September 16, 2025 • 35 mins
Free speech on college campuses has reemerged as a hot-button issue in the wake of a firing at Texas A&M and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Hello, and welcome to the Texas trib Cast for Tuesday,
September sixteenth. I'm Eleanor Klibanoff Law and politics reporter, alongside
as always editor in chief Matthew Watkins.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Welcome back, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I was extraordinarily tempted to not return to work after
a couple of weeks off. I will tell you this,
though I.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Was in Europe and I've heard of it.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I am alarmed to tell you that the Europeans very
aware of Texas redistricting.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Interesting.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I promise I did not bring this up.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
I promise.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Say you're from Texas, you know Texas first of all
the reactions it gets. I was with a traveling other
friend from New York. It's like the two places people
know in New York Texas, and and got a lot
of reactions, a lot like oh man, Texas, Like oh
what's going on there? Nothing makes me more patriotic or
more Texas might bring my Texas allegiance out more than
(01:12):
a European trying to tell me that they don't like
how we're doing things here.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, yeah, I feel that it used to be they
would associate it with George Bush. You know, they'd be like, oh, yeah,
you must be like a George Bush guy. Apparently now
it's redistrict team, right.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yeah, yeah, and again in Europe, I am a George
Bush guy. You know. Don't try and tell me how
to feel about my elected officials. Yeah, yeah, no, So
that was very alarming. I tried to escape it. I
could not.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, that sounds that's terrible, especially Germans.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
The Germans very alarmed about everything. I was like, yeah,
I gotta calm down a little bit. It's not really,
it's gonna be fine anyway. That's not what we're here
to talk about this week. We have for finally, at
lease a little bit moved on from the redistricting haha
and have found ourselves in another, you know, major national
news story here in Texas. So this week we're going
(02:07):
to be digging into sort of the college campus free
speech wars that we've seen really bubbling up over the
last couple of years that has culminated, perhaps that's optimistic
in an incident with Texas A and M where a
professor was fired after a confrontation with a student over
gender identity content in a children's literature course. You know,
(02:30):
this is just the latest in an ongoing series of
clashes at Texas A and M at Texas universities more
generally nationally, on college campuses over diversity, equity and inclusion,
gender identity, what is taught and who can say?
Speaker 5 (02:46):
What you know?
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Similarly, the day after this incident, a Texas State professor
was fired after he was accused of inciting violence while
speaking at a socialism conference. So just a lot happening
all at once. So joining us to talk through the
nuances of these issues is Texas Tribune Higher ed reporter
Jessica Priest.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Jessica, thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Jessica is actually in Indiana this time.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
YEA.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Loyal listeners of the podcast will know that snaeha last
week I accused of being in Indiana, which he was
actually in Illinois, So we said, Jessica to.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Indiana, to Indiana, just to make sure we had one.
We are also joined by Zach Greenberg, faculty legal defense
counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Where
are you, Zach.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
We're in the great city of Philadelphia.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Thanks for having me. H, that's not Indiana or Illinois
or Texas City Champions. Yeah, Jessica, let's start with you,
and maybe you can sort of just give us an
overview of what happened and where things stand with Texas
A and M.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Oh gosh, where did we get? Okay? So I think
it was Monday. State Representative Brian Harrison tweeted started a
Twitter thread where he shared a video that was taken
in a course, a literature course at Texas A and m.
(04:18):
It's important to note that the video and the class
in question that he shows happened over the summer. So
it was a summer class, and it was about children's literature,
and it was for college students, for juniors and seniors
in college, not children. And the video depicts it doesn't
(04:40):
show anyone's face, but it's clear from watching the video
you hear a student talking to the professor and you know,
respectfully asking or asking or confronting her about why she
is teaching about gender in the course. The student says
that it's, you know, against her religious beliefs and argues
(05:05):
that it's also against President Trump's executive order. We haven't
spoken with the student, but I believe she's referring to
an executive order the president issued in January that basically says,
you know, the federal government only recognizes two genders and
(05:25):
instructs the federal agencies directs them to not fund any
projects that, in his view, would promote gender ideology. So
it's not this executive order is not a law. I
think that's also important for people to know. So my
(05:48):
reporting has been that there is no federal or state
law that prohibits, you know, a college professor from teaching
about gender. That was a very long.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Explation that being said Brian Harrison, the state representative who
posted this, who is an aggie and also perhaps the
most conservative member of a very conservative.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Legislature and a social media recontoire right right like he is,
gets much of what he is known for is sort
of identifying these things on college campus, is highlighting and
demanding for significant penalties, including firing.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Right and has has been pretty effective, particularly at his
alma mater, of drawing attention to these things and bringing
changes to it, really pushing the idea that these universities,
particularly A and M, in his mind, are promoting an
ideology that doesn't align with the values of the state
(06:50):
or or what he thinks the university should be teaching,
and therefore that you know, what he would call in
doctor nation should be should be stopped and eliminated, especially right,
and in.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
This case he did sort of by escalating this. He
called for or Jessica to talk a little about like
what the HR side of this, Like what happened then
in terms of penalties.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
So in the tweet thread, so in addition to the
video of the student, you know where you hear the
student and the professor talking, he also shared what appears
to be like a recording of either a phone call
or an in person meeting with the university president, President
Mark Welsh. And in the video, President Welsh appears to
(07:36):
defend the teacher or the professor and what she's teaching
and initially tell the student that, you know, it's not happening.
Firing her is not going to be happening. It's important
to note that we don't have the full conversation, We
don't know the full context, but you know, it appears
that he initially was was hesitant to discipline in this case.
(08:02):
But after the so that conversation we believe took place
like over the summer, and then this tweet was in September,
and you know, within days of this kind of going viral,
he appears to have changed his mind and demoted the
dean and the department head and ultimately he terminated the
(08:28):
professor in this In this case, and the cited reason
was that the course did not align with the course
content did not align with the course catalog description. He said,
it's it's about academic responsibility rather than academic freedom, Like
we students should, I guess when they're looking at the
(08:49):
catalog know what they're signing up for. So yeah, Zach, let's.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Bring you in on this. I mean, what what do
you sort of make of this whole incident and the
you know, this students argument, the faculty argument, and the
administrator's argument.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Yeah, we defend academic freedom here at Fire, the idea
that professors have the right to discuss these controversial issues
in class areas, within their expertise and any breathing room
to discuss these issues. And it's really sad to see
professors being fired for their in class teaching and pedagogy.
