Slashdot Mirror
Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced
John McAdams writes "When a Marquette University Dental School student blogger made some nasty comments about an (unnamed) professor and (unnamed) classmates on his personal blog, the Dental School administration imposed a draconian punishment on him. He was to be suspended from school for a year, lose a prestigious scholarship, and seek counseling for supposed "behavioral problems."
The case received wide attention, starting with local talk radio, the local daily paper and reverberated through the blogsphere.
Dental School Dean William Lobb, considering the case on appeal, has now reduced the student's punishment. The student now faces probation rather than suspension, will be allowed to keep his scholarship, and will not have to seek counseling. He will have to do 100 hours of community service, and apologize for the blog posts.
While this is certainly good news for the student, it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs."
Is it safe?... Is it safe?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
He should tell them to piss off now and find another school.
no it's not safe
Suck a lemon?
If anyone is wondering what the student wrote that got the school so pissed off. Here it is: "[He is a] cockmaster of a teacher. I don't even gratify him by calling him a professor. He is one who teaches, as in should teach infants and children." The rest of his blog was about video games, drinking and other typical stuff. His blog is now currently offline. Ironically, Marquette University encourages students to post public comments about their professors, and these comments can be very negative.
If you consider the punishment to be a censure rather than some sort of childish spanking, then it makes sense, in that context. In any line of work you are subject to rules and regulations and one of those is that you are not to belittle another member of the profession in public (more or less, I suppose).
He's getting censured for doing something that ought to be out of character of a student in a professional studies course. That's not uncommon. In fact, it's the same as would happen out in the job Marquette.
are being tossed right out the window. We're being conditioned to be silent sheep, fat for the slaughter on too much food and television.
Kinda cool, the power you can weild as a University administrator, silence your critics by taking away everything good they've worked their ass off for.
Were the professors and students unnamed in his blog, or are they just keeping them unnamed for the article?
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
1. pick one of the guys who gives you shit at school.
2. Start up a blog in his name.
3. Write unflattering commentary about the school.
4. Kick back and watch as the school jumps to conclusions, bans the guy, and takes six months bureaucratic time looking at the situation before realising maybe it isn't really his blog.
You don't have to worry about little things like investigations in #4 happening BEFORE the guy is suspended because hey, this is the private arena, and there's no such thing as due process.
The mere fact that someone can get into trouble by ranting into cyberspace without naming someone, is a bit un-nerving. When did thought crimes start to become a reality?
It takes a bit of effort to put anything interesting into a blog, and remain 100% anonymous, but if cases like this pop up all of the time, then it might be worth considering being a 100% anon-a-blog.
Someone should do a poll, to see how many bloggers have found problems with blogging, in the sense that they've been fired, shunned, etc. because of what they write. It might be exceedingly common to get in trouble over ramblings on the web.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
By reducing the sentence, the school came out ahead. He's on probation instead of being kicked out. That means he can't say anything bad about what happened. He has to apologize on his blog. That means he has to lie about what happened.
If the school had just dumped him, he would have sued, (possibly won) and generated an even larger amount of bad press.
Yet again, the big guys win.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
I now know why Dentists are such a pain. It's the schooling.
Who's next to inappropriately threaten us with punishment for behavior it doesn't like?
Not by a long shot. The school stands in breach of conract, and the student should fry their asses in court.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The case received wide attention, starting with local talk radio, the local daily paper and reverberated through the blogsphere.
Can we just lose the word "blogosphere?" Thanks. The English language thanks you in advance.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
There are a million blogs out of each school. What is the chance that this one gets picked out, read and taken seriously.
Even though he is 22, I'd wonder how some of his future patients would feel about his comments. Folks need to remember that this stuff will stay around for quite a while ... in some way. Especially now that it's in the papers.
*gasp* People say crazy things on the internet. And most people ignore them. But for some reason, when people who are are higher on the foodchain find out, they tend to think that the whole world is reading all the crazy rants out on the internet, and that somehow the crazy people on the internet must be stopped. Get a clue.
What can we expect from those who expound on academic freedom so much?
Would you care to espouse what you mean by that?
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
What can we expect from those who expound on academic freedom so much? I would think a lot better than this but well it seems that may not be so.
I don't know if you realize it, but Marquette University is a religious school. So intolerance of certain ideas is expected.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
No they are not. Please don't overreact. Free speech does not mean free speech without consequences. Sure you have the right to say whatever you want but don't act surprised when there are repercussions to that speech. Would you think it would be outrageous if a student ran around a University Quad screaming every racial epithet known to civil society and a Dean kicked them right out of school?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
In the American Union ve haf free speech unless ve are students or employees or depend on government contracts or grants or regulatory permits.
No, this is wrong. Not only is this whole thing an embarrassment to the First Amendment, but is also outrageous! This kid is being forced to do 100 hours of community service for nothing but a blog post. Yes, there are reasonable regulations on freedom of speech, but this definitely isn't in violation of those.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
I find it rather ironic and sadly funny that a student who wastes space blogging about video gaming and drinking sees fit to comment on other students' maturity (or lack thereof). He sounds like your somewhat typical, immature college-age male.
#DeleteChrome
While this is certainly good news for the student, it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs.
While I appreciate the candor of CowboyNeal, lets be honest, there is no question raised here. It is completely obvious that the school feels it well within their jurisdiction to censor the speech of their students, and that nobody has really raised up to challenge it. To be brief, the students of Marquette Dental School have no freedom in posting to their blogs.
Though I feel my university to be above such behavior, I'm going to make this one anonymous just in case. Precident is precident.
Dentists aren't real doctors. In fact, they are med school washouts. Yes, I am an anti-dentite!!!
bash: rtfm: command not found
Dentists have one of the highest suicide rates and its now obvious because of the anal retentiveness in their profession. Imagine being required to keep your emotions bottled up and not allowed to vent. It's not like the postal workers who are free to load up their shotguns and take affirmative action for their better emotional well being.
At my school several students were punnished because their blogs contained insulting comments about teachers and other students. Many on the bloggers were suspended, and one of them (who was to become the student council president) lost his role in student council!
THey should have wired his jaws shut. Let the punishment fit the crime.
Catholic universities tend to be academically secular, though their student services usually offer religious aspects for interested students.
Here is the lesson to be learned: Piss a person off, risk losing valuable relationship with that person.
Piss off your girlfriend, risk losing your girlfriend. Piss off a waiter, get tossed out of restaurant. Piss off university, discover how hard it is to subsequently attend said univerisity.
Really now, why is everyone so upset about this? Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of such speech. Duh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If the student called the professor a cockmaster in person, would the results be the same? Worst case, I can see him getting kicked out of the class. I doubt a loss of scholarship or suspension would have happened. This is only going on my limited experience with professors.
Thus they become part of the language. See "Google" or more recently, "AJAX".
Ahh.. AJAX. Yet another word we can live without. You realize that acronym was invented for an existing set of technologies by a company called Adaptive Path in order to sell conference passes? (Even though the first Asynchronous Javascript & XML application was created by Microsoft, and popularised by Google with Google Maps).
