U-La-La, the 1st Gay University

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick

I see now what you were meaning. The written word is less nuanced than when spoken. Sorry I missed your point.

I only disagree with one point of your post--not sure why my "soapbox" is any more ridiculous than anyone else's. It's my opinion.

---

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your opinion. The reason I called it a ridiculous soapbox is because you were asking loaded questions in just about every one of your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg06

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect your opinion. The reason I called it a ridiculous soapbox is because you were asking loaded questions in just about every one of your posts.

---

Just reread my own posts and I didn't see them as leading, but we're not in a court of law and there's no judge to arbitrate, so...I'll give you that one. :D

What I did see is that the word "ridiculous" has been grossly overused in many posts in this thread, including my own!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick

Just reread my own posts and I didn't see them as leading, but we're not in a court of law and there's no judge to arbitrate, so...I'll give you that one. :D

What I did see is that the word "ridiculous" has been grossly overused in many posts in this thread, including my own!

---

I meant to say "loaded," not "leading."

At least we know how to spell "ridiculous!" :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RhythmDawg

That's a well written, unbiased response, and I agree with it. However, in my opinion examples you cited are founded on education first, and not ideology promotion...even though it may still exist. The LGBT minor does not appear to me to be founded on the premise of education in the appropriate sense given its setting in this case, but rather seems to me to be driven strictly by the ideological promotion. Much of this perception is formed because of their presentation and representation of the curriculum's primary agenda in that article. It is also due to the obvious and stated difficulty to develop, and ambiguity in, a class curriculum for the minor.

See the difference I'm trying to point out? A department scheduling a speaker compliments the curriculum. In this case, the curriculum is admittedly a platform for a non-educational agenda...and they stated multiple reasons in print supporting that perception. I think, if there was no agenda, the organizer would have not made a big deal about it.

---

I agree that the primary advocates of this academic minor have an agenda; I wouldn't call it non-educational because I see their agenda as wanting to educate in a broader context. They might've drawn less ire had they not been so forthcoming about their agenda, but I applaud them for being honest about it.

And yes, I do see the difference you are pointing out. I'm not sure whether LGBT studies, in general, were initiated for legitimate educational purposes or if the agenda drove it. Either way, I see the LGBT studies majors and minors as legitimate areas of study with extensive applicability.

The Baton Rouge Advocate: ULL lesbian, gay studies rapped

The Monroe News-Star: ULL gay studies minor under fire

The NOLA Times-Picayune: UL-Lafayette gay studies minor under fire from Christian group, congressman

The Lafayette Independent Weekly: Landry asks Savoie to half LGBT studies minor

KATC: ACLU commends UL(L)'s decision to offer LGBT studies minor

KLFY: LGBT minor explained

KLFY: Jeff Landry comes out against LGBT minor

KPEL: Jeff Landry talks LGBT minor at UL-Lafayette

Are some really trying to disguise and "normalize" aberrant and deviant behavior by hiding it under the label of diversity? Give me a break! If being LGB or T is genetic, then it is a genetic abnormality that must be accomodated, but certainly not embraced as a healthy, intended, component of society. If being LGB or T is chosen, then it is a psychological abnormality and likewise can not be embraced as a healthy, intended, component of society.

The discussion of social diversity has traditionally referenced racial, cultural, religious and economic differences and did not refer to sub-groups that had particular or unusual physical, psychological or behavioral characteristics, i.e. fat people, agoraphobes or LGBT's. The attempt to bring such sub-groups under the "diversity" tent is a relatively recent development and is little more than attempted political power grabs by those sub-groups.

God loves us all.

Beat A&M.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LookingForResults

The discussion of social diversity has traditionally referenced racial, cultural, religious and economic differences and did not refer to sub-groups that had particular or unusual physical, psychological or behavioral characteristics, i.e. fat people, agoraphobes or LGBT's. The attempt to bring such sub-groups under the "diversity" tent is a relatively recent development and is little more than attempted political power grabs by those sub-groups.

---

You might be on to something there. That's a pretty prevalent female demographic at USL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick

Your opinion: do you think his objection to this academic minor has nothing to do with his views on LGBT issues? If ULL proposed a degree program in basket weaving, do you think he would be as upset?

---

There is more to this than meets the eye at first. I cannot speak for him, obviously, but would you say there is a need for a basket weaving minor/major degree? I would find it grossly negligent to turn a one or two class option into a full degree as the job market probably doesn't require one (admittedly I have not looked into a job as a basket maker). Also, I would doubt that the basket weaving degree would be pushing an agenda and have content added or highlighted in 95 classes and it certainly wouldn't receive the fanfare that the LGBT minor has so far.

But then again, the graduates would be producing a usable good, therefore adding to the economy.

Whoa! :shocked2:

Third thread on this one. Y'all consider looking around in areas that might already contain the topics you post about.

MD you can delete thread please :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atobulldog

There is more to this than meets the eye at first. I cannot speak for him, obviously, but would you say there is a need for a basket weaving minor/major degree? I would find it grossly negligent to turn a one or two class option into a full degree as the job market probably doesn't require one (admittedly I have not looked into a job as a basket maker). Also, I would doubt that the basket weaving degree would be pushing an agenda and have content added or highlighted in 95 classes and it certainly wouldn't receive the fanfare that the LGBT minor has so far.

But then again, the graduates would be producing a usable good, therefore adding to the economy.

---

I agree with some of your points, but have a few other thoughts. As long as we are speculating about Rep. Landry's thoughts on this, it should not matter to him whether basket weaving proponents have an agenda or not or the amount of fanfare the announcement has--those are not the reasons he's criticized the LGBT minor. He has said he opposes it because we are in a down economy, higher ed budgets are being cut, and it makes no sense to add an academic minor that won't result in employment. I doubt there is a need for a basket weaving degree and agree the job market probably doesn't require it. But, I don't think all educational pursuits are geared toward finding a job--actually, the economy might make that even more relevant. For some, learning and knowledge are worthy goals.

Many on here won't agree, but knowledge of LGBT and other subcultures' issues IS relevant in the job market in certain fields. Their licensures, certifications, and accreditations even require it. Having said that, those fields likely would have to cover cultural issues during the training program, so an undergraduate minor would not be necessary, but it could be helpful.

Back to my original question--if I had to guess whether Landry would oppose a basket weaving minor in the same way he has the LGBT minor, I can only say that he would, based on the reasons he cited for his recent opposition to ULL's minor.

TT- that's one of the more f'd up things I've read in a long time.

But your homo-erotic Uncle Sam avatar makes it okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by turbodawg

TT- that's one of the more f'd up things I've read in a long time.

But your homo-erotic Uncle Sam avatar makes it okay.

---

I actually posted two and meant to delete both after immediately reading them again earlier today. Thought they might be a tad harsh for some of these feel good libs around BB&B. Guess I only deleted the second one. :D Oh well.... guess I'll ax the first as well as I'm not really feeling up to a fight tonight or this week.