You’re right and all, but I still would like to imagine what happens if all the by-definition-douchebags who support Chick Fil A were fired by more enlightened bosses. Somehow I think we’d heat about “persecution of Christians” about a billion times.
I do concede that.
But notice the word “termination.” You cannot be terminated if you do not, in fact, currently have employment. The University of Arizona’s own release specifically said that the guy was engaged as an adjunct from January to May, and also said that he presently holds no appointment with the university. How can you be terminated from a position that you don’t have?
In this case, you’re the one making the assertion that the termination could still be unlawful if the guy was only hired for a semester contract, and was not on any sort of ongoing employment agreement. Have you established that yet? What evidence do you have that the university has an obligation to him that would be subject to unlawful termination laws?
Sure.
I should also note that, while a person might not be guaranteed a job, i actually would support an employer who decided to keep someone on after a public gaffe like this if the person were good at their job. If this particular guy is a good finance lecturer, and did his job in the classroom professionally and competently, i would have no trouble with the university deciding to take him on for another semester. If he was a good CFO, and i wouldn’t have criticized his medical manufacturing company for keeping him on either.
Was that directed to brazil84?
Predictably, I disagree. Any mass movement is going to have a few assholes in it. Certainly, the right wing demagogs are going to play up folks like Adam Smith and the alderman who’s threatening to block a restaurant, but over all I think this boycott has been largely positive for the SSM rights, and I think anyone who’s remotely fair minded is going to note how quickly these people were condemned by folks on their own side.
I think there’s another important factor, and that is that the SSM crowd look like the aggressors. That rarely helps.
Yeah, it didn’t help those civil rights folks either. Should have just mailed in a “pretty please” letter, and waited for their turn.
I wonder how many die hard fuck the Fil A folks that are boycotting Chick Fil A are recreational drug users…
I’m not sure i get your point. Is this a reference to the munchies, or is there something else i’m missing?
Two words: Breaking Bad.
If the university normally uses adjuncts from semester to semester (which is very common); and they stop using a particular adjunct for an illegal reason, then that adjunct would have a claim against the university for lost future earnings. This would be true even if the decision to stop using a particular adjunct came during an intercession period. This is not rocket surgery.
My statements are based on my general knowledge that adjuncts are normally used semester after semester, albeit sometimes intermittently. The fact that the university issued a press release distancing itself from Mr. Smith suggests (but does not establish) that they intend to stop using his services as a result of this incident. I admit it’s possible that he was used once and only once; that the University never intended to use him again; and that they simply issued the press release to avoid any tarnishment.
Anyway, I take it you also concede that for purposes of this discussion, there is fundamentally no difference at all between (1) not continuing to use a particular adjunct because of his skin color; and (2) not continuing to use a particular adjunct because of douchebaggery which happens to be protected activity under some law?
But this begs the question.
You haven’t yet demonstrated the tiniest scintilla of evidence that not continuing to use this particular adjunct, in this specific situation, would be illegal. You keep making the general assertion, but there comes a point where you need to move from the general to the particular. You’ve drawn analogies with issues of race and national origin, but have provided no evidence that the analogy is appropriate.
Adjunct work can vary wildly from semester to semester, depending on things like: which permanent faculty members are on leave; how much demand there is for particular classes; budget constraints; and a variety of other factors. It is not at all unusual, in the world of academia, for someone to have just one class, or even no classes one semester, and then be offered four or five the following semester, or vice versa. It is possible for adjuncts to be offered classes at the very last minute—sometimes literally a few days before the semester starts—and it is equally possible for an adjunct to lose a class at the last minute if not enough students enroll in the class. I’ve seen all of these things happen.
And there doesn’t even have to be a phone call or an email telling you that your services aren’t needed. If you’re an adjunct, the way you find out that you don’t have any classes the following semester is often that you never receive a phone call or an email saying, “Hey, would you like to teach for us in the Fall?” The summer arrives, there has been no offer, and the adjunct suddenly realizes that next term is going to be a lean one. The very uncertainty that is at the heart of adjunct work makes it more difficult for adjuncts to contest a decision not to offer them work in any given semester.
Also, while it is true (as i noted above) that adjuncts are sometimes called in at the last minute to fill an unexpected teaching slot, most university departments are required to plan out their calendars and teaching assignments well ahead of time. If the University of Arizona is anything like my university, the Department Chairs were expected to send their Fall curriculum and teaching assignments to the university administration back in early Spring. If Smith doesn’t have an appointment at U of A, it likely means that he was not part of the MBA program’s Fall plans well before this incident occurred.
To win the sort of case that you are talking about here, it seems that he would have to show, at the very minimum, that not only does he not have a position for the Fall, but that he would have had a position in the absence of the Chik-Fil-A incident, that the failure to give him a position was decided upon in the days since his Chik-Fil-A incident, and that it was caused specifically by his Chik-Fil-A outburst.
It seems to me that, in such a case, the burden would be on him (or, in this conversation, you) to show that this was actually the case, rather than hopping around with vague generalizations and making pronouncements hoping that the the university “checked their first-amendment obligations very carefully before cutting him loose.”
Nonsense, I’ve made my assumptions completely clear.
Please show me where I asserted that not continuing to use this adjunct would be illegal. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such assertion and apologize.
Also, please answer my question:
Do you agree that for purposes of this discussion, there is fundamentally no difference at all between (1) not continuing to use a particular adjunct because of his skin color; and (2) not continuing to use a particular adjunct because of douchebaggery which happens to be protected activity under some law?
I agree, and in fact I clearly conceded in my last post the possibility that he was used once and only once; that the University never intended to use him again; and that they simply issued the press release to avoid any tarnishment.
Please respond to the position I actually took, as opposed to the position you imagine or wish I would take.
ETA: Please answer this: What have I said that you actually disagree with? Please quote it.
Uh, I hate this vein of argument. Brown Eyed Girl made essentially the same one here.
Depends on whether brazil is making an argument based on surplus labour.
Oops, forgot:
Sweet equivocation.
I’m afraid I still don’t have a clue. I could take a guess but then you’d accuse me of putting words in your mouth. But I’m sure your explanation will completely destroy the whole anti-CFA argument, because of what a few of the people on one side hypothetically might do.
And some have more than others.
Or Menino. Or Emmanuel. Or Ed Lee. Or Vincent Gray. Or Christine Quinn. Or… Well, you get the point.
Based one on what evidence?
Not quick enough.
We will certainly give your opinion on the matter all the serious consideration it is due. *Ah! * There. Done.
Sorry mhendo, but I *did *warn you…
It might be a cryptic reference to the fact that a fast-food chicken restaurant figured into the plot of Breaking Bad over the past couple of seasons, or **bill **might just be getting high off his own supply. Or both.
Yes. Such circumstances would include:
Some other company pays better
I value relationships with certain friends highly enough to refrain from working there for their sake.
I think the company’s business practices are likely to lead to a lot of downsizing or even complete collapse in the long run, and I’m looking for permanent employment.
etc etc.
What I need to know from you, in order to answer whatever question you’re trying to ask, is what are some specific circumstances under which you predict that one such as I would refuse to work there, but under which you think we should be okay with working there given what we’ve said about Chick Fil A’s Rachel?