Education

Professor Receives Death Threats & Loses Her Adjunct Position After Complaining About Christian Crosses

It’s a widely-known fact that adjuncts are generally hired on a semester-by-semester basis. This essentially means that colleges and universities are free to let these part-time employees go at any time they so choose. But Sissy Bradford, an ex-professor at Texas A&M University at San Antonio is speaking out about her employer’s decision not to ask her back following a controversy over Christian crosses on campus.

Inside Higher Ed has more about the controversy and the events that comprise it:

In the fall, Sissy Bradford took a public stand — unpopular with many in San Antonio — about separation of church and state. She was briefly in the news and her view prevailed. Since then, she has received e-mail threats because of her stance. This month, she told the story of those threats to the alt-weekly in San Antonio, which ran an article about them. And the day the article came out, Texas A&M University at San Antonio told her that she would not be teaching in the fall, despite her having previously been assigned four courses.

Bradford teaches criminology at the university; she has strong student evaluations (which she shared with Inside Higher Ed) and she has been honored for her teaching. She became a public figure when she complained about crosses that had been installed on a tower that was part of the entrance to the campus. The crosses were put there by a developer, not the university, but Bradford maintained that they were inappropriate for the entrance to a public university campus. Americans United for Separation of Church and State backed her — and after that organization sent a series of letters to San Antonio and university officials, the developer removed the crosses. That was in November.

Sissy Bradford Fights Crosses & Sparks Debate at Texas A&M San Antonio

Sissy Bradford (Image Credit: Texas Tribune)

The crosses were placed on the building, called “Torre de Esperanza” (“Tower of Hope”) in an effort to replicate the historic Spanish missions on San Antonio’s south side, MySanAntonio.com, reports. While they were historical in nature, Bradford, among others who have voiced opposition at the school, disagreed with them. Since the tower is on private land, but was built with public money and is at the entrance to a public university, the situation was a complicated one to say the least. In the end, the professor’s perspective won out.

Since the drama unfolded, there have been numerous issues that Bradford has lamented. As stated, she has received threats as a result of her stance on the crosses. The professor claims she began receiving troubling e-mails not long after she spoke out about the crosses — one of which asked if she has “the right to live.” This same e-mail went on to describe the professor ending up on a coffin and claimed that she will “reign with” her father, Satan. While she claims she sent these messages to university police, Bradford believes that the threats were not taken seriously.

When the situation didn’t appear to gain the attention — or scrutiny — of university personnel, Bradford shared her frustrations with a San Antonio outlet called The Current. On the same day the article appeared, Inside Higher Ed reports that the professor received an e-mail from William S. Bush, the interim head of the School of Arts and Sciences.

Sissy Bradford Fights Crosses & Sparks Debate at Texas A&M San Antonio

Image Credit: San Antonio Express-News

“I’m writing to inform you that the School of Arts and Sciences will not be able to offer you any classes in the fall semester,” the letter read. “If you wish to discuss this matter further, please submit a written request to Dr. Brent Snow, provost and VP for academic affairs. Please note that he will be traveling abroad until Tuesday, May 29.”

In Bradford’s eyes, her views — and not her teaching abilities — are what led to her firing. Texas A&M at San Antonio, though, is claiming that the professor is among 20 who will not be asked back and that The Current article wasn’t a factor. Additionally, a spokesperson claims that the university reserves the right to hire and fire adjunct employees at will.

The Texas Tribune has more on the debate, as Bradford weighs her legal options. It seems some in the higher education community are defending her amid the controversy:

Last week, Robert Kreiser, senior program officer of the American Association of University Professors, sent Ferrier a letter questioning the university’s policies and expressing “concern that Bradford’s dismissal may have been in violation of her academic freedom.”

Peter Bonilla, the associate director of the individual rights defense program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based organization, sent a similar letter, warning that they are “prepared to use all resources at our disposal to ensure a just outcome in this case.”

Bradford, who has a lawyer, is not sure if she will take any action.

“That was my livelihood and my health insurance,” she said, regarding the situation. ”The state of academic freedom is in peril if you can’t speak up for the Constitution.”

(H/T: Inside Higher Ed)

Comments (215)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • biffo
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:24pm

    Another entitled, control phreak, who expects special treatment. The plan is get hired, crap on any religious symbol you find in the school, and expect lifetime employment. Good riddance to this lefists control phreak!!

    Report Post »  
    • pavepaws
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:14pm

      She created a controversy and continued to stir the turmoil. She became a lightning rod for criticism which cast the University in a poor light. She became a distraction which would undoubtedly carry over into her teaching assignments thereby disrupting the education of her students who are not involved in her controversy. The University simply cut their losses. She can teach elsewhere.

