"Just cause [sic] issues at the university are not your cup of tea..."

You seem to have missed my comment about the futility of Mr. True's call for the Chancellor's resignation. History has shown us that this approach won't benefit Mr. True's cause, and might actually harm it. Obviously I am very concerned about University issues. My only crime is to have done substantial research and identified a historical antecedant. If today's Tent University people spent a little less time protesting and a little more time studying the contemporary political history of the University and the State, they might find effective ways to advance their cause. I would actually like to see some aspects of their platform succeed.

"UCSC LOVE IT or LEAVE it!"

Nothing of the sort. If I were *Mr. True*, I would stay as long as I could, and continue enjoying the net benefit of my employment relationship. Obviously, for a person to remain in a particular job, he has to perceive a net benefit -- that is, he has to believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

My point is that *the University* would be justified in firing Mr. True, due to the serious public criticisms that he has levied. Mr. True is most welcome to speak out against the University, but the University should also be welcome to defend itself. Of course, the University is not allowed to defend itself. It is virtually impossible to fire a public employee.

Think strictly of the employer-employee relationship, and put yourself in the employer's shoes for a change. When you have malcontents on your payroll, and they badmouth you publicly, their presence no longer benefits you.