7 ms·
- Professor says "Yes, sir" to student during a class. - Student asks them to use different pronouns, professor refuses - student files formal complaint with th
by _aavaa_ 5y ago
- Professor says "Yes, sir" to student during a class.
- Student asks them to use different pronouns, professor refuses
- student files formal complaint with the school and school runs formal investigation
- "The university determined that Meriwether created a "hostile environment" for the unnamed student, eventually placing a written warning in his personnel file and threatening "further corrective actions," according to ADF.
- US Court of Appeals rules in favor of professor, "The court ruled that university officials violated the professor's free speech rights when they disciplined him."
- University says that they "adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion"
The university saying they did not deprive him of his free speech rights seems pretty false given the contents of the article.
- zozbot234 5y ago"Sir" is a style or manner of address, not a pronoun.
- threatofrain 5y agoHow far should free speech extend while you're on the job and talking to the customers of your employer?
- throw_m239339 5y ago> How far should free speech extend while you're on the job and talking to the customers of your employer? Students aren't customers. Otherwise professors would only issue good grades. Second if professors are deemed "employees" then employees have rights.
- deadbolt 5y agoExactly what right as an employee do you have which allows you to create a hostile environment for customers?
- throw_m239339 5y ago> Exactly what right as an employee do you have to create a hostile environment for customers? What right does the employer has to violate my religious rights? And students aren't customers.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deadbolt 5y agoWhich religion governs pronoun usage?
- Bud 5y agoThere is no "religious right" to be an abusive asshole. Further, there is no religion whose tenets require you to be abusive to trans people, or which even suggest such behavior.
- chipotle_coyote 5y agoI know that's the same argument the professor was making, essentially, but forget the specific details of this case for the moment and look at it in the abstract. You -- and he -- are essentially arguing that the legal right to religious freedom carries an ancillary right to be actively insulting to others who are required to interact with you in entirely non-religious contexts. That strikes me as a hell of a reach. If you genuinely feel that your religion obligates you to be an asshole to people who you believe are violating its tenets, then maybe the onus should be on you to not choose a career that may put you in regular contact with those people.
- aww_dang 5y agoIf everything is hostile to your sensitivities, at what point are businesses, customers or polite people no longer obligated to accommodate you?
- _aavaa_ 5y agoI don't know. And further, I don't know how far US judges have extended it. Based on the article, the actions taken against him are a direct responce to his speech and his, stated, religions beliefs. And given that the courts sided with him, I am led to believe that this incident is on the "infringed free speech" side of the spectrum.
- rhino369 5y agoA lot farther when your employer is the government--like it was here.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoOne of the peculiarities of the situation is that because so many Universities receive federal funding, they wind up being held accountable as if they were some other government institution. I suspect if this had happened at a totally private college taking in no federal money the case would have been decided differently.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y agoI have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I would guess that the number of private colleges _not_ taking federal money in one form or another is microscopic, if any even exist at all. Private institutions get on the hook for this kind of stuff all the time just for taking state/federal assistance for their school lunch program.
- eesmith 5y ago> Among the other schools that don’t participate in Title IV financial-aid programs are Grove City College in Pennsylvania; Christendom College in Virginia; Pensacola Christian College in Florida; Patrick Henry College in Virginia; and tiny Wyoming Catholic College and Gutenberg College in Oregon, which have 150 and 22 students, respectively. At least one Orthodox Jewish institution, Yeshiva Toras Chaim Talmudic Seminary of Denver, also opts out of Title IV, -- https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-co...
- joshcryer 5y ago
- GeekyBear 5y agoA college that takes Federal funds is subject to harsher scrutiny. >Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment because of their religious beliefs in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. Additionally, Title VII requires federal agencies to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs or practices of employees or applicants unless doing so would impose an undue hardship upon the agency. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/religious-discrimination-accommodation https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/civil-rights-center/inter...
- deadbolt 5y agoCan someone please tell me what religion has anything to do with this? No religion I'm aware of forbids you from using someone's preferred pronouns.
