Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andy G's avatar
1hEdited

I have a question about the Texas case:

The people in question are public employees.

The speech in question is what they teach to students as employees of the state.

Why does the state as employer not have a legit public interest in what its employees teach? How is this different from setting curricula?

Surely at least non-tenured faculty do not have the right to teach whatever it is that strikes their fancy in their classroom. How is this any different from that?

Do not misunderstand: I am *not* sure that there is nothing wrong with the law in question. But I’m not sure I understand why your argument explains how it is a First Amendment violation.

Could you please explain?

Expand full comment

No posts

Ready for more?