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.
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.
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?.
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.
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.
They were unnamed in the blog as well.
In the American Union ve haf free speech unless ve are students or employees or depend on government contracts or grants or regulatory permits.
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
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.
...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.
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.
To establish libel or slander, first you have to establish that the piece of communication has meaning. In this case, there simply is no meaning to what he says. Furthermore the targeted professor was unnamed; in this situation an individual who claims libel has already validated the truth of the hurtful claim.
The blogger could have been (much) more tasteful, but the bottom line is the same. Marquette administration has put their foot down because if the public will be reading lies about their instituion, the lies better be administrative lies. It's a power play, and ironically the only man being emotionally/socially degraded is the student.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
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.
Please read the above text, and tell me how this university violated it.
The university is not congress. This law specifically and exclusively controls federal laws as enacted by our congress. A private institution is not bound by the same restrictions, especially since they are not Congress.
To test this theory, walk into a biker bar, announce you are going to exercise your first amendment rights, and then start insulting them.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
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.
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.
"You are an asshole." -- that is not libel.
"My professor is a cockmaster." -- that is not libel.
"George Bush is a fucking idiot." -- that is not libel.
"Colin Powell is a nigger." -- not libel.
"Professor X is a pedophile." -- that could be libel.
"My bio professor sleeps with his students." -- that could be libel.
"My professor is an idiot. His lectures are always full of egregious errors." -- that could be libel.
See a pattern? A statement can only be libelous if it's proven to be untrue, thus misrepresentative of the subject. You can't prove statements of pure opinion to be untrue, therefore the first four, although defamatory, does not misrepresent anyone, and so are not libelous.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the US, a true opinion isn't libelous. But...an opinion can be defamatory if it conveys to the recipient a provably false assertion of fact. Whether such an interpretation was conveyed is a factual question to be determined at a trial.
Typically, slander has 3 elements:
1)Is this statement defamatory (puts the person in a false light)?
2)Was this statement made publically?
3)Was there damage to the plaintiff's reputation?
If the statement is subjective, ask the following:
1) Is the statement addressing a matter of public concern?
2) Is the statement expressed in a manner that is not provably true or false?
3) Can the statement be reasonably interpreted as intended to convey actual facts about a person?
4) How precise and specific is the statement?
5) Is the statement verifiable?
6) What is the literary and social context of the statement?
7) What is the public context of the statement?
So, whether something is an opinion is very complicated, legally speaking. Most of your examples could, in fact, be libelous. And if not libelous, could be characterized as an invasion of privacy (placing someone in a false light, which is a tort).
Furthermore, stating that someone is a pedophile is almost lible per-se since the lable of pedophile, by itself, has stigma.