text:
UPDATED: McShane Responds to College Republicans' Cancellation of Ann Coulter Event
For more information on student organization against the Ann Coulter event, Father McShane's email or faculty and student reactions, click here.
By IAN MCKENNA
Managing Editor
Published: November 9, 2012
On Nov. 10 at 12:46pm, Fordham President Joseph M. McShane, S.J., released a new statement regarding the College Republicans decision to cancel the Ann Coulter event scheduled for Nov. 29 in light of recent student reactions.
Below is the entirety of McShane's message:
University Statement | Ann Coulter Appearance Cancelled
November 10, 2012Late yesterday, Fordham received word that the College Republicans, a student club at the University, has rescinded its lecture invitation to Ann Coulter.
Allow me to give credit where it is due: the leadership of the College Republicans acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regretssincerely and eloquently. Most gratifying, I believe, is that they framed their decision in light of Fordham's mission and values. There can be no finer testament to the value of a Fordham education and the caliber of our students.
Yesterday I wrote that the College Republicans provided Fordham with a test of its character. They, the University community, and our extended Fordham family passed the test with flying colors, engaging in impassioned but overwhelmingly civil debate on politics, academic freedom, and freedom of speech.
We can all be proud of Fordham today, and I am proud to serve you.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
Below, originally posted: Nov. 9th, 6:05pm
"We have decided that it was in our best interest to cancel the event," Theodore Conrad, Fordham College at Rose Hill '14, said.
Conrad, president of College Republicans at Rose Hill, has announced that the club is canceling Ann Coulter's scheduled appearance on Nov. 29 in the interest of the Fordham community.
The decision was arrived at by Conrad early this morning, well before Father Joseph M. McShane, S.J. and president of Fordham, sent an email upholding her scheduled appearance.
"I do take responsibility in not doing the proper research," Conrad said. "We did not properly vet a potential speaker for Fordham University."
"The things that she said are not things our club stands for or anything at Fordham stands for and I feel we would be doing a lot of people a diservice in bringing a speaker like that to Fordham. The bad outweighs the good in this."
"We were not aware of comments that had been previously made," Conrad said when the decision to book Coulter as a speaker was made in September.
"That wasn't really appropriate from our university president. I love the president of my school but I think that if he had reached out to us before writing that email, he would have known [our situation]. I already met with Dean Rodgers and let him know what was going on. I think the president should have reached out to us," said Conrad of Father McShane's open letter to the university.
"It was hurtful to hear some of those words in regard to our organization," Conrad said. "A lot of people give a lot of time and hard work. But for him to publicly call us out, not only to the student body but to alumni, I think that was unfair. This club has done a lot of good things on campus and to be recognized publicly for the first time I can remember was unfair and hurtful."
The group had originally appealed for conservative author and journalist George Will but were not awarded the sufficient funds. In his place, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was selected as a possible speaker, but after hearing rumors of Cain's cancelations with other schools while still under contract, they were forced to find another speaker who would cost less than the $10,000 they were given.
Minutes before this post was published, Conrad wrote an email to his executive board and members informing them first of the decision. It can be read in its entirety below.
The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise, and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization's mission, and the University's. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing, that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter's invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely, before Father McShane's email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error, and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.
Ted Conrad, President
Emily Harman, Vice President
Joe Campagna, Treasurer
John Mantia, Secretary
I am sorry. I really just don't understand how it is possible to "not properly vet" Ann Coulter. It doesn't take much diligence to obtain even a small understanding of the wackadoo shit she stands for. Clearly, you innocently emerged from a cave, found an internet machine, and Googled "Republican speaker for hire" and this absolves you of any responsibility for bad taste or judgement.
That this was even on the table at my university and that little contribution to the student activities fund might have helped pay this woman's mortgage turns my stomach.
Never should have been invited in the first place, but I'm glad this event has been cancelled. I don't buy the whole apologizing for "not doing the proper research" thing, though. You're the president of the College Republicans and you didn't know who Ann Coulter was? Don't feign ignorance. Don't play innocent. You knew exactly who you was inviting to campus.
*were inviting
Meanwhile, the battle goes on.
Dear Fr. McShane,
I cannot express how joyous I am to read your letter condemning the hateful, bigoted, and vacuous speech of Ann Coulter and the choice of a club to bring her to speak. Thank you immensely.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to express to you also my outrage that, currently at Fordham, there is no free speech for students. As a near-absolutist for free speech, I agree with the ultim
ate assessment that Coulter should be allowed to speak here, but *only* under the condition that the free speech argument protecting her event is extended also to students.
Two years ago the "maroon square" proposal was denied, confirming publicly and institutionally that Fordham University does not allow free speech for students on campus, even in designated spaces. Instead, it has been made clear to me, time and again by Mr Jeff Grey and Mr Chris Rodgers, that all events, all posters, all topics, all speakers, all films, absolutely must go through student affairs for approval.
And in many cases, this approval has been denied. The Vagina Monologues is banned from student affairs support (let alone budget and space allocation!). HIV testing events are denied. Pornography is banned in the student handbook. The Maroon Square was rejected. RA's seeking to host events about Occupy Wall Street have been forced to change their content and include "alternative views." Until only weeks ago, students were banned from identifying themselves as "queer" in club event names and constitutions. A peaceful vigil to commemorate the lives lost in Iraq on the 10 year anniversary of the war was forcibly disbanded.
I am deeply offended that, after three years at Fordham, having these events that I care about blocked, the university would allow someone as explicitly hateful as Ann Coulter to speak to preserve "free speech." Where was my free speech when I wanted it? Where will it be tomorrow?
And as a parting consideration, when students use racial or homophobic slurs, to attack each other, Safety and Security investigates the incident, with the intention of starting judicial proceedings. When Ann Coulter comes to campus and does the same, how will Safety and Security respond? (In March 2010, for example, at the University of Western Ontario in London, Coulter told a Muslim student to "ride a camel" because she had no "magic carpet" and shouldn't be allowed on a plane.)
If Fordham is ever going to block a speaker, it ought to be Ms. Coulter. If not, the censorship students face is completely indefensible.
Aren't all of these students adults, why so much discussion on this private club's choices? It's clear to me they've been pressured to cancel coulter. Independent of how I feel about coulter, I believe there's no surer way to limit the students education than to suppress alternative views. Shame on you Fordham. I won't bother trying to defend the merits of some of her views or the likelihood that much of what we see is fabricated for ratings — because if the FU community is unwilling to let a club choose their own guests, then it will certainly be unable to objectively consider the merits of what she might add to these students education.
I am a '08 Xavier University graduate, and I am simply appalled that Fordham University would cancel the event with Miss Coulter. I have supported the mission and vision of Fordham for quite some time because I have had a lot of family attend the University. Suppressing free speech and a conservative viewpoint in such a blatant manner is against everything Catholics stand for. Miss Coulter spoke at Xavier University a couple of years ago, and I can honestly say that she conducted herself in a professional and courteous manner. She is a polarizing figure with a valid viewpoint and all Jesuit universities should embrace speakers of her stature, even though the administration may not agree with her position. It appears that Fordham has lumped itself into a category with supremely liberal institutions that suppress free speech (e.g., with the likes of Georgetown University). I am sure that if the Fordham University College Democrats invited Kathleen Sebelius or Sandra Fluke to speak on campus there would be no issue. When I graduated from high school in 2005, I was seriously considering Fordham along with a number of other Jesuit universities. The actions taken by the University community today reaffirm that my decision to attend Xavier, not Fordham, was a better decision. Hopefully, Fordham learns from this experience and actually lives out its mission in a constructive and holistic way that embraces ALL viewpoints…not just liberal ones.
How could the Republican Club not really know how horrible Ann Coulter really is? The issue of not fully researching her …sorry does not pass the truth test. Take real responsibility for your mistake and admit you knew who she is and the hatred she stands for.
As an alumni, I'm glad she got the boot. If you don't know how hateful and despicable Ann Coulter is, well, I am surprised, to put it mildly. I am all for dissenting opinions. Invite George Bush. Invite Condeleezza Rice. Invite Bill O'Reilly. But Ann Coulter is the antithesis of anything that even resembles intellectual discussion.
Dear Fordham Community,
After literally pacing around my apartment this evening, trying to grasp the mind-boggling stupidity of this situation—particularly the words and actions of Theodore Conrad— I am writing so that once I get this off my chest, I can proceed with the rest of my Friday night and weekend, which so far has been hijacked by my frustration over this recent debacle at Fordham.
I'll start with Theodore. He's done quite the job on himself already, although he apparently fails to realize it. It's hard to know where to start, but I'll try:
For one, he didn't even know who Ann Coulter is.
Worse, Theodore claims victimhood and whines that Father McShane should have "reached out" to him before posting an honest, eloquent, gracious letter to the university in which he notes his disappointment with the College Republicans but explains his reasons for allowing Ann Coulter's appearance at Rose Hill to proceed as planned.
Many members of the Fordham community disagreed with Father McShane's decision, but they may have momentarily forgotten that he is, above all, a teacher. This was a teaching moment. By not cancelling Ann Coulter's appearance, Father McShane gave Theodore the opportunity to do the right thing and cancel it himself. It was a chance for Theodore to act like an adult, to acknowledge his mistake, to help the Fordham community unite after a divisive presidential election. It was a chance at redemption. But instead of cancelling the event graciously, Theodore actually lashes out at Father McShane, calling his words "inappropriate." This is the part I can't get past. I cannot fathom the disrespect. I cannot comprehend the cluelessness.
