No, we are not denying anyone any First Amendment rights. Advocating she lose her job is not the same as advocating for the removal of a right. Or, to frame it differently, your employer has the right to fire you if he discovers you're carrying a gun (assuming no posting of signs or delivering of notice). He does not have the right to tell you not to carry at all.oohrah wrote:C;mon guys, let's not be hypocritical. You're defending BOR at the same time you're denying her her 1A rights.Oldgringo wrote:mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.
Tenure exists to protect the individual from the administration, just like the BOR. A proven research professor earns tenure, and can then express their opinions without fear of retribution just because the powers that be disagree.
Calling for someone to be fired (and a pseudo-public employee at that!) because that employee advocated the undermining and removal of a key portion of our founding document, especially when that employee was ostensibly hired for their knowledge of said document and laws (law professor, remember?) is akin to calling for a mechanic to be fired because he tried to replace engine oil with margarine.
And add me to those calling for the end of tenure. It protects the incompetent and the unqualified. Our rights were codified to protect them from government overreach, not to forever set a barrier between our words and actions and consequences for the same. One may claim that a university has no right to fire for "speech," given they take public funds, but if there's no right to fire, there's no right to hire, either.
Simply put, she failed at her job, and did so in a public forum. She should not be immune from the consequences of her incompetence.