Notes from Evil Bender

I frequently agree with John W. Loftus’ arguments, and respect his defense of atheism. And I’m certainly angry as hell about forced-birthers whose violent rhetoric provides political cover for murderers. Furthermore, I’ve read few things as offensive as Edward Feser’s odious declaration that Dr. Tiller, a man who performed legal, medically necessary care to women undergoing on of the hardest experiences imaginable, is worse that Jeffry Dahmer.

That said, I can’t agree with Loftus’ views on Feser:

Feser teaches for Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California which is a community college. I call upon that college to fire him for this highly inflamed rhetoric which will probably bring on more murders of abortion doctors.

I’d be the first to call for Feser to be charged if what he’s said rises to the level of incitement, and I certainly believe he should be held accountable for the horrific implications of his argument. But he should be challenged on the poor quality of ideas, not forced out of his job for what he’s said as a private citizen. Feser is most definitely not calling for violence against abortion providers, and while his rhetoric certainly may encourage dangerous people to do horrible things, he is not calling for violence, nor does he appear to be crying crocodile tears: he seems sincere in his view that violence against doctors isn’t okay. Assuming he is sincere in that, and not simply trying to use an anti-choice dog whistle,* I think it’s incredibly dangerous to call for his firing.

Since his words were on his personal blog and not related to his job, this probably isn’t an academic freedom issue, but it is a personal freedom. Public institutions should not be in the habit of firing someone for something they say as a private citizen, and encouraging them to do otherwise is dangerous, especially in a time when academic freedom is already under assault.

When a public employee, particularly a professor, can be fired for expressing themselves in public, there is a dangerous and potentially silencing precedent, and while I hope that people of good will continue to speak out against Feser’s disgusting words, I don’t want him to be fired. Once we accept that legal speech unrelated to one’s work is sufficient cause to cost one a job, we’ve essentially given our employers veto powers over our ideas. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

Furthermore, I would argue that no one who values freedom of speech should encourage this sort of firing. History shows clearly that censoring of unpopular idea (and this would, it seems to me, be dangerously close to de facto censorship) is not a good way to defeat such ideas. The correct response to odious ideas are better ideas, not pressure to fire those whose views we find offensive. This is particularly true when  a government-funded employer is doing the censoring. Private employers have greater latitude in deciding who should represent them, but the government should not be in the position of deciding which ideas are acceptable for its employees to hold.**

*And how could we be certain of the latter? It seems, given his clear statements on the matter, that we should take him at his word.

**There are obviously things one could say privately that should result in disciplinary action by one’s employer, but that circumstances should be highly limited, probably to things that affect one’s ability to do one’s job, or statements that are illegal or in violation of the institution’s mission.