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...
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?
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!
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
God, this makes me sick. The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say - that is freedom of speech. To even bow yourself to the point of suggesting that retaliation is acceptable as long as he gets his tuition back is... listen - it's not just tuition. It's a scholarship, it's the time he's already put into the degree. This is straight censorship and intimidation. Understand that not only does this student suffer, but others may be frightened by this action and will hold their tounges.
Please, do not accept this as "OK" tuition returned or not.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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
He has the right to write, and they have the right to disagree. However, they do not have the right to take action. The blogger's comments did not violate any law, and far worse things have been posted on the 'Dog Ears' board accessable via a link from the student government web page. By linking to 'Dog Ears', the university tacitly approved such opinions as free speech. Marquette has no case here, and they would be wise to withdraw, before they take a pounding in the PR arena over this.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
As much as I find what Marquette is doing disgusting, it is NOT illegal. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you what wherever or whenever. The government may not do this but there is nothing in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution which prevents a private entity (like this college) from doing so.
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).
A private university can expell a student for many more reasons than a public one can. It's not a state school. If he doesn't want to be burdened by the private school's restrictions, he shouldn't go there...This is more along the lines as the private Catholic high school that kicked out a student because her legal guardians were lesbians. In this case, I think it's a jackass thing for them to do, but I don't believe it's illegal.
correct to a degree, except that if what you say is libelous/slanderous, they have a right to retaliate legally and file suit. But that's only if what you're saying is false- and I think on top of that it has to be damaging, but IANAL.
Polly want a cracker?
The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say - that is freedom of speech
Unfortunately, that only applies to the federal government (and state governments, by judicial decision). The college can hide a line in it's policy guide (who actually reads the whole thing) stating that all female students have to provide nude photos on demand. And it'd be perfectly legal.
Not agreeing with it, just saying that's what it is. Private institutions can pretty much put anything in their student agreements (or even the squirmy "we may change these terms at any time" clause) and tell you to take a hike if you violate them.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BOLD WHAT YOU SAY.
You are the one who is wrong. (in my opinion, of course)
And guess what? I'm allowed to say that, and you are allowed to disagree.
But, you know what else? The slashdot editors are free to ban me for typing "FUCK YOU", also. And I'm okay with that.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
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.
The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say - that is freedom of speech.
Where do you see that in the Constitution? All I see is the bit in the First Amendment saying that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." It says nothing about a private institution reserving the right to determine the terms under which it will do business with an individual.
Now, you don't have to like it, but if a university accepts a student's tuition on the condition that they adhere to a policy of conduct, the university has every right to enforce that policy. It's just like any contract between individuals. I could hire you to work for me, and include in the conditions of your employment that you don't disagree with me in public. I could then fire you with cause if you violate that contract, and the government would back me up on enforcing the contract. No one forced this student to choose Marquette as opposed to any other school.
-JMP
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
Is Marquette a private school? Did they break any law?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
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.
He isn't being criminally or civilly charged, and it's not a state school. A private school has the right to limit itself to students who only follow a particular political, religious, or cultural view if it wants, because it's not funded by the Government, but by private citizens. You can't tell them who's going to benefit from their money. Now, I agree that the school in question is doing something asinine, but it's not illegal.
Banning you from saying "fuck you" is different from banning you for posting an opinion or a position on an issue. While the words "fuck you" may be controlled to a degree, I can't be banned for saying normally offensive stuff, like "i support racial profiling" or "i think marriage should be between a man and woman." regardless if these are my opinions or not, it's my constitutionally protected right to say them.
See the difference?
- "I think marriage is between a fucking man and woman."
- "I think marriage is between a man and a woman."
The word "fuck" can be banned, but my message can't, my opinion can't, and I am protected from retaliation for it.
Interesting question about precedent for a lawyer - whistle blower laws were drafted to prevent retaliation against someone reporting a wrong. Could this, in some way, be argued to set precedent against any retaliation for expressing free speech?
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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.
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.
Just because it is a private organization does not make it above the law. Besides, in order to get federal funding you have to "uphold the Constitution of the United States" as a requirement, even if you are just accepting FAFSA grants. Sorry.
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.
Did'n know sex discrimination is legal.
Er, no. The First Amendment promises that you will not be subject to criminal prosecution for your speech. If I call my boss a *bleep*, or start singing showtunes in the middle of Psychology 101, I am not Constitutionally protected against consequences. I just won't be arrested for it.
By your argument: "The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say", then Slashdot lowering my karma, or restricting me from posting due to troll/flamebait posts is a violation of my civil rights. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, people claim Free Speech protection so often and from private entities, that when true violations of it occur, such as cartoonists getting visits from the Secret Service for insulting the President (not just the current one), are arrested at peaceful protests, etc. the true violations get lost in the noise.
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."
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Yes, but luckily the government doesn't get to control what happens at private schools, only the public ones. The student would have suffered at least the same fate at any of the public universities.
Is it me or is the US getting to become more communistic...and China is 'becoming' more free?
Free speech is with regards to the government, not to private parties. Write an email to everyone in your company saying what a jerk your boss is and you will be fired. The Constitution does not protect such things. However, you will not be arrested for writing such an email. Similarly you will not be arrested or have your property taxes doubled, etc. for blogging about how you disagree with the war in Iraq. That is free speech. That is protected by The Constitution.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a contract issue. He had a contract with the university. They are claiming that he violated that contract by violating their code of conduct, and thus are taking actions that their contract says they can do in such cases. He can only argue that he did not break their contract or that their contract language was too vague and thus non-binding.
Now Marquette may reverse their ruling because of the bad press. They will probably be worried that less people will be willing to enter into contract with them given their actions in this case. That would mean their school would be less desirable to students and thus their business would suffer. Or they may decide that such negative effects are not significant enough.
"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.
Yes, actually. By persecuting the blogger, while linking to a website containing many other negative comments, they are guilty of discrimination.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
He has the right under the constituition. Which if he fought i doubt he would win.
/rant
The School is Private so What they say goes, Period.
Maybe you shouldn't be attending a school that is run like a facist regime.
And Forget Being anonymous Stand up for your Fellow Citizen(s).
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.
Given that they're supposed to be encouraging him to think instead of punishing him for it, I think at the very least they've committed breach of contract! After all, unless the school is from Bizarro world, censorship is much more serious "professional misconduct in violation of the dental school's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct" than posting complaints about professors and other students on a blog!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
If anything the US is becoming more communistic cause conglomerates are taking over world markets and destroying individual entrepreneurship. Since these companies usually have more control over our lives then the government, it makes sense that we need to control them.
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, ...
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.
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...
