More UM Drama

[TomCat88]

Now drama in the Computer Science Department.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/compu ... 41ce3.html

Unbelievably disgusting. Glad to see UM is owning it and addressing it promptly.

[coloradocat]

Sounds about right for UM-Missoula: suspend/fire someone for words and defend/look the other way when it comes to actions. I guess this guy should have been in a leadership position.

[wbtfg]

Sounds about right for UM-Missoula: suspend/fire someone for words and defend/look the other way when it comes to actions. I guess this guy should have been in a leadership position.

I would imagine that with something as high profile as this, all decisions are made through the Commissioner's office in Helena.

But it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. I'm not sure a public university can fire a tenured professor for what they do/say as a private citizen.

[Rich K]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

[TomCat88]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

Oh boy! You got that right.

[wbtfg]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

It looks like Mr. Smith resigned from UM today. Also, he hired former legislator from Bozeman, Matthew Monforton.

[RickRund]

My Great Niece from Townsend will be enrolling at MSU. She graduates this year. For several years she has wanted to go to the cc of um... Her folks have wanted her to be a griz. They definitely know my feelings. Patti's sister, the mom, have done researching and know about the mess so they have changed their tune.

[Grizlaw]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

It looks like Mr. Smith resigned from UM today. Also, he hired former legislator from Bozeman, Matthew Monforton.

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest.

On the one hand, the things he wrote on his blog were reprehensible (or at least, the snippets that were described in the article were reprehensible -- none of us has seen the actual blog, and since it's been taken down now, we have no idea what the overall context was of what he was writing, or whether the reporting of the quotes accurately portrays the message of what he was saying in the blog). But if you take the article's portrayal of the blog at face value, I certainly wouldn't endorse any of what he was saying in the blog.

Having said that, though -- this type of incident seems to be part of a larger and growing trend of people being fired (or "cancelled," if the person is a public figure) for publicly expressing an opinion that other people consider to be offensive (with the list of what constitutes "offensive" constantly growing at a seemingly exponential rate). Maybe his dismissal would have been warranted in this case, but I do think the overall trend has the effect of stifling free speech and open debate, and I do find that extremely troubling.

[wbtfg]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

It looks like Mr. Smith resigned from UM today. Also, he hired former legislator from Bozeman, Matthew Monforton.

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest.

On the one hand, the things he wrote on his blog were reprehensible (or at least, the snippets that were described in the article were reprehensible -- none of us has seen the actual blog, and since it's been taken down now, we have no idea what the overall context was of what he was writing, or whether the reporting of the quotes accurately portrays the message of what he was saying in the blog). But if you take the article's portrayal of the blog at face value, I certainly wouldn't endorse any of what he was saying in the blog.

Having said that, though -- this type of incident seems to be part of a larger and growing trend of people being fired (or "cancelled," if the person is a public figure) for publicly expressing an opinion that other people consider to be offensive (with the list of what constitutes "offensive" constantly growing at a seemingly exponential rate). Maybe his dismissal would have been warranted in this case, but I do think the overall trend has the effect of stifling free speech and open debate, and I do find that extremely troubling.

I think I generally agree. As a public entity, I didn't think UM would be able to fire a tenured faculty for the thoughts they expressed as a private citizen. I was actually pretty surprised to see him resign, as I thought he'd have a case against the university system if they fired him. I wonder if they offered him some type of payout if he resigned....OR....I wonder if there's more to the story that didn't come to light...OR...maybe Mr. Smith just wanted to get it all behind him and this was the easiest way to do so.

[CelticCat]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

It looks like Mr. Smith resigned from UM today. Also, he hired former legislator from Bozeman, Matthew Monforton.

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest.

On the one hand, the things he wrote on his blog were reprehensible (or at least, the snippets that were described in the article were reprehensible -- none of us has seen the actual blog, and since it's been taken down now, we have no idea what the overall context was of what he was writing, or whether the reporting of the quotes accurately portrays the message of what he was saying in the blog). But if you take the article's portrayal of the blog at face value, I certainly wouldn't endorse any of what he was saying in the blog.

Having said that, though -- this type of incident seems to be part of a larger and growing trend of people being fired (or "cancelled," if the person is a public figure) for publicly expressing an opinion that other people consider to be offensive (with the list of what constitutes "offensive" constantly growing at a seemingly exponential rate). Maybe his dismissal would have been warranted in this case, but I do think the overall trend has the effect of stifling free speech and open debate, and I do find that extremely troubling.

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

One thing that does irk me though and this is certainly along those lines, is doxxing and trying to get someone fired in the private sector in particular. A guy gets caught up in a racial rant on camera at a local Popeye's, and keyboard warriors flock to the internet, do some sleuthing, find out where he works and gets him fired. That I'm not really on board with but I don't consider these the same situations.

[catbooster]

Nothing would add to the drama more if Professor Rob Smith hires Rob Natelson to represent him. This would then become quite the issue to discuss.

It looks like Mr. Smith resigned from UM today. Also, he hired former legislator from Bozeman, Matthew Monforton.

I have mixed feelings about this, to be honest.

