Slashdot Mirror
Marquette Dental Student Suspended For Blogging
whiteSanjuro writes "Reported first by the bloggers, and now the mainstream press, is a story of a student being suspended by his university for the rest of the academic year because of entries in the student's blog which the university did not view favorably. It has already had some chilling effects and looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online. The student (who wishes to remain anonymous) is appealing the university's decision in an effort to remain in classes and finish out the current semester, but even the terms of re-admittance (pdf) leave the blogger subject to probation, minus a scholarship, and prohibit future free blogging. Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog."
I thought the EFF was bad. I'm so confused now.
I thought they outlived their usefulness...
As long as he gets a full tuition refund, I don't see a problem with this.
He has the right to write, and they have the right to disagree and take action.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Freedom from tyranny means no party uses force to coerce another party to give up their property or person involuntarily. It also means that no force can be used to abridge any natural rights against a party's will on that party's property.
Force means making someone do something with no way out of the situation. Taxes are force. The draft is force. Government sponsored censorship is force.
What is not force? When two parties negotiate and one party will not accept part of the agreement, the parties may part ways. This is the free market. If you don't like my price, don't buy from me. If you don't like my skin color, don't sell to me. If you don't like the rules on my private property, leave. If my rules are excessive, competition will decide what the market will accept.
I believe a private school with NO direct government funding can set the rules for conduct and speech, even off their property. The student agrees to the rules to utilize the private property even if the student pays for it.
When my store sells a paintball marker ("gun") or a skateboard, I tell my customers I will refuse them future service if they don't use the items safely. I am allowed to pick who I voluntarily trade with and how. The student can negotiate or not agree to a rule, the school can refuse.
Only government has a monopoly on force. They can not, in a free market, truly own or control property -- they only use what all the people loan then. As such, they'd be abusing their monopoly on force by setting rules for speech or expression, as they control no property. The government borrowed property is not theirs to rule, it is the people's and all people are free to speak or express themselves (or bear arms on their property which includes publicly managed properties).
If the school accepts government funding directly, they can not regulate expression. If they are truly privately funded, they can (in a free market) say what conduct they expect in a person's life. There are other competitive schools that may not have such restrictive policies that the student can attend.
> Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog.
Are you kidding me? Now is the time to consider joining the EFF period!
This affects us all, and it's high time we started to behave accordingly.
A university not caring about their students and it's not mine!!!!
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Aren't the effects of this student's blogging the same as Terrell Owens of the Philadelphia Eagles statements?
I've always been told it's not what you say but how you say it. We are sure T.O. could have used more-proper channels to vent is emotions. Perhaps this student could have as well?
We do have the right to free speech. And listeners have the right to react to it.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Faith-based schools shouldn't have Med schools, that's Science!
I mean, you wouldn't go to a GP that graduated from Jehova's Witness U, would you?
The Land of free speech ?
Just because you have the constitutional right to free speech doesn't mean you can say what you like with no repurcussions. If you tell your boss to go fuck himself, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from being fired. School is no different.
Case closed. Write your own little journals and keep them to yourself! Attention whores!
According to reliable sources, the EFF has outlived its usefulness.
I know I've read in the past that "private" universitys often have to participate in govermental requirements because they accept so much money from government development programs.. or they lose a lot of funding. So much so that almost every univ (except maybe oral roberts U) must knucle under.. why wouldn't this apply for individuals at a private/public establishment as well?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
All this anti-bullying, anti-racism, anti-homophobia and making sure absolutely everyone everywhere feels special and empowered has lead to this nonsense where those with the thinnest skins gets to determine acceptable behavior. And if you think things will get better, think again. The right wing has now taken the baton of victim hood and is running with it. If you think bleeding-heart liberalism is suffocating speech, wait till the bleeding-heart conservatives really get going.
Private universities (as with any other private organizations, such as corporations) can dissociate themselves from people, whether they be students, employees, etc., for any reason that they may choose, as long as they're not breaking a contract.
In other words, if they expelled the student without a full refund of his tuition, then that would be considered fraud, and they would be liable for damages in court. However, if they compensate the student for services not rendered, then, sure, it's perfectly legal.
Now, of course, this doesn't stop the university in question from being a bunch of blowhards...
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Welcome to the real world, college boy. You don't like something, you're free to bitch about it all you want. However, if others are less than pleased with your comments, they may express their displeasure in ways that adversely affect you.
As the Parent poster points out, I'm free to create a blog and call my boss a stupid fuckhead. on the other hand, he's also free to fire my ass as soon as he finds out.
Oh, and guess what? All that stuff you've been publishing on the internet under your real name? Every future, potential employer is going to see it as they all google recruits now. How many companies do you think actually want a known rabble-rouser in the midst?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
redundent? I posted before I even saw any of the other posts. I assure you it was not intended.
Reality is a big nasty dragon. Fortunately I don't believe in dragons.
The university is a private organization. What do you expect? If he wants to go there he has to follow their rules. He knew what he was getting into.
Half the current posts here are along the lines of "OMFG, the previous article said they were bad! Now they are good?" Retarded humor karma whoring aside, I have to wonder just how fucking stupid you people are? How about this: Listen to opinions on the same subject that differ, examine them carefully, and make up your own fucking mind! News stories aren't necessarily, or even most of the time, to be taken at face value! Not at /., not anywhere! EVER! GOT IT?! /faints
Anyone who has read the "terms of re-admittance" letter can clearly see that they are not terms of readmittance but a very clear "get out now, thank you."
Based on the other blogger reports (I did not read the mainstream press report), this is quite clearly overreaction on the part of a flustered administrator. Unfortunately, I think the poor student is out of luck. As has been stated; if you attend a private university then you submit completely to their rules as they set them. If they chafe too badly, it may be best to leave (as they have not so subtly asked him to do).
... Heh, sorry, poor Canadian here... I thought the First Amendment of your nation's Constitution was the right to Freedom of Speech? Must have been somewhere else I guess...
Hmmm... TFA points out that the blogger in question did not name anyone. I would assume that means its not being taken as libel or slander.
So the administration didn't like it and came down on this individual like a tonne of bricks.
That's crap. I hope the appeal is successful.
They should not drill the student for opening his mouth. It's a gas to see them filling the student with threats.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Now, I'm not an American, so I may be wrong about this. Which is why I'm going to ask you Yankee slashdotters ;)
I've seen a few posts already complaining that this is against the Constitution. But I was always of the impression that the Constitution was something that only applied to the government - you know, "Congress shall pass no law..." or whatever the exact wording is. So, how does the reality of free speech being prevented in private establishments like this university fall under the Constitutional umbrella? Or does it apply at all?
Game dev and music blog
I am not beyond bothered by this type of thing because it's that type of experience that one will find in the real world in any private institution, with your employer. The school is expensive and he is effectively paying a $14,000 fine (tuition) to repeat his semester which is completely ridiculous but perhaps he learned his lesson and that even free speech has its cost and consequences in that people will want to get back at you for this type of thing and perhaps saves him and a lot of other people (classmates) pain down the road if they learn the lesson about human nature. But it also makes the university professor and others look completely insecure with themselves.
The charges of "harassment, hazing or stalking" are dubious though and really bring up if they are punishing free speech. They should have just blown it off and perhaps the insulted Professor should have read his comments aloud in the class just to embarass the hell out of the offending student and make him sweat:D That would have been more appropriate.
What bothers me much more is when Private Universities try to keep women hush-hush about rape cases (against their top jocks) and bring that through their private courts instead of releasing it publicly. Violent cases like that should be illegalized because the outcome isn't justice, but a way for them to keep their best players on the field. Somewhat tangent to this case, but it needs to be said.
"Free speech" means King Bush can't throw your ass in jail with a lettre de cachet, and forget about you. It does not mean you are free from civil responsibility for what you say, it only means you will not be incarcerated.
Private University, State University. Same damn thing. Keep your fucking hole shut like your god damn life depended on it, or find yourself another institution of "higher learning".
Call me when the University has your monkey-ass thrown in jail for "conduct unbecoming a member of our Fine University"...
This stinks. I never thought I'd see the day in America when a STUDENT couldn't write or say what they wanted. While I think places like Berkley are where nutcases go to school, at least they have and exercise their freedom of speech. While much of it is bunk, this freedom causes others to think, and it causes the student to formulate who they are as an individual.
Sure...this was not Berkley and he was on Scholarship. Who cares. His performance as a student is separate from what he chooses to write.
I used to have faith that America would not turn its back on the freedoms grated by the Constitution. I have seen way too much in 2005 to have that same faith.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
what would youuu do
Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog.
Perhaps. But the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education specializes in free-speech issues at educational institutions, rather than dealing with every conceivable online issue like the EFF does.
The vast majority of private universities could not charge the prices they do without government funding, be it Pell grants, Stafford loans, whatever--to say nothing of their dubious tax-exempt status as "non-profits." For that matter, neither could the public universities. Also, the vast majority of college students not only could not afford university study without financing, the vast majority of finance companies either could not or would not afford to finance such young debtors for so much completely unsecured credit without government security. This is a case where the "free" market simply can't provide but for an infinitessimal percentage where there are enough very well-heeled 18yo customers who can write $37,000 checks. The other 99.9% of the private universities that want all the benefits of being private and all the benefits of receiving public money and not paying any public tax on it, well, as Kathy Griffin might say, they simply need to suck it.
denis.lynch@marquette.edu gets a polite letter from outraged viewers.