(09:24):
I know there was a dispute with the student and
the professor about what exactly the law was the student's
disruption in class, but we do feel that universities should
resolve these issues taking a new account the societal importance
we have for academic freedom and the free change of
ideas at a public university bound by the First Amendment.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Zach, I want to ask you a little bit about
to kind of dive into this question of First Amendment
freedom of speech and academic freedom and how that kind
of fits in there, right, because we, of course know
the First Amendment protects people's right to say things, including
things that are offensive, and not be punished by the
government for it, except for you know, small example of
(10:08):
the whole like yelling fire in the crowded movie theater
and all that kind of stuff. But then there's the
separate kind of conversation around academic freedom, right, and this
idea of not wanting the government to interfere too much
with the the you know, what's being taught and what's
being researched. I mean, this is a state school. How
(10:29):
does the concept of academic freedom fit into the You know,
this isn't a professor who got fired for going out
on the street and saying something offensive. This is something
that was said. Yeah, we're going to get to that
that this was something that was said in the classroom.
So how, if at all, should we or the courts
(10:52):
look at how that played out.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Yeah, the Supreme Court said that academic freedom is a
spectual concern of the First Amendment, which doesn't tolerate laws
that cast a palid orthodoxy on the classroom. And the
general idea is that academic institutions in America should be
places where students and professors are the most free to
discuss their ideas, more so than any other institution in
(11:17):
our society, just because of the purpose of the university
and the importance of these institutions to our society. And
so when it comes to these disputes of what professors
say in class, you know, the professors teaching and their research,
and there the main discussion of ideas that's really the.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Core of their job.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Dute is their job responsibilities, and they're trying to engage
our students to try to get them to discuss these
ideas and really participate in these debates we're having in
our society. And for a university to fire professor for
having this discussion, even if it may be offensive to
students or controversial out there, it's really the opposite of
(11:58):
the goals of the university.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
And that use a free speech and academic freedom.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
How does that break down though, because I think that
there's there is a question here in this case about
was she teaching what she should have been teaching in
the course? Right? I am also a text saying a.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Graduate, we we've made it what eight minutes before?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Yes, it's been a very long time since I've been
in the classroom, and I know a lot of things
have changed, But I do remember a very specific class
at A and M. It was a philosophy class, I
think maybe even an intro to philosophy class, and it
was taught by a lecturer whose research interest was truth commissions,
you know, this whole like you know, South Africa or
(12:42):
other places having these and their effectiveness and everything like that,
and she decided that this course was going to be
about that as opposed to like more broad philosophy, which
it was an interesting course, it was also not the
course I signed up for. And it doesn't seem like
completely unreasonable for a you know, AA student to be
(13:04):
upset about something like that and be for a school
to be like, no, you need to like teach what's
actually like on the syllabus and what we're asking you
to teach here that seems to be somewhat the case
that Welsh the President is arguing is that she didn't
teach how this course was advertised. How do you sort
(13:26):
of see that factor in this conversation.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Yeah, you're right, and that if you have a physics
professor and all they do is talk about political issues
the entire time, I think you can make an argument
the professor is not teaching the course as it's supposed
to be taught, actually, depending on what is in the
syllabus and what is the purpose of the course. And
of course backing members need some breathing room to go
off topics some of the time, just to share their
(13:52):
expertise and make the class a little more engaging.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
And our argument is.
Speaker 5 (13:56):
That the determination of what is taught and how it
should be taught, that's to be made at the university
academic faculty level, right at cheap, a determination by the
factory member that apartment and share the people who are
most well versed and experts in this category. It was
made by administrative politician. You can see that can be
very easily abused to target professors who talk about controversial issues.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
So you're right, it's definitely an issue.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
It's definitely a limited academic freedom of not teaching the
class as advertised, not giving students proper notice of what's
being taught. But if that is going to be a
determination the professor is unfit to teach, that should be
at the academic level.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I mean, just to sort of widen this out beyond
this incident, I mean, we have seen I mean, if
you just take chexas A and M, we've seen a
lot of these classes. But also, you know, statewide and nationally,
why are college campus is such sort of hotbeds of
these free speech issues? And it has that always been
the case, or are we seeing are we in a
moment of particular clashes?
Speaker 2 (14:58):
I guess I think it's really always been the case.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
You can think at stories about the founding fathers, you know,
raising hell fare universities, the first free speed zones to
put in place at the combat protests against the Vietnam War.
So I think the university has really always been areas
where students and factor members feel free to express themselves
and discuss their ideas, and naturally then involves some opposition
(15:22):
from those on campus and off campus too. Is happy
at the universities because they are taxpayer funded, right, They're
part of our communities, part of our society, and so
you're always going to see the precarious situation of universities
in our society how they operate. Which is why having
academic freedom for both the institution and for the individual
professor is so important because in many ways they are kind.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Of majoritarian principles.
Speaker 5 (15:45):
Right, we have this freedom to discuss ideas that are
controversial at our offensive we're talking about things that everyone
agrees with. Tops two equals four, the sky is blue.
You don't need academic freedom of free speech. You need
it when you do draw the ire of politicians and
government officials who want.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
To censor you. Disic.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I wonder what you make of Welsh's specific argument here.
I mean, we talked about it like how it could
present a different case. On the other hand, you know,
the firing happened months after the incident happened, as you mentioned, Jessica,
And also you know, I think there are probably a
lot of people within the INN faculty and another university
saying like, Okay, is this actually the reason or is
(16:25):
this a convenient excuse to get rid of someone who
is bringing a lot of intense political pressure to the
university from people like Brian Harrison, but even more so
from folks like Governor Greg Abbott who has tweeted about
this and other leaders. They don't want this kind of
(16:45):
attention right now.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah, So your question is what I make of.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
His decision and his explanation for the decision.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yeah, I think that university presidents, I mean I would
not want President Welsh's job right now, in a very
difficult job. So it's like he has kind of he
has a lot of constituents, right, so he I feel
like he needs to make lawmakers happy to keep his job,
(17:20):
but he also needs the trust of the faculty and
so so I think he that may be why he
decided what he decided.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
He also the very conservative Board of regents.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Shows like who has the power here?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Right?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Is like too, you know, event should just sort of
say like well this and again, based like you said,
on the limited view we have of this meeting where
he originally said like we're not going to fire this
this professor, then we have a social media backlash led
by state lawmakers and the governor and others, and then
the professor is fired. It's like it shows like the
(18:01):
levers of power that that influence.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Until I started reporting on Higher Ed, like I didn't
really understand all those levers, and I think it's important
for people to know that, Like, you know, these boards
of regents are appointed by the governors, so there in
many cases like in lockstep with him.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
And this comes after a legislative session where once again
Higher Ed sort of saw some of it's some of
that freedom curtailed. In Texas, they passed a The law
goes into effect in January, so it's not in effect yet,
but there will be a law in effect that gainst regents,
you know, these govern governor appointed regents more control over curriculum.
