Ken WhiteA Banal First Amendment Fact Pattern At Wayne State
https://popehat.substack.com/p/wayne-state-professor-steven-shaviro
https://popehat.substack.com/p/wayne-state-professor-steven-shaviro
This splainer is fairly far along the "grumpy" axis
Also: when a professor gets suspended for saying something, and the university President says the statement is outside First Amendment protection, I think a reasonable and responsible journalist/publication would assess that claim and perhaps ask someone whether it's right and then print the answer.
BruceAlso (reading only this post), first amendment protections do not protect against non-governmental retribution. It would be employment laws and regulations that would cover the required reasons for dismissal.
@bruce_korb Incorrect. Government school. Employment consequences governed by First Amendment test -- just a slightly different test. See second update.
I'm sure you're correct, "but" I'd think that applying consequences to someone deliberately creating dissension and discord* wouldn't be first amendment relevant. He said what he said for shock value. I'll go back to my peanut gallery now. ;)
* (I meant to use the word, "disruption." School administrators cannot allow disruptive people to disrupt the campus.)
Lizard@bruce_korb @Popehat Any speech that goes against the mood of the moment can be claimed to be 'deliberately creating dissension and disruption'. This is as true of wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam war as it is of saying wrongthinkers should be assassinated. How does one CHANGE the current "everyone agrees..." thinking without saying, "No, I disagree."? And how will that not, tautologically, be disruptive?