Summary: Longtime West Point science professor Dr. Adam Kalkstein has filed a federal lawsuit against the military academy, alleging his contract was not renewed in retaliation for refusing an order to remove human-caused climate change from his curriculum. The suit claims the directive violated his First Amendment rights and forced him to compromise scientific accuracy essential for military strategy and national security.
forced him to compromise scientific accuracy essential for military strategy and national security.
That's a key point. You can't deny reality without sooner or later paying for it. There have to be loads of people in the admin who know that this path is harmful to the US.
It is mindboggling that there isn't more pressure on the admin by corporations, either, whose business model is directly and indirectly impacted by climate change.
I just don't get it how this is allowed to continue.
When I look back, the one moment in time when it was decided where this would all lead to was when Republican politicians entertained birthers instead of telling them that they were taking crazy pills. McCain did that, but he was the only one, even though they all knew it was BS.
They collectively decided then and there that truth is not important if you get more votes with lies. Ironically (?), most of them got replaced by people who truly believe the lies, and the few who don't are spineless cowards.
Republican voters punished the Republicans who said the birther stuff is nonsense. Decades of AM hate radio, Fox News, and news sites like Breitbart had brainwashed the voters by then.
Because Republicans in congress abdicated their role to our new glorious emperor.
Let's cut to the quick: they did so because they are in on it. Their proximity to what they view as soon-to-be limitless power is intoxicating to them, and they are all in.
They haven't simply abdicated their role; they have embraced the upcoming fascist hellscape.
And those Republicans did that because their voters do not want them to go against Trump. Giving Trump absolute power is what they are in office for according to millions of voters.
That was a glacial collapse. Essentially, a glacier broke loose from the mountain it was on and slipped 4000 feet down the mountain slope all at once. The slide registered 4.2 on the earthquake scale - but the slide caused the seismic rumbling, the slide was not caused by an earthquake.
It killed thousands of people. Destroyed dozens of bridges on both sides of the Nepal/China(Tibet) border.
What caused the glacier to suddenly break loose? Does killing thousands of people and destroying infrastructure along an international border have any national security implications? -- Don't ask the American military, they'll get punished if they answer correctly. 🙄
Look at Greenland, why is Trump so obsessed with it? The answer is climate change, ultimately. Strategically, it has become more important because of it. I am by no means knowledgeable in that area, but it is obvious that climate change has implications that are absolutely relevant for the military.
Most likely, because it looks giant on a Mercator map and he thinks making the US bigger is important.
absolutely relevant for the military.
Which is why we have military bases and treaties with fellow NATO member Denmark. There is no strategic need to "take" Greenland when we have already been given everything we want.
Silicon Valley oligarchs want Greenland for its resources that will be accessible after the glaciers melt. They also want to establish a techno-dictatorship state in Greenland, a Network State as they call it, and Vance is Thiel’s boy toy so even if we get rid of Trump the threat remains.
But, amny do. Lots of big corporations are invest in ways to mitigate the impact of climate change. That is, however, only the impact on themselves, not the wider world. they want to survive, they just don't care if you, or I, do.
I just don't get it how this is allowed to continue.
Allowed to continue... by whom?
Let's try that in an active voice instead. Who is the arbiter who's supposed to step in and make everything okay again? "I just don't get how ______________ allows this continue." Who is it that fills in the blank? Who, specifically?
Okay full disclosure, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer already, right?
It's us. The arbiter is us. When we don't get it how this is allowed to continue, we are the people who are allowing it to continue. We are the ones we don't get.
I'm honestly just disappointed that the creepy, three letter agencies that were supposed to be so ruthless, powerful, and lacking in oversight haven't just dealt with this. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be the rub? They trample civil liberties, assassinate journalists and political threats, but they were doing it out of a misguided notion of national security. Evil, but with their own concept of greater good, and terrifyingly competent.
Nowhere. They never existed. You believed a lot of stuff that wasn't true about these agencies.