Nice to know that these Bastions of Free Speech seem to only like it when it's directed against enemies of their own choosing. Quite an education they're providing in this incident.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Do you work for a University? Or a company that gets federal funding? One of the requirements to recieve federal funding is to "uphold the United States Constitution", and yes that means free speech as well.
"half a dozen postings including one describing a professor as 'a (expletive) of a teacher' and another that described 20 classmates as having the 'intellectual/maturity of a 3-year-old.' "
This is a private institution enacting disciplinary action on a member who directly insulted other members and staff of said instutition ina public forum.
If I walked down the street telling everyone how much my professor sucked monkey balls, and one of the people I told happened to be the dean, I would be amazed if I didn't get suspended or expelled.
The kid wasn't put in jail. His rights haven't been infringed in any way.
Nothing to see here, move along.
More to the point, Marquette U. gave the subject a scholarship and other encouragements to attend. The subject may also have taken out loans and incurred other expenses to attend. Unless MU is also willing to fully reimburse the subject for his expenses and pay for his lost time, the university has no business trying to back out of the deal at this point.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
First, IAAL, but this isn't legal advice.
Second, I used to be a higher-ed acceptable use policy enforcer.
Students at private universities don't have any First Amendment rights when they're using university network resources. Private universities aren't state actors and aren't bound by the First Amendment. Read your local acceptable use policy carefully; it defines your rights.
Most universities' AUPs give students and employees pretty broad rights of free expression. But each university's AUP is different from every other's.
Also, as a general rule, it's better to handle this sort of issue informally to minimize the downside risks for everyone and to generate a "teachable moment" for the student involved.
Enough with the free speech vs. private university arguments. Free speech applies to government prosecution, not enforcement of the rules of a private organization. As others have noted, if you are a member of a private organization, be it a university, company, or professional sports team, you are subject to their rules if you wish to remain a member.
The problem with this story isn't that the student violated the rules and now doesn't want to deal with the consequences, but that the administration is being accused of interpretting the rules far beyond their intended meaning, employing selective enforcement, and not allowing the student to present his side of the case. As a graduate of a private university, there are usually rules in place to ensure due process for the student as well. I haven't read Marquette's rulebook, nor do I plan to, but the discussion should really be focused around that, not free speech vs. university rules.
Here is another student's account of a similar action taken by another institution:
Part 1
Part 2
Huh, I didn't know that /. let people self-moderate now.
In that case, I award myself +5, Just Because I Feel Like It.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Our right to freedom of speech, is not the freedom to say what we want, when we want, free from consiquence. It is the freedom to not have our speech prevented by the government. Private citizens and organizations are free to do what they like, based on what you say, again... within the law.
Marquette is a Catholic school. Free speech has never been a priority in the Catholic Church. They've silenced Galileo, Oscar Romero, whistleblowers of sexual abuse, ...
It has already had some chilling effects and looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online.
Nobody is guaranteed free speech online. For all you USA citizens who gladly go on about your precious constitution, you should be aware that the only thing that your constitution guarantees is that Congress won't infringe on your freedom of speech.
That being the case, this won't "set a standard" that private uni students aren't guaranteed free speech online, because nothing has ever guaranteed that for anyone. If anything, this is just business as usual.
In fact schools can regulate speech as long as its "politically correct". The best example is the current refusal by some schools to permit military recruiters on their campuses because of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Yet what of the rights of their students who want these recruiters to have access? Or what of the students who want fair representation by all, including those they disagree with.
How do they pull this seemingly impossible double standard? Easy, brand anything that opposes as "Hate Speech". That excuses any double standard.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This is your boss. So I'm a stupid fuckhead am I? You aren't the only one who can read Slashdot on company time. Oh right about coming in tomorrow, don't bother unless you bring me Coffee, 2 cream one sugar. Don't use the powder either, that stuff is gross.
Signed your PHB - yes we the bosses do read Dilbert, no you arent that clever. I might be a "stupid fuckhead" but I am all knowing.
Nothing at all here about conducting interactions with honesty. And that's the problem. It's all about feelings now.
They really are a bunch of 3-year-olds.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As numerous other posters have pointed out, the Constitution says no such thing, and even if it did, it's freedom from retaliation *by government*, not by a private entity.
I don't see this as a problem. Marquette is a private university. Private universities are free to stipulate that their students meet certain idealogical criteria in order to remain students. If a student indicates his blog that he doesn't meet those idealogical criteria, the university should be free to revoke his status as a student. There is no "right to attend Marquette" that's being violated here.
1) I have in the past
2) See #1.
I neither case was I permitted, by rules I agreed to prior to joining, to publicly disparage the organization (or words to that effect).
This isn't a Contitutional issue. It's a Common Sense issue.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Lose your Constitutional rights 24 hours a day.
And you pay money for this privilege too!
Now that's education!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The last story before this, about the EFF outliving its usefulness? I don't think so. As long as there are people that want to stifle free speech, be in censorship or whatever, the EFF will have a job to do.
Who watches the watchmen?
One of the requirements to recieve federal funding is to "uphold the United States Constitution", and yes that means free speech as well.
Are you forgetting "Freedome of Assembly," as also guaranteed in the constitution? Private groups (like clubs, churches, schools, etc) form exactly because they have some particular framework/worldview/goal/creed in common. If every school was exactly the same, and operated according to exactly the same requirements, we'd be... well, worse off.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I signed up because I liked their line about Catholic/Jesuit values, not being just another number, and how they take care of their students. However, I had problems my freshman year and was struggling and the University actually threw up roadblocks to make it more difficult for me to seek help. I wanted to change majors and they wouldn't let me. This meant I had no access to an advisor who knew anything about the degree I wanted, and my current advisor was frustrated by the process. He even called the liberal arts college and demanded to know why I couldn't transfer. They said my GPA was too low to change majors, he said that was bullshit and told me that a more likely explanation is that I'm not on a scholarship and the Engineering college costs a lot more than the college of liberal arts. After a second year of much better grades but still being unable to change majors or get an advising appointment, I left.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
He doesn't have to break a law. He has breached his contract with the school. The constitution doesn't ensure free speech, it ensures that the government will not make laws preventing free speech. So a public/Tax funded college would not be able to do this. But at a private school, you signed the contract.
It's just like any other behavioral contract. Soda/Beer deliverers can not drink competitors' beverages. Knowledge workers sign NDA. CEOs sign ethical agreements. Break the contract and you're out a job.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
" If they are truly privately funded, they can (in a free market) say what conduct they expect in a person's life. There are other competitive schools that may not have such restrictive policies that the student can attend."
This philosophy is one reason the government is trying to privatize as much of the public realm as possible.
Quote:
Oh, and guess what? All that stuff you've been publishing on the internet under your real name? Every future, potential employer is going to see it as they all google recruits now. How many companies do you think actually want a known rabble-rouser in the midst?
Seriously? How cool is that!?!? Since my name is Curtis Brown, then I get credit for being an Astronaut, a football star, a hockey star, a talent agent, a baseball player, a politician...
Sheesh, why I could get into just about any line of work I could imagine!!!
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
People like you always puzzle me. So willing to discard their rights, or more specifically, to acquiesce as others' rights are taken away, all in the name of so-called freedom. You folks talk as if freedom is so clearly defined ... the student and university have an agreement, the student waived his rights to freedom of speech by signing them away to the university, if he doesn't like that agreement he can go study elsewhere.
Such an absolute position!
Such nonsense!
Suppose the contract said the student was to be flogged and sold into slavery if he blew his left nostril before blowing his right nostril? People like you would say that's ok, if the student doesn't like it, don't sign it.
I really don't understand people like you. It's as if you are afraid to think, as if making a decision hurts your brain. It is so much easier to take an absolute position. All contracts are hard and forever absolutely proper. And especially, you always side with the alleged criminal, as if the big university is right merely by being the complainer.
I wonder how many times a day people like you get up on your soapbox to complain about the wrongs other people have done to you? I know some people like you, and they are the people who whine the most about others infringing their rights.
What people like you forget is that society is a mesh, not a pyramid. Rules and rights and responsibilities flow in all directions, not just in one way lanes between master and servant. People have certain expectations. No one reads every contract in detail. No one looks for the clause which condemns them to slavery for blowing their nose wrongly. And no one expects that a minor blog offense like this one will basically force the student to restart his semester, and no doubt repay the tuition. That is far beyond reason. It is more offensive than the blog itself.
People like you think the responsibility lies entirely with the student. The university has a responsibility too, which includes playing fair. But people like you side with them because it is so much easier. Oh the big university says you violated the contract o they must be right o too bad you stupid student. So much easier than thinking about the university's responsibility to do the right thing. So much easier to side with the big guy and sneer at the little guy for being dumb enough to get the big guy mad.
I just don't understand people like you, so eager to let other peoples' rights be taken away, all in the misuse of the word freedom.
Infuriate left and right
This is as much a free speech issue as Islamic extremist terrorism is a freedom of religion issue.
As others have stated already, freedom of speech does not mean being able to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences. And if you're a member of any sort of private institution, school or otherwise, you may very well be subject to restrictions that the government doesn't place on you.
