Cal Professor who went on Barbara Bush 'racist' rant may not be saved by tenure, could lose job

[Amerikuracana]

Politics has rendered so many people retarded.

Bingo

 

[KnightTemplar]

I expect all of the conservative posters on here to jump to defend her freedom of speach baybay

Don't be silly. She's so fat and ugly, even Bill Clinton wouldn't fuck her. Therefor anything she says or does is utterly irrelevant

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Imagine entire schools and towns with people like this.

They exist. Full of the most rude, poorly mannered, arrogant people you can find.

 

[Bloodworth]

They exist. Full of the most rude, poorly mannered, arrogant people you can find.

I think your being gentle in your description

 

[sangreporsangre]

I don't care about this lady or her comments, or Barbara Bush for that matter, and I don't really feel bad for her. It's no different than someone losing their job for saying on social media that they don't believe in gay marriage or something like that. I don't support any kind of campaign to get someone fired for comments they make on their own time that doesn't have any bearing on their duties, but I understand that "callout culture" has been the paradigm that we all operate under for a while now. Side note, she seems like an absolutely terrible person.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

Tasteless and deserves being fired but she's not entirely wrong.

Two war criminals in the Bush family and a third dipshit named Jeb who tried the same but failed. Momma Bush deserves some of that blame.

To be fair, US President and War Criminal go hand in hand. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan.... all of them had hands on control of some pretty heinous shit. As will the next president. Part of the job these days.

 

[Lord Coke]

Interesting scenario where such comments would fall under the freedom of speech, but not free of consequences category. Typically the first consequence is losing your job for saying something profoundly stupid as she did.

The government here though is in fact her employer, so does that mean it is still freedom of speech so long as she isn't simply prosecuted for a crime? Or can there be no consequences whatsoever (such as a firing) because the public employer's hands are completely tied due to being a branch of government as opposed to a private company. Any Sherbro lawyers know if there's been a case precedent of this? @alanb ?

My thoughts are she's royally a cunt, but I guess so long as she doesn't spew this level of crap in her classroom (doubtful) I'd prefer there be no action other than the University condemning the words and making it very clear she does not in the slightest represent the school's views

I have never dealt with employment speech in actual practice THis is the test the courts use. I think it is a close call
http://www.landmark-publications.com/2015/03/garcetti-pickering-balancing-test.html
The Supreme Court has unequivocally rejected the notion that public employees forfeit their right to freedom of speech by virtue of their public employment. Pickering v. Bd. of Ed., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). However, the Court has also recognized that the State has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees. Id. When presented with these competing interests, courts are directed to "arrive at a balance between the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Id.Graziosi v. City of Greenville Mississippi, (5th Cir. 2015).

To determine whether the public employee's speech is entitled to protection, courts must engage in a two-step inquiry. See Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2378 (2014). The first step requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006). If the employee has spoken as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then a First Amendment claim may arise. Id. The second step of the inquiry requires determining "whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public." Id.; see also Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2380. Graziosi v. City of Greenville Mississippi, ibid.

For an employee's speech to be entitled to First Amendment protection, she must be speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418; see also Hurst v. Lee Cnty., Miss., ___ F.3d ___, No. 13-60540, 2014 WL 4109647, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014). Whether a statement is made as an employee or as a citizen is a question of law. Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, whether a statement addresses a matter of public concern is a question of law that must be resolved by the court. Salge, 411 F.3d at 184. Graziosi v. City of Greenville Mississippi, ibid.

Until the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti, public employees' First Amendment claims were governed by the public concern analysis and balancing test set out in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Garcetti, however, changed the law. . . . The Court held in Garcetti that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." Id. at 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Demers v. Austin, 746 F. 3d 402 (9th Cir. 2014).

