Three professors sue UT to keep guns out of their classrooms

[v7a]

I did see one news article this evening saying that the vagueness claim was aimed at state law (presumably the phrase "may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting"), but that was not the impression I got during the hearing. The vagueness claim was brought up in the context of confusion over what exactly the UT policy says and how the disciplinary action process works. The attorney for the state (as opposed to UT's attorney) only spoke briefly at the very end of the hearing and he did not touch on vagueness. If he thought the vagueness claim was being made against state law, presumably he would have said something in his remarks.

While the UT policy was only finalized very recently the state law obviously hasn't changed since it was signed into law one year ago, so if they wanted to make a vagueness claim against the state law they could have done so in their initial lawsuit filing. I guess we'll find out when the legal briefs are filed on Monday (by 5pm) if the vagueness claim is directed at UT policy or state law.

I don't think the professors would have standing to make a vagueness claim against that phrase in the state law, because that part applies to the University (President and Board of Regents) and not the professors. So only a University could sue the state claiming vagueness as to how that phrase impacts classrooms. Of course, the phrase isn't vague. It's perfectly obvious to a reasonable person that it means you cannot ban guns in classrooms (which is what the 19 people on the UT Austin Campus Carry Working Group concluded).

[ELB]

I'm a bit befuddled as to why the UT lawyer was a bit befuddled by the question of disciplinary process. Do they not already have a disciplinary process for when a professor violates university policy? (Now that I said that out loud, given the shenanigans that go on, it occurs to me they may not!)

[mr1337]

I just read all 40 or so pages of the plaintiffs request and the AG's response. I've never read 40 pages of any legal jargon, and I think that the AG opinion is a pretty hard slap. I think it goes without saying, this thing should get tossed.

You have a stronger stomach than me, my friend. I read all of the AG's response and loved it. I got about halfway through the second page of the plaintiff's complaint and threw up in my mouth a little bit. I couldn't take it. I'm assuming it didn't get better after that point?

Don't dare peek at the plaintiff's actual complaint, then. I read the whole AG response then skimmed through the plaintiff's. I think there may be a total of 2 brain cells that the three plaintiffs have to share, and even then, I may be giving them too much credit.

[SHogun62]

I just read the whole brief submitted by A.G. Paxton, and while there was a proper bit of reality-checks laid out for anyone interested, I was a bit surprised as to why they needed to form an entire section surrounding the "right to academic freedom".

Granted, I haven't held a proper 9-5 since starting my college path after my discharge a couple of years ago, but if I recall, anyone, who at anytime, ever drew a paycheck, knew full and well that while they were performing their duties during set times for the entity supplying them with their paychecks, were doing their duties in the representation of the parent entity. Basically, when you go to work, you're a proxy representative of whoever it is you work for, subject to THEIR rules and protocols, not your own.

That fact alone pretty much makes it clear that the "right" in question falls on UT, not a teacher.

Case in point, as any veteran will tell you. When I signed my enlistment contracts, I was signing over certain "inalienable" rights with them, the First Amendment being among them.

[v7a]

I'm a bit befuddled as to why the UT lawyer was a bit befuddled by the question of disciplinary process.

The lawyer representing UT actually works for the AG's office. In any case, she should have been prepared to answer questions about the disciplinary process. It's a central part of the case because without a controversy ("I want to do X but if I do X they may/will punish me") there is no court case. She couldn't even answer who would initiate the disciplinary process (would a student file a complaint? another faculty member?). Of course, neither could the plaintiffs' attorney, and it's their lawsuit!

Do they not already have a disciplinary process for when a professor violates university policy?

They do. The UT attorney mentioned that there is a UT policy that you cannot discriminate based on nationality. She gave that as an example of how a professor would not be protected by the 1st Amendment in saying "Based on what I know about Canadians, no Canadians are allowed in my classroom". That would be a UT policy violation that would subject the professor to disciplinary action, just like saying "no armed CHL holders in my classroom" would subject them to disciplinary action.

[v7a]

It struck me that the plaintiffs' 1st Amendment claim is even more absurd then it initially appears:

The plaintiffs argue that state law and UT policy allowing guns in classrooms violate the 1st Amendment.

What did the campus carry law do? It amended the old law which prohibited carry in campus buildings. Now imagine a parallel universe in which Texas never passed any laws regarding guns on campus. It was simply never prohibited, just like open carry of long guns was never prohibited.

