Marquette Dental Student Suspended For Blogging 644
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."
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.
"First they came for the Jews..." (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? Now is the time to consider joining the EFF period!
This affects us all, and it's high time we started to behave accordingly.
Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
News Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Refund (Score:1, Insightful)
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
God, this makes me sick. The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say - that is freedom of speech. To even bow yourself to the point of suggesting that retaliation is acceptable as long as he gets his tuition back is... listen - it's not just tuition. It's a scholarship, it's the time he's already put into the degree. This is straight censorship and intimidation. Understand that not only does this student suffer, but others may be frightened by this action and will hold their tounges.
Please, do not accept this as "OK" tuition returned or not.
Re:Refund (Score:1, 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?
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
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:News Flash (Score:2, Insightful)
"E. Interpersonal Interactions - Each member of the MUSoD community is obligated to conduct interactions with each other, with patients and with others in a manner that promotes understanding and trust. Actions, which in any way discriminate against or favor any group or are harassing in nature, are condemned. Respect for the diverse members of the MUSoD student body, administrators, faculty, staff and patient base is expected."
In the new America, you have the right to not be offended by anything.
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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/flamebait posts is a violation of my civil rights. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, people claim Free Speech protection so often and from private entities, that when true violations of it occur, such as cartoonists getting visits from the Secret Service for insulting the President (not just the current one), are arrested at peaceful protests, etc. the true violations get lost in the noise.
Re:Refund (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a free speech issue, it is a contract issue. He had a contract with the university. They are claiming that he violated that contract by violating their code of conduct, and thus are taking actions that their contract says they can do in such cases. He can only argue that he did not break their contract or that their contract language was too vague and thus non-binding.
Now Marquette may reverse their ruling because of the bad press. They will probably be worried that less people will be willing to enter into contract with them given their actions in this case. That would mean their school would be less desirable to students and thus their business would suffer. Or they may decide that such negative effects are not significant enough.
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: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.
Accurate statement of the law (Score:1, Insightful)
Second, I used to be a higher-ed acceptable use policy enforcer.
Students at private universities don't have any First Amendment rights when they're using university network resources. Private universities aren't state actors and aren't bound by the First Amendment. Read your local acceptable use policy carefully; it defines your rights.
Most universities' AUPs give students and employees pretty broad rights of free expression. But each university's AUP is different from every other's.
Also, as a general rule, it's better to handle this sort of issue informally to minimize the downside risks for everyone and to generate a "teachable moment" for the student involved.
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.
Re:Refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Discrimination of what? Race? nope. Gender? nope. Sexual Orientation? nope. Religion? nope. How are they discriminating against the student?
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.
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should a business be FORCED to sell to anyone? Shouldn't they be free to choose who they sell to? We may find their choices repugnant, but that does not mean we should take away freedoms to rectify a particular situation.
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.
-Rick
Not a free speech issue. (Score:2, Insightful)
As others have stated already, freedom of speech does not mean being able to say whatever you want whenever you want without consequences. And if you're a member of any sort of private institution, school or otherwise, you may very well be subject to restrictions that the government doesn't place on you.
If you publicly insult people, there can be serious consequences. Some forms of speech are completely unprotected, hence laws against libel, defamation and slander. Technically, this student may be guilty of libel. I didn't read the specific contents and IANAL.
People are often quick to site their rights, but often fail to consider the rights of others. This is a non-story. This is simply another kid who said something he shoudldn't have and he's paying the price for it.
Re:...and there's the rub. (Score:3, Insightful)
Prices of any goods or service is directly affected by the supply of money for the goods versus the supply of goods.
Government "easy money" grants and loans increase the supply of money -- forcing prices way up. Easy loans/grants is to blame for high tuition costs.
Also, the title.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical for
Why aren't they guarunteed their right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you say that? did they incarcerate the students, violating their rights? Students are guarunteed the right to free speech, but not the right to be liked by university administration.
