We have another example of a teacher being disciplined for an act of free speech in his private time. I have previously written about the increasing scrutiny given public school teachers in their use of social media sites. University of Kansas Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth has been placed on administrative leave after posting an anti-NRA tweet following the recent Navy Yard shootings that killed 12 people. Guth tweeted” “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little issued the following statement after Guth was placed on administrative leave:
“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members.”
While the statement is framed in terms of avoidance “disruptions,” it does not appear to be at the request of Guth. Free speech is often limited in the name of maintaining order and avoiding disruptions. Once again, I find the statement of Guth to be repulsive in wishing the death of the children of gun rights supporters. Yet, it was clearly a political statement made outside of the university.
Nevertheless, Kansas State Senator Greg Smith wants Guth to be fired for engaging in free speech. He is further promising to oppose any appropriations for the university. That sounds like threatening students in protest of a tweet deemed threatening to children of NRA members. A curious moral high ground.
Smith, a former law enforcement officer, however may feel such a threat particularly acutely. His website cites the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of his daughter, Kelsey, as his motivation to continue in public service. I can certainly understand why Guth’s words would be particularly hurtful to Smith. Yet, threatening an entire academic institution for the views of a single faculty member is excessive and wrong-headed.
Likewise, the Kansas State Rifle Association President Patricia Stoneking has pledged that it “will do everything possible to see to the removal of this man . . . He should be fired immediately. His statements are outrageous!. . . Is this who you want teaching your children? I certainly do not want him teaching mine.” Of course, these are not children but college students who are part of an academic community built on the exchange of different ideas and values.
For his part, Guth is not backing down. He is quoted as saying “I don’t apologize for it because I’m not saying in the tweet that I want anybody harmed, and I expanded on it in my blog.”
He is not getting a lot of public support from Ann Brill, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. Brill wrote that “While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse. Professor Guth’s views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence directed against any group or individuals.” The reference to the limits of the first amendment by Brill would seem to encourage those who want Guth disciplined by suggesting that this case might fall within those limits. However, this is an expression of a teacher on a matter of great social and political debate. I do not believe that he actually wanted harm to come to NRA family members. He used injudicious and offensive words to convey his passion. Since some of his students are likely gun rights supporters, it was particularly disturbing. However, he was on a social media site expressing his anger in the aftermath of a great tragedy. I do not see how the “limits” of free speech would allow the discipline of a teacher for such a statement in such a circumstance. Notably, it is Brill’s”limits” point that was quoted by the Regents of the University.
Ironically, Guth specializes in public relations according to his resume. He has a M.A. in Journalism, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (1990) and a B.A. in Radio, Television and Speech, University of Maryland at College Park, 1973.
Do you believe that a professor can or should be disciplined for such a posting on a social media site?
I think the professor’s tweet is far less worrisome than what was mentioned by this state senator:
“Nevertheless, Kansas State Senator Greg Smith wants Guth to be fired for engaging in free speech. He is further promising to oppose any appropriations for the university.”
Now that is an abuse of office for some politician to demand a person lose their career and then use political extortion to conviene some show-trial to punish the offender. Now that is corrupt.
Darren Smith wrote: “Now that is an abuse of office for some politician to demand a person lose their career and then use political extortion to conviene some show-trial to punish the offender. Now that is corrupt.”
Darren, it does seem to me that Greg Smith is perhaps overreacting here. It sounds to me like he expects more from the university administration in regards to the unethical behavior of this professor. His response is not because of this one tweet, but because of his research into past offenses that represent a pattern of behavior by this professor.
Here is part of Greg Smith’s statement, which is based upon violation of university policy for the Faculty Code of Conduct:
—–
David Guth, Associate Professor of Journalism, engaged in unprofessional, threatening, and abusive behavior towards another faculty member in an October 8, 2010 incident. His conduct violated acceptable standards for professional ethics, University policies and Article V.2 and Article V.5 of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The University of Kansas censured him for these actions. Professor Guth’s continued pattern of abusive behavior, as evidenced by not only his Twitter post but his enthusiastic support of the post, which urges people to use guns to perpetrate violence on other people and their children, is not excusable. It also shows that Professor Guth is not against violence but sees it as a means to an end as long as it supports his view.
