Slashdot Log In
Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:05 AM
from the speaking-one's-mind dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
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.
Dental Blogging (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dental Blogging (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dental Blogging (Score:3, Funny)
What did the student say? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What did the student say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What did the student say? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:What did the student say? (Score:2)
-jcr
Re:What did the student say? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What did the student say? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What did the student say? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're doing a joint project, and you think that everyone else in your group is just slacking off while y
Re:What did the student say? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Parent
No gray area. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree, think for a minute about someone coming to a party you throw and cursing at everyone and being generally rude for the duration. Do you have the right to kick them out of your house? If so, please explain the difference.
Parent
Censure is a common practice (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Just more proof that there are consequences... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Just more proof that there are consequences... (Score:3)
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
Re:Just more proof that there are consequences... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Just more proof that there are consequences... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think this should have happened, but they're not destroying civil liberties... just maybe making a poor business decision.
Re:Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Just more proof that our civil liberties... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:libel is not a civil liberty... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
unnamed? (Score:2)
Re:unnamed? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Blogs are turning into a great revenge tool (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
The school won (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of course the school wins... (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Parent
Re:Of course the school wins... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
First the RIAA, now dental schools (Score:2)
Not good enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
-jcr
Re:Not good enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that there are some things you can't sign away in a contract, right? No judge is going to enforce a clause that says he can't criticise a teacher, especially when he hasn't even named him.
-jcr
of words and the english language (Score:5, Funny)
Can we just lose the word "blogosphere?" Thanks. The English language thanks you in advance.
Re:of words and the english language (Score:3, Informative)
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".
Reading Blogs (Score:5, Interesting)
Who reads online screeds anyway? (Score:2)
*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)
On a side note (Score:3, Insightful)
The Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not that I'd expect /. to understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
you're what's wrong with capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
The civil liberties issue might be this (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Marquette went too far, and didn't make amends (Score:3, Informative)
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
Contrary view of the situation: A Lesson in PR (Score:3, Insightful)