http://www.equinoxnews.com/news/2005/03/31/News/Professors.Sudden.Dismissal.Stuns.Students-908666.shtml

Students expressed shock last week when a popular history professor suddenly was dismissed.

Where are the Newsmax, Fox News, Free Republic, and Little Green Football readers when they're needed?

http://www.equinoxnews.com/news/2005/03/31/News/Professors.Sudden.Dismissal.Stuns.Students-908666.shtml

Students expressed shock last week when a popular history professor suddenly was dismissed.

Where are the Newsmax, Fox News, Free Republic, and Little Green Football readers when they're needed?


Interesting.  I wonder how much of his white supremist attitudes were a part of his teaching.  I hate what I take to be his ideas, but...

Interesting.  I wonder how much of his white supremist attitudes were a part of his teaching.  I hate what I take to be his ideas, but...


I'm sure they weren't real noticable, or he'd have been canned much sooner.

Personally, I feel that firing him was wrong.

I am disgusted with his beliefs.  BUT, as long as they did not influence his duties, they had no right to fire him.  After all, is not what he does in his free time covered under "freedom of speech" and personal privacy laws?

And is it really any different then what a lot of others say in classrooms all over the nation?  I thought the idea of "Higher Education" was to bring in many different ideas, in order to expand the minds of the youth.

I hate when neo-Nazis get mistreated, 'cuz if they were in charge, they'd give everybody who disagreed with them a fair shake.  I mean, come on!  I come form Nordic stock myself, but I'm a commie race-traitor and a mental defective.  I deserve to be exterminated the way Dr. Pluss doesn't deserve to get fired!
:D :D :D

If herr professor is a bit confused, FDU is now completely, er, non-plussed.

If the comments in the story are true, then he deserved to be fired....you don't bite the hand that feeds you and expect to still be fed. ::)


OK, let's flip this a bit then.

Suppose the person was endorsing the overthrow of the United States?  What if he encouraged drug use in his students?  What if he encouraged a student-wide walkout, simply because he had a dispute with the governor?

Let's take this another way.  Suppose he was teaching that "White Europeans" stole everything culturally from Asians/Africans/Muslims/Jews/Native Americans?  What if he publically states that Blacks are superior athletes because of genetics, and that no White can ever hope to perform as well as a Black Athlete?

The statements may be foolish, but they are within his right as a public citizen.  And he/she should NOT be censored!

I often find it ironic that me, one of the "Evil Conservatives" has to point out to "Enlightened Liberals" about censorship.  Unlike some people, I do not base it on the view spoken.  I may agree, I may disagree.  But as long as it was NOT said on campus, it is his right to say whatever he wants, as long as it is legal.

I know that a lot on here seem to think that President Bush is trying to lead us to a "Police State".  But, a lot of the same people seem to endorse the censorship of people, just because they dissagree with them.  I may agree, I may dissagree, but at least I am consistant.

In the same way, I support marches by the KKK.  Myself, I want to know who the stupid, ignorant, racist rednecks are so I can stay away from them.  The more they prance about in their sheets, the more that common decent men and women realize they are a relic that belongs burried in the past.

I agree with crazymom, Chucky. Sorry, but was Jimmy the Greek also "unfairly" fired? Or Al Campanis? Or Ben Wright? Or Stacy Koon? Might as well not fire anyone because of racism. Everyone deserves a right to free speech. No one should be given a right to preach hate at an American college.
If the comments in the story are true, then he deserved to be fired....you don't bite the hand that feeds you and expect to still be fed. ::)

I agree with crazymom, Chucky. Sorry, but was Jimmy the Greek also "unfairly" fired? Or Al Campanis? Or Ben Wright? Or Stacy Koon? Might as well not fire anyone because of racism. Everyone deserves a right to free speech. No one should be given a right to preach hate at an American college.


ah, but that's just it.  He didn't preach hate in a classroom.  He was connected via a website where he posted, and the university was afraid of the connection.  Had he been saying this crap in his classroom, he'd have been shown the door a long time ago I'm sure.

if there's a clause in his contract that prohibits what he says in his writing under his name, then by all means, fire away.  There probably is something about representing the university, but this is a stretch. 

I find his ideas to be completely disgusting mind you, but I think witch hunts like these ultimately hurt us far more than they help.  You have to support the right to speach, even when you disagree with what is said.

I agree with crazymom, Chucky. Sorry, but was Jimmy the Greek also "unfairly" fired? Or Al Campanis? Or Ben Wright? Or Stacy Koon? Might as well not fire anyone because of racism. Everyone deserves a right to free speech. No one should be given a right to preach hate at an American college.


Jimmy The Greek was a vastly different situation.  To begin with, he said it on the air.  And as somebody who was a broadcaster, he was constantly in the public eye.  This is a far cry from this professor, who I am sure nobody ever heard of before.

As far as Stacey Koon, I am sure that you are actually thinking of Mark Fuhrman.  I don't think anything he did was wrong, other then lying in court.  Then again, if the judge had been anybody other then Lance Ito, the Defense would never have been allowed to persue a line of questioning that had no basis on the case being tried.

As far as Al Campanis, people target him for one remark, and forget his long past.  When Jackie Robinson was first breaking the "Color barrier" with the Dodgers, he often requested to room with him, when nobody else on the team would.  He also helped Jackie learn how to avoid being "spiked" on the field.  And once again, the remarks were said "on the air", to an audience of millions.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder070298.html

Ben Wright was plastered for saying that women could not golf as well as men because their breasts get in the way.  Of course, nobody cares that he was actually quoting LPGA great Louise Suggs when he said that!  That's right, he was quoting a famous woman golfer, she made that statement as a joke in the 1960's.

And don't forget, that in most of these cases, the quotes were made to the "General Media".  Unlike this one, which was made to a small, almost unknown web site.  In almost all of the cases listed above, the people were blasted in the name of "Political Corectness".

It kind of reminds me of the musical group "Ram Jam" was boycotted for the song "Black Betty".  They released it in 1977, and both the NAACP and CORE blasted them as singing a song that was "Racist" and "Insulting to black women".  I guess none of them cared that it was written and originally recorded by Leadbelly (Huddie Ledbetter), a classic and respected Blues singer, who happens to also be Black.

And you should reread the article.  NOWHERE in that article does it say that he stated any of his private opinions in school.  In fact, his students (Black as well as White) were surprised that he even thought those things.  To me, it seems that he was doing a very good job of being "Professional", and not letting his private beliefs interfere with his duties as an instructor.

As long as the a..hole made no connection between his speech and his position, he should not have been fired.  I post my opinions here, write letters to the editor, speak in public as a private citizen, not as a representative of my college.  In class I also express my opinions on issues related to the subject matter of my courses, but I label them as my OPINION or interpretation, not as fact, and I welcome descent.  Even hateful speech is protected by the first amendment.

Quoting Stacey Koon's statement from the Rodney King video: "I've never had so much fun beating a n***** so badly in my life." Correct me if I'm wrong.
As far as Stacey Koon, I am sure that you are actually thinking of Mark Fuhrmann.

You are right, he is well withing his rights as a private citizen, but if he identified himself as a professor at the school, then he is presenting himself as a representative of the school.  To then turn around and bash the school??? Not too smart.  AFA him teaching those things, he is no longer a private citizen.  If he wants to say things as a private citizen, as long as he doesn't identify himself as staff of the school, he can say whatever he wants.  The point is, in this case, he didn't keep his affiliation with the school to himself, therefore he's not acting as "Joe Public".

To answer your first question, do you honestly think that if the person endorsing an overthrow of our government was a government employee, he would still have a job?  About the drugs, well, that would be encouraging illegal activity, which is punishable by law.


Just the point I made.  Brillient minds...

OK, let's flip this a bit then.

Suppose the person was endorsing the overthrow of the United States?  What if he encouraged drug use in his students?  What if he encouraged a student-wide walkout, simply because he had a dispute with the governor?
First off, we live under a government that deserves to be overthrown!!! 
Now, if the professor was saying, "Get a gun and blow your congressman's head off," that would be incitement of imminent violent action.  Refer to the clear and present danger test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/brandenburg.html
Under the "clear and present danger" test, if a professor declared the United States government is hopelessly corrupt and must be violently eradicated, he/she would be well within his/her Constitutional rights.  I love it!  Conservatives hate it!
:)
If the American Fascist Party (Republicans) get their judicial way, Brandenburg will be replaced by a gag rule against criticizing their one-party state, which is imminent at this time.  When we are no longer free to say what we want about the government, a coup really will be the only way out!

College students are adults.  I despise the way our culture regards them as children.  Such condescension inspires them to see themselves as children, and adolescence and, by extension, young adulthood as merely a bigger and hairier childhood.  That is contemptible.  I would think a professor who recommended students smoke marijuana was a creep-o.  However, college students, as the adults I insist they are, must be expected to think for themselves.

