The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
FIRE Lawsuit Against Collin College
From a Foundation for Individual Rights in Education press release, discussing the allegations in this Complaint:
Today, history professor Michael Phillips sued Collin College, its president, H. Neil Matkin, and other university officials for violating his constitutional rights by firing him for talking about history and criticizing the college's COVID-19 policies.
Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Phillips is the third professor to sue Collin College for muzzling faculty criticism, and the fourth, since January 2021, to be fired for criticizing the college's response to the COVID-19 pandemic….
In August 2017, Collin College and Matkin began their unconstitutional campaign against the professor. Phillips, an expert in race relations in Dallas, authored an open letter in the Dallas Morning News on behalf of a group of historians, calling for the removal of Confederate monuments in Dallas. In the letter, Phillips identified himself as a professor at Collin College. As a result, administrators summoned Phillips to a meeting and told him that the letter violated college policy because it "made the college look bad," and mentioned Phillips's affiliation with the college.
Two years later, a Washington Post reporter interviewed Phillips to provide context for a story about a former Collin College student who targeted Mexicans in a mass shooting at a Texas Walmart. The article referred to Phillips as "a Collin College professor," but Phillips spoke, not on behalf of the college, but in his capacity as an expert on the topic of race relations. Administrators issued Phillips an "Employee Coaching Form" for defying Matkin's unconstitutional gag order forbidding faculty members from speaking with the media about the shooting.
In June 2020 and in August 2021, Phillips criticized the college's response to the COVID-19 pandemic on his Facebook page. After his first post, administrators warned him, asking in a disciplinary meeting, "Do you still want to work here?" After his second, the college asked him to sign a formalreprimand.
Then, in Sept. 2021, while teaching about the history of pandemics, Phillips discussed the harm caused by anti-mask advocacy groups during the 1918-19 flu pandemic and suggested that students consider wearing masks. Administrators summoned Phillips to yet another disciplinary meeting and told him that he should never mention masks to students again.
On Jan. 28, Collin College informed Phillips — who had then-recently been named "Educator of the Year" by the East Texas Historical Association — that his contract would not be renewed. Phillips also learned that the college's Council on Excellence, a group of faculty members who evaluate faculty applying for new contracts, had approved him for a three-year contract extension. Nevertheless, Matkin and his administration chose to disregard the recommendation of their faculty and substitute their own unconstitutional motives to terminate Phillips….
Public colleges violate the First Amendment rights of their professors by retaliating against them for speaking on public issues. This is exactly what Collin College, Matkin, and college administrators did to Phillips and other faculty members. In his lawsuit, Phillips challenges the constitutionality of the policies used by the college to justify his termination.
Phillips is the third former Collin College professor represented by FIRE. Former history professor Lora Burnett recently prevailed in her own First Amendment lawsuit against the school after she was fired for criticizing public officials and the Collin College administration. Under the judgment, Collin College will pay Burnett $70,000 in damages and approximately $38,000 in attorneys' fees.
FIRE now also represents Suzanne Jones in the lawsuit she filed against Collin College in September. Like Phillips, Jones was fired for calling for the removal of Confederate monuments and for challenging the college's COVID-19 reopening plans, among other protected activities….
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"other university officials "
Its a community college.
I would like to see included a mandamus of the IRS Non-Profit Office to revoke the tax exempt status of the school. If that could happen one time, all woke would immediately disappear from all schools.
Do you support this school's actions?
I think FIRE has a point. But, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any "public colleges" in the first place. (As I see it, providing higher education is not a proper function of government.)
Public goods are the function of government. Since the Cold War, we've known an educated populous is a public good, with national security implications.
It is naive of our nation's recent history to believe otherwise.
Education is by definition not a public good (it's rivalrous and excludable).
And even if you believe that it should be subsidized, that only argues for publicly funded schools, not government-run schools.
Your definition of public good is way off. Education is a public good because it has vast positive externalities.
If we live in an uneducated country, we will be dominated by countries with educated populations. Further, democracy cannot function properly with people who are ignorant and lack the ability to think independently.
