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?
you keep about ubermensch, why?
“Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.”
Ayn Rand
That doesnt sound to me as someone who thinks some men are more equal than others.
Again, you mistake regulation as a necessary legal concept within our Constitutional framework for bad regulation.
They are not the same thing.
Nor are they the same as criminal sanctions.
Did you take extra “conflation pills” this morning, Bron?
Mike Spindell:
the courts should be used to punish bad actors. Not everyone, not even 30% of the population are immoral actors. I am estimating 15% or even less.
Regulations assume I am a criminal right out of the box.
Why should the 85% plus pay the price for a few?
Mike S
**apoplectic**
Perhaps over used anger, but I assure you it’s real.
The 2nd amd issue has plenty of support for it’s continuation by people of most political beliefs, 65-75%.
As I see it the current DC polecats on both sides are playing a rope-a-dope type strategy against us.
They’re attempting to wear us down by changing the issues of the day/week as fast as they can.
Above & some post elsewhere I’m attempt refocus the narrative onto the vaccine issue as it’s coming in front of congress in November.
It’s an issue all reasonable people can agree on & make progress on right now.
There was a recent conversion with OS on this vax issue. I’m positive he & others also wish to have a non-corrupt, clean & safe vaccine program.
It’s a good issue, I believe we can have positive results on & it removes & settles an important issue that Sen Rand Paul & AJ/infowars use.
So even SwM should be able to get behind this issue.
Except government doesn’t rely upon moral justification, Bron, but rather ethics and her underlying premise that social convention and laws don’t apply to the Übermensch flies in the face of very principle democratic rule and political and legal egalitarianism. Placing retaliatory force into an objective control mechanism is indeed a valid function of government – specifically the judiciary for decisions and the executive for enforcement, but it is not the only valid function of government nor is it the sole function of government as defined by the Constitution.
Mike Spindell:
and this:
Under a proper government, “a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.””
Mike Spindell:
“Bron exactly and that is why Ayn Rand was wrong.”
Here is her view on government:
“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”
** Ironically, Guth specializes in public relations according to his resume. **
Who is selling who & why?
What facts should we trust as being truthful?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANWaJB43GY#t=281
BTW: Gene H, 1, September 24, 2013 at 9:09 am,
That piece is worth me saving so I did.
David also keeps misrepresenting the tweet, so that it can line up with his interpretation and ‘truth”. He did not say G-damn he said May G-d damn them, that is not damning them unless David believes the professor to be G-d.
He did not say Kill your children, he said next time may it be, i.e. maybe if you understood empathy you would not need there to be a next time or to have a personal connection to it.
Yes he may not have said it in exactly the words David would have liked him to, ie. constructive, since that is how David reads the 1st amendment.
But he made his feelings known:
He was saying next time let it be in a context you can understand. But that would undermine David’s whole tenet.
David appears to have badly lost yet another argument here today. Thank you, Gene.
You know I think David likes to show how hopeless he is in arguing…. That’s what he does best…. Maybe he could just state his case and move on… Facts are what they are…. The sun still sets in the west…
David,
Nope. You don’t understand the ad hominem fallacy any better than you understand the 1st Amendment (or law in general). What OS was pointing to is legal fact: There are only limited narrow exceptions to the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. Unless you are threatening someone, inciting violence, lawlessness, panic or rebellion (sedition), violating copyright, revealing secret information (which is contractual even for government employees although it has statutory penalities) or defaming someone (i.e. lying about them), you can say anything you please. To wit:
David, it is my considered and expert opinion that you don’t know jack squat about law and logical argumentation on either a factual or theorhetical basis. This is readily backed up by your pitiful performances here to date such as your outrage that you – in your perpetual mode of moralizing to the point of fallaciousness – don’t get to control what other people say (outside of the recognized legal exceptions to free speech) nor do you get to choose how they conduct their interpersonal sexual relationships.
It’s not ad hominem to point out that your arguments are 1) based in factual ignorance of jurisprudence and 2) that your at argumentation sucks.
Let’s break that down.
