Law school refuses to hire professor who embraces politics the rest of the faculty “despises”

posted at 8:11 pm on April 6, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Bet you can guess whether she was liberal or conservative. At the same time that schools pursue diversity for diversity’s sake without ever clearly explaining why diversity is important, they often fail to consider a different kind of diversity: What about diversity of thought? (And, yes, I was trying to see how many times I could use the word “diversity” in a sentence!) Sometimes, the details of a discrimination case are murky, but, in this case, they’re pretty clear:

[Teresa] Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school [the University of Iowa College of Law] in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.

Fieweger said Wagner’s candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: “Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it).”

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so “entrenched” in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that “they don’t recognize they’re doing it.”

Ms. Wagner isn’t taking it lying down, though: She sued the school. A lower court initially dismissed the suit, arguing the dean could hire whomever he wished — but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated it. A trial is set for Oct. 15.

While I sympathize with Wagner’s plight and respect her decision to sue the school (especially because the school purports to be committed to fair hiring practices), I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive. I’m talking about real friction and a real clash — the kind that occurs when you look another person in the eye, with no mediating computer screen or TV camera or other medium, and flat-out disagree. It’s uncomfortable — and it’s almost always cause for introspection. That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least, and it’s worth it to pause and remember a few common truths and to try to build on those truths in our daily lives: In the grand scheme of things, we’re all small but none of us is unimportant, we all long to love and be loved, we all crave truth but are also often afraid of its implications …

Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism. But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

she’s cute.

GhoulAid on April 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM

funny how republican women are cute and attractive and stuff. and liberal hags are……not.

GhoulAid on April 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The War on Conservative Women!!!!!

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain.

I feel their pain…right in my ARSE!

hillsoftx on April 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Tina, this is exactly how the progressive/Marxist/Liberals gained control of our higher education institutes in the first place, and it’s really the only way we are going to get them out of those same institutes, by using their same tactics to put constitutionally minded conservatives in those institutes.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Can think of a lot of libs I wouldn’t p!ss on if they were on fire. There many libs that feel the same about us. Doesn’t bother me at all.

Lou Budvis on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Tina, this is exactly how the progressive/Marxist/Liberals gained control of our higher education institutes in the first place, and it’s really the only way we are going to get them out of those same institutes, by using their same tactics to put constitutionally minded conservatives in those institutes.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Someone has been paying attention.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Without having read past the headline yet, I’ll guess the women they are refusing to hire due to disliking her political views is a conservative?

It’s usually “progressives” who ostracize, harass, or discriminate against people (which is ironic, since they like to insist they believe in tolerance and equality).

How would they know what the woman’s politics are, I wonder, unless she told them?

It’s not prudent, in my opinion, to advertise your political or religious beliefs to people all over the place, and not on the internet under your actual name, precisely for reasons like this.

TigerPaw on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Wait. What? This can’t be! Liberals are the only tolerant people on the planet, besides Muzzies.

antipc on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Can think of a lot of libs I wouldn’t p!ss on if they were on fire. There many libs that feel the same about us. Doesn’t bother me at all.

Lou Budvis on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I’d pis$ on ‘em but not enough to put the fire out.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive. I’m talking about real friction and a real clash — the kind that occurs when you look another person in the eye, with no mediating computer screen or TV camera or other medium, and flat-out disagree. It’s uncomfortable — and it’s almost always cause for introspection. That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least, and it’s worth it to pause and remember a few common truths and to try to build on those truths in our daily lives: In the grand scheme of things, we’re all small but none of us is unimportant, we all long to love and be loved, we all crave truth but are also often afraid of its implications …

Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism. But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.

Damn I love this post. Good stuff.

LiquidH2O on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

While I sympathize with Wagner’s plight and respect her decision to sue the school (especially because the school purports to be committed to fair hiring practices), I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

It’s a public university is it not? You can’t use that excuse here.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive.