The last point is why cancel culture and political correctness is so poisonous. Ultimately, people must have both the ability to think (which is facilitated by education) and the freedom to think (which is facilitated by a culture of free speech).
"Your definition of public good is way off. Education is a public good because it has vast positive externalities."
Having positive externalities isn't sufficient to make something a public good.
According to your BAD definition of public good.
Let’s put it this way. Your definition of public good has very little to do with what the government should promote or subsidize. Thus, it is not clear the word “public” should be used before the word “good” with your preferred definition.
"Let’s put it this way. Your definition of public good has very little to do with what the government should promote or subsidize."
Sigh. It's not my definition. It's the definition of an entire branch of social science that deals with this particular topic, and has discussed extensively why things that are excludable and rivalrous should be provided by the government.
TwelveInchPianist:
Economics is not "the" social sciences instead it is "a" social science.
And we can also take concepts from economics (namely externalities) to make an argument that a larger class of goods should be subsidized by government. It is reasonable to call such goods public goods.
Note, that the origin of the original term "public good" was BECAUSE some economics thought that these goods (which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable) are a good idea for government to subsidize. So, the principle is the same. What we have here is really a conclusion (which goods should be subsidized) masquerading as a definition.
A better definition of "public good" using the same criteria used to coin the economics term is a "good that government should subsidize."
If a good has high positive externalities that are not consumed by the individual, then an argument can be made that private investment in that good will provide an nonoptimal amount of it absent government intervention.
I believe the broader definition of "public good" is even superior in economics. However, even if we adopted the more narrow definition for economics, we need not use that definition in all discussions of public policy. Especially when here, you use your disagreement about definition to elide the substantive point.
Economics is not "the" social sciences instead it is "a" social science.
Well, he never said anything about Economics being "the" social sciences, so I'm not sure what your point is.
WuzYoungOnceToo:
Well, you have to concede that "an entire branch of social science that deals with this particular topic" is a rather long-winded way of saying "economics" don't you?
Yeah, so if you are going to talk about "social science" like this, I think it is good to put it in context. That is the point.
That is the definition of public good. It's a term of art; it doesn't mean "things that are good for the public."
Mr. Nieporent:
I understand that some people use the definition you call a "term of art" is economics. But that isn't the most useful definition of the term when it comes to discussions of public policy, IMO.
Another way to put it is that TwelveInchPianist's objection to Sarcastro ("[e]ducation is by definition not a public good -- it's rivalrous and excludable") is pointless. It assumes that Sarcastro is using a definition he is not and does not address Sarcastro's substantive point.
Saying "haha, it is not a 'public good' according to the definition that some economists happen to use" might make for a lame game of gotcha, but is useless. The world public good ALSO means a good a good that should be subsidized by the public, even if there is another definition with a more particular meaning used in a different context.
Sarcastro claimed that education should be provided by the government (not just subsidized). That only makes sense if he's using the correct definition of public good.
? There are other reasons to think public education is a good idea than macroeconomic.
You're using the narrow economic definition.
By that narrow definition, living in a highly educated society is a public good.
But really the 'vast positive externalities' is the operative definition most normal policymakers use. It's what I learned in torts, in fact.
"You're using the narrow economic definition."
Only the narrow economic definition implies that a good should be provided by the government, which is how you structured your argument.
If something has positive externalities, subsidizing it is sufficient.
Your 1980s rational actor only make GDP go up economics is a pretty pinched way to make policy.
Luckily, governments worldwide have realized that long before you will.
Your "anything with positive externalities should be provided by the government" is a non-sequitur.
The point that private actors will produce an non-optimal amount of goods with negative externalities and a non-optimal amount of goods with positive externalities absent government intervention is economics 101.
That doesn't end the discussion. Because government action may not be implemented properly and externalities may be impossible to value objectively (what is the value of a decreased probability of cancer... a person could try to answer that question, but that question doesn't have an objective answer).
Point is though, under economics 101, if a good has net positive externalities, the private sector will produce too little of it absent a government subsidy.
