The fact that our universities have long become socialist dictatorships is known to everyone. The so called "student unions" have long been acting like the new "
Komsomol". So
firing a professor over difference of opinion, while somewhat extraordinary, is simply another step in the same direction; another measure to strengthen ultra-left indoctrination on campuses by silencing anyone who dares to have opposing views:
According to Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) executive director James Turk, Reynolds was dismissed because he took positions that disagreed with the WHRA, and represents an encroachment on academic freedom.
...
"The university is complicit in the region getting rid of him, even though they're short of staff,” Turk said.
After Reynolds published a letter about the importance of family medicine in the Winnipeg Free Press, “He got a letter from WRHA that he should have had permission,” Turk said. “No professor should have to get permission to publish a letter in his field.”
Turk said that Reynolds also publicly disagreed with the WHRA plan to close the low-risk maternity ward at Victoria Hospital
“This is Family [Doctor] Week in Canada. This week the College of Family Doctors is having its annual meeting, and Reynolds is one of the speakers at it, talking about leadership in family medicine,” Turk said.
Manitoba Liberal leader Jon Gerrard issued a press release decrying the issue as a matter of free speech, and placing the blame squarely on Manitoba’s NDP government.
John Pacheco has posted more details on Dr. Larry Reynolds' dismissal at
SoCon or Bust blog. The University of Manitoba has a long-time history of silencing pro-lifers:
In 2003, a student was failed by the University of Manitoba School of Medicine. The reason? He informed his Obstetrics and Gynecology instructors he would refuse to perform or refer for any abortive procedure. He appealed the denial of his degree three times without success. The matter became public in March, 2004 when his final appeal was denied.
A story in Lifesitenews.com says, “He is being supported by several pro-life doctors in Manitoba, who are concerned about the university’s intolerance.”It’s not hard to imagine that one of those doctors was Dr. Larry Reynolds. Reynolds was a regular contributor to pro-life publications. He sat on the editorial board of Vital Signs, the newsletter of Canadian Physicians for Life. And while still with the University of Western Ontario he was quoted in a story in Vital Signs headlined “No Duty to Refer.”
First they came for the students, then it was the professors' turn. Of course, you won't see our ill-famous "human rights" commissions intervening; they're all in favor of that kind of discrimination. And, unfortunately, there's little hope that the federal government (let alone - provincial government, run by the local NDP) is going to cut their funding. So it will be us, the taxpayers, pitching in so that those university jackboots keep getting their six-figure paychecks unabated, despite the recession.
2 comments:
Leonard, You can't imagine how much more precarious the situation is for adjunct faculty, a growing percentage of actual teaching faculty even at top universities! Just give a hint that you are not politically correct in your thinking, let alone your teaching, and it's the trap door for you!
Let's not dwell on it. 'Tis the season to be merry!
I tried to link the premise about students with the sacking of a professor and found none.
Your example included a disagreement between a health authority and a doctor with involvement from a department.
Then you threw in another example that included a student that wasn't allowed to qualify as an ob/gyn because he refused to fulfill the duties of an ob/gyn. Why go into reproductive medicine if you aren't going to practice it according to medical ethics? Two possibilities came to mind:
1: the student didn't realise the implications of their choice.
2: they were intentionally trying to set a confrontation that would result in them appearing like a martyr to the delusional.
If the student was serious about helping kids they would have chosen paediatric medicine.
You want to be a surgeon then refuse to allow transfusions because of your faith, then the faculty has every right to show you the door. I want a doctor who follows their professional code of conduct and not one who cherry picks depending on if it's the sabbath or not.
Your argument is incoherent with no structure because you are trying to include all of your bogeymen in one unified theory and your inclusion of the reluctant ob/gyn does you no credit.
Post a Comment