College

Conservative Snowflakes Get Protesting Nebraska Instructor Booted From Her Teaching Job

Will colleges sanction every educator with a provocative opinion?

|

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has told a graduate English instructor who picketed a conservative student group, calling them neo-fascists, she will not be employed at the end of this coming spring semester.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent a letter to the school Dec. 8, asking for the reinstatement of Lawton, who was removed from her teaching position in September after she confronted members of Turning Point USA, who were recruiting prospective members in a public space on campus.

"I have been removed from the classroom since September 1," Courtney Lawton tells Reason in an email. "I am reassigned as a research assistant to the department and have been removed from the classroom for the rest of my contract. When my contract expires, the chancellor has publically announced that it will not be renewed."

Video taken by TPUSA member Kaitlyn Mullen at the time shows Lawton holding up a sign that said, "Just say NO! to Neo-Fascism." Lawton flipped off Mullen and began calling the students "neo-fascists" who hate public schools and DACA kids. A little while later, Lawton burst into the popular chant of lefty college students: "No KKK, no neo-fascist USA."

UNL said Lawton was relieved of her duties because she did not meet the "expectations for civility" the school has for its lecturers. FIRE, however, is arguing that Nebraska's speech policies are not specific enough for its professors, making the firing of Lawton unjustified.

"The First Amendment does not tolerate broad, unfettered discretion to penalize students or faculty for political speech that officials view as offensive, unprofessional or uncivil," FIRE's letter reads. "The need to narrowly tailor a university's policies as they apply to faculty members' speech is particularly critical when it concerns the speech of lecturers, who lack the formal protection offered under a tenure system."

Lawton's case drew the attention of state politicians who were pressured by conservative activists and citizens after a separate video shot earlier that day got thousands of retweets on social media.

This video shows a different faculty member telling TPUSA students they must go to the "free speech zone," with their "propaganda." As the university later explained, the school has no designated free speech zones, and TPUSA was within their rights to carry on with its recruitment.

The outraged began bombarding the university with emails. Some made threats. Others said they would refuse to send their children to UNL because of the issue. One emailer argued that Lawton should be let go because, "Since when do you allow UNL personnel to heckle and flip off young students (kids basically) … hardly a safe campus atmosphere for all."

Like the liberal "snowflakes" conservatives like to criticize, the emailers failed to distinguish between words and violence. At no point in her protest did Lawton ever make a threat, act in a violent manner, or do anything that could be misconstrued as such.

In an email to Reason, Lawton said she was given conflicting explanations for her removal from the classroom. During her first meeting with Executive Vice Chancellor Donde Plowman, Plowman told Lawton she was being removed "because of safety concerns for my students."

In a follow-up meeting with Plowman and Chancellor Ronnie Green, Lawton said she was told she could no longer teach because she would be "too disruptive to the campus."

Neither Green nor Plowman replied to an email seeking comment.

After the protest Lawton got threatening and harassing emails. The Nebraska Republican Party made open records requests for her professional emails with other faculty, searching for mentions of President Donald Trump, Nebraska's U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse (R) and other Republican politicians in the messages.

Mullen told the Lincoln Journal Star she didn't believe the organization's circulation of the video on social media was responsible for the threatening emails to Lawton. She argued, however, the school didn't go far enough in its discipline of her. "I hope UNL will set an example by removing her from campus so she can't do this to any other students," she said.

Interpret Lawton's protest in any way you like, but you cannot defend her punishment for non-violent protest. It is wrong and destructive to open discourse for schools to cave in to the demands of hate mailers who disagree with the controversial messages of every professor or teaching assistant on campus.

NEXT: Even Without the Rider That Protects Medical Marijuana, a Pot Crackdown Is Unlikely

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. “Lawton flipped off Mullen and began calling the students “neo-fascists” who hate public schools and DACA kids. A little while later, Lawton burst into the popular chant of lefty college students: “No KKK, no neo-fascist USA.””

    She was an instructor and she was calling students neo-fascists and was therefore fired for doing that. I’m not seeing how her getting fired is problematic. This is quite the stretch just so you can scream “both sides!”.

    1. Since when has keeping your employment regardless of your speech something that the ostensibly libertarian have been concerned about? The argument that is being made here is that it should be harder to fire a bureaucrat for their speech than it is to fire a private sector worker for their speech?

      That is a tremendously weird principle to hold. You probably shouldn’t complain about remarks made by police anymore if that is the perverted logic your looking to go with

      1. Since when has keeping your employment regardless of your speech something that the ostensibly libertarian have been concerned about?

        Relatively frequently. They make a distinction between a right to fire someone for speech and whether it was correct. Just like when Google fired that guy for the memo earlier this year. Reason took issue with that as well.

        To that extent they seem to also believe that Universities should be places for open-discourse and thus have even more extreme allowance for free speech.

        Some made threats.

        Awful

        Others said they would refuse to send their children to UNL because of the issue. One emailer argued that Lawton should be let go because, “Since when do you allow UNL personnel to heckle and flip off young students (kids basically) ? hardly a safe campus atmosphere for all.”

        Both completely valid complaints. No one has to send their kids there, and it is going against the safe space mentality to have professors doing that.

        1. “Relatively frequently. They make a distinction between a right to fire someone for speech and whether it was correct. Just like when Google fired that guy for the memo earlier this year. Reason took issue with that as well”

          That’s not what they said. Gillespie posted an article about it saying that it was a ‘blind spot’ in the ideology. He said Google was free to fire who they liked, but they did think it was a bad reason to fire him. That’s a different position than this woman shouldn’t be fired.

          1. but they did think it was a bad reason to fire him. That’s a different position than this woman shouldn’t be fired.

            I don’t believe someone saying X is bad, and you shouldn’t do X are particularly different. It’s well within the range of different writing styles for two different authors.

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

            2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

        2. Relatively frequently. They make a distinction between a right to fire someone for speech and whether it was correct. Just like when Google fired that guy for the memo earlier this year. Reason took issue with that as well.

          These aren’t comparable situations. The “Google guy” supported their key mission and was providing options to IMPROVE it.

          What, PRECISELY, was this lummox doing? Calling people she didn’t agree with neo-Nazis and making an absolute ass out of herself.

          One was a rather calm and informed opinion to improve what his own employer states is a problem. Does UNL think that conservatives are neo-fascists and member of the KKK? You’re not free to make an ass out of yourself at your place of work. Sorry. Your employer should have the right to dismiss you for it.

          1. Exactly

          2. What, PRECISELY, was this lummox doing? Calling people she didn’t agree with neo-Nazis and making an absolute ass out of herself.

            So then it’s not a free speech issue at all in your mind, not this, and not with the Google guy? It’s just agree or disagree with what was said?

            1. “So then it’s not a free speech issue at all in your mind”

              There is no such thing as free speech in the work place. It never was a free speech issue. That’s just Reason’s spin, like when they say “school choice” when they mean funding for charter schools.

              1. It was not the workplace. The bullshit never ends for both fascists and socialists

            2. So then it’s not a free speech issue at all in your mind, not this, and not with the Google guy? It’s just agree or disagree with what was said?

              When your “Free speech” effectively makes you incapable of doing your job due to legitimate concerns about your bias towards people who do not agree with you (you know, the whole calling people KKK and all because you do not agree with them does not make one confident in an ability to, say, grade an essay if the content doesn’t agree with your beliefs), then no. It is “our employee cannot do the job that she was contracted to do any longer after this”. It’d be like being fired from a high-level intel job because you lost your security clearance.

              1. It’s not a free speech issue for private employers.
                Learn the Constitution.

              2. It’s not a free speech issue for private employers.
                Learn the Constitution.

              3. It’s not a free speech issue for private employers.
                Learn the Constitution.

        3. Google is private and UNL is government.

          1. Bingo, nicmart!
            The Politically Correct right is throwing another hissy fit/

          2. Verizon is private too. OOPS, there goes “Net Neutrality!”

        4. The difference being that memo guy insulted no one in his memo and it was posted to a message board that the company had ostensibly set up for discussions involving their workplace programs.

      2. The problem for FIRE’s lawsuit is that she was not actually fired. She was reassigned and her contract will not be renewed. Had she actually been fired then it might have been problematic given that it’s a public university. She wasn’t, and so it’s not.

    2. This wasn’t a ‘Professor’ this was a grad student that worked for the school on a contractual basis, without tenure. Also, it seems to me that the faculty shouldn’t be engaging in ‘protest’ at all. That seems to be the more or less consistent editorial spin of Reason in the past, so why change that now? Oh, right, it’s those deplorables again.

      1. Tenure protectionism is weird.

        1. I honestly agree, but at the same time it exists explicitly as a way to insulate professors from being fired for having views outside the mainstream. I think this grad student just figured that out the hard way.

          Bottom line is they were fired for acting unprofessionally at work. Not for teaching something in their classroom or even for their political opinions.

          1. Yes, it’s hard to mourn them. And I can’t find any fault with the e-mails, other than ones that made a threat of violence. Part of the problem is that Universities do not want to think of themselves as businesses in any way. But in reality, they are. They need to attract people to their university. People are perfectly validated in saying they won’t send their kids their for whatever reason.