Theodore, Father McShane had a lot to do today. He runs a university. He runs a university whose community of students, staff and alumni is reeling from a natural disaster. But as President, he had a responsibility to address this controversy, which you caused, that was quickly growing into a crisis. And my guess is that he does not have you on speed dial. Father McShane owed you nothing, and yet he gave you an opportunity to save face, which you squandered because you failed to recognize it. You failed to see three feet beyond your enormous ego.
Fordham has survived much worse as a community and I am confident that we will soon put this Coulter crisis behind us. A week from now, most of us probably won't even remember that we were planning our protests, or exchanging strong-worded Facebook comments with other Fordham students and alumni we'd never even met. And Theodore, you will be fine too. Everyone makes stupid mistakes in college. Hopefully you will stop pointing fingers, grow up and move on.
What I am more concerned about is the deeper problem here, just under the surface of today's events, running right through the administrative culture at Fordham.
It was apparent to me, while reading Father McShane's letter, that he did not know about Ann Coulter's planned appearance until after she was already booked. I certainly do not believe it is the President's job to vet or even know about every guest speaker. As I said, he is a busy man. But how did it get past Student Activities? How did it get past Dean Rogers? If Dean Rogers knew, how did he not tell the President? Where, exactly, was the ball dropped? And by whom?
I love Fordham dearly, but communication has never been its strength, as this incident has very publicly shown. Every alum I know—my brother, my parents, my friends, strangers I meet in the city because they are wearing a Fordham sweatshirt—has a horror story to share about dealing with the administration in some capacity, whether through Residential Life, the Bursar, Facilities, an academic department, you name it. We get the run-around, we get sent all over campus to different offices, often to plea increasingly desperate, increasingly complicated cases about you name it: No soap for a week in a communal bathroom. A dorm room window that's broken and won't close in January and you're freezing and no one will fix it. Or, God forbid, you have a scheduling glitch or you want to change your major. Often, we are at the mercy of people who don't really like college students and just want to eat their lunch in peace without dealing with us. We have all had these experiences. We all know what I'm talking about.
My point is that no matter what public glory Fordham attains because of Father McShane's efforts to raise Fordham's national profile and ranking, it won't matter unless he also makes major structural and cultural changes within the administration. The right hand needs to talk to the left hand. They need to function in some cohesive, organized way.
My fellow alumni and I have a burning, undying love for the place, but this love has yet to translate into donations because we're afraid that if we send a check, it will get lost. Oh, and we're still trying to pay off that hefty fine Fordham slapped on us for overlooking some sticky-tack on our dorm room wall while we were busy packing up our lives, saying goodbye to friends and graduating. So maybe we can call it even. That's how many of us see it, anyway.
Of the many factors that dissuade alumni from donating, Ann Coulter would be the least of them even if she did speak. But all the little things add up over four years and come to a head at a time like this.
I hope Fordham views this most recent incident as a symptom, if not a direct result, of some larger problems it needs to address. I always figured Father McShane was so busy building big, beautiful additions to our house that he didn't have time to inspect the foundation and see the cracks. But now that the cracks have grown and the integrity of the whole house is in peril, he really has no choice.
So thank you, Theodore.
PS. Let's just fund the Vagina Monologues and forget this whole thing ever happened. Maybe College Republicans can contribute the money they were going to use for Ann Coulter's speaker fee. I'm sure she'd love that.
– Katherine Flannery, FCRH '08
I think that it is a horrible thing that she is being canceled. I am not even a part of the College Republicans, so no one should jump down my throat for saying that. But I do feel that this is a once in a life time opportunity and that sometimes the most controversial speakers can be the most interesting. I am quite disheartened to hear about the limits the university has placed on free speech in the past, as provided by Jeff I. That is a problem that should be changed and I imagine it is a difficult thing for a Catholic institution. Going back to Coulter though, just because she would speak at the campus does not mean she represents the thoughts and opinions of the school. Columbia had no problem a few years ago having Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak at their campus. If there's any speaker that is controversial, it ought to have been him. So while the College Democrats can go have a good laugh that the College Republicans messed up, I am left disappointed by both sides. One for not acknowledging the views of the invited speaker and not clarifying that although she would have been speaking, her views did not represent the university. And I am disappointed by the other side for simply criticizing the event, rather than taking it as a learning experience and a possible significant event in their college careers. This whole situation represents exactly the failures present in our government today because of the ignorance caused by partisanship. I am disgusted.
Were the CR pressured into Cancelling? Very likely. Has Fordham banned controversial Liberals from speaking on Campus? Never.
What is next, book burnings?
I feel this cancelation is due to public pressure, Mrs Coulter has every right to her own opinions and the way she expresses them, who is Fordham to say what views are politically correct and right for the college. This all has to do with the image of what Fordham would look like to the media. If she was a democrat and had these views and spoke her mind the way she does, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You got caught red handed, kid. You know damn well what Ann Coulter is all about. Are you going to seriously tell the Fordham community that the Board Members of the Young Republicans don't watch Fox News?
So what is Father McShane and the thoughtful Fordham Community's position on Peter Singer. I understand he is scheduled to participate shortly in a Fordham Ethics conference of some sort. Surely some of his lunatic ravings are "not the sort of things Fordham stands for". Ann Coulter is beyond the pale but Professor Singer is "part of the conversation."
I am disappointed at the way this whole event was handled by the College Republicans.
Whether anyone else agrees with them or not, they made the decision to invite Ms. Coulter. They then did not have the backbone to stand by their decision in the face of opposition. Finally, they were blatantly dishonest in their explanation of cancelling their invitation.
While I think Ms. Coulter is a hate-monger and should never have been invited in the first place, when I heard that people were calling for the event to be cancelled I stood up and said it was wrong to do so.
If the College Republicans' leadership did not believe Ms. Coulter spoke to their beliefs, they should not have invited them. Whether we agree with them, or not, Fordham generally encourages its students to stand up for their beliefs and they should have done so. Finally, when they cancelled, they should have been honest about their reasons and not feigned ignorance of what a speaker they invited would talk about.
Either the College Republicans invited someone they disagreed with, showing them to have poor judgment, or they disinvited someone because they did not wish to stand up for their beliefs, showing lack of fortitude. Finally, they lied about why they disinvited her, showing that there is something deficient with their character.
Not because of the initial invitation, but because of the way the matter was handled, I find it unfortunate that Mr. Conrad is a member of the Fordham Family.
What I don't understand is, was it a complete surprise to Father McShane that Anne Coulter was coming?
I'm very happy to hear that the College Republicans have rescinded their invitation to Ann Coulter. Her hateful speech over the past several years have made clear that she is the antithesis of what Fordham University stands for. One can be, and has every right to be, a partisan in the political sphere of our country. But when your partisanship extends to demagoguery and hate speech aimed at your antagonists from the president on down, you cease to be a proper individual to address the university community. My experience at Fordham, from my student days to now, show that cooler heads prevail. They have in this case, and I am grateful for it.
Its not 'free' speech if you are paid to speak it. There is a difference folks. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. Ann Coulter is still free to make her hate speeches, now she just isn't PAID to make that speech nor is she given a platform upon which to do it.
What a bunch of intolerant bullies they have at Fordham. The leader of the pack being the Mr. Mcshane…way to bully those kids. And you call yourself a preist shame on you. I bet you are OK with partial birth abortion too! Your kind is the reason I am no longer catholic! The road to hell, oh you know the rest Father.
The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
-George Washington
wonderful… now you can invite and celebrate a person like Bill Maher… someone who calls women CU*TS and TW*TS and numerous other things… that is probably someone you would love to have speak. More along the lines of your thinking process… hey, it ain't hate if you agree with it, is it?
I am so disappointed that this event was cancelled . It was an opportunity to educate both sides. How sad for Fordham University to shy away from that in fear.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the President of of Fordham University, however, would be a tremendous understatement.
So much for free speech on campus. Better watch out; Dr. Mike Adams may pay a visit with his FIRE friend to give you a forced tutorial on what free speech really entails.
I am especially outraged by Dr. McShane, who used his office to (less-than-subtly) bully the local Republican student organization. Typical elitist liberal tactic. A wimp leading more wimps. Perhaps he should be neutered.
What McShane means is he is proud of being able to bully college Republicans into cancelling an event featuring somebody he doesn't like. Progressives don't believe in free speech and this is further evidence of that. McShane cleverly posted a statement of disapproval, knowing it would rally the opponents of the college Republicans into protests and that there would be no possible way they could continue with the event uninterrupted and peacefully.
The first amendment to the constitution was not created to protect speech which is already viewed as acceptable. It is there to protect speech that is controversial and even offensive, otherwise, it makes no sense to have the amendment in the first place.
Thank you, father McShane, for proving yourself to be yet more intolerant than Ann Coulter.
The college Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for caving the way they did.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This is terrible that a Priest would suppress the right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I would never send my children to this University. This is absolutely disgraceful. Father McShane should be ashamed of himself to put such pressure on these young adults. However, this just goes to show how the liberals REALLY work. They work on the guilt trips. DO NOT GIVE IN. You should ask her back no matter what the consequence. As far as I know, we still live in the United States of America where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is still allowed unless we keep buckling to bullies and keep cancelling and going against our principles. If these were my children, I would tell them to stand your ground and never go against your principles no matter what. I say INVITE ANN COULTER BACK.
