Being Thomas Luongo

HS XV: Free Speech is not Free

Blogroll Me!

Well, after too much time spent doing productive things like putting an addition on my house and earning my salary, I figured it was time to get back to doing what I do best... drinking coffee and sitting on my prodigious bottom. That being said, welcome to HomeSpun Symposium #XV where the question this week comes from Derek over at Weapons of Mass Distraction (great name for a blog, btw, Derek!) and is a subject I've blogged about previously:

Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has been criticized, and may have jeopardized his job, for stating that the gender gap in the sciences and engineering may be due to inherent differences in the way men and women think. Meanwhile, Colorado University is weighing a possible buyout offer to professor Ward Churchill in the wake of his condemnation of the World Trade Center victims on 9/11 as "Little Eichmanns". The university, apparently fearing an expensive lawsuit, is hesitant to fire Churchill, who has been denounced for years by Native American groups for falsely claiming Indian heritage and recently exposed by Michelle Malkin and others for passing off the works of others as original art. Should these men be protected for exercising their rights of free speech? Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee for statements that are contrary to the employer's beliefs? Are these cases similar?

The short answer to the first question is yes, the First Amendment (I'm assuming his reference to Free Speech is a nod toward this law) protects these men's rights to say whatever it is that they choose without fear of reprisal from Congress, and, by extension, the Federal Government. That is all the First Amendment covers; not State Law, or County Ordinance, or Terms of Employment. Unfortunately, both of these men work for universities that accept federal grant money and so, the problem becomes stickier for those of us paying a portion (no matter how small) of their salaries and disapprove of what they said/advocate. The solution to this problem lies in my answer to the second and third parts of Derek's question. The answer to the second question is more complicated, only because the State contravenes an individual's right to contract. As a side note to this discussion I blogged about Dr. Summers' problems here when it happened. The relationship between yourself and your boss is a contractual agreement. You are both property owners and have entered into an agreement to exchange certain services for a certain amount of compensation. Implicit in this agreement is that while in the service of the boss (unless negotiated to the contrary beforehand) you are to act in a way that he approves. People like Drs. Summers and Churchill work at such places that have very detailed employment contracts which stipulate just what is and is not acceptable behaviour for them to engage in while employed there. So, understanding that the right to contract (the logical extension of the rights to life and property) is inviolate the answer is simply yes, an employer has the right to terminate an employee for ANY reason. The economics consequences of this may come back to haunt him, but that is a decision that he has to make at the time he makes it. Any restriction placed on this ability by the law constitutes a simple abridgement of private property and is both immoral and uneconomic. The employee never learns that his inappropriate behavior (as personally defined by his employer) has costs, and the employer allows someone else to dictate how it is that he will dispense with his property (raising his uncertainty... and therefore his risk), which will make him change his hiring practices to compensate. If you'd like a taste of where this ends I've blogged about this in my response to HS XII, Rothbard at the Movies... Obviously these two instances are related, and interestingly enough I find it funny the question does not mention the furor over a problem similar to Dr. Summers' regarding Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his classroom discussion of Time Preference and homosexuals. The battle that Dr. Hoppe has had to wage is even more trivial than what has happened with the other two. It bothers me that Ward Churchill still has a job and that a portion of my taxes goes to subsidize him. Drs. Summers and Hoppe were just engaging in sound intellectual inquisition with subject matter that makes some feel uncomfortable, this is something I approve of (but, still don't want to be forced to pay for). The problem at the heart of this entire discussion is one of governmental imposition upon individual private property, at all levels. Ta,

posted by Tom L @ 3/14/2005 09:15:00 AM