And in any event, not everything that can be called education has positive externalities. This puts government in the position of deciding what education to subsidize.
This is only if you're a right-wing loon. Most normal people realize that the campus hellscape Breitbart or whatever describes is bullshit.
The government doesn't need to pick winners and losers, because they're all winners. The market is the student applicants.
Education is good. It has been good and continues to be good. Period.
The war on expertise makes the right find it's a good target for their red-meat nonsense machine, along with media, the government, big businesses, and just about everything that's happened past 1950.
You're claiming that the government should provide anything that can be called education, without limits, and you're calling other people loons?
Having the government pick winners and losers with respect to education carries its own risks.
It is true that some students will pick educations that will lead to lower incomes later in life if left free to choose. But most education that doesn't come from certain scam for-profit schools seeking to milk student financial aid does help create students who are more knowledgeable and better able to think for themselves. This is the most important point of education.
"Having the government pick winners and losers with respect to education carries its own risks."
When the government provides education, they will always pick winners and losers. That's why we don't fund any course of study, and we only fund certain people.
TwelveInchPianist:
The government does not have to pick winners and losers. It can just subsidize whatever degrees accredited educational institutions decide to offer. That is what it does now. And that is what I think it should keep on doing.
If you look at colleges, the students themselves are choosing to major in more lucrative majors at disproportionate rates. People aren't crazy and they can make their own decisions without more central planning.
I agree with you Sarcastro.
But I will say this.
College administrators DO need to stop their cancel culture and political correctness bullshit. They are undermining support for education among a significant portion of the public.
Everyone should feel "safe" expressing their ideas in an educational environment. The point is to learn, after all. If everyone already had all the answers such that they already had the best ideas possible, they wouldn't need an education.
Carcastr0 I suspect you do not agree with 12inch's claim that by definition that education is not a public good. One of the first rules of debate is there needs to be agreement on definitions or any debate will be meaningless.
So before I get into my definition of "public good" I am gonna ask for your definition of "education" as well as provide one of my own; along with a side issue of who pays for what.
While most peeps would agree readin, writin, and rithmatic are 'education' there is clearly disagreement over things like black studies and all the other angry studies are really education. I would add what seems to be the main purpose of Collin College is education in that is training nurses, programmers, and other similar areas of study that lead to jobs. On the other hand the prof in question (and the previous profs who sued) don't really teach courses that you see want ads for jobs for.
In fact the huge majority of what I will call "woke studies" majors will wind up wearing paper hats and asking 'do you want fries with that?'. I have no problem with peeps studying any thing they want. But I do have a problem with them doing it in my nickel; or maybe more to the point on government loans with little chance of ever being paid back. Not to mention those government loans contribute to the obscene increase in the cost of attending any college.
Recent events have shown that even in very blue places parents are unhappy with 'woke' school board members priorities. Those who are footing the bill through higher taxes have becoming more and more unhappy with how those in charge define 'education'.
So to repeat myself what is your definition of both 'education' and 'public good'. Is it basic skills like language and math along with vocational skills that will lead to a job, something that will get little argument; or do you define 'education' as something different?
According to your BAD definition of public good.
Let’s put it this way. Your definition of public good has very little to do with what the government should promote or subsidize. Thus, it is not clear the word “public” should be used before the word “good” with your preferred definition.
Sorry, that comment somehow got reposted here where it makes little sense. Some weird glitch.
That's OK, it doesn't make sense anywhere else either.
Right. Because the definition used by some economists is the only one that anyone is allowed to use.
I'm a STEM guy, but I really don't like anyone saying STEM is the only thing worth subsidizing.
Not everything that makes society good is about GDP go up. Lots of jobs out there for non-STEM workers. Yes, education includes women's studies. If you don't like people in our society to study how to to examine our society, you don't like a lot of historical civilizations that ended up doing pretty great things.
That kind of metrics is all approach to society is technocratic and it's own kind of tyranny.
So maybe fuck off with your STEMLord 'the wokesters are ruining education' just asking questions bullshit. Schools got their issues, but by and large they're fine. You want to ruin them.
