It doesn't matter if it matters to you.

As I always say, there are policies in effect because every individual isn't capable of monitoring her/himself.

How profound of you, Kevin. ;)

No. Universities try to assert this in many cases, but it's just not true.

You're right that free speech isn't a free-for-all, but the University's power to limit it (which exists) is extremely limited.

If you can, pull up the case I cited. The court almost treats the university's argument as frivolous.

In fact, the court later held in a subsequent action between the same parties in which the fraternity sought declaratory relief that the University couldn't ever initiate such proceedings, the court again held in Sigma Chi's favor, and as part of its holding said this:

"Because that fundamental right [speech] extends to students at a state university, a state university may not hinder the exercise of First Amendment rights simply because it feels that exposure to a given group's ideas may be somehow harmful to certain students." (citing another 4th Circuit case)

I think that pretty much wraps it up right there. Schools try this crap all over the country. Every time it goes to court, the school will be slapped down.

Just a cursory look through 8th Circuit cases led me to a similar situation in which a gay student organization who was forbidden from coming on campus at the University of Missouri was allowed to do so. The university complained that people would be offended, it was immoral, the group would make people homosexual (except for the last one, sound familiar?), but the court held that since this didn't fall within that short list of things I've posted a couple of times that the University had no business doing what it did.

Any of you lefties with westlaw/lexis access, feel free to find some cases which prove me wrong. Betcha can't.

nahnahnah


nyahhhhh!!!



isn't what it about sounded like?

And since freedom of speech isn't a free-for-all and Universities can dictate various aspects of students' freedoms, it isn't as cut and dry as you are presenting it.

You forgot to say...

boobooo.....:p

Speech isn't one of those aspects unless the speech is obscene, child porn, constitutes a "clear and present danger" (see the Holmes test), etc. This sort of thing isn't on that list of exceptions. We have the right as individuals and groups to offend one another, be it through racially inflammatory speech or almost anything else. Otherwise, there are a lot of kids at Cal-Berkley who should probably be in prison.

It is that cut and dry. Really. Especially in this case.

Again, you and a lot of others are confusing the power a lot of universities claim to have and what the constitution says. You're all smart people -- you should know the Constitution trumps university policy.

Okay, court cases aside, and let's say for the sake of argument that Gamma Phi's HQ disciplined them, I think the punishment does not fit the crime.

Why not put the chapter through some sort of PC sensitivity training? Bring in some native Americans to speak to the group, etc. That seems much more in line with educating young people who made an error in judgement.

Their "crime" was not an out of control, alcoholic binge where people were arrested, injured. This form of punishment is just reinforcing the "we must punish these non PC fools swiftly and forcefully" mindset.

Which is absolutely disgusting.

It would continue my argument against nationals and their thought-police.

yeah...you are right, and I forgot the sound effect for one giving another a rasberry...

something like thhhhhhhhhhppppttt!!!!

Agreed. National organizations should support their local chapters. The national organization here not supporting the chapter in an action telling the university to go eff itself is unfortunate.

Wait, when did this become a "lefties" thing?

And Nationals should support the chapters if they agree with what the chapter did. If they disagree then they should punish them appropriately. HQ has every right to "sanction free speech."

It does sound like the University has a policy of events not having "improper" themes or some such. Whether or not "Cowboys and Indians" is an inappropriate theme or not will require the Judicial Board Review should the PHC choose to do so. (Based on the article).

Kevin, I feel you're exaggerating the legality of this by suggesting that it is blatently illegal when there is no binding precedent. It is in your opinion a violation of their Constitutional rights, this we get. In the real world, however, it is not legally a violation of their rights and the grey area will not be cleared up unless someone does take the University to court.

As far as I know, the University has not given the chapter any sanctions other than the social probation, which it is unclear is from HQ or the school. Gamma Phi Beta has stated in their press release that they will be working with the school to insure that the chapter upholds the values of Gamma Phi. I'm just guessing, but I would be surprised if that did not include some form of programming, perhaps via our PACE program.

In the real world, but for a narrow set of categories, any state action restricting speech gets strict scrutiny. I actually did cite some binding authority above regarding that gay student association at the University of Missouri (that's 8th Circuit).

This exact, precise event doesn't have to happen. Some things in the law are really cut and dry. This is one of those things.

With the widespread availability of photos/etc, it is all the more reason to NOT act in such a way that could possibly come back to bite you at a later date.

Take those Rho Chis being discussed in the Risk mgmt forum for another example.

Don't I know it - that's why I posted the fyi.