good!

John knows that if “the judge is an African American so the court can throw her out without a dime”.

Hmmm…….. So, John, any and all African Americans will predictably do what you envision? They are all the same, interchangable with no individual ideas, values and politics?

Now who’s the racist here?

Q: Why was Wagner’s case initially dismissed?

1. Initially, Wagners suit against Dean Carolyn Jones was dismissed because Jones used a defense called “qualified immunity.”

Here is a note about Qualified Immunity from the FIRE (foundation for individual rights in education”)

” Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official can only be held personally liable for a constitutional violation if the constitutional right in question is “clearly established” enough that a reasonable person in the official’s position would have known he or she was violating it. If the court finds that the right in question was not clearly established—even if the right was, in fact, violated—the official is entitled to what is known as qualified immunity. In other words, if the right is so clearly established that a competent official would know of it, protect that right! But if the law is murky, don’t worry about being sued.”

more here: http://thefire.org/article/14000.html

In my understanding the reason the district court said the dean could claim Qualified immunity is that she claimed that, in not hiring Wagner, she was simply agreeing with the faculty committee’s recommendation, and thus she was immune from any charges of discrimination.

But since there was sufficient evidence that the dean was notified that politics played a part, the Eighth Circut ruled that Jones could in fact be held accountable for not investigating it or not taking it into account when making hiring decisions. That is, if you are a boss, and one of your employees isn’t hiring black people because he’s a racist, you are accountable and responsible for not fixing that problem. Now obviously if theres no way for the boss to know the guy conducting the interviews was racist, the boss can claim qualified immunity. But since the boss in question, Jones, WAS aware that there might be trouble, and did nothing about it, she is potentially liable.

Here is another quote from the Circut’s ruling that supports this:

“Wagner has alleged facts establishing that even though Dean Jones was on notice that Wagner’s political beliefs and associations may have impermissibly affected the faculty’s hiring recommendation, she still refused to hire Wagner for any position. Accordingly, Dean Jones’s position as a supervisor does not shield her from § 1983 liability…Dean Jones was notified that the “process” may not have been working properly and the faculty may have violated the First Amendment, but she still made her hiring decision based solely on the faculty’s suggestions.”

Obviously the facts are still alleged, but there is now enough evidence to go to trial which is a big step.

2. Q: Why did an Assoc Dean advise Wagner not to mention her job offer at a conservative law school?

So what happened was, before the interview with the hiring committee, administrators told Wagner something like, “You shouldn’t mention that you applied to teach at a conservative school” implying that the faculty would hold her conservative credentials against her. Note that Wagner did NOT conceal her politics when applying, even though she was warned, albeit indirectly “you might not get the job if they find out you’re a Republican”

This is being presented as evidence that there was an acknowledged bias against Republicans at the school. It would be like, if a very qualified woman was applying for a job at a big corporation and someone who worked at the company told her, “Don’t tell the interviewer that you have kids.” That advice would imply that having children would negatively impact her chances of getting a job, because the interviewer or the company would think the Mom wouldn’t work as hard or would negatively impact the company because she would have to take maternity leave. The employee would be telling the applicant, “The fact that you are a mother would cause them not to take you as seriously as a candidate.”

The Associate Dean was basically saying, “Try and seem less conservative than you are in the interview or you won’t get the job.”

3. Here is some additional evidence that Wagner was not hired because of her politics.

” The court also noted that another candidate who was hired had portrayed himself as a liberal, that an associate dean had inquired after the applicant was not hired whether her politics had been a factor, and that even though the applicant was encouraged to apply for part-time adjunct positions, she was not given an interview for these and the faculty voted not to hire her while hiring people with less prior teaching experience and lower student evaluation scores.”

In fact, the court notes that there were in fact the positions open at the time, and rather than hire Wagner AND the Democrat (I think his name is Williamson), they hired only the Democrat.

Of the 50 members of UI law faculty, 49 were registered democrats and only 1 was a Republican.

Now imagine if there were 49 men on the faculty and only 1 woman. Let’s say I applied for a job there and they did not hire me, but they hired a man with less teaching experience and lower student evaluations. I would have a strong case for discrimination. It wouldn’t be proven, but it would be a legitimate case. The Wagner case is important because it takes into account demographics, just like a gender case. If you can establish that the college has a huge gender gap, it would help your case. University of Iowa has an ideological gap.

