Free Speech

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Ah, a voice of reason from the great state of Tennessee… I went to Vanderbilt for law school, but I’ve only been back once since graduating in 02 – in which part do you reside?[/quote]

I actually attend Vanderbilt School of Medicine. I live about a block away from campus in Hillsboro Village.

Anyway, on to the very esoteric discussion of the 1st Amendment.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think the facts of the story go with what you said here – I believe the caricature was of one of the students BEING PUNISHED.[/quote]

If that is the case, I was way off in my interpretation of the original post. I thought the points were that 1)slamming Tillman’s motives is protected by the first amendment and 2)drawing the said caricature is likewise protected. No, the facts of the story probably don’t tie into what I said, but I was trying to make an analysis of the story based upon the subject “Free Speech.” Completely confused now? Good. Moving along.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Basically, it is de facto impossible for a political figure to win a slander/libel case. I’m going from memory, but I believe a political figure must demonstrate that the person who made the statement knew with certainty that the statement was false, and made the statement with the intent to harm.[/quote]

My reference to slanderous action was not in the legal or prosecutable sense of the word “slander.” Rather, I feel that the university would be justified in punishing the individuals responsible for the caricature as it pushes the bounds of legality. Would this case stand up in court? I agree that it would be hugely unlikely. However, I think the line of discernment between expressing a personal sentiment (Tillman comment) and defaming character (KKK caricature).

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Thus, if, for example, the caricature above were of the university president, the real fight would be whether he would be considered a public official (political figure) or a regular person – my money would be on finding him a political figure, but that would be a question to be decided during the trial. That finding would basically decide the outcome of the case.[/quote]

Once more we have the issue of first amendment protection in two senses. Should the first amendment be interpreted by the university in the scenario? As a public university, I think it should, but some would differ with me on this. Or is this an issue of jurisprudence at the government level. When I read the post, I certainly did not think about anyone actually going to court, but I did consider if reasonable for the university to take action against those responsible for the caricature based upon infringements made against the target individual. Just because something is not prosecutable in a court of law does not make it untouchable by a government institution.

That’s it. Good thread, guys. Lengthy and likely boring to anyone else reading it, but I’m enjoying it.

~Terumo

22

Nep,

Talk to Boston, according to him the state cannot pass laws concerning hate crime without running afoul of the constitution… :wink:

Boston,

This area has been a crucial issue within the US for a long time. How to protect the rights of minorities who were at one point systematically discriminated against. Various policies and systems were put in place to combat the problem. Obviously, at one point it was thought that means of addressing these issues could be enacted within the confines of the constitution.

Indeed, these policies are now under intense scrutiny concerning their potential for conflict with either free speech or equality amendments. For example, Universities have recently been criticized for their admittance policies.

A nice introduction to the topic of affirmative action, for those of us who aren’t lawyers, with respect to employment and educational admittance can be found here.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Affirmative_action

In any case, we are all aware that there are times and places where rights are ajusted based on their conflict with other rights or with specific laws. Racial inequalities brought about by discrimination are one such conflict area.

The right to equality, or a lack of discrimination based on certain attributes, is in conflict with several constitutional amendments. Interestingly, attempts to promote or enforce equality are in conflict with the very same amendment that appears to call for such actions.

So, I know this is taking a long time to get to the point, but here it is. You can easily argue that if a University adminstration has restrictions on certain types of speech in order to promote equity and equality, then these rules also have a basis in the constitution. As such, while they may or may not be wrong, they certainly aren’t immediately swept aside due to the fact that free speech is protected by the constitution.

We do indeed have a conflict of rights that is not easily resolved.

However, I am not sure whether or not the issue at the University in question falls under this conflict or not. I’m certainly not arguing that it must. I will argue that there is a basis in the constitution for efforts to ensure equality, if they can be done in a way that does not violate the constitution.

23

On the hate-crimes issue, and generally, I should note that states can provide MORE protection for free speech under their Constitutions than the federal government provides under the federal Constitution – this is generally true for all rights.

The theory the court used here, actually, is related to crimial law and the right people have, in layman’s terms, to not be prosecuted under vague laws, but an effect of the decision is to protect free speech beyond the current boundaries of the protection in the U.S. Constitution.