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:14pm

      She can always be a Double… on Glee!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:26pm

      RICK – so i guess in your world, all Christians must be moral. funny, that has not been my experience even a little bit. people of all faiths or lack thereof can be moral, or immoral. we all find our own morality and little of it comes from our religious beliefs. on the other hand, people use their religious to discriminate against persons they don’t even know quite frequently, something i find abhorently immoral.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:10pm

      @philly atheist and how did you come to know the difference betwwen immoral and moral. Was there some magic fairy dust that happened during the big bang that allows all of us to automatically know this. Did the ape’s you think you evolved from know the difference between moral or immoral?

      Report Post »  
    • yougottabekidding
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:52pm

      phillyatheist

      So where does your moral compass come from?
      Did you know in Michigan a high school changed it’s football schedule because of Muslems was that a seperation of church and state?
      The law of the land came from the 10 commandments.
      If you want to appear smart by using big words I’d look them up

      Report Post »  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:02pm

      @SLOWBIDEN & YOUGOTTABEKIDDING

      What I took from PHILLY’s comments was, should I get my morals from reading Jesus’ teachings, or from emulating the behavior of His followers?

      Before I was religious, I would often read the bible. Many of the Proverbs are age old wisdom. Many of the examples of Jesus’ compassion are inspiring.

      I believe that a non-believer can be incredibly moral. I know many whom I call true friends and in whom I can trust.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:39pm

      @brother ed – my point was the reason that he can tell the difference from good and evil or moral and immoral is because of God. I do not hold the book of life but if he keeps denying God than chances are that he will be denied by God.

      Report Post »  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:24pm

      @SLOWBIDEN

      My faith teaches me that all good things come from God, and things that tend to evil are from Satan. In that regard, I agree that God is constantly calling us to Him through the influence of the Holy Ghost.

      PHILLY is a good man. His belief system does not use the same vocabulary, but I believe that it’s results that count. He may call God good and Satan evil. He may use the word conscience instead of Holy Ghost.

      I do not wish to argue, but I am in no position to say who God will deny. I do not adhere to the doctrine that Gahndi is burning in hell because he was not a Christian. I believe we are judged on the content of our hearts and by our actions. I do believe that we must confess Jesus is the Christ, but there has to be allowance made for those that never had the chance to hear the Gospel.

      My point is, some atheists are better Christians than those who profess to be believers. I also believe a person can be moral who has never heard of Jesus.

      We need to unite with good people of all faiths, not just Christians. God will sort out the rest.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • RachelK
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:09pm

      1. The University that Bradford taught for, did not have it’s own accreditation. They were under the accreditation of Kingsville (A&M).
      http://www.tamusa.tamus.edu/accreditation.html

      2. In the Spring 2012, they submitted their application. The accrediting body requires that there be more PhD’s than Masters degrees (including adjuncts)
      http://sacscoc.org/cocapplication1.asp

      3.”In Bradford’s eyes, her views — and not her teaching abilities — are what led to her firing
      While Bradford does have two masters degrees (Kinesiology & Sociology), she was by comparison, probably the least pedigreed of the adjuncts in Criminology. Her “competition” was: 2 lawyers, a judge, a prison warden, a prison counselor, a forensic psychologist, a Forensic investigator (crime scene), and a hostage negotiator.

      4. The idea that the school ignored her is libelous. Per her own words and public record, UPD, SAPD and the FBI were investigating. 2 emails and 1 Christmas card didn’t meet the legal threshold, nor did people flaming her over the internet.

      5 “When the situation didn’t appear to gain the attention — or scrutiny — of university personnel, Bradford shared her frustrations with a San Antonio outlet called The Current.”
      The cases on her allegations were opened in November. She contacted the Current in early May.
      So, by this authors statement, opening a criminal case, wasn’t the kind of attention she wanted.

      Report Post »  
    • turkey13
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:04pm

      She’s gonna sue – wait and see. Her job was cut because of funding problems. Many Texas colleges have same problem because of free tuition to non-Texans!

      Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:10pm

      @RachelK

      Bless you. Excellent comment.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • cmi
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 12:26am

      Oh, I get it,………If I lose my job, all I have to do is say, “I was let go because I hate the sight of a cross, etc.” I can understand in her case,……..she looks like a vampire!! Why can’t these “searchers” for their 15 minutes of fame, find something else to bitch about?? No one is forcing religion on them, so why are we allowing them to take away other’s rights to their symbols of religion??

      Report Post »  
    • do_it_all_again
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:03am

      if it was her “livelyhood and health insurance” maybe she should have kept her mouth shut !

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:39am

      Wow, this thread is just RIDDLED with idiotic claims and flat out lies.

