Chicago Tribune article on Thomas Klocek and DePaul University
Cross posted at Marathon Pundit.
Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune has written an excellent piece on Thomas Klocek and his free speech struggle with Chicago's DePaul University. Outside of ABC 7 Chicago, the local media until now has ignored this compelling story of political correctness gone out of control.
That article is here. Free registration may be required.
Since his suspension and de facto firing from DePaul after attempting to have a discussion about Israel in front of some Muslim students, Klocek's financial situation has gone from uncertain to frightening.
Republicans, conservatives and like-minded bloggers have come to Klocek's defense. Klocek, a Democrat who voted for John Kerry in 2004, has not gotten much support from the left side of the aisle.
A few excerpts from that Tribune article:
Meanwhile, Klocek does what he long has -- eke out an adjunct's living. Just before 6 p.m., he parked the car at Daley College. Sensing the handful of students in his first class hadn't done the assignment, Klocek had them read it aloud. He has learned to cut a little slack for young people who come to class after a day's work.
More...
Some newfound friends have turned his predicament into a demonstration of Karl Marx's proposition that history repeats itself: first as tragedy, a second time as farce. In his case, both are playing simultaneously.
More..
"I'm not the ideal poster boy," Klocek said. "But freedom of speech is a cause worth fighting for."
21 comments:
Are you actually claiming that the Right is the friend of free speech? Do you really think they would be helping out if he was a Muslim criticizing Christians? Somehow I have not seen much outrage from Republicans when the alleged victims of free speech are not Christian.
I also seem to recall conservative outrage over the fact that Abercromie and Fitch sold what they considered offensive t-shirts.
It looks like conservatives strongly favor free speech -- when it is speech with which they agree.
Conservatives would have stood up for Ward Churchill's free speech if DePaul had let them in to hear him speak at DePaul.
They would have condemed DePaul for paying the guy and inviting him to speak, but would defended his right to spew hate.
But there would have been no pies in the face like Bill Kristol or shouting down like Laura Ingram.
DePaul's a bit ashamed maybe of who they invite to rant and who they chose to fire.
Skeeter: the point is that this guy would not have been fired in the first place if he were a Muslim criticizing Christians at DePaul. And I didn’t notice any of the liberal “free speech” defenders who supported Churchill coming to Klocek’s aid – so save your sanctimonious attacks on conservatives who “strongly favor free speech -- when it is speech with which they agree.” I won’t deny that there probably are some instances where conservatives are somewhat hypocritical about free speech, but what you said is just as true for liberals.
As for the Abercrombie incident(s) specifically demonstrating hypocrisy on the issue, let me remind you once again that no one ever advocated banning the shirts or taking any other punitive government action against the stores…..they simply advocated a boycott, which is a form of free speech that is a far cry from firing a guy.
Are you actually claiming that the Right is the friend of free speech?
Yes, I am.
I have an extensive follow up post on the Klocek case, a history of the story, at Marathon Pundit.
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com
Grand Old Partisan: Is the ACLU a liberal group or a conservative group? Is there a lot of support for the ACLU among conservatives?
Where would free speech be in America without the ACLU?
Liberals fought for free speech. Conservatives are for speech they like.
Also, your remark about his being fired is ridiculous. If a Muslim prof. made the hand gesture that this guy made he would have been kept on? Get real. He was not fired for the content of his speech. He was fired for basically flipping off students.
Finally, how many conservatives back tenure for profs? How many care enough about free speech to take the one step necessary to allow profs really free speech? None.
Conservatives care about this issue for the sole reason that the prof. was a Christian. Please show me instances where conservatives have stood up for those who are different from them.
Skeeter, liberals are for free speech as long as no one anywhere might possibly be offended by it.
“He was not fired for the content of his speech. He was fired for basically flipping off students”
- how exactly is a hand gesture not covered by freedom of speech?
“Where would free speech be in America without the ACLU?”
