Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Education

Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced 444

Posted by CowboyNeal from the speaking-one's-mind dept.
John McAdams writes "When a Marquette University Dental School student blogger made some nasty comments about an (unnamed) professor and (unnamed) classmates on his personal blog, the Dental School administration imposed a draconian punishment on him. He was to be suspended from school for a year, lose a prestigious scholarship, and seek counseling for supposed "behavioral problems." The case received wide attention, starting with local talk radio, the local daily paper and reverberated through the blogsphere. Dental School Dean William Lobb, considering the case on appeal, has now reduced the student's punishment. The student now faces probation rather than suspension, will be allowed to keep his scholarship, and will not have to seek counseling. He will have to do 100 hours of community service, and apologize for the blog posts. While this is certainly good news for the student, it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced More

Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced

Comments Filter:

  • Dental Blogging (Score:5, Funny)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:07AM (#14407000) Homepage
    Is it safe?... Is it safe?

  • What did the student say? (Score:5, Informative)

    by IntelliAdmin ( 941633 ) * on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:08AM (#14407008) Homepage
    If anyone is wondering what the student wrote that got the school so pissed off. Here it is: "[He is a] cockmaster of a teacher. I don't even gratify him by calling him a professor. He is one who teaches, as in should teach infants and children." The rest of his blog was about video games, drinking and other typical stuff. His blog is now currently offline. Ironically, Marquette University encourages students to post public comments about their professors, and these comments can be very negative.
    • That is not so bad, and if it is about an unnamed professor I don't know what the school is doing. I'd sue, these are the types of cases that need to be brought forth. Schools are businesses, they really only care about their bottom line despite their espousing (falsely) intellectual freedom and some times they need to be slapped back down.

      • Re:What did the student say? (Score:4, Informative)

        by jank1887 ( 815982 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @10:00AM (#14408522)
        Sue based on what? It's a private institution and can legally do whatever it wants, within the bounds of any contractual obligations. I'm sure somewhere in the student code of conduct is a statement to the effect of: "If we don't like you, or you piss us off, we can f you in whatever way we please"
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • So what? He didn't name the teacher.

        So what? Free speech isn't about escaping the consequences of what you write. It's about freedom of expression.

        If he was being punished for writing "I disagree with this professors political views" or "I disagree with his teaching methods" then, yeah, we'd have a reason to be outraged.

        But, "cockmaster"? WTF? Yeah, the original punishment seems a little harsh (loss of scholarship!). Even so I don't see how this is "your rights online".

        • Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @02:04AM (#14407231)
          I agree. Although I would say that if you DO name the professor, then back the claim the fuck up , or expect to cop some razzing for it.

          I really think this kid needs to say "NO! Fuck it, Im not accepting probation and Im not accepting community service", and just take it to a judge.

          As far as Im concerned, the kid is the victim here, and that dental school owes him an apology.
          • I agree. Although I would say that if you DO name the professor, then back the claim the fuck up , or expect to cop some razzing for it.


            Yeah. Though, unless the professor is very pretty, I don't want necessarily want to see the evidence that she (or he) is a "cockmaster".......

        • Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bullet-Dodger ( 630107 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @02:05AM (#14407240)
          So what? Free speech isn't about escaping the consequences of what you write. It's about freedom of expression.

          What an odd idea. What is freedom of expression then, other than not having undue punishments for your speech? By your logic no government has ever restricted speech. People are still free to say whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect to avoid the punishment of being arrested.

          If he was being punished for writing "I disagree with this professors political views" or "I disagree with his teaching methods" then, yeah, we'd have a reason to be outraged.

          So, we should have no free speech except for a few pre-defined areas? Yeah, this guy vents about an unnamed professor to his friends and gets probation and 100 hours of community service. That seems fair.

          • Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @02:39AM (#14407347) Homepage
            What an odd idea. What is freedom of expression then, other than not having undue punishments for your speech? By your logic no government has ever restricted speech. People are still free to say whatever they want, but they shouldn't expect to avoid the punishment of being arrested.

