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."
why is it so many 'private' universities (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Interesting)
[Al Pacino: Scent of a Woman]
If I was half the man I was 5 years ago I'd take a flamethrower to this place!
[/Al Pacino]
Seriously some things are more important than contracts and I believe free speech is one of them.
Re:Refund (Score:1, Interesting)
Did'n know sex discrimination is legal.
Re:I'm not sure what's wrong? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not Surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, universities are the bastion of the worst forms of Political Correctness and repression. You'll find the occaisonal Ward Churchhill holding on for dear life but they are a rarity. If it could cost the university in contributions, it's gone. If it could lead to criticism of "illustrious" faculty, it is gone. Everything is sanitized. Every email is checked for possible "offensive" speech. If you even mention Christmas, you are on report. Literally. If there is even the possibility for some nameless, faceless entity to be offended, it's right out.
I bet you can't tell where I work.
I went to Marquette for two years. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A side note. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and that's because Mr. Blogger chose to see what was behind door #3 instead of choosing the initial punishment which was a public apology, probation for the rest of his time at Marquette, and some alcohol abuse classes. This just goes to show that only a fool messes with the administration at a private university. They don't have to worry about political correctness. Heck, a school like Marquette doesn't even give a crap about the possibilities of negative publicity. Lots of students would be more than happy to take Mr. Blogger's place. That leaves the Marquette administrators the freedom to settle the problem in a deliciously "old school" fashion. They gave Mr. Blogger a chance to apologize and clean up his act, and now Mr. Blogger gets to do something else for a living.
Perhaps next time Mr. Blogger will show a little respect. We are all free to say what we want, but only an idiot overlooks the possible repercussions of speaking their mind in public.
Googled Recruiting (Score:2, Interesting)
Quote:
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?
Seriously? How cool is that!?!? Since my name is Curtis Brown, then I get credit for being an Astronaut, a football star, a hockey star, a talent agent, a baseball player, a politician...
Sheesh, why I could get into just about any line of work I could imagine!!!
university of miami did the same thing, sort of (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/13
Re:Refund (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, racism is often a very bad thing. However, making it illegal sets a poor precedent, and erodes freedoms. What if I own an authentic chinese restaurant and I only want chinese people working there? There is nothing immoral about me turning away an Italian chef or a waitress from West Virginia.
You said racism should be illegal. Here's a nice quote from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience:
Now replace "slavery" in the above quote with "racism". Making racism illegal didn't advance racial equality one bit. And it only became illegal after the average joe citizen had already decided it was generally immoral. But when the government made racism illegal, we lost some of our freedoms.Re:Refund (Score:2, Interesting)
Accepting this money requires them to abide by a number of conditions, one of which protects the students from reprisal if they speak their mind. Unless they slander or libel someone, the school has very limited recourse.
And Appointed the Head Pedophile Suffler Pope (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only did the Catholic church silenced many visionaries in the past, they have within the last year appointed the man Pope John Paul II assigned to oversee the suffling of pedophile priests one-step-ahead of the law as the new (no doubt child-friendly) pope! One complicit man who willfully looked the other way as pedophiles were shipped to new parishes for a little "fresh meat" (and a stay-out-of-jail-free card) is now on the fast track to being sainted, while the man who actually did the shuffling is now pope (and no doubt soon to be promoted to the Right Hand of God Himself).
The sad thing is, mothers the world over are redoubling their efforts to be sure their children attend mass. Isn't that just precious?
Similar to the Paul Trummel kerfluffle? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0222/nc-and
His wacky tinfoil hat website: http://www.contracabal.org/# [contracabal.org]
This is the United States.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to read the Constitution some time... (Score:1, Interesting)
"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."
A private entity can prevent you from saying anything on something they control, and is under no obligation to like it and continue your use of their services if you say it somewhere else. Take an Internet forum for example - I run several. I withold ALL rights to delete, moderate, or edit any posting I find offensive. I could even take that a step further and do nasty things to posts which go against my personal views, however I choose not to. However I'd be perfectly legal in doing so, provided I didn't use the government's resources to do that enforcing for me.
Nothing illegal happened here, and even though the school may receive government funding it does not mean they are an extension of the government itself. They can keep this kid from saying anything they want to on their web servers, etc - and if he posts something unfavorable, they can kick him out unless they're breaching some sort of contract in doing so. It isn't nice, and goes against the sort of free thinking a University is supposed to encourage, but it's legal. Ethics are a whole other side to the issue.
Re:OT (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OT (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Freedom is a two-way street (Score:3, Interesting)
I repeat: as long as a business accepts the benefits of having a license, it must serve all those who made the license possible.
Re:OT (Score:2, Interesting)
Before you get all tied in knots. Here's the sequence of events.
You can't really blame this debacle on the administration at Marquette. The Dean tried to sort this out without suspending the student. Mr. Blogger chose instead to try behind door number three and found out that his own peers didn't appreciate his behavior. Seriously, as someone that went to Marquette can you imagine posting disparaging remarks about your professors and fellow classmates in a public blog and then, when confronted with your behavior, defying the Dean and demanding a conduct committee meeting? This kid was at Marquette on scholarship. I think that it's not unreasonable for Marquette administrators to count on their scholarship students to be good examples, not bad ones.
Re:Not free speech - Due process. (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example, when I attended college our university started finals early one fall semester in order to balance the number of days in the fall and spring semesters for its graduate students. Normally this wouldn't be an issue however it meant that finals started one day after the last day of classes, which was in clear violation of the university's own stated policy that no course could give a final earlier than 3 days after the end of classes. This was known as "Reading Day" and was put in place to ensure students had at least a little time to prepare for the gauntlet of finals. Students protested the breach of policy but the administration never gave any reasoning behind why it was appropriate, neccessary at that time, or even admitted that they had violated their own policy. The message given to students (as far as I'm concerned) was that the school was above its own rules, and that if the administration violated policy they were not accountable, but everyone else was. Now the case can be made that they make the rules so they can do whatever they damn well please, but why have a policy in the first place if it is not enforced or is overruled arbitrarily and without input from those who are affected the most?
If there is no accountability to policy then what chance does any student have of due process in the system? I agree that private universities have every right to set their educational rules on their terms and that a student agrees to those terms, but there should be measures in place to ensure that the university actually plays by those rules and there should be consequences for the university if it doesn't adhere to its own stated guidelines. In this case, the fact that the student was not given due process and the offense was determined to not be in violation of the school's policies by the school's own co-director of ethics shows that the school was only interested in its own politics and not in fairly applying their own rules. If students are expected to agree and abide by the rules, the university must as well, elsewise they are in breach of contract just as much as a student would be.
Re:A side note. (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears to me that the university in question has shown itself unworthy of respect. They have engaged in immature, unprofessional behavior. Second, they have done so very publically. Finally, it amazes me that the university hasn't considered the legal ramifications of its harsh and subjective punishment of this student. The financial amount of a lawsuit probably would be small, but it looks to me like the student has a good case and this potentially could cause far more harm to the university's reputation than any rude, uppity student.