That’s what she said…

the_nile on April 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Someone has been paying attention.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Shhhh…. Erick Holder will have me dragged off to The William Ayer’s Memorial Community Reeducation and Conservative Elimination Facility is he see that…

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Tina, this is exactly how the progressive/Marxist/Liberals gained control of our higher education institutes in the first place, and it’s really the only way we are going to get them out of those same institutes, by using their same tactics to put constitutionally minded conservatives in those institutes.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Be Breitbart!

idesign on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Rules for Radicals:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

The worship “diversity” – make them live up to that.

Rebar on April 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM

One of my better professors faced a similar thing. Poly sci prof, popular among his students, but they never had any use for him because he was a Libertarian and focused most of his classes on first addressing the Constitution and the Federalist… Worst part of it, it was a Catholic university that saw him as too conservative to want to keep.

Gingotts on April 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Tina, this is exactly how the progressive/Marxist/Liberals gained control of our higher education institutes in the first place, and it’s really the only way we are going to get them out of those same institutes, by using their same tactics to put constitutionally minded conservatives in those institutes.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Be Breitbart!

idesign on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Yup.

the_nile on April 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Be Breitbart!

idesign on April 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM

God save the Republic… God Bless Andrew Breitbart…

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Freedom of association, anyone?

I don’t think you can claim freedom of association allows you to hire anyone you want when your institution is publicly funded.

NbyNW on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

The War on Conservative Women!!!!!

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I wonder if l4l will have something to say about this.

Bitter Clinger on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Hey Tina. Freedom of association is not applicable to institutions supported by taxpayers’ money. If the peoples’ dollars are paying for it, they can’t discriminate on political philosophy.

Old Country Boy on April 6, 2012 at 8:28 PM

“This is what democracy looks like”…

Strike Hornet on April 6, 2012 at 8:28 PM

If she wins her case and decides to teach there, I’ll guarantee that the day she first arrives at her office, the hallways will be blocked, her door blocked by most of the law school student body and perhaps the other faculty chanting something like
“No diversity for hate! No diversity for hate!”

eeyore on April 6, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I would say no, it’s not discrimination just another example that so-called “progressives” are anything but.

Go RBNY on April 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive. I’m talking about real friction and a real clash — the kind that occurs when you look another person in the eye, with no mediating computer screen or TV camera or other medium, and flat-out disagree. It’s uncomfortable — and it’s almost always cause for introspection. That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least, and it’s worth it to pause and remember a few common truths and to try to build on those truths in our daily lives: In the grand scheme of things, we’re all small but none of us is unimportant, we all long to love and be loved, we all crave truth but are also often afraid of its implications …

Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism. But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.

The Readers Digest version of: We should reach across the aisle and be more tolerant of the dogs that wish to chew it off. I sure miss the days when this wasn’t Squish cental and The Boss Emeritus dwelt among us.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

she’s cute.

GhoulAid on April 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM

She looks like the spitting image of actress Catherine Keener. She was the love interest in 40 Year Old Virgin if the name doesn’t ring a bell.

Doughboy on April 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I wonder if l4l will have something to say about this.

Bitter Clinger on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Nothing coherent

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:30 PM

War on women!
Where is the diversity?
Liberal4lies on anythread anydate

LegendHasIt on April 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Freedom of association, anyone?

If they don’t want to let her sit at the cool kids’ table in the faculty lounge, fine. This is a publicly funded university, though.

Would it be okay for say, the DMV to refuse to hire someone based on their political party?

malclave on April 6, 2012 at 8:33 PM

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain.

I feel the pain in my wallet.

reaganaut on April 6, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I do not think as an employer, especially at a state funded college, the claim the freedom of association goes to far. Maybe at a private club, heck maybe in some fort of club at the school I might buy it. Not for employment at a tax payer funded school. A law school at that.

DVPTexFla on April 6, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Tina, this is exactly how the progressive/Marxist/Liberals gained control of our higher education institutes in the first place, and it’s really the only way we are going to get them out of those same institutes, by using their same tactics to put constitutionally minded conservatives in those institutes.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

And then some. Examples will need to be set in the form of institutions utterly failing and ceasing to exist. They are already on an unsustainable path. We need to prevent bailouts or other schemes to keep propping these institutions up. It’s why Obama seized control of all college lending. He knows they need or soon will need to be artificially propped up.

forest on April 6, 2012 at 8:34 PM

If this crap isn’t fought now, it’s just a matter of time before conservative views are illegal. And you know what? It will be some RINO’s who cast the deciding votes to make it so.

