The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Professor Sues University of Texas for First Amendment Violations"
This is just a complaint at this stage (Lowery v. Mills (W.D. Tex.)), so these are only the plaintiff's allegations, but he's being represented by the people at the Institute for Free Speech, whose work I've generally found quite reliable. (I e-mailed UT on Thursday to ask if they had a statement, and have so far gotten no response.) From IFS's announcement:
A finance professor is suing officials at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) who threatened to punish him for his criticism of the university by threatening his job, reducing his pay, and removing his affiliation with UT's Salem Center.
In a complaint filed in the Austin federal court, Dr. Richard Lowery, an Associate Professor of Finance at the McCombs School of Business at UT-Austin, said the officials at the state's flagship university violated his constitutional right to criticize government officials. The lawsuit also claims the UT administration harmed his right to academic freedom.
Professor Lowery is well known for his vigorous commentary on university affairs. His articles have appeared widely, including in The Hill, the Texas Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and The College Fix. He questioned the UT administration's approaches to critical-race theory, affirmative action, academic freedom, competence-based performance measures, and the future of capitalism.
One key target of Prof. Lowery's critiques was the UT administration's use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements to filter out competent academics who dissent from the DEI ideology.
Lowery's lawyers wrote in the complaint that UT's administration "responded with a campaign to silence Lowery."
The campaign started by pressuring Carlos Carvalho, another professor of business at the UT McCombs School who is also the Executive Director of the Salem Center for Public Policy, an academic institute that is part of the McCombs School. Lowery is an Associate Director and a Senior Scholar at the Salem Center and reports to Carvalho.
In the summer of 2022, Sheridan Titman, one of the senior UT officials named in the lawsuit, told Carvalho, "We need to do something about Richard." According to the lawsuit, "he added that [UT] President [Jay] Hartzell and Dean [Lillian] Mills were upset about Lowery's political advocacy." Titman wanted to know if 'we can ask him to tone it down?'"
Carvalho understood this as a threat by Titman, directed at Lowery, but initially refused to convey it. Carvalho explained to Titman that the First Amendment protected Prof. Lowery's right to expression.
Despite this, the administrators ratcheted up the pressure on Carvalho and Lowery. When Carvalho again resisted calls to discipline Lowery over his speech. Dean Mills, the lead defendant in the lawsuit, threatened to remove Carvalho from his Executive Director post. "I don't need to remind you that you serve at my pleasure," she said.
These were among the UT administration's threats to Lowery's "job, pay, institute affiliation, research opportunities, [and] academic freedom."
Some in the administration even "allowed, or at least did not retract, a UT employee's request that police surveil Lowery's speech, because he might contact politicians or other influential people." … As one employee wrote, when urging campus police to surveil his now-protected tweets, "we are more worried about the people he reaches than him. Some of his supporters are authors, podcasters, and politicians." Lowery's tweets often tagged the Texas Governor and Lt. Governor, which added to the UT administration's concerns.
In addition to chilling Lowery's speech, UT's actions also "effectively removed an important part of his job duties by restricting" his academic freedom as a UT professor. The defendants deprived him of his right to critique ideas, policies, hiring, … and to otherwise participate in the life of the mind and academic dialogue on terms equal to his peers on the faculty." …
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
If my actual name was Sheridan Titman I would probably want to wreak my rage on every creature I came across as well. So this is all kinda understandable in that context.
If any of y’all were wondering, you can google that person and learn that it’s a middle aged male.
If I were his boss, I’d never tire of yelling “Titman, get in here now!”
The larger issue is never trust the campus IT dept with your personal data...
I don't fault that guy for his name. He didn't pick it. His parents did. And decent people don't fault children for their parents, even if those parents are losers. That is why better Americans support and fund lifelines for smart, ambitious young people who wish to depart our deplorable backwaters to seek modernity, reason, opportunity, and education in better locations (strong, liberal-libertarian campuses and modern, successful, educated communities).
You, on the other hand, chose "bevis the lumberjack." Ouch. And you choose to be a clinger. Oucher.
For a moment there, I thought Eugene was finally coming out in support of professors whose teaching, positions, or career could be impacted by Republicans' anti-CRT and anti-LGBT push.
Unfortunately, I see that this still does not merit Eugene's attention. Just another snowflake upset over DEI.
