Student Expelled For Facebook Photo Description

flutterecho writes "A sophomore at Valdosta State University was expelled after criticizing his university's plan to build two new parking garages with student fees. In a letter apparently slipped under his dorm room door, Ronald Zaccari, the university's president, wrote that he 'present[ed] a clear and present danger to this campus' and referred to an image on the student's Facebook page which contained a threatening description. 'As additional evidence of the threat posed by Barnes, the document referred to a link he posted to his Facebook profile whose accompanying graphic read: "Shoot it. Upload it. Get famous. Project Spotlight is searching for the next big thing. Are you it?" It doesn't mention that Project Spotlight was an online digital video contest and that "shoot" in that context meant "record."' In a post-Virginia Tech world, has university surveillance of online identities gone too far?"

Comments

online identity

[Grampaw Willie]

How do they know the students were not the victims of identity theft?

that is an internet issue that will most likely soon be resolved.

lots of bad crap gets sent to the net every second. and this ain't good, from id theft, online fraud, phishing, bot-nets and spam, to web site philosophy

the resolution is simple: and that is to establish a Point of Control and that should be where the ISP obtains access to The Net. the ISP should be responsible for verifying the ID of its customers, and on presentation of a proper warrant, verify to authorities who posted what

ISP not in compliance would be disconnected and any country not requiring ISP to comply would be disconnected.

the concept of remote software updates also has to go into the garbage can so that we can get rid of RATS. We have to be rid of RATS so that sign-ons and activity can be properly verified and to do this everyone has a right to a CLEAN computer

Re:Airport security

[rock217]

Buddy of mine was headed home after Christmas this year, and I guess he brought some antique drinking glasses with him. The X-Rays were apparently inconclusive, and after repeatedly tripping the metal detector (I guess walking through the metal detector with the non X-Ray(able) item is the general TSA fallback procedure?) they finally had to call a TSA super to properly inspect the nefarious drinkware.

So as he's back at the metal detector just trying to get through the nightmare of holiday travel, he decides to give them a friendly piece of information:

I guess shouting "It's just leaded crystal!" sounds a lot like "It's just a loaded pistol!", what with all the background holiday commotion.

Sufficed to say my friend had a few automatic weapons pointed at him momentarily, but after the confusion was sorted out they let him through.

Re:Maybe, maybe not

[moosesocks]

It's a state university. That means they're bound by the Constitution and cannot expel students without affording them due process.

Had this been a private school, he would have had utterly no recourse: expulsion at will for any reason, even none at all, is one of the perks (if you're an administrator) of being at a private school.

Despite what George Bush thinks, the constitution applies to everybody in the US.

Had a private university printed "we reserve the right to murder our students" in their handbook, they would be allowed to do so under their own rules. However, you bet your ass that they'd be found guilty of murder should they ever choose to use that policy. The terms in the handbook are bound by the same laws and regulations that the rest of us are.

Public/private boundaries of free speech are somewhat blurry, although the university was public in this case. Assuming the kid gets a good lawyer (and I'd bet that the ACLU would take up his case for free), there's no way that the decision would stand up in court.

Re:Public University

[moosesocks]

In most high high schools one has free speech ad infinitum. A student can yell out in the classroom, curse the principle, and generally make sure the he or she is the center of attention. Short of a felony, the state still has to educate.

George Bush's supreme court has made sure that this is no longer true to any degree of the imagination.

However, the rest of your post strikes me as paranoid and delusional. Shouting during a calculus exam has nothing to do with free speech, and prohibiting such an activity doesn't violate free speech according to the supreme court. On the other hand, the manner in which the student in question expressed himself wasn't disruptive in the slightest.

If I had a professor who was spewing bullshit about intelligent design during a biology lecture, I would sure as hell raise my hand, and call him out on it, or at least provide evidence to the contrary. The ability to speak freely in an academic setting is paramount to the integrity of any educational institution. The professor might fail me as a result, but a public university sure as hell couldn't expel me for speaking up in such a manner. Apart from having to deal with the legal backlash that is sure to occur, the professor in question would likely lose his credibility (and possibly his tenure), and the university's accreditation would be put in jeopardy.

The university on the other hand is not so comprehensive, and have the responsibility to genuinely educate, not just babysit.

I want a caring administration to keep track of the students and redirect them from behaviors that are destructive.

These two statements are in complete direct contradiction with each other.

Given that college is a choice, so it success in college. A student can choose to get an education or waste the opportunity.

The iconic Supreme Court ruling, "Brown vs. Board of Education" in 1954, which desegregated school systems, stated in the first page of the ruling:
"Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms"
In other words, all students must be held to the same standards. So, although a student can be kicked out for failing his classes, any other students with similar grades must be subject to the same actions. On the other hand, it is not the right of the university to arbitrarily decide which students can stay, and which must leave. All in all, this is legal recognition that the right to choose to get an education is a fundamental right is protected under US law.

I also know that universities cannot release student data, so the ability of the university to defend itself in the press is limited, as well as the ability to get rid of such a student. I recall one such student when I was in school, that really seemed crazy and scary, and we would have all been better off without him.

It has been mentioned time, and time again that the Columbine shooters went on their rampage, not because they were "crazy and scary", but because of the xenophobic reaction people tend to have against anybody who's even slightly different from the norm. Arbitrary discrimination is NOT the answer to any of our problems, and will only make things worse. I could draw historical parallels, but I'd rather not invoke Godwin's law for this discussion....