I feel sorry for you if you can't, in Canada, form a private organization or institution, and then say (and enforce) what are the terms under which someone can join or use that entity. A private school is a product, and one of the things they're selling is the understanding that their students are expected to conduct themselves in a certain way, or they're no longer students. You don't have to like that particular aspect of the organization, but you're welcome to go patronize another, instead.
You're focusing on Freedom of Speech, and forgetting about Freedom of Assembly. The student can say anything he wants - his speech is not limited in any way. But if he happens to want a relationship with that particular private institution, he's got to agree to its terms... or go elsewhere - he's got thousands of schools to choose from. But if you don't let the school organize itself around guiding principles to which their students can be expected to adhere, then you're violating the school's own liberty to do its intellectual business in the manner it sees fit.
This is just as important for other school policies. Let's say a different private school makes absolute tolerance for anything anyone says a requirement for students. Great, that's the atmosphere of that school, and that's part of their product. But if another school wants prospective students to agree that they won't hold skinhead marches on campus, etc., that's between the school and the student and the payment of tuition as part of an agreement.
So the administration didn't like it and came down on this individual like a tonne of bricks.
Yup, just like they say they will - an action that new students of that private organization state that they understand.
That's crap. I hope the appeal is successful.
The only thing that should be successful should be a longer-term changing of the school's policy if most of its staff and customers (the students) think that's the way it should be. But if the people running the school don't think so, then they'll either find new customers that agree with them, or they'll go out of business. That's a far better approach than screwing with constitutionally protected things like freedom of assembly.
"Why would I want to join a club that would have me as a member?"
-Grouch Marx (paraphrased)
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
By persecuting the blogger, while linking to a website containing many other negative comments, they are guilty of discrimination.
Discrimination of what? Race? nope. Gender? nope. Sexual Orientation? nope. Religion? nope. How are they discriminating against the student?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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."
Let's see here...
m
http://www.boysschoolscoalition.org/
http://www.ncgs.org/
http://www.scouting.org/
http://www.girlscouts.org/
Information on the discrimination areas you're thinking of...
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.ht
Finally, an excerpt which is the most relevant part of this entire discussion:
"...subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
Private schools, clubs, groups - the first amendment is not relevant to such entities.
Ok. So.
I don't like you because you're gay is bad; CENSORSHIP, immediately!
I censor you because I don't like what you say about me is bad; CENSOR... no wait. Kind of a loophole here... what to do, what to do...
Global warming is a cube.
Since Slashdot(OSTG) is a private company they can ban anyone for any reason.
On a side note: after reading my last post it looked like I was telling you to "F" off. That wasn't my intention.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
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
Thie first amendment prevents the federal government from prohibiting free speech. It was incorporated to apply to the states governments as well in the 1960's. Privaties parties and the relationships between them are not the government's affairs, nor should they be.
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
I thought the First Amendment of your nation's Constitution was the right to Freedom of Speech?
The First Amendment is as follows...
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.
Notice the first word in that amendment. Does Marquette sounds like Congress to you? Private entities in this Country have the right to be stupid and ignorant as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Now, there are a couple of issues with this ruling. The first being his contract he signed. Does it really say what he did was grounds for punishment? And does his school accept tax payers dollars.
After all is said and done, the proper thing to do is to spread this incedent to all prospective Marquette students. I know I would not wish to attend such a rediculous institution.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
No.. you're still wrong.
Slashdot, as a private entity, can ban you for any reason it wants. The first amendment only protects you from the government taking action against you.
Slashdot can ban you for having "Dave" in your userid, if Slashdot chooses to disassociate itself with people named Dave. Especially if said people can't even read something as simple and beautiful as the first amendment and understand it.
You have no implicit right to post on Slashdot. You have the right to not have the U.S. Government take action against you because of your words. But Slashdot can toss you out for having bad breath if they want to.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
I thought the First Amendment of your nation's Constitution was the right to Freedom of Speech?
Only from the government.
"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."
Private individuals/businesses can do whatever they want. Something tells me even in Canada you can't tell your boss to go fuck himself without repercusions, which may include getting fired.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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
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.
Actually they can ban you for stating your opinion. You are not protected by the constitution on this or any other website, due to these being private. The moderators can you ban you and not allow you to use thier services because they do not agree with your ideas. That is the great thing about it. I have had to administer many forums, and thank god i could ban anyone that needed to be
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
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.
even to the federal government? I've always been a bit confused about gag-orders.
I'd like to say that noone should ever be able to hamper your constitutional rights, but thinking about Non-disclosure agreements already makes that iffy.
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?
It wouldn't matter if they WERE discriminating based on those. It's a private entity. There are plenty of private schools that REQUIRE someone to have a particular religion, gender, et cetera.
"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
If this private institution is recieving federal/state money, then in my opinion there should be a provision that is MUST conform to accepting all forms of free speech that students may express.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
If a private university accepts Federal dollars (for research and maybe for student loan programs) they may indeed be subject to the First Amendment. The logic being something like "Federal $s are being used for supression of free speech." Accepting Fed money puts big restrictions on what an institution can do. There is a case that was argued before SCOTUS today that asks if university law schools can prevent military recruitment at their schools. The universities say yes since the military discriminates against gays in contravention of their policies. The Feds are arguing no since the universities take fed research dollars and the law requires equal access to students by the miltary if the institution takes federal money.
FreeSpeech.org
Congress is not involved in this case. It is a matter between two private parties. Unless it isn't, which might be the case if the University accepts federal funds, although some would argue that that is taking the amendment further than the Framers intended.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Is it me or is the US getting to become more communistic...and China is 'becoming' more free?
well...the short answer is "yes," the long answer is "but such things tend to move cyclically, and it will take a whole heck of a long time for them to meet in the middle unless there's massive political upheaval leading to sudden democratization in China or a worldwide crisis (WWIII, mega-pandemic, or massive global intifada with attacks spreading all the way to rural Arkansas) leading to sudden draconian measures in the US (like McCarthyism with actual grassroots support)."
Bushie-style Constitution-breaking is bad, very bad, but not going to upend the country in the near future.
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.
"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.
You have a constitutional right to say them. Even with the obscenities. No one, not Marquette University, or Slashdot, or your corner bar are constitutionaly obligated to give you a forum in which to express that speech. That is not censorship, or retaliation, it's their first amendment right to express their opinion that they don't like what you said.
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.
The 1st amendment also guarantees the right to free assembly. You can't be in favor of rights for some, and then say that it is violating their rights if you accord the same rights to everyone.
English is easier said than done.
