Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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.

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.

  • Just Say'n||

    "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!".

  • Just Say'n||

    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

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    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.

  • Just Say'n||

    "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.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    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.

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • Incredulous||

    Exactly

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    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?

  • mtrueman||

    "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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • nicmart||

    Google is private and UNL is government.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Verizon is private too. OOPS, there goes "Net Neutrality!"

  • ravenshrike||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    One more time, snowflake. The constitution limits government, not private businesses.

  • DesigNate||

    Did he say otherwise asshole?

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    Des,

    Nope, he was right. Damore wrote truth from a PC perspective to try to get more women to stay in tech by changing Googles practices to what science suggests would be more amenable to more women. This violated PC dogma - "Quotas Now!" So they issued PR blather lying about what Damore wrote and fired him. As we all know and nobody has denied, this was their right.

    The Uni is an agent of the State. Thus the Constitution applies. No Professor, TA or lecturer has some right to harass students whos politics she disagrees with.

    Lets raise the tone here, my fellow peeps.

  • ravenshrike||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But ... you don't know what firing means ... or what a contract is.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You have the right to have a contract renewed? Interesting.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You have the right to have a contract renewed? Interesting.

    You said something that stupid in public?
    Not renewing a contract is to fire someone.
    Still confused?

  • ravenshrike||

    Curiouser and curiouser. So, according to you, a contract with set terms is automatically expected to be renewed and if not is considered firing. Interesting.

  • John Galt is back||

    So, according to you, a contract with set terms is automatically expected to be renewed

    THINK

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    THINK

    You first, dummy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The authoritarian right .... defend each other's lies ... plus childish name-calling.
    NEVER any substance or content. Just aggression.

    (ravenshrike had clearly lied about what Hihn said, as a typical poor loser)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano forgot to log in with a sockpuppet account and ends up speaking in the third person.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck HihnsanO

    They travel in a pack. Like wild dogs.

    One celebrates murdering people in a woodchipper ... his sock puppet celebrates white privilege.

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Michael Hihn||

    ***WHAT***KIND****OF*** SICK****FUCK*** RIDICULES*** CANCER***PATIENTS?
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7072139

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex. #HihnsanoSoFragile.

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Tenure protectionism is weird.

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    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.

  • JoeBlow123||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thereby proving the label "conservative snowflakes."

    Only THEIR students have any free speech, on the authoritarian right.
    And SO self-righteous about their fascism.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If there's one thing Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows, it's self-righteousness. You might even call him an expert on the subject from first-hand practice.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano

    They travel in a pack. Like wild dogs.

    One celebrates murdering people in a woodchipper ... his sock puppet celebrates white privilege.

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Michael Hihn||

    ***WHAT***KIND****OF*** SICK****FUCK*** RIDICULES*** CANCER***PATIENTS?
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7072139

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex. #HihnsanoSoFragile.

  • John Galt is back||

    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,.

  • hello.||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Exercising free speech is the opposite of free speech." .
    We understand why snowflakes, both left and right, always try to shout down anyone they disagree with ... often with piety and self-righteousness.

    That's why God invented libertarians!

  • Michael Hihn||

    She's a student asswipe.

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

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

    Umm, what about a DMV employee ... on private time ... not even in the office?
    (laughing)

  • Dunehunter||

    "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).

  • Michael Hihn||

    That was dumb ...

  • Dunehunter||

    Yeah, and I can tell from your comments that you're a real genius.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Was I dumbfuckery enough to babble that a STUDENT is the government? But the public school management is not.

    To lie about her being on her own time?
    Was MY head up your ass, conservative snowflake???

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano gonna corpse-fuck the thread because he's a shit-for-brains loser with a head full of well-deserved tumors.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ***WHAT***KIND****OF*** SICK****FUCK*** RIDICULES*** CANCER***PATIENTS?

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex. #HihnsanoSoFragile.

  • John Galt is back||

    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?

  • ravenshrike||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    On her own time, fascist.
    We would not need the first amendment to defend safe speech.
    Constitution 101. Learn it.

  • ||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Because you ARE a neo-fascist!
    And SO self-righteous.

  • mtrueman||

    "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?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you understand that she was on her own private time, not on the job?
    Or is that too complicated for you fascists?

  • Dunehunter||

    If she is on University property, she is not "on her own time". She is a government employee representing the government school.