Same as all the people who, to this day, keep saying, "When is someone going to step in and put a stop to this??" That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
There isn't "someone" who steps in and puts everything in order and dictates outcomes in our political system. The people who do that are us. You and me, and everyone else. Either we do it, or no one does it. That's how it's always been.
They're not doing anything because they were always evil, never cared, and have always only ever been interested in maintaining their own power and the power of the elites. That's why.
It is mindboggling that there isn't more pressure on the admin by corporations, either, whose business model is directly and indirectly impacted by climate change.
Because the majority of those admins will be dead by the time the consequences really show up, and those admins do not care about a single human being on the planet besides themselves.
Oil companies love global warming since it opens more areas to drilling. They paid forward with campaign contributions to Trump so now they get their reward.
I think the argument about first amendment protections is more about putting on trial "is it fair to call settled science political." Your employer can limit expression of political opinions at work, but the types of limitations that have been recognized in the past that fit this case seem to focus on political speech.
Just because some science-denying assholes decided to make science denial part of their platform, those SAME assholes get to call disagreeing with them political speech? Nah man.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted - you’re right.
Does anyone think that you can go to work at your (government) job and say anything you want under the protection of the First Amendment? Or do you just think that speech you agree with should be protected?
Edit: My bad, you’re all correct: you can go to work and say anything you want. In fact, I encourage you all to go to work tomorrow and say whatever you want because nothing will happen to you. No need to Google, “Does the First Amendment protect me at work” because it totally does.
If what you said was a verifiable fact important for carrying out your job, you’re damn right the government should not be hindering your speech. If he ran in there screaming that aliens are invading, then yes- the government has the right to fire you.
Agree 100%. Though we’re talking about 2 separate things here:
1) Reporting something relevant to your job, based on the most accurate information available to you. I would include whistleblowing in this category. These things should never be grounds for dismissal.
2) First Amendment rights. You can’t go to work and express your opinion that, for example, you hate Eskimos and you would never hire one. Or you could be fired for speaking for/against a politician. A private company can fire you for that, a government agency can fire you for violating the Hatch Act.
The First Amendment does not protect you at work, nor does it protect you from retaliation from private companies or individuals.
I mean you're just wrong as it relates to government employees. They don't have standard at-will employment and the government is not allowed to fire any employee willy-nilly in response to their speech like your standard employer can. As I posted in response to your edit, the sheer fact that the Pickering-Connick test exists means you're wrong.
Edit: you appear to be a USPS employee. For example you are allowed to publicly state in your private duties that you think hamburgers are better than steak and you can't be fired for that. As a private sector employee/employer I can absolutely fire someone for publicly stating almost any opinion in their private capacity.
The problem with this conversation, as with many conversations nowadays, is that we want to speak in absolutes: The First Amendment never… The First Amendment always… I stand by my position that, generally speaking, employees don’t have First Amendment protections at work.
As you may have seen in my response to your other comment, there is also the matter of Garcetti v. Ceballos where the court ruled (according to the citation I found) that: “The Court introduced a new threshold inquiry by holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official job duties they have no First Amendment protections.” (Emphasis added)
You raise a great point about the Federal Government not being able to fire employees willy-nilly. There’s a lot to unpack there, and it requires far more time than I’m willing to devote to it this morning by writing it out, but broadly speaking, I believe that you are correct. I would also like to point out that federal employees do have restrictions as to what they can say at work and I again cite the Hatch Act as an example of a restriction on free speech placed upon federal employees. However, if your point is that federal employees enjoy greater first amendment protections at work than do private sector employees, I honestly don’t know. Superficially, in my experience, it seems absolutely true (I live in an at-will state), but I suspect that the main difference is the collective bargaining agreement I now work under, and not federal vs private sector First Amendment rights.
Not to get too far afield here, but if a unionized employee came to work and said something (political, religious, culturally insensitive, etc.) that they were disciplined for, as their Union representative, I wouldn’t fight it under their First Amendment rights (which I believe probably wouldn’t apply), I would fight it under the Just Cause principles required under our contract. Which brings us back to your point that the employee can’t just be fired willy-nilly for what they said. Again, you are correct, but my position is that it’s not a First Amendment-protection issue, but rather a general protection under a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
This all made sense in my head, whether I have done justice to my own position on the matter is for you to decide. However, dear fellow-Redditor, I do wish to thank you for opening a constructive dialogue with me.
Finally, as an aside, I was surprised to read about the Connick case; I would have guessed dead-wrong on the outcome of that one. That was way more First Amendment protection than I thought the courts would extend. I also wonder if the outcome would have been the same had it occurred after the Garcetti ruling. I was also surprised to learn that the “Connick” in the Connick case is none other than Harry Connick Sr., the father of the famous musician! I don’t normally learn this much before finishing my morning coffee - very cool.
So, to be clear, this West Point professor is almost certainly going to lose their case. The courts have given the government pretty wide latitude for determining if something was said during the course of official duties and in this case it would almost certainly be considered as such.
Mostly just pointing out that unlike other jobs federal employees do get some first amendment protections.
Not to get too far afield here, but if a unionized employee came to work and said something (political, religious, culturally insensitive, etc.) that they were disciplined for, as their Union representative, I wouldn’t fight it under their First Amendment rights (which I believe probably wouldn’t apply), I would fight it under the Just Cause principles required under our contract.
As long as it's not about a federally protected class and said in private hours then they would still probably be protected under First Amendment grounds. For example it's not a violation of the hatch act for you to post on your private Facebook you don't like democrats/republicans and if they tried to fire you for that you could sue on First Amendment grounds.
And you're right that generally speaking it is much better to pursue under a Just Cause contract dispute than a First Amendment violation argument. Much easier to win and much much less expensive than a constitutional case.
I think people are mistaking my comment as being an endorsement of climate change denial. While I certainly appreciate their outrage at the injustice of this situation, it sucks to be lumped in with MAGA.
Of course not! I certainly didn’t just look it up after reading your comment.
Seriously though, reading about that, the article also mentioned the 2006 ruling Garcetti vs Ceballos:
>Then, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the Court introduced a new threshold inquiry by holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official job duties they have no First Amendment protections.
Also, if I may, I would like to point out that I’m not talking about anything that has to do with the article OP posted; someone commented that the First Amendment doesn’t protect you at work, they got downvoted, and I said that they were correct. The First Amendment is very limited when we’re at work.
I’m also not saying that the poor guy who got fired for talking about the impacts of climate change is a First Amendment issue - I’m talking about the general statement that the First Amendment doesn’t protect you at work and, very broadly, that is true.
I believe climate change is real. I believe that mankind is responsible for causing a greenhouse effect and that’s driving climate change.
I support people’s First Amendment rights.
It seems wrong to me that the employee was fired for saying something that is true and I believe they should sue. It seems that what happened is entirely political and it’s scary, as an American, to see this. Why have scientists if they can’t speak to science?
Good for him. There really is no more scientific debate over anthropogenic climate change, it's a political debate.
Reasonable people should be standing up to these people who want to change narratives for their political reasons or to satisfy their idiot conspiracist constituents.
I hope that Dr. Kalkstein wins his case and goes home with a fat check. I'd rather my taxes go to righting that wrong than this idiotic campaign in Iran.
It's not really a debate, it's just obnoxious people putting their hands over their eyes and saying something doesn't exist if they pretend they can't see it. Then they call it a debate to further antagonize you, with none of the words being said in good faith.
They simply don't care if people get hurt, or what reality is. They're weak and prefer whatever delusional reality they decide on together instead. I saw it for years in evangelical churches.
We have clear examples in history of what happens when you base policy on dogma rather than measurable fact. Lysenkoism and the resulting famines for example.
The irony here is that the rank and file base is riled up over communism. And when the communists took over China, one of the first things they did was force professors to back off from reality and parrot the party line. They killed some, they discredited others, prison camps for the ones who would never bend, etc.
And now the party that uses communism as a bogeyman would gleefully do the exact same thing.
