UCF Football Players call out Prof. Negy
- Thread starter Poolside Knight
- Start date
like I said over in the Dungeon, dude is a blow hard. Problem is he is smart and protected by Academic Freedom which allows you to teach even your bad ideas.
They have a better chance of getting him for belittling and berating people in his class Who disagree with him than they do for being racist. Because he’s obviously a racist piece of garbage but he’s smart to always leave It implied and never flat out say anything really racist.
He used to love being general about Women, Blacks and Hispanics By saying blanket statements but never actually getting to the point where he said something actually racist.
He’s an asshole but whatever- equally worse left wing fanatics have been protected at other universities so boo boo. The 1A matters at public universities.
Pretty much this. I never took his class but there’s plenty of teachers that spew a bunch of bullshit. That’s why there is ratemyprofessor lol
I'm a big believer in higher education, but, that said, there are a lot of awful tenured professors out there -- and University administrators could care less.
Back in my undergrad days, I took a World History course taught by a tenured professor who came to class three times a week and literally did nothing but read out loud from his book on the subject for 40 minutes. The first time he did this everybody in my class looked around at each other thinking: WTF is THIS shit?
I agree with the concept of academic freedom. But tenure shouldn't protect lazy professors from coasting their way through the end of their careers.
Could care less. No idea what he said. But other side is automatically wrong. Typical.
U. Central Florida Prof. Charles Negy, Fired After Tweeting “Black Privilege is Real,” Ordered Reinstated With Tenure and Back Pay
Arbitrator finds no "just cause" for termination. Negy: "UCF Administrators (and all university administrators) need to get the message that they cannot simply 'purge' or even discipline professors who do not conform to the DEI ideology that they are imposing on entire university campuses."
legalinsurrection.com
UCF f'd up, bad, and I mean really bad, legally. As they put it well ...U. Central Florida Prof. Charles Negy, Fired After Tweeting “Black Privilege is Real,” Ordered Reinstated With Tenure and Back Pay
Arbitrator finds no "just cause" for termination. Negy: "UCF Administrators (and all university administrators) need to get the message that they cannot simply 'purge' or even discipline professors who do not conform to the DEI ideology that they are imposing on entire university campuses."
'pursue a pretextual investigation with a foregone conclusion to fire'
Especially since UCF didn't have any policies or advisements on this matter. There is a lot in there, legally.
Now that said, he could have been more politically correct, and far more positively, with less onus on a single 'subgroup,' and 'less politically charged.' E.g., My
DISCLAIMER: not that I agree, but trying to preserve a similar intent-message
'This s Subgroups of Blacks minorities hasve *lots* of challenges problems (many likely missing fathers, having dysfunctional, undereducatedprivileged mothers families, surrounded by peers with sociopathic-economic tendencies challenges). Lots of obstacles in life, including standard police procedure needing review as well. No one knows what the solution is to this complicated situation. We must look closely at how we, society, are failing our fellow Americans.'
Resulting statement, without all the strikethrough ...
'Subgroups of minorities have *lots* of challenges (missing fathers, underprivileged families, peers with socio-economic challenges). Lots of obstacles in life, including standard police procedure needing review as well. No one knows what the solution is to this complicated situation. We must look closely at how we, society, are failing our fellow Americans.'
I get his point, even if I take issue with much, like 'half of the story,' which I tried to partially augment. Becauase there are far more politically correct ways to make it, with far less 'politically charged' phrasing. I don't like how he worded this at all, and it is -- at best -- at least insensitive and -- at worst -- could be hiding a racist agenda (not everyone is, but he very well may).But in the end, UCF made a knee-jerk, likely 'political appeasement,' by firing him, and then instigating the investigation and other CYA after-the-decision, and damn if that wasn't really, legally, stupid and -- worst of all -- even now affords him far more legal protections than had UCF followed due process and legally done some 'due dilligence.'
One way UCF could have done this is by warning and setting policy, especially specifically to him. Going with an ex-post-facto approach was always going to fail, and put UCF in a far worse position, legally, even going forward.
