The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has delivered a body blow to free speech as well as academic freedom in a ruling against a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. Professor Stephen Porter objected to what he considered the lower standards used by his school to hire minority faculty. The school declared such views as insufficiently “collegial” and retaliated against him. Now a divided panel has ruled that such views are not protected by the First Amendment — potentially opening up even greater retaliation against conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty. Rather than punish them for failing to echo the views of the schools, they can now be fired for their lack of collegiality in speaking against such policies and hires.
Just when you thought things could not get worse for the dwindling number of dissenting faculty, the Fourth Circuit just found a way. If this decision stands, “uncollegiality” will become the new code for retaliating against dissenters on faculties. Indeed, likability and collegiality were long denounced as excuses for rejecting (or poorly evaluating) female and minority candidates.
Judge Stephanie Thacker (right) wrote the opinion with Judge Andrew Wynn over the dissent of Judge Julius Richardson.
Thacker’s ruling in Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University would effectively gut both free speech and academic freedom protections for dissenting faculty. It is not just chilling, it is glacial in its implications for higher education.
Porter is a tenured statistics professor in the college of education. It is an area that has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, including columns on this blog. We previously discussed how academics like University of Rhode Island Professor and Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis denounce statistics and science as “inherently racist.” Others have agreed with that view, including denouncing math as racist or a “tool of whiteness.” There are also calls for the “decolonization” of math as a field. Some like Luis Leyva, associate professor of mathematics education at Vanderbilt University has declared all math to be racist and that universities need to “reimagine” and structurally “disrupt” math departments.
Porter clearly does not agree with that viewpoint. He was opposed to what he viewed as the school elevating a social agenda above good scholarship. He specifically objected to what he viewed as a lowering of standards to hire minority faculty. He stated so freely to his colleagues in emails as well as at meetings. He also wrote a column expressing those concerns.
Thacker and Wynn dismissed his arguments that he was protected in expressing such viewpoints. The opinion is an exercise in willful blindness. The judges simply say that he was not punished for his viewpoint but his lack of collegiality. In doing so, they set aside the column which appears to have triggered many of his colleagues. Instead, they declare that this was speech tied to his job and does not relate to his research and teaching. In that way, the court avoids the necessity of applying the balancing test under Pickering v. Board of Education. Instead, the panel applied the more lenient standard under Garcetti v. Ceballos.
The panel decision runs against the grain of various prior decisions of the Supreme Court. For example, in Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 387 (1987), the Court declared that a government employee was protected in expressing a highly offensive statement about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. The Court held that “the inappropriate…character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.”
Judge Thacker simply ignored elements of the record to support the university’s actions against this dissenting colleague. The dismissal of the impact of the column was the most telling.
Judge Richardson stated in his dissent:
“Porter published his blog post in September. Pasque suggested that he leave his program area at the October faculty meeting, and formally threatened to remove him in her November letter. Finally, she followed through on her threat in July, when she gave Porter his annual evaluation.”
If this decision is not reversed, things are likely to get far worse (if possible) for conservative, libertarian and contrarian faculty members. Rather than investigate, sanction, or fire faculty for their viewpoints, schools will now simply declare them uncollegial in raising such viewpoints. School or board officials like John Corkins will no longer have to say that dissenting faculty should be “taken to the slaughterhouse” for their anti-diversity views. They can be “culled” on collegiality grounds.
We have already seen a purging of faculties of conservative and libertarian colleagues. We previously discussed how surveys at universities show a virtual purging of conservative and Republican faculty members. For example, last year, the Harvard Crimson noted that the university had virtually eliminated Republicans from most departments but that the lack of diversity was not a problem. Now, a new survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Likewise, a study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative.
Compare that to a recent Gallup poll stating, “roughly equal proportions of U.S. adults identified as conservative (36%) and moderate (35%) in Gallup polling throughout 2022, while about a quarter identified as liberal (26%).”
Once “uncollegial” conservatives are eliminated, that number could reach a statistical vanishing point for Professor Porter and the dwindling number of dissenters and nonconformists in higher education.
Here is the opinion: Porter v. Board of Trustees of University of North Carolina State University.
How can we recover from this division? I don’t believe we can.
