• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should college professors be fired for expressing their views outside the classroom?

Incorrect. It established what is now known as the Pickering test for courts to balance the interests of the government as an employer with the first amendment rights of its employees. The government can fire employees for speech.
The Pickering test is what is used to determine free speech.

Pickering established more specific free speech guidelines protecting teachers. The poster was correct, you get partial credit.
 
For false speech. No one here has said otherwise.
No, that was just specific to the Pickering case in which the board alleged the speech was libelous. There are plenty of other cases for other scenarios. For example, SCOTUS upheld the right of the government to fire employees on the basis of speech made in their capacity as such in Garcetti v. Ceballos.

 
Thank you.

But I'm not going to plow through this multi-page pdf in hopes of finding the author and the context of the sentence you cited.

So, what page, and who wrote it?
D you know you may be quoting Justice White - who DISSENTED from the majority's opinion?
 
No, that was just specific to the Pickering case in which the board alleged the speech was libelous. There are plenty of other cases for other scenarios. For example, SCOTUS upheld the right of the government to fire employees on the basis of speech made in their capacity as such in Garcetti v. Ceballos.


Do you agree that professors should be fired for expressing beliefs the government does not approve of?
 
Do you agree that professors should be fired for expressing beliefs the government does not approve of?
Like SCOTUS, I think it depends. If we’re talking about employees who spend all of their time participating in unlawful, discriminatory, and violent “protest” in their capacity as employees instead of doing their job then, yes.
 
Bloviating. he has no power.

To the initial question though, thats actually a good one. What if the professor is spewing racist NeoNazi crap? What if the professor is pro Isil or Pro-NAMBLA? Even worse, what if the professor avows the utter insanity that cats are superior to dogs?

I'm not one to often offer up views of a political nature, but I have a rather sure point of view that you did not mean any cat or dog that had become immersed in human politics, so I am safe posting here.

I am asking for some clarification as to the category of feline you view as being inferior to the canine types around the planet?

Example One: Take tiger vs. chihuahua? Of course, in an enclosed area, like your home.

Example Two: A Russian Blue vs. Doberman. Again, in an enclosed space. Oh yes, and meeting for the first time.

(Russian Blue choice because one of them used to own my wife and I.)


Anyway, in Example One, I fear the feline might have an advantage.

I will admit, though, I had a dog (very, very big) --- he saved our lives once when I made an astoundingly stupid mistake with a candle arrangement and a fire broke out while we were asleep. By the way, that dog was so big that the first time we took him to the U.S. the customs people thought he was some sort of wolf and it was so cute to see all the people, including extra customs officials, standing around the cage looking at our dog. He was a mix of German Shepherd and Tosa. But we had good papers to prove he was just a house pet.
 
I'm not one to often offer up views of a political nature, but I have a rather sure point of view that you did not mean any cat or dog that had become immersed in human politics, so I am safe posting here.

I am asking for some clarification as to the category of feline you view as being inferior to the canine types around the planet?

Example One: Take tiger vs. chihuahua? Of course, in an enclosed area, like your home.

Example Two: A Russian Blue vs. Doberman. Again, in an enclosed space. Oh yes, and meeting for the first time.

(Russian Blue choice because one of them used to own my wife and I.)

Anyway, in Example One, I fear the feline might have an advantage.

I will admit, though, I had a dog (very, very big) --- he saved our lives once when I made an astoundingly stupid mistake with a candle arrangement and a fire broke out while we were asleep. By the way, that dog was so big that the first time we took him to the U.S. the customs people thought he was some sort of wolf and it was so cute to see all the people, including extra customs officials, standing around the cage looking at our dog. He was a mix of German Shepherd and Tosa. But we had good papers to prove he was just a house pet.
Environmentally speaking, dogs are superior because they don't run around killing wildlife. Having said that, I loved my killer cat no end.



And if you keep your cat locked up in the house that counts as abuse in my book.
 
Like SCOTUS, I think it depends. If we’re talking about employees who spend all of their time participating in unlawful, discriminatory, and violent “protest” in their capacity as employees instead of doing their job then, yes.

This is entirely subjective. You're really dancing tonight.

Just can't bring yourself to say yes, even after defending it for 2 plus pages?

You should check that out.
 
This depends on the situation:

And if you keep your cat locked up in the house that counts as abuse in my book.