(18:46):
This comes after they banned any programs related to diversity,
equity inclusion at colleges and universities. I mean, really seeing
a tightening of you know, of the control over what
is taught.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
It's been amazing to watch how much the governance and
culture has changed these universities in recent years. I mean
going back to twenty nineteen when lawmakers passed their sort
of free speech on campus bill, and that bill was passed,
you know, largely out of concern that conservative voices were
sort of being shouted down and that they needed to
be protected, and that you know, administrators and professors and
(19:23):
other leaders at the universities were too liberal. We had
twenty twenty happen after that, you know, the George Floyd protests,
the reactions there, and there's just been so much of
a swing back, whether it's who's leading these universities. You've
seen a lot of different university presidents leave and politicians,
very conservative politicians being put in a lot of those
(19:46):
major you know, president or chancellor positions you have, you know,
new you mentioned the DEI rules, some of these rules
about what can and can apt be taught, and just
a much swifter reaction to you know, any kind of
incident like this, It does very much seem whether it's
(20:08):
at Texas A and M, whether it's at Texas State
with the professor you mentioned earlier, there was an incident
on the Texas Tech campus where a student was expelled
very quickly and removed after you know, saying admittedly some
pretty terrible things about the death of Charlie Kirk on campus, right,
(20:29):
but the swiftness at which these administrators are taking action
really feels like, Jessica, it has created a sort of
culture change on these campuses in just like the past
like half decade. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Yes, I would agree with that. Yeah, and just a
small correction, Eleanor like the law that you're mentioning, Senate
Bill thirty seven, part of it has gone into effect,
and that part the part of the law that has
gone into effect basically either did away or significantly weakened.
(21:06):
Like faculty representative bodies in higher ed so they're largely
I mean, they've always been an advisory but they were
elected by their other faculty members and advised the administration
on academic matters, and now their power is significantly weakened.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Zach.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Have you felt this sort of pendulum swing and sort
of free speech at the center of all of this.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, it's almost like a political football, right.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
It's like whatever party is in power, whatever they believe
the situation to be, they're gonna most likely abuse the
free speech rights of those around them. It's almost like
the parties don't really have any principles at all. That is,
you know, it's all about the raw power, and so
free speech ideally should be this societal wide neutral principle,
(21:56):
general applicability that it protects everybody equally no matter who
you are, what you say. But we're seeing free speech
kind of be warped into a rallying cry for those
outside of power, and then once they get in there,
it's just everyone's a nail and there a hammer, and
they see this happening, you know right now. He turned
out on the Natate of America right saying that in
a prosecute hate speech, like it's happening right before our eyes.
(22:18):
That could be a woke talking point five years ago,
and it's happening, you know that September sixteenth, you know,
twenty twenty five. So yeah, we're literally seeing it in
our in our lifetimes, our in our very short political light.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
What should I say?
Speaker 5 (22:33):
You know, time spans over here that like, yeah, this
issue is being very warped. And I think it would
be worthwhile for university presidents, especially politicians who support universities,
to have a backbone to be principal, to support free speech,
even for those that they disagree with.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
I mean, I think you mentioned already, Charlie Kirk. I
mean I think a historian, you know, over the last
that half decade even longer, like a real character in
these debates, you know, Kirk obviously a right wing political
activist who was assassinated last week in Utah while on
a college campus, sort of doing what he became best
(23:12):
known for, which was hosting these debates and coming to
college campuses really trying to, you know, I think, in
some ways, whether intentionally or not, like test the limits
of these free speech protections for views that maybe are
not as widely accepted on college campuses. Zach, can you
just talk a little bit bit about you know, Charlie
Kirk and Turning Point USA and sort of the role
they played in this arena of college free speech.
Speaker 5 (23:35):
Yeah, I mean, Charlie Kirk found it to a Point
USA to provide a counterbalance to what he saw as
a liberal bias on campus.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
It's the conservative student group.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
It's been around for you know a while now. They're
an off censored group. We've defended them when they've gotten
their funding revoked, when the group's got de recognized, their
speakers get disinvited only because they do service as counterbalance.
And yeah, and because of that activist activist, they've definitely
gotten a reputation. You know, They've been opposed by many
(24:03):
liberal groups of course, and I think the reaction to
Charlie Kirk's assassination on the left is something we've seen
against Your Point USA for a while. Now that you
know this, he essentially got what was coming, and you know,
this was a good thing. And that's you know, stand
to see because it was a political assassination. It was
a violent response to free speech. And you know, if
(24:24):
you're going to defend a free speech if defended for everybody,
even the groups, then individuals that you disagree with.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
I found it so interesting.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I was looking at Fire's website or your group's website,
the Students under Fire report that found that over the
last five years and Turning Point USA was one of
was the most targeted campus group, tied with Students for
Justice in Palestine, which is interesting of just like you know, again,
free speech, it's not about like you know which side
you like, it's like both. It has to extend to everyone.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Yeah, I stayed p the last couple of years, right
with the Gods of Conflict. I feel like that that
group's been around for while, they're very active on campus,
they're able to organized. As a result, they get censored
a lot, so so almost you put your neck out
there and they're gonna get bopped un fortunately.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Right, Yeah, Jessica, how have we seen Texas lawmakers respond
to the assassination of Kirk?
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I mean both.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
I think many of them were like personally friends with
him and knew him and sort of supported him politically.
But then also you know, on their their response to
the social media responses, this is kicked off.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
I haven't talked to any personally, but just following their
social media, you can see that they're upset when people
are making light of Charlie Kirk's death or disparaging him
in his legacy in some way, or I don't know,
(25:53):
celebrating his death and calling for uh, for those people
to be for those who are expressing those opinions to
face consequences, whether it be firing or yeah, mostly just
losing your job, like we've seen. I don't know that
(26:13):
we've seen it in Texas, but I think nationally there
have been professors who've been terminated for opinions that they've
expressed online. And then here in Texas, a colleague of
mine worked on a story about you know, the TEA,
the Texas Education Administration Association administration, you know, I guess
(26:37):
finding one hundred something teachers maybe did this and pursuing
their teaching license.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Yeah, I think. I mean Mike Marath, the you know,
commissioner saying that they would not just fire teachers who
were found to have made you know, and come and
say deemed inappropriate, but revoke their their teaching licenses. You said, yeah, which.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Is kind of like, I mean, I still need to
read up on that reporting. But that's kind of like
extraordinary if you think about like our shortage of teachers
like an extraordinary kind of act.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
But on the other hand, Zach, I mean, I'm not
you know, I wouldn't really want my kindergarten teacher celebrating
the murder of someone on a college campus, right, I mean,
walk me through how you think about this, right, I mean,
(27:29):
I think there are reasonable reasonable there's a reasonable urge
to be angry at the people who celebrated the murder
of a human being for you know, exercising his free speech. Right.