I would love to see our host take on the division and hostility that exists on this blog through his posts and being a regular commenter.
Was that coherent?
Regardless, thank you so much, comrade, for the opportunity to respond to your bizarre, suggestive inanity.
The “division and hostility” is that which is diametrically opposed to the conservative nature of, and the rights and freedoms provided by, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) who visit soundly support the Communist Manifest, including the wholly unconstitutional principles of communism, those being central planning, control of the means of production (unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth, and social engineering, as they fully subscribe to the communist slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” while the American thesis is quite simply freedom and self-reliance, of course, under the Constitution.
“I would love to see our host take on the division . . .”
As opposed to what — a monolithic opinion enforced by a Ministry of Disinformation?
Concerned Citizen,
I will take a stab at that.
We have various POV on various topics.
Some say there are two biological sexes, with a very few abnormalities from a biological science POV.
Others say there are 97 different sexes.
Some think pornography in elementary schools should not be allowed.
Other call that book banning.
Some think taking 6 year olds to a sexually explicit drag queen show is okay if the parent is present.
Others call that grooming.
Those are just a few examples. There are many more.
Everyone has a right to their opinion on any given subject.
Some use misinformation, disinformation or out right lies in an attempt to justify their opinion.
Others will outright ignore a mountain of evidence, or when new facts come to light that proves their original opinion wrong.
Some are outraged that Professor Turley’s blog is so popular and resort to attacking him on a nearly daily basis.
Others demand he talk about what they want him to talk about. Still others claim he is taking orders from Fox News. Why? The good professor is pointing out how the Democrat party has been hijacked by woke leftism. The good professor is a traditional, JFK Democrat, as is Bill Maher, Elon, Musk and others. As Bill Maher says, “I did not leave the party, the party left me.”
This is the world in which we live in.
We are fortunate to have a republican leaning SCOTUS. The left are chopping off limbs to spite their faces. I’m hoping that the trend to the right will continue.
As Yogi said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.” This case will wind up at the Supreme Court because he has the First Amendment right to speak/write despite the leftist censors who can’t stand anyone who disagrees with their mal-orthodoxy.
THINK, CONCLUDE AND SPEAK
The freedoms of speech, cognition and opinion are absolute, clear and evident in the 1st Amendment.
Professor Stephen Porter legally exercised his freedom of cognition, opinion and speech in appropriate form and fora.
Judge Stephanie Thacker has committed grievous and subversive judicial overreach.
Judge Stephanie Thacker has not adjudicated, she has seized the power of the Constitution and dictated, acting, without dominion, as a sovereign authoritarian.
Judge Stephanie Thacker has usurped power and unconstitutionally and illicitly amended the Constitution in her court.
Judge Stephanie Thacker is a direct and mortal enemy of the American Thesis: Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.
Judge Stephanie Thacker must be impeached, convicted and removed for willful dereliction, egregious subversion, nullification, usurpation and abuse of power.
In English Law of centuries past, it was an act of treason to usurp or challenge the authority of the Sovereign, in this case the Constitution, including Drawing and Quartering as the penalty.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
.
Diversity Politics is a fallacy, because diversity in our politics is already mandated by Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 and Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States which requires that the Most Numerous Legislative Branch must be assembled by the republican principle which forms an exact demographic representation of the population. So that is the body which makes laws, and since its diverse in composition, then only laws which respect the rights of that diverse body can be legislated.
Furthermore this whole discussion violates the First Amendment in so many ways that it’s ridiculous on it’s face. What the first amendment says is Congress shall make no law which abridges the right of free speech, the freedom of the press, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Which means that no law can be made one way or another regarding speech, especially when its directed toward the government. The 1st amendment doesn’t bestow rights, the 1st amendment curtails the collective power of the government, especially when it is directed towards an individual.
So, since there is no law, there is nothing the court can rule on one way or the other, and if the school tried to restrict the speech of this individual, or tried to dismiss them, which is a reprisal, then the person who these penalties are imposed upon would have the right to petition for the redress of their grievances in this matter.
Diversity in society starts in diversity in the legislative body which governs the how those of a society interact with each other. There should never be a rule for diversity in hiring because there should never be any question that the most qualified person will be hired, anytime you try to force diversity by law, that leads to animosity and reprisal.
I think all of you have forgotten to wear your thinking caps.
We cannot restrict opinion without restricting debate, it’s where we have the debate which is important, that debate must be in the legislative assembly, not in the courts, and definitely not in the Streets through protest!
Fortunately, the SCOTUS has extended the right of speech, etc. to the people. Those rights outlined under the First Amendment must be preserved at the individual level if we are to maintain a democratic society. If you don’t like that, get it changed but at the moment you’re dead wrong.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression
I’m not only right, but the Supreme Court has no authority to change anything in the Constitution of the United States.
By the way, “A Democracy” is a legislative assembly, “democracy” is how that legislative assembly is assembled and operated!
Britannica
History and Society
Definition: Democracy
“democracy”, literally means, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.
To qualify as a democracy all the people must be assembled to participate in the legislative assembly and the legislative process, what we have today and call American Democracy does not qualify as a democracy, and before you get smart and say that the United States is a republic, or representative democracy, both must must assemble an exact representation of the population as the Most Numerous Legislative Branch, which is still an assembly of all the people just like it is in a democracy!
Democracy and republican forms of government are all legislative assemblies, and are determined by the participation of all the People!
North Carolina State University is a PUBLIC university! This court ruling is insane, and they don’t care.
Judges Stephanie Thacker and Andrew Wynn were both appointed by Obama. Clapper, Brennan, and Lois Lerner were hired by Obama.
Obama is a chameleon by design. He hides his aggression in plain sight. It’s hard to pin him down based on his statements about free speech. He says one thing, then he says another, but it’s not at all hard to pin him down based on the people he puts in power. He always hated America, and his black robes prove it.
Obama has always loved America!
BARRY SOETORO – Son of a Foreign Citizen and Wholly Ineligible Un-President
The ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
“Obama was ‘cocaine-using gay hustler’, claims ex-classmate”
“A woman, who claims to have been a classmate of Barack Obama, said that the president was gay and used cocaine in school.In a[n]…interview, Mia Marie Pope told…preacher James David Manning that…Obama was not only active within the gay community, but also a heavy cocaine user during his years in Hawaii [Obama came from Indonesia]. Pope said that Obama always portrayed himself as a foreign student, adding that girls were never anything that he ever was interested in, but he would get along with older white gay men.”
“She added that Obama at that time was also procuring his cocaine, the Huffington Post reports.
“She then noted that Obama was having sex with these older white guys and that’s how he was getting this cocaine to be able to freebase, the report added.”
– Business Standard https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/obama-was-cocaine-using-gay-hustler-claims-ex-classmate-113111100535_1.html
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Barack Obama: Life Before the Presidency
Living with his grandparents, Obama was a good but not outstanding student at Punahou. He played varsity basketball and, as he later admitted, “dabbled in drugs and alcohol,” including marijuana and cocaine. As for religion, Obama later wrote, because his parents and grandparents were nonbelievers, “I was not raised in a religious household.”
– UVA Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/obama/life-before-the-presidency
Nothing would surprise me about Obama, George.
Obamas white grandparents were CIA and so was his mother. Now I know how he paid for his time at Occidental College. Occidental was a good campus for CIA recruitment I don’t think Obama was CIA but I know his family was.
Obama was the President for two terms.
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama did not have two parents who were citizens at the time of his birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– English Common Law and the Law of Nations were adopted, accepted or employed by the United States.
– The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
If you don’t understand that Obama was President for 2 terms, I can’t help you.
meet the mirror moronic furher
“Barack Obama did not have two parents who were citizens at the time of his birth.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
Imagine my distress, as I watched every goofball in the USA argue over WHERE Obama was born, instead of the obvious fact his proclaimed biological daddy was a lifetime foreigner. There were so few of us around. Just a few active columnists and researchers.
In one instance it was pointed out a certain candidate for US President was under fire for the claim his Dad was a citizen of Canada at the time of his birth, and therefore he was ineligible for POTUS. There was a big fight over it as the POTUS candidate disputed, but alas, his home, where all the origin and family papers were on his Dad’s Canadian citizenship, suddenly burned to the ground and all was conveniently lost.