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Is it just me, or does it seem that some of these schools teach in a way that is designed to drive up revenue even if it's against the patients best interest. Like pinhole cavities that "require" drilling filling, when in truth they probably could be filled in with an epoxy without harm. Or like child-teeth cavities, that would probably be fine if you just waited for the tooth to fall out, but the dentist insists that it must be fully drilled and crowned. Or like one time a dentist "tested" to see if my tooth was decaying by dipping a swab in liquid nitrogen and holding it on my tooth untill I felt pain. Funny thing is though, I could have sworn that did something to my tooth that caused it to go bad a month later. Or another case where my wife had a tooth that hadn't grown in yet, but the dentist picked at the sensitive gums arround it to see if it was infected or contaminated with dirt. I'll be damned - if that wasn't what caused it to become contaminated or infected a week later. One time when I was 9, a dentist scraped some gunk off my tooth held it in front of my face and said this has enough bacteria to kill a person if I pricked you - I took it to mean, "let me do as many procedures on your teeth as I want and don't complain to your mom or I'm going to murder you".
Perhaps these schools are this way, because they are ran by those kinds of people.
...but that's the way it works when you enter a medically-related profession.
I'm in medical school, and once you commit yourself to being a physician, you are expected to conduct yourself professionally in and out of school, just as you would on or off duty as a doctor, regardless of place or time.
Doctors historically and even today are one of the most respected, and trusted, professions in the US. Dentists and nurses certainly want high standards for their professions, as well. Most medical and dental schools have explicit clauses in their student codes regarding unprofessional behavior or actions at ANY time; mine certainly does, and I'd expect Marquette to have it as well.
Calling a teaching professor a "cockmaster" would not be tolerated if he did it face to face with the professor, and it's not any different because he did it online in his blog. If he can't be trusted to keep comments about an academic superior and his fellow peers professional, how can he be trusted to keep comments about future patients confidential and professional as well? Is this the dentist 10 years from now who'll be poking fun of his "stupid immigrant patients that need to learn to pick up a toothbrush and a book on English" at a supermarket with his buddies? Is this the public image of the dental profession that the dental profession wants? And is this the image that Marquette wants to project as its students and alumni?
My school goes out of its way to encourage feedback from its students; we have a student-run quality control feedback team for the curriculum; we have online and traditional commenting forums, end-of-section material, direction, and teaching evaluations, etc. But they also stress and stress again to keep it 100% professional, to make criticism constructive, impersonal, and respectful. We are being evaluated in every interaction as future doctors, whether accidental or in a deliberate setting... and just as the majority of communication is not verbal even when words are being spoken, doing your book learning is just a small part of learning to be a medical professional.
There are no civil rights being broken here... just a student needing to figure out whether mouthing off about his peers and professional superiors is more important than learning what it takes to join his chosen profession.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
w00t
And your post is more proof that people don't understand "civil liberties".
First, if he publishes "a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation", he's guilty of libel, and the professor can sue him in civil court for damages.
Second, if he goes to a private university, agrees to a code of conduct, then violates it- that's not "civil liberties".
As is never mentioned in these stories when they're linked to in summaries such as here on slashdot, the comments aren't mentioned- and they're always rather obnoxious. His comments, or at least, the only ones now available:
"cockmaster of a teacher. I don't even gratify him by calling him a professor. He is one who teaches, as in should teach infants and children."
The "Marquette Warrior" blogger goes on a rant about how "students have probably had this discussion amongst themselves". And guess what? Shockingly, THAT ALSO is not okay; the spoken version of "libel" is called "slander".
Bloggers seem absolutely shocked at a centuries-old legal concept: one cannot just wander around saying (or publishing) whatever the hell one wants to. If you lie and it damages someone's reputation...that's not legal, and you can fully expect to be held accountable.
Please help metamoderate.
I would be expecting an apology from the school. It would be a tough decision under these circumstances deciding whether to drop out and keep my principles or apologise falsely to keep my scholarship.
Instead of reducing it to probation, Marquette should be apologizing to the blogger, and pay his living expenses for the next year for the trouble. Christ, I can't believe they think it's a reasonable compromise given they're subject to the First Amendment just like everyone else in the US...
Help us build a better map!
Apart from their incredibly bad judgement, I have to wonder how much work load Marquette administrators have that allows them to pursue such trivial matters. Next thing you know, students will be suspended for complaining about the cafeteria food. If my old college pulled crap like this I would notify the administration that I was withholding all further financial contributions until the entire punishment was rescinded, and I would write to the alums I'm personally still in touch with and urge them to do likewise.
University officials should be ashamed of themselves. Their purpose is to promote learning. HOWEVER, this is not an issue of rights. No one forced this student to attend this school, or continue his enrollment. And this university is not obligated to continue educating him. This is a matter of business, they have entered into an agreement where money changes hands, with the product being learning.
Mary Ann Glendon's book, Rights Talk , is a good read. Her basic premise is that Americans are calling too many things rights -- and it's a very bad thing. We have a right not to be censored by the government, but this does not extend to private practice. When we start dilluting our concept of rights and liberties, we bring ourselves into the same sort of slippery slope that rights-advocates argue from. If you suddenly have a right to walk your dog, or bad-mouth a professor, the bar gets set lower and lower. At some point, violating rights really isn't a big deal. And that's a scary place to be, because it means we begin to lose the actual rights we have.
So let's stop talking about this in reference to civil liberties. If you want to talk rights abuse, look at the domestic spying flap. But let's not cheapen our rights by including them in this debate.
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.
Just figured I'd post that so people would stop moaning about this being a First Amendment issue.
Universities have rules, too you know. One of them is due process, which this school completely skipped. The irony is they went after a student for an ethical lapse (even though their top ethics guy said it was crass but not unethical) but in the process did something very unethical. That is why the University deserves to get sued.
No, it means he has to apologize for publishing libelous comments about a professor, and for violating the student code of conduct.
If the school had just dumped him, he would have sued, (possibly won) and generated an even larger amount of bad press.
If he had sued, the judge would have taken one look at the text published, which called the professor a "cockmaster of a professor" and also declared the professor unfit to teach; unless he had evidence to back up that assertion, and if it damaged the reputation of the school or the professor, it's libel. The school would have submitted the student code of conduct, including sections about libel/hateful speech, provided proof the student knew he was required to read and abide by the code of conduct- and then motioned to dismiss the case. Yet again, the big guys win.
What's with the drama? This isn't about Davis Vs. Golliath; this is about a student who violated his code of conduct and published borderline-libelous comments. Just like the LAST story about a student who was disciplined for VIOLATING HIS SCHOOL'S CODE OF CONDUCT.
Claiming or implying this is an issue of "free speech" is further proof of just how uneducated Americans are when it comes to civil liberties and basic legal concepts.
Please help metamoderate.
He will have to do 100 hours of community service, and apologize for the blog posts.
Here in Oz you have to prove you're a lowlife scum to get 100 hours community service.
That's also the same sentence given to the Author of the Sasser/Netsky worm.
