Slashdot Log In
Marquette Dental Student Suspended For Blogging
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:41 PM
from the constitution-does-not-mention-blogging dept.
from the constitution-does-not-mention-blogging dept.
whiteSanjuro writes "Reported first by the bloggers, and now the mainstream press, is a story of a student being suspended by his university for the rest of the academic year because of entries in the student's blog which the university did not view favorably. It has already had some chilling effects and looks like it will be setting a standard that students at private universities aren't guaranteed free speech online. The student (who wishes to remain anonymous) is appealing the university's decision in an effort to remain in classes and finish out the current semester, but even the terms of re-admittance (pdf) leave the blogger subject to probation, minus a scholarship, and prohibit future free blogging. Perhaps now is the time to consider joining the EFF if you attend a private university and have a blog."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Join the EFF? (Score:5, Funny)
EFF? (Score:5, Funny)
OT (Score:5, Informative)
Name: Lynch, Dr. Denis P.
Phone: (414) 288-7267
Position: Professor of Surgical Sciences and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Department/Office: School of Dentistry/Office of the Dean
Location: Dental School 304C
Email Address: denis.lynch@marquette.edu
Parent
Re:OT (Score:5, Funny)
Asshat
Jackhole
Douchebag
Parent
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's a different standard here. Most universities purport to tolerate free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Heck, Marquette even sponsors a forum through which students can criticize their professors, which features anonymous students saying nasty things about named professors.
Against this backdrop, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that the student could post such things in his blog, which was likely read by only a few friends.
Furthermore, the university also purports to recognize some sort of right to due process, as shown by its hearing procedure. As we have seen, it was really a kangaroo court, where the accused didn't even get to present his own evidence! Add to this the fact that the university's own expert on ethics said that the kid didn't do anything unethical or in violation of the code of conduct, and you've got a real miscarriage of justice here.
Parent
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I guess it could if you don't bother with the medical definition of binge drinking or the clinical assement done by a professional on this student. Here it is just in case:
A clinical assessment of the student done by a psychotherapist at American Behavioral Clinics said of the student that "it became clear that he does not presently have any issues that would concern me clinically." And further, the student's "behavior regarding the use of alcohol is recreational or episodic in nature and in no way would I characterize it as overuse or abuse."
IMHO you shouldn't disparage someone in a public forum
Fair enough. Who exactly did he disparage BTW? Oh right, some unnamed people. I wonder how those people with no names sleep at night?
My own personal experience is that people that get called before the Dean of students probably deserve to get kicked out
OK, I guess that settles it. He deserved it!
Throw in the fact that instead of apologizing, accepting probation, and keeping his nose clean this kid *demands* a conduct hearing.
I guess he thought he had a right to give his side of the story and have a fair hearing. Seriously, where did he think he was going to school? America or something? Next thing you know criminals will *demand* a trial before being sent to prison. I mean seriously, in my personal experience if you get arrested for something you probably deserve to go to jail.
Then this kid gets his conduct hearing
At which he was barely allowed to address those thier and his witnesses were told not to show up because they wouldn't be allowed to speak (even though those witnesses were faculty themselves). Not much of a hearing an any sense of the word I can think of. Again, where does he think he is? America? At least Marquette doesn't have a law program....oh wait they do! VERY SCARY!!!!
I mean, seriously, how mad do you have to be at someone before you go to the Dean and point out crap they say in their blog?
Oh sorry, didn't realize he made someone mad. Your right, kick him out!
Parent
Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom from tyranny means no party uses force to coerce another party to give up their property or person involuntarily. It also means that no force can be used to abridge any natural rights against a party's will on that party's property.
Force means making someone do something with no way out of the situation. Taxes are force. The draft is force. Government sponsored censorship is force.
What is not force? When two parties negotiate and one party will not accept part of the agreement, the parties may part ways. This is the free market. If you don't like my price, don't buy from me. If you don't like my skin color, don't sell to me. If you don't like the rules on my private property, leave. If my rules are excessive, competition will decide what the market will accept.
I believe a private school with NO direct government funding can set the rules for conduct and speech, even off their property. The student agrees to the rules to utilize the private property even if the student pays for it.
When my store sells a paintball marker ("gun") or a skateboard, I tell my customers I will refuse them future service if they don't use the items safely. I am allowed to pick who I voluntarily trade with and how. The student can negotiate or not agree to a rule, the school can refuse.
Only government has a monopoly on force. They can not, in a free market, truly own or control property -- they only use what all the people loan then. As such, they'd be abusing their monopoly on force by setting rules for speech or expression, as they control no property. The government borrowed property is not theirs to rule, it is the people's and all people are free to speak or express themselves (or bear arms on their property which includes publicly managed properties).
If the school accepts government funding directly, they can not regulate expression. If they are truly privately funded, they can (in a free market) say what conduct they expect in a person's life. There are other competitive schools that may not have such restrictive policies that the student can attend.
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marquette+un
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q
here's a goody (if old) quick result
http://www.dodig.mil/Inspections/APO/SingleAudit/
in part "Subpart D, Section __.400 of OMB Circular A-133 requires recipients expending more than $25 million a year in Federal awards to have a cognizant agency for audit. "
and marquette is on that list.
Parent
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Interesting)
[Al Pacino: Scent of a Woman]
If I was half the man I was 5 years ago I'd take a flamethrower to this place!
[/Al Pacino]
Seriously some things are more important than contracts and I believe free speech is one of them.
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like my skin color, don't sell to me.
If it isn't already illegal (and I'm pretty sure it is) then it should be. It certainly is immoral. Anything determined by genetics should not be basis for refusal to serve.
Note: I'm assuming you meant this only hypothetically and I hold no grudge against you until proven otherwise.
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, racism is often a very bad thing. However, making it illegal sets a poor precedent, and erodes freedoms. What if I own an authentic chinese restaurant and I only want chinese people working there? There is nothing immoral about me turning away an Italian chef or a waitress from West Virginia.
You said racism should be illegal. Here's a nice quote from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience:
Now replace "slavery" in the above quote with "racism". Making racism illegal didn't advance racial equality one bit. And it only became illegal after the average joe citizen had already decided it was generally immoral. But when the government made racism illegal, we lost some of our freedoms.Parent
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking about social equality, perhaps, perhaps not. By having negative reenforcement of an action, you can curb tendencies. Sure, not for everyone, but there is an effect. Plus, if you legislate against something (like racism), then many forms of economic inequality can be solved, because racists need to resort to subtler, less effective means of discriminating. They can no longer keep them out of jobs, refuse to sell them things, or a bevy of other things they used to be able to do, which greatly aids the minority's position. Sure, it might embitter some, but in the long run (even after just 40 years), we've seen solid improvement in race relations. That's really quick in social engineering terms.
Don't discount the power of government to affect peoples' behavior.
Parent
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to be free if you die when an ambulance refuses to carry you to the hospital because of the color of your skin. As an ideal, what you express is fine, but you should temper the implementation of free market ideals with some realistic assessment of the consequences when the market isn't working efficiently or the consumer has incomplete information or limited choices.
Parent
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a business has many benefits. Does it not also have responsibilities?
If a business exists to serve the public, to get benefits as a business from being recognized as such by the government which supposedly represents the public, is it fair to allow that business to serve only some subset of the public? It's one thing for a restaurant to refuse service to people without shoes and shirts -- that is at least arguably a matter of public health. But based on skin color or sexual orientation? Are those who are refused able to reclaim that part of their taxes which benefit the business?
As long as everybody's taxes, whether direct or indirect, enable that business to gain benefits from the legality of being a business, that business must serve them all.
Consider the pharmacists who are refusing to sell contraceptives because it bothers their own morals. They got their pharmacy license as a business, from the government which supposedly represents all people. Along with the benefits they get comes the responsibility to serve all the people who gave them those benefits. Are they going to recompense those who they refuse to serve for moral reasons? No doubt there are others who would happily avenge the discrimination. What if someone else refuses to serve the pharmacist for the reason that they refused to dispense contraceptives? You can't have this kind of discrimination. There is no end to the ever-widening circle of revenge and revenge upon revenge.
When you have a business license, you must serve everybody, without discrimination.
Parent
And a deal's a deal (Score:3, Informative)
More to the point, Marquette U. gave the subject a scholarship and other encouragements to attend. The subject may also have taken out loans and incurred other expenses to attend. Unless MU is also willing to ful
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, universities are the bastion of the worst forms of Political Cor
Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Marquette? Dental school? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, you wouldn't go to a GP that graduated from Jehova's Witness U, would you?
Re:Marquette? Dental school? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
-Rick
News Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear! Hear! (Score:5, Insightful)
As the Parent poster points out, I'm free to create a blog and call my boss a stupid fuckhead. on the other hand, he's also free to fire my ass as soon as he finds out.