          2. Lawton’s actions did seem rather unprofessional. I am willing to believe most places would fire someone for acting in a similar manner and bringing bad publicity to their employer.

      2. Also, it seems to me that the faculty shouldn’t be engaging in ‘protest’ at all.

        It’s a government school. So your PC conservatism has again unleashed its authoritarian streak,.

        1. Neither the students or faculty at government schools are allowed unrestricted speech. Teachers have been forced to remove religious jewelry and can’t openly display religious literature in public schools. Getting fired for acting like an asshole and making your employer look stupid is valid and it’s not suppressing her speech. She’s still perfectly free to act like an asshole on her own time without the force of the school and its reputation behind her.

          You really are a fucking retard Mikey.

          1. Neither the students or faculty at government schools are allowed unrestricted speech.

            Nobody said they were.

            Teachers have been forced to remove religious jewelry and can’t openly display religious literature in public school

            Separation is separate from Free Speech.

            Simmer down, snowflake.

          2. Regardless whether it was her own time or if she was on the clock, I don’t think “Free Speech” should ever include, “Active attempts to hinder others’ rights to free speech by heckling or blocking access.” This instructor ends up on the opposite side of free speech defenders through her actions.

        2. Cool, so if you’re a government employee your free speech rights mean that you can call people who come into your location anything you want and your job is secure.

          I look forward to the DMV calling me a ‘mick bastard’ and not getting firing for it.

        3. “It’s a government school…” and hence, this instructor IS the government as are all employees of government schools. The first amendment is about keeping “the government” from silencing dissenting opinions.
          So, yes, remove her from office.This is not about PC conservatism (whatever that is).

      3. Also, it seems to me that the faculty shouldn’t be engaging in ‘protest’ at all.

        On their own time? As private citizens? Snd you’re NOT a neo-fascists?

        1. At their workplace, berating the customers both in general and specific terms.

    3. She was an instructor and she was calling students neo-fascists and was therefore fired for doing that. I’m not seeing how her getting fired is problematic. This is quite the stretch just so you can scream “both sides!”.

      Also, the brief clip I saw used the phrase “Becky the Neofascist”. I’m unaware of who Becky is but it seems Lawton was naming specific students or passers-by or whatever. In which case, she couldn’t/shouldn’t be shitcanned hard enough.

    4. “I’m not seeing how her getting fired is problematic. ”

      It’s perfectly normal. People are fired every day for offending the boss. Is Reason suggesting that she deserves special treatment because she works in a school?

    5. You can earn more than $15,000 each month from you home, and most special thing is much interesting that the job is to just check some websites and nothing else. Enjoy full time and money freedome, also an awesome career in you life…. ?
      just click the link given belowHERE??? http://www.startonlinejob.com

    6. You can earn more than $15,000 each month from you home, and most special thing is much interesting that the job is to just check some websites and nothing else. Enjoy full time and money freedome, also an awesome career in you life…. ?
      just click the link given belowHERE??? http://www.startonlinejob.com

    7. Anyone who doesn’t think both sides aren’t snowflakes when it comes to upholding 1st amendment sentiment regardless of political bent is a goddamn fool.

  2. Oh no, she arranged her fingers in a particular pattern that offends you! That such a thing would be a fireable offense is quite a stretch just so that you can scream “only one side!”

    1. Would you get fired for arranging your fingers in a particular pattern? Why should she be excused, but not a private sector worker?

      1. To be fair, I expect nothing less than coarse, vulgar behavior from pretty much every public servant I encounter.

        1. These days I don’t even limit my expectation of that to Public Servants

          1. Fuck you, you motherfuckin’ fuck.

            1. Surprisingly mild.

      2. but not a private sector worker?

        THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
        Just say’n.

        1. YOUR FUCKING MEDICATION.
          Just say’n.

          1. Pay attention.
            He asked the difference between a government worker and a private sector worker.
            THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION … NOT JUST MINE!
            .
            1) Why does YOUR Constitution apply to PRIVATE employers suppressing free speech?
            2) Why does YOUR Constitution NOT restrict government suppression of free speech?

            (Boldface in defense of aggression by a serial attacked, stalking me down rto page … to prove his manliness)

            1. Seek help.

              1. (sigh) More cyber-bullying by conservatives

                1. (sigh) More whining by Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    2. Coming from an instructor? Of course it is.

      The equivalence they’re trying to draw here is laughable.

      1. The fact is that this grad student forgot they were faculty since they’re barely out of undergraduate studies themselves. And now, well, they can do this type of shit again with no repercussions because it’s different if you’re a student.

        The only reason this story in particular is difficult for some people to parse is because a teaching grad student is both a teacher and a student, but the fact is once you take up the mantle of teaching the students your role as a student takes a backseat.

        We can expect more and more of this shit, I’m afraid, since grad students are teaching more and more. Which is kind of crazy, since they should cost as much as a tutor with that kind of experience yet they cost the same as a Professor to take their class. Yeah, no thanks.

        1. Kind of like how if I go to the ER and they want to use a student to work on me I don’t get a discount on the price? Weird how that works, eh?

          1. As someone who has actually worked within an E.R. rest assured you will never get ‘a student’ to do any work on you whatsoever and, if you do, you should probably sue them.

            Oh, and as someone who has actually worked at a teaching hospital I can tell you that yes, they are cheaper (or at least ours was) even if the actual cost is functionally invisible to you.

            1. Ours doesn’t reduce the cost. Here they’ll also try to tell you that you have to let the kids work on you, even if you don’t want them to. I know from being on the receiving end.

              But admittedly, that hospital is run by assholes.

              1. No one believes you.

        2. The only reason this story in particular is difficult for some people to parse …

          … your ignorance of public vs private, and that thing we call Free Speech.

          1. The guy behind the counter at the DMV can’t sit in his cubicle and yell FUCK YOU at the top of his lungs all day. Free speech doesn’t mean you can never be fired as long as you work for the government. Go back to eating the shit out of your Depends you mentally deranged old piece of shit.

            1. Go back to eating the shit out of your Depends you mentally deranged old piece of shit.

              How very adult!

              Why are you stalking me down the page … launching 16 aggressions … as purely personal attacks?

              (boldface in self defense of cyber-bullying.)

              1. Your inability to respond to the actual comment reveals how wrong you are.

                1. In fact, what ‘free speech’ means in this scenario is that she shouldn’t be fired for her political opinions while teaching. She wasn’t teaching in this scenario, in fact she probably wasn’t on the clock at all but she was still on the premises while screaming at people that they’re members of the KKK.

                  Not the same thing. Now take your pills. Your interpretation of Free Speech necessarily means that Government Employees could not be fired under virtually any circumstances. It’s amusing you don’t see that.

                2. Your inability to respond to the actual comment reveals how wrong you are

                  He’s full of shit to equate a DMV worker, on the job, with … even a DMV worker on personal time, acting as a private citizen.

                  You both keep REFUSING to correct your non-stop bullshit on that obvious fact
                  Shame on you..

                  1. #HihnsanoSoFragile

                    1. You too claim no difference between a DMV worker at his or her desk … or at home in the shower?

                    2. You’re right, that smelly hippie does need a shower.

        3. This was a PHD candidate. That means she was at least 2 years out of undergrad territory and probably more. The idea that over 25 year old’s should be coddled because they lack life experience is insane.

          1. Having Free Speech rights is CODDLING?
            Do you people have any shame at all in your raging fascism?

            1. No krill for brains, not expecting them to understand that berating customers at their workplace would result in their contract not being renewed and being removed from a public facing position that interacts with said customers would be coddling.

        4. “…since grad students are teaching more and more.”

          Grad Studs must be simply holding at level, because Profs have been using them as serfs for over a generation at least.

          I’m glad this one showed himself as an abusive schmuck while on a contract basis, thus easy to loose. Unlike the post a few above that could not understand the dif between not getting renewed and getting fired, this guy will know the dif exactly.

          It is a rose by another name, and stinks equally no matter what the label. And just what he deserves.

    3. I’m at a point with the progressives where they are such an existential threat that when there is a chance to destroy the future of one, I say take it. Whether or not any of you think you’re at war with progressives, they fucking well see themselves at war with all of you, and anyone else that is not a part of their hive mind collective.

      1. I would be tempted to take this view but I know better. The next newly minted progressive who is 12 now but will be 22 in 10 years isn’t going to know who started it. All they would know is conservatives/libertarians/moderates are at war with them so they had better take every chance they get to destroy one. This is that never ending cycle stuff where 1000 years from now everyone is fighting a bloody war but isn’t sure why.

        1. So you’re cool with losing.

      2. I’m at a point with the progressives where they are such an existential threat that when there is a chance to destroy the future of one, I say take it

        How about the equal threat by the Christian Taliban? Or do you also deny Separation?

        1. Some people are content to occupy their thoughts with things that actually exist. Very difficult to understand when you are delusional and senile. Go back to eating the shit out of your Depends, Mikey. Everything will be alright.