- it doesn’t seem to be doing very well right now, just ask Prof. Klocek.
As for tenure: If Klocek had it, DePaul would not have been able to fire him. So I’m not sure what you are advocating here. Are you saying that the freedom of speech should only exist for tenured professors, or are you saying that tenure should not exist lest someone like Prof. Klocek get it and be allowed to offend people with impunity?
GOP:
Right. Liberals only support speech as long as nobody is offended. That is why the ACLU supported the Nazi's march in Skokie. Read some history before making comments. Otherwise you look ridiculous.
You are right about freedom of speech not doing so well. That will happen when the conservatives take over the courts.
Regarding tenure: If he had tenure -- which conservatives OPPOSE -- he still would have a job. That is one of the purposes of tenure. People like you oppose tenure but then claim a great desire for free speech. It says a lot about your real views on free speech.
In addition, your post shows a real misunderstanding of First Amendment issues, and a strong contradiction in your own allegedly conservative views. First, in the case of De Paul, there was not "government action" that caused him to lose his position. As a result, there is no "free speech" issue.
Further, I would have thought as a conservative you would support an employer's decision and would not want the government taking a role. Apparently it is different when it is someone insulting Muslims. THEN you are in favor of a strong government telling employers who they can and cannot employ.
Finally, it is interesting that you would bring up the alleged conservative support of free speech, since the conservative president has barred opposition demonstrators from his speeches. Speak at will, as long as you do not criticize the Republican government. That's the conservative way.
I do not view this case as a free speech case at all. I view it as an employer taking action against someone who acted in a childish manner. Of course De Paul overreacted. I am embarrassed to say I attended the school. However, the fact that De Paul was wrong does not turn a simple case of employee discipline into a major free speech cause.
If you do now feel that the government should tell employer's who they should and should not employ, let me know. That will make a huge shift from the usual allegedly conservative position.
Skeeter: I know for a fact that the ACLU turned downed Klocek's case to assist him in his struggle.
Skeeter, as a DePaul alum, would you consider writing the school and telling them they reacted badly here?
You don't see any particular injustice here with the way DePaul treated Klocek?
Are you saying Klocek deserved what DePaul gave him?
Skeeter, I did not realize that all liberals were members of the ACLU, and thus the terms could and should be assumed to be interchangeable. Now I know, thanks - I don't want to look "ridiculous" anymore.
Regarding tenure: I still don’t understand you position here. You support tenure because it promotes the ability of professors to exercise free speech. And then you say that if he had tenure, he would not have been fired. Why should one group of people’s freedom of speech be more protected than other’s? If his actions were free speech they were free speech, and tenure shouldn’t be necessary to protect his right to exercise it. But if DePaul, as an employer, as the right to fire someone for being “childish,” then why should they forfeit that right by granting tenure to certain professors?
You see, I don’t consider myself anti-free speech simply because I am anti-tenure. And you’d have to use a lot of implied logic to make that charge…..but go ahead and try if you want. But perhaps you should first try and iron out the discrepancies in your own position on the subject.
I have no misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Perhaps I should not have used the words “government action”….but rather “binding or coercive action by an authority.” In Klocek’s case, he was fired by his employer for unjustifiable reasons in abridgement of his constitutional rights. In the Abercombie case, those leading the boycott were merely exercising their freedom of speech and assembly to persuade the store to make the decision of their own….is that clearer?
And make no mistake about it, this IS a free speech case. Whether or not you consider Klocek’s actions “childish” or not, they were constitutionally protected. And that is where DePaul’s rights as an employer end. Are you arguing otherwise? Do you think that an employer has the right to fire an employee for actions that are protected by the constitution? Because, regardless of what kinds of stereotypically evil-conservative positions you may want to project onto me, I would never, ever, advocate that – regardless of the circumstances involved. And I would guess that even the ACLU would back me up on that……to bad they aren’t backing up Prof. Kloceck. Can you explain why?