Students are allowed to say whatever they want, but universities are allowed to enroll whomever they choose, excercising their right of free association. No violation of rights occoured here.
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.
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.
Re:And a deal's a deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Then Mr. Blogger should have taken Marquette up on their first offer of probation, a public apology, and some alcohol abuse classes. Mr. Blogger can't hardly blame Marquette administrators if they now feel that someone else is more deserving of their "encouragement." Perhaps you have heard of the old adage, "don't bite the hand that feeds you." The school administration should expect its scholarship students to be the "best" examples of Marquette students, not the worst examples. The folks at Marquette are free to run their school how they see fit. It would appear that Mr. Blogger needs Marquette a whole lot more than Marquette needs Mr. Blogger.
You might feel that the punishment is a bit harsh, but it's hardly your call, is it now? Personally, I think the kid got what was coming to him. Mr. Blogger wrote things about the professors and students at Marquette that were out of line. In itself, that's not necessarily such a bad thing. This is undoubtedly why Marquette's administration originally asked for probation and a public apology. The real mistake was turning to the blogosphere for "protection" from this punishment. Mr. Blogger didn't want to apologize, and he didn't want to be on probation and he figured that if he turned the heat up enough on Marquette that he would get off scott free.
He was wrong. Now he gets to be something else for a living, and if he goes to school somewhere else he'll get to pay for the privilege himself. Perhaps next time he'll be more civil about what he says in public, and more grateful to those that are paying his way, and more apologetic when he hurts someone else's feelings.
Re:The University's response was 100% correct. (Score:3, Insightful)
Publicly you have that right, but I don't think this individual took into account the vast readership his
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
Got a monkey on your back, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is whether his behavior was merely rude, or harassing and unprofessional, and if so, was it enough to result in the punishment he got?
Nobody here is trying to silence anyone-- either the student or people making utterly absurd comparisons on
If you can't tell the difference, perhaps you ought to get counseling.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
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:
Re:Also, the title.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which professors? Which students? If it's direct, then obviously they're clearly identifiable..
-PS
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.
Bad thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, the "good thinkers" in this University have damaged the public perception 'way beyond what the blogger did. Now all they can save is their egos. The Dean, despite his incompetence as a thinker, decision maker and risk manager, is probably immune to termination or other consequences during the period of his contract. Under certain circumstances he may have tenure and actually be almost completely immune to termination.
Too bad.
Re:Not a free speech issue. (Score:1, Insightful)
Please read it again, I cannot find anything offensive in there, it merely repeats what others have already said.
The use of one word "Islamic" just fired off someones touchy little politically correct tantrum. The poster clearly
prefixes the word with the qualification "extremist". This reminds me of the insanity of the early 90s when just
about any post containg the word Jew or Black would evoke hysteria regardless of its content. From a psychology viewpoint I find this baffling. Do you not realise that it is in fact an inverse form of racism and that you reveal YOUR prejudices
by so moderating it? Ironic that we're discussing free speech and yet this is de facto peer censorship based on the ugliest of knejerk reactions and hasty thoughtless moderation. You are merely encouraging and propagating the chilling effects of self censorship when it becomes offensive to use a word legitimately, and it shows that you don't read the posts so much as form a visceral and emotional response based on the shape of it. Please grow up.
To the OP, you "site" a camp, but you "cite" a reference - perhaps it was your poor use of English that enraged the moderator?
Double irony that your insensitive moderation has caused me to make this remark, hence you are a TROLL -1
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.
Re:Refund (Score:2, Insightful)
To illustrate how abuse of this can lead to a dead society, look no further than messageboards. I used to be part of a vibrant videogame messageboard, with plenty of educated and interesting posters. One day though, the owner/admin of the board decided to exert his right to extensively moderate posts he didn't agree with. The end result was that the board is now nearly dead, with only a few posts a week, made by some die-hard old fogeys. The same can happen to society at large - except that you can't migrate as easily.
Re:Refund (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the 1st Amendment does give you the right to say whatever you want. It just doesn't protect you from private entities to use that against you.