Oh, and guess what? All that stuff you've been publishing on the internet under your real name? Every future, potential employer is going to see it as they all google recruits now. How many companies do you think actually want a known rabble-rouser in the midst?
Parent
Re:Hear! Hear! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm... what country do you live in? If it's the United States of America, you're in for a rude awakening.
State laws vary, of course, so your jurisdiction may indeed follow your explanation. But generally, unless you have an employment contract, you're an "at-will" employee and your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (except if he fired you on the basis of your race, religion, gender, etc.).
I think the difference here is that universities, whether or not receiving federal funding, have traditionally protected freedom of speech on their campuses - particularly speech that is critical of the university, government and other authoritative institutions. This is why professors are granted tenure - so that they may not be fired for thinking outside the box. It is only (relatively) recently that academics have begun screening said speech for "hateful" content.
If the student had said something actionable at law, either criminally or civilly, I could respect the Dean's position - as it is, the student didn't even violate the school's own code of conduct!
Parent
Lesson Learned, dont blog (Score:4, Funny)
why is it so many 'private' universities (Score:3, Interesting)
A side note. (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the other blogger reports (I did not read the mainstream press report), this is quite clearly overreaction on the part of a flustered administrator. Unfortunately, I think the poor student is out of luck. As has been stated; if you attend a private university then you submit completely to their rules as they set them. If they chafe too badly, it may be best to leave (as they have not so subtly asked him to do).
Re:A side note. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and that's because Mr. Blogger chose to see what was behind door #3 instead of choosing the initial punishment which was a public apology, probation for the rest of his time at Marquette, and some alcohol abuse classes. This just goes to show that only a fool messes with the administration at a private university. They don't have to worry about political correctness. Heck, a school like Marquette doesn't even give a crap about the possibilities of negative publicity. Lots of students would be more
This Action has Some Teeth (Score:3, Funny)
Private Universities have Private Courts (Score:3, Insightful)
The charges of "harassment, hazing or stalking" are dubious though and really bring up if they are punishing free speech. They should have just blown it off and perhaps the insulted Professor should have read his comments aloud in the class just to embarass the hell out of the offending student and make him sweat:D That would have been more appropriate.
What bothers me much more is when Private Universities try to keep women hush-hush about rape cases (against their top jocks) and bring that through their private courts instead of releasing it publicly. Violent cases like that should be illegalized because the outcome isn't justice, but a way for them to keep their best players on the field. Somewhat tangent to this case, but it needs to be said.
EFF? Try FIRE (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps. But the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [thefire.org] specializes in free-speech issues at educational institutions, rather than dealing with every conceivable online issue like the EFF does.
The University's response was 100% correct. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a private institution enacting disciplinary action on a member who directly insulted other members and staff of said instutition ina public forum.
If I walked down the street telling everyone how much my professor sucked monkey balls, and one of the people I told happened to be the dean, I would be amazed if I didn't get suspended or expelled.
The kid wasn't put in jail. His rights haven't been infringed in any way.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:The University's response was 100% correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the "co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action". So if the person in charge of ethics and professionalism said it was "imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful" but "it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral" then who said it did violate professionalism? When a co-director of ethics's opinion on a matter of ethics is brushed aside, it sounds more like the matter has little to do with ethics and more that some one at the univerisity was looking for an excuse to punish the student.
Parent
Re:The University's response was 100% correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
The kid wasn't put in jail. His rights haven't been infringed in any way.
You're right, because he doesn't have a legal right to free speech in a private university. Which is a shame.
But that said, what are we? Six years old? Some immature student levels a couple of insults at professors and students he doesn't think much of and they suspend him for the rest of the year (no doubt, this will cause him to fail a number if not all of his classes and I'm sure he won't be getting that money back either). It's not like he disrupted the learning environment because it wasn't done in a forum that anybody was forced to look at. If there was libel or any other civil matter involved, let the parties take it to court if they're so inclined.
The university's response may have been 100% legal, but I would not call it 100% correct. I find their response to be as immature and overbearing as the issue they say they're addressing.
As a side rant, am I the only one who thinks that, public or private, universities should ensure themselves to be a bastion of free speech and discussion? It seems like that is the point in a person's life where free speech can be the most effective, as young minds are being shaped and civic responsibilities start to loom large in their minds. (It's no coincidence that most college/university campuses tend to be highly liberal.) That just makes Marquette's response all the more disgusting in my mind.