Now, if you are also arguing that only actions by the government can be considered an abridgement to an individual’s first amendment rights, then how about the 14th amendment? There may be a whole host of allegedly liberal positions that need to be reconsidered based on how you answer that.
GOP:
Can somebody constitutionally insult a client? Is that protected speech?
Can an employer get rid of a person when the employee exercises that constitutionally protected right to insult a client?
I am interested in your thoughts on this question, and on the idea of hypocracy generally.
It's a sad day skeeter when the left starts talking about an employer's rights to terminate an employee for insulting a "client".
I wouldn't elect you shop steward.
As for hypocrisy, Matthew Arnold said it best when he wrote hypocrisy was the tribute vice pays to virtue.
The vice is over at DePaul on this one.
I hope Klocek has good lawyers and they dig around behind the decision to fire him.
Thanks for your comment, Bill. I am not that concerned about it, since I am not a candidate for shop steward. If I run, maybe you can run my campaign, since you seem to have strong views favoring the rights of employees over the rights of employers.
I also note that you did not address the issues.
Do you believe that the government should tell employers who they should hire and fire?
Do you believe that an employer should be forced to retain employees who make rude gestures and comments to clients?
Would you care at all about this case if the guy who was fired was a Muslim?
Incidently, I always love how people on the right complain about the tort system right until the minute that they discover that they have been injured. At that moment it becomes: GET LAWYWERS AND SUE THEM.
Right Bill?
Your positions today are interesting. According to you:
1. The Government should tell employers who they can and cannot hire;
2. An employee should have his or her job protected when he insults and makes rude gestures to clients; and
3. You are in favor of a tort system that would allow someone to sue an employer for being fired for making a rude comment to a client.
You hold those views and you claim to be a conservative? Is that right? If that is true, I must have changed overnight from a Progressive into a right wing crack pot. You are far to the left me.
In response to a number of comments above:
Bill Baar,
Although I believe De Paul was probably wrong to not retain the guy, that sort of thing happens every day.
Employers make employment decisions that may be wrong. Welcome to reality.
Further, the guy made a rude gesture. Nobody denies that. If De Paul wants to get rid of people who make rude gestures to students, they are free to do.
Don't you agree, or do you want the government telling employers that they must retain employees who get into heated arguments with clients and then make rude gestures to them?
Is that the sort of government that you prefer?
I am more outraged about the claim that this is a free speech issue than anything else. It isn't. No government action. No free speech. I don't want the government telling me that I have to retain somebody who flips off my clients.
John Ruberry:
Good. It looks like the ACLU has read the law on the First Amendment, and you haven't.
You may want to read my post above. This is not a free speech issue. No government action. Therefore, no free speech.
John, are you in favor of the government telling people who then can and cannot hire? If not, then stop the hypocrisy on this case.
GOP:
You know any conservatives who are ACLU members?
Regarding some people's right to free speech: As I said, and which for reasons that escape me you do not claim to comprehend, this is not a free speech case.
Regarding tenure: It is a contractual issue. I believe that employers should be able to contract with employees as they see fit. That being said, upon further review I do not know if that would apply to this matter. I would have to look at the details of the tenure agreement. I have a difficult time believing that any employment agreement would approve of rude gestures to clients. I see no contradiction at all between somebody with tenure having rights protected and others not, just as I see no contradiction with Tyson Chandler being paid to play basketball, but nobody paying met to do the same. He's got a contract.
Finally, in response to your question, yes I believe that an employer can fire an employee for insulting clients. That is not a free speech issue.
Finally, based upon your answer, I look forward to your new views favoring a strong government that tells people exactly who they can and cannot hire or fire. You are in favor of a strong government that can dictate who can be hired and fired, right?
Ah, but does the employee in question have tenure? Seriously though….