JellyToast on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.

We’re right.

TarheelBen on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Fieweger said Wagner’s candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: “Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it).”

This must be the famous liberal tolerance we all hear so much about?

Is this what President Obama means by the war on women?

Dr Evil on April 6, 2012 at 8:39 PM

liberals are tolerant, as long as you agree with them. people need to keep on calling the liberals out on their double standard. call them out on their bs.

funny how republican women are cute and attractive and stuff. and liberal hags are……not.

GhoulAid on April 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM

haha i know right? like that liberal murkowski, and that NYT writer who didn’t want to report on the augusta club.

it’s because liberal women are too busy being victims all the time, and they are bitter and complaining all the time. meanwhile, conservative women are confident in themselves as individuals.

Sachiko on April 6, 2012 at 8:40 PM

We’re right.

TarheelBen on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM

But the Squish Establishment doesn’t think we should say anything for fear of hurting the Progressives feeling because the majority of them are Progressives too.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:40 PM

That introspection is often fruitful, as it forces us to either reaffirm our views for ourselves or to tweak them as the new information provided by “the other” requires.

Yeah, well screw that crap. There’s only one side that’s willing to do that. And it ain’t my side.

The Reasonable Man on April 6, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I meant, it ain’t the other side. Jeez.

The Reasonable Man on April 6, 2012 at 8:42 PM

But the Squish Establishment doesn’t think we should say anything for fear of hurting the Progressives feeling because the majority of them are Progressives too.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:40 PM

We outnumber them.

TarheelBen on April 6, 2012 at 8:44 PM

The War on Conservative Women!!!!!

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I wonder if l4l will have something to say about this.

Bitter Clinger on April 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

…I think it is always getting a diaper change, on these kind of threads.

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 8:46 PM

It’s why Obama seized control of all college lending.

forest on April 6, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Wasn’t that part of PPACA? Why, yes, it was.

Syzygy on April 6, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Somewhere along the line, we’ve confused a commitment to “tolerance and diversity” with relativism.

Who’s this “WE” you’re referring to, Tina?

Cleombrotus on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

If this crap isn’t fought now, it’s just a matter of time before conservative views are illegal. And you know what? It will be some RINO’s who cast the deciding votes to make it so.

JellyToast on April 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM

…when will John McCains term be up again?

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

How do you flush shyte for brains?

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

What would the parallel social equivalent to this problem have been in, say, the 1930′s?

Cleombrotus on April 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM

How do you flush shyte for brains?

OkieDoc on April 6, 2012 at 8:49 PM

By exposing their lies and then making them compete on a level fair playing ground.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM

the left, burrowed in at academia, journalism and the legal field, are at war with America. Hopefully, Pres. Romney can get a few of us conservatives nice federal jobs to push this bias back to neutral.

joeindc44 on April 6, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Scratch a Liberal, any liberal but particularly ones that think they are real smart, find a fascist.

jukin3 on April 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Almost any career requires certain minimum amount of brain activity. She’s worked for Family Research Council. She doesn’t meet that criteria and therefore unqualified. Case closed. Next?

lester on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

George Mason Law has some very conservative faculty members and has traditionally been a ‘conservative’ law school for quite some time. Some of their faculty go moonlight over at Cato from time to time. Most liberal institutions look at GMULaw with a lot of contempt. I can’t help but think there’s more to this than her attorney is letting on…

Hostile Gospel on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I have a 20 yr old son and heaven forbid i didn’t want him to go to college, He is a conservitive rocker that is in a apprentionship.

lisa fox on April 6, 2012 at 8:58 PM

He is a conservitive rocker that is in a apprentionship.

lisa fox on April 6, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Will they teach him to spell? -_+

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

The main difference is the fact that this pertains to an educator; someone who holds some influence over young adults still forming their political opinions. In most all other aspects, I am with you on freedom of association (Augusta National, anyone?).

mogilla on April 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

She should go back to Gearge Mason which is an exceptional law school. I’m sure she has family reasons to want to stay in Iowa, but the best response conservative professors can issue is to stick with Conservative alternatives for students. Teach in Texas, Teach at George Mason, let the left wingers push their social justice worthless law at their own schools.