Meanwhile..the marxist indoctrination of these students continues…….at outrageous tuition fees……..
my comment is awaiting "moderation"……..lol
After reading this story and then reading through the comments all I can say is we are living in Orwellian times. it is truth that Big Brother Joseph M. McShane wrote his ministry of truth letter to shame and force the hand of the College Republicans for their thoughtcrime. He uses doublethink in explaining his magnanimous positions of shaming, disappointment in maturity and yet allowing a "hateful" person her unpopular and diverse point of view to be sure to keep with the canon of academic FREEDOM.
NEWSPEAK is the endgame, a language in which it is impossible to express dissenting ideas or think clearly.The only form of Bigotry Big Brother recognizes is within the context of his social agenda. It is not a moral language it is a wholly immoral language. Its entire purpose is to BLOT OUT CONSCIENCE AND REPLACE IT WITH PERVASIVE GUILT.
We move onto the comment section where they use the college Republicans and Ann Coulter for their Two Minute Hates. Rising to their feet, shaking their fists and spitting at the screen denouncing them in an orgy of hate. They feel a temporary sense of relief from their worry that they've allowed a reactionary attitude to almost creep into their minds.
This University may call itself Catholic but I can assure you that it is not in any sense of the word. I bet if you scratch under the surface you will find support for that term "social Justice" which is just another word to push socialist policies. I would also bet money they support or promote social intrinsic evils which would be in opposition to the magisterium of the Holy Church.
Our Children are not being taught they are being indoctrinated.
They knew very well what Ann coulter is about. They thought they could feed some red meat to the uninformed young republicans before they learned the truth……that the GOP only likes the wealthy, and that the purpose of this nation is to protect them, at all costs.
I don't know where to start after reading the comments here and reading what McShane had written. I just don't understand what is happening to this once great country when someone like McShane can bully a group into uninviting a speaker. I don't care what his political leanings are, this is still a free country. Can anyone answer this…why is it always a conservative speaker that is uninvited while the trash from the left is allowed to spew their hate wherever, whenever they please? You people all make me sick and ashamed.
This is just typical liberalism. Silence the opposition. Fordham has no problem repeatedly allowing pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-catholic politicians and pundits on campus. Chris Matthews gave a COMMENCEMENT SPEECH in recent years.
The double standard is disgusting. Fr. McShane silenced the Young Republicans, and has contributed to a climate of hostility towards conservatives and traditional Catholics on campus. I have witnessed for myself how many departments at Fordham are hostile to believers, especially traditional Catholics. Biology Graduate students at Fordham routinely claim people of belief have no business in science or the academy.
So much for the Jesuit University of NY. Cardinal Dolan should censure McShane for allowing this climate to develop on campus. How do you contact Cardinal Dolan?
The disinvitation of Ms. Coulter is both cowardly and anti-intellectual. I guarantee that the image of her in the minds of her school opponents was molded by extremist left-wing web sites. Perhaps you do not even acknowledge the existence of extremist Left these days (even at Fordham)? Coulter's occasional unsavory comments are part of her shtick, which I, personally, do not appreciate. However, she would avoid such behavior at a "Catholic" institution (assuming she were allowed to get a word in edgewise through throngs of shrieking hoards so characteristic of progressive, tolerant universities these days). If you really would like to see "hateful" behavior, read the comments on the aforementioned sites. HYPOCRITES. The real cause of such irrational hatred is not Ms. Coulter's occasional antics, but her ability to out wit her philosophical opponents. She is both smarter and deeper than 99% of her intellectual foes, including Fordham's best, and, incidentally, including the caliber of many who have commented in this forum. It's much easier and cowardly to accede to the cultural Zeitgeist than to use one's gifts to listen and to think objectively. Fr. McShane, you are a shallow hypocrite who employs pretty sounding words. This decision has diminished both you and Fordham's proud Catholic history. Invite her back, if you have the backbone.
What is the big deal with Ann Coulter? Sure she says some controversial stuff, but there are people on the Left who say a lot worse. Heck, the Democrats could invite domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and "Father" McShane would probably fall over himself to welcome What really bothers me is the cowardice demonstrated by the Fordham College Republicans. Amazing that they cowed like this so quickly. Especially considering that the people who opposed them were beta male Democrats (btirm). Dudes, seriously, grow a pair. They're just Democrats.
Yet the president has no problem with heretics, sysmatics, pro-gay agenda and pro-abortion speakers. that seems to follow the jesuit tradition at all jesuit colleges I guess. The new gospel from Ophra which is the only gospel at jesuit institutions now. no sin-but being a republican or conservation, no cross-saved by your good works, no magisterium-your conscience knows better, no faith-we are gods. Sad yet predictable at any jesuit instituion. Jesuit Saints are litterly closing their eyes and can't bear looking at the tradgey at jesuit instituions. You have been an embarassment to the Church of Jesus Christ for decades. Mybe your emerging church will take you to the mothership soon.
Hate speech because she has a different opinion? Book burnings indeed. The complete closure of what's left of the American mind. Airhead nation. This is what totalitarian regimes like former USSR, communist china, Saudi Arabia and others have done. It simply spotlights the weakness, the lack of credibility and illegitimacy of a regime when opposing views are censored. If her views are so wrong the views won't have any traction. To censor speech and open dialogue signals tyranny.
An example of the prevalent left-wing garbage that is turning the U.S. into a spineless toilet.
Friggin commies!
Hahaha, this is their education???
So these folk worry that Coulter and her ilk "inflame emotions that can be harmful to the safety and stability of our society."
A lesson in Plato. Hide the truth.
What hypocrisy!. What hypocrites!
You wrap your arguments for denying speech in the very fabric that speaks of its value to a free society and are too dumb (or intolerant) to even grasp its irony.
You spew venom with freedom and then turn around and say, "but she can't."
The idiocy of your position is patently clear and frankly indefensible. You are just so, so, so, so certain of your own rightness that you close your minds and ears to hearing anything different. You don't like what Coulter says or stands for, fine. Engage in debate. Engage in discourse. Engage. But no, you and your university have failed. You run from controversy. You run from the challenge, hands in the air – "No, no, no…we can't hear such things. We can't be challenged. We must continue, like lemmings, to be spoon-fed the typical liberal dribble that let's all march in lock step." That's what your decision says to the world.
And frankly, as an employer, I would not a hire a single one of you for your week-kneed, namby pamby ridiculousness. I want graduates who are thoughtful, articulate, open, innovative, and engaging. You are none of the above. You are children.
What a shame.
Wake up.
What a second!. You had Chris Matthews as a commencement speaker in recent years?
You hypocrites.
You give a platform to Matthews who spews incendiary racist venom about conservatives, but you un-invite Coulter.
So again, as an employer, I won't be making any recruiting trips to your campus.
You are hypocrites and children. And wimps.
Yeah Jack, Chris Matthews spoke and Charles Schumer is a regular fixture at University events. They've even honored pro-abortion Geraldine Ferraro at the law school.
The Lincoln center campus is a hotbed of Anti-Catholic pro liberal/moocher politics. They bill themselves as NY's Jesuit School, implying to parents that they will provide some defense from the depravity that passes for education at other "elite" schools, but there's no defense of "traditional" values Catholic, or secular at Fordham. Go to Hillsdale or Ave Maria if you want that for your children.
As long as Fr. McShane is more interested in getting movies, TV shows, and concerts run at Fordham nothing will change.
Fordham is outed as a liberal nursery . The response by the President was a venal. The cave in by the youngsters was despicable. The anger of many of the letters flies in the face of centuries of academic debate.
Fordham Viper –
WOW!!!!! Truly amazing to learn that Matthews spoke there. This is the same Chris Matthews who magically infers racism in the use of the words: sons, Chicago, food stamps, and cities. This is the same Chris Matthews who in denouncing others proudly proclaims others' speech as offensive and wrong and evil. That Chris Matthews? Because he's always right. And his opinion is much more important to hear than Coulter's. Wow.
I don't know which is worse: (1) the fact that they have stymied speech or (2) that the president thinks preventing speech is a good thing or (3) that they don't even recognize that they have stymied speech or (4) that they're proud hypocrites like Matthews or (5) that they're violating the very essence of a great religion with seemingly no problem.
WOW, Viper, WOW!
If you can't win in the marketplace of ideas or if you're too scared of the big, bad boogy monster called conservatism…just shut it down. Just call it offensive. Call it hate. Call it extremist. And shut it down. Because that's the way to conduct yourselves in the public space of arguments and debates and issues. Just shut it down. Liberals can't take the heat. So just shut it down.
Has Fordham invited Alan Grayson to speak at this year's graduation? Reverand Al? Jesse?
Wait…let me guess…Sandra Fluck…for her, ahem, courageous stand in demanding that her Jesuit college and others pay for her birth control in violation of their own, core beliefs. Now that's speech worth hearing.
What an absolute joke Fordham looks like. How sad.
First of all, allow me to tell all non Fordham students/alumni/faculty to butt out. You people know nothing of this institution or of Father McShane. He is a man who is cool and level-headed, who truly loves us as if we were all his students. To call him inappropriate, censoring, and immature is nothing but blatant disrespect for a man all of us, even the College Republicans, love.
Second, the Ann Coulter event was NOT cancelled by Fr. McShane or the University. Get your facts right; the College Republicans, as Theodore said himself, decided to cancel the event BEFORE Father McShane sent out his university-wide email addressing the issue. The founding ideals of this as well as ALL Jesuit institutions call for "men and women for others", not "men and women who deliberately discriminate against marginalised groups". The Xavier University alumnus who chose that school over Fordham belongs there; his kind are not welcome at Fordham and we would be ashamed to count him among us.
