Southern Maine Professor Wins Critical Victory in Free Speech Case

We recently discussed a troubling decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University. The Fourth Circuit negated the free speech rights of a professor who was fired after raising objections to school policies.  The case is addressed in a forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, The Unfinished Masterpiece: Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence Over Free Speech, 82 Maryland Law Rev. (forthcoming 2023). We now have a positive ruling for free speech out of the District of Maine where Chief Judge Jon Levy has ruled in favor of a professor terminated by the University of Southern Maine for questioning mask and vaccination policies.

Judge Levy’s decision in Griffin v. University of Maine System is balanced and fair. He does not offer a full-throated endorsement of the claim by Professor Patricia Griffin, but rules that she has a right to a trial on the free speech claim.

Here are the basic facts.

On August 18, 2021, the Chancellor of the University of Maine System announced a mandatory mask policy.  On August 24, University President Glenn Cummings held a a luncheon meeting via Zoom. Notably, Cummings was not wearing a mask. After the meeting, Griffin sent an email to the Dean of the College of Management and Human Service that read in part:

“I first want to say how much I love teaching at [the University of Southern Maine] as well as working with such a great faculty. It really has been the highlight of my career and I owe a lot to you for sticking with me. The reason for this email is because I have been following the science, data, and evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2 and searching for anything that will support wearing a mask while indoors as well as vaccinating an entire school population as the optimal method for stopping the transmission of the virus. The reality is that my research has found no evidence to support these measures. I wanted to share the information I gathered and relied upon when making my decision regarding these mandates before the start of classes next Monday to see that my decisions are science, evidence, and data based. However, I do not want to cause any issues, especially for you, if I come to campus on Monday morning to teach my one face to face class so I wanted to give you enough time.”

Griffin attached a letter addressed to the Dean on her own research and objections to the policies. She concluded:

“In conclusion, I have followed the science, data, and evidence and cannot find any overwhelming support for the wearing of masks nor the mandating of vaccines, especially since the overall survival rate is 99.7% if infected with Covid. And finally, from a legal perspective, asking for my vaccination status is a violation of HIPAA.

My expectation is the University of Southern Maine will appreciate a faculty member who embraces critical thinking and applies both inductive and deductive reasoning rather than emotions when making decisions. I am teaching three courses this fall, two online and one face to face. I welcome any evidence you can provide to the contrary of what I have found which will convince me that my conclusions about the efficacy of wearing a mask and vaccinating an entire population are wrong.”

What followed quickly went from bad to worse for Griffin, who met with the Dean and again asked for the data supporting the University’s Policy and vaccination requirement.  While universities attacked academics who questioned these policies as opposed to “the science,” they largely refused to share the basis for the policies.

Despite the firing or sanctioning of academics who questioned pandemic policies, many have recently admitted that the efficacy of masks (particularly the common surgical masks) were radically overstated and unsupported. Moreover, studies have shown that critics were right in claiming that natural immunities from prior bouts with Covid offered as good or better protection than the vaccine. Nevertheless, the media participated in the demonization of these experts who were disciplined at universities and denied key positions in their fields.

In this case, Griffin alleged that immediately following the Zoom meeting, her fall semester courses were removed from the fall class list. She still did not back down and continued to ask for the data. She alleged that school officials then told her that she would not be allowed to teach courses 100% online unless she resigned and accepted a part-time position. On September 8, 2021, Cummings sent a letter to Griffin suspending her and informing her that the University would be moving to terminate her employment. Griffin alleges that the letter falsely asserted that she had refused to comply with the policies and included other false assertions.

The issue for the court was whether Griffin was speaking as a public employee or as a citizen.

“The “threshold inquiry” to determine whether a public employee engaged in protected speech is “whether [the employee] spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” O’Connell v. Marrero-Recio, 724 F.3d 117, 123 (1st Cir. 2013). If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment retaliation claim. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). “In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that her speech was made as a citizen; ‘it is sufficient that the complaint alleges facts that plausibly set forth citizen speech.’” Cannell v. Corizon, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-405-NT, 2015 WL 8664209, at *8 (D. Me. Dec. 11, 2015) (quoting Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2011)).”

