speech of a public institution's faculty member to be protected under the Pickering/Connickline of cases, what criteria must be satisfied? Do these criteria suitably balance the interests of faculty members and the institution in the higher education context?
There are really two key principles that must be satisfied. The first is that the court determines whether the speech in question hinges on a matter of public concern. If it does, the court takes further criteria into consideration such as:
Whether the statement impairs discipline in school or harmony amongst superiors or amongst cookers.
Whether the statement has a negative impact on close working relationships
Whether the speech interferes with the way the operator usually conducts his business,
Yes, these criteria take the interests of faculty members and school into consideration.
Specifically, what was the fatal flaw in the instructor's speech? Was it the profanity itself? Or was it the belittling nature of the speech? Or something else? Suppose the instructor had used the same profanity in the course of a lecture on the shortcomings of Communist economic systems; would the result have been different? Or suppose the instructor had made comments sharply derogatory of the students' attitudes but had used words like "heck" and "bull" rather than "hell" and "bullshit"; would the result have been different?
I think it was the belittling, crude nature of the speech.
The school tries to implement an efficacious, genteel and polite as well as orderly setting where children and all can be respected. It does this by promoting (or attempting to promote) an atmosphere of respect between students, and colleagues and between all individuals.
The professor should have set an example to students. He is placed in a responsible position as a model. By denigrating his position and not carrying out what he was supposed to, he not only acts as poor example to students but also corrodes the standards of the school.
If professor had used that speech, inoccasioanlly, in an infrequent lecture and about the lecture topic, he may have been excused. The fact that this was done on a frequent basis and in belittling manner on the students went against all hat a professor should stand for. Showing a non-credible reputation, he did not deserve to be hired as professor and therefore could not plead the First Amendment.
U got nerve http://ugotnerve.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/teacher-free-speech-the-truth-of-the-matter/
A university is not allowed to discriminate in any which way, manner, or form against people from another gender or race. In fact, discrimination is disallowed against race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or age whatsoever.
However, the program in question, the New Light Fellowship, follows a certain approach that asserts that their religious beliefs exclude participation of another race in their services.
It is more than likely that the Association of Black Students (ABS) will partially win the case since whilst the group can function on campus given that the university has to tolerate all religious groups and permit freedom of expression, the university may not be permitted to allocate mandatory student funds to the group.
I certainly think that the university should redraft its policies for recognition of student organizations and for allocating student fees to student organizations
The Establishment Clause placed a separation between religion and state. The university (particularly its mandatory student funds) represents state. The Fellowship Program represents religion.
The Establishment clause does differ where a certain school district wishes to open up various groups that appeal to a diversity of religious spectrums on its premises. Here, the school can do so. However, the school must not be involved in sponsoring it in any which way.
Since this clause is so important to the outcome of this case, I will cite it in fall:
III. EQUAL ACCESS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES
The Establishment Clause issues are quite different where a school district wishes to make its facilities available for use by student or community groups during non-school hours. In such cases, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit opening the school's facilities to religious groups -- provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present.
(ACLU The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin
a. I was intrigued by how a person's sociocultural environment contributes to his creativity and shapes as well as impacts it. Ultimately, therefore, a person is shaped by his brain / mind. The mind thinks according to impressions of the formative culture. This…