With that, here’s a story of the Georgia Supreme Court doing that w/r/t “hate crimes.”

Georgia Court Strikes Down Law on Hate
By ARIEL HART

Published: October 26, 2004

ATLANTA, Oct. 25 - The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously struck down the state’s four-year-old hate-crimes law on Monday, saying it was “unconstitutionally vague.”

Justice Carol W. Hunstein wrote in the opinion that hate-crimes laws could be appropriate, but that this one did not give people of ordinary intelligence a specific enough warning of what conduct to avoid.

L. David Wolfe, the lawyer for Christopher Botts, one of those appealing to the court, said, “I don’t believe that the statute is necessary.”

“It seems to me that most violent crimes are motivated by some sort of prejudice or bias,” Mr. Wolfe said. “But if, in fact, there is going to be a hate-crimes statute, I think it should be well defined so the protected class is identified and known to everybody in the community.”

Prosecutors said Mr. Botts and his girlfriend, Angela Pisciotta, who are white, screamed racial epithets as they beat two African-American brothers who had passed them as the couple panhandled in Little Five Points, a district just east of downtown Atlanta known for its multicultural shops and businesses. Mr. Botts and Ms. Pisciotta pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received six years in prison, and a Fulton County judge in a bench trial added two years for the hate-crimes violation. He found another participant in the beating not guilty of a hate crime.

The law required harsher sentencing for someone who “intentionally selected any victim or any property of the victim as the object of the offense because of bias or prejudice.”

The law’s advocates had tried to pass a more specific bill, identifying race, religion, gender, national origin or sexual orientation as the motivation for the crime, but were stymied in the House over the inclusion of sexual orientation. The bill passed when lawmakers removed all protected categories.

“It was the best that could be accomplished at the time,” said Harry Knox, formerly executive director of Georgia Equality, a gay rights group. “We tried to get more from the Legislature but couldn’t.”

By encompassing “every possible partiality or preference,” the court said, the law could be used even against “a rabid sports fan convicted of uttering terroristic threats to a victim selected for wearing a competing team’s baseball cap” or “a campaign worker convicted of trespassing for defacing a political opponent’s yard signs.” It also said the law put decisions like who should be protected into the hands of police officers, judges and juries, leaving it open to arbitrary interpretations.

The state had argued that the law did not need to be so specific because it was only a sentencing statute, and the aggravated assault law laid out the unlawful conduct. But the court said the hate-crimes law established a sentence for additional conduct, selecting the victim.

State Senator Vincent D. Fort, who sponsored the legislation that created the law, said the ruling was “a partial victory” because it upheld the general principle of harsher sentences for hate crimes. He said he would “aggressively fight for a new law.”

24

As a Libertarian I agree with Boston. There are a few narrow exceptions to free speech - we’ve all heard the famous “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” example (unless, of course, there really is a fire). You can place certain time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. But punishing these students for the content of their speech was unconstitutional.

Hate speech is protected speech. Stupid speech is protected speech. TC’s musings about his penis is protected speech. Both of the examples in the article, the Tillman editorial and the Grand Wizard incident, were both stupid and hateful. (In some ways the Tillman editorial was more hateful – imagine how his family must feel to have their son, who lost his life in the line of duty, by called an “idiot?”) Both are protected - deal with it.

25

[quote]Terumo wrote:

I actually attend Vanderbilt School of Medicine. I live about a block away from campus in Hillsboro Village.

Anyway, on to the very esoteric discussion of the 1st Amendment. [/quote]

Very cool – I used to live right off of 31st Ave. N., very close to Houston’s.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Basically, it is de facto impossible for a political figure to win a slander/libel case. I’m going from memory, but I believe a political figure must demonstrate that the person who made the statement knew with certainty that the statement was false, and made the statement with the intent to harm.

Terumo wrote:
My reference to slanderous action was not in the legal or prosecutable sense of the word “slander.” Rather, I feel that the university would be justified in punishing the individuals responsible for the caricature as it pushes the bounds of legality. Would this case stand up in court? I agree that it would be hugely unlikely. However, I think the line of discernment between expressing a personal sentiment (Tillman comment) and defaming character (KKK caricature).[/quote]

The university can do a lot of things that wouldn’t stand up in court – I was only arguing what would happen if they were sued for enacting the punishment.

