• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Professor who said Otto Warmbier got ‘what he deserved’ loses job

again you bring up something irrelevant. milo didn't get to speak. his speech was canceled or do you not remember that?
you probably didn't even know.

so please tell us where he got to speak since it was canceled?
I see you don't know what you are talking about as usual and bring up irrelevant material because you can't defend what this professor did.

she was over the top and incorrect. you could at least be someone honest about it.

If he didn't get to speak, we never would have heard his whining.

You are confusing freedom to speak with "freedom" to force a university to give you a platform.
 
never said Otto deserved what he got from his bad choice

however I did say the bigger majority of what the professor stated in the article is true

white American (I'm white) youth do have a certain level of arrogance that can lead to some feeling they are invincible

possibly Otto had some of that within himself; dunno ...........

She didn't say this. She stated that white American males think they can get away with anything like raping woman, etc. Her comment was basically out of spite due to the fact of her perceived injustices and her rejoicing in the fact that a white male "got what was coming to him."

I'm sure you agree with this too however.
 
I think grading standards, at least in most college classes, are fairly objective. If a student believes a professor arbitrarily and unfairly gave his work too low a grade, means to appeal the grade are usually available. No professor wants to be overruled in a case like that, and the desire to avoid that tends to prevent too much subjectivity in grading.

I would suggest that you don't know much about the collegiate level of grading if you don't believe professors oftentimes grade based on bias and favoritism. There is so much left up to a professor's discretion that oftentimes even if the student believes they are being treated unfairly, the professor can feign ignorance if it is ever brought to a committee. The ability to punish a student for different opinions is even greater in social science fields like this professor taught in.
 
That's a key here: She was/is a contract employee. Once the contract expires she is no longer employed by them AT ALL. They are both free of each other. There is no tenure, there is no obligation to issue another contract.

I understand that argument. But I doubt it will be that simple if she files a First Amendment suit against the university. It made clear that the reason it was not renewing her contract was its disapproval of an opinion she expressed. Would Delaware also have been free, if the timing had been a little different, to decline to renew her contract because it she had publicly said that she voted for President Trump? What if it had declined to renew this adjunct professor's contract because it disapproved of a statement she had made, after her earlier contract had expired, that she believed homosexual marriage is immoral?

It is as if Delaware were refusing to hire her for the first time, and citing as its reason its disapproval of a view she had expressed publicly. If a person is otherwise qualified, and his expression of a view the state disapproves of is its sole basis for not hiring him, is the state not abridging his freedom of speech? We are no longer in the days of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford.
 
I understand that argument. But I doubt it will be that simple if she files a First Amendment suit against the university. It made clear that the reason it was not renewing her contract was its disapproval of an opinion she expressed. Would Delaware also have been free, if the timing had been a little different, to decline to renew her contract because it she had publicly said that she voted for President Trump? What if it had declined to renew this adjunct professor's contract because it disapproved of a statement she had made, after her earlier contract had expired, that she believed homosexual marriage is immoral?

It is as if Delaware were refusing to hire her for the first time, and citing as its reason its disapproval of a view she had expressed publicly. If a person is otherwise qualified, and his expression of a view the state disapproves of is its sole basis for not hiring him, is the state not abridging his freedom of speech? We are no longer in the days of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford.

We are in the days of "If I dont like the ideas you have floating around in your head then you need to suffer for your sins".

We are in a new dark age.
 
If he didn't get to speak, we never would have heard his whining.

You are confusing freedom to speak with "freedom" to force a university to give you a platform.

thanks for proving that you can't be honest yet again.

the fact is this case has nothing to do with free speech.
She said something that was over the top and in fact racist.

I thought you didn't like people being racist?
she was fired for the comments that she made.

it is about time these nut job professors started getting held responsible for their stupidity.
just like any other job.
 
We are in the days of "If I dont like the ideas you have floating around in your head then you need to suffer for your sins".

We are in a new dark age.

I think there is a degree of responsibility. many companies have ethic standards in their hiring clauses.
I know people that have told a joke it got heard by someone else that took it the wrong way and that person was fired.

if you have no standard of professionalism then you lose it completely.
 
I understand that argument. But I doubt it will be that simple if she files a First Amendment suit against the university. It made clear that the reason it was not renewing her contract was its disapproval of an opinion she expressed. Would Delaware also have been free, if the timing had been a little different, to decline to renew her contract because it she had publicly said that she voted for President Trump? What if it had declined to renew this adjunct professor's contract because it disapproved of a statement she had made, after her earlier contract had expired, that she believed homosexual marriage is immoral?

It is as if Delaware were refusing to hire her for the first time, and citing as its reason its disapproval of a view she had expressed publicly. If a person is otherwise qualified, and his expression of a view the state disapproves of is its sole basis for not hiring him, is the state not abridging his freedom of speech? We are no longer in the days of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford.

If the school is open about providing its students an equal and diversified learning environment, and the instructor outs herself as a racist*, then the school is within it's rights to not renew. The fact that it wasn't discovered until after she had been contracted for awhile is neither here nor there. She doesn't meet the base criteria to be an instructor.

