Campus Free Speech

UVA Prof 'Agrees' to Leave of Absence After Criticizing Black Lives Matter

Did the university force him?

|

UVA
Queerbubbles / Wikimedia Commons

Did the University of Virginia force an engineering and business professor to take a leave of absence because he made a negative comment about Black Lives Matter? It certainly looks like it.

Last week, Doug Muir wrote on Facebook, "Black lives matter is the biggest racist organization since the clan. Are you kidding me? Disgusting!!!"

I don't agree with this comment—Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality, even if I disagree with some of their more extreme tactics and views about wealth redistribution. Obviously, BLM is not a domestic terrorist organization on par with the Klu Klux Klan.

But if Muir thinks so, that's his right. The proper response is to criticize him, not censor him.

Unfortunately, UVA has seemingly opted for the latter approach. In a statement, university administrators explained that Muir has "agreed to take leave":

While free speech and open discussion are fundamental principles of our nation and the University, Mr. Muir's comment was entirely inappropriate. UVA Engineering does not condone actions that undermine our values, dedication to diversity and educational mission. Our faculty and staff are responsible for upholding our values and demonstrating them to students and the community. Mr. Muir has agreed to take leave and is preparing his own statement to the community.

Well, was Muir given a choice? It sounds like the university made him take a leave of absence as punishment for speaking his mind about BLM.

It's important for a university to play host to a wide range of views about important public policy topics. No one should be punished for saying something politically incorrect about BLM.

I reached out to the university for comment. A spokesperson did not immediately respond.

NEXT: More Lives Sabotaged by National Faux-Sex-Trafficking Witch-Hunt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. You’re a racist for saying their racist. La Raza literally means “The Race” an is inherently a racial supremacy group, yet we’re not allowed to criticize it.

      1. “for saying **they’re** racist.”
        damnit

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Vist this web and go to Tech tab for more info… http://www.Trends88.Com

      2. Half Spanish and half Amerindian is not a race.

        1. Tell them that. The Spanish were far more brutal towards the Amerindians than Americans eventually were.

          1. Is this so? Again, I’m really wondering and don’t have an answer in mind.

            If they were worse, why are there so many more people descended from natives in Latin America than there are in Anglo-North America?

            1. Because it was too cold in most of North America to have a larger population. All of the big cultural centers back in the 1500s were in Central and South America.

              1. At the time of the Spanish conquest, central Mexico likely had a population roughly the same size as that of Europe.

                1. I’ve heard things about Catholics being more open to inter-marriage with the natives as well. Not sure how much to believe them. But it’s an interesting idea. Seems like the French in North America were more likely to “go native” than Protestant Brits as well.

        2. Apparently the origin of “La Raza” is “La Raza Cosmica”, which refers to the mix of races that make up Hispanic people. Direct literal translation of “la raza” isn’t necessarily appropriate.

          1. Cesar Chavez himself was deeply opposed to the organization because of its inherent racial connotations that were a step backwards.

            1. I don’t know too much about La Raza. Just commenting on the name. I believe it is often used with more of a connotation of “the people”.

              1. It is an inherently racist organization. One of their slogans is “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us”, and they call for the Reconquesta of large parts of the American southwest. Which is ridiculous, because, as pointed out above, most of the American southwest was so sparsely populated as to be nearly empty, and the people who were here were certainly not the ancestors of any of the Mexican peoples.

                1. WEEEELLLLLL, Not exactly true.

                  Large swatch of Texas AZ and NM were treatied several times back and forth with Spain and Mexico. There is even a story of a family that chose Mexico after the War and so they moved all their crap and farm etc. to the other side of the river (families were given a choice and if it was to switch sides the other side would provide land). 4 years later they were back in the US due to another treaty.

              2. Even so, how is that not racist?

    2. Is it actually an organization at all? My impression is that it is simply a slogan that has become popular with certain people and local groups, but that there is no central leadership or structure forming an organized group called Black Lives Matter. Am I right or wrong?

      1. It’s kind of like the “Tea Party”. Started as de-centralized groups, then the “professional activists” took the name over.

  1. Yet it is Trump and conservatives (which Trump is not) we’re supposed to be fearing.

  2. Has anyone ever been made to “leave” for excessively accusing non-protected/non-“historically disavantaged” groups of racism/sexism/etc.?

    1. It’s not uncommon for professors to say genocidal things about ‘non-protected’ groups and not be sanctioned.

      Remember what Mao said: anything done to a member of an oppressor class is by definition self defense.

  3. “Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality”

    No, it isn’t. It’s taking the focus off of police brutality and making it all about race.

    1. Y’all let Robby’s trolling get you every damn time.

    2. Yep. The day Keith Lamont Scott was killed, 5 white men were killed by police.

      1. Didn’t the cops initially approach him because they thought they saw him rolling a joint in his car?

        Someone let me know when BLM are out protesting against the drug war. I won’t hold my breath.

        1. A lot of affirmative action jobs are tied up in the drug war, so don’t count on it.

  4. Obviously, BLM is not a domestic terrorist organization on par with the Klu Klux Klan.

    Unless there was more to his comment, he doesn’t seem to have made that claim.

    1. Well caught. He said they were the most racist organization since the Klan, not the biggest domestic terrorist group since the Klan.

      Robby must be mad ripped, what with constantly hauling those goalposts around.

  5. “Black lives matter is the biggest racist organization since the clan. Are you kidding me? Disgusting!!!”