          1. Go back to eating the shit out of your Depends,

            How very adult!

            Why are you stalking me down the page … launching 20 aggressions … as purely personal attack?
            (boldface in self-defense form serial assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

            PROUD TO BE HATED BY AUTHORITARIANS

  3. It’s funny how people figured out that shit works. I wonder if anything could have been done earlier by university administration to discourage this form of weaponized outrage?

    1. Weaponized???

  4. Given that she is a professor who may be over the grades of some of these students, she holds a power that students who protest do not. As a state-backed institution (I presume) the university has to consider how it treats its own students. The appearance of impartiality when dealing with the students could be grounds for dismissal, right? If you have a clear case of a prof giving grades based on who believed what, you’d bet there would be hell to pay, and rightly so.

    At the very least she should get fired for being intellectually impotent if she thinks these kids were somehow neo-fascists or kkk members.

    There is also a matter of decorum she must uphold as the representative of the university and I’d imagine flipping off students doesn’t pass muster There, either. There is plenty of actionable material to let her go without ever considering what she said, thereby making no issues with her 1A rights.

    1. As a state-backed institution (I presume) the university has to consider how it treats its own students.

      FAR more important is the school is bound by that thing we call a …. Constitution.

      At the very least she should get fired for being intellectually impotent if she thinks these kids were somehow neo-fascists or kkk members.

      Your contempt for the right of Free Speech reveals your own neo-facsism.

      1. I remember that part of the constitution that guarantees government employment regardless of behavior. Article XVIIIII chapter iii I think it was.

        Your mindless blathering reveals your own senility Mikey. Take your medication.

        1. Your contempt for the right of Free Speech reveals your own neo-facsism.

          I remember that part of the constitution that guarantees government employment regardless of behavior.

          Your contempt for the right to Free Speech reveals your own neo-fascism

          Your mindless blathering reveals your own senility

          How very adult! (I know what Free Speech means!).

          Why are you stalking me down the page … launching 20 aggressions … as purely personal attack?
          (boldface in self-defense from serial assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

          PROUD TO BE HATED BY AUTHORITARIANS!

          1. Shorter Hihn: BURGLY GURGLY POOPEDY DOOPEDY! FIZZLEDY BUMPEDY SCKOOCH!!”

            (tiptoes away giggling)

      2. FAR more important is the school is bound by that thing we call a …. Constitution.

        She wasn’t forbidden from speech. She just lost a paying job. She is still free to say whatever she wants. The college just has chosen to not pay her forward.

      3. Seeing as how the last point I made clearly stated reasons that had literally zero to do with her speech but instead with her observable idiocy and how it is relevant to her being a teacher I fail to see your last point being worth a damn. I specifically laid out NON-speech related reasons to justify her firing.

        How you managed to fail to grasp an explicitly stated point speaks volumes to your illiteracy and stupidity.

        And how you managed to conclude I’m some sort of Nazi when in fact I am a free-speech absolutist and anarchist is beyond me. I also understand that as a government worker in the capacity of being “the state” she does not always have first-amendment protections. A judge can not expect to keep his job AND express commitment to ideals of racism or some other ideology that inhibits his impartiality. He can’t be punished for his statements or ideals… but being punished is not the same as being allowed to do a particular occupation. This lady shouldn’t go to jail or be fined. She simply also can not be trusted to perform her job as is required. Not that hard of a distinction to grasp.

  5. Are the letters in response to what she actually did or for the actions of the other faculty member she got blamed for? The latter is unfair, but is a stretch to call the people witing them snowflakes because of it.

    1. They’re snowflakes for the identical reason you people yell “snowflakes” at the left.
      And the same moral hypocrisy.

      1. Snowflakes on the Left actually do stop people they don’t like from talking.

        Seems this dolt’s issue was that she was permitted to talk and made an absolute ass out of herself.

        But keep making the same idiotic and factually incorrect point. It’s not at all tedious yet.

      2. Nope. Progressivism needs to be crushed before we can rebuild society. Has nothing to do with being offended, and everything to do with forcing progressives to live by the rules they created.

        Maybe you’re content to lick the boot of fascists. Not me.

  6. This video shows a different faculty member telling TPUSA students they must go to the “free speech zone,” with their “propaganda.”

    And *this* video shows *that* faculty member being fired, right? RIGHT?!

  7. Great Work. Keep it up
    Also Check My Boy APK

    1. Huh, haven’t seen these for a while.

      1. Thanks a fucking bunch Ajit Pai, amiright?

  8. Conservatives retaliating was bound to happen. And for defending and retaliating a system and atmosphere the left and the left ALONE created they get called ‘snowflakes’.

    So what’s left? To take the punches and shut up?

    One side is problematic and ONE side alone. Guess which one?

    To try and find ‘both sides do it!’ is akin to the left screaming ‘but you like your roads and SS’! As if anyone had a choice in whether to partake in such schemes. Of course they’re going to take an SS check, the government took the money that rightfully belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

    Just knock it off already.

    1. it may get these writers a seat at the cosmo cocktail party, but it’s ridiculous.

      Reason, you are wasting your time trying to appear nice to progressives. They will never ever ever agree with you, or think Libertarians arn’t backwards neanderthals. We believe in individual rights, individual freedom, and limited government, completely against everything the progressives believe in

      1. You must have missed the Webathon fund raising, where Reason was bragging up all their articles into the NYTimes.

        Institutionally, Reason is going Progressitarian. The axis of politics is aligning to nationalist vs. internationalist, and Reason is going internationalist with the Progressives.

        1. Fuckin’ TreasonNN, am I right?

          1. I wouldn’t mock it because they shouldn’t be playing this game in my opinion.


        2. The axis of politics is aligning to nationalist vs. internationalist…

          I’m afraid you’re right, which is another way of saying everyone loses.

    2. Hey now, everyone see’s that this particular lever of power is clearly labeled ‘Progressives Only’ so it’s only natural to assume that no one else will ever pull that lever, even while it’s used against them!

      /sarc

      Although, yeah, the Rules for Radicals are explicitly designed to make everyone give up their convictions so we continue to be moving along more or less on schedule.

      1. How does that justify your blatant contempt for our Constitution, snowflake?

        1. What is the tare weight of an unladen swallow? Take your meds, Mikey.

          1. hello
            What is the tare weight of an unladen swallow? Take your meds,

            Instead of the meds, I JAMMED IT UP YOUR ASS, bully.
            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066863
            (sneer)

            (posted in defense of 21 aggressions here, by a cyber-bully, who’s been stalking me for months .. as revenge for me repeatedly kicking his sorry ass – in self-defense)

            1. Dude, just fuck him and get over it, son.

            2. The only thing you jammed up anyone’s ass is the giant sybian machine you’re riding on.

        2. ‘Free speech’ doesn’t mean you can’t fire government employees for insulting the public to their face. That really isn’t what it means.

          Just like how freedom of religion doesn’t mean that government employees can deny service to people of different faiths.

          Please, take your meds.

    3. The Left in universities has been relentlessly discriminating against the Right in hiring, firing, and discipline.

      The Left started the ideological war, defecting from the ceasefires that make the West function.

      Much like Cuckservatives, Cucktarians protest when the Right fights back. They believe it is a betrayal of the principles of civilization to punish those who betray civilization by fighting back *in kind*. They are wrong.

      One was cease fire is surrender
      One way rule of law is subjection
      One way tolerance is servility

      Part of upholding the ceasefires of civilization is *punishing* those who defect from those ceasefires. To fail to punish defectors is to betray those principles. To reward defectors with the benefits of those principles while they defect from them is to betray those principles.

      Tit for tat. That’s a strategy that works to uphold a principle. Pacifism is a game theoretic loser.

      1. Much like Cuckservatives, Cucktarians protest when the Right fights back.

        Well said!

        1. I can’t keep up with the terms!

        2. No

          It’s spelled “cuckotarian”

    4. One side is problematic and ONE side alone. Guess which one?

      The one you hate?

      1. We should all hate progressive fascists, appeaser.

  9. What world do you have to live in to think that complaining about leftist teachers and administrators abusing their power?

    Refusing to go to a school with that shit is not snow-flakery. The teacher didn’t say something offensive, she lied.

    1. It’s called Free Speech, snowflake.

      1. Stop using terms you don’t understand, retard.

        1. Stop using terms you don’t understand, retard.

          How very adult.
          YOU are the one confusing Free Speech with guaranteed employment … all down the page.

          Why are you stalking me down the page … launching 20 aggressions … as purely personal attacks?
          (boldface in self-defense from serial assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

          How many assaults before you feel like a manly man?

          1. How very adult.
            YOU are the one confusing Free Speech with guaranteed employment … all down the page.

            The lummox wasn’t blocked from speaking. She just lost her employment.

            1. She didn’t lose her employment. She was reassigned to a non public facing position and purportedly her contract will not be renewed.

  10. Not sure of any job in the world where you can keep your job after chastising and chewing out paying customers.

    Apparently, Reason thinks that is wrong now.

