The Smiley Smile Message Board

Political Correctness is out of control when the California fantasy of Beach Boy fame is called sexual misconduct and leads to the loss of award money and travel privliges for the Professor who sang Mike Love's lyrics.

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/12/18/he-sang-girls/

and

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/19/public-university-punishes-professor-for-sex-crime-because-he-sang-a-beach-boys-song/

and

http://www.zipdialog.com/12/18/2016/wish-california-girls-phrases-deemed-sexual-harassment/

or google "Kentucky University, Beach Boys, California Girls" for more articles

I never thought I'd see this happen in my country. This is not the America I grew up in.

lol thats insane

he must've sang pretty bad

Seems some of the stories are sourced from the guy's own Op-Ed piece, which is obviously one side of the story.

Not only did the guy change the words to the song (his "new" words don't appear to have been reproduced anywhere from what I can tell), but this article from the Washington Post mentions some details that may be closer to the cause of all of this, which would mean having little to nothing to do with the BB song:

The letter from Patty Bender, the school’s assistant vice president for equal opportunity, states that Ryan’s behavior during the trip also involved “inappropriate touching” of students and use of sexual language. The professor is not suspected of having a sexual relationship with a student. What, specifically he’s accused of doing is unclear, as several details have been redacted from the letter, which was recently made public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/12/19/a-kentucky-professor-says-singing-a-beach-boys-song-got-him-in-trouble-for-sexual-misconduct-allegations/?utm_term=.560d66b7e25f

thanx jude errt.......sandbox anyone ?

yeesh... :o

Looks like the internet outrage machine is running with this story without validating it, as ever. Does the world have to be on fire before people will learn to validate what they read before they get outraged by it, spread it, and choose presidents over it?
I don't know what America you grew up in, but it probably relegated stories like this to the National Enquirer where most people would have ignored it.

Let's not forget that people who complain about political correctness appear to be the most easily offended people so odds are they are not going to be validating stories that allow them to have these kinds of knee-jerk reactions.

DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT BEFORE LEAVING OFFICE OBAMA IS GOING TO ROUND UP AND INCARCERATE--OR KILL!!!!!!!--ALL BEACH BOYS FANS!?!?!?*

 :o :o :jedi :jedi :jedi :jedi Time to take a stand, guys. This is getting SERIOUS.


*Source: I think I heard something vaguely similar to something that reminded me of something else like this that I saw on the internet. Texas may have been involved. TELL YOUR FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK ASAP. We need to make America great again. This has gone too far.

Can the Captain be an honored guest? :lol

I'm surprised he wasn't singing "Hey Little Tomboy"!

 ;D

SJW's would probably want special tomboy bathrooms in public schools  , "safe spaces" where they can shave their legs ...  ::)

There seems to be an implication that the professor is claiming that his problems relate solely to his rendition of California Girls. He has written the following:

The University of Kentucky has punished me in a “sexual misconduct” case, in part, for singing a Beach Boys tune covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Of course I have added the emphasis.

Could've been worse...he coulda sung Somewhere Near Japan!

And he managed to leave out the other parts. This is how that media operates. They leave out the key information so unthinking supremacists can get all outraged (see above). Go read the hundreds of postings and thousands of comments. The entire right is now up in arms due to this intentional misinformation.

The actually relevant part from the Daily Caller report, reporting a statement by university spokesperson Jay Blanton:


Of course, it's not exactly a breaking news story that the kind of people who have put Donald Trump in the White House (see above) will believe literally anything at all.

[Clears throat … dramatic pause … and begin.]
 
Emily, a professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Kentucky was punished in a typical example of bureaucratic rigmarole, something with which I have witnessed myself, as have many others. This is why people are fleeing the Democrat Party in droves because they are tired of the corrupt Clinton-Soros machine; see Wiki Leaks for many examples of this. Let’s not forget Hillary was brought up a Republican. Can tigers change their stripes? ;)
 
I do not post here to litigate point-for-point, but to share information. This is a message board. We can disagree without being disagreeable. You can’t pull the “wool” over the eyes of Americans! ;) One source cited above indicates that this professor committed sexual misconduct simply by singing “California Girls.” Times have changes and sensibilities have evolved—not always for the better! ;) – but the Beach Boys are a classic American band. They sang about what they saw. As young men in California, this naturally included “California Girls.” There is something wrong with our country when a classic song warrants discipline.
 
You continue to use “blanket statements” to define large groups of people. “Unthinking supremacists?” Our country was founded on individual rights and liberties, as referenced in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Bill of Rights (ratified as Amendments in 1791). These concepts have a long history, predating the modern “Social Justice Warrior” progressive concepts by quite some time. One can trace the concepts to the Magna Carta (1215). I recommend you read some history. You just might learn something. ;)
 
One of the links cited above is from The Daily Caller, a legitimate journalistic institution founded by stellar journalists such as Tucker Carlson, who has worked for such diverse media outlets as FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC. You may consider this an “alternative news source” and discredit it because it does not align with your worldview. You may not like his “conservative worldview,” but you cannot argue his professionalism, which demonstrates a commitment to reporting the truth as he sees it, unlike the corrupt mainstream media. Sites like the Daily Caller are the meat and potatoes of the grassroots political world.
 
The Daily Caller presents the news in a straightforward way that grassroots American citizens who are tired of the corrupt Clinton-Soros media machine can understand, unlike the “mainstream” political media operative, which is in the pockets of the DNC (see: Assange, Wiki Leaks, Podesta emails, et cetera). The reporting is not “hyperbolic” but rather quite straightforward and factual. For example, some of their headlines include:
·         “The Ultimate Danger” – CNN Uses Germany Attack to Bash the Right
·         “You’re Wrong, Or You’re Lying!” Tempers Flare on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”
·         We Found 15 Celebs Who Threatened to Leave After Trump’s Win – Guess Where They Are!
·         This Photo of Britney Spears Doing an Upside Down Split Is the Greatest Thing on the Internet
·         Victoria’s Secret Model Elsa Hosk Takes it All Off in French Magazine [PHOTOS]
 
You may choose to discredit this news outlet, but the “People” are intelligent enough to make up their own minds, they do not need the liberal elites “telling them what to do.” As we saw this election cycle, when they chose straight talk over corrupt Washington double-speak. ;) We do not need you or others weighing in on “details” of this instance: that is for the People to decide based on evidence from the sources they trust most. We do not need lectures. For a professor to be disciplined because he sang a classic song beloved by many is the epitome of absurdity. We are fed up. I recommend that you read the story with an “open mind.” Others have provided links above.
 
I do not appreciate being called a “white supremacist.” There is no reason to resort to name-calling, as we are simply discussing this particular incident at the University of Kentucky. There is no place for allegations here, you do not know whether people are “racist” in their hearts. This is especially harmful in Kentucky, where for example earlier this year a state representative, Dan Johnson (R) posted to Facebook edited images of President and First Lady Obama with ape-like features, and a photo of a chimpanzee a baby picture of the president. When there is such a partisan divide and high tensions just because people are obviously, blatantly racist, it is inappropriate to call people racists. Rep. Johnson clearly responded that he was not trying to offend anybody, and that “there has been no president that hasn’t had that scrutiny. Not one.” Let bygones be bygones. Divisive rhetoric is not the answer. We are here because we love the same band: in America it should not be a crime to sing “California Girls” and oppose shariah law and “Political Correctness.”  ;)
 
 
 
 

Wow. Unbelievably spot-on parody.

 ;D

I've read Ms. Bender's letter, or what there is of it to read. I conjecture that at least of the following is true:

1. The professor is a lecherous clown who has no business being in his profession. And of equal import to his detractors, he caused great embarrassment and deep concern to them by singing a version of California Girls. (And in public at that!) Under this scenario, I think their complaint about the song is a striking example of political correctness. 

2. Some of the professor's colleagues don't care for him at all and wish to damage his career, and probably to be rid of him. That they cite his performance of California Girls as provoking deep concern and embarrassment is again a clear case of political correctness, even if its main purpose is to achieve their goal of bringing harm to him.   

And my candidate won the election.

Just get over yourselves! :)

Now, off the the Sandbox we go!

I'm pretty sure that your response has been the politically correct response for quite a while now, thus the appointment of Trump.
As your conjectures are not well supported, they say more about you (you are looking for ways to be offended) than about anyone involved in the professor's case.

To relate this debacle back to the Beach Boys, either in their constituent parts or as any kind of whole, while the original aim of the article seemed to include trying to induce outrage in Beach Boys fans (and Trump buddy Mike Love), I'd have to say that if I were any of the Beach Boys and/or the writers of the song in question, I'd be pissed that this professor, with clearly a bunch of other weird baggage, would invoke *my* song in having anything to do with his peril.

In other news, Charles Manson was prosecuted in the late 60s simply for reciting the lyrics to "Helter Skelter."

The term "politically correct" has a well-defined meaning. According to Merriam-Webster: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

I realize that the term has been used to great effect by the political right and that members of the left have tried to appropriate the term for their own uses. ("Deplorable" didn't quite catch on, but keep trying.) The fact that Candidate A prevails over Candidate B is not an indication that support for Candidate A is a politically correct position.