            The only restraint that cannot lawfully be resisted is (naturally) the law. This is why "freedom of speech" applies to laws and the governments that enforce them. Marquette University is not government. Nobody was arrested. No one's freedom of speech was restricted. It's a private institution. They are essentially free to restrict the speech of students as they see fit... with the obvious caveat that they had better be ready to accept the consequences (e.g. public outrage, condemnation) for their draconian punishment. See, it works both ways. In this case, both sides are probably unhappy with the outcome-- which is about the best you can reasonably wish for.

            • Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by lysergic.acid ( 845423 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @04:04AM (#14407588) Homepage

              That's technically right. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what they're doing since they're a private institution, but it's still unethical for them to abuse their power like that. Also, since many private universities still receive government funding and enjoy certain privileges as academic institutions, they have a little more social responsibility to set a good example for the rest of society. The student's actions were neither disruptive nor injurous to anyone, so the university had no right to suppress his freedom of expression under duress of academic threats. An individual should not have to forfeit their right to free speech in order to pursue an academic career.

              If no one stands up to these kinds of abuses of power by our academic institutions, then the state of academia in our society will continue to degenerate in this manner--becoming more repressive, more reactionary, and eventually becoming institutions which stifle original thought and individuality instead of fostering it. This will only turn our nation's youth away from higher education and foster more anti-intellectualism in our society.

            • I'm regularily astonished by the arrogance of institutions of higher learning. They are constantly attempting to control the lives of the ADULTS that PAY them for a service. Imagine this kind of behavior in any other buisness relationship.

              Schools of all kinds are incredibly power mad. My kid got caught doing donuts in a supermarket parking lot on a saturday. He was fined by the police and grounded by me. But for some reason his high-school decided that they were god and were going to punish him as we

            • Re:What did the student say? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by curious.corn ( 167387 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @06:27AM (#14407932)
              Hmm, isn't free speech a human right? How can anyone legally violate such a thing? I'm pretty sure there can't exist any private agreement that somehow overrides a state law; eg. no institution can make you sight a paper whereby they reserve the right to execute you on the spot for violating some internal code, can't they (ok, I'm going severely overboard but you got the gist)

              In this incident free speech was restricted in the sense that the man got retribution for having exercised this right. On the other hand, had he identified the offending professor, he could be sued for libel/slander by the object of his statements; in this case, given the vagueness of them, there's no case unless the administration, feeling the institution's reputation was damaged, procede against the man in a state court.

              It's a gray area, private educational institutions (I'm thinking of confessional schools) in a sense act as if they ARE the supreme authority and as such impose an arbitrary code, based on some internal moral and ethic. People often accept this as fact and imply that by entering such system you accept having your rights restricted. No, the ultimate authority is the State and compliance to its rules is required, always (what if the school discriminated on gender, exercised corporal punishment, etc...) So even if someone violated an internal code that doesn't constitute something the State defines as a "violation" there's nothing that can be done.

              The guy could sue them into the ground if he wanted and I wouldn't object a single bit about it
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • The parent poster is a cockmaster. Since I haven't named you, does that exempt me from libel? Playing devil's advocate here, but anybody who knew the student likely would have figured out who it was based on context.
             
        • "So what? Free speech isn't about escaping the consequences of what you write. It's about freedom of expression."

          His comments amounted to a student vs teacher situation.

          The university took it further and made it a student vs school situation and furthermore made it count against his standing as an academic performer.

          This is like the military telling you you can't talk bad about the President except in this case you aren't in the military!

          So much for liberalism (this, coming from a liberal) - colleges are al
      • No, He never mentioned any names. In fact they have a university sponsored blog where people rip on teachers all the time -> BY NAME!
        • It's not a university-sponsored blog. It's a student-built and student-run service -- www.DogEars.net is the URL. However, you're right that they do rate (and rip on) teachers by name, and they get to do so anonymously. And that the school links to the service, even though they include a disclaimer that 'we take no responsibility for the content.'

  • Censure is a common practice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LameJokeGuy ( 943407 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:10AM (#14407013)
    If you consider the punishment to be a censure rather than some sort of childish spanking, then it makes sense, in that context. In any line of work you are subject to rules and regulations and one of those is that you are not to belittle another member of the profession in public (more or less, I suppose).

    He's getting censured for doing something that ought to be out of character of a student in a professional studies course. That's not uncommon. In fact, it's the same as would happen out in the job Marquette.