As a public educator in the Kansas high school education system, I am often consulted by my students as to which college they should attend. As long as Professor Guth remains employed by the University of Kansas I will no longer recommend the university as an institution worthy of attendance by any of my students nor, as a State Senator, will I support any budget proposals or recommendations for the University of Kansas.
—–
http://www.gregsmith4kansas.com/node/233
It appears to me that he is simply saying that his research led him to think that the man should not be a professor at this university. He honestly can no longer support the university if they do not take a different path. Not supporting the university means not voting for it.
However, Dr. Guth denies that he urges people to use guns to perpetrate violence on other people and their children, so I do not think the Senator has a clear understanding of Dr. Guth’s position. If Senator Smith really wanted to address this issue responsibly, he would attempt to meet with Dr. Guth and discuss their differences in person. Senator Smith should focus more on using persuasion rather than the power of his office.
Speech that is not disruptive in one way or another is not worth hearing.
He has an absolute right to his speech. I have an absolute right to my guns. Both of us have responsibilities that attach to those rights AND consequences should we exercise our rights irresponsibly.
I would remind EVERYBODY that the First Amendment protects your absolute right against the Government controlling or surpressing your right to free speech. It DOES NOT protect you from the natural consequences of saying something stupid and a private party’s or institution’s reaction to that statement.
While you may have the absolute right to call me all sorts of nasty names, don’t expect the 1st Amendment to keep you from getting poked in the nose (or worse) should that speech amount to “fighting words”. If you work st McDonalds and use abusive speech about McDonald’s customers, on their time OR on your time, you can safely assume that you are putting your employment in jeopardy (unless Uncle Sam owns the franchise). When you get fired, don’t holler about the First Amendment. You apparently missed the day in civics class where they told you that the Bill of Rights guarantees the Rights of the People in relation to the Government – not to each other. That’s why I can tell you that you don’t get to bring you gun into MY HOUSE, 2ND Amendment be damned, and why employers can have policies allowing them to search your vehicle if you park it on a company lot without a warrant.
This guy said something stupid.
As far as I know he has not been charged by the Government with a crime.
He is simply experiencing the negative consequences of saying vsomething stupid – when the Government steps in to quash this guys speech then we can all get on the 1st Amendment bandwagon.
Until then?
wrxdave wrote: “when the Government steps in to quash this guys speech then we can all get on the 1st Amendment bandwagon.”
My sentiments exactly.
The problem is that when we deal with a public university which receives public funds, some people view that entity as government. So the question is, can a public university have high moral standards for its professors? Can the public university expect professors to be truthful and without animus and disrespect toward other people in society? Or is this higher moral standard illegal because they receive public funds?
“if you dont STAND for anything you’ll FALL for everything”.
just as in my post on the other board. its all about keeping the fear going. and right now their fear is we the people are starting to see thru their lies, games, and attacks. the truth is filtering thru more and more everyday and the people are waking up.my personal opinion is that no one has a need of automatic rifles or machine guns unless in the military. on the other side of that is the military wouldn’t need them either if the corporation learned to mind its business and if the rulers didnt feel a need to kill,steal and own everything as if they are the highest power.. oh how satan is definitely crying right now to see all its carefully laid plans going awry.
the problem in this situation is the Professor spoke his mind. with raw passion which means he has managed to keep his humanity. and the elites just wont have that. part of their overall plan is to remove all emotions and feelings from humanity. to stamp out empathy and sympathy and leave in their place. psychopathic tendencies. the whole premise of them is we are right and you are a slave to our psychopathic wants and needs and if you refuse to do as we tell you. we will first publicly destroy you. and if you still refuse to shut up. the need thing we do is suicide or outright kill you. smfh…. at all those who are willing to lose their souls to live the lives of slaves to the whims of the worse humanity has spawned
RobinH45 wrote: “the problem in this situation is the Professor spoke his mind. with raw passion which means he has managed to keep his humanity.”
Quite the opposite. Dr. Guth lost his humanity in a fit of passionate hatred.
There are good emotions and there are bad emotions. Encourage good emotions, but discourage bad emotions. Condemn bad emotions when they are observed. This leads to a better, more happy society.
“They should”
Ever moralizing.
Never quite right.
