Editor’s Note: the background of this case can be found here.
We’re all aware of the cancel culture. Its strength is visible on college campuses throughout the country, especially in liberal strongholds. But in a politically conservative state such as Tennessee? Surely it wouldn’t have any foothold in state employment, right?
Wrong.
In February 2019, I joined the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), the agency in Tennessee handling attorney discipline. I handled my own litigation caseload, and all appeals were assigned to me, including appearances before the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Supreme Court is the “ultimate arbiter” of attorney discipline in the state, and thus every disciplinary appeal is taken by the Court. I presented six oral arguments to the Court in one and a half years, likely more than any other attorney in the state during that time period. I loved oral argument days, and in my opinion, the judges on Tennessee’s Supreme Court are some of the finest in the country.
Some attorneys facing potential discipline will go to great lengths to excuse their misconduct, including lashing out at Board counsel. Unfortunately, that happened to me. The Board has been dealing with a Nashville-based attorney for several years. His alleged misconduct is really secondary to what happened to me. The Board conducted a trial against him, and the Hearing Panel (comprised of three volunteer attorneys) issued its judgment that the attorney should be suspended for two years. The attorney appealed, and the appeal was assigned to me.
That attorney filed a motion to put a hold on the appeal, claiming that the Board attorney handling the trial was dishonest with him in discussing certain procedural matters. I filed a memorandum opposing the motion, and attended the oral argument by Zoom. That was the full extent of my participation in his appeal.
I have never met this attorney. I have never spoken to him. In fact, he had independent counsel file his motion and make the argument, so I did not even see him then. Nonetheless, the day after his motion to stay was denied, he – through his counsel – filed a motion to disqualify me as an “anti-Muslim bigot.” He claimed that his wife (who I also have never met) is Muslim, and therefore I could not be an objective attorney handling the appeal. Moreover, he claimed that I was not even fit to be employed by the state of Tennessee.
What was his basis for such an outrageous claim? He apparently did a deep dive into my Twitter account and found tweets from 2015 and 2016 – four years before I was even a state employee – in which I apparently supported then-candidate Trump’s position that the country should not continue to allow people in from Islamic terrorist hot spots if we could not verify them. In that vein, I allegedly tweeted several articles discussing this issue, and emphasized that we should be diligent and aware of Islamic terrorism.
In one of the tweets, it appears that I referenced a Muslim being removed from one of Trump’s campaign events. That particular individual claimed that he was mistreated and that it was “scary.” In response, I allegedly indicated that bombs were scary, making the point that people exercising their free speech at a political rally paled in comparison to bombs being set by Islamic terrorists.
I could not find the tweets when I searched for them. I could only go back in my history to 2018. So I could never actually confirm that the tweets from 2015 or 2016 were mine.
The attorney claimed that I also posted numerous tweets ridiculing liberals and Democrat lawyers, and that I was clearly a conservative bigot. In support, he included more recent tweets which were nothing more than political commentary.
But it didn’t matter. As a result of his ridiculous motion, the Board and state HR conducted an investigation and ultimately determined that I could not continue as a Board attorney because I was in a position of “public trust.” Apparently, this means that I should not have expressed a political viewpoint (which millions of Americans share) years before I even became a state employee.
I have never treated anyone unfairly or with a religious bias, whether on the Board or otherwise. In fact, I have worked with Muslim immigrants in Romania, while on trips to visit my wife’s family. Nor do I believe that all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, I believe that the number of Islamic terrorists is incredibly small when compared to the overall number of Muslims.
Nor did my religious or political viewpoint have anything at all to do with this attorney’s case. I have no idea who his wife is, or her religion, beyond what he claims in his motion. Even had I known, it would have had no impact on me handling his appeal, as there was absolutely nothing in the underlying case that touched on religion. The attorney did not claim that I had actually done anything wrong to him or violated his rights in any way. Instead, his claim was that because of my political (conservative) viewpoint, I could not possibly be objective.
In the end, I was given the Hobson’s choice to resign or be terminated. This was not based on any actual conduct while I was a state employee. Nor was it based on any interactions with this attorney or my handling of his case. Instead, it was based on nothing more than his own allegations that I could not be objective. The attorney sent a copy of his motion to the Nashville Tennessean, which reported on the motion without even bothering to give me the opportunity to respond. The bad publicity which resulted was surely a primary reason for the decision. Instead of fighting the motion on its merits, it appears that getting rid of me was the easiest solution.
The cancel culture was victorious once again.
Infidel says
Jerry, a lot of us – especially I – oppose islam quietly and anonymously, knowing fully well the repercussions that can come upon us. You are particularly courageous, having done this in the open!
Hope you get to restart your career in your existing field, rather than having to reinvent yourself as something else, which can be an ordeal
Van Hee says
Disgusting
Mount Zion says
He should fight the decision to terminate him.
rubiconcrest says
1+
gravenimage says
Agreed.
Person says
Can you open private practice; I imagine many people would want to work with you, given the tyrannical forces you’re up against?
Infidel says
That would seem to be the best course forward. Of course, financing is another story, but at least there’s a class of clients – ones wrongly accused of ‘islamophobia’ that he can service
James Lincoln says
Attorney Morgan states:
“…the Board and state HR conducted an investigation and ultimately determined that I could not continue as a Board attorney because I was in a position of “public trust.”
