We previously discussed concerns over free speech on the campus of the University of North Texas, including the canceling of an event on child gender transitioning. Students and faculty were not content to protest such events but acted to prevent others from hearing opposing views. Now, the university itself has lost a critical motion in a free speech case brought by Mathematics Professor Nathaniel Hiers after his contract was not renewed due to his criticism of the school’s microaggression policies. Judge Sean Jordan ruled that Professor Hiers may proceed to trial on his free speech claim.
Professor Hiers sued the Board of Regents of the University of North Texas after it told him that it did not renew his contract due to his criticism of the policy. Mathematics Department Chair Professor Ralf Schmidt expressly stated that “[m]y decision not to continue your employment in the spring semester was based on your actions in the grad lounge on 11/26 [2019], and your subsequent response.”
That is a reference to a controversy when a copy of the school’s microaggression policy was called “garbage” on a blackboard in the graduate lounge. The court included the picture in its opinion:
When Schmidt sent around a demand for the person responsible to step forward, Hiers publicly accepted responsibility. He was later canned.
We have previously discussed microaggression policies and the concerns over free speech over their fluid definition and controversial examples. I have had debates over such policies and I am often struck by the difficulty of those on the other side to clearly define the scope of the term. That lack of clarity (and the subjectivity of some of the term) creates a chilling effect on free speech. Free speech demands bright lines to avoid self-censorship and coerced silence.
This policy contains many such examples including referring to America as a “melting pot” or saying “there is only one race, the human race.” It includes clear political speech like “calling affirmative action racist.” They are all microaggressions and could be used as the basis for university action or intervention.
Even without such intervention, however, students and faculty have every right to criticize such a policy or the listed examples of microaggression. Ironically, however, the list includes asking questions. For example, it is a microaggression to inquire (presumably after someone says that they were followed in a store): “Are you sure you were being followed in the store? I can’t believe it.”
Judge Jordan correctly ruled that Hiers was raising a core principle of free speech and could go to trial on these claims.
“Preserving the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think’ is both an inherent good, and an abiding goal of our democracy.” … The university officials allegedly flouted that core principle of the First Amendment when they discontinued Hiers’s employment because of his speech. Accepting the allegations as true, the Court concludes that Hiers plausibly alleged that the university officials violated his right to freedom of speech.”
The University of North Texas and President Neal J. Smatresk are clearly unwilling to take a stand to protect dissenting views on campus. Lacking such courage, they may secretly want a court to force them to do the right thing to avoid being targeted or tagged as racist by the mob. It is hardly a proud moment for our profession, but these lawsuits are needed to impose costs on universities in refusing to protect the core free speech and academic freedom principles that are the foundation for higher education.
Here is the opinion: North Texas Lawsuit
“microaggression” = Ideas or words that make a snowflake melt
“university administration (purpose of)” = Use any means necessary to protect snowflakes from melting
This BS has GOTTA STOP ! What ever happened to, ” I disagree with you but I respect your right to your beliefs ! ” What ever happened to the ‘ First Amendment ‘ ?
My key question here is whether jeffsilberman actually scanned in the resignation letter or typed it all by himself. Seems a waste of time to do that. Why not just link to it. It’s kind of funny to see Donald Trump take up residence in someone’s brain and reside there rent free for the rest of that person’s life. We are talking about trash being written on a blackboard in North Texas and someone getting fired for expressing an opinion (you know free speech). How we got to Trump implies some type of Einstein-Rosen Bridge where the thought of Trump is some sort of existential bubble that is instantly transposed to another venue or conversation or proceeding hundreds of miles away and is totally unrelated to the subject. Or is it quantum entanglement. Or is it simply TDS.
Under “anti-racist” dogma, advocacy of traditional civil rights principles, such as making decisions on a “colourblind” basis, is considered “covert” white supremacy. If you believe that racism is baked into all our institutions in a “systemic” way, then any defense of criteria that disregard race by failing to favour so-called BIPOC over others is racist and a micro aggression. In the end, free speech will be eliminated, and if they get their way, all institutions will be corrupted.
Well this all went downhill rather quickly. .
Good luck Professor Hiers and thanks again Professor Turley for shining a light on the efforts of those who seek to control our thoughts and our speech
Regarding the topic Prof Turley posted it’s not micro aggression, it’s Macrocontrol. Hopefully there are more teachers courageous enough to haul all these Marxist into court and hit them where it really hurts-$.
As for Norman Bates and company ignore them. You know they’re here to disrupt the blog with their long winded diatribe. They want to muddy the water and get you to respond, that’s it, that’s all. Don’t take the bait. You know who the posters are slide by their post, their not worth the time to read. DON’T respond!