How do you view kind of that reaction, you know,
(27:50):
when when you see things like what's what's what's happening
in Texas?
Speaker 5 (27:53):
Yeah, I mean, if you're a public university or a
public employee in general, you have the right to comment
on political using your private capacities and you speaking on
social media talking about Charlie Kirk. As a legal standard,
the government can come back and say your speech is
disruptive to the institution that because your speech renders you unfit,
the teacher fit to do your job, we can punish
(28:15):
you for that. So it's really a balancing task between
the individual's right to express their political views of the
First Amendment and then the institutions interests and ensuring smooth operations.
And that's a pretty high bar, right. You really have
to clear, you know, show a lot of disruption, I
really manifest the fitness to do your job to overcome
someone fundamental first mode rights. An example is a university
(28:37):
professor perhaps continually says, you know, I'm a racist. I
can't teach black students. You know, the students I certainly
feel uncomfortable of gobal into the university and being part
of the class because the professor has these racial views.
But many of the situations it is a teacher or
a public employee just expressing themselves, particularly just express themselves
(28:58):
about Charlie Kirk, in their views about him, and unless
the university or the institution shows that, you know, this
individual can longer be a functioning teacher or a nurser
can't do their job and teachings effectively, then I think
the university, then the university intitutions shouldn't allow the person
to keep their job, because you know, we want to
preserve this right to comment on political views, even if
(29:20):
it is offensive to others.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
It's been a disappointing week, you know. I mean, of course,
like the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a terrible, terrible
event that and of itself makes for a terrible week.
You would hope in a healthy and functioning democracy in
society that it wouldn't then immediately break down into this
(29:45):
side does this, this side does this, This side is worse,
and we would maybe view ourselves on the side of
maybe people who think we should be able to talk
about things and not be murdered for them, and people
who don't someone that yeah, right, and not try to
cast blame on anyone other than who's pushing for you know,
(30:05):
who's who's condoning or supporting that kind of violence. We
do not seem to be at that place right now
as a society or state or anywhere else. And I
would love to see us.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Get to that.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Place, right, I mean, it's I mean, and we have
the same conversation on some I mean, obviously, the assassination
of Charlie Kirk is such a you know, unprecedented thing,
but it is like it does remind me in some
ways of the conversations we have after like a school shooting,
where it's like, can we not just like grieve this
and talk about you know, like how does this become
politicized so quickly? But on all sides, And it just
(30:43):
feels like we are not at a high point of
being able to discuss you know, horrible human tragedies and
politics in the same conversation without sort of devolving into
our worst our selves at that.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
Point, we're really We're going to say at the cancel
culture part of the tragedy cycle, you hear about this
where like the tragedy happens, people express outrage or grief,
and then people criticize those people expressing average and grief
and they lose their jobs. The winner fires first case
we ever had two thousand and one was a professor
who said that nine to eleven was a good thing,
that we're they're glad this win Towers went down and
(31:19):
that you know, this is a happy thing, and you
can imagine the reaction that got in two thousand and one, right,
and so seeing happening right now, right, you have a tragedy.
Try to Kirk assassinated. People comment on it now. There's
a huge wash this out there. I think fifty thousand
people that are being fired from their jobs or being
contacted with their employers for what they say. So it
is definitely a sad day for America and I think
(31:40):
this should definitely stop happening.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
Do you have any thoughts? I hate to put you
on the spot, but like, do you have any thoughts
on what needs to happen to get us out of
this cycle?
Speaker 5 (31:51):
I think it's kind of just of building a free
speech culture, like recognizing that we're all human beings, will
live in America, we all have free speech almost like
a basic are sending of respect, like you wouldn't want
this done to you in five years, don't do it
to us, you know, Like we shouldn't have canceled the
people that were criticizing George Floyd. We shouldn't cancel people
(32:12):
that are criticizing Charlie Kirk. The next person contestinant we
shouldn't cancel those people either, So I think that has
to stop somewhere. And it said, it keeps kind of
fueling and getting worse and worse. But I know more
people that recognize the value of free speech. I think
they'll understand why this is harmful to our sido fabric
and our nation and they'll stop it.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I mean, I think in some ways the through line
also is like you know, this professor being fired or
of you know people sort of it's like this like
intense blowback one hundred and eighty teachers investigated for speaking
you know, ill of Charlie Kirk is like the people
who never will be actually penalized for this right. They're
not actually going to take one hundred and eighty teachers
(32:55):
to you know, or open themselves up to that many
lawsuits or whatever. But it's just sort of the effect
on free speech again, whether it's someone something you support
or something you don't of, Like, you know, I just
won't share my opinion for fear that I could be
penalized for it.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, I mean it.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
It would also just be nice to get to a
place where, like we are, we're not just talking to
each other, but we're talking to each other in a
way where we're like seeking to understand and be understood
as opposed to like scoring points and humiliating or caricaturing
the other side. But we are not at that place
right now. But I'm curious, like to your point about
(33:33):
a Chilian effect and everything like that, Jessica, I mean,
what do you think about what do you hear, if anything,
from people on these college campuses. I mean, do you
think that that Chilian effect is happening? How are people,
professors and others reacting to what has happened in the
last few weeks all of.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
This, Yeah, I mean it's a mix. Like I've heard
from professors saying that they are themselves like courting their
own lectures to kind of have as like evidence if
anything were to be shared on social media so they
could have the full context. I've heard some are self censoring,
(34:14):
that they're just not going to talk about certain topics
anymore because they don't want to get in trouble. And
then there are others who feel like, I'm going to
keep teaching because that's in the best interest of my students,
and that's who I'm here for. The American Association of
university professors put out a survey I think the week
(34:35):
before this stuff with Texas A and m happened that
found like twenty I think it was a twenty five
percent of the respondents in Texas we're looking for jobs
outside of the state just because of the political climate here.
So it's not looking good.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah. Wow, Well, I imagine this is, like many things
we talked about on here, going to be continuing to
develop an unfold and nothing will be resolved. Despite your
you know, your optimism about where we might all end
up as a I.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Didn't it was opts.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I just wish yes, right, your fan fiction about the
future of American democracy. Well, I just want to really
thank Jessica and Zach you both for joining us and
taking the time and appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Thank you, thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
You can get the Trip Cast anywhere you get your podcasts,
as well as on YouTube. Our producers are Rob and
Chris and we will see you next week.