    • I have similar thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)

      by IAAP ( 937607 )
      FTA: The focus of the hearing, Taylor said, were half a dozen postings including one describing a professor as "a (expletive) of a teacher" and another that described 20 classmates as having the "intellectual/maturity of a 3-year-old."

      Even though he is 22, I'd wonder how some of his future patients would feel about his comments. Folks need to remember that this stuff will stay around for quite a while ... in some way. Especially now that it's in the papers.

    • Not to belittle another member of the profession in public? That's never been a rule, nor will it ever be. If that were the case, people that work in the tech industry can't tell you what programs are good and what are dangerous. If this was the president, everyone here that's said to someone in public that gator was a bad product that did nothing but trick people and steal data from unwilling people, would be sued and/or punished. Freedom of speech means, in a way, freedom to say things and be punished for

    • Re:Censure is a common practice (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've had a lot of problems at schools. And discussed them at length with professors. I've been harshly critical, honest and blunt about my feelings and observations with them. I've always dealt with them directly. I decided to leave school, in those circumstances it just wasn't working. I never considered posting a blog and naming names.

      From the breif description of the issue. It sounds like censorship, the school abusing its power, etc to me. Name calling isn't professional, but I don't think it should be

  • Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eggplant62 ( 120514 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:11AM (#14407015)
    are being tossed right out the window. We're being conditioned to be silent sheep, fat for the slaughter on too much food and television.

    Kinda cool, the power you can weild as a University administrator, silence your critics by taking away everything good they've worked their ass off for.
    • are being tossed right out the window. We're being conditioned to be silent sheep, fat for the slaughter on too much food and television.

      No they are not. Please don't overreact. Free speech does not mean free speech without consequences. Sure you have the right to say whatever you want but don't act surprised when there are repercussions to that speech. Would you think it would be outrageous if a student ran around a University Quad screaming every racial epithet known to civil society and a Dean kicked t

      • Why yes, I would. Being vulgar is no reason to expel a student! "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" don't mean "Freedom of Speech for everything except what I don't like." That's the consequence for having freedom: people are free to do a bunch of mean, nasty, vulgar, and vile shit.

        As far as "free speech without consequences", another poster spelled it out nicely. If free speech does not mean free speech without consequences, then every government ever in existence has had free speech. After all
        • Why yes, I would. Being vulgar is no reason to expel a student! "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" don't mean "Freedom of Speech for everything except what I don't like." That's the consequence for having freedom: people are free to do a bunch of mean, nasty, vulgar, and vile shit.

          While this first example is obviously hyporbole, consider this: What's to stop somebody from expressing their "freedom of speech", and their "freedom of expression" by terminating your status as a living being? That

      • No they are not. Please don't overreact. Free speech does not mean free speech without consequences. Sure you have the right to say whatever you want but don't act surprised when there are repercussions to that speech. Would you think it would be outrageous if a student ran around a University Quad screaming every racial epithet known to civil society and a Dean kicked them right out of school?

        Okay, I gotta know: what do you think the appropriate consequence is for ripping on an unnamed professor? Seriou

      • No they are not. Please don't overreact. Free speech does not mean free speech without consequences. Sure you have the right to say whatever you want but don't act surprised when there are repercussions to that speech. Would you think it would be outrageous if a student ran around a University Quad screaming every racial epithet known to civil society and a Dean kicked them right out of school?

        The difference between your example and the one in question though is that, unlike the blog posts, you can't he

      • Free speech does not mean free speech without consequences.

        Well, sure. If you're going to define free speech that way, then let's look at some examples under your definition:
        I claim the president is an idiot. The FBI comes and tortures and rapes me for making this claim. You respond: "Hey, it's free speech, but has consequences! Your civil rights have not been infringed upon!"

        Free speech is the freedom to speak without consequences (short of that "clear and present danger" clause).

        On the other hand, Marque
      • You say that now, but what if your boss fired you for the stuff you post on Slashdot on your own time at home?

        If I want to dress up in crotchless chaps and run down the street and get arrested for lewd behaviour, that has nothing to do with my professional standing. My boss, teacher, professional union, etc.'s business is my performance on the job and on their campus, in whatever position our relationship is.