    Which class teaches you STEM nerds about extra exclamation points?

    1. This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to printed outrage.

    2. He learned that at Trump University.

      1. Hey don’t knock it. His degree has way more exclamation points than yours ever will.

        1. It’s true. I’m so embarrassed.

            1. You forgot a couple of exclamation points.

              Loser!!!

  6. Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality,

    Ends do not justify the means.

    Obviously, BLM is not a domestic terrorist organization on par with the Klu Klux Klan.

    Not stipulated.

    Quite the opposite seems obvious to me. BLM is an organization which judges people, their characters and their value as humans based on their race. Their rhetoric is not merely racist; it celebrates and wallows in their racism. Their actions are meant to other and diminish anyone not of the “good” race, and if they have not yet become as violent as a decades-long historical group in their heyday, well, it’s a bit much to trust it to their good behavior. They don’t appear to have any.

    The difference appears to be merely one of scale, rather than benevolent intent.

    1. I entirely agree.

      Or I guess, this being the internet, I should say “^^^THISSS”

    2. Yup.

      How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows.

      From here.

      Notice they don’t mention the other 11 million or so “undocumented immigrants”…

  7. I’ve been instructed by SJWs in the Reason commentariat that to criticize any civil rights organization or rape advocacy agency is wrong so obviously this article is written by a fascist insect. No means no, Mr. Clinton.

      1. So now someone who is mentally handicapped is considered a victim?

        1. A case could be made, Hyperion.

          If you take a useful idiot and train him to accept many things without critically thinking about them and all of those things are both destructive to himself and others, have you not done him harm? When the church controlled much of the (known) world in Europe, taught its adherents to hate themselves and their motivations as sins, and encouraged them in the practice of self-flagellation, who was the most in the wrong: the fools, or those taking advantage of them?

        2. Maybe he was dropped on his head as a baby.

    1. Hey, AmSoc, did you hear that there’s a socialist paradise down in South America? It’s called Venezuela. Why aren’t you there yet supporting your comrades?

      1. Why would I move from one disfunctional state to another disfunctional state? If I’m going to move anywhere, I’d go to where things actually work– like in Denmark.

        1. You’re a fan of low corporate income taxes, huh? That’s surprising.

          1. Although it’s not surprising at all that you’d be into Janteloven. Heaven forbid anybody should do better than anybody else at anything.

        2. my insulin is made in Denmark. please, stay the fuck out of Denmark.

    2. Um, is there a point in there somewhere?

      1. On top of his head.

        1. Yes, but it’s inverted.Birds try to bathe on him when it rains.

  8. But does the author agree with the comment the professor made?

  9. While he has time off the Professor can find out who were the terrorists who attacked the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity during the University of Virginia fake rape story. As far as I have seen none of the attackers have been charged

    1. I think this tenured professorship thing is the way to go. Cops have to actually kill someone to get a paid vacation like that, and all this guy had to do was tweet something. What a gig.

  10. What’s #BLM’s beef with the comment… that they’re actually bigger than the Klan?

    1. Perhaps it’s a John Lennon moment and BLM just has that much reverence for the KKK.

    2. He said *CLAN*

      As in “Wu Tang”

  11. He was an adjunct with a successful career outside UVa, so this is mostly a loss to the university. And his adjunct status does not in any case make the university’s actions less deplorable, and Reason is right to shame UVa in response. But let this be a teachable moment for all those hardcore libertarians who are against tenure in universities. A tenured professor making a similar remark (or perhaps a more civilized argument against the prevailing orthodoxy) might be publicly ostracized or lose some endowed junket, but they would never lose their academic position. Remember Larry Summers? If we want people in academia to be able to speak their mind, we *must* have tenure. The conversation is not too exciting even as it stands, but this incident tells us how many dissenting voices would be allowed to remain without that protection.

    1. Do a lot of libertarians oppose tenure for professors?

      1. Having seen the tenure process up close, I certainly do. Private institutions may, of course, do as they please.

  12. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

    I do not agree with this comment

    1. Nietzsche say that?

  13. ?Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality white people being racist meanies,

  14. No one should be punished for saying something politically incorrect about BLM.

    “”Donald Trump has rendered “political correctness” a meaningless term for describing anything“”

    Make up your mind, dude.

  15. Does Black Lives Matter (not to be confused with the Bureau of Land Management) have a tactician to rival the wizardry of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

    I think not.

    1. (whips out racist-calculator, plugs in “Wizard”…. gets “probably racist”….. plugs in “Nathan Bedford…” and it explodes)

  16. While free speech and open discussion are fundamental principles of our nation and the University, Mr. Muir’s comment was entirely inappropriate.

    “Freedom be damned.”

  17. Having seen the tenure process up close

    Thankfully, you refrain from fully exposing those depravities in your fanciful vignettes.

  18. The professor didn’t say BLM were terrorists. Strange turn there.

  19. “Black Lives Matter is bringing much-needed attention to important issues like police brutality, even if I disagree with some of their more extreme tactics and views about wealth redistribution.”

    And the Ku Klux Klan brought much-needed attention to the separation of Church and State.

  20. Terrorists are, like, all explody and junk. BLM are more like Brown Shirts.

  21. What does “take leave” mean, as opposed “take a leave of absence”?

  22. While free speech is fundamental to our freedom, we just allow it. Sorry.

    1. Can’t grrrrrr

  23. Obviously this engineering professor is not Glenn Reynolds (UTenn law prof who would not yield).

  24. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.