Hello, and welcome to the Texas trib Cast for Tuesday,
September sixteenth. I'm Eleanor Klibanoff Law and politics reporter, alongside
as always editor in chief Matthew Watkins.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Welcome back, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I was extraordinarily tempted to not return to work after
a couple of weeks off. I will tell you this,
though I.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Was in Europe and I've heard of it.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I am alarmed to tell you that the Europeans very
aware of Texas redistricting.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Interesting.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I promise I did not bring this up.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
I promise.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Say you're from Texas, you know Texas first of all
the reactions it gets. I was with a traveling other
friend from New York. It's like the two places people
know in New York Texas, and and got a lot
of reactions, a lot like oh man, Texas, Like oh
what's going on there? Nothing makes me more patriotic or
more Texas might bring my Texas allegiance out more than
(01:12):
a European trying to tell me that they don't like
how we're doing things here.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Yeah, yeah, I feel that it used to be they
would associate it with George Bush. You know, they'd be like, oh, yeah,
you must be like a George Bush guy. Apparently now
it's redistrict team, right.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Yeah, yeah, and again in Europe, I am a George
Bush guy. You know. Don't try and tell me how
to feel about my elected officials. Yeah, yeah, no, So
that was very alarming. I tried to escape it. I
could not.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, that sounds that's terrible, especially Germans.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
The Germans very alarmed about everything. I was like, yeah,
I gotta calm down a little bit. It's not really,
it's gonna be fine anyway. That's not what we're here
to talk about this week. We have for finally, at
lease a little bit moved on from the redistricting haha
and have found ourselves in another, you know, major national
news story here in Texas. So this week we're going
(02:07):
to be digging into sort of the college campus free
speech wars that we've seen really bubbling up over the
last couple of years that has culminated, perhaps that's optimistic
in an incident with Texas A and M where a
professor was fired after a confrontation with a student over
gender identity content in a children's literature course. You know,
(02:30):
this is just the latest in an ongoing series of
clashes at Texas A and M at Texas universities more
generally nationally, on college campuses over diversity, equity and inclusion,
gender identity, what is taught and who can say?
Speaker 5 (02:46):
What you know?
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Similarly, the day after this incident, a Texas State professor
was fired after he was accused of inciting violence while
speaking at a socialism conference. So just a lot happening
all at once. So joining us to talk through the
nuances of these issues is Texas Tribune Higher ed reporter
Jessica Priest.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Jessica, thank you for joining us, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Jessica is actually in Indiana this time.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
YEA.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
Loyal listeners of the podcast will know that snaeha last
week I accused of being in Indiana, which he was
actually in Illinois, So we said, Jessica to.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Indiana, to Indiana, just to make sure we had one.
We are also joined by Zach Greenberg, faculty legal defense
counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Where
are you, Zach.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
We're in the great city of Philadelphia.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Thanks for having me. H, that's not Indiana or Illinois
or Texas City Champions. Yeah, Jessica, let's start with you,
and maybe you can sort of just give us an
overview of what happened and where things stand with Texas
A and M.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Oh gosh, where did we get? Okay? So I think
it was Monday. State Representative Brian Harrison tweeted started a
Twitter thread where he shared a video that was taken
in a course, a literature course at Texas A and m.
(04:18):
It's important to note that the video and the class
in question that he shows happened over the summer. So
it was a summer class, and it was about children's literature,
and it was for college students, for juniors and seniors
in college, not children. And the video depicts it doesn't
(04:40):
show anyone's face, but it's clear from watching the video
you hear a student talking to the professor and you know,
respectfully asking or asking or confronting her about why she
is teaching about gender in the course. The student says
that it's, you know, against her religious beliefs and argues
(05:05):
that it's also against President Trump's executive order. We haven't
spoken with the student, but I believe she's referring to
an executive order the president issued in January that basically says,
you know, the federal government only recognizes two genders and
(05:25):
instructs the federal agencies directs them to not fund any
projects that, in his view, would promote gender ideology. So
it's not this executive order is not a law. I
think that's also important for people to know. So my
(05:48):
reporting has been that there is no federal or state
law that prohibits, you know, a college professor from teaching
about gender. That was a very long.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Explation that being said Brian Harrison, the state representative who
posted this, who is an aggie and also perhaps the
most conservative member of a very conservative.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Legislature and a social media recontoire right right like he is,
gets much of what he is known for is sort
of identifying these things on college campus, is highlighting and
demanding for significant penalties, including firing.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Right and has has been pretty effective, particularly at his
alma mater, of drawing attention to these things and bringing
changes to it, really pushing the idea that these universities,
particularly A and M, in his mind, are promoting an
ideology that doesn't align with the values of the state
(06:50):
or or what he thinks the university should be teaching,
and therefore that you know, what he would call in
doctor nation should be should be stopped and eliminated, especially right,
and in.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
This case he did sort of by escalating this. He
called for or Jessica to talk a little about like
what the HR side of this, Like what happened then
in terms of penalties.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
So in the tweet thread, so in addition to the
video of the student, you know where you hear the
student and the professor talking, he also shared what appears
to be like a recording of either a phone call
or an in person meeting with the university president, President
Mark Welsh. And in the video, President Welsh appears to
(07:36):
defend the teacher or the professor and what she's teaching
and initially tell the student that, you know, it's not happening.
Firing her is not going to be happening. It's important
to note that we don't have the full conversation, We
don't know the full context, but you know, it appears
that he initially was was hesitant to discipline in this case.
(08:02):
But after the so that conversation we believe took place
like over the summer, and then this tweet was in September,
and you know, within days of this kind of going viral,
he appears to have changed his mind and demoted the
dean and the department head and ultimately he terminated the
(08:28):
professor in this In this case, and the cited reason
was that the course did not align with the course
content did not align with the course catalog description. He said,
it's it's about academic responsibility rather than academic freedom, Like
we students should, I guess when they're looking at the
(08:49):
catalog know what they're signing up for. So yeah, Zach, let's.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Bring you in on this. I mean, what what do
you sort of make of this whole incident and the
you know, this students argument, the faculty argument, and the
administrator's argument.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Yeah, we defend academic freedom here at Fire, the idea
that professors have the right to discuss these controversial issues
in class areas, within their expertise and any breathing room
to discuss these issues. And it's really sad to see
professors being fired for their in class teaching and pedagogy.