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOW you confuse time and location
    Tribal hatred is unbecoming, snowflake...

  • mtrueman||

    People are fired for things they do 'in their own time' all the time. An employer can fire an employee for just about any reason or no reason at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Quite the blowhard.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Quite the blowhard.

    I see you've been looking in the mirror again.

  • Dixon Sider Woodchipper||

    Quite the dumbfuck.

    I have a job where certain conduct while not on the clock absolutely WILL impact my job, along with a large number of other people.

    This isn't a new or difficult concept for anyone with more than two fucking brain cells.

  • John Galt is back||

    This isn't a new or difficult concept for anyone with more than two fucking brain cells

    So why did you post something totally irrelevant BOTH to the issue AND the thread? Ah, one of those speshul bullies who celebrates feeding humans into woodchippers.
    Tolerance of opposing views is only for pussies, right manly man?

  • Dixon Sider Woodchipper||

    Isn't the entire point of this article, and this situation overall, about professional consequences for private actions? Sure seems that way to me.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So why did you post something totally irrelevant BOTH to the issue AND the thread?

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks someone talking about conduct off the clock doesn't apply to what happened to someone due to conduct off the clock.

  • Devastator||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes! Authoritarians, both left and right, each apply (in different ways) the crazy notion that THEIR-defined right is an absolute -- when libertarians have known (for several centuries) that NO rights are absolute -- not even Life -- by the definition of unalienable. duh.

    But to be fair, it's hard to be wackier than the Taliban wing of the Christian Right. They mindlessly repeat, "The words 'Wall of Separation' do not appear in the Constitution." Why would they have to? That was the INTENT -- and the dominant thought at the time -- the days of the (un)Holy Inquisition ... and the words and deeds of our first three Presidents and the unanimous US Senate in our 9th year ... vs NO other words or actions by ANYONE.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    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!"

  • Just Say'n||

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

  • Rhywun||

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

  • Phred||

    These days I don't even limit my expectation of that to Public Servants

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fuck you, you motherfuckin' fuck.

  • Phred||

    Surprisingly mild.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But NOT a neo-fascist. (lol)

  • Michael Hihn||

    You probably deserve it.

  • John Galt is back||

    but not a private sector worker?

    THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
    Just say'n.

  • hello.||

    YOUR FUCKING MEDICATION.
    Just say'n.

  • John Galt is back||

    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)

  • DesigNate||

    Seek help.

  • John Galt is back||

    (sigh) More cyber-bullying by conservatives

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (sigh) More whining by Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Rhywun||

    Coming from an instructor? Of course it is.

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

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

    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?

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • Phred||

    No one believes you.

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • hello.||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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.)

  • BYODB||

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

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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..

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    #HihnsanoSoFragile

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

  • ravenshrike||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • ravenshrike||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Called out as a fool. You deny your own words. Reverse your excuse. Talk like a 12-year-old.
    Typical of conservative snowflakes. It's those fucking "libtards" right?.
    And the glory of tribal hatred!

  • ravenshrike||

    I'm thinking you need a remedial English class as I did no such thing. Well, that is what I would suspect if it weren't abundantly clear you weren't a sad little troll on a sad little hill.

  • John Galt is back||

    Bend over. This will go in easier.
    Original
    :

    should be coddled because they lack life experience is insane.

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

    Called out for bullshit, he revises

    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.


    For any other retards...

    ...because they lack life experience ...

    (vs)

    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

    Now the bullying

    Called out as a fool. You deny your own words. Reverse your excuse

    I'm thinking you need a remedial English class as I did no such thing

    Repeat

    ..because they lack life experience ...

    ... 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

    EVERY conservatard mindlessly recites the "customers" lie.
    ALL refuse to explain how she loses her free speech rights.
    And all psychoe screech"FAKE NEWS"

    Bellowing Blowhards Be Belligerent Bullies

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex. #HihnsanoSoFragile.

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    "...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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Coming from an instructor? Of course it is.

    She was on her own time, Spanky..

    The equivalence they're trying to draw here is laughable

    She was on her own time.
    And you just smashed an egg onto your face.

  • ravenshrike||

    She was also at her workplace berating customers and potential customers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How does that affect her free speech rights?
    The egg is now dripping off your puss onto your short.

  • John Galt is back||

    And SHAMELESSLY full of shit on "customers".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The only thing full of shit is your Depends, Hihnny-poo.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They were not customers
    .

