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?
Bron,
“I looked at the table and the only conclusion I can come to is that Washington spends too much of our money.”
Can you break that down, Bron?
Can you compare and contrast between “defense” costs of $1.2B a day, or the $12T spent on “rescuing” the banks, and normal people watching their life of work being stolen out from under them?
Can you actually argue as an adult without your sanctimonious and simplistic remedies?
AY/OS:
I looked at the table and the only conclusion I can come to is that Washington spends too much of our money.
OS,
Thank you for the table…. I am just shaking my head….
Yep. Wichita, Kansas is ground zero in the abortion and contraceptive wars. Not too many years ago liberal democrats and very moderate republicans represented the state.,,,,Dan Glickman, Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum.
Speaking of which, Elaine, did you see this tidbit? The House Republicans, looking for poison pills to use in the budget fight, are using contraception. Perhaps not so coincidentally driven by Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), they are seeking to tie opting out of the ACA based on an employer – not just religious institutions but any employer – not approving of contraception coverage. According to CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/28/gop-to-add-conscience-clause-to-spending-bill/
The Republicans certainly seem to approve of enlarging the role of government when it comes to rules, regulations, and laws regarding contraceptives, women, pregnancy…
Thank you OS…..
Elaine,
If I recall… When uncle Ronnie called for the reduction of federal workers…. They started using employment agency’s and contract workers…. These don’t count in federal employees…..
But you are absolutely correct…. Less government unless….. Heck, even the CIS has it’s own military contractors… That don’t get included in the talky of DOD employee…..
Another thing I find interesting is when there are casualties and the news reports 3 US servicemen died in a copter crash…. The real number of deaths could actually be higher because the number of private contractors on a typical mission are 8 to 1…. I read that in the guardian some time ago…. We don’t call them mercenaries….
Elaine M wrote: “The Republicans certainly seem to approve of enlarging the role of government when it comes to rules, regulations, and laws regarding contraceptives, women, pregnancy…”
What are you talking about? We do not want the government paying for contraception and abortion. We want smaller government in regards to these things. Let private individuals, women and their husbands or boyfriends, take care of contraception and abortion. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
I accidentally posted the following on the wrong thread last night.There are a number of sites presenting material that range from simple misinformation regarding budget surpluses and deficits, to bald faced lies. Fancy that! Wonder who would want to do such a thing?
Dave Manuel runs a website which aggregates economic facts and presents them in chart form for non-economists. The link below takes you to several detailed charts showing the general health of the economy going back to 1940. That is useful for comparison because it includes the years for WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and several other ill advised US misadventures. That gives some idea of how a war budget impacts the economy.
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
Oh, one more thing. Here is this factoid from the US Treasury Department, as reported by Business Insider:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-surplus-2013-7#ixzz2gFOPtdNi
David,
Just because you keep repeating a lie will never make it so. learn to read a spreadsheet. Under Reagan and Bush 1, there was nothing but red ink. Bill Clinton inherited a budget deficit of $290 billion when he took office. By the beginning of his second term the deficit had been paid down, so there was a $19.5 billion surplus in 1994. When Bill Clinton left office, he handed off a surplus of $236 billion to George Bush.
Bush spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, and handed Obama a deficit of $455 billion and a two-front war. One of those wars was totally unnecessary, and fought simply because the flight school washout has an inferiority complex with regard to his war hero father.
Try another approach. Facts are not your strong point, apparently.
DavidM wrote: “the Republican platform is to cut taxes and have more a more limited, smaller government. The Democrats want to increase taxes and have a bigger government.”
OS wrote: “Just because you keep repeating a lie will never make it so. …Under Reagan and Bush 1, there was nothing but red ink. Bill Clinton inherited a budget deficit of $290 billion when he took office. By the beginning of his second term the deficit had been paid down, so there was a $19.5 billion surplus in 1994. When Bill Clinton left office, he handed off a surplus of $236 billion to George Bush.”
First of all, what lie are you talking about? Is it a lie that the Republican platform is to cut taxes and have a limited, smaller government? Is it a lie that Democrats want to increase taxes and have a bigger government? Please be a little more specific and speak more clearly about what it is that you are trying to say. And why are you jumping all the way back to Bill Clinton? Why are you not talking about President Obama’s leadership and what the Democrats want to do today?
What you fail to mention is the Republican controlled Congress that Bill Clinton had to work with. For the first time in 40 years, there was a Republican Speaker of the House. It was the Republican leadership that forced the Welfare reform that led to budget surpluses. To President Clinton’s credit, he worked with Congress, even after the federal government was shut down through all the wranglings over the bills necessary to balance the budget. President Clinton tried to do a Health Care reform too, but he scrapped it when faced with Republicans who demanded a balanced budget and were willing to let the government shut down in order to get it. Yes, President Clinton provided financially responsible leadership by compromising with the Republican Congress. I wish President Obama would do the same thing. He has a chance now if he would express a willingness to hold off paying for Obamacare for a year, but instead he digs his heels in with his no compromise attitude.
