Ulty

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

It falls under the "definition" of SA

No. 

If I am a Title IX Coordinator at a school, and someone brings me this book, opens up to that page, and says they would like to make a sexual assault complaint, this is the response I would give:

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yet you are getting hysterical about another person pointing out their view of it’s inappropriate for that age group.

No, I think I said previously that it's fair to have differing thoughts on the appropriateness of it. However, I definitely am getting worked up on the frequency and normalization of censorship and the suppression of uncomfortable topics. We should talk about these things more at school and at home. But too many people are scared or offended by discussing things like sex and race, even though kids are actually ready for it and need these conversations sooner than most adults realize.

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ll have to ask my daughter if her or her friends identified with a friend saying that their boobs should be on display as a show of friendship while she was in middle school and if that would be an important topic to discuss.  I would surmise not but we shall see.  

Very tactful of you. I would guess that if this is how you talk to your daughters about sexuality, they will certainly not be inclined to engage in a healthy dialogue. How about you zoom about a little bit and question whether or not middle school girls would be curious about sexuality. Maybe have your wife ask them instead (unless she is one of the Moms For Liberty).

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

serious question here as I get curious about seemingly little things sometimes.  Why do you use an old Greek term almost no one uses outside of some academics instead of just using the words teach or teaching that most people reading would understand?

What, pedagogy? Fair question, but I didn't realize it was such an obscure word. My wife is an educational researcher, and I have heard and read the word "pedagogy" in my household thousands of times over the years. I've also written several investigative reports involving faculty members (germane to this conversation, as I have actually had to investigate claims of discrimination or harassment based on the content of an instructor's curriculum) and have used "pedagogy" or "pedagogical" in context for those reports. Although I definitely agree it is better to use clear, simple language whenever possible. 

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ny-gov-kathy-hochul-to-migrants-if-youre-going-to-leave-your-country-go-somewhere-else/
 

NIMBY.  If this were a GOP Gov, the calls of racism, xenophobia, etc would be constant

It's a pretty bad message, especially in New York of all places. The home of the Statue of Liberty. Immigration is a pretty complex issue, and there are certainly issues with infrastructure, housing capacity, etc when facing an influx of newcomers, and some places are going to be better suited than others for managing this. But saying "go somewhere else" is just...bad. 

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We know, yet in an earlier post you made a claim it was one of the most read, greatest books when it was actually the graphic novel being spoken about and not The Diary of Anne Frank

Here is what I actually said, acknowledging that it was adapted from one of the most well known books: "This is one of the best known books, ever, about an extremely important topic, adapted into a graphic novel format." The content came directly from the original diary.

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Again, what’s the lesson plan with what was shown?  Certainly not the realities of the holocaust like you suggest above?

I have no idea what the lesson plan was and neither do you. The hysteria seems to be stemming from a single page, but I would be very surprised if the lesson plan centered around this one page. I might surmise that the purpose of teaching the book altogether was to explore the thoughts and feelings of a middle school aged girl while going through such a harrowing experience, presented in a way that middle school students could identify with. But that's just a guess.

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The teacher should not have been fired.  ...
I don’t believe the passage is molestation

 Okay then.

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Pretty open and shut without hysteria from me.  

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

you had to go Indiana Jones and name calling while claiming something I’m not claiming (banning books)

But it was certainly fueled by hysteria. Teachers make questionable pedagogical choices all the time. I'm sure that neither you nor I would choose to teach Anne Frank in the same manner that this teacher did. But the faux outrage over this issue is not driven by pedagogy, it is driven by hysteria, similar to books being removed all across the country for simply discussing race, sex, or LGBTQ issues. You did not directly advocate for banning books, yet you posted note that claimed that the book depicted molestation and that the teacher asked students to discuss molestation. You presented this as "relevant context" even though the claims were hyperbolic and untrue. Posts like this attempt to justify the horrible reaction from the school district. Even you agree that the outcome was ridiculous. 

Now, the debate about the appropriateness of the book is reasonable. Your opinion on that matter is not completely off (I disagree, as the content was written by a 14 year old and believe the content is perfectly appropriate for 14 year olds), but again, the main issue to me is a teacher getting fired for this and how the right wingers are justifying it.

23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

cause you couldn’t handle a debate

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The depiction of her advances would fall under SA.  The last 3 "scenes". You asked if it was molesting or not.  

You know how you get annoyed when other people talk about teaching practices when it is clearly outside their lane? 

I actually investigate sexual misconduct, and you are being absurd. 

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Which means now you have to explain that to students.  

