Page:Gruber v. Bruce.pdf/8

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

(Doc. No. 81-17 at 3).

Plaintiffs were informed of Provost Bruce’s decision by letter dated May 13, 2021. In it, they were told that discipline was imposed as a result of “your actions, not your beliefs or ideas”; and “your attempts to harass, intimidate, and/or threaten another employee and a small group of students on campus students [sic] whose views and opinions were contrary to your own.” (Id.). The discipline included Plaintiffs being (1) not permitted to serve as a faculty advisor to any student organizations; (2) not allowed to participate in study abroad activities; (3) ineligible for non-instructional faculty assignments; and (4) ineligible for salary increases for a year. Additionally, both were required to meet with the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (or his or her designee) at the start of each semester “to reinforce with you the importance of not bringing personal grievances into the workplace.” (Id. at 2–3). Plaintiffs were also required to complete sensitivity training. (Id.).

II. Legal Discussion

Mr. Smith’s flyer called Dr. Donadio a racist. Words have meaning and college language teachers should understand that better than most. Perhaps, however, Dr. Gruber and Mr. Smith are clever by half because, at least according to some:

Accusations of “racism” no longer are “obviously and naturally harmful”. The word has been watered down by overuse, becoming common coin in political discourse. … Formerly a “racist” was a believer in the superiority of one’s own race, often a supporter of slavery or segregation, or a fomenter of hatred among the races. … Politicians sometimes use the term much more loosely, as referring to anyone (not of the speaker's race) who opposes the speaker's political goals—on the “rationale” that the speaker espouses only what is good for the jurisdiction (or the audience), and since one’s opponents have no cause to oppose what is beneficial, their opposition must be based on race. The term used this way means only: “He is neither for me nor of our race; and I invite you to vote your race.” … That may be an unfortunate brand of politics, but it also drains the term of its former, decidedly opprobrious, meaning. …

8

Case 2:21-cv-00039 Document 90 Filed 12/01/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8920