Stacy,

I am a college professor and if I made such remarks, I will expect some sort of disciplinary action. I also teach public law.

I would not expect outright firing, re Pickering v. Board of Education,391 U.S. 563 (1968) would be constitutional but it could be a factor for tenure and promotion and performance reviews–eg collegiality is one of the standard criteria.

What any disciplinary action need to follow is content neutral–eg. time, place, and manner instead of content regulation. Thus, the use of obscenities, the identification with the University, violent threats against NRA members, could all be viewed as unprofessional and impair his relationship with students (actual and potential). It would still be rolling the dice whether a court would agree with any University’s disciplinary action that adversely affected Loomis’s property or liberty interests.

His property interest depends on his contractual rights which is probably quite extensive in Rhode Island and may involve union membership. The liberty interest analysis requires the court to determine whether the speech is protected (my guess would be yes as the debate was on a matter of public importance and did not involve disruption of the work environment relationship with his immediate supervisors). A lawyer that specializes in Rhode Island law and university administrative law would be able to shed further light on Loomis.

Those are good points. We can an must continue exposing these people for the violent rhetoric.

What they are doing now is exactly the same thing as those Palestinian children whose parents train them to get in the faces of Israeli soldiers, trying to incite them to respond.

The proper response is to spread the video, spread the evidence that shows this execrable behavior for exactly what it is. You won’t convince a Palestinian mother that it’s bad behavior for her kids to engage in these tactics at their behest. Neither will you convince a lot of University faculty that the Loomis approach is bad in any way. Those are what we call lost causes.

The reason to do it is to live by principles, and explain them, without relying on tepid words; to make it known that this behavior is unacceptable in the public square—even though it may qualify as protected speech. After all, our responses are also protected, so we have no reason to pretend that a moderate approach is of any use here. These violence-inciting professors are going to get people killed.

I see no reason to respect the academic or intellectual integrity of a “professor” who cannot tell the difference between “metaphor” and “hyperbole.”

The only “historical dildo” in this conversation is Loomis himself.

You are not as highly educated as me, when it comes to historic dildos. Are you challenging me?

Why do hate dildos!

Mighty big words from the guy whose mod bans people everyday….Meade was able to post hundreds of comments at LGM before being shown the door. Most “dissent” on this site is blocked and deleted after one comment.

Hypocrisy much?

Mighty heavy reliance on moral equivalence from a guy who sounds like he’s actually familiar with this blog.

I’d wager the bannings here are much lower than the bannings there, by a long shot.

I did speculate earlier this week that Prof. Dildo might have spent some quality time in the Dean’s office trying to explain why the University’s switchboard was lighting up and not from alums offering end of year donations.

Wow, y’all deleted my matter-of-fact, this-is-why-Meade-chose-to-be-banned statement. You really can’t brook criticism, can you?

I saw that post. There was lots of O/T ramblings that you let stand. So yeah, you get the blame. With knobs on.

(EDIT: You do realize, I assume, that when a person who disagrees with the politics of a site shows up, he or she receives far more responses than the average person, and so will often reply to most of them. This generates a high volume of comments from that one person. So your making a point of 50 is silly. Are you afraid the internet will run out of space or something?)

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, Robert. We have plenty of trolls, conservative and libertarian alike, and we allow them to have their say so long as they remain on topic. If they’re one-note trolls who write about the same issue in every comment on every post, that’s a problem and we deal with it. You’re turning a practical issue into a political one. The only message I’m promoting here is “stay on topic,” which you’ll note I’m doing.

Of course I like discussions of lumberjack camps while watching Breaking Bad. But that is just me.

“I’ll have you know that this large one here was used by Catherine de Medici, you lout! Good DAY, sir!”

If you are not already familiar with SEK I’d advise you to not waste your time. You will certainly not have an honest discussion.

” A lawyer that specializes in Rhode Island law and university administrative law would be able to shed further light on Loomis.” So, I expect, would a can of Raid and a Bic lighter…

“When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.”

Barump ump. Well played, RSM.

Amen, Warren

No, I didn’t. It’s further down the comment stream, as you might have noticed if you were as intent on truth as you are on being butthurt over our neo-Hunnish comment policy.

It’s worth stating that there is a case to be made for the freedom of academics to take unpopular views. In Loomis’ case it becomes a matter of defending the right of academics to be outrageous assholes without consequences.

The only “American empire” is the one where Spock has a beard.