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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The first amendment guarantees that the government cannot take action to limit your freedom of speech, right of free assembly, and right to practice the religion of your choosing.
Private organizations are under no such restriction. It is why my employer can prevent me from posting unflattering comments on the bulletin boards at work.
It's why Augusta National can bar women from joining their golf club.
It's why the Catholic church can excommunicate any member for any reason it so chooses.
The first amendment, indeed all of the Bill of Rights, only guarantees one's protection from the government limiting one's rights.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), private Universities have no such restrictions.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
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.
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
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.
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, ...
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.
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.
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
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
I disagree completely.
Prices of any goods or service is directly affected by the supply of money for the goods versus the supply of goods.
Government "easy money" grants and loans increase the supply of money -- forcing prices way up. Easy loans/grants is to blame for high tuition costs.
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
"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
This stinks. I never thought I'd see the day in America when a STUDENT couldn't write or say what they wanted.
Man, you haven't been paying attention for a few years, have you? That day has come and gone, a LONG time ago.
These days, if a first grader makes a gun out of his thumb and index finger and "shoots" another kid during a schoolyard game of cops and robbers, he's likely to be labelled a potential Harris or Klebold. If a teenager has a violent dream and writes about it in a school assignment, the school goes into lockdown and the police get called.
If you think what happened to this Marquette student is absurd, wait until you read some of the stuff at that link. And those are mostly in public schools. Bastions of free speech and thought, my ass.
~Philly
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
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
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.
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!"
UANAL? IANAL! WeANAL.
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
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/#
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."
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!
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.
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.
Hey! You go to a Jesuit school, don't be suprised to find the Inquisition!
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.