Yeah I agree almost entirely, I think the next point of contention people would need to hash out is how heavy should the burden of proof be that employers shoul

Yeah I agree almost entirely, I think the next point of contention people would need to hash out is how heavy should the burden of proof be that employers should strive for. I'd hope that there was some formal process her employer undertook in order to meet their own bar, wherever that was set, rather than letting an external party set the narrative entirely. That aside, I think your initial comment may have been a tad dismissive of the idea that such an investigation could have taken place, especially considering she was fired a year after the controversy started. > I don’t agree with her statement, but academia is poisoning free speech under the guise of righteousness.