"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
Yes, the first ammendment does garauntee freedom of speech. That is a fundamental right. However attending a private university is not. The school has a right as a private institution to hold its members to certain standards. Just as a boss has the right to fire you if you choose not to obey "their" dress code. Is their dress code a law or is it required by the constition? No, but its their policy as stated in an employee contract that you chose to sign. Just as, I assume the student in question signed an enrollment application.
Discrimination of hobby?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Outside of the court system, though, yes, the school can do whatever it likes.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Reality-based community? And which one would that be? It's interesting how you would scoff at any hint of subjectivity, closed-mindedness, and censorship but the minute someone offers up simple discussion about possible flaws in your argumentation and you want to kill the discourse. Whether your religious of not, that is hardly objective. Grow up. No really, you should try it.
Fair enough... but venting against *unnamed* colleagues and/or profs is NOT tantamount to walking up to your boss and telling him to fuck off.
Yes this is a private institution... and the student is effectively a customer willing to drop USD$14,000 per semester to attend it.
This is not an employee-employer relationship, as has been suggested. If an anology is wanted I suggest customer-vendor.
They are still bound by the laws of the United States and the local government. People are not allowed undue control over another person. If a judge feels that the school is over-controlling and their contract is too broad, he can smack them down for it. I can't imagine a judge would allow the school to control every aspect of a student's life and their ability to communicate with others. That would smack of imprisonment or even slavery!
The point is made, I withdraw the original statement re: 1st amendment.
Upon further reflection, it's even worse that it is an academic institution pursuing this kind of censorship.
Don't know if i'm reading you correctly - are you saying that the anti-descrimination laws don't apply to the BigotScouts of America?
They do - because the BSA receives federal funding.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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
It's important remember that the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging our freedom of speech; but it does NOT protect us from the social consequences of that speech.
Excelsior! -Cloyster
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.
Wow. A life-changing lesson, taught by an AC to boot it! How about YOU grow up and learn how to discern the humorous part of my message from the not-so-hidden real meaning?
Global warming is a cube.
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.
The United States Supreme Court has based many decisions on a similar idea. Basically, free speech only goes as far as you not purposely trying to cause trouble, cause a fight, or things like that. There are also other qualifiers, but I don't remember them exactly. As an example, you can walk into any public place and say what you want to, but the moment you start screaming at a guy specifically to make him mad, or use a megaphone to scream into everyones' ears, you're out of "free speech" territory, and the courts will very well rule against you, since you're just stirring up trouble. The KKK can march down the street as long as they don't try to assult or hurl profane insults at anyone. The law, as you can see, is a very strange and unpredictable place, and we don't know where it will go next.
That's not just your opinion - it's the law.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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*
The 14th Ammendment's EPC sides with the schools - that descrimination is banned: and therefore descriminatory groups are banned.
So in a round-about way the schools may end up winning by invalidating the law that gives the military equal access since the military is in violating of the constitution.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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-
Your contention isn't true in the least. The court is bound to prevent the government from abridging freedom of speech - there is no such clause in the constitution regarding private institutions.
This really isn't so difficult.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
But, indirectly, they are funded by the government in some way. Almost every school in the United States accepts Federal dollars, either in the form of research grants and/or Federal Student Aid.
Accepting this money requires them to abide by a number of conditions, one of which protects the students from reprisal if they speak their mind. Unless they slander or libel someone, the school has very limited recourse.
My Sysadmin Blog
No, the judge won't smack it down. He was under no compulsion to enter into the contract, he agreed to its terms, he is fully capable of understanding and acting in accordance to the contract. It's perfectly valid.
You could sign yourself into all sorts of terrible situations and the courts wouldn't care. You have a right to contract freely. You need to make wise use of it.
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
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
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.
(Obligatory IANALawyer) With the case of the blogger, I think it depends on what the university's actual rules and policies are. They cannot simply decide to throw someone out because he writes something they disagree with. If nothing else, it would be a breach of contract since he has essentially contracted to be able to attend the university and get an education, along with any degree he may earn, subject to the school provisions set forth. Otherwise, the school could simply decide not to give some random person a degree the day before graduation just because they don't feel like it. If, on the other hand, there was a specific university policy with regard to blogging that he broke, and that would be legal to have as a policy, then they can expel him or place him on probation.
Now, a university policy stating that all female students have to provide nude photos on demand would not be legal, even if it were in the university policy guide, since such a requirement would be against the law. Contracts and company/university policies do not override the law, despite what they will try to have you believe.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Because the states have chosen to implement housing discrimination laws, but not education discrimination laws. Well, some might -- based on gender or race, but not on action.
Your analogy is more like Frodo refusing to sell Bag End to Lobelia Sackville-Baggins because she was a gossiping twit. If this were Middle Earth, he'd be well within his rights.
That's the price you pay for attending an elitist private university.
Oh well
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.
They cannot simply decide to throw someone out because he writes something they disagree with.
I can guarantee you, completely and without a doubt, that every single college on earth has a phrase somewhere along the lines of "must uphold conduct in accordance with (insert college name here) standards." Huge gaping clause the size of a hallway, indeed.
Now, a university policy stating that all female students have to provide nude photos on demand would not be legal, even if it were in the university policy guide, since such a requirement would be against the law.
They sure can, if it's a private institution. Sex/race discrimination laws don't apply there. Case in point: the boy scouts won the case to fire gay scoutmasters.
I believe that he would if the person volunteered. Nobody has to go to an ultra-controlling school.
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
Yah, but how broad is that statement? If you extend it to state financial assistance as well (that's not that much of a stretch, as most states have free speech clauses as well), does this school really receive no governmental funding whatsoever?
I mean, wouldn't grants to the professors be considered financial assistance from the government? They definitely get those.
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!
The University originally asked that Mr. Blogger be put on probation, that he make a public apology, and that he take some alcohol abuse classes. Mr. Blogger *refused* and instead took his case to the blogosphere. Basically Mr. Blogger wants the privilege of attending Marquette, but he doesn't want to be subject to the rules of that institution. Unlike your contrived example of being sold into slavery for some random infraction this isn't a case of a contract that is unreasonable. Marquette clearly outlined what the student needed to do to stay at Marquette, and the student *chose* not to comply. The blog entries might have been minor. However, blatantly disregarding the administration at Marquette can hardly be considered *minor*.
The University played fair, and "playing fair" doesn't mean that the administration and owners of the University don't have their rights too. If Mr. Blogger doesn't want to live by the rules, then he can find himself somewhere else to study.
Heck, Mr. Blogger was on a scholarship to Marquette. I think that it goes without saying that Marquette should expect the best out of its scholarship students, not the worst. Marquette certainly shouldn't have to put up with scholarship students that, when asked to apologize for saying things that are clearly outside the pale, instead try and justify their behavior and turn their poor behavior into a free speach issue.