I'm really tired of the Progressives not only throwing their Liberal roots to the wind, but even worse ... causing lawyers and the courts to come down on them and give people even more protection. People should really read Justice Sotomayor on this.
We cannot have only Progressive like-minded people in Education. Sorry, but no. And yes, that means we have to tolerate jerks and people we strongly disagree with, especially when they refuse to, sometimes purposely, don't want to follow political correctness.
Because, case-in-point, people do this to a lot of good, caring law enforcement and various, fellow, non-minority Americans too ... but you will find Educators saying otherwise too. And they are not thrown out, or not as fast, either ... and if they were, they would have the same, legal basis for review and re-instatement too.
We need to stop trying to make everyone only the views we want to tolerate, and understand tolerance is about giving voices to people we disagree with. Yes, I think 98% of it is vitrol and media sheepish. But there is always 2% to take away that is hard to swallow at times, and we must face it ... to solve issues.
Last edited:
Well, opposing views backed by problematic, insensitive or possibly racist, statements still have to be taken seriously and investigated. Had UCF gone and done its due dilligence, even been pro-active and address this with policies or warnings, it may have stuck. But ...
The problem here is what the lawyers found, and that was bad! You just cannot legally approach these situations like this. It was a knee jerk out of political appeasement, and you just cannot do that legally! In fact, it looks like they got the logic so wrong ...
It's could actually to protect him going forward as it seems UCF showed massive prejudice!
Again, even Justice Sotomayer has been on Progressives about this.
I.e., We're seeing state-wide discrimation against all sorts of groups, such as Christians now, and even Progressive Justices have ruled against states who do such.
E.g., An organization, let alone government entity, cannot fire employees or prosecute businesses or individuals just because they are Christian and making statements or limiting work/custom products that others also do, but aren't Christian.
If one organization or government allows non-Christian X to do something, but not Christian Y, of the same argument, context or topic, that is discrimination. Separation of church and state doesn't mean the elimination of church and faith-based entities, it means the state cannot favor church or faith-based entities.
I.e., not allowing a Church or faith-based entity access or time to a government area or school function when non-Church and non-faith based entities are allowed access to an area or school function. In fact, it's explicitly protected, as long as all are allowed.
E.g., what really gets the left is when they let membership-limited organizations (i.e., not everyone can join) to meet or use areas but then don't let church or faith-based entities (i.e., also not everyone can join) to meet or use the same areas.
That's discrimination, and a number SCOTUS decisions of these are unianimous, with the Progressive Justices siding with the Conservatives, not just the Libertarian Justicies doing so. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is the worst of the lot, and nearly all Justices tire of them ... repeatedly.
E.g., An organization, let alone government entity, cannot fire employees or prosecute businesses or individuals just because they are Christian and making statements or limiting work/custom products that others also do, but aren't Christian.
If one organization or government allows non-Christian X to do something, but not Christian Y, of the same argument, context or topic, that is discrimination. Separation of church and state doesn't mean the elimination of church and faith-based entities, it means the state cannot favor church or faith-based entities.
I.e., not allowing a Church or faith-based entity access or time to a government area or school function when non-Church and non-faith based entities are allowed access to an area or school function. In fact, it's explicitly protected, as long as all are allowed.
E.g., what really gets the left is when they let membership-limited organizations (i.e., not everyone can join) to meet or use areas but then don't let church or faith-based entities (i.e., also not everyone can join) to meet or use the same areas.
That's discrimination, and a number SCOTUS decisions of these are unianimous, with the Progressive Justices siding with the Conservatives, not just the Libertarian Justicies doing so. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is the worst of the lot, and nearly all Justices tire of them ... repeatedly.
Yep. Tenure was instituted back-in-the-day to protect professors with controversial opinions. But I don't believe the 'Champions of Tenure' ever envisioned faculty protections for blatantly racist, misogynic, or homophobic takes. Last I checked, these professors have women, minorities, and gays in their classrooms. Yikes, talk about creating awkward and uncomfortable situations in classrooms, considering the power dynamics of professor and student.
I actually agree with UCFBS that there should have been clear-cut policies in place to protect faculty rights without creating a hostile environment for learning.
Dude ... why do you nuke everyone who isn't politically correct or even insensitive? Tenure didn't save him, UCF being stupid, legally, did.
You're just nuking 30-70% of the country. Seriously. 30-70% of the country isn't blatantly racist, misogynic or homophobic.
Heck, UCFMikes 'gay shaming' has gone utterly un-addressed her by people like yourself. It's not funny, yet he did it. Most of you do it!
You discrminate against people of faiths and European backgrounds in some of your posts at times. You're not as bad as other Progressives, but you have been guilty of it.
Again ... there are politically incorrect people, there are then insensitive people, and then there are bigots. Why do you lump all politicaly incorrect and insensitive people in with bigots?
I don't like him. But I understand his point. I think he was at least insensitive in how he made his point and, yes, you could accuse him of hiding a racist agenda. The problem? UCF doesn't have any proof of the latter.
So it's not just tenure that's the problem here. In fact, it's tenure that protects all educators that have it from your wanting to label 30-70% of the country as bigots.
At least we can agree on this. Then UCF would have a leg to stand on.
How is making 'politically incorrect' statments any different from being a blowhard racist?
I understand he was fired for a tweet saying if Blacks were smart like Asian Americans instead of being dumb, we wouldn't be talking about systematic racism. (Yeah, Professor, let's ignore the impact of generations of slavery.)
If I was an African American is that dude's class, I'd have been seething mad to hear him spout crap like that. How 'insensitve' does a comment have to be before it crosses the line of decency?
How far are you reading into the statements he made? That's my problem.
It's like everything these days ...
At what point do we stop nuking everyone as the 'worst of the lot' when they say something unpopular, insensitive or even politically incorrect, possibly even purposely so just to force the issue?
It's very popular to demonize police too. And as much as I have been critical about police and police procedure ... at some point ... we have to admit that it's politically correct to hate some people, like police -- even call for their deaths -- but not others.
Of course some police cause this. But to stereotype all police, when it's a small percentage -- plus police procedure we've long tolerated and should have ended long ago (that harms both the police and the citizen alike) -- is just as much hatred as others. Hate the state for pitting the police with such procedures and operations, as well as their political police chiefs.
As I said, back when it happened ...
When you're a minority and you physically attack Rand Paul chanting 'Say Her Name!' when Rand is the sponsor of the 'Justice for Breonna Taylor' Act that would repeal all sorts of police protections, and he cannot even get hardly any Democrats to do anything but give it lip service ...
You're looking at the real problems of this country ... ignorance and refusal to listen to people you think are the problem, but are your actual ally.
I have even been blacklisted by associates in my professional career for merely pointing out Rand Paul has been one of the staunchest advocates of repealing a lot of police procedure and protections, as well as critical of government mandates and authoritarianism that is at odds with science, and he's been repeatedly censored for using peer reviewed studies. But he's a racist, because some in the US Media say so, so ... he's the problem.
The professor admitted the problem was complex, and many young people have great challenges. He just did it with words and other approaches that are not politically correct. I don't condone how he said it, but the conversation has to be had. He forced it with his insensitivity. Not how I'd do it, but ... don't ignore the point, argue with how he did it.
Even many African-Americans state things how he does, and yet ... are they racists too? Heck, if you want to see real discrimination ... be a registered Republican minority. So ... either we nuke everyone and stop being selective, or we admit the obvious ...
Thus ... there are a lot of bigots -- your definition -- who are all over the political spectrum, of every creed and culture. Me? I see them as just insensitive at times. Whoopie Goldberg was just insensitive, but under your definition, she's a blatant bigot.
But she didn't have her career nuked, just a week or two. That's a perfect example.
No, the professor doesn't get a 'free pass.' But he's guilty of Whoopie Goldberg-level insensitivity and political correctness violations. He's trying to start a conversation much like Goldberg did, and she had a valid point, just really did a piss poor job of it.