Father McShane did the right thing by expressing his distaste eloquently, and YET allowing Ann Coulter to appear because of his DEDICATION to freedom of speech. The College Republicans, on the other hand, have largely destroyed their reputation here for inviting such a vile woman to spew the antithesis of educational talk. Whats more, they lied to cover up their choice by claiming ignorance. In that respect, I am ashamed as someone who identifies as pretty conservative. And to say that Fordham is a liberal haven is absurd; come here on any given day and have a look around. Look at all the pro-life rallies and then tell me that. Maybe next time invite educational speakers like Herman Cain, heck even Bill O'Reilly. I'd love to hear them speak.
Melissa Ingala
The Fordham student body has crossed the Rubicon. After everyone complaining about the Universities policies related to the Vagina Monologues, the use of the word "queer," etc… And now, a controversial speaker is put down by those very same people. It seems that a loud group of Fordham students do not believe that Fordham should be more liberal with speakers and events, to allow in more viewpoints and contradictory ideas; no, because when those viewpoints offend some people, we must shut it down. This is not a victory for the university. It is a defeat; it is a defeat for those who want to have an administration which is willing to allow events to be hosted, with controversial speakers. It is a defeat for those who still believe that the university ought to be a place of dialogue, of hearing opposing viewpoints and positions, a place of intellectual and philosophical argument where no subject, no idea, is off limits to discussion. This is a sad day for academia.
The CR should have the guts to stay which specific statements of Ms. Coulter's they don't agree with and why. Wusses.
Melissa –
So you don't want employers like me to chime in and engage in the debate? Hmmmm…doesn't sound like you're interested in arguing in the arena of ideas.
As for Father McShane, I have no doubt he is a fine person. Just as I have no doubt that the college republicans are fine people as well. But both are wrong, in my opinion, in this case. If Father McShane is for free speech, why poison the well before the speaker gets there? Why express satisfaction of "passing the test" after the invite is rescinded? You're either for free speech, or you're your not. In this case, both appear willing to prevent the speech rather than debate it and tackle it head on.
The bottom line is simple: you abhor actual or potential "offensive" speech more than you desire "free speech." And that is very sad. It is fine for me, but not for thee.
Those of you who didn't want Coulter to come to Fordham would have been astonished if conservatives protested with the same vitriol about Matthews, someone who also spews and spits venom. That's where the hypocrisy lies. You would have yelled from the mountain tops and called conservatives right wing nut jobs and extremists all the while embracing a man who sees racism where it is not and uses such tactics as a club to marginalize conservatives.
That's fine. I'll stand with the Bill of Rights, the founders and all those who embrace free speech as a means of learning, understanding and engaging as a part of a free, sometimes messy, society. I'll even support the Matthews of the world to spew their gunk.
You remain in your cocoon, ever fearful that someone, somewhere might just say something that OMG offends.
You don't want debate. You want agreement. You don't want to challenge you're own thinking. You want compliance. You don't want hard questions or brutal truths from others who deign to think for themselves. You want a nice and easy walk through the academy, with nice and lofty sounding liberals pontificating about why government must be at the center of our culture. Why? Because it's comfortable.
You had a chance to learn, albeit from someone you despise, and your institution turned its nose up and said, No.
An institution that doesn't foster and encourage debate about the issues of our time isn't doing its job. As a result, in my view, you and your fellow classmates are less attractive candidates in my eyes because your world view is more narrow and less expansive. Lacking exposure to different views and people, the elasticity of your minds will never achieve their full potential.
Very sad.
@ M. Ingala is a typical liberal afraid of sunlight.
No one questions Fr. McShane's love of the student body or of Fordham. And I do question the events that led to the CR dropping Coulter. Of course they knew who she was. The real question is what threats were made against them by Fr. McShane or his subordinates. We also have to question Fr. McShane's support for organizations in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church, of approving the hiring of professors hostile to the Catholic Church, and honoring individuals who flaunt Catholic teaching and cause scandal to the Church while claiming to be a Jesuit School, and by implication faithful to the Catholic Church. Of course Fordham is not Catholic anymore, it is private. But I say its false advertising, trading on its Catholic past, while promoting anti-catholic organizations and individuals. And Fr. McShane is a Catholic priest subject to the discipline of his order and church. While he is right to allow the examination of all viewpoints, he should be crystal clear what viewpoints are against the church, and he should not be promoting them.
I *hope* that the College Republicans disinvited Ann Coulter because of the way she habitually bad-mouths Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Todd Akin and others, and also for her role in foisting an unelectable candidate upon the Republican Party, resulting in the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama.
(She continues to call Etch-A-Sketch Romney "the perfect candidate.")
But I suspect that the College Republicans were just giving in to liberal pressure.
Father McShane wrote, in part: "As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping." I suppose, by this standard, President Barack Obama also ought not be invited to speak on the Fordham campus.
In decrying the invitation to Ann Coulter to speak on campus, our University President said that "Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative…"
What is wrong with provocative speech? I thought that Freedom of Speech was designed to protect provocative speech. Obviously there is no need for the protection of free expression if the message is totally compatible with everyone's sensibilities. In fact, President McShane's reference to "needlessly" provocative speech merely reflects a matter of his personal opinion. That which can provoke him to action might not be enough to provoke another to action. Therefore the speaker "needs" to use more provocative speech. I seem to remember that some of the things that the Church's founders and forebears said and preached were considered provocative at the time. Therefore, I think that the description of one's ideas as "needlessly provocative" should not be cause to disallow them or not give them a hearing.
Should hateful speech be allowed on campus? Probably not, unless of course one cannot define that which is hateful. I guess, like the Supreme Court conundrum with defining pornography, we might have to settle for the phrase that "I will know hateful speech when I see it." Its prohibition should be enforced by school officials like the President of the University. I would support him in this instance if he could or would present an example of Ms. Coulter engaging in hateful speech. She has spoken at many campuses, authored countless syndicated articles and written numerous books. I would appreciate it if the President of the University or the Head of the Young Republicans would give us some evidence (in context) of Ms. Coulter engaging in hateful speech. Let's see a full paragraph of her work which we can all agree is hateful. And then let us apply that standard to every other speaker who comes to campus.
The mass hysteria that has created a hateful campaign against Ms. Coulter is designed to prevent the Fordham community from hearing her message, even if it be "needlessly provocative." Should these provocateurs, with their own shrill hateful attacks be permitted to whip themselves into frenzy, light up their torches and scour the village for her. It is time for us to say to these witch hunters, "Have you no sense of decency? I would suggest to President McShane, that he shine the light of day on Ann Coulter. I recommend that he not cave in to moral myopia and think of the long term benefits of responsible free expression. Let him challenge those on the left and right. President McShane should invite Ann Coulter to speak at Fordham and sit front and center in the audience to use his considerable prestige to challenge the speaker and to hold her and our university to high standards of civil public discourse.
@Try Tryggve
The most eloquent argument yet. Superbly reasoned and articulated.
I had not thought of using the Church's founders to counter the "needlessly provocative" point. Brilliant. What is or isn't "needlessly provocative" is in the eye and ear of the beholder.
Hard to argue against that.
And it's never too late or often to remind everyone that while today this speech has been shut down by the intolerant police, tomorrow…or the next…it might be your speech that gets shut down.
The Democratic Party is the party that limits free speech and freedom of expression. If you did, or did not, want to go hear Ms. Coulter then shouldn't that be your right as s student to decide? Why is crusty coddgy McShane dictating to us what we can adn can not see, and who we, and should not listen to? If you find Couler annoying don't go, if you like her, go, if you are unsrue, then figure it out-
The problem is Father McShane doesn;t want us to figure it otu for ourselves, he would rather tells us what to do and tell us his views of the world.
Why is it that Winona State in College and other universities have spekers like the anti bullying gay advocate Dan Savage speak on campus and we can't ahve Coulter? After all- Savage bullied christian high school kids this past April and ridiculed the bible and christians. In Savage's world the only view you can have is his, sounds like McShane right. At Winona State Savage belittled the Family Reserch Council President jsut because he had an opposing view.
Why does McShane and others like him only allow students to hear one viewpoint? Why is McShane trying to control our thoughts?
McShane stifling free speech and feedom of ideas is bad for the University, State an Country. We deserve better then to have some old dude tell us what to think. We deserve our right to freedom and to decide for ourselves.
Father McShane and the left denounce anyone with an opposing view as a means of stifling debate and discussion, this is yet another example.
"We didn't know….." Sorry but that's total bullshit. If they are TRUE republicans, they'd have followed the election and would have seen what a first class hateful bitch Coulter is and should have NEVER invited her to speak…..
retarded liberal asswipes are just too stupid to survive. lets hope so anyways.
I'm glad to see that "free speech" (paid for or not), is alive and well at Fordham (but not the one we are talking about here).
Ann Coulter is controversial and very outspoken, but so is Sandra Fluke, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton (of the Tawana Brawley hoax/con job/missing money, and inplicated in the death of a Korean grocery in New York City through a riot he instigated), Jesse Jackson, an adulterer though a member of the clergy, and Cornel West, the Hip-Hop marxist race hustler. I guess Fordham won't be inviting them to speak either, according to the "invitation" criteria set out by the College Republicans and the University.
I'm not afraid of controversial speakers, and in my past student life, have challenged some of the biggest extremists around, with facts and logic. However, I would never deny them the righ to speak on a campus.
