We don't have a thread devoted to academic freedom, the tenure system, and the First Amendment. Although I'm sure this thread will eventually get locked, it's an appropriate subject for discussion, so we might as well give it a shot.

As a starting point, I'll offer the ongoing shitshow at the University of Indiana. Eric Rasmusen is a tenured professor of business and economics at the university. He recently tweeted an article (not written by him) titled "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." He pulled the following line from the article: "geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness."

In the past, he apparently has stated:

Not surprisingly, a lot of people have called for his dismissal. The university has harshly condemned his views but has taken the position that it cannot fire him without violating the First Amendment. Rather than fire Rasmusen, the University has instituted various measures that seem like a firewall of sorts. For example, no student is required to take classes with Rasmusen. And Rasmusen must follow some sort of double blind protocol when grading students.

Here is an article describing the situation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educa...e-this-my-god/

The University of Pennsylvania Law School has had a similar ongoing saga with a professor named Amy Wax. Wax has said inflammatory things about immigrants, among other groups.

What is the appropriate university response in situations like this?

I think you should acknowledge that you are not quoting things he said; rather you are quoting someone else accusing him of making such statements on social media; which I find a little suspect and bizarre because if that is the case where are the social media posts in question?

It isn't clear to me that article has an actual real quote of anything he has actually said or written.

Let me show you how this is supposed to work:





Here is an actual quote of a tenured UC Davis professor saying something "controversial' that caused some uproar in conservative media circles, although it wasn't much of a big deal to the MSM and the UC system for ideological reasons. And it is an actual quote of something he actually tweeted, not hearsay deceptively reported to look like a quote.

Here is another actual real tweet a tenured professor actually wrote that got some play in conservative media, although again the MSM and the University itself weren't too interested:

Also, I think me showing professor speech that I am sure the "wokegentsia" find perfectly acceptable but conservatives would call for the professor to be fired, should indicate why maybe the First Amendment is more important than you think it is; because maybe you won't always be on the side making the decisions who gets their speech suppressed and who doesn't.

I thought the statement from the university provost was quite good: https://provost.indiana.edu/statements/index.html

First, I am not "accusing" him of anything. I explicitly was referring to an article from the Washington Post that was the source for everything in my original post. In no respect did I mischaracterize the article.

Second, those statements were attributed to Rasmusen by Laura Robel, the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Indiana, in the University's official statement on this issue. The full text of the Provost's statement was in the article that I linked in my original post. I would be quite surprised if she is making stuff up in that statement. In any case, I have no intention of wading through years of Rasmusen's posts on social media to verify the accuracy of Robel's statement. If you want to do that, go ahead.

Third, I was using the story as a starting point for a discussion about how these sorts of situations should be handled. In that context, it doesn't even matter whether Robel's statement is accurate because the example is merely illustrative. Consider it a hypothetical if it makes you feel better.

That is hearsay. Where are the offensive posts the provost is referring to? Is this the first time in the history of the internet social media posts have been successfully erased?

Before we start judging how we should punish someone for speech, shouldn't we at least see the speech? Maybe he did say those things, maybe he didn't. I don't know.

Are we supposed to just accept hearsay like this? Especially when the charges are concerning social media posts that should be easily found and referenced?

I find this whole moral panic we are in so bizarre, because so often the crime doesn't even fit the charge, and no-one even seems to notice or care.

This statement was included verbatim in the article I linked to in my OP.

The most compelling way of seen this argument put forward was probably by Ken White (née @popehat), in an interview for Above the Law

My bad. I was excited. :P

One would think this is something the Washington Post journalist should have done. And yes, I absolutely think you should verify hearsay that should be so easily verified before you start making judgment.

As far as believing this person just because she is a provost, I have seen way too many figures of authority (especially our current President and his general counsel) say completely untrue things that I am not going to just assume someone is telling the truth, especially when it comes to matters of ideology.

I have no reason to doubt the provost is telling the truth, and this isn't a trial. When I said I thought the statement was good, I was also in large part referring to the parts about protecting speech as well.

Not your bad.

Rococco made the post to make it appear those were the professors quotes, not the provosts. Unless you carefully read the article yourself, you wouldn't notice this.

I will give Rococco the benefit of the doubt this wasn't intentional.

Where are the social media posts where the professor actually said those things?

I don't see how we can even have an honest conversation about how Universities should treat specific incidents of speech, with nothing but hearsay.

Ironically, I showed actual speech that caused some calls for termination on conservative social media. I assume you think in those cases the Universities appropriately handled the situation by saying the professor has tenure and the right to say what they want, and it doesn't represent the University?

It's obviously a liberal conspiracy, because absolutely, definitely no links were supplied in the media coverage.

Seems like even if you treated it entirely as a hypothetical it wouldn't change the conversation much.

Yes.

If it helps, here is Rasmussen's response. It seems that even he is unwilling to wade through his social media accounts. I'm not convinced that all of his characterizations and clarifications of his positions are helpful to his side of the argument. For example, he says:

http://www.rasmusen.org/special/2019...le/provost.htm

Given what you quoted this appears to be quite the understatement.

Everyone his hiding the quotes bro. It's a conspiracy.

Give me a break. If I had been trying to mislead anyone, I wouldn't have linked the exact article. And you don't have to read the article "carefully" to understand the source of the bullet points.

That was the one actual quote in the article. I will eagerly await your detective work to find the quotes that support what the Provost is accusing him of. Maybe she is telling the truth, maybe she isn't? I really don't know. But I will withhold judgment until I see the posts with my own eyes. I think the current episode with our own Executive branch should cause some worry about believing a figure of authority is telling the truth just because they have a fancy title, especially when it comes to hot button ideological social topics.

So we have exactly one piece of evidence. Based on this one actual piece of evidence, should Indiana be censoring him the way they are? Should they be taking it further and trying to terminate him?

Hahahahhahah

No wonder Kelhus is super concerned for the well being of this guy. This guy is Kelhus IRL.

On this specific issue, I agree. On the third point, he more or less repeats the traditional GOP reasons for opposing affirmative action, which I'm sure Kelhus thinks are less inflammatory than the position the Provost attributes to him.

In any case, I'm quite satisfied that I've fulfilled my obligations as the original poster. I have now linked both the Provost's statement and Rasmusen's response.