David,
Once again you show an astounding lack of understanding of the First Amendment, the cornerstone on which the rest of the Constitution depends. Who, pray tell, determines what is “correct” speech? You?
OS wrote: “Once again you show an astounding lack of understanding of the First Amendment, the cornerstone on which the rest of the Constitution depends. Who, pray tell, determines what is “correct” speech? You?”
And once again you show a complete inability to logically discuss issues without resorting to the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the messenger rather than the message.
The First Amendment is meant to protect constructive speech. For example, it does not protect the speech of someone running into a theater and yelling fire, just to laugh at everyone running out of the building. The First Amendment does not protect speech which incites people to riot. In any case, Guth’s speech did not violate the First Amendment. The problem with his speech is that it reveals a bigoted and hate filled heart. Left unchecked, it will encourage bigotry and hatred in students. The university administration is in a position to be concerned about the speech and to address it. Hopefully the professor realizes that his diatribe was over the top. Most universities have a policy of conduct for faculty that are a bit more stringent than the laws of the State or federal government. Usually it addresses issues of moral turpitude. They are the ones who determine when speech or conduct of a faculty member is deviating from their ideals. If they choose not to do that, then the university system itself falls into disrepute in the eyes of society.
Intellectual honesty?
Pollution or natural?
Equality or prejudice?
… Grains of salt the two of you!
David said: “controversial teaching is not the same as wishing people’s children killed and calling upon God to damn someone. There is no intellectual value in this kind of hate speech. The university should encourage an intelligent exchange of ideas, especially controversial ideas, but it should not encourage professors to speak hatred….”
I agree 100%! I don’t think most of our bloggers are familiar with the concept of tenure in higher education. Although this article doesn’t mention whether or not the Kansas Professor was tenured (we can assume, since his title is an ‘associate professor’), the Chronicle of Higher Education and the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) provide a more comprehensive approach to this topic, including the respect and reponsibility aligned with being a tenured faculty member.
This Kansas Professor’s career in Academia is forever stained.
Does he have a right to say what he said? Sure. However, there are consequences, especially in Academia, where forgiveness involves having financial connections (unless he wants a career in the community college; I doubt it, since he would be coming from a school like Kansas?).
Adiministrative leave is code for: we are giving you time to apologize and to find another job.
Bron,
“Free speech isnt worth much if there arent any teeth behind it.”
So, you intend to shoot the gummint, if it abridges free speech?
That’ll scare ’em.
In every conversation pertaining to curtailing the god-given right to shoot other people to death, someone says, “The 2nd defines the most important right, because the others wouldn’t exist without it.”
So all of us owe our rights to the gun-toting poseurs!
Wow! Thanks guys!
David,
“It is an expression of hatred toward those who embrace the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.”
Embracing it may be OK. My issue is with those that are constantly making love to it. Sex with an amendment is just plain weird.
What does the NRA fear…
… I thought they’re all “Good guys with guns”.
Better get yer other side armed…
Mike Spindell:
“And yes, whether you accept it, or not, the first Amendment is far more important to the freedom of this country than is the Second Amendment.”
how come it is the 2nd amendment? Free speech isnt worth much if there arent any teeth behind it. The Constitution is just a few pieces of paper laying out the rules for an abstract idea. Bad men have no morals, care little for paper and only understand force, Pisistratus wasnt swayed by Solon.
“Bad men have no morals, care little for paper and only understand force, Pisistratus wasnt swayed by Solon.”
Bron exactly and that is why Ayn Rand was wrong.
I am sure this same people that are outraged by his speech would have no problem with someone offering the same sentiments about those suspected of perpetrating any mass shooting.
He should have said it would be poetic justice if any of the leaders of the NRA ended up as the focus of the next deranged shooter, simply bypassing any reference to their family.
“And yes, whether you accept it, or not, the first Amendment is far more important to the freedom of this country than is the Second Amendment.”
I’ll even agree with that, Mike.
The 2nd is for the day you hope never comes, the final bulwark against a tyrannical state.
The 1st is an essential component of a democracy. If you do not protect dissent, you cannot have open debate about matters of public interest. There is no democracy without dissent.
Bron who cares what he thinks? You’re right and maybe it should have been ignored by more then the folks who “follow” him. A simple tweet was made into a big brouhaha when youre right it was merely a tweet.