Now Mr. Blogger is unlikely to ever become a Dentist. Boo Freaking Hoo.
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!
UANAL? IANAL! WeANAL.
I for one was shocked!
Some settling may occur during posting.
They sure can, if it's a private institution. Sex/race discrimination laws don't apply there. Case in point: the boy scouts won the case to fire gay scoutmasters.
I was thinking more in terms of forced prostitution, rather than discrimination. Forcing someone (male or female) to provide nude photos on demand would be akin to forced prostitution, which would certainly be illegal.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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
No. The government is NOT required to protect anyone's free speech. The relevant wording is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Since they didn't make a law, first amendment rights have nothing to do with this, legally. Frankly, the kid has no case unless he can successfully argue that the *inalienable* right to free speech is so important that it trumps private contracts. Even then, since it's a contract and not criminal law, and the contract is already dissolved, there's nothing the Court can do.
The government can't FORCE you to enter into a private contract, no matter what.
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
Actually, the 1st Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. It just doesn't protect you from private entities to use that against you.
So... does Marquette have tax-exempt status? Are taxpayers paying for any research going on there? Can we disconnect Marquette from the publicly-subsidized, municipal water and sewer systems?
Because, at least at the American college level, they are extremely uncommon.
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
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
Find me a college that does not accept any Federal Student Aid in the United States and I'll believe you.
My Sysadmin Blog
As much as I find what Marquette is doing disgusting, it is NOT illegal.
Right, totally agree. But if the action of the University was outside of the agreement between the student and the University, then they should return his money or let him return without damage. This is more about contract law not about the US constitutional free speech protection. The professional conduct clause that was cited in the article seemed either too vague or specific to conduct when dealing with patients and coleagues directly, not just talking about them behind their back.
We are at a point of hypocrisy though if you can't criticize anyone without getting thrown out of a University. People need to get a little backbone. Sure you are supposed to be struggling over ideas at a University not over personality, but how many times do substantive arguments turn a bit personal? Shouldn't there be a wide degree of latitude at a University that should include allowing ad hominem attacks as long as they are not of a physically threatening nature? How was what the student wrote any different than the thousands of petty and stupid things we might say about someone we know when we don't think they will find out?
The student was likely to suffer from embarrassment, be ostracized, and the professor would be hard pressed to treat them fairly after this. But this does not seem to have specifically violated some rule in their code of conduct.
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
No, it is exactly UNlike said communist government, because the government is not what's taking action here. The first ammendment means that the government may make no laws restricting the freedom of speech. If he was arrested for what he said, that would be a no-no. However, just as the goverment cannot abridge speech, private entities are able to say what they please, and they are alowed to react to said speech as they see fit. Freedom of association: they no longer wish to associate with him based on his exercised freedom of speech.
Now, one can argue any contractual relationship the school and he may have had. On those grounds, it could be argued in front of a civil court that one or the other party is in breach for their actions. But, it's still not a constitutional argument.
Private institutions of higher education are not by nature of being private exempt from the constitution. There are a number of avenues that the law has to require things of them including the fact that most of them enjoy non-profit status and many of them recieve funds from the government (even private institutions).
More importantly, you are right, we don't have to like it, and the law isn't the only thing that should determine if something is right or wrong. This institutin has a moral obligation to respect freedom of speech not to mention their obligation to it's campus community, society as a whole, the notions of academic freedom, etc.
In fact, academic freedom is perhaps the most powerful force that holds a private institution to the ideology of free speech. When you enroll in education you are enrolling to pursue knowledge, the institution has no right to recind that agreement because they happen to disagree with the knowledge you have found.
Regardless, my point is, this is not "just like any contract between individuals". It is an agreement between a private institution of higher education and a student enrolling there. Despite what some might have you think, students are not merely customers to the corporations of education.
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
The university really isn't forcing the issue in either the blogging case or my whacky example. They're saying "you must do X!" (and "you are no longer welcome here" is implied)
It's interesting to note that if you were to do these things on a airplane, you just might get arrested for it.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Speaking of WRONG WRONG WRONG!, the Constitution certainly does NOT protect you from the consequences of what you say. Why don't you start by READING the vaunted First Amendment? What it DOES do is disallow the Government from making laws prohibiting free speech. There is nothing in there about a private school's actions.
This WILL be a PR nightmare for the school just for how bullheaded they handled the situation. They just stepped on the entire blogging community, and that is probably a bad idea. I think the punishment is wrong, and the school screwed up, but this has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
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."
Contrary to popular belief, Canada is not (yet) a part of the United States, and as such is not subject to our various laws, regulations, and constitutional amendments.
There is, however, the matter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does provide freedom of expression. I don't have very much knowledge of the Canadian legal system, but I imagine that it's similar enough to the American one so that, as other replies to your post have pointed out, a private institution can't violate the charter.
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.
...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.
Regardless, my point is, this is not "just like any contract between individuals". It is an agreement between a private institution of higher education and a student enrolling there. Despite what some might have you think, students are not merely customers to the corporations of education.
No, but in the free market for education, this is one of many factors potential students will consider when choosing a school. While the primary criteria used by most students (in varying combinations) to select schools include things like academic standing, tuition & financial aid, school size, geography, and quality of student life. Reputation for academic freedom is just another factor in that equation. Schools that regularly restrict academic freedom will eventually find it harder to attract the sort of top students every school wants.
The invisible hand can work. We just need to let it.
-JMP
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
CRAP! Somehow I read "Marquette" as "Montreal", which is even sadder since I'm from Michigan...sorry about that. I'll try to pay more attention in the future.
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.
"...subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." I bet several students there get part of their tuition bills paid by Federal Pell Grants. And I bet more than several students there get their tuition bills paid by Subsidized Federal Student Loans. And...I highly suspect the school does indeed get funding from the state, and probably federal government in some small way. Most private schools, despite being private, do indeed receive some public support.
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
And, of course, technically, you are correct. However, in a society where most everything is private, how much free speech do you have left if this kind of behavior is tolerated? Remember, stores are private property, as are malls, a good number of sidewalks, parks and similarly accessible places. And the Internet? Hah - you better make sure that what you post is located on your servers, served up over your pipes and administrated by no one else. After all, everything is owned by private companies, whose only interest in preserving their common carrier status is so they can avoid expensive lawsuits.