So, apparently, the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility believes that you still have enough “public trust” to practice as an attorney in Tennessee but *not enough* “public trust” to act as a board member…
This is nonsensical…
underbed cat says
I also beleive he should fight the decision. In a factual based world, not a enviroment or world where facts of doctrine are dismissed, the Quranic commands, the verses reveal information that is denied and that is deception that is intentional and not objective only to allow entry, since to open the door to this ideology is extremely dangerous.It was done after 9/11 to dismiss the fatwah and motivation to hit America a second time in N.Y.C to save the” religion of warfare” against rebuff. If facts were revealed these allies were not friends, and any pleasantness was done from necessitiy to allow an invasion. An invasion without tanks or planes or an appearance of an army, but an army of victim hood and a pious behavior that always gets aggressive as demands go full volume and birthrates sky rocket aiming for the day they can take over. But only if we submit. Follow the money trail the media hopped on board. Right now we are facing a candidate in love with the fantasy.
mortimer says
He cannot easily fight a decision based on ‘feelings’.
Valkyrie Ziege says
; “Cancel Culture” = Another form of “Rape Culture”.
Different name, same violation.
Evangeline Golding says
No, it is NOT.
gravenimage says
“Cancel Culture” is indeed pretty ugly–but no, it is not “Rape Culture”. We can be critical and accurate at the same time.
gravenimage says
I Was Fired for Opposing Islamic Terrorism
……………..
Jerry Morgan, you are a brave and principled man!
maria says
Agree. Mr Morgan is a real American patriot and he knows what the terrible ideology called islam is
Pray Hard says
Tennessee is rife with moslems. I’m sure they’re a big f*cking part of the economy and a multicultural wet dream come true.
Infidel says
The same state that was hit 4 years ago by the army barracks shooting at Chattanooga, by a Kuwaiti soldier
gravenimage says
Pray Hard, Muslims make up just .2% of the population in Tennessee–it just *seems* like many more.
https://www.bestplaces.net/religion/state/tennessee
Pray Hard says
“Public trust”, now there’s a joke when it involves protecting the sensitive feelings of mass murderers.
Pray Hard says
Cancel culture, just like the red shame squads. First they have a little talk with you. If you don’t submit, then maybe a few people come an talk to you. If you don’t submit then a group of people come and shame you and maybe force your employer to fire you. If you don’t submit, then maybe they destroy your house and beat your family and you and parade you through the streets. If you don’t submit, then maybe they imprison you and subject you to reeducation and torture. If you don’t submit, then maybe they “disappear” you forever and erase you from memory. This cancel culture is the exact same thing. It is extremely dangerous. Mao would be proud. Arm yourselves.
james sang says
This is interesting! Whether the Board acted legally depends on the meaning of public trust. If public trust means no expression of political opinions and you agree to not saying any political opinions may give them the right of let you go. But didn’t you say that the tweets happen before the job started? Even then you have the Constitutional right of freedom of speech. If you acted in a way that was discriminatory and illegally toward Muslims then maybe they had a right to give you the choice to resign or be fired. You know enough about the law to defend yourself. I feel the same way about Muslims, but I would not do anything illegal against them. Ask for a reconsideration and bring your legal arguments and have your opponent bring his evidence! This guy is looking for any kind of evidence of discrimination!! If you feel that you did not do anything illegal fight this, do not back down!!
Greg Beetham says
As far as I’m aware a Sharia court operates in a similar fashion, the accusation is classed as ‘evidence’ and no actual real evidence is necessary in reaching a conclusion. So it appears that Tennessee has adopted Sharia court procedure when the plaintiff is a Muslim and establishing the veracity and truthfulness of the accusations isn’t necessary because obviously a Muslim wouldn’t lie about such things.
Quentin Fortune says
Doesn’t it say, Fight until no religion is left except ours
Bikinis not Burkas says
The number of Islamic terrorists is small.
0.1% of1.6 billion =160,000
Definitely not a small number.
Giacomo Latta says
So if the case against Mr. Morgan is won and the result becomes a precedent for all religions through extrapolation then no case can be argued against any religion. Therefore, if you raise a complaint on religious grounds you are automatically a winner. How wonderful! Let’s extend the notion to those religions which do not have a God, then we can all be winners! Let’s make saying ”heil Islam” a required perfunctory greeting before being able to state any criticism of anything.
mortimer says
What happened to Jerry Morgan is symptomatic of a globalist culture of inclusion of all foreign views and denigration of American values.
Political Islam is clearly incompatible with freedom of speech, women’s rights and egalitarianism. Islam is supremacist, totalitarian and misogynistic.
Whatever individual Muslims do in private life to contradict Islam’s core values does change the core values of Islam which are carved in stone and not open to debate.
Islam’s doctrines are decided by the mullahs, not by popular vote.
mortimer says
The message from the Left is that they consider themselves and their narratives to be ‘objective’ and INFALLIBLE.
mortimer says
I think Mr. Morgan should contact Dr. Bill Warner PhD of the Center for the Study of Political Islam and discuss the merits of the issue with Bill Warner in video. Bill Warner has facts, numbers and examples at his fingertips in regard to foundational Islam and what Mohammed really taught.
Such a discussion would be extremely enlightening for people who still think Islam is ‘benign’.
Larry says
Time to file a lawsuit against the state of TN.
OLD GUY says
Islamophobia definition: The act of restricting the freedom of speech with regards to the truth about ISLAM or Muhammad.
Hate speech: The act of saying things that someone else deems hateful. (that covers just about everything)
As far as I know freedom of speech still applies to attorneys and the American people. The speech police need to be defunded, they and their attempt to block freedom of speech is unconstitutional.