But here's the thing: there's debate about the legal framework in regards to being pro/anti-choice. We can all feel strongly about it, but we can also all agree that such discussion is actually relevant to the legal profession. That having radical views as a legal professor is not some outlier in the job. But the views she is expressing …
But here's the thing: there's debate about the legal framework in regards to being pro/anti-choice. We can all feel strongly about it, but we can also all agree that such discussion is actually relevant to the legal profession. That having radical views as a legal professor is not some outlier in the job.
But the views she is expressing have nothing to do with her job! We're not discussing some obscure legal theory, we're not talking about any kind of legal opinion, or any sort of law dispute. She's not expressing a viewpoint that has anything to do with her job.
What she's expressing is overt bigotry, which goes against her ability to teach everyone fairly. I might disagree with anti-choice arguements on the merits, but I could see why they might be relevant to a law professors discussions.
I cannot see how anyone thinks that her views are at all acceptable when she's expected to teach people of all races and nationalities. That's not a free speech question, in my view. She's entitled to her viewpoints. But these are not views that should be covered by academic freedom, because there's nothing academic about them.
I absolutely agree with your stance that her opinion's compromise Wax's ability to do her job on a fundamental level. She should go. Not a Free-Speech issue. A do your job issue.
But I still think the comparison between that and the Obama commencement debacle is apt, because the protesters (the pro-life movement in general) doesn't see the issue of abortion as a legal/policy issue (if they did they'd look at the epidemiology and say "oh wow, abortions per capita decreased under Obama, he's doing something right!). The see "fighting abortion" as so fundamental a function of the Catholic church and it's affiliated universities and institutions that the battle should be fought on all fronts all the time, be it appointing a Catholic wannabe rapist like Kavanaugh to the supreme court or heckling Obama during a commencement speech. (I do not agree). I don't think this is dissimilar to progressive, anti-racist concept of fight racism everywhere on every front.
But here's the thing: there's debate about the legal framework in regards to being pro/anti-choice. We can all feel strongly about it, but we can also all agree that such discussion is actually relevant to the legal profession. That having radical views as a legal professor is not some outlier in the job.
But the views she is expressing have nothing to do with her job! We're not discussing some obscure legal theory, we're not talking about any kind of legal opinion, or any sort of law dispute. She's not expressing a viewpoint that has anything to do with her job.
What she's expressing is overt bigotry, which goes against her ability to teach everyone fairly. I might disagree with anti-choice arguements on the merits, but I could see why they might be relevant to a law professors discussions.
I cannot see how anyone thinks that her views are at all acceptable when she's expected to teach people of all races and nationalities. That's not a free speech question, in my view. She's entitled to her viewpoints. But these are not views that should be covered by academic freedom, because there's nothing academic about them.
"We're not discussing some obscure legal theory,"
Maybe she's floating a trial balloon for her Critical (of) Race Theory.
I absolutely agree with your stance that her opinion's compromise Wax's ability to do her job on a fundamental level. She should go. Not a Free-Speech issue. A do your job issue.
But I still think the comparison between that and the Obama commencement debacle is apt, because the protesters (the pro-life movement in general) doesn't see the issue of abortion as a legal/policy issue (if they did they'd look at the epidemiology and say "oh wow, abortions per capita decreased under Obama, he's doing something right!). The see "fighting abortion" as so fundamental a function of the Catholic church and it's affiliated universities and institutions that the battle should be fought on all fronts all the time, be it appointing a Catholic wannabe rapist like Kavanaugh to the supreme court or heckling Obama during a commencement speech. (I do not agree). I don't think this is dissimilar to progressive, anti-racist concept of fight racism everywhere on every front.