He became President. I can’t remember which one it was – I just can’t remember. chester a arthur … rutherford b hayes, garfield…
Anyway the powers that be quickly wiped that info from the net I haven’t found it since.
It’s probably there somewhere, hidden by google’s sergay brin
Scalia publicly commented the SC was avoiding the issue with Obama.
Read Washington and Jay above rejecting any person steeped in foreign influences as commander-in-chief.
Obama’s father was an anti-Colonialist, anti-American, activist extremist, citizen of a foreign country who was jailed by the British for six months.
Washington and Jay effected the preclusion from the presidency of Obama and his ilk.
Obama as president was absolutely ridiculous, political manipulation by the communist American Deep Deep State Swamp.
Who cares and why does it matter?
“Obama has always loved America!”
Concerned, Tell us why you believe that. Based on your type of logic below “Obama was the President for two terms”, Hitler was a great guy.
I believe it based on his public service for the country and his speeches over the years where he has expressed it. “Obama was President for two terms” is simply the acceptance of reality (that George does not accept) while “Hitler was a great guy” is a statement of opinion that I strongly disagree with.
“believe it based on his public service”
Public service? His public service made him a millionaire.
“his speeches”
Speeches are words such as “transform America.”
“Hitler was a great guy” is a statement of opinion that I strongly disagree with.”
But your affection for Obama is based on his being elected just like Hitler. Are you seeing how superficial your evaluation is?
One final note — I stand by all my comments even if they don’t meet the evaluation standards that you placed on me and no one else in this discussion.
Concerned, S. Meyer is a great American who does not believe “Hitler was a great guy.” He’s trying to make the point that just because a dude has power for a long time (and even gets elected to it), that does not make dude a great guy. Hitler, being a monster, demonstrates S. Meyer’s point perfectly.
I’m not surprised that you like Obama, but I have several criticisms of him you might consider:
(1) His appointments were bad people. These judges made a horrendous decision. I think the ruthlessness of his appointees revealed undue vindictiveness on his part toward his opposition.
(2) Obama was a weak President. Time and again, his policies and statements seemed to be perpetually in conflict, like the Afghanistan surge, his immigration policy, the pivot to Asia, his redline over Syria, and his handling of Russia and Ukraine. It’s often been said he was more interested in campaigning than governing. I believe that indifference resulted in sloppy execution.
(3) He got rich while flyover country got hollowed out and drug addicted. He sat for too long and let the Gulf burn after the Deepwater Horizon exploded. It was calculated indifference. Even the press had to call him out on it (before they went full-on communist). A Republican would have been crucified for something like that.
Thank you, Diogenes, for replying in a fashion that I completely agree with but could not put as well as you in written form.
I will not respond to Concern’s last comment as he admits, “I stand by all my comments even if they don’t meet the evaluation standards.” I applaud Concerned for his admission and believe in the future, he will realize his standards were insufficient for the times.
I simply present the facts, which you have a psychotic aversion to. We all understand that Obama was ensconced in the office of president, however corruptly, by the Communist Deep Deep State Swamp. Obama will never be a natural born citizen and Obama will never be eligible for the office of president. Obama will never meet the Founders’, Framers’ and Constitution’s criteria for the presidency. That criteria was presented in the legal text and reference of the era, the Law of Nations, which was in the possession of key members at the Constitutional Convention. Washington and Jay effected a constitutional requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” to preclude foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief. Obama did not enjoy two parents who were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth. Obama is the son of a foreign citizen and celebrated citizen of Indonesia, where the nation raised a statue to Obama. Please address the facts and refrain from the ad hominem that reveals the weakness and inanity of your argument.
George, You may be interested in the following based my review: (1) 2 2008 cases were unsuccessful in challenging Obama’s eligibility — see Berg v Obama and Donofrio v Wells. (2) Congressional Research Service looked at the eligibility issue and came to the opposite conclusion of you — See Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement (11/14/2011). (3) the reference to Law of Nations in a different section the Constitution could hurt your claim that it applies in Pres qualifications — the drafters knew about it and could have included it again but chose not to. Final concern (really this time).
But he hates Republicans and the Constitution.
