Tag: criticizing

  • George Mason University calls cops on student for article criticizing Trump

    George Mason University calls cops on student for article criticizing Trump

    In 1787, Thomas Jefferson declared that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” George Mason — the founding father for whom GMU is named — championed the right to resist tyranny, penning the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights that helped inspire the First Amendment.

    Fast forward 250 years, and GMU is calling the police on a student for daring to echo those revolutionary sentiments in modern terms.

    It seems GMU has forgotten its namesake’s legacy. So here’s a reminder: calling the cops over political commentary has no place at an American university bound by the First Amendment. 

    On April 16, GMU student Nicholas Decker published a Substack essay titled “When Must We Kill Them?,” a provocative piece exploring whether violence is ever justified as a last resort against what he perceives as tyranny under the Trump administration. The essay explicitly warns that force is only defensible when all peaceful and legal avenues have been exhausted. Decker invokes the founding fathers to argue that violence “is to be employed only in defense of our Constitution, and of democracy.”

    The next day, GMU referred Decker to “state and federal law enforcement for evaluation of criminal behavior” and denounced his essay as “not the Mason way.” Then came a knock at Decker’s door from the Secret Service. After reviewing his words, they agreed he broke no laws.

    GMU’s overreaction has sent a dangerous message: write something controversial, and the feds might show up at your door. That’s chilling and, frankly, un-American.

    A university dedicated to free thought should know better. The First Amendment draws a clear line between unprotected “true threats” and core political speech. Speech is only a true threat when it demonstrates a serious, specific, and imminent intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. That’s a high bar — and for good reason. It’s meant to protect public debate, especially about uncomfortable topics. Advocacy for violence, no matter how disturbing, remains protected unless it crosses that line.

    Decker’s essay never comes close. It’s abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence. Asking about the moral propriety of force is philosophy, not a true threat. And while deeply offensive speech may upset many, that doesn’t make it unlawful, as intense political debate will inevitably offend someone. 

    But it should never have come to this. GMU’s overreaction has sent a dangerous message: write something controversial, and the feds might show up at your door. That’s chilling and, frankly, un-American. When administrators start acting like King George III, they’ve lost their way. Ironically, GMU’s behavior resembles that of UK speech police, where citizens are arrested for criticizing public officials online.

    Thankfully, in America, the First Amendment answers the question of whether robust political debate is “criminal behavior.” Students expressing themselves on public issues is very much “the Mason way.” FIRE calls on GMU to ensure this mistake does not become an accepted practice.

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link