She can still sue. People can sue for almost anything. Question is, will she win? (Will probably reach an undisclosed settlement. Money will soothe her perceived wronging, and it'll go away for the school.)

*-Which is essentially what she did, albeit not in so many words.
 
This seems to be yet another case of a state punishing a person for expressing an opinion away from campus. The freedom of speech has applied against states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1920's. Delaware may well have violated this woman's freedom of speech, because it seems to have retaliated against her based solely on the content of her speech. I think what she said is vile, but what I or anyone else thinks of it is irrelevant to her right to say it.
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
thanks for proving that you can't be honest yet again.

the fact is this case has nothing to do with free speech.
She said something that was over the top and in fact racist.

I thought you didn't like people being racist?
she was fired for the comments that she made.

it is about time these nut job professors started getting held responsible for their stupidity.
just like any other job.

I don't like people being racist, but i'm also pointing out how righties suddenly abandon their interpretation of "free speech" once speech they don't agree with is involved.
 
Otto took his own life for granted, visited a place that 99 % of Americans would never visit, and Otto paid for his bad decision with his life.

now, who is to blame for that? Otto is .......
Well, most people would recognize that the NK regime is to blame. Also, you and the prof are assuming that Otto did not consider the odds of something terrible happening. He may have very well considered it in a rational way as far as you or I know.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

If the employer had been a private person, there would be no question of its right to decline to re-hire her. The First Amendment does not restrict what private persons may do. But here, the state of Delaware punished her, by depriving her of the job she had held with it, because it disapproved of something she had said publicly after her contract had expired. I strongly support a private person's right to contract--or decline to contract--with anyone he pleases. When the state is one of the contracting parties, though, I doubt it can use its authority to contract for services to decline to hire a professor simply because she had expressed a view--off campus--that certain state officials dislike.

I don't buy the argument that her anti-white comments show she is unfit to teach at that university. By that standard, Delaware would be justified in declining to hire a professor who during the presidential campaign had written on a social media site, using Mrs. Clinton's phrase, that Mr. Trump's supporters belonged in a basket of deplorables. After all, the student body must contain some Trump supporters, and knowing this professor's animosity toward them, how could it any longer trust her not to discriminate against these students?
 
Last edited:
If the employer had been a private person, there would be no question of its right to decline to re-hire her. The First Amendment does not restrict what private persons may do. But here, the state of Delaware punished her, by depriving her of the job she had held with it, because it disapproved of something she had said publicly after her contract had expired. I strongly support a private person's right to contract--or decline to contract--with anyone he pleases. When the state is one of the contracting parties, though, I doubt it can use its authority to contract for services to decline to hire a professor simply because she had expressed a view--off campus--that certain state officials dislike.

I don't buy the argument that her anti-white comments show she is unfit to teach at that university. By that standard, Delaware would be justified in declining to hire a professor who during the presidential campaign had written on a social media site, using Mrs. Clinton's phrase, that Mr. Trump's supporters belonged in a basket of deplorables. After all, the student body must contain some Trump supporters, and knowing this professor's animosity toward them, how could it any longer trust her not to discriminate against these students?

Does it make a difference to you, to learn that UD is a privately governed school?

I did not make the argument that her bigotry makes her unfit to teach. I think thats an issue best left to be decided by the dean, the students, parents, and alumni donors.





Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
How is the state punishing her? I am all for free speech and while I dont like what she said I will defend her right to say it (as the saying goes) I alsosupport an employers right to not renew a persons contract if they feel that is not in their best interests.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Exactly. The State has absolutely nothing to do with this. Like you, I support her right to free speech, but that has nothing to do with the college deciding to remove her.
 
Does it make a difference to you, to learn that UD is a privately governed school?

I did not make the argument that her bigotry makes her unfit to teach. I think thats an issue best left to be decided by the dean, the students, parents, and alumni donors.

I'm not sure if that changes anything. It's far from clear that this is an entirely private university, such that its decisions on hiring faculty members would not constitute state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.

The opinions of the students of a state university, of their parents, and of alumni may influence that university's decision about hiring a particular faculty member. But it is certain university officials who finally make the decision and are responsible for it. And when they decide, they are acting as the state. That means the First Amendment applies, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to limit what they may do.

This woman's disgusting statements, the subject she teaches, her appearance, and other clues give me a hunch what she is like. I would bet good money that she is a collectivist much like the hundreds I've rubbed shoulders with in school and at various social events, and I'm pretty sure it would bore me even to have a drink with her. In fact I have to hold my nose to go to bat for her, but I am pretty damned sick and tired of these attacks on the freedom of speech we keep seeing colleges make.
 
what she conveyed may have been in poor taste but the message wasn't far off base

the bulk of her statement is spot on; a very telling commentary on the arrogance of American youth & brainless American culture

Otto made a really ****ty choice to visit a place that most folks would be smart enough to avoid

that was Otto's bad & sadly he paid the ultimate price for his folly .........

No one "deserves" what happened to him.
 
No one "deserves" what happened to him.


never said Otto deserved it but none the less Otto made a terrible decision to visit a nation with an asshole leader & a government known to be hostile towards westerners, particularly folks from the US
 
Back
Top Bottom