If you publicly insult people, there can be serious consequences. Some forms of speech are completely unprotected, hence laws against libel, defamation and slander. Technically, this student may be guilty of libel. I didn't read the specific contents and IANAL.
People are often quick to site their rights, but often fail to consider the rights of others. This is a non-story. This is simply another kid who said something he shoudldn't have and he's paying the price for it.
MU does have the right to take action. It is a private instruction and can create policies as it wishes, unless state or federal law forbids a certain policy.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, so the student can be punished.
Student writes blog
Blog pisses off school admin
Student admits it was in bad taste
School suspends student for fall semester
Student is punished harshly having to eat that semester's $14,000
Justice is served?
Instead, the school should just make him write a 5000-word essay about why he wants to be a Dentist.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In this case, there's probably some Federal/State anti-discrimination law, either tied to some of the grant money the institution undoubtedly receives, or simply from it's status as an educational institution. Blogger sues sex, income or any potential discrimination. Skule is on defensive and has to prove that it really was the insulting blogs, and that it does the same for all. If he finds one counter-example of tolerated insolence, they're sunk.
Freedom and Individual Rights in Education
They haven't taken up this case yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
I curtail my Free Speech because my employer pays me to benefit the company.
Has the student's Free Speech been curtailed by some monetary obligation? If that is the case, what if the student paid the full tuition out of his own pocket? Would his Free Speech still be curtailed?
Or would the school curtail their own Free Speech, just to get that much cash from a student?
"E. Interpersonal Interactions - Each member of the MUSoD community is obligated to conduct interactions with each other, with patients and with others in a manner that promotes understanding and trust. Actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature, are condemned. Respect for the diverse members of the MUSoD student body, administrators, faculty, staff and patient base is expected."
Wait, what the fuck?
"Actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature, are condemned."
So, saying stupid people are stupid is a condemned action? If I was in a terrible class, I couldn't say half the class couldn't find their asses with a flashlight? You know what? MUSoD administrators are stupid and I demean them with this comment. Objectivity is a good thing.
We're crating positivity gestapos. This is not the ideal solution to student concerns.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Does he work for MS, Google, Apple, IBM? Did he contribute to the linux kernel or crack some DRM scheme? Is it a new web based framework like RoR?
Thanks,
Andy Reid
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I would be interested to know how they can justify this as a violation of the schools Code of Conduct unless the student was on school grounds when the posts were made.
I think this is right there with the High School student who was suspended for bloggin (off school property mind you) as well.
I realize that there is a huge difference in the two cases, but both have the same general principles in mind. Someone spoke their mind and were penalized for it. As for how students should conduct themselves, I'm sure that no one else in the entire school has ever, broken the law, gotten drunk, tried drugs, had sex, been arrested, etc etc, staff included. I'm sure they stringently do background checks on all individuals to make sure they are of the utmost moral fibre.
This is just getting to the heart of the issue with the US, that leaders are silenced. Someone who decides to break the norm and not follow the rest are seen as a threat.
One question I'd really like to know is if the teacher cited as being "a ------------ of a teacher" really was? I know I've had professors who couldn't find their assholes if there was a 40 foot neon sign sticking out of it.
To the student, I wish you the best of luck and I hope this goes your way. When private enterprise has the authority to silence people no matter how it's done this is infringement of freedom. Now if his bloggings were liablous in anyway that's another matter.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
they wanted to expel the blogger but now they are just forcing him to live in a motel for the rest of the semester, after which they will probably expel him.
2 43962.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13
Lissen up, you Charlie Churches that are getting bent about being mocked by those in the reality-based community would more usefully spend your energy reigning in your reality-impaired bretheren than whining about persecution.
Let's look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." Unless my company somehow turned into Congress and passed a law against free speech, they can do as they please.
If my company takes the place of Congress in your intrepretation, then I guess they can levy an income tax as well.
http://www.marquette.edu/osl/policies/conduct_code .html
"Mr. Nolan, it's for you! It's God. He says we should have girls at Whelton." A private school is stuffy? Really? This is completely new news. I apologize for teh sarcasm (albiet, not sincerely) but how is this a free speach issue? No laws were violated. The goverment isn't keepin' us down. A private institution saw a student commiting what was determined to be a breach of contract and called him on it. Was that stupid? I think so. Is this a new crisis for the internet and free speech? Hardly.
He has the right to write, and they have the right to disagree and take action.
Since when does signing up for a class mean the person can no longer post their opinions? What did he post? Did he threaten someone, did he post naked pictures of a professor? Was his post a crime?
I see tuition as a contract. I agree to pay you money. You agree to teach me about a subject. Since when does the contract call for the student to agree with the university or be silent?
I can understand both sides. Universities want to keep order, they want to have an honor code saying certain activites are bad, like lying, plagerizing, stealing, and so forth. Unless this guy did something really bad, I can't understand the logic the university has.
In the end, if the university is a private school, they can do whatever they want. I am sure Brigham Young University will continue to admit mormons and exclude those who oppose their fiath. Just like Harvard will continue to give special consideration to legacy admits. Just like Howard will continue to give special consideration to blacks.
If people are insulted by this university not allowing this student to continue studies because of a blog, then the anwser is to never attend that university. After all, a private university needs money. If the top 25% of high school students decide not to attend a university, the reputation of the school will be harmed, Barrons will lower their ranking, and the school will become as important as State U of Southern Miss creek river campus.
Still, I can't understand the logic of the university. And if his tuition contract did not have something in there about the university having a right to drop him, he should sue for more than tuition. He just lost a year of income by being forced to graduate late.
Stuff that matters, indeed!
Fortunately, Dr. Denis Lynch is publically listed on Marquette's School of Dentistry: phone (414) 288-7267 and email denis.lynch@marquette.edu http://www.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/phonebook/deptloo kup.cgi?searchstring=School%20of%20Dentistry/>
My last name is Case. Just try to find me online in Google. I can't even google me and find who I'm looking for.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
"Marquette Dental Student Suspended For Blogging"
/. to have Enquirer-like sensationalist headlines to drive page views and comments, but this is obviously wrong. He was not suspended for blogging. He was suspended for directly insulting professors and students in a public forum.
Typical for
don't like that asshole in your class on scholorship getting the good grades, no problem, set up a blog with his name bashing the university, tada, asshole gets kicked out, and the curve is back to normal, who said there is no justice in this world.
looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online.
Why would you say that? did they incarcerate the students, violating their rights? Students are guarunteed the right to free speech, but not the right to be liked by university administration.
Students are allowed to say whatever they want, but universities are allowed to enroll whomever they choose, excercising their right of free association. No violation of rights occoured here.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"What if I, uh, don't like someone and, you know, insult them?"
If you don't like someone, that's too bad.
If you insult them, grow up and apologize.
A little research shows that Denis Lynch ( mailto:denis.lynch@marquette.edu ) is the one who started the whole thing. In fact, the school's own expert witness on ethics was told not to come in for the student's hearing. I suggest emailing Mr. Lynch and expressing your discontent at his actions.
Let Marquette Dental School Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Denis Lynch know how you feel:
Email: Denis.Lynch@marquette.edu
Office: 414-288-7485
Universities will not allow the KKK on their campuses because the KKK is racist. I believe this is not just for political correctness but also a legal requirement. That is their rationale for banning military recruiters; the military discriminates.
Nothing to do with hate speech. Everything to do with discrimination.
Infuriate left and right
Students have been suspended and expelled with shame from universities for their blogs for some time now. Too bad for them they don't live in an English-speaking countries.
I think you get the award for using the word "fuck" or other forms of it in one rant.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
At the University of Virginia, if you write a bad check they can recind your diploma. It's considered to be a violation of the honor code.
>>One of the requirements to recieve federal funding is to "uphold the United States Constitution", and yes that means free speech as well.
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." Unless my company somehow turned into Congress and passed a law against free speech, they can do as they please.
:~(
>Let's look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law
Federal funding is an Act (ie, law) of Congress. If your company abridges freedom of speech, then it's not eligible for federal funding. Further, knowingly taking money from the government with intent to abridge freedom of speech would be fraud. Of course, Congress should be punished if it wasn't fraud but instead collusion; your company should be punished as well. The real problem is that there's many times that federal funding seems to violate the Bill of Rights (TSA is a great example) and Congress doesn't get punished for it.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
remind me of that of arrested people:
"You have the right to keep silent. Everything you say can and will be used against you. You may call a lawyer, if you don't want or can't, one will be assigned to your case..."
___
*insert sig here*
There are companies that specialize in background checks. I'm willing to bet that they each have one or two smart people on staff who can narrow the field, but hey, its your career and your choice.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
since they also cost him a semester of his life, the cost (in time and effort as well as money) of finding a new school, and the cost of losing all the social and professional connections he made while at that school.
No, I would say his choice of language cost him that.
-everphilski-
Actually, if the student is in breach of contract, they may not owe him anything. It's a bit difficult to call this (even apart from the fact that any arbiter or court may disagree with any or all of us on /.) without having all teh details-- what the contract says, seeing the full blogs, a transcript of all that was said and done, how Marquette typically handles such cases (or as near as they have had) and so forth.
It's easy to play armchair lawyer when you don't have all the facts.
Since the previous poster was kind enough to post his citation, perhaps you'd be kind enough to do the same? Where in the USC is this referenced?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I'd never suggest harassing anyone, but if you want to contact the ass-hat responsible for this and let them know what you think about it here is his info from the Marquette directory.
