Do reporters understand what the First Amendment means? It would be passing strange if they did not, but to read and hear all the teeth-gnashing and garment-rending over lawyers, teachers and others justifiably dismissed for social media posts that announced to the world that they were cruel, irresponsible, biased or just not very bright, I find myself wondering.
The New York Times has one of their sob story features [gift link!] about an employee at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana who found herself the target of online abuse and ultimately a negative employment action for posting this sentiment on Facebook: “If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.” The “private” statement went viral, as they say (if you think anything you post on line is “private,” you are a fool at the very least), and five days after it went up, Suzanne Swierc was fired as the director of health and advocacy at Ball State.
Good. It would have been irresponsible not to fire her, but Times writer Sabrina Tavernise writes that firings like hers raise “questions about the limits of free speech.” Some of the alleged more than 145 people fired in the wake of Kirk’s assassination may raise those questions, but not this one.
As is par for the course, the Times story mischaracterized the meaning and import of the central fact in the story: what Swierc posted. She didn’t express anything specifically negative about Kirk. She did not cheer on his death or call him names. Her post declared her inability to be “friends” with anyone who held an opinion about Charlie Kirk that was different from hers. Those one cannot be friends with, as opposed to those one hasn’t become friends with yet, are expressly adversaries, persona non grata or even enemies. Treating anyone as an enemy because of their opinions and openly announcing that this is one’s practice is an embrace of bigotry and intolerance. It is proof of dead ethics alarms.
A university staff member responsible for providing services to students as director of health and advocacy (whatever that means) or any other function cannot be trusted to do so fairly if that is her attitude. If it isn’t her attitude, Swierc should not have written that it was.
Swierc was fired, not for her opinion of Charlie Kirk, but because she proved she was unable to deal fairly with people holding diverse viewpoints. Sadly, surveys indicate that a lot of Americans have this malady, and the bulk of them are progressives: if you don’t think like they do, you’re by definition a bad person and not worthy of their friendship. That is an unethical mindset as well as a disqualifying one for many jobs.
I have never rejected or discarded a freind because of their beliefs or opinions, though quite a few people I expected better of have done that to me over the years. Too bad. Too bad for them: I’m one hell of a good freind to have, in part because I do not judge people because of their beliefs. I may conclude that they are not well-informed, lack critical thinking skills, are too easily swayed by emotion or are none-too-bright, but none of that will stop me from liking them, caring about the, being kind and respectful to them, or even loving them.
To the Times however, Swierc is a victim. Her Facebook post was private, you see. Oh. And if she had written, “If you are gay, you can’t be my freind,” would the Time reporter be equally sympathetic to her fate? I think not. I know not.
The experience of getting so much blow-back from her post affected Swierc physically, we are told. Swierc told the Times, “I had the hardest time moving around my house …My brain was not processing things. Space and time became kind of their own thing. I wanted to vomit. September 12th was one of the worst days of my life.”
It’s called accountability, ma’am. It’s what happens when you do or say something offensive and stupid.
One of the woman’s social media followers apparently took a screen shot and posted it elsewhere. That’s a risk one takes. I’ve re-posted here what Facebook Friends have posted, though never with their names attached: THAT’S unethical. The Libs of TikTok re- posted the “We can’t be friends if you don’t believe what I do” statement on its popular X account, and suddenly Swierc was a poster girl for progressive hate.
Digression: The Times calls the Libs of TikTok “a social media account known for transphobic content and smear campaigns against schools, hospitals and libraries.” I have never seen any post from TLOTT that did anything but repost what someone else on the Far Left said or did without comment. It’s a res ipsa loquitur account. Those who attack it also don’t believe in accountability, just like the Times.
Elon Musk posted about her; so did Rudy Giuliani. Indiana’s Attorney General, Todd Rokita, called her comments “vile,” and saying that they “should make people question someone’s ability to be in a leadership position.” He was right: they should, and they did.