Reading comprehension is your friend. I could care less what peeps want to study. What I don't like is having to pay for them to study it.
You keep missing the point that schools have become obscenely expensive due in great part to the government shoveling money to students studying subjects that may be mildly interesting to some but offer no real chance of a job that will allow loans to be repaid.
I would also point out that in this case the school is not really teaching STEM stuff; rather it is a voc ed school teaching subjects that will lead to a quick offer of a job to graduates. I would bet most of the students could care less about being woke and are more interested in getting a job and getting along with their life.
You also seem to have failed to keep up with current events about a real tax payer revolt against how their kids are being taught stuff that will not help them get a job at an inflated price.
As a rule most woke/angry studies majors wind up as low wage no skilled workers or rent seekers looking for government handouts at inflated prices; something tax payers have noticed and do not like.
The issue is once you go outside hard science and engineering, and the humanities you are not educating but pushing your ideology. Social "Science" has always been more about ideology than scholarship. Scientism as I think Hayek called it. And sorry but these degrees are a joke as are all these "studies" majors. Get rid of them...you only produce folks that can thrive as grifters for the most part.
re: "Public goods are the function of government."
That begs the question by assuming that those goods should be public goods in the first place.
You're also intentionally confusing the word "good". An educated populace is a "public good" as in "a good thing for the public". That does not automatically mean that it is a "good and service" (education) that must be provided by the government. Food is very good for us but it's really awful when it's provided through government monopolies.
AFT Teachers chanting:
"Who's got the power?
We got the power!"
That's great if you want schools run for the benefit of teachers, but shouldn't voters and parents have the power?
Maybe everyone should have some power.
This just in: union does a union chant.
TiP, as he does, ignores context and then takes a tendentious reading.
"TiP, as he does, ignores context and then takes a tendentious reading."
Why shouldn't I believe what they're chanting? They're chanting it.
Yes, people in groups are known to only chant slogans if they believe them utterly.
You're not born yesterday, but sometimes you do a great impression of being so.
If you've ever been to a protest, you know you chant all sorts of whatever as a group solidarity exercise.
You have to wonder where the idea that “the First Amendment does not apply here” comes from with some of these colleges.
These are not difficult cases. These are obvious and blatant First Amendment violations.
One thing to note is the low settlement amounts. In one case, $70,000 in damages and $38,000 in attorneys fees. Maybe there should be a provision providing for enhanced statutory damages for First Amendment violations that a judge deems to be clear and obvious or with repeat offenders.
That this public college continues to have cases after losing previous suits suggests damages are not high enough. The possibility that these lawsuits are just viewed as a “cost of doing business” and “we are going to do anything we want anyway” should not be entirely overlooked. Probably, most people who have their First Amendment rights suppressed by college administrators don’t sue.
"That this public college continues to have cases after losing previous suits suggests damages are not high enough"
That's exactly right. Matkin appears to be happy to pay for ideological purity tax with other peoples' money. Let's see what the BoT thinks when they have to shut down a campus.
One thing not addressed is this is a public community college with an emphasis on nursing and computer programming degrees and depends on taxes from tax payers in what looks like a red county in a red state.
In some ways I see this similar to the recent revolts against school boards who were viewed as too woke by parents who wanted their kids to learn the "three Rs" first before more woke topics. Bottom line is a lot of taxpayers simply don't think they are getting their money's worth from educators at all levels and there is a popular movement to get rid of teachers/professors at all levels who are not preparing students for productive jobs.
While I am a big 1A guy I do understand the concept of folks having 1A protection does not mean they can't expect to use someone else's nickel.
Exactly. See my comment above.
That is exactly wrong. Just because someone works for the government does not mean they lose the ability to think independently.
The government pays people to do a job. It is not buying their soul or their citizenship.
The government is beholding to the tax payers who provide the money they spend. The country was founded because of taxation with out representation. If the government ignores the wishes of the tax payers the tax payers can replace the government.