Name: Lynch, Dr. Denis P.
Phone: (414) 288-7267
Position: Professor of Surgical Sciences and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Department/Office: School of Dentistry/Office of the Dean
Location: Dental School 304C
Email Address: denis.lynch@marquette.edu
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
The point isn't that he dissed someone or broke the rules, so now he's kicked out. You, like Marquette Univ, are presuming his guilt.
The point is that Marquette has a proceedure in place for responding to disciplinary action: a formal hearing. Marquette Univ violated their own standards by not allowing him to defend himself at his hearing, and significantly increasing the punishment for his alleged infractions, only because he had the timerity to ask for a hearing.
Yes, he is bound by Marquette's rules, but so are they.
Switch schools (Marquette is clearly fascist -- who needs that?), go national with the story, take it to every newspaper, take it to tv, and screw the f*ckers.
They'll never make the mistake again.
The only surefire way to insure that this type of behaviour continues is to take it lying down.
A private university doesn't have to allow anyone to stay, with or without reason. They don't have to do shit except answer to the board. Stupid liberals. It doesn't matter that it was online, if he had upset them by standing in the courtyard and telling people whatever he said on the blog, he could have been suspended or expelled.
Free Enterprise is equal to Free Speach. Ya dopes.
Marquette is a Catholic school. Free speech has never been a priority in the Catholic Church. They've silenced Galileo, Oscar Romero, whistleblowers of sexual abuse, ...
Not only did the Catholic church silenced many visionaries in the past, they have within the last year appointed the man Pope John Paul II assigned to oversee the suffling of pedophile priests one-step-ahead of the law as the new (no doubt child-friendly) pope! One complicit man who willfully looked the other way as pedophiles were shipped to new parishes for a little "fresh meat" (and a stay-out-of-jail-free card) is now on the fast track to being sainted, while the man who actually did the shuffling is now pope (and no doubt soon to be promoted to the Right Hand of God Himself).
The sad thing is, mothers the world over are redoubling their efforts to be sure their children attend mass. Isn't that just precious?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Perhaps the student owes the college, since HE failed to keep the agreement, wasted valuable time and space of the college, etc.
One of the ironies here is that the blogger referred to other students as having the "intellectual/maturity of a 3-year-old."
I can't wait to hear about the counter lawsuit the student files against the school for damages caused by the schools over reaction. The loss of a semesters worth of work, the postponing of the students life for a full year while on suspension.
No one was harmed by this blogg, until the school decided to suspend the student. Now the school's reputation will go down the drain. I could possibly understand if the blogg was stored on school property, although I still feel that the school's actions were a bit extreme for an opinion.
Cheesy Movie Night
It's also contingent on Marquette not getting any money from the government. Any federal grants or subsidies they get would invalidate the claim that they are soley a private enterprise. It's unusual for a school to not get any money from the government through some path or another.
Those cases have nothing to do with this one, do they? Did you even read the article, or do you just like bashing the Catholic Church? (I am not now, have never been, never expect to be, a member of the Catholic Church.)
/.
The question is whether his behavior was merely rude, or harassing and unprofessional, and if so, was it enough to result in the punishment he got?
Nobody here is trying to silence anyone-- either the student or people making utterly absurd comparisons on
If you can't tell the difference, perhaps you ought to get counseling.
That's the price you pay for attending an elitist private university.
Oh well
I would think the amount of money would vary by state but in my private schools often get public money. IN K-12 private schools the bus service is provided by the public schools. The books for science & math are often provided by the public schools and I believe (although I'm not sure) a small portion of the science & math teacher's salary comes from the public.
I think this was even argued before the state Supreme Court. The logic for permitting this is that if the student went to the public school they would have to pay for it anyway and as long as the money doesn't go towards any religious teaching it doesn't violate any separation of church & state rules. I'm sure it isn't official, but if every last dime of public money was taken from private schools a lot would close and many public schools couldn't handle the sudden increase in the student population.
A lot of private colleges also get public money. If nothing else, you could argue that government grants and student loans are a form of public funding. They don't get anywhere near the level of support that a public school gets but the do get some. Being private, however, means that they can setup any rules or standards of admittance they wish as long as it doesn't violate any state or federal laws.
By the way, a public college could probably do the same thing. You are not guaranteed a college education and colleges do set admittance requirements via standardized testing so, in a way, they already practice a mild form discrimination. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of public colleges have rules of conduct but they are not strictly enforced. Go tell the dean of your college what you really think of him and you'll probably be expelled pretty quickly. I also doubt you could shout down a professor during his class without some heavy consequences. Blogs are not really that different.
A better way of looking at a private college is to think of them as a government contractor, except instead of contracting for a physical product they are contracting for an education. A company that contracts with the government can do almost anything it wants as long as it doesn't violate any federal or state laws. Free speech at private company is most definitely not protected by the constitution even if it takes government money.
The student (who wishes to remain anonymous) Oh sure, NOW he wants to be anonymous. If the student had posted his blog anonymously in the first place, he wouldn't now be having this problem, would he? People posting views that some might find offensive should follow the cardinal rule for one-night-stands: never use your real name. The only reason to post your real name is 'cause you're ego-tripping, in which case you probably shouldn't be blogging in the first place.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Vaguely worded rules don't mean much until they're applied. Sucks to be the testcase.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
If they receive federal money they have to follow the 1st ammendment - this is the pre-existing decision of SCOTUS
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Marquette is a so-called "Jesuit" university. The Jesuits are noted for good thinking and solid logic (among other things), and the Jesuit universities are supposed to produce graduates with high-quality thinking skills and strong values. (Hey, I went to a Jesuit University in Chicago for a while!) In the early 70's, academic quality took a back seat to economic factors, academic standards were reduced to meet the requirement for government subsidies and to match more clearly with the reduced expectations of the public school HS graduates of lower ability. The egalitarian attitude did not extend to the student/teacher relationship. University staff and instructors still think of the student as an annoyance necessary to get their paycheck. Colleges have a number of seats, and after the first seats are filled with the students who can pay full boat or bring in outside dollars, empty seats are sold at a discount to fill capacity and get the marginal dollars. (They call this discount a "scholarship". Sometimes they recover the full sales price of the seat by convincing someone else to pay the difference.) The public perception of the University has a direct impact on the financial success of the institution.
Interestingly enough, the "good thinkers" in this University have damaged the public perception 'way beyond what the blogger did. Now all they can save is their egos. The Dean, despite his incompetence as a thinker, decision maker and risk manager, is probably immune to termination or other consequences during the period of his contract. Under certain circumstances he may have tenure and actually be almost completely immune to termination.
Too bad.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Put plainly, some things transcend the market. These include honour, integrity, duty, and morality.
No, here's a sticky subject. How do you legislate and enforce honour, integrity, dugy, or morality? What is "morality," anyway? I mean, I know what integrity is-- speaking plainly and standing by your word, no matter the cost. Honour? I'm not too sure. Duty? What is that? I mean, do I really owe anybody anything? How 'bout morality? Who's morality?
I would despise the world described by the grandparent post-- the ability to discriminate willy-nilly would lead to an insular, sullen world, in which you dealt only with local people you trust. Just think about travelling; how would you know which restaurant doesn't spit in the eggs they serve to strangers? How would you know which doctor really knows medicine, rather than just wanted to hang out a shingle?
Libertarianism is like communism-- it sounds good in concept, but it really, deeply sucks in practice. It fails because it treats society and the citizens within as an ideal.
But, trying to pass laws and regulations based on undefinable properties like "honour" or "morality" is also a recipe for disaster. I do not want the be governed by the morality of a fundamentalist Christian, for instance. (I am responsible for my own sins, thank you very much. I don't care how many long-haired peace-loving hippies you nail to a cross.) Nor do I want a war-mongering chickenhawk deciding what my "duty" is.
No, I don't have a solution. But I do know that anyone trying to silence anyone for any reason is wrong. Unless I disagree with what they have to say. In which case, they better shut the fuck up.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Public school theory: We want to teach you about [insert topic]
Private school theory: We want to teach you about [insert topic] the way we see it
Private schools seek to influence everything, not just subject matter on which they're teaching. From dress code, to ethics, decorum, etc. Think of it like a "country club" education. You jump through more hoops to get in, you pay a LOT in club dues, and if the board thinks you're a bad representation of the values of the club, they can vote you off the island.
I've attended both, and both have pros and cons. At a private university, you're not buying the right to speak your mind, you're buying the opportunity to be taught THEIR ethics and THEIR way of doing things. If you stray too far from the path, they'll cut you off. Unfortunately for this guy, this is what he bought into.
This message was posted using recycled electrons.
Your poor understanding of the legalese involved in a constitution is not the problem of GP
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
I for one was shocked!
Some settling may occur during posting.
Especially when you don't learn anything in the process; about what your rights really are and how to conduct yourself as a responsible adult.
I guess some people have to learn the hard way...
Man, that dental student really got bit hard. He apparently hadn't braced himself for the consequences. You can't just brush these things off. This is more like something I would expect to happen in Fluorida.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
Is it censorship to kick out the student of a private university for violating that university's honor code? One could argue that it would be just as deplorable to "censor" the university, a private organization. After all, while the student may have a right to express his viewpoint, the university does too. Slashdot doesn't post that many pro-Microsoft articles, yet I see a pro-linux/open source article almost once an hour. Is Slashdot censoring the pro-Microsoft crowd? Hardly, they are just expressing THEIR OWN viewpoint.
