We have been discussing the disciplining of professors for their statements on social media and the erosion of free speech protections for teachers outside of their schools. As many of you know, I take a robust view of free speech rights and have been critical of the monitoring and punishment of teachers for expressing their political and social views outside of campus. The latest such controversy comes the University of Tampa where visiting assistant professor Kenneth Storey was sacked for tweeting, “I dont believe in instant karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them.” Few would defend Storey’s comments which were insensitive and unthinking, but that does not alter the question of where the line is drawn for teachers in speaking publicly about politics or society. (He later apologized.)
On Sunday, Aug. 27, visiting assistant professor of sociology Kenneth Storey made comments on a private Twitter account that do not reflect UT’s community views or values. We condemn the comments and the sentiment behind them, and understand the pain this irresponsible act has caused.
Storey has been relieved of his duties at UT, and his classes will be covered by other sociology faculty.
As Floridians, we are well aware of the destruction and suffering associated with tropical weather. Our thoughts and prayers are with all impacted by Hurricane Harvey.
Of course, as a private institution, the University of Tampa is not subject to the protections of the first amendment, which bar governmental abridgment of free speech. However, that does not relieve the university of its responsibility to maintain the free speech rights and academic freedom of its faculty. The university does not explain when it will punish faculty for public comments or social media statements. This uncertainly creates an obvious chilling effect for faculty members who will not want to risk retaliation for controversial statements. The result will be the curtailment of free speech for academics who will not want to risk their positions. I believe the university was wrong in taking this action rather than simply conveying its deep condemnation for the posting.
What do you think?
The challenge an employer always faces is if an employee’s private behavior or speech becomes public, and materially damages the company’s reputation or profit. And studies have shown that professors admit to bias against conservative colleagues. Does this extend to students? Are they able to grade fairly?
I’m sure that University of Tampa knows about the dramatic drop in enrollment and donations to activist universities like Evergreen.
That’s always the line, though, balancing someone’s Constitutional right to free speech with the consequences a business may face. Many employers, including the US Government, require employees to either refrain from posting opinions online or do so anonymously as a condition of employment. Again, they have every right to say what they want but no one can be compelled to employ them.
I cannot say if such a heartless comment would have impacted enrollment, so I cannot judge the termination.
Over and above that quandary, however, is the overarching problem of the polarization of education from pre-school to graduate school. Universities are supposed to be places of learning, where all are welcome. Now they are almost all Liberal bastions where politics seep into every class in the most inappropriate ways. Universities head the charge against free speech, ironic given that this professor was fired for what professors across the country are saying about conservatives in general.
I just wish that we could go back to the days where students could attend universities simply to get an education, with no politics inserted at all outside of political science, and even then it would be balanced. Majors would all be serious study, and useful, with no more of these overpriced, useless classes in “Demystifying the Hipster” (Tufts), “Zombies in Popular Media” (Columbia), “What if Harry Potter is Real” (Appalachian State), “Queer Musicology” (UCLA) and “The Joy of Garbage” (Berkley, of course.)
Maybe if we stop employing quasi professionals to teach useless classes, and focused on high quality education instead of activism, tuition would go down.
Darn auto correct. “Polarization of education” was supposed to be “politicization of education”
Weird classes!
Nonetheless, the faculty of a serious university is to govern themselves. There is an important reason for academic freedom. Read about Socrates. Also Galileo.
I doubt Evergreen State College is having enrollment problems. The Washington state universities are oversubscribed. I suspect that you meant one of the University of Missouri campuses.
On the contrary Karen is correct. Enrollment is down reportedly by 5%, resulting in a $2.1 million shortfall and layoff notices were issued recently.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36145/
A large portion of these enrollment shortfalls are from out of state students who pay larger tuition fees, students that are obviously more invested in their education and less likely to take a risk on a college of increasingly less repute.
Evergreen has the lowest bar for admission of any four year institution in the state. This is probably all that is holding the institution in the black. In 2015 the college had a 98% acceptance rate. (UW was 53%) Have 50 bucks, a GED, and a pulse? Great, you are Evergreen material.
Thanks for the link.
Dictatorship of the proletariat was provided in 1848 by Karl Marx.
American free enterprise – supply adaptation and demand adaptation – was provided in 1789 by the American Founders.
Like the Ten Commandments, it’s still the best format.
Universities would do well to remember that.
__________________________________________
“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”
– Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Let the professors enjoy their Freedom of Speech.
Let the students enjoy their Matriculation on Merit.