In other news, Stanford University is welcoming some interesting visitors from another nation, while proposed speakers perceived as on the right have been disallowed, and its College Republicans student group could not get funding for Mike Pence’s visit. Apparently all on the right are created equal, but some are more equal than others (with a nod to George Orwell).
SCOTUS should pick this one up.
-G
What does it mean to meet the criteria of being “collegial”? I think it’s treating colleagues with respect and goodwill. It doesn’t mean never disagreeing. If I were this Stats Prof, I would be challenging NCSU to put in writing its definition of collegial. I can almost assure you “colleague” does not include people who have only applied for a teaching job — they only become colleagues once they are hired as faculty. Reading over the complaint of the suit, it seems that Porter used uncollegial language oppo-branding policies as “woke”, and lacing his remarks with an epithet, but in response to that colleague plotting how to push him out of his job on the Higher Education Program Area. Was her plotting collegial respect?
Wherever a rule-based system is being morphed into case-by-case judgments based on vague criteria, we should lambast this departure as paving the way for pretextual power plays. I hesitate to say “arbitrary and capricious” because, political persecution is neither. It thrives on pretext as cover against blowback.
I’m not sure this case is that earth-shattering. I think most universities define academic freedom as pertaining to production of scholarly content. It doesn’t necessarily carry over into openly criticizing university HR policy — an area where lawsuits against the university can benefit from injudicious or intemperate faculty op-eds.
And, as employer, NCSU has the power of hiring and firing, and I don’t think 1st Amendment constraints apply in the case of a govt. entity supervising its employees’ public speech where it is seen as going against the organization’s interests.
@pbinCA,
The issue is that collegial can mean many things and is open for interpretation as it should be. If you create a strict definition then you limit how it could be applied and get into splitting hairs.
However, to use it as a way to dismiss a professor and violate his right to a dissenting opinion and openly speaking about it… That’s a no no.
The 1st Amendment does apply since they are in fact a recipient of Federal Grant money (a public university). Its also wrongful termination.
This should go to SCOTUS
My son obtained a PhD from a well-known university in the early 2000’s.
Even with wonderful recommendations from many of his Professors, the only college with an available ‘slot’ was in Nova Scotia, a small school of little reputation no doubt.
My son did not take that position in higher academia, and we talked about university assistant professor-ships and the politics of getting into the mix, hoping for tenure, never knowing, all that ‘ass-kissing.’ Now – that was in the early 2000’s. In the short 20 years since then, rulings such as this one from the 4th circuit prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my son ended up teaching in the higher grades of private high schools — yes there are some politics there too —
But we are living in a very dangerous era, where speech is being regulated and ruled upon by our court system, in ways that did not happen previously, at least not to the degree they are now.
@Richard
Indeed. The machinations of today’s left globally make The Patriot Act look like playtime. Dangerous times is the absolute truth.
Seriously. College is s leftist wasteland, and their ‘degrees’ are pretty much just receipts for transactions, and no one can teach dogma to an empty room. Stop sending your kids to them. They might actually be able to move out of your house if they skip college and learn to do something useful to other people. And
spare the whining – the paycheck is what will be useful to them, though it’d be nice if being of service and taking pride in independence (they say they want it, but no. If they did they’d cast their nets wider. They are happy to have their parents and grandparents be their caretakers) also rang even a tiny little bell with our spoiled younger generations.
It seems to me that there would be a market for a competing model in higher education.
there used to be quite a few, mostly religious/church based colleges and universities but they have been taken over by secularist lefties pushing all the same idiot ideas like 37 genders and AA, etc. There’s still a few like Hillsdale, but currently they are a vanishing breed.
Preston – this may be a harbinger of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin
Note that both 4th Circuit Judges Stephanie Thacker and Andrew Wynn–both of whom sided with North Carolina State University–were appointed by Barack Obama. Adherence to (or even familiarity with) the Constitution and the law is not a prerequisite for being appointed by Democratic presidents, so this helps to explain this misguided and deeply flawed decision.
Conservative parents, why are you willing to pay tuition at schools that indoctrinate instead of educate your kids? You play stupid games, with well-known stupid outcomes, and you win those same stupid prizes that other game-playing parents won…kids alienated from the family and bereft of critical thinking skills. Stop whining and start putting your financial foot down. Even when kids are kegal adults, “no” is still an option,
Best start talking about the “J” word.