        They're not my family, and not my government. They don't get to tell me what I do on my own time.
    • This isn't about civil liberties at all. Marquette is a private institution and has every right to enforce these policies.
    • How exactly is this the loss of a civil liberty? This is a private university, to which the student has entered into a financial arrangement with. While the University's actions are certainly deplorable, your outrage is almost as bad. Not everything [amazon.com] is a right, and when we start forgetting this, we dilute the rights which we do have.

      I don't think this should have happened, but they're not destroying civil liberties... just maybe making a poor business decision.

    • Just more proof that our civil liberties are being tossed right out the window.

      And your post is more proof that people don't understand "civil liberties".

      First, if he publishes "a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation", he's guilty of libel, and the professor can sue him in civil court for damages.

      Second, if he goes to a private university, agrees to a code of conduct, then violates it- that's not "civil liberties".

      As is never mentioned in these stories when they're linked to

      • To establish libel or slander, first you have to establish that the piece of communication has meaning. In this case, there simply is no meaning to what he says. Furthermore the targeted professor was unnamed; in this situation an individual who claims libel has already validated the truth of the hurtful claim.

        The blogger could have been (much) more tasteful, but the bottom line is the same. Marquette administration has put their foot down because if the public will be reading lies about their instituion
        • Libel and slander are legal terms though. In this case the government didn't revoke his scholarship, the school, who offered the scholarship in the first place, did. If I hire somebody to paint a fence and they start cursing up a storm while doing so I have every right to pay them for services rendered and kick them out and get someone else to paint the fence. Why? Becuase it's my money he is using, if the painter doesn't like my terms then they can go find someone elses fence to paint. It's the same s

      • First, if he publishes "a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation", he's guilty of libel, and the professor can sue him in civil court for damages.

        Not if the prof is never identified.

        Second, if he goes to a private university, agrees to a code of conduct, then violates it- that's not "civil liberties".

        Since he can anonymously tar any professor by name without consequence, I fail to see how this is relevant.

        Bloggers seem absolutely shocked at a centuries-old legal concept: one c

    • Ironic, considering that what you're complaining about is actually due to the free exercise of civil liberties, by two parties (the school and the student) involved in a private business relationship.

      In fact, by wanting the government to protect the student, you're advocating the reduction of civil liberties, by wanting the government to interfere in a private matter between two parties.

      No thank you, Comrade, we don't need to get the nanny state involved. Let the adults work it out between themselves
      • >> In fact, by wanting the government to protect the student, you're advocating the reduction of civil liberties, by wanting the government to interfere in a private matter between two parties.

        If someone beats you up on the street, would you want the governement in the form of a policeman to interfere in a private matter between two parties?
    • Remember, your right to free speech is in inverse proportion to the power of the corporation or institution you're offending by using it.

      Welcome to modern times.
  • Were the professors and students unnamed in his blog, or are they just keeping them unnamed for the article?

  • Blogs are turning into a great revenge tool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:13AM (#14407026)
    1. pick one of the guys who gives you shit at school.
    2. Start up a blog in his name.
    3. Write unflattering commentary about the school.
    4. Kick back and watch as the school jumps to conclusions, bans the guy, and takes six months bureaucratic time looking at the situation before realising maybe it isn't really his blog.

    You don't have to worry about little things like investigations in #4 happening BEFORE the guy is suspended because hey, this is the private arena, and there's no such thing as due process.

  • Whitewashing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:13AM (#14407031) Homepage Journal
    The mere fact that someone can get into trouble by ranting into cyberspace without naming someone, is a bit un-nerving. When did thought crimes start to become a reality?

    It takes a bit of effort to put anything interesting into a blog, and remain 100% anonymous, but if cases like this pop up all of the time, then it might be worth considering being a 100% anon-a-blog.

    Someone should do a poll, to see how many bloggers have found problems with blogging, in the sense that they've been fired, shunned, etc. because of what they write. It might be exceedingly common to get in trouble over ramblings on the web.
    • problems with blogging, in the sense that they've been fired, shunned, etc. because of what they write.


      I've got a story [imdb.com] -- it's called Harriet the Spy.
    • The mere fact that someone can get into trouble by ranting into cyberspace without naming someone, is a bit un-nerving. When did thought crimes start to become a reality?