So given this blogger got the same penalty - MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE LOCKED THE SCUMBAG UP! (</sarcasm>)
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Well if he critized members of the university in his blog, that is certainly at least a connection.
Come on people, this isn't about freedom of speech at all. Of course he has the freedom to say what he wants to say about his professors and peers. What he does not have is the freedom against having those professors and peers and their university getting upset at him (to the point where they are willing to deny him their services) for what he said.
I mean if you were to call your girlfriend names like those in your blog, are you going to run crying to the EFF when she finds out and dumps you?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I was researching the shape memory effect. And in Physical Review Letters B, a group of four physicists were pretty much outright flaming another group who published another paper, which I had read. They didn't actually include the words "cockmaster" "assmaster" or "assclown" in their criticism, but let's just say their lack of esteem for their peers was left unconcealed. In a less formal setting, I've little doubt that their use of perjoritives would have been both liberal and creative.
Wondering where they get grants from. Might be related to the overall political climate.
The fact is that, while fear is the basis of power, no one will have the power to oppose this fear. Thus you find a great number of idiots following a minor number of larger idiots because they are afraid of stepping out of line in anyway. The way to maintain this controle is to exersise the power of fear daily. If someone does something you can inflict such power on then the logical answer is to inflict it. However, when the punishment becomes to severe for something that the monarchal figure should (constitutionaly) have no power in is when you get rebelion. To divert a rebelion we have come up with this magically meaningless thing called comprimise. A comprimise is the only known word used by both poloticians, and suburban house-wives. This is the second political tool in keeping us in check.
Women- the final frontier...
I wrote a speech for my student government campaign at Moorpark College and was punished for it. The school administration charged me with misuse of the college name. I didn't say anything I wasn't supposed to say; it was basically a collection talking points I later gave in several classroom speeches (there were 6).
Generally, the speech was about fiscal policy. It was critical and somewhat damning to those I was trying to replace, but overall it really wasn't that bad.
After a few days of "due process", the Dean revoked my membership on the student government by denying me the right to be sworn in (even though I won by a huge margin of votes). This was then overturned a day later. Then the Dean dropped the charge completely another day later on the advice of the college district's atourney. Needless to say, I was embarassed and my peers had many questions about why the college was acting the way it was (like why would the Dean be prosecuting me unless I had done something wrong?)
My point being, college officials don't care about due process, civil rights, or even student privacy. A similar incident happened to a friend on the student government, it happened to me, and it will probably happen again in the future. Regrettably, if you take a quick look at the ACLU website, you will find a huge list of similar violations of student rights. Schools will never learn that it is wrong. Frighteningly, this situation probably would have turned out alot different had I campaigned at a private university.
I personally know two people who quit Marquette and through friends know of others that have done the same. The general concensus is Marquette is not a top school. It wasn't high on many lists for myself or anyone I knew back in high school (I grew up fairly close in s. central WI). Of course I post to /., so obviously that group in HS was small :P
:P
Watch out Taco, you may get a subpoena for this
I highly doubt it. Did his comments make him a worse dentist? Has he somehow slighted the university in an irreparable way? Probably not. At this point make him apologize for being a pain in the ass but leave it at that. If you can't take criticism then what does that say about your institutional self confidence? Why does he have to do community service? Has he somehow created a karmic debt for expressing his opinion that requires compulsory community service? I would think that the university wanted students that thought for themselves, but if this one must toe the party line then let it be. Let Marquette shoulder the responsibility of being the institution that crushed one of its own because they couldn't handle a little anonymous criticism. That is the truly pathetic part.
Who's next to inappropriately threaten us with punishment for behavior it doesn't like?
Given that Marquette is a religious school, I don't see why it's so surprising that they're completely opposed to opinions and individual thought. I mean, their whole dogma is based on conformity and compliance without question. WTF do you expect?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
It sounds like people of any faith can join as long as they "seek the truth" etc.
Le français vous intéresse?
I'm in medical school, and once you commit yourself to being a physician, you are expected to conduct yourself professionally in and out of school, just as you would on or off duty as a doctor, regardless of place or time.
So if you are accused of misconduct at your school, do your officials A) conduct an investigation, tell you what the charges are, and give you a chance to respond with an avenue for appeal or B) move right into the punishment phase? Because that's what all you apologists for the University keep missing: the irony and hypocrisy of committing gross procedural and ethical violations in the process of punishing a student for alleged violations of school policy. And speaking of those alleged violations...
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral.""
uh, freedom of speech applies to GOVERNMENT censoring people, not private industry/college/etc. if you were an employer, and someone said announced in the middle of your presentation, "HEY YOU FREAKING SUCK! OMG LOLWTF", you have every right to fire them. this is not an instance of freedoms being trampled, as these parties were in a NON-GOVERNMENT agreement. if dick cheney were to say "LOL OMG GEORGE BUSH IS A TARD!" he would be fired. there is no freedom of speech in the sense of the word that everyone likes to apply it to. do i think its a good idea to kick people out of school for posting about un-named crappy professors? no, i dont. but that doesnt mean that they dont have the right to do just that.
now let's be cliche: if you were to yell "FIRE" in a crowded room and several people got trampled to death because of it, or yell "BOMB!" in an airport-- do you think you should not be held accountable for your actions?
this is simply a case of a college responding to a kid making a scene. albeit they were vastly over-reacting in my opinion, this is the case nonetheless and they have every LEGAL RIGHT to do whatever they want to the kid, including expelling him and telling him he can never graduate from their school and never to bother applying again. it IS stupid, and over-reacting, but there is no law against it.
let's not continue this mis-representation of our legal rights. they are something we should all know properly so we dont go on with life believing false statements which are parroted along from one moron to another.
bc@EFNet#Programming
Taking no consideration of whether there was any merit to what the student said in the blog, it seems to me that the students at Marquette have all the freedom that anybody else has to say what they will. However, just as anybody else does, they have to deal with any retaliatory action from the party they are attacking. In this case those people happen to be authority figures in a non-democratic institution. The reaction of the school could be considered rash, but it could also be considered as a lesson in PR. Professionals, dentists and doctors, do have reputations to keep up as well as relationships and rapport with clients and business partners. This whole ordeal is a lesson in how rapport is valuable and how you should carefully choose what you say to the general public, even if it is on your personal time.
What does this mean for sites like CourseReviews, where students post in-depth reviews of their professors and courses? Could this lead to students being punished for writing negative reviews? Are students going to be afraid to write negative reviews?
Disclaimer: I run CourseReviews, previously known as TeacherReviews, which is why I am asking.
...so what would you expect? I mean, I am very tolerant of a wide range of religious beliefs, but let's face it, some really crazy stuff is done in the name of religion. So almost nothing that the administration of a religious institution would do would surprise me.
TWR
Ok, look, at 22 you haven't learned to do the brown-nose yet, but one of the biggest social lessons that you take away from college is that if you want something (like a degree in a lucrative field) from someone, you have to kiss their ass and tell them what they want to hear. And the earlier on you learn that, the faster you can get on with being successful.