As recent events have shown there is a real discontinuity between school boards being more woke and parents want an emphasis on more traditional subjects being taught.
The issue is should the government is respond to tax payers not liking what some teachers are saying or risk being replaced by a more responsive government.
A little off. The government is not beholden to the tax payers, and never has been. Rather, it is the elected officials who are (should be) beholden to the electorate.
In the case of the school boards, who make up the elected representatives in your example, they are the ones who makes the education decisions. The problem you run into is, most of the electorate doesn't pay any attention to who is running for school board, especially if they don't have a stake (i.e. no kids in the schools). Most school board officials seem to get elected based on one of these four things: Blue, Red, incumbent (name you know), and/or sound bite/tag line.
It isn't until they do something soooo stupid that it gets mass media attention and the voters start revolting and finally kick them out (see San Fran as a prime example).
You should replace "taxpayers" with citizen. A persons ability to participate in the public sphere is not based on their financial contribution.
And the employees who work for the government are not for sale. You have no right as either a taxpayer or a citizen to tell another citizen that they may not express themselves on their own time just as other citizens do. If your reasoning is that you are going to fire someone because you don't like their opinion, that is just cancel culture. And it is toxic.
I'm not sure this is a good case for FIRE.
Collin college in a public college. Its employees are public employees. Typically public employees have certain restrictions on their speech, especially when it looks like they are potentially representing the university (For example, representing themselves as a professor at the university).
Phillips doesn't have tenure. He's at at will/contract employee. And the administration has repeatedly had to call him up in regards to his conduct and his representation on issues. Multiple times. If they choose not to renew his contract, that's their decision.
I don't have a position on this - but you should. You've talked about campus speech a lot; not a very great look to go wobbly when it's your ox getting gored.
Phillips' representations were not as an employee. Public institutions need to abide by the 1A. If the facts are as FIRE alleges, this is viewpoint discrimination.
Phillips representations were as an employee. Repeatedly, he had his campus affilliation used. Repeatedly, he was brought before the administration on reprimands about using his campus affiliation, especially in areas of media representation. It's precisely BECAUSE of his affiliation, that his viewpoint was valuable and used.
Any institution...government, industry, etc...will control how its image is used. Phillips ignored that, trading on his professorship at the college to make public statements. He was warned not to. Repeatedly. Yet he continued to.
This isn't surprising at all, the end result.
The article referred to Phillips as "a Collin College professor," but Phillips spoke, not on behalf of the college, but in his capacity as an expert on the topic of race relations.
Merely your title is not speaking for the institution. This is well established.
It's precisely BECAUSE of his affiliation, that his viewpoint was valuable and used.
Who cares? It does not redound to the college's reputation. It is not using the college's 'image.' It's his own expertise.
Your title is using the institution and its image to enforce its words. This is well understood, and many organizations understand this, and don't allow it.
If you think qPCR tests are bogus...that's your right to post all you want on Facebook. If you try doing the same thing, but using your title as scientist at the CDC, the CDC will shut you down quite fast, and bring you in for discipline. There's a difference between "Joe Smith says qPCR tests are bogus" and "Joe Smith, current CDC staff scientist, says qPCR tests are bogus".
Same thing with corporate America. "Joe Smith says he thinks McDonalds hamburgers have human remains in them". No one cares. "Joe Smith, head of quality control at McDonalds, says he thinks McDonalds hamburgers have human remains in them". Joe gets fired.
When you use your title from an institution, you implicate the institution. Every institution has rules regarding it, and will often say "No, you can't do it, unless we explicitly allow it".
That he works for the college is a matter of fact. Something he has a right to communicate.
Your way off here in an amazingly bad way.
It's the combination of "I work for the college" and "This is my position". What that does is, it implicates the college as supporting the position.
Many, many, many institutions do not allow this. From governments, to corporations. Again, use the CDC scientist analogy. "I'm a CDC Scientist and I believe COVID is a hoax". What should the CDC do about someone making such statements in the media?
So?
If people are under the impression that everyone who works for "so-and-so" college has GOOD IDEAS then he is doing a public service by showing that in fact some people who work for that college have BAD IDEAS.