      “Where does your moral compass come from?”-It comes from reason, well thought out, logical and argued points that have been built upon and built upon over many generations.

      Where does your moral compass come from? That you can believe a human sacrifice was necessary and just for your “sins?”

      “The law of the land comes from the 10 commandments.” Okay this is just hilariously wrong.

      1st commandment “Thou shalt have no other God’s before me.”
      1st amendment to the Constitution, “Freedom of religion.”
      Yup, sounds similar!

      2nd commandment, “no graven images.”
      1st amendment, “freedom of speech/expression.”
      Yup, right on qeue

      3rd commandment, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.”
      Yup, there is that pesky freedom of speech again.

      4th, “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.”
      Oops, forgot that one.

      5th “Honor thy father and they mother.” Well I guess that depends on how the treat me right?

      6th, “You shall not murder” Well here we go! Her’es one. Although most Christians will also say that it applies to being unjustly angry or “murder in your heart” So now we’re going to thought crime?

      7th, “Shall not commit adultery” I know some religious people would like to go back to punishing this.

      8, “shall not steal.” I know this without religion, thank you

      9 “shall not bear false witness.” Okay here’s another one.

      10 is all abo

      Report Post »  
    • Crazyotto
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:39am

      RachelK,
      Good research but it does appear that This woman is simply seeking attention. The supposed threats are pretty weak and would hardly pass a “clear and present danger” test. There doesn’t seem to be a ground swelling support for her teaching abilities other than she is above average. The fact that she is the least qualified to teach Criminology of those competing based on her background and education. The entire Tower controversy in my opinion is a manufactured one. She is now claiming she lost her job because she is Jewish. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/sissy-bradford/
      Seriously?

      Report Post » Crazyotto  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:36am

      @ Brother ed …. ohhh he’s one of those good Godless hethons… that explains it. If you ever read his posts he is constantly insulting God and Christians.

      Report Post »  
  • barber2
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:23pm

    The cross to a atheist is like sun light or a silver bullet to a vampire !

    Report Post »  
    • Zenzazin
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:36pm

      no, the cross on a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY is simply a violation of separation of church and state. christians don’t have the right to force their religion on anyone in a public setting.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:43pm

      ZENZAZIN, Show me that separation of church and state in anything but Thomas Jefferson’s letters of the day.
      The cross is much like the sunlight to you vampires.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • SREGN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:44pm

      Zenzazin – You’re a Christophobe.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:44pm

      {}
      {}
      {}{}{}{}
      {}
      {}

      it doesn’t bother me at all.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • loriann12
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:47pm

      I gotta say it: There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. It’s worded to protect the state from forcing a certain religion (declaring a national religion). Each state can and sometimes did declare a religion. The wording separation of state and religion actually came from LETTERS.

      And why is it they’re always so homely that complain?

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:51pm

      The separation of church and state that does not exist in the constitution? Man, athiests are the biggest freaking crybabies on the planet. Secualar Huminism is a religion too and I’m offended by it.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • txjb
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:56pm

      zenzazin , listen up , stop repeating things you hear !! there is NO such a thing as Seperation of Church and State . This person and others cannot keep going around and demanding crosses to be removed , because they don’t like them .

      Report Post »  
    • tzion
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:05pm

      @Zenzazin
      Read the article. The cross was on PRIVATE land. The University paid gave money to have it built and the contractor, not the school, chose to add the crosses. If that violates the establishment clause than it would also be illegal for a public university rent office space from a neighboring church.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:06pm

      “This person and others cannot keep going around and demanding crosses to be removed , because they don’t like them .”

      you’d be right if people were trying to get them removed from houses of worship, or from someone’s private property. however, that isn‘t what’s happening here (and in all these other cases). since it’s on public land, any person has every right to demand it be removed. and guess what – they keep getting removed. why? because it’s the LAW.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • desertdink
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:10pm

      @ZENZAZIN

      Yes, the U.S. Constitution DOES allow crosses…along with Muslim crescents, Jewish stars of David, and any other FREELY EXPRESSED religious symbology that might fit with the historicity of a public organization. Have you ever heard of the “free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment? What part of “FREE EXERCISE” do you not understand? You have ZERO rights afforded by the constitution to not be offended by others expressing religion. This is the PRICE we all pay for freedom, pal. Crack open a book and quit ignorantly guzzling the liberal KoolAid.

      Report Post »  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:26pm

      @ZIN & PHILLY

      You guys know I respect and appreciate your comments, so don’t view this comment as hateful.

      It appears that this tower was constructed with the crosses “in an effort to replicate the historic Spanish missions on San Antonio’s south side.”

