4 ms·

I'd argue that someone who talks like that needs to be fired from their position. She was a professor at a State owned college, there are certainly muslim stud

I'd argue that someone who talks like that needs to be fired from their position. She was a professor at a State owned college, there are certainly muslim students, professors and staff there. What kind of horrible hostile work environment would you be engendering if you let someone like that stay on staff?

fennecfoxen 5y ago
She is a professor at a state college. The state is obligated to follow the law, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, declaring that "Congress shall make now law... abridging the freedom of speech." Yes, this is incorporated against the states. Yes, it applies to state-run colleges. The firing MAY be legal if this speech is "disruptive" to the university or "subversive" of their goals; if so, the firing must satisfy a balancing test as to whether: • the employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern. • their free-speech interests outweigh their employer’s efficiency interests. The comments do seem to be on a matter of public concern, which is typically interpreted quite broadly. The criteria used to assess these efficiency interests include whether the speech: • Impairs discipline or harmony among co-workers. • Has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary • Interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business. Any litigation over this firing would focus on whether these are real factors that would disrupt teaching, or whether the university officials are just punishing her for her politics. The specific tweets are presumably not directed against any individuals who are at the college, and do not involve the college's normal operations. This does undermine the case somewhat.
- carols10cents 5y ago
  Her lawsuit is against the Neiman Lab for defamation, not her employer for wrongful termination.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    That's quite nice, but the parent comment insists her employer has a duty to do something about her conduct, while it's not at all clear it was even legal.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Of course it was legal - this has been litigated many times, which is how you end up with public servants (e.g. Police officers) being fired for being racist on "personal time". You can't fire them for the speech - which is of course protected - but you can fire them because they can't possibly be qualified to hold their position while holding/espousing those views. Unless there's a specific state law protecting employees from off-duty conduct (Pennsylvania doesn't have one), employees can certainly be fired.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        She specifically alleges that this comment about Muslims was not hers. I do not have any way to know if that's true or not--and I find the article's notion that she should know who did make an anonymous online comment incredibly thoughtless--but if that's true, your entire argument is wrongly premised. I would think that she would want to prove that statement falsely attributed first in a defamation suit before going after the university. The test above is correctly quoted, the only dispute is factual which none of us here has the evidence to resolve. She may be lying or telling the truth, but we can't make any grand pronouncements about whether the university was right or wrong on the basis of disputed factual claims that have yet to be resolved in court.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        carols10cents 5y ago
        If she succeeds in proving that she didn't make the one comment about Muslims wasn't made by her, and thus she was defamed, then she would have to prove that the university fired her for that comment and only that comment. Seems unlikely to me.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> In her suit, Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. Most of the rest of it seems like bog-standard US political polarisation, and if she didn't write the bigoted stuff…
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Likely...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I'm sure the muslim students would believe that the comment written by the account she controlled wasn't written by her.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Which depends on the philosophy behind the firing. Was it punitive, or to prevent ongoing harm?
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  So she wrote all of the borderline bad things under her unique account, but not the really bad things. Sure. Let's give her that benefit of the doubt.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > under her unique account, It's Disqus; it doesn't work like that. Anyone can use any username. > So she wrote all of the borderline bad things I like them as much as you do (possibly less), but a large proportion of the US population has been radicalised in this way. It's not so cut and dry as I'd like these situations to be. (I'd delete that kind of thing if I were moderating, though; that's an obvious thing to do.)
mc32 5y ago
There was an activist professor at a university in Colorado [mr Churchill, I believe] who used to say some foul things about some people --but said it in sympathy to native Americans. He said the US deserved 9-11 and so on. This professor was protected by the university in spite of calls to have him fired because they said the university needs diverse voices, even if they are violent and they would protect his 1A rights... Things have changed...
- chris11 5y ago
  I don't remember it that way. He did say the US deserved 9-11, and called people who worked in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns". But his essay was kind of ignored until 2005. Then CU Boulder investigated him for academic misconduct and fired him. The committee concluded it wasn't serious enough to fire him, and he later successfully sued the university for firing him. Media was reporting on his firing as having major free speech implications. Academic misconduct should be punished. But to me it looks like one of the major motivations for his firing was his extremely offensive comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Activism_on_Native_American_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Activism_on_Nat...
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  > Things have changed... Let me get this straight: someone who expressed hateful left-leaning political opinions was _not_ fired, and then later someone who expressed hateful right-leaning political opinions _was_ fired? What changed, exactly?
  - mc32 5y ago
    I think there was more willingness to defend these kinds opinions on principle based on the 1A and, importantly, defending someone on principle wasn't conflated with supporting that PoV. But now that is no longer the case. Now people claim that there are exceptions and also that while the 1A exists, it does not protect individuals from repercussions (job loss) even if state jobs. I think that is a significant shift (even if yes, we do see a free pass for the likes of Sarah Jeong[1] for example. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