On the one hand, the things he wrote on his blog were reprehensible (or at least, the snippets that were described in the article were reprehensible -- none of us has seen the actual blog, and since it's been taken down now, we have no idea what the overall context was of what he was writing, or whether the reporting of the quotes accurately portrays the message of what he was saying in the blog). But if you take the article's portrayal of the blog at face value, I certainly wouldn't endorse any of what he was saying in the blog.

Having said that, though -- this type of incident seems to be part of a larger and growing trend of people being fired (or "cancelled," if the person is a public figure) for publicly expressing an opinion that other people consider to be offensive (with the list of what constitutes "offensive" constantly growing at a seemingly exponential rate). Maybe his dismissal would have been warranted in this case, but I do think the overall trend has the effect of stifling free speech and open debate, and I do find that extremely troubling.

There was a link in the article: http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/upwar ... log_posts/ scroll down to the bottom and there are pdf's that the Kaimin downloaded before the blog was deleted. I haven't read them yet, so I don't know if they are just snippets or whether they are out of context.

[Grizlaw]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

[CelticCat]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

The "issue" I guess if you can call it that is now anyone in America can easily read about the misogynistic professor at the University of Montana. The 24 hour instant news cycle makes local small issues like this now a potential nationwide story. I'm not so sure it's a trend of people being more intolerant of dissenting opinion necessarily as it is super easy access into people's opinions in the first place. There is a lot more and also a lot less accountability in today's society, depending on if you use your real info. With everyone having a camera, with everyone being able to read your blog, you run the risk of running afoul of public opinion on a daily basis. Sure you can reach more people than ever with your sexist rants but you also can potentially draw a national spotlight on yourself. You can't just be a sexist d*ckhead in the shadows anymore. Now does being a sexist d*ckhead automatically mean you should be fired? That's the part you are arguing and I get that angle but the court of public opinion is strong and has been long before the internet existed.

[catatac]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

The "issue" I guess if you can call it that is now anyone in America can easily read about the misogynistic professor at the University of Montana. The 24 hour instant news cycle makes local small issues like this now a potential nationwide story. I'm not so sure it's a trend of people being more intolerant of dissenting opinion necessarily as it is super easy access into people's opinions in the first place. There is a lot more and also a lot less accountability in today's society, depending on if you use your real info. With everyone having a camera, with everyone being able to read your blog, you run the risk of running afoul of public opinion on a daily basis. Sure you can reach more people than ever with your sexist rants but you also can potentially draw a national spotlight on yourself. You can't just be a sexist d*ckhead in the shadows anymore. Now does being a sexist d*ckhead automatically mean you should be fired? That's the part you are arguing and I get that angle but the court of public opinion is strong and has been long before the internet existed.

Ya, kinda with you on this. If a person wants to ramble on and on with their blog about how a man must control his woman, and verbally abuse her occasionally to keep her confidence down and therefore keep her in line, so as not to question him..... I'm perfectly fine with these people getting whatever repercussions come to them.

[wbtfg]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

I agree 100%. I think it's part of the culture of social media, as well as 24 hour new media. These entities make a crap ton of money by evoking strong emotions and creating boogeymen/women. Just look at what all the vaccinated anti-vaxxers on cable news are spewing.

Additionally, politicians and their fund raising machines have latched on to this as well. We live in a world of group think, echo chambers and biased narratives. Speaking of, I'm surprised Colin Kaepernick didn't make your list.

[coloradocat]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

The "issue" I guess if you can call it that is now anyone in America can easily read about the misogynistic professor at the University of Montana. The 24 hour instant news cycle makes local small issues like this now a potential nationwide story. I'm not so sure it's a trend of people being more intolerant of dissenting opinion necessarily as it is super easy access into people's opinions in the first place. There is a lot more and also a lot less accountability in today's society, depending on if you use your real info. With everyone having a camera, with everyone being able to read your blog, you run the risk of running afoul of public opinion on a daily basis. Sure you can reach more people than ever with your sexist rants but you also can potentially draw a national spotlight on yourself. You can't just be a sexist d*ckhead in the shadows anymore. Now does being a sexist d*ckhead automatically mean you should be fired? That's the part you are arguing and I get that angle but the court of public opinion is strong and has been long before the internet existed.

I haven't been following the story because I don't really care. To me it's just another scandal out of UM-Missoula.

My question is, did anything in this guy's blog make it into his classroom? He taught computer science, not some liberal arts class. I doubt it came up in class or the original article would have mentioned it. If he treated everyone fairly in class/on campus he's essentially being punished for wrongthink. Whether people agree with the outcome or not that's what it appears to be.

[wbtfg]

At the same time, haven't State and Government employees always been held to the standard of current societal trends? I mean I'm unsure of this but I imagine part of the contract as a professor at a University has to be something about being good representatives of the University. That is a fluid definition, and maybe sharing those thoughts 15 years ago wouldn't have been a problem but they sure are now in today's climate.

I guess the question is, why is it a problem?

Pretty much everyone agrees that some of the ideas expressed in the blog are offensive, but when did expressing controversial ideas become such a problem? Are we really so easily "triggered" today that even hearing something that we find offensive is so harmful to us that the person expressing the idea must be silenced, fired, "cancelled," "de-platformed," etc.?

Historically in this country, controversial issues have been resolved through discussion and debate, which ultimately results in changes in public policy. That happened with civil rights laws, abortion laws, gay marriage, affirmative action, and pretty much every other controversial topic that has come up. Those types of discussions can't really happen now, though, because "today's climate" that you referenced has evolved in such a way that expressing the "wrong" point of view on a controversial topic gets you fired, cancelled, etc. If you express the "wrong" view about affirmative action, you're a racist. If you express the wrong view about abortion, you're a misogynist who opposes equality for women. If you express the wrong view about trans rights...well, just ask J.K. Rowling or Gina Carano what happens.

Like I said, I'm not so concerned about this one professor. Maybe he really is a bad guy who got what he deserved. But it is part of a broader trend, and I think that trend is taking our society to a pretty dangerous place.

The "issue" I guess if you can call it that is now anyone in America can easily read about the misogynistic professor at the University of Montana. The 24 hour instant news cycle makes local small issues like this now a potential nationwide story. I'm not so sure it's a trend of people being more intolerant of dissenting opinion necessarily as it is super easy access into people's opinions in the first place. There is a lot more and also a lot less accountability in today's society, depending on if you use your real info. With everyone having a camera, with everyone being able to read your blog, you run the risk of running afoul of public opinion on a daily basis. Sure you can reach more people than ever with your sexist rants but you also can potentially draw a national spotlight on yourself. You can't just be a sexist d*ckhead in the shadows anymore. Now does being a sexist d*ckhead automatically mean you should be fired? That's the part you are arguing and I get that angle but the court of public opinion is strong and has been long before the internet existed.

I haven't been following the story because I don't really care. To me it's just another scandal out of UM-Missoula.

My question is, did anything in this guy's blog make it into his classroom? He taught computer science, not some liberal arts class. I doubt it came up in class or the original article would have mentioned it. If he treated everyone fairly in class/on campus he's essentially being punished for wrongthink. Whether people agree with the outcome or not that's what it appears to be.

I was surprised to see the guy resigned on his own accord.

[Grizlaw]

The "issue" I guess if you can call it that is now anyone in America can easily read about the misogynistic professor at the University of Montana. The 24 hour instant news cycle makes local small issues like this now a potential nationwide story. I'm not so sure it's a trend of people being more intolerant of dissenting opinion necessarily as it is super easy access into people's opinions in the first place. There is a lot more and also a lot less accountability in today's society, depending on if you use your real info. With everyone having a camera, with everyone being able to read your blog, you run the risk of running afoul of public opinion on a daily basis. Sure you can reach more people than ever with your sexist rants but you also can potentially draw a national spotlight on yourself. You can't just be a sexist d*ckhead in the shadows anymore. Now does being a sexist d*ckhead automatically mean you should be fired? That's the part you are arguing and I get that angle but the court of public opinion is strong and has been long before the internet existed.

I guess I would say that the “issue” is that maybe sometimes our society is a little too quick to use labels like “misogynistic” and “sexist d*ickhead” to dismiss other peoples’ viewpoints, instead of addressing the arguments that they are making.

[Grizlaw]

Ya, kinda with you on this. If a person wants to ramble on and on with their blog about how a man must control his woman, and verbally abuse her occasionally to keep her confidence down and therefore keep her in line, so as not to question him..... I'm perfectly fine with these people getting whatever repercussions come to them.

It’s easy to say that when the person being fired or “cancelled” holds viewpoints that you agree are offensive. But who is the arbiter of what is “offensive”? If you’re ok with this, then you have to accept the fact that it could happen to someone whose views align with your own. Would you feel the same way if the professor in question was fired for having a blog that was staunchly pro-Trump (or anti-Trump, depending on which “side” you’re on)? How about a blog that was strongly anti-vax (or pro-vax)?

If you and I sat down and had a few beers and spent a few hours talking about every controversial issue that exists, I bet we’d find a few areas where you hold views that someone, somewhere would find offensive.

[wbtfg]

Ya, kinda with you on this. If a person wants to ramble on and on with their blog about how a man must control his woman, and verbally abuse her occasionally to keep her confidence down and therefore keep her in line, so as not to question him..... I'm perfectly fine with these people getting whatever repercussions come to them.

It’s easy to say that when the person being fired or “cancelled” holds viewpoints that you agree are offensive. But who is the arbiter of what is “offensive”? If you’re ok with this, then you have to accept the fact that it could happen to someone whose views align with your own. Would you feel the same way if the professor in question was fired for having a blog that was staunchly pro-Trump (or anti-Trump, depending on which “side” you’re on)? How about a blog that was strongly anti-vax (or pro-vax)?

If you and I sat down and had a few beers and spent a few hours talking about every controversial issue that exists, I bet we’d find a few areas where you hold views that someone, somewhere would find offensive.

You’re right, but there has to be a line that can’t be crossed, right? How do we determine where that line is?

Is it kneeling for a flag? Is it saying women lose their value after age 18? None of the above? All of the above?