@Nhatrang OK, what is QFT? I googled it and it came up French Guiana Time.
QFT= “Quoted for truth”, essentially, “I agree.”
Quoted For Truth @Happytimes2001
“Perhaps more cynically, they selectively support freedom of speech only when they really support what is being said but do not want to admit it.”
Maybe. But I am someone who supports it all the time. By those who I agree with (like the U of A prof) and those I in no way do (Indiana U). The importance of free speech does not rise or fall on its content. That is the very nature of free speech rights. This is why on First Amendment issues you will often have SCOTUS decisions that cross usual lines with RBG and other liberal leaning justices and some of the conservative justices on the same side. I have the same legal philosophy as RBG on these issues.
You may be unusual among the general public.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-views-media-2018-08-07 says that “a quarter of Americans (26%) saying they agree ‘the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior’” and “almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that ‘the news media is the enemy of the American people’”. It would not be surprising if this group overlapped considerably with those who raise the free speech banner in the Rasmusen / IU situation. (And you can reverse both opinions to find similar situational/selective support for freedom of speech on the other side.)
Just because people expressed the distaste for what the prof said, and discussing possible LEGAL ways to fire him, doesn’t mean they don’t understand the meaning of the first amendment, that seems to be what people are being accused of here. No one suggested to fire the prof because of what he said, most just try to suggest a possible legal way to fire him because, frankly, he is disgusting and under-performed his duty as a professor. I would feel the same thing about an employee. Unless a person is handicap and required extra support by law, the employee should perform the job sufficiently without someone else looking over their shoulder constantly. In this case, the professor cannot perform his job on his own, period, because his biased view creates biased in this grading and whatever else.
“ In this case, the professor cannot perform his job on his own, period, because his biased view creates biased in this grading and whatever else.”
If there is any evidence that he was biased in his grading, the school can fire him for that. No First Amendment issue. What happened here is that they had no such evidence but to allay any student feat of bias they hired someone to look over his grading. This probably could also be done by masking names. He can’t be penalized unless there is some evidence of non-speech wrongdoing.
Many people posting have indicated they truly don’t understand the protections of the First Amendment. For exa suggesting that his contract can override the constitutional protections.
^^ Yes just like private company, the college has to start documenting evidence of such biases, give warnings, etc. Can’t just accuse him of being biased without evidence.
As far as contract override, I think people are just speculating what is legal and what is not. Can’t blame them because apparently it’s easier to fire someone from a private institution than a public one. Seems like there is a loophole somewhere. I am not as smart as all of you here on this board, but even I assumed that the guy can say whatever he wants (except for yelling “fire” in a crowd). Doesn’t mean people will stop speculating ways to get rid of him, though.