We knew we would be moving to the ROK when we received first the Russian Blue and then our second kitty. Both being kitties when we got them and as such keeping them in the house was not bad for their cat outlook on life. AND I knew that in Korea a cat should never be allowed to run around when you are stationed at a post/base near a relatively small village. Open air fish markets are a magnet for a free-running cat and then poison by the market owner finishes the cat.
 
No, I’m pointing out the fact that the government has just as much latitude in regulating off-the-clock speech as a condition of employment that corporations do.
What does that mean?
 
This is entirely subjective. You're really dancing tonight.

Just can't bring yourself to say yes, even after defending it for 2 plus pages?

You should check that out.
He frequently does that. You'll also note, that he will gradually slip in things like this:
If we’re talking about employees who spend all of their time participating in unlawful, discriminatory, and violent “protest” in their capacity as employees instead of doing their job then, yes.
Which, of course, nobody said.
 
If they are promoting violence or anti-Americanism, then yes. They should be fired.
 
A professor can't spew NeoNazi crap but the TX leg can implement a Nazi policy?
Yep. One signs the other's paychecks...

Those of us who know cats are superior to dogs also know we cannot get away with saying this in public.
The Poodie Princess says this is wise.
Screenshot 2023-08-04 074329.webp

And now a strange counterpoint (not to Pyrite, the incident).
Berkeley law professors investigated for violations after throwing party crashers out of their home.
Recently, however, Chemerinsky and his wife, Catherine Fisk, also a UC Berkeley law professor, have become the target of an extraordinarily vitriolic and antisemitic campaign from some pro-Palestinian activists on campus and at the law school. Their offense? Not that Chemerinsky is pro-Netanyahu or that he’s spoken out in defense of the IDF’s actions on Gaza—he isn’t and he hasn’t, and in fact he told me this week that he abhors what Israel is doing in Gaza and opposes the blockade of food into the territory. But he has made statements in the past saying that he supports Israel’s right to exist. Activists have also called him out for not signing on to a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions demand, even though this is entirely outside his bailiwick: As dean of the law school, he has zero institutional say as to whether UC Berkeley, or the UC system more generally, divests from Israel.

Chemerinsky and Fisk have long opened up their home and their garden to host law school students at an annual dinner. This year, because the university was still playing catch-up after the pandemic years made such gatherings impossible, they agreed to host three dinners in quick succession for multiple years of students.

In early April, as the dinners were nearing, activists with a group called Berkeley Law for Palestine put up posters at the law school that showed a vicious caricature of Chemerinsky holding up a bloodied knife and fork. Chemerinsky also interpreted the image as showing his lips limned with blood. The caption, all caps, read, “NO DINNER WITH ZIONIST CHEM WHILE GAZA STARVES!” It would not have been out of place in Der Stürmer during the heyday of the Third Reich.

Chemerinsky has made a conscious effort to not make public statements on Israel and Gaza over the past six months, preferring, he told me, to focus instead on his areas of specialty, which mainly concern US constitutional law. Given this, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that he was targeted with this ancient blood-libel imagery not because of his position on Israel, which he has kept largely private, but because he happened to be the highest-profile Jew in the neighborhood.

Current Issue​

May 2024 Issue
Days later, the activists disrupted the dinner by bringing in their own microphone and amplifier, and attempting to seize control of the gathering. When Chemerinsky, who is in his 70s, asked them to stop, to respect the fact that they were guests in his house, and to leave if they weren’t willing to join the dinner, they refused. When Fisk tried to grab the microphone away from the woman who was speaking, the student refused to cede the microphone. As the two women tussled for control, Chemerinsky continued to plead for the protesters to desist.

Finally, the group of 10 or so students left—but not before accusing Fisk of assault. Subsequently, they have called for the university to fire both Chemerinsky and Fisk and demanded that the police open an investigation. In the days since the events, each has been bombarded with grotesque hate mail. Fisk, Chemerinsky told me, has received messages like “you should die, ****ing ****.” Protesters have surrounded their house, banging drums and trying to disrupt their gatherings.
 
What does that mean?
I think the poster is saying private employees can fire you for speech outside of business in many states (absent employee contract of course), and is equating a public employer as having the same rights.
 
If they are promoting violence or anti-Americanism, then yes. They should be fired.

Isn't anti-Americanism a rather subjective criteria?
 
Colleges rely on the freedom of expression to fulfill their mission of student exposure to a wide variety of ideas. This is, of course, why politicians should not be involved in education in a democracy, and why they are essential to education in dictatorships.

Beyond that, businesses generally don't embrace such a mission.
 
Back
Top Bottom