote several pieces on WHY Victory... such as "Save the Planet" and "Unite the Country" (while saving your life).
I defined Victory clearly as defined by the man in charge of the war.
I provided a disclaimer in order to cut to the bottom line and make it EASY. (supporting victory doesn't mean you support Bush)
If someone needs to be "convinced" to support their own country against throatcutting, suicide bombing, religious fascists... well that alone is reason for them to question their position.
-red
Not being familiar with Roger M Payne, and because of your rather intriguing quote I read the article you linked.
Rodger “M” enlightens “southern folk” by professing… “the south is backward and religion is part of that”.
The full paragraph is:
“Southern religion has been disparaged by many commentators, saying the South is backward, and religion is part of that,” said Rodger Payne, director of the religious studies program at Louisiana State University. “H.L. Mencken called the South ‘a cesspool of Baptists, snake charmers and evangelists’; and for many people, that is definition of Southern religion.”
When a sentence starts with something like “Southern religion has been disparaged by many commentators, saying the South is backward, and religion is part of that,” the normal assumption is that he is at least challenging the assumptions “many commentators” are making -- not attacking Southern Religion.
He goes on to give an overview of religion in the South and explain it for the benefit of us poor Yankee’s. Certainly he has much on which there can be legitimate discussion or even quibbling.
But reread it, it is not your subject of the day but it will be a worthwhile effort.
thanks hank, I read it several times before I quoted him... and re-read it again just now.
His statement could be taken as you suggest... IF he had gone on to dispute or refute the assertion that "southerners are backward", but he didn't. He added, "and religion is part of that".
I've read several other pieces by him and I believe that what he is saying is that many people (commentators) consider the south to be backward,...and the reason they feel that way is (in part) due to southern religion(s).
Which, "religion" by liberal standards IS backward.
(evolution, gay marriage, abortion, etc)
I emailed him my story and he has every right to come here and tell me I'm wrong... ANd support VICTORY in Iraq while he is here.
Thanks again hank i do appreciate your comments and time spent.
-red
Hey Red, is there a chance that you can take my blogs off of your "Liberal" friends list and put it somewhere else?
I don't necessarily consider myself a liberal and wouldn't really want to be lumped in that category.
Thanks and God bless!
"Kentucky is a fairly conservative state..."
In the rural areas yes, in the cities like Screwyville and LEFTington and in the universities, a resounding NO!
I took political science at U of K in LEFTington back in the early eighties and my prof was a nutcase who taught his class that all of the world's woes were caused by America. He was one of the early "blame America" crowd of leftists who have taken over our colleges and universities and teach their politically correct revisionist history crap to young minds of jello who then eat it up.
When the leftist profs of today say things like "relatively conservative" what they are really saying is liberal but not extreme left. That is bunk, pure and simple.
"...you lose all credibility if you talk about the classroom without a shred of evidence backing your claims."
Fear not RedStater, for I have provided proof in my experience above. You are correct.
I am just one of many who know about the pinkos taking over the education establishment. For these morons to claim they are not pushing their partisan politics at the kids is ridiculous. Only the most propagandized of observers would fall for that drivel.
After the election of 2004, another moron prof at U of L was so upset by the conservative wins that he suggested "taking AK47s and killing the Christians." He is just one of the ones who was stupid enough to get caught saying it; many believe just as he does.
Personally, I wish they had the cohunes to pick up AK47s and come after us. "Go ahead, make my day!"
Colleges and Universities are havens for the worst communists, leftists, liberals, and socialists America produces. These buffoons, along with their friends in Hollyweird are destroying America. They are the "enemy within", the pushers of the mental disorder of liberalsim that Dr. Michael Savage so aptly calls it.
Rodger, I hope you get the counter insurgency you want, because we are ready for you and your pinko friends. Bring it on!
Since these "Rodgers" are so anti-Christ, I have a wonderful quote from the Bible for them...
"So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west and His Glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him." Isaiah 59:19 (KJV)
Hey Red Stater, we are that standard.