'member after 9/11 when that professor in Florida said the US deserved it, and there was a huge push to get him fired, but he had a few defenders for the principle of the thing, against all those snowflakes?
Good times.
Need I remind you that it is Proggie snowflakes who began CRT, DEI, and all the rest of wokism? Just as it was Democrats who mentioned banning gas stoves, then blamed everyone else for starting a new front in the culture wars over it.
Not sure how you can “remind” me of something that’s not true in the first place. Nor is it clear how any of that has anything to do with the anti-CRT and LGBT stuff happening through actual legislation, now (and not just in programs voluntarily undertaken by administrators).
I get that conservatards like to blame the “Progs” for their own malfeasance. But at the end of the day Republicans are banning books and trying to fire professors. The guy in the OP is suing because his poor fee-fees were hurt.
For you that say he’s obviously wrong, please tell us the source of CRT and DEI and all the associated stuff. If it’s not progressives, then who?
And CRT and DEI were not invented because some snowflakes got their fee-fees hurt?
Apparently you've also forgotten about all the Progressive snowflake college students who had to hide in safe spaces with teddy bears because of Trump's mean tweets.
You are full of insults and devoid of facts.
CRT and DEI were not invented because some snowflakes got their fee-fees hurt?
I don't know the full story of their origin, and from your name-calling filled post, it seems you don't either. I do know CRT was partially formed in reaction to CLT's bleakness, and has as a core tenet the redressability of systemic issues through the legal system.
It's a sign your issue is personal, not logical, if you're pointing at the origin of a thing. Worse when you just make up that origin. Worse still if you include some name-calling in your made up origin.
Don't tell someone they're full of insults if you're starting off with 'Proggie snowflakes.'
I guess you can't tell the difference between personal and general insults.
Well, shit. Guess I'm wrong and your arguments are incredible and incisive then.
'because some snowflakes got their fee-fees hurt?'
Whatever the reason they were started, the infantilisation and authoritarianism of the right-wing response is undeniable.
What the hell is this bullshit? Nothing but ad hominem. Like, purely.
You’re not usually this empty. I don’t care how a theory originated; deal with it’s content. And it’s *real* content, not what Breitbart tells you it means.
So to with originalism. Started as a shield for a political project to roll back Warren Courts precedents, is becoming a pretty interesting (though I still think misaligned) academic discipline.
“Nothing but an ad hominem attack, you Breitbart reader”. Lol.
Yes, that's what I said.
Awesome reading.
Awesome self-awareness.
You're strawmanning hard, if thats what you think I wrote. Read it again, and find the actual arguments I made, and note that I did not dismiss any arguments because of what someone reads.
Your actual argument was that your opponent (ABC in this thread) made an ad hominem attack - and by implication, that you think ad hominems are a bad thing and should be discounted. Then in that same comment, you made your own ad hominem attack.
While that does not undercut any other arguments you might make, it does cost you the moral high ground in your claim that ABC's argument should be dismissed as a mere ad hominem.
Thank you.
What he said did not constitute an ad hominem attack.
Nor did the original comment that Sarcastro claimed was ad-hom.
“You’re not credible because I say you read Breitbart whether it’s actually true or not” isn’t ad hominem? If it’s not, what is?
I never said '“You’re not credible because I say you read Breitbart whether it’s actually true or not”'.
Saying CRT is bad because those who funded it were bad *IS* Ad hominem.
"note that I did not dismiss any arguments because of what someone reads."
This is me saying I made no ad hominem attacks.
Saying the Breitbart version of CRT is factually wrong is not an ad hominem attack.
How do you even know what the Breitbart version of CRT is? I certainly don’t. Never even think about it.
It must be YOU that’s reading Breitbart. Or listening to it. I don’t know how it’s consumed.
And I don’t understand why you’re so upset why you’re so angry about something being removed from the curriculum when you say it’s never been in the curriculum. That confuses me.
'Never even think about it.'
So there's a massive right-wing legislative effort to suppress a thing, and you don't even take the trouble to ascertain what they're saying about it and how accurate it is?
'That confuses me.'
Shouldn't you be acting less confused and more concerned about what they ARE banning?
How do you even know what the Breitbart version of CRT is? I certainly don’t. Never even think about it.
I read the nonsense people on here say that CRT is.
And by Breitbart I meant the right wing media generally. Pretty common rhetorical device there.
