>Doug:
>> Good question. I thought that essay was a horrid piece of crap, but
>> the guy should be allowed to speak in public and shouldn't get fired.
>
>Why? If, say, a bus driver drives his bus recklessly, or if a doctor
>performs a crappy procedure in a reckless manner - most people would agree
>that these workers should face a disciplinary or even legal action for their
>miscounduct. Why are the symbol manipulating professions different?
>
>I am just posing it as a hypothetical question. I understand that Churchill
>is being singled out and what's at stake here is not his sloppy writing but
>censorship - which does require a strong defence. But let's suppose that a
>university does institute a fairly balanced system of punishments for mental
>/ research workers who willfully publish crap. Why is this wrong?
Because he's being threatened for the content of his remarks, not the quality of his scholarship. And because by most accounts he's a good teacher.
If profs were fired for banal or defective content, about 60% of neoclassical economists should get the heave-ho. But it's ok to be banal or defective if you're orthodox.
Doug