On the flip side of that coin, if your job is to deal with people who haven't quite learned those lessons yet and your feelings get hurt by any name calling by the stuck up little brats you're babysitting, you might consider a career in another field.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The student allegedly called the professor a "cockmaster" and posited that he would be better suited to teaching infants and children. That isn't libel. It's one disgruntled student's opinion.
If I were to publish a blog in which I wrote, "Professor John Smith has absolutely no teaching ability whatsoever" I would be expressing a personal opinion.
On the other hand, if I were to write "Professor John Smith has falsified his teaching credentials" then I am making an allegation. The difference here is that I have made a specific charge which, if true, would significantly affect the professor's standing and livelihood.
Legally speaking, libel must almost always be an allegation of fact. Opinions, however audacious or critical they may be, are not libelous and are protected speech. Calling a man a "cockmaster" does not constitute a libelous allegation.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Childish?
I mean, I was at a primary school this morning, dropping my brother off, and I saw a similar spectacle.
Child 1: *Sticks tongue out at child two*
Child 2: *Look of shock and horror* My MUMMY say's that's RUDE, I hate you, give me back all my toys, you're NOT my friend AND (said in a strong definitive tone of ultimate punishment) you're NOT coming to my party!
I was thinking that's immature even for eight year olds, but I thought, nah, he'd grow out of it. How is this any different?
Student: Well, the professor's a cockmaster
Professor: *Look of shock and horror* My MUMMY say's that's RUDE, I hate you, give me back your scholarship, you're NOT my student, you need counselling AND (said in a strong definitive tone of ultimate punishment) you're NOT coming to this school!
Both are immature over-reactions of easily hurt and control dependent people. Sure, calling the Professor a "cockmaster" wasn't the highest rating of style and elegance, but it's an opinion, and he's entitled to it. Was it the idea that it was a negative review of the teacher that annoyed him, or that he used, your God forbid, "rude words"?
It all seems so petty.
I know. Who the heck gave them the right to stick their own bigoted, hateful morality and beliefs in our faces, like they can say whatever they want?
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
The civil liberties issue might be a bit different. A lot of people have argued that if you are a student, the school has the right to react to your public remarks about it. This must be true, an employer will have the same right. You cannot expect to remain a member in good standing of a church, company, school or club if you make public speeches bringing it into disrepute. So people are right to argue that this is not a free speech issue.
But surely there is something very odd indeed about the proposed 'punishment' or elements of it. The demand that the guy get counselling. What exactly is the legal status of counselling? When is it required, and who has the right to require that one get it? The idea that a school can require one to get counselled is strange. Even stranger is 'Community Service'. This is used as a punishment by the courts, and the idea that a school can impose it is bizarre.
Surely the civil liberties issue is something like this: what sort of demands may a school make, and what evidence do they have to have before making them? There must be some limits, and it seems to me that in requiring counselling and community service, the school has overstepped them.
Bring it closer to home. My company has a standard of x bugs in y lines of code. One month I am having some problems and go over. Do they have a right to demand that I do 100 hours of community service as penance? Or stand outside at 8.00 with a sign around my neck saying that I sinned? Or wear scarlet overalls for a week? Or not use the cafeteria?
It would be fine to require him to maybe do some remedial tutoring work in the school, or something similar, school related. But the community service and counselling stuff remind you uncomfortably of the Cultural Revolution...
I can see where both sides are complaining over this... I mean on one hand you have someone just trying to blow off steam... And on the other you have someone in a very prestigious place... What the /. poster forgot to add from the story is "Was the blog really anonymous?"... "Did the student name any names at all?"... Did he leave a prelude to any names or actual people... I mean seriously... If he named them then yeah he deserves a swift kick in the a$$... But if not then obviously he had a bad day and just needed to relax a bit in his own way... And don't give me the freedom of speech crap... Yes you can say what you want... But when you are in a legally binding contract (which I'm sure most medical schools require) then your words about a certain person in the medical school can bring you down... It could be part of the contract... Right??? And don't even start with the "oh well when your in a medical school they teach you to respect your profession and always conduct your self in that manner" BS... I work in Hospitality... And your going to tell me that all persons in a medical profession act professional all the time... Evidently you haven't been to a bar lately or maybe stopped by a New Years Eve party... I grant you this... Most of the "dedicated" medical professional's out there do conduct themselves extremely professionally almost 99% of the time because the "dedicated" one's are working 24/7 keeping the quality of life above the rest of the world... So that's my rant.. Take it as you will... But when did the government get involved in this... What does it have to do with them... I mean honestly... Did someone sue... Was their words of the President in the blog... Blah... Always butting in...
Heratiki
If you're the student council president... or a cub scout leader... or a politician... or any other position granted by election or appointment, you can't simply draw an arbitrary line around your actions and words and declare, "These things do not affect each other".
The student council president has no business insulting students and staff, no matter where the insults are posted. It was right that he lost his role - he was unsuited to it.
People hate being criticised, mocked, even disagreed with, and if they can squeeze even one person in their lives then they are making up for every time they felt powerless. Lord Acton was right about the tendency of power to corrupt, but we're wrong in thinking you have to be king or El Presidente to be corrupted. I've seen shift supervisors at convenience stores act like little Napoleons. People get off on it.
*sigh* Here we go again. People are all for freedom of speech -- until it affects them directly in an unwanted manner. The moment it does, their opinion changes faster than the blink of an eye.
I posted an article on Slashdot which mentioned unfair treatment by a professor (which was subsequently corrected, BTW) and he was definitely named -- I figured most of the Slashdot community already knows DJB.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, but I do have a concern for certain kinds of bad-mouth.
In Myspace.com there's a thing called "Rate Your Professor." I thought this was a horrible idea. This would pit teachers against eachother because it would compare teachers. You can talk about what teacher is better all you want with your friends or whomever, but this would be a written record that is readily retreived at any time. The teachers could not do well knowing that they are so vulnerable. They don't even have a chance to rebuttle and defend themselves. It's abusive. This is wrong.
Further more, if you have a problem with a teacher, you should take it up with the teacher personally, and odds are, you'll find that the teacher was right to say or do what ever it was, or you can take it up with the administration.
Schools have a reputation. That's how ones degree is respected. A degree is the school giving one confidence in that one person for completing the courses. It lets one make the claim with the school to back him or her up. Now if one really dislikes the teachers, perhaps one should consider another school.
Continuing to go to a particular school implies acceptance that the school has the reputation. Now the school has a reputation to uphold and defend. The school will hire only teachers that are good enough for the confidence of the school. The teacher will contribute to the school's reputation or that teacher will not teach for that school. If the teacher is a bad teacher, this should be brought up with that teacher, or the administration. If that fails, one should leave the school and seek a degree elsewhere. It is disrespect of the school to pit teachers against eachother. Besides, they are human too, and should be given the same respect as any other.
As pithy, criticing a teacher publically is hypocritical because by going to that school one implies acceptance of that school's reputation. That school wants to maintain this precious reputation and will only hire the best teacher it can. Criticing a teacher is to say that the school did a poor job of chosing teachers. So, did one accept a poor reputation?
