8/25/2011: Tickets here. Stefan Verbano of the RG explains the pros and cons. UO spokesperson Phil Weiler on the dispute:
“Free speech is central to the academic mission of any university, and
we want to let anyone on both sides of this issue to have their say,”
Weiler said.
Nice. I can’t remember the last time I heard that from the UO administration. OK, it was never. Any bets on how quickly they will give it up when things really get controversial? Very quickly. Last year the Commentator quoted our Dean of Students Paul Shang as saying:
Canada has limitations of speech. England, Israel, all kinds of democratic countries have different perspectives on unbridled speech. That is something that may become more of an issue as our country evolves.
As our country evolves to ….?
Kilkenny told us he’d get the Stones to play if we lent him the $200 million. And instead we got the circus and Michael Jackson? Isn’t he dead?
UO Matters: In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court put to rest the quaint notion that the U.S. Constitution restricts government from supervising the speech of their employees:
“when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos
Public University employers who want to continue the Academy’s tradition of respecting faculty speech should contractually commit to doing so. A contractual agreement offers several advantages. It terms can be tailored to the specific job. It is individually or collectively negotiable. Its sanctions for violations can be agreed upon in advance. It is readily enforceable, including by arbitration, of so specified.
PS: My 13-year-old daughter greatly enjoyed the elephants. But she’d like Black Veil Brides more.