The court found that there were factors under the relevant tests that cut both ways on whether Griffin was speaking as an employee or a citizen. However, given the governing standard for review, JudgeLevy read this evidence in her favor and the right to a trial on free speech claims (though he curtailed other aspects of her complaint):

Here, Griffin has pleaded sufficient facts to make it more than merely possible that once fully developed, the facts will support the conclusion that although Griffin’s speech related to her official duties as a public employee, the subject matter of her speech pertained to a matter of great public concern and was outside the scope of her duties as a professor of marketing. Whether the same conclusion may be true after the parties have completed discovery is another matter for another day. “[I]t is entirely possible that additional facts might show” that Griffin is not entitled to the relief that she seeks, but “absent factual development, dismissal is unwarranted” at this stage….

Putting aside the merits for trial, what should be clear is that, if the underlying facts are proven, the university acted in an abusive and capricious manner. Faced with a dissenting faculty member, the school opted to seek her termination rather than defend its policies or allow a dialogue on these measures.

As a public university, the Maine legislature should take note of this case and the need to reinforce free speech protections in the system. The level of intolerance for opposing views alleged in this complaint is chilling. If these facts are proven, there were grounds for termination but it was not the termination of Professor Griffin.


114 thoughts on “Southern Maine Professor Wins Critical Victory in Free Speech Case”

  1. Why should the press have freedom of expression when members of the press would prefer that people not say certain things?

    1. jwhitecalf: Bravo. Thank you for that reference. Its publication is an attestation to the fact that censoring opposing or antithetical speech is not the answer to wisdom or comprehensive learning.

    2. If wearing masks would protect our eyes from the noxious comments by the DNC paid trolls, one suspects readers would all be wearing them 24/7. Though using MACE might be the only recourse to deal with Ralphy’s purulent posts.

    3. Surgical masks are only to stop the DOCTOR who coughs, sneezes, or overemphasizes his T’s from spitting into the patient.

  2. Jonathan: For a conservative law professor who claims conservative professors are being “silenced” you don’t seem to have a problem in getting your views heard. Your forthcoming Maryland Law Review article is my case in chief that proves otherwise.

    So professor Griffin is going to trial–to try to prove her “science” is better than the CDC guidelines followed by U of M. What I don’t understand is why you are still pushing the debunked theory that face masks didn’t help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The overwhelming medical evidence is that face masks,along with the vaccines and other measures, did just that. But I can understand the contrarian view. No one wanted to have to wear a face mask when shopping at Costco or inside a public building. And we certainly didn’t like having a needle shoved into arms. But we willingly complied because we didn’t want to get infected or spread the virus to our family members, friends or neighbors. Neither Dr. Fauci nor the CDC claimed face masks were foolproof in preventing infection. But face masks, social distancing and Covid vaccines proved to be the best way to prevent infection, hospitalization and death. That’s the real “science” Griffin will have a hard time disproving.

    1. you are clueless,she is correct,i live with 84 seniors,i am the only athlete in the bunch @ 71YRS YOUNG=martial arts enthusiast……………and nobody caught fake news bad cold= i repeat nobody …………….oh but several did have bad reaction to vaccine=so take your brain dead MSM brainwashing back to the WUHAN FAUCI MURDER FACILITY IN CHINA!!!

    2. Debunked by whom and when? The data I see are 90% anti masking due to no supporting evidence other than emotional claims. Recently, data has come out that masks are dangerous not healthy.

    3. Mind providing your data? You make a lot of claims with no scientific backing. The CDC never provided science so their guidelines had no backing, and furthermore they are not legally allowed to make legal guidelines as there are no laws, and they are not elected officials. Should I provide you links to the VAER’s data or the thousands of documents from phizer’s own trials showing it was the most unsafest way to prevent infection? Your post is so outlandishly wrong I would have to think you were paid to say it.

      1. “VAER’s data”. You have got to be kidding. That is the only statement I need from you to prove you know nothing of which you talk about. Did you read the disclaimer on the VAERs web site? Anybody can report an adverse reaction. Anybody. Get a cold the day after you got a vaccine, must be the vaccines fault. Someone dies 3 days after getting the vaccine .The vaccine caused the death. Stop it. Stop it now and learn about statistics, causation, and circumstance.