The bottom line is this: the student was not prohibited from expressing his viewpoint, and therefore it was NOT censorship. He is still free to post his blog, and still free to express a negative opinion about his professors, classmates, or anything else. The university only removed him from the student body, and in doing so enforced THEIR right to freedom of speech, in this case by saying that the student violated the honor code, and therefore was no longer welcome in their membership.
May I ask what specifically you want citation to? Since you mention the USC, I assume you mean something about the federal funding, but your comment is too vague for me to understand exactly what it is you're requesting.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
You're still doing this list? Here's a question on your comment:
> They can not, in a free market, truly own or control property -- they only use what all the people loan then. As such, they'd be abusing their monopoly on force by setting rules for speech or expression, as they control no property. The government borrowed property is not theirs to rule, it is the people's and all people are free to speak or express themselves (or bear arms on their property which includes publicly managed properties).
What is so hard for you to grasp about the idea that laws are made by agreement? The government can indeed control property other than by force. Let's say that the people get together and decide that they'll make an entity, and that entity will be responsible for controlling a certain parcel of land. They call this entity "the government" and the land "public". Then, they sit down and decide that it's a good idea that on this "public" land, they won't allow certain behaviors like carrying a firearm. They agree that if someone decides to do it anyway, the "government" will enforce their collective will. Now you show up with your gun, and their "government" removes you. You scream "force!" but where's your responsibility to obey the agreed-on law, change it or leave? You agreed by being part of the society, so your comment about force is obtuse. You don't like taxes? Lobby to rescind the tax laws, or move somewhere without tax laws. If your view is so sensible and popular, it should be easy to get enough folks on your side.
Virg
you forgot about the other side of "the real world" which involves getting even with an arrogant boss who just fired you.
Reminds me of a story in Seattle wherein an admittedly mean old man living at a subsidized housing place for the elderly would post unpleasant things about where he lived on his (kooky) website. It went to court, and the judge ordered him to alter his site. The man eventually wound up in jail after infuriating the judge (by doing things like hosting content in the Netherlands), and was even put in solitary confinement for a bit.
e rson2.shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/74939_freespee ch17.shtml
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0222/nc-and
His wacky tinfoil hat website: http://www.contracabal.org/#
He's the guy who helped Terrell Owens when he said dumb stuff
about his team.
Wait. Nevermind.
My Heart Is A Flower
"Support the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/ "
"Grow up. No really, you should try it."
Come up with a 1) hypothesis 2) that can be tested and 3) can be used to make correct predictions, and then you might have an argument. Attempting to equate fantasy with proper science is dishonest and you deserve to be mercilessly mocked for it.
The only mistake this blogger made, was publishing it. If he'd kept it to himself, or written in the diary in his nightstand, or even if the only place he said it was at some frat party, none of this would have happened. I think the school is probably over-reacting and they're in for a firestorm of protest, but this guy will probably transfer to another school, keep his nose clean, and graduate. In the end it comes to nothing, and the Earth keeps turning.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If my university, company, etc receives federal funding, does that mean that I can tell my boss "fuck off" to his face and not get fired?
I believe that the state DID provide some funding to them in some form or another. Now, if any of that money came from out of Fed funds, they're stuck. If there's any sort of free speech clauses in the State's laws, they're stuck.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Sorry. The law that says is you take federal funding you cannot impede free speech.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Which means that he's free to sue. Quite often these days it seems when the criminal court can't accomplish something, folks turn to the civil court. So while his treatment may not be illegal (although ill advised), it may be actionable. If the school were to get sued for millions of dollars it would hurt them more than any other action he could take. Seeing that they took his money, they entered into a contract. I would be that a smart enough lawyer could find a way to sue them for breaking that contract.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
As the Parent poster points out, I'm free to create a blog and call my boss a stupid fuckhead. on the other hand, he's also free to fire my ass as soon as he finds out.
What country do you live in? If my boss fires me for calling him (or her, I have multiple bosses) a fuckhead, on my own time, on a private blog, that is certainly their right. But it is just about equally as certain that if they are foolish enough to give that as the stated reason, I'll win my civil suit for wrongful termination. Basically, if it doesn't affect my work and isn't done on company time, they are liable if they fire me for it.
Your phrase "if two parties negotiate" means that your entire argument is inapplicable to this situation (and any code-of-conduct situation, and the vast majority of commercial transactions).
Or are you seriously claiming that you can tell a university "Ok, you can have my tuition money if you modify section 17 of the code of conduct" and they'll give it even a nonosecond's consideration?
...and the student reaped the consequences of attending a sucky school. Perhaps this suckiness was not evident at first, but caveat emptor. Now I know that I will never attend Marquette, and when their recruiters come riding their bikes to my door, I'll beat them down like Mormons. Uh, I mean, politely show them off my property.
From TFA...
/. brings down websites all the time, how about Mr. Lynch's email server...
Let Marquette Dental School Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Denis Lynch know how you feel:
Email: Denis.Lynch@marquette.edu
Office: 414-288-7485
Dental school (as the case with many graduate/professional programs) is essentially a trade school, they train you the magic arts of dentistry so that you can practice it. There is little critical thinking involved outside of technical problem analysis (the misconception that a school's mission must be to teach social thinking skills is a very "liberal-arts/holistic" view of education, some aspect of schooling is just job training/certification and most graduate/professional programs fall into this later category).
As for a breach of contract, well most contracts come with non-performance/liquidated damage clauses. I'm pretty much guessing the "school-tuition" contract limits damages to the refund of tuition for non-performance (e.g., failure of the school to allow the person to graduate). Very few contractual agreements come with what is called "specific-performance" clauses because they are often difficult to enforce. For example, say if the school is burried in a freak blizzard for ten years (sometimes I think wisconsin isn't too far away from this eventuality) or suppose they decided to close down their dental school, how are they supposed to let you go to school and graduate, regardless of what they promised?
I'm not saying that taking action against the person is a smart thing for the school to do, but there are many things that are in the grey area when it comes to restricting speach by private organizations. As a stupid example, what if there was someone going around on campus students blogging about how fellow students/faculty are tall and ugly and unfit for reproduction (tall and ugly are categories of people that are not protected under federal anti-discrimination and civil rights statutes). Well, you might argue that stopping that person is censorship, but since it isn't technically a violation of any legal statutes (except some sort of verbal harassment akin to swearing), but it might be in the school's best interest to stop this person (to keep the remainder of the student/faculty from leaving for other schools). There's a lot of grey in this whole blogging issue.
Often it seems to me that often people today want to be protected from the consequences of their actions as if that is some divine right to be act with impunity and protection of others (e.g., the government, a lawyer, etc). The people who really make a statement are those who suffer some consequence. Those people that hide behind protection are merely whiners. Sure sometimes it takes a lot of sacrifices to make a statement, but in a world seemingly filled with whiners who don't want to take the consequences for their actions (note the abundance of lawyers in the world and the lawsuits that they file), it seems like seeing if someone gave up something to make a statement, it is only then an appropriate filter to use to see who we should focus our limited attention-span on. Note that if the school DIDN'T impose this punishment, I seriously doubt anyone would be discussing this, but does that make the complaint less valid?
Note that by the blogger's own admission, the comments were made when he was at least in a bad mood and possibly a binge drinking/drunken state. "Gee, your honor, I'm sorry I ran over that baby and pregnant mother, when I was having a bad day, I had a fight with my girlfriend, and just had a couple beers at the pub..." Yeah, that was a good excuse, as if that somehow minimizes the impact. Doesn't (rightly or wrongly) what was said and the student's behavior shed a bad light on the school and/or dentists (or at least possibly impacts the careers dental students from Marquette who have yet to graduate eventually to out to get their first job having come from a school of this repuation). Maybe the school deserves the criticism, maybe not, time will tell right? Shouldn't we trust the judgement of time on both Marquette and the blogger/student?
In any event, why shouldn't he suffer the consequences of the comments he made? Just because life doesn't go smoothly right now, he's eventuall
I lack the legal expertise to say whether or not this matters...but contrary to popular belief, private schools often DO get some direct funding from public sources such as state or federal governments. Plus they for certain have some students on federal subsidized student loans or pell grants, that may count as a form of public funding. Whether that makes the private school subject to the 1st amendemnt , I doubt it. But perhaps there is some other pertinent law?
well, there are a few references to you on slashdot. Searching zabasearch for "Alexander Case" finds only a few people, but none of them in OR. Are you using and assumed name or location online?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
While it may be the case that the private university can put any provisions it likes in its contracts with students, it seems like it is not too much of a stretch to imagine your rights to free speech being limited by every EULA you agree to when you buy a consumer product, and every contract you sign with banks, insurance agencies, credit card companies.
I mean, its one thing to say 'if you don't agree with the university's terms , then go to another school', but what will you do when all the providers of, say, credit cards place clauses in their contracts that limit your free speech rights?
It seems to me it is becoming more and more difficult to do simple things like stay in a hotel or book a flight without a credit card, and in a few years time, this policy will effectively place total control over your freedom to travel internationally in the hands of a cartel of private companies. Credit card revoked? You dont fly.
