Was there a reason for you to post an article that was already linked and cited in the originating post?

There are a variety of opinions of the professor and his actions within this thread. Please read them before making sweeping generalizations.

Also, please take a moment to review the very article that you posted to show that the professor was in error in making his claims. In it you will find this statement:

“At that meeting, Mr. Buchanan (President of the W. Harold Flowers Law Society, the state’s black law association) primarily lambasted me because I was not going to fire Prof. Peltz,” {law school Dean Chuck) Goldner wrote in an undated memo. “I replied that there was no basis to fire Prof. Peltz, that there was no basis for disciplining Prof. Peltz, that I had discussed his teaching of a particular class with Prof. Peltz and that was all I intended and needed to do.”

If wants to make hate speeches then fine…but NOT fine in the classroom.

First, please define “hate speech.”

Secondly, professor seemed to make some comments that were contrary to the opinions of the students in his class. Is disagreeing with a person automatically “hate speech?”

If students or people don’t like or agree with the outcome of a disciplinary hearing, does that give them the right to make up lies about the person who was involve in the disciplinary process?

If you want the professor to stop making statements that people disagree with, shouldn’t we also be demanding that the students and others stop lying about the professor?

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/apr/27/experts-watch-professor-sues-students-20080427/?print

I say, go man go!

The fact is that an accusation of racism IS a career-wrecker in this day and age (never mind how often it’s alleged, never mind that nobody has a working definition of ‘racist’, etc.) It’s the new McCarthyism: simply say the word, and ye shall be disappeared. Minority groups know the radioactive power of this accusation, and frequently use it to get their way, whether justified or not.

And there is an absolute imbalance on free speech here: a white professor can’t simply say “hey, I’ve got my free speech and you’ve got yours”. This one isn’t live and let speak. The ‘racist’ accusation is very intensely tortious. It really doesn’t even refer to a particular view on racial issues, but rather translates as “terrible, evil, ignorant person.” Part of me is reluctant to elevate it by suing over it, but there may be no other choice. If society is going to treat ‘racism’ as the worst possible offense, abusive allegations have to be remedied.

No, calling someone a racist is ALSO engaging in free speech. The problem here is the current regime that shuts down the free speech of supposed racists, not those who fling the accusation.

“To see this point, replace race by pedophilia.”

Yes, and NAMBLA still exists, as advocating the legalization of something, even something that the rest of us find abhorrent and evil, is still a simple exercise in free speech.

“Students are customers only in a trivial sense; otherwise it would be impossible for students to ever fail.”

The other “customers” you mention aren’t paying for anything and have no relation with the school. The students are paying to receive certified instruction and certified testing of their knowledge. The school is providing it to them. The students are the law school’s customers – indeed, their ONLY customers.

From the Arkansas Online link, it is clear that this case involves more than a routine “free speech” issue. Free speech allows one guy to praise affirmative action and another to denounce it. Calling a teacher a racist in the context of this case goes beyond free speech and says, in effect, that the teacher should be denied his free speech rights altogether. To see this point, replace race by pedophilia.

If the school failed to act after knowledge of the hostile remarks, it gets sued. See, in employment law, the malfeasor does not get named in a claim, only the employer. I would like a link to the lawsuit complaint.