At any rate, it is libal to post such disparaging things about someone. It's also defaming someone, and making someone famous who isn't already famous (this is actually illeagle, think about it). "Cockmaster" is not helpful criticism, it's an insult. Insults are an attempt to bring contempt against someone for being vicious (full of vice, not grizzly rage) and to push them into a lower place in society. This is abusive.
It would sound as though I mean to say that the kid was all wrong, however I make no claim as to what the school did in response was right either. I just had a concern with his action.
If we don't recognize some limit to what an employer, school, or other organization can rightfully control, then a company can say "our official position is that we support the Iraq war, so we will all be voting here in the office in the next election. Just turn your ballot in to your supervisor." There has to be a socially recognized limit, even if the courts don't address the question directly.
And no, I'm not a Marxist. But we do have an unnerving tendency to turn our profession into an all-encomassing identity. It's just a freakin' job, for crying out loud.
There is a difference between criticism and libal. "Cockmaster" is defamatory, abusive, and not criticism. Criticism is a critical (root word hear) look at something.
Legal contracts can't impinge on basic rights. Let's just say, as a for example, that you sign a contract that says "I _____, hereby give ______ the right to shoot me directly in the head with the intentions of killing me." If the person then shoots you, they will go to jail for murder, despite the fact that you signed the contract saying it was alright. Fundamental rights are just that, fundamental, and cannot be given up. Now don't get me wrong, there's a point where you go beyond fundamental rights, such as if he truly did name a specific name or otherwise directly attempt to harm the school's business like telling people to absolutely not go there because the school intentionally hires bad teachers or something stupid like that, but, simply stating an insult and his opinion about one unnamed teacher is clearly not intended in this manner.
Personally, I agree most with the earlier example of the children. He stuck his tongue out and now they're punishing him for it. They got mad and immediately threw the worst they could think of at him in anger, then, when the anger cooled a bit, they realized they went too far and retracted part of it (you can still come to the party, but, I'm keeping the toys I loaned you.)
One thing I did have to admit to though, the school isn't 100% unfounded in getting angry. Mind you, they definitely went way too far, and he wasn't trying to harm them in any way so really shouldn't be punished, but, one thing to bear in mind is that the medical field is a rough place. Reputation is important, and the word "malpractice" is spoken in a quiet whisper when at all (even a malpractice suit that fails can sometimes ruin some people in the medical field.) So they can be excused in getting so upset. They can't be excused for attempting to punish someone simply for speaking an opinion out of anger though. Actually, personally, if my college tried to kick me out then told me I'd have to do 100 hours of community service just because I insulted one of my teachers to a few students, I'd be talking to a lawyer that very day.
I totally agree... I can't believe I let me mouth run over without considering fundamental rights as just that "fundamental"... But all things aside... Great post... That was my first post on /. and just felt like I had to say something on the matter... I'm a non conformist like most /.er's so I wanted to speak my mind... I mean that's what this is for right... Well unless of course I was speaking my mind while attending medical college... LOL... Anyways... Great post...
Heratiki
Land of the free and the brave. Hahaha. I bet it was already a good joke back when they came up with that. Suck it up, that's what you get for voting for Bush and living in God's own Shithouse.
...should stop being a cockmaster. I mean, that seems to be the root of the problem. Clearly he was cockmastering and the student called him on it.
Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things!
You say they (private institutions) are above the law.
These guys are interfering with the ability of a person to (in future) make money to feed his family, I would say that's something sanctionable by law.
Hmm, land of the free, brave you better bee...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
In Australia a school I was at tried to prevent a student from taking his university entrance exams because he made what it considered racist statements on his blog about the Paris riots this year. The guy is a bigot, but he shouldn't have to agree with the school beaurocarcy on political and social issues to be allowed the chance to perhaps attend a university.
Isn't cockmaster a really high level in some sexy video game? He was complementing his professor on achieving cockmaster status- highly sort after in the gaming world.
"e real kick in the teeth is recent evidence seems to cast into doubt their guilt in having actually expressed anything"
No, they were really guilty. They were stupid, naive tools, but they were guilty.
BTW, Alger Hiss was guilty too. No doubt about it.
Man what a kick in the teeth!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"When your boss tells you to shut up and get back to work, is he infringing your right of free expression?"
He is if he calls me at home after work.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
He shouldn't even have to do community service or apologise. He has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants, and if anyone's offended that's their problem.
For any other part of Marquette you would be totally correct. However, the Marquette Dental School is the only one in the State of Wisconsin, and it receives a subsidy from the state. Additionally, in-state Dental students receive a tuition subsidy. See: http://www.marquette.edu/bursar/tuition/0506tui.sh tml
As is typical with most news stories, there is quite a bit more to the story than what is published by the media.
students have absolute freedom to say what is true / factual or their OPINION ... this is a basic human right, and also is codified in the United States Constitution (for you americans), beyond this the student should be sueing the collective asses off these self-righteous / self-serving clowns at this school to ensure this type of skulduggery and censorship never rears it's head anywhere else ... why would he like to continue at this school anyway? take your prestigious scholarship to another school, or request that the school pay your tuition as part of your settlement ... for your stress and suffering, $17.5 million for that hot cup of coffee that you can no longer enjoy ... hehehe
Question Authority before IT questions You
If people feel strongly, how about getting a link on your site to an article above this. Get the word out.
Well, how do you respond when someone calls you an asshole after you do something? Do you flip back, "well, fuck you too", do you shrug your shoulders and just walk away, or do you pull a Longshanks and do everything you can in your power/influence to disrupt or screw over the person who said it to you, especially if you have a position of power or authority over them in one way or another, such as threatening their job, publicly humiliating by name said person, running credit checks, reevaluating past job evaluations, etc?
The School WAYYYYY overreacted to this student's posting. And now it still thinks it has to save face, instead of taking the higher road and realizing it overreacted. It doesn't necessarily have to apologize, but they reacted so hard initially that they have painted themselves into a corner of still having to do something negative. I'll apply the student's judgement over all of the School's administrators: what a bunch of cockmasters.
Let's compare it though to the Dixie Chicks after 9/11 and their comments and corresponding backlash. The DCs have every right to espouse their beliefs, just like Ted Nugent so freely does during any chance he gets in the public's eye, yet Ted Nugent seems to be doing just fine in his own little world, and seems to be empowered by whatever negative reactions he invokes.
So what if the DC's comments were diametrically opposed to the opinions of probably 90% of their once core audience? They spoke their mind, and their fans spoke theirs right back, which is how things should work. It'll be interesting to see how strongly the DCs feel about their positions if they ever tour again. Were the DCs right? Were their fans right? Who cares at this point. But the whining by the DCs after the reactions to what they said was naive, at the very least. Gretchen Wilson wouldn't back down, but she's just a Red Neck Woman anyways.
Oh my gosh, they're burning our CDs, how ungrateful after all we have done for them!
The 1st Amendment guarantees you the right to speak, but it does not mandate that people, by proxy of the government, have to listen, agree, etc. to what you have to say.
But unless you can find someplace in there that covers private entities and freedom of speech (you won't) the bill of rights doesn't apply.
