If SIG Sauer can be sued for “defectively designing” a firearm, why can’t universities be sued for “defectively designing” an academic curriculum?
For example, Princeton University has, as it’s “unofficial motto” - “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity.” If we were to find graduates engaged in actively seeking to violently overthrow the government, instead of serving the nation; could a case be made that Princeton (in this hypothetical case) knowingly created defective citizens?
I like where you’re going with it also @FarmerFrank, the problem is there are waaaaaaaaaaay, to many people out there that don’t view/deem the curriculum “defective.”
I think that’s the part that worries me the most in about our Country…yes we can change political leadership via the vote and ensure balance and see change instituted…
But how do we balance out tenured Presidents, Deans and Professors at these institutions of higher learning that are a significant source of what we see out on the streets today?
It’s almost like we need an EEO policy/protection for political viewpoints.
Defund colleges and universities! Can we start looting and burning them to the ground now? Can we start tearing down statues? Can we start shooting professors in their cars. Isn’t that the way to bring about change???
Meet secret U-haul trucks at Harvard and Yale and any other indoctrination stations to pick up your free signs, Molotov cocktails, frozen water bottles, hammers, sickles and free shields to the first 1000 that show up without common sense!
Sorry no rain checks, all face masks since made in China are on back order til January 20th. Will email you when product is available in the Communist States of America.
Under a term known as “ Expo Facto” meaning something occurring before a law was passed to criminalize it, then the answer is No.
It would be considered as “reaching” and not substantial at the time the University formed.
Now if this motto has been created from the current situations in civil disobedience then that opens the metaphorical door to question / investigate the “ intent” of promoting such a slogan/ motto / mission statement.
I’m not a lawyer, but if universities are producing a product (graduates) for consumers (folks who hire graduates), and they say those graduates are something they aren’t - there’s a case to be made for a class action lawsuit…especially if the university knew about it and either ignored it or encouraged it.
If I’m an entrepreneur and I hire a HARVARD graduate who turns out to hate capitalism and works to overthrow the very system that I, the entrepreneur, hired him into - what’s the difference between that situation and the one that SIG Sauer found themselves?
If I’m in government and I hire someone who turns out to hate the very government they serve and works to “blow up the system” - what’s the difference? Uncle Sam bought a P320 and it shot him while in the holster.
What if SIG Sauer knowingly designed the pistol to shoot Uncle Sam when it was in the holster…AIWB pointed right at his femoral artery?
I’m sure they did design the firearm to shoot…when the trigger is pulled. And it can be pulled by a finger or by being caught on debris in the holster or a jacket string (which a gun manufacturer can’t control)…as the lawsuit outcome will likely eventually demonstrate…
That’s how the government is going to get our guns, they are going to let the gun factory be sued out of business, there going to do the same thing with the ammunition factories too. That way the government doesn’t have to fight with us on the 2 nd amendment.