A federal judge has officially ruled that one professor who ended up being terminated from his job in the wake of saying that a document about microaggressions was “garbage” may just have legal grounds to sue his former employer.
As reported by The College Fix, Nathaniel Hiers, a professor at the University of North Texas (UNT), has his position terminated from his position back in 2019 in the wake of stating that a handout given about microaggressions was trash. “Don’t leave garbage lying around,” Heirs reportedly wrote anonymously on the whiteboard next to the handout. Later on, the chair of the math department at the university asked who had written the message on the board. It was at that point that Hiers stepped up to say that he had written the small piece of criticism.
Seemingly as a result, when it came time to make the choice as to whether or not to continue Hiers’ contract for the then-upcoming spring semester, UNT math department Chair Ralf Schmidt informed Heirs that he would be removed as a member of staff due to that one specific incident.
“My decision not to continue your employment in the spring semester was based on your actions in the grad lounge on 11/26 [2019], and your subsequent response,” Schmidt stated to Hiers via an email, according to the lawsuit filed by Hiers. “In our conversation you characterized the flyers that upset you as political statements. I looked at them in detail, and they are anything but. Every example of a microaggression listed there makes very much sense, and I am disappointed about your general dismissal of these issues and that you failed to put yourself in the shoes of people who are affected by such comments.”
“I also think that leaving behind a chalkboard message like you did is not a benign thing to do. Think about how people who see this might react. They don’t know who wrote this; it might be a faculty member, grad student or anyone else. The implicit message is, ‘Don’t you dare bringing [sic] up nonsense like microaggressions, or else.’ This is upsetting, and can even be perceived as threatening,” claimed Schmidt. “Finally, I was disappointed at your response during our conversation. Everyone makes mistakes, and I’m all for forgiveness if actions are followed by honest regret. But you very much defended your actions, and stated clearly that you are not interested in any kind of diversity training.”
Schmidt went on to add that, in his professional opinion, Hiers’ “actions and response are not compatible with the values of this department,” so he made the conscious choice to refuse the contract renewal for the professor’s employment.
Heirs put forth a lawsuit against the university directly after, and in response the university attempted to just get the suit outright dismissed, making the claim that Hiers’ message did not constitute protected speech, somehow.
Despite this, it was officially ruled by Judge Sean Jordan that the lawsuit from Hiers would be allowed to move forward and stated that he could continue with his personal suit against Schmidt and another professor who was involved in the direct choice to deny his contract renewal. Jordan stated that Hiers “has plausibly alleged First Amendment violations based on retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, unconstitutional conditions compelled speech, and as-applied overbreadth.”
“Preserving the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think’ is both an inherent good, and an abiding goal of our democracy,” wrote Jordan.
“The university officials allegedly flouted that core principle of the First Amendment when they discontinued Hiers’ employment because of his speech,” stated the federal judge. “Accepting the allegations as true, the Court concludes that Hiers plausibly alleged that the university officials violated his right to freedom of speech.”