In any case, I was talking about platforms, and you are talking about performance, which is complicated by terrorists taking out one of our largest financial districts. It is no secret that Democrats want bigger government and more taxation to pay for it. Why would you call that a lie?
DavidM:
they never will because it is all about power.
Apparently income brackets and a graduated tax rate is too much complexity for you to handle, Bron. Simplicity isn’t the only measure of system. So is fairness and scalability.
However, the tax code issue is a dodge as is the size of government argument.
You labor under the impression that taxes are the only area corruption affects and it isn’t. “Business favorable” law comes in all shapes and sizes aside from dodging taxes.
Size of government has always been a weak argument as size isn’t the prime metric of government; it’s function. A governmental body needs to be big enough to do the job it is designed for, no more, no less.
You kids and your blocks and primary colors!
It’d be adorable if you didn’t have the right to vote.
Gene H wrote: “A governmental body needs to be big enough to do the job it is designed for, no more, no less.”
I think we all agree with your statement above. What we disagree with is what the government body is suppose to be doing.
I don’t think we should be borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for Obamacare and many other things that the Democrats want government to do. I think government should live within its means, like everybody else. Why do they build government buildings more luxurious than most people build their homes? Why do they pay Congressmen so much and give them benefits and pensions that nobody else has? Why do government agencies hold conventions where the snacks include shrimp at the rate of $4 per shrimp? Why does a congressman charge the taxpayer over $100,000 to remodel a small bathroom in his office? Why do they all have limousines with their own drivers? Our founding fathers hated the way the royalty acted in this way, and now instead of just a few, we have hundreds of politicians living this way. When they travel on business, they take an entire entourage and cost the taxpayer millions of dollars for simple trips. The President flies his dog out for vacation by itself costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now he has two dogs, driving up costs to the taxpayers even more. When is it going to stop? When will a Democrat say enough is enough?
David,
You’re gonna trip a trigger on this by me…. If you’ll look at the fiscally conservative you won’t find them in the GOP party either…. Democrats are traditionally more conservative than republicans… Play with that before you make more stupid statement…. You wanna take a look at the deficits LBJ forward…. Obama is not a good example… But it is what it is…. I think he’s just an extension of bush..
AY – the Republican platform is to cut taxes and have more a more limited, smaller government. The Democrats want to increase taxes and have a bigger government. Do you honestly disagree that these are the party positions?
Obamacare represents the largest tax increase in history if measured by absolute dollar amount, and it was sold as a tax neutral bill that nobody had time to read. Pelosi said to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. How dumb is that?
David,
You wanna chew on what OS put out there? You are a blindly stupid partisan…. But believe what you will…. Facts speak volumes….
What do they say in law school.. If the law is on your side argue the law…. If the facts are on your side argue facts… If you don’t have the law or facts go to work for the government….
David…. Do you work for the government?
OS,
Nice assist… Thanks…
And why are the Democrats blaming Republicans with shutting down the government? All they have to do is vote for their bill and there will be no government shutdown. The Democrats and Republicans should agree not to fund Obamacare for one year. It isn’t ready anyway.
Ay:
Gene is all for a progressive tax code. That is not a simple tax system.
A simple tax system is no deductions, exemption for the first 50k and 20% on everything else (earned or investment income) over 50k.
I don’t think Gene stated he likes a complicated tax code…. But take from that what you want..l
Bron and Davd,
Did you happen to catch the last part…. Strange how that system feeds itself….. Which means they ain’t gonna let that happen….
Yes, get rid of all the lobbiest …… But…. Graft will continue to beget graft…. It takes two to deal…. Most people would call it corruption…. They call it good government….
DavidM:
You are correct. Having a simple flat tax would shrink government substantially. But it will never happen because of people like Gene who have a vested interest in a complicated tax code. It is a fear tactic.
AY:
that is exactly what I am talking about.
Gene,
Yep…
Bron,
If you simplify the tax code I read a study somewhere that over 75% of the lobbiest would be unemployed….strange how that system feeds itself….
AY wrote: “If you simplify the tax code I read a study somewhere that over 75% of the lobbiest would be unemployed…”
That’s a good thing. So you apparently agree with Bron?
Gene H:
All you need to do is limit regulations and simplify the tax code. You can also do what you are talking about but if you do what I am talking about you wont have many bad actors.
And anyway dont we already have a bunch of laws ostensibly protecting the public from those actions now?
Maybe the reason you perceive us to be dim is that we operate on a higher wave length.
AY,
As you know, for as long as I’ve been saying the root of corruption is the money in the campaign finance and lobby systems, I’ve been saying that is what also keeps the two party stranglehold on the system, that two choices is the illusion of choice on substantive matters, and that not only is removing the money from those systems critical to fixing government, breaking the hold of the GOP and DNC and opening the field to more parties and greater diversification in ideology and approach is also critical in fixing government. A more diverse ecology is a more robust and healthy ecology, be it in a rainforest or a political jungle.