        1. VAERS information is not a joke. One can see trends and compare them to one another. You sound like you have no scientific background.

    4. No. Professor Griffin wants to defend her right to question the science, not to argue the rightness or wrongness of either hypothesis. She has allowed that either side may be correct and is open to accepting the evidence upon which the CDC has based its conclusions (if they actually did have any evidence, that is).

    1. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

      *on my Substack, I only moderate comments for brevity. People can only comment ‘sugar is sweet’ so many times before I drop the hammer, everything else I leave up for rational authoritative argument .. . and appropriate ridicule within the bounds of good taste.

  3. Attn: breaking news. New Cov-Sars super virus variant is spreading like wildfire: ECV2.o Election Cycle Variant II

    I don’t know if this is the ‘Best Interview You’ll Hear This Year’ .. . but it’s a good start.

    *btw, George Galloway, the renowned British court jester humorist, still holds the gold-standard for red-hot speeches before a convened U.S. congress in his elegant and passionate opposition to the Iraq War in 2004. .. bless his heart.

  4. It doesn’t even take much research to become aware that the average pore size of even the best masks is from 50 to 200 times the size of the COVID virus. Therefore, masking is useless AT BEST for protection against COVID, and worse than useless if masking deludes people into thinking they are protected when they are not, or when the masks are causing additional medical issues.

    Basic science in the USA has been hijacked by politics of the lowest order — which is what happens when politicians and scientifically-ignorant lawyers insert themselves into scientific analysis. And when I say “scientifically-ignorant lawyers” I mean ALL lawyers. Law school is for MORONS that couldn’t pass a basic general science test if their country-club memberships depended on it.

    1. (1) politicians and scientifically-ignorant lawyers are not the scientists who asserted the need for mask-wearing.
      (2) I happen to know a few “scientists” who are morons as well. I have defeated their “expert testimony” in court by exposing their flaws.
      (3) Be careful with your sweeping dragnet, i.e., your words, “And when I say ‘scientifically-ignorant lawyers’ I mean ALL lawyers. Law school is for MORONS that couldn’t pass a basic general science test…”
      In truth, many, many, many lawyers, especially litigators, have undergraduate and/or advanced degrees in the scientific discipline for which they offer THEIR expertise
      (4) Notwithstanding, I still appreciate and agree with many of your comments. It is good that we can think about one another’s comments on this blog, in order to develop and draw our own conclusions, I thank the good professor for providing that forum.

        1. I appreciate that you rejected (1), (2), and (3), –which are all objective truths. That tells me much about where you come from. Thank you for that.

          1. And now I reject your appreciation. You’re just another argumentative tool of Turley’s blog propaganda. I’ve seen you tools come and go over the years, and you’re all interchangeable to the point where you could easily be the same person changing their screen names.

            1. You’re right. I have previously used screen names Lassie, Guardian Angel, Olive Oil, Aunt Jemima, Cousin Flo, and Minnie Mouse. Sorry that you caught me and called me out for it.

              1. @ Olive Oly

                Ralph, if that’s his real name, has a point. This place is infested with ‘name changers’. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I’ve been around ya know.

                *Makes it hard to know who you’re talking to at any given time .. . I have a list, e.g., of ‘anonymous’s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13

    2. That’s completely false. The evidence is that the difference between masking and not masking in relation to “protection” from COVID is statistically NEGLIGIBLE, but the adverse consequences of masking are anything BUT negligible. The MORON lawyers and politicians that were, and still are, promoting masks are causing far more harm than has been measured to date, via direct harm caused by masking itself, which included trapping and re-breathing COVID particles as well as other adverse effects, and indirect harm caused by erroneously assuming that masks protect from COVID.

    3. I wonder is the anti masking community really really dumb or are they willfully ignorant? Or perhaps they just do not care about community health. There are plenty of studies that show masks are effective at reducing the spread of disease, not eliminating the spread of disease, reducing. Plenty. How about immune compromised people? Do they have no care for keeping them safe? Maybe you can ingest 1000 virus particles and be fine, your immune response will kill them off before they multiply and cause problems. An Immune compromised person is not so fortunate. So they should just die? What callous cads the anti masking crowd is.

      Do the anti masking people go into surgery and insist the staff not wear masks?

