|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Professor Withholding Recommendation for Female Student Who Likes Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://inrigare.wordpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A professor writing under a pseudonym expressed her hesitancy April 18 to write a letter of recommendation for a female student who is pro-gun. The student–Sarah–is seeking entry into a “teacher-credential program,” and although her academic abilities are “not strong,” the professor recognizes her as “a class leader” with “great energy.” But the professor does not want to write a recommendation because of Sarah’s desire for a concealed carry permit and also because of comments Sarah made about shooting a rifle at a gun range. |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/20/2016)
|
Sounds like discrmination to me. |
Comment by:
mickey
(4/20/2016)
|
She's an education major. Nobody on that academic track has 'strong academics', aka good grades, unless they spent the last four years regurgitating progressive political pablum. It's a club, honey, and the existing members don't want independent thinkers like you in it. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|