I don’t understand why you’re so upset why you’re so angry about something being removed from the curriculum when you say it’s never been in the curriculum.
Because the bills that say they are about CRT are not about CRT, despite their title.
Also, that is not what this thread is about.
Yep
WEE-oww-WEE-oww Wee-oww
Here comes the Tone Police!
As gay as ever.
These right-wing bigots are your carefully cultivated target audience, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason your colleagues and administrators at legitimate law schools wish you would leave the faculty tomorrow, if not today.
Still nothing but pure and paltry polemical partisanship -- wrapped in a vanishingly thin academic veneer, mooching with the misappropriated franchises of some mainstream schools -- at this white, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog.
(It appears Prof. Lowery, who doesn't like mainstream academic activity at his employer because of its political slant, was nevertheless striving to launch a politically slanted wingnut program associated with his employer. Mostly, it seems, he doesn't like being on the wrong side of history and the losing end of the culture war. But boorish right-wing misfits have rights, too.)
Why do you want teachers to talk about their sex lives to 7-year-olds? It’s clearly very important to you.
Where did SimonP mention sex?
see the part of the comment "anti-LGBT push." Whether that counts as "teachers [talking] about their sex lives to 7-year-olds" may be debatable but anything about LGBT implicates sex.
anything about LGBT implicates sex
It really, really doesn't. And if you think it does you need to get your head examined.
Teachers don’t need to talk about alphabet-people sexual-orientation topics to young children. Protecting children is important.
Do you really think that young children should go entirely unprotected in order to avoid cramping the style of teachers’ loose talk on sex-related topics?
Res ipsa loquitur
That’s a new way to say you think children should be unprotected because it might burden alphabet people’s self-expression too much.
Simon, you're being (pretending to be?) dense. Let me break it down for you.
If the government is going to operate schools (and that's one big "if" if you ask me!), it gets to decide what is taught there and how the school is administered. So, if the government (i.e., the state legislators and the governor) doesn't like CRT / LGBT / DEI, it should be able to keep it out of the school (if necessary, by firing instructors / administrators who persist in ignoring / violating duly-passed laws banning CRT / LGBT / DEI from schools).
This particular professor was trying to alert the outside world (including the government of his state) about (in his view, inappropriate) use of DEI in the administration of his school. The school tried to silence him.
As I've suggested before, things would be some much easier if the government simply got out of the field of education. You like CRT / LGBT / DEI? Great! Open your own school, call it The CRT / LGBT / DEI Academy, teach whatever you want, hire / fire whoever you want, etc. But leave me (and my tax $) out of it!
A government school should be able to fire those who support modernity, but can’t touch someone who rants on the side of bigotry, backwardness, and superstition?
Great comment, Mr. Grinberg. You are precisely the type of downscale, obsolete, right-wing loser -- an education, disdaining, anti-government crank -- this blog targets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlE5yK4l34o
While I am too lazy to look it up best I can remember UT had the largest endowment of any public university and was larger than even all but the top tier Ivy League schools. Point is that even if Lowery is able to prevail in a big bucks lawsuit maybe along the lines of a hundred million dollars UT would basically laugh it off and probably pay him in dollar bills it would take a semi truck to haul away.
One reason the DEI shitheads are able to get away with what they do is there is no real economic punishment if the get caught and lose in court. While Oberlin College had to pay 36 mill for screwing the pooch it is less than 2% of their total assets so they basically could laugh it off. Maybe if the punishment for screwing the pooch was something that made a real dent in the DEI shitheads pocketbook things might start to change.
>less than 2% of their total assets so they basically could laugh it off.
Even there, most admins plan to have moved on to bigger, better positions (or at least other positions) long before that check actually needs to be written #Principal-Agent-Problems
Along these lines, I always find it noteworthy that several of the Conspirators regularly complain about qualified immunity for police officers, but I don't think I've ever seen a complaint here about qualified immunity for university administrators.
You should pay more attention. A lot of people have pointed out that it’s one thing when police have a life or death split-second decision to make and entirely another thing when university administrators have all the time in the world and a salaried legal staff to consult.
Qualified immunity should be replaced with a better standard for police. Everyone else should get no qualified immunity nor anything else like it.
IDK. Personally, I'd say qualified immunity be limited to low-level officials; the idea that some random ag-extension field officer should be trained to "recognize unconstitutional orders" seems kinda ridiculous.
Instead, the buck should stop with the GS-15 principals and/or the government itself (end soverign immunity). They can manage their liability via normal supervisory control.
Then you haven't been paying attention. That issue has been raised in multiple articles.
QI for police does get more column-inches but that's a natural result of police applying for (and courts granting) QI than by other agents of the state.
It's DEI shitheads, woke libtards, and godless commies vs. Republican racists, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative misogynists, deplorable immigrant-haters, Federalist Society culture war casualties, chanting right-wing anti-semites, obsolete "conservative values" Islamophobes, and disaffected Volokh Conspiracy culture war clingers.
Where is the hope for America, ragebot?
"One reason the DEI shitheads are able to get away with what they do is there is no real economic punishment if the get caught and lose in court"
That may not be true in this case. Politicians have big egos and likely take it rather personally when someone has tried to prevent someone else from telling them something. They well may take that personally -- and may respond because of that.
I recently had a conversation with a friend about Hunter Biden and posed the question how much money does one have to make to have a two million dollar back tax bill and how much political pull does one have to have to have a lawyer you are not paying front the two million dollars to pay the back tax bill.
Point is UT could get hit with a hundred million liability judgement and pay it out of pocket money and never have any blow back. Just as some folks are judgement proof because they have nothing to lose some (very few but UT is one) have so much money that even a huge liability does not amount to a hill of beans in the big picture.
Two word: Ambulance Chasers....
It's not that the hundred million dollar liability judgement would hurt UT but *if* someone actually got that much, you would have hundreds (thousands?) of lawyers wanting to be the next one to get a similar judgment.
It wasn't the first sex abuse settlement that bankrupted the Catholic Church...
"UT had the largest endowment of any public university and was larger than even all but the top tier Ivy League schools."..."While Oberlin College had to pay 36 mill for screwing the pooch it is less than 2% of their total assets so they basically could laugh it off."
Seize the endowments and neither Texas nor Oberlin can laugh it off.
We are not getting this monster under control until we cut off its financial oxygen.
Ugh, this seems like the unholy centre of a Venn Diagram between free speech rights in relation to political topics of general interest and "the government as an employer". No idea what I would do with this one.
He's not testifying against UT. And it's not clear that he's protesting "Government Employer" positions, or just the shenanigans of individual government employees.
One key target of Prof. Lowery's critiques was the UT administration's use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements to filter out competent academics who dissent from the DEI ideology.
In a non-government context that seems like the kind of thing that your employer would want you to keep in-house. If you don't like your employer's hiring and firing (and everything in between) policies, they don't necessarily appreciate it if you scream about that off the rooftops. It's not the same as working at Chick-fil-a and blogging about your pro-choice views. (Although that would probably get you fired too.)
US governments don't have the privilege of responding at will when their employees speak out about matters of public concern regarding the government's policies or practices.
Exactly. Otherwise this case would be easy. But what this guy is complaining about is (or at least includes) the university's policies and practices as they (allegedly) directly affect him, not just those of the government in general. That's much closer to a normal employer/employee situation, where the government might well have some of the same rights that an employer would have otherwise.
It appears to be actually worse than that -- as I read this, he's alleging that the POLICE were told to engage in a violation of his 4th Amendment rights and for a state institution, that's Section 1983.
OK, not sure if it is if the cops were bright enough not to do it, but still...
No, he's not alleging that the police were told to engage in a violation of his 4th Amendment rights, and in any case, § 1983 applies whether it involves the cops or campus officials.
I mean, this is almost directly from Supreme Court precedent. Pickering Connick balancing is the relevant approach.
In Pickering, a public school teacher complained about school board spending priorities in terms of academics and athletics. He was fired; SCOTUS said that impermissible because he was speaking on a matter of public concern because it wasn't about his personal workplace issues, but about policy.
In Connick, an ADA sent a questionnaire around her office, feeling out the other ADAs' views about internal office issues. The DA (the infamous Harry Connick, Sr.) fired her. SCOTUS said that it was okay because she was really airing personal grievances about her job, not discussing public policy. And it was disruptive to the workplace.
That sounds about right. Not always easy to apply in practice, but broadly right on first principles.
You forgot a real majority of voters/taxpayers who are not happy about having to pay big bucks to DEI shitheads at public schools they are footing the bill for.