(09:24):
I know there was a dispute with the student and
the professor about what exactly the law was the student's
disruption in class, but we do feel that universities should
resolve these issues taking a new account the societal importance
we have for academic freedom and the free change of
ideas at a public university bound by the First Amendment.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
Zach, I want to ask you a little bit about
to kind of dive into this question of First Amendment
freedom of speech and academic freedom and how that kind
of fits in there, right, because we, of course know
the First Amendment protects people's right to say things, including
things that are offensive, and not be punished by the
government for it, except for you know, small example of
(10:08):
the whole like yelling fire in the crowded movie theater
and all that kind of stuff. But then there's the
separate kind of conversation around academic freedom, right, and this
idea of not wanting the government to interfere too much
with the the you know, what's being taught and what's
being researched. I mean, this is a state school. How
(10:29):
does the concept of academic freedom fit into the You know,
this isn't a professor who got fired for going out
on the street and saying something offensive. This is something
that was said. Yeah, we're going to get to that
that this was something that was said in the classroom.
So how, if at all, should we or the courts
(10:52):
look at how that played out.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Yeah, the Supreme Court said that academic freedom is a
spectual concern of the First Amendment, which doesn't tolerate laws
that cast a palid orthodoxy on the classroom. And the
general idea is that academic institutions in America should be
places where students and professors are the most free to
discuss their ideas, more so than any other institution in
(11:17):
our society, just because of the purpose of the university
and the importance of these institutions to our society. And
so when it comes to these disputes of what professors
say in class, you know, the professors teaching and their research,
and there the main discussion of ideas that's really the.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Core of their job.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Dute is their job responsibilities, and they're trying to engage
our students to try to get them to discuss these
ideas and really participate in these debates we're having in
our society. And for a university to fire professor for
having this discussion, even if it may be offensive to
students or controversial out there, it's really the opposite of
(11:58):
the goals of the university.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
And that use a free speech and academic freedom.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
How does that break down though, because I think that
there's there is a question here in this case about
was she teaching what she should have been teaching in
the course? Right? I am also a text saying a.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Graduate, we we've made it what eight minutes before?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Yes, it's been a very long time since I've been
in the classroom, and I know a lot of things
have changed, But I do remember a very specific class
at A and M. It was a philosophy class, I
think maybe even an intro to philosophy class, and it
was taught by a lecturer whose research interest was truth commissions,
you know, this whole like you know, South Africa or
(12:42):
other places having these and their effectiveness and everything like that,
and she decided that this course was going to be
about that as opposed to like more broad philosophy, which
it was an interesting course, it was also not the
course I signed up for. And it doesn't seem like
completely unreasonable for a you know, AA student to be
(13:04):
upset about something like that and be for a school
to be like, no, you need to like teach what's
actually like on the syllabus and what we're asking you
to teach here that seems to be somewhat the case
that Welsh the President is arguing is that she didn't
teach how this course was advertised. How do you sort
(13:26):
of see that factor in this conversation.
Speaker 5 (13:30):
Yeah, you're right, and that if you have a physics
professor and all they do is talk about political issues
the entire time, I think you can make an argument
the professor is not teaching the course as it's supposed
to be taught, actually, depending on what is in the
syllabus and what is the purpose of the course. And
of course backing members need some breathing room to go
off topics some of the time, just to share their
(13:52):
expertise and make the class a little more engaging.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
And our argument is.
Speaker 5 (13:56):
That the determination of what is taught and how it
should be taught, that's to be made at the university
academic faculty level, right at cheap, a determination by the
factory member that apartment and share the people who are
most well versed and experts in this category. It was
made by administrative politician. You can see that can be
very easily abused to target professors who talk about controversial issues.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
So you're right, it's definitely an issue.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
It's definitely a limited academic freedom of not teaching the
class as advertised, not giving students proper notice of what's
being taught. But if that is going to be a
determination the professor is unfit to teach, that should be
at the academic level.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I mean, just to sort of widen this out beyond
this incident, I mean, we have seen I mean, if
you just take chexas A and M, we've seen a
lot of these classes. But also, you know, statewide and nationally,
why are college campus is such sort of hotbeds of
these free speech issues? And it has that always been
the case, or are we seeing are we in a
moment of particular clashes?
Speaker 2 (14:58):
I guess I think it's really always been the case.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
You can think at stories about the founding fathers, you know,
raising hell fare universities, the first free speed zones to
put in place at the combat protests against the Vietnam War.
So I think the university has really always been areas
where students and factor members feel free to express themselves
and discuss their ideas, and naturally then involves some opposition
(15:22):
from those on campus and off campus too. Is happy
at the universities because they are taxpayer funded, right, They're
part of our communities, part of our society, and so
you're always going to see the precarious situation of universities
in our society how they operate. Which is why having
academic freedom for both the institution and for the individual
professor is so important because in many ways they are kind.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Of majoritarian principles.
Speaker 5 (15:45):
Right, we have this freedom to discuss ideas that are
controversial at our offensive we're talking about things that everyone
agrees with. Tops two equals four, the sky is blue.
You don't need academic freedom of free speech. You need
it when you do draw the ire of politicians and
government officials who want.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
To censor you. Disic.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I wonder what you make of Welsh's specific argument here.
I mean, we talked about it like how it could
present a different case. On the other hand, you know,
the firing happened months after the incident happened, as you mentioned, Jessica,
And also you know, I think there are probably a
lot of people within the INN faculty and another university
saying like, Okay, is this actually the reason or is
(16:25):
this a convenient excuse to get rid of someone who
is bringing a lot of intense political pressure to the
university from people like Brian Harrison, but even more so
from folks like Governor Greg Abbott who has tweeted about
this and other leaders. They don't want this kind of
(16:45):
attention right now.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah, So your question is what I make of.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
His decision and his explanation for the decision.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yeah, I think that university presidents, I mean I would
not want President Welsh's job right now, in a very
difficult job. So it's like he has kind of he
has a lot of constituents, right, so he I feel
like he needs to make lawmakers happy to keep his job,
(17:20):
but he also needs the trust of the faculty and
so so I think he that may be why he
decided what he decided.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
He also the very conservative Board of regents.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Shows like who has the power here?
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Right?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Is like too, you know, event should just sort of
say like well this and again, based like you said,
on the limited view we have of this meeting where
he originally said like we're not going to fire this
this professor, then we have a social media backlash led
by state lawmakers and the governor and others, and then
the professor is fired. It's like it shows like the
(18:01):
levers of power that that influence.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
Until I started reporting on Higher Ed, like I didn't
really understand all those levers, and I think it's important
for people to know that, Like, you know, these boards
of regents are appointed by the governors, so there in
many cases like in lockstep with him.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
And this comes after a legislative session where once again
Higher Ed sort of saw some of it's some of
that freedom curtailed. In Texas, they passed a The law
goes into effect in January, so it's not in effect yet,
but there will be a law in effect that gainst regents,
you know, these govern governor appointed regents more control over curriculum.