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks people that pay for things aren't customers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks people that pay for things aren't customers

    (SNORT) TAXPAYERS ARE "CUSTOMERS" OF THE STATE!!!

    .... who's the dumbfuck?? (sneer)

  • Michael Hihn||

    ***WHAT***KIND****OF*** SICK****FUCK*** RIDICULES*** CANCER***PATIENTS?
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7072139

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still thinks people that pay for things aren't customers, displays persecution complex the size of the Pacific Ocean, shits his pants. #HihnsanoSoFragile

  • BCarter||

    I read Reason frequently but have never posted.

    If I understand, from your position, if the DMV employee mentioned above came into their workplace on their day off, in other words, their own time, is that can stand in the parking lot and insult DMV customers without expecting repercussions?

  • John Galt is back||

    What does SCOTUS say?.
    We are a nation of laws, a Constitution and a Judiciary.
    Bellowing is not an accepted factor

    Why are snowflakes all repeating the "customer" bullshit?

  • Mark22||

    What does SCOTUS say?

    Well, why don't YOU tell us? After all, YOU keep insisting that it is completely established Constitutional law that no public employer can fire any employee for private conduct and/or private speech (you are a little vague on the point).

    We're just telling you that we don't believe this to be true.

  • John Galt is back||

    After all, YOU keep insisting that it is completely established Constitutional law that no public employer can fire any employee for private conduct and/or private speech (you are a little vague on the point)

    Bend over. This is jamming up your ass,
    Link to me saying that ... typical lying sack of shit conservative snowflake.
    (Cyber-bullies travel on a pack, like the wild dogs they emulate)

    Clear enough? (sneer)

    (Boldface and tone in defense of repeated aggressions by this -- and other -- rigtht-wing haters, thugs and liars. Left minus Right STILL equals Zero))

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he hasn't been gurgling this the whole thread because his other two personalities have been doing it instead.

  • John Galt is back||

    Relevance???

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano posting as Shitforbrains Hihntard now.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't keep his sockpuppets straight.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance?

  • Michael Hihn||

    ***WHAT***KIND****OF*** SICK****FUCK*** RIDICULES*** CANCER***PATIENTS?
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7072139

    The authoritarian right. Slapping down backtalk since Hitler and Atilla

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex. #HihnsanoSoFragile.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    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.

  • rudehost||

    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.

  • Phred||

    So you're cool with losing.

  • John Galt is back||

    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?

  • hello.||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    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?

  • John Galt is back||

    Weaponized???

  • sparkstable||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • hello.||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Shorter Hihn: BURGLY GURGLY POOPEDY DOOPEDY! FIZZLEDY BUMPEDY SCKOOCH!!"

    (tiptoes away giggling)

  • Michael Hihn||

    PROUD TO BE HATED BY BULLIES

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihntard proud to be my bitch.

  • John Galt is back||

    Why so much aggression and cyber-bullying ... on a libertarian website?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "I'M TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT WHICH SOCKPUPPET TO USE REEEEEEEEEEE!"

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why so much aggression and cyber-bullying ... on a libertarian website?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "I'M TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT WHICH SOCKPUPPET TO USE REEEEEEEEEEE!"

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    She wasn't forbidden from speech

    She was punished for speech ... as a private citizen ... on her own time ... by a government entity.

    And why do neo-fascists always dent what Free Speech rights even means???

  • VinniUSMC||

    She was punished for speech, as a faculty member, on campus, for actions against students, by her employer.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Liar.
    Pathetic liar.

  • sparkstable||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your bullshit ignores that she was on private time, not on the job.

    I also understand that as a government worker in the capacity of being "the state" she does not always have first-amendment protections

    Same fuckup, made nonsensical.

    I specifically laid out NON-speech related reasons to justify her firing.

    This is what you "laid out," Slick:

    There is plenty of actionable material to let her go without ever considering what she said, thereby making no issues with her 1A rights

    TOO MUCH DETAIL! (lol).

    But she's a liberal, and you're a blowhard,. I get that,

  • VinniUSMC||

    When you're a faculty member, on campus, you're not on private time.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now you're drooling.
    Consider therapy for all that rage and hatred.
    Or possibly a brain transplant.
    .