I hope you are not laboring under some delusion that voters would OK paying literally millions of dollars to UT employees that spout off about DEI; especially when the cost to attend UT (and most other universities) is stupid high; especially when you consider that a lot of university students can't get jobs that allow them to pay back the huge debt they incurred getting their degree.
I neither accept nor deny those factual claims. I just think they are irrelevant to a person's free speech rights, since it is in any case true that these issues are highly politically salient and as such ordinarily the very definition of protected speech.
You missed my point. If tax payers/voters are providing money for someone's paycheck they will vote for pols who try and hire peeps reflecting their views and try and get rid of peeps who don't reflect their views. Sorta of like taxation without representation. This is not limiting free speech; rather saying say what you want but not on my dime.
There is very widespread agreement that a lot of government employees are paid too much regardless of what they are saying so it should come as no surprise taxpayers/voters are not happy when they say something taxpayers/voters don't agree with.
By the same token I would bet more taxpayers/voters in TX agree with Lowery's position than don't agree with it.
What you're articulating is what I called "the government as employer". But that's not the end of the story, and in isolation it's not the difficult part. Of course the university - and by extension the state of Texas - has some power over what prof. Lowery says. They can tell him what to teach, for example. But when he gets involved in public debate the matter is much, much less clear cut.
My point was that what Lowery said was not in what I call an official capacity. What ever he said it had no effect on much of anything but public opinion. On the other hand it is easy to find threads at VC on topics like DEI shitheads requiring job applications to include statements about how the job applicant would advance the liberal agenda. Not to mention what Lowery is teaching in class has real value to potential employers (most business majors have an easier time finding a job than anger studies majors) while CRT and DEI degrees are basically a stepping stone for a job where you wear a paper hat and ask 'do you want fries with that order'.
Bottom line is that there is widespread agreement that a college education is way over priced and in many cases does not lead to a meaningful job which is the essence of what Lowery is saying.
Exactly. This is what I was trying to say above (but more pithily stated).
How did you determine that most Americans are intolerant, ignorant, obsolete, education-disdaining, right-wing culture war casualties. Did Alex Jones tell you this? Something you overheard at a Federalist Society cocktail party in D.C.? Did sweet tiny baby eight-pound, six-ounce infant Jesus (in a tuxedo t-shirt and mullet at a Skynyrd concert) whisper this directly into your ear?
Whatever the provenance of your assertion, that claim is daft. The reason clingers are losing the culture war is that there just aren't that many bigoted, superstitious right-wing deplorables left in America any more -- and the number of clingers declines every day, as our great nation becomes less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse every day.
Yeah, I’m not sure what the University is allowed to do here. But repeatedly castigating and insulting your colleagues and bosses in print and expecting the administration to do nothing in response is probably unrealistic.
Especially when you are on the wrong side of history, the losing side of the culture war, and the ignorant, intolerant side of the political divide.
The "adverse employment action" element of the tort seems a bit weak from the excerpt provided.
Prof. Volokh didn't pick it for the strength of the legal arguments or facts. It was selected to toss cherry-picked red meat to a bunch of half-educated, downscale, grievance-consuming, whiny right-wingers.
Sheesh, this site can get toxic.
I was scrolling through the comments to see if some of the left-leaning folks here would take the position that a professor who "questioned the UT administration's approaches to critical-race theory, affirmative action, academic freedom, competence-based performance measures, and the future of capitalism" should be punished by the administration of a state university. I recognize that these are just allegations and may not be true, but I was curious about whether some folks here would really support that. With perhaps a reasoned argument that goes beyond "your side does it, too." I was hoping that there was some room for common ground on this one.
Nope. According to them, the only reason anyone opposes CRT or DIE orthodoxy is because they're a white supremacist, paid by Russians, or just following orders from Andrew Breitbart. (That last one has been a neat trick for the past decade.)
Was that not good enough for you, clinger?
My inclination is the professor should be able to express whatever political views he wants, which I think includes general criticisms of the school administration's position on those issues. But it seems like there can be a point where it crosses some line from political expression to professional insubordination. Tweeting "DEI policies are harming the academic missions of schools around the country, including at this University" strikes me falling on the right side of the line. But if he instead says something like "University President Joe Schmoe is horrible; the DEI policies he and his cronies at the administration are promoting are going to destroy this University; he needs to be fired immediately" then it seems to me like the administration ought to have some leeway to respond. Don't know how the law actually falls on that issue.