Daemonocracy on April 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

George Mason Law has some very conservative faculty members and has traditionally been a ‘conservative’ law school for quite some time. Some of their faculty go moonlight over at Cato from time to time. Most liberal institutions look at GMULaw with a lot of contempt. I can’t help but think there’s more to this than her attorney is letting on…

Hostile Gospel on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

from the article that is linked, it reads like it is the school in Iowa not hiring her.

Daemonocracy on April 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Oops. Read the article…saw it was Iowa, not GMU that didn’t give her a full time gig. Well, that makes more sense.

Hostile Gospel on April 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM

While I sympathize with Wagner’s plight and respect her decision to sue the school (especially because the school purports to be committed to fair hiring practices), I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit.

This is where the Progressive activists generally outmaneuver us. We have principles that we should not sue because we do not get out way. In the mean time we defend recalls of governors and judges that the Progressives do not like. They use every legal trick to force us to adhere to their code while our code says let them and we do not retaliate.

Grunt on April 6, 2012 at 9:07 PM

How would they know what the woman’s politics are, I wonder, unless she told them?

It’s not prudent, in my opinion, to advertise your political or religious beliefs to people all over the place, and not on the internet under your actual name, precisely for reasons like this.

TigerPaw on April 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

[Teresa] Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school [the University of Iowa College of Law] in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.

So this woman has no right to work for causes she believes in…?

lovingmyUSA on April 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM

The main difference is the fact that this pertains to an educator; someone who holds some influence over young adults still forming their political opinions. In most all other aspects, I am with you on freedom of association (Augusta National, anyone?).

mogilla on April 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Sorry but like a few said earlier, this is a “PUBLIC” institution that is bound by law not to discriminate. However, there is one point she will have difficulty in winning a lawsuit in this particular case. ‘Political thought’ is not one of those things protected under the non-discrimination clause.

Perhaps this case will go all the way to USSC and will cause a change in the non-discrimination laws in some way. To me, I think there is too many “protected classes” in the law. There is also way too much “public” institutions which is the source of so much conflict.

Ronaldusmax on April 6, 2012 at 9:10 PM

(And, yes, I was trying to see how many times I could use the word “diversity” in a sentence!)

Tina…

… you realize that you just created a new drinking game, don’t you?

:)

*clink*

Seven Percent Solution on April 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I’m sure Obama will call her parents and tell them they should be proud

Conservative4ev on April 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM

So this woman has no right to work for causes she believes in…?

lovingmyUSA on April 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Not if she wants to teach at Iowa.

Rio Linda Refugee on April 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

When they’re getting tax dollars to support “freedom of association” the rules apply evenly. No need to roll over and surrender on that account.

whatcat on April 6, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Freedom of association, anyone?

I’m not sure freedom of association is a reasonable argument for depriving someone of employment. Keeping them out of your bridge club maybe. But employment law has its own standards of fairness.

I’m curious about the basis for her lawsuit though. “Conservatives” aren’t a protected group, so it’s interesting that a judge wants to hear a case involving discrimination based on political ideology.

Dee2008 on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Freedom of association, anyone?

If you have a principled case you want to make in favor of freedom of association, make it. But be aware that that will involve tossing out the whole Civil Rights revolution, which bars freedom of association in America in favor of forced inclusion.

The logic of forced inclusion is that Teresa Wagner should sue and win.

The logic of “freedom of association” but only when it’s used as an excuse to punish conservatives, as here, is radically leftist.

David Blue on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Big Education, Big Hollywood, and Big Media all use an unofficial blacklist which artificially depresses salary for those not allowed full access to the labor markets strongly influenced by the Bigs. It’s no different than the artificial price increases enabled for producers with monopoly influence.