      "Thought crime"? The government was never involved. Nobody was arrested. Nobody was charged with a crime. Marquette can throw all its students out on the street tomorrow (tuition refunded, of course) just for having a wise-ass look on their collective face. What is with you people that you equate all forms of authority with government? W

  • The school won (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThatGeek ( 874983 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:14AM (#14407033) Homepage
    By reducing the sentence, the school came out ahead. He's on probation instead of being kicked out. That means he can't say anything bad about what happened. He has to apologize on his blog. That means he has to lie about what happened.

    If the school had just dumped him, he would have sued, (possibly won) and generated an even larger amount of bad press.

    Yet again, the big guys win.
    • He has to apologize on his blog. That means he has to lie about what happened.

      No, it means he has to apologize for publishing libelous comments about a professor, and for violating the student code of conduct.

      If the school had just dumped him, he would have sued, (possibly won) and generated an even larger amount of bad press.

      If he had sued, the judge would have taken one look at the text published, which called the professor a "cockmaster of a professor" and also declared the professor unfit to teac

      • Re:Of course the school wins... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lysergic.acid ( 845423 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @04:23AM (#14407636) Homepage

        "You are an asshole." -- that is not libel.

        "My professor is a cockmaster." -- that is not libel.

        "George Bush is a fucking idiot." -- that is not libel.

        "Colin Powell is a nigger." -- not libel.

        "Professor X is a pedophile." -- that could be libel.

        "My bio professor sleeps with his students." -- that could be libel.

        "My professor is an idiot. His lectures are always full of egregious errors." -- that could be libel.

        See a pattern? A statement can only be libelous if it's proven to be untrue, thus misrepresentative of the subject. You can't prove statements of pure opinion to be untrue, therefore the first four, although defamatory, does not misrepresent anyone, and so are not libelous.

        • Re:Of course the school wins... (Score:4, Informative)

          by sweetnjguy29 ( 880256 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @12:48PM (#14409800) Journal
          A statement can only be libelous if it's proven to be untrue...You can't prove statements of pure opinion to be untrue...

          In the US, a true opinion isn't libelous. But...an opinion can be defamatory if it conveys to the recipient a provably false assertion of fact. Whether such an interpretation was conveyed is a factual question to be determined at a trial.

          Typically, slander has 3 elements:

          1)Is this statement defamatory (puts the person in a false light)?

          2)Was this statement made publically?

          3)Was there damage to the plaintiff's reputation?

          If the statement is subjective, ask the following:

          1) Is the statement addressing a matter of public concern?

          2) Is the statement expressed in a manner that is not provably true or false?

          3) Can the statement be reasonably interpreted as intended to convey actual facts about a person?

          4) How precise and specific is the statement?

          5) Is the statement verifiable?

          6) What is the literary and social context of the statement?

          7) What is the public context of the statement?

          So, whether something is an opinion is very complicated, legally speaking. Most of your examples could, in fact, be libelous. And if not libelous, could be characterized as an invasion of privacy (placing someone in a false light, which is a tort).

          Furthermore, stating that someone is a pedophile is almost lible per-se since the lable of pedophile, by itself, has stigma.

  • Who's next to inappropriately threaten us with punishment for behavior it doesn't like?

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:17AM (#14407050)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Breach of contract?

      You do realize that admission to an institution of higher education is contingent upon agreement to and abidement by a code of conduct, right? Dental school is non-compulsory, he doesn't have to go. Unfortunately for guy, a lot of codes of conduct vaguely define "conduct detrimental to the educational process" or some such nonsense through which they can send you through the school's judicial process.

      And being a private institution, they have a much larger stick to swing with regards to
    • Are you trying to say that the school signed a contract guaranteeing him he would never be placed on probation? Or even (if you missed the part about his sentence being reduced) guaranteeing him that scholarship, or the right to attend their university?

  • of words and the english language (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:17AM (#14407051) Homepage
    The case received wide attention, starting with local talk radio, the local daily paper and reverberated through the blogsphere.

    Can we just lose the word "blogosphere?" Thanks. The English language thanks you in advance.
    • Can we just lose the word "blogosphere?" Thanks. The English language thanks you in advance.