  • sparkstable||

    So.... the guy who explicitly said something you ignored and who made a rather to the point remark about there being non-speech issues at hand is the blowhard. But the guy who is too stupid to be able to read, makes snap judgements, offers no critical analysis, no explanation of his position, no logical train of thought but posts ALL OVER THE PLACE the SAME repetitive, vapid bull is somehow a mental juggernaut.

    Now everything makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is that your best shot?
    Whiny bullshit?

  • John Galt is back||

    So.... the guy who explicitly said something you ignored

    And a liar too?
    Your time has expired.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't decide if he's Sméagol or Gollum.

  • Mickey Rat||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    They're snowflakes for the identical reason you people yell "snowflakes" at the left.
    And the same moral hypocrisy.

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

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

    Try again.

  • Spinach Chin||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your the fascist.

  • Spinach Chin||

    I'm fighting fascists. Using their methods.

    There's a big difference.

    In the absence of the attempts to silence those they disagree with, I'm happy to tolerate free debate and speech. It's when their activities cross into actively attempting to limit my civil liberties that I fight back. And I will fight as unfairly as they fight. You can't win against cheaters by fighting fair.

    You're an appeaser in the guise of a libertarian. You'd allow them to rape your loved ones and take your home and possessions if it meant avoiding a direct conflict that went against your precious principles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bend over, Spinach Chin, this will go up your ass easier (snort)

    You're an appeaser in the guise of a libertarian. You'd allow them to rape your loved ones and take your home and possessions if it meant avoiding a direct conflict that went against your precious principles

    Fucking psycho equates yelling "neo-nazi" with forced rape, and armed theft ... to "justify" his fascism.

    Thus proving me correct!

    (Was he snarling?)

  • Rich||

    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?!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Huh, haven't seen these for a while.

  • ||

    Thanks a fucking bunch Ajit Pai, amiright?

  • ||

    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.

  • esteve7||

    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

  • buybuydandavis||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fuckin' TreasonNN, am I right?

  • ||

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

  • BYODB||


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


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

  • Michael Hihn||

    Show of hands:
    How many total fucking morons don't know that libertarianism has been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for ... a hair under 50 years now.

    Left - Right = Zero
    And they're both now down to mostly shills and blowhards

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • hello.||

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

    Instead of the meds, I JAMMED IT UP YOUR ASS, bully.
    http://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)

  • damikesc||

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    1) Check the link
    2) Wipe the egg off your face.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    1) Buy a bullet
    2) Rent a gun

  • BYODB||

    '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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Translation: 'Free speech' doesn't mean you can't fire government employees for ;... free speech ... on their own time .. off the job.

    Please, take your meds

    Your childishness makes our point..

  • buybuydandavis||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

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

    Well said!

  • ||

    I can't keep up with the terms!

  • SIV||

    No

    It's spelled "cuckotarian"

  • John Galt is back||

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

    The one you hate?

  • Spinach Chin||

    We should all hate progressive fascists, appeaser.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only thugs like you would defend conservative fascists.
    And LOOK like a fool doing so!

  • Spinach Chin||

    Show me a "conservative fascist", appeaser. The KKK? Lol! Statistically they don't exist. They certainly have no power - neither politically nor socially. They're not a threat, and I fully oppose them, as do the VAST majority of conservatives.

    Progressive fascists are more ubiquitous. And far more dangerous to a free society. They are also, unfortunately, more fully supported in their activities by mainstream liberals.

    Like you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Show me a "conservative fascist", appeaser

    Roy Moore
    And you

    "Appeaser" was jammed up your ass here:

    And your constant bullying kinda exposes your bullshit..

  • Michael Hihn||

    I ALMOST MISSED YOUR BIGGEST FUCKUP!!
    Bend over. Up your ass AGAIN!

    supported in their activities by mainstream liberals
    Like you

    This is a link to the web archive of my published political writing. Look especially to my "liberal;" views on Taxes, Health Care and Federalism (smirk) ... .to see PROOF of your partisan aggressions ... and lame bullshit

    (He'll keep attacking anyhow. Only way he can feel manly. Stalking me down the page. Self-righteous arrogance unique to his ilk)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Captain Hihn-spamo pimping his old-ass blog and his anal fetish again.

    Stop sucking your own fleshlight, Hihnny-poo.

  • esteve7||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    It's called Free Speech, snowflake.

  • hello.||

    Stop using terms you don't understand, retard.

  • John Galt is back||

    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?