Unfortunately, oftentimes the transaction costs are too large for people to pursue the enforcement of their rights in the courts.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Thus, if, for example, the caricature above were of the university president, the real fight would be whether he would be considered a public official (political figure) or a regular person – my money would be on finding him a political figure, but that would be a question to be decided during the trial. That finding would basically decide the outcome of the case.

Terumo wrote:
Once more we have the issue of first amendment protection in two senses. Should the first amendment be interpreted by the university in the scenario? As a public university, I think it should, but some would differ with me on this. Or is this an issue of jurisprudence at the government level. When I read the post, I certainly did not think about anyone actually going to court, but I did consider if reasonable for the university to take action against those responsible for the caricature based upon infringements made against the target individual. Just because something is not prosecutable in a court of law does not make it untouchable by a government institution.

That’s it. Good thread, guys. Lengthy and likely boring to anyone else reading it, but I’m enjoying it.

~Terumo[/quote]

Well, the university is going to interpret the 1st Amendment for itself – which essentially is the government level for a public university – in whatever action it decides to take. A court will only rule on that action if a student challenges the punishment.

I think I detect some confusion in the “court” idea. In this case, the student would be taking the university to court to challenge his or her punishment – it would not be the case that a prosecutor would take the student to court to punish him for libel/slander. Libel/slander are torts, and the government wouldn’t be the prosecutor – it would be the libelled/slandered individual suing the student, who would basically be invoking the 1st Amendment in his or her defense.

26

[quote]BostonBarrier wrote:
I think I detect some confusion in the “court” idea. In this case, the student would be taking the university to court to challenge his or her punishment…"[/quote]
Yes, you do detect confusion, and thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t realize the issue at hand was in the student taking the university to court in a challenge case. However, I feel my initial three points are nonetheless valid, despite the possible irrelevance.

[quote]BostonBarrier wrote:
Libel/slander are torts, and the government wouldn’t be the prosecutor – it would be the libelled/slandered individual suing the student, who would basically be invoking the 1st Amendment in his or her defense.[/quote]
I understand the government itself would not be prosecuting. When I was referring to “government,” I was making the distinction between a judicial court and a university ruling. The government sets up courts; that was my line of reasoning behind the horrendous terminology.

~Terumo

27

[quote]vroom wrote:
Nep,

Talk to Boston, according to him the state cannot pass laws concerning hate crime without running afoul of the constitution… :wink: [/quote]

Not quite true – they can’t punish hate speech in and of itself. Still, the hate crimes legislation is bad enough for a strict civil libertarian… =-)

[quote] Boston,

This area has been a crucial issue within the US for a long time. How to protect the rights of minorities who were at one point systematically discriminated against. Various policies and systems were put in place to combat the problem. Obviously, at one point it was thought that means of addressing these issues could be enacted within the confines of the constitution.

Indeed, these policies are now under intense scrutiny concerning their potential for conflict with either free speech or equality amendments. For example, Universities have recently been criticized for their admittance policies.[/quote]

Not to quibble, but these are two completely different lines of cases, with completely different precedents and standards. Discrimination in FAVOR of African Americans to remedy past racial prejudice is basically ALLOWED, to various degrees, in a lot of government programs, and it results in a preference in allocating government resources.

With the Free Speech cases, discrimination against RACIST viewpoints is generally DISALLOWED.

This is the state of the law as it stands, but as you note the understanding of rights changes with court precedents – that’s the nature of our system – Constitutional/statutory law layered on with judicial interpretation (which is really common law, even though, strictly speaking, we aren’t supposed to have common law in the Constitutional law area).

[quote]
A nice introduction to the topic of affirmative action, for those of us who aren’t lawyers, with respect to employment and educational admittance can be found here.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Affirmative_action

In any case, we are all aware that there are times and places where rights are ajusted based on their conflict with other rights or with specific laws. Racial inequalities brought about by discrimination are one such conflict area.