Today's universities are the chief proponents of "political correctness", cowardice, and intolerance (of the Marcuse type). This defeats the very purpose of the university, to "open minds", not to poison them by closing them.
To paraphrase my favorite dean, Dean Wormser, "Being drunk, stupid, and intolerant is no way to go through life."
Disinviting Ann Coulter is not a "free speech issue". Coulter is a sensationalist, who spouts many lies and claims they are true. It doesn't matter if *some* of her views are close to the reasoned opinons on the right; too many of her past statementsare not. They demonstrate she is not qualified to be a speaker for hire at any Institution of learning. She's like a parent who only remembers to feed her children on Sundays but still calls herself a responsible. Further, she fails the ultimate vetting process because ambition, rather than logic, drive her statements. The Young Republican Club should be ashamed that its own desire for attention overrode its responsibility to hire speakers who take responsibility for all their past statements. Those who want her to come under the rubric of "Free Speech" are the same people who will likely remain silent when injustice occurs to people different than themselves. This suggests that they have no credibility. .
Fordham…graduating cowards, one year at a time.
Do you find it the least bit ironic that in denigrating Coulter as a "first class hateful bitch" you reveal more about your own, visceral hate than you do about her's? What you view as "hateful" I view as informative and worthy of consideration or further fact finding. As an intelligent person, I listen and judge for myself. But, because YOU believe it is hateful, YOU label it as such and deny others their right to decide for themselves. You dictate what is and isn't right, and steal from me and others the right to decide for myself and ourselves. Why do YOU get to decide what I hear. Sound fair to you? No. It isn't. It's indefensible if you believe in free speech. And, what's worse, you're too intolerant, ignorant or liberal to even know you're doing it. You hate Coulter, what she says and what she stands for…THEREFORE everyone else should as well. If you, or Father McShane, had an ounce of trust in students to make decisions for themselves, as I do, you would have embraced Coulter's speech as a way of highlighting how very evil (in your eyes) she is. If she is so hateful, why not let your fellow students be exposed to it? Why not watch their incredulous reactions to her supposedly "hateful" speech? But no, your liberal sensibilities trumped your logic. So shut it down. Just shut it down and shut your minds in the process. Perfect game plan for a lifetime wallowing in the swamp of ignorance. You're better and so much more informed than me, therefore you get to decide what I am exposed to.
If this isn't a free speech issue, what is it? If you're so sure she spouts lies and doesn't take responsibility for her words, columns and books, why not challenge her on that. Why not write a column in this paper articulating exactly why she is so evil. Use her words to tear her down, if you want. As for your last comment, which I view as exceedingly ridiculous, you reveal a lot about your own blindness. Preventing speech because you disagree with it is an injustice. Shutting speech down is an injustice. Controlling what others hear is an injustice. If you're an American who subscribes to the Constitutional values in the Bill of Rights, you should be nodding your head right now in agreement. Free speech is a cornerstone to our free society. Now, I am different than you. But you choose not only to remain "silent" when these injustices occur but you actually support them and encourage them. Why do you or others get to decide what I hear? Why is it OK in your mind to prevent me from having the right to decide for myself what I believe? I do not try to stop YOU from listening to Matthews or Maher or Olbermann or Sharpton or Shultz, all of whom have spewed venom about conservatives and conservatism with consistency. What right do you have to prevent me from listening to Coulter or Limbaugh or Beck or Savage or Boortz or others? Explain it to me. My conservative mind is, I guess, too small in comparison to your liberal brain to understand why YOU get to decide what I am exposed to.
As a graduate of Marquette U. and being married to a Fordham grad. I am so proud of the young Republican students for their decision to cancel Coulter's appearance. I'm a support of free speech but I see no need to invite hate and bigotry into the Fordham culture. Anyone is free to tune into Coulter or read her opinionated views. This past election proved our nation is more accepting, more tolerant, more inclusive and more logical than the "old guard" Republican party had imagined. With the decision of these young Fordham Republicans I'm reassured that it will be the young Republican who will lead their NEW party to a successful future and tell the others including Coulter to stand aside.
We must understand there is a difference between a discussion of divergent belief structures and crass stupidity. As evidence of Ann Coulter's descending to the level of crass stupidity I present the following quotes:
"In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors." — CPAC conference, 2002
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Ann Coulter August 26 2002
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." Ann Coulter Dec 21 2005
If we can agree on one thing I would hope it would be that these statements validate the decision made by the administration and Father McShane. This is not an issue of freedom of speech. Her appearance would be paid for like any entertainment. Coulter can spew her hate filled speech anytime she wants but the University has the obligation to its students to sign off on "entertainment" it deems suitable and within the realm of the vision of the college. Don't like the vision? Go someplace else. No uproar from the right when Liberty College would not allow a Democrat social club to even exist on campus. (Source here:^ Reed, Ray (2009-05-21). "LU pulls plug on Democratic club". http://www.newsadvance.com/. Retrieved 2009-05-21.) Private universities are allowed to make these decisions and based on the college's mission which is to promote divergent ideas in a respectful manner, I believe the college has met its duties.
Ann Coulter has said some inflammatory things in the past, some with which I disagreed, others agreed. Mostly, she's a shock jock who cleverly uses words to get attention and sell books. However, as a reader of a few of her books, including Treason, I will say that the woman is no intellectual lightweight. She is sharp as a tack. I guess I'm disappointed in the decision to rescind the invitation. I think an open debate on cultural issues is what Fordham, and other schools with solid academic reputations – should stand for.
And pardon me, but as a practicing converted Catholic of 30 years, I take great offense to the characterization of Peter Singer as a "great philosopher". It certainly appears that the university cares little about someone who openly advocates murder of the unborn, by allowing this demonic man to speak to a Catholic institution. This is shameful.
Chris Matthews spoke at Fordham & he has made hateful statements in the past. What is the difference? He is a liberal. President Joseph M. McShane is a close-minded intellectual biggot. He & the other liberals at Fordham cannot fathom someone having a different opinion than them (regarding the comment about sexual orientation in his original letter, shouldn't a Priest know the church opposes homosexuality?) . McShane should apologize to these students and allow them to have their speaker of choice. Shame on him for bullying these kids for his left wing agenda.
Sandra Fluke kept opposing opinions off her campus….but what really shocks me is a Jesuit in charge. while i do not doubt the mans erudition i realize intelligence is not always best, after all look at what they did to the Catholic Church. i think he needs some down time at the Jesuit Observatory in Arizona. Challenge Ann on her facts but please spare me the "I am the church" mentality…this priest, as are most, are not interested in any well constructed quodlibet but rely on their perceived brand of Tertullian logic.
Apparently the Jesuits would rather fuck a goat than listen to the truth.
My goodness, how can McShane face his Creator on a daily basis when serving Divine Liturgies? To call thought police censorship freedom of speech is disingenuous.
But, with pressure by Team Obama to rid any anti-Obama messages from every conceivable medium, McShane shows which horse he rode in on (sorry for ending the sentence with a dangling participle).
By these standards, it is Ok to show Ambassador Stevens' body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi but not Ok to post an anti-Obama cartoon about how he mistreats Israel. An orthodox Jewish rabbi found that out yesterday on Twitter.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to rid the room of McShane's stench. My son was studying at Scranton during this man's tenure. He allowed the thought police to go wild and guidance counselors seemed to intervene on the side of the alleged aggrievor rather than the aggrieved, always generating head-scratching as to "what just happened".
But everything became clear when researching this man's background I saw he attended the jesuit school of theology at……. wait for it…. Berkeley. So I really should not have been surprised. Berkeley is the place where students attack firemen who are fighting fires if they wear a patch of the US flag. As Michelle Obama famously said: All that for a damn flag? Barack knowingly nodded yes, and smiled.
Welcome to the USA, part of the USSR.
last Saturday's Wall Street Journal flagged this latest example of political correctness and suppression of free speech. When I attended FC in 1980 Jane Fonda spoke at the Alumni Hall- most of us did not agree with her message, and certainly took issue with her treasonous behavior in Vietnam, but nonetheless she spoke and was treated civilly.
If you do not care for Ann Coulter's rhetoric, everyone is entitled to an opinion and the right to determine who to listen to. However, the absolutely shocking news is that this university allows someone who promotes beastiality to speak. Where does this moral value fit into the university's claims of "purity"? Or, the question begs an answer, does the university leadership believe beastiality is acceptable versus Ann Coulter's fiery assessment of social and political issues? You accept the rantings of the former speaker, but reject Ann's sometimes truthful assessments of culture and group behaviors. I'm sure she has new kindling to burn after this episode.
Jack Throck,
I would not be caught dead working for a self-richeous, hate-supporting, diatribe-slinger like you. You can take your probably very cushy job and save it for someone who agrees with you, which is obviously what you want.
Odd that someone who claims debate is good is a hypocrite, a grown man picking on college students who disagree with him. For your information, Fordham has challenged my beliefs and I have openly accepted debates concerning issues upon which I was unlikely to yield. However, one thing i will NOT compromise is my commitment to purely academic dialogue in a University setting as well as my moral commitment to maintaining the dignity of all peoples. Ann Coulter fits none of those bills. An employer worthy of a Fordham-educated employee would respect this kind of moral and intellectual conviction, but obviously you are not a worthy employer. And that is what is really sad.
So the 1st Amendment dies at Fordham…you all had an opportunity to learn something. Your loss, and wherever Ann did speak, they are a little more intelligent today…so…..there gain.