Ralf Schmidt would’ve made a heck of a Gestapo officer!
He should be able to SUE class-action…for billions!
microaggression is punished!
All Macroaggression is reward!
Political based purges….A OK with the leftists!
Time to REMOVE all government funding and loans for higher education!
The ruling should REQUIRE the president and Department Chair FIRED!
Williamdowney says:
“You are allowed your opinion, You are not allowed to force it upon me.”
Exactly. You have the right to open your mouth and say what you please, but you don’t have a right to be heard. People are free to tell you that they are not listening to what you have to say.
AS AN “OLDER” CITIZEN I AGREE WITH MOST “RIGHT WING” POLITICIANS THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY “LEFT WING” LIBERALS SPEWING NONSENSE.
All of the previous comments are an example of Free Speech and not really of point.
Whether we, as a democratic republic continue to flourish the foundational belief that the exchange of ideas on any subject is essential. The freedom to exercise the ability to think and express those thought whether verbally or on paper is the reason that the speech is protected by the First Amendment. You are allowed your opinion, You are not allowed to force it upon me.
Rob says:
“No way Turley comments on that. turley is a right wing hack.”
No mention of this letter on Fox prime time. No surprise there. Turley admittedly has sold out to Fox, but he is NOT a Rightwing hack. I suspect he will not dare ignore this letter.
We shall see.
Why can’t Jeff, Anonymous, some guy called “Rob” for once just comment on the issue at hand? If you want to decree what a blog should discuss start your own damn blog.
I am so sick of these moronic fools that hate Turley and yet decided to try to dominate his site. Don’t you see what is happening here? These fascist fools are trying a new version of the “heckler’s veto”. If you dominate a comments section with 100 contrary comments then the folks that want to actually read and discuss the issue at hand will give up and the site will slowly perish.
Jonathan, please, please, please end the multiple “Anonymous” monikers and make everyone pick ONE ANONYMOUS NAME for him or herself. Also, I don’t think it is an affront to free speech to limit how many times one idiot can comment on one story. Another idea might be to limit the replies to one particular comment so we don’t end up with a 40 comment/reply thread dominated by people that hate the site, hate the professor and hate everything with which they disagree.
People like Jeff, Anonymous, ROB et al need to be contrarian due to some whacked out mental issue that have not yet realized is keeping them from having any friends, dates or even happy spouses, i.e. weirdos.
Hullbobby says:
“People like Jeff, Anonymous, ROB et al need to be contrarian due to some whacked out mental issue that have not yet realized is keeping them from having any friends, dates or even happy spouses, i.e. weirdos.”
You are suffering from JDS- Jeff Derangement Syndrome. I should know because I have been accused of TDS more than enough times. For the record, I have friends and dates. It’s true I don’t have a spouse. Bachelors are smarter than married men; otherwise, we would be married too.
Jeff, some are not going to get your sarcasm. Good one with ” bachelors are smarter than married men”. Almost as good as your ” liberals are more intelligent than conservatives”
I for one appreciate your sarcasm.
Only a fool would think that you thought those two statements were true.
Keep up the good work!
I doubt that Turley will see your comment. If you feel strongly about it, email him. His address is on his GWU faculty page.
Olly says:
“It does sound as though Special Assistant District Attorney Mark F. Pomerantz is questioning the sincerity of Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg’s decision.”
They may have a good faith difference of opinion. However, this letter was intentionally written and leaked to put political pressure on Bragg to bring charges against Trump.
In its own statement, the Trump Organization reacted by calling Mr. Pomerantz “a never-Trumper” and said: “Never before have we seen this level of corruption in our legal system.”
Natch.
I have a feeling Never-Trumper Turley doesn’t have that reaction….
Eliza Orlins (NY public defender):
“As everyone talks about a case the Manhattan DA is not prosecuting, I’m working night court representing people who are being prosecuted for possession of a crack pipe or theft of salami. And the Manhattan DA continues to ask for bail for poor people. TWO SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE.”
You have devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we have accumulated with respect to the Trump financial statements, as well as the applicable law. You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However…
Yeah, no. It does sound as though Special Assistant District Attorney Mark F. Pomerantz is questioning the sincerity of Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg’s decision. So, buh bye.
Pomerantz isn’t questioning Bragg’s sincerity. He’s questioning Bragg’s conclusion: “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. … In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay.”
Pomerantz came out of retirement to do the job, so it’s no skin off his back to retire again. The issue is: is Trump above the law, or should the issue be presented to a grand jury for them to decide on indictment?