Oh by the way, you guys mentioned free speech, a cause the left loves to tout, expecially when that speech is anti-Christian and anti-American.
Here is something that "the Rodgers" refuse to acknowledge, I am sure.
The reason that freedom of the press and freedom of religion, not from religion, are in the same amendment to the Constitution is so that the gospel of Jesus Christ could be freely printed and freely taught. Read the Federalist Papers and the quotes of our Founders from that period.
Free speech seems to be passe in our universities. Proper indoctrination seems to be the norm now. Embracing "progressiveness," or, "multiculturalism" is what is required by most "professors." Actually voicing a common sense based opinion is shouted down as "racist," "mean spirited," or some other term du jour of the leftist sheep. So much for "higher" learning.
The physical sciences seem to be the last bastion of actual education at our universities. I'm sure that will change as well if the marxist nutjob "professors" get their way. What a shame.
Wow Red...and I thought you and I had some arguments.
While I know nothing of Rodger or his class, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. If he says that his intensions in his class are to provoke thought, then I believe him. That having been said, we all are influenced by our beliefs and thus those sometimes find their ways into our work. This is almost always unintentional and something that we all do.
freeourpows said:
"Colleges and Universities are havens for the worst communists, leftists, liberals, and socialists America produces. These buffoons, along with their friends in Hollyweird are destroying America. They are the "enemy within", the pushers of the mental disorder of liberalsim that Dr. Michael Savage so aptly calls it."
While I completely agree that colleges and universities have a large number of liberals on staff, referring to them as buffoons and saying that they are "destroying America" is just plain silly. Also quoting Michael Savage as a credible source is unwise at best and laughable at worst. That man does nothing but sling mud and preach hate.
Hey Dave,
I did give both professor Paynes the benefit of the doubt... in fact I said Rodger M Payne seems to keep his political views outside the classroom.
Rodger A Payne (UL) however came here to answer the question of whether he supported victory or defeat...(like you did)... but his first comment was NOT about victory or defeat... instead it was an attack on the troops. (he won't support victory but calls the troops murderers of innocents...won't admit to supporting defeat...but say's victory isn't possible.
Here is the first thing he posted here at Red stater...
"the US forces are the foreign fighters that are killing the majority of innocent Iraqis"
I asked how he was able to keep his views (and other opinions from his blogging at 2 blogs) out of the classroom... he challenged me to prove it... and it took me about 1 minute (slow dialup connection) to do just that using his own words and the words of HIS SUPPORTERS who at the time said the same thing I did.
His quote... "MAKE students sympathize with the insurgents". works perfectly with his first comment here about troops being the foreign fighters killing innocents (not insurgents).
The problem with Payne is not "THAT" he makes students think it's "WHAT" he makes students "think".
The guy is a political pundit posing as an academic ...now having said that, he is also one of the more moderate professors at the University of Louisville (according to numerous emails i received from former students of his) but that fact doesn't excuse his behavior.
Now, I never referred to him or anyone else as a "baffoon" nor did I say he was "destroying America"... and if you are able to interpolate my words to mean that... then I can do the same with his to determine that he supports America's defeat.
(inside the classroom and outside the classroom)
I didn't know he was a professor at first, he came to me and has kept it going... much to my advantage.
And also- I have never quoted Savage, (you did) i don't listen to him or read his stuff...
I'm NOT wrong about Payne however.
He is an anti-American moonbat liberal and I called him on it...c'mon get it right.
also, dave... on that "benefit of the doubt" business...
Now, I will give the good professor the benefit of the doubt right after HE gives our men and women serving in the armed forces the "benefit of the doubt"... which he has yet to do.
I think they (our military) are just a little more deserving of that (benefit of the doubt) status than he is... considering his comments and admitting to teaching his personal politics in a film studies class of all places.
I appreciate your moderation however, but I have NO respect for anyone who has NO respect for our military. ESPECIALLY someone who affects the way young people think.
thanks again dave...
-red
Post a Comment
<< Home