Actually the 1st Amendment does not give you any rights, it protects your rights you already have.
Re:The University's response was 100% correct. (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
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.
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.
Re:OT (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite a stretch, but Im going to have to assume that you really are that idiotic. I can call you a jackass all I want, but you are not allowed to hit me for it. If you do, you will be sued and jailed (criminal assault, and then a civil suit). And you would deserve every bit of the ass pumping you would recieve in jail, for being both a moron and a jackass.
Inquisition (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OT (Score:1, Insightful)
Apparently his blog described several bouts of what could be considered "binge drinking." That's also something that the school can't simply overlook. What would happen if the kid died binge drinking and the parents sued. If it could be proved that the administration knew about the student's behavior and didn't do anything about it then they could be held liable (potentially).
IMHO you shouldn't disparage someone in a public forum unless you are willing to either A) prove it or B) deal with the consequences. Just because you have a right to free speech does not mean that you should be able to abuse people with impunity. Mr. Blogger said some things that were uncalled for. When asked to apologize Mr. Blogger refused. A group composed of faculty and students then decided that Mr. Blogger didn't really belong at Marquette. Apparently Mr. Blogger wasn't a very good fit for their community.
My own personal experience is that people that get called before the Dean of students probably deserve to get kicked out. 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? Throw in the fact that instead of apologizing, accepting probation, and keeping his nose clean this kid *demands* a conduct hearing. Then this kid gets his conduct hearing and a group of students and faculty chooses what is essentially the harshest punishment. This kid sounds like a Grade A jerk to me. Heck, the kid could have gotten away with a slap on the wrist at almost any time simply by saying, "what I said was uncalled for. I am very sorry." Now Mr. Blogger probably doesn't get to become a dentist. Is saying "sorry" really too much to ask.
I bet the application he sent in to get his scholarship painted him as being respectful and disciplined. What a load of hooey that turned out to be.
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of you were off the point anyway. I don't believe any reasonable person would find the clause in question to wrongly impinge on a student's freedom of speech, as it mainly covers harrassment. The problem is the school administrators' overly broad interpretation of the scope and definition of the clause, and the refusal to consider evidence which showed that. It's hard to prove harrassment if the alleged victim is not named and doesn't know they are being harrassed. If the student and the school end up disagreeing on the point, then the student didn't sign what he thought he signed and that should invalidate the contract, in my non-lawyer opinion.
I hope it turns out well for the student. I think I would transfer in that situation and sue for the extra costs and a semester's worth of lost wages due to the graduation delay. I'm just laughing about the professor who was so horrible that he immediately assumed the anonymous reference in the blog referred to him. It seems like there's at least one teacher in every school that is so anti-student that it makes you wonder why they chose teaching as a profession in the first place.
Re:OT (Score:3, Insightful)
Universities shouldn't be any more liable for the illegal/stupid things that their non-minor students do than a regular landlord, and if the students live off university property, it shouldn't be their problem at all.
Of course, universities have handbooks/rule books that their students are required to abide by in order to receive their services. Punishing students within those guidelines is within their rights, as a private institution can deny its services arbitrarily, assuming they follow antidiscrimination laws. They are also generally required to abide by the rules they set out. I haven't researched the details of this case and I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of the student, rather, I'm advocating how university rules should be designed.
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!
Why the EFF anyhow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Discrimination isn't always bad... (Score:1, Insightful)
People are clamoring about freedom of speech as if the University is capable of silencing this indivual or preventing him from sharing his opinions. Freedom of speech does not allow you to say whatever you want without any consequences. It is saying that the government cannot suppress your right to speech. The law protects on individuals right to make an ass of himself but it does not say that there should not be consequences to what an individual says.
I think that Marquette, as well as schools and employers across the country, needs to include specific language in its code of conduct addressing what is considered acceptable content in a blog. Having such guidelines would not prohibit students or employees from keeping blogs, but it would make it clear what the repurcussions would be if the guidelines are not followed.