5 ms·
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
by 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 agoHer lawsuit is against the Neiman Lab for defamation, not her employer for wrongful termination.
- fennecfoxen 5y agoThat'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 agoOf 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 agoShe 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 agoIf 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.
- Natsu 5y agoIf discussion here is anything to go by, that one comment is what everyone hates. I haven't seen even an allegation that the other comments were offensive in the same way yet. Even the article here makes it the centerpiece of their criticism. And it's the one comment she says she didn't make. I wonder if her lawyer has seen this story? Many of the comments here could be helpful in showing damages.
- carols10cents 5y agoIf it wasn't legal, why wouldn't she be suing on those grounds instead?