Let's take this another way.  Suppose he was teaching that "White Europeans" stole everything culturally from Asians/Africans/Muslims/Jews/Native Americans?  What if he publically states that Blacks are superior athletes because of genetics, and that no White can ever hope to perform as well as a Black Athlete?

The statements may be foolish, but they are within his right as a public citizen.  And he/she should NOT be censored!
I would only have a problem here insofar as the statements were demonstrably false.  If he was not advocating state-sanctioned superior position in society for one "race" over another, if he was not creating a "clear and present danger" to anybody, he shouldn't be fired.  If the professor's remarks demonstrably created a hostile environment on campus, censure would be in order.  I wouldn't blame the institution for not granting such a clown tenure, and not renewing his contract.

I often find it ironic that me, one of the "Evil Conservatives" has to point out to "Enlightened Liberals" about censorship.  Unlike some people, I do not base it on the view spoken.  I may agree, I may disagree.  But as long as it was NOT said on campus, it is his right to say whatever he wants, as long as it is legal.
I agree here.  I don't like prior restraint on speech, whether it comes from liberals OR conservatives.  I never favored speech codes on campuses, nor the double standard for behavior advocated by the PC movement.  Basically, "minorities," gays, and women could say what they darn well pleased, and white males  had to watch their butts OR ELSE!

I know that a lot on here seem to think that President Bush is trying to lead us to a "Police State".  But, a lot of the same people seem to endorse the censorship of people, just because they dissagree with them.  I may agree, I may dissagree, but at least I am consistant.
Too late.  We already live in a police state.  The amount you are policed is commensurate with the amount of money and property you own.  The less you have, the more you are watched.
The darker your skin color is, the more likely you are to be arrested.
There is also a double standard when it comes to law enforcement, labor unions, and corporations.  Labor Unions have been infiltrated and harrassed by the police and national security organs ever since they became a force to be reckoned with.  Law enforcement and the national security state has not only let corporations mistreat workers and break all kinds of civil and criminal laws, these institutions have actually worked on behalf of of the corporate powers that be.
If you like to get rip-roaring drunk on whiskey every night, no problem, just don't drive drunk or misbehave in public.  If you like to smoke marijuana--a far less physically and socially dangerous drug than alcohol--you have to sneak around, talk in code, and fear the pigs all the effing time.
If you are rich, drunk, and white, chances are you vote Fascist (Republican) and call the American police state "common sense."

In the same way, I support marches by the KKK.  Myself, I want to know who the stupid, ignorant, racist rednecks are so I can stay away from them.  The more they prance about in their sheets, the more that common decent men and women realize they are a relic that belongs burried in the past.

I agree. As a staunch civil libertarian, I support the rights of hate groups to assemble peacefully and say what they want.  As much as I abominate them, they must be afforded the right to free speech.  They are in the clear as long as they do not violate said "clear and present danger" test.  Hate groups should also be granted police protection.  If we let the good citizens beat the living daylights out of the KKK, the Klan will start marching around with their own goons who will be happy to beat you up first.  That's how the Nazi SS got started.  Furthermore, if homosexuals can throw rocks at neo-nazis, neo-nazis can throw rocks at homosexuals.  Fair's fair, right?
:o

Sorry - I was going to explain my self and give rational reasons for supporting the decision to have this Nazi retard sacked but, as I am bored with being reasonable, I say good riddance to some of the lowest form of intellectual garbage to ever infiltrate this planet. I hope he ends up dying in agony.

Not very liberal of me i know but hey... I'm not a good christian  ::)

Sorry - I was going to explain my self and give rational reasons for supporting the decision to have this Nazi retard sacked but, as I am bored with being reasonable, I say good riddance to some of the lowest form of intellectual garbage to ever infiltrate this planet. I hope he ends up dying in agony.

Not very liberal of me i know but hey... I'm not a good christian  ::)

The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech.  I think it was Justice Brandeis who said, "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
On principle, I don't think the neo-nazi professor should have been fired.  In my gut, I'm glad he got canned.

But then another great man said "I tolerate all but intolerance" and I tend to modify my anti-censorship and freedom of speech beliefs around that saying.  8)

But then another great man said "I tolerate all but intolerance" and I tend to modify my anti-censorship and freedom of speech beliefs around that saying.  8)

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that!  Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week."
--Tom Lehrer
(from the intro to the "National Brotherhood Week" song)
;D

The first ten amendments to the American Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech.  I think it was Justice Brandeis who said, "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
On principle, I don't think the neo-nazi professor should have been fired.  In my gut, I'm glad he got canned.


