It is relevant that the student made this statement in a post titled "Message from the President" and signed off as "Your SBA President." This means they are not speaking in their private capacity as a law student (or private citizen), but as a representative of the NYU student body. It seems correct that statements made in an official c…
It is relevant that the student made this statement in a post titled "Message from the President" and signed off as "Your SBA President." This means they are not speaking in their private capacity as a law student (or private citizen), but as a representative of the NYU student body. It seems correct that statements made in an official capacity should not have the same free speech culture presumptions as those made by a person in their private capacity. There is a difference between Elon Musk saying something on Twitter about whatever, and Elon Musk releasing a statement as CEO of Tesla.
If this student had made this statement on their private social media account instead, then I would be critical of Winston's decision to withdraw their offer. It would be healthier for society if companies didn't make employment decisions based on people's political beliefs. But here, Winston can plausibly argue that the withdrawal has more to do with the student's poor judgment in posting a politically controversial statement in her official capacity based on her private beliefs rather than from institutional policy; and thus a lack of attention to her fiduciary duties to the law school in doing so.
Good point--this student chose to speak in their capacity as SBA President, not as a student. That changes the landscape of what they can reasonably expect with regards to free speech presumptions. Also, can you imagine receiving this email as a NYU Law Jewish student? It would not be an exaggeration to view it as a threat.
It is relevant that the student made this statement in a post titled "Message from the President" and signed off as "Your SBA President." This means they are not speaking in their private capacity as a law student (or private citizen), but as a representative of the NYU student body. It seems correct that statements made in an official capacity should not have the same free speech culture presumptions as those made by a person in their private capacity. There is a difference between Elon Musk saying something on Twitter about whatever, and Elon Musk releasing a statement as CEO of Tesla.
If this student had made this statement on their private social media account instead, then I would be critical of Winston's decision to withdraw their offer. It would be healthier for society if companies didn't make employment decisions based on people's political beliefs. But here, Winston can plausibly argue that the withdrawal has more to do with the student's poor judgment in posting a politically controversial statement in her official capacity based on her private beliefs rather than from institutional policy; and thus a lack of attention to her fiduciary duties to the law school in doing so.
Good point--this student chose to speak in their capacity as SBA President, not as a student. That changes the landscape of what they can reasonably expect with regards to free speech presumptions. Also, can you imagine receiving this email as a NYU Law Jewish student? It would not be an exaggeration to view it as a threat.