To illustrate how abuse of this can lead to a dead society, look no further than messageboards. I used to be part of a vibrant videogame messageboard, with plenty of educated and interesting posters. One day though, the owner/admin of the board decided to exert his right to extensively moderate posts he didn't agree with. The end result was that the board is now nearly dead, with only a few posts a week, made by some die-hard old fogeys. The same can happen to society at large - except that you can't migrate as easily.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you what wherever or whenever.
Actually, the 1st Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. It just doesn't protect you from private entities to use that against you.
Actually the 1st Amendment does not give you any rights, it protects your rights you already have.
Sie ist tunbar!
From the JS Online article: "The critics, including the student's attorney, recognize that private universities have a greater ability to limit student speech than their public counterparts, Taylor said. When students enroll in a private university, they agree to follow restrictions of the administration.
What bothers Taylor and others is what they call vagueness of Marquette's codes of conduct and the decision to apply them in this case. The dental school's code requires students "to conduct interactions with each other, with patients and with others in a manner that promotes understanding and trust" and condemns "actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature."
As a private institution, Marquette can do whatever the fuck they want. What the critics are saying--and I agree--is that this is an exceedingly stupid thing for the university to do. Their code is impossible to enforce consistantly and that results in inappropriate actions against a student who has done nothing unethical. Stupid and childish? Sure. But not unethical.
Taft
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
Hooray for public schools! UC Berkeley sucks...@#$#%@! hippies.
The government can't FORCE you to enter into a private contract, no matter what.
Did you forget about Kelo?
Sie ist tunbar!
You are wrong, the discrimination in the constitution has not been conscrued to include sexual orientation. Otherwise this would have been slam dunked long ago.
Sie ist tunbar!
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
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.
Boo!
There's a difference between forcing you to enter into a contract and just taking your property. Presumably, the Court could confiscate the college and award it to the kid, but I don't think they'd do that. Besides, they'd have to have some kind of economic rationale, because eminent domain only applies to things done 'for the common good' (like urban renovation projects).
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.
Actually, I did read the article, and I read the blog that broke the original story. That's where I learned that the suspension was not the first punishment that was offered, nor was the punishment handed down by Marquette's administration. The original punishment was as follows:
Personally, I think that's a little steep, but certainly not outside the bounds of reason. Mr. Blogger decided to fight this instead and so he took his case both to the blogosphere and before the committee that suspended him. According to the JS Online article that committee was composed of, "professors, administrators and students." Mr. Blogger can't hardly blame Marquette's administration. Another student brought the blog to their attention. The school can't simply do nothing about complaints like that. The Dean tried to give the kid a "reasonable" punishment and he refused. Then a committee comprised of faculty and students found him guilty and sent him down the river. Apparently the students and faculty don't think much of this kid's behavior. You can't blame the administration for that.
As a private institution Marquette *should* be able to do whatever it wants. That's the advantage that you get when you are a private institution. The wording is vague because Marquette's board undoubtedly wanted to leave a great deal of discretion with the dean. In fact, were this not the case then the kid wouldn't have had a prayer. The committee of students and faculty didn't show this kid an ounce of mercy. The Dean tried to handle the problem more humanely (using his broad powers), and the kid refused. Frankly, I am surprised that Marquette went through the trouble. It's not unreasonable for a university to expect higher standards of scholarship students.
Last time I checked almost all universities in the USA get some government funding, it's the reason many unis have dropped some male sports to keep up with Title 9 requirements. Couldn't and shouldn't the government enforce free speech?
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
Bullshit. What about the (legal) pornography industry?
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.
How the hell would you know what a school does? Most private (and even public) institutions keep their disciplinary proceedings secret. In fact, the best leverage a student has against an institution in cases like these is to threaten to publicize it through a lawsuit or otherwise. By the time you reach a settlement you've still lost up to a year of time in the school; the schools know that given the choice between a de facto one year suspension with a covenant not to sue over it, and an expulsion you will have to challenge in court, with all attendant legal fees, most students will choose the suspension.
I operate under the assumption that all large-scale institutions have some responsibility to the public interest. This goes double for institutions involved in the corrupt, state-endorsed professional licensure schemes for law, medicine, etc.
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
This is not an employee-employer relationship, as has been suggested. If an anology is wanted I suggest customer-vendor.
How's this then. If I am a vendor, and someone makes disparaging remarks about me or does something I don't like, I have the right not to sell to that person/entity. This is actually something that goes on a lot in some very high end business markets. If a supllier doesn't like something that you've done (such as purchasing from a competitor) they will refuse to sell to you.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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
I don't know about the other organizations you mentioned, but the Boy Scouts will take female members. Nationally, the Explorer (they may call it Venturing now) branch is co-ed, and on a local level I know a bunch of girls who scouted with the boy scouts rather than the girl scouts.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Heed the word "forced". If you're a porn-star, you may at any time quit the business and never return to that line of work. They can't "force" you to remain undressed.
if you are giving up your rights such as freedom of speech to attend a university then you must be compensated somehow.
How about compensated with an education? Although, in my mind the value of an education from this particular school just dropped...
Enigma
Yes, and in the context of the post to which I was replying, one would be free to leave the university that was "forcing" students to provide nude pictures. What's your point?
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!!!"
Too late, bro. You should have thought it up from the very beginning....
Done. Now believe.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Wow. I didn't even know that Psych 101 was even taught on an airplane. Dang. I think I went to the wrong college, dude ...
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Libel is not protected speech.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
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.
The first amendment doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want wherever or whenever.
Uh... yes it does.
The second we begin thinking like you, is the second we give up the entire idea of freedom of speech.
And so what if 90% of our country think like you... they're wrong. Freedom of speech should be freedom of speech. If we're not going to be free, lets start drawing out the rules of what we can and can not say... Oh yeah thats the FCC's job.
Ok, so you're right. We dont have freedom of speech. Thats because people like you gave it up for the rest of us. Thank you 90%'ers for killing the entire concept of free speech.
I suspect a lot of the people on this forum throwing the first around like a battle flag are a tad ignorant of the workings of the world and, alas, their own country.
There were times and there are countries where one would be thrown in prison, their property seized, and possibly face execution for so much as disagreeing with stated public policy. THAT is what the first amendment protects against. It does not absolve one from the natural consequences of their own actions.
I've seen so many bad examples I couldn't begin to respond to all of them! That a person can enter private property and say whatever they want without so much as being told to leave? That an employee can slander / libel their employer and company without fear of reprisal?
I can only imagine that most of the commentators have never owned property or held down a full-time job. If they are gainfully employed, I would encourage all of them to tell their co-workers that their bosses are incompetent, criminal, lazy, or anything else disparaging and see how long they remain employed. I also thoroughly reccomend they then contact the supreme court and explain their case.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
I don't know the wording, but it's vaguer than that of the US. In the US, it's "we shall not abridge your freedom of speech etc etc." In Canada it's "you have freedom to say anything within reason." Also take into account that "reason" is much wider in Canada than the US.