Let Freedom Ring!
Abolish “Affirmative Action Privilege.”
Most universities already have. For black and brown students anyway. Affirmative action for legacy and wealthy students still exists.
Universities felt insulated from condemnation because they are tasked to create opinions for the public. It’s long been a Socratic safe zone for free speech.
Of late, universities have found themselves having to follow business model restrictions.. There’s not enough business in our nation for the vast number of post secondary institutions we built.
That and the consequence of having students hurt or be hurt after incitement of free speech in this incendiary environment.
Nope and nope again.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/904339494937264129
Such bull. For the most part in todays world the media protects itself from harm. In fact sometimes the media uses film that is different than the scene being reported on. I am not saying that many journalists today don’t take risks, many do, but in this case I’ll bet the journalist had boots and after the fact made sure his body was cleansed.
However, if you really want to look at risks take a look at our soldiers and think of how politicians don’t adequately protect them from being injured or killed and how politicians managed the VA which cares for those soldiers after they are injured. Most talking heads and most journalists are pussies.
Did you say E. coli? Isn’t that lethal? Call the Secret Service.
How much you wanna bet The Hill and Bill Bishop did not suggest Jesus Obama be water boarded after his CIA and military were busted for illegal felony torture of prisoners? Or did they suggest Jesus Obama be subjected to a drone missile strike after he illegally droned and murdered sixteen year old US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki without trial and without criminal charge?
The University of Tampa guarantees freedom of speech for faculty and students. So once the AAUP office in Washington, DC, called the firing decision was reversed.
Do try to keep up, you know…
The free speech part of me says he can shoot his mouth off. The rational part of me says I’m glad he got fired.
And what about the subsequent unfiring?
Universities don’t fire folks.. Especially a poor non tenured.. He will simply be not continued. K Thanks Bye!!!
Being protected by the state.. They decided a law suit. Period!!!
Defused.
Boycott that so called ‘university’.
One has to ask what sort of people do you want working for you? What sort of people should be teachers? If someone says such asinine stuff as this, I have to wonder about his capacity of compassion as a human being. I don’t care the “truth” of the statement. People in Texas (and Louisiana) are hurting. Why can’t someone be fired for being an a$$ hole, and poor excuse of a human being?
Because the university guarantees freedom of speech for faculty.
He has every right to speak, especially when it’s the truth. He’s absolutely right about GOP not giving a damn. Repulsive TX congressional reps denied Sandy aid to to tens of millions in northeast for weeks, but now it hits home and they scramble aimlessly wondering if they should bust the fed budget or fight for offsets that they demanded for Sandy. The GOP TX Sec. of State turned down help from Quebec saying, send prayers instead. GOP, bible thumper Osteen had to be shamed to open his megachurch to Harvey victims. GOP ‘freedom’ of no zoning codes makes coastal TX a disaster in waiting because homes are freely built on floodplains, you can build a toxic chemical plant anywhere and not have to release chemical information to the public. As moronic Gov. Jade Helm Abbott put it, you can just drive to the plant and ask them what toxic chemicals they have. GOP completely ignores climate science which may explain why Houston has had two, 500-year rains and a 1000-year rain in the past three years. And ‘House Republicans’ spending bill includes FEMA cuts to fund Trump’s border wall’ Nothing to see here folks, move along…..at your own peril.
Another missive from the James T. Hodgkinson wing of the Democratic Party.
Well said.
For those new folks here, Lloyd is a hater from way back. All you women, just thank the Good Lord he’s not your husband. Notice how he can hate on many people and topics in just one rambling, incoherent, unintelligent paragraph. If you want to help Lloyd, send him those big refill bottles of Windex he uses to clean the spittle off his computer screen. As you might imagine, he goes through about a gallon every month.
Tell it like it is, Lloyd.
I am an environmental scientist with a recently earned postgraduate degree. It is not possible to positively connect individual events such as Hurricane Harvey with climate change. Maybe climate change had a large influence; maybe it didn’t. Unfortunately, climate change does not leave fingerprints or DNA. I do not accept glib explanations, no matter who proffers them (even, and especially, Al Gore!) It takes years of data gathering and analysis to attempt to unravel the causes, and even then we are left with probabilities, not certainty. It is a relatively common event for large hurricanes to strike the northern shores of the Gulf of Mexico. The last big one was in 2008. I am not surprised that Texas got “snake eyes” again in weather dice, only that it took so long. Tropical cyclones were striking what is now Texas long before there were humans around to report them.
