A tale of two academics (part I)
Initially the responses from the respective universities where Churchill and Yoo were employed appeared to be similar: Their opinions were protected by the “freedom of speech” clause contained in the first amendment to the Bill of Rights; therefore they could not be fired for expressing them.
But the reality was much different. While this clause seemed to protect Yoo, Churchill suddenly became the target of a university “investigation” that subsequently resulted in his firing for “plagiarism” and other “research misconduct.”
Why the disparity in the treatment of these two academics? The answer is simple. Universities, despite all their “ivory-tower” posturing, are profit-driven institutions. Fears of losing tuition, alumni donations or tax dollars will invariably trump any “higher” principles an academic institution may have. This often means that administrators live by two sets of “rules,” demanding dedication and integrity from their students and faculty while ignoring the obligation to practice such values themselves.
To be continued…
David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