 

this seems like something teachers don't need to have on their plate. 

You're the teacher: isn't it a teacher's job to explain things to students? When a character does something inappropriate, isn't it a great opportunity to discuss it? Middle schoolers and high schoolers read books about violence, drugs, race, sex, and politics all the time because it provides these opportunities.  

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

While I do not agree, by definition this would fall under SA.

 

What would fall under SA? Reading a book? What does your post have to do with any of this?

"A Small Light" was an excellent (and sobering) series. Highly recommended. It was streaming on Hulu, Disney, and Prime at one point not sure if it still on all three of those.

Trigger warning for some conservatives and Texas residents: it tells the story of Anne Frank's family in hiding and depicts Nazis as the bad guys. 

23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

To be fair, it’s not from the diary of a teenage girl, it’s an illustrated take on the diary of a teenage girl.  You may not have been aware, Anne Frank didn’t write and illustrate that particular book

I believe this graphic novel version takes about 5% of the actual Diary of Anne Frank into account from what the author states.  Was there not a better 5% to discuss?  

 

"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted. Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text...does it capture the spirit and lessons in the same way? I have no idea.

If you are arguing that there are different and better ways to teach the content...you are right. That is a question of pedagogy. But if this were merely an issue of pedagogy, we wouldn't be talking about removing books, firing teachers, and pretending that 8th grade curiosity of sex is offensive. 

And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction? 

You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria? 

21 hours ago, runningblind said:

 I think I agree. AC/DC is ok, but not great, feels forced. Being "Thunderstruck" by Nebraska doesn't make much sense. Gotta be a song that fits better and gives the right feels.

6 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

Does it make sense for Wisconsin to Jump Around? Do you think anyone cares? I Won't Back Down makes sense for Florida - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers being from Gainesville - but that's probably about it.

"Let Me Clear My Throat" makes sense for Nebraska because we have been sucking for so long...

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

My class read this, for 10 years, this part was never in the version we read.  8th graders at the time.

 

I would 100% have skipped it if it was in the version I had to read.  There would be no way I would be dealing with the kids (especially the boys) insane reactions. 

 

 

Sounds like thoughtful, responsible teaching. That is also very different than banning the book, firing teachers, or pretending that a teenager's curiosity about sex is pornographic or a depiction of molestation. 

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Well, I guess what’s the lesson plan?   How to get someone to show you your tits by playing the friend card? 

I mean, you were just talking about "relevant context" one post earlier. This was a single page from the diary of a teenage girl, with much more important historical context overall, while also being relevant to the thoughts and feelings of the middle school students who were reading this.

You posted a link that said that falsely said this was a "depiction of molestation." That kind of hysteria leads to books getting banned and teachers getting fired. The statement from the school district sounds like something that Goebbels himself might have written. 

What else do kids in middle school read as part of the approved curriculum? Violence, sex, drugs, murder, and politics are often central themes, and kids of that age are able and ready to explore those things. Especially from something as historically important as the Diary of Anne Frank.

This is Anne Frank, no one sees the irony here? So here's the lesson plan: we should read books instead of banning them.

10 hours ago, ZRod said:

What age group are we talking about here? I mean this is probably an 8th grade and up kind of thing to be reading.

 

It was an 8th grade class. And for bonus points, do you know how old the author was?

Just now, Ulty said:

"relevant context"? You might need to explain. This community note in itself is little more than dishonest hysteria. "Depiction of molestation"? Really? Do you support firing a teacher for reading this with her middle school class?

 

This is one of the best known books, ever, about an extremely important topic, adapted into a graphic novel format. 

 

In the tweet Archy posted above, this is the picture that was linked to the "depiction of molestation":

The horror!!!

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Why didn’t Ben Collins include all the relevant context?  Is Ben purposely trying to dupe his followers?  

 

 

"relevant context"? You might need to explain. This community note in itself is little more than dishonest hysteria. "Depiction of molestation"? Really? Do you support firing a teacher for reading this with her middle school class?

This is one of the best known books, ever, about an extremely important topic, adapted into a graphic novel format. 

I didn't even think about this until now, but Frank Solich's first game as head coach was at home against Louisiana Tech. His final game as HC of NU was on the road against Colorado, both of which happened again this year.

Is the game this weekend yet another element of breaking the Solich curse?

Running speed and throwing distance don't really matter if the QB can't reliably receive the snap without putting it on the turf. 

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

This kind of stuff interests me, so I clicked on the article: here is a link to the actual lawsuit. I've always thought Kiffin was a douchenozzle, but this lawsuit sounds like a nothingburger. Don't expect anything to come from this. 

