
Can a State University Fire a Professor for Being an Ass on Twitter? - raleighm
https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/18/lawsplainer-can-a-state-university-fire-a-professor-for-being-an-ass-on-twitter/
======
coldtea
Even if it can, it shouldn't and it shouldn't be able to.

People should be allowed to have private lives and opinions, outside of what
they fucking make for a living.

Also, can people stop overreacting for mere words? And can they also
understand that anybody can have a bad day and do write something stupid --
doesn't mean there should be repercussions that affect the rest of their live,
like making them unhireable or firing them...

~~~
amp108
She also told people to contact her, and gave out the schools counseling
hotline number instead of her real one. She deliberately messed with the
school and dragged them into her personal conflict. Why shouldn't they fire
her, if they can, in that case?

~~~
coldtea
Because in the end, nothing too great happened.

And people can do all kinds of BS.

Doesn't mean they're condemned to it for live. Or that they don't deserve
second and third chances.

The Old Testament "eye for an eye" responses just lead to worse outcomes.

~~~
amp108
> Because in the end, nothing too great happened

She fake-doxxed another school's crisis hotline, made that resource
unavailable to students who needed it; she embarrassed her school and forced
the administration to issue a statement when they had better things to do.

> Or that they don't deserve second and third chances.

If she's fired, she has as many chances as she wants to apply to a school that
wants to risk having to clean up after her irresponsible bullshit.

~~~
coldtea
> _She fake-doxxed another school 's crisis hotline, made that resource
> unavailable to students who needed it;_

Did she? Did many people really called that crisis hotline because of her, and
to the point of making it "unavailable"?

And was that resource so needed in the first place that making it unavailable
for some hours would be some kind of disaster (most schools don't have any
kind of "crisis hotline" around the world and they manage just fine).

> _she embarrassed her school and forced the administration to issue a
> statement when they had better things to do._

Yeah, that's what I was referring to by "nothing much".

> _If she 's fired, she has as many chances as she wants to apply to a school
> that wants to risk having to clean up after her irresponsible bullshit._

And that's what I called by not giving chances and Old Testament mentality.
Perhaps some people enjoy their society being the #1 in incarcerations in the
world, or treating anybody who doesn't fit a clean cut profile as a pariah,
and having all kinds of people who where not given a chance and ended up
mentally unstable (and/or going postal every week or so). Because that's how
societies end up with that.

What happened to a scolding, and a promise to not do that kind of thing again?
No, it's "straight to the unemployable line you go..."

~~~
amp108
> Did she? Did many people really called that crisis hotline because of her,
> and to the point of making it "unavailable"?

The article implies that it did. Even if it didn't, saying that it's okay is
like saying it's okay to drive recklessly, as long as you don't hit anyone;
it's not.

> And was that resource so needed in the first place

Ask that to someone who uses it. Mental health is a real problem for some
students, but I guess some people don't care about that.

> And that's what I called by not giving chances and Old Testament mentality.

I don't know what "Old Testament" has anything to do with it. She flaunted the
fact that she wouldn't face consequences (or so she be believed), so it looks
like consequences are how she thinks, too.

> Perhaps some people enjoy their society being the #1 in incarcerations in
> the world...

This entire paragraph is blowing smoke.

> What happened to a scolding, and a promise to not do that kind of thing
> again?

That kind of thing is for children. This woman is an adult, and should already
know what adult behavior is like. And if you're so concerned about
unemployment, realize that there is someone else out there looking for a
teaching job, who knows how to act like a grown-up, who will happily fill the
opening.

------
gringoDan
Great analysis of the oft-misinterpreted First Amendment.

------
madengr
Nothing new. This guy was suspended for his NRA comments:

[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/23/u-kansas-
prof...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/23/u-kansas-professor-
suspended-after-anti-nra-tweet)

------
mc32
My opinion would be this: you should be able to express yourself as a private
citizen any which way you want, withinn the law.

However, once you're doing it while representing your employer, you're no
longer free to go beyond expected conduct.

For example, on twitter if you're janeschmoe, tweet whatever you want, but if
you're janeschmoeUSC bio: professor at USC, then you're on your own, i.e. not
protected, because you're invoking your employer in your bio.

And this would not be protected simply by obscurity, but rather because your
private twitter does not invoke your employer in anyway. Well, so long as you
keep your private twitter persona sanitized from any association with your
employer.