This is what Bill Maher is pointing out. That Critical Race Theory (CRT) is actually here, we're institutionalizing our higher learning with it, which goes down, and ... that's what everyone is sick of. It's not that CRT is a poor idea, it's actually a good discussion, but to institutionalize it, then deny it exists and has no impact, and that everyone against CRT are bigots and making a big deal about nothing, is yet more of the same.
Everything is on the table. That's how education used to be. You, like the US Media, nuke everyone, and call them bigots. No, some people are politically insensitive on purpose, to make a point. Because at some point ... no matter how they make the point, they are called it any way.
Minorities do it all the time too. It happens. Doesn't mean they are a bad person. Doesn't mean they're a bigot either.
A fireable offense then, eh? No.
One of the days we'll get back to raising -- and not failing -- our youth to challenge these professors on their tact and how they are only telling half (or less than half) the story. We used to call this civics and debate.
Instead of nuking them.
Last edited:
Show me once post where I have shown that I’m against gays and lesbians. I’ve asked you this repeatedly and you continue to fail to reproduce it
Posting pictures of a gay couple is not in any way shaming them or bashing them. Making fun of those morons was not bashing gays, but getting under their skin like their anti-vaxx posts that were posted incessantly were meant to do
However, your make believe, fantasy buddies like
Last edited:
Funny how this 'unpopular, insensitve or even politically correct' business works for you.
When it's somone else -- in this case, a student or a group of students being callously disrespected by racist professors -- its all about wagging a finger at them and lecturing them that they need to be "challenging those professors on their tact" so that they can learn something.
But when you feel disrespected for continuing to spout your bullshit anti-vax propaganda, you are quick to cry it's blatant harassment!
The use and context is still the same bigotry. Sorry, but you know it too.
Do you hear yourself? "Oh, my use of 'gay shaming' was because they were morons."
By 'gay bashing.' Yes, we understand. So it's okay when you do it, towards them.
Just like you guys literally crossing lines with me because the alleged information I posted killed people. Now you're saying I'm going to go to games and expect people to thank me for being right.
So, WTF is it? Am I a moron that kills people? Or someone who won't shut up because I was right, and will bother people at games? Unlike you guys, I care for people and want to help. You guys have no problem destroying careers and livelihoods, and laughing about it.
I mean, you talk about mental health of members, and what they shouldn't do ... but then prod, harrass and spam them, gay shame them, other things ... like that won't cause issues if they really do have mental health issues?
There's trolling and then there's just total harrassment and SPAM. You've violated the terms of service of Rivals so many times in other ways than just 'gay bashing,' I don't know what to say. But yes ... I'm the one that should be banned. I'm the one that's allegedly going to 'go postal.'
The people who I, among dozens of others you harrass (maybe not as much, but you do), who meet people in real life, and act civilized, don't dare speak up on this board.
You guys have no credilbility at this point.
No one trusts you to do anything but harrass when you don't like them.
And forget trying to take things to DMs/PMs to try to keep it off the board.
Seriously ... just admit the more you're wrong, and the more we're right ... the worse it gets for everyone.
You are worse than them in many ways, especially in SPAM'ing the board with it. Your entire effort, which you and others have admitted, is to try to get people to leave and, if they won't, banned.
At least 6 of you have constantly harped on why I need to be banned. The irony of it all is that a lot of it is about things I ended up being right about, because -- tada -- I got my information from actual, top experts in this country.
Yes, because UCF needs to set policies and apply them equally.
Otherwise we just get more Covington Kids, Whoppie Goldberg and the like.
The f'ing arbitration panel totally lambasted UCF! It was instant appeasement! UCF f'd up!
First off, he's Psych. 'Nuff said.
Secondly, most students are complaining they have to take his course, and UCF doesn't give them another option. UCF should give them another option. UCF can give them another option, than firing him.
There are people who purposely f' with you out there. UCFMikes is a perfect example. He'll even excuse violations of Rival's terms of service because the target deserved it. Some of you guys are literally walking hypocritical examples of this professor.'