Promotion of free markets is a government responsibility.

exdeadhead on April 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Freedom of association, anyone?

What?

Dante on April 6, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You’re conservative? I’m so sorry, but we don’t allow conservatives to join our highly influential government funded private club.

farsighted on April 6, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Almost any career requires certain minimum amount of brain activity. She’s worked for Family Research Council. She doesn’t meet that criteria and therefore unqualified. Case closed. Next?

lester on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

.
fester, you are still stupid! Look at this and READ IT:

Teresa Wagner graduated with distinction from The University of Iowa College of Law in 1993 after completing her first year of law school at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. She practiced as a trial attorney for two years then began work in law and public policy, authoring numerous publications and serving as lead counsel for amicus briefs to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the United States Supreme Court. She has taught a graduate-level class on the law and medical ethics as well as Legal Research, Writing and Analysis I and II at George Mason University Law School. She is the editor of three published books, two of which were collections of essays involving more than 40 contributing authors.

She has been an Associate Director of the Writing Resource Center since 2007.

.
Look at the NYT article on the hiring controversy.

Ms. Jones, who is no longer dean, said she could not comment until she had consulted with her lawyers. In 2009, she told The Des Moines Register that “Teresa didn’t get the job, and I’m sure she’s disappointed, but she didn’t not get the job because of her politics.”

Mr. Olson said he had mixed feelings about the Eighth Circuit’s decision, saying it may have identified an instance of a real problem while allowing it to be aired in the wrong forum.

Teresa Wagner was denied because of prejudice about her politics not lack of ability or intelligence.
.
You, fester, are an arrogant ASS! You have done far less with your life than this woman yet you call her unqualified based on brains. Based on the evidence I have provided you are talking out of your ASS. ASS ASS ASS. That’s you, ASS. fester the festered festering ASS.
.
You deserve every word of this, fester ASS. Come back for more! I hope you do!

ExpressoBold on April 6, 2012 at 9:30 PM

They want a diversity of the correct opinions.

Marxist, neo-Marxist, socialist, anarcho-syndicalist, et al.

profitsbeard on April 6, 2012 at 9:37 PM

If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.

From Something’s Gotta Give . . .

HARRY: I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth.

ERICA: The truth doesn’t have versions, okay?

TXUS on April 6, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so “entrenched” in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that “they don’t recognize they’re doing it.”

Bull$hit.

msupertas on April 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Liberals argue that we need diversity because of the different perspectives that it brings; but they insist on using a proxy for a diversity of perspective (e.g., skin color), rather than actual diversity of perspective. They aren’t even bright enough to recognize how nonsensical their position is.

besser tot als rot on April 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Call this type of intolerance what it is: FEAR

Liberals are AFRAID of letting Conservatives teach at Liberal Universities because if students are exposed to commonsense Conservative thought, it will become all too obvious how dumb the Liberals really are.

wren on April 6, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Almost any career requires certain minimum amount of brain activity. She’s worked for Family Research Council. She doesn’t meet that criteria and therefore unqualified. Case closed. Next?

lester on April 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

So you’ve never had a career, then? Driving the honey wagon truck doesn’t count.

msupertas on April 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Tina, this argument (?) of yours has a very “la de da,” meandering quality to it. Was the lady wronged, or wasn’t she? If she was, what should we conservatives do about it? Reach out to our liberal counterparts, empathize with them and try to get them to see things our way? Somehow, I doubt that will work.

These folks sound hard-core, and seem VERY determined to deny employment to anyone who doesn’t pass their ideological litmus test. Discovery, under oath, sounds like just the thing the University of Iowa Law School needs to endure. They’ve sure earned it.

I’m sure the faculty has read and understood all the laws, policies, etc… about not discriminating in the hiring process. Seems they don’t care what the law says, or what the right thing to do is.

“Freedom of association, anyone?” Tax-payer funded public university, Tina?

unpaintedhuffheinz on April 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so “entrenched” in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that “they don’t recognize they’re doing it.”

