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?
“The limit of caring knows no bounds because they dont foot the bill.”
1) A bad assumption. For example: I care about helping sick people. They shouldn’t have to choose between bankruptcy and care or food and medicine. I don’t give a damn about helping a banker who can’t cover their arbitrage transactions because they under capitalized or misunderstood the risk they were taking.
2) A shared burden is a lesser burden. Many hands make for easy work. Society is a collaborative effort and taxation is how we fund the mechanisms that maintain it’s common infrastructure through government.
Gene H wrote: “Society is a collaborative effort and taxation is how we fund the mechanisms that maintain it’s common infrastructure through government.”
Taxation is not the only mechanism of funding. Ever hear of charity? Ever consider giving yourself by opening up your own home to the destitute and outcast? Many in society have not agreed to rob part of society in order to help others. We see government as wasteful and as limiting the ability of others in society to give.
DavidM:
That is pretty much what I meant. The limit of caring knows no bounds because they dont foot the bill.
DavidM:
I would agree with you on helping in those situations. But there is no duty to do so. However as a human being you should help in those instances.
How much do you help a person? Do you step in and be killed by the mugger? Do you give a person everything you own to help them?
How altruistic are you? Do I have a duty to step in and be killed by a mugger? Do I have a duty to give everything I own to a destitute family?
Help me understand what are the limits of altruism? Because altruism means giving up self for others.
If I help the mugged person get to the hospital and offer comfort, that is not altruism. If I give the family next door $2,000 dollars, that is not altruism.
Bron wrote: “If I help the mugged person get to the hospital and offer comfort, that is not altruism. If I give the family next door $2,000 dollars, that is not altruism.”
You define altruism in a very narrow way. In my background with the Biological sciences, we generally use the word altruism in consideration of models of evolution like kin selection or group selection. There has been a healthy debate concerning whether altruism exists in animal behavior (the behavior of mankind is always excluded from consideration).
Altruism is simply the behavioral aspect of love. It is doing something for someone else without expecting any benefit in return. It is the opposite of selfishness.
A common example in ethology class would be a person stopping his car and helping a turtle get across the road. There is a slight risk of danger to him, sacrifice of his time too, and no benefit expected in return.
In both the mugging situation and the donation to your neighbor, unless you were expecting them to pay you back, or if you expected some great media exposure that brought benefit to you, then these would be examples of altruism. Any action toward another person on your part that costs you something and you expect nothing to be gained by it is altruism. If you open up your home to a strange homeless person, give them a meal and a safe place to sleep, that is altruistic, because you are sacrificing your privacy to help someone. You gain nothing for yourself by doing it. The ultimate act of altruism is giving your life for another. Not too many people have matured to that level of love.
I say that altruistic behavior like these examples are a duty because of the inner sense of obligation to do it without expecting payback from it. I don’t mean duty in the legal sense, nor do I mean that it is my job to do it, but only that my personal code of ethics creates a sense of obligation that I must do it.
[Let’s watch Gene H go bonkers over me talking about the concept of a personal code of ethics. LOL. Maybe he will give us a lecture on how the proper word is morality rather than ethics because a personal code is subjective.]
Nine years and still no doctorate to show for all that work, eh?
Just because you went to school doesn’t mean you learned anything, David. G. W. went to Yale and Harvard for seven years. He’s a moron. I’ve known people who didn’t graduate high school and yet managed to become quite well educated mostly on their own. “Better educated” isn’t just a function of how long or where you went to school. It’s a function of how much and how well you learned. It’s a function of factual information coupled with the ability to integrate and synthesize that data into the deeper knowledge that is understanding. Understanding is a demonstrable skill. It is the true measure of “well educated”. So far, you have demonstrated little of it.
Davidm1575,
It’s not how long you sit in class. It’s whether you learned anything in those 9 years. I’m waiting to see any evidence of you learning anything, at all.
Little help from a moderator please. My reply to Bron got lost in WordPress.
Also, you guessed poorly.
Actually, it’s not superficial at all, Bron.
And we’ve discussed the nature of freedom enough times, you should know better.
Gene H:
Your thumb?
