Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / JDs Rising / Law professor seeks upset in congressional race
Teresa Collett discusses why she is running, her future at UST, the new federal health care law and what exactly happened in 2006.

Law professor seeks upset in congressional race

Teresa Collett discusses why she is running, her future at UST, the new federal health care law and what exactly happened in 2006.

3 comments

  1. I was recently told by a supporter of hers (who was walking with her in a parade) that her students at St. Thomas Law School always liked her. I corrected him. I was there. I don’t remember it that way. She had a reputation for being very judgmental, very pushy. She’d be better suited as a televangelist. I wouldn’t be surprised if she “theoretically” or theologically also opposed interracial marriage or supported the criminalization and imprisonment of loving gay couples. She’s a fringe radical, no doubt, and Minnesota doesn’t need her bigotry and intolerance to further divide the state – let alone another Republican with a DWI.

  2. I’m sorry, Mr. Hall, but you went to a very different St. Thomas Law than I did. I took several classes with Prof. Collett and did not experience or observe anything of which you speak. Prof. Collett was indeed challenging, expecting more out of her students than perhaps any other teacher I’ve ever had. Her style defined the Socratic method; if your answer wasn’t thorough, or was just plain wrong, she’d push hard for more. Perhaps challenging is what you consider pushy and judgmental.

    But that’s not what’s so offensive about your comment. What is so beyond the pale is your outlandish suggestion, with no support whatsoever, that she “theoretically” would oppose interracial marriage and favor the criminalization of homosexuality. What absurdity. I know that evidence is a required class at UST. Perhaps you should revisit its basic tenets, or the principles of solid logic, before making such outlandish and hateful statements in the future.

    My congrats to Mr. Walters for writing a balanced, informative piece. Having read it, I can’t tell whether Mr. Walters would be a fan of Prof. Collett’s or not. And I think that’s a mark of good journalism. But shame on you, Mr. Hall, for using such ill-informed, hateful, inflammatory rhetoric to scare the voters of CD4 and voice your personal grudge. Your comment says far less about Prof. Collett’s character than it does of your own.

  3. I’m confused how my opinion can be “ill-informed” – after all, it’s my opinion based upon my experience at the school; further, I listed it in the “Comments” section of this post (where, presumably, opinion is wanted).

    Also, you should know, “judgmental” and “pushy” refers to her efforts to project her own ideology (or moral judgments) onto others – that was my experience. I did not say this occurred in the classroom. In fact, as I recall, it was occurring outside the classroom.

    Try this for “solid logic”: Collett has a long resume of opposing abortion and same-sex marriage at the state and federal level, including testifying before the U.S. Senate against same-sex marriage. You assert that my claim of Collett favoring “the criminalization of homosexuality” is an “absurdity.” But my claim is based on her clear position to oppose gay marriage and abortion and, as such, would also support legal measures to enforce such laws/prohibitions.

    If you want to argue she opposes gay marriage and abortion (and wants laws forbidding both of them), but that she also would *not* support legal sanctions for violating such laws, then it is my opinion that you simply misinformed about her intentions – and for that matter the intentions of every person I know who has ever advocated for any law (as they have also always advocated for a resulting punishment for violating such law).

    Walters indeed wrote a great journalistic article. I too can’t tell if he supports Collett or not. I didn’t write an article. I’m not a journalist. I wrote my opinion in the “Comment” section based upon my experience. However, you shame me for being “ill-informed,” but I ask you again, how can my opinion based upon my experience at the school be “ill-informed”? In fact, it sounds like you understand my opinion, so I’ll count it as successfully communicated. You may not like it, but it’s still my opinion based upon my experience – as your opinion is based upon yours.

    Finally, where did you learn to compose such an excellent ad hominem argument by going after my character? I know it wasn’t in Dean Mengler’s evidence class because I was there. Regardless, well done. Textbook perfect, indeed – though that’s just my opinion of your argument.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Scroll To Top