Oooh no! We just stepped on a group of nerds! Oooh no!
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Since when has the govt. followed the law completely?
Wow. That's impressive. I will admit that it is possible, and that a college can actually do it without accepting any federal aid.
However, a great majority of private colleges do accept federal aid.
My Sysadmin Blog
Well following your line of reasoning then one should expect to always be able to break any contract. It's all just a mesh right? I'll bend it however I need to! But what happens if I think I should be able to bend a contract to my liking and the person I made the contract with thinks that they should be able to do the same thing? Who gets to do the bending? If neither person can be held reponsible for breaking the contract then we are in a "might makes right" situation where the stronger party will always take advantage of the weaker one.
But what you want is even worse. The student broke a contract with the university (or so they claim and you do not seem to dispute this) so you want the government to step in? So one should expect to be able to break a contract and have the government step in so that you get away with it? So now it's just a matter of who can manipulate the government to get their way.
I'm sure that sounds ok to you as long as the government does what you want it to. When they don't then you'll surely cry that there is corruption.
Personally I don't want the government to have a vote in a private matter. I like this thing called The Rule of Law. You might have heard of it. I expect the law to be well-defined and enforced.
And yes the law must be an absolute position. Otherwise then somebody could take an action that has been ruled legal previously, only to have it turned around and rule illegal. The law cannot be flexible. Government can ammend the laws, but otherwise it must not change.
So does expecting The Rule of Law mean that I am afraid to think? No, just the opposite. Expecting an unchanging law is a necesarry assumption for one to be able to use their intellect to make decisions.
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
I suppose some may label me an idealist, but I don't see the major difference between one "violation" and another. Keep in mind that this whole idea of being able to impose speech limitations on students through "private contracts" is a right that is either upheld or not by the courts. If it is upheld, then no matter how you flip it, it is a government condoned invasion of my free speech rights.
That's how I feel, anyway...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
"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
I don't know...ask my wife!
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
I frequently give my students the freedom to express their ideas; but I draw the line at allowing them to interfere with the educational process. The Supreme Court decided that in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969).
Can you imagine if some crackpot decided to hijack a classroom to promote his views, and then screamed "censorship" when he wasn't allowed to spend the entire class period ranting? That's one instance where freedom is appropriately limited.
-Cloyster
P.S. I have never had to "censor" a student in my classroom -- and I hope I never need to. But if a student tried to take over the class, I would not hesitate to throw him out.
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.
How do I encroach on someone's property by talking? Explain. Furthermore, my post wasn't about what legal rights people have, but what the effects of overzealous restrictions on speech (of whatever nature) can be.
People like you need to learn to read.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The first amendment (not the constitution) states simply that congress cannot pass a law that impedes your freedom of speech. THAT'S IT.
There is an important point here which seems to be lost on a lot of people: With every right comes an associated responsibility. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want; so long as you remember that everyone who heard it has the same right.
Don't get indignant when someone who overhears your jackassery puts you in your place.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
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'
All you libertarians shouting about the rights of private institutions are missing the point. By claiming the student engaged in "stalking, hazing or harassments" because of a few dickhead remarks he made in his own blog, Marquette is obviously hitting this guy with bullshit, trumped-up charges to punish him for saying negative things about the university. Let me emphasize this: Marquette is abusing its own policies to retaliate against and punish an outspoken critic. Marquette has no stated policy against blogging. Yes, the university can set whatever policies they want, but they have no "right" to apply them spuriously and vindictively. In Libertarian speak: Marquette has entered into a contract with this student, and they are in violation of that contract by invoking a clause regarding the a breach of ethics when no breach of ethics was incurred.
So even if you don't acknowledge this as a "first amendment" case, it's still an abuse of power that will have a chilling effect on free speech.
I disagree. The issue is not whether of not Marquette can set its own policies -- they can. The issue is whether or not they can apply their policies spuriously and vindictively against disliked members of the student body -- they cannot. That would be a breach of contract. Marquette's policy does not prohibit blogging or making negative statements about one's professors. To punish this student, the administration has falsely accused him of "stalking, hazing or harassments". This is a bullshit charge. The charge is being made purely to retaliate against the student. That's Illegal. Whether or not you think this is a "first amendment" issue, this is absolutely an abuse of power, and a threat to free speech.
...wasn't Marquette the college that accepted Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) for admission?
i think you made my point.
The concept of freedom of speech that this country was found upon deals with the concept of free expression. The ability to speak when you want, the ability to say what you want. There are no limits on the concept of free speech.
We have imposed limits AFTER the fact. Often limits that are rationalized... some bad, some good... but at the end of the day, its US silly humans that erode the concept of Free speech thus completely negating the idea of freespeech.
So we're not free. We're a hyprocrisy. As is life. So why dont we just get it over with and get rid of the idea of free speech and the first amendment?
We dont have it anyways. We dont deserve it because we simply cant handle it.
Not that I think this is a valid argument, but one might look at it as Congress made a law allowing private establishments to dictate their own rules on free speech. Could this be thought of as making a law abridging the freedom of speech?
As I said, I don't think it's a valid argument, but what would be said if that was argued?
//FIXME: Bad
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.
Is it a first amendment case, no.
Is it illegal, no.
Is it wrong? Yes.
"...it's still an abuse of power that will have a chilling effect on free speech."
I agree - it does impact our freedom of speech because future students will see this as a warning to them as well.
This debate happens every time someone gets fired for blogging, too. But this is an issue of common sense, too - if you're dumb enough to say negative things about your employer, you might get fired. It doesn't matter if it's on a blog or not.
Based on what I've read in the media, this kid did some dumb stuff but didn't deserve any kind of discipline for it. In reality, it's probably just a matter of PR - the University (or a couple of boneheads within the administration) considered the blog a negative depiction. So they shut it down by any means necessary.
Sometime legal threats don't do anything. Some companies and organizations are far more afraid of negative press. And apparently Marquette is one of those.
"Actually, it doesn't. I teach at a state college. The fact that one of my students wants to spout off in class does not entitle him to do so at any time without regard for topic or timing (e.g., during a test)."
;)
;)
:)
But you see that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is a student standing up in your classroom and saying "Professor, sir, may i request that you and this entire school go fuck themselves royally and die!"
(nothing personal btw just tryign to make a point)
A student could certainly stand up and say such a thing. It is no doubt, disruptive. It is absolutely out of place to you. That student may be dealing with something very personal and at the time and just lost it for all we know. BUT it is still that student's right to do so. He can scream in tongues for all i care.
