[lidmith]

Maybe it effects his ability to work with them, and they should be removed.

I don't like homophobia, though I do agree with him on diversity (based on what the article showed): that we should focus on people's merits, and not their race, for college admissions and jobs.

However, it's my understanding that he only wrote this stuff on his blog; that he wasn't preaching about it at work, or in this scientist group.

If some scientist is too effected by the personal writings of this guy on his blog that they are unable to work with him, then that scientist should leave the group. Moreover, for someone to be removed from a government position based on his personal beliefs, expressed on his personal web site, is very clearly a violation of freedom of speech.

To put it another way, suppose someone on the team believed that women should have the right to vote, and this offended the sensibilities of other members of the group. Should that person have been removed?

Just because his ideas are wrong, doesn't make them any of our business, or the government's, or that groups'.

[stretchwithme]

jeez, I have probably worked with a lot of people who have divisive controversial views diametrically opposed to my own.

who cares!

The immature, overly political people on the team, that's who!

I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of his free speech rights. He can still speak. Its more a violation of his employment agreement, if anything at all.

[lidmith]

I have to disagree with "I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of his free speech rights. He can still speak."

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have vocal cords. It means you are free from reprisal for your speech. This was a government appointment, and the story says that the DOE confirmed that the reason for his removal was because of his writings. So, the DOE punished him, by removing him from this appointment, based on his writings.

[pmccool]

Freedom of speech doesn't typically imply no fear of reprisals from employers; why should it in this case?

[lidmith]

In essence, it comes down to government use of power. Private companies may discriminate based on beliefs, because the positions they offer are not created by use of force, whereas all government positions are.

Put in a concrete, extreme example, consider if all teaching positions across the US required a statement of belief (say, in god). This would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause (really, tied to freedom of speech, but you could make another example that is more closely linked to the current situation). However, if some private catholic school required its teachers to believe in god, that would not be a violation, because the constitution binds the government, not private individuals or groups.

So, in a clear answer to your question, "why should it in this case?", it should because the constitution is a set of rules for the government to act upon, not for private companies.

[pmccool]

A set of rules for the government to act on in exercising powers peculiar to government, no?

Hence the historical importance of tenure for judges, for example. I assume his university position is likewise protected by academic tenure?

So I respectfully disagree. Whatever this is, it isn't a freedom of speech issue.

[stretchwithme]

I agree. You're not guaranteed no repercussions for your speech, only your ability to exercise it. You've got the right to express yourself and others have the right to respond. And as long as they aren't violating any contract with, that's perfectly ok.

Sounds like people on this team are too busy googling each other instead of shit like "can super glue gum up our oil well?"