What a laugh – the liberals cherish the first amendment only when its speech they agree with. Then they conveniently label opposing views as hate speech when the only thing being hated is their socialist point of view. Truthfully – there are no liberals. There are only socialists and capitalists. And the socialists like their bolshevik ancestors simply stifle all dissent and eventually, if allowed, jail and murder those they do not wish to hear. Nothing much has changed really.
@ Bill, you meant "their" not "there," I'm embarrassed for you.
Anyway, just thought I'd share some Ann Coulter quotes with you all.
"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave….We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." — Coulter's columns within two weeks after September 11, 2001
In fact, Coulter's statements were so outrageous that the conservative National Review fired her.
The case of Fordham University vs. Ann Coulter and the Fordham Republican Club is one of blatant censorship. Sadly, leftists cannot see freedom being eliminated in our society, by universities across the land, because those doing the oppressing are 'on our side'.
Censorship is un-American, even if it done by 'your people'. Celebrate now, but be warned that creeping fascism will find you eventually and you will only have yourselves to blame.
It is indisputable that persons of anti Catholic and deviant views have been allowed to speak at Fordham. This simple fact puts the lie to McShane's statements. Brands him as a liar.
If one did not want to hear Ms. Coulter speak, one is free to refrain from attending. If students would care to debate the merits, they should be free to debate them. If students care to picket lawfully, they should be allowed to picket lawfully.
McShane and Fordham voted for censorship and oppression. That is known as fascism and is rampant on the college campuses across the country today and is emanating from the dominant American 'religion' or our time. And that religion is not Catholicism.
Shame on you, McShane. Shame on Fordham.
I have a bit of interest in this. You see, I am the founder of the Fordham College Republican Club. I am FCRH Class of '51 and with the personal approval and even encouragement of a wonderful Fordham President, Robert I. Gannon, SJ, I gathered together a few like-minded students and we held the first meeting of Republicans on campus in September of 1950 — shortly thereafter affiliating with the New York State Federation of Young Republican Clubs then led by F. Clifton White who helped launch Barry Goldwater into national politics and by Bill Rusher who became the long time publisher of NATIONAL REVIEW.
I stipulate that I don't have direct knowledge of the atmosphere on campus now or of the pressures the present College Republican leaders may have been subjected to. But I know what the founding members were like and I can give you authentic assurance that we would not have abased ourselves and our club (of which we were very proud) by selling out our integrity in such an obsequious manner.
McShane is the poster boy for what the once admirable Jesuits have become and for what they have done to Fordham. I regret to have to say that I could not encourage a bright young man or woman to go there now.
As a Fordham alumnus (FC'76) and a Republican, I am truly disgusted at the rescinding of the invitation made to Ann Coulter. When I think of the Berrigans and how many other leftist "guests" we had to endure over the years, I am shocked. Shame on you Fordham. I saw this on the same day as the annual request for contributions to the Fordham Fund. I have been a contributor for many years. No more. You have disgraced everything you taught us and the tradition of Jesuit scholarship.
Anon.Yes . We have laws. But what are they? Don't go by the CHRC… they don't have to follow the laws. They may act to psniuh people without affording them the normal protections of a criminal case. We don't have LAWS that prevent you from insulting me about how I look, my religion or the car I drive. Its a myth. We have a commission OUTSIDE THE LAW, that can (theoretically) psniuh you for insulting me, based on my membership in a group they deem inferior to your group, and according to their assessment of the 'likely effect' of your words, rather than your intent. If prosecuted by the CHRC for insulting me, you will pay for your own defense, whilst I will have my needs paid for by the gov't. The facts (according to Ms. Lynch) may OR MAY NOT be relevant. the true north strong and free NOT


text:
One of the greatest benefits we can bestow on our children is to make sure they receive a well-rounded education. However, many schools, both public and private, are under-funded and need more money than they have to achieve that objective. Schools and teachers need books for their classrooms, school supplies like paper and pencils, or other educational tools like computer programs. Without these things, the students will not have the same educational benefits that other students have had, which puts all of them at a disadvantage. Fortunately, there are grants for teachers and schools that can help provide these necessities when the budget falls short.
Grants for teachers come in many forms. Some are specific to what the money will be used for—for example, some teachers may be looking for technology grants. Some grants may be more focused on literacy and seek to provide books and other tools to help teachers (http://teachers.net/) improve children's reading skills. These grants (http://www.grants.gov/) may be for research or for classroom equipment or tools, like computer programs that encourage learning. Other grant programs are structured in such a way that they have a broader focus, like math and science education grants. For these programs, teachers and schools will typically have to submit proposals for projects they wish to incorporate into the math and science curriculum at their school in order to improve interest and achievement in those areas. Grant proposals are required for many grant applications so that the organization offering the grant money can have a better understanding of how the money will be used to further education.
There is an increasing demand for technology in the classroom, and grant providers want to make sure that the kind of technology teachers want to use the money for is going to be used in their classroom to benefit their students. One of the requests that grant providers might see is grants for teachers to get iPads. This type of technology is indeed an excellent way to engage students and present the class material in a way that is easy and fun for students to understand. When looking for technology grants or classroom grants to use for something like an iPad, teachers should focus on explaining why an iPad would benefit their classroom and how it will specifically be used in their class.
One of the major concerns for many grant organizations is literacy, so there are opportunities everywhere for teachers to get grants for literacy that will help them foster stronger reading and writing skills in their students. In addition to literacy concerns, there are other departments that need money to continue operating. Due to financial and budgetary constraints in education across the country, many schools have had to reduce, or even eliminate, art and music education. Elementary school teachers and high school teachers can use these grants to stimulate art and music programs. There are plenty of grant programs whose intention is to reinstate these programs in schools because they believe in the value of art and musical education. While it may be more difficult to bring a program back that has been cut, grants for teachers of the arts are available to those who wish to apply for them and give their students an introduction to the arts.
Much has to be done to apply for grants for teachers in some cases, depending on the foundation's requirements. Each foundation or organization that offers grants will likely have different eligibility requirements, some of which may include whether applicants can be from public schools, private or charter schools, or any of these. Each organization will also have different goals or preferences for what the grant money is devoted to, for example, special education teaching grants, or grants that will be focused on a particular subject, like reading. The application will often involve a proposal, which is sort of like an essay about what the teachers propose to use the grant money for in their school. Researching grant opportunities and understanding what the eligibility requirements are for each program is absolutely vital when applying for grants for teachers. Seeing as proposals take time and research to put together as well, it is all time lost to spend time applying for a grant for which the institution is ineligible.
The government is one place to start when searching for grants for education research or teaching. Although the requirements for the applications for these grants may be stricter than the requirements for other grant programs, and the competition for these grants may be greater due to the number of teachers applying for the grants, the funding provided may also be greater for some grant programs. The government provides grants for teachers for many reasons, one of which is that the grant may help create a better future not only for the students who benefit from the funding, but also for the nation as a whole.
Applying for the grants can be a tedious and exhausting process depending on which grant programs you apply to. Some grants for teachers are offered through grant programs that are extremely competitive, meaning that the teachers who apply will have to be confident that every last detail involved in their application is correct and is tailored to support the grant provider's interests and goals. Because so many teachers and schools around the country are in need of grant funding to keep their education projects alive, for example, teachers may need field trip grants to help students learn outside the classroom, many grant programs become very competitive due to the large number of applicants for that particular funding. Teachers will need to put their writing skills to work for some of these programs to demonstrate to the grant foundation or organization not only why they need funding, but exactly how the funding will be used and how it will benefit the priorities of the organization providing that funding.
As with grants for things like field trips, funding for teachers is not limited to in-class activities only. There are travel grants for teachers to help them broaden their skills and understanding, and to learn new ways of educating by traveling to new places around the world. While the teachers who travel may not participate in a specific degree or certification program, traveling itself is often a very valuable learning experience for teachers as they try to discover new ways to get their students involved and interested in what they are studying.
Although summer is typically a time when both students and teachers take time off to recharge before another year of learning, there are plenty who have summer classes or seminars to supplement their regular curriculum during the school year. Whether by choice or by necessity, more classes in the summer means more funding for those classes, no matter if they are grade school summer classes, or college level classes. To fund these summer programs, teachers can look to summer grants to help them plan a curriculum that is just as engaging and informative as a class that occurs during the regular school year. Classes that take place at the school and outside of it all require funding that may be additional to the amount that is allocated for the normal school year budget, so these types of grants are a perfect way to keep the learning going during the summer vacation.
While much of the focus for grant funding is on classroom grants for teachers that will further fund their students' education, there are other types of grants that are focused more on funding the teachers' education at various stages. Like many students who graduate from college today, those who graduate and go on to become teachers have student loans that they need to repay over the next few years. Because of the need for teachers and the desire for a strong future in education, there are organizations that have set aside funding to help teachers pay off their student loans. Along these same lines, some teachers are finding that they need to have a more advanced degree to teach certain subjects or to teach at certain schools. Teachers who only have bachelor's degrees and their teaching certification must sometimes return to school to earn their master's degrees to expand their educative abilities and qualifications. Postgraduate work can be quite expensive, particularly if the educational institution is private or prestigious, so teachers who are unable to pay for their advanced degree can look to grants to get their masters.
Grants for teachers are available for all kinds of educational purposes. If you do your research and write a thorough and well-planned proposal, you can get the grants you need to help your students succeed and get the education they deserve. Alternatively, if you are the one who needs grants for professional development or for an advanced degree program, you can find funding for your specific education needs.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
May 5, 2016
There are plenty of changes in the latest
Associated Press college football poll, although the top three
remain the same.