Roger, THANK YOU for an informed and LOGICAL comment on science. Political science is going to destroy your important profession.
Political science has some systemic problems as a discipline, but the poli sci profs are not typically a locus of corruption in university faculties.
Welcome, Roger J, thanks for your comment. Many of us have been saying similar things to this and other posts, but commenters who don’t understand science will not be deterred. Keep on trying, though!!
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/904344488323272704
When was the last time they were inspected?
Frankly thinks the EPA has no work backlogs or priority-setting practices and aren’t constrained from traveling around greater Houston.
Zoning is a local issue. The mayor of Houston has been a Democrat since 1982.
http://www.bhlaw.net/News/Prof%20Overview%20of%20Zoning%20in%20Texas%20UT%20Land%20Use%20Seminar%203-18-16.pdf
The city has no formal zoning regulations…..from Wikipedia. “Though Houston is the largest city in the United States without formal zoning regulations, it has developed similarly to other Sun Belt cities because the city’s land use regulations and legal covenants have played a similar role.[76][77] ”
Blaming this on Republicans is stupid. Houston has flooded since it was first settled due to local topography and soil conditions. Plus the city leaders allowed the one existing greenbelt to be covered over with concrete.
Will it’s time for a move. Sick & tired of 50” rain, flooding, wind, tornados, & hurricane?
Checkout this tower house property, 2365 Skyline Drive, Prescott AZ. Going for $1.5 million. I like the bedroom & bath rooms. One problem in Prescott, AZ is in a drought & lack of water crisis. It gets hot too. Wonder what utility bill is for running AC 24/7.
Jerry, forget the A/C bill, the house doesn’t have a swimming pool. That doesn’t matter to the builder for he is taking a very big bath. It does use a chimney effect for heating and cooling.
https://www.dcourier.com/news/2017/apr/08/tallest-home-hard-sale/
Thanks for the intesting video.
allan – I am not sure I have ever seen a house in Prescott with a swimming pool.
Paul, Why not?
allan – most of the new homes are built on hillsides and there isn’t room for a pool. Historic Prescott homes were built in the 1920s and 30s so they do not come with pools. Prescott is all up and down hill.
I guess the deep end would be on the downhill side. 🙂
No way I live in Prescott.
allan – I have friends who own a lovely Craftman’s style house on the edge of a cliff in Prescott. They get snow there, so I am not living there. 🙂
People fall off of cliffs, so I don’t want to live there. A diving board is as high as I wish to go. What is snow? 🙂
If I were that professor I’d say karma is a bi$%h!
However, lots of people hold a lot of stupid beliefs. This was one. Unless he shows bias against Republican students in his teaching duties, then the university should not fire him. Pretty soon no one will have a job!
It’s not illegal for him to have this opinion. It’s his right to have this opinion. People as individuals and as a collective (such as a university) must stand up for the right of others to speak freely. Most certainly the university would have done well by speaking their own rebuttal of his ideas. Instead they shut him up. it’s as if people don’t feel there can be any exchange of ideas or that the exchange of ideas is worthwhile. This is very scary. It will end when only people who say what USGinc. wants them to say will be allowed to speak. That’s what happens when fellow citizens don’t support each other’s rights. It is already happening and it will be complete soon enough.
The professor is an employee of a private institution. When his words or actions reflect poorly on the private institution, that institution has the right and responsibility to terminate him. The university has a fiduciary duty to their investors to do so.
Take a look at the Universtity of Missouri. Free speech has resulted in such a great loss of attendance that the dorms are being rented out to vistors of football games.
Free speech is a protected right. The terminated professor can still exercise his free speech on his Twitter account. – The university had no effect on his free speech.
Well said. The man had and still does have the right to speak freely. Employment however is not free. They pay him on accepted conditions. I seriously doubt one of those conditions is the school must accept his actions reflecting poorly on the school.
Olly, I like the protection of one’s free speech, but the individual is free to choose a job where his free speech doesn’t interfere with his employer’s business.
I brought this up a couple of blogs ago. What about these big companies like Google that might be altering the right to free speech in an indirect fashion. A Supreme Court case (I don’t remember its name) ruled against Ollies Barbecue (no blacks permitted) because it interferred with the flow of commerce. Is Google big enough that it is interfering in a similar way both in its attitude towards its employees, but more importantly the way it shapes speech by directing traffic to some some sites and directing it away from others.
Google directing traffic…is it legal? A: Yes. Just as if you employed me to find sources of food for your party. I can direct you to the ones I prefer, even if those I choose to prefer are paying me to give them an advantage.
You can always use multiple search engines to find the results.
If Google was a monopoly, you might be able to prevent them from picking winners.
Jack, I am not offering my opinion, but does that mean you disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision on Ollie’s Barbecue? It was a relatively small restaurant.
Jack, What about Facebook removing “anti-Islam” material that is determined to be “anti-Islam” by Facebook alone without any recourse even though what is written on the page has legitimate academic backing?
What if Facebook is removing that content at the behest of a foreign government?
(from WPost): ““Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has,” said Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, a nonprofit group that researches the intersection of harmful online content and free speech. “They are like a de facto body of law, yet that law is a secret.””
Should anti-trust laws be invoked?
Isn’t FB free to control what its users post? Aren’t users free to close their FB accounts?
Olly, At the present I am of two opposing viewpoints. I wish Turley would look at this from a legal, moral and practical standpoint. The libertarian says FB can do what it wants. Constitutional law has altered that opinion. This nation, though founded on some libertarian principles mixed with a lot of other stuff is not a libertarian nation. Who controls the public airways? Certainly not the public.
When they tried to break IBM up I thought that was wrong because it involved only a tangible item that may have controlled price etc. FB control is not over a tangible item, but over the individual mind.
Allan,
I understand the two minds thing. I try to resolve this by starting with rights. Starting anywhere else brings in all sorts of biases.
FB is doing nothing different than every other entity in the marketplace looking for their share. Is it their fault their users are what Kant would say are under self-incurred tutelage?
FB and other marketplace influencers are doing what has always been done to the ignorant mind; leading them to react toward the interest of something or someone without the burden of critical-thinking.
Olly, perfection is the evil of good. Anarchy is the endpoint of libertarianism, so libertarian views are somewhat restricted. How much that restriction should be is the question. The airways are common goods so FB is not exactly the same as every other entity. The print news media is prevented from conglomerating into one entity. Perhaps that is not a problem for you. We do have roads which are public goods, but we also have toll roads. Should only Clinton supporters be permitted to drive on the main toll roads? They are profit entities. Should Verizon buy ATT&T, Sprint and all the other large carriers? Verizon would then own that portion of the airway and based upon one’s definitions Verizon could say no calls to any groups that advocate…
Does a nation have a right to protect itself? Maybe Carlos Slim will buy FB and only permit Open Society type views to exist.
Free markets exist when there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, a government to enforce legitimate contracts and markets where there are no monopolies.
Do I disagree with the Court’s holding in Katzenbach v. McClung? (aka Ollie’s Restaurant)
I don’t disagree with it so far as discrimination based on race is concerned. However, I do find expansive reading of Congressional Power under the Commerce Clause to be troublesome. I think the Court has devalued the Tenth Amendment in favor of Federal Authority.
Jack, I fully understand your belief that it was an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.
“I don’t disagree with it so far as discrimination based on race is concerned. ”
How would you as a SC justice have handled that problem? Additionally why shouldn’t Ollie’s be permitted to service only those ollie’s wishes to service? (I personally find discrimination foolish.)
I understand where you’re coming from Jill, but in this case I have to disagree. If you work for me and take a public position contrary to the goals of my business, you need to move on. I didn’t create my company to do a tit-for-tat over someone’s careless, but damaging off the cuff comments. Similarly, I have been working hard to revive a brand of a company that has done this sort of damage to itself, and it surely isn’t easy. Alot of people have good jobs at this organization, and there are not many good jobs around these parts, and this is another reason to fight for maintaining this brand. Brand association is very fragile. Now if it were a public institution, I would feel vastly different. If he wants to provide social commentary, he needs to find a position where he can do so that does not affect his employment.
To be clear, I know this may seem contrary to many of my posts. But if he is a public figure for a private company, I do not see the problem with his termination. If he was so full of insight, he should have quit his job first before enlightening us with what he has to share.
A more comfortable illustration of free speech (at least for me) came with my son’s orientation at his chosen school. When the first engineering department faculty member came right out and said that Ronald Reagan was his hero in his youth, I felt much more at ease. Not because I’m any Reagan fan, but because the professor felt he could share that information publicly in today’s climate. I am hopeful his school will remain faithful to their core principals, and not to whichever direction the wind is blowing.
slohrss,
I take your (and others’) point on this issue but can’t agree with you. The University’s brand is best served by protecting the Constitution and by laying out the argument as to why what this man said is both intellectual wrong/ignorant and stupid ethically.
Our employers don’t own us and I think it’s a mistake to give them that power. It’s not just the govt. who is taking our rights, it’s corporations. No one should have that power. If he spoke protected speech and does not bring it to his job, then his rights should stand, IMO. If he shows discrimination towards students or co-workers because of this opinion, I see grounds for firing him and don’t let the door hit him on the way out!
To me, it would have been so much more powerful to simply argue him to the mat.
Private corps are abrogating our rights, just as the govt. does. I don’t think they should have this right and when they do have it (as they do now) they should not use it. There was a better way and the university didn’t take it.
Jill, you ain’t got no rights unless they’re in black letters on your employment contract or incorporated into the definition of your status as an employee in state or federal labor law.
Jill, let us bring it closer to home. How would you feel about your gynecoligist’s nurses speaking as anti-feminists and your gynecologist frequenting strip joints? Remember, they are all doing this on their own time.
allan,
I know a lot of doctors and most of them hold rather repulsive opinions of one sort or another. I think this is true of most people. We have probably all held really stupid or cruel opinions in our lifetime. The key regarding employment is how we treat people in the workplace. If we discriminate against people while on the job, then I see no reason for an employer to keep us on.
What people do on their own time is an employer’s business if it’s illegal. What people say or write, if they’ve put it in the public domain is fair game for an employer to criticize and for a customer to say, I’m not working with someone who believes/does those things even if they don’t act on them in the workplace setting.
For example: Your doctor may make fun of men with prostate problems. If s/he won’t test and treat for them, then s/he should be asked to leave the practice. If you find out that s/he is contemptuous of men with prostate problems but correctly treats the problems then you, as the patient, choose if you want to work with him/her or not.
That’s how I would look at it.
I know a lot of doctors and most of them hold rather repulsive opinions of one sort or another. I
Ye gods, you work in a hospital.
You never answered the question as to how you would feel if your gynecologist and his staff acted inappropriately for medical staff to act out of the office. Many woman would not go to such a doctor because that out of the office time reflects poorly on his practice. That is the key.
You say: “The key regarding employment is how we treat people in the workplace.”. That is an important point. Also important is how the individual treats their job. It is a two way street. Your free speech outside of the workplace can under certain conditions impact the workplace so that its revenues fall and others lose their jobs as cuts are made. I don’t think your right of free speech should cause these other people to lose their jobs.
“I know a lot of doctors and most of them hold rather repulsive opinions of one sort or another. ”
If they work for themselves that is their problem, but if they work for an employer whose bottom line is negatively impacted by what they say that is a different story. Your free speech shouldn’t cause your employer to lose money and have to let go of other employees.
I think it would be good if universities would protect the free speech rights of students and faculty as vigorously as University of Tampa went after this professor.
‘However, that does not relieve the university of its responsibility to maintain the free speech rights and academic freedom of its faculty.’
Apparently it does.
Houston, the hardest hit city, has a black Dem mayor. I have derision for California, but I spend winters there and know the vast majority of Californians are good people. It’s the politicians I despise. Liberals, like this sh!tbird professor, hate the people of Texas. Many of the people being plucked from rooftops were poor people. Houston has become a good mix of hard working immigrants from Asia, Africa, and South America. This liberal hates poor people. Let him keep talking, like the idiot liberals who spout their hate here. They are self immolating.
Lack of regulations at the state level exacerbated this hurricane but did not cause it. The homes are poorly built for the most part. Building codes barely exist. There is very little zoning. The chemical plants are unregulated. One would have thought they would have learned something from the Waco explosion.. Houston has good people and good food but this was a disaster waiting to happen.
frankly – most cities have standardized building codes, makes it easier for the architect, engineers and builders. And until someone can get into the chemical plant and check it over, we are not sure what happened.
The area northeast of Beaumont is poorer and got 52 inches rain. There are also more chemical plants over there. There are areas that flood over and over again. They keep rebuilding and the same thing keeps happening.
frankly – they did the same thing on the Mississippi, until the govt. bought the land and put it out of use.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/08/30/harvey-damage-tops-20-billion-as-40000-homes-destroyed/#3b8c14745774 A case can be made that homes in the worst parts of the floodplain should have never been built and should not be rebuilt.
frankly/SWM, the pathology of continuing to rebuild in floodplains is not relegated to Texas. That occurs in states throughout the US. People feel connected to where their families have lived for generations. I’ve seen this first hand in the Carolina’s, NJ, CT, Missouri, Illinois, I could go on. It occurs near the ocean and along rivers. I don’t know the solution.