    1. Reason writers.

    2. Apparently, Reason thinks that is wrong now.

      Pay attention
      a) Government university.
      b) Constitution
      c) Free Speech.

      I count you and two other right-wing snowflakes.
      So far.

      1. Pay attention
        a) You can actually get fired from a government job
        b) The constitution doesn’t protect you from getting fired from a government job
        c) Take your fucking medication you senile old fuck

        1. PAY ATTENTION

          a) You can actually get fired from a government job

          Are you a liar or confused?

          b) The constitution doesn’t protect you from getting fired from a government job

          Are you a liar or confused?
          You AGAIN confuse Free Speech with guaranteed employment

          c) Take your fucking medication you senile old fuck

          How very adult!

          Why are you stalking me down the page … launching 20 aggressions?
          (boldface in self-defense from serial assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

          Do you feel manly YET?


          1. Are you a liar or confused?
            You AGAIN confuse Free Speech with guaranteed employment

            Are you truly unable to draw logical conclusions? It would appear so. No one but you has made the claim that this employees firing was unconstitutional. If that’s not your claim, might I recommend editing your shit so it makes sense to people who aren’t unhinged?

            1. Another fuckup/lie/assult by BYODB!

              >>>””No one but you has made the claim that this employees firing was unconstitutional.

              FIRE did, chump..

              “‘The First Amendment does not tolerate broad, unfettered discretion to penalize students or faculty for political speech that officials view as offensive, unprofessional or uncivil,’ FIRE’s letter reads. ”

              Bellowing blowhards be bonkers …
              FIRE was created to defend individual rights from your ilk.

              1. Another sockpuppet burp by the Lolbertarian Spam King!

  11. Blah blah blah. What about the REAL problems in the world?

    “Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’ ”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..hoice.html

      1. It’s Germany. Like Chinatown.

        1. Wait, you are saying the beast is his daughter?

    1. She tells of farmer whose once friendly sheep began refusing human contact

      Awesomeness. Slut shame/rape culture among animals not generally bright enough to avoid acutely eating to death.

      1. OK, my mistake, sorta.

        Once again, one layer deeper, we conflate people doing whatever they want to do with/on their own property with people doing stuff we don’t approve of on public property with people doing stuff we don’t approve of with other people’s property without their consent.

        Apparently, it’s sheep fuckers all the way down.

    2. Gives a whole new meaning to “petting zoo” and “service animal”.

    3. ‘Mere concepts of morality have no business being law,’ said ZETA chairman Michael Kiok.

      Pray tell, what concepts other than morality have any business being law?

      1. Convenience?

        -jcr

  12. “I have been removed from the classroom since September 1,” Courtney Lawton tells Reason in an email. “I am reassigned as a research assistant to the department and have been removed from the classroom for the rest of my contract. When my contract expires, the chancellor has publically announced that it will not be renewed.”

    Video taken by TPUSA member Kaitlyn Mullen at the time shows Lawton holding up a sign that said, “Just say NO! to Neo-Fascism.” Lawton flipped off Mullen and began calling the students “neo-fascists” who hate public schools and DACA kids. A little while later, Lawton burst into the popular chant of lefty college students: “No KKK, no neo-fascist USA.”

    Dunno. She seems awfully terrible at, you know, talking to students. And if she fails a conservative student, lawsuits would follow quickly due to her rather clear and obvious bias issue.

    1. Is being a research assistant a demotion from being a teaching assistant? That last part you bring up is precisely where I’d have a problem with her being in the classroom. After that outburst, any grade she gives a student to the right of Pol Pot is going to be suspect. She should be in research, where she isn’t the obvious liability.

      1. And censorship is so noble … when done for the “right” purpose
        Even by conservative snowflakes.

    2. It’s good to destroy her career before it gets going. We used to do this to communist sympathizers all the time before everyone got stupid and allowed them to succeed. Look where that has gotten us.

      We won’t be doing it right until every single marxist left in America is afraid to leave the house in the morning.

      1. We used to do this to communist sympathizers all the time before everyone got stupid and allowed them to succeed. Look where that has gotten us.

        Self-righteous fascists like you!

        1. Learn about “blowback,” Hihntard.

    3. Cussing out students you don’t like is constitutionally protected as long as you get hired in a government job. Just ask Mikey the senile retard.

      1. Cussing out students you don’t like is constitutionally protected

        FROM GOVERNMENT! AS FREE SPEECH!!

        Just ask Mikey the senile retard

        How very adult!.

        (Boldface in self-defense from 20 assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

        HOW MANY MORE ATTACKS UNTIL HE FEELS MANLY?

      2. He never said that. Why do you keep repeating the same lies, over and over?

  13. This is kind of a wash. People should be free to express themselves however they like and employers should be able to fire employees for whatever reason they want. Freedom of speech doesn’t include freedom from consequences. It is unfortunate that snowflakery became an apparently valid tactic.

    1. It is unfortunate that snowflakery became an apparently valid tactic.

      Blame the left.

      lol

      1. I believe it was Alinksy who said, “make your enemy follow their own rules”

        1. One form of it, yes, and the explicit goal is to destroy all morals because then you win.

          It seems to be working pretty well.

    2. Freedom of speech doesn’t include freedom from consequences.

      (puke) It forbids GOVERNMENT from implementing those consequences, snowflake.

      1. You don’t need to announce every time some disgusting thing comes out of one of your orifices MIkey, we understand it’s hard to control for people in your condition.

        This just in: turns out that 200 years of constitutional precedent says the government actually can fire you from a government job because of your unprofessional behavior and inability to control your impulses. Something about yelling “FUCK YOU FASCIST” in a crowded classroom or something like that.

        1. It forbids GOVERNMENT from implementing those consequences, snowflake.

          This just in: turns out that 200 years of constitutional precedent says the government actually can fire you from a government job

          Nobody said otherwise, snowflake.

          (boldface in self-defense from 20 assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

          DOES HE FEEL MANLY YET?

          1. You implied just above that no, this employee can’t be fired for insulting the public so it appears that you disagree with yourself on this subject.

            You should let us know which of your selves win this internal debate of yours.

  14. Another reason all schooling should be private.

  15. The instructor isn’t getting booted just because she was protesting and yelling, but because she was harassing a single girl (Mullen) at a TP-USA booth in the middle of campus. She (and others in the crowd) drove the girl to tears and it was vicious enough that students were getting involved to defend Mullen and called the cops, who felt it necessary to escort her back to her apartment. Reason could do a whole lot better in their reporting of the incident. It wasn’t just chants and sign-holding.

    Reasonable people wouldn’t have asked for her firing if she had only been protesting, but bullying students (any student) is something that shouldn’t be considered acceptable for instructors.

    1. I hate to admit this, but these days when I read the word ‘protest’ I’m thinking ‘rock throwers & looters’ since that’s usually what is meant. RE: Ferguson.

    2. If what you say is true, gormadoc, Reason is about on par with CNN. Just disgraceful journalism.

      1. The instructor’s comments were disgraceful, to be sure, but let’s be honest, these fascists like Mullen had it coming…

        /Reason

      2. This is our local rag reporting on the incident. Notice that the entire incident was ~20 minutes long, not just the video.

    3. If this is true, I will await the correction. I’m sure it will be coming soon.

      1. Any of you rightwing snowflakes understand Free Speech?
        I didn’t think so.

        1. Free speech means the government can’t compel you to speak or prevent you from speaking. It doesn’t guarantee you a government job regardless of what you say under any conditions or circumstances.

          For example if you were theoretically actually intelligent enough to pass a civil service test and you showed up to work at your government job in your used Depends with shit running down your leg and you screamed and yelled about 91% of libertarians all day and didn’t do your job, you could be fired from that position and your Free Speech rights wouldn’t have anything to do with it.

          1. Behold the dumbfuck stalker

            Free speech means the government can’t compel you to speak or prevent you from speaking.

            IT MEANS YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR SPEECH ALONE, DIPWAD (sneer).

            (boldface in self-defense from 20 aggressions and similar fuckups, y a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

            DOES HE FEEL MANLY, YET?


            1. IT MEANS YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR SPEECH ALONE, DIPWAD (sneer).

              So, an explicit statement that you can not be fired from a government job for saying ‘fuck you’ to your boss.

  16. Will colleges sanction every educator with a provocative opinion?

    remind me of Reason’s position of the firing of James DeMore.

    (*whose opinion could hardly even be described as ‘provocative’)

    James Damore, the author of the Google memo, has that sexual differences would doom the company’s diversity efforts to close the gender gap. He has become a villain for the left because as liberals see it he is downplaying the role sexism plays in the gender gap

    Both sides are half right and half wrong, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia.

    If I were a computer engineer struggling in Google’s male-dominated culture and woke up one morning to read a mini treatise by a male colleague arguing that innate biological differences between the sexes?not sexism?were to blame for the company’s gender gap, I would be pretty damn pissed. But that wouldn’t mean that my colleague was wrong?nor would it mean that Google’s CEO was out of line in firing him.

    the only thing that matters in either case is if the person in question harms the interests of their employer, or undermines their own ability to do their job. the rest is bullshit hairsplitting to please your cocktail party pals

    1. Damore said nothing controversial and backed up his claims.

      Dalmia couldn’t debate him even if she tried.