Again it may not be acceptable to you and your classroom, and you of course would ask him to remove himself. Perhaps even get the kid kicked out of your school entirely. OR maybe you could help him somehow because he's having a problem and not kick him out. Maybe you let him express himself to you in private but inform him that it is not at all acceptable in your class...
BECAUSE it is YOUR class. Not his. He is there and he does pay to be there (so he has some right) but it is your class. You are teaching. Thats just how the situation works.
So it is understandable that you ask your class to interact with you in a certain manner. But what do you do when one of the kids slips? What if you asked them not to say "fuck" in class, and one kid slips? What do you do when you inform the students that hats are not allowed in class, but one of your female students has had cancer treatment, or a skin disease like psoriasis that she would like to hide and not be noticed because it makes her uncomfortable?
These are all forms of expression... We bend because we're flexible and we try to respect each other in courteous ways because at the end of the day we dont want to repress each of our abilities to express ourselves and we have feelings.
But at no point does that mean we give up or impose limits on the concept of free speech. I mean sure we do have legal imposed limits on free speech. Which is why i know we dont have real free speech. My problem is... We should, or else we need to stop calling it free speech.
I'm all for the society as a whole making laws that say what we can and can not say... as long as they can do it and agree on what those things are and when and where they are not acceptable.
But lets not call it free speech anymore. We're a democracy and if we so choose to rid ourselves of free speech, then so be it.
So until they make it illegal to stand up in classrooms and say "2+2 is 5, and i watched a girl suck a horse cock on the internet last night and it was your sister"... So be it. Be ready for it... someone's bound to randomly throw those words together in your classroom in the next 10000000 years
It will still not be appropriate or respectful of the class situation.... but it is most certainly still free speech.
With a few limits
FIRE!
I guess we had to make it a law because we simply couldnt respect each other enough to give a dam about each others well being in a scary mob like exodus from a movie theater.
So much for free speech.
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
If Marquette claims that this student violated the policy when they know he didn't, that is illegal. If Marquette has inflated the charges against this student to punish him for acts unrelated to ethics violations (which seems to be the case), they can be sued.
because I know that guy sitting on the side of the road with a bent clothes hanger is the one I want giving an abortion to some girl I am friends with........
I know, it is being extreme. but what do you have against medical licensing? I mean, I know about cases where the government tried to revoke the lisence if they didn't like what the doctor discussed(i.e. medical weed in califronia) but is there something else other than related practices?
The same freedom that gives you the "right" to complain about bloggers gives them the freedom to say whatever they want. Ironically you are posting a complaint about people posting complaints..... (and you even had to do it anonymously)
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.
I have nothing against medical licensing, only the scheme under which it is done. The state (which has the legal power to impose it) has delegated authority for it to institutions which are at best arm's length, and the public trusts the AMA (an association of people whose personal interest it is often in to limit the supply of doctors) to decide under how and under what circumstances one enters the medical profession. Now we have a situation where a cartel of schools has agreed to let themselves choose where a student may perform a residency, and they routinely work residents 60-120 hours/wk. There is no way that is in the interest of public health, only free labor for the hospitals and a medical profession that is unpalatable to enter. It sucks even more that many of these schools are public, and the rest all receive tons of NIH money. What again are we paying these clowns for?
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.
And, should the court find in favor of the institution, then the government shall have been aiding an abridgement of free speech.
The court system is set up to resolve disputes of law. If the court finds in favor of the institution then it's just a matter of time until the court's decision is codified into law. The court should not make a decision which sets a precedent to write an unconstitutional law.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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!
They never made a law allowing private establishments to dictate their own rules on free speech.
First of all, the private establishments aren't "dictating" per se. Accepting the terms and conditions of the student code is always a part of the contract a student signs with a university. So the student agreed to it, even though he may feel it means something else and he may apply more common sense to it. However, it's likely that the contract he agreed to also defers all decisions about code of conduct violations to the school administration. While you might think it's stupid to give up this much liberty, you often don't have a choice. This, IMO, is a failing of the market system -- it fails to take into account that there may be no competitor to choose from who actually provides what consumers want, so if the particular market good is a necessity, the people are not really free.
Secondly, even if they were "dictating," Congress never made a law about allowing them to. It's simply assumed that private contracts are valid unless they specifically break a law. If there's no law against it, then there's no need for special legislation allowing it.
I admit it's a shitty and frankly undemocratic thing to do. But universities are not compelled to be democratic. The only way this kid would really have a chance is if the legislature of the U.S. or his state made a law AGAINST limiting free speech by universities.
Basically, the whole thing kinda falls along the same lines as the reason private colleges can make you wear uniforms but public ones can barely get away with having a dress code.
"Erode" doesn't mean "completely negate". And setting reasonable limits (eg, speech that directly and unjustly harms another such as slander or inciting panic in a crowd) is considered "eroding" free speech? The "all or nothing" logic is silly.
For example, I'm not free to gun down people in the street at will. How does that mean that I'm "not free", am a "hypocrite", and that I don't "deserve" freedom because I can't "handle" it?
It sucks even more that many of these schools are public, and the rest all receive tons of NIH money. What again are we paying these clowns for?
I guess I Should preface my response with the fact that my parents are doctors and my sister is about to enter residency.
The purpose is to train doctors who don't bitch and moan that they have already worked more than 40 hours that week when work comes up. you might not realize, but part of being a doctor is to respond to patients to help them until you are incapable of doing it anymore. Residency is meant to train you as an accurate reflection of what it means to be a doctor. Being on call and not going home from Thursday morning until Sunday night is something that happens to alot of doctors(not as much to the big city ones, usually the smaller town ones). It is part of being in the profession. Being a doctor isn't ever supposed to be your "40/week go home nad get to eat dinner and breakfast with your family every day" job. If you can't handle regular 70 hour weeks and be able to work the 130 hour week when it comes up, you shouldn't be a doctor, you aren't fit for what the job demands. That is what it means to be a real world doctor and residency accurately reflects it. medical demands are not like putting together a ford so one shouldn't expect the same.
Anyways, residency has gotten leaps and bounds easier than what it used to be. My father's hours during his four years flucuated between 36 on followed by 12 off to the easier, 36 on followed by 18 off. It is never like that anymore. There is a reason a doctor gets paid so much money when they come out of training(even now in training, they make a great deal more). Going into medicine isn't for the weak of heart. Those who are turned off from working 60 hours a week ought not apply because they will be complete failures in the real world(where you have to work more if you actually care about those you are supposedly trying to help).
of course, your sentiments accurately reflect some of the new age doctors who are coming up and don't want to go work in areas where you might hvae to do consistent 70 hour weeks. There is some wierd idea that even if there are patients that need help, there is such a thing has being "done" and it is an anathema to the profession.