How long before your rights to speak freely are similarly bound up in a the licensing agreements associated with some other socially pervasive (and broadly necessary) corporate product? Violate the no-criticising-speech clauses in your insurance contract and your car ignition doesnt work (insurance is mandatory to drive) - violate the no-criticising-speech clauses in your banking contract and a 'fine' is automatically deducted from your account.
Violate the no-criticising speech clause in your health insurance and be denied access to drugs or medical care.
When every corporate contract carries increasingly broad limitations on your rights, can you really say you are living in a free society?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
What exactly does CDA stand for? From the icon, I'm guessing it's Constitutional something something
This doesn't know the answer either (so feel free to reply with some reference so I or you can update it with proof).
Support the FairTax
The ONLY thing the First Amendment guarantees with respect to free speech, is that the government cannot censure what you say. Here's an excerpt from a brief explanation on the Cornell Law School's web page:
"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."
A private entity can prevent you from saying anything on something they control, and is under no obligation to like it and continue your use of their services if you say it somewhere else. Take an Internet forum for example - I run several. I withold ALL rights to delete, moderate, or edit any posting I find offensive. I could even take that a step further and do nasty things to posts which go against my personal views, however I choose not to. However I'd be perfectly legal in doing so, provided I didn't use the government's resources to do that enforcing for me.
Nothing illegal happened here, and even though the school may receive government funding it does not mean they are an extension of the government itself. They can keep this kid from saying anything they want to on their web servers, etc - and if he posts something unfavorable, they can kick him out unless they're breaching some sort of contract in doing so. It isn't nice, and goes against the sort of free thinking a University is supposed to encourage, but it's legal. Ethics are a whole other side to the issue.
Such can be taken from the Constitution. As follows:
...
... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ...
...
"Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
From this we gather that Congress is the only part of federal government that can make laws (techincally others, like the President, might write up a bill, but it's Congress which makes it a law), laws are how Congress carries out such things as funding, and that funding, if Constitutional, could be construed to be a part of "provide for the general welfare". As such, no sort of federal funding can go towards abridging speech, and any organization that deals with the US federal government should realize this. Certainly a court case could make any company return said federal funds if they took said funds and abridged speech. And like I said, such an act could be seen as fraud or possibly collusion.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
How many companies do you think actually want a known rabble-rouser in the midst?
The funny thing is, they often do so little to try and get rid of employees who become rabble-rousers after the fact...
What is exactly is *private* about a blog that can be accessed by millions of people? I would be very surprised if you won a wrongful termination lawsuit if it could be proved that you abused your coworkers in public forum. Most people understand that this sort of behavior certainly does effect work behavior. Besides, I would bet that you aren't nearly as good a worker at work as you suppose you are. As someone that worked in a large IT department in a former life it generally wasn't that hard to find plenty of evidence that disaffected workers were slacking off. Usually its as simple as going over the proxy server logs.
Another reason Dentists are the highest rated group for suicide...
when come back bring pie
I thought college is supposed to be composed of free-thinkers. That's quite a nice way to teach your students, have a class on freedom of speech and then proceed to take it away from the student body. I don't know why a school would go after such widespread bad press, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to this school because they crack down on bloggers. "Just what I always wanted in college, ma, less freedom!" Legally they can do what they want I'm sure, but seems like a dumb stance to take from any angle, especially once the media gets involved.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
From this we gather that Congress is the only part of federal government that can make laws (techincally others, like the President, might write up a bill, but it's Congress which makes it a law), laws are how Congress carries out such things as funding, and that funding, if Constitutional, could be construed to be a part of "provide for the general welfare". As such, no sort of federal funding can go towards abridging speech, and any organization that deals with the US federal government should realize this. Certainly a court case could make any company return said federal funds if they took said funds and abridged speech. And like I said, such an act could be seen as fraud or possibly collusion.
/. Well done!
That has to be some of the most tenuous reasoning I have seen in some time. And this is
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
It means that if you're fired because you told your boss to "fuck off", you should have a basis to sue them. As such, said university, company, etc should be required to return said federal funding or rehire you. Of course, realize that IANAL, so this is purely my interpretration of how things should work, not necessarily how they currently function. Also realize that they can probably fire you for no reason at all (many states don't offer any employment protection), so they're likely to claim such and it'd be very difficult to prove they fired you for saying "fuck off".
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ummmm... what country do you live in? If it's the United States of America, you're in for a rude awakening.
State laws vary, of course, so your jurisdiction may indeed follow your explanation. But generally, unless you have an employment contract, you're an "at-will" employee and your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (except if he fired you on the basis of your race, religion, gender, etc.).
I think the difference here is that universities, whether or not receiving federal funding, have traditionally protected freedom of speech on their campuses - particularly speech that is critical of the university, government and other authoritative institutions. This is why professors are granted tenure - so that they may not be fired for thinking outside the box. It is only (relatively) recently that academics have begun screening said speech for "hateful" content.
If the student had said something actionable at law, either criminally or civilly, I could respect the Dean's position - as it is, the student didn't even violate the school's own code of conduct!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Pay careful attention to the phrases "who was not named" and "with nobody named". So, the question of the GP remains: whose character, precisely, did he defame?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
They do - because the BSA receives federal funding.
No, they most certainly do not receive federal funding. What you are most likely confused about is the money that they receive from the Combined Federal Campaign. These are not your tax dollars. These are personal donations, received from government employees and handled by the Office of Personnel Management, where the recipients are designated, specifically, by the donating person.
Consider this situation: You own your home computer and pay for the internet access. I cannot log-on and place pictures on your computer that you do not want, because it belongs to you. You can prohibit me by various actions, but it is still your computer and you can control how it is used.
In this student's case, he or she was using the school's network (I feel sure). If the student talks about a specific event that identifies a particular person, even if he does not use the person's name, he is still liable for any slanderous statements. Just try making death threats about the "president" and you will likely find that you do not need to say his name. This student is probably lucky that someone did not come over one night and put out his lights for a day or two.
Most universities try to allow freedom of speech, but users also have to realize that in order to be part of a free society, some personal constraint may be necessary. Around your friends you probably can say nearly anything about anyone. However, if you publish it for the world to see, you had better think about what you are writing. It may just come back to haunt you.
Arguably, one might consider that a hate crime (or something similar that's not as bad, I don't know the exact laws). However, I know that if you're a landlord, you can't say something like "No Jews can live in my buildings." Barring a student because of lesbian guardians should be considered the same situation.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
I strongly disagree with this. Universities are supposed to uphold the best principles of academic freedom of speech. You average boss is not. While the comments in the blog are not exactly in the best principles of academic freedom of speech the university should be looking at the bigger picture. After this event students there are certainly not going to feel that they have much free speech are they?
If they objected to it so much they should have had a quiet word with the student and discussed the issue like adults, something which seems to be increasingly rare in modern society. Instead they appear to have run straight to their rule book and came up with the harshest punishment they could short of dropping him outright. Perhaps not the most sensible thing to do if you are so concerned with projecting a good image of your institute. As the saying goes "actions speak louder than words".
I can see it already...
Dr. Denis P. Lynch, notorious Nazi collaborator and part-time crossdresser is the Director of Ass-Hats at Marquette University's School of Dentistry...
i got ball this is my adress 108 20 37 av corona come n do it iam give u the sidekick so I can hit you wit it
However, background checks generally aren't Google searches. Rather, they perform credit checks and criminal background checks. If you're spending the money for a professional to run a background check, one should hope they're doing more than just doing a Google search, especially considering the potentail for false positives.
Anyway, since my first post I've found four results where I (my real name) comes up on a Google search. 1 was my Gamespot.com user profile, and the rest of them were harmless (under essentially any scrutiny) message board posts.Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Offsetting moderation abuse by religious fanatics and others easily offended by facts...
...
Marquette is a Catholic school. Free speech has never been a priority in the Catholic Church. They've silenced Galileo, Oscar Romero, whistleblowers of sexual abuse,
Not only did the Catholic church silenced many visionaries in the past, they have within the last year appointed the man Pope John Paul II assigned to oversee the suffling of pedophile priests one-step-ahead of the law as the new (no doubt child-friendly) pope! One complicit man who willfully looked the other way as pedophiles were shipped to new parishes for a little "fresh meat" (and a stay-out-of-jail-free card) is now on the fast track to being sainted, while the man who actually did the shuffling is now pope (and no doubt soon to be promoted to the Right Hand of God Himself).
The sad thing is, mothers the world over are redoubling their efforts to be sure their children attend mass. Isn't that just precious?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
the Inquisition!
I had a similar situation happen to me at my college. A couple students complained to the university because I called them stupid in my blog. The university then suspended my internet privlidges and did not return them for the rest of the year.. Regardless, I ran the computer science computer lab at my college, so I wasn't hindered by having the connection in my room shut off.
Hey! You go to a Jesuit school, don't be suprised to find the Inquisition!
just like a private country club should be able to exclude anyone they choose for any reason, including race and gender, PRIVATE schools can pick and choose who they want to keep and who they want rid of, for any reason they choose. i'd have a problem with it if it was a public school, but it's not.
I would respectfully offer that you are interpreting the Constitution, not referencing a Federal Law.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
'nuff said
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
Joining the EFF won't make them not expel you. I have joined the EFF, and it hasn't reduced the threat of being fired//expelled//ostracized for blogging.