Why should the university have "some leeway to respond" ? Government universities have obligations under 1A and university leadership is an obvious question of public concern.
Seems pretty standard requirement for management that if your employees being insubordinate, there are allowed to be consequences.
This is true even for government-as-employer.
For rather obvious reasons, I think.
"Seems pretty standard requirement for management that if your employees being insubordinate, there are allowed to be consequences.
This is true even for government-as-employer."
It is common to call peeps working for "government-as-employer" as public employees since it is the public (or at least the tax paying public) who are really paying the employees. So while the CRT/DEI turds think Lowery/whoever are being insubordinate lots of tax payers thin the CRT/DIE turds are really the ones being insubordinate. Even queenie agreed that in red TX Lowery's bashing of CRT/DEI would likely prevail in a popular vote and the UT prez and UT dean who were pressuring underlings to shut Lowery up and accept the DEI crap they were supporting were not really representative of public/tax payer opinion.
Bottom line is in the final analysis the tax payers are the real employers and they don't seem to be happy pissing away money on DEI/CRT and limiting job options for applicants who don't tow the DEI/CRT line. I would point out that the FL gov just installed a new prez at UF much to the chagrin of lots of woke profs at UF in large part to not only send a message to state college admins but to get votes as well. His action to require state education agencies to detail just how much money they are pissing away on DEI/CRT crap is kinda the opposite of buying votes like the dems do.
Taxpayer opinion in modern, successful, educated locations such as California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Massachusetts would likely lead to a bunch of Volokh Conspirators being encouraged to expand their employment horizons.
Maybe they, like most clingers, would be happier in can't-keep-up states controlled by the stale, ugly thinking of Republicans and conservatives.
CA, IL, & MA are loosing upper-middle class to other states.
Just sayin....
That is...not the topic under discussion here.
Popular rule of state institutions is for a different thread.
And it's not really going to be the right-wing problem solver you want it to be.
First Amendment versus notions. If there were an employer/employee subordination amendment that applied to the states then you might have a good argument.
Ah yes, the 'the REAL First Amendment is what I think it should be, based on the anecdote currently in front of me.'
Bringing out the old chestnuts.
No, I’m pretty sure it’s up to courts. I think courts have been fairly consistent on this.
Right, but let's put the shoe on the other foot:
Hypothetically, let's say the University brings in a right-leaning president, Joe Schmoe, who vows to eliminate all race- or diversity-based preferences in hiring and admissions and cut all funding for any DEI-based departments and initiatives.
In response, the University's Professor of Woke Studies, Triggered McSnowflake, goes on Rachel Maddow and says "Joe Schmoe is a racist oppressor who was brought in to pursue a white supremacist agenda. His presence at the school is causing irreparable harm to its students. He and his cronies must be terminated immediately." In response the professor's comments, the president and his family are subjected to online doxxing and death threats.
Is it really true that first amendment stops the university from taking any actions to curb the professor's behavior? I don't know the contours of the first amendment here, but it seems to me like there's got to me some kind of a line. Not saying this is equivalent to what Lowery was doing; just saying it seems to me like there's got to be some limit.
"Is it really true that first amendment stops the university from taking any actions to curb the professor’s behavior?"
Yes.
Rachael Madcow...
Is a federal employee allowed to criticize the president and his policies? I'd hope it's yes, given the first amendment.
Better question: Is Karine Jean-Pierre allowed to call the President an asshole on TV without repercussions?
Probably — a quadruple-box-check is pretty much immune.
Better question: Does the FCC do anything about her using the word “asshole”?
What jurisdiction do you think the FCC has over the White House press secretary?
While I understand the point you are trying to make I have to point out that a lot of dissatisfaction comes not so much from what point of view is being expressed but from having to pay taxes used to hire someone who is speaking out on unpopular things. Do you really think that in a red state like TX the majority of taxpayers/voters want more DEI in universities. One thing both dems and pubs seem in close to unanimous agreement on is that the cost of a college education is too high. So it is easy to see how a pol advocating reducing funding for stuff like DEI, anger studies, safe spaces, and crazy bathroom policies would get lots of votes. Even the dem pols say they are going to reduce taxes for those the view as reliable voters and don't seem to make any bones about buying votes. The pubs seem to be more likely to simply say reduce taxes across the board; with some saying for those who are paying no taxes they should at least have a small tax burden so they have some stake in the game.