I'll close with a quote that I've used on here a number of times before. I think he says it better than I can:
Parent
Not free speech - Due process. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this story isn't that the student violated the rules and now doesn't want to deal with the consequences, but that the administration is being accused of interpretting the rules far beyond their intended meaning, employing selective enforcement, and not allowing the student to present his side of the case. As a graduate of a private university, there are usually rules in place to ensure due process for the student as well. I haven't read Marquette's rulebook, nor do I plan to, but the discussion should really be focused around that, not free speech vs. university rules.
The Essential Missing Ingredient (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing at all here about conducting interactions with honesty. And that's the problem. It's all about feelings now.
They really are a bunch of 3-year-olds.
I went to Marquette for two years. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Refund (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you see that in the Constitution? [house.gov] All I see is the bit in the First Amendment saying that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." It says nothing about a private institution reserving the right to determine the terms under which it will do business with an individual.
Now, you don't have to like it, but if a university accepts a student's tuition on the condition that they adhere to a policy of conduct, the university has every right to enforce that policy. It's just like any contract between individuals. I could hire you to work for me, and include in the conditions of your employment that you don't disagree with me in public. I could then fire you with cause if you violate that contract, and the government would back me up on enforcing the contract. No one forced this student to choose Marquette as opposed to any other school.
-JMP
Parent
Re:Refund (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Refund (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Refund (Score:3, Insightful)
By your argument: "The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say", then Slashdot lowering my karma, or restricting me from posting due to troll/fl
Re:Refund (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a free speech issue, it is
Re:Refund (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.boysschoolscoalition.org/ [boysschoolscoalition.org]
http://www.ncgs.org/ [ncgs.org]
http://www.scouting.org/ [scouting.org]
http://www.girlscouts.org/ [girlscouts.org]
Information on the discrimination areas you're thinking of...
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.ht
Finally, an excerpt which is the most relevant part of this entire discussion:
"...subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
Private schools, clubs, groups - the first amendment is not relevant to such entities.
Parent
Dead Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
No, they most certainly do not receive federal funding. What you are most likely confused about is the money that they receive from the Combined Federal Campaign. These are not your tax dollars. These are personal donations, received from government employees and handled by the Office of Personnel Management, where the recipients are designated, specifically, by the donating person.
Parent
School is in the right. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just like any other behavioral contract. Soda/Beer deliverers can not drink competitors' beverages. Knowledge workers sign NDA. CEOs sign ethical agreements. Break the contract and you're out a job.
-R
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Discrimination of what? Race? nope. Gender? nope. Sexual Orientation? nope. Religion? nope. How are they discriminating against the student?
Parent
Re:Constitution... (Score:3, Informative)
The first amendment guarantees that the government cannot take action to limit your freedom of speech, right of free assembly, and right to practice the religion of your choosing.
Private organizations are under no such restriction. It is why my employer can prevent me from posting unflattering comments on the bulletin boards at work.
It's why Augusta National can bar women from joining their g
Re:Right... (Score:3, Informative)
The First Amendment is as follows...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Notice the first word in that amendment. Does Marquette sounds like Congress to you? Private entities in t
Re:Talk about Constitutional Crisis (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, you haven't been paying attention for a few years, have you? That day has come and gone, a LONG time ago. [the-eggman.com]
These days, if a first grader makes a gun out of his thumb and index finger and "shoots" another kid during a schoolyard game of cops and robbers, he's likely to be labelled a potential Harris or Klebold. If a teenager has a violent dream and writes about it in a school assignment, the school goes into lockdown and the police get called.
If you think what happened to this Marquette student is absurd, wait until you read some of the stuff at that link. And those are mostly in public schools. Bastions of free speech and thought, my ass.
~Philly
Parent
Re:Got a monkey on your back, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Blogger's original punishment was to have been probation, a public apology, and some alcohol abuse classes. I personally think that is perhaps a little steep, but not unreasonably so considering that Mr. Blogger was a scholarship student. Marquette should expect more of students when they are picking up the bill for their education. Mr. Blogger refused the original punishment and turned to the blogosphere for "protection." It turns out that Marquette's administration doesn't give a crap about the blogosphere--there are plenty of students who would be more than happy to study at Marquette--and they also don't take kindly to scholarship students that are ungrateful, unapologetic, and unruly.
Parent