"Humorless, intolerant leftist academics are a force to be  reckoned with on many college campuses, and a new case at the University of  North Texas (UNT) pushes the envelope.
                    After  earning his PhD in mathematics from Baylor University in spring 2019, Nathaniel  Hiers found employment at UNT. 
                  He began teaching full-time as an adjunct  faculty member in the fall semester—three sections of linear algebra and one of  calculus. The mathematics department thought highly enough of Dr. Hiers that,  in November, it notified him that he was invited to renew his contract for the  coming semester. Hiers promptly emailed back to say he’d accept the school’s  offer.
                  Trouble for  Hiers began, however, on November 25. He was relaxing in the faculty lounge  that afternoon, waiting for a colloquium to begin, and noticed a stack of  fliers. They weren’t identified as a university document and had been left  anonymously. The subject of the fliers was 'microaggressions' and the argument  they made was that such speech, although unintentional, is harmful to some  individuals’ physical and psychological health.  
                  Therefore, faculty  members were encouraged to avoid them. The flier  gave a number of examples of microaggression such as saying, 'I believe the  most qualified person should get the job' and 'America is a land of  opportunity.'
                  Those  expressions, according to the flier, are harmful because they support 'the myth  of meritocracy' and promote 'color blindness.' Another example of a  microaggression listed was 'being forced to choose Male or Female when  completing basic forms.'
                  This idea  that certain groups in the population are so sensitive to and easily harmed by  such apparently benign utterances has been around for many years. Some  academics believe it, while others find it to be just a weak and unproven  assertion. Nathaniel Hiers is in the latter camp. In his opinion, talk about  microaggressions merely promotes a culture of victimhood and suppresses  constructive discussion.
                  All that  Hiers did after reading the flier was to write on the chalkboard, 'Please don’t  leave garbage lying around,' with an arrow pointing to the stack of them (see above photo.) He  couldn’t imagine the trouble his jest would cause him.
                  On the  afternoon of November 26, mathematics department chairman Ralf Schmidt sent  an email to the entire department with a picture of Hiers’ chalkboard note and  the text, 'Would the person who did this please stop being a coward and see me  in the chair’s office immediately.' 
                  Hiers did go to Schmidt’s office, where  Schmidt made it clear that he objected to Hiers’ mockery. He (Schmidt) called his  chalkboard message 'stupid' and insisted that he apologize for having expressed  his derogatory thoughts about microaggressions.
                  When Hiers  responded that he saw no reason to apologize, Schmidt asked if he’d be  interested in further 'diversity training' beyond that which UNT already  requires for its faculty. Hiers replied that he was not interested since he was  scheduled to take the 'mandatory training' in a few days, which he did on  December 1.
                  What did  not occur at that meeting was anything resembling a reasoned discussion about  the merits of the microaggression concept. But while Schmidt was obviously  angry that Hiers was a non-believer, he did not indicate that he intended to  take further action.
                  On December  2, Hiers came to campus to sign his contract for the coming semester. He was  informed by William Cherry, the assistant departmental chairman, that the  document was in professor Schmidt’s office but that he was not in at that time.  
                  Later in the day, however, Hiers received an email from Cherry. It said that  the department had terminated his employment and that he would not be teaching  in the spring semester.
                  Hiers then  emailed Schmidt to ask why he had been fired. Schmidt replied that his decision  to terminate his employment 'was based on your actions in the lounge on 11/26  and your subsequent response.' He went on to say that in his opinion, the  statements in the microaggression flier 'make very much sense,' that Hiers’  chalkboard message was 'upsetting and can even be perceived as threatening,'  and that writing anonymous messages was troubling.
                  Finally,  Schmidt said that he decided to fire Hiers because he refused to recant his  opposition to the microaggression idea. He summed up by declaring to Hiers,  'Your actions and response are not compatible with the values of this  department.'
                  Nathaniel  Hiers was hired by UNT for his expertise in mathematics and was about to be  rehired, but, owing to nothing more than a jesting note on a chalkboard, the  chairman decided that he must be fired. Evidently, professor Schmidt thinks  that Hiers’ personal views about microaggressions are so intolerable that he  must be banished from the university. 
                  Disagreement with this leftist belief  puts him out of conformity with the alleged values of the math department.
                  You might  expect something so utterly vindictive and authoritarian in one of the academic  fields that have been taken over by 'progressive' faculty, but to see this in  mathematics is shocking.
                  Professor Schmidt may want to be rid of Nathaniel Hiers, but in  his anger, he seems to have forgotten about two things—university procedures  and the Constitution.
                    Hiers is  represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has litigated on behalf of  many professors and students who have suffered at the hands of overbearing college  officials. In its complaint in  the case, ADF argues that numerous UNT faculty and administrators have violated  Hiers’ rights.
                  For one  thing, Schmidt and his fellow administrators completely ignored UNT’s  Misconduct Policy, which is designed to protect academic freedom and guarantee  timely due process for anyone accused of misconduct. Universities cannot cast  aside due process safeguards simply because a high-ranking professor has gotten  into a rage at a subordinate’s failure to agree with him and recant his  apostasy.
                  And for  another, UNT is a public institution that must abide by the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech means that public officials cannot retaliate against others  over disagreements like the one between Schmidt and Hiers.
                  The ADF  attorney on the case, Michael Ross, puts the essence of the case this way:
                  
                    'Public  universities can’t fire professors just because they don’t endorse every  message someone communicates in the faculty lounge. By firing Dr. Hiers, the  university sent an explicit message: Agree with us or else.'
                  
                  He’s right.  Universities are supposed to be places for free inquiry and debate. UNT has  instead behaved like the Spanish Inquisition.
                  So far, the  university has not responded to the complaint. ADF has demanded a jury trial  and that is the last thing that UNT should want. A jury of twelve citizens of  Denton, Texas is apt to side strongly with professor Hiers, much as did the  Ohio jury that deliberated over the Oberlin College case and hit the school  with heavy damages.
                  If the  university decides to defend the actions of Schmidt and its officials, it will  rack up huge legal costs (its own and almost certainly those of the plaintiff)  at a time when it has no money to spare.    This case points to a need throughout academia  —a crash course in the  meaning of academic freedom for college officials. 
                  UNT ought to cancel its  mandatory “diversity training” program and replace it with a training session  on tolerance, free speech, and the rights of faculty members, even adjuncts."