      We speakers of English beg to differ with you. We continually invent and utter new words as symbolic representations of our ideas. Other people seem to be good at learning them. Thus they become part of the language. See "Google" or more recently, "AJAX".

      • Thus they become part of the language. See "Google" or more recently, "AJAX".

        Ahh.. AJAX. Yet another word we can live without. You realize that acronym was invented for an existing set of technologies by a company called Adaptive Path [adaptivepath.com] in order to sell conference passes? [jonathanboutelle.com] (Even though the first Asynchronous Javascript & XML application was created by Microsoft, and popularised by Google with Google Maps).
        • You realize that acronym was invented for an existing set of technologies by a company called Adaptive Path in order to sell conference passes?

          I'm well aware of AJAX's origins (I keep an eye on Cyber Monday [wikipedia.org] for the same reasons), and I agree that it may be sad that corporations are inventing some of our new words instead of a more organic pattern of evolution, but really, what's the difference, once it becomes widely used? The term was adopted despite its commercial origin, and when you say "AJAX", peo

          • The term was adopted despite its commercial origin, and when you say "AJAX", people who you might *expect* to know what you mean, actually *do* know what you mean. It may be a marketing gimmick, but its status as a commonly used term is now well-established

            but that's the thing: for many people, AJAX is just another buzzword. For people "in the know," it's much more efficient to explain what the fuck you're talking about, rather than trying to dazzle them with useless acronyms like "AJAX".
            • AJAX is just another buzzword.

              "Buzzword" is just another buzzword. Language is a tool for communication, and if it's more effective and efficient to say "AJAX" to one person, while explaining in greater techincal detail your exact meaning to someone else, there's nothing wrong with that. If somebody says "I implemented my site with AJAX" you can just roll your eyes at him, and go "Oh, AJAX!?" and you'll both quickly understand your relative levels of expertise :)

              I think it's a silly invented acronym

              • "Buzzword" is just another buzzword. Language is a tool for communication, and if it's more effective and efficient to say "AJAX" to one person, while explaining in greater techincal detail your exact meaning to someone else, there's nothing wrong with that. If somebody says "I implemented my site with AJAX" blah blah blah

                I will agree with you on one point: There is some usefulness to be had with the term "AJAX." If some idiot refers to an xmlHTTPRequest object as AJAX, I'll know it's time to fire his ig
                • Just like a prospective employer might not hire you if you can't explain to him what his favorite new buzzword "AJAX" means, and whether you can make it happen...

                  And I interpret your use of blah blah blah as derisive, but hey, it's 2 in the morning and this is a yet another pointless slashdot thread that no one else will read anyway...

  • Reading Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:19AM (#14407058)
    There are a million blogs out of each school. What is the chance that this one gets picked out, read and taken seriously.

  • Don't tell anybody, but I think my dentistry professor killed Kennedy. Shhh!

    *gasp* People say crazy things on the internet. And most people ignore them. But for some reason, when people who are are higher on the foodchain find out, they tend to think that the whole world is reading all the crazy rants out on the internet, and that somehow the crazy people on the internet must be stopped. Get a clue.

  • In the American Union (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Keith McClary ( 14340 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:25AM (#14407093)
    In the American Union ve haf free speech unless ve are students or employees or depend on government contracts or grants or regulatory permits.

  • On a side note (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:27AM (#14407102)
    I find it rather ironic and sadly funny that a student who wastes space blogging about video gaming and drinking sees fit to comment on other students' maturity (or lack thereof). He sounds like your somewhat typical, immature college-age male.

  • Dentists aren't real doctors. In fact, they are med school washouts. Yes, I am an anti-dentite!!!

  • The Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @01:46AM (#14407171) Homepage Journal
    Here is the lesson to be learned: Piss a person off, risk losing valuable relationship with that person.

    Piss off your girlfriend, risk losing your girlfriend. Piss off a waiter, get tossed out of restaurant. Piss off university, discover how hard it is to subsequently attend said univerisity.

    Really now, why is everyone so upset about this? Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of such speech. Duh.
    • Here is the lesson to be learned: Piss a person off, risk losing valuable relationship with that person.

