More liberal censorship

[Jefferson]

Fight erupts over university's censorship of student speech

The censorship of student speech at Marquette University has drawn the attention of several outside organizations, with one legal team demanding the reinstatement of a professor who blogged about an argument in which a teacher allegedly warned a student that any criticism of same-sex “marriage” and its related issues was banned.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, or WILL, has written a letter demanding that the school reinstate professor John McAdams to his tenured position because the university’s suspension over his advocacy for academic freedom violated the school’s own commitment to that cause, as well the professor’s contract.

WILL’s letter noted that because of the extremely narrow confines of freedom of speech on campus, the university itself would be considered guilty of harassment.

To read the rest of the article click HERE.

 

[shagster01]

As far as I can tell he got suspended for publically challenging a co-worker. His point is valid and the other professor should certainly be investigated, but even I would get suspended for personally challenging a co-worker in a worksite publication.

Nothing to see here folks. . .

 

[Christian Liberty]

As far as I can tell he got suspended for publically challenging a co-worker. His point is valid and the other professor should certainly be investigated, but even I would get suspended for personally challenging a co-worker in a worksite publication.

Nothing to see here folks. . .

Well, that's dumb. But, intellectual cowardice is the norm in this country. In this stupid country our idiots see being personally insulted as worse than being on the receiving end of PHYSICAL government force. The brainwashed sheeple do not realize that they arent't free.

And no, I'm not saying that because of this thread. I'm saying that only a stupid and worthless people would get "offended" by someone calling them out in a workplace publication. Man up, deal with the insults, and speak against the ACTUAL authoritarian violence that backs up this entire evil system.

 

[shagster01]

Well, that's dumb. But, intellectual cowardice is the norm in this country. In this stupid country our idiots see being personally insulted as worse than being on the receiving end of PHYSICAL government force. The brainwashed sheeple do not realize that they arent't free.

And no, I'm not saying that because of this thread. I'm saying that only a stupid and worthless people would get "offended" by someone calling them out in a workplace publication. Man up, deal with the insults, and speak against the ACTUAL authoritarian violence that backs up this entire evil system.

I understand what you are saying about the government, but are you against employers having the freedom to decide their own personal conduct policies for their staff?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I understand what you are saying about the government, but are you against employers having the freedom to decide their own personal conduct policies for their staff?

No. But I still think it would be better if people would deal with the fact that they'll be insulted at times, even if they have the "freedom" to react peacefully.

 

[Stripe]

Nothing to see here folks. . .

Ah, the desperation of the liberal. atrol:

 

[Lon]

The linked OP article was a bit confusing. Here is McAdam's blog. I see nothing at all that he should be disciplined, investigated, or fired over.

It looks more like a report of events rather than a collegiate indictment.

Incidentally, Marquette University, is a Catholic university.

 

[Stripe]

Sounds more like a homo university. :flamer:

 

[shagster01]

Ah, the desperation of the liberal. atrol:

Do you not support the conservative idea that employers should be able to set their own conduct policies?

 

[Stripe]

Do you not support the conservative idea that employers should be able to set their own conduct policies?

I'm not a conservative. I'm a fundamentalist.

Employers should be free to do anything that does not break the law.

 

[shagster01]

I'm not a conservative. I'm a fundamentalist.

Employers should be free to do anything that does not break the law.

Was a law broken here?

 

[Stripe]

Was a law broken here?

Dunno.

If there was, it was a stupid law.

 

[Lon]

Do you not support the conservative idea that employers should be able to set their own conduct policies?

Not if they are demanding Christian bakers make homosexuals wedding cakes in the next breath. It amounts to a societal assault on Christians and/or Christian (and parallel) values and rights.

I have no problem with a university firing a man if he breaks laws or campus rules. I have a problem if this is a hate-action/crime, condoned by society for having the audacity to be or agree with Christians.

 

[Stripe]

Not if they are demanding Christian bakers make homosexuals wedding cakes in the next breath. It amounts to a societal assault on Christians and/or Christian (and parallel) values and rights.

I have no problem with a university firing a man if he breaks laws or campus rules. I have a problem if this is a hate-action/crime, condoned by society for having the audacity to be or agree with Christians.

Right. If an employer wants to not hire someone, not serve someone, pay someone one amount and another person another or fire someone, he should be free to do so for whatever reason. Any law that says otherwise is stupid.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right. If an employer wants to not hire someone, not serve someone, pay someone one amount and another person another or fire someone, he should be free to do so for whatever reason. Any law that says otherwise is stupid.

So an employer should be free to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, even if it's on a whim and the employee hasn't actually done anything wrong to warrant a sacking? I guess it's just as well that most jobs have contracts and grievance procedures to protect both parties...

lain:

 

[Stripe]

So an employer should be free to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, even if it's on a whim and the employee hasn't actually done anything wrong to warrant a sacking? I guess it's just as well that most jobs have contracts and grievance procedures to protect both parties.

If you were prepared to show any grace, perhaps you would have asked: "What about contracts?" instead of launching into nonsense.

 

[Lon]

So an employer should be free to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, even if it's on a whim and the employee hasn't actually done anything wrong to warrant a sacking? I guess it's just as well that most jobs have contracts and grievance procedures to protect both parties...

lain:

One is consumerism and one is socialism. We live in a democracy that is a combination but we have been fairly proud of individualism and lifting ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Policy that tries to shove that pendulum one way or the other will assault our sensibilities and values (and that's what is happening). I have no problem with a guy being fired for sustaining Christian values if that same law allows a baker to bake as he likes and hire as he likes. That, particularly, was why there was a race rift. It was both a good and bad thing. To try and say that supporting individual rights is 'never' a good thing means we've become communist. We are not supposed to be the United Socialists of America.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you were prepared to show any grace, perhaps you would have asked: "What about contracts?" instead of launching into nonsense.

You're the one who said that any other law contradicting an employer's rights to do as he essentially pleased were stupid. That was the actual nonsense part but by all means share what you think about employment contracts.

 

[Arthur Brain]

One is consumerism and one is socialism. We live in a democracy that is a combination but we have been fairly proud of individualism and lifting ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Policy that tries to shove that pendulum one way or the other will assault our sensibilities and values (and that's what is happening). I have no problem with a guy being fired for sustaining Christian values if that same law allows a baker to bake as he likes and hire as he likes. That, particularly, was why there was a race rift. It was both a good and bad thing. To try and say that supporting individual rights is 'never' a good thing means we've become communist. We are not supposed to be the United Socialists of America.

Employment contracts are for the benefit of the employer as well as the employee, it's not about socialism but more about security. If an employee abuses his/her contract he/she can be rightfully sacked - on the spot if the misconduct is severe enough. An employer benefits from having staff who are protected by the contract provided they fulfil their duties and whatnot. It makes more sense than having a job one day and then being told the next it's no longer there because your shirt isn't the right colour...an exaggerated example but just to make the point.

 

[jgarden]

More liberal censorship

Marquette University is a private, coeducational, Jesuit, Roman Catholic university located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Neither the Jesuits nor the Roman Catholic Church could be considered bastions of "liberalism!"