BYU-I Teach let go

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Small independent contractor based companies are not required to be covered by the ACA.

But the individual teacher/PHD is still required to have insurance, so gets to buy it out of their meager earnings or probably partially financed by a subsidy program thus further adding to the national debt - or lastly just pay a tax penalty. Thus, the cost of their employment is shifted away from the university. Um. just like I said. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Quote

Making teachers independent contractors is a fools game played by idiots for their rich masters. Sears tried making each store employee/manager an independent contractor competing against other managers. Now Sears is going bankrupt. Its former employees dispersed, while its owner made millions.

I don't know the Sears situation in detail, but I doubt the independent contractor thing has much, if any, to do with their demise. It is a way they tried to improve efficiency, which ignored demographics they should have paid more attention to. They failed to adjust to new marketing demographics. They stubbornly clung to their mall anchor stores - a strategy which has brought the demise of many such as the Gap.  Americans have just shifted away from malls. Then they compounded the situation with Kmart, trying to compete in the discount retail market against a much more savvy Walmart which built superstores nearby which also had groceries, pharmacies, and were a better one-stop shop, and which stole more customers away. All the Kmarts in my county have closed with the exception of one last one having its closing sales. Sears made a number of terrible marketing decisions over the past two decades, and fell prey to Amazon, Walmart and Costco. Do you know who sells the most pizza in the US? Would you be surprised to learn that is Costco?

Edited July 19, 2017 by RevTestament

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

All lawyers i know have JDs or LLMs. Political Science is a different animal. Where you working as a legal assistant/paralegal? Definitely don't need a PhD for that.

Just an FYI. In the U.S., all LLM's you need to have a JD first. Don't let the "Master of Laws" fool ya. Unlike the usual PhD which generally is earned after getting the Masters degree, the LLM actually is a post doctorate degree and comes after earning the JD.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

It's okay for grad students, but the problem is that universities are relying more and more on adjuncts to teach classes, and there are fewer full-time teaching positions available. There are a lot of PhD adjuncts out there teaching for multiple universities to make ends meet. Meanwhile tuition keeps rising. Administrative positions keep expanding, while those who are actually teaching are getting the short end of the stick

I agree with all of the above.  I might also add that there is really no established path from adjunct to full time faculty.  In my experience, most adjuncts who have moved to full time employment did it by applying to a different school than what they were adjuncting at.  The pay differences between senior administration and teaching faculty is huge.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm an employer.  My employees have no contracts or other additional agreements. If I were sitting in my office and overheard an employee say that he thinks the Star Wars prequels are superior to the OT, do I have the "right" to fire them on the spot?

Yes.  Would it be stupid, arbitrary, and petty?  Yes.  But we have the right to be stupid, arbitrary and petty, as long as it's not discriminatory against a protected class.

Conversely, do my employees have the right to quit and leave without giving notice?  Yes.  Even if I invest tens of thousands of dollars in training them, and I pay them during the slow months of the year so I will have enough staff for the busy time of the year, they can wait until we are at maximum capacity and I'm desperate for workers and walk into my office and say "I quit" and leave, and there's nothing I can do about it.  They have that right.

So the answer to any hypothetical you can come up with regarding private emails, politics, personal opinions etc. is "Yes, they can be fired."  As long as it isn't discrimination against a protected class, then yes, they can be fired.  And while that may seem unjust to some naive and half-formed sense of justice we may have, at the very least we need to understand that if we make it harder for people to get fired, we also make it harder for people to be hired.  It's two sides of the same coin.  The more protections you give to certain people, the less desirable they are as employees.

I'm not arguing against the current legal precedent, I understand how it works today and the basic history around our protected classes.  I think that we are at the precipice for an unprecedented loss of privacy because of the information age, and that we need to think about the ethical considerations of how this access to this information will impact society and how we need to evolve our legal system to address these needs.  

I don't think the past legal precedents are sufficient to address the needs of the future on this issue. 

[Daniel2]

If a CEO's personal monetary donation to a private organization, who's socio-political agenda contradicts the espoused and publically affirmed values of the company he works for, legally becomes public, is it understandable that he ultimately feels such internal pressure that he feels the need to resign?

Is that different than what's happened to this professor?  How may it be different?  How may it be similar?

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Temporary digression here (begs forgiveness)... I have a JD, you know where I can get a job?