The first is a fact, plain and simple. As an actual expert on law – not someone playing at lawyer on the Internet, it’s abundantly clear to me (and others) that you don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. Even when presented with black letter law that refutes your assertions, your response is a uniform variation of “you don’t know what you are talking about”. I bet doctor’s love treating you. Because you read something somewhere once and they’re wrong. Right? If I said, “You’re wrong because you’re a hypocritical moralizing busybody jackass”? That would be the ad hominem fallacy. You aren’t wrong because you are you. That’s the underlying premise of the ad hominem attack. If you can’t point to evidence where the person is saying “you are wrong because of X about your character and/or person and no other reason”, then there is no fallacious ad hominem attack. There is only one exception where the ad hominem attack is permissible: in court, you can attack a declarant’s character (their person) if they are making a claim as truthful without any collaborating evidence to support their claim and expecting you to simply take their word as to the veracity of their statement. You are wrong about the nature of the 1st Amendment (much like you are wrong about the nature of the 14th Amendment) simply because you are wrong as a matter of legal fact. Point to any legal language that says speech must be “constructive”. You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. And based upon past performance, if you do come up with something, it’ll be cherry picked and out of context. And as OS pointed to, who gets to decide what is and isn’t “constructive”? You? You don’t get to decide what others say outside the noted exceptions and even then, ajudication of the case based on the merits and findings of fact is required.
The second statement is a statement of fact. It’s not ad hominem to point out your opponent is factually and/or logically wrong. That is the essence of debate; pointing out the flaws in your opponent argument and building a case stronger than theirs to persuade the audience you are correct in your assertions and conclusions and that they are not. Pointing out that you are fallaciously playing victim (a variant of the Appeal to Pity Fallacy) by asserting that you have been personally attacked when you have not is fair game; you made a logical error. That it may have insulted you is irrelevant. Insult is not the same thing as the ad hominem fallacy. Insult is subjective. The ad hominem fallacy is objective and narrowly tailored.
Both parts of the above statement are protected free speech. You may not like them. That is irrelevant.
Gene H –
…
So why are you making me the subject rather than the issue? Why talk about the First Amendment as if I thought Dr. Guth violated it, when I clearly said he did not violate the First Amendment? Why spend so much time explaining your esoteric narrow definition of the ad hominem fallacy rather than acknowledge how personal insults and flaming in a forum like this detract from intelligent conversation?
I don’t care what you call it, whether ad hominem argumentation, or insults, or character assassinations, or flaming… the effect of such speech is to change the discussion to being about how stupid and evil DavidM is rather than addressing the issue. Professors are role models in society, whether they want to be or not. Dr. Guth is a bad role model by expressing a desire for the children of NRA members to die and asking for God to damn them. The university should have standards of conduct that exceed the requirements of the law. Do you agree or disagree that university standards of conduct should exceed the requirements of criminal law?
“Why talk about the First Amendment as if I thought Dr. Guth violated it, when I clearly said he did not violate the First Amendment?”
David,
This sentence shows your lack of understanding of the issue involved. One doesn’t “violate” the First Amendment. One has their First Amendment rights violated.
Mike Spindell wrote – “This sentence shows your lack of understanding of the issue involved. One doesn’t “violate” the First Amendment. One has their First Amendment rights violated.”
Give me a break. Pressed by other issues in the office here, I wrongly worded that as I hurriedly made the post, but you knew what I meant, that he was within his First Amendment rights. Previously I had said: “I think the speech is allowable under Free Speech of the First Amendment, but the University has an obligation to foster constructive intellectual dialogue.” Rafflaw spoke of damages to the First Amendment, but we know what he meant by that.
It is strange how so many of you obsess over minutia and ignore the weightier matters raised.
David, THAT is an ad hominem against the author of that essay. Attack the guy who wrote it with irrelevancies instead of the content of what he wrote.
I rest my case.
Now isn’t that cute. The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy.
I have had this bookmarked for months, waiting for the proper time to trot it out. Now is the time:
You can read the rest here.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
OS – Oh my, you must believe everything you read on the internet.