Come on Gene, that is just superficial stuff. The altruism speaks to a particular philosophy of life.
David,
Actually, I’m far better educated and far more skilled than you. That’s why I know the difference between morals and ethics, can easily spot your factual errors and don’t fall into logical fallacy like you are prone to do.
The bottom line is the law isn’t based in morality – subjective standards – but rather in ethics – objective standards. That they both relate to good versus bad behavior does not invalidate that distinction. They may be cousins, but they are not the same thing. They have different names for a reason.
You can babble on and on (and probably will) about “historical usuage” or “common usage” or “semantic drift”, but that’s the facts, Jack.
Bron,
Oh yeah! I’m a moralizing theocrat who regurgitates FRC propaganda! We have a lot in common.
Guess which finger I’m holding up.
Gene H wrote: ” I’m far better educated and far more skilled than you.”
I attended two public universities full time for nine years. How many years of college do you have under your belt? [waiting for the dodge of … I don’t have to answer your questions]
DavidM:
“Put another way, altruism is not the duty of government, but rather altruism is the duty of a free individual with the power of choice through rational thinking.”
You and Gene have a good deal in common.
DavidM:
“When the individual is free from government entanglement, however, does not the individual have a moral duty to care about his neighbor?”
According to Rand, there is no duty. When you say care, what do you mean? Do you mean support them? Is your neighbor your friend?
What if you dont like your neighbor? What if you fundamentally disagree with your neighbor?
Let me put it this way, if my neighbor’s barn burned down I would help him rebuild it with my time and money to the extent that I was able without putting me in a bind. But only if he was a responsible man.
What is the limit of caring? The left cares without end.
Bron wrote: “What is the limit of caring? The left cares without end.”
Each individual has to decide for himself his limit of caring. Some are able to care more than others. The Jewish sages speak of how Abraham was more righteous than Job because while Job helped all those who came to him, giving them food, clothing, and lodging, Abraham was proactive in going out to look for those who have needs. People can grow in their ability to give to others, so each individual must determine for himself how much he is able to care and give to others.
As for the idea that the left care without end, that is false. They are among the least giving people on earth. That is why they want the government to give. They are like the neighbor who holds a gun to the head of his neighbor and robs them, then distributes what he takes to himself and others. They call that giving. I call it legalized theft. What difference is there between this kind of government and organized crime like the mafia making rounds to collect at the local businesses in order to give them protection?
DavidM:
“What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.”
“Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.”
DavidM:
What is duty? Is it a duty to raise your children, who you love? Is it a duty to be faithful to your wife because you adore her and cherish her and could not live without her?
Do I have a duty to support people I do not know at the expense of my wife and children?
Is it a duty to respect the rule of law? Which also protects me?
If your country is attacked by a malignant government, is it duty that makes you pick up a weapon and fight or is it your love of your family and your freedom?
Duty is what the totalitarians of this world want from people.
Bron wrote: “Duty is what the totalitarians of this world want from people.”
Duty would be a moral or legal obligation.
If you were walking along the sidewalk and you came upon a stranger who had just been mugged, would you not have a moral obligation to help that person?
If your next door neighbor lost his job and his family of five were literally going to bed hungry at night without food, would you not have a moral obligation to share your food with them?
Help me understand your thinking here, Bron. I consider it my moral duty to help in both these situations. This is not imposed upon me by a totalitarian government. My duty comes from an inner sense of compassion that cannot be held back.
I have no obligation to answer your questions, David.
Especially the really stupid ones prefaced by a bunch of opinion that projects your moralizing onto the world of academia.
The bottom line is that you don’t know what you are talking about, either as a matter of legal fact and your skills at argumentation suck. That’s not changing the focus, it’s not ad hominem. It’s a post facto analysis of your previous crap argument being exposed as poorly argued fantasy.
That doesn’t make you evil.
That simply makes you wrong as a factual and logical matter.
If it bothers you that people may (and do) find you to be wrong and illogical, might I suggest you quit being wrong and illogical.