(18:46):
This comes after they banned any programs related to diversity,
equity inclusion at colleges and universities. I mean, really seeing
a tightening of you know, of the control over what
is taught.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
It's been amazing to watch how much the governance and
culture has changed these universities in recent years. I mean
going back to twenty nineteen when lawmakers passed their sort
of free speech on campus bill, and that bill was passed,
you know, largely out of concern that conservative voices were
sort of being shouted down and that they needed to
be protected, and that you know, administrators and professors and
(19:23):
other leaders at the universities were too liberal. We had
twenty twenty happen after that, you know, the George Floyd protests,
the reactions there, and there's just been so much of
a swing back, whether it's who's leading these universities. You've
seen a lot of different university presidents leave and politicians,
very conservative politicians being put in a lot of those
(19:46):
major you know, president or chancellor positions you have, you know,
new you mentioned the DEI rules, some of these rules
about what can and can apt be taught, and just
a much swifter reaction to you know, any kind of
incident like this, It does very much seem whether it's
(20:08):
at Texas A and M, whether it's at Texas State
with the professor you mentioned earlier, there was an incident
on the Texas Tech campus where a student was expelled
very quickly and removed after you know, saying admittedly some
pretty terrible things about the death of Charlie Kirk on campus, right,
(20:29):
but the swiftness at which these administrators are taking action
really feels like, Jessica, it has created a sort of
culture change on these campuses in just like the past
like half decade. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 4 (20:44):
Yes, I would agree with that. Yeah, and just a
small correction, Eleanor like the law that you're mentioning, Senate
Bill thirty seven, part of it has gone into effect,
and that part the part of the law that has
gone into effect basically either did away or significantly weakened.
(21:06):
Like faculty representative bodies in higher ed so they're largely
I mean, they've always been an advisory but they were
elected by their other faculty members and advised the administration
on academic matters, and now their power is significantly weakened.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Zach.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Have you felt this sort of pendulum swing and sort
of free speech at the center of all of this.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Yeah, it's almost like a political football, right.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
It's like whatever party is in power, whatever they believe
the situation to be, they're gonna most likely abuse the
free speech rights of those around them. It's almost like
the parties don't really have any principles at all. That is,
you know, it's all about the raw power, and so
free speech ideally should be this societal wide neutral principle,
(21:56):
general applicability that it protects everybody equally no matter who
you are, what you say. But we're seeing free speech
kind of be warped into a rallying cry for those
outside of power, and then once they get in there,
it's just everyone's a nail and there a hammer, and
they see this happening, you know right now. He turned
out on the Natate of America right saying that in
a prosecute hate speech, like it's happening right before our eyes.
(22:18):
That could be a woke talking point five years ago,
and it's happening, you know that September sixteenth, you know,
twenty twenty five. So yeah, we're literally seeing it in
our in our lifetimes, our in our very short political light.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
What should I say?
Speaker 5 (22:33):
You know, time spans over here that like, yeah, this
issue is being very warped. And I think it would
be worthwhile for university presidents, especially politicians who support universities,
to have a backbone to be principal, to support free speech,
even for those that they disagree with.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
I mean, I think you mentioned already, Charlie Kirk. I
mean I think a historian, you know, over the last
that half decade even longer, like a real character in
these debates, you know, Kirk obviously a right wing political
activist who was assassinated last week in Utah while on
a college campus, sort of doing what he became best
(23:12):
known for, which was hosting these debates and coming to
college campuses really trying to, you know, I think, in
some ways, whether intentionally or not, like test the limits
of these free speech protections for views that maybe are
not as widely accepted on college campuses. Zach, can you
just talk a little bit bit about you know, Charlie
Kirk and Turning Point USA and sort of the role
they played in this arena of college free speech.
Speaker 5 (23:35):
Yeah, I mean, Charlie Kirk found it to a Point
USA to provide a counterbalance to what he saw as
a liberal bias on campus.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
It's the conservative student group.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
It's been around for you know a while now. They're
an off censored group. We've defended them when they've gotten
their funding revoked, when the group's got de recognized, their
speakers get disinvited only because they do service as counterbalance.
And yeah, and because of that activist activist, they've definitely
gotten a reputation. You know, They've been opposed by many
(24:03):
liberal groups of course, and I think the reaction to
Charlie Kirk's assassination on the left is something we've seen
against Your Point USA for a while. Now that you
know this, he essentially got what was coming, and you know,
this was a good thing. And that's you know, stand
to see because it was a political assassination. It was
a violent response to free speech. And you know, if
(24:24):
you're going to defend a free speech if defended for everybody,
even the groups, then individuals that you disagree with.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
I found it so interesting.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I was looking at Fire's website or your group's website,
the Students under Fire report that found that over the
last five years and Turning Point USA was one of
was the most targeted campus group, tied with Students for
Justice in Palestine, which is interesting of just like you know, again,
free speech, it's not about like you know which side
you like, it's like both. It has to extend to everyone.
Speaker 5 (24:54):
Yeah, I stayed p the last couple of years, right
with the Gods of Conflict. I feel like that that
group's been around for while, they're very active on campus,
they're able to organized. As a result, they get censored
a lot, so so almost you put your neck out
there and they're gonna get bopped un fortunately.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Right, Yeah, Jessica, how have we seen Texas lawmakers respond
to the assassination of Kirk?
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I mean both.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
I think many of them were like personally friends with
him and knew him and sort of supported him politically.
But then also you know, on their their response to
the social media responses, this is kicked off.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
I haven't talked to any personally, but just following their
social media, you can see that they're upset when people
are making light of Charlie Kirk's death or disparaging him
in his legacy in some way, or I don't know,
(25:53):
celebrating his death and calling for uh, for those people
to be for those who are expressing those opinions to
face consequences, whether it be firing or yeah, mostly just
losing your job, like we've seen. I don't know that
(26:13):
we've seen it in Texas, but I think nationally there
have been professors who've been terminated for opinions that they've
expressed online. And then here in Texas, a colleague of
mine worked on a story about you know, the TEA,
the Texas Education Administration Association administration, you know, I guess
(26:37):
finding one hundred something teachers maybe did this and pursuing
their teaching license.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
Yeah, I think. I mean Mike Marath, the you know,
commissioner saying that they would not just fire teachers who
were found to have made you know, and come and
say deemed inappropriate, but revoke their their teaching licenses. You said, yeah, which.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Is kind of like, I mean, I still need to
read up on that reporting. But that's kind of like
extraordinary if you think about like our shortage of teachers
like an extraordinary kind of act.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
But on the other hand, Zach, I mean, I'm not
you know, I wouldn't really want my kindergarten teacher celebrating
the murder of someone on a college campus, right, I mean,
walk me through how you think about this, right, I mean,
(27:29):
I think there are reasonable reasonable there's a reasonable urge
to be angry at the people who celebrated the murder
of a human being for you know, exercising his free speech. Right.
