Once again, we’re seeing the doubleplus ungood forces of political correctness targeting anyone at an American university who doesn’t join in their groupthink. Is free speech really so poorly valued in our nation’s academic circles as this?
I am speaking, of course, about Randa Jarrar, who had the audacity to disagree with people about Barbara Bush’s legacy. She holds a different opinion, and in response, you have college students (and a helluva lot of other people) screaming about how she should get fired for daring to voice an opinion that isn’t politically correct.
What amazes me most about this case is that there’s not a thread on it already: we have a cadre of first-amendment defenders on these boards who are So quickto jump onattacks on free speech, on campus or off. Did y’all just somehow miss this occasion?
So, for debate, I propose this: attacks like the attack on Jarrar, in which conservatives mobilize by the thousands, and prominent figures call for her firing, are much more insidious attacks on free speech on campus than are a bunch of undergrads hollering about a professional provocateur on campus; and folks who focus on the latter, not the former, are motivated by partisanship and not by a dedication to free speech.
I’m just making a guess here but… do you really think that those who complained about her comments were the “doubleplus ungood forces of political correctness”? She spoke negatively about a conservative icon. I’m pretty sure the backlash came from conservatives who were more likely to be offended by the comments than a liberal elite. If that is true, your argument is that the conservatives are demanding her resignation instead of recognizing as tasteless as her comments were they are protected under free speech? I’m just really confused as to what/who your issue is with here but that could be through fault of my own to follow your argument.
For the record, I’m a centrist Democrat and no fan of either President Bush. That said, I feel her comments were grossly offensive and inappropriate. I accept she has the right to express them but it was tacky, inflammatory for no reason, and in poor taste to do so at that moment in time. Her right does not equate to freedom of consequence for expressing that right of course. It appears from the article that if the university could do something about it they would due to how negatively it reflects upon the students, staff, and faculty.
So, hows about you start a Pit-Omnibus thread on the subject? Then every time something like this pops up in the news, there is already a place to call it out and express recreational outrage and take well established sides for debating?
It’s barely possible here that I was using a bit of sarcasm in my phrasing. That said, yes: I think that “political correctness,” if it’s to have any meaning at all, should be a term that means “adherence to a rigid political ideology and punishment for those who deviate from that ideology in their speech.” As such, you betcha the folks calling for her sanction are the forces of political correctness.
On the one hand, the university is right - Jarrar’s speech was 1st Amendment protected, and in a private capacity. On the hand, I strongly suspect that a professor who expressed pro-KKK or pro-Nazi views on his/her private blog/Twitter wouldn’t have been dealt the same leniency by the school.
Just based on the link you posted about her, I’d say she should be fired because she seems a monumental bitch.
As for 1st Amendment issues, I don’t see one. She is free to say what she likes. Really, the issue would be if she violated some policy of the campus, which, according to this, she didn’t:
Her comments are protected under the 1st Amendment, and if she didn’t violate any school policies (and if the school is good with the flack they will get from some jerk off flaming) then I’m not sure what the debate is. I don’t see this about political correctness or 1st Amendment rights. I suppose we could debate the universities social media and public speaking policies are, but that’s really up to them.
I believe she should be subject to disciplinary action for using the Arizona State University’s student crisis line phone number in her tweet, claiming it was hers. That kind of action is not punishment for her views; it would be punishment for recklessly doing something that might have clogged the lines and interfered with a genuine crisis.
And if she were employed by a private entity, I’d agree with her firing because an employer has the right to protect his brand, which would be tainted by association.
Neither of these things, in my view, are violative of the basic understandings of First Amendment protection.
But when the employer IS the government, there are stronger First Amendment protections, and so I agree that firing her or otherwise disciplining her merely for the hateful views she expressed towards the Bush family is not permissible.
The employer is the government and there is likely some sort of employment contract that I expect describes something very different from mine (which perhaps unnecessarily reminds me that we have an “at will” arrangement.)
CA has protection for political activity even outside of work. So consistent with that law, I’m not rankled in any way by her actions. Personally, her taunting about how she can’t be fired because she has tenure is more offensive. Since I’m opposed to tenure in general, that is more irritating. The crisis hotline thing, that should be punishable.
“I’m happy the witch is dead” is offensive no matter who the subject of the sentence is. It appears to be protected free speech, but also churlish and troll-y.
Meh - aren’t we all supposed to relax and not get in a tizzy about the Outrage of the Week?
Hardly anyone would have noticed if Prof. Dumbass had said something measured about how, while we are noting the passing of Barbara Bush, some people have taken issue with (allegedly) racist stuff she said and it is reasonable not to view her as a heroine. Instead we get tasteless rantings about the deceased, and taunts about you-can’t-touch-me-na-na-na-I-have-tenure.
Her First Amendment right to stupidity is preserved; the republic continues on its course.
Honestly, I don’t know. Maybe the problem is tenure. If she worked for a private company, they would freely have the choice to fire her, or keep her on board. It wouldn’t have anything to do with her right of free speech, but everything to do with how she spouted off her views. I don’t think I’m being naive here, any corporation that frowns upon employee behavior that is going to call attention to the employee and, in turn, to the company itself is going to take some kind of action. They’d either can her or come out with some PR statement to defend her actions. But, what the hell do I know?
As a centrist democrat, wouldnt it be good if just once in a while other centrist democrats or even the DNC itself would say something to move itself away from far left persons like this? Maybe just a note saying they also find her comments offensive? Or what about other centrist liberals who might do things like cancel her membership in certain organizations, not buy her books, or let it be known she is NOT welcome at any events. I read she already canceled appearing at one event.
Years ago on the tv show “Wife Swap” San Fransisco liberal environmental activist Stephen Fowler made an ass of himself. He was fired from his job and forced to resign from 2 non profit environmental organizations.basically all the groups said he was NOT the image of the environmental community they wanted to project.
[Emphasis added]
So, you’re lamenting that centrist democrats never move away from objectionable comments…
and then you provide two examples of just that behavior.
While I’m delighted to be included in the “cadre of first-amendment defenders on these boards”, I’m a bit confused: Randa Jarrar, dumb bitch that she is, said some appropriately dumb and bitchy things. “The government”, in the form of the Cal State Fresno administration, decided she was exercising her protected free speech rights, and consequently did nothing to infringe on them by punishing her. Other private citizens exercised their free speech rights to criticize the dumb bitch, and the government also did nothing to infringe on their rights. Somehow, the result of all that is that you’re mystified that we’re not focusing on this? What is their to focus on? Where was the First Amendment violation? Why would anyone who supports the right to free speech be upset by this?
ETA: I’m reasonably confident that if I HAD started a thread about this dumb bitch I would have been accused of “nut-picking”.
I don’t see this about political correctness or 1st Amendment rights. I suppose we could debate the universities social media and public speaking policies are, but that’s really up to them.