Corporations hire many. You can work in a tax preparation company. You can use basic contract knowledge in real estate, become a realtor(esp useful in commercial real estate), or use your legal knowledge in various forms of self-employment.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Still bangin our head on that brick wall are we? The purpose of education is to be able to get a job of one's choice rather than being forced to accept what one can get. I don't understand any point you are trying to make or if you even disagree with me... Yes I agree supply does not increase demand which is my point now over numerous posts. Obama seemed to ignore that and was providing money for people to get degrees which increased supply without increasing demand. Thus creating a PhD glut, and creating a situation where PhDs are accepting jobs as independent contractors in order to get some type of work, albeit at historicly low pay. PhDs have to work to make themselves valuable. They have to write papers, or somehow distinguish themselves in their fields in order to create demand for themselves and be able to command high salaries. Only the best are going to be able to become tenured professors - the rest - esp when there is a glut - are destined to accept what they can get as even independent contractors or change their field of work. Running up the national debt so everyone can get a PhD is not sensible policy. I do not want to pay a PhD salary to get my car fixed(usually I do it myself anyway...).

You are not correct.  Education is much more than finding a better job.  To believe that is very short sided. Universities have been preserving and passing on the worlds knowledge from generation to generation for thousands of years.   Education allows people to live a richer, fuller life. Yes, universities teach skills that give people an edge in the job market, but they are so much more. A prime example is the current occupant of the white house.  A successful business person: yes.  A educated person: not hardly.  As an example, he has no clue with regards to American or world history.  He thought Fredrick Douglas was a contemporary, He had no idea of why there was a civil war, and no idea of where Andrew Jackson fit in American history.  Trump is a poster boy of why there is a need of higher education.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don’t think it’s an invasion of privacy to access information about people when they themselves are the ones who have voluntarily placed into the public sphere to begin with. The government, private companies, and even individuals do this sort of thing all the time. There is absolutely nothing remarkable or alarming about it.

Just google "loss of privacy" there are tons of articles and discussion about this issue in recent years.   Your position sounds naive to me, check out this pew poll for some of the issues being discussed.  

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The question in my mind is not whether or not I would support some particular action but, more generally, ‘who gets to decide: the company or someone else?’

In my opinion, employees are hired to advance their employer’s interests, not to undermine them. When an employee’s public speech sufficiently alienates coworkers, customers, regulators, etc., then it seems to me that an employer may reasonably claim a right to sever his connection to the employee in those circumstances. And I tend to think that companies are generally the ones in the best position to determine what is in their best interest – though I understand that reasonable minds may hold different opinions.

Sounds like you are in favor of a company having the right to make these decisions.  I wonder what you think about those individuals that lost their jobs, or were blacklisted or harassed for supporting proposition 8 in California a few years ago, many of whom were LDS. 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm getting a chuckle at the idea.  Sitting at the stand in court, cinepro tesitifies, "he like Star Wars for crying aloud.  I couldn't stand the thought that my fine employee liked that crap so I canned him. "

"You realize this is a suit brought against you for wrongful termination right?  I mean he didn't show up late or give you sloppy work?  You didn't need to cut costs or free up a position?"

"nope.  Best employee I could imagine.  It's just that he likes Star Wars and said so within earshot of my office."

Id be curious how that'd go.  

The hypothetical was he likes the star wars prequels.  That shows serious lack of judgement

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

This is a straw man.  Algebra is a hard science taught by all universities.  What this professor did was disagree with a policy. This is a policy of the LDS church and as best as I can tell not a policy of BYU-I.  Are both the same?  No, they are not.  BYU does not allow non-married students to live in non-approved housing.  Is this a church policy, no.  It is a university policy.  The argument can be made that both are separate organizations. This professor expressed her belief.  She also gave a disclaimer that these were her opinions only.  She did not promote or teach these beliefs in her classrooms.  This whole thing smacks of big brother.

Do you want to be the big brother?

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

If a CEO's personal monetary donation to a private organization, who's socio-political agenda contradicts the espoused and publically affirmed values of the company he works for, legally becomes public, is it understandable that he ultimately feels such internal pressure that he feels the need to resign?

Is that different than what's happened to this professor?  How may it be different?  How may it be similar?

From my perspective, i think the difference is that the professor worked for a religion which exists to promote specific beliefs and doctrines, and people desire to attend the church school in question pretty much solely because of it's connection to that religion.  

In general, I think there's a difference between working for an entity which exists to promote specific beliefs, and an entity which exists to do something else while supporting specific beliefs-the difference being that the person working for the first knows their acceptance of those specific beliefs are part of the reason they got the job in the first place.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Do you want to be the big brother?

There should be no big brother.  JS said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.  The modern church has forgotten that teaching.  The leadership today is all about full control and blind obedience.  You don't agree with a policy, the standard response is re-think and pray about it.  then if you don't fall in line, the hammer falls.  There is no wide tent. Sadly, with the modern church,you are either in lock step, or you are out.  This is sad but true. What harm would there be if there is a professor at BYU-I that disagrees with one policy of the church?  Really, what harm?  Young people need to be introduced to critical thinking skills sooner or later. Young people are going to have to deal with ideas and opinions that are different than what they were taught when they were kids.  This is part of a real education.  The truth can withstand scrutiny.  It is those who do not have the truth that are afraid and resistant to open discussion and honest scrutiny.  