      Does the appearance of crosses as an historical tribute, or even as art work, equate to an effort to push a religion on a people?

      I am reminded of the incident in which the Taliban blew up some Buddha statues which were 100′, is not 1000′s of years old because they found them offensive. I was appalled – as I imagine you were also.

      Again, I am not trying to ‘zing’ you, I am wondering if we are to comb every public building and sand blast any and all religious symbols off of their surfaces, or will some be considered historical or art work.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • xCalix
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:26pm

      Get a grip ya big baby, christians aren’t forcing anything on anyone.

      Report Post »  
    • weisja4
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:40pm

      “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuse of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced.” – John Adams written in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

      “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.” – Thomas Jefferson

      “As the Government of the of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…” – Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under George Washington, Signed by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:47pm

      BROTHER – i don’t think you could be hateful if you tried. you are likely right about this situation. it’s not my goal to eradicate crosses from every place possible. this professor is free to challenge it’s presence if she wishes, and she has some legal legs to stand on. is she right? i’m not so sure, and i can see the argument that you laid out as valid. i wasn’t really commenting on this particular situation as i was providing my POV on the issue on whole.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • MoGyver
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:48pm

      @ZENZAZIN
      “no, the cross on a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY is simply a violation of separation of church and state. christians don’t have the right to force their religion on anyone in a public setting.”

      Let’s look at this at a different angle. Having a cross on a building doesn’t force Christianity on anyone any more than having a pentagram on a rock album forces young people to worship Satan.

      Report Post » MoGyver  
    • rickc34
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:16pm

      Does it say that in the constitution or is that how liberals and atheist interpet it. It was meant to protect the church and beliefs from attack not to protect the goverment. I would never hire a person that does not believe in God how could I trust them to make a moral decision based on their own moral code? Use God as your compass

      Report Post »  
    • HYPNOTOAD
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:36pm

      ZENZAZIN: If you could only understand how stupid you sound. Watch out…your hate is showing.

      Report Post » HYPNOTOAD  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:44pm

      And PHILLYATHEIST..just as the professor is “free” to challenge the crosses, the University (as an at will employer) is “free” to not hire Bradford back. The university is under no obligation to hire her or the 20 other adjunct teachers it not hiring back. Bradford knows how the contract works she’s just trying to litigate and intimidate her way around it. If she‘s that well qualified I’m sure another university will want her services. But Texas A&M has said no thanks.

      Report Post »  
    • datakcy
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:47pm

      No, you had it right the first time: the cross is to an atheist as it is to a vampire. Both are blood-sucking liars who feed on the living, sucking the life out of them, and leaving death and misery behind. Both are self-entitled, self-righteous, and self-indulgent.

      “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11

      “He that is of God hears God’s words: you therefore do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:47

      Report Post » datakcy  
    • txjb
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:59pm

      phillyatheist , I demand that all atheist be removed from bublic lands . You and other antichrist people bother me , like the cross bothers you , you bother me , so why can’t I win ? Bradford won because others are afraid of law suits , if it wasn’t for that you atheist have no power at all , your leader satan is really proud of you and at the same time doesn’t care a hill of beans for you .

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:03pm

      AVERNGERK – agreed. i haven’t commented otherwise.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:21pm

      TXJB – “Bradford won because others are afraid of law suits , if it wasn’t for that you atheist have no power at all”

      it’s nice to have the law on our side. thanks for recognizing that. :)

      as for my presence offending you – maybe it’s just me, but i see some difference in disputing the presence of an inanimate object (the cross) as opposed to a human life. perhaps you don’t. i guess you’re pro-choice then! (snicker)

      anyway, since Atheists are notoriously difficult to round up, you missed your chance to wipe out a bunch of us at the Reason Rally. you should have put your money and your guns where your mouth is and come and blown us all to bits.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Mountainwolfman56
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:24pm

      First the cross was built on private property, but used public money. Second, I will never understand about Atheist is their ability to be insulted by that which they don’t believe in, like God or Jesus. How can something you don’t believe exist bother you. You could just turn your head, close your eyes, or simply not look at it. This is going to come as a shock to atheist but there really is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution of the United States was to protect the Church and State from an all powerful federal government dictating to the individual States what Church they could have.

      Report Post »  
    • Bruce1369
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:24pm

      Zenazin:
      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
      Recognize it? I doubt it since you expouse violating it.

      Report Post »  
    • mensa141
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:46pm

      - how much do you know about the supposed ‘separation of church’ and state? Hae you even bothered to read the first amendment? When you do bother to read it please explain to me the part of No tha tyou do not understand. The federal government per the 2nd amendment cannot make laws regarding the practice of religion. Period. No laws. That means for or against. They are barred from doing so therefor all your bs about separation is illegal.

