Of course Majerus has the right to free speech. If he???s not acting as a representative of the university, he???s under no obligation to tow the company line.

Majerus has every right to state his opinion in that forum.

So, too, does the Archbishop have every right to make a request of St. Louis. Or would you deny that individual the right to express his opinion?

Whether that request has an action by the school or not may be the subject of another discussion.

It may be that some clause was put into Majerus' contract that addresses this, but we may never know that.

I find it disturbing that an egalitarian university -- albeit one founded and administrated by the Jesuits -- would even consider muzzling the opinions of any member of its faculty, despite the protestations of St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke.

Rick Majerus, the individual, regardless of his celebrity and association with St. Louis University, has every right to speak out on behalf of any candidate or cause he chooses.

As far as I know, the university cannot abrogate the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

According to its web site, "The University fosters the intellectual and character development of more than 12,000 students..."

The campus indeed houses a broad spectrum of religious affiliations including:

Baptist Campus Ministry
Christian Student Fellowship
Fellowship of Christian Athletes
Saint Louis Hillel Center-Jewish
Chabad on Campus - Jewish Student Center
College Central Presbyterian
Islamic Center
Lutheran Campus Ministry

The question one must frame for the administration is, "Are students obligated to remain silent when their opinions -- based on religious tenets or personal conviction -- run counter to Jesuit doctrine?"

Unless the university has that proviso written into each and every "contract" -- with students and faculty -- then one must conclude that the university is obligated to be true to its own precept to foster "the intellectual and character development of more than 12,000 students..."

I haven't seen whether or not it's part of Majerus' contract that he must not speak out against Catholic church doctrine. My understanding also is that Majerus is Catholic, and therefore his views are out of line with his stated religion. In that case, he's going to be reprimanded regardless.

What about Majerus' speech wasn't free? No one came to Majerus' door, kicked it in, and hauled his big butt off to a Catholic jail where his hands were whacked repeatedly with butter knives.

We seem to be confused about this concept of free speech, that people can say whatever they want without any consequences. There are always consequences when you open your mouth.

If you're going to stand for something, it may come with a cost and that's the way it should be. It keeps the gutless from running the world.

If it wasn't slander, and it wasn't a violation of a contract, then the only possible cost to Majerus should be criticism -- to which we are all entitled, and to which we are all subject.

Jon, I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Archbishop Raymond Burke asked that the university, not the church, punish Majerus. The church can act in whatever manner they see fit, but when the archbishop asked the university to take action, he stepped over the line.

It's typically against the law for most contacts to require someone give up their right to free speech (with exceptions such as top-secret clearance). In the 1968 Supreme Court Case, Pickering v. Board of Education, the Court held that the teacher had the right to speak out on issues of public importance, without fearing action by the school because the letter in question was written outside of the teacher???s official capacity. This has been an issue that occasionally comes before the Court and each time the right to free speech is upheld.

The Court has also ruled that when an employee is acting in a capacity pursuant to their position as a public employee, their right to free speech can be denied. Because every indication points to the fact that Majerus was acting outside his official capacity, he can do and say whatever he likes without fearing retribution by the university.

Good for Rick Majerus. This is America and he does have the right to free speech. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they favor abortion. It means that they feel each person has the CHOICE as to what to do. Why should my views on something prevent you from doing something as long as it doesn't negatively impact me? Isn't this the theory of "live and let live????

This post regards the hypocrisy of the Church, and specifically Burke; so, this is your heads up to quell the pending psuedo-religious debate:

The Court found that Church does not control the school. Nobody at SLU has to answer to the Vatican. Burke has the right to spew his hate, as does anyone, but no right to influence its President to fire Majerus.

The Catholic Church has an unrivaled history of murder, bigotry, hate, expulsions, crusades, massacres, forced conversion and pogroms -- many say which continue to this day. How quick we are to forget, Rev. The Second Vatican? The Society of St. Pius X?

Hypocrites should cast no stones, and organized religion has no place in the last open American educational arena.

Marta, excellent response, great points.

However, it was my understanding that the "take action" was asking them to not serve him communion. The article you mention doesn't specify anything about 'take action' from a legal point of view.

No doubt we'll hear more about it......

Maybe the Archbishop wouldn't be so fired up if Majerus and his charges were undefeated or at least merely competitive this year?!

Thanks for your comment, Jon. I wasn't making the point that there was legal action proposed. I was simply saying that the Archbishop Raymond Burke suggested the university take action against Majerus, which would be illegal.

The archbishop has the right to determine matters of the church, not matters of the university.

As far as I'm aware, no one was suggesting that there could be any legal action against Majerus. The question was always whether the university would take disciplinary action based on the recommendations of the archbishop.

According to an interview by ESPN, the archbishop said, ???I'm concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments. It can lead Catholics astray. I just believe that it's of the essence for people to understand as a Catholic you just cannot hold these beliefs." According to the article, the archbishop intended to meet with university officials and encourage them to, take "appropriate action" against Majerus, which I pointed out, is illegal.

I hope that helps clarify my point a bit.

The Archbishop still has the right to make a request of the university. And if it involves, as Jon mentioned, something like communion, I would not think that is something that requires a ruling on its legality. Suspension of pay, service, benefits, etc. should certainly be prohibited.