Top-ranked Ohio State received 59 of 65 first-place votes
following yesterday's 20-point win over Penn State. Boston College
remains second, just one spot ahead of LSU. But the Tigers claimed
three first-place votes, two more than the Eagles received.
Oregon's seven-point win over Southern Cal allowed the Ducks to
leapfrog over Oklahoma for the number-four spot.
Sixth-ranked Arizona State is followed by West Virginia, Kansas,
Missouri and Georgia.
Virginia Tech checks in at 11th, ahead of Hawaii, Southern Cal,
Texas and Michigan. Connecticut's victory over South Florida
allowed the 16th-rated Huskies to crack the poll for the first time
ever. Alabama is 17th, ahead of Florida, Auburn and South Florida.
Boise State, Wake Forest, South Carolina, Tennessee and Clemson
round out the top 25.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
The rise and rise of social psychology in Asia: A bibliometric analysis
| Individual and Country-Level Effects of Social Trust on Happiness: The Asia Barometer Survey
Yasuharu Tokuda, Seiji Fujii, Takashi Inoguchi
| Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Way of Coping Checklist-Revised (WCCL-R) in the Asian Context,
Sukanlaya Sawang, Tian P.S. Oei, Yong Wah Goh, Wilman Mansoer, Enoch Markhum and D. Ranawake
| The Conceptual Complexity of Central Bankers and the Asian Financial Crisis
Cameron G. Thies
| Culture and visual perception: Does perceptual inference depend on culture
Keiko Ishii, Takafumi Tsukasaki, Shinobu Kitayama
| "My Way or Mom's Way?" The Bilingual and Bicultural Self in Hong Kong Chinese Children and Adolescents
Qi Wang, Yi Shao, Yexin Jessica Li
| Family Therapy in the Forbidden City: A Review of Chinese Journals From 1978 to 2006
Timothy Sim, Chiyi Hu
| Promoting cultural competence in counseling Asian American children and adolescents
Zheng Zhou, Candice R. Siu, Tao Xin
| Intergenerational Experiences of Discrimination in Chinese American Families: Influences of Socialization and Stress
Aprile D. Benner, Su Yeong Kim
| The Japanese Preschool's Pedagogy of Feeling: Cultural Strategies for Supporting Young Children's Emotional Development
Akiko Hayashi, Mayumi Karasawa, Joseph Tobin
| Learning Disabilities in Taiwan: A Case of Cultural Constraints on the Education of Students with Disabilities
Shih-Jay Tzeng
| Do Sons or Daughters Give More Money to Parents in Urban China?
Yu Xie, Haiyan Zhu
| Mindfulness in Thailand and the United States: a case of apples versus oranges?
Michael S. Christopher, Sukjai Charoensuk, Brennan D. Gilbert, Timothy J. Neary, Kelly L. Pearce
Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among adult survivors three months after the Sichuan earthquake in China
| Academic achievement among adolescents in Cambodia: does caregiver trauma matter?
Sothy Eng, Miriam Mulsow, Harrington Cleveland, Sybil L. Hart
| Beyond Individual War Trauma: Domestic Violence Against Children in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka
Claudia Catani, Elisabeth Schauer, Frank Neuner
| Child Abuse in Japan
David Gough
| Evaluation of a classroom-based psychosocial intervention in conflict-affected Nepal: a cluster randomized controlled trial
Mark J.D. Jordans, Ivan H. Komproe, Wietse A. Tol, Brandon A. Kohrt, Nagendra P. Luitel, Robert D. Macy and Joop T.V.M. De Jong
Some reflections on the influence of Chinese thought on Jung and his psychological theory
| The growing pains of family therapy in Singapore
Timothy Sim
| Japanese and American Children's Reasoning about Accepting Credit for Prosocial Behavior
Gail D. Heyman, Shoji Itakura and Kang Lee


text:
- Home
- >
- Computers
- >
- Desktop Computers
- >
- in Best Buy
- >
- by Apple
Apple Ipad 2 With Wi-fi + 3g - 32gb (verizon Wireless) - White
Price: $729.99 In stock
View Deal at Best Buy
This iPad 2 is eligible for our Buy Back Program. Learn more The all-new thinner and lighter design makes iPad 2 even more comfortable to hold. It's even more powerful with the dual-core A5 chip, yet has the same 10 hours of battery life.1 With two cameras, you can make FaceTime video calls,2 record HD video and put a twist on your snapshots in Photo Booth. And the iPad Smart Cover attaches magnetically and wakes up, stands up and brightens up your iPad 2.3


text:
The Hammers' boss has confirmed that the Reds can exercise the option to bring the £35 million striker back to Anfield in the middle of the season if they wish toWest Ham manager Sam Allardyce revealed that on-loan striker Andy Carroll could return to his parent club Liverpool in January.
Carroll made an impressive debut for the east London club against Fulham a fortnight ago, helping his side cruise to a 3-0 victory before suffering a hamstring injury in the second half of the game and Allardyce was quick to hail the former Newcastle striker's importance to the team.
"There's an opportunity for Liverpool [to get him back in January] if they want to, but whether they do or they don't will be in a matter of time." he told Sky Sports' program 'Goals on Sunday'.
|West Ham are 9/4 with William Hill to score in both halves against Sunderland
The Hammers boss also revealed that Carroll wasn't the only big name striker he was after this summer, citing Dimitar Berbatov as another players who was on his radar.
He added: "We couldn't afford him [Berbatov]. The problem was the transfer fee and the size of the salary was out of our domain this season in terms of our budget.
"Fulham created their own transfer funds. They knew Clint Dempsey was moving on, and one or two others, and that gave them the opportunity to go big.
"They were interested in Andy Carroll as well, I believe, and we were glad to get Andy on a loan basis but they obviously clinched Dimitar Berbatov."


text:
For more than 50 years, Panasonic has delivered American consumers with innovations for the home and business. Panasonic's consumer electronics and technology products include digital cameras, ruggedized Toughbook® laptop computers, communications solutions, networkable office solutions, security systems, components and information systems. Their R&D, quality control and experience have consistently placed them at the forefront of the industry delivering surveillance solutions to clients of all sizes.
Panasonic's operations in North America include R&D Centres, manufacturing bases and their Customer Call Centre. This means that if you need assistance with any of their product range there is always an office near you and friendly efficient support staff on the other end of the phone.
Panasonic Security Systems
Tel: (800) 528-6747 Opt. 2Support:firstname.lastname@example.com
If you look back over the milestones of the surveillance industry you will find the name Ikegami. The Ikegami name in the USA had small beginnings starting out in 1964 with just $2,000 in capital and a small Manhattan sales office. Since then, the company has become a recognized leader in the color television camera industry and a major supplier of high end broadcast equipment. Ikegami is now one of the world's leading manufacturers of high-quality professional broadcast equipment offering a broad range of TV cameras for ENG, EFP, Studio, HDTV and CCTV. Their name has become synonymous with quality with many of their products receiving awards for engineering excellence.
By listening to their customers' comments and opinions, Ikegami will continue manufacturing products, which meet the market's needs.
For warranty information click here: http://www.ikegami.com/faq/warrbr.html
Ikegami Electronics (USA) Inc.
Tel:(201) 368-9171 x 235
Fax: (201) 368-1305
JVC KENWOOD USA Corporation is a primary leader and developer of video and audio products in today's market. JVC uses superior technology to transform ordinary devices into exceptional image and sound producing products. Offering a complete line of advanced, high quality and professional equipment, JVC delivers to the world superior camcorders, studio cameras, Blu-ray recorders, HD studio monitors, and 3D/4K camcorders.
Headquartered in Wayne NJ, JVC's D-ILA projection technology has been used in projection based systems to create and simulate high performing home theatres. Also leading the world in IP and analog video surveillance products, JVC delivers safety and security to homes, businesses, and industries alike. The creator of analog color recording technology, JVC has continued to produce a range of technologically advanced innovations and digital compression algorithms which are now used in all digital based formatted devices including Blu-Ray, DVD and digital broadcasting. Driven to deliver excellence, JVC will continue the push to bring only the very best to the audio and video industry.
For warranty information click here: http://pro.jvc.com/prof/terms.jsp
JVC KENWOOD USA Corporation
Phone: (973) 317-5000
Fax: (973) 317-5030
- Designed for WV-CS584 Analog Dome Camera & WV-SC386 IP Dome Camera
- For wall mount applications
- Designed for pendant mounting from a flat surface
- Includes 1" NPS ceiling coupling
- For indoor use
- Camera wall mount bracket
- clear lower dome
- for i-Pro Smart HD WV-SC384
- Wall Mount for WV-SC385
- Indoor and Outdoor Use
- Top and bottom covers: ABS resin with silver metallic coating
- Dome cover: Acrylic resin (Smoked)
- -Operating Temperature: 10C to +50C (14F to 122F)
- For WV-SC384 & WV-SC385 Dome Cameras
- Clear Dome Cover
- For Indoor Use
- In-Ceiling Mount for WV-SC385
- Indoor Use
- Decorative cover: ABS resin with silver metallic coating
- Dome cover: Acrylic resin
- -10C to + 50C 14F to 122F
- Direct ceiling mount
- Used for CS584 dome camera
- 122 °F Max Operating Temperature
- 14 °F Min Operating Temperature
- ABS resin , steel construction
- For ISD-A33 / A35 Indoor Color Dome
- Pendant Mount is designed for mounting
- ISD-A33 Hyper Wide Light Dynamic Dome Camera onto a ceiling
- For ISD-A33 Dome Camera
- 7" (177.7mm) mount length
- The 2 mounting bases fit easily into the machined aluminum alloy shaft [0.875" (22.2mm) in diameter
- Tri-foot base [4' (101.6mm) outer diameter with three 0.26" (6.7mm) holes on a 3.25" (82.5mm) bolt circle] for solid surfaces
- T-Bar clip drop for ceiling rails
- T-Bar clip drop for ceiling rails
- Bracket is used to mount the ISD-A14 Cube Camera in an ATM
- Bracket offers 0.8" (21mm) of vertical (height) and horizontal (depth)
- In-Ceiling Mount Adapter
- Used for ICD-609 dome cameras
See any errors on this page? Let us know.