      1. Dalmia couldn’t debate anyone capable of holding a remotely civil conversation.

        1. Dalmia is just *barely* capable of taking an internal memo published in confidence by a Google employee, a memo that was inappropriately shared with Gizmodo/Gawker by one or more of the higher-ups at Google, and selectively editorializing and publishing it to portray the author as part of the problem.

          The only thing missing is a suggestion that an unnamed Google employee suggested that every woman at Google be raped on a broken glass coffee table.

          1. At least Erdeley had the decency to be deceptive. Look at that quote from Dalmia. She’s not even smart enough to do that. She just came out and stated that the truth is irrelevant to her emotional outbursts, and that as a woman she can’t be expected to view things objectively.

            She basically says: It doesn’t matter if it’s true that women are held back by innate biological differences and sexism has nothing to do with it; if you tell me that it’s anything other than sexism I’m going to get angry and you deserve to be fired.

    2. Good job here. I do not think it is too much to expect consistency from the editors/writers here.

    3. Gilmore
      remind me of Reason’s position of the firing of James DeMore.

      GOOGLE IS A PRIVATE EMPLOYER.
      Howzat?

      1. There is a relevant distinction there. It just doesn’t have any bearing on these two particular cases because screaming and ranting at your students while you’re at work isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right.

        1. GOOGLE IS A PRIVATE EMPLOYER.

          It just doesn’t have any bearing on these two particular cases

          OMG.
          The snowflake displays TOTAL stupidity of free speech here
          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066849

          Now he says NO FREE SPEECH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND A PRIVATE EMPLOYER.

          (bopldface in defense of 20 aggressions .. by a cyber-bully .. stalking me down the page ,.. while repeatedly making a TOTAL public ass of himself!)

          screaming and ranting at your students

          THEY WEREN’T HER STUDENTS!!!.
          HOW MANY TOTAL FUCKUPS CAN ONE SNOWFLAKE-ON-A-HISSY-FIT MAKE??

          And how many more assaults and fucklups before you can feel manly again?
          If that’s even possible.

  17. Watching the videos, it’s derptastic several times over. First, she isn’t advocating a cause as much as specifically shaming individuals and college campus groups. Even off campus, saying “The GOP is run by White Nationalists!” is one thing while “Dan King, GOP-member and Reason Contributor, is a White Nationalist!” is quite another.

    On campus, employees aren’t shielded from the effects of their stupid activities free speech or not. If you’re an employee and you got fired for saying “The GOP is a bunch of racists!” that’s one thing, if you’re an employee and you got fired for saying “The Republicans in this office, Dan King among them, are a bunch of racists!” is, again, another.

    Lastly, the campus police show up to tell the Graduate Student/employee where the “permit-free protest” areas are. She plays aloof or legitimately stupid (the distinction is tough to discern). A student, meanwhile, can be heard saying “Oh, you mean over where the evangelicals preach?” to which security replies “Yeah”. So, she might as well have knowingly set up in front of a restroom and denied students access and then claimed, “What no free speech?”

    Sadly, this woman makes Kim Davis look principled and well-mannered.

    1. Read this post real slow a couple of times Mikey.

      1. TWO misfuck conservative snowflakes!

        1. One dumbfuck Hihnspamo snowflake!

  18. Remind me, which president came up with “free speech zones” so that he didn’t have to face the music? Slick Willy or Dubya?

    1. Free speech zones started in the 60s. Their use was greatly expanded during the W years and was expanded further during the Obama years.

      1. Free speech zones started in the 60s

        By the neo-fascist right — who never stopped practicing it. It’s now called Political Correctness, rampant on both the left and the right — which is why a growing majority of Americans now rejects loyalty to both sides of thugs.

  19. “Neofascist Becky right here! Becky the Neofascist right here wants to destroy public schools, public universities, hates DACA kids. No KKK, No Neofascist USA! Fight White Nationalism!”

    Is this the “Free Speech” FIRE ostensibly fights for? The right of an instructor to badger some girl she disagrees with–on campus–by publicly screeching “Becky right here is a fascist! Becky hates brown kids!”

    Lawton was relieved of her duties because she did not meet the “expectations for civility” the school has for its lecturers. FIRE, however, is arguing that Nebraska’s speech policies are not specific enough for its professors, making the firing of Lawton unjustified.

    Apparently telling instructors that they are required to be civil on campus is “too vague” for a reasonable employee to understand that screaming “Becky is a fascist! No KKK on campus” to a person not participating in a KKK or other fascist march would be uncivil. Jesus Christ guys.

    I guess if they didn’t take things like this on, it would be hard to claim they’re “unbiased” or “nonpartisan” because there just aren’t any examples of leftists being bullied off campus and losing their rights.

    1. I suspect “Becky” is being used as a generic name in the same sense that I refer to aggressive drivers in big trucks as “Tommy Toughnuts”

      1. Changing the name to ‘Generic Girl Name’ doesn’t make it any more civil.

      2. So then, being an English Major, she should be dismissed for not being worldly enough to go with straight alliterative mockery, Nancy Neofascist, or pretentious enough to explain her obscure use of the name Becky.

        “No, No. My calling her Becky was a dark, satirical allusion to Samuel Beckette. I was calling her that as a contributor to the Theater of the Absurd that is modern day politics. Jesus, do you people not read books?”

        1. I always thought Becky in the intro to the Sir Mixalot video was kind of cute. She wasn’t the one talking, she was just standing there looking OK.

          1. Named Becky? Check.
            Appears in a classic work of American art? Check.
            White nationalist sympathizer who stands there while her friend bashes black women for being black? Check.

            When the time comes to award Lawton’s degree and teaching assistant positions to someone new, you’re my nominee.

      3. I think that only makes this slightly less egregious. Apparently “civil” means screaming “This person’s a Nazi! They like the KKK! They’re fascist!” When they are just standing around handing out pamphlets for a group that is not affiliated with the Nazis, the KKK, or any fascist organization.

    2. I frankly want her fired for gross intellectual dishonesty and/or incapacity for engaging in argumentation or rhetoric like that.

      How can the Academy even pretend to stand for thought and free inquiry when the immediate response of the teaching class is “KLAN!!!” to anyone who dares disagree with them?

      1. That is the deeper problem here, as I mentioned. In what world is this behavior considered “civil”? The woman has a contractual duty to be civil while on campus. And here’s FIRE and Reason going on about how “you know ‘civil’ is really a vague term. She couldn’t be expected to know that this was not civil behavior.”

        1. Umm, why do you snowflakes have such total contempt for the Constitution?
          Or is it ignorance?

          1. It’s ignorance all right. Or probably just complete delusion and senility.

          2. Umm… no Mikey, I don’t have contempt for the Constitution. I have an understanding of it.

            Imagine handing out jury nullification pamphlets in front of the courthouse, and a cop walks up and starts screaming “Mikey here is a fascist” and tells every passerby “Mikey hates DACA children”. This kind of behavior would be punishable under a contract that called for civility or moral character. The PD could punish, or even terminate the cop’s employment. And he’s a government employee. In fact, the Libertarians would all be clamoring for his removal.

            Now, imagine if the response of the PD was not to fire the guy, but to remove him from beat patrol, put him at a desk where he can’t do this again, and to tell him “look, when your contract is up we won’t be renewing it due to your behavior issues.” That is basically what happened here. And it is an acceptable punishment. The cop (or teacher) should know by all standards of decency that this kind of behavior is unacceptable in the position they are in. It is not questionable that it was uncivil behavior.

            1. Okay Mikey, add the phrase “While off the clock” to the above story.

              A cop, behaving like this at the courthouse, or the PD–his place of employment–would hopefully be in trouble for this behavior.

              Same with the grad student. She behaved like this at her place of employment. Not at some other public place. Not at her home. At the place she works. And her contract called for civility on campus. Which she violated. The people on campus don’t know if she’s “on the clock” or not, and while on campus she represents the Uni.

              If this had happened anywhere else, it would be a free speech issue, but happening on her employer’s property changes the situation.

        2. That is the deeper problem here, as I mentioned. In what world is this behavior considered “civil”? The woman has a contractual duty to be civil while on campus. And here’s FIRE and Reason going on about how “you know ‘civil’ is really a vague term. She couldn’t be expected to know that this was not civil behavior.”

          Apparently, shit-throwing parties would be OK with Reason. Because who would know that throwing feces around isn’t civil? The term is too vague.

          PERSONALLY, I’d be embarrassed to admit I didn’t know what the word “civil” meant, but hey, I’m not a lawyer for a reason.

    3. Is this the “Free Speech” FIRE ostensibly fights for?

      Yeah, despite your repeated bullshit on the details.

      The right of an instructor to badger some girl she disagrees with–on campus–by publicly screeching “Becky right here is a fascist! Becky hates brown kids!”

