University of South Carolina administrators refuse to teach the Constitution as required by state stature because they find it “inconvenient.”


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

The law is such an inconvenient thing: University of South Carolina administrators refuse to teach the Constitution, as required by state stature, because they find it “inconvenient.”

State statutes maintain that all students at a South Carolina public school must spend a certain amount of time studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Failure to abide by the statute is grounds for the removal of the head of the public institution–in this case, President Pastides. “Willful neglect or failure on the part of any public school superintendent, principal or teacher or the president, teacher or other officer of any high school, normal school, university or college to observe and carry out the requirements [of the statute] shall be sufficient cause for the dismissal or removal of such person from his position,” according to South Carolina law.

The USC administrators say the statute is inconvenient to enforce, however, since it would disrupt the university’s current course requirements.

It might inconvenient, and the law itself might be foolish, but it isn’t up the administrators to decide this. They should be fired.

Share

7 comments

  • Cotour

    Total control will be accomplished when the people come to believe what their government tells them because they have no proper reference point related to their naturally born rights to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Teaching the concepts contained within the Constitution is not in keeping with the new paradigm that our government has determined is necessary to create. Its part of the slow boil principle.

    Be outraged America.

  • PeterF

    What? Do these administrators think that they posses a pen and a telephone?

  • Patrick Ritchie

    Bob:

    In the post above you state:

    It might inconvenient, and the law itself might be foolish, but it isn’t up the administrators to decide this. They should be fired.

    While in a February 13th post about Connecticut gun owners failing to register their weapons you wrote:

    When the law has contempt for freedom, then the only answer is contempt for the law.

    link

    I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on how, in your mind, these two situations are different.

    More specifically: when (if ever) do you think it is OK for citizens to disregard or break the law?

  • Patrick,

    I really like how you catch this stuff. The question is spectacularly good. Unfortunately, I am about to leave for two weeks on a trip to Israel. This question deserves a long answer. If I get inspired on the plane I might write it up for you.

    What I can say immediately is that both circumstances demonstrate how badly written laws promote contempt for the law. Sometimes that contempt might be justified, but the contempt itself is a bad thing, generated by the misuse of the legislative power.

    More to come.

  • D.K.Williams

    As a USC grad, (the real USC, not the faux one in LA), I would have no issue with the firing of Pastides. This law is vague and easy to comply with. Just set up a booth in the Russell Center (student union) and hand out brochures on the Constitution, Federalist papers, whatever. Have a speaker give a colloquim on this, or a related topic, which will be attended by a few graduate students abpnd one or two people who wandered in by mistake. It’s what the other state colleges do, and it seems to satisfy the requirement.

  • Pzatchok

    There is no proof any of the fire arm owners are breaking the law.

    They could have privately sold the weapons.
    Or they could have reconfigured them to comply with the new laws definition of an illegal weapon.

    The instructors are just outright ignoring the law and doing it out in the open with little to no excuse.

    More than likely because no one has ever been prosecuted for something like this ans feel free to do as they please until someone goes to jail over it.

    Send one to jail and the rest will either teach the material or try to change the law.

  • Patrick Ritchie

    Thanks Bob, looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *