Tenure was intended to protect ideas that are controversial, such as scientists who propose theories like evolution or global climate change, or that the American flag is a symbol of oppression - ideas that people aren’t comfortable with but may nevertheless lead to investigation and discussion by reasonable people. Obviously tenure, and the academic freedom that comes with it, protects ideas that are ridiculous, but that’s okay, because in doing so, we hope to take ideas that are radical but valid and give them greater attention in hopes of improving society as a whole.
I do not, however, think that tenure and the principle of academic freedom were instituted with the idea that it was necessary to protect speech that is intended to incite an emotional reaction. There’s a difference between saying things that are controversial and drawing someone’s ire in the process, and deliberately trolling in order to inflame passions. The professor in this case just wanted to get a reaction from people. She could have disagreed with Barbara Bush’s legacy without embarrassing her employer and her academic community. I don’t think she ought to be necessarily fired, but I think Fresno State would be well within its rights to issue a warning of sorts.
Physical confrontations and threats have marked “protests” at such schools as U. of California Berkeley (“riot” is an accurate description of what happened there), the University of Missouri, Evergreen State College etc. That’s hardly a “barest fringe”.
Contrary to the belief that advocates of free speech on campus are only interested in defending right-wing speech, the group FIRE has supported such people as the Drexel associate professor who tweeted “All I Want For Christmas Is White Genocide” (it was “satirical”, doncha know), and who was barred from campus by the university.
Similarly, if Ms. Dumbass as cited in the OP were to face real sanctions from her university (such as attempted firing or being prevented from teaching), I’d anticipate free speech organizations coming to her support. As would I.
I just want to be clear: by far the biggest threats at Evergreen were the death threats by terrorists threatening to come to the school and shoot as many commies as they could. Who called those threats “protests”?
Some folks are really, really missing the point here. If you want to claim that you believe in free speech, the apotheosis of support for free speech is opposing state action against someone for their speech. Anyone who calls for the government to fire an employee who says something awful (in their opinion) on her own time has no credible claim to supporting free speech.
And if you get all up in arms about a bunch of non-state-actors–teenagers, even–who get pissy about Milo coming to campus*, but you remain silent on the calls for the government to sanction this professor, your defense of free speech is a bit suspicious.
#Notallconservatives, but too many on this board and off, come up with twisted justifications for why it’d be okay for the government to punish this woman for her speech. Conservatives, fix your shit.
I want to clarify this: yes, there have been worse incidents, including physical violence against speakers. I fully support punishing those just as any other assaults are punished. But a ton of the hand-wringing over “campus assaults on free speech” are literally about teenagers hollering.
Her remarks about Barbara Bush, as offensive as they were, are indeed protected speech.
However, if I were an administrator at the school, I would be looking to fire her over her, “I make $100 grand a year and have tenure so you can’t fire me” bit. That strikes me as being actionable.
Unless you have hard data - what percentage of those calling for this person to be fired are teen-agers, vs. how many people threatening protests and riots against conservatives who are teen-agers?
Most every post I’ve seen is that the tweet about Bush is and should be protected. Directing calls to some sort of crisis hotline, maybe not. What posts am I missing?
I didn’t like her comments and I didn’t agree with them. But I don’t think she should have been fired.
My issue is that she used the cloak of tenure, and to a similar extent, the first amendment to be an asshole. If she had stated today, after the funeral, that she felt the positive comments about Mrs. Bush were not earned and that she supported wars that were evil and unlawful, I would have supported that right. And while I understand someone could be an asshole to me, and a freedom fighter to you, it annoys me that she’s using these freedoms for a purpose that I don’t think they were intended for. As has been pointed out, I think college professors used tenor as carte blanche to be jerks, and grind personal axes in public and that wasn’t what it was intended for.
Your opinion is precisely why there is tenure and the 1st amendment. The professor in question expressed challenging political opinions. If there were no tenure, she’d be fired already. Yet there is a need to be able to openly express opinions like these. It’s our cultural norm to say nice things about recently deceased political figures, but maybe this norm is doing a disservice to promoting a better political landscape. Maybe we should say awful things about political leaders and their supporters whose decisions caused immense destruction. Maybe we should say awful things about these people in an awful manner.
Professors, educators, and political figures have been regarded as “jerks” for holding opinions we regard as truthful today. Let this person say what she wants and face the consequences of others not liking her for it.
I don’t think she should be fired. But I don’t think a conservative would be able to survive something like this. Especially giving out the mental health crisis line.
I’m unaware - would a person who had a history of making statements like these be eligible to receive tenure? Could other inflammatory remarks distinct from their professional role be considered disqualifying when seeking tenure?
Because if that’s the case, then it shouldn’t matter either before or after tenure is achieved.
This is my issue as well. The university touts “free speech/1st Amendment,” which is commendable in a way, but I seriously doubt the college would be invoking “1st Amendment” as enthusiastically if the professor in question were a Nazi or pro-KKK.
Students shouting down and/or threatening speakers and professors are less a problem than the school administrators who enable their behavior and allow the suppression of free speech on campus, as the FIRE link I provided makes clear.
It’s not just “right wing” views that are banned either.
I continue to be disappointed that the Left has allowed so much of its traditional leadership role in guaranteeing free speech rights to be conceded to the Right. Some conservatives are certainly capable of exploiting the issue for political gain, just as some liberals prefer to abandon or soft-pedal it for fear of hurting someone’s feelings.
The source of the information matters? If it heals the hurts, my bad - the first draft had the entire quote before the Dope fritzed out and I had to re-copy and write the entire thing. A private Twitter does more for my case than yours - she has the First Amendment and tenure on her side, why should she hide anything she says? It’s pretty obvious she doesn’t give a damn what people think of her.
But hey, better to question journalistic integrity and possible victims than admit you have a horribly partisan outlook on defending free speech.
When it happens, we’ll revisit it. Fresno State sure doesn’t seem to be “enthusiastic” about the First Amendment, more “handcuffed”.
The OP thinks conservatives have called for her firing, but neglects to mention one name either on this board or nationally who has called for her to be fired. I’m sure there are people on twitter who have because there is no opinion too crazy to be represented there, however prominent conservatives such as Mcardle at the Washington Post and David French at National Review have written to advocate her not be fired. Moreover, when classes resume I doubt conservative students will try to keep her from speaking in her class, or prevent her presence on campus. The OP is trying to slay a strawman.
Your calls for people to collect impossible-to-collect data are as absurd as ever; as ever, I assume that you’ll claim some sort of victory and dance around with the imaginary trophy when I don’t collect this data that is obviously impossible to collect. Go ahead and dance, Shodan!
There’s an interesting point about the petition: the Fox News article I linked to absolutely didn’t call for anyone to sign the petition. But it did portray Jarrar’s activities in the most unflattering way possible, and it did mention the petition and how many people are signing it, and it did provide a helpful link to the petition.
This is nut picking. The american thinker piece is by an obscure professor who tried and failed to get it published at more main stream. Meanwhile mainstream conservatives have all defended the professor’s rights to speak out.
That’s a good clarifying question and I believe I understand the point, and I agree with it, but it’s one of those “it depends” type of situations.
I would say a person should probably be able to be readily fired “at will” if they’re a professor of molecular biology studying gene expression saying these things, regardless of tenure. On the other hand, a professor of creative writing, if they’re good at their job, should be judged on their ability to write and to write to attract an audience and to cause people to think. She did that pretty well with a few tweets.