We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Dr. Carson was very gracious about stepping down. I think this is actually the best way to deal with this type of situation. If those students are so small-minded and bigoted that they do not want a surgeon of his stature and with his life experiences to make a speech at their graduation, then fine. Enjoy whatever second choice speaker they manage to get for your graduation.
Dr. Carson has better things to do with his time than placate a bunch of spoiled brats who must have their own way. I find these students inability to respect a man with a differing opinion to theirs very petty and juvenile. It's disgusting.
Heh!! True. If he was allowed to speak, they might remember it.
Boggles the mind that college campuses have become one of the more dangerous places to freely speak your mind. When I was in college back in the late '80s "speech codes" first started to appear; at my small liberal arts college they were hooted at roundly by liberals and conservatives alike. In that generation, at least, the instinctive revulsion towards such a thing was still strong.
It's astonishing. The last place anybody ought to expect frank and scouring truth-telling is any institution that openly imposes a speech code. Yet Academia today maintains that's what it does, and even what it's there for.
I am embarrassed to say I graduated from Hopkins Medical School. By graciously stepping down, Dr. Carson demonstrated that he is the better man. Rothman, on the other hand, demonstrated what a coward he is.
Dr. Carson says in his withdrawal letter that he hopes in the future "we will start emphasizing rational discussion of differences." Unfortunately, that will not happen with the LGBT crowd. They only want "inclusion and respect" (Rothman's words) when it is for them; otherwise they can offer only venom and hate. Maybe these "students" should take the hypocritic oath instead of the Hippocratic oath!
The comments above would make a fine graduation speech all by themselves.
Dr. Everett V. Scott
I agree --beginning with MissT's encapsulation of the perfect attitude toward such a revealing dust-off, for a gentleman and scholar such as Dr. Carson, to maintain in the interests of dignity and respect.
Not to jump of Johns Hopkins, but it IS true that the 19th century northern German university model and its take-no-prisoners ideals of social progress came to the New World (and made their way to such as Woodrow 'the Petulant' Wilson and Margaret 'breed a master race' Sanger (from whom, via a circular route, the concepts of eugenics returned to Germany via acolyte Adolf the Austrian paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler) via Johns Hopkins.
Re smoking, a question ("Do you smoke after sex?") has been dropped from the govt forms, on the basis of the usual answer being "I don't know, I never looked".
What Dr. Carson said was we should not be redefining marriage. And he pointed to those in NAMBLA or those who are involved with bestiality as other groups that then might decide they have the right to redefine marriage as well.
Zachriel, I would like to know what is the difference between gay relationships and any other sexually deviant behavior? Human bodies were meant for procreation between a man and a woman. Thus, the whole point of sex in the first place...right? I would think for someone who most likely goes along with current science and evolution that this is the whole point of sex and reproductive parts.
So, if gay sex falls under abnormal sex and so does man-child sex or man-animal sex, I think Dr. Carson made a fair comparison.
I think she's appealing to the highest physical authority, that being nature with its survival-through-time trope, self-evident in the succession of generations. This is the purpose of the natural selection of the behaviors that achieve it.
buddy larsen: But if eating kills you, you will not have evolved hunger.
Organisms do what they want, not what evolution requires. Anyway, because of the complexities of behaviors and environments, fitness will never be perfect.
Furthermore, in social animals, basic behaviors, such as sex, have multiple evolutionary functions. Sex is not only for reproduction, any more than mouths are only for eating. Behaviors may be advantageous for the group, even if it isn't advantageous to the individual.