casual observer: I think the scenario where they can fire him for advocating illegal assassination is if he’s slated to teach, say, Copyright Law, but spends the entire class time propounding the need to kill Iranian scientists. Here, the university wouldn’t be firing him for the content of his speech but for his failure to teach copyright law in accord with the university’s standards & his contract. Likewise, if the university hired him to teach a class called “The Assassination Option: The Legality of Killing Iranian Scientists” and he went on and on about copyright law instead, I think they would have grounds to fire him. Performance-related issues (refusing to return students’ papers, no showing up to class repeatedly, sleeping with a student, and not teaching the class you’re designated to teach) fall guarantees outside of academic freedom. This is my “street-level” understanding of academic freedom as a college professor, but I’m not going to claim expertise on the matter because I don’t have any formal legal training.

Professor: "On campuses today faculty throw around the phrase 'academic freedom' like a get-out-of-jail-free-card . . ."

The reason we "throw around" the phrase is because academic freedom is under fierce attack. See, for example, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/19/ariz

I think we’re more or less on the same page. I think the examples you gave (calling students idiots in class & spreading lies about colleagues during university meetings), to my mind, are not covered by academic freedom. In fact, I agree with you to the extent that invoking academic freedom in those instances dilutes its importance (if it covers everything then it covers nothing).

The AAUP has three sub-points in their definition. Here’s the first:

"Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution."

http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/AAUP_1940stat.htm

I think your colleagues’ misunderstanding might stem from ignorance of the “subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties” line.

Thanks for that tip m.b.f. -- conservapedia is truly something to behold. These dudes transcend self-parody. What was it Colbert once said about reality having a well-known liberal bias?

Joe – Did you see that Think Progress has a quote up from Oxy Limbaugh that says: ““If we launched attacks on Iran and Syria today and went heavy metal, pedal-to-the-wall, this country would be cheering. The Democrats and the media would be in panic, but the people in this country would be cheering.” You’re totally right, Joe. There’s an elemental bloodlust that seems to override everything else with these folks. “Heavy metal” i.e. killing civilians on a massive scale.

The idea that he thinks “the people would be cheering” is disturbing because he seems to conflate his radio audience with “the people” – that’s to be expected, but the extent to which his comment reflects Whitehouse thinking on the matter scares me. If there’s one issue with which Bush should step out of his bubble to consider “the people” it’s Iran. And the people have made quite clear that we want to wind-down our presence in the Middle East, not new wars.

Stellar post Glenn.

Here are some other code phrases I find troubling:

Time to “get things done” in Iraq.

Liberals “lack the stomach for the fight.”

The most disturbing code words are the ones that advocate mass indiscriminant killing. Eliminationism lurks just below the surface of a lot of this tough-guy posturing.

Anonymous -- I agree with the drift of your letter. David Horowitz is a texbook example of what you're driving at (his elitism & blind dogmatism didn't go away when he shed his communism and became a firey anti-communist) I would just add that "Neoconservatives really do strike me as being our modern Communists." is a terrible insult to communists. "The vanguard elite" idea is Lenin's. Marx had a more organic interpretation of the birth of communism (it would naturally spring from contradictions in capitalist mode of production).

to the neoconservatives out there -- you have nothing to lose but your gilded chains!!

I was glad to see this post – that long stretch with no word from Glenn just didn’t feel right!

I’d like to point out that this is another instance of conservatives not having the courage of their convictions. If Coulter really thinks Edwards is a “faggot” then she should say “John Edwards is a faggot.” This would beg the appropriate questions like “do you think he sexually identifies as gay, or are you using that term of art like a 5th grader would, as a general insult?” Her “joke” allowed her to call him a “faggot” without actually doing so. That’s cowardly.

I have to say I was nauseous, literally, when I saw the clip – not when she said what she said, but when the chorus of laughter followed it.