War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 823
  • Views: 26K
  • Politics 
Nothing she did was remotely illegal. Rule of law is not implicated here. At most it is an employment dispute. But seeing as how she is teaching at a state school, she has First Amendment rights to say these things, and tenure protections as well.

Nothing will happen to her, because nothing should happen to her because she's done nothing wrong.
I didn't say anything would or should happen to her. I'm saying it's expected that many liberal universities will find ways to work around the SCOTUS ruling because the ruling conflicts with their world view.
 
I didn't say anything would or should happen to her. I'm saying it's expected that many liberal universities will find ways to work around the SCOTUS ruling because the ruling conflicts with their world view.
Except she's not working around anything. The Scotus ruling does not remotely apply here. Not going to play front hand, back hand with you any more.
 
Except she's not working around anything.
She's also not working, 'cause she got fired.
The Scotus ruling does not remotely apply here. Not going to play front hand, back hand with you any more.
True, it's not related to SCOTUS (admissions ruling) it's related to Trump's EO, and the NC Board of Governors order.

As I said, it's all about circumventing the rules when the rules conflict with your world view... and she got caught!
 
True, it's not related to SCOTUS (admissions ruling) it's related to Trump's EO, and the NC Board of Governors order.

As I said, it's all about circumventing the rules when the rules conflict with your world view... and she got caught!
Neither of those is a source of law. Neither lay down any rules. She did nothing at all wrong. If she got fired, she will win in court if she sues.
 
She was fired by afternoon. She was not a tenured person nor did she teach. She had been employed at UNCA since 2017.
 
She was fired by afternoon. She was not a tenured person nor did she teach. She had been employed at UNCA since 2017.
Seems like retaliation for protected speech but the environment complicates the analysis and it would depend on specific facts, I think.
 

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump’s retribution campaign​



“As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they’re winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association.

Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official’s alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, “cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

A year later, the court’s decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump’s attacks on them.

“Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,” said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case.…”
 
This is now a UNC System challenge.
It must be wonderful to have a job where you know there is a large number of obsessed nuts whose sole goal is to get you fired and destroy your career, and who are spending their free time (which they have a lot of, apparently) going through every video, email, photo, social media post, and everything else you've ever done trying to prove that you support such heinous crimes as promoting diversity, fairness, and equity in the workplace and in education. The people doing this are literally wicked.
 
Last edited:
Accuracy In Media dot Org is the group behind this...here they try hard to make things easy.

 
Well, it’s retaliation - that’s pretty clear.
Yes, but there's also a government speech doctrine that allows for some viewpoint discrimination. That's why administrators don't have as robust free speech protections as faculty. The faculty are not understood to be speaking for the state. An administrator at a state university might be so deemed.

That's why I say it depends on specific facts whether she can win -- namely, the specific facts as to the extent to which her communications on the job can be attributed to the government.
 
Accuracy In Media dot Org is the group behind this...here they try hard to make things easy.

If your group thinks that diversity and equity are "radical" and "divisive" then it does indeed say everything one needs to know about your group. In another era they would proudly plaster "white supremacy" or "whites only" across the top of their communiques.
 
If your group thinks that diversity and equity are "radical" and "divisive" then it does indeed say everything one needs to know about your group. In another era they would proudly plaster "white supremacy" or "whites only" across the top of their communiques.

They got a code.
 
Who needs government interference, when the universities are partaking in the abuse?



In one incident from July 2024, Walker took pictures of several men he suspected were following him. One began walking with a limp across an outdoor campus gathering area during a protest over events in Bangladesh. Walker said the man loudly screamed that Walker was making fun of disabled people, and accused him of planning to post video to YouTube. Walker told the Guardian he was not certain at the time that the man was trailing him, so he felt badly about the accusation.


In early August, video captured by Walker and shared with the Guardian shows Walker approaching another person who had been recording him from a car. It turned out to be the same man from the Bangladesh protest. The video shows the man acting as thought he is deaf and mute, pretending to use sign language and speaking in an impeded manner. He then starts speaking in a normal voice, and, in an apparent attempt to insult Walker, suggests Walker is a special educational needs student.

In an email, a spokesperson said the university “does not condone or tolerate any behavior by employees or contractors that demeans individuals or communities, including those with disabilities. The comment referenced in the video does not reflect the university’s values or expectations for respectful conduct.”

A few minutes later, Walker walks behind the man, overhearing him telling another investigator that Walker had figured out who he was. The investigator, who is white, then starts screaming that Walker, who is black, was attempting to assault him. “He wants my wallet!” the investigator screams. Walker also captured this incident on video and shared it with the Guardian.
 
If your group thinks that diversity and equity are "radical" and "divisive" then it does indeed say everything one needs to know about your group. In another era they would proudly plaster "white supremacy" or "whites only" across the top of their communiques.
In another era? We are living that right now- it’s coming.
 
Back
Top