Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

SJW assistant professor could soon be living out of the back of his car.

This is Greg Thatcher, assistant professor, department of public health at Fresno state university.

Thatcher teaches “courses” such as PH 91 Human Sexuality, so you know that he’s going to be a screaming SJW without even taking into account his weak shoulders, frontal comb-over, and his forced and fake smile. Based on the following story we could also add sub par intelligence and tendency to bully and harass those whom he is supposed to be guiding in their formative adult years.

Last April, a group of students, members of Fresno State Students for Life (FSSL), sought and received permission from the university to exercise their rights of free speech by writing pro-life messages in chalk on the sidewalks leading to the university library. They had finished their messages on the morning of May 2 when Professor Gregory Thatcher came along and accosted them.

He stated that they could not chalk their messages on the sidewalk and had to confine their free speech activities to the “free speech zone” on campus. Obviously no fan of the principles of free speech, Thatcher was not aware that Fresno State had abandoned its “speech zone” policy almost two years before.

If he was unaware of the fact that a “free speech zone” had been removed 2 years previously then he was either pretty darn stupid or a liar. Not content with bullying students who held opposing views to his own, the assistant professor then went back to his first class where instead of beginning to “teach” he rounded up a pack of easily led sheep and returned to the onerous scene of chalk warfare.

FSSL president Bernadette Tasy replied to Thatcher that her group had obtained permission to write messages on the sidewalk. He then announced that he would shortly return and erase their messages. He did, accompanied by several students from his 8 A.M. class (he teaches public health courses), eager volunteers in his sidewalk message battle.

 When Tasy reminded him that they had full permission to do what they were doing, he and his students began erasing one of the FSSL messages. Thatcher said that in erasing the FSSL messages, he was exercising his own free speech rights. He also declared that “College campuses are not free speech areas.” One of Thatcher’s students, apparently inspired by their mentor, stole the chalk from an FSSL student and used it to write pro-abortion slogans.

So far this is all unfortunately pretty standard with what occurs in Anglo-Saxon universities around the world. But this story gets much better. The students took the faculty member to court. And they won in a most handsome manner.

Aided by attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), they filed suit against Thatcher in federal court. Their complaint contended that he violated their First Amendment rights in that he “assigned himself the role of student speech censor, a one-man taxpayer-paid heckler’s veto over student expression that differs from his own. In the process he engaged in content and viewpoint discrimination and restricted speech in areas that are designated as public fora for student free speech.”

On November 3, the court issued an injunction that prohibits Professor Thatcher from ever again interfering with FSSL’s First Amendment rights. It also imposes some rather hefty costs on him for his illegal actions. He has to pay $1000 each to Tasy and another student who was involved. He also has to pay $15,000 in legal fees to ADF.

The teacher got schooled. Perhaps he will soon be living out of the back of his car. One can only hope. But it gets even better:

Finally, the court order requires Thatcher to go through a two-hour educational session on the First Amendment, a session that will be conducted by ADF’s Travis Barham. As Barham said here after the injunction was announced, “Like all government officials, professors have an obligation to respect the constitutionally protected free speech of students. Of all people, professors should be the first to encourage all students to participate in the marketplace of ideas rather than erase the speech of those with whom they differ. The professor’s actions here were wrong and flagrantly violated the First Amendment.”
Rubbing his nose in it ain’t the half of it.  Boy would I love to be sitting in on that educational session.

But this is the point where I question the wider ramifications of this as regards to colleges in the USA. If this moron got slapped down in such a decisive manner for what is in fact a minor act of SJW brinkmanship in the ongoing cultural wars, where does this leave entire faculties across the country and their ridiculous attempts to constrain the First Amendment rights of students?

This should set a glorious precedent for conservative students all across the USA. Don’t just fight back twice as hard, fight back twice as smart. And with intellectual lightweights like Thatcher, that shouldn’t be much of a challenge.


Getting engaged 2 weeks after you meet someone.


Podcast #65 – The health episode.


  1. It’s simple. Government officials in the USA *must* *not* suppress freedom of speech or of the press. Many SJWs, because they dislike the current adminstration, seem to not get that if they are acting in a government job, they are an government official and an arm of the government.

  2. MarkT

    I think it’s marginal if this was an attack on free speech. The right to free speech does not mean you have a right to graffiti someone else’s property. That would be vandalism. In this case it’s not as black and white as that, because chalk is temporary and can be easily removed. But for precisely that reason, it’s also not an attack on your rights if someone who disagrees with the message rubs it out. The right to free speech means you can use your own resources to say what you like. It does not confer a right to use the resources of others to have your say.

    There are plenty of obvious and clearer examples of free speech under attack at universities than this. Taking someone to court for rubbing out chalk messages is something I’d expect from the over-sensitive left. I can appreciate perhaps your satisfaction at seeing their own tactics being turned against them, but in the long run I’m not convinced anything good will come from being as over-sensitive and litigious as the left.

    • RS

      Except, the students received specific permission to chalk messages. If it was “graffiti,” it was allowed.

      Second, had another student done the “rubbing out,” there would be no violation. The problem is that the state employee led a group as part of a class activity to participate in viewpoint discrimination. The issue is with state encouragement of others to act as much as the act itself. The state cannot co-opt private citizens to violate another’s rights.

    • Mr Black

      Well done on completely misunderstanding the situation and the point. The students had permission for their demonstration (of a sort) and shutting it down is called censorship. And the court agreed.

      • MarkT

        So they had permission to write their chalk messages? But still some nasty man came and rubbed them out? Poor diddums! Off to the state they should run, to seek compensation for their hurt feelings.

  3. Isaac

    How entirely dimwitted and lacking in reading comprehension is MarkT? It was essentially an art project. And no, you can’t go and destroy someone’s art project on campus just because you’re a bratty, weak-minded leftist teacher who is hurt by ideas.

    • MarkT

      “you can’t go and destroy someone’s art project on campus just because you’re a bratty, weak-minded leftist”

      No you can’t – although you clearly have very low standards in regards to art, and/or don’t understand what art actually is. More importantly though, you don’t go and define what constitutes an attack on free speech by whether you agree or disagree with what’s being said.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: