Auburn Lecturer Jesse Goldberg has triggered a firestorm over social media posting containing anti-police sentiments and other controversial comments. The recently hired academic drew critics when, after his hire, he would not use the school’s battle cry of “War Eagle” because of the inclusion of “war.” That was however mild in comparison to later postings targeting police or declaring “Wait til M-Fers find out I’m queer and teach in goddamn heels too. They gonna get madder.” As will come as little surprise to people on this blog, I do not believe that the university should punish Goldberg for his political and social expressions outside of school. We recently discussed such protections for a Texas A&M professor who posted anti-Trump comments.
As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. Recently, a conservative North Carolina professor, who faced calls for termination over controversial tweets, was pushed to retire. Adams (right) later committed suicide.
There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments. There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives. Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.
In this case, Auburn President Jay Gogue correctly affirmed that Goldberg’s remarks were constitutionally protected. However, Gogue noted the university had “agreed to Dr. Goldberg’s request that his role transition to a research-focused assignment.”
That drew an objection from two dozen fellow professors over the treatment of Goldberg in an August 28 letter.
The letter legitimately raises the concern over Goldberg’s change in status from a lecturer to a researcher. However, the professors then use their letter to attack another professor who voiced opposing views on transgender issues. Nevertheless, there is a valid concern, as stated in the letter, whether “releasing Dr. Goldberg of his teaching duties as a result of his public politics sets a disturbing precedent in which people outside the academy have influence on how and what we teach.”
It is heartening to see the university support the free speech rights of this professor and I hope that his colleagues will show equal support for those professors who voice countervailing or opposing views on these very same subjects.
Any law that is unenforced, without sufficient risk of penalty for law breakers is meaningless. You can break it and there are no cops and no enforcement – this includes the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution – the constitutional rule of law. Since there is no risk of sufficient penalty, that lawless system actually creates an “incentive” to for law breakers. There are “constitutional federal statutes”, on the books today, that clarify and define what violating the “supreme law of the land” means and the penalty for law breaking (ex: Title 18 US Code 245 and similar statutes). For example: torture, false imprisonment, warrantless wiretapping, Cointelpro tactics, violating FISA, etc has always been a felony under U.S. law but there is no cop on the beat and no enforcement.
In the above example: the legal/constitutional issue a public university [government entity], legally restrained by the First Amendment, violating a citizen’s guaranteed constitutional rights (defined under Title 18 US Code 245). If the professor [government official] were imposing his views on his students [private citizens] that violates the First Amendment (and federal law) also. Whatever the circumstance, there are no cops and no enforcement in the two political branches of government.
Professor Turley should debate the idea of making the non-political branch – the Judicial Branch – more citizen friendly. Making it easier for citizens to play cop and enforcer when harmed by lawless authoritarian officials. The system is broken and needs reforms.
The problem is self cleaning.
Over time and a multitude of wacko statements the academic milieu eventually solves such problems, Jerry Falwell is finding out how academia cleanses its own problems.
My own Liberty University activities was taking three standardize tests.
I failed them all.
Don’t fling foo at school.
Since Dr. Goldberg’s position is lecturer, I would think he’s at Auburn at their pleasure without tenure protection. While his posts are reprehensive, they are outside the scope of the University. If I were Auburn U., I would allow him to teach but monitor his classes to ensure he’s not bringing his politics into an area in which they don’t belong. However, if his biases affect the quality of his teaching or negatively impact certain groups of students, that’s a different matter, and he should be dismissed at the end of the year.
Well stated and sensible.
DBB, well stated yes. But can you really trust that dr. goldberg will really stay within boundaries? I don’t believe so. It’s only a matter of time when will blow it and then he will apply to the UNK for a tenured position. And good riddance. UNK=Uni Nor Korea