I found this out in a Charlotte Observer op-ed from a few weeks ago. Many libs, like the ones running THIS site, believe right-wing stormtroopers control UNC and are trying to cleanse it of *correct-thinking* liberals. (Test their theory by hosting a conservative speaker on campus, or applying for a faculty post as a proud conservative. )
Granting someone tenure before they’ve even taught ONE DAY is basically unheard of. Perhaps the lefties knew the highly-unqualified Hannah-Jones was about to get so radical that she needed a protective firewall.
Here’s one genius suggesting Hannah-Jones file a 1st amendment suit:
The Harvard University motto – “Veritas” – means “Truth” in Latin. Morehouse College’s Latin motto, “Et facta est lux,” translates to, “Let there be light.” The frequent appearance of “lux” and “veritas” in college mottos across the nation reminds us that universities are places where students go to be enlightened by truth.
For that to happen, however, faculty must be free to speak truth without repercussions. That’s why the University of North Carolina’s recent decision regarding Nikole Hannah-Jones is so troubling.
Hannah-Jones, a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill, has covered the stubborn persistence of racial segregation in America, including its public schools. Her efforts have earned her a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur “Genius” Grant.[…]
I wonder if REAL geniuses like Einstein and Hawking got their work corrected as much as Hannah-Jones has.
[…] Because of her stellar qualifications, UNC offered Ms. Hannah-Jones the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Reporting. However, unlike past Knight Chair recipients, the school refused to offer Hannah-Jones tenure. The decision came because of conservative objections to Hannah-Jones’ work with The 1619 Project, an effort to commemorate the arrival of the first enslaved Africans and highlight the role that slavery played in America’s past.
Hannah-Jones is considering a lawsuit against the university. Her attorneys – including some from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund – gave the university until June 4 to offer Hannah-Jones tenure. They have yet to do so. If a lawsuit is filed, it could raise serious First Amendment issues.[…]
Stellar qualifications? Where? What? Does rewriting American history to fit the Marxist race-pimping agenda count as “stellar”? (I believe The NY Times is STILL correcting her 1619 mess.)
[…] The First Amendment forbids federal, state, and local governments from passing laws or taking actions that abridge the freedom of speech.The Supreme Court has noted that both universities and professors have academic freedom rooted in free speech rights. This gives the UNC System the authority to make hiring choices, but it also prevents them from singling out faculty who teach controversial doctrines or subjects.
This Jones woman was not interested in teaching competing (or even correct) historical information. She doesn’t sound like the type of person interested in allowing anyone else to discuss competing (or correct / conservative) ideas in her classroom.
Does the 1st Amendment extend to you when you actively try to limit other people’s 1st Amendment rights? Or when you knowingly regurgitate factually incorrect information?
[…] As a First Amendment scholar, my initial thoughts regarding this case were not favorable to Hannah-Jones. One of the great ironies of First Amendment jurisprudence is that courts are quite willing to protect hate-speech directed against people of color but have historically been less inclined to defend people of color who exercise their free speech rights. However, three things could weigh in Hannah-Jones’ favor.
No. “Kill whitey” and “Death to America” or “Eat this Molotov cocktail, honky” would not count as protected free speech.
[…]First, the First Amendment doesn’t like bullies. […]
Like Antifa or BLM or those mobs who show up at UNC board meetings or conservative on-campus speeches?
[…]The First Amendment’s academic freedom cases arose from the McCarthy Era. In the 1950s, academics across the nation were labeled as “subversive” because they advocated communism or refused to say that they did not.[…]
Meanwhile, replace “subversive” or “communist” with “racist” and you have the tactics of the contemporary on- and off-campus left. “Racist” is a great way to shut down debate with white people. (Who wants to be labeled racist? “Communist” is a badge of honor these days.)
[…] The Supreme Court protected the professors and refused to let universities dismiss them. The Constitutional protection for those who teach controversial subjects helps Hannah-Jones.[…]
I thought getting facts right and allowing both sides of an issue to be heard were key components of journalism. Can you fire or refuse to hire (or grant tenure to) someone who fails miserably in both categories?
[..] Second, while courts have decided many cases involving professors with controversial opinions, very few cases involve professors being punished for providing objective facts.[…]
Like the American Revolution being fought to preserve slavery? “Facts” like that?
[…] While people can debate the merits of various economic systems, philosophical questions, or religious beliefs, it’s harder to debate history. Slavery happened. These may be truths that some Americans would prefer to forget, but inconvenient truths remain true just the same. It would be odd for a court to side against a professor who has done nothing more than tell the truth.[….]
She’s telling so much truth that The New York Times is working overtime to correct her work.
[…] Finally, while court cases usually focus on the school and the faculty, the Supreme Court has written that academic freedom “is of transcendent value to all of us.” Hannah-Jones’ work and scholarship is particularly valuable. Over the past year, the death of George Floyd, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Jan 6 insurrection and other events have placed race front and center in America. It seems unlikely that courts would support a university’s attempt to quash information that is highly relevant to this critical moment in our history.
Hannah-Jones is not qualified to teach at the university level with tenure. Her portfolio of work is loaded with political bias and incorrect facts. Hannah-Jones was interested in a six-figure paycheck with protection (tenure) that would allow her to shove race-pimp Marxist claptrap down the throats of unsuspecting, vulnerable students.
UNC ought to back up words like this by actually hiring a handful of conservative — or even moderate — professors and protecting them from bullying and harassment from colleagues and radical community “activists.” THAT would show a serious commitment to academic freedom. Not hiring one more leftist loudmouth financed with our money to preach unchallenged about how racist whitey IS and has BEEN.