The right to equality, or a lack of discrimination based on certain attributes, is in conflict with several constitutional amendments.[/quote] THis all depends on how you are defining “equality” and “lack of discrimination” – seriously, a very fact-specific inquiry.[quote] Interestingly, attempts to promote or enforce equality are in conflict with the very same amendment that appears to call for such actions. [/quote]
This is applicable to the Equal Rights cases under the 14th Amendment, but not really to the Free Speech cases under the 1st Amendment.

You’re right that the argument can be made – and it is made by those who think Free Speech should be subordinated to their idea of anti-discrimination. However, the current state of the law – and in my view, the correct one – is that Free Speech trumps.

[quote] We do indeed have a conflict of rights that is not easily resolved.

However, I am not sure whether or not the issue at the University in question falls under this conflict or not. I’m certainly not arguing that it must.[/quote]
Trust me, it does – at least if they are doing as is alleged, which is giving a much harsher punishment under rule that on its face is viewpoint-neutral to students because they disapprove of their political message. That’s disallowed because it violates the students’ free speech rights under the 1st Amendment.

You’re right – but it’s the last clause of that sentence that presents all the problems.

28

Am I correct in assuming that one of the indiduals who was prosecuted was in fact the person whom the caricture was of? Well my question is let’s go back a few steps, when that person was running for office and he was in fact labled a racist where was the school to protect him against that? Or am I missing something?

29

hijack

A good to see a couple who spent some time in the Athens of the South. I, too, spent my time in Nashville. Cheers to you.

end hijack

30

[quote]superpimp wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that one of the indiduals who was prosecuted was in fact the person whom the caricture was of? Well my question is let’s go back a few steps, when that person was running for office and he was in fact labled a racist where was the school to protect him against that? Or am I missing something?[/quote]

Superpimp:

You are correct in that reading of the facts – the person in the caricature was the person who was accused of being racist in the student electoral campaign – he was accused of being racist for not supporting a quota for representation of certain minorities (on the council, I believe).

As to your question, it’s not the school’s duty to protect him against name-calling – this goes to the whole concept that the school can’t make a speech code prohibiting hate speech. The school is not allowed to serve as a censor.

31

I went out and found the code of conduct for UMass…

http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/rights/stud_condct.htm

You may notice that when punishments are handed out they apparently take into account a lot of soft issues. I found that on some other publication based in that geographic area.

So, in this instance one of the soft issues is the amount of racial unrest and conflict within the campus community at the current time. Apparently they have several hot issues on campus right now due to funding cuts and subsequent loss of minority equality or support programs.

According to their code of conduct it may just be possible that they felt it necessary to make a scapegoat out of somebody to help keep things calm, without having a specific policy regarding student speech.

In particular, see item B:

The University has established these regulations regarding standards of conduct and scholarship in order to protect its educational purpose, provide for the orderly conduct of its activities, and safeguard the interests of the University community.

What actions does this allow the University to take with respect to protecting the ability of the campus to conduct activities in an orderly manner? Especially if such actions are taken on a case by case basis, as suggested by the code, without any formal policies with respect to speech, taking into account the current issues facing the campus.

Here is the rule that appeared to trigger sanctions…

Violations of University policies and regulations, including but not limited to, the Alcoholic Beverage and Smoke-Free policies.

Here is a general bit that talks about the softer aspects considered when imposing sanctions. Notice that racial issues are weighted heavily when determining punishment…

In determining a sanction, a designated University official may consider the student’s present demeanor and past disciplinary record, the nature of the offense, the severity of any damage, injury, or harm resulting therefrom, and other factors. The University has a special concern for incidents in which persons are subject to harassment because of membership in a particular racial, religious, gender or sexual orientation group. Such incidents damage not only individuals, but also the free and open academic environment of the University. More severe sanctions are appropriate for such conduct.

So, it looks like the University is going to up the sanction level for misconduct that occurs in association with issues of a discriminatory nature. However, this is a very different slant than assuming that free speech is banned. This means that if you do something wrong, and you were protected by free speech until you did something wrong, you are then screwed.

Interesting.