      She was on her own time … acting as a private citizen.

      How does her part-time job mean she losses her unalienable rights? Can you list for us which jobs include the loss of individual liberty. And on what authority you make such a fucking fascist assertion?

      FIRE, however, is arguing that Nebraska’s speech policies are not specific enough for its professors, making the firing of Lawton unjustified.

      That’s only part of it.
      Why are you ignoring their Constitutional argument as … in-con-vweeeeeen-yent to your rant?
      And fucking dishonest.

      Apparently telling instructors that they are required to be civil on campus is “too vague” for a reasonable employee to understand that screaming

      She was not acting as an employee.

      So you lose AGAIN. On top of your lies.
      Have you no shame at all?

  20. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to fire someone for insulting the customers. The fact that the insults are related to politics doesn’t change that.

  21. “Others said they would refuse to send their children to UNL because of the issue. One emailer argued that Lawton should be let go because, “Since when do you allow UNL personnel to heckle and flip off young students (kids basically) ? hardly a safe campus atmosphere for all.””

    I like how none of the things you quoted are “mistaking words for violence” as you characterize it, though.

    (Remember, “safe campus atmosphere” is not quite the same as “violence being used”; one can feel “unsafe” from things like retribution and unfair grading and the like, as well as from “violence”.)

    I’m sure someone probably did that, because that’s quite common, but it’s a little odd to make the claim, provide quotes, and not quote anyone actually doing that, isn’t it?

  22. I’d say, look at the FIRE letter, they’ve earned some credibility on this issue, and they give the case why the university violated the lefty lecturer’s rights.

    1. The commentariat is mostly neo-fascist screeching.
      A combination of Trumpsters, Christian Taliban, the Paulista Cult and other neo-fascists..

  23. Ok, Reason is becoming unreasonable.

    I love FIRE but they’re wrong on this one. Lawton was fired because she was verbally abusive of students and fucking insane. There’s a difference between offering an opinion or engaging in appropriate debate and… running around with signs calling students neo-nazis and kkk members. A big fucking difference.

    At what point does this behavior become problematic?

    1. The US Supreme Court has allowed graduate students to disseminate some really offensive stuff.

      Maybe the Supreme Court was wrong, but FIRE loves the Supremes’ strong free-expression stance.

      1. Here is an offensive image involved in that case.

        Caution: Offensive image, duh.

      2. They’re not really apples to apples.

        In the cited case, the grad student wasn’t an instructor putting their authority in question. Further the grad student was expelled from the university. Which was found to be a violation of the student’s rights.

        The above situation is different in that the grad student is also an instructor. The university didn’t fire her but rather moved her to a research position instead of a teaching one–which is a wise move should it be even remotely possible she retaliated against a “conservative” student in class. They then said “your contract will not be renewed when it is up due to this behavior.”

        She wasn’t expelled from campus.

    2. Lawton wasn’t even fired. She was informed that due to her behavior which violated civility standards her contract will not be renewed.

      1. In most cases, who gets to decide if a student has violated standards of civility? The very lefty profs and administrators who are the targets of conservative criticism!

    3. “Problematic” being a favorite term of those “social justice warriors” everyone loves to villainize.

      TPUSA is pretty fucking neo-fascist, if you look at the causes they support and speakers they feature. Like many fauxbertarians, they claim to be for “liberty” but turn out to be mostly pro-police state, anti-immigration, and generally very authoritarian provided that the authoritarian shares their worldview.

      So yeah, the lecturer wasn’t exactly far off the mark, and anyway they’re entitled to say what they like in a public forum. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

      1. WTF? So now certain words are the sole property of SJW’s? Most non-Libertarians are somewhat or very fascist but that doesn’t make them neo-nazis or kkk members. She’s a nutjob. And no, people aren’t entitled to say anything they want in a public forum without any repercussions. That’s ridiculous. It’s not about free speech but basic civility.

        1. WTF? So now certain words are the sole property of SJW’s?

          WTF. Find a 12-year-old to read it for you,

      2. She is still entitled to say whatever she wants in a public forum. She just isn’t entitled to a teaching position when she can’t interact with her own students as a professional. Nobody told her what she could or could not say in public.

        1. Nobody told her what she could or could not say in public.

          That’s more full-of-shit than your norm. She was FIRED for what she said in public … as a private citizen … on her own time.

          Conservative snowflakes is an understatement.
          Neo-fascism and self-righteousness combined.

    4. At what point do unalienable rights become “problematic” to the wacky right?

      1. Having a government teaching job is not an unalienable right you fucking retard.

        1. Having a government teaching job is not an unalienable right you fucking retard.

          Nobody said it was. (snort)

          (boldface in self-defense from 21 assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page … lying about my words … presumably to feel manly)

  24. There is no reason for REASON to be reasonable.

  25. Can’t help but think that if I spent my off time going back to my place of business and screaming that our customers were nazis I’d get fired as well.

    What makes this little snowflake so special that she should keep hers?

    1. “What makes this little snowflake so special that she should keep hers?”

      She has Reason magazine carrying water for her. That’s better than most fired employees can manage to pull off.

    2. It’s called the First Amendment. Look it up. Or be a socialist. Whichever.

      1. You don’t understand the First Amendment.

        1. You don’t understand the First Amendment

          Which part of Free Speech confuses you, snowflake?.

          1. The part where Free Speech means “I am entitled to never be fired from my government job”.

            1. The part where Free Speech means “I am entitled to never be fired from my government job”.

              Psycho be lying about the issue.
              His ignorance of ACTUAL Free Speech was clearly proven here,.
              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066849

              (boldface in self-defense from 20 assaults by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page … presumably to feel manly)

            2. In hello’s psychopathic universe … they could fire her for watching a Bernie Sanders speech on TV … at home .. on her own time … and he’d bellow … “SHE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NEVER BE FIRED FROM A GOVERNMENT JOB”. … a typical diversion for neo-fascist bullshitters.

              Snowflakes on meth.

              .

              1. Why are you posting under 3 different IDs, Hihn?

                Bizarre…

        2. It is trumped by employers’ dictatorial powers over employees even on their own time, rendering it practically useless?

      2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        Looked it up. I still don’t see anything in there about not being able to fire public school teachers for cussing out their students. Maybe you and Mikey can use your moron-to-English translator to find it for us?

        1. (SNICKER)

          I still don’t see anything in there about not being able to fire public school teachers for cussing out their student

          ONE MORE TIME FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED ….
          1) THEY WERE NOT HER STUDENTS … NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEAT YOUR PATHETIC BULLSHIT.

          2) IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER JOB.

          3) IT WAS ALL ON FREE TIME..

          YOU BEEN STALKING ME DOWN THE PAGE … INITIATING OVER 20 ASSAULTS .. AND A FUCKING LIAR ON THE EVENTS..

          PROVING that conservative snowflakes DO exist … just as self-righteous as the liberal ones.
          And just as whiny..
          (sneer)

          1. Michael, up early I see.

            You are correct. She was not working at the time.

            She was off work when she did this.

            Did what you don’t ask?

            She went to her place of business, the place where she works, when she IS working, and started haranguing the customers.

            Surely even you can see how that might not sit well with her employer.

            It doesn’t matter if they were HER students or not. They were customers of her employer.

            She has every right to protest all she wants.

            She does not, however, have a right to be employed–by anyone.

            1. She does not, however, have a right to be employed–by anyone.

              Nobody does. And nobody has said otherwise, that I can see.

              Neo-fascism would be inventing excuses like that, to have government punish someone for … speaking on her own time … as a private citizen … because tribalism..

              How are you any less a snowflake that a typical Berkeley student?

              1. And again, Michael–

                She went to her place of business. The place where she was employed. On her off time. And harangued the customers of that place of business.

                It’s as if you worked at the DMV, went home at the end of your shift, and then, on your own time went back to the DMV to scream at the people waiting there.

                They would have every right to terminate your contract.

                And that is, in effect, what she did.

      3. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” How does that apply to a government employee who demonstrates through their speech that they are incapable of performing their job?

        In fact, public universities fire people for speech all the time: speech deemed to be racist, sexist, or otherwise creating a hostile work environment or being offensive. How is this different?

        1. Ummm, how can one create a hostile work environment as a mere employee .. acting as a private citizen .. on her own time?

          Still confused? You neo-fascists need to get better at disguising lame bullshit.
          Deep within your tribal echo chamber.
          Hatred is not a virtue.

          1. Ummm, how can one create a hostile work environment as a mere employee .. acting as a private citizen .. on her own time?

            By insulting students and coworkers.

            You neo-fascists need to get better at disguising lame bullshit.

            Let’s be crystal clear here: you (David Nolan aka Michael Hihn aka whatever) are the fascist. You are defending taxing private citizens to pay for government indoctrination.

  26. I think FIRE is out to lunch on this one. She wasn’t fired for being a leftard, she was fired for being a snotty little bitch.

    -jcr

    1. a leftardOuts himself as a conservatard snowflake!