      Piss off your girlfriend, risk losing your girlfriend. Piss off a waiter, get tossed out of restaurant. Piss off university, discover how hard it is to subsequently attend said univerisity.

      Really now, why is everyone so upset about this? Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of such speech. Duh.

      You're close until you get to the last sentence. Freedom of speech is nothing other
  • If the student called the professor a cockmaster in person, would the results be the same? Worst case, I can see him getting kicked out of the class. I doubt a loss of scholarship or suspension would have happened. This is only going on my limited experience with professors.

    • That's a good point, but there's a difference between having a conversation and publishing something for a general audience. Calling him a name to his face might get him a reprimand, certainly, but once it's been said, it's gone, and only the teacher and whatever witnesses will have any real knowledge of the event. Putting something on a blog is publication, which is another thing altogether.

      That said, I agree with my esteemed fellow slashdotters that this is not at all a case of free speech being taken aw

    • Well first of all, since you didn't RTFA (or even the /. summary) he did not get suspended nor did he lose his scholarship. Those were reversed on appeal.

      Second of all, in many programs getting kicked out of a class could result in a loss of a scholarship or a suspension.

  • Not that I'd expect /. to understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stickerboy ( 61554 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @02:01AM (#14407219) Homepage
    ...but that's the way it works when you enter a medically-related profession.

    I'm in medical school, and once you commit yourself to being a physician, you are expected to conduct yourself professionally in and out of school, just as you would on or off duty as a doctor, regardless of place or time.

    Doctors historically and even today are one of the most respected, and trusted, professions in the US. Dentists and nurses certainly want high standards for their professions, as well. Most medical and dental schools have explicit clauses in their student codes regarding unprofessional behavior or actions at ANY time; mine certainly does, and I'd expect Marquette to have it as well.

    Calling a teaching professor a "cockmaster" would not be tolerated if he did it face to face with the professor, and it's not any different because he did it online in his blog. If he can't be trusted to keep comments about an academic superior and his fellow peers professional, how can he be trusted to keep comments about future patients confidential and professional as well? Is this the dentist 10 years from now who'll be poking fun of his "stupid immigrant patients that need to learn to pick up a toothbrush and a book on English" at a supermarket with his buddies? Is this the public image of the dental profession that the dental profession wants? And is this the image that Marquette wants to project as its students and alumni?

    My school goes out of its way to encourage feedback from its students; we have a student-run quality control feedback team for the curriculum; we have online and traditional commenting forums, end-of-section material, direction, and teaching evaluations, etc. But they also stress and stress again to keep it 100% professional, to make criticism constructive, impersonal, and respectful. We are being evaluated in every interaction as future doctors, whether accidental or in a deliberate setting... and just as the majority of communication is not verbal even when words are being spoken, doing your book learning is just a small part of learning to be a medical professional.

    There are no civil rights being broken here... just a student needing to figure out whether mouthing off about his peers and professional superiors is more important than learning what it takes to join his chosen profession.

    • Calling a teaching professor a "cockmaster" would not be tolerated if he did it face to face with the professor, and it's not any different because he did it online in his blog. If he can't be trusted to keep comments about an academic superior and his fellow peers professional, how can he be trusted to keep comments about future patients confidential and professional as well?

      Yes, because we must always be under a microscope. Get a grip: he made a nasty comment about some unnamed professor in a blog. Why

    • you're what's wrong with capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by misanthrope101 ( 253915 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @05:12AM (#14407762)
      Okay, so you're not really what's wrong with capitalism. But I have always hated that we have to be defined, 24/7, by what we do to buy bread for the table. A dentist fixes teeth. Wow. It's a profession, not an identity. By your logic, they could demand that you vote Republican, copulate only on Tuesdays, etc. They don't own you just because you want to be a physician. They aren't even guarantors of the competence or knowledge of physicians--they're just a trade union who is trying to keep the numbers down to keep pay high. Yes, I know that they can get away with governing what you say even in a non-official capacity, but it's wrong to use their gatekeeper power to control criticism. Saying it's legal isn't saying it's right.

      If we don't recognize some limit to what an employer, school, or other organization can rightfully control, then a company can say "our official position is that we support the Iraq war, so we will all be voting here in the office in the next election. Just turn your ballot in to your supervisor." There has to be a socially recognized limit, even if the courts don't address the question directly.

