again you bring up something irrelevant. milo didn't get to speak. his speech was canceled or do you not remember that?
you probably didn't even know.
so please tell us where he got to speak since it was canceled?
I see you don't know what you are talking about as usual and bring up irrelevant material because you can't defend what this professor did.
she was over the top and incorrect. you could at least be someone honest about it.
never said Otto deserved what he got from his bad choice
however I did say the bigger majority of what the professor stated in the article is true
white American (I'm white) youth do have a certain level of arrogance that can lead to some feeling they are invincible
possibly Otto had some of that within himself; dunno ...........
I think grading standards, at least in most college classes, are fairly objective. If a student believes a professor arbitrarily and unfairly gave his work too low a grade, means to appeal the grade are usually available. No professor wants to be overruled in a case like that, and the desire to avoid that tends to prevent too much subjectivity in grading.
That's a key here: She was/is a contract employee. Once the contract expires she is no longer employed by them AT ALL. They are both free of each other. There is no tenure, there is no obligation to issue another contract.
I understand that argument. But I doubt it will be that simple if she files a First Amendment suit against the university. It made clear that the reason it was not renewing her contract was its disapproval of an opinion she expressed. Would Delaware also have been free, if the timing had been a little different, to decline to renew her contract because it she had publicly said that she voted for President Trump? What if it had declined to renew this adjunct professor's contract because it disapproved of a statement she had made, after her earlier contract had expired, that she believed homosexual marriage is immoral?
It is as if Delaware were refusing to hire her for the first time, and citing as its reason its disapproval of a view she had expressed publicly. If a person is otherwise qualified, and his expression of a view the state disapproves of is its sole basis for not hiring him, is the state not abridging his freedom of speech? We are no longer in the days of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford.
If he didn't get to speak, we never would have heard his whining.
You are confusing freedom to speak with "freedom" to force a university to give you a platform.
We are in the days of "If I dont like the ideas you have floating around in your head then you need to suffer for your sins".
We are in a new dark age.
I understand that argument. But I doubt it will be that simple if she files a First Amendment suit against the university. It made clear that the reason it was not renewing her contract was its disapproval of an opinion she expressed. Would Delaware also have been free, if the timing had been a little different, to decline to renew her contract because it she had publicly said that she voted for President Trump? What if it had declined to renew this adjunct professor's contract because it disapproved of a statement she had made, after her earlier contract had expired, that she believed homosexual marriage is immoral?
It is as if Delaware were refusing to hire her for the first time, and citing as its reason its disapproval of a view she had expressed publicly. If a person is otherwise qualified, and his expression of a view the state disapproves of is its sole basis for not hiring him, is the state not abridging his freedom of speech? We are no longer in the days of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford.
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.This seems to be yet another case of a state punishing a person for expressing an opinion away from campus. The freedom of speech has applied against states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1920's. Delaware may well have violated this woman's freedom of speech, because it seems to have retaliated against her based solely on the content of her speech. I think what she said is vile, but what I or anyone else thinks of it is irrelevant to her right to say it.
thanks for proving that you can't be honest yet again.
the fact is this case has nothing to do with free speech.
She said something that was over the top and in fact racist.
I thought you didn't like people being racist?
she was fired for the comments that she made.
it is about time these nut job professors started getting held responsible for their stupidity.
just like any other job.
Well, most people would recognize that the NK regime is to blame. Also, you and the prof are assuming that Otto did not consider the odds of something terrible happening. He may have very well considered it in a rational way as far as you or I know.Otto took his own life for granted, visited a place that 99 % of Americans would never visit, and Otto paid for his bad decision with his life.
now, who is to blame for that? Otto is .......
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
If the employer had been a private person, there would be no question of its right to decline to re-hire her. The First Amendment does not restrict what private persons may do. But here, the state of Delaware punished her, by depriving her of the job she had held with it, because it disapproved of something she had said publicly after her contract had expired. I strongly support a private person's right to contract--or decline to contract--with anyone he pleases. When the state is one of the contracting parties, though, I doubt it can use its authority to contract for services to decline to hire a professor simply because she had expressed a view--off campus--that certain state officials dislike.
I don't buy the argument that her anti-white comments show she is unfit to teach at that university. By that standard, Delaware would be justified in declining to hire a professor who during the presidential campaign had written on a social media site, using Mrs. Clinton's phrase, that Mr. Trump's supporters belonged in a basket of deplorables. After all, the student body must contain some Trump supporters, and knowing this professor's animosity toward them, how could it any longer trust her not to discriminate against these students?
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Does it make a difference to you, to learn that UD is a privately governed school?
I did not make the argument that her bigotry makes her unfit to teach. I think thats an issue best left to be decided by the dean, the students, parents, and alumni donors.
what she conveyed may have been in poor taste but the message wasn't far off base
the bulk of her statement is spot on; a very telling commentary on the arrogance of American youth & brainless American culture
Otto made a really ****ty choice to visit a place that most folks would be smart enough to avoid
that was Otto's bad & sadly he paid the ultimate price for his folly .........
No one "deserves" what happened to him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?