This has nothing to do with free speech. The sexist athletes aren’t being censored or imprisoned. Free speech doesn’t mean all speech is free of consequences.
Wouldn’t an athlete who proves to be a disruption to the team by saying insulting or unfriendly things to other members of the team (regardless of political content, if any) be likely to be kicked off the team? Freedom of speech means freedom from prosecution due to the content of the speech; it does not guarantee immunity from other social consequences.
Nothing will ever change if the only consequence is a reprimand. The chances that one of these soccer players are going on to play professionally are very slim. And if they’re that good, having the season canceled will make no difference.
The Harvard Crimson article states clearly that the list making continued to this year and the players lied about it. Not sure why some keep arguing that is not the case. There has been nothing from the players stating that this is not true.
“Freedom of speech means freedom from prosecution due to the content of the speech; it does not guarantee immunity from other social consequences”
On our first day of Con Law Class our professor said that one of the biggest misconceptions is that Free Speech only means freedom from prosecution. Nope. It is freedom from any consequence by a state actor.
If this were Berkley and not Harvard you’d clearly have a free speech issue. I see no grounds on which the speech at issue here wouldn’t be protected (except to the exten there was defamation ). Harvard a private institution raises only a contractual free speech issue. Something not yet addressed by courts.
[An Idiot’s Guide to Free Speech](An Idiot's Guide to Free Speech)
As for all the “If this were Berkley [sick]” talk, well, it’s not Berkeley, so that’s another irrelevancy trotted out counterproductively, @Jara123
Your are correct and in fact they have just issued a quite lengthy apology.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/4/mens-soccer-apology/
Stanford requires a much higher academic background for its athletes than most other Div 1 schools, much more in line with the Ivy league. I agree that not many football or basketball players are turning down Stanford to play for Harvard, but they aren’t getting into Stanford with a 2.3 and a 20 on the ACT either, even though that is allowed by the NCAA (even allowed at Harvard, but Harvard has its own standards as does Stanford).
But fine, compare Stanford students to Duke or Cal or Michigan or Wisconsin or Northwestern or Notre Dame. They all seem to balance sports and academics and hold the individual athletes responsible for their own actions.
Harvard and the Ivy league (which is after all just a sports league) choose to play in Division 1. They don’t have to, there are other divisions. The only difference between the Ivy league and any other D1 school is that they don’t give scholarships but do give financial aid. It is possible that any Harvard team could have every single player on full financial aid, and that would be many more ‘scholarships’ than other teams are allowed to give under NCAA rules. But, by playing in D1, the Ivy schools are committing to sports at the top level, to fielding competitive teams, to taking sports seriously.
The other schools are affected by this decision too. Forfeits or cancelled games affect the standings of all the teams in the conference. The other Ivy teams may protest that they lost to Harvard but the final two teams didn’t have to play Harvard, so the entire Harvard season should be forfeited. I think that will be up to the League.
A state actor may restrict speech that could be implied as being the opinion of the state actor. For example, a municipal police department may restrict police officers from wearing political buttons or similar items while in uniform.
Actually, I think I picked the wrong part of the apology to quote in my post #165. I like this better:
Huh, so you’re saying “the first day of Con Law Class” isn’t enough to be an expert of free speech? Well I never.
If you’re going to correct someone’s spelling, don’t use sick when you mean sic. Just saying… 
“A state actor may restrict speech that could be implied as being the opinion of the state actor. For example, a municipal police department may restrict police officers from wearing political buttons or similar items while in uniform.”
Police officers are EMPLOYEES. Universities will do anything they can to establish that athletes are NOT employees and are nothing other than normal ol’ student . ( see, Northwestern and the NLRB). Cases Involving employees are irrelevant.
Now if a University wants to say that athletes are employees, then sure even public colleges can restrict their speech. After then pay them and deal with unionization… LOL They will NEVER concede that and this would never defend themselves by relying on cases involving employees like police officers
The Harvard mens soccer team HAS apologized and acknowledged its guilt. NO ONE forced them to come up with or continue this list, and the fact that they were athletes is NO excuse for this behavior- regardless of whether they were paying full freight to go to Harvard or paid nothing, because of a generous financial aid package.
enough said…
"Perhaps one reason the campus is not in convulsions over this latest episode is the thoughtful, if critical, tone set by six of the women from the 2012 soccer team, who wrote an op-ed article in The Crimson.
“The sad reality is that we have come to expect this kind of behavior from so many men,” they wrote. The women said they were embarrassed, disgusted and hurt — pained chiefly because so many of these men they thought were their friends had so degraded them.
But, they concluded, they hoped the episode would “lead to productive conversation and action on Harvard’s campus, within collegiate athletic teams across the country, and into the locker room that is our world.”
amen to that!
The Crimson editorial board is calling for further consequences not less:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/4/soccer-editorial-suspension/
For those looking for further proof that it extended beyond 2012 to the present time and that it also wasn’t just a few individuals:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/11/4/soccer-suspended-scouting-report-harvard/?utm_source=Email+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4a1225946a-News_Alert_2016_11_0311_3_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_160d75b318-4a1225946a-17471981
"According to both Scalise and a statement from University President Drew G. Faust, members of the soccer team were not initially forthcoming about their involvement in the “reports.”
“The decision to cancel a season is serious and consequential, and reflects Harvard’s view that both the team’s behavior and the failure to be forthcoming when initially questioned are completely unacceptable, have no place at Harvard, and run counter to the mutual respect that is a core value of our community,” Faust wrote in a statement.
Faust wrote she “was deeply distressed to learn that the appalling actions of the 2012 men’s soccer team were not isolated to one year or the actions of a few individuals.”
So Jara schools have no right to set rules for athletes or others that, while not employees are representatives? They do it all the time. Students choose whether or not they prefer to adhere to those rules or quit the team. Nothing stopping these men from continuing to make this list, just not to do so and play soccer for Harvard.
“So Jara schools have no right to set rules for athletes or others that, while not employees are representatives? They do it all the time. Students choose whether or not they prefer to adhere to those rules or quit the team. Nothing stopping these men from continuing to make this list, just not to do so and play soccer for Harvard.”
No what I said was
-
Cases involving limits on the free speech of public employees ( cops etc) are irrelevant to student athletes. Although if athletes sucessfuly argue they are employees this could change. But then they’d be entitled to salary and could unionize. Schools will fight tooth and nail ala Northwestern to avoid athletes being classified as employees.
-
Public Universities can’t make rules which infringe on students free speech rights. Athletes are not exempt, they are entitled to free speech rights and like any citizen can’t be required to waive a Constiutional right in orderr to make use of a government program or activity. No rules or School code of conduct can trump a Constiutional right.
-
Any negative consequence from a government actor for excecising free speech rights is impermissible, not just prosecution or severe consequences. Not all speech is protected but the limits are much fewer and more strictly construed than most people realize. “Pure” Hate Speech IS protected ( unprotected speech includes harassment which is an active aimed at another person thing is not easily found by the courts. The speech here which was intended to be shared among other like minded individuals doesn’t come close to harassment. The fact others could access the writing changes nothing)
-
Harvard is not subject to the First Amendment the way Berkley, for example is. But some Free Speech specialists posit that what universities like Harvard say about Free Speech in promotional and other materials gives them a contractual obligation to Provide free speech rights. This is untested in the courts. I have no idea if it would be successful.
I think this is less an issue of free speech and more an issue of code of conduct. Harvard levied a punishment because these players acted in a way that was offensive and then lied about it. They violated the athletic code at their school. It’s not about free speech
“I think this is less an issue of free speech and more an issue of code of conduct. Harvard levied a punishment because these players acted in a way that was offensive and then lied about it. They violated the athletic code at their school. It’s not about free speech”
As I said it’s an open question if Harvard must adhere to free speech rights. But if this were a PUBLIC university the fact that it violated an athletic code wouldn’t mean that it’s not a free speech issue.
One misconception I’ve seen many times is the idea that when a school is subject to constiutiomsl free Spoech obligations it can override those obligations by a code of conduct. No no no. And um, NO. A public schools code of conduct CANNOT trump free speech rights.
With private institutions this would be a matter of complicated contract law. I’m happy to get into that ( post contractual amendments…but it’s boring to most people)
I hope people realize that I don’t think what these students did was a good thing. I’d love to see them deal with consequences from other students like not dating them or inviting them to parties. But as someone who is devoted to free speech rights it’s always a shock to me how little people understand about free speech, what is protected vs the very limited things that are not, how important it is to avoid state actors ( and officials who have promised free speech rights) from imposing any consequences on protected speech and most importantly that one seldom needs to uphold the right to say non-offensive things.
Oh and the best way to deal with speech that is bad or hateful is through more speech that counters it.