Meanwhile at my alma mater....

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 4:20pm

Hanna:

I think that what usually happens, certainly at a college the size of Williams, is that an informal “mutual” aggreement is reached for the student to take a semester or year off. The formal procedures to suspend a student are extremely rare. Expulsion is almost unheard of, even in formal procedings. Those cases are handled with a suspension that includes stipulations for reinstatement that are unpalpable to the student.

Barron’s legalistic arguments are pure strawman. There was never anything in the hanging of the Hitler posters that would have made a college administrator consider formal suspension or expulsion options. Colleges simply don’t think that way for a first offense, unless it involves academic cheating or physical violence or a criminal conviction. That was obvious from a close reading of the initial letter to the campus from Dean Roseman the day of the incident.

The thing that is most frustrating about this incident is the hiding behind the “free speech bogeyman” to avoid focus on the real issues.

onemoremom · May 2, 2007, 4:27pm

Cordray should consider getting a job theatrically proselytizing, spewing the “propaganda” (one of her “hobbies” ) of a far right hate group. Then everyone would be happy. There’s probably not much more that she can learn at Williams. She already thinks that everyone there is ignorant and that she knows all that needs to be known.

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 4:47pm

Who knows? She could be destined to become the next Ann Coulter!

And to think people worry about the career opportunites for liberal arts grads…

katliamom · May 2, 2007, 4:54pm

“She could be destined to become the next Ann Coulter!”

Only if she’s a long-legged blonde who wears mini skirts. Ann Coulter’s mouth is the least of what gets her on TV and into the newspapers.

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 5:15pm

Well, we know that she’s “pale” because her 33 year old boyfriend specified that as a criteria on his “friendspace” page, along with “no juden”.

mini · May 2, 2007, 5:20pm

“Only if she’s a long-legged blonde who wears mini skirts.”

I’m not giving her any of mine. ;)

barrons · May 2, 2007, 6:15pm

Hanna–you might want to review this from a Harvard Law student. I knew there was something in Mass Law like that because it came up in another debate here.

"Nevertheless, I have several issues relating to free speech which I
would like for you to raise, and on which I would like to comment
below:

I. The Law School may not regulate the content of students’ speech
merely because it is “offensive” or “demeaning”, because Massachusetts
law accords students the same free speech rights against the law
school that students have against state universities governed by the
First Amendment.

The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act is an unusually broad civil rights
law in that it protects civil liberties such as free speech and
privacy not only against the government but also against restrictions
by private institutions. MCRA provisions ban any institution from
interfering, or attempting to interfere, with the exercise of rights
secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights through
“threats, intimidation, or coercion.” (The provisions are in
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 12, subsections 11H and 11I,
abbreviated G.L. c.12, ss. 11H, 11I).

Free speech is a right protected under the MCRA, and disciplining
students for exercising their free speech rights constitutes
“coercion” in violation of the MCRA’s free speech guarantees.
Abramowitz v. Trustees of Boston University, Boston Superior Court,
1986 (unpublished), page 21. In the Abramowitz case, the court
overturned the disciplining of divestment protesters at privately-run
Boston University, and barred Boston University from removing
divestment banners hung by dormitory residents. Justice Haskell
Freedman noted, “I can discern no reason why the free speech rights
of students at Boston University should be any narrower than those of
students at public universities.” Page 24. “Nowhere in our society
is the protection of the free flow of ideas more important than in
the university community, the quintessential ‘marketplace of ideas.’”
Page 22.

<a href=“http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/harassment/mcra-and-harass-policy[/url]”>http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/harassment/mcra-and-harass-policy</a>

Now unless they can show specific students were targeted for postering (and even then a poster is somewhat benign speech) so as to be considered some sort of direct threat, I don’t think there is anything the admins can do without risking a major lawsuit.

As th the “straw man” argument–sheesh, I was not the one to suggest they expel or somehow sanction the student in question. There were numerous posts that suggested that very thing.

“Williams has no guts and no soul. This is a hate crime and should be handled by their honors committee. I’ve heard of students at universities being disciplined for far less when hatred is involved. Is she who they want as a proud alum? Doing alum interviews with posters of Hitler around her house or office?”

"After it became clear later in the week that the girl and her 33-year year old boyfriend really are virulently anti-semitic bigots and totally without remorse, I would support Morty if he did exactly what MikeyD suggests: just kick her out and say, “so, sue me”.

“It seems to me that play rehearsal is keeping Julia Cordray from participating in the discussion she said she sought to provoke with her Hitler posters. Perhaps the administration could help clear her plate so that she would have time to participate in the discussions?”

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 6:45pm

Barrons:

Read more closely. Nobody has suggested that Julia Cordray be sanctioned for her posters. In the week following the posters, she and her non-student accomplis have made at least one threat of physical violence directed at a specific student. They have also been harrrassing at least one alumni blog with threats of legal action in an effort to stop the blog’s right to free speech (publishing their names, prior arrest records, etc.).

barrons · May 2, 2007, 6:59pm

Nobody mentioned any physical threats here until much later. I read through all the posts. Please show me what I missed.