Edited July 20, 2017 by sunstoned

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

It's gone way beyond that. Now it's PhD with often years of experience who are adjuncting. It's a way for universities to save money now, but it is going to cause all kinds of problems for them down the road.

Many of them are moving into teaching at public schools (high schools) because they can actually earn more money.

My English PH.D prof sister is teaching grade 5.  She got tired working from semester to semester for ten years or more.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

Both BYU-I and this professor will probably both be happier not working together.

I haven't read this thread but adjuncts make very little. BYU-I has the right to fire who they like and the Prof. is able to stay true to her principles. It seems like a win/win and a loss/loss. BYU will enjoy another small season of tremendous press coverage and the Prof will need to find a new $15-$20 hr job to cover this financial loss.

BYU-I acted as I would expect BYU-I to act. It may seem petty and unwarranted but it's not really a surprise.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There should be no big brother.  JS said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.  The modern church has forgotten that teaching.  The leadership today is all about full control and blind obedience.  You don't agree with a policy, the standard response is re-think and pray about it.  then if you don't fall in line, the hammer falls.  There is no wide tent. Sadly, with the modern church,you are either in lock step, or you are out.  This is sad but true. What harm would there be if there is a professor at BYU-I that disagrees with one police of the church?  Really, what harm?  Young people need to be introduced to critical thinking skills sooner or later. Young people are going to have to deal with ideas and opinions that are different than what they were taught when they were kids.  This is part of a real education.  The truth can withstand scrutiny.  It is those who do not have the truth that are afraid and resistant to open discussion and honest scrutiny.  

Good words, but this is not my experience when it comes to college.  I graduated in 2012, so it's been a while, but colleges are about indoctrination to the ideas that the professors believe support.  I LOVED my college experience.  It was amazing.  But try throwing out some critical thinking that the professor doesn't agree with and you'll get shut down incredibly fast.  And your grade will probably show it.  

I personally went to a liberal school (which most colleges are) but i'm guessing this is generally true for both liberal and conservative colleges and universities.  

The "the truth can withstand scrutiny" ideal sounds awesome, and maybe it's even theoretically true, but if my college experience is at all typical (and maybe it's not), most college students end up agreeing with their professors, because professors present information stacked in favor of the argument they are supporting (and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that).  The 'truth' doesn't have much to do with it.  

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good words, but this is not my experience when it comes to college.  I graduated in 2012, so it's been a while, but colleges are about indoctrination to the ideas that the professors believe support.  I LOVED my college experience.  It was amazing.  But try throwing out some critical thinking that the professor doesn't agree with and you'll get shut down incredibly fast.  And your grade will probably show it.  

It really depends upon the professor. Some professors absolutely love when students do that. Some are clearly about the image of critical thinking and the reality of dogma. And then of course there are the majors where there are right answers... LOL.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

As for this teacher, I have questions like was she using her position as a platform to promote her posts?  Was she using the Church or her membership of the Church as a platform to promote her posts?

Do you mean was she using her teaching position to promote her personal view?

She claims she never taught it in class, but she has also publically stated she was less than forthright in her interviews on her level of disbelief (says she is "struggling", has no intention on leaving the Church, does not correct the "member in good standing" comment, etc while on Reddit she says she has been mentally out for over 6 months and calls herself "exmo"), so I see little reason to trust her to be truthful when it fits her agenda of trying to change people's minds:

"When presenting these issues, in order for members to accept change, you have to be soft. You have to make them see you as one of them. Exmormons aren't as effective at making changes in the church and that's why I phrased things the way I did in interviews."

exmofeministq on Reddit 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It really depends upon the professor. Some professors absolutely love when students do that. Some are clearly about the image of critical thinking and the reality of dogma. And then of course there are the majors where there are right answers... LOL.

I think it definitely depends on the major.  Obviously science and math and engineering type majors are not subjective.  I got my degree in history (with a minor in history and religious philosophy) so...  

My worst teacher by far though was a psychology professor (when i was doing my generals).  You towed his line in his class, or he made sure you suffered.

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There should be no big brother.  JS said to teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.  The modern church has forgotten that teaching.  The leadership today is all about full control and blind obedience.

The church couldn't care less what you believe so long as you don't commit any major sins and don't go around preaching false doctrine. I think JS' teaching still applies but that doesn't mean people hired to teach at a Church owned university should be able to teach anything they want.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Just google "loss of privacy" there are tons of articles and discussion about this issue in recent years. Your position sounds naive to me, check out this pew poll for some of the issues being discussed.  

If you knew me better you would know how funny this is. Seriously, I'm somewhat of a privacy nut.

