In recent years, Columbia University has arguably been the worst school in the nation when it comes to anti-Semitism and poor behavior by leftists on campus, on the part of students, professors, and outside agitators. The biggest problem has been the outrageous behavior of the pro-Palestinian forces, but in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, universities have been plagued by disgusting expressions of outright joy over his death and/or insults to his memory. Columbia is no exception, as exemplified by this report from The College Fix describing statements made by "environmental justice" lecturer, Hadeel Assali, who reportedly referred to Kirk as a "dead Nazi" on social media and condemned Columbia for lowering the flag to half staff in his memory while railing against Zionists and "colonial white supremacy". The article also lists others from various universities who applauded the death of Kirk, some of whom have been fired or suspended.
As many universities around the country scramble to comply with the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism and leftist indoctrination from our campuses, the Kirk tragedy has added to the tension. It is hardly a secret that many in our universities feel no sympathy for Kirk, his family, and his followers. The case of Assali raises the question of free speech, ironically, one of Kirk's favorite causes.
So the question begs: Should Columbia take action against Assali for her repugnant words on social media? Should she be fired or suspended, as have others who have made similar comments?
The question reminds me of my own experiences teaching part-time at the University of California at Irvine when I became active in the anti-Semitism controversy. I publicly criticized the university-and the entire UC system- for what I perceived as an unwillingness to protect Jewish students from the disruptive, bullying, and hate-filled words and actions of the pro-Palestinian crowd on campus. In addition, I created my blog to disseminate my views on the subject. Along the way, I wrote critical articles about political Islam and its ties to anti-Semitism and terror. I offended many people. Should I have been disciplined by UC Irvine? The truth is that I never was. The university, both at Irvine and throughout the UC system, respected my right of free speech. Of course, in my opinion, I never crossed the line into indecent or disruptive words or deeds. I never celebrated an assassination. Others felt offended by my words. That's the cost of being an activist.
If these characters were being hauled off to jail for celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, I would speak out on their behalf. That is not the case here, and that includes so-called comedian Jimmie Kimmel, who is dealing with suspension for his disgusting comments about the Kirk assassination.
In my opinion, it comes down to this: If an employer has credible grounds to think that an employee is bringing discredit to their company, institution, university, or whatever, they have every right to decide whether the continued employment of that person is in their best interests. Of course, it can get very subjective, especially when the person in question is speaking privately on social media or some third-party venue not related to their employer. Can an employer terminate someone because that person publicly encouraged a vote for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris? That would be extreme. It is easy to really get into the weeds on this depending on the issue. Virtually any controversial subject is bound to result in someone being offended.
My common sense rule tells me that to publicly celebrate the assassination of someone you don't like is bringing discredit to your employer. I realize that many of the left considered Kirk to be a "racist", "Nazi", or "fascist". I believe they are flat out wrong. Kirk died because someone didn't like his views and his pronouncements, with which I most certainly agreed on most, if not all, topics. But regardless of the motive, murder is a crime in the US, and any celebration of such is wrong. Not in a criminal sense, but as to job protection, words do have consequences.
Universities are under fire these days, not just from the Trump administration, but from the public at large, and for good reason. If a university chooses to fire or suspend an employee for bringing discredit or embarrassment to their school with their public statements, I support that right as long as the university can make its case.
And while they are at it, universities might also consider getting rid of such useless academic topics as "environmental justice".
No comments:
Post a Comment