If enough money goes away, so will this guy.

At this university. I hope prospective students will vote with their feet.

Having done so, now tell me why it's not Constitutionally protected.

Thanks.

Turning sexual assault of a female into some sort of male ritual of passage, I think qualifies as mysogynistic hate speech.

Don't you?

Rights, particularly where it is disruptive in educational settings. Here, the speaker advocates violence against women. Take a look at just one example of a university’s policy and you’ll see a clear violation.

“Illegal speech activity, not protected by the U.S. or California Constitutions or by this policy, includes speech that promotes actual violence or harm, constitutes criminal harassment, or words which by their very utterance would incite an immediate breach of the peace (“fighting words”).“ (Humboldt U policy).

Edited to add: I advocated prospective students’ voting with their feet. This is a perfectly reasonable expression of their free speech rights, to say nothing of their rights to choose any university at which to study. They have no obligation to enroll at a university where comments creating a hostile environment toward women or other groups are allowed with impunity. And donors have no obligation either. I think the provost will reconsider her position in the coming days.

For sure. It's not clear, regarding faculty members, what gets them fired and what does not get them fired. My position on that is "it's too soon to tell." The thread at Popehat goes into that.

Edited to add: I advocated prospective students’ voting with their feet.

Me too. If a lot of students come next year disguised as empty seats, they will be well within their rights.

Best wishes.

With all due apologies to any DUers who may profess "Business," my humble opinion is that this discipline does not belong in the academy. Sure, let's have plenty of Business Schools, but let's not pretend that this has anything to do with what ideally ought to be the goals and values of university studies. Again, I don't mean to offend. Just my personal view.

It's completely foreign to my psyche. It's unimaginable that a person could truly believe such horrifying, reality-defying nonsense.

It's a complicated issue.

An imbecile named Mitchell Langbert, employed (possibly as a prank) by Brooklyn College, wrote a strivingly douchey blog post. Can he be fired, as many urge? A mini-lawsplainer. /1

Link to tweet

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/us/brooklyn-college-professor-kavanaugh-comments-protests/index.html



"To have someone in a position of power espousing sexual assault is not a joke. It's something that needs to be taken seriously," she said.
She has organized a protest for 12:30 p.m. on Thursday.

Langbert, a 64-year-old associate professor who teaches on weekends, said the post was parody, and he apologized to anyone who was offended.


"I was trying to be satirical, but I guess I'm no Jonathan Swift," he said, referring to the Irish author from the 1700s. "I appreciated that it may have been in bad taste and I have apologized for that and I will again. I'm sorry people got offended. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or cause them to not feel respected. I honestly didn't expect them to read it."

He said he has turned over threats of violence toward him to authorities.

That his "avatar", such as it is. This is Mitchell Langbert (left), courtesy his blog:

This guy, however, is only 64 (same as me). Scalia was 80 when he died.

Chins up, there, Mr. Virility!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On this right. For example, you can’t threaten a President’s life. You can’t engage in speech that is unduly disruptive in educational settings. You can’t tell sexist or racist jokes that create or maintain a hostile work environment. You can’t slander a colleague.

On edit —

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

So yes, it's a "division" of the government.

It's a seven-part thread.

Let us return, reluctantly, to Mitchell Langbert, the imbecile Brooklyn College prof whose First Amendment rights I talked about yesterday.

He wants to talk about satire.

/1

Link to tweet