4. As for the Primary Vocal Opponent:

“In his deposition, Professor Bezanson could not recall whether Wagner’s politics were discussed before the faculty voted, but he remembers some person mentioning that Wagner was conservative during the meeting. Professor Bezanson testified that Wagner’s politics were possibly discussed after the faculty voted not to hire Wagner.”

He’s keeping mum.
To his credit:

On February 25, 2007, the University provided Wagner with a “Hiring Justification Summary” for the faculty’s recommendation to hire Williamson. The summary stated that Wagner’s interview was less successful than Williamson’s interview possibly because the faculty perceived Wagner to be less familiar with the analysis component of the University’s LAWR program. The faculty again encouraged Wagner to apply for an adjunct position: “It was observed that Ms. Wagner might benefit from an opportunity to teach as an Adjunct in the College’s program so that she may gain experience in (and assess her interest in) that important [analysis] component of the program.”

He says she did poorly in the interview. But look at this. After getting denied for the full time position, Wagner applied for the part time position:

“On February 27, 2007, Janis sent an e- mail to the Committee stating that Wagner had expressed interest in the adjunct position and that he wanted to forward her name to the faculty for consideration at the next faculty meeting. Janis received unanimous support from the Committee members who responded to his e-mail. Wagner’s name was forwarded to the faculty for consideration. Wagner did not receive an interview for the adjunct LAWR position.

On March 22, 2007, the faculty voted not to hire Wagner as a part-time adjunct LAWR instructor and provided no explanation for their decision. Associate Dean Carlson informed Wagner on March 23, 2007, that she had been rejected as an adjunct instructor and that Professor Bezanson had been the primary opponent to her appointment. Associate Dean Carlson also told Wagner that a minority of faculty members can block a vote, and he suggested that she not apply again for an LAWR position.”

And look who they did hire for those part time positions:

” Instead of hiring Wagner and pursuant to the faculty’s recommendations, Dean Jones hired Steve Moeller and Dawn Anderson as part-time adjuncts. Both had served as adjunct instructors during the fall 2006 semester. Neither Moeller nor Dawn Anderson had had prior law school teaching experience [Unlike Wagner!!]. In fact, Moeller, who was Professor Bezanson’s research assistant, had just graduated from law school. Because they both had received low student evaluation scores for the fall 2006 semester–in the low twos on a scale of one to five–neither had been considered qualified for the full- time position.”

They were not qualified for the full time position and Wagner was. But they got hired for the PART time position and she did not even get an interview. And one of the people they hired over wagner was Bezanson’s own research assistant. In the evalutions, Wagner was getting 5’s on her evaluations and Moeller and Anderson were getting 2s!

”

Wagner applied, and was rejected, four additional times for an adjunct position: January 2007, March 2007, June 2008, and January 2009. The University did not grant Wagner an interview for any of the adjunct positions.

Wagner brought a § 1983 suit against Dean Jones in her individual and official capacities in January of 2009. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dean Jones. The only issue on appeal is whether Dean Jones, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity on Wagner’s First Amendment discrimination claim.
”

It is not even a question yet, whether or not Jones did not hire Wagner for her politics. The question is, is this a viable case? The court ruled that it is. I think so too. She was up for a technical, legal writing class, (so its not like she was going to teach the students about Abortion, she was just going to teach them like, legal vocabulary and process stuff) and had tons more experience and way stronger teaching credentials. They didn’t even grant her an interview for a part time job. If it was an almost all white faculty, and Teresa was a black woman, there wouldn’t even be a question that some unacceptable funny business going on. When it goes to trial she will have a strong case.

From reading your post we can safely say that Cons are spelling/grammer stupid? Because we want to help you out of your grade school morass of ignorance: try “gone” so far… and “there” is no…

Just curious, are you advocating that college professors be “removed by force?” Can you spell out what that means?

Now that we all agree that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder does anyone believe you can reason with a Libtard? Ever? These freaks have went so far beyond reality that their is no coming back. The only way to remove these incompetents from power is force.

OMG does anyone need anymore proof that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder?

Umm, they are Liberals and Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

John; your post is a parody of a demented leftist from the fever swamps of MSNBC, right?