Insufferable leftist university being hit with a lawsuit.
The adjunct professor accused of Islamophobia for showing artwork in class that depicted the Prophet Muhammad filed a lawsuit against Hamline University on Tuesday as Hamline’s president conceded the school mishandled the controversy.
Professor Erika Lopez Prater is suing the school in Ramsey County District Court for defamation, breach of contract and religious discrimination, among other claims.
Her complaint recounts the controversy that has been described in numerous news articles and opinion pieces in the last six weeks.
Lopez Prater says she warned students repeatedly — on the syllabus shown to students and Hamline higher-ups and during the Oct. 6 class itself — that visual depictions of Muhammad and other religious figures would be shown during her art history class.
Yet, when a Muslim student viewed the artwork and complained to Hamline administrators, the school sided with the student. Lopez Prater was allowed to finish teaching the class, but she says Hamline withdrew its offer to have her teach a contemporary art class in the spring.
In what felt like a preemptive strike ahead of being dealt a loss in court, some Hamline officials conceded to a "misstep" in how this situation was handled.
As an aside from the lawsuit itself, I'll never get used to the idea of college kids being unable to tolerate an opposing viewpoint. Baby Boomers, Gen X and even some millennials made hay out of open debate with their college professors, a skill which proved useful in life. But today's generation? They seem to feel more empowerment from getting someone fired as opposed to fortifying their own beliefs through discourse. What a shame.
- Speaking of attempts to squash dissent.......
Another day, another piece of constitutionally illiterate legislation coming out of Congress. This time it’s Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, whose new bill criminalizing “hate speech” would trample over the First Amendment and imperil free speech.
The “Leading Against White Supremacy Act” starts with a relatively uncontroversial premise, reiterating the illegal nature of white-supremacist-motivated hate crimes. If this was all it did, few would object. But it then also criminalizes those who engage in a “conspiracy” with the perpetrator of a hate crime—and defines it so broadly that it could encapture people who simply post racially insensitive things on social media.
If someone posts “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group,” an eminently subjective category of speech, on social media or other public forums and then someone sees it and commits a hate crime, that original poster is now on the hook for hate crime conspiracy. Yes, even though they never met or spoke to their “co-conspirator” and had no involvement in any actual crime—and, even though the “hate speech” in question is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment.
Of course this is merely a symbolic gesture by Rep. Jackson Lee given a GOP House majority will never allow such a bill to see the light of day. But then, that may well be the point. Dems, assuming people aren't actually digging into the substance of this legislation, can put forth a chanting point of "REPUBLICANS SUPPORT HATE CRIMES!!!!" in an effort to tighten their 2024 campaign messages.
Just ten years ago I wouldn't have believed voters were that gullible. Now? Let's just say I wouldn't bet my house on that sentiment.
- Just four months ago, President Joe Biden said that the COVID-19 pandemic "is over." However, the Federal government's appetite for draconian COVID mitigation remains.
The Justice Department on Tuesday asked an appeals court to reverse an April 2022 ruling that overturned the CDC’s public transportation mask mandate.
Appearing before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Department lawyer Brian Springer argued that the CDC should have the authority to declare universal mask requirements during a public-health crisis, such as the COVID pandemic. It is necessary “to prevent the possible infections and deaths that could result if people didn’t do the simple thing of just putting on a mask while they were traveling,” Springer argued, according to Reuters.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled last year that the CDC’s mask mandate violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was implemented “without allowing public participation through the APA’s notice and comment procedures.”
Masks have shown to be, at best, a mitigating factor in the spread of COVID. And in the nine months since the mask mandate was overturned, it's not like there's been an inordinate number of "super spreader events" due to people utilizing public transportation.
In the end, the DOJ appeal has little to do with masks' effectiveness as opposed to defending Federal agencies' ability to implement arbitrary mandates. Here's hoping the initial overturn is allowed to stand.
-----------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment