"A tenured Professor is being fired for quoting George Washington."

This statement is factually incorrect. The source provided provides the actual reason for the termination:

"On Jan. 3, 2007, MCCCD found that Kehowski was guilty of violating policies limiting e-mail usage to messages that "support education, research, scholarly communication, administration, and other MCCCD business.”

These policies also prohibit "mailings to large numbers of people that contain unwanted solicitations or information.”"

The source goes on to offer its own opinions regarding the validity of the MCCCD's decision, but the declared reason for the decision has nothing to do with George Washington.

Thus, the entire thrust of this post is founded on a falsehood.

Are you telling me that what George Washington had to say about Thanksgiving before Thanksgiving isn't educational?

It is well past Thanksgiving and it educated me.

So, which is it. George or the emailing of
George that has cost him his job?

However, MCCCD employees commonly use the "announcements” service to send out unsolicited information, according to a statement from FIRE.

Recent e-mails sent out using this service include an advertisement for purchasing goats for orphans in Uganda, quotes about Women’s History Month, and a reminder about the health benefits of eating bananas.

"To FIRE’s knowledge, not one of the senders of these e-mails has been forced to cease teaching or threatened with dismissal,” according to the organization’s statement.

I guess it is the content of the spam that counts.

Wishing people a happy Thanksgiving while quoting our first President on the subject is jus so divisive and uncollegial.

==

Well enough of that. The reason and the real reason in this case seem to not match well.

Maybe they were just cracking down on e-mail spammers internal to the community and he was unlucky enough to be the first found. Ya, think?

The person in question was fired for spamming on the district mailing list. We do not know the content of his spam, other than that it contained the George Washington material. We do not know what other material that spam contained -- and that other material might have been offensive. So let's not get into speculation based on fragmentary evidence.

I did some followup research on this and learned a bit more. All of the news is coming from one place: a conservative group called FIRE. They assisting Mr. Kehowski in his appeal of the decision to terminate. I was able to garner some facts:

1. The email contains just three elements:
a. the link to Mr. Buchanan's website.
b. the contents of the Washington address.
c. a snarky sentence apparently taking a jab at the school's diversity policy.

2. Mr. Kehowski was terminated not for the content of the email but for his violation of written policy regarding use of the listserv. There is no question that he violated that policy.

3. FIRE claims that the listserv has been used for other messages that do no meet the policy requirements; however, FIRE offers no documentation to support this allegation.

The prima facie case against Mr. Kehowski is solid. Nevertheless, I think it appropriate for everybody to withold judgement until the hearing has allowed both sides to present their cases.

Sorry Frob. They fire a tenured professor because he sent one Thanksgiving greeting over a list serv for which Thanksgiving greetings are prohibited?

Doesn't pass the smell test and you know it. If the misuse of the list serv was the problem, he would have gotten a talking to and, at most, a letter in his file.

What was the harassment? Hearing the views of the founder of our nation? A link they didn't have to click on?

You know what this is about just as well as Simon and I. This is yet another example of a weak educational administration kowtowing to the self-rightously thin-skinned who can't bear to be in the same zip code as a different thought or point of view.

"You know what this is about just as well as Simon and I."

No, none of us know what this is really about, other than the facts we have. We don't know how firm or easygoing the school's administrators are have been on the use of spamming. We don't know whether the spam had risen to an intolerable level. We don't know what previous history this fellow had with the administration. There's a lot we don't know. Using your imagination to fill in details is fine for storytelling, but not a firm basis for make moral judgements. Let's have a trial and get the facts before we string 'em up, OK?

Frob,

Isn't firing a tenured professor over a listserv policy violation a bit extreme?

As Tim says: doesn't pass the smell test.

"Isn't firing a tenured professor over a listserv policy violation a bit extreme?"

Perhaps; it depends upon the circumstances. Has the individual in question previously violated the listserv policy? Has he been reprimanded and warned not to do so again? What other actions has he taken that were perceived to be harmful to the district?

This could be the straw that broke the camel's back. We don't know. If it doesn't pas a smell test, that's because there's been insufficient sniffing around.

"Isn't firing a tenured professor over a listserv policy violation a bit extreme?"

Perhaps; it depends upon the circumstances. Has the individual in question previously violated the listserv policy? Has he been reprimanded and warned not to do so again? What other actions has he taken that were perceived to be harmful to the district?

This could be the straw that broke the camel's back. We don't know. If it doesn't pas a smell test, that's because there's been insufficient sniffing around.

If it doesn't pas a smell test, that's because there's been insufficient sniffing around. Froblyx · May 10, 2007 12:34 AM

Or maybe the whole thing just stinks.

Maybe, as happens all too often these days, the folks in charge are bigots.

"Maybe, as happens all too often these days, the folks in charge are bigots."

Maybe so. Maybe not. Given insufficient information to make that determination, some people withhold judgement, and some people simply apply their pre-existing prejudices.