~~~
mattbierner
Two questions on this:

\- What if @janeschmoe mostly tweets about USC and her work there? Even if
they are not officially saying, “this is an official twitter account of a USC
professor”, her activity could cause people to think the account is official

\- Does merely mentioning your employer cross the line? Not mentioning this
could also be kind of sketchy if, for instance, @janeschmoe starts tweeting
“USC has the best professors!!!”

(Totally just asking for a friend)

~~~
mc32
This will look like a cop out but I would say keep things sanitized. Don't
commingle official and private opinions.

Just as let's say a chiropractor should not date their patients. To keep
things simple as posdible and limit repercussions, fence your personae
properly.

------
amp108
She presented the school's student counseling number as her own contact #.
That could and should land her in hot water with her employers, state employee
or not.

------
protomyth
_If you think that this structure creates an incentive to react disruptively
to speech, in order to supply a basis for a professor to be fired, you 'd be
right. If you think that schools might lie about the amount of disruption,
you'd be right._

The Heckler's Veto can extend a long ways so be careful.

------
lvspiff
Aren't California Professors at-will employees? Couldn't they just fire the
employee and say "they were no longer needed" and leave it at that?

~~~
mikeash
At will means you can be terminated for no reason, but not for _any_ reason.
Stating that it was for no reason doesn’t make it so.

~~~
pron
What do you mean by no reason?

~~~
s73v3r_
The employer opts not to say why the person is being fired, just that they are
being fired.

------
qntty
No mention of tenure? Looks like Jarrar is probably tenured, meaning the bar
is much higher than for a regular government employee.

~~~
5555624
She is tenured. She brings it up in one of the tweets: “I work as a tenured
professor. I make 100K a year doing that. I will never be fired. I will always
have people wanting to hear what I have to say.”

I'm always amused when these type of people tweet something offensive and
stand by it; but, immediately make their Twitter account private. (I can tweet
something very offensive, but don't be mean to me.)

------
s73v3r_
Being an ass on Twitter is one thing, but being an ass on Twitter and sending
those upset with you to the school's suicide prevention hotline is beyond the
pale.

~~~
TheRealPomax
but not beyond the law, so an analysis that completely ignores "who was the
biggest ass" and instead focuses on what laws apply to this situation, and to
which degree interpretation can be extended, is most refreshing.

~~~
s73v3r_
And the conclusion was that the person in question could be disciplined, or
even fired for the suicide hotline stunt.

~~~
TheRealPomax
The conclusion of the article is quite intentionally left off because even
after that analysis, it turns out that the law isn't like programming (as the
article literally points out) and even after looking at what the law, and
judicial reason, allows for, there is no clear cut answer here. There are too
many grey areas for there to be "one conclusion".

And of course the conclusion in court in cases like these is, as it should be:
the judge's decision based on all the information surfaced during the trial to
help them reach their decision.

------
stevenwoo
OK, not a lawyer but this seemed good so I read a couple of other posts and it
appears he got something _really_ wrong on the possibility of Trump being
indicted entry.

[https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/04/what-it-means-that-
trump-...](https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/04/what-it-means-that-trump-is-
only-a-subject/)

Mueller won't indict Trump because he follows the rules and the Justice
Department reaffirmed an internal rule in 2000 that they will never indict the
President. It's not in the Constitution explicitly as he writes but it's never
mentioned in his discussion but several commenters note the omission.

~~~
kbenson
I think if you're at the point where you're willing to say a person _will_ or
_will not_ do something because of some institutional rule when their job is
also to uphold the law and the constitution, and there may indeed be conflicts
in what their priorities are _as they see them_ , you've become far too lost
in the weeds.

Mueller is a person, not a state machine. Let's not act like we can completely
predict the future here, especially given the dearth of information we have
compared to him.