Thacker is an Obama appointee, as is Wynn – they should be impeached for this blatant disregard of the professor’s 1st Amendment rights. Failing that, the GOP needs to pack the 4th Circuit CA
Not really, but isn’t that the D’s typical response to decisions with which they disagree?
Think ‘ll try to find a bookie and lay some wagers down on how fast this gets overturned
Strictly speaking, Pickering, Connick, and Garzetti/Ceballos ALL affirm that, even if the employee’s comments were spoken as a public citizen under the First Amendment, warranting Pickering’s balance, the employee “must face only those restrictions that are necessary for [his] employer to operate efficiently and effectively.” Connick, 461 U.S. 138 at 147. In this present matter, Porter’s comments obviously undermined that–thus, there may be support for the applied standard of “collegiality.” (Pickering noted the importance of “harmony among co-workers” and “working relationships for which it can be persuasively claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary for proper functioning,” 391 U.S. 563 at 570-71)
Conversely, and in reality, when the employer (university) is overwhelmingly biased toward hiring and retaining only those with one-sided affirming political ideology (herein, left-wing DEI prioritized over scholastic merit), and virtually all, at least the overwhelming majority of, Porter’s fellow colleagues are left-leaning, DEI-prioritizing professors with opposing views, Porter doesn’t stand a chance. His opposing viewpoint is stricken in the name of “collegiality.”
As oft-noted on this blog site, there is no more scholasticism, no more debating of ideas among students OR their professors. Now, instead,– a despicable, and frankly frightening, reality that in higher learning, one political ideology permeates and destroys opposing thought, and thus “indoctrinates” new young pupils, with plenty of space left in their noggins to absorb what is presented to them, without counter-thought or idea.
Lin,
Thank you for your input. I was hoping to see what some of our lawyer type friends think on this.
And I agree with your assessment.
As a lawyer-type friend I’ll bite. Lin is right, of course, and the dissent has it precisely correct. The majority’s most glaring error (in addition to the obvious bias) is that this was dismissed as a failure to state a valid claim, before discovery or all of the underlying facts. The law requires that at this stage a complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. I suspect that the Fourth Circuit might take this up en banc because it is such an egregious error, but it may indeed be left to the Supremes.
Agreed! Although I have seen that obvious failure (on different facts) in the Second Circuit!
wiseoldlawyer,
Thank you for your input and analysis.
“Pickering noted the importance of ‘harmony among co-workers’ . . .”
Applied to this ruling, that means:
It is “disharmony,” and therefore punishable, for a professor to disagree with those who disagree with him.
When you embrace contradictions, you can get away with any absurdity or injustice.
Well said and it speaks volumes to the problems that beset us and how weak our defenses are. Collegiality should not trump the First Amendment.
How many Republicans voted for this judge?
Likely all voted for them, in a spirit of collegiality.
Uncollegiality: Just another euphemism for censorship, delivered with an insincere smiley face.
I was accused of being uncollegial. I think the underlying motivation was to end a research collaboration that had become inconvenient. Higher education is killing itself.
Joe and his co-conspirators are pushing ‘equity’. One assumes that they will use that “principle” and apply it to the following quote from the article:
“roughly equal proportions of U.S. adults identified as conservative (36%) and moderate (35%) in Gallup polling throughout 2022, while about a quarter identified as liberal (26%).”
Time to have the benches, teaching institutions and all walks of employment life reflect the population as defined by the ‘equity’ pushers. Hopefully, once such tactics are used, those pushers will realize the enormity of the can of worms they have opened and the silliness of the introduction and implementation of such terms as “collegiality” into the law.
Shame on Judges Thacker and Wynn.
And where is this “collegiality” demonstrated towards conservative faculty and staff? Nowhere to be found. This is an outrageous situation where our courts have become ideologically driven rather than by the Constitution upon which each jurist has pledge to uphold its laws. Our third branch of government has now become tarnished by the prog/left inculcation of agenda over propriety – just another example of the ends justifying the means that is the hallmark of any thuggish horde attempting to grab and hold on to power. Shame.