@intparent I won’t disagree with your D’s characterization of the CI as “fairly right wing.” I think my Pomona D would agree. But the current and former Editor-in-Chief are both from Pomona and if you look at the Editorial Board it has representatives of Scripps, Pitzer and CMC (no Mudders that I can detect!).
@MYOS1634 Sorry I didn’t understand you the first time. In On Liberty, the philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1859 gave the example that someone can say “grain merchants are all thieves”, but you can’t say: “grain merchants are all thieves so let’s grab our torches and go burn down the merchant’s house!” So I think the outcome of your example really depends on the context and whether it seems like an imminent specific threat.
When it comes to harassment, speech has to be severe, pervasive and objectively offensive to lose protection.
High School students do not have constitutionally protected First Amendment speech at school and their speech off campus is somewhat limited if it causes disruption. But what these Pamona students did here: a private FB group in which the said vile things… that’s likely going to be protected. Take a look at the Beverly Hills Unified School District case. https://casetext.com/case/jc-v-beverly-hills-unified-school-district
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that the university can’t impose restrictions on students. If you would like to voluntarily be part of the university, you agree to abide by their terms. You break them, you can be punished.
Actually, it does if we’re talking about public universities. Free speech is never unlimited(ex. you can’t make bomb threats), but restrictions have to be narrowly tailored to survive strict scrutiny and the Supreme Court has never approved a “hate speech” exception to the first amendment.
When you join the military you waive certain constitutional rights. For example, you could be court martialed in the military for flag burning, or kneeling when you are told to stand during the anthem, but that wouldn’t be constitutionally permissible at a public university.
@roethlisburger
I was speaking to his character. His willingness to call out the despicable behavior that now is becoming more and more acceptable. He didn’t have to do it but he did and I appreciate his leadership and setting a line that shouldn’t be crossed. It’s called decency and in my book it’s not a liberal, or conservative principle but a human principle.
It’s crazy to think his response on this much of a publicity issue wasn’t coordinated with and approved by his bosses at the Pentagon. So yes, he did have to do something like this.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that the university can’t impose restrictions on students. If you would like to voluntarily be part of the university, you agree to abide by their terms. You break them, you can be punished.”
Actually that’s EXACTLY what it means. A public university is prevented by the 1st Amendment from restrictin almost all student speech. (the only permissible restrictions are the usual First Amendment exceptions. Hate Speech is Not an exception ) You CANNOT BE PUNISHED!
Repeat after me: A public university speech code CAN NOT AND DOES NOT TRUMP THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Why am I " yelling" at a nice person like you @romanigypsyeyes ? Because it’s VITAL that every one, especially students understand the law. Understand that by attending a public university you don’t give up your constitutional rights (service academies may be an exception). A university can’t ask you to waive those right in order to attend, like by asking you to agree to a speech code. This is well settled law.
So why do universities have them. For deterrent effect. At the end of the day they know they are unenforceable.
^ but the link provided upthread indicates clearly that, yes, universities can have a code of conduct that includes speech, in that threats, intimidation, insults can result in punishment, and other forms of speech too if they make it impossible to have equal access to education for members of protected groups or individuals.
It’s Harassment that’s not protected speech by the First Amendment whether on a college campus or elsewhere. Your municipality can have a law that prevents you from harassing your neighbors. (What is harassment is going to be narrowly interpreted.) But nothing changes about your constitutional rights just because you are attending a public university. That’s the point. If the speech code at a public university says, as many do that, insults can be punished ( even though they don’t rise to the level of pervasiveness required to constitute harassment) that speech code is unconstitutional and can not be enforced even though the student “agreed” to it.
And the main point here is that what was going on at Pamona which was not directed at anybody but rather was " talk among ourselves" speech is most definitely not harassment ( Vile though it may be) and thus under California law ( which makes private unis subject to the First Amendment) can not subject a student to punishment.
I should add that the extent to which harassment in the form of pure speech can be considered unprotected has not been fully explored by the courts except with respect to High School students who do not have full First Amendment rights. Given that on First Amendment issues liberal and conservative justices often align (in an especially unusual manner with regards to US Supreme Court justices) the expectation by many attorneys who practice in this area is that Should this issue ever be fully put to the test the Court will very narrowly define harassment to something akin to a direct threat.
@roethlisburger
That’s a bit of a stretch. Believe me things like this have been occurring at these academies for a while. I have relatives who have attended MMA and The Citadel. It’s not always put on notice.
The bottom line is he put those who would engage in vile behavior on notice. Imagine if others had the leadership to do the same…
The conversation should be why we aren’t calling out this behavior more.
He shamed them and rightly so.
It’s the political appointees, the Joint Chiefs, and the CSAF/VCSAF who truly set the tone and direction. The Citadel isn’t an academy and isn’t run by the military. If your relatives attended more than 3 years, almost the entire top leadership level at the Pentagon would have been replaced by now.
I’d argue we all set the tone in the ways we deal with others in our daily lives be they professional or personal. You seem to be missing the larger point I’m making here. The behavior was called out. Does it really matter who made the decision to do it? It’s important it was done. Big cheese or little cheese we all make a difference or idly sit by and condone vile behavior…
I took a look at some of the memes and while they were tasteless, I’d be appalled if someone was disciplined for them.
IMO, the Harvard ones were a heck of a lot worse.
I had a student tell me it was his “freedom of speech” to say in class “those who don’t speak English aren’t American”. I reminded him his rights don’t allow him to create a hostile learning environment for others and that we respect each other. He’s 12 yrs old. I have worked in education for quite some time and while kids often do say unkind things to one another there is certainly a new “feel” to this sort of bully behavior.
The article links to Pamona’ s First Amendment compliant policy which shows just how little " Hate Speech" can be subject to discipline (for public universities and California privates)
As the policy states Verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, or harassment in the form of speech is not subject to disciple unless
the speech is directed at an individual and
actually used in an abusive manner in a situation that presents an actual danger that it will cause an immediate breach of the peace by inciting a violent reaction by the individual to whom the speech is addressed
Or
is offensive to the individual complaining of harassment and offensive to a reasonable person and so persistent, repetitive, pervasive, or severe that it has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s academic or professional performance or creating an intimidating, abusive or hostile educational, employment or living environment at the College.
The memes which were intended to be shared only among like minded individuals do not qualify.
It’s intersting to note that Stanford could not do what Harvard did!