Sorry, but I wasn’t talking about big data, big brother, or privacy in general. My comment was about this case in particular. And I stand by my statement that I don’t think it’s an invasion of privacy to access information about people when they themselves are the ones who have voluntarily placed into the public sphere to begin with.

Posting comments on social media (e.g., Facebook) is the modern day equivalent of standing on a soap box and sharing your thoughts in the middle of town square. If you want to complain about your company in public you are free to do so, but it isn’t a violation of your privacy if somebody overhears your whining and tells your boss about it (and you get canned).

 

Quote

Sounds like you are in favor of a company having the right to make these decisions.  I wonder what you think about those individuals that lost their jobs, or were blacklisted or harassed for supporting proposition 8 in California a few years ago, many of whom were LDS. 

Political speech isn’t always treated the same as regular speech. Some jurisdictions have laws which prohibit employers from discriminating against workers do to their political views, affiliations, or activities. Most states don’t have these kinds of restrictions, but I believe California is one of the states that does. So, in some of those cases it very well may have been illegal for employers to discriminate against LDS employees who supported Prop 8 – though it would depend on the totality of the circumstances (there are exceptions to every rule).

As I said before, I believe that employees are hired to advance their employer’s interests, not to undermine them. And in general I believe that companies are the ones best suited to determine which employees will advance those interests. That seems like a fairly reasonable position to me as an employer. How about a similar question then, in reverse:

Let’s say that the NAACP discovered one of its employees is also a member of the KKK who, on his own time, advocates for the return of Jim Crow laws. Would you favor using the force of government to punish the NAACP if they decided to fire him for his private efforts to undermine their work? 

 

 

[SteveO]

And the other shoe drops...

Edited July 20, 2017 by SteveO

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Good words, but this is not my experience when it comes to college.  I graduated in 2012, so it's been a while, but colleges are about indoctrination to the ideas that the professors believe support.  I LOVED my college experience.  It was amazing.  But try throwing out some critical thinking that the professor doesn't agree with and you'll get shut down incredibly fast.  And your grade will probably show it.  

I personally went to a liberal school (which most colleges are) but i'm guessing this is generally true for both liberal and conservative colleges and universities.  

The "the truth can withstand scrutiny" ideal sounds awesome, and maybe it's even theoretically true, but if my college experience is at all typical (and maybe it's not), most college students end up agreeing with their professors, because professors present information stacked in favor of the argument they are supporting (and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that).  The 'truth' doesn't have much to do with it.  

I totally agree with the above statement.  College these days (in practice, at least) seems to be mostly about learning to conform to what the teacher thinks and says. There is a huge power imbalance between the student and teacher.  The teacher can have a lot of power to ruin the life of the student (especially a young one).  The student learns quickly that they need to agree with the teacher. Most college students I know have had the experience of having their grade lowered for disagreeing with the teacher.

My wife just started taking classes on line from BYU Idaho (through the pathway program).   Although she still dreams about getting a degree, she had to really cut back on the classes because of their tendency to try and take over her life.  

The the things they teach you tend to be outdated, as well since the professors often do not have the time to keep up with what is going on in the real world.  I know that in my profession, were I to go back to college to study tax law, I would most likely graduate knowing less about the subject than if I just continued my practice.  The real world will often force you to learn in a week what it takes a semester to learn in the University.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean was she using her teaching position to promote her personal view?

She claims she never taught it in class, but she has also publically stated she was less than forthright in her interviews on her level of disbelief (says she is "struggling", has no intention on leaving the Church, does not correct the "member in good standing" comment, etc while on Reddit she says she has been mentally out for over 6 months and calls herself "exmo"), so I see little reason to trust her to be truthful when it fits her agenda of trying to change people's minds:

"When presenting these issues, in order for members to accept change, you have to be soft. You have to make them see you as one of them. Exmormons aren't as effective at making changes in the church and that's why I phrased things the way I did in interviews."

exmofeministq on Reddit 

Agente provocateure!

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, SteveO said:

And the other shoe drops...

Good find

[Calm]

A response to someone wishing she had shared what she is saying on Reddit in her interviews:

"wasn't hiding anything, just didn't feel the need to share that with the news media. It's not pertinent to the cause at hand."

Her not believing in the Church is not pertinent to claims she was fired as a member in good standing deserving a temple recommend.  Strange logic...

"No I didn't leave the Church, I'm a member. Still on record. 
I made the the throw away reddit account in order to protect my students and my classroom. I joined the group to seek help, support, and answers for some of the questions and concerns I had. I got fired back in June, I've known about it for over month but didn't go public. That's when I really started having a faith crisis, and that's why I went on reddit. I needed support and help. but I also couldn't disclose my identity because I had students to look out for."

completely contradicts what she stated on reddit

Edited July 23, 2017 by Calm