A few thoughts. First of all, she did not post her views on her own time or in class, she posted them as "A Message From the President" of the SBA in the organization's newsletter, seemingly without consulting any other members of the the group. That shows shockingly poor judgment and is an abuse of her role as SBA president. It's not as…
A few thoughts. First of all, she did not post her views on her own time or in class, she posted them as "A Message From the President" of the SBA in the organization's newsletter, seemingly without consulting any other members of the the group. That shows shockingly poor judgment and is an abuse of her role as SBA president. It's not as though her offer was rescinded over a personal tweet.
Second, I agree that "poor judgment" is way too vague as a standard and that it does constitute a slippery slope to being punished for a "poor opinion". We must safeguard everyone's ability to speak their mind freely.
So where do these points reconcile? People should be free to express all opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions morally or culturally neutral. A rescinded job offer is not the same as being fired and supporting a violent foreign political action, even if you find it a legitimate form of resistance, is not the same thing as being pro-life or anti-affirmative action. If they want to be an activist for the Palestinian cause, they can do so however they see fit. But that doesn't mean that they are owed a job at a firm that vehemently disagrees with their very public views.
Well, yes, but it might be useful to consider that it's not always useful - or even good - to express opinions publicly. Is a strong opinion unexpressed any less an opinion (sincere question)?
In any case, the current internet-facilitated practice of firing off opinions as quickly as possible isn't wise and rarely, if ever, actually achieves anything.
This is a fair point I have to mull on. I work for a free speech organization so my knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose the mere suggestion to repress opinions. I think your point about the need for ‘hot takes’ on the internet is a good one.
A few thoughts. First of all, she did not post her views on her own time or in class, she posted them as "A Message From the President" of the SBA in the organization's newsletter, seemingly without consulting any other members of the the group. That shows shockingly poor judgment and is an abuse of her role as SBA president. It's not as though her offer was rescinded over a personal tweet.
Second, I agree that "poor judgment" is way too vague as a standard and that it does constitute a slippery slope to being punished for a "poor opinion". We must safeguard everyone's ability to speak their mind freely.
So where do these points reconcile? People should be free to express all opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions morally or culturally neutral. A rescinded job offer is not the same as being fired and supporting a violent foreign political action, even if you find it a legitimate form of resistance, is not the same thing as being pro-life or anti-affirmative action. If they want to be an activist for the Palestinian cause, they can do so however they see fit. But that doesn't mean that they are owed a job at a firm that vehemently disagrees with their very public views.
Well, yes, but it might be useful to consider that it's not always useful - or even good - to express opinions publicly. Is a strong opinion unexpressed any less an opinion (sincere question)?
In any case, the current internet-facilitated practice of firing off opinions as quickly as possible isn't wise and rarely, if ever, actually achieves anything.
This is a fair point I have to mull on. I work for a free speech organization so my knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose the mere suggestion to repress opinions. I think your point about the need for ‘hot takes’ on the internet is a good one.