There is an item in this issue Time mag,about the signs being there before Hasan, Alexis shot and that “superiors ignored signs that he was becoming troubled in the months before (Manning) leaked the 1,000’s of documents and Snowden was online giving voice to his opposition to government surveillance.
Hasan and Alexis could have been stopped before anybody was shot.
And the gov;t should not have been surprised by the leaks of snowden and Manniing because that was also shouted out by their behavior/online voice.
DavidM:
yep but there was a long stretch of time, which led to that, where the ground work was done in the supreme court.
leejcaroll:
Write a letter to the editor.
twitter is like the background noise in your mind when you arent focused on a task. If this guy doesnt have anymore sense than to tweet his emotional state, he needs to suffer the consequences.
And the thing is, who cares what he thinks? The right is going to use it to bash the left and the left is going to get there backs up and bash the right and then lost in all of this is why, on a military installation, the shooter had time to shoot 12 people before he was taken out.
The same question can be asked of the shootings by Major Hassan.
David against whom should they encourage professors to speak hatred against?
Bron:OS:
“one would hope NRA members/staff can empathize w/ pain/suffering of victims & understand heartbreak.Hopefully it never happens to them”
that is 138 characters including spaces.
But that does not express the outrage that the professor meant to express. Maybe had he waited until he had clamed down he might have tweeted what you did, or similar, but massacres require outrage, not let me sit in my chair and mediate until all the emotion is wordcount outted.
leejcaroll wrote: “David against whom should they encourage professors to speak hatred against?”
What kind of question is this? Professors should not be encouraged to speak hatred against anyone. They should be pillars in the community, virtuous examples of all that is honorable and good in society. They should never speak hatred, but studiously challenging people on how to think about the issues they study. This is why the university should correct the professor for his unethical speech. He is a bad example of what a professor should be.
David you wrote “The university should encourage an intelligent exchange of ideas, especially controversial ideas, but it should not encourage professors to speak hatred toward Constitutionalists.” The question then follows:whom should they encourage professors to speak hatred against?”
You see to confuse professors with pastors. rabbis, imans, etc. “Professors should not be encouraged to speak hatred against anyone. They should be pillars in the community, virtuous examples of all that is honorable and good in society.”
People of the Cloth should behave that way – but a professor? (And btw no one should be encouraged to speak hatred. No one encouraged the professor. He made a tweet. I would be surprised if he expected it to be broadcast everywhere.
leejcaroll wrote: “People of the Cloth should behave that way – but a professor?”
What? Only religious people should behave in morally upright ways? So a priest should not lie, but everyone else can? A priest should be an example of a decent, honest man, but a professor can behave in morally reprehensible ways as long as it is legal?
Professors and teachers are in a position of authority and influence. What they say and how they behave influences a lot of people. They should be held to higher standards than the rest of society.
leejcaroll wrote: “(And btw no one should be encouraged to speak hatred. No one encouraged the professor. He made a tweet. ”
The professor encouraged speaking hatred when he tweeted to all his followers that he desired my children and the children of other NRA members to die, and then he called upon God to damn us.
If Dr. Guth had said the same thing about homosexuals, a lot of people here would have been all upset about it. More than that, there would have been legal recourse because sexual orientation is a specially protected class of people in the law.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Faux%20Outrage
“1. Faux Outrage
Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on more
17 thumbs up
Pretending one is offended, insulted or generally affronted by something which they really are not. The faux outrage is usually expressed publicly because it is done in the service of an agenda. Those expressing faux outrage usually labor under the delusion that no one can see through them, but most can.
The professional protesters went down to City Hall today to express their opposition to bill 1234. They were drinking coffee and playing marbles until the tv station got there, then all three of them sprung into action and began waving signs and displaying faux outrage after the camera was turned on.”
Pete,
As usual you cut to the chase with more than a soupcon of ironic humor. Give me a break David and Oky. I’m for the right to bear arms, but sometimes you guys go apoplectic just because you can. And yes, whether you accept it, or not, the first Amendment is far more important to the freedom of this country than is the Second Amendment.
I will say it again. This professor has the right to say whatever he pleases off of the job. To think otherwise damages the First Amendment even more. The NRA does not care a hoot who dies due to their reckless stance on gun ownership. So why can’t anyone, on their own time, speak their mind?