I am not arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word. And I'm not arguing that the supreme court gave anyone clearance to use that word with immunity. I simply explained the significance and limitations of first amendment protection and that it does NOT give someone immunity from action by their private employer. I then gave you a very narrow hypothetical to demonstrate that our profession sometimes requires thick skin and the ability to deal with uncomfortable facts and situations. And educating students like the world is one big safe space is not helpful. That's all. I don't use the word, I have no desire to use the word, and I'm not concerned by anything other than the school's canned PC response and the inevitable social justice outrage from people who don't take a moment to consider context.
Please try and respond to what I've actually said.
For what it's worth, I don't think I would have used the word in this context. I would have told my students to read the case. We would have discussed it. But I wouldn't have actually read that word out loud. I'm in my early 30s, and Curtis is in his 70s. I'm telling you I know the man, and he was only trying to teach his students. He was in no way acting maliciously, because that's not who he is. And dismissing someone who has spent a career fighting the good fight as some "old white guy" is what's disgusting.