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • ravenshrike||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    She didn't lose her employment ....her contract will not be renewed.

    Oh

  • Michael Hihn||

    The lummox wasn't blocked from speaking.

    Same fuckup as hello.
    Free speech is about PUNISHING speech ... not just blocking it.
    I mean, how fucking stupid can you folks be?

  • David Nolan||

    I wouldn't call them stupid. Their behavior is part of the neo-fascist bundle.
    Their enablers are named Trump, Bannon and Paul.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Captain Hihnsano and his dissociative personality disorder.

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Reason writers.

  • Rhywun||

    LOL

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • hello.||

    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

  • BYODB||


    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?

  • David Nolan||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Another sockpuppet burp by the Lolbertarian Spam King!

  • Libertarian||

    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

  • Rhywun||

    W
    T
    F

  • ||

    It's Germany. Like Chinatown.

  • Johnny B||

    Wait, you are saying the beast is his daughter?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Rich||

    Gives a whole new meaning to "petting zoo" and "service animal".

  • Kivlor||

    '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?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Convenience?

    -jcr

  • damikesc||

    "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.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    And censorship is so noble ... when done for the "right" purpose
    Even by conservative snowflakes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Learn about "blowback," Hihntard.

  • hello.||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is unfortunate that snowflakery became an apparently valid tactic.

    Blame the left.

    lol

  • GILMORE™||

    I believe it was Alinksy who said, "make your enemy follow their own rules"

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from consequences.

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

  • hello.||

    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.

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, but hello is as easily confused as you,.

  • IceTrey||

    Another reason all schooling should be private.

  • gormadoc||

    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.

  • BYODB||

    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.

  • Deven||

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

  • Kivlor||

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

    /Reason

  • gormadoc||

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

  • Knutsack||

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • hello.||

    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.

  • BYODB||


    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not "speech alone" chump.

  • GILMORE™||

    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

  • ||

    Damore said nothing controversial and backed up his claims.

    Dalmia couldn't debate him even if she tried.

  • Kivlor||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • JoeBlow123||

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

    GOOGLE IS A PRIVATE EMPLOYER.
    Howzat?

  • hello.||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHE WASN'T AT WORK
    THOSE WERE NOT HER STUDENTS
    GALT HAS CALLED OUT YOUR STUPIDITY ON THAT FOUR TIMES.
    I AM PLEASED TO JOIN HIM.

  • Spinach Chin||

    Stop pretending you're not the same person, FFS.

    It's like a child with chocolate on his hands claiming he didn't eat the cookies.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHE WAS NOT AT WORK
    THOSE WERE NOT HER STUDENTS
    AND YOU'RE THE PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKE WHO EQUATED RAPE AND ARMED THEFT WITH ....yelling "neo-nazi" (hahahaha)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    YOU'RE A WASTE OF CARBON MOLECULES WHO DESERVED THAT CANCER IN YOUR NECK. (hahahahaha)

  • ||

    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.

  • hello.||

    Read this post real slow a couple of times Mikey.

  • John Galt is back||

    TWO misfuck conservative snowflakes!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    One dumbfuck Hihnspamo snowflake!

  • GroundTruth||

    Remind me, which president came up with "free speech zones" so that he didn't have to face the music? Slick Willy or Dubya?

  • PaulTheBeav||

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

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

    "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.

  • MG58||

    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"

  • BYODB||

    Changing the name to 'Generic Girl Name' doesn't make it any more civil.

  • ||

    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?"

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • Sigivald||

    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?

  • Kivlor||

    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."

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • hello.||

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

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don't have contempt for the Constitution. I have an understanding of it.

    (snort)

    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 cop was on the job. She was not. And your head is now wedged tightly up your self-righteous ass.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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?

  • PaulTheBeav||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They weren't customers. She was not on the job, And you fascists are so pathetic (and laughable),

  • Sigivald||

    "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?

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • David Nolan||

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

  • Incredulous||

    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?

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • Eidde||

    Here is an offensive image involved in that case.

    Caution: Offensive image, duh.

  • Kivlor||

    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.

  • Kivlor||

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

  • Eidde||

    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!

  • Michael Hihn||

    How many times will you fuck up what it means to be fired?
    How do "civility standards" restrict free speech?
    When she was on her own time, off the job?
    And why are you snowflakes so easily ridiculed?