Kinda like it always is good advice to follow the money and identify the rent seekers.
If he was contacting the Governor and saying that state money was being wasted — yes, I can’t see a public university able to touch him for that.
The Governor doesn't have to agree with him, but that's another issue.
It is increasingly difficult to avoid the inference that at least half of these Federalist Society-Republican scolds are self-loathing closet cases.
Most of the rest seem to be on-the-spectrum incels and giggling, disaffected teenagers.
I like how you try to insult him by implying he's gay.
“I don’t think it matters what most taxpayers think when you’re dealing with the 1st Amendment (unpopular speech is protected).”
Wow. I am too lazy to count the number of threads at VC about how universities have safe space places where unpopular speech is not allowed. One recent thread was about how showing pictures of a real historical figure could be grounds for firing a professor. While I would love to bash Grant as a drunk who was a financial failure even though his brother was a key player in what most historians view as the most corrupt administration is history even I would stop well before saying showing his picture should be banned. On the other hand I have seen multiple examples of rioters tearing down statues of historical figures they disagreed with. In fact there have been shithead crazies who want the Lincoln Memorial removed due to Lincoln’s lukewarm support of ending slavery. Again while I think Lincoln did have short comings I am not in favor of removing the Lincoln Memorial.
In the real politic world public opinion does have real world consequences. Maybe the classic example is how public opinion has removed the Nword out language (except in rap music where public opinion allows it).
While I almost always disagree with queenie I have to say this is one of the silliest things she has ever posted.
As usual you completely ignored the FACT that universities have created safe spaces where 1A stuff is completely ignored not to mention universities allowing a hecklers veto to silence speakers and deny them 1A rights.
I would love to hear your position on public opinion basically eliminating the Nword for everyone but rappers; are rappers the only peeps that get 1A rights.
'where unpopular speech is not allowed'
A lot of the speech that 'isn't allowed' is actually quite popular, hence people fancying a bit of break from it.
'On the other hand I have seen multiple examples of rioters tearing down statues of historical figures they disagreed with.'
Like Saddam Hussein.
It's called a culture war. In the American culture war, a liberal-libertarian mainstream kicks the everlasting shit out of bigoted, downscale, superstition-addled conservatives for decades. The conservatives whine about it incessantly as they are replaced -- after taking their stale, ugly thinking to the grave -- by better, younger Americans, making America less rural, less religious, less backward, less bigoted, and more diverse.
Why do you want to subject young children to that?
Cannibalism exists but it’s not a topic to bring up to 6-year-olds.
Someone who goes out of their way to talk about age-inappropriate topics to young children is someone who young children need to be protected from.
Ragebot describes conservative-controlled universities (Regent, Franciscan, Wheaton, Biola, Ouachita Baptist, and more than a hundred like them. Low-ranked (or unranked) hayseed farms that flout academic freedom, enforce speech codes, engage in censorship and viewpoint-discriminatory hiring (and firing), enforce dogma, and suppress science and reason to flatter childish superstition.
Ragebot seems too stupid to recognize this.
"That’s not quite what I said, it was that TX voters likely don’t like a lot of DEI but they also like their colleges to be excellent, and the administrators there, concluding from industry practices, think they need DEI to meet the latter goal.
Ragebot, higher Ed expert that he is, has determined they are wrong and, therefore, “insubordinate shitheads.”"
I would bet dollars to donuts that a majority of TX voters are more concerned about their football team being 'excellent' than academic excellence. Putting that aside that point is that while administrators may hold that DEI is necessary for excellence that is far from a universal view. In fact lots of peeps think that adding mandatory classes on topics like DEI/CRT detracts from excellence. Not to mention the cost of such training does not seem to have a good ROI. In fact some adherents of DEI/CRT have taken the position that topics like math are racist in part because the process used in math requires things like showing your work and getting the right answer. Not to mention lots of universities have policies that mandate a certain number of minority students be admitted who have lesser qualifications than non minority students. It is easy to take a logical position that having more better qualified students will result in reaching the goal of excellence while lesser qualified students will hamper reaching the goal of excellence. The counter argument is that seeing faces different from yours is better for reasons I still have not seen explained. As for the industry practice the only thing I have seen is mouthing 'we are woke' may lessen the number of shakedowns by rent seekers like Sharpton or Jackson; not a really good idea in my mind.