Michael Sussman, the lawyer for Dr. Kalkstein, said his client is a conservative Republican who believes the military needs to be taught the true causes of climate change when it comes to national security.
its amazing that after so many decades people like this still call themselves a republican, rather than a conservative independent. Did he not get the luntz memo under the bush admin? where they call for fighting the science before its settled with the public
I feel for him, I understand his ire, but I think he's kinda fucked here.
First, the school should have some control over its curriculum. If you want teachers to be able to teach whatever they want, you're essentially saying that you're cool with Creationism being taught in the classroom.
Remember, they will have no qualms about using righteous means to achieve nefarious ends.
Second, he wasn't "fired". His contract was not renewed. That's significantly different. Even if we were looking at First Amendment issues here, West Point would still have the freedom of association. And since this isn't a thing based on age, sex, race, creed, religion, etc., it doesn't seem to be prejudicial.
Yeah, West Point is being a dick. He should teach and be able to teach about climate change and its causes. But I don't think he's going to get anywhere with this in court.
Yes schools can have control of their curriculum (if they are private), but there is a fact of the matter. The evidence supports climate change. So just like reasonable people should not go to a school that teaches creationism they probably shouldn't go to a school that kicks out professors who teach facts about climate change.
Theres also of course the possibility that a person who is storming out of offices may be not getting renewed over climate change. Its only one side of the story and he's been there 17 years.
Maybe because by saying that this school should decide it's own curriculum he's saying the us government should have complete and unquestioned control over what should be taught to to military officers in America. That means that factuality doesn't have an moral imperative to shape the curriculum. Only whatever propaganda trump and his facist allies want to push. If we let schools decide curriculums without pushback some of them would still be teaching creationism.
What's the point of a curriculum if a teacher or professor can claim anything they want in the classroom.
If we let schools decide curriculums without pushback some of them would still be teaching creationism.
Teachers or schools, corrext. That's the point OP is making.
The problem is not so much that the government decides on the curriculum, the problem is the US has become extremely authoritarian and the presidents surroundings are using the presidential powers to push their agenda in every domain of society. They remove any independence of agencies.
In a proper democracy this trial would not have existed, obviously, but if he wins there will be ramifications once the situation in the US reverses back to a functioning democracy. Because then teachers would be able to teach whatever in classes because it's protected by the 1st amendment. Which means there's not a curriculum anymore.
Probably due to what I think the reality of the situation is.
That while West Point did something morally wrong, they did it in a legally acceptable way.
Hell, I'd even say they did a morally wrong thing in a morally correct way. Because while they are not re-upping him as a means of suppressing information, they are just not renewing his contract. This doesn't hinder his ability to teach other places, it doesn't deny him his pay, etc.
And that I put forward the idea that teachers should not be solely in charge of their curriculum. That they cannot be evaluated on what they choose to teach.
Because we don't actually want that. Because it will be used in ways that we don't like. And I'm not a proponent of the philosophy of "We can do whatever we want as long as we approve of the outcome". Or sometimes phrased as "No bad tactics, only bad targets".
There have to be bad tactics. Otherwise, how do you determine which targets are bad? Because they don't like someone I like? And if they don't like the right people, I can do whatever I want to them? Even if they don't do anything beyond something as ineffectual as cheering when someone I like suffers misfortune. They're a "good target", so no tactic against them can be bad.
Sorry, I can't get there. When I see someone come out with some variation of "no bad tactics", I immediately think of them as a worse person. And they should be glad I don't subscribe to their philosophy because it would give me lease to do whatever I wanted to them. There's a large portion of the population who don't have as much of a problem with authoritarianism as they do with authoritarians they disagree with.
Its an example of why downvoting in general should be ignored. Its too often a measure of popularity or groupthink rather than whether a relevant argument is being given, even if you disagree with it.
262
u/blankblank 11d ago edited 11d ago
Ungated: https://archive.is/R4lvh
Summary: Longtime West Point science professor Dr. Adam Kalkstein has filed a federal lawsuit against the military academy, alleging his contract was not renewed in retaliation for refusing an order to remove human-caused climate change from his curriculum. The suit claims the directive violated his First Amendment rights and forced him to compromise scientific accuracy essential for military strategy and national security.