Swierc is still struggling to understand the reaction to her post, we learn. She is be one of those people whom I would conclude isn’t very bright. She notes that her post also said she believed in the Resurrection and was praying for Kirk’s soul. That’s irrelevant. She stated proudly to her friends that she is an intolerant viewpoint bigot. Bye!
Last week the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on her behalf against the university president, Geoffrey Mearns, on the grounds that her firing violated her First Amendment rights. I’m so old I remember when the ACLU actually cared about free speech and not just protecting the rights of one side of the political divide.
Sarah Vitale, an associate professor of philosophy at Ball State, is part of a local progressive political group called Muncie Resists, and is the secretary of the American Association of University Professors at Ball State. She’s defending Swierc too, and also distorting why she was fired in the process. “People are afraid,” Vitale said regarding those who wouldn’t sign a petition to support Swierc. “They’re afraid for their jobs.”
Are they afraid that others will reject them as human beings and colleagues because of their opinions, like Swierc says she does?
Ethics Alarms 
It’s where my sister teaches. This was probably one of the “free speech” firings she protested with others a couple of weeks ago.
“People are afraid.” So this is how people are living their lives, based on what they are afraid of? Sad….. If you can’t do the right thing because you are afraid of the consequences (and apparently, lack the requisite bravery/courage/commitment to feel the fear and do it anyway), what, actually, is the value of knowing what the right thing is?
Bingo.
Let me ask the question: is the expressing of any negative sentiment online about Charlie Kirk after his death an offense requiring job termination? Should she have been fired if she had said that Charlie Kirk was a fascist? I understand that firing people who cheered on Charlie Kirk’s death is justified and correct, but we need some clarity about where to draw the line in order not to have to fire half of the Democrat’s base.
Changing the subject, I am in stitches about the following eruption from our Troll in Chief.
Hi, I’ve just stumbled upon your website and more of a socialist, so sorry if I won’t fit well here. I agree with the need for a civic discussion and Kirk’s assassination is a crime unacceptable in a civilized society. I am surprised though of the ease with which conservative are willing to punish free speech. While we can debate the ethics of an employer terminating employment of a person intrinsically dependent on the employer for sustenance in general as a principle, here speech is clearly the motivating factor.
While I disagree with Ms. Swierc’s comment, I don’t think that her comment somehow indicated that she was “unable to deal fairly with people”. The word “friend” does not equal “citizen” or even a “partner”. Friendship is a personal choice for personal relationship, and, in my opinion, one can be personal friends with someone holding different views. Another, second meaning of the word “friend” is a “think-alike”, like-minded person – something of a more of a political/worldview alignment.
Clearly, the second meaning is especially unrelated to fair treatment as considering someone non-aligned politically does not necessitate unfair treatment. I’d like to stress that nor being a personal friend, nor being not politically aligned means that you can’t do business and participate in society with people. While her personal thoughts about friendship are unfortunate, that she personally finds personal friendship to be impossible with a person holding different opinions, this is her personal take on personal friendship.
It is regrettable that in modernity people’s understanding of what real friendship is has deteriorated greatly. Most clearly simplistically view “friendship” as “business partnership”, not grasping the deeper meaning behind the word and confusing very different things, civility and real friendship. Clearly, no educated person would view friendship as a requirement for civil treatment of the other.
What this administration currently doing is a clear pressure campaign to limit free speech via capitalistic instruments of threat to people’s sustenance, lifestyle, social ties which mostly come from employment in the capitalist system – there is no other way to characterize this. As long as someone just speaks and not burns cars, their opinion should be protected speech. I personally am against terminating people for any views, from anarcho-capitalists to neonazis etc.
(somehow my post does not show up, maybe it will appear later, sorry for posting twice, then)
Welcome George, and thanks for posting. (We need another socialist, although we do have a few.) One’s first comment has to be approved by me, and that’s why it didn’t show up immediately. You know, I should add that to the Comment Policies. Anyway, it’s an excellent comment, and it will go up as soon as I let this one through. Again, welcome.