See, the whole point of a free society is to promote independent thinking. (That is the premise of democracy. People do not need to be ruled, because they can think for themselves.) Not blind submission to the "authority figures" who work for X college.
Squelching free speech in order to protect the "reputation" of a public college is not only not a compelling government interest, it isn't even a legitimate government interest.
You're using some weird unjust enrichment but for authority here, and it's bonkers.
The institution needs to establish damages, and you are really not providing good evidence of that at all.
The institution does not need to establish "damages". They have right to not renew the contract of employees, for almost any reason they want.
Not when it's viewpoint discrimination based on out-of-work conduct, they don't.
Even then.
This is no different than if Phillips decided to broadly shout that he was a Collin Professor, that white supremacy was correct, and that the Nazi party was correct in its views. If Phillips decided to teach the "correctness" of the Nazi philosophy in his history class, and the administration "took him aside"...and told him to cut it out. And then Phillips continued it.
If the administration decided not to renew Phillips contract after all that, they'd be well within their rights. And you know it.
I mean, you can say that all you want but that's very much not the law - employment decisions by public institutions are subject to 1A restrictions.
Nazis get to march, Nazis get to teach.
I fully believe Nazis should get shunned, but not by the State. And public institutions, the law says, are the State.
That's not how it works Sarcastro.
If a non-tenure teacher on contract starts teaching that "The Nazis were right" in his history class...and the administration takes him aside, and says "cut it out"...and the teacher continues to do so.
The college is entirely within its rights not to renew the contract. And in fact, they will do so. Every times.
Pickering v. Board of Education
Yes, Sarcastr0, that is exactly the wording in the Complaint (or more precisely, in FIRE's description of the Complaint). I imagine the college will dispute that description in their reply.
At this point, we don't know who's telling the truth. But given the context of Phillips' history, even his own telling of the story makes him look like a problem employee going out of his way to make trouble.
Sure, I even said above 'if the facts are as FIRE alleges' - my issue is TiP's whole legal theory is bananas.
Huh? I haven't expressed any "legal theory" in this thread.
Got me there!
I meant AL.
Whether someone is an employee of a university is a fact. You cannot prohibit a citizen from saying they work at a university.
And community colleges do not buy the citizenship of the professors they happen to hire. They do not own their employees and they have no right to muzzle their off-campus speech on matters of public concern.
David,
Many times organizations do not want employees using the organization, and their association with the organization, to promote the employees own views. Especially if the views of the employees are not in the best interests of the organization.
The CDC does not want its scientists going around saying "I'm a CDC scientist, and COVID is a hoax".
What recourse does the CDC have in such a situation, if any?
Replace the word "organization" with particular individuals. Because there is no such thing as an "organization" there are only the individuals who are in it.
So, to more correctly state your point, some people in higher positions in an organization want to muzzle the opinions of some people in lower positions in that organization.
I am FINE with a scientist from the CDC saying that COVID is a hoax. In fact, if they think that is true, they have an OBLIGATION to say so.
We need people who can THINK for themselves. COVID-19 shows this is true. Ultimately, people who can process information will always have a better chance of survival than people who cannot. If a person goes about looking for "authority figures" to tell them what to think, they are lowering their chance of survival compared to a person who can PROPERLY evaluate the evidence and think for themselves.
By the way, if you think it is OBVIOUSLY so clear that we should muzzle scientists from the CDC who want to argue that COVID-19 is a hoax, think about this.
When the public finds out that the dissenters are being silenced (and they will), they are going to lose trust in the institution.
The arguments of conservatives against both masks and vaccines have generally been wrong. But these arguments have been STRENGTHENED and not WEAKENED by impulses in the direction of censorship.
The more people see censorship, the less they trust. Because they reason, "what do you have to hide." Bad ideas can become stronger when they are censored.
Well, he called for the removal of confederate statues. It's a good "ball cutter" question, to use a politician's description. Is cancellation wrong because it's wrong, or because the wrong people are using it?