Oh BULLSHIT! They damned well know what they’re doing. They just don’t want to get caught at it. Just like those “journalists” on JournaList.

GarandFan on April 6, 2012 at 10:03 PM

But we can simultaneously consciously seek to challenge our own views and, in the end, hold fast to our principles. It is possible. Not all opinions are equally true and two mutually exclusive propositions can never both be true. If we’re really seeking the truth, what does it hurt to give court to others’ perspectives? Maybe we’ll find we’re wrong … but maybe we’ll find we’re right.

True enough, Tina. But most of the time, it is the conservative person who will make an honest effort to understand a liberal’s point of view. Some liberals I know just pay lip service to listening to conservative attitudes, then tend to talk over them and insist that theirs are still the correct ones to have. I’d be much more amenable to discussing liberal and conservative views and how they hold up in reality if I knew the liberal person was making a sincere effort to understand my views as a conservative. More often than not, they don’t even try and they know it. It’s just as obvious to me, and so I conclude that I am wasting my time.

PatriotGal2257 on April 6, 2012 at 10:16 PM

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain. As in, if you know someone is thirsting and you also know they have different political views than you do, you’ll feel their thirst less. To me, that’s shabby. We do have humanity in common, at least

Sorry Tina but gotta disagree with you on this one. Anyone who has absolutely no compunction about slaughtering innocent unborn children but will fight to keep a cop killer from receiving justice has no claim on “humanity” of any kind. I hold nothing in common with them except maybe 99% of my DNA.

Rogue on April 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM

At the same time, I’m mindful of the way we hole up in our echo chambers. Our unwillingness to experience the friction that occurs when our ideas directly clash with another person’s is counterproductive

Sorry. Not buying the “underneath it all, aren’t we all the same?” bit.

I have no problem with compassion for humanity. But I don’t come across a lot of leftists dying of thirst (they have too much of our money for that to be a problem). Some of us came out of Leftist backgrounds and understand that much of the activist core of the movement is evil (for lack of a better term). They stand for intolerance, dictatorship, depravity and the destruction of the American values we hold dear. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Barack Obama (et al) are destroying my country and my children’s futures. Worse than that, they are destroying the last beacon of liberty on earth. They are not “well-meaning” they are intent on destruction.

You’re dying of thirst? Here, have a glass of water… not get the f out of our way.

mankai on April 6, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The logic of “freedom of association” but only when it’s used as an excuse to punish conservatives, as here, is radically leftist.

David Blue on April 6, 2012 at 9:20 PM

An argument nobody is making. So, you point escapes me.

besser tot als rot on April 6, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Worst part of it, it was a Catholic university that saw him as too conservative to want to keep.

Gingotts on April 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Unfortunately, most Catholic universities have been taken over by liberals, much like their public counterparts.

bw222 on April 6, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Attn: Tina Korbe

Tina,

1. Freedom of Association is not in the US Constitution! It is progressive gobbledygook from NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)…wholly invented by the most progressive and radical SCOTUS of all time.

2. As I read case law on Freedom of Association it applies to private groups and private citizens. It does not apply to Government, its agents nor its employees in the manner you suggest.

3. You seem to argue that Freedom of Association should be used as a shield by Governmental entities to promote discrimination by excluding a member of a rival political party from a government job. This is bad public policy on its face.

4. Here’s a tip, anytime you start arguing the Government should have carte blanche to discriminate, you’re probably doing something wrong.

Afterseven on April 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Big Education, Big Hollywood, and Big Media all use an unofficial blacklist which artificially depresses salary for those not allowed full access to the labor markets strongly influenced by the Bigs.

exdeadhead on April 6, 2012 at 9:21 PM

What do the three national networks and CNN have in common? Every news anchor and 90%+ of the reporters are flaming liberals. They range from the world’s oldest high school cheerleader to balding and boring, but they all have one thing in common – liberalism.

bw222 on April 6, 2012 at 10:56 PM

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain.

Oh, the horror. Calling Dr. Willy Clinton.

