...with the utterly predictable results. Legally, this case is as easy as they come: Cal State-Fresno, as a public entity, can not punish her for her constitutionally protected speech on a matter of clear public interest. I assume the university will do exactly nothing as the outcome of its "personnel" process, though they shouldn't even be initiating one. I gather the Cal State faculty are unionized, which should provide an extra layer of protection.
All that being said, one does have to ask: why bother? I say that as someone who thinks the Fresno professor's assessment of the late Mrs. Bush is not far off the mark, even if poorly expressed (such is Twitter, poor expression is the norm). But why bother Tweeting stuff like this? Did it satisfy an important emotional need? Was the goal precisely to create a spectacle? One wonders in a lot of these cases what these folks think they are accomplishing.
All that being said, there is no question this is constitutionally protected speech for which the speaker can not be punished by her public employer.
(Thanks to Gregory Mayer for the pointer.)
UPDATE: Judging from this CHE report, there may be a more serious issue here for which she could face legal liability: namely, giving out a suicide hotline number as her own, with the predictable result that it was swamped with calls from those outraged by her tweets. I do not know, but could imagine, that interfering with a public health service in this way could, in fact, have legal ramifications. She might even face civil liability in the event someone could not get through and ended up killing or hurting themselves--a not impossible scenario. I can understand wanting to divert angry phone calls, but why divert them to a suicide hotline? That's both odd and destructive. (The CHE report also makes clear that the Fresno Administration is without backbone or even knowledge of the law: they're an embarrassment.)
Recent Comments