- eesmith 5y agoReligion has something to do with this because, quoting the article: > According to ADF, the university ruled that Meriwether should use the student's correct pronouns — which Meriwether argued spoke "contrary to his religious convictions and philosophical beliefs."
- deadbolt 5y agoSo can I argue that it's my religious belief that I need to call everyone 'jackass'? I would think there would need to be actual religious grounds for the claim, which I don't believe there are. No religion I'm aware of says you can't address someone by the pronouns for their preferred gender identity. Can you really just say "religion!" and then do whatever you want?
- eesmith 5y agoHere is the claim, quoting https://adfmedia.org/press-release/court-consider-whether-ohio-university-violated-professors-first-amendment-rights https://adfmedia.org/press-release/court-consider-whether-oh... (linked to from this article): > Although the philosophy professor offered to use the student’s preferred first or last name, and university officials initially agreed that was an acceptable compromise, officials then changed course and forced Dr. Meriwether either to speak what he believed to be untrue or to remain silent, all contrary to his own Christian convictions and philosophical beliefs. The argument appears to be that Meriwether does not believe the student's preferred pronoun is correct, and using it would therefore be a falsehood which violates his Christian belief.
- hikik0m0ri 5y ago1. It's different for professors there is legal precedent that their speech is protected while teaching. 2. If a school accepts public funds it capitulates it's private ownership 3. the professor tried to compromise multiple times. I am usually on the side of the student in these situations. Although I'm not religious I can understand how it's abusive to both sides, but only one side tried to compromise.
- pstuart 5y agohmmm. definitely a dick move but not sure about "hostile" (definitely passive aggressive). It's a base level of respect to address people as the ask to be addressed. The student was within reason to complain but it never should have gone past a direct conversation w/ admin on standards of behavior.
- throw_m239339 5y ago> It's a base level of respect to address people as the ask to be addressed. The student was within reason to complain but it never should have gone past a direct conversation w/ admin on standards of behavior. Depends. If you ask me to use "Allah" as your pronoun, as an hypothetical Muslim, it could violate my religious rights and I might not want to do it. The whole made up pronouns thing has absolutely nothing to do with correct English.
- pstuart 5y agoAppropriate Silicon Valley clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obagb7RQeYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obagb7RQeYo > whole made up pronouns thing has absolutely nothing to do with correct English she/he are not made up, and language is constantly changing based on what's being spoken by the population. Considering that there's a lot of hate being fomented against trans people, I'm assuming the professor was passive aggressively saying "fuck you" to that person's stated identity.
- throw_m239339 5y ago> Considering that there's a lot of hate being fomented against trans people, I'm assuming the professor was passive aggressively saying "fuck you" to that person's stated identity. A simple solution would be to eliminate all gendered pronouns in English and stick to "they/them" for everybody. Made up pronouns are an absurd trend.
- Bud 5y ago
- barney54 5y agoBeing able to say things that others disapprove of is the essence of free speech. Or, as Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Bud 5y agoThat right stops once the speech becomes abusive. Professors don't get to abuse students. For instance, a professor could make sexual comments about a student. That, too, by your definition, would be "free speech", and thus allowable. In other words, you're completely off-base here and need to re-assess your argument.
- DiggyJohnson 5y agoIt’s hard for me to understand this perspective. Don’t you see how this would create blind spots in academic discourse? > Abusive Is this the right word?
- anm89 5y agoThis is the key part. It's a wiggle word. It's totally subjective. Any person can call any thing "abusive". So giving this concession 100% nullifies free speech. This is why the first amendment doesn't include things like "unless it is abusive". It is specifically meant to protect the cases which someone may identify as "abusive"
- anm89 5y agoThe whole point of free speech is to protect belligerent, disrespectful, and abusive speech (with certain limitations such as threats of violence). We don't need a constitutional protection of our right to compliment each others outfits. No body tries to limit any one elses speech when they agree with it. The reason we put that in our constitution was to ensure free speech in times when it does offend people. Good thing the courts get this and made the right ruling.