College Republicans: Why can’t Emmer teach at Hamline?

Today’s Daily Glean mentions how GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer is complaining that Hamline University offered him a teaching job, then withdrew the offer, apparently because he’s too conservative, as noted in a Pioneer Press story.

Now Ryan Lyk, chairman of the Minnesota College Republicans, has weighed in with a statement:

“This sends the wrong message to conservative students at Hamline, and any students looking to apply there. Hamline University is a school that allegedly stands for diversity of opinion, but apparently that only applies if you meet the standards of the liberal activists who are already faculty. This is just another example of an educational institution attempting to insulate itself from anything that might challenge its engrained liberal beliefs of practices. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with business law or Emmer’s abilities to teach it. If liberal activist David Schultz can work there, why can’t Tom?”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (16)

  1. Submitted by Bill Gleason on 12/14/2011 - 02:33 pm.

    Possible answer to last question: Because he is qualified?

  2. Submitted by Rick Prescott on 12/14/2011 - 03:34 pm.

    Since when is a private institution obligated to honor and give voice to points of view with which it fundamentally disagrees?

    Frankly, Emmer’s lack of grace about a philosophical difference of opinion (if indeed that’s what behind this non-event) is a good indicator that he might not have been very well suited to become a member of this particular institution anyway.

    His blustery reaction, and especially his use of the press to air his displeasure, should make the Hamline leadership sigh in relief that they did not make the mistake of hiring him.

  3. Submitted by Alan Wakes on 12/14/2011 - 03:47 pm.

    I don’t think it’s anti-conservatism, it’s probably more a reflection of the anti-intellectualism that’s infected the current Republican party.

  4. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 12/14/2011 - 06:52 pm.

    “… it’s probably more a reflection of the anti-intellectualism that’s infected the current Republican party.”

    That’s rich. The Left’s idea of intellectualism is demanding that deviant sexual practices be accepted as normal, protecting the right of a woman to kill her own child, and debating who gets what from the national treasury.

  5. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 12/14/2011 - 06:54 pm.

    “Since when is a private institution obligated to honor and give voice to points of view with which it fundamentally disagrees?”

    Since they offered him the job.

  6. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 12/14/2011 - 09:57 pm.

    Tom Emmer’s credentials to teach business law are equal to or greater than Barack Obama’s were to teach Constitutional law since Emmer actually has business experience.

    In fact, given the anti-capitalist nonsense spouted on these pages by David Schultz, it’s apparent that it’s Mr. Schultz who lacks the necessary credentials.

  7. Submitted by Bill Gleason on 12/15/2011 - 05:32 am.

    “In fact, given the anti-capitalist nonsense spouted on these pages by David Schultz, it’s apparent that it’s Mr. Schultz who lacks the necessary credentials.”

    Truly hilarious, Mr. Tester, and clearly demonstrating that facts are anathema to you.

    “Professor Schultz has a Ph.D. in political science and a J.D. (law degree) from the University of Minnesota, an LLM from the University of London, M.A.s in political science and philosophy from Rutgers University and SUNY Binghamton respectively, a Masters of Astronomy from James Cook University (history of astronomy) and a B.A. in political science and philosophy from SUNY Binghamton. Previously he has taught classes in American politics, political participation, campaigns and elections, urban politics, state and local government, and constitutional law, at the University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, Trinity University (San Antonio, Texas), and Gustavus Adolphus College. He has also taught at the University of St. Thomas and Hamline University law schools.”

    link: http://bit.ly/tx0ICR

    In the intellectual department, Tom Emmer is a water boy compared to Schultz.

  8. Submitted by John Olson on 12/15/2011 - 06:52 am.

    Job offers to persons qualified for a job (or not) have been withdrawn after being offered throughout history.

    I’m not going to debate whether Emmer is qualified to teach business law versus Obama teaching constitutional law. I suspect nobody reading this website ever took Obama’s class, so there is only conjecture and speculation to go on. And the usual talking points from the usual suspects.

    Since Hamline is a private institution, it seems to me that they have the same right to choose who they hire or not hire under essentially the same rules that any other private sector business has.

  9. Submitted by Mark Martin on 12/15/2011 - 08:25 am.

    As I understand the issue after reading the article in the Pioneer Press, this is not about Schultz’s credentials versus Emmer’s credentials, or Obama’s credentials versus Emmer’s credentials, it is an issue of a broken contract agreement. If what Mr. Emmer says is true, and I have no reason to believe he would lie about this considering he can almost certainly produce a written copy of the signed contract agreement, then Hamline has not been forthright in their intent or their dealings. Private institution or not, they should still be bound by contract.

    I suspect that the university has not been completely honest about why they withdrew their offer of an “executive in residence” position to Mr. Emmer because the answer is shameful. When full disclosure is not made it is generally because someone or some entity has something to hide.

    We may never know the entire truth about this incident, but where there is smoke, there is always fire. It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me. Something tells me it doesn’t surprise anyone.

  10. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 12/15/2011 - 08:44 am.

    “Job offers to persons qualified for a job (or not) have been withdrawn after being offered throughout history.”

    But not after they’ve been accepted. A quick check of Minnesota employment law will tell you that a job offer made verbally or in writing can be considered a formal job offer and an acceptance either verbally or in writing is considered a formal acceptance.

    The courts don’t look kindly on such reneging and generally rule in favor of the plantiff. Given the openly hostle circumstancs in this case, it’d be a slam dunk.

    Ironic how that would be taught in a business law course and how the “expert” in business law, Mr. Schultz wouldn’t know that.

  11. Submitted by Lauren Maker on 12/15/2011 - 09:34 am.

    Of course Emmer is qualified to teach–as Woody Allen says, those that can, do; those that can’t teach.

  12. Submitted by Rachel Weisman on 12/15/2011 - 09:56 am.

    Well Dennis, if the case if so cut and dried as you suggest then let Emmer sue Hamline to enforce the contract. Otherwise Emmer and the college republicans can quit whining.

  13. Submitted by John Edwards on 12/15/2011 - 11:18 am.

    Gopher assistant basketball coach Jimmy Williams is headed for a $1 million payday in a similar case. This issue is useful because it demonstrates the clear liberal bias of David Schultz, who local media routinely present as an objective source.

  14. Submitted by Dan Kaufman on 12/15/2011 - 12:15 pm.

    Maybe as a compromise, Emmer would offer to teach the course for free, and just ask for tips as compensation.

    I think this was what he advocated for restaurant/bar workers during the campaign. If good enough for others, should be good enough for him.

    Otherwise, I agree, Hamline is a private institution with strong academic credentials. If they do not feel that Emmer can add to that, then there is no obligation to hire him. If he has a contract signed by both parties, then show it or shut up.

    My guess- Hamline made him an offer, he wanted a number of issues changed, and Hamline said no to the change. Therefore, without a contract acceptable to both sides, then no offer was made and accepted.

  15. Submitted by Rick Prescott on 12/15/2011 - 12:39 pm.

    It’s puzzling to me that some people appear to think that this issue is about David Schultz or Barak Obama (who apparently always makes a good target for a certain brand of rage). Reframing the discussion is a powerful propagandistic technique.

    Isn’t this story about an institution that had an idea, pursued its feasibility, discussed it among its members, and then thought better of it? Isn’t it also about whether the institution went just a little too far with their pursuit, potentially breaking a legally binding commitment?

    And shouldn’t it then also be about Mr. Emmer’s decision to take his complaint directly to the media in a crass attempt at retribution for the slight (whether perceived or real)?

    No. I’m wrong. It’s about, “your team bad, my team good.”

Leave a Reply