There is a policy against embarrassing the institution at every institution. If she had said the same thing about Martin Luther King, she would be out on her ear.
Anyone surprised? Anyone? ...
I also notice that this “Professor” is wearing an Arab “Kafiyeh” scarf headdress and it is black and white. Hmmmm, that would mean she is a supporter of the PLO/HAMAS.
Fresno State must really be desperate for instructors if they keep this walrus on its payroll. Fortunately, wise students won’t waste their parents’ money attending that deficient institution, and wise employers won’t hire its indoctrinated graduates.
The massive drop in donations & enrollments will tell them they are wrong.
“Professor” doesn’t mean shite these days.....they have NO credibility, nada, all destroyed by liberalism.
Lefties, Progressives, Dumbocraps are still transitioning......on the cusp of human evolution.
Still not recognizable......or acceptable.....as distinctly human.
This prof I assume walks upright?
Please alumni,
Refuse any and all contributions to this joke.
She “protected” her tweets after the outrage came out.Only approved followers can see her tweets now.If she’s so proud of her opinions and now knows she won’t be fired, will she un-protect her account now?
How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes
Establishing the line between protected speech and a federal hate crime can be challenging for prosecutors and courts and depends on the facts of each particular case. Here’s a look at how federal law treats hate speech:
WHAT DO FEDERAL LAWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?
The signature hate crime statute — the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act — makes it illegal to physically harm someone based on their race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation, among other characteristics.
DOESN’T THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW ME TO SAY WHATEVER I WANT?
To a large degree, yes. The First Amendment offers broad free speech protections and permits membership in organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that espouse hateful ideologies.
But while the Constitution gives latitude to hate speech and offensive rhetoric, court decisions in the last century have carved out notable — though narrow — exceptions to free speech guarantees and authorized prosecution for language deemed to fall out of bounds.
Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against those protections, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a riot.
A 1942 Supreme Court decision called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire — which involved a Jehovah’s Witness who cursed at a city marshal, calling him a “damned fascist” — articulated a “fighting words” doctrine that restricted insults intended to provoke an “immediate breach of the peace.”
ARE THREATS AGAINST THE LAW?
They certainly can be, but that depends on various factors. Determining what constitutes an actual threat — as opposed to a vague and far-off remark — is a tricky, fact-specific question.
In Virginia v. Black, a seminal 2003 Supreme Court decision on cross-burning, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor described “true threats” as statements in which “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
In other words, the more specific and immediate the threat, the more likely it’ll be regarded as illegal.
“It’s one thing to say, ‘Kill all the Jews,’ versus ‘Kill that Jew who was my kid’s school teacher who gave him an F,’” said James Weinstein, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University.
Justice Department officials say context matters greatly in such cases, making it hard to generalize too broadly. Hateful threats that the target interprets as a joke, or that are discussed among friends but not leveled at anyone in particular, likely would be harder to prosecute federally.
BOYCOTT FRESNO STATE!! There are MUCH better schools for your children, than this piece of garbage.
They shouldn’t punish her. The market should punish them all.
Of course not. It’s California and it’s academia. What a combination
Disgusting.
Hey, what if one of your tenured “professors” tweets the NWord as a “ private citizen”.?
Would the results be the same?
If Roger Stone lost a job over saying that Barbara Bush was a “...mean-spirited, vindictive drunk. She is ascending into hell right now. She’s not going to heaven. She was a bad person.”
This so-called professor should lose her job also.
Won’t someone at least punch that toad in the face?
And a Law Enforcement officer in Alabama was fired for social media posts criticizing Michelle Obama and BLM. These posts were made from his personal Facebook account. Double standard?
Perhaps we should let them know our thoughts on their decision?