Should teacher who advocated murdering NRA members' families be fired?

[Drutt]

A teacher who unequivocally advocates murdering families should be fired, yes.

In this case, however, that isn't what he was saying. His tweet clearly indicates that he wishes that those who (in his view) perpetuate the cycle of violence could be the ones experiencing the tragic results, rather than those who want to break it. He's not endorsing murder (he's actually quite clearly against it), he simply sees death as an inevitable result. Having accepted that, he would prefer to see it isolated to the group who he sees as responsible for the issue.

It's a perfectly acceptable statement, whether you agree with him or not. The sad fact is that people who lack basic reading comprehension have worked themselves up into a frenzy over nothing, as per usual.

[Deleted]

The WBC aren't fired from their jobs because they don't have jobs. Their job is to go picket funerals and protest. The man isn't being punished by a legal authority, and has the same 1st amendment rights as the WBC does. The WBC condones the behavior of these protesters, the University does not condone the behavior of this man. That's why he's fired and they aren't.

Surely you can see this on your own without having someone point it out for you..



I don't care what people say or don't say, or how you try to sensationalize or underplay it. It was a lewd thing to say and he will probably be dealt with by the organization he was representing. This is just like the Paula Dean fiasco.

Ofcourse do i understand why WBC doesn't get fired, but it is strange to me that something like this gets this much attention while WBC does way worse.

[Deleted]

For one he didn't advocare murdering nra members families.
What's the reason he should be fired again?

[Austilias]

A silly statement that reminds of us the rather unsurprising fact that the Gun Control lobby seems fueled by emotion more than anything else. That said, his right to say these things is just as protected by the 1st Amendment as the Westboro Baptist Church's right to spread their so-called message. There are no Amendments however, to protect one's job as a result of the things they're free to say; and frankly this message is little different to those of the Muslim clerics which entail, in a very laissez-faire manner, that terrorist attacks upon the West would not be undeserved. Both should receive the same ire; as both would (and indeed, the individual has) freely admit a certain degree of satisfaction in the deaths of their ideological opponents.

[vindicatorx]

A man that advocates violence should not be teaching children.

This sums up my thoughts as well I do not think a person who is openly advocating violence should be teaching

[Nakura Chambers]

Does this mean that he doesn't get his own say? Doest he have the freedom of speech like every one els? Yes, he should be mindful to his boss when using social media. But he did not say anything hateful, its blown way out of proportion.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from social consequences. If the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church was a professor, he would have been fired a long time ago.

And how does advocating that NRA members have their families murdered not hateful?

[jason1975]

Right now he's experiencing a paid vacation until further notice, but still hasn't lost his job. The university has publicly condemned his statements, but have yet to fire him. The public is absolutely furious that it's been over a month and he's still receiving paid leave and has thus far kept his job. There have also been calls by the Missouri state government for him to be fired. He refuses to apologize for the death threats, but is trying to claim that he shouldn't be held responsible for threats he made on the internet, even though he identified himself as a teacher at the University of Kansas City when making the post.

While his right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, the Constitution does not protect him from an employer firing him for promoting violent and hateful speech. Do you believe he should be fired?

Source: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/19...ournalism.html

Should this guy be fired? Absolutely, positively, without question . . . fire him immediately. Universities should not give refuge to those who advocate violence and death to others, particularly in a revenge/retribution type of statement.

BUT . . . . .

We can't just focus on on the professor himself. There's a much larger context here. This professor's behavior is symptomatic of a larger disease.

Our political environment has become so poisoned by partisanship that we can no longer have rational disagreements. To disagree at all now means that the other person is evil, harmful, and must be destroyed. What this professor tweeted is just one of many (and I'd argue his is less extreme) examples of the breakdown of American political culture under the weight of hyper-partisanship. Don't believe me? Go read the comments section on a major news website like CNN.

And that hyper-partisanship comes from the fact that both parties have isolated most voters from the political process through gerrymandering (only 11% of House seats are competitive now!) and closed partisan primaries that lock out independents (42% of americans identify as independent voters). Thus all the major decisions are made by party insiders who are an increasingly narrow minority of Americans and increasingly rabid in their partisan loyalties. Everything has become about what's best for the parties, not the American people, and all we have left is throwing stones at the "other side" in hopes that we kill enough of them that somehow we wrest control of the process and impose our will. (Which of course the system is designed to prevent in the first place).

In the end, it's become all about the ends justifying the means. That's a poison to the very heart of the democratic ideals America was founded on (and has always struggled to live up to).

If we're going to continue as a country and not tear ourselves apart, we're going to have to fix our political environment. And that means opening up, rather than closing down, our political process.