Read it. After you do, you'll realize it doesn't have anything to do with private entities, so pointing to the bill of rights in an effort to support your argument is useless.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Like a nice audioblog with nice mp3s of the aforementioned teacher droning on...
...
If he's as bad as advertised, that should be enough
Only next time, make it personnal, with names, quotes, unfounded rumors, incriminating pictures of the teacher cleaning his nose with dental apparatus...
Just remember : Keep it anonymous, Add a nice "This Blog is under protection of the first Amendment", and an EULA explicitly mentionning that anyone suing you because of it agrees to lose the judgement, pay 10 times your attorney fees and let you have an option on both their souls and their teeth. Also, they agree to only consult with you for all dental problems they might encounter, and you agree to treat them only with the best medieval techniques...
Even if you somehow lose, you can still have sweet revenge...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
If someone places a text file in ~/home/public_html/ is it really "out there in cyberspace" or is it just a file in a directory on the person's computer? Why should the private content on a person's computer be subject to this kind of scrutiny any more than something a person writes in a *private* diary should be. Should a person be punished just because of how they decide to chmod a file on their own hard drive? It is ridiculously easy for just about anyone with a computer running any OS and an IP address to run an HTTP server, uncompress some PHP based blog software in a local directory and begin "publishing" with in minutes. I think most people are under the impression that putting things "out on the Internet" implies actually "uploading" content to some big cool server with lots of blinkenlights at IBM corp where it will be judged by the masses and subjet to government, RIAA or [insert favorite evil acronym here] approval. This is simply not usually the case. People should realize that "censoring the Internet" or those who use it, really DOES infringe on people's civil liberties.
If you disagree, think for a minute about someone coming to a party you throw and cursing at everyone and being generally rude for the duration. Do you have the right to kick them out of your house? If so, please explain the difference.
I forget what 8 was for.
"What kind of crazy student conduct code says you can't complain about unnamed students?"
The kind that he signed after choosing to enroll. Is it stupid? Maybe, but that's not a good enough reason to nullify it. He didn't abide by a contract, and NO, it's not an illegal contract either, this has been hashed out dozens of times before.
"Maybe he's a whiner and all, but this is school.. the place where you're supposed to do stupid crap."
No, a school is where you learn the skills you need when you are an adult. He learned that he'd better damn well know what the consequences are if decides to run his mouth. That's a lesson we've all learned at some point.
You don't like the decision, that's cool, I find it a bit silly myself.
That being said, the school didn't force anyhting on this guy, he signed up for it. Bitching about how he got screwed over doesn't really work when it was voluntary.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
As you say yourself, it has to damage someone's reputation, but I can't see this being the case here. It has to be believable (eg, a claim that you are actually an alien is disguise is not going to be libel).
Second, if he goes to a private university, agrees to a code of conduct, then violates it- that's not "civil liberties".
Believe it or not, there's more to the concepts of rights and freedom than that - even private organisations are not exempt from rights given in law, even if you sign them away (eg, consider employment law). If the only way to get education involves restrictions on freedom, then that is a loss of freedom.
Bloggers seem absolutely shocked at a centuries-old legal concept:
On the contrary, it's people who seem absolutely shocked at centuries-old legal concepts that insults and criticisms are perfectly legal, and seem to think that just because it's "online", it's suddenly illegal.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the founding documents of the USA state that you can't be mistreated for exercising your freedoms. They just say that the Government won't join in with the mistreatment.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Bring it closer to home. My company has a standard of x bugs in y lines of code. One month I am having some problems and go over. Do they have a right to demand that I do 100 hours of community service as penance? Or stand outside at 8.00 with a sign around my neck saying that I sinned? Or wear scarlet overalls for a week? Or not use the cafeteria?
I'd say that they have the "right", insofar as they can say, "Unless you do this your ass is canned." No company in their right mind would do this because you'd quite rightly just go find another fricking job.
So while I think that requiring counseling as a prereq for continuing at the U is a little Orwellian, they're well within their rights; a school has the right to determine who goes there (though accepting confiscated tax dollars muddies the waters a bit). The language with "community service" shows that the U is confused about itself, tho. I think it's probably just a case of the board being so full of itself as to think of itself as akin to the government.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
We started down this slope when employees of companies could be disciplined and even fired for saying something the company didn't like in their personal web sites and blogs. Although the students comments were rude it doesn't appear they were injurous, threatening or inflamatory (if you see that prof kick him in the nuts!).
I think we've gone too far in regulating what people do on their own time and this incident is only one example of many. It's kind of funny how we talk out of both sides of our collective face sometimes. We all believe in freedom of speech, as long as it's a speech we like. We're fighting for freedom in Iraq while running secret prisons in Soviet bloc countries and wiretapping Americans without a warrant. We expect our elected leaders to be ethical in their conduct, yet we elect the same lying, corrupt individuals over and over expecting a different result.
There will always be gray areas. An employee giving away competitive intelligence or trade secrets on their personal blog. Slandering individual coworkers or other people. Encouraging people to engage in criminal behavior, or more specfiically trying to define what constitutes that criminal behavior. But, overall, I think actions speak louder than words. And if actions are any indication, freedom of speech is largely lip service to an ideal we don't really support.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
How is his speech being restricted? Is not still able to say EXACTLY what he said before?
Yes he is. He can do it at his leisure. He can do it daily, even hourly if he wanted to. There is NO restriction of his speech of any kind.
What is being restricted is his right to do business with one university. Remember, this is NOT a government entity (and please save us the nine degrees of separation for federal funding game) this is a private business, that he signed a contract with, and they believe he violated that contract. They are allowed to refuse to do business with him. He is allowed to refuse to do business with them.
They may or may not be right, but this is a contract law case, not a civil rights case, so save your outrage for something worthy.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral."
All true, doesn't matter. The university is allowed to refuse to do business with an individual they believe will cause their reputation harm through his conduct. This is not a rule they apply unilaterally, it is an AGREEMENT between the students and the university, and this guy broke that agreement.
Now as far as your allegations, if the university failed to adhere to its policies and procedures, then they're on the hook too. But I find the probation agreement and curious lack of a lawsuit pretty compelling evidence that they didn't violate anything.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Nice to see that some old college traditions just keep on going and going. I, for one, will henceforth pay more attention to those diplomas on dentists' walls.
"There has to be a socially recognized limit,"
There is. It's essentially that you shouldn't agree to the terms of a contract if you don't intend to abide by it. That's the relevant idea here.
Stop making a contract case into a civil rights case.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
...you had an employee who regularly criticized you and your company on the internet? Personally, I'd fire them. Free speech is one thing, but when an employee's actions outside work threaten to directly harm a business' ability to make money, they should no long be an employee. This of course is a dangerous position: there's a huge difference between calling your boss a "cockmaster" and pointing out safety violations. Of course, if a company is doing something illegal then you shouldn't take it to the internet first. ...someone came in your house and insulted you, your family, and everything you believe in? I'm talking about a guest you invited into your house. Do you plan to sit there and put up with the abuse, or would you ask them to leave your house? But what about their right to free speech? When you come on MY property, your rights are somewhat limited by mine. If you say something that offends me, I am well within my rights to require you to get off my property.
So if a student is publicly insulting a school and possibly causing that school harm (without making any claim of wrongdoing that can be supported), then that school's dean has a responsibility to deal with the issue. They have a right to expel him from the school should her persist.
That said, I agree that the original (and probably the new) punishment was too harsh. He let off a few childish rants and insulted some people. Slap him on the wrist (probation), tell him what will happen if he continues, and leave it at that.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
"They have no right nor jurisdiction for him to be required to perform community service and/or get counseling."
I have to be honest, I bristled at this a bit as well. I think where this becomes a problemn in this case is that this guy wanted to continue attending the school (rightfully so) and so had to agree to some type of intervention. In this case it strikes me more as an agreement by both parties.
Otherwise I agree with you.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
That depends on the content of the review. Actually, it depends on whether what is written even qualifies for a review.
If I said "The instructor is boring and uninspiring, reciting the book verbatim in a near monotone and offering no real instruction; he is also inaccessible to students outside of classtime, making it impossible to ask questions," that's a review.
If I said "This guy is a total f***wad who couldn't teach a rock to fall down," it's not.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
There is a very simple civil liberties issue:
Regardless of the fact that obivously such a blog will not make you Mr. Popularity with the current administration of whatever institution you are publically stating points against, this person does have a right to free speech, its protected.
Now yes in cases where you are divulging secrets you agreed to protect via signed contract, you may face civil action. Ok fair enough.
However, the school may have a right to disagree with that student but they have no rights to censor the student's speech via punishing acts directly motivated due to any statements.
Otherwise why bother with having constitutional rights anyways?
A wise person once told me, your rights end where the rights of others begin.
Ok, while the school, being a private institution is not bound to uphold the first ammendment as the government is, they are subject to other laws. Minimum Wage. As far as I know schools are not exempt from providing compensation for work. 100 hours of community service required by the institution would be considered work and therefore the student would be required compensation.
The school has the right to end it's relationship (read contract) with the student for his actions if they deem it breeches the contract but they do NOT have the right to have the student work for no pay.
but not everybody pays their girlfriends for their services. They do pay their profs, tho.
and you asked me to help, I'd tell you to fuck off.
The last thing I would want is for my degree to have less value because of a loud mouthed adolescent.
This guy is a representative of the university. His behavior could damage the credibility of the school. it didn't, and it wouldn't have evn been noticed, but that isn't the point and never was. He agreed to behave a certain way, he didn't. There's nothing else to it.
It's very funny to me that this
"Apart from their incredibly bad judgement"
was your fisrt statement when it is EXACTLY what the student did. Why are you advocating for someone who engaged in the behavior you are hammering the university for?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
And the university has every right to ask him to engage in certain behavior in order to attend. If he doesn't like it he can go somewhere else.
While acting indignant and throwing around charged language is fun, understanding the intracacies of the situation is more useful. You've managed the first part just fine, now work on the second.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How is this terrifically different than schools that require community (i.e., for the benefit of charities other than the school) service on all or certain students as a curricular requirement? I mean, I don't know of a 13th Ammendment case that's challenged these provisions... but if the settlement agreement says, "You agree to volunteer 100hrs of service time to a mutually agreed-upon charity...." So long as they don't mean the school, or its subsidiaries (e.g., the athletic dept., the alumni association, the fundraising foundation, et c.): How is this different?
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
www.qsopht.com ~q
He pays the school, the school does not pay or own him in any way. I don't see where he has to apologize or do any sort of punishement when he is the consumer of the schools product. They should be kissing his ass.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Last I checked, a "church, company, school or club" didn't include the US government.
Here's a clip from the University's Mission Statement: "...contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Our mission, therefore, is the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge..."
Perhaps they should revise it to say: "...contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Our mission, therefore, is the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, as long as it doesn't offend us or contradict our views..."
I'm not a US citizen, but I thought US had laws to protect freedom of speech.
Can someone who knows please confirm this?, And if so, why the student can't get an easy win just by the threat of pursuing this legally?
Last I checked the government controls, and is controlled by a multitude of companies.
Last I checked public schools were controlled by Local government, which is controlled by State government, which is controlled by Federal government. (Yeah I know it's not that simple, but that's how it is)
Last I checked "club" is a funny word, and people in "clubs" are just weird.
www.qsopht.com ~q
That's pretty shaky even by my standards.
Marquette's website Title is ...
"Marquette University - The Catholic, Jesuit University in Milwaukee, WI"
That explains it.
Also, the following directories are set for directory browsing...
http://www.marquette.edu/images/
http://www.marquette.edu/art/
www.qsopht.com ~q
Ronald J Riley, Exec. Dir.
InventorEd, Inc.
www.InventorEd.org
RJR"at"InvEd.org
Change "at" to @
To list an egregious example: I publish a newsletter. You ask me to print an article in the newsletter, but I refuse because I personally disagree with your article.
No violation of your right to free speech here. Case closed.
It's only when there is direct government involvement that constitutional issues arise.
From my example: I publish a newsletter for a government/quasi-governmental agency. You ask me to print an article in the newsletter, but I refuse because I personally disagree with your article.
You should sue. You should win. Case closed(?)
There are many exceptions to the point I've made (for example, the media are privately owned but face governmental oversight regarding editorial opinions). Now that's a different kettle o' fish. I'm pretty much screwed, as is everyone I work for.
All of this makes me want to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded fire-house.
But I have always hated that we have to be defined, 24/7, by what we do to buy bread for the table. A dentist fixes teeth. Wow. It's a profession, not an identity.
A job may not be an identity, but a profession is. The dentists, the doctors, the lawyers, the nurses, the certified public engineers -- those professions do see being a professional as being part of their identity. Their members are put in positions of trust in society and they take that responsibility seriously.
Why? Because the public needs protection from bad service in these areas before the fact. When you walk into the dentist, you expect to walk out with your teeth. You cannot be made whole by any amount of money damages if the guy is so drunk that he destroys them.
These professions are not just dirty little guilds holding down supply to keep prices high. Every honorable member wants his fellow members to be honorable, too. This notion that you can have one set of ethics at work and a different one at home is dubious at best. A person is ethical and professional, or he's an ass, whether on the job or off.
If you want to trust your teeth to this guy, you go right ahead.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
with morons like you all over the fucking place.
> Free speech isn't about escaping the consequences of what you write.
Again with this bullshit. When will people like you learn?
Free speech is EXACTLY about that. Anywhere in the world, you can open your mouth or pick up a pen or open a blog and "freely express yourself". That's "can" and "freely" as in, you have the natural ability to do so. What might make you reconsider the impulse to do so is the CONSEQUENCES that such an action can have, if you find yourself in an area where your right to express yourself freely AND WITH IMPUNITY isn't recognized. That doesn't mean that people can't speak back or even give you the evil eye. But you can't BE PUNISHED for expressing yourself.
The limits of such protection are to be explored through law, precedent and so on. We agree that defamation, as in the deliberate spreading of lies and misrepresentation in order to hurt someone, should be outside the realms of protected speech. But that's one thing, and what's happening here is different. You have to be able to prove that you were damaged by somebody's speech for the matter to be actionable (or at least for you to win the case). And in this case, NOBODY WAS EVEN NAMED.
What you're defending isn't personal responsibility as you might like to believe. As in "you gotta deal with the consequences of your actions." What you're defending is the right of an authoritarian structure to punish its subjects however it deems fit, outside of the scope of a court of law, while at the same time operating on US soil and therefore supposedly bound by the US Constitution. No wonder you have no clue what the 1st Amendment is all about.
I think there's a bit of confusion. Probably all Democrats would defend my Constitutional right to advocate voting Republican, and to agitate for the election of a full Republican slate. But it would be very odd for the State to forbid Democrats from expelling from the party someone who does this, and that's really not a free speech issue. I guess the Democrats would say, agitate for Bush all you want, but please not as a Democrat. That's not what we are about.
Similarly, Episcopalians might advocate religious freedom of expression, but still want to expel one of their congregation who turns out to be preaching that all Episcopalians will go to hell, and should rapidly convert to (eg) Islam if they want to save their souls. It doesn't have to do with free speech in the country, it has to do with the rules of association of non-State bodies.
Marquette is a bit the same isn't it? They are saying, say what you want, and we think you should be legall entitled to say it, but if you bring Marquette into disrepute, you have to go from Marquette.
What strikes me as wrong and a bit sinister is what they do next. They seem to lose track of being a private association, and start prescribing counselling and ordering Community Service. This is where the whole thing seems to go crazy. That's the sort of thing they cannot and should not do. That's the kind of thing only the courts should do, with regard to due process and accused's rights. In the coding example, the kinds of actions that I ridiculed would be considered constructive dismissal. You would be protected against it. The same should apply here.
Someone earlier in the thread sais "So anyone who disagrees with the US government in any way, or makes disparaging remarks about it should no longer be in good standing as a citizen of the US? This "case", if you want to call it that, is ridiculous".
Yes indeed. It is ridiculous. That's why I don't think it, and didn't say it. There is a real difference between the rights you have as a citizen, and the rights you have (and the other members have) as a member of a private association.
I hate to say it, but I can't find sympathy for this guy. People go online all the time to vent and insult other people. I find gratification in reading an article about someone who went online, acted like an immature jerk, and got punished for it. I'm just imagining this guy after he became a dentist ... a blog where he calls the kids he works on "little cocksuckers", or maybe parents on welfare, "Baby making idiots with kids whose teeth are rotting out of their heads". Maybe the school was being pre-emptive ... they didn't want to graduate somebody who already showed a tendancy for insulting and berating people in a global forum.
The teacher no doubt could be sued for having their own blog and making some comment about how this student is a "stupid moron who should never be allowed to own a dental practice", so why do we have to allow the student to go online and berate the teacher in an infantile sort of fashion?
I love the double standard that is starting to form. If I walk up to a person and call them a "f'ing idiot who shouldn't be allowed to walk on the streets with the rest of the normal folks", society would blame me for any fight that broke out. But if I go online and say the same thing and someone gets pissed off, I was just practicing my right to free speech.
The relative anonymity of the online world is helping to create a generation of disrespectful punks.
And I love the irony that this post will be from an Anonymous Coward! Ha!
I see alot of comparisons to yelling at people in real life. Here is the difference, if someone walks up to you and yells profanity at you, you have no choice but to listen to it. But if someone posts an entry on their personal blog, you have to actively seek it out and go find it in order to be offended by it.
Are you familiar with what a scholarship is? Usually it is not something you pay for.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
shall i post something like that, claiming to be written by a student of that Dental school and that student will get a probation?
i mean this is simply laughable
the first reaction he should've had:
1 - blog? what's blog?
2 - erm.. computer.. well.. i know how to turn it on and off!. yeah.. that helps?
And I didn't make it a civil rights issue. I didn't invoke the Constitution. I just said, in so many words, that as soon as you give people a little power then turn into petty demi-gods, and want to smite anyone who offends them. They had this guy's professional future hanging by a thread, so they think they can make him bark like a dog if it amuses them. Doing something isn't right just because you can get away with it.
"don't bite the hand that feeds you"
while I am completely in favor of the right to free speech, if you're on a scholarship maybe you shouldn't go around bashing the school or it's professors without first thinking of the potential consequences.
just my two cents.
Wow...profanity is the attempt of the feeble mind to express itself forcefully. While I totally agree with everything you said, dumping the random explitives is like handing out a free bag of dog poo with a well-made widget.
"I really don't think "the signatory agrees to never say or do anything we disagree with or find objectionable, forever and ever" is really an actionable contractual clause."
And I don't think resorting to absurd hyperbolic statements is really a good way to discuss this.
Try again when your argument isn't so ridiculous.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"You say it's not censorship because he still can write whatever he wants somewhere else ; necessarily you think that censorship is censorship only when one can't absolutely write anywhere anything at anytime."
If you'd like to point to where I stated that, I'll discuss it with you. Please don't tell me what I think when I haven't stated it, because you obviously have more serious concerns related to how you think, or rather, don't.
But since I didn't say anything of the kind, why do you find the need to resort to straw men?
The school did NOTHING that in any way inhibited his ability to publish. His speech wasn't hindered in ANY way.
"Guess what ? You'll never have that censorship, because not even governments can enforce that without throwing somebody into jail
So many know that the first expression of censorship is MENACING obliquely to take away something from you...striking you for not respecting the order to remain silent ; we know you'll talk but you'll have to pay a price for it ; good luck demonstrating this is censorship..it doesn't fit the definition, but the effect is that of self censorship
This is just stupid. Did the school do anything that in ANY way hindered this guy's speech? No. Why you think differently is either a failure of your education or your thought processes. Either way, your opinion isn't indicative of the law, or reality in general.
And giving someone consequences for their speech isn't censorship either, and it's moronic to suggest otherwise as you did.
The blog wasn't school related, so it didn't have to come down.
It worries me that people like you who are so clearly ignorant of the law decide to open their yaps and comment on it.
"Responsible of saying that some unnamed person who does teach in a particular way is that and that ? Responsible for spreading rumors, mocking and ridiculing in a oblique way that can be understood ONLY by people who ALREADY know the person and can evalute firsthand ?
That's called SATIRE and obviously those who don't know what satire is and how it works respond vehemently to it and appeal to responsability they often selectively forget."
No again, moron. That's called breach of contract, which is the only applicable law because... wait for it...
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.
Re-read that, then throw yourself down some stairs (hopefully to knock loose a few working brain cells) then come back and explain why you are wrong.
Hint- Marquette is a private entity.
Oh, and it's not satire by the Supreme Court's definition, which you should have looked up before making an idiot of yourself. I'm sure you didn't realize there was a definition of satire, because the your experience with this topic consists of smoke sessions in your dorm with your other well meaning, but factually deficient friends and associates. They were idiots too, and wrong just like you are.
Seriously, why do people like you even bother to post when you're so obviously incapable of actually reading and UNDERSTANDING the law?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?