It may be easier to make a case if a chemistry instructor rants about something that is obviously not chemistry than if a communication and media studies instructor promotes a conspiracy theory in a course about conspiracy theories.
Florida Atlantic University professor making a career out of calling the Sandy Hook shootings a hoax
I think @ucbalumnus is right, assuming the chemistry prof rants about something that is not chemistry IN CLASS. He can say whatever the heck he wants outside of class. But when a history prof denies the Holocaust in class, (s)he’s still teaching history.
^I think that would be even more egregious. Obviously a course about them should be using critical thinking to critique them, not making up facts to construct one.
Oh, just checked, Tracy also denies the Boston marathon bombing happened.
As said by others, he’s either an idiot or a nut and I won’t waste time deliberating his “opinions.” I believe the tears in the eyes of the survivors of the slain educators and the tears in the eyes of the grieving parents.
I have a friend who is a law professor and teaches a course called “Law and the Media.” She encourages her students to listen to/read those in the media who hold the opposite viewpoints from themselves – eg, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter on one end of the spectrum, Huffington Post and the NYT on the other. She says it helps students become better able to see if and when opinions are falsely being presented as facts.
I think learning about a different point of view makes people better critical thinkers, so I’ve always applauded her tactic. All well and good, but a professor of conspiracies alleging that these incidents really were conspiracies? That’s a whole new level of weird.
Well, that was quick:
Oh, goodie.
I dunno if he should be fired, but someone who harasses parents of a murdered child and demands they prove he was once alive? That’s a special kind of awful.
Would this level of awful behavior constitute “moral turpitude”? A concept often used as a behavioral threshold to decide whether to strip a tenured Professor of his/her tenure rights before proceeding with termination for exceedingly egregiously bad behavior. And one, BTW which isn’t protected by First Amendment rights.
@“Cardinal Fang” --I think yes, because he is demonstrating the inability to think clearly at any level, that he would so egregiously deny facts (not just opinions) to the point of harassing parents of murdered children. That to me shows a total inability to do his job.
Stepping in to say that Rush Limbaugh and the NYT are not conservative / liberal equivalents. There is a BIG difference between a “viewpoint” and “opinion” and an article of fact.
I’ll say it again: when somebody says something we REALLY don’t like, all sorts of clever ways to get around free speech protections sprout up.
Just to clarify, tenure assures you of a job, it does NOT guarentee that you will continue to teach. In a research university and even at small LACs there are many, many ways of moving some one out of the class room that do not involve firing them. And it happens all the time; this is why you will see things like a “University Assessment Officer” or The Henry Lang Chair of Chemistry (research), etc.
And to add to that, there are many valid reasons that people get moved out of the classroom, but they don’t all mean that the professor has nothing of value to add to the world of academics.
Really ticks me off that they keep calling him a “Truther”. The correct term for him would be “Liar”.
@saintfan: I agree. When I was thrashing about for liberal examples of ridiculousness, they all seemed completely reasonable to me. 
If this Prof IS harassing the family of victims as alleged, I’m not sure that’s considered free speech.
I can understand questioning the “official” account of some things, as it’s not like the populace has never been lied to in the history of mankind. Classes of this nature open the door to such claims and convictions if the professor is unable to stay (or at least act) unbiased. If you are taking a class about conspiracies, sure, talk about all the nutty ones out there… the fake moon landings, nanothermite or bombs in the World Trade Center, the shootings, whatever. But the prof specifically endorsing them as “the truth?” That’s taking it too far. That’s not to say he should say they are bogus, but he should leave that up to his students to decide. He is welcome to his opinion on the issue. Free speech doesn’t always mean consequence-free speech. He likely won’t go to jail - that (obviously) doesn’t mean he can’t lose his job. It’s a free country - he’s free to speak. But anyone is free to be offended and take some level of action (within reason) because of it.
@Hunt, what if a tenured math professor goes off the beam and starts teaching wrong math? Does the guy get to claim free speech, or can the university say, “If you keep telling students pi is three and the square root of four is potato, you’re out of here”? Or what if a chemistry professor keeps telling students they don’t need any of those pesky goggles and hoods and gloves, and explosions are good? Where does free speech end and malpractice begin?
Isn’t this guy teaching that the Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino shootings are fakes? This seems like educational malpractice.