Here is the exact text of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As I understad it, the college involved is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION.  So there is now law against them firing somebody for saying something that they do not like.  Farleigh Dickinson is a private business and so que sera sera as Doris Day would say.

The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from acting against somebody's speech rights.

Now mind you I have not read what this guy said or posted on his web site.  And I have seen in recent years too many College Bureaucrat Pin Heads try to suppress speech in a way that would make George Orwell blush.

But nevertheless, as a private institution, it's their right...

To answer your first question, do you honestly think that if the person endorsing an overthrow of our government was a government employee, he would still have a job?  About the drugs, well, that would be encouraging illegal activity, which is punishable by law.


I simply need to respond with 3 words:

Dr. Timothy Leary

And there were a great many more.  The 1960's are full of radical professors, and their legacy is still in the system.

But nevertheless, as a private institution, it's their right...


The phrase "wrongful termination" still comes to mind.  Or how about "Grounds for dismissal".  You can't just fire someone from a full time job.  If he has a contract that prevents certain types of speech, or limits his speech rights, then fire away.  Otherwise it's wrongful termination.

I just lost a long post that I'm not going to retype.  Freedom of speech is protected evan at private colleges.  "I m,ay disagree with what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire I believe.

But, if you were to call the head personnel at your college derogatory names, would you be reprimanded?  Is there anything in your contract about subordination?  (I'm asking you because you're *I think* the only one who's in a similar employment situation - If I'm wrong, I apologize to anyone I overlooked)


according to the article (you either need to register to see the rest, or use bugmenot)

However, the university administration gave quite a different reason for the dismissal. "He was released for the official reason of (having) six absences and not making them up," said Dean of University College John Snyder. "As a professor, he did not meet that requirement."

In other words, they found a loophole that others are probably only verbally reprimanded for, and used it.  He was also an adjunct, which would make it easier to dismiss him.

Sophomore Marc Eichler said that, when he heard that Dr. Pluss was a member of the National Socialist Movement, he nearly fell out his chair. "I'm Jewish, but the guy never had anything against me -in fact, he gave me an A," he said. "He never came off as being a racist. I would discuss issues regarding my religion in class, and he never said anything."

what's bugmenot?  I'm intrigued......


a little off topic, but bugmenot.com is a site where people share the login information for various "register for free" types of news sites, like the NEw York Times.  The Firefox browser has an extension for it, so you can right click on the login field and it fills it in automatically for you.

I simply need to respond with 3 words:

Dr. Timothy Leary

And there were a great many more.  The 1960's are full of radical professors, and their legacy is still in the system.

But remember Dr. Leary was sh*tcanned by Harvard when his LSD research devolved into cultish drug orgies.

The "radical" college professor is out there to be sure, but his influence is wildly exaggerated by the paranoid Right.  Why do you think we have the despicable Olin Foundation?  That philanthropic (or misanthropic) trust is in the business of funding right-wing activities and instructors at insititutions of higher education nation wide.

Hey, if Dr. I-Heart-Hitler wants his job back, let him sue FDU.  If the court finds in his favor, so be it!  I'm sure his presence will REALLY help the universities enrollment.  Maybe he can even hire Matthew Hale as a reasearch assistant!
:P

But, if you were to call the head personnel at your college derogatory names, would you be reprimanded?  Is there anything in your contract about subordination?  (I'm asking you because you're *I think* the only one who's in a similar employment situation - If I'm wrong, I apologize to anyone I overlooked)


I have, on occasion, critisized the President of my college more or less in public, and never suffered any retribution.  That is different than calling her (it was a her) a derogatory name.  I have implied that the Chancellor of the Vermont State Colleges is an education pimp, in print, and not been reprimanded in any way (I did that as a private citizen, and made no reference to my position).  There is nothing in my union's contract with the colleges regarding insubordination.  There is an article that recognises our rights to take part in public debate.  To my knowledge, no one has ever been in any way intimidated or reprimanded for expressing an opinion at Castleton or in the Vermont State Colleges. 

At one point at least one student complained that I didn't follow the texts in my lectures.  The Dean refered to that.  My response was that unless he could show that what I was in class was not relevant to the course material, he could go pound sand.  Nothing more was said on that point.

Holding academics responsible as representatives of their institutions, it seems to me, would be like holding employees responsible for their votes if they voted other than those of their CEO's.