What a callous suggestion by the poster.
I live in an at-will employmemt state in the good old US of A. Good luck with your civil suit. You realize that most decent litigation attorneys won't touch one on contingency unless there's at least $300k or so on the table? Of course if you want to pay by the hour...
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
2. Was the student informed in advance that buying education from that school means that he'd voluntarily waived his freedom of speech at the convenience of the university?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Marquette receives NO Federal aid in any form at all? (including via Federal aid to its students) That's absurd.
Tech Public Policy stuff
It has already had some chilling effects and looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online.
Sure they are. It just means that private individuals and institutions don't have to continue to be your friend or accept you or do business with you if they don't like their speech. Your freedom does not in any way curtail theirs.
(Yeah; I know. Some private institutions are accepting public money. That's wrong, too.)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
OTOH, the student is also free to pass his case off to the press (mainstream or otherwise). This will prove to be a major black eye for the university as I've yet to see anything in the blogosphere suggesting that the university took a measured approach. Regardless of whatever the reality of the situation may be, perception is everything. Since it's already hit Slashdot, there is a reasonable chance that it will hit the mainstream press. No private educational institution can afford this type of bad press (which appears far worse than a student badmouthing faculty and students on a blog). Ultimately, this may also serve as a welcome-to-the-real-world for the university bureaucrats (and most colleges and universities tend to be very bureaocratic). The school is going to take such a public lashing over this that they will likely rescind their ruling, either the adminsitrators will make the call or their board of trustees will force it. Remember that universities depend on their image for not only tuition, but for endowment. Call it a business decision.
-Turkey
Well, Free speech applies to government -- not private institutions. I agree, with some qualifications.
But the question I have that is not clear in the story, is; was Mr. Blogger operating in an anonymous way, or in a way where he was representing himself and not the University. Did he have a reasonable expectation of independence?"
While, if he were on campus and behaved in an unruly manner -- that is effecting the campus.
If he were at a function and said; "I represent Marquette, and they suck." That's another issue of damaging the University.
Or he could have slandered people -- which I'm not clear on the law with regard to Blogs.
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
I think it is vital that whistle blowers and public discourse be maintained. Institutions do not have rights. They can only operate in such a manner to build a reputation and they can hire PR people to make them look good. There is no damage or slander in my mind -- even though this concept has been established in the courts. The courts though, are out of whack with the concept of personally liberty -- so screw 'em. I don't want business running government anyway.
Whether they find the comments good or bad is not material. They can only have influence over things in their province; on their campus or equipment. I think it is dangerous to say that someone can own the "mind" of anyone. An employee cannot shout obscenities while at their business. On their own time, they can act badly as long as their is no connection to the company. If they criticize a company, they cannot appear as an official and they should try to remain anonymous, unless they want to expose themselves to the prerogatives of the institution.
Of course, I'm just looking at what is good for America -- not necessarily at the mess our Oligarchic Judiciary is becoming.
--Oh, one more thing.
Due to the Government money that is now streaming in to many religious organizations, the separation of church and state has been broken in many cases. This University must forgo ALL GOVERNMENT MONEY OR SUBSIDIES if they want the privilege of censuring this student. It is the exact same thing. They are giving money to a student (a scholarship) based upon merit. The government probably does give money to Marquette based on some criteria of Merit. Even though this is, on the bare face of it, totally against anything the constitution provided for, even with the flimsy justifications for government money to religious institutions, the government cannot choose a Catholic institution in favor of one that is Protestant. Or choose a behavior it doesn't like, like asking parishioners to vote Democratic if it allows other church's to urge members to vote Republican (as has happened recently).
You can't get government money without representing the government -- just as Marquette is claiming that their subsidy of Mr. Blogger means that he is representing them.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Standards of behaviour for dental and medical students are being increased very rapidly. We are actually marked on professional behaviour. This includes activities outside studies!
Too late, bro. You should have thought it up from the very beginning....
I think the school did the correct thing. Yeah, you have the right to run your mouth like a jackass (or in this case, type your fingers off), but the people you attack have rights too, and people can get their feelings hurt.
For example, it's your right to stand outside a convenience store and insult the customers. However, you can expect someone to pop you in the face at some point and you would richly deserve it.
It's their school, and if he thinks so badly of them, it's THEIR right to throw him out on his ass and tell him to never come back.
I'm sick of little weenies who try to use the first amendment as cover for acting like assholes.
This is why I originally asked you about your question. I was from the beginning talking about the Constitution, not describing Federal Laws which are inferior to the Constitution. I believe I've sufficiently described why it is the case that federal funding laws must not abridge speech. I do believe that it would be appropriate if I had referenced case law supporting this position, but I sadly do not readily know of such (IANAL). Do you wish me to search for and provide such references?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Jokes aside, I beleive private institutions are free to set their own standards, but they should do so carefuly. Clearly, this was not a set standard at all, but a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. What a waste to admit the student, educate him for almost a year and half, give him a great scholarship and then have a person who should be an academic and life mentor try to drive the student out of the university in some kind of chest pounding contest. If the student does manage to stay at the University and graduated, I'm sure they'll ask him for a donation a year later. I think I lived this storry.
For ever teacher's pet, there's a teacher's punching-bag.
A contract has a slavery clause. Shall the law enforce that?
I doubt it. Where, then, do you draw the line?
Infuriate left and right
"California is the only state that has enacted a law that prohibits private colleges from making or enforcing any rule that would subject a student to disciplinary action for engaging in expression (on or off campus) that would be protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution's free expression provision if it occurred off campus."
http://www.yaf.org/activists/leonard_law.html
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
A wise man once said, "The battles in academia are so bitter precisely because the stakes are so small." The short version is that academic institutions, by their very nature, are not subject to real world forces like shifting markets. If a market shift occurs, it occurs over decades. This results in a very insular mindset and those in charge often begin to perceive themselves as having godlike powers. They get used to making unreasonable demands and having them met.
Frankly, I would think that there is some kind of board that oversees the selection of the dean or president and who has the authority to discharge this person. I would be appealing to them to see what can be done. While you might not like what someone has to say about you, persecuting them for saying it only lends credence to their tales.
While the Jesuits may be noted for good thinking and solid logic, let us not forget that they were also the backbone of the Inquisition. Apparently, they seem to be content to carry on in their grand old tradition.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Bloggers think they have some inherent "right" to say whatever they want about whomever they want. Strangely, these people are the first to complain and file lawsuits if someone posts something unflattering about them.
So why didn't he just use a sodnym and LJ or something?
I just wanted to point out that although Marquette is a private University, the dental school is reimbursed by the state of Wisconsin for all in-state students. Does that mean the law of freedom of speech would pertain to the dental school because it is publicly funded?
To the good name of "dentist"!
No worries. I have dispatched the Cavity Creeps to kick his ass.
You don't fuck with dentists. They have drills.
I'm currently a dental student at another school and I can tell you that dental school is stressful enough without some kid being a dick and posting it all over the web. What more can cause bad feelings and hostility in a class? To provoke someone in such a public way is stupid, especially when you consider that their class is stuck with each other for the next four year and will often have to work together. I agree with the admin that its unprofessional to post mean-spirited things about collegues and fellow students on the web. As a future health care professional his actions are totally inappropriate. There are not just school rules, but professional ethics that one takes uopn oneself with the term doctor. Is this the kind of person you want to have a drill in your mouth? How about your medical doctor? This kid needs to get a clue, grow up, and start making friends instead of ripping on people.
It seems from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that Marquette is justifying its decision on the basis that its dental students are expected to follow a professional code of conduct. This is not, in general, an unreasonable position. Regardless of whether Marquette is to be considered a public or private institution, its administrators are entitled to enforce certain norms of behavior.
In deciding the case at hand, the true question is whether the student's comments were public or private. If private, they should not be subject to regulation. If public in the way that a newspaper article or a bathroom graffito is public, their author must take responsibility for his words and defend them on the basis of their content. The right way to argue on his behalf is not to claim that he is entitled to say anything he pleases, but to show that his words did not violate the university's regulations.
Why does it need to be the EFF? I don't know how it is in the USA, but in some other countries, such as the UK, there is a student union. Other than provide certain student related services it also serves the roll of protecting the student interests. Surely this could be a case that could be brought up with a student union?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
From the Journal of Studies on Alcohol (1998):
d ental-student-suspended.html, the first blog linked above.
Binge drinking describes an extended period of time (typically at least two days) during which a time a person repeatedly becomes intoxicated and gives up his or her usual activities and obligations in order to become intoxicated. It is the combination of prolonged use and the giving up of usual activities that forms the core of the clinical definition of binge drinking.
cited in http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2005/12/marquette-
my password really is 'stinkypants'
...wasn't Marquette the college that accepted Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) for admission?
To go even further, discrimination is not something that one should always feel guilty of excercising. Most people have come to think of discrimination in a negative sense--unfair treatment due to a prejudice. Discrimination also means "the power to see or make fine distinctions." Marquette has an obligation as a Catholic university to be discriminating. Right or wrong, the review committee had every right to make the distinction that publishing derogatory comments about staff and fellow students violents the code of ethics and professional conduct that the student agreed to when he chose to attend Marquette Detnal School.