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 7:06pm

see Post #9

barrons · May 2, 2007, 7:12pm

That post mentioned only threats by the boyfriend. We are talking about the student. I don’t really care about the BF as he is just a third party in this. Also I have seen no evidence that backs that assertion regarding the boyfriend and Williams has not banned him from campus which it probably could have much more easily. No mention in any of the campus newspaper reporting of any threats by anyone and it said specifically that the friend was NOt banned from campus…

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 7:37pm

Well, no. He’s not a third party. He designed and helped hang the posters.

I would be glad to send you to his website, but it now triggers a McAffee security breach warning so I don’t think you’d appreciate that. The most recent updates he posted were quotes from the Unabomber.

The student has also posted messages within the last year about how much she enjoys shooting her .45 pistol.

The campus newspaper article was written a week ago yesterday. As I pointed out, you are about a week behind the story.

barrons · May 2, 2007, 7:48pm

Whether he helped or not is not material. Whether he is a nutcase or not is not really material to what the school can do to punish HER. he has far less right to be allowed back on campus as he is not a student. I was talking only about the student. I also enjoy shooting both a 9mm and shotguns. So do millions of others. Also the Williams Record has a number of articles posted dated today. Maybe you are behind.

<a href=“WRAPS organizes campus-wide food drive, adapts to COVID restrictions – The Williams Record”>WRAPS organizes campus-wide food drive, adapts to COVID restrictions – The Williams Record;

Xanatos · May 2, 2007, 8:37pm

I’m certainly no legal expert (and I hope you’ll all forgive me for venturing into the parent cafe when I am clearly not a parent), but my two cents:

I think the reason this transcends a free speech issue, in my opinion, is because of the act of putting the poster up on people’s doors, regardless of the fact that no one specific group was targeted. I think if she had, for example, written an editorial in the newspaper criticizing the Holocaust poster this would be a non-issue. However, I think the act of posting the picture of Hitler on people’s doors constitutes harassment and a violation of their space, insofar as I don’t think most people at Williams approved of having a neo-Nazi message put on their doors. Now you might say, “Well we don’t know if people necessarily approved of having Holocaust remembrance posters put on their doors either so they shouldn’t have been allowed to do that,” and you would be at least partially right; I know at Dartmouth nobody (except UGAs) is allowed to tape stuff to other people’s doors without permission. But I think this ultimately can be construed as intent to intimidate - regardless of what she claims, you’d have to have dropped out of the sky not to realize that you are going to scare the crap out of at least some people if they wake up and find you left a picture of Hitler’s mug on their door. So, bottom line, she may have a First Amendment right to criticize the Holocaust posters or even (and it disgusts me to say this) glorify Hitler in a public medium such as a newspaper, but I don’t think she has any right to put her posters on people’s doors, any more than I have a right to walk up to her and kick her in the stomach.

As a side note, I’d just like to add that these things never develop in a vacuum, and I’m sure that although her boyfriend has probably given her some ideas, she didn’t just magically get to be this way from however long she’s known him. My point: I’d hate to meet Mr. and Mrs. Cordray.

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 8:45pm

Thank goodness Dean Roseman is on the way out the door. What a totally ineffective job she has done.

From the newspaper articles, it is clear that the College’s intent is to sweep the whole thing under the rug and stifle any further discussion. Weak as water.

BTW, the article with the boyfriend is full of lies. He stated on his website that he produced the posters. Virginia corporate filings show him as the president of the web hosting company where the nazi and Al Queda and other websites are located. His efforts to distance himself ring hollow.

mini · May 2, 2007, 9:17pm

“Many students who viewed what appeared as a pro-Hitler poster on their door felt threatened – understandably so, especially so soon after the horror at Virginia Tech. This sense of threat was not limited to Jewish students, though not surprisingly they were the most effected.”

I’m going to guess that this grammatical nightmare distributed by the administration at the nation’s best liberal arts college actually came from Reed, rather than Roseman or Shapiro, although they signed it.

Virginia Tech??? It really wasn’t a “pro-Hitler” poster? There were so many non-Jewish students who “felt a sense of threat” that they couldn’t go to the townhall meeting? Or such “senses of threat” do not “effect” their study time?

“It’s a big country out there”- so there’s enough crazy people to keep us on our toes. Sometimes it is the sane ones who worry me.

higherlead · May 2, 2007, 9:33pm

“possession of infernal machine”

I gotta admit that has a real ring to it. Were they still burning witches when they passed that law?

higherlead · May 2, 2007, 9:50pm

Actually I thought Williams handled this situation pretty well.

The only kind of speech that needs protecting is the kind that makes people angry because that is the only kind that anyone tries to suppress.

sac · May 2, 2007, 10:05pm

I-dad: What’s a McAffee security breach warning? (ok, I AM behind the times)

Barrons: Thank you for posting the beautifully written and argued student opinion piece. Out of the mouth of babes. Would that the college administration had been that eloquent and to the point.

interesteddad · May 2, 2007, 10:22pm

Actually, the speech that was effectively “suppressed”, or at least shouted down, in this particular case was a rather moving statement remembering the Holocaust.

I suspect that it will be a long time before the Jewish students at Williams try that again.

sac: It means that McAfee virus protection scanned the website before loading it and detected malicious code.

Meanwhile at my alma mater....

CONNECT WITH US