A lawyer who represented the Trump campaign in a legal challenge to the Pennsylvania election results was forced out of his post last week as a law professor at Chapman University in California for representing President Donald Trump as a client.
January 17, 2021
Trump Lawyer Ousted as Law School Professor
[The lawyer says:
Eastman accused members of the university’s board of trustees of publishing “false, defamatory statements about me without even the courtesy of contacting me beforehand to discuss.”
“Had they bothered to discuss the matter with me, they could have learned that every statement I have made is backed up with documentary and/or expert evidence, and solidly grounded in law,” Eastman wrote.
There appear to be large numbers of people of the opinion that expressing verifiable facts in support of a political enemy, let alone someone guilty of a crime, is sufficient justification to make them ineligible to earn a livelihood.
Assuming Eastman is being truthful, the facts are irrelevant to these people.
That’s some really scary stuff.
I’m so old that I remember when the ACLU went to court to defend the free speech rights of literal Nazis. And now it appears the Nazis now have the upper hand and are not going to allow the free speech of others.
Another observation I have about the article is based upon this:
Chapman University President Daniele Struppa promptly denounced Eastman for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. Struppa accused Eastman in a Jan. 8 statement of playing “a role in the tragic events in Washington, D.C., that jeopardized our democracy.”
“Eastman’s actions are in direct opposition to the values and beliefs of our institution. He has now put Chapman in the position of being publicly disparaged for the actions of a single faculty member, and for what many call my failure to punish and fire him,” Struppa wrote.
This is a way of thinking that is alien to me. As long as Eastman did not claim to be representing Chapman University I can’t imagine whatever he said or did reflecting upon the University. He was acting as an individual and represents himself. But those who demanded and/or implemented his dismissal apparently don’t recognize the existence of the individual separate from their organization.
Hence, it would appear, by implementation of their own rules at a larger scale the people of the United States could decide they do not represent the U.S. and be morally justified in expelling them from the country.—Joe]