      And no, I'm not a Marxist. But we do have an unnerving tendency to turn our profession into an all-encomassing identity. It's just a freakin' job, for crying out loud.

  • Instead of reducing it to probation, Marquette should be apologizing to the blogger, and pay his living expenses for the next year for the trouble. Christ, I can't believe they think it's a reasonable compromise given they're subject to the First Amendment just like everyone else in the US...
    • Why does everyone bring up the first amendment? This kid isn't being arrested for saying that stuff on his blog. If he was it'd be a different story. You have the right to tell your girlfriend she's a stupid bitch, but don't expect her to stay with you much longer. If you want an example with a private organization (just like the school is a private institution), you can be president of the NRA, but don't bitch if they kick you out for saying all guns should be banned in this country.
    • 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.

      Please read the above text, and tell me how this university violated it.

      The university is not congress. This law specifically and exclusively controls federal laws as enacted by our congress. A private institution is not bound by the same
  • Apart from their incredibly bad judgement, I have to wonder how much work load Marquette administrators have that allows them to pursue such trivial matters. Next thing you know, students will be suspended for complaining about the cafeteria food. If my old college pulled crap like this I would notify the administration that I was withholding all further financial contributions until the entire punishment was rescinded, and I would write to the alums I'm personally still in touch with and urge them to do li
  • The overall problem with this whole process is that this student probably thinks he's done nothing wrong. Several posters have brought up the very good point that, if this student had said it face-to-face with an Administration official or Professor, he'd be facing some nasty punishment too. The Internet does not shield people from the consequences of their actions, and nor does "freedom of speech" mean "freedom from consequences".

    University officials should be ashamed of themselves. Their purpose is to pr

  • 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.

    Just figured I'd post that so people would stop moaning about this being a First Amendment issue.

  • "...it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs."

    Well if he critized members of the university in his blog, that is certainly at least a connection.

    Come on people, this isn't about freedom of speech at all. Of course he has the freedom to say what he wants to say about his professors and peers. What he does not have is the freedom against having those professors and peers and their university getting

  • How does the univeristy want to come out. OF COURSE the university can impose sanctions on this student as they please. That is not the question. The question is how does Marquette want to be known to the rest of the nation. They can rake this guy over the coals for what essentially amounts to name calling, but is that in their best interest?

    I highly doubt it. Did his comments make him a worse dentist? Has he somehow slighted the university in an irreparable way? Probably not. At this point make h

  • What does this mean for sites like CourseReviews [coursereviews.com], where students post in-depth reviews of their professors and courses? Could this lead to students being punished for writing negative reviews? Are students going to be afraid to write negative reviews?

    Disclaimer: I run CourseReviews, previously known as TeacherReviews, which is why I am asking.

  • The civil liberties issue might be this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @04:32AM (#14407657)
    The civil liberties issue might be a bit different. A lot of people have argued that if you are a student, the school has the right to react to your public remarks about it. This must be true, an employer will have the same right. You cannot expect to remain a member in good standing of a church, company, school or club if you make public speeches bringing it into disrepute. So people are right to argue that this is not a free speech issue.

    But surely there is something very odd indeed about the proposed 'punishment' or elements of it. The demand that the guy get counselling. What exactly is the legal status of counselling? When is it required, and who has the right to require that one get it? The idea that a school can require one to get counselled is strange. Even stranger is 'Community Service'. This is used as a punishment by the courts, and the idea that a school can impose it is bizarre.

    Surely the civil liberties issue is something like this: what sort of demands may a school make, and what evidence do they have to have before making them? There must be some limits, and it seems to me that in requiring counselling and community service, the school has overstepped them.

    Bring it closer to home. My company has a standard of x bugs in y lines of code. One month I am having some problems and go over. Do they have a right to demand that I do 100 hours of community service as penance? Or stand outside at 8.00 with a sign around my neck saying that I sinned? Or wear scarlet overalls for a week? Or not use the cafeteria?

    It would be fine to require him to maybe do some remedial tutoring work in the school, or something similar, school related. But the community service and counselling stuff remind you uncomfortably of the Cultural Revolution...

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close