      1. The Cochrane systematic review of RCTs shows that you are wrong. On the flawed observational studies, read Tracy Hoeg and Vinay Prasad. Journalists who have written good articles include John Tierney and David Zweig. Ian Miller has written books on the subject. Masking not only has little if any efficacy but also causes a range of physical and psychological harms.

        1. Daniel,
          I am more concerned about the damage masking does.
          We already have evidence that babies need to see our mouths when learning to speak. A number of speech therapists have noted the increase of children and falling behind where they should be due to masking.
          There is a on-going study linking miscarriages with masking.
          I personally experienced a dizzy spell while masked.
          And all this for a virus that is no worse than the flu.
          The Great Barrington Declaration had it right: Protect those who are compromised or the elderly.
          Sweden had it right too.

        2. So you will insist doctors not wear masks when you or someone close to you needs surgery? If masks are harmful, do you want the doctor to get hurt while he/she performs surgery?

          Try going into an ICU setting without a mask where someone is immune compromised. See how long your crackpot idea lets you stay.

      2. Some comments or replies are just too stupid to deserve a response — and yours is one of them. But for the record I’ll simply point out AGAIN that masks are used by doctors to prevent and protect from the spread of a BACTERIA, not a virus — just like a chain link fence will keep a dog in your yard but won’t block the wind.
        It’s not a hard concept to grasp, unless you are mentally defective and incapable of observing differences in SIZE.

        1. When COVID hit hard, Two cities in India did a simple comparison. They were both similar size cities, one did a massive public outreach campaign to encourage everyone to wear a mask. The other did not. The difference between COVID spread was significant. The city that wore masks had significantly less COVID.

          While I wish death on nobody. It was not surprising to see so many anti mask/anti vaxers die from COVID in late 2020

          I’d be glad to post a link but JT is against linking studies to prove a point on this web site. I guess for him, ignorance is bliss. Just search for virus size and masks.

          Why so little regard for those that are immune compromised around you?

          1. You can post a link. But only two in a single comment. It is a WP limitation used to combat SPAM.
            So, yes you can post the link to the study.
            Note I am making this comment as clarification to what you may think is the professor being against studies.

          2. Here, let me show you how to post a link.

            The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

          3. “. . . to encourage everyone to wear a mask.”

            You are lying by omission.

            That study (and others like it) included a *number* of interventions, e.g., distancing, hand washing, knowledge.

            A first-year researcher knows that you cannot identify *the* cause, when you change a number of factors.

      3. “There are plenty of studies that show masks are effective . . .”

        Your argument is as fatuous as the following:

        There are plenty of studies that show chain link fences are effective at keeping things out. Therefore, erect one to protect yourself from mosquitoes.

        When you drop the context (in this case, the *size* of the virus), you can conclude anything or nothing. And you can dupe the unsuspecting into blind obedience.

      1. How do public health officials where you live get their jobs? It seems to me that they’re either appointed by politicians or they, themselves, run for office — making them either tools of politicians or politicians themselves. And I guarantee you that they rely on lawyers for implementing their rules and regulations.

    4. You are factually wrong on the pore size and virus particles getting through. There is strong evidence that N95 masks protect you from ingesting virus particles. I posted a link to a study showing your thesis as untrue but JT is not a fan of free speech so the post hast not made it past the censors.

      Basic science has not been hijacked by politics. Basic science is being hijacked by by ignorant politicians who spout their ignorance for their followers to eat up.

      If masks are worthless, why do doctors wear them in surgery? Would you have surgery and insist doctors not wear masks?

      1. Doctors wear masks in surgery to keep them from breathing BACTERIA (which are much larger than any virus) into the open cavity that they’re working on. Good grief. This was all covered back during the scamdemic.

    5. Anonymous writes: “What masking did do is REDUCE the likelihood of infection. Even a 10% reduction is better than no protection at all.”

      On a one-time basis, it might help but say a mask is effective 90% of the time. The first time, it is 90% effective, the second 81%, the third 73%, and it continues going down toward zero effectiveness. Assuming several encounters in a day, after a short while, the effectiveness is near zero.

      If the RO of the virus is high, the mask can only delay eventual infection, which will be 100% to susceptible people.

