Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=ddeemo;64469741]So you are saying it would be ok/free speech to "teach" anything - ricist, biblical, creationism, white supremacist or pedophile views doesn't matter - what happened to even microaggressions being a nono or does it only go one way? /QUOTE]
Well, just today you can see that there are no calls for the teacher to be fired or for the passage of a new law:
Quote:
Local lawmakers said they are set to meet with the president of the University of Illinois about allegations of racist teachings at UIC's College of Dentistry. In a letter to the school, Congressman Danny Davis, Congresswoman Robin Kelly and State Rep. LaShawn Ford said they received several complaints from students.
The allegations include accusations that one professor used a racial slur and asked about a student of color's "natural hair," and that racist imagery is used in class, including a picture of someone with a noose around the neck.
But that's not the history of blacks in America, is it? While you deflect.
The poster I replied to was insinuated I wouldn't want blacks involved in the slave trade accurately portrayed in history. I agree pretty much non-existent in the US, I believe he was referring to Africa.
When Nazi's persecuted the Jews (according to some historians) who did that? People with 'white' skin tone. Who defeated the Nazi's and rescued the Jews? People with 'white' skin tone.
Every group of every skin tone has done some atrocity. And also some good things. Teach that if you teach anything.
Free speech guarantees only restrict the government, not private employers.
Not at all true and you completely missed the point - there is no "free speech guarantee" it is a right, not a guarantee. The restrictions are not only on government either, there are restrictions on individuals also.
The state, as an employer, is not subject to different restrictions than a private employer - they have the ability to control what is said at work - they can fire someone for not following work rules or teaching different things - a worker cannot teach things such as creationism or racist views. The state can restrict conduct and speech at work but cannot restrict what they do while not at work, just like any employer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
Maybe the subject matter (like physics) but not expression of opinions. That's 'thought crime' out of "1984".
If you read the opinion, you will see just how the state was violating the Constitution.
Again really not true - it is not a different standard because it is a different course - every thing could be subject to "opinion" - whether physics or philosophy. The law is flawed but the ruling is flawed also - the bottom line is that the state, as an employer, does have the right to restrict what is taught.
Not at all true and you completely missed the point - there is no "free speech guarantee" it is a right, not a guarantee. The restrictions are not only on government either, there are restrictions on individuals also.
It is well known that for a violation of the First Amendment, 'state action' is a requirement; not that of an individual.
Quote:
The state action requirement refers to the requirement that in order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue over a law being violated, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the*government (local, state, or federal), was responsible for the violation, rather than a private actor.
The state, as an employer, is not subject to different restrictions than a private employer - they have the ability to control what is said at work - they can fire someone for not following work rules or teaching different things - a worker cannot teach things such as creationism or racist views.
You just plop that statement. It is wrong as to the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
The state can restrict conduct and speech at work but cannot restrict what they do while not at work, just like any employer.
How many fire department prohibit workers smoking off the job?
Quote:
Is it reasonable for states, or local fire departments and rescue squads, to prohibit employees from smoking, even when they are not on duty? Some would say no, arguing that such a ban is an unreasonable intrusion into the private lives of firefighters. The Massachusetts court concluded that the answer is yes, it is reasonable, because smoking at any time has a financial impact in the form of increased risk of disability retirement payments.
really not true - it is not a different standard because it is a different course - every thing could be subject to "opinion" - whether physics or philosophy. The law is flawed but the ruling is flawed also - the bottom line is that the state, as an employer, does have the right to restrict what is taught.
As to college level courses, the courts disagree with you. You again plop a statement. What basis do you have for it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