You must have gone to DePaul when Fr. Minogue was President……but assuming a student is a “client,” consider the following: did the clients involved in this incident withdraw their “business” from the university? Did the employer itself thus suffer any harm because of the incident? Because if an employee insults a client, he/she is usually fired for it because the client’s reaction to the insult brings about financial harm to the employer.
Since DePaul itself received no injury due to Klocek’s actions, what was the rationale for firing him? Well, I would submit that it is what he said, not the result of what he said, that got him in trouble. But don’t take my word for it, here’s what the President of DePaul had to say: on the matter: “I get accused of being against free speech, but freedom of speech for students requires they have a professor who treats them with respect.” (And you said I had a real misunderstanding of the first amendment?!)
So, according to his boss, Klocek was fired but for infringing upon the student’s freedom of speech by not respecting them? Interesting, indeed. In light of that tid-bit, let’s try to summarize what your position apparently is, given what you have been saying thus far:
The university can fire a professor for exercising his freedom of speech, if in the course of doing so he abridges the newly included “must be respected” clause of the student’s freedom of speech …..unless that professor has tenure, in which case he is apparently allowed to say whatever he wants, in disrespect to whomever he wants, without fear of his employer exercising their otherwise iron-clad right fire him for whatever reason they might want – lest the entire mystic and sacred aura of academia be compromised.
Did I get that right?
PS: using only what I have actually said (not what you infer my positions or opinions to be – for that would be profiling), please explain exactly how I am a hypocrite (as you so cutely accused me of being without really accusing).
Is that the sort of government that you prefer?
I'd prefer a Union do it.
"Finally, in response to your question, yes I believe that an employer can fire an employee for insulting clients"
- skeet ol'boy, I didn't ask that. You just answered your own question. I aksed if you think that an employer has the right to fire an employee for actions that are protected by the constitution....which might include such things are being a particular race or gender, belonging to a particular political party or insulting a client (as I noted above, employees are fired for the negative impact the client's reaction to the insult has on the business, and in Klocek's case this was none....and the President even said that he was fired for not "respecting" the students - and everyone has the constitutional right to not respect anyone they want.....that's what makes this country great, just ask Howard Dean).
Besides, there is still an equal protection issue here. As a conservative at DePaul, I was disrespected verbally by most of my Professors....and I complained to the Dean about many of them. Of course, nothing ever came of my complaints. If only I were a member of a visable minority that DePaul was scared of offending, things might have been different.
I'm glad to see that you agree that DePaul over-reacted to this incident. But I am saddened to see you take such a "oh, sh*t happens" attitude about it. Prof. Klocek had every right to say and do what he did. The students had every right to disagree with and disrespect him (despite Rev. Holtschneider's expanded 1st amendment), and every right to voice their dissatisfaction. But the fact is DePaul is not a typical employer. I don't need to support the system to use your advocacy for tenure as an example of how you understand that fact too. They have a responsibility to let their professors express what they know to be the truth, inside and outside the classroom….whether they have tenure or not.
But even if they were a typical employer, DePaul suffered no harm as a result of Klocek’s actions, and thus firing him would be unnecessary from a business standpoint and thus unjustified on the basis of the speech itself.
I’m not claiming the ultimate moral high ground on this, or any, issue. But I do not believe that I am a hypocrite based on position here. But the contradictory and often absurdly nonsensical nature of your position seems strange, since you are obviously an educated person. Perhaps this is because it is fueled not by a logical review of the facts, but because you don’t like the people who ARE supporting Klocek, and thus you need to demonstrate that they are wrong for doing so? If that is the case, then you are guilty of an intellectual sin far greater than the hypocrisy of which you accuse me.
GOP:
I don't care if the employer suffered any damages. I do not want the government telling me that I must retain an employee who insults clients, whether or not I am ultimately successful in retaining those clients. I want to decide who works for me. I don't want the government to make that decision.
Do you disagree?
Do you want the government telling the employer that, although the employee insulted the client [actually made a gesture that was the equivalent of flipping the clients off] since the client remained a client you can't get rid of the employee? You can only get rid of an employee who flips off clients if the client actually takes business elsewhere? How about if the employee does it again? You have to retain that employee until the time the client leaves, or the government is going to step in?
I am also confused about your comments about tenure. Do you understand the general idea of contracts? BY CONTRACT, you can get certain rights and certain protections. Is that clear? I do not understand why you are having difficulty with this issue.
Are you now opposed to freedom of contract?
Incidently, the rational for firing him appeared to be that the guy made a rude gesture to students. If a Chicago Public School teacher flipped off a student, would you be demanding that teacher be retained, or would you be moaning about how unfortunate it is that the union protects that sort of conduct?
Are you sure you were insulted at De Paul based upon your political beliefs, or could it have just been on the merits of your scholarship? I have to tell you, your arguments have not been that strong today. Maybe you did better work while you were there.
Also, if you believe that a government should tell employers that they must retain an employee who flips off clients, please do us all a favor and stop calling yourself a conservative. That is not a conservative belief. Conservatives want smaller government, not a larger government.
Skeeter, for your information, I was a Schmitt Scholar with a very high GPA. But that couldn’t matter less.
I don’t see why someone who supports both the necessity and right of an employer to fire an employer any reason would also defend a contract system that takes away an employers right and ability to do just that.
Your support of the tenure system signals to me that you understand the university-professor-student relationship is not the interchangeable with that of employer- employee-client. And tenure is not simply a contract, it is a system that entitles certain employees to rights and protections that other who do ostensibly the same job do not enjoy. That is my problem with the system. It’s existence only helps achieve it’s goals for a select group…….something I find to be unfair. (Just for reference, in your example of the CPS teacher, what would YOUR reaction be, if he was tenured?)
As for questioning my conservative credentials – I don’t see your basis. First off, in this discussion the “government” means the civil justice system, hardly the iron fist of fascism. And I am talking about the government helping an employee right a wrong by an employer (you even admitted that DePaul over-reacted, so where is the Professor to go to correct this unfair action?). I don’t see how that is somehow unconservative.
I could argue further, but I really don’t care anymore. It’s pretty obvious that you’re trying to win this debate by attrition, which is fine with me. But I suggest you re-read my synopsis of you position per your statements thus far in my 3:20 pm post. If you think that is accurate, and you don’t see how your position is at least a little bizarre and inconsistent, then I suppose there really is nothing more I can say. We’ll just agree to disagree.
GOP wrote:
"I don’t see why someone who supports both the necessity and right of an employer to fire an employer any reason would also defend a contract system that takes away an employers right and ability to do just that."
Because I believe in freedom of contract. People should have the freedom to enter into any contracts they please. I don't want the government to dictate employment terms.
You consider the system unfair. Life is unfair. People who negotiate well get good contracts. That is life in the real world. I think it is unfair that Tyson Chandler gets millions to play basketball, but nobody pays me a dime. That is unfair too.
Under your system, the government can tell an employer who it can hire and who it cannot. Under your system, the government gets a say in who you can fire. Worst of all, under your system an employee can flip off a client, but then the government will step in to protect that employee.
That sure looks like big government to me.
You are losing this argument, not because of attrition, but because your arguments are weak. This one should be easy. Just because the employee spoke up for Christians does not necessarily mean he is a guy worth fighting for. He flipped off the students. De Paul over-reacted, but I want De Paul to make that decision, and not the goverment.
Finally, with regard to a tenured CPS teacher who did the same thing: I would have to look at the terms of the tenure agreement. Freedom of contract. They can do as they please. Of course, I would not want somebody who flips off students teaching my kids, but that is another matter entirely.
Finally, I am glad that you, an alleged conservative, are now on the side of free speech. I look forward to your support the next time that anti-war demonstrators want to protest the actions of this administration. I am sure you will take up the cause. Right?
Post a Comment