      Anonymous leftists are terrible at math and have little, if any, critical thinking skills.

      1. Bug, you responded and as usual you didn’t understand a thing because math is something you don’t understand. Stick with deflated basketballs and an empty locker room.

        If the mask protects you 90% of the time and you have one encounter, what do you think will happen if you have 100 encounters? Are you more or less likely to get the disease?

    1. Because JT is a sham, He talks about tree speech but does not allow it on his blog. Certainly his right to do, but he certainly does not practice what he preaches.

      1. I must have missed his blog on tree speech. I guess that’s why comments about it were not allowed on his blog. Were they criticizing Christmas trees? Ash trees? Those ugly walnuts all over my yard! And those darn catalpa caterpillars!

        1. I’m pretty sure you knew he meant Free. But it is possible your cognitive abilities have been degraded. One cannot rule that out.

          1. Lin has a sense of humor, using it to make fun of Bob’s dumb comment. Obviously your cognitive abilities . . . well, they where never there in the first place.

            Hey, Lin!
            Good one!

            1. Another one of Turley’s attack dogs heard from. I’m not about to defend “Bob” except for the fact that you regularly appoint yourself (or were appointed by Turley) as the guardian and decider of what is and is not “good.”

      2. JT’s blog doesn’t permit the continuous use of foul language. Those posts are removed. If the writer continues with foul language he is warned and warned again. He is then banned. He might be permitted to post again at a later date but if he repeats what he did before he can be banned forever.

      3. This whole blog is the antithesis of tree speech. If it were tree speech it would be delivered like a newspaper or come in the mail like a newsletter.

    2. It couldn’t have been the civility rule because there was nothing remotely uncivil about the comment.

    3. Ralph,
      Bug is a long time violator of the Civility Rule. He has been warned on more than a few occasions and has been so egregious he has earned himself a permanent ban.
      Bare in mind this is the same person who delights in violating the TOS on other platforms and gets banned there too.
      He comes here, insults the good professor repeatedly, makes generally dumb and juvenile comments thinking he is clever when he is not.
      Thankfully Darren comes along and cleans up the mess. The blog is so much better after he does.

      1. Think of it this way, someone comes into your home, insults you, your wife, breaks all the plates and glasses, kicks your dog and then craps on the living room floor.
        Would you invite them back?

      2. You speak AGAIN as if you are a hireling of Turley’s whose job is to police the site. It’s dishonest in the extreme — like when the cops plant a stooly in a prison population, except that the comment section isn’t really supposed to be a prison population but rather an assembly of free citizens, unless some here are actually in prison killing time while doing time.
        If in fact you are an employee of Turley’s or otherwise have some special appointed function here, you should be honest about it and identify yourself as a site monitor. If, on the other hand, you are not a site monitor, then you might consider knocking off acting like one.

        1. No Ralph.
          I am not a employee of the good professor’s.
          You ASKED a question. I provided an answer.
          Then you went off and started acting like a wanker.
          If anyone is acting like a site monitor it is you.
          Let us do each other a favor, you ignore me, and I will ignore you.

      3. You have lied so many times I not only do not believe you have a brother that died of COVID but that you have a brother at all.
        Same goes for a uncle.
        As far as I can tell, the only one who gets deleted is you by your own doing. Man up and stop playing the victim.

        1. Side note, more than a few times I have had one of my own comments not get posted.
          Was it something I wrote that violated the Civility Rule?
          The WP server had a hic-cup and failed to post my comment. It happens sometimes when the server is under volume load.

        2. Upstate
          Would you expect any leas from a lefty. Playing the victim is their whole life.
          This bug boy came in this morning and systematically went about placing childish comments and name calling in response to eery post i made yesterday after he was booted. None of them were attacking him, he simply didnt like what i had to say. Claiming he only attacks in self defense is pure unadulterated horse manure.
          Whats particularly hilarious is that he doesnt seem to mind that he is a laughingstock. I mean, read the room, dude. First rule of talking sh!t in a public forum…know your audience. If you are ok looking the fool because you’re anonymous, fine. But have a little bit of self respect.