text:
English Antique Oak Dressing Table Vanity
- Sold for: Start Free Trial or Sign In to see what it's worth.
- Item Category: Furniture & Furnishings
- Source: eBay
- Sold Date: Jan 19, 2008
- Channel: Auction House
Antique Oak Dressing Table VanityOrigin: English Circa: 1920's NO RESERVE!!! width 46 1/2 inches h eight 30 inches (base) 60 inches (top of mirror)
depth 18 3/4 inchesYou are bidding on this Antique Oak Dressing Table Vanity. A nice size beveled tilting mirror graces the top of this Vanity. The turned supports and the wooden diamond accent the mirror. T are 4 drawers with very lacy pulls in original brass. The center drawer has no pulls but is accented with 3 wooden diamonds. The apron around the top has carved arches. The base is provided by turned legs connected to stretchers. This Vanity is a very nice piece which would work well in almost any decor. Good Luck Bidding! Click on the photos to see a larger image. Shipping Charges $179 to anyw in the lower 48 States. We also carry hundreds of English antique stained glass windows. Check out our eBay Store for a complete listing! Payment Terms We accept personal checks, money orders, payment through Paypal (our paypal email address is ) or call us directly with your credit card information. Please allow 10 days for your personal check to clear. Delivery Times We promise to ship your item within a week of receiving your cleared payment unless you specify otherwise. Please include your home phone number so the carrier will be able to schedule final delivery. Please be aware that delivery will be made to the front of your home or building. Inside delivery will require an extra $50 charge. Normal deliveries will arrive in two to four weeks. Small items will be shipped via UPS Ground service with deliveries in 3 to 5 business days. You are also welcome to pick up your item at our Houston warehouse. Insurance All items may be fully insured with the purchase of optional shipping insurance. If you do not purchase the optional shipping insurance, any damage claims that may occur will need to be filed by the buyer directly to the delivery company. Packing Materials Packing materials and other packing expenses are already factored into the price of your merchandise. We take great pride in our packing and shipping precautions. Your larger furniture pieces will arrive on a pallet to prevent " Manhandling" which is the most common cause of damage to furniture during shipping. Your Satisfaction It's Guaranteed!!! No surprises, we want to fill your house with MS English Imports Furnishings so we will take the extra step to ensure that you are happy with your purchase. We guarantee that our representation is fair, honest, and accurate. If, for any reason, you feel that we misrepresented an item, or that something was not mentioned or was misleading, we will gladly refund your money without further question. Email us with any questions you have. 548 Garden Oaks Blvd. Houston, TX 77018 After purchasing,


text:
- Homepage >
- News Archives >
- Article
Screenings help redeploying Soldiers with stress
May 13, 2009
By Staff Sgt. S. Patrick McCollum
ARLINGTON, Va. (May 13, 2009) - Many health issues may arise after a Soldier redeploys from a combat zone.
Some wounds are physical and spotted easily. Others, such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder, are not as obvious, and may take some time to develop.
To help identify these problems, the Army has developed the Post Deployment Health Reassessment, or PDHRA, to evaluate Soldiers returning from a combat zone.
As part of Mental Health Awareness Month, the Army National Guard is calling attention to this program as it proactively screens redeploying Guard members for potential health issues.
"We want to look out after and safeguard every Soldier in the Army National Guard," said Maj. Anthony McGinthy, the PDHRA program manager for the Army National Guard's Surgeon's office.
The program gives Soldiers a chance to identify problems three to six months after deployment. This window gives them a chance to settle into life and work, and evaluate their health over that period of time. If combat-connected health problems arise, Soldiers can report it during their PDHRA to become eligible for care.
"This is a way for Soldiers to seek care that they need, whether that be behavioral, mental or physical" after deployment, said McGinthy.
The program consists of three parts. First, Guard members see the "Battlemind II" training video, which shows common readjustment issues for veterans. Then they complete a questionnaire detailing their health. After that, they sit down with a trained health-care provider for a one-on-one conversation.
The 45-minute, one-on-one session has qualified medical professionals asking questions about contact information, deployment location and health history.
Soldiers are also informed of the types of assistance for which they are eligible, which may include health care at a Veteran's Administration hospital, and an opportunity to request assistance. The health care provider will then refer the Soldier for follow-up care, treatment or evaluation if necessary.
"One of the things we do during the screening is advise them of their resources and link them to further care when needed," said McGinthy.
McGinthy said about 50 percent of Soldiers who complete the PDHRA receive follow-on care.
This proactive approach means that even Guard members returning from their second or third tour will not find themselves exempt.
"Every time they come back from a deployment they will be screened," said McGinthy.
(Staff Sgt. S. Patrick McCollum writes for the National Guard Bureau.)


text:
Need some advice!
Comments (9)
Yes, I finally went anon.....
Wife to D 6/21/03 Mommy to #1 9/22/05, #2 10/21/08, #3 8/16/11 and #4 rcs 5/27/16
I agree w/ Brandy. I have had really close friends, not respect my hours because they knew I loved their kids and thought I wouldn't mind keeping them longer here and there. I did love their kids, but wanted my off time more. My sister is always hinting, but I know her style of parenting/child care and mine are not a good fit. You might want to take both and see how it goes. The pt one might be less needy w/ another kido.
Again just make sure the relative understands childcare is a business.
Then I'd only do the full time child and let the part time fussy baby go. I know it's tough telling a Mom, just let her know you have to go to full time and give her time to find new care. I have had parents try to wiggle their way back in, it's best not to leave any room for her to find away back in. Let her know it's just best for your family. Hope all goes well.
I would just let the 3 day a week baby go.. be honest with them & tell them you don't feel its the right fit.
I've said this a million times, and it applies to you now.. the HARDEST part of being a provider is knowing when a child isn't happy or it isn't the right fit.. you owe it to the child, the parent & yourself /the children you care for, to let them go, so they can find a place better suited for their child.. b/c their little one deserves to enjoy their days!! Tell them that!!!
~JEN. bbc'n since 1999!
ECE Spec/Wife/mom of 3 teens!
HDC PROVIDER:Mentor-My Hints & Tips Blog!!
*JOIN ME! (my fashion and home daycare groups!)


text:
16-year-old passenger dies in Vt. crashThe Associated Press | July 19,2013SHELDON - Vermont State Police say a car crash in the town of Sheldon has killed a 16-year-old passenger.
Investigators say the driver, 17-year-old Tristan Cameron of St. Albans, lost control of the car after failing to safely negotiate a corner at about 2 p.m. Thursday. The car was struck on the passenger side by an oncoming dump truck.
Cameron suffered minor injuries. His passenger, Tyler Rheaume of Sheldon, was taken to Fletcher Allen Medical Center and died early today.
Police are investigating the crash.MORE IN This Just In
BENNINGTON – Three local law firms filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. Full StoryMANCHESTER Throwing a lit cigarette out of a moving car led to a felony charge of heroin... Full StoryVERNON The second big wave of layoffs at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant occurred Thursday. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed


text:
Man admits to Vermont Sex Offender Registry offenseJuly 13,2013BENNINGTON A local man faces up to five years in prison after pleading guilty Friday to failing to comply with the sex offender registry for more than five consecutive days between June 2012 and January 2013.
Douglas C. Kramer, 20, of Bennington, was arraigned in Bennington criminal court in January on two felony counts of failing to comply with the sex offender registry for longer than five days. The second charge was modified to note that Kramer had been convicted of failing to comply with the registry before in May 2012.
In an affidavit, Detective Anthony Silvestro of the Bennington Police Department said Kramer had been convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct in 2005. The conviction requires Kramer to be registered as a sex offender in Vermont.
According to Silvestro, Kramer was in violation of the registrys conditions at the time he began his investigation in January because he had not returned a letter confirming his address to the registrys office. The letter Kramer had not returned was sent to him at the end of August 2012.
Silvestro said when he spoke to Kramer in January, Kramer lied about where he was living. According to the affidavit, Silvestro learned that Kramer was staying in a School Street apartment, as he claimed, but in a different apartment than the one he reported to Silvestro.
When Kramer changed his plea Friday in Bennington criminal court, there was no sentencing agreement in place. He could be sentenced to up to five years in prison on the charge.
As part of the agreement, the state agreed to dismiss the second charge against Kramer.MORE IN This Just InWHITE RIVER JUNCTION A New Hampshire man is expected to spend nine months in jail in his home... Full StoryA Ludlow woman denied threatening another female driver with a handgun while driving on Route 7... Full StoryA Rutland landlord will pay a $1,000 fine for filing false lead compliance documents. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed