Posted on 08/25/2023 4:47:53 AM PDT by karpov
Zealous university faculty and administrators have become increasingly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their “progressive” beliefs. Sometimes, they’re unguarded enough to admit that they want to “cull the herd” to eliminate dissidents, as in this case.
Speaking your mind can have adverse consequences on college campuses, as North Carolina State professor Stephen Porter has learned.
Porter has been tenured on the NC State faculty since 2011, teaching in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development. He became alarmed at the politicization of the field of education years ago and did what any academic should do—he spoke out against it. As his legal complaint explains, Porter believes “the field of higher education study is abandoning rigorous methodological analysis in favor of results-driven work aimed at furthering a highly dogmatic view of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘inclusion.’”
Here is the timeline of events.
At a departmental meeting in early 2016, Porter objected to adding a question about “diversity” to student course evaluations. That was in line with his general concern that education research is moving away from the search for objective truth and into a swamp of subjective feelings. But raising this objection led to NC State’s Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity issuing a report on the matter, in which Porter was accused of “bullying” the person who had proposed adding the question.
Not long after that, Professor Penny Pasque became department head and emailed Porter to raise concerns about his alleged “bullying.”
Merely raising doubts about the advisability of adding a “diversity” question for students in graduate-level courses had gotten Porter in trouble with the higher-ups in his department.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Hard to imagine SCOTUS upholding this ruling.
4th circuit case. Surprised.
If you don’t agree with me, “YOU ARE A BULLY!”
What logic?
IMO 99% of this nation’s lawyers...and judges...are Maoists. So this doesn’t surprise me even a little bit.
Yeah, but it’s kinda hard imagining them taking it up. It seems to hinge on a poorly based finding of fact, rather than a legal precedent.
1) Do I for a second believe that the NC judges were being anything other than nakedly political when they determined that Porter couldn’t establish that he was injured? No.
2) Ironically, I believe it WAS part of Porter’s job to object to the diversity question; he would’ve been doing his job more poorly to have failed to prevent NC State’s faceplant, which now looks illegal to the Supreme Court. In the context, it would seem necessary to disavow that he was speaking as a professor at that university.
3) Do I believe Porter was being discriminated for his viewpoints? Hell, yeah. But it is also reasonable to find that “Give me a f***ing break” is disrespectful and unprofessional. Just like point 1, that makes this a matter of a finding of fact, notof the law.
He probably has better legal minds than mine, but as an amateur, I believe Porter’s best chances would be to refile his lawsuit, this time on the grounds that the notion that only a black professor could write ACADEMIC RESEARCH papers on race violates racial equality following the recent Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case. Establishing that his employers were acting illegally could even justify the outrage behind, “give me a f***ing break.”
Sounds a lot like Jordan Peterson being forced into Re-Education in Canada.
DIVERSITY = quotas
EQUITY= redistribute your income to others
INCLUSION= just another name for reverse discrimination
Penny A. Pasque Joins College as Head of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development
She has apparently now moved on to Ohio State University:
The state bar’s that give exams and grant licenses, are private organizations.
The state and government has no input into what they say or do.
They say who can practice law and who can’t.
And they are packed with leftists.
Largely correct, but since they serve a governmental purpose, they do have to protect rights. The notion that Facebook can do whatever it wants is false AS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, because it forms business relationships with its users and can be civilly liable when someone invests time or money to use Facebook for marketing only to have Facebook unjustly deprive them of that (Facebook is protected by terrible statutes which should be thrown out). But Facebook has its own first-amendment rights. A state bar does not; even though the state doesn’t RUN it, it must serve the state’s needs, not its own.
Agreed.
Did not realize the Fourth Circuit has become the Ninth Circuit.
That’s rich coming from you who called me a pig last week for not agreeing with you.
At least your memory is excellent.
There is a big difference between agreeing with vs understanding the other point of view. I usually seek understanding, but not necessarily agreement.
My apologies as I was really under the weather for a few weeks fighting cancer. My mind has not been cooperating with me as usual.
🙏
Apology accepted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.