Monceau

I didn’t catch what they said about the #1 sign Mahomes was holding up. Anyone catch that?

Here’s what’s scary about this, in my mind. There are only two options in regards to her comments:

(1) She doesn’t actually think the Kirk Memorial was a Nazi rally, and is therefore intentionally using speech that she not only knows to be untruthful, but could incite violence.

(2) She DOES actually think the Kirk Memorial was a Nazi rally. This is the less perverse but more concerning of the two options, as I imagine most people would agree it would have been morally tolerable to have killed Nazis in the lead up to WW2 (had you known what they’d eventually be up to).

So, which is it with these people? Do they not really believe that which they say, or worse, do they? And what’s the limit on acceptable actions one can take against people who are the personification of mass genocide?

quote:

---

I saw her at the convention. she is a lawyer that tried too hard. now her hack self has fully come out.

---

I think you’re referring to Laura Coates. Abby Phillip isn’t a lawyer.

The only thing that makes Abby’s show bearable is the fact it’s a roundtable format so you don’t have to listen to her talk the whole time.

Laura Coates is just unlikeable and adds nothing of value to the political discourse. And that’s coming from someone who consumes a lot of new and legacy media from across the spectrum. To me, she’s the equivalent of eating a bag of lettuce for dinner.

I listened to that whole episode. I’d never really heard Billy Corgan talk shop before. He seems like a great dude.

What is “LSWIS?”

I don’t know why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp. What I’ve concluded is that they do grasp it, but nonetheless use the ideological monopoly on campuses as cover to intentionally mislead.

They are no different than a UFC fighter who uses his remarkable strength and skill to pick fights with unsuspecting people at bars. They know their power, and ignore any responsibility not to abuse it.

Given all the recent firings, and introspection by some on the right around whether this is any different from the left's "cancel culture," I thought it would be interesting to look at LSU's policies and procedures as a discussion framework.

LSU Policy Statement 15 – Academic Freedom, Free Speech, and Tenure – and Permanent Memorandum 79 – Freedom of Speech and Expression – govern the university’s stance towards free speech and its limits (whether said limits are legally defined or institutionally-imposed). Both documents start where they should, with the fullest degree of protection for free speech and expression. Permanent Memorandum 79 says it is not the proper role of the university to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, “including, without limitation, ideas and opinions [the university] finds unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

However, they go on to express how freedom of speech and academic freedom are related, while articulating certain limits on speech that is allowed. Policy Statement 15 says that "free speech is related to academic freedom in the sense academic freedom allows for debate and discussion of competing or unpopular ideas within a discipline. However, individuals should be aware that they may be accountable for the context and words that are used."

Policy Statement 15 also clarifies that speech that is allowable by LSU’s faculty may be more narrowly tailored than the broad free speech rights granted by the First Amendment: “As members of the LSU community, professors have the rights and obligations of other citizens, but as scholars and educational officers, faculty members should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances and their actions, including those on social media.”

As such, it’s worth digging into certain actions that may justify termination or suspension. Within Policy Statement 15, it mentions that “LSU community members are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner appropriate to their position, with respect for the rights, views, and opinions of others.”

Permanent Memorandum 79 says that “the freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish.” It also delineates certain prohibited activities, including “provocations with fighting words or incitements to engage in immediate violence” and “threats which demonstrate a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Celebrating Charlie Kirk’s killing could easily be defined as falling beyond the “civil manner” with which faculty are expected to conduct themselves. It certainly doesn’t involve “respect for the rights, views, and opinions of others.” Further, given the attack occurred on a college campus by someone of typical college age (22), it arguably wouldn’t be “appropriate to their position” as professors to glorify or dismiss the actions which led to Kirk’s death.

There may be some exception that is applicable if the professor were to clearly indicate he or she is speaking in his or her capacity as an individual. Policy Statement 15 says, “In all instances of broadcasting a personal opinion, it is incumbent on the faculty member to clearly indicate that the opinion is personal and that they are not speaking as an institutional spokesperson. However, this does not decrease the responsibility and accountability that the faculty member bears to the governing board, the system, the state, and the nation. As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have an obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom and free speech. Views expressed by individuals in their university position should be defensible by discipline, scientific, and ethical standards.”

Thus, making incendiary comments over a beer at a bar is likely distinguishable from making them on a social media platform which includes association with their employer.

Discuss.

quote:

---

Isn't it pretty odd that it turned SSW this late in the season?

---

That was one wild course reversal.

Where’d he say that?

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.