      Report Post »  
    • pretell
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:56pm

      Hey Zenzazin. Yes, they do. It’s called the free exercise of religion. I can wear a cross, a church can have a cross, and from what I understood, the tower sits on private land. Next thing you know is that they’ll want to change the name from San Antonio to Tonytown.
      “Hey, where do you live?”
      “I live in Tonytown, Texas.”
      “Hail Satan.”
      “Hail Satan.”
      You wouldn’t believe the conversations I have over heard regarding crosses. It is like sunshine or garlic to vampires. Where does this hate come? Pretty soon one will have to practice their faith in secret. Quick! To the catacombs!

      Report Post » pretell  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:01pm

      If our Founding Fathers original intentions were to keep religion and state separate and it‘s unconstitutional to have anything mentioning a religion on public lands or prayer at a public school then why isn’t anyone asking for the Liberty Bell to be taken down? It is inscribed after all with a Bible verse, “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10). It was used publicly back then and is on public grounds now. So why isn’t the Liberty Bell moved to private lands?

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:11pm

      SCARE – as biblical verses go, that’s about as secular as you can get. surprised it comes from Leviticus! now if it was the Liberty Cross, i‘d be PO’d!! :)

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:22pm

      @PHILLYATHEIST

      Thanks.

      I see much merit in the argument against religious symbols on or in public buildings, and I don’t think it will progress to banning displays of religion in public places – ie. no wearing a cross if I can see it.

      I believe this woman has every right to challenge what she believes is unconstitutional. If we had more people guarding the constitution, we wouldn’t be this far down the road. If she’s wrong, the courts will decide.

      As a people, we must realize that not everyone thinks the same as each other. We can (and should) be able to express our concerns and opinions without fear of death threats, violence or hostility.

      Most people here see this woman as part of an evil plot to rid the country of religion, specifically Christianity. Some atheists may be doing that, but I believe most just want to be left alone and don’t see the need for government to favor a particular group by plastering their symbols all over the walls.

      The government is supposed to be the government of ALL people, and not all people are Christian.

      Ignore the haters. TXJB is a peculiar person who thinks anyone who believes differently than him is a tool of Satan and anyone who belongs to a different church is a cultist.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:28pm

      BROTHER – i’m not worried about the haters. i’m here for them! i get a good laugh and like to think that maybe, just maybe some of what i write may make sense to a handful of people here. you know how teachers say that if they truly reach just one student, it’s all worth it? same here. also if i can dispel some of the common misconceptions about Atheists then that’s good too. at the latter, i likely fail, as my existence here is enough to reinforce their hatred for the “communist, satanist, evil, immoral, baby eating, vile, Christian hating” Atheists.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:58pm

      Secular? It’s a Bible verse, it comes from the Bible. So it’s ok if the verse is deemed “secular” but if a town quotes Ephesians 4:4-5 it’s got to be taken down? Sorry PA but you can’t have it both ways. Either it needs to come down because it promotes a religion or it stays up because everyone has freedom of religion.

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • oneshiner
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:24pm

      Why does a Cross bother these people so much? When I see something I don’t like I turn and go the other way. When I smell someone’s horrid perfume they just bathed in, I turn and go the other way.

      If these people don’t like the cross, turn and go the other way and stop trying to make a Christian Nation change for you. It‘s isn’t all about you, just like the perfume I hate having to smell.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:43am

      @RJJINGADSDEN

      Show me “God” in the Constitution
      Show me “Jesus” in the Constitution
      Show me “marriage” in the Constitution.

      There are lots of things that aren’t in the Constitution, many of the things you Christians whine about.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:57am

      ONESHINER – what if you’re stuck on a bus with someone wearing horrible perfume? what if they work in your office? you can’t just go the other way. there’s a good analogy in there somewhere…

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • snowdin
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 12:45pm

      Ahhh @Philly, it WAS on private land:
      “Since the tower is on PRIVATE land, but was built with public money and is at the entrance to a public university, the situation was a complicated one to say the least. In the end, the professor’s perspective won out.” (emphasis added)

      Report Post »  
  • cemerius
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:22pm

    Ahhh speaking out as an activist that recieves LOTS of attention for a clearly anti-Christain stance does NOT look good to a Top rate Christain valued school!!! Take your part time BS to harvard or columbia where they can appreciate your “outside” activities!!! Texas A&M Alumni can outspend this pimple on a donkey’s backside!!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:45pm

      I also noticed that there is no mention that the threatening e-mails were shown to anybody else.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • MoGyver
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:19pm

    If the crosses were placed on the tower for a religious reason, I could see why she might be offended. However, if what they say is true, “The crosses were placed on the building… in an effort to replicate the historic Spanish missions on San Antonio’s south side,” then the intent seems to be historical, not religious.

    Report Post » MoGyver  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:31pm

      @mogyver-If the crosses were placed on the tower for a religious reason, I could see why she might be offended. Why? The cross does not impede her from being an atheist or whatever she is.

      Report Post »  
    • Zenzazin
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:37pm

      because public funds were used to place the crosses there. not everyone is christian. therefore, it is inappropriate to use everyone’s money to erect purely christian symbols.

      Report Post »  
    • garylee123
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:09pm

      @ Zen. Public money is used to support Planned Parenthood. Which is more abhorrent? Spending on a Cross or spending to kill an unborn baby?

      Report Post »  
    • desertdink
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:19pm

      @ZENZAZIN…OK, how about ALL religions have the same opportunity to display symbology? Why is the default with your side always in favor of NO religion, when the intent of our constitutional rights is very clearly for government to not hinder the free expression of ALL religion in the U.S. (where other rights are not violated in the process)?

      BTW…if simply being “offended” is anyone’s reason for crosses needing to be removed, how is that any different than me being “offended” if they do not stay? How is it fair for the personal offense of one to override the personal offense of another?

      Your argument fails on multiple fronts…

      Report Post »  
    • MoGyver
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:46pm

      Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being offended by something should be the basis for action. All too often, public funds are used for things that are “offensive” to one group or another. I was just stating that, even though there were crosses involved, it was pretty clearly (at least to me) a decision made for historical accuracy / authenticity and had little to nothing to do with religion. And, as such, her reaction seems to be hyper-sensitive at the least.

      Report Post » MoGyver  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:12pm

    If this woman cannot figure out the basis of seperation of church and state she has no business teaching. Hey lady do you know it isn’t in the constitution? How is a cross on another property establishing religion? I agree with letting her go. now lets start cleaning house with the commies.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:17pm

      Actually the Seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution. The term is shorthand for the Establichsment Clause, for the prohibition against religious test and for the 200 year od Supreme Court Jurisprudence on the subject.

      Report Post »  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:22pm

      Encinom- Go back and read the first amendment. Putting a cross on a building is not establishing a religion and does not impede you to practice atheism or whatever it is you believe. You Fail…

      Report Post »  
    • Jacque
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:23pm

      I don’t believe she should be fired. I am a professor an I have to uphold the Constitution and my conservative views constantly from the marxists, commies and socialists professors I work with. I truely believe if my program manager wasn’t a closet coservative I would have been fired yrs ago.

      I refuse to stoop to the anti-American lefts tactics. The first Amendment of the Constitution they all HATE so much protects their right to be idiots.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:41pm

      ENCINO_NAMBLA_MAN,
      Amendment One
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Now, just where in the Amendment do you see separation of church and state? Furthermore, for you to even be right that would mean that the founding fathers who wrote, approved, and helped with the ratification of the amendments set out immediately to violate the Constitution.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • rivapete
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:43pm

      Encinom~ whereas I will agree that the Supreme Court did say that it was the “intent” of the establishment clause of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it wasn’t so. The separation of church and state came too by a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association. It was interpreted by the Liberal Vinson supreme court in 1947. Hugo Black mentioned it in his opinion. So, yes it is established that way, just like it is established that the women’s right to abortion is legal. Which also, is nonsense. Big stretch there, a Liberal court bucking what is actually “in” the Constitution

      Report Post »  
  • Watcher1952
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:07pm

    She got exactly what she deserved……in reality if the more of our educational facilities would do the same then maybe AMERICA can get back to being AMERICA

    Report Post »  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:30pm

      encinom – you need to educate yourself on the Constitution and what America really stands for. Freedom to express yourself is part of freely expressing your religion or lack of one. One does not trump the other. You have a nasty way of expressing yourself and are obviously anti-faith and anti-Jewish. Grow up. Your are so emphatic about freedom, let other people be free without your rants.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • barber2
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:33pm

      ENCIN: “ zombie Jew ” ????? Oh, my. You sound like a little Fascist , but I thought you were an Obama Far Lefty !? Know you guys hate conservatives but had no idea your hatred included “ zombie Jews” who are such major funders of the Democrat Party ! ? Yikes. This reminds me of the Left labeling Zimmerman a ” white Hispanic.” The arrogance, the hatred, and the anger of the Left is astounding – along with your allies : public Unions/ Occupiers / ACORN / MIC Checks / Theater of the Absurd Players / Jason Levin Trolls. America’s Homegrown bullies and haters .

      Report Post »  
  • nobull14
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:05pm

    Good bye Baby. Move to New York.