  • SimonP||

    "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.

  • Incredulous||

    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.

  • David Nolan||

    WTF? So now certain words are the sole property of SJW's?

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

  • hello.||

    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.

  • David Nolan||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    At what point do unalienable rights become "problematic" to the wacky right?

  • hello.||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    In your psychotic universe, they could fire her for watching a Bernie Sanders speech on TV ... at home .. on her own time ... and you'd bellow about ... the wrong fuckimg right being violated ... to "justify" your raging bigotry and repeat the same retardation 11 times on this page.

    Right - Left = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Zero

    What is, "Above Hihnny-poo's IQ level, Alex?"

  • VinniUSMC||

    This is what your argument boils down to. Argumentum ad absurdum. Troll.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You confuse so easily??

  • Headache||

    There is no reason for REASON to be reasonable.

  • Azathoth!!||

    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?

  • mtrueman||

    "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.

  • SimonP||

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

  • Incredulous||

    You don't understand the First Amendment.

  • John Galt is back||

    You don't understand the First Amendment

    Which part of Free Speech confuses you, snowflake?.

  • hello.||

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

  • David Nolan||

    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.

    .

  • Spinach Chin||

    Why are you posting under 3 different IDs, Hihn?

    Bizarre...

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Looks like the chemo ate up the rest of your cerebellum, Mush-head Mikey.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So you defend equating rape and armed theft with yelling "neo-nazi?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    So you defend equating rape and armed theft with yelling "neo-nazi?

    You deserve rape.

  • Tony||

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

  • hello.||

    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?

  • Azathoth!!||

    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.

  • David Nolan||

    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?

  • Azathoth!!||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They aren't customers, and why do you retards echo each other?

  • Michael Hihn||

    They aren't customers, and why do you retards echo each other?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Sockpuppet Hihnsano complains about echoes, misses irony.

  • Mark22||

    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?

  • David Nolan||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Uhhh, Sparky ... She was not on the job ,.. and they were not her customers.

    Why are right wingers as totally fucked up as left wingers?
    It's their raging bigotry and self-righteous assholery.

  • John C. Randolph||

    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

  • John Galt is back||

    a leftardOuts himself as a conservatard snowflake!
  • John C. Randolph||

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

    -jcr

  • David Nolan||

    He nailed your ass to the wall, snowflake.
    I'd add "raging bigot."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

    (hops away chortling)

  • Deflator Mouse||

    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.

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • Eidde||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • Widhalm19||

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

  • David Nolan||

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

    What bad habit put that cancer in your head?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The idea that government employees have First Amendment protections from being fired is ridiculous and insidious.

    Even worse -- the dumbasses who think that's the issue here.

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

    In effect, you're even more fucked up than she is.

    The First Amendment includes Free Speech. She was fired ... for her speech .. on her own time .. off the job .. by a government entity. I know you people confuse easily, but ,... geez

  • senglord draconis||

    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?

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • damikesc||

    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.

  • David Nolan||

    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.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

  • AJ_Liberty||

    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...

  • Mark22||

    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?

  • Widhalm19||

    Excellent!

  • John Galt is back||

    It 's a government school, so you're both snowflakes. (lol)

  • hello.||

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

  • jmg09||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SEVENTH TIME ... THEY WERE NOT HER STUDENTS ... SHE WAS ON HER OWN TIME ... OFF THE JOB.

  • Spinach Chin||

    Nope. She still represents the university when on campus. Matters not whether she's on the clock.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I was correcting his lie. And you're full of shit, but not as crazy as you were here:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7068191

  • Widhalm19||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • hello.||

    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!

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

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

  • Kivlor||

    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...

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    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.

    Dumbfuck claims .. in public .. that nobody can commit aggression in this thread ,... because it's ABOUT somebody else's aggression ... and the moron thinks she was on the job!!! .

    And another bully AGREES!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "MOAR AGGRESSIONS REEEEEEEEEEEE!"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I jammed it up your ass here, chump.

    Hihn-tard a confirmed fan of butt-stuff.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    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.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    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).

  • jmg09||

    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.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

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

  • Azathoth!!||

    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'.

  • Azathoth!!||

    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.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    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!"

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    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.

    Typical adult of his ilk.

  • Mark22||

    Since I don't know what the "typical adult of Hihn's ilk" is like, I'll have to take your word for it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    #HihnsanoSoFragile

  • intolerantape||

    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.