The [] Garcetti/Pickering analysis governs First Amendment retaliation claims. See Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Acad., 492 F.3d 1192, 1202 (10th Cir.2007). This test comprises five elements:
(1) whether the speech was made pursuant to an employee's official duties; (2) whether the speech was on a matter of public concern; (3) whether the government's interests, as employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service are sufficient to outweigh the plaintiff's free speech interests; (4) whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action; and (5) whether the defendant would have reached the same employment decision in the absence of the protected conduct.Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294, 1302 (10th Cir.2009). The first three elements are issues of law for the court to decide, while the last two are factual issues typically decided by the jury. Id. But see Cypert v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-050 of Osage Cnty., 661 F.3d 477, 483-84 (10th Cir.2011) (affirming summary judgment for defendants where plaintiff could not meet evidentiary burden at the fourth step). Trant v. Oklahoma, 754 F. 3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2014).

Garcetti does not apply to "speech related to scholarship or teaching." Id. at 425, 126 S.Ct. 1951. Demers v. Austin, ibid.

[A]cademic employee speech not covered by Garcetti is protected under the First Amendment, using the analysis established in Pickering. The Pickering test has two parts. First, the employee must show that his or her speech addressed "matters of public concern." Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731; see Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Second, the employee's interest "in commenting upon matters of public concern" must outweigh "the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731; see Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1048 (6th Cir.2001); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 737 (6th Cir. 2000). Demers v. Austin, ibid.

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 54 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that interpret, analyze and apply the Garcetti-Pickering balancing test. The selection of decisions spans from 2010 to the date of publication.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Imagine entire schools and towns with people like this.

They exist. Full of the most rude, poorly mannered, arrogant people you can find.

 

[xcvbn]

To be fair, US President and War Criminal go hand in hand. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan.... all of them had hands on control of some pretty heinous shit. As will the next president. Part of the job these days.

It's not. They all could have avoided this label if they kept their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

 

[salamander]

To be fair, US President and War Criminal go hand in hand. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan.... all of them had hands on control of some pretty heinous shit. As will the next president. Part of the job these days.

I suppose that's why they all seem to age so rapidly by the end of their terms. I wonder how Trump would look if he wins again and goes another four years.

When I was young I watched Regan slowly deteriorate in front of the camera over the years. During the end I just felt sorry for him.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Her main issue was that they were white. So the retarded academic reasons really just provided cover for overt racism.

It's not just Jarrar. Humanities departments in most American universities are dens of racism.

Well tbh it usually is the white girls who are lame and cheesy about it. I make no apologies for that observation.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Well tbh it usually is the white girls who are lame and cheesy about it. I make no apologies for that observation.

I find there is a world of difference between racial correlation and racial causation. You dislike poor quality dancing and as an aside note a correlation to between white dancers and poor quality. I assume that you would be appeased if a white belly dancer improved her skills. She's angry that they are white, and thus implacable.

 

[lifelessheap]

I am curious, do you also find GHWB and GWB's respective(ly brutal) suppressions of labor organization and rapid upward distribution of wealth and power domestically to also be the stuff of terrible people?


It would seem to me that, if were redirect the lens toward domestic policy exclusively and away from foreign policy for the moment, GHWB is definitely the least terrible modern Republican and GWB is no less terrible than Reagan or Trump.

LoL.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

It's not. They all could have avoided this label if they kept their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

If I had to guess, sometimes it's a choice of upholding the Constitution or doing what you know deep down needs to be done. Does that absolve them of their decisions? No. But it may justify them in a disgusting way.

I suppose that's why they all seem to age so rapidly by the end of their terms. I wonder how Trump would look if he wins again and goes another four years.

When I was young I watched Regan slowly deteriorate in front of the camera over the years. During the end I just felt sorry for him.

Obama aged 40 years in the white house. You could tell the stress ate away at him badly. Bush Jr. didn't fair much better. Trump.... God only knows how he will look in the end.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I find there is a world of difference between racial correlation and racial causation. You dislike poor quality dancing and as an aside note a correlation to between white dancers and poor quality. I assume that you would be appeased if a white belly dancer improved her skills. She's angry that they are white, and thus implacable.

Actually to a certain extent it is the appropriation angle though I don't like using the term. As another example, consider this

Look how fucking stupid he's looks, its not unrelated to the fact that he has no serious roots or connection to the culture while trying to superficially engage in it. I'm not saying white people should never belly dance or wear traditional Indian clothing but when you're dipping your toes into the culture for superficial reasons it shows.