      1. I’m curious: do people in your social milieu tell you that you’re clever?

        -jcr

        1. He nailed your ass to the wall, snowflake.
          I’d add “raging bigot.”

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano echoing his own sockpuppets. Projecting harder than a 24-screen movie theater!

            (hops away chortling)

  27. The idea that government employees have First Amendment protections from being fired is ridiculous and insidious. The relationship between a government and its employee is not coercive, it is voluntary. Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply to non-coercive consequences such as firing.

    In effect FIRE is claiming that government workers are entitled to extra constitutional rights that private sector workers do not have. Bullshit.

    1. It may be bullshit, but it’s Supreme Court approved bullshit, so in many cases, someone fired by the government for their expression can sue.

      Ideally, of course, education will become more and more a thing of the private sector (and private, voluntary funding!), making the question moot. One can dream.

      1. BUT…while the government has so many employees, there’s a case for protecting employees at least somewhat in their free expression.

        The state colleges are too monolithically lefty anyway, if they had the green light to purge all the wrong-thinkers the transition to indoctrination factory would be complete. We’re already there already in many institutions…a branch of the college does instruction sufficiently technical that the SJWs don’t understand it, and the rest of the institution churns out future bureaucrats, “nonprofit” administrators, and HR managers…few skills, but a sense of grievance and a set of Solutions which they can implement to make the world better.

        1. How does any of that justify a right-wing SJW (you) shitting on the Constitution?

          1. No you are not John Galt, you are more like a sniveling Socialist beta-male typing stupid messages on your smart phone.

            1. REPEAT: HOW DOES THAT JUSTIFY A RIGHTWING SJW (YOU) SHITTING ON THE CONSTITUTION? . …. and defending that Constitution is SNIVELING, snowflake?

              it’s a government school .. so wipe the egg off your face.

              1. BEING A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN NEVER BE FIRED REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY

                Read it real slow… then go change your Depends.

                1. BEING A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN NEVER BE FIRED REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY

                  NOBODY SAID OTHERWISE

                  You CONTINUE fucking up and lying about the events.
                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066854

                  Boldface in defense of 20 aggressions by a stalking cyber-bully ….

                  go change your Depends.

                  With the mentality of a 12-year-old
                  TRYING to be a manly man.

            2. You win the trophy for top neo-fascist on the page!
              What part of our beloved Constitution has made you such an ass?

              1. What part of our beloved Constitution has made you such an ass?

                What bad habit put that cancer in your head?

  28. It would be hard to discipline a student for doing the same thing at a university that was public.

    If the faculty do not have free speech, no one has free speech. They have conditional speech privileges. Reason is talking sense, who knew?

    1. But ,… but … but … we have all these conservative snowflakes … who NEED hissy fiits.
      To be manly men.

    2. It would be hard to discipline a student for doing the same thing at a university that was public.

      Well, said student wouldn’t have a paying job where they have impact over the future of people she blindly refers to as fascists and Nazis. So, no, they couldn’t fire an average student from a paying job they don’t have for being a dick, that is true.

      1. How many times … and in how many ways .., can you shit on free speech?
        Where in the Constitution do you see different rights for students and low-level employees on their own time?.
        Are you not aware that you proved her correct about neo-fascists?
        Please stop being a disgrace to the political right.

        1. How many times can Dumbfuck Hihnsano shit up a thread? An endless amount, it seems.

  29. Lawton will not have her contract renewed because she demonstrated poor judgment by personally attacking (verbally) students that she might one day have to supervise in the classroom. Again, the determining factor is not right or left. Had a right-wing nut job done the same thing to a pro-Planned Parenthood student group, the same result should follow. You don’t get to flip off students or call them nazis because you work for a public institution….you don’t get to flip off students or call them baby killers because you work for a public institution. The school’s reputation is based in part on having fair-minded, self-controlled instructors in the classroom…..Lawton failed this test….they are not obligated to renew her contract as a research assistant…I don’t the standards of behavior for instructors is as vague as the writer her suggests…

  30. Let me help you out here.

    Snowflake: “Your speech is like violence. You are hurting me. Government needs to protect me.”

    Conservative: “This person is ignorant and incompetent. They shouldn’t be teaching at a public university.”

    Do you see the difference?

    1. Excellent!

      1. It ‘s a government school, so you’re both snowflakes. (lol)

        1. Government schools are still allowed to fire teachers for being abusive to their students, so you’re still fucking retarded.

          1. Let’s all laugh at the fool!

            Government schools are still allowed to fire teachers for being abusive to their students, so you’re still fucking retarded.

            RETARDED? (sneer)

            ONE MORE TIME FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED
            1) They weren’t her students.
            2) It was not a classroom situation
            3) It was personal time for EVERYONE.
            WILL YOU EVER READ THE DAMN THING?

            You stalk me down the page … initiating aggression over 20 times … with no fucking clue on the events. A conservative snowflake suffering multiple hissy fits? Or a psychopathic liar? .

            DEFINITELY a raging cyber-bully … stalking me for months … as revenge … cuz I keep jamming it up his ass … like here. (snort)

            1. Regardless of whether they were her students, her political beliefs or anything else. She was on campus flipping off college students. That seems like a perfectly reasonable firing offense. Its unprofessional, inappropriate, and will most certainly turn people off from attending the university.

  31. Has Reason become another voice for Progressive propaganda? Seriously? “Conservative Snowflakes” writes the far-Left idiot. The instructor is an employee of the U of Nebraska and firing her demonstrates good judgement and common-sense.

    1. Umm, it’s a government school. Do you have a clue — even a smidgen — of what Free Speech means?
      Or that you just PROVED yourself a conservative snowflake?

      The Constitution guarantees rights for everyone … equally. Deal with it. Bigotry doesn’t count, by either tribe.
      You’d be a lot more comfortable at Fox, Breitbart, Infowars and WND.

      1. The constitution does guarantee rights for everyone equally. The problem is that “never being fired from a government job” is not a right that the constitution guarantees. Free speech is one of those rights. But she is still free to exercise free speech by speaking publicly and loudly as much and as often as she pleases. No one took that right away from her, and that’s not even the reason she was demoted. Do you have a clue — even a smidgen — of what Free Speech means, Mikey?

        You’d be a lot more comfortable if you’d change those Depends and TAKE YOUR FUCKING MEDICATION!

        1. Change those Depends and TAKE YOUR FUCKING MEDICATION!

          (smirk) Bend over.

          The problem is that “never being fired from a government job” is not a right that the constitution guarantees

          How many times will you fucking lie about the issue AND my point?

          Do you have a clue — even a smidgen — of what Free Speech means

          I jammed it up your ass here, chump.
          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066849
          AND TWISTED!

          Behold the dumbfuck stalker

          Free speech means the government can’t compel you to speak or prevent you from speaking.

          IT MEANS YOU CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR SPEECH ALONE, DUMBASS

          YOU’RE ALSO FULL OF SHIT THAT IT WAS HER OWN STUDENTS, AND IN HER JOB..

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066839

          (boldface in defense of 21 aggressions here … by a stalking cyber-bully … who’s been stalking me for months … because he keeps attacking and I keep kicking his ass … like here)

          What kind of SICK FUCK logs in … for the sole purpose of launching over 20 personal aggressions?
          If you came here from the link on my blog, do a page search for “hello ” … and count how sick he is
          See more in my “Cyber-Bully” category.. Don’t be bullied by thugs .. on the left OR right..

          1. Nobody cares about your blog or the amount of cat turds you eat in a day Hihny. File that.

          2. Somehow, Mikey misses the irony of him referring to someone launching ad hominems at him as “aggressions” is missed, in a thread about a government employee doing that to people at her place of employment…

            1. Notice also how Simple Mikey II tallies up the “aggressions” against him like a hysterical Count. “1, 2, 3, THREE AGGRESSIONS REEEEEEEEEEE!” #HihnsanoSoFragile

          3. I jammed it up your ass here, chump.

            Hihn-tard a confirmed fan of butt-stuff.

  32. In spite of the schadenfreude I experience at seeing leftists hoist on their own retard (i.e. the “safe space” bullshit), it’s impossible for me to take seriously any notion that Lawton somehow threatens the safety of conservative students.

    At the same time, judging by her behavior I have to say that she is plainly not mature enough to be teaching others. And I would like to think that an instructor at a university–even if only a graduate student–could offer a slightly more intellectual argument than waving “the finger” and chanting about the KKK.

  33. Not that anyone cares about the actual First Amendment jurisprudence, but a court would analyze the issue through the Pickering balancing test.” Here is the test:

    (1) Were the comments related to a matter of public concern? Here, it is likely yes?politics is going to be seen as a matter of public concern.

    (2) Does the employee’s interest in commenting on those matters of public concern outweigh the employer’s interest in maintaining a functioning workplace and delivering the goods/services it is charged with providing?

    The balancing test looks at a few factors: (i) did the speech the hamper the government’s ability to perform its duties efficiently, (2) the manner, time, and place of the speech, and (3) the context of the speech.

    This second part of the test may be a closer call, but it is certainly arguable that the manner and context of the speech disrupted the workplace to such a degree that the government employer’s interest outweighed her First Amendment protections.