This is very true. I never understood the apparently poor understanding of “flood plain.” Unless you are an amphibian, and in that case it might be good for you. Generally flood = bad. And not to absolve responsibility, but the homebuyers need to think for themselves a little bit, too. If you look over and see a river beside you, or even an ephemeral stream, you are sitting on a timebomb. Just don’t buy that property, as attractive as it may be.
shohrss29 – Maricopa Co. has a floodplain map for the the entire county. Before you buy a property, you can see where the property is located on. That what we did. We are high enough up it would take a 1000 year flood to damage us.
Paul, I get nose bleeds at that height. Though my house is built higher, my back yard lawn at certain times of the year can have ducks comfortably swimming on it.
allan – we are a little over 1000 feet elevation and the entire community is graded away from us. When it rains, I barely get any puddles the next day. Zoning standard is the water must clear within 24 hours.
Too bad more folks don’t think to do that Paul. Of course, you always have exceptions, such as the flood in Ellicot City, MD in ’16. But even there, some better engineering could have helped avoid a lot of that mess. Still, 6″ of rain in two hours is extremely rare for that location. Plus, it’s important from a flood insurance perspective. Have friends who live in a rural mountain valley community here that contains a frequently flooding creek. When they bought their house, their flood insurance was approximately $225 a year. After the NFIP revised the maps for that area, as they have been in the process of for the whole country, their premiums went to $2,300 a year. Ouch. Good rule for everyone to follow–look into what you are buying!
The same problem occurs in the rich areas of California and other sea side communities. The problem is that the federal government is willing to insure these non-essential homes (flood insurance) after they are destroyed so that people feel free to build again. Look at the low areas of New Orleans and look how our attempt to preserve them with dikes causes the ground level to fall further in certain areas. Certain areas should not have homes buit on them, but that is up to the owner of the property who should not be protected with flood insurance or emergency funding for a destroyed home.
The federal government has been working to correct some of these problems by re-examining the flood risks and raising federal flood insurance premiums. That pushes people away from hazardous areas and increases the amount of money put into a home when it is built to protect it from nature.
As a point of interest exact location is more important than a particular state which leads to the surprising result that Florida has the lowest average premiums and Texas average premiums are quite low as well. The coverage offered through federal insurance is $250,000. One can privately buy a higher limit
Did you see the episode of NCIS New Orleans where the mayor conspires to sabotage the pumps in order to flood the city in order to sell the flooded land to build a new Navy base?
They’ve been saying they had stored in trailers some chemical inputs to plastics manufacture which were rendered unstable when the cooling system where it was housed failed. They’re expecting more explosions. Not sure why ‘frankly’ fancies she has any applicable knowledge to the source of the trouble. Talking-point-recyclers gotta spam us every time.
frankly/SWM, I know Houston well, as you do. My sister was married and her two daughters born there in the 80’s, during the boom and bust years. I was always amazed @ the total lack of zoning. My sister and her family moved to Atlanta in the early 90’s then to Austin in the late 90’s. But, she spent the last year of her life[2008] in Houston in and out of the MD Anderson hospital. She and her husband got an apartment near the hospital and I visited several times. My sister had a wonderful nurse from Nigeria. I saw how Houston had changed so much since the 80’s. I was heartened to see Anthony Bourdain do a show on Houston last year. Bourdain is on the endangered species list; an honest, open minded liberal. He talked about the preconceived notion of a redneck city w/ locals hating the new immigrants. He learned, by talking w/ many immigrants, that they love Houston and are graciously accepted by locals.
Politics always reminds me of football. When you lose the center of the field, you’re pretty much forced to the extremes of the field and that rarely works. Maybe the Dems need less poetry readings and more football games.
What does him being black have to do with it?
Once again…….while the Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of speech, it doesn’t protect you from the consequences of your speech. If people associate his comments with the University of Tampa, I believe they have every right to terminate him.
Check out the enrollment numbers at Evergreen and Missouri if you think the public’s perception of a college or university has no effect on the institution and its finances.
Turning Point USA has watchlist of professors they believe have gone too far.
By Name: http://professorwatchlist.org/index.php/watch-list-directory/search-by-name
By School: http://professorwatchlist.org/index.php/watch-list-directory/search-by-school
My education foundation had, not has, two high school seniors who were going to go to that so called University next semester on our scholarship. Now they are going elsewhere. And so is our money. I just made the phone call. It is early in the morning but they both agreed.