As an example look at G Willow Wilson, I don't agree with everything she says but she converted to Islam and married an Egyptian so she's not exactly dipping her toes into that culture. Not saying you have to go that far to appreciate Oriental culture but you should at least know what it is you're engaging with. Does anyone believe your average belly dancing white girl or Trudeau knows jackshit about these cultures?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Actually to a certain extent it is the appropriation angle though I don't like using the term. As another example, consider this

Look how fucking stupid he's looks, its not unrelated to the fact that he has no serious roots or connection to the culture while trying to superficially engage in it. I'm not saying white people should never belly dance or wear traditional Indian clothing but when you're dipping your toes into the culture for superficial reasons it shows.

As an example look at G Willow Wilson, I don't agree with everything she says but she converted to Islam and married an Egyptian so she's not exactly dipping her toes into that culture. Not saying you have to go that far to appreciate Oriental culture but you should at least know what it is you're engaging with. Does anyone believe your average belly dancing white girl or Trudeau knows jackshit about these cultures?

But Jarrar is saying that white women shouldn't be belly dancers. Her essay is notable in that it provides no avenue for improvement for white women who want to participate and she specifically attacks western women who move to Cairo and commit tot he culture. Her problem is explicitly racial. Can anyone make a serious argument that her article is not racist?

As far as culture goes, white girls are allowed to dip their toes into any culture they want. So are brown girls. Superficiality is always something mockable, but there is no prerequisite commitment to a culture required to belly dance or partake in any other cultural phenomenon or to appropriate that cultural phenomenon into your own culture. To me the cultural appropriation argument, which seems to have gone mainstream on the left, is the same kind of thing the alt right talks about, but one lionizes white people while the other lionizes POC.

 

[xcvbn]

If I had to guess, sometimes it's a choice of upholding the Constitution or doing what you know deep down needs to be done. Does that absolve them of their decisions? No. But it may justify them in a disgusting way.

I get that and the CIA operates under this code 99% of the time. Sometimes you have to take out that strongman who is secretly dissecting women and children or trafficking kids around the world, etc. The problem is that it becomes less understanding the more often the excuse is used. It's now not a matter of doing what they believe is the right thing- it's used so frequently that it's practically become part of the job. This is presenting a lot of issues for us currently and will only get worse without a complete 180 degree reversal.

 

[Islam Imamate]

But Jarrar is saying that white women shouldn't be belly dancers. Her essay is notable in that it provides no avenue for improvement for white women who want to participate and she specifically attacks western women who move to Cairo and commit tot he culture. Her problem is explicitly racial. Can anyone make a serious argument that her article is not racist?

Yeah that is silly and taking the argument too far. If you're going to make a serious commitment to learning it its one thing as opposed to belly dancing for the weekend because you think it makes you look exotic or whatever.

Would she say that Andre Raymond was some colonial scholar because he's a Frenchman and French scholarship on modern Egypt has a colonial tradition? Maybe but actual Egyptians scholars would scoff at that argument since Raymond is considered a giant in his sub-field of modern urban history in the Arab world.

As far as culture goes, white girls are allowed to dip their toes into any culture they want. So are brown girls. Superficiality is always something mockable, but there is no prerequisite commitment to a culture required to belly dance or partake in any other cultural phenomenon or to appropriate that cultural phenomenon into your own culture. To me the cultural appropriation argument, which seems to have gone mainstream on the left, is the same kind of thing the alt right talks about, but one lionizes white people while the other lionizes POC.

They're allowed to of course and I'm allowed to brutally mock them for it and I will make no apologies for that. I mean come on, sure Trudeau can wear whatever he wants when he visits India but don't you think he looked a little silly there?

 

[chubbman]

She seems like a horrible miserable cunt whose father should’ve pulled out. She should die and make the world a better place

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yeah that is silly and taking the argument too far.

It is silly. It's also overtly and obviously racist.

They're allowed to of course and I'm allowed to brutally mock them for it and I will make no apologies for that. I mean come on, sure Trudeau can wear whatever he wants when he visits India but don't you think he looked a little silly there?

Sure, I already said I have no problem with mockery of the superficial in general (and Trudeau in particular). But how far does the notion go that certain cultural phenomenon can only be appreciated if there is significant cultural assimilation beforehand?