As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.
In late 2021, then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump’s financial statements. … He concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible. …
To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain. …
Full letter here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220323224004/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html
“Pomerantz isn’t questioning Bragg’s sincerity. He’s questioning Bragg’s conclusion: “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.”
******************************
Legal Translation:
Butthurt Pomegranite Head disagrees with the guy whose job it is to make these decisions and further to keep egg off his face. Pomegranite, when he inevitably loses (they were prepared by a CPA after all), can slink back off to private pratice and be cheered up by his Dim Flying Monkey Brigade over some Bloody Marys at the St. Regis but DA Bragg has to stay and face the organ music and an election.
A legal decision can be wrong, right or politically motivated. With Pomegranite, I suspect it’s 1 and 3. ESAD loser Javert. You’re out by your own hand. Self-drowning is the kindest way, I suppose. When the Seine isn’t around, I’m sure the East River will do. Say hello to Hoffa, Pommy!
Maybe you should also consider seeking a different line of work and join us in fighting the elites who seem to know all the wrong answers to simple problems.
In my view, the publisher interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump. What 4 years of Russia, Russia,Russia, and other assorted BS wasn’t enough.
I have often thought, employment law was the way to reign in these spineless administrators. People with doctorates that have no ability to think for themselves.
We are seeing that with the KBJ, hearings. She is incapable of supporting her talking points with a simple discussion of how her core values guide her thought process.
“People with doctorates that have no ability to think for themselves.” In this day and age, the entire purpose of getting a doctorate in the humanities or social sciences is precisely so you do not think for yourself.
Get your own blog. Stop trying to usurp the reputation of Prof Turley to spew your conspiracy lies.
Turley usurps his ownreputation constantly
That is a matter of opinion. However, this is his forum, and, as such, he cannot be accused of usurping that. Unlike yourself.
EE:
A refreshing breeze of logic in a hot debate. Brava.
Thank you. I was fortunate in that, before I was sent to public school, my parents had already begun teaching me how to think, several years earlier, in fact. Most children are less fortunate, though the increasing numbers of home-schoolers gives me some hope.
Then leave. Nobody is forcing you to read it and comment.
It is Turley who has played fast and loose with his reputation by pivoting his blog to post exclusively Republican Party talking points. Indeed I used to bring my students to hear the professor speak. It was cool- he liked a stage in the middle and all the students surrounding him so he could pace around as he talked about Harry Thaw and Dementia Americana. Once he became a Fox News apparatchik I stopped. Not because I didn’t want my students to hear right wing opinions- most of em were prosecutors kids and had plenty of right wing opinions already-but because I wasn’t sure whose opinions he would present- the RNCs? Rupert Murdochs? FedSoc? One of the Koch’s? Opus Dei? and why because I don’t know who’s paying him.
Controversial opinions in the classroom are great; they lead to interesting discussion. At various times my students heard from Condi Rice, Mike Mullen, Alberto Gonzalez, Janet Reno and Kenneth Fineberg. I didn’t agree with everything ANY of them said but I was glad for them to address students because I was confident that they spoke only for themselves. The problem with inviting Turley is his paymasters-whoever they are-will be in the classroom as well.
Turkey knows this of course or he should. Once you’ve established yourself as someone who’ll say anything as long as you get paid enough people stop listening because you have no more credibility. Maybe he thought he could stay above the frey and still cash the checks. Or Maybe he really does believe the stuff he posts (I don’t say writes because it’s obvious he doesn’t write for this blog anymore). I don’t know and there’s no way to find out. But what you can’t do is cash the checks and still try to call yourself a contrarian or an independent thinker. All you can really call yourself is a mouthpiece because that’s what you are- a passive vessel through which your employer’s ideas are distributed. No more or less useful than a megaphone and equally as capable of independent thought as one.
played fast and loose with his reputation by pivoting his blog to post exclusively Republican Party talking points.
No, Turley, constantly posts exclusively, constitutional talking points. Thanks for admitting the Republican agenda is a Constitutional agenda.
I remember early on in the Trump administration, some talking head asked Dersowichz why he was so doggedly defending President Trump. He responded with exasperation, he didn’t care about the President, he was defending the Constitution
I trust you will comment upon the following resignation letter by Mark Pomerantz, who had investigated Trump, but left after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, halted an effort to seek an indictment:
Dear Alvin,
I write to tender my resignation as a Special Assistant District Attorney and to explain my reasons for resigning.
As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.
In late 2021, then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Mr. Vance had been intimately involved in our investigation, attending grand jury presentations, sitting in on certain witness interviews, and receiving regular reports about the progress of the investigation. He concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.