fennecfoxen 5y ago

She is a professor at a state college. The state is obligated to follow the law, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, declaring that "Congress shall make now law... abridging the freedom of speech." Yes, this is incorporated against the states. Yes, it applies to state-run colleges. The firing MAY be legal if this speech is "disruptive" to the university or "subversive" of their goals; if so, the firing must satisfy a balancing test as to whether: • the employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern. • their free-speech interests outweigh their employer’s efficiency interests. The comments do seem to be on a matter of public concern, which is typically interpreted quite broadly. The criteria used to assess these efficiency interests include whether the speech: • Impairs discipline or harmony among co-workers. • Has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary • Interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business. Any litigation over this firing would focus on whether these are real factors that would disrupt teaching, or whether the university officials are just punishing her for her politics. The specific tweets are presumably not directed against any individuals who are at the college, and do not involve the college's normal operations. This does undermine the case somewhat.

carols10cents 5y ago
Her lawsuit is against the Neiman Lab for defamation, not her employer for wrongful termination.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  That's quite nice, but the parent comment insists her employer has a duty to do something about her conduct, while it's not at all clear it was even legal.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Of course it was legal - this has been litigated many times, which is how you end up with public servants (e.g. Police officers) being fired for being racist on "personal time". You can't fire them for the speech - which is of course protected - but you can fire them because they can't possibly be qualified to hold their position while holding/espousing those views. Unless there's a specific state law protecting employees from off-duty conduct (Pennsylvania doesn't have one), employees can certainly be fired.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      She specifically alleges that this comment about Muslims was not hers. I do not have any way to know if that's true or not--and I find the article's notion that she should know who did make an anonymous online comment incredibly thoughtless--but if that's true, your entire argument is wrongly premised. I would think that she would want to prove that statement falsely attributed first in a defamation suit before going after the university. The test above is correctly quoted, the only dispute is factual which none of us here has the evidence to resolve. She may be lying or telling the truth, but we can't make any grand pronouncements about whether the university was right or wrong on the basis of disputed factual claims that have yet to be resolved in court.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - carols10cents 5y ago
        If she succeeds in proving that she didn't make the one comment about Muslims wasn't made by her, and thus she was defamed, then she would have to prove that the university fired her for that comment and only that comment. Seems unlikely to me.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> In her suit, Viola acknowledged writing most of the posts. But she denied being behind the anti-Muslim screed. Most of the rest of it seems like bog-standard US political polarisation, and if she didn't write the bigoted stuff…

whimsicalism 5y ago
Likely...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
colinmhayes 5y ago
I'm sure the muslim students would believe that the comment written by the account she controlled wasn't written by her.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Which depends on the philosophy behind the firing. Was it punitive, or to prevent ongoing harm?
mikeyouse 5y ago
So she wrote all of the borderline bad things under her unique account, but not the really bad things. Sure. Let's give her that benefit of the doubt.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > under her unique account, It's Disqus; it doesn't work like that. Anyone can use any username. > So she wrote all of the borderline bad things I like them as much as you do (possibly less), but a large proportion of the US population has been radicalised in this way. It's not so cut and dry as I'd like these situations to be. (I'd delete that kind of thing if I were moderating, though; that's an obvious thing to do.)

mc32 5y ago

There was an activist professor at a university in Colorado [mr Churchill, I believe] who used to say some foul things about some people --but said it in sympathy to native Americans. He said the US deserved 9-11 and so on. This professor was protected by the university in spite of calls to have him fired because they said the university needs diverse voices, even if they are violent and they would protect his 1A rights... Things have changed...

chris11 5y ago
I don't remember it that way. He did say the US deserved 9-11, and called people who worked in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns". But his essay was kind of ignored until 2005. Then CU Boulder investigated him for academic misconduct and fired him. The committee concluded it wasn't serious enough to fire him, and he later successfully sued the university for firing him. Media was reporting on his firing as having major free speech implications. Academic misconduct should be punished. But to me it looks like one of the major motivations for his firing was his extremely offensive comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Activism_on_Native_American_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Activism_on_Nat...
baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> Things have changed... Let me get this straight: someone who expressed hateful left-leaning political opinions was _not_ fired, and then later someone who expressed hateful right-leaning political opinions _was_ fired? What changed, exactly?
- mc32 5y ago
  I think there was more willingness to defend these kinds opinions on principle based on the 1A and, importantly, defending someone on principle wasn't conflated with supporting that PoV. But now that is no longer the case. Now people claim that there are exceptions and also that while the 1A exists, it does not protect individuals from repercussions (job loss) even if state jobs. I think that is a significant shift (even if yes, we do see a free pass for the likes of Sarah Jeong[1] for example. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534