          1. Tom,
            Well said and agree.
            With his simpleton juvenile drive by comments which he thinks are so witty, he clearly does not know his audience. He then doubles down with even more dumber comments as if he is being smart.
            It is quite pathetic.
            As I stated earlier, the blog does get much better once Darren logs in and cleans up the mess.

  5. Masks affected every part of education badly and there was never was anything like evidence, any evidence, for their effectiveness in public against an airborne viral infection. People had examined mask effectiveness under carefully controlled conditions over concerns about colds, influenza, SARS, and MERS; although there were suprisingly few randomized trials, as Carl Heneghan pointed out, after eight or ten solid studies showing no efficacy a person has to believe there is no efficacy.

    Nonetheless people completely ignorant about the topic, and who would never actually read any research whatsoever, and who insist they know all about the science, got to make and enforce the rules. In fact, the worst of these people simply grabbed power. Masks became a symbol of one’s politics and amplified unfounded fear. Masks are just one example of a camel’s nose under the tent. Running a society more generally in such a manner (i.e. putting the least knowledgable in charge) is a template for broad incompetence, poverty, partisan rancor, and oppression. I personally think it is basic to running a competent and just society to oppose such behavior.

    Of course one has to be prepared to face personal consequences for such oppostion.

  6. It would be interesting to read Griffin’s entire letter. There has never been sound evidence for the efficacy of masks against transmission of a respiratory virus. Until Covid they were not recommended. Suddenly the recommendation changed without any change in the evidence. Moreover, the recently updated Cochrane review of RCTs concluded that masks made little if any difference. The only support for them comes from weak observational studies that have been “debunked” by reputable analysts. Yet for some reason it is considered a mark of intelligence and respect for science to believe in the efficacy of masks, to the point of supporting mandates. This is incomprehensible.

    1. Daniel,
      Reminds me of someone who is highly insecure to the point of paranoia. They cannot be questioned, as to do so would undermine their position as a expert or authority. So, they either spin it, deny it or just plain pretend it never existed.

      1. I live in a left-wing suburb of Boston and worry that the public health director will reimpose mask mandates on the schools. From time to time I send her articles showing there is no sound evidence that masks work but get no response. Her advisory committee includes one of the authors of the so-called Boston mask study, an observational study that has been shown to be fundamentally flawed. The one point that encourages me is that during a small surge last January she did not reimpose a mandate, just saying instead that masking was highly recommended. This contrasted with what she did in May 2022, when our district was the only one in Massachusetts to reimpose a mask mandate on schools in response to a mini surge. Neighbouring districts did not do so, and there was no difference in the rate of decline in schools from the peaks.

        1. S. Meyer and Daniel: Both of you are making valid points. As Daniel points out, ” just saying instead that masking was highly recommended” can hardly be debated or rejected–a much more prudent response to the problem.
          I only regret that mask-rejection has not been replaced with alternative “recommendations” including masks with higher efficacy (we are not talking about vaccines here). I mentioned last year that Clorox wipes state on their canister label, “Kills COVID-19 Virus,” which prompted me at that time, before entering and after exiting any crowded public place, to clear my nostrils with a Clorox wipe. (I became over-zealous, placed one wipe over both nostrils and OPEN mouth, and inhaled deeply. I had a sore throat for two days. learned my lesson!)

          1. Lin,
            We have a local, mom and pop ran hardware store, a place I try to frequent to avoid the big box stores.
            They had a sign on the door,
            “We are all adults. We all can make our own decisions. Wear a mask as your own preference.

            During the Great COVID Scare, I saw my health care provider. She was wearing a “properly fitted” N95 mask . . . and she was practically hyperventilating. If I was a real jerk, I would of dragged out the appointment just to see her pass out.
            But I am not that kind of guy.

          2. “I only regret that mask-rejection has not been replaced with alternative “recommendations” including masks with higher efficacy “

            Lin, I assume you mean a higher N rating. The problem is that no matter how high the n rating, the efficacy depends on, being measured for size, if you put it on correctly, and what happens while you wear it. Everything reduces the N rating. Each encounter added together means that the likelihood of infection increases. If the R0 is too high, the spread is guaranteed. Theoretically, at a high R0, 100% of the people able to be infected will eventually be infected.