Your source:
“Stephen Bond was born in Ireland in 1978, at the height of the disco craze, and moved to Belgium in 2001, the year the world changed forever. He looks something like this:”
When you dodge the subject by speaking toward the man rather than what the man is saying, you create a logical disconnect from the subject at hand. Now your arguments run on emotion, on persuading people that the person making the argument has been debunked a hundred times by men with real credentials and authority to speak. Such has nothing to do with what is being said. It is, therefore, only giving the appearance of saying something by getting the readers in the peanut gallery to cheer you on.
David,
You are in luck. There are several so-called colleges that are nothing more than echo chambers for regressive ideas to which you can refer your unfortunate students. 🙄
Mike A.,
Yep. 😀
David,
I read your follow-up comment regarding the professor being a public employee. That argument won’t fly either. Universities have always been a bastion of free-wheeling ideas, controversial notions and strong disagreements in the academic community. That goes back to the earliest days of higher education. A protected enclave, if you will. The last thing needed in the university setting is politicians strong arming the institution because they disagree with the ideas expressed there.
The solution to disagreeable speech is more speech, not less. That is the nature of debate. No one has thrown you off this board for expressing ideas that are authoritarian and hateful. Instead, you were engaged, and your fallacious notions were ripped apart by people who know more about the subject than you.
It is both funny, and sad in a way, that your hubris is such that you try to debate Constitutional law with a legal scholar such as Gene, or try to define debate and logic to me. Bet you didn’t know that I hold a lifetime certificate for teaching debate. Carry on.
OS wrote: “The solution to disagreeable speech is more speech, not less.”
Oh, so you agree with me. That’s nice.
OS wrote: “you try to debate Constitutional law with a legal scholar such as Gene, or try to define debate and logic to me.”
This is a good way to learn, isn’t it. More speech leads to more knowledge and understanding.
David,
Your understanding of logical fallacies is as flawed as your understanding of constitutional law.
First of all, ad hominem arguments and statements are a direct attack on a person’s character, whoever the person is that is being referenced in the ad hominem attack or insult. Second, the ad hominem is typically irrelevant to the referenced topic. That’s what makes it a logical fallacy. I did not attack your character, and did not go off the rails on a tangent. If a statement in debate is true, then by definition, it cannot be an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Second, can you point me to a clause in the First Amendment where it says that only “constructive” speech is protected? Or to case law which says that? You cannot, because it does not exist. The 1A protects ALL speech. All means all. Controversial speech is specifically protected. That is why the Westboro Baptist “church” can get away with what they do, and why the neo-Nazi’s were allowed to have their rally in Skokie, Illinois.
Once again, you demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding of both debate tactics and Constitutional protections. But, carry on.
OS wrote: “If a statement in debate is true, then by definition, it cannot be an ad hominem logical fallacy.”
“An ad hominem argument occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It is therefore a special case of the broader category of formal logical fallacies, the non sequitur, in which the conclusion urged, e.g. that the disputant is incorrect, does not follow from the premise asserted, e.g. that the disputant is a dick.[1] EVEN IF THE AD HOMINEM ATTACK IS TRUE, e.g. the disputant really is a dick, THAT FACT HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE DISPUTANT’S ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY SOUND.”
“Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of your opponent’s arguments.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
RWL has a point about the First Amendment preventing the Prof. from being arrested and charged, however, I think labor law would also protect him against retaliation for exercising his right to free speech in this case. The Prof. remarks were not the same as the abusive behavior of the fast food servant cited in his hypothetical.
The Prof. was expressing his frustration over the insanity guns have brought about in our society. Hysterical, yes, but also intellectual. And I totally agree with him; guns have not made society safer and more guns will make society less safe. At any rate, I don’t think his career is ruined; academics have rebounded from bigger scandals.
As for the politician in this case, it’s fair game for him to threaten the school’s funding. That’s how elected officials try bring about accountability in public institutions. Now, it’s up to the voters to decide if his position accurately reflects their will. That’s how the electorate ensures accountability among its elected officials. Unfortuantely, I’m afraid the good people of Kansas will probably side with the state senator.