Posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:21 PM PST by rw4site
ROBERT Jensen is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, but if a gaggle of irate Texans get their way, he won't be for long. He's one of a handful of academics who are protesting the war in Afghanistan and have been denouncing it loudly at campus rallies. He's gone so far as to call the United States a terrorist nation ("U.S. just as guilty of committing own violent acts," Outlook, Sept. 14) and to opine that our conflict abroad is a "war of lies, the culmination of a decade of U.S. aggression."
As Gregg Easterbrook reported recently in the Wall Street Journal, a letter-writing campaign is calling for the university to fire Jensen. Other campuses are similarly aflame. New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser recently denounced the City College of New York as "a breeding ground for idiots" after several faculty members voiced similar anti-American opinions.
Conservative pundits have pounced on this issue with a vengeance, arguing that while the First Amendment gives professors such as Jensen the right to say what they like, it doesn't shield them from the consequences of saying it.
This is true sometimes but not always. What really matters is whether the consequences are incidental or severe.
Incidental consequences are often unpleasant; the kinds of reactions you can expect when you say something asinine or unpopular in public. People ostracize you, write letters denouncing you, call you an idiot, as Peyser did the New York professors. This is fair play. After all, the critic has a right to free speech as well.
Severe consequences are something else altogether. They include things such as putting a gun to the speaker's head or threatening the speaker's livelihood. Firing professors such as Jensen for things they say at anti-war rallies falls into this category. You can fire a professor because he's a bad or unqualified teacher, but you shouldn't be able to fire him because he expresses unpopular views. Otherwise, the First Amendment would be meaningless. After all, how free can your speech be if your job is in peril if you say the wrong thing?
Yanking advertisements from network television shows should also be unconstitutional. This happened recently to Bill Maher, host of the late-night talk show Politically Incorrect, after he said a few politically incorrect things about the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack.
Why do I believe that rescinding ad revenue constitutes censorship? Don't advertisers have the right to advertise when and where they please?
Because Maher's show depends on advertising money for its survival, the advertisers were not just registering their discontent (they could have done that in a written statement), they were knowingly jeopardizing the show and thereby attempting to silence the speaker by forcing him off the air.
Of course, there is no law that prevents advertisers from revoking their support for shows. But if we are going to remain true to the spirit of the First Amendment, we should pass one.
A show's livelihood should not depend on its purveyance of correct speech, even when we're at war.
Advertisers should be forced, by contract, to commit their advertisements for a specified amount of time, regardless of what happens on a show. Either that or the networks should use a small portion of all advertising revenues for an insurance fund to cover pullouts. Otherwise Madison Avenue is, in effect, playing Big Brother.
Denouncing someone for his views is kosher. But intimidation and coercion -- including the kind of economic coercion that threatens jobs and livelihoods -- are censorship, however you spin it.
They are free to speak,a s long as they don't advocate treason or insurrection, etc.
They do NOT, however,
have an absolute "RIGHT" to a "JOB" (that is a bizarre notion and reflects spoiled, confused, fuzzy, and appallingly ARROGGANT(!) thinking),
--- and they have the responsibility of being ACCOUNTABLE for their views and must,
--- like the men they never are,
be accountable and take the CONSEQUENCES of expressing their opinions,
just as Throeau and otthers have always said was the case!
It seems that only teachers think this is not applicable to them. They have a captive audience that are told that the professor is always right and to pay attention.
Dear Nora:
1. Did you express the same concerns about free speech when advertisers cancelled their sponsorship of the Dr. Laura show?
2. Since you believe people should spend money on programs they don't support, how much money have you sent, to date, to the NRA, a pro-life organization, or a religious school?
I'm not sure what statement of mine would lead you to this conclusion. I do not believe that freedom of speech means that a person cannot suffer any consequences for his speech. I believe it means the state cannot bring criminal charges for expression of opinion.
Tenure is not "older than the country itself." The tenure system, as we know it, began in the German Gymnasiums and was not adopted in American universities until the 20th century as part of a large university reform movement - the same reform movement that led to standardized tests like the SAT and ACT.
In theory, tenure is supposed to protect free inquiry. In practice, it merely ensures that junior faculty research conforms to the conventions of their field. In the case of MLA-dominated humanities departments, this means hewing to the shabby orthodoxies of the campus Left.
In a nutshell, here's how it works: at the top US research institutions, a junior faculty's tenure case depends 80% on his/her success in publishing in peer reviewed journals. In humanities, those peers are predominantly drawn from the fascist PoMo/Semiotics crowd. Therefore if you're in CritLit or journalism, conservative views = heresy = no pubs = no tenure = living in a van down by the river.
Of course, tenure is only sacrosanct to the Left when it is convenient for them. Consider the case of Joe Horn and Lino Graglia (tenured UTexas professors who spoke out against Affirmative Action), or the UT administration's crusade to make faculty oppose the Hopwood decision.
Yes they are, and we loudly protest that this is wrong. But my argument against it has never been that it is, or ought to be, illegal.