  7. Unless the alleged conduct is libelous or slanderous, speech should be uncensored in any context.

  8. Judges, who are part of the government, can be more respectful of your rights than your fellow free people, who violate your rights left and right in various ways.

    1. “can”

      Here’s your book title on the benevolence of judges:

      Dr. Strangelaw or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Unfettered Authority

      Chpt 1. Martin Manton
      Chpt 2. Sotomajor
      Chpt 3. Chutkan
      Chpt 4. Rudy Delgado
      Chpt 5. Mark Ciavarella
      Chpt 6. Thomas J. Maloney
      Chpt 7. Emmet G. Sullivan
      Chpt 8. Russell Clark
      Chpt 9. Marvin Garbis

  9. When will this prog/left ideology demand the removal of our Bill of Rights in its entirety to ensure their fascist drive to a totalitarian state? We all know that this is there end game. All of these precursors are just getting tedious to observe while do-nothing Republicans sit back and make useless speeches, especially while Rino’s control the minority in the Senate.

    1. David G. I don’t understand the your point,
      ? Mask = Condoms ?
      Magnitude ? Covid Epidemic 10ˣ | Aids Epidemic 100ˣ ?

      Just want to know where you’re coming from, please explain more.

  10. So the mask tyrants claim to be “following the science.” But they cannot produce the actual science.

    As with countless other key concepts, e.g., the “law,” “inflation,” — “science” is whatever the Left says it is. (When in doubt, consult Lord Fauci.) And if you dissent, or even question, the Left will make your life a living hell.

    1. Exactly. It’s not even a question of defying the Left. One shall be punished for evening QUESTIONING the Left. Where have we seen that before? Didn’t work out so well.

      1. M: Ever notice how the Left has come full circle? From “question authority” (in the 60’s). To now: Blindly obey the chosen authorities.

    2. Sam,
      This go around, I think they will try but we are already seeing push back.
      The Gadsden flag just might make a new, major come back. Let us see how many of our leftist friends will try to decry it as “racist,” as they are ignorant of history.

  11. Imagine if the conversation were about anything besides masks or vaccines. “I’ve done my own reading and I don’t want to follow company policy unless you provide documentation that satisfies me as to how you reached your decision.”
    I might fire him myself.

    1. First of all the school is public, not a corporation. Second, imagine the conversation if the subject were about government mandated burkas to enforce modesty, and veils to cover the nose and mouth. Would you follow company policy? or would you fire yourself?

      1. Charles – Enigma knows the university administrator acted like an evil fascist. He knows what he said has no bearing either to mask policies, vaccine mandates, or universities which are completely different than corporations. He knows that the “conversation” is about this topic and not “anything else besides masks or vaccines.” His comment here proves that his job is to simply to publish the opposing argument to whatever Professor Turley writes. But in this case that argument is so pathetically weak as to be risible. I thought he was capable of better. My mistake.

    2. If you knew how to read WITH COMPREHENSION, you might have noticed that the allegedly-offending person is “Professor Patricia Griffin” — presumably a FEMALE, not a “him” as you would fire “him.”
      Or are you asserting that he should be fired for denying the sex you would assign to “him”?

    3. That’s how we get democrats and non-democrats.

      You question a democrat about any policy they have, they lie to you, and/or simply tell you to stfu, and/or they manufacture a BS “study.”

      Then you either don’t question it and become a dem or you do and you don’t.

      The list of dogma you need to digest unquestionably to become a democrat is quite impressive, foie gras ducks and geese are even impressed.

      Boys can become pregnant, diversity is our strength, CO2 is destroying the earth, the food pyramid, math is racist, abortion isn’t killing, it takes a village, Bill Clinton isn’t a rapist, obamma isn’t a racist, biden won fair and square, the EU is a worthy partner, Ukraine should be in NATO, anti-fa is anti-fascist, blm is a civil right org, everyone wants medicare and it is feasible,… it’s nearly an endless list

  12. I love this professor Griffin! She’s awesome! We need more independent thinkers who have the grit to stand up to the huge phalanx of simpering bureaucrats now prevalent in higher education. What has happened to these people?!

  13. so you only are suppose to get Free Speech…if a FASCISTS doesn’t CONTROL your Life?
    How Germany 1930’s, USSR, Mao of them

Leave a Reply