David,
You make yourself the subject by claiming ad hominem every time someone points out how full of crap your arguments are. I know this will come as a surprise, but it isn’t about you. Your arguments are made in factual ignorance and have the logical consistency of runny oatmeal. That being wrong in both substance and logic in your argument implies that you personally are either 1) dishonest in argument, 2) ignorant about that which you speak, 3) illogical and/or 4) all of the above or some combination thereof is immaterial to your arguments being dishonest, ignorant and/or illogical. We don’t take what you say as the truth based solely upon your word, ergo, your character or lack thereof is irrelevant.
BTW, you really need to learn the distinction between morals and ethics.
And what Mike said.
Gene H wrote: “Your arguments are made in factual ignorance and have the logical consistency of runny oatmeal.”
How does this logically apply to my last question to you?
DavidM wrote: “Do you agree or disagree that university standards of conduct should exceed the requirements of criminal law?”
Gene H wrote: “BTW, you really need to learn the distinction between morals and ethics.”
And you really need to get better educated in understanding that there is a whole world of people that do not think in the narrow minded way that you do. I disagree with your distinction, that ethics is objective and morality is subjective. I can see how you might want to see that nuance in these words, but the term morality is not restricted to your narrow understanding.
Research the issue and you will find a plethora of explanations from various scholars and laymen alike, attempting to distinguish these two words. Your understanding of the distinction is only one of many.
Historically, there was no difference. The word “morality” comes from the Latin word “moralis,” the word which Cicero used to translate the Greek word “ethikos,” the origin of the English term ethics. I realize words change over time, but look up morality in your OED, and you will not see the definition you offer about morality being subjective.
Morality is a general term for principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior. In popular usage, ethics has come to mean a standard system of right and wrong behavior for a social group that perhaps is more strict than that given by the law. The law is a subset of ethics. In general, morality is the broader term, with ethics being a more narrow term, and the law being an even more narrow term. All of the law, and all of ethics, is concerned with defining morality. The law defines morality in the most minimalist way. Ethics is a little more broad and becomes specialized for different social groups. Morality is the most general term, defining all that has to do with right and wrong. Morality includes personal and subjective standards of right and wrong, but it is not a term that is restricted only to that basis.
Gene H:
we can agree to disagree then.
I might point out that most of the revolutions in the past few hundred years were by productive people who fed the king at a cost to themselves.
Bron-
Is Gene H properly representing your view or that of Ayn Rand when he says the following?
“Because the very idea that the individual has no duty but to themselves is bathed in the idea of the Übermensch. That some people simply aren’t constrained by society because of their innate superiority. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule by law.”
Does the individual have no duty but to themselves?
Is he not pulling statements and ideas out of context?
In regards to the duty of government, the individual is not responsible to supply government with the means of being altruistic for everybody else.
When the individual is free from government entanglement, however, does not the individual have a moral duty to care about his neighbor?
Put another way, altruism is not the duty of government, but rather altruism is the duty of a free individual with the power of choice through rational thinking.
Connecticut AAG: Ya, we’re evil, so What, we’re from the Govt & it’s for your own good!
Wow
** State of Connecticut Refuses to Release Adam Lanza’s Medical Records
Assistant Attorney General: Identifying antidepressants Lanza was taking could “cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
September 24, 2013 **
http://www.prisonplanet.com/state-of-connecticut-refuses-to-release-adam-lanzas-medical-records.html
Did you actually read “The Fountainhead”, Bron?
Roark’s whole courtroom speech is based on the the moral superiority of egoism over altruism.
“Atlas Shrugged”? Is a nearly 1,200 page rationalization of why John Galt is the ultimate superior being.
The underpinnings of Objectivism rests on the moral superiority of capitalism and egoism, both of which exploit and/or deny the validity of others for the benefit of the self. We have a word for people like that. We call them sociopaths. Why do I mention Übermensch? Because the very idea that the individual has no duty but to themselves is bathed in the idea of the Übermensch. That some people simply aren’t constrained by society because of their innate superiority. That’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule by law.
And like the Nietzschean ideal before her, her ideology – which “ideology” or “religion” is a better word than “philosophy” describe Objectivism – is predicated on a myth that the individual exists outside the context of their society.