TLDR: Professor's actions bad, should be fired, but he's the tip of the iceberg. Partisanship is killing us, we need to fix it.

[Kalcheus]

he merely expressed a perhaps poorly thought through sentiment

Then he should be fired for lacking the intelligence criteria for the job.

[Jaxi]

Does this mean that he doesn't get his own say? Doest he have the freedom of speech like every one els? Yes, he should be mindful to his boss when using social media. But he did not say anything hateful, its blown way out of proportion.

Of course he gets his own say. That's guaranteed. Whether or not his statements were so outrageous that the State of Kansas determines he is unfit to be an instructor at their University is what we are arguing. At the end of the day, people will be held accountable for their actions.

[Deleted]

This sums up my thoughts as well I do not think a person who is openly advocating violence should be teaching

And could you quote a line where he advocates violence? Thanks.

[Gilbergrape]

.. is infamous for his controversial tweet after the Navy Yard shooting in Washington, D.C.:
“The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”

so basically he thinks the shootings should only affect those that do not want to get rid of guns.

[Austilias]

there's no honest way to construe it as hoping that people are murdered.

That conclusion is the only dishonest thing i've read here, if anything. That's precisely what he's saying; "Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters". It doesn't get more unambiguous than that; an expression of desire for the sons and daughters of his ideological opponents to be shot.

[Deleted]

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from social consequences. If the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church was a professor, he would have been fired a long time ago.

And how does advocating that NRA members have their families murdered not hateful?

He is not, he is saying, if it happened to you, you might think differently. Its not even my native tongue, and even I can understand this. People just feel butt-hurt because its something they support.

[Payday]

If you think that what he said is a "lewd" thing to say, I have bad news for the future of the human race.

Oh wai- too late for that.

Edit: lewd is probably not the word you're looking for.

I did use the wrong word. Controversial would fit better, as that's what it caused the University that employs him and forced them to take action.

He is not, he is saying, if it happened to you, you might think differently. Its not even my native tongue, and even I can understand this. People just feel butt-hurt because its something they support.

And that's just it. I agree with what the guy said and the way you described it is probably (maybe) how he meant it. But it turned into a PR nightmare for the university and they have every right to shitcan this guy for it. I also love to see people disciplined for being idiots on social media, it's one of my guilty pleasures.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

That conclusion is the only dishonest thing i've read here, if anything. That's precisely what he's saying; "Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters". It doesn't get more unambiguous than that; an expression of desire for the sons and daughters of his ideological opponents to be shot.

Which is uncalled for albeit I have no love for the NRA. This teacher is just a symptom of a larger problem. The NRA may not literally have blood on their hands but they sure aren't trying to help either.

[nagano]

And yes the turkey should be fired. He used his University twitter account to post his stupidity, he used his University title and that means what he did can reflect back on the University if nothing else. Besides what he said was immoral and inexcusable.

Couldn't have said it better. The University's reputation is a stake, they want to protect that reputation by firing a professor that stepped out of line.

[Tackhisis]

I don't like his statement. It implies unequal value of life of the white kid killed by his peers and coloured kid killed by coloured gangs.

[bayushisan]

It seems pretty clear he's speaking about an inevitable future occurrence. I don't agree with his statement, but there's no honest way to construe it as hoping that people are murdered.

Here's where we run into an issue, I do think that a person can come to the conclusion I did honestly. Like I said it's just basic English. If someone has a different take then I do, that's fine; but I certainly don't see it. I see what I see based on my understanding of words and how they work together. People don't get to change the meaning of things to suit their purposes or to make something mean what it doesn't mean. (An issue I have with one of my friends btw) Words are not subjective, they just aren't. He may have meant something else but what he said indicates another thing entirely.

[Kalcheus]

You guys are ridiculous. It is abundantly clear that he is talking about an inevitable future event, saying that the next time children die in a school shooting he is hoping it is the children of NRA members, instead of the children of non-NRA members. He is not hoping two people die when it could be zero, he's hoping that two people die when two people must die. I do not think there is any good reason to think that he would want them to be murdered if it nobody would otherwise be killed.

That doesn't make it better.

[Deleted]

Here's where we run into an issue, I do think that a person can come to the conclusion I did honestly. Like I said it's just basic English. If someone has a different take then I do, that's fine; but I certainly don't see it. I see what I see based on my understanding of words and how they work together. People don't get to change the meaning of things to suit their purposes or to make something mean what it doesn't mean. (An issue I have with one of my friends btw) Words are not subjective, they just aren't. He may have meant something else but what he said indicates another thing entirely.

So, proverbs are none existing thing for you?