The rules don’t discriminate speech at all, but the severity of the sanctions are likely to be increased if your rule breaking involves what would normally be considered free speech. It also shows the University feels that it is able to take actions to quell racial unrest on campus in order to promote an effective learning environment, without setting up specific policies that may be in violation of various constitutional amendments.

This is similar to attempts to define punishements for hate crimes to be heftier than the same crime without the hate crime element. See Nep’s post above about vandalism qualifying as a hate crime based on use of language.

32

[quote]vroom wrote:
I went out and found the code of conduct for UMass…

http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/rights/stud_condct.htm

You may notice that when punishments are handed out they apparently take into account a lot of soft issues. I found that on some other publication based in that geographic area.

So, in this instance one of the soft issues is the amount of racial unrest and conflict within the campus community at the current time. Apparently they have several hot issues on campus right now due to funding cuts and subsequent loss of minority equality or support programs.

According to their code of conduct it may just be possible that they felt it necessary to make a scapegoat out of somebody to help keep things calm, without having a specific policy regarding student speech.

In particular, see item B:

The University has established these regulations regarding standards of conduct and scholarship in order to protect its educational purpose, provide for the orderly conduct of its activities, and safeguard the interests of the University community.

What actions does this allow the University to take with respect to protecting the ability of the campus to conduct activities in an orderly manner? Especially if such actions are taken on a case by case basis, as suggested by the code, without any formal policies with respect to speech, taking into account the current issues facing the campus.

Here is the rule that appeared to trigger sanctions…

Violations of University policies and regulations, including but not limited to, the Alcoholic Beverage and Smoke-Free policies.

Here is a general bit that talks about the softer aspects considered when imposing sanctions. Notice that racial issues are weighted heavily when determining punishment…

In determining a sanction, a designated University official may consider the student’s present demeanor and past disciplinary record, the nature of the offense, the severity of any damage, injury, or harm resulting therefrom, and other factors. The University has a special concern for incidents in which persons are subject to harassment because of membership in a particular racial, religious, gender or sexual orientation group. Such incidents damage not only individuals, but also the free and open academic environment of the University. More severe sanctions are appropriate for such conduct.

So, it looks like the University is going to up the sanction level for misconduct that occurs in association with issues of a discriminatory nature. However, this is a very different slant than assuming that free speech is banned. This means that if you do something wrong, and you were protected by free speech until you did something wrong, you are then screwed.

Interesting.

The rules don’t discriminate speech at all, but the severity of the sanctions are likely to be increased if your rule breaking involves what would normally be considered free speech. It also shows the University feels that it is able to take actions to quell racial unrest on campus in order to promote an effective learning environment, without setting up specific policies that may be in violation of various constitutional amendments.

This is similar to attempts to define punishements for hate crimes to be heftier than the same crime without the hate crime element. See Nep’s post above about vandalism qualifying as a hate crime based on use of language.[/quote]

vroom:

This won’t hold up when/if the code is challenged. Firstly, like the statute in Georgia, it would likely be held unconsitutionally vague, because it gives the administration far too much leeway in determining punishment, which means it gives students too little notice in what type of conduct could trigger a more severe punishment.

However, it does look as if the university was attempting to craft something similar to a hate-crimes legislation, rather than a hate-speech regulation.

In this specific case, however, a key element of the hate-crime rationale from the USSC decision allowing such things is missing: There is no tie between the crime and the expression. There is no claim, by the administration or otherwise, that the students were motivated to drink more due to racism. This is essentially the tie that would be necessary for it to fall within the hate-crimes rationale.

In this case, you have a simple restriction – no alcohol – and then an increased punishment meted out due to speech the administration did not like.

So, to the extent they would argue they are simply applying their code (which, you will note, they do not argue), they would lose. They are trying to keep the details of the punishment secret, precisely, it is my guess, because their lawyer explained to them they would lose such an argument.

33

This sort of political expression is definitely NOT protected speech:

Katherine Harris’s Car Trouble
Cops: Florida man tried to run down controversial Republican

OCTOBER 27–A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac. According to the below Sarasota Police Department report, Barry Seltzer, 46, told cops that he was simply exercising his “political expression” when he drove his car at Harris and several supporters, who were campaigning last night at a Sarasota intersection. Seltzer–pictured at right in a booking photo–allegedly drove up on a sidewalk and headed directly for Harris before swerving “at the last minute.” Harris told officers that “she was afraid for her life and could not move as the vehicle approached her,” according to the report. For his part, Seltzer–who’s a registered Democrat–told cops, “I intimidated them with the car. They were standing in the street.” He added, “I did not run them down, I scared them a little!” That explanation did not stop investigators from arresting Seltzer for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. Harris, Florida’s former secretary of state, is best known for her role in the aftermath of the state’s disastrous 2000 presidential election. (3 pages)

34

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
hijack

A good to see a couple who spent some time in the Athens of the South. I, too, spent my time in Nashville. Cheers to you.

end hijack[/quote]

Thunderbolt:

When were you there? I was there Summer 1999 - Spring 2002.

35

BB,

Summer of 2000 through July 2002.

How 'bout that?

Knew a lot of folks that went to Vandy.

36

Another interesting item – this time, the legal analysis would be different, because Columbia is a private school – any right to free speech that the professor would have would be contractual in nature, based on promises of “academic freedom” and the definition thereof.

As far as my personal opinion, if the facts are as alleged, I don’t think the professor should be punished but I do think he should be subject to harsh criticism for stymying the discussion via abuse of his position of authority.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_21.shtml#1098907763

[David Bernstein, October 27, 2004 at 4:09pm] Possible Trackbacks

Prof. Joseph Massad of Columbia:Brian Leiter links to an online petition in support of Prof. Joseph Massad of Columbia.
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/002412.html
Brian states that the charge of misconduct vis a vis a student by Mr. Massad are serious, but do not warrant dismissal. First, let’s be clear that I have no personal knowledge as to whether any accusations made against Prof. Massad are true. As far as I know, the most serious charge against Prof. Massad, and the one Brian is likely referring to, is as follows:

“a former Columbia undergraduate, Tomy Schoenfeld, recalls attending a lecture about the Middle East conflict given by Mr. Massad in spring 2001. At the end of the lecture, Mr. Schoenfeld prefaced a question to the professor by informing Mr. Massad that he was Israeli, Mr. Schoenfeld told The New York Sun. “Before I could continue, he stopped me and said, ‘Did you serve in the military?’” Mr. Schoenfeld, who served in the Israeli Air Force between 1996 and 1999, recalled. He said that he told Mr. Massad he had served in the military and that Mr. Massad asked him how many Palestinians he had killed. When Mr. Schoenfeld refused to answer, Mr. Massad said he wouldn’t allow him to ask his question.”

At least Brian notes the seriousness of the charge. Despite the flowery rhetoric of the on-line petition, harassment and discrimination against an individual student based on his national origin is certainly not part of academic freedom, though one can debate how serious the reprecussions from one incident should be. For now, not knowing all the facts, including Prof. Massad’s side of the story, I’m willing to reserve judgment; but why are Massad’s defenders so eager to defend him on academic freedom grounds, before knowing all the facts? They call on Columbia President Bollinger to issue call on President Bollinger to rise to the occasion and issue “a categorical statement in defense of Professor Massad and against this campaign of defamation;” is Bollinger supposed to categorically defend Massad without knowing the facts?

And why is a movie about anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment at Columbia that merely investigates incidents such as these, along with the reaction thereto, an “attack on academic freedom?” Part of freedom of speech the right to criticize what professors say and do in their classrooms and in their scholarly work. And donors, specifically criticized by the petitioners, have the right to withhold donations from a university if they believe that the university is doing a poor job in one way or another.

Certainly, any official sanction from Columbia–assuming it even follows up on any of this–faced by Prof. Massad should (1) be based on fact, not rumor; (2) be limited to conduct not protected by the principles of academic freedom; and (3) be proportionate to action taken against other professors for similar misconduct. But the suggestion in the on-line petition that a claim of discrimination by Prof. Massad by an Israeli student should not be taken seriously because “[t]hey ignore his distinguished teaching record and the significant support he enjoys from the vast majority of students who have, in fact, taken his classes,” is risible. Should a university ignore complaints of discrimination by a black student, a woman, or member of another group just because most students weren’t subject to such discrimination and in fact enjoyed the class?