My conjecture about the professor's troubles is labeled as, well, conjecture. My only point, if it can even be called that, is that it appears that political correctness does play a role in this case.

Emily, your response is an opinion. It is rendered with an air of certainty in the absence of any argument to support your contention that I must spend my time looking for reasons to be offended.

And this offends me deeply.

It sounds to me more like the guy under fire is asserting this.

With the information currently available, my sense is that the guy is using the "California Girls" thing to divert attention away from the much more serious accusations/allegations, and was hoping (successfully) that the media would pick the story up with a headline not unlike the very title of this thread: "Singing Beach Boys Songs Will Get You Arrested!", as opposed to something perhaps more accurate like "Professor Under Investigation for Improper Conduct."

It's sounding like there was a laundry list of issues people had with this guy, and the story about him using that song was on that list, but certainly not the main fuel for pursuing some sort of action against him.

It does sound like there's more than meets the eye to this story. 

If the sole reason that this prof got in trouble was for his performance / parody of California Girls, then that's pretty sad.

But, if he's trying to use the California Girls as a smokescreen for something more sinister, well, that's even sadder. 

California Girls is addressed in the university's letter:

http://interactives.courier-journal.com/graphics/Ryan%20letter%20redacted.pdf

The school includes his singing a version of the song as part of its case against him. It is understandable that the professor wants to focus on a facet of the university's case which some of us find ridiculous. (If this board gives any indication, it appears that many do not.)

What disturbs me a bit is that I've seen this sort of outcome before in academia. Someone is charged with misconduct sufficient for dismissal, but the accused party is neither terminated nor exonerated.

So let me get this straight.  This professor sings a song (in this case he choose California Girls but could have been any song) and changes one word, "California"  to compliment the females of a certain Chinese City -- and for this he looses his retirement and travel privileges?  This is not the America I grew up in.

And Emily, Trump is called President-Elect because he was elected under our system of election laws. He is not president-appointed Trump.

Did you even read about the  part with the guy fondling people? ::)

Yeah that's kind of a key point...

The outrage expressed by you and the OP fits the definition you've provided quite well. Basically, you've expressed that language and practices that offend your political sensibilities should be eliminated. It takes no "appropriation" to apply this to the constant offense expressed on the right over things that people on the left do or say. Many on the right voted for a president expressly because they want language and practices that offend their political sensibilities eliminated.
And, btw, the US right did not coin the term in the 1990s to apply to the US left. They adopted it. It's been used in different places at different times to apply to different political correctnesses.

Given that you chose an interpretation that offends you when there are better supported inoffensive interpretations available, what am I to conclude?

You don't have it straight yet, other than the part about the country changing (inevitable and generally positive). The song is a piece of the problem, not the whole problem. People focus on it because, as HeyJude said, that's the eye-catching and least supported part, the part likely to raise hackles. It's click bait intended to make people say "this isn't the America I grew up in."

I dare say that if any other country had a few hundred people select a president for a population of a few hundred million, we wouldn't call it an election.
And the "one word" thing was not specified.

Funny how "anti-pc" people are the most sensitive of all!

Of course!

Wow....offensive much?!

And yeah, this belongs in the Sandbox. Actually, belongs in a litter box...

The few hundred people, or The Electrorial Collage, is part of the Representative Republic form of government in the USA. We have been electing leaders like this for several hundred years. If you don't agree with this part of the US Constitution, there are methods in place to change the law, but otherwise you should learn why we have the Electroial interface and not a direct popular election.
The word that was changed was California, according to what I read. The articles did not say "one word" but only made reference to a word change. Maybe there were other words changed, but only the one word - california - was noted. 

Several hundred years?

Really? Gee. I AM going to have to learn all about this electorial collage thing. I never knew. Thanks for edumacatin me!
Seems like in representative republics, the representatives would, by definition, have to be selected by the people they represent, not a few hundred other people. Whoops! Looks like we're not a representative republic after all! Silly us.

For someone so gosh dang smart, you sure don't read good:
"During the closing ceremony, Ryan says, he sang his own version of 'California Girls' to portray 'the many differences in Chinese and American culture.' One of the lines, for example, was, 'Well Shanghai girls..."

F.Y.I.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

Gosh mister. I can't read all them big words. Why's it called a collage?

I think we found the next fildeplage.

The captain does a better job though. ;D

it's this kind of crap that happens when sheeple follow and praise libturds. same result every time.

Same thing with the right wing bigots

My two-year-old granddaughter likes playing with smartphones. One of the videos on ours is a sneaky one of a quartet from Mike's Beach Boys singing "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring", taken at a recent concert. Yesterday, she found the vid (for the umpteenth time) and sang along with the first few notes! Do you think she'll be arrested?

No.

That's a relief.