How do you view kind of that reaction, you know,
(27:50):
when when you see things like what's what's what's happening
in Texas?
Speaker 5 (27:53):
Yeah, I mean, if you're a public university or a
public employee in general, you have the right to comment
on political using your private capacities and you speaking on
social media talking about Charlie Kirk. As a legal standard,
the government can come back and say your speech is
disruptive to the institution that because your speech renders you unfit,
the teacher fit to do your job, we can punish
(28:15):
you for that. So it's really a balancing task between
the individual's right to express their political views of the
First Amendment and then the institutions interests and ensuring smooth operations.
And that's a pretty high bar, right. You really have
to clear, you know, show a lot of disruption, I
really manifest the fitness to do your job to overcome
someone fundamental first mode rights. An example is a university
(28:37):
professor perhaps continually says, you know, I'm a racist. I
can't teach black students. You know, the students I certainly
feel uncomfortable of gobal into the university and being part
of the class because the professor has these racial views.
But many of the situations it is a teacher or
a public employee just expressing themselves, particularly just express themselves
(28:58):
about Charlie Kirk, in their views about him, and unless
the university or the institution shows that, you know, this
individual can longer be a functioning teacher or a nurser
can't do their job and teachings effectively, then I think
the university, then the university intitutions shouldn't allow the person
to keep their job, because you know, we want to
preserve this right to comment on political views, even if
(29:20):
it is offensive to others.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
It's been a disappointing week, you know. I mean, of course,
like the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a terrible, terrible
event that and of itself makes for a terrible week.
You would hope in a healthy and functioning democracy in
society that it wouldn't then immediately break down into this
(29:45):
side does this, this side does this, This side is worse,
and we would maybe view ourselves on the side of
maybe people who think we should be able to talk
about things and not be murdered for them, and people
who don't someone that yeah, right, and not try to
cast blame on anyone other than who's pushing for you know,
(30:05):
who's who's condoning or supporting that kind of violence. We
do not seem to be at that place right now
as a society or state or anywhere else. And I
would love to see us.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Get to that.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Place, right, I mean, it's I mean, and we have
the same conversation on some I mean, obviously, the assassination
of Charlie Kirk is such a you know, unprecedented thing,
but it is like it does remind me in some
ways of the conversations we have after like a school shooting,
where it's like, can we not just like grieve this
and talk about you know, like how does this become
politicized so quickly? But on all sides, And it just
(30:43):
feels like we are not at a high point of
being able to discuss you know, horrible human tragedies and
politics in the same conversation without sort of devolving into
our worst our selves at that.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
Point, we're really We're going to say at the cancel
culture part of the tragedy cycle, you hear about this
where like the tragedy happens, people express outrage or grief,
and then people criticize those people expressing average and grief
and they lose their jobs. The winner fires first case
we ever had two thousand and one was a professor
who said that nine to eleven was a good thing,
that we're they're glad this win Towers went down and
(31:19):
that you know, this is a happy thing, and you
can imagine the reaction that got in two thousand and one, right,
and so seeing happening right now, right, you have a tragedy.
Try to Kirk assassinated. People comment on it now. There's
a huge wash this out there. I think fifty thousand
people that are being fired from their jobs or being
contacted with their employers for what they say. So it
is definitely a sad day for America and I think
(31:40):
this should definitely stop happening.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
Do you have any thoughts? I hate to put you
on the spot, but like, do you have any thoughts
on what needs to happen to get us out of
this cycle?
Speaker 5 (31:51):
I think it's kind of just of building a free
speech culture, like recognizing that we're all human beings, will
live in America, we all have free speech almost like
a basic are sending of respect, like you wouldn't want
this done to you in five years, don't do it
to us, you know, Like we shouldn't have canceled the
people that were criticizing George Floyd. We shouldn't cancel people
(32:12):
that are criticizing Charlie Kirk. The next person contestinant we
shouldn't cancel those people either, So I think that has
to stop somewhere. And it said, it keeps kind of
fueling and getting worse and worse. But I know more
people that recognize the value of free speech. I think
they'll understand why this is harmful to our sido fabric
and our nation and they'll stop it.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I mean, I think in some ways the through line
also is like you know, this professor being fired or
of you know people sort of it's like this like
intense blowback one hundred and eighty teachers investigated for speaking
you know, ill of Charlie Kirk is like the people
who never will be actually penalized for this right. They're
not actually going to take one hundred and eighty teachers
(32:55):
to you know, or open themselves up to that many
lawsuits or whatever. But it's just sort of the effect
on free speech again, whether it's someone something you support
or something you don't of, Like, you know, I just
won't share my opinion for fear that I could be
penalized for it.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, I mean it.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
It would also just be nice to get to a
place where, like we are, we're not just talking to
each other, but we're talking to each other in a
way where we're like seeking to understand and be understood
as opposed to like scoring points and humiliating or caricaturing
the other side. But we are not at that place
right now. But I'm curious, like to your point about
(33:33):
a Chilian effect and everything like that, Jessica, I mean,
what do you think about what do you hear, if anything,
from people on these college campuses. I mean, do you
think that that Chilian effect is happening? How are people,
professors and others reacting to what has happened in the
last few weeks all of.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
This, Yeah, I mean it's a mix. Like I've heard
from professors saying that they are themselves like courting their
own lectures to kind of have as like evidence if
anything were to be shared on social media so they
could have the full context. I've heard some are self censoring,
(34:14):
that they're just not going to talk about certain topics
anymore because they don't want to get in trouble. And
then there are others who feel like, I'm going to
keep teaching because that's in the best interest of my students,
and that's who I'm here for. The American Association of
university professors put out a survey I think the week
(34:35):
before this stuff with Texas A and m happened that
found like twenty I think it was a twenty five
percent of the respondents in Texas we're looking for jobs
outside of the state just because of the political climate here.
So it's not looking good.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Yeah. Wow, Well, I imagine this is, like many things
we talked about on here, going to be continuing to
develop an unfold and nothing will be resolved. Despite your
you know, your optimism about where we might all end
up as a I.
Speaker 3 (35:07):
Didn't it was opts.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I just wish yes, right, your fan fiction about the
future of American democracy. Well, I just want to really
thank Jessica and Zach you both for joining us and
taking the time and appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
Thank you, thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
You can get the Trip Cast anywhere you get your podcasts,
as well as on YouTube. Our producers are Rob and
Chris and we will see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.