Note that Brian links to the website of notorious British professor Mona Baker, famous not for her scholarship but for firing two Israeli professors–both, ironically, leftists–from an academic journal she ran solely because they are Israelis.
http://www.monabaker.com/
She’s now a spokesperson for academic freedom and integrity?

I’m certainly aware, from working on You Can’t Say That!
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/book/
, about how claims of discrimination can be misused to try to silence others. But I’m waiting for some indication, from Prof. Massad or others, that the incident in question never actually happened. Until then, forgive me if I don’t join the petitioners on the barricades.

37

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BB,

Summer of 2000 through July 2002.

How 'bout that?

Knew a lot of folks that went to Vandy.[/quote]

That’s pretty cool – I wonder if we were ever in the same bar at the same time? There aren’t really THAT many cool spots that attract enough ladies to have made them worthwhile on Friday and Saturday nights…

BTW, did you ever work out at Vandy? That gym was pretty sweet – I miss it.

38

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There aren’t really THAT many cool spots that attract enough ladies to have made them worthwhile on Friday and Saturday nights…[/quote]
If you ever return, you should check out the strip that was recently built by the round-about on Demonbreun. They have put in a strip with an Irish pub, a pizza place, a coffee shop, a Chicago-style restaurant, and a couple of upscale bars. The ass that can be found at this place on a weekend night is absolutely absurd.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, did you ever work out at Vandy? That gym was pretty sweet – I miss it.[/quote]
I’ll be going there in about thirty minutes.

~Terumo

39

Vroom, first off you really sound like a dink when you start a post off with a sigh, as if BB has somehow totally screwed something up. By all looks of things here, he is right on point and you keep changing yours.

Secondly, Exactly what is your point? That the school was right for punishing these kids? You have got to be crazy, Here the kid gets slandered by his classmates, looses an election and at a party afterwords they have some fun and draw a few silly pitures which indicate he is not a racist and this should be punished? I can tatto a friggin Swastica on my forehead and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. Can I be kept off private property? sure, but not off public property. I think we can all agree you are simply trying to defend a liberal institution who has some egg on thier face. Hey it’s ok for the left to screw up, the right does it also. It is just silly when you defend every one of them. Especially when they are in the wrong.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

40

Vag,

If you can’t tell, I’m trying to find ways to allow the continuation of equity considerations without violating free speech.

I still think this is being used as a way to attack equity issues.

Regardless, this is a forum for debates, what is the point of debate if we all just agree to everything?

The code of conduct of UMass is not a law and does not result in legal action, and hence probably does not have to meet the same standards as the hate crimes legislation that was struck down.

Also, the code of conduct specifically mentions the fact that any procedings are confidential. It is a huge red herring to blame the University for not making this information public.

Students may arrange to review their own disciplinary records and related information by contacting the Dean of Students Office. Except as provided in the CSC, the University shall not communicate a student’s disciplinary record and related information to any person or agency without the prior written consent of the student or, when the student is a minor, the student’s parents or legal guardian, except as required by law. Disciplinary proceedings under the CSC shall be confidential.

The onus is on interested parties to challenge the University and the provisions of the code of conduct. It is not up the University to prove that it has acted appropriately in this case by releasing information. Calling for them to do so and criticizing for not doing so is a poor tactic.

I might even have to sigh about it… :wink:

There is indeed a conflict of rights. The rights to equal treatment, the responsibility to provide an environment conducive to education (race riots are not conducive) and steps taken to empower the University to have influence in these issues, while respecting the right to freedom of speech.

If you can’t see this as a conflict, then good for you. Is it possible the University has abused their power? Is it possible the University is trying to do the right thing? Is it possible the sanctioned individual is happy with santion with in effect is merely a slap on the wrist? We just don’t know! It is certainly the focus of some pretty heavyweight attention though. I’m suspicious of both sides. Sue me.

On a totally different note, there are other ways to provide accessibility to Universities than racial quotas. For example, choosing the best candidates within very a large quantity of very small geographical areas, with areas having no applications carried into the surrounding regions, would certainly be more representative of the populace in those regions.