    Report Post »  
  • Docrow
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:03pm

    It is sad that the original intent of the Constitution regarding church and state has been twisted to something that it was not intended. Why was it not unconstitutional in 1935 for the Supreme Court building to have depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the buildings architecture? Church services held in the Capitol building? Bibles printed for the education of all school children? Has the definition of religion been changed from what it meant on September 17, 1787?

    Report Post » Docrow  
  • makeemstop
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:03pm

    I have nothing nice to say about Sissy Bradford… so I’m going to bite my lip for the most part. Although I wish her well on her way, I also hope any other University or Organization that wants to preserve its Judea-Christian values won’t hire her. Perhaps the ACLU is hiring…

    Report Post » makeemstop  
  • Atilla
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:01pm

    Not much to say about an academic idiot that would impose her views on everyone else and in the meantime play the victim. What is it about Christian bashers that they are impelled to misinterpet the establishment clause of the Constitution? The crosses hardley could be construed as the tacit establishment of a state sponsored religion. More BS by someone educaterd beyond her intelligience.

    Report Post »  
  • AllLost
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:59am

    I have mixed feelings about religious paraphernalia being applied to public locations. But what really bothers me is that we are stating that historic facts must be changed to adhere to modern whims. If the tower is a historic replica of a mission tower then you leave the cross.

    Atheism, humanisim, and the rest are religions in their own right so don’t let the state force those on me either.

    Report Post »  
  • Arc
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:58am

    Such a warm and charming person to be sure. Following a trend set by the pseudo-intellectual academic world who is convinced that the more a person reads about facts, the more prepared they become to debunk their students feelings of faith and hope.

    Report Post » Arc  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:58am

    I will not believe anyone such as this regarding e-mail threats without the solid evidence. These people tend to be alinsky radicals or part of the progressive alinsky laced agenda.
    E-mails are simple to trace and to put it loosely – I believe nothing these people allege. From suicides with notes on their chest that say the NRA did it. To the daily teleprompter recitals and DNC claims that everyone else is at fault for the results of their stated agenda to sabotage the system.
    they have pulled these stunts for decades and it has become a highly orchestrated event.
    Nobody sent her anything because she and they have no credibility left. This is the bed they have made!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • Nemo13
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:58am

    If you are an ‘at will’ employee, the employer doesn’t have to give you any particular reason, they can just let you go. So what. Get over it lady.

    Report Post »  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:51pm

      Yep, and they can withdraw an offer if the person has to much baggage. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets replaced.

      Report Post »  
  • hauschild
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:57am

    Not only do these dirt bags hold and push anti-American agendas, but they end up receiving lavish pensions for basically sticking it to the people that hold the views that essentially built the country into an absolute juggernaut.

    I tell ya, I’m really growing tired of the bottom feeders in this country. There used to be a time where there numbers weren’t so high, so we could “absorb” them. This is no longer the case. These people need to be reminded – until it sinks into their thick, leftist skulls – that they are dirt bags and need to grow up and act like traditional Americans.

    Report Post »  
  • blackstone22
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:56am

    oh puleeze don’t hide behind the constitution, and of course militant atheists everywhere will support her.
    It’s not her views that caused her not to be asked back, it’s because she is a litigious, royal pain in the neck who goes whining to the press because there is a cross to replicate a Spanish mission. If it had been a minaret instead of a cross, not only would she not raise a stink but she’d be celebrating diversity. These professors make me sick !!

    Report Post »  
  • biohazard23
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:55am

    Wow. So despite the university’s right to hire and fire at their discretion, she still feels entitled to her position? Typical liberal mentality. “Boo hoo, I didn‘t get my way so now I’m going to throw a tantrum!!!”

    Why doesn’t she (??) just stand in a corner and hold her breath until “she” makes the university give her her job back?

    Report Post » biohazard23  
  • NHwinter
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:53am

    She is being racist as the Hispanics are deeply religious and a cross on the Spanish Tower is appropriate. My, my, aren’t the progressives racist and offensive. That aside, I hope the University stands it ground. I am sick of one person dictating to everyone else what “just” they want. What about what the other 98-99% want???????

    Report Post » NHwinter  
  • NOTAMUSHROOM
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:52am

    Well, she’s probably looking forward to her gubmint health care then! BTW, she has not been dropped from “her healthcare”. It’s called COBRA. She has six months to find herself some new coverage. Really she should start a small business and see how fun and easy it is to find affordable health insurance on her own. Welcome to the real world Buffy!

    Report Post »  
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:52am

    One less poorly informed, startlingly hideous, liberal-nutcase on staff – it’s all good.

    Report Post » Tri-ox  
  • JAMACAMECRAZYMAN
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:52am

    Is that really a female?