6 hours ago, CyHawk said:

I grew up during a time that Nebraska was good

I hear a lot of people say this. I sure do miss winning championships, I remember what that was like. But no one ever says they grew up during a time when Iowa was good...because it's never happened. 

But since you said this, that must mean that you are a grown a$$ man. Yet you troll other teams' message boards, act like a child, and have difficulty stringing together complete sentences? Have a little dignity, man.

1 hour ago, VectorVictor said:

Definitely helps Mel Tucker’s case…

How does this help Tucker?

6 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I don’t mean to be rude, but do you know what “if” means?

of course, and your "ifs" were perfectly valid hypotheticals to be curious about. But they did not even match Tucker's own claims. Just adding some additional thoughts to the scenario. 

6 minutes ago, nic said:

I heard this morning that there were over 20 calls between the two of them. Not sure if that’s true.

If that is true, that means there were at least 20 opportunities for him to realize, and act upon the fact that, in his situation at MSU, under NO circumstances, none whatsoever, should he pursue anything sexual, not even flirting, with this person. 

I posted a Choose Your Own Adventure scenario in the Michigan State thread. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

2 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

My mistake. 

 

What I heard on the radio this morning is that she was not satisfied with response she received or thought it should be moving faster so she went to USA Today.  I'm assuming that response was a result of the initial investigation.

This is possible. If so, I have a couple of conflicting thoughts on this.

First of all, these processes can be slow, and it is not unusual for parties to become frustrated. Sometimes the pace, and the due process that necessitates that pace, can make it appear to a party that nothing is happening. Further, this woman has been through complaints and investigations in the past that did not go anywhere (that is why she does what she does now), so she likely also has a traumatic response to this kind of situation. 

On the other hand, given her experience and knowledge, I would also expect her to understand better than most how these processes work (a slow investigation which is not even supposed to render a conclusion, which then leads to a hearing). 

I'm not quite clear on how this first came to USA Today's attention. Did the Complainant take it public first? If that is the case, I'm not sure why she would do that unless she herself had problems with how MSU was handling it. That would not be surprising, since MSU has famously mishandled these issues before. But if that is the case, then both parties are unhappy with the process (which is also not unusual). 

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

The picture shows they've hooked up in the past, it means she's okay with messing around.

He never even claimed this. He said they had a "personal relationship." Nowhere did he say they previously had a sexual relationship. And even for the sake of argument, being okay with messing around in the past does not imply consent to mess around in the future. 

Regarding the photo, his statement said: 

Quote

sent me a  provocative picture of the two of us together, suggested what she may look like without clothes

 If she suggested what she MAY look like without clothes, that implies that this photo was clothed. What does "provocative" mean? Why did she send it (if true)? We don't know this yet, this will be interesting. 

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

And per the Tucker statement, the investigation was a sham.  Maybe he never got the opportunity to share?

If he never got the opportunity to provide evidence during the investigation, yes that would be a sham. But according to MSU's statement, the parties had a chance to review the investigative report in July (which is a typical part of the Title IX process). So if he actually did have a chance to review, he also would have had a chance to respond. 

5 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

From what I gather, there really hasn't been an investigation(yet).  She went to USA Today with the information.  I'm assuming all that is just getting started.

 

If his claims are accurate and he's able to back it up, she just looks like a gold digger.

There was an investigation, and now it's going to hearing. From the article you posted:

Quote

Upon being contacted by the claimant regarding Mel Tucker, MSU’s Office for Civil Rights immediately commenced a review and subsequent investigation, per university protocol, using a third-party investigator. Vice President and Director of Athletics Alan Haller, members of the Board of Trustees and I were made aware in late December that there was a complaint. Upon the external investigator concluding their evidence gathering, their report was submitted to the parties of the case on July 25. In these cases, the investigator does not make findings or determinations, but instead refers the matter to a third-party resolution officer to hold a hearing. That formal hearing will occur on Oct. 5 and 6 – dates mutually agreed upon by the claimant, respondent and third-party resolution officer.

2 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Will see where this goes.  Says he has the receipts.

Did he provide these "receipts" during the investigation? If so, the hearing and eventual conclusion should be interesting. But if he had sufficient evidence to exonerate himself, I'm guessing he would not be making public statements about the investigation being unfair and the upcoming hearing being a "sham."

I could be wrong, but it rarely works in your favor to lash out the way he is. Tucker clearly did something incredibly stupid and unprofessional. Whether it meets the policy definition of sexual harassment remains to be seen, but either way he is a dumbass.