I had a boss in the mid '00s who was a military MP, Psych major. After 6 months, he openly complained he couldn't get me upset. That's how much I can take. Other people notice that too. It's more than just the Cooler too. You guys do it everywhere.
The only time I've been really pissed off is when some of you did it to myself in the Kristi Malzahn thread, and even others I was talking to didn't care for it. You're worse than this professor, and that says a lot. Ergo ...
^^^ Right there! Right there! Your 'anti-vax' is like 'bigot'!
"I disagree with you ... so you're anti-vax!" No I'm not. But your 3rd grader logic is noted.
Right now I'm merely quoting our own FDA experts that are pointing out Pharma is meeting behind closed doors with our politically appointed CDC and FDA leadership, and that they are going against our own, FDA expert recommendations.
That is not anti-vax. That's anti-oligarchy. Stop being sheep, and stop calling me anti-vax because I'm actually reading our experts. It's why I've been right for the past 15+ months, and you have been wrong ... repeatedly
You have NO CREDIBILITY at this point! The lot of you doing this! You are purposely targetting people trying to get them banned, and SPAM'ing the board, with the intent to prevent any discorse. Especially the more proven wrong you are!
Either be responsible for once for your statements ...
Or have the courtesy to listen to what someone is saying.
You scream 'anti-vax' to the point more and more people are getting sick of you.
They are growing ... stop now before it's too late.
No, I can take it. I have thick skin. But you do it to others.
I don't cry. I just take you on a tour of your repeat, revisionist history and failure, even quadrupling down, to admit you were wrong.
You're the ones crying, and more and more see it too. The usual suspects.
Mania is a condition in which you have a period of abnormally elevated, extreme changes in your mood or emotions, energy level or activity level.
Both a manic and a hypomanic episode include three or more of these symptoms:
- Abnormally upbeat, jumpy or wired.
- Increased activity, energy or agitation.
- Exaggerated sense of well-being and self-confidence (euphoria)
- Decreased need for sleep.
- Unusual talkativeness.
- Racing thoughts.
- Distractibility.
My God. BS in this entire thread:
And this lunatic says he never makes anything about himself. Riiiiiiiighhhhhhhttt.....
BS never misses and opportunity to make things about himself. Oh and LMMFAO about him never getting upset and having thick skin. Dude goes 100% postal all the time and loses it. What and effing joke.
And this lunatic says he never makes anything about himself. Riiiiiiiighhhhhhhttt.....
BS never misses and opportunity to make things about himself. Oh and LMMFAO about him never getting upset and having thick skin. Dude goes 100% postal all the time and loses it. What and effing joke.
Do you guys even read yourselves?My God. BS in this entire thread:
And this lunatic says he never makes anything about himself. Riiiiiiiighhhhhhhttt.....
BS never misses and opportunity to make things about himself. Oh and LMMFAO about him never getting upset and having thick skin. Dude goes 100% postal all the time and loses it. What and effing joke.
I own what I do. But none of you do.
No you don’t. You write a manifesto stating precisely what you don’t do and in the process of writing that manifesto, you contradict yourself about 1000 times. You can keep telling yourself that you own what you do; however, that doesn’t mean that it actually happens.
/lesson. Hope this helps.
I'm not the one who's profile is the posterchild for Rivals policy and terms of service violations, all while being obsessed with anyone who causes you butthurt because you blabber from ignorance and are unable to follow anything beyond a 3rd grade level.
Seek help you lunatic.
You’re murdering people with blatant misinformation and lies. Does that not violate Rivals policy and Terms of service? Murder?
UCFBS is on the spectrum so I don't think we should engage too harshly or take his ramblings for anything more than hyperfixation and social awkwardness. His opinions lack any sort of nuances because he doesn't see the world the same way non-spectrum people do. Just nod your head and let him do his thing.
Latest posts
-
-
-
So far this year, UCF Men's basketball has 1 forward (no centers). The forward is a sophomore. I think
- Latest: Bring Back Wackadoos
-