(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.
What is the problem here? I've tilted at the "free speech" meme myself (disputing the claims that open source software is "free as in speech"). your argument appears to be based on pedantic sematics, namely, a particular definition of "freedom". One is "free" as long as one isn't punished by the State for commiting acts of harm again other beings. To take an exaggerated example, I can deprive the lives of other humans or enslave them without fear of punishment from the State otherwise I am "not free". And these other beings are "free" as well even though they have been deprived of their lives or liberty by me.
Further, you make no distinction between harming someone directly with speech versus stating an opinion.
Again playing devil's advocate here - Would a private contract limiting freedom of speech be considered breaking a law, even though the first amendment is not a law exactly?
//FIXME: Bad
No, of course not. Not only is there no law protecting free speech, but the Constitution is only concerned with the government. If Constitutional limits of power applied to private entities, then things like the following would be true:
Sams Club couldn't charge member fees (taxation of interstate commerce is solely for the federal government)
Having a paintball gun on a boat would be illegal (only the Federal government has the right to a standing Navy, even though States also have rights to a well-regulated militia).
Trading of wampum or pelts would be illegal, and Parker Brothers (?) would be in trouble (only the federal government can create a system of currency).
Americans would not be allowed to use the metric system (Congress sets standards of weights and measures).
People would not be allowed to ask their fiance(e)s to convert before marriage (thereby establishing a household religion).
Some of those examples are slight hyperbole, but the point is that limitations on governments (not having statist rebellions, having universal money, etc) don't apply to ordinary citizens. You as an individual have more liberties than the State, in general, and usually we're thankful for that. But it also means that private individuals (say, the chair of the board of MU) get liberties government organizations don't get.
So, short answer, no. Not only is the First Amendment not "a law"*, but it doesn't say anything about private individuals rights, it just says what Congress can't do.
* Minor point, hardly relevant, it just means the procedure is different -- you sue the government for violating it, rather than trying to fit the Capitol Building in a prison cell.
the administration has falsely accused him of "stalking, hazing or harassments"
Actually, that's a very good point. The student could definitely make a claim that the comments from the school are libelous. And yes, you can still be charged with libel if you take someone's comments out of context and present them in a different light, and I think almost any court in the US would recognize those entries in a blog as purely harmless.
A private university can expell a student for many more reasons than a public one can.
First, Marquette receives, and has received, money from the federal government in terms of grants, and sponsored programs. This might put future funding in jeopardy.
Second, while they're free to expel him, they're not free to make false claims against him. The statements that he is "guilty of professional misconduct in violation of the dental school's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct" and "violated a universitywide code that subjects students to disciplinary action if they participate in stalking, hazing or harassments" are libelous/slanderous if they're not true.
Your boss is free to fire you - but he's not free to say that you slept with the secretary, came to work drunk, and stole money from the company unless you did.
Given the statements by other professors at Marquette, I think he could easily sue them. For quite a lot of money, too.
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.
Thanks, that's enlightening. I figured there was some good reason why that silly argument I thought of wouldn't work, but I wasn't sure what it was.
//FIXME: Bad
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
Why should any doctor agree to work consistent 70 hour weeks (not talking about overtime here)? It's not an overload we're talking about if it's *consistent*. But then you'd have to argue there's a doctor shortage. Now, there is no shortage of people who seem to want a medical career, so either it's near impossible to find qualified people (true beyond a point, but the selectivity of medical schools is high enough that I don't believe this would be an immediate issue), or there just aren't enough slots (which I don't really know anything about), or a medical career is unpalatable because of the way the schools and the profession works (more than likely). And 130 hours in a week -- jesus, did you fail math? There are only 168 hours in a week! That's it! Most human beings require in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 hours of sleep to function properly on a continuing basis. 6 hours times 7 is 42 hours, so we're at the work, sleep, work, sleep stage. Forgive me if I don't believe those doctors working 130 hour "emergency" shifts are going to be very sharp or even very reliable by the end of that week.
Your faux-masochism is contemptible. Here's the only question, IMO: how many more reasonably qualified doctors could be graduated if medical school were not such a PITA? If there would be more doctors who would agree to serve in underserved areas (perhaps with scholarship money paid), out of a larger pool of graduates, nobody would need to take outlandish hours on a regular basis. Furthermore, some of those "new age doctors" you deride might be after something other than an entry into the upper middle class. God forbid that someone practicing medicine have a life!
Oh, but I forgot -- then there would be no need for the huge salaries doctors make. Your entire argument is a tautology. The reality is that the medical profession is in the business of supporting itself, as all professions tend to do. Oh, and meanwhile, look at those health care costs.
your last point is BS and it shouldn't be spread. doctors are not getting even a minority of the health care cost increases. almost all of those are accurately traced to drug price increases that can be evenly attributed to the great increase in efficacy of the drugs people use.
Point 2: none of hte hours I said were made up(by the way, 168-42 isn't 130,but its close) . Those were the exact hours my dad was required to work. What is the point: to learn how to function and how to actually give medical treatment when you are past the limit of what most people can do. Until you are the patient that gets left on the operating table in need of a surgery and your doctor doesn't feel like coming in because he wants a 'life', you might not realize what the demands are of being a doctor. It means you are usually serving people who are the dumb ones and get hurt seriously at all the bad times.
Most physicians would love to have more doctors in the field. It just happens to be that getting well trained doctors is difficult. It takes a really bright person to be a doctor. If you think these people are out there you're sorely mistaken. Very few of these people want to do the amount of work that it takes to become certain types of physician(note the extreme increases in non-emergency fields, especially dermatology, plastics, and dentistry, all of which are also happen to be more immune to lawsuits and earn more money). The surgical fields have a real problem getting qualified people to do the work because it is that hard. You don't have to accept that it is that hard, it just shows you don't know what quite goes into those fields. It turns out there are more than enough physicians in several fields and not nearly enough in the toughest fields.
I'm not even going to get into the idea of 60 or 70 hours a week being unnatural. I don't see anything wrong with a 60 hour work week, but then that might stem from what I have been surrounded with since I was born.
Wow. Good thing you're not a lawyer, because you'd be fucking your clients over big time.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Wow. You -almost- got my point. You were indeed so close that you managed to correctly paraphrase my question. Yet you still didn't get the point amazing. Also, your further assumption was also incorrect. I wasn't having my posts deleted, I was banning accounts on that message board.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.