For example, I may oppose the firing of a professor for teaching from a conservative perspective in a political science department. But I would not call for legislation to prevent such firings. Similarly, I may support the firing of Professor Jensen for his idiotic remarks. But I would not support legislation requiring his dismissal.
Private universities ought to be able to hire or fire whomever they choose (provided they live up to their contractual obligations of course). Public universities ought to have much the same latitude, only with direction provided by publically elected officials as well as university employees. Anyone ought to be able to call university officials good or bad names based on how they choose to exercise their hiring or firing power.
Coca-Cola Introduces Coke Mandatory
"Yes, Coke has done it again," said Gerald Hasworth, Coca-Cola vice-president of product development. "We've taken the classic taste the whole world knows and loves and made it so irresistible, you won't be allowed to go a day without it."
Hasworth then held up a two-liter bottle of Coke Mandatory to the assembled reporters and said, "Coke Mandatory: You'll Have No Other Option Than To Love It.™"
Though possible repercussions for failing to meet daily Coke Mandatory consumption requirements have not been formally announced, Hasworth stressed that one 12-ounce can of Coke Mandatory per day is "essentialicious," and that those who fail to comply with minimum daily allotments "will wish they'd done as they were told."
According to Coca-Cola CEO Douglas Daft, the company plans to establish a massive distribution infrastructure to bring Coke Mandatory directly to the consumer.
"Coca-Cola is bringing back the milkman," Daft said. "But instead of milk, each month, a delivery driver will drop off a 28-, 30-, or 31-pack of Coke for each person in the household. It's perfect for your family's Coke Mandatory consumption lifestyle."
Daft noted that the home-delivery receptacle, a sturdy aluminum Coca-Cola box, is sure to be an "extremely attractive and required" addition to American porches. The receptacles' cost, he said, will be conveniently added to the first month's delivery charge.
Easing the fears of parents who believe Coke is not an ideal beverage choice for infants and toddlers, Hasworth stressed that Coke Mandatory is optional for children under 2. However, within the next year, Coke Mandatory Jr., a cola-flavored milk product enriched with essential vitamins and corn syrups, will be available and compulsory for those 2 and under.
Though he encouraged consumers to enjoy other Coca-Cola products, Hasworth noted that Diet Coke, Sprite, Cherry Coke, Minute Maid orange soda, Surge, Mello Yello, Hi-C, and Mr. Pibb are not acceptable substitutes for the required daily allotment of Coke Mandatory.
In the wake of Coke Mandatory's introduction, other soft-drink companies have followed suit with their own compulsory beverages. Pepsi Must has already been test-saturated in New York, Los Angeles, and seven other U.S. markets. Meanwhile, Shasta and Fanta have merged to produce Hafta, slated to hit store shelves in early 2002.
Appalled by the new Coke product and other such required soft drinks, Royal Crown announced plans to release RC Optional, an exact replica of the current RC Cola with new packaging that "will surely appeal to American consumers' strong sense of liberty and self-determination."
Despite such opposition, Hasworth said Coca-Cola is "extremely excited" about the prospects for Coke Mandatory.
"I think that we learned a valuable lesson back in the '80s when we released New Coke," Hasworth said. "We learned that the only way to ensure that people will consume a new product is to make it non-optional. We are confident that Coke Mandatory is so good, the American people will not be able to resist."
You have to buy air time on my show and keep me in business! The Constitution says so!
I should have noted that the tenure system has ideosyncracies, and can vary from department to department. Tenure in the Humanities is almost completely driven by publication record (with predictable allowances for skin color and gender); in 'hard sciences,' grantsmanship. Social Sciences is somewhere between. Even a fully tenured biologists is up Feces Creek if he/she doesn't bring in the grant dough; the University simply eliminates their reseach centers.
Outside the major research institutions, tenure get even weirder. Many small colleges grant automatic tenure to any faculty with a terminal degree, because they want to look good to the accreditation reviewers.
And then there's the tenure system for teachers at elementary and high schools; quite possibly the biggest education scam of 'em all. A Teamster seniority contract, masquerading as a bulwark against McCarthyites.
You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to a job.
Yanking advertisements from network television shows should also be unconstitutional. This happened recently to Bill Maher, host of the late-night talk show Politically Incorrect, after he said a few politically incorrect things about the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack.
Why do I believe that rescinding ad revenue constitutes censorship? Don't advertisers have the right to advertise when and where they please?
Because Maher's show depends on advertising money for its survival, the advertisers were not just registering their discontent (they could have done that in a written statement), they were knowingly jeopardizing the show and thereby attempting to silence the speaker by forcing him off the air.
Why should advertisers be forced to be associated with that kind of idiocy? And if they aren't allowed to back out, would they start advertising to begin with?
And the advertisers weren't TRYING to shut Bill Maher down, that's lunacy, they were trying to avoid being boycotted.
Actually, Ms. Vincent is a lesbian.
One of the purposes of tenure is to promote independence of scholars from the political and financial pressures. Similar idea as independence of judges or immunity for prosecutors. Of cource it can be abused and it is abused, but in my opinion it is price worth to pay even if some leftists loonies will benefit. Orwell would agree, believe me.
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.