    Report Post »  
    • Titainiumman
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:15pm

      I know,she looks like a young Terry Bradshaw when he still had hair.

      Report Post »  
    • MrSunshine
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:24pm

      Titainiumman, you are a blasphemer! God bless the black and gold, young and old.

      Report Post » MrSunshine  
    • Athinkerinaseaoflibs
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:29pm

      my thoughts exactly. I think that he/she should take a job in BHO’s administration to break up fights in cabinet. Her/his title would be bouncer in cheif. If needed she could snap any of those guys in cabinet like a twig.

      Report Post »  
    • SREGN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:42pm

      I think she looks like a sissy.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:55pm

      The Pittsburg Steelers are satan’s football team as evidenced by their sexual predator quarterback.

      -Proud Cleveland Browns Fan

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • troymac20
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:21pm

      @Squid
      Does it suck that the only championship Cleveland will ever have is the one from The Miz in the WWE.

      Report Post » troymac20  
    • Lock-n-Load
      Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:07am

      Now you guys have done it !! The idea that there is actually a proud Cleveland Browns fan is preposterous. It does not happen in nature, so we can only assume that you’re either joking or a mutation of some kind. Let me guess…you’re one of those nuts that wear rubber dog masks and bark at the moon ?? Big Ben’s past DOES NOT determine his future.
      As for Cleveland: WE GOT SIX…HOW MANY YINZ GOT? hahahahaha

      Report Post »  
  • OliveHill
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:48am

    How does it feel to have the tables turned around? And plus, I almost couldn’t find that little cross, how lame

    Report Post »  
  • SLOWBIDEN
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:46am

    again and again and again, the Constitution never says anything about the “ seperation of church and state” Maybe if she knew this she would not have been fired. It seems this so called “teacher” needs a lesson in history

    Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:50am

      again and again, the Courts disagree with you.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • NOTAMUSHROOM
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:56am

      Dear Philly,
      That’s because the legal profession is the only truly “progressive” profession on the planet. Our dear JDs just set one stupid precedent after another which gives all subsequent JDs permission to continue to perpetrate the same stupid, incredibly WRONG interpretation of law. Be happy that medicine is not run this way…………for now.

      Report Post »  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:58am

      Some liberal courts may disagree, they are wrong, she is right, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Constitution CLEARLY state that there is to be no prohiting the free exercise of religion!!!!!

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:09pm

      So you are saying that a court said that seperation of church and state is in the constitution. Examples please.

      Report Post »  
    • Docrow
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:14pm

      Explain Moses and the Ten Commandments in the supreme court building’s 1935 architecture?

      Report Post » Docrow  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:15pm

      The cross on any public land does not impede you from your religion. AKA atheism

      Report Post »  
  • Zcat
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:42am

    Glad to see Texas A&M let her go!!!

    Report Post »  
  • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
    Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:41am

    What a hottie. If she stood next to Napolitano and Hillary, she would be the best dog in the show. Too bad, but while you are free to say what you want, if your views are in conflict with your employers views, I guess you are then free to look for another job. See, none of her freedoms were taken away, and if she would like to come and protest on the campus, enroll as a student. Then you can even hang out and date the young coeds.

    Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • JRook
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:45am

      So your assertion is that an employer should be allowed to control what you think and how you exercise you freedom of speech. Even on matters that don‘t directly effect the employer’s core function or performance measures.

      Report Post »  
    • oldguy49
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:48am

      sems most libs need a makeover

      Report Post »  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:49am

      You are a reflection on their buisness. Yes they do have control on what image is presented for their buisness.

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • barber2
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:20pm

      ROOK: Private employers are allowed to control your behavior when you are in their employ. No nudity, no profanity, and no assaulting your fellow employes as such “ terrible” limits to a Libera;’s freedom ! Interesting that you guys are so concerned with limiting the freedom of your hated “capitalists” who create jobs not funded by the sucker tax payer, but you are all for allowing Big Brother to limit the size of our sugar drinks, and health care providers ! The hypocrisy/ lack of common sense of our “ intellectual ” Big Brother cronies knows no bounds !

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:49pm

      @barber2 Your comment is as stupid as it is unfounded. Employers do not and should not have the right to control and individuals thought or expressions that are outside the boundaries of their position. Liberty is not something that an employer should be allowed to curtail or remove. Employment is a transaction where the employer pays the employ for work performed, plain and simple. When that transaction is restricted or removed due to characteristics or behaviors that have nothing to do with this transaction the employer is guilty of discrimination. You point out the undesirable situation of a nanny state, but you are ok with an employer playing that roll. This is exactly why companies that think like this ultimately end up with a bunch of marginal employees and even dumper managers.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love