A bunch of commenters on here seem to be failing that test.
A few of them, at least.
I'm glad that Collin College avoided "looking bad" by firing the professor. Perhaps they were hoping that the Streisand effect would life the college out of utter obscurity?
Tons of other issues raise their ugly head when discussing this topic.
First thing I would claim is history profs are a dime a dozen and it is certain there are better qualified candidates than Phillips and not stick their nose in other peoples business. More than once he was told to cool it and he ignored all the warnings; even if an argument can be made that those warnings were wrong. I would also point he was more or less an at will employee with a contract that did not include any assurance of continued employment. I suspect this is why some of the other settlements have been what some posters have called 'low ball'.
Not trying to dis any school but a basically votec school like Collin College views it's mission to train nurses, programmers, and other easy to hire jobs and don't put the same emphasis on 'woke' studies as say the Ivy League schools.
As I have posted more than once there is a real and increasing movement to shift 'education' to a more real world orientation where students are taught skills that will lead to good jobs instead of studying controversial subjects that will lead to a job wearing a paper had and asking 'do you want fries with that'. Even more to the point asking tax payers to pay for woke degrees is also causing taxpayers to question the current education system.
In the 90's, with the rise of tech, I really thought we would see a bigger split between the more vocational education disciplines and the more pretentious and haughty types of aristocratic education. With the downfall of institutions like ITT and the bursting of the dot com bubble, it seemed like everything slid back and became even more institutionalized.
There is no justifiable reason, at least that I've seen, that someone who wants to be an engineer, programmer, or such needs to sit through classes like history, art appreciation, or various literature type classes.
I would love to see collages split up and make a choice: preparing students for jobs or preparing them to be pompous pricks.
Yes, why be a well rounded adult when one can take some vocational training instead?
Once again the issue of agreeing on definitions raises it's ugly head.
It should be obvious to even someone as biased as you that not everyone has the same definition of 'well rounded adult'. Which is a better measure of being 'well rounded adult', the ability of memorize the woke ten commandments or the ability to solve partial differential equations?
Not much question which is more valuable to an engineer; and the same goes for which is more valuable to a rent seeking social justice warrior.
I mean, neither, sort of by definition. Knowing one thing, regardless of which thing it is, makes one not well rounded.
So this President is an EdD? Explains everything. Another useless major that should be dropped by any college. Want to teach? Get a degree in the field you want to teach and then apprentice as a teacher for two years. No ed degrees, no certification. For elementary teachers..a 2 year degree required in say math, economics, science..somethign which demands a little critical thinkings.
Important message for all readers: EUGENE VOLOKH NEEDS TO DISCLOSE HIS SOURCES OF FUNDING. HE MAY BE TAKING BRIBES DIRECTLY FROM BIG TECH. HIS FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTISM VIEWS ENDANGER AMERICAN SOCIETY BY LETTING CYBERHARASSERS AND CYBERSTALKERS OFF THE HOOK AND LEAVING VICTIMS WITH NO RECOURSE FOR ONLINE ABUSE AND CRIMES.
Eugene Volokh, you need to disclose your sources of funding. Right now, you have authored several papers under the funding of Google, that portray Google in a positive light, "concluding" that Google should enjoy First Amendment protections and have no regulation.
See this paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2055364
It clear states the paper was "commissioned by Google". This means you likely made money from Google for writing this paper. This taints your impartiality - of course you will conclude that Google should be free of regulation, if Google is paying you.
You also vehemently support online harassment, oppose any regulation against regulating cyberharassment, doxing, and harassment. You NEED to DISCLOSE YOUR SOURCES OF FUNDING. I suspect you may be funded directly by Google and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), both of which oppose any regulation of the internet that would protect victims of online stalking, harassment, and abuse. Otherwise you may be bribed by Big Tech to purposely put out legal "analysis" that favors lack of regulation, and which harms victims of online harassment because they cannot get legal protection.
Please disclose your sources of funding ASAP for the world to take you seriously.
This is almost as comical as when Blackman argues that Justice Roberts needs to act a certain way.