In this parallel universe, could the plaintiffs sue the legislature claiming that the lack of a law banning guns in campus classrooms violates the 1st Amendment? No, that would be ludicrous. The 1st Amendment prohibits the passage of certain laws. It does not compel the passage of any law.

So it seems to me that in the unlikely scenario that the state law is struck down by the courts, the legislature could simply repeal any other statute or sections of statutes that pertain to guns on campus. Carry on campus would become legal simply because there wouldn't be any law that regulates it. A state campus would just be another state property that is not allowed to post 30.06 signs. The legislature could also enact some simple language to protect CHL holders: "a state university may not expel or subject a CHL holder to disciplinary action simply for exercising his rights under the CHL law".

[Jusme]

I'm a bit befuddled as to why the UT lawyer was a bit befuddled by the question of disciplinary process.

The lawyer representing UT actually works for the AG's office. In any case, she should have been prepared to answer questions about the disciplinary process. It's a central part of the case because without a controversy ("I want to do X but if I do X they may/will punish me") there is no court case. She couldn't even answer who would initiate the disciplinary process (would a student file a complaint? another faculty member?). Of course, neither could the plaintiffs' attorney, and it's their lawsuit!

Do they not already have a disciplinary process for when a professor violates university policy?

They do. The UT attorney mentioned that there is a UT policy that you cannot discriminate based on nationality. She gave that as an example of how a professor would not be protected by the 1st Amendment in saying "Based on what I know about Canadians, no Canadians are allowed in my classroom". That would be a UT policy violation that would subject the professor to disciplinary action, just like saying "no armed CHL holders in my classroom" would subject them to disciplinary action.

I don't know that an anti discrimination policy would apply to an LTC holder, because they are not trying to keep out the licensee, but rather the gun, which is not something someone is born with like an ethnicity, nationality or disability. I would love to see banning the licensed carry of firearms become a discrimination issue, but I don't think it would fly in this instance.

I think that the main crux of their case hinges on 1A rights, which they have no basis, or demonstrable evidence to support. I think once that is disproved, none of the other arguments, including the vagueness of the policy/law will hold up either.

[v7a]

I don't know that an anti discrimination policy would apply to an LTC holder

It wouldn't, and the UT attorney wasn't claiming that. It was given as an example of another UT policy violation that would subject a professor to disciplinary action.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[bblhd672]

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?!

Probably because they have tenure and it's almost impossible to get rid of malcontents and other communists once they have tenure.

[ScottDLS]

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?!

Probably because they have tenure and it's almost impossible to get rid of malcontents and other communists once they have tenure.

Yes. Tenure is a contract between the University and the professor, so they are not an "at-will" employee as most others and the reasons/terms of dismissal are reflected in the contract. This is not itself a bad thing, but too often it is used to protect incompetents and various malcontents. I still fail to see how NOT PROHIBITING something impacts their 1st amendment rights as they argue. I assume this is just a delaying tactic to try to drag out the implementation of campus carry as long as possible.

[treadlightly]

I don't have a PhD and would be considered to have an unwashed mind by any of those distinguished professors, for whom Chicken LIttle's warning carries more weight than Paul Revere's ride.

So, I'm doing my part to help them.

I got an Alien Tuck III IWB holster in the mail a few days ago for a Sig P320 subcompact I'm fond of. Today, reading about the plight of those poor academicians, I decided to help.

Normally I carry a Kahr PM9. Six in the standard magazine, one in the tube, and a spare seven-rounder in a pocket magazine sheath.

Fourteen rounds.

This afternoon I readied the P320. Twelve in the magazine, one in the tube, and another twelve to spare in my pocket.

Twenty-five rounds.

I figure this is good news for the professors, because there are now 11 new off-campus rounds on the street that weren't there before their mental incontinence flared up. I've shifted the balance of firepower away from them. I can't affect their side of the ratio, but I can sure do what I can on my off-campus side.

Hook 'em, horns!

[Charles L. Cotton]

There should be no tenure at state-supported colleges and universities. Private schools can be imprudent if they wish, but taxpayers shouldn't be stuck with incompetent professors who happened to stick around long enough to become nearly termination-proof.

Chas.

[v7a]

During the court hearing last Thursday it was mentioned that the AG had already planned to file a Motion to Dismiss this week.

The motion was filed today:

AG Motion to Dismiss
UT Motion to Dismiss

The judge will now be ruling on two separate motions: Motion for Preliminary Injunction (requested by plaintiffs) and Motion to Dismiss (requested by defendants).

The deadline for rebuttals is Wednesday 5pm. A ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is likely to be issued by Friday.