  • Tony||

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

  • Azathoth!!||

    You said 'we'.

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

  • Hank Phillips||

    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!

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    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.

  • Tony||

    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?

  • Mark22||

    Is that the concept you actually object to, perhaps?

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

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • Mark22||

    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.

  • Michael Ejercito||

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ignore the many right-wing snowflake here. She was not on the job.
    She was fired for private behavior .. on her own time ... by a government entity.
    What really SUCKS about liberty is ... equal rights. To thugs.

  • Mark22||

    She was fired for private behavior .. on her own time ... by a government entity.

    Since "private behavior on one's own time" factors into "hiring by a government entity" in many ways, it is difficult to see why it shouldn't also factor into "firing".

  • John Galt is back||

    I'm sure it's difficult for you. You've ignored the Constitution and government maybe two dozen times here.

  • Mark22||

    I'm sure it's difficult for you. You've ignored the Constitution and government maybe two dozen times here.

    The fact is that under existing US law, private behavior factors into both hiring and firing of government employees. Courts have found nothing wrong with that. Voters don't seem to find anything wrong with that. And ethically, most people don't see anything wrong with it either.

    For some reason, you seem to hold the absurd belief that things are different or ought to be different. But that's your problem, not anybody else's.

  • gormadoc||

    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.

  • gormadoc||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The idea that UNL is suppressing the instructor for her liberal speech is frankly retarded.

    it wasn't enough that you fucked it up the first time?

    Doesn't matter whether her speech was liberal, conservative or intelligent.
    She was punished .. by a government entity .. for activities on her own private time ... but I see right-wing fascists inventing all kinds of bullshit excuses here, to justify their oppression. Just like Bernie's and Barack's bots.

  • Mark22||

    She was punished ..

    How was she "punished"? Her contract wasn't terminated and she keeps getting paid.

    by a government entity .. for activities on her own private time

    It wasn't an arbitrary government entity, it was her employer. Government employers have a right to fire or reassign people for some activities on her own private time.

    but I see right-wing fascists inventing all kinds of bullshit excuses here, to justify their oppression

    We're just explaining US legal reality to you. An explanation of US legal reality isn't the same as an ethical analysis.

    A libertarian ethical analysis of this case is actually very simple: it is wrong and oppressive to force me as a taxpayer to pay for Lawton's salary as an instructor in the first place.

    Forcing me to contribute to her salary against my will, which is what you advocate, is, in fact, the "oppressive" and "right wing fascist" position.

  • gormadoc||

    It's not on her own time, though. She was a TA; during that time she is obligated to be working on classroom matters or on her studies. During that time she is also bound by the expectations of her employer, which does not include harassing students.

  • Michael Hihn||

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

    On her own time. As a private action.

    which is inappropriate for an instructor.

    On private time .. by our gestapo?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Here--because it appears to have shut you up once already

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

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

    Nobody said otherwise. chump. A non sequitor of truly MASSIVE proportions

    .

  • John Galt is back||

    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.

  • Mark22||

    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".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Pornograophic videos are not protected speech. So, you have now invented SEVEN lame excuses, desperate snowflake

    P.S. THIS dishonesty ignores that she had lied about her past
    And everyone can see the proof of your latest shame
    Every Google return including failing to honestly report past employment..

    P.P.S. Junior High students are not university students on matters like this

    "Halas did not star in pornographic movies while teaching in any district. He said she took parts only during an eight-month period from 2005 to 2006 because of financial problems after her boyfriend abandoned her."

    Might conservative snowflakes be even WORSE than liberal ones?

  • Mark22||

    So, you have now invented SEVEN lame excuses, desperate snowflake

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You keep stating as fact that private conduct and/or private speech cannot be used as a cause for firing government employees because of the First Amendment. But that is obviously false, since Lawton did get fired. I'm merely illustrating to you that there are other cases in which the general principle you keep stating seem violated.

  • AthwartHistory||

    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.

  • John Galt is back||

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

  • dexter||

    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.

  • vek||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Obviously I hope some woman like this dies a slow and painful death in the near future for being an idiot commie

    And you're PROUD of being a psycho bigot!!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano PROUD of being a pants-shitting waste of life!

  • vek||

    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.

  • Code Ronin||

    "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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    FUCK the Constitution. Invent a lame excuse.

  • Trollificus||

    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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online