<p>That was me. And call me crazy, but I get far more worked up about people transgressing the boundary between church and state than I ever did about that guy putting his hand on my posterior. One of the two is important.</p>
<p>Regarding free speech and manners, I have the right to tell everyone here what I think about Islam, what I feel when I see women wearing burkhas, headscarves, wigs or any of the other trappings of “modesty,” what I think about the GOP, the Tea Party, birthers, religion in general, and so forth. But I don’t–in this and other social contexts. Here, I try to refrain from baiting people who I know are not free to respond freely because of the TOS. Because it is good manners. Good manners often require a certain degree of self censorship.</p>
<p>At the same time, I strongly believe that silence implies assent. So when people make anti-semitic or homophobic statements in front of me, even if they are members of H’s family (his parents were major offenders), I object. The idea that every idea or opinion that crosses one’s mind deserves to be shared with the public and if one refrains it is a blow to free speech is a foolish one, IMNSHO.</p>
<p>The thought process was that many things are ambiguous and left to the reader. For example, it does not mention anything sexual, yet you made that connection and more. The smile relates to the ambiguity, but you thought it could be somehow suggest underage non-consentual sex. The point is </p>
<p>awcntdb
I am pointing out that in both the email and Sterling cases, both people have the right to say what they wish from a legal perspective, but there could be consequences from their employer for either. That is how I think it is the same.</p>
<p>Hunt
A Public University can impose a penalty on an employee for what they say in professional correspondence when they are acting in their capacity as an employee of the University. Free Speech means that a person can’t go to jail for what they say. It does not mean that there can not be consequences from employers. That is the difference between free speech and consequence free speech. Professors can not say anything they want to in their work capacity and not expect accountability. No employee can.</p>
<p>@Consolation, the difference between someone telling people what they think about them and their beliefs, and conversely, a person expressing how they feel about themselves is a huge difference. I Absolutely agree that every idea or opinion does not need to be shared, and I would expand that.to include the idea that, every opinion contrary to our own does not need to be challenged. How to exercise discretion in that context is the challenge…</p>
<p>@Much2learn - Thanks for the clarification. However, Sterling does not have an employer; he is an employer; he is part of a business group. But, that is just specifics, as I do understand your point. </p>
<p>I know you weren’t asking me, but I would be really annoyed if my child found this out on the first day of class–in other words, if the professor’s agenda had not been previously revealed in the course description. I would also have larger concerns about the professor’s qualifications as a physics scholar, but that’s just me.</p>
You know it’s a symbol of control? And Muslim women are simply “incapable” of figuring this out? I won’t deny that there are women who are pressured into wearing a headscarf, but there are also many women who choose to wear it themselves.</p>
<p>I think that it’s a bit weird for a college professor to sign an email “in Him,” but not really something to make a fuss about. Maybe I would mention it to my mom as something interesting that happened.</p>
<p>
I don’t know if that’s okay, but I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. Whether or not I agree with it, it’s just an email signing, and a vague one at that. It’s nothing.</p>
<p>During the course of this year, my epistemology lecturer briefly made a joke about creationists and how delusional they were, I received emails from the student union that included a segment promoting LGBTQ History Month, pamphlets from Action Palestine were distributed on cafeteria tables, and the Christian Union gave out pamphlets (which actually said, “welcome to [college name], the insider’s guide”- who knew it would be Christian). One of my physics lecturers also mentioned religion once, although the joke was pretty neutral (didn’t insult or praise religion, but I can see how others might interpret that differently).</p>
<p>My point in saying that is some of these expressions have become part of the everyday vernacular, and are generally accepted without the religious overtone. I don’t think “in his” is one of those expressions, and frankly I’d not ever heard it before, which is perhaps why it seemed even more awkward or odd to me.</p>
<p>“If it’s a public university, its ability to limit speech is restricted by the First Amendment. As I said upthread, in my opinion, the current Supreme Court would rule that a university couldn’t penalize a professor in any way for this sign-off. If it was a private university, they could.”</p>
<p>What if it was the President of StateU who sent a letter (via email or USPO mail) to all the students and the students parents and signed it, “In Him” President State U? I would argue in that case it isn’t protected speech (and might violate the Establishment Clause, also.) </p>
<p>I have very little doubt that the professor’s speech, in this case, is likely protected - but just because it’s protected, doesn’t mean one should be told it’s a trivial matter because a majority believes it is, and they should just get over it, or roll their eyes, or grow a pair, or simply accept they have no right to challenge their belief, even in court, if they so choose. For many years, non believers and non Christians were told by proponents of school prayer that no one was forcing them to say the prayer and they should just sit quietly while others were reciting it. </p>
Government employers have more limitations on what they can expect from employees relating to speech. A college professor probably would enjoy even more protection than some other government employees. It’s just my (relatively educated) opinion, but I don’t believe a public university would be able to impose any negative consequences on the professor who signed e-mails “In Him.” Different facts might bring different results, of course.</p>
<p>For whomever stated they could not imagine a court upholding a rule preventing Muslim women from wearing headdress - well, welcome to France. That country did it in 2010. And there is a similar case in Canada now I believe. Not all types of headdresses were banned though.</p>
<p>I am not too sure it cannot happen here. There are a couple cases now where students were told they could not wear t-shirts with crosses on them. If that “no cross” ban by the school is upheld, why not headdresses? They are both expressions of religion. </p>
<p>However, this is off topic, so I will not discuss this further. </p>
<p>I agree that a physics course that was going to discuss creationism should probably reveal that in advance in the syllabus, but there is nothing prohibiting professors from having, or even promoting, their own points of view, as long as they don’t penalize students for disagreeing.</p>
<p>Someone please find a college that states whether an employee can close a note with a religious reference. All the rest is minds running loose. </p>
<p>Lets add this to the sensitivity about how Muslim women may dress: what about Hasidic women? You going to get bent out of shape for their conservative style or wearing a wig, rather than showing their hair? Separate swim hours? </p>
<p>And, huh? All this prof did is sign off the way he did- are we really seeing that as coercing, an untenable class situation, having to jump through hoops? For all any of you know, this guy is nice, understanding- and one heck of a good teacher.</p>
<p>ps. the French “headscarf” rule is apparently so vague it could extend to all sorts of attire and symbols- including Sikh headwear and etc. Take a look.</p>
<p>Jym- Govt regulations, 911, power differential, misuse of his authority in the classroom, feeling ‘threatened or intimidated,’ the suggestion he’ll bring creationism into discussions. All from “In Him?” People are drawing connections that may or may not be there, IRL.</p>
<p>The reason for that is because the current Supreme Court are dominated by those who are sympathetic to those trying to roll back Church-State separation. </p>
<p>Ironic considering the establishment clause and the separation was originally instituted to prevent government intrusion into religion/faiths and in the 19th century, for families from minority religious groups…like Catholics back then to push back against the force-feeding of the then dominant Protestant theology being taught in public schools of the time. </p>
<p>And free speech can be limited if one’s doing so in the context of one’s employer…or using the property of the employer…such as institutional letterhead or email accounts, computing resources, and/or internet access. </p>
<p>In fact, courts have ruled that institutional email accounts and even their contents are the property of the institution. Consequently, employers have the legal rights to issue TOS to regulate their use, monitor those accounts/computers, or to allow authorities access while leaving the employee user without any recourse to challenge. </p>
<p>And if one’s a government employee working on government time or in the context of representing a government entity…including public university Profs, their individual rights to free expression of their religion/faith must be balanced by the crucial need to maintain a professional appearance of neutrality as their duties are to work on behalf of all Americans…not just their co-religionists or those with same political views.</p>
<p>This factor is a reason why public employees in many state agencies and military personnel on bases are actually prohibited from having religious paraphernalia or political campaign posters favoring one party/candidate displayed in their workspaces, especially if their workspaces are visible to the greater public. </p>
<p>In such contexts, the government employee’s right to free religious expression is outweighed by the need to maintain a professional appearance of neutrality as they’re obligated to serve all Americans without any favoritism in favor of or prejudice against those of particular religions/faiths or the lack thereof. </p>
<p>I don’t know anything about it, so I would be interested in any solid analysis: a) does it make a difference if it is a state government employee or a federal government employee?; b) does it make a difference, relative to a company employee, that tenure customarily protects a professor from a lot of management interventions? </p>
<p>Ya know, students are Facebook friends with some professors these days so how they feel about many of these controversial issues such as politics, religion, homosexuality or whatever, is not a secret. I’m not sure why it should be. But, it’s not.</p>