Why does this FAU professor still have a job?

Is the argument that the employers of James Tracy shouldn't be pressured until there's a bright line test on to decide what professorial behavior is worthy of pressuring the employers over?

Is that the bill before the legislature?

 

That's not the subject here. The subject is James Tracy. Everything else is irrelevant.
Now if you think what James Tracy has written is abhorrent and there should be some consequences, fine.
If you care to make the case that reasonable people could look at his claims and think he has a point, I disagree, but go ahead, be my guest.
If you think the Pozners are public figures and should understand that these kind of vile attacks go with the territory, you can debate that, too.
But we're not talking about other professors. We're talking about James Tracy.

 

Well, you are, at least.

 

Jeb and Marco don't want to piss off the base.

 

Am I supposed to pretend that this deserves a more thoughtful response than this?

I guess I'll try, lest I be accused of being mean and making personal attacks.

Small, I'm not going to object if this guy gets fired. I'd be fine with it.

In fact, it would certainly be liberals who would be more concerned with the unintended consequences of such an action.

What you fail to understand is that if you want to fire someone for abhorrent/hateful speech, you need a standard by which you define what is abhorrent/hateful speech. You also need to appoint people who will determine what meets that standard. You also must be careful that simple political speech with which you disagree with does not get lumped in with such speech.

Absent such standards, I'm not sure how you just fire a guy like this. If you do, what's to protect the next guy, who says something less abhorrent in your eyes, but is judged to be abhorrent/hateful in the eyes of someone else now empowered to fire someone without due process?

And, look, I think such a system should exist to get rid of folks like this and/or prevent them from getting tenure.

But, again, it's going to be liberals who have a harder time putting such definitions in place. We can't even get liberals here to tell us how they would define a "radical Muslim".

 

He's just asking questions.

 

It's not hateful speech. It's libelous.

 

Honest question:

Are death certificates public record?

 

If you are willing to believe that the CIA or Kenyan Intelligence doctored the birth records in Hawaii, to the point of sneaking a birth announcement of your intended sleeper agent into the paper decades before he declared for election, how hard is it to believe in fake death certificates?

 

We haven't heard much from the birthers since he released the certificate, though.

It seems like it would be easy for a paper or online journalist to thoroughly debunk the Sandy Hook truthers once and for all.

 

You think it's easy to debunk irrational people?