TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:On a side note what does a "rhetoric professor" teach?

Is that a rhetorical question?

TexasTornado wrote:

ELB wrote:

TexasTornado wrote: ...
Based on their logic (and I use that term loosely) couldn't LTC students just form their own "militia," do some additional range time together etc?

Now now, settle down. Else students will walk into class and find their prof is still in her "gun free" individual office, curled up under the desk in a fetal position.

At least I won't have to hear any more of their illconceived ideologies. I honestly had one professor try to convince me and the rest of my class that Edward Snowden is a hero. I didn't know whether to laugh cry or scream.

Now, now, Edward Snowden is a hero, for Russia. Since most professors are communists it makes complete sense that he would consider Snowden to be a hero.

Russell wrote:This may be a dumb question, but are these professors still employed at UT?

Can the university not fire them for suing them? I know if I sued my employer I'd be canned immediately. Who would want to continue to give a job to an employee that is costing you thousands (or 10's of thousands) of dollars and taking you to court?!

It kinda depends on why you are filing the suit, but I have worked at companies where we made the decision to not fire a person, in part, because they had filed or threatened to file a suit against the company. Whistle blower and anti-retaliation laws carry some serious teeth.

I'm making this observation about the general idea of firing employees who have filed suit against the company and not about this specific case. In the situation here, the employer probably agrees with the employees, so they wont fire them regardless.

srothstein wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Secondly, why are they suing the university which is just complying with state law? Shouldn't they sue the state, or possibly the citizens of the state whose elected representatives passed the laws that they disagree with?

They are suing the university as the state agency responsible for the implementation of the law, i.e. the policies they came up with. In the actual law suit they also named the state and the AG as the representative of the state.

This is how you go about actually suing to challenge a law. You name the agency that is responsible for the implementation and the head of the agency, then can add the state itself and the AG or Governor etc.

OK, so they are employees and they are suing their employer. That at least makes sense. Now wouldn't they also need to show that the employment conditions violated their employment contract (if they have one), or created an unsafe work place in some way?

First off, the professors do not personally own portions of UT buildings (as far as I know), so the rooms in question are not "their classrooms". The professors are simply employees who are upset at their employer's decisions about what is allowed in the workplace. IANAL, but I would think that the professors would need to show that their employer created a dangerous workplace that harmed them in some way, or violated their employment contracts (if they have such contracts).

Secondly, why are they suing the university which is just complying with state law? Shouldn't they sue the state, or possibly the citizens of the state whose elected representatives passed the laws that they disagree with? If that works, I'll be getting my lawsuits ready for every law that I disagree with and which places me in greater personal danger than I would otherwise be in.