    (I’d note, recent case law draws a distinction based on whether the speech at issue was delivered while the employee was acting within the scope of employment. It’s debatable here, but if she is viewed as acting within that role, she’d receive even less protection).

  34. I don’t know that I see a problem here. Regardless of her political beliefs, being filmed heckling students and flipping them off is not the sort of behavior I would want my employees engaging in.

  35. Michael Hihn is hated by 91% of the people that interact with him. The other 9% pity him.

  36. I think that people really don’t understand how the term ‘snowflake’ works.

    Let me explain with an example.

    Recently, UCL tweeted out this–

    “Dreaming of a white campus? Our campuses will be open and operating fully today, Monday 11 December, so please make your way in as planned. (We can’t guarantee snow but we’ll try!)”

    It’s a humorous pun playing off the song ‘White Christmas’ as well as the fact that students enjoy getting the day off when there are snow days. It’s VERY clearly about snow.

    And, it did, in fact, cause a snowstorm.

    ‘Snowflakes’ were triggered by this completely innocuous post. Instead of seeing the context, they took one phrase and turned it into something it was never intended to be.

    Apparently, one cannot use the word ‘white’ without snowflakes attaching race to it.

    Their delicate sensibilities were crushed by this and they demanded Official Action.

    That’s what makes one a ‘snowflake’.

    1. Several people responded to this act of supreme idiocy with the derision it deserves.

      That doesn’t make THEM ‘snowflakes as well.

      People who are forced to respond to leftist idiocy–as people did to the idiocy of Courtney Lawton are not taking something out of context and making something of it that it was never intended to be. They are responding to actual calls for force to be used against them.

      I’d say ‘see?’ as I usually do when highlighting the leftist idiocy that Reason is posting with such frequency lately, but really, why bother? You all are too busy gouging your own eyes out to see anything these days.

      1. Leftists’ futile attempt to turn “snowflake” away from themselves reminds me of the scene in Star Trek IV where the cab driver who almost runs over Kirk tells him “watch where you’re going dumbass!” Kirk, flustered at being insulted in front of his subordinates and not having a good comeback, splutters “Well, double dumbass on you!”

  37. I see that Hihn-the-Unhinged is on temporary release from the Institute for the Severely Befuddled again in a hopeless attempt to reintegrate him into society.

  38. So I guess the real question is: Were the students neo-fascists? I for one have no problem with a university, private or public, firing professors who go around slandering other people (students or not) without any basis in fact. That’s bad behavior that could affect the university’s ability to make money. I don’t see anything wrong with firing someone under those circumstances.

  39. But she’s a proggie. Fired? She’s lucky she’s not put against a wall and shot. We’re libertarians!

    1. You said ‘we’.

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

  40. The only thing more entertaining than a dogfight between communofascists and christianofascists is such a brawl with sacrificial casualties on both sides. Since both hordes worship altruism and sacrifice (each claiming the other “isn’t really” altruistic), the bloodier the Roman holiday the more Remarque-ably rewarding for both (and for spectators in the bleachers). More Octagon reporting, please!

  41. Just a thought here, but perhaps she should just do her job and stop being an asshole on campus? You know, like how the rest of the world treats employees….

    Also, the very concept of tenure is wrong on about every level.

    1. Academia isn’t supposed to run as a soulless wealth accumulation operation like a business. The point of tenure is so that bosses don’t get in the way of intellectual freedom. Is that the concept you actually object to, perhaps?

      1. Is that the concept you actually object to, perhaps?

        I object to it when it is done with my money.

        1. Then get enough voters who agree with you.
          Yeah, I know you’re an authoritarian, but try to set that aside.
          If possible.

          1. Then get enough voters who agree with you.

            Voters agree with me, that’s why Lawton can be fired under existing law.

            If you want to change the law, you need to get enough voters to agree with you. Good luck.

  42. Is there any difference between this and firing a professor for preaching Communism or Nazism?

  43. UNL’s position is that she was fired as a conduct issue. They found that the group had planned the protest and had planned the badgering of the student into submission, which is inappropriate for an instructor. They intended to completely block the recruiting efforts, first by telling her that she couldn’t distribute the material and then by physically blocking the table and protesting, thereby restricting her speech, which is also inappropriate for an instructor. It was bad enough one of the protesters, who was also an instructor, gave up and started defending the girl from “bullying” until the police could come. Keep in mind that nobody else is being punished, just the instructor who acted inappropriately. I would expect the other instructor to be punished if it really were for the content of the speech. Here’s an account of the story including content beyond the video, which Reason didn’t bother investigating.

    1. The idea that UNL is suppressing the instructor for her liberal speech is frankly retarded. The previous chancellor (Palpatine, we called him) encouraged students to attend a BLM rally, a frat was suspended after heckling the Women’s March, Lincoln as a whole is pretty proggie, and the university is currently looking into being more welcoming to conservatives. Instructors protested meekly in a nearby spot a week after this incident against disciplinary action for Lawton and no one was suppressed for that, because nobody acted like a raging lunatic.

    2. UNL’s position is that she was fired as a conduct issue

      I’m gonna shoot you to death. My “position” will be self-defense.

  44. Arguments that this was conduct “on her own time” are irrelevant. Teachers have been fired for appearing in pornographic videos outside of work and such firings have held up in US courts, for the simple reason that private conduct outside the place of employment affects performance in people’s professional lives. So, the line some people imagine to exist between private conduct and government employment doesn’t exist in US law. Employers (both private and public) have to tolerate private conduct only if it is not relevant to the employer’s reputation or the employee’s performance in their job.

    Lawton’s conduct is clearly relevant both to her employer’s reputation and to her performance as an instructor, so the university could fire her over her conduct. But she didn’t even get fired, she simply believes that she will not get rehired after her contract is up.

    And the libertarian position on this is also clear: under a libertarian system of government, government wouldn’t forcibly extract money to pay for public universities, so she wouldn’t be a government employee in the first place, and any private employer could fire her for any reason whatsoever consistent with the First Amendment. The libertarian response to cases like this is not “keep her employed”, it’s “fire all other instructors as well and these cases won’t arise anymore”.

  45. As a university professor I see that the author here is missing a key concept. Faculty implicitly surrender multiple rights in order to maintain their position as an effective educator. Prime example, I cannot have sex with my students even if I do it off campus on my time. You could claim that two (or more!) consenting adults have a right to associate and assemble however they choose. But doing so would undercut the perception that I am a fair, unbiased educator. Hence, my firing would be near universally supported.
    This is a similar situation. The instructor might not have been ‘on the clock’ but she was on campus and hence representing the university faculty. She demonstrated strong evidence that she could not be trusted to provide a fair, unbiased educational space. The space doesn’t have to be safe – but it does have to be level in appearance and fact.

    1. You equate sex with literal speech … and claim to be an educator? Phys Ed?

      1. Nah, i guess he equated 2 constitutionaly protected rights :
        The property of oneself over his own body and free speech.
        But you are so low on arguments that you are now on the hunt for ridiculous ad-hominem.

  46. Obviously I hope some woman like this dies a slow and painful death in the near future for being an idiot commie… As far as firing her, I would say what makes me okay with this is that she’s doing this ON CAMPUS and organizing students against other students.

    If she had been at some commie march in DC or something that’s unrelated to her job. This action was not. If a right wing professor was out there organizing and starting shit with some commie kids on campus I would have the same issue. It doesn’t seem right for them to be this actively involved ON CAMPUS and AGAINST THEIR OWN STUDENTS.

    Doing stuff in your private life outside of work grounds is not the same as doing stuff at the facility where you work IMO.

  47. Obviously I hope some woman like this dies a slow and painful death in the near future for being an idiot commie… As far as firing her, I would say what makes me okay with this is that she’s doing this ON CAMPUS and organizing students against other students.

    If she had been at some commie march in DC or something that’s unrelated to her job. This action was not. If a right wing professor was out there organizing and starting shit with some commie kids on campus I would have the same issue. It doesn’t seem right for them to be this actively involved ON CAMPUS and AGAINST THEIR OWN STUDENTS.

    Doing stuff in your private life outside of work grounds is not the same as doing stuff at the facility where you work IMO.

  48. “Interpret Lawton’s protest in any way you like, but you cannot defend her punishment for non-violent protest.”

    No, but I can defend the right of her employer to no longer desire to employ her, because her comments are not conducive to learning. Do you seriously think that intelligent discourse can occur when your professor is calling you a neo-fascist because she doesn’t like your viewpoint? Do you think she can rise above her prejudice and grade you fairly?

    The school clearly did not think she could be effective any longer and chose to place her in a position other than teaching, and then terminate the relationship. That is their right.

  49. Hahaahahah! When I see a story with many multiples the average number of comments, I think “Oh, that old fart Michael Hihn (and, when he gets confused, his sock puppets) must have polluted this thread.”

    I sometimes hope the “I made $26543 this month, click here to find out how.” bot got stuck and duplicate posted a few hundred times instead, but it’s always that senile old shit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.