People are clamoring about freedom of speech as if the University is capable of silencing this indivual or preventing him from sharing his opinions. Freedom of speech does not allow you to say whatever you want without any consequences. It is saying that the government cannot suppress your right to speech. The law protects on individuals right to make an ass of himself but it does not say that there should not be consequences to what an individual says.
I think that Marquette, as well as schools and employers across the country, needs to include specific language in its code of conduct addressing what is considered acceptable content in a blog. Having such guidelines would not prohibit students or employees from keeping blogs, but it would make it clear what the repurcussions would be if the guidelines are not followed.
SCOTUS is expected to take the government side. One justice already suggested that if a school doesn't want military recruiters, they don't need government aid.
You don't like it? Get on a plane and argue it with them yourself.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I don't say this often, but this kid needs a lawyer. He paid out good money to attend school there. They screwed him. Just like a con man with a shell game. The school has clearly damaged his future. They've taken his money. They have not given him what he paid for.
This kid could really clean up in court. That's what it's going to take for this repression of speech to end. One big, fat settlement check. One kid gets set for life. And no other school will risk trampling these rights again!
denis.lynch@marquette.edu, clarice.burrell@marquette.edu, tim.creamer@marquette.edu,anthony.iacopino@marquet te.edu, william.lobb@marquette.edu, nancy.potter@marquette.edu, joyce.schweitzer@marquette.edu, lori.stempski@marquette.edu, thomas.taft@marquette.edu, carol.trecek@marquette.edu
http://www.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/phonebook/deptloo kup.cgi?searchstring=School%20of%20Dentistry/
http://www.marquette.edu/contact/phone/
I felt so vehement about this, I did write the guy, and here is what I said. By the way, you shouldn't have to worry about being anonymous, that's what free speech is all about...
My name is Nathan Myron, and I am a college student from Ohio. As I was checking my RSS Newsreader earlier today, I noticed an article that I thought odd. About your college, and it's staff, have elected to suspend and possibly terminate a student, whose name has been withheld, because of something they said on a blog. Now, I can understand how students must keep up appropriate appearances, and not slander or harass the school or faculty, but what ever happened to free speech? Does that mean that, for instance, if I were to make a derogatory comment about a teacher of mine because of a term paper grade I thought inappropriate, I should be watching my back for Big Brother? The sad fact is, although you caught this one person "with their pants down" so to speak, what about the others? Because, as you should know, a college student's life isn't always the greatest, and there are always things being said. Are you going to post microphones in the locker rooms and bathrooms, trying to catch more slanderers? But, don't forget to hire some detectives, because someone is going to have to make sure they aren't saying any bad words while they're at the bar with their buddies. Where does the insanity end? The plain truth of the matter is, no matter what the kid said, it's not the end of the world, and it's not like thousands of other students don't say the same, or worse, every day. Someone is always going to be disgruntled, that's life. So long as no one is shooting anyone, it shouldn't be an issue.
There isn't anything to sort out, the dean overreacted and that's that. If there's any problem it's dean himself and he should sort himself out or whatever the fuck he needs to calm down and stop bothering students and other people.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Which terms has he violated to warrant such a response, though? Presumably, as testified by the school's own "ethics witness", he hasn't performed any gross violation of their code of conduct. He hasn't accused anyone by name. One professor could reportedly through inference be identified by other students/members of the dental school. So what? They link to a rank-your-professor site on the school's web page, where that very same thing could be done by anonymous students.
To me, this looks like a gross breach of contract, by the school, as represented by their assistant dean. Given the reported handling of the 'hearing' (in which the student wasn't quite.. heard), I'd say it's also a farce. The student is in an ongoing contract relationship with the school and has invested a lot of his time there. That they seek to terminate this unilaterally when he hasn't broken the contract in any significant way is not something he should just quietly accept and go elsewhere.
If the case has been reported in a factually correct manner, I hope the student seeks to correct the situation decisively. The hothead that started this can be self-righteous only that far before the university administration sees this isn't right and must be stopped.
Jim crow laws were opposed by business in pursuit of profit.
No, again. The "funds" that was alleged by the ACLU to have been provided was for the use of the grounds at Fort A.P. Hill, for the Army engineers building support structures, and the Signal soldiers establishing communications. The Army views these as training exercises (in lieu of hiring thousands of contractors to be simulated crowds). This is money that would be spent for training, whether they have the opportunity to use the Scouts or not. They don't write some huge check to the BSA.
Both the ACLU and the news channels that covered the allegations of impropriety were wrong. The fact that it was "in the news" does not make your statement factually correct. There have always been laws against federal money supporting private organizations, Boy Scouts or not. If you look at the settlement that resulted from the ACLU's lawsuit, you'll see that nothing has changed. The Jamboree will happen the same way it always has.
Sure! Remember slashdot is the foundation for law in hundreds of countries, real and imagined. Just be sure that you quote the right post and you'll win in court!
(Brother B's girlfriend posting here, as I have something relevent to add and am too lazy to get my own account.)
Something very similar to this happened about two years ago at the small all-female liberal arts college in Virginia I attended as an undergrad.
A girl who was not highly regarded by the faculty was expelled without any notice for posting a livejournal entry regarding a dream she'd had where a professor died. As she was leaving for class, she was stopped by security and instructed to remain in her room until someone came to pick her up. Luckily, her parents were only a few hours away, so they were able to retrieve their daughter. At the time, she was about a month away from graduating early.
I had initially heard that she and her parents were going to sue over her treatment, but haven't seen anything to indicate that it ever happened.
and your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all
True. But he can't lie about why he's firing you - he can't, for instance, say that you slept with the secretary and came to work drunk, and that's why he fired you. That's slander/libel. In this case, the University is publicly saying that he violated the school's code of conduct, when in fact, he didn't, and several professors at Marquette agree that he didn't.
Add onto that the fact that Marquette doesn't really have the right to expel him any time they wish on a whim (who, honestly, would enroll at a University with this policy?) and they could be in a whole heap of trouble for breach of contract and slander.
Honestly, is this university really that stupid? It's not a trivial amount of money he could sue for - he could also sue for lost future wages as well as the wasted tuition money.
Amazing that so many of you would take the school's side in this. Curious because I can find any number of websites, blogs, etc. ridiculing this president or another, calling him the vilest of names, and you'll note how there's no response from the White House unless an actual threat is made. But for this college, suddenly free speech is unimportant. It's kind of implied with free speech that you may not like being what's said, but that what's most important is your or someone else's right to say it. Without that, we may as well be living in Cuba.
> I grant you all of this. It doesn't change the fact that nobody has any right to tell me how to spend the fruits of my labor. Racism is a societal problem, and a big one. But that doesn't make it a legal problem.
In a society that allows rampant racism, the suppression of the "outside" race becomes so pervasive that those in that "outside" class generally cannot change their lot for the better. This is exactly was has happened, time and time again, and it's the reason that it's become acceptable to enforce anti-discrimination.
> On the other hand, you don't accept the notion that there could really be two societies. You want to force everyone to be part of one society, at least as far as the distribution of goods is concerned. Who they spend their free time with may be their own business, but who they sell the fruits of their labor to is *your* business. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea of society better. I just don't agree that you have a right to achieve it by force.
I accept the idea that there could be two societies. In fact, the pre-'60s south was in fact two societies. I just don't see the perpetuation of such a society to be acceptable. To respond to you, your favored method of government gave us feudalism. It gave us what happened in the Deep South. My idea of society came about when the force of law was applied. That's because your idea of society was deemed to be unworkable.
> It's never been tried.
That's because it's unworkable. See above.
> Actually the rail barons demonstrate abuse of government, and were not the result of a free market.
I have never seen anything in the business practices of the rail barons that would have malfunctioned without corruption in the government. It would have taken quite a bit longer, but eventually the market would have dead-ended itself, in very much the same fashion as it did until governmental agencies stepped in. Since you don't consider economic suppression to be an initiation of force, it wouldn't even have violated your concept of a free market. If you can find any of the tactics that they used that wouldn't have worked without the government assisting, feel free to point it out, but grange busting didn't need the government to work, it just accelerated it.
> I never said I was opposed to laws or their enforcement. I want a government and a police force. I just want them to limit their activies to protecting me from force and fraud.
I have no answer for this to someone who considers discriminatory practice and economic suppression to be "not force". If someone decides they don't like my particluar race, and that person owns enough capital to dominate a market such that I find myself without certain necessities, I'd like to have reasonable protection from that. Say it doesn't happen? I've seen all of the grocery stores in a twenty mile radius stop selling to black people to force them all to move out of a town. When it happened, it wasn't illegal. By your metric, it wasn't an initiaion of force, because it was done by economic collusion. One store that decided to break the "rule" was driven out of business by the other stores undercutting him. Sounds like rail baron tactics, doesn't it?
> I don't want them taking money out of my pocket to put your kid through school...
The "If I don't use it, it has no value to me so I won't pay for it" concept is a comforting refrain, but again and again it's been shown to be entirely unworkable in real life. What starts with schools goes to roads and safety laws and fire departments and 911 and a thousand other things that people never use until they do. They take money out of everyone's pocket to put everyone's kids through school because if only those with kids payed for the schools, then only those who could afford it would get an education, and that creates more societal problems than across-the-board taxation does. Again, your model is great