How does hypochondria and varying tolerances for “pain” factor into this subjective self-serving touchy-feely psychobabble?

farsighted on April 6, 2012 at 10:59 PM

“Everybody wants to celebrate diversity, as long as you don’t point out that people are different.”

–Colin Quinn

Jim Treacher on April 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Dear Tina Korbe,

A new study shows that Democrats and Republicans are actually unable to feel each other’s pain.

I’ll see your empathy and Raise you Understanding;

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives

jaydee_007 on April 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM

“forced imposition of diversity”?

You mean discrimination, right?

They won’t hire her because of an identity. it is no different than not hiring her because she is a gay activist on her own time. THERE IS NO DIFERRNECE.

She will prevail in the action.

Opposite Day on April 6, 2012 at 11:18 PM

…I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

Tina, freedom of association (which I am also in favor of) has been pretty much beaten to death by the “diversity/multicultural” crowd over the past 40 years. These days you can only associate with the “correct” people and there is no penalty for discriminating against the “incorrect.”

William McGowan, author of Coloring The News, a 1997 book about how “crusading for diversity” corrupted the media, had a great phrase for this. He said that liberal values had become “like the wallpaper.” They were so all-pervasive that no one even noticed them anymore, even though they were everywhere.

Well, I say let’s start stripping off that wallpaper.

Gearbox on April 6, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Universities always act as if they were some sovereign country with their own police force by claiming academic independence but they are established by the state and funded by the state and exempt from tax by the state and the state serves the taxpayers. Look at Penn state and the pedophile scandal. For every conservative with no criminal history on the faculty across the nation there are three convicted criminals like Ayers and some black panthers.

dunce on April 6, 2012 at 11:27 PM

The media discriminates based on creed every day which is why 95% or more of media employees are Democrats. They should be sued base on violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act just like this college. And I just love it when what goes around…comes around. Especially when it comes around to commie libs!

devan95 on April 6, 2012 at 11:28 PM

And as for those last 3 paragraphs: lots of wasted words to say be willing to keep an open mind and listen to opposing views.

devan95 on April 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Is Iowa a state school?

Jaibones on April 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM

If the progressives are on fire, was it OK to p!ss gasoline on them and light that cigarette for a non-smoker?

The progressives who discriminate for thought crimes against their politics in public institutions should be fired. When they fear for their jobs if they discriminate against conservatives, progressives will lose their hold on institutions.

Enforce their own rules on these closed minded bigots!

WhatNot on April 7, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Korbe & Morrisey always fuzz up 1st Amendment issues. Learn some law, people. No, it’s not legal – let alone a “right” – to shut out conservative teachers at public universities and Miz Korbe ought to know it.

Franklin S on April 7, 2012 at 12:25 AM

APundit

“I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?”

Sure, I am too. Philosophically. Pragmatically, though, I’m going to make them live by their own rules just as Alinsky taught the Progressives to do for generations because me and my thoughts are being bludgeoned into oblivion by taking the high road.

The Leftists of academia (but I probably repeat myself there) have essentially insisted that the conservatives fight back because the Leftists aren’t nearly as open-minded as advertised. A species going extinct in any environment is going to fight for survival. Well, that’s where conservatives are with academia. It’s the same battle as that being waged in media with only that battle now being ahead of the academic reformation curve.

AnonymousDrivel on April 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Whoops @ 12:29 AM.

Misattribution to APundit. That should Tina Korbe’s statement.

AnonymousDrivel on April 7, 2012 at 12:35 AM

I’m more generally against the forced imposition of diversity than I am in favor of her lawsuit. Freedom of association, anyone?

Have you lost your marbles, Tina? Nobody, whether a private or public institution, is allowed to discriminate based on ones religious beliefs, right?

How is this any different? Political beliefs are just subjective beliefs – exactly the same as are subjective religious beliefs.

If you think “thought crimes” are valid, then you would also think that employment discrimination based on someone’s political beliefs is ok too. And no, it’s NOT the same thing as “freedom of association” at all. We are talking about employment here, a very highly regulated activity of commerce.

I’d think she has a helluva lawsuit.

Harbingeing on April 7, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 2