This work was underway when you took office as District Attorney. You have devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we have accumulated with respect to the Trump financial statements, as well as the applicable law. You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. I therefore cannot continue in my current position.
In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. Because of the complexity of the facts, the refusal of Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization to cooperate with our investigation, and their affirmative steps to frustrate our ability to follow the facts, this investigation has already consumed a great deal of time. As to Mr. Trump, the great bulk of the evidence relates to his management of the Trump Organization before he became President of the United States. These facts are already dated, and our ability to establish what happened may erode with the further passage of time. Many of the salient facts have been made public in proceedings brought by the Office of the Attorney General, and the public has rightly inquired about the pace of our investigation. Most importantly, the further passage of time will raise additional questions about the failure to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his criminal conduct.
To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.
I also do not believe that suspending the investigation pending future developments will lead to a stronger case or dispel your reluctance to bring charges. No events are likely to occur that will alter the nature of the case or dramatically change the quality or quantity of the evidence available to the prosecution. There are always additional facts to be pursued. But the investigative team that has been working on this matter for many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge. On the contrary, I and others believe that your decision not to authorize prosecution now will doom any future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal conduct we have been investigating.
I fear that your decision means that Mr. Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes. I have worked too hard as a lawyer, and for too long, now to become a passive participant in what I believe to be a grave failure of justice. I therefore resign from my position as a Special Assistant District Attorney, effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Mark F. Pomerantz
No way Turley comments on that. turley is a right wing hack. Also notice Turley has not commented at all on any of the bills going around the country now from right wing politicians restricting what teachers can say
What specific restrictions are you concerned with?
“I fear that your decision means that Mr. Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes.”
**********************
And here we thought prosecutors didn’t prejudge cases or make conclusions until the jury comes back. Silly me. It’s Leftist and of course all bedrock principles go by the wayside because, of course, they are the ominscient paragons of virtue, morality and the good.
“here we thought prosecutors didn’t prejudge cases or make conclusions until the jury comes back”
Then you misunderstand the role of a prosecutor. Prosecutors make the case to the jury that the defendant is guilty of the crimes for which s/he’s been indicted.
Are you sure that you’re a lawyer?!? You’ve made some stupid comments in your time, but this has got to be one of the stupidest.
Ablitheringninny:
“Are you sure that you’re a lawyer?!? You’ve made some stupid comments in your time, but this has got to be one of the stupidest.”
******************************
You facile misunderstanding of the role of the prosecutor in anything but a revival of “Les Miserables” is stunning. You might want to realize that prosecutor’s job is justice not convictions, duh. Here’s a primer from the ABA that I offer to try and educate you:
“(b) The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.”
(…)
.”The prosecutor may make a public statement explaining why criminal charges have been declined or dismissed, but must take care not to imply guilt or otherwise prejudice the interests of victims, witnesses or subjects of an investigation. A prosecutor’s public statements should otherwise be consistent with the ABA Standards on Fair Trial and Public Discourse.”
So dumb. Hopefully, you’re cute.
Work on your reading comprehension.
That contradicts your claim that “here we thought prosecutors didn’t prejudge cases or make conclusions until the jury comes back.” It underscores that prosecutors assess cases and do not rely on juries when reaching prosecutorial conclusions.
Aninnybyanyothername:
“That contradicts your claim that “here we thought prosecutors didn’t prejudge cases or make conclusions until the jury comes back.”
***********************
We were talking about prosecutors duty to justice not convictions and their commenting on guilt or innocence after declining charges. But such subtle variations in thinking escape your knuckledragging. You’re like reading Moby Dick to a monkey. Except I do suspect that the monkey knows Ahab is slightly unhinged. That feature of Biden and his Flying Monkeys escapes you.
Interesting and well written letter. Unfortunately, it’s I’m unable to make judgment, as he does not give the rationale the District Attorney used to dismiss the case
“Unfortunately, it’s I’m unable to make judgment, as he does not give the rationale the District Attorney used to dismiss the case.”
***********************************
They typically don’t run and tell but suffice it to say in 100 out of 100 cases they don’t have the evidence to convict.
Carplaw says:
“Unfortunately, it’s I’m unable to make judgment, as he does not give the rationale the District Attorney used to dismiss the case”
True. We may never know the full story unless someone cashes in by writing a book.
You trust who will comment? Turley? He made it perfectly clear he doesn’t make time to respond to “trolls and juvenile posters”. His words.
He doesn’t respond to anyone in the comments section. He has occasionally responded to me by email.