SAE's speech may be protected by First Amendment

[amigocabal]

What gets reported in the news and what happens during the Student Conduct Hearing are two different things. Seriously, a university cannot just expel a student without due process. Even criminal offenses require a hearing. Those hearings are confidential (protected by FERPA if I recall), and what the university can say in public about them legally is extremely limited.

I'm sorry what?! They sure as shit can, and do. Have you been blind to arbitrary expulsion of students over sexual assault/rape accusations and the acute problems this raises with due process as highlighted by university law departments nationwide (specifically Harvard). Its been all over this board.

There is a distinction between public and private universities. Public universities are part of the state and expulsions are thus state action.

It is a bit murky with private institutions. True, they often get state and federal funding. But that per se is insufficient to make private university disciplinary action state action. It only becomes state action for constitutional purposes if such actions were mandated by law.

Adding to the mix are various state civil rights laws which could regulate how a university disciplines its students. This very case may very well implicate Oklahoma's own laws, not just the U.S. Constitution.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What gets reported in the news and what happens during the Student Conduct Hearing are two different things. Seriously, a university cannot just expel a student without due process. Even criminal offenses require a hearing. Those hearings are confidential (protected by FERPA if I recall), and what the university can say in public about them legally is extremely limited.

I'm sorry what?! They sure as shit can, and do. Have you been blind to arbitrary expulsion of students over sexual assault/rape accusations and the acute problems this raises with due process as highlighted by university law departments nationwide (specifically Harvard). Its been all over this board.

1. Public vs Private university. Harvard is a special fucking snowflake for a lot of reasons.
2. Just because you are MRA scum who does not like the procedures or standard of evidence used (which is Preponderance of Evidence rather than Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt because it is effectively a civil matter) because you think all women are lying bitches when it comes to rape accusations, does not mean there is no due process in state universities.
3. Shoving rape under the rug is far more prevalent in any case.

[Tiriol]

What gets reported in the news and what happens during the Student Conduct Hearing are two different things. Seriously, a university cannot just expel a student without due process. Even criminal offenses require a hearing. Those hearings are confidential (protected by FERPA if I recall), and what the university can say in public about them legally is extremely limited.

I'm sorry what?! They sure as shit can, and do. Have you been blind to arbitrary expulsion of students over sexual assault/rape accusations and the acute problems this raises with due process as highlighted by university law departments nationwide (specifically Harvard). Its been all over this board.

1. Public vs Private university. Harvard is a special fucking snowflake for a lot of reasons.
2. Just because you are MRA scum who does not like the procedures or standard of evidence used (which is Preponderance of Evidence rather than Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt because it is effectively a civil matter) because you think all women are lying bitches when it comes to rape accusations, does not mean there is no due process in state universities.
3. Shoving rape under the rug is far more prevalent in any case.

There has been a thread in this very forum with dozens of pages about this very problem (a male student accused of sexual misconduct thrown out of university without due process). I'm glad to see you still think that it's all OK since it's less prevalent than a bunch of medieval-minded idiots trying to handwave away rape cases. I must say that I would never want to study anything under your administration if your idea of justice is "as long as the other cases are more prevalent, it's all fine and individual losses and misery don't matter".

[TheHammer]

And if it does, good. If we can figure out a way to disincentivize this sort of nonsense while keeping First Amendment protections for productive speech, that'd be wonderful.

And that same logic could be used to stifle societal progress because then you're leaving it up to some arbitrary determination of "productive speech". No, I'd rather let idiots say what they want to say.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There has been a thread in this very forum with dozens of pages about this very problem (a male student accused of sexual misconduct thrown out of university without due process). I'm glad to see you still think that it's all OK since it's less prevalent than a bunch of medieval-minded idiots trying to handwave away rape cases. I must say that I would never want to study anything under your administration if your idea of justice is "as long as the other cases are more prevalent, it's all fine and individual losses and misery don't matter".

Propose a system with no error. Come on. Try.

A few students get railroaded because a university flagrantly violates its own rules? First of all, that is not a systemic problem with a lack of due process for university students as was claimed in this thread. That is a periodic fuckup (if we are being generous), or bureaucratic ass-covering gone bad. That happens, but it is not a systemic problem. Compare that to the number of rapes on college campuses that universities systematically shove under the rug.

Any system that aims to stop universities from pointedly not investigating rape is by definition going to occasionally convict an innocent person. That is inevitable. No way around it. Whenever the number of investigations rises above 0 that is going to happen. I can support a system that accepts absolutely massive Type II error (failure to deal in any way shape or form with rape) or I can fix that problem, and accept a relatively small quantity of Type I error (occasionally punishing an innocent person). I will take the Type I error. If you wont, then you might as well close virtually all courts, let alone university disciplinary tribunals.

It is worth noting that the student in the article in that massive thread did in fact get due process. There was an investigation, hearings, documentation. It was... done in bad faith. He got railroaded, shafted etc. You will get no argument from be there, provided the facts of the article are correct. The university SHOULD lose its lawsuit. But it [procedural due process] occurred. He did not wake up in the morning with a letter from the university saying "by the way, you are expelled, have a nice day".

In the case of the Racist Scumbags, if they did not get so much as a hearing before expulsion, yes. The university violated their rights and should be sued. I am merely doubtful that the university consulted its lawyers and came to the conclusion that they should do that.

[amigocabal]

There has been a thread in this very forum with dozens of pages about this very problem (a male student accused of sexual misconduct thrown out of university without due process). I'm glad to see you still think that it's all OK since it's less prevalent than a bunch of medieval-minded idiots trying to handwave away rape cases. I must say that I would never want to study anything under your administration if your idea of justice is "as long as the other cases are more prevalent, it's all fine and individual losses and misery don't matter".

Propose a system with no error. Come on. Try.

A few students get railroaded because a university flagrantly violates its own rules? First of all, that is not a systemic problem with a lack of due process for university students as was claimed in this thread. That is a periodic fuckup (if we are being generous), or bureaucratic ass-covering gone bad. That happens, but it is not a systemic problem. Compare that to the number of rapes on college campuses that universities systematically shove under the rug.

Any system that aims to stop universities from pointedly not investigating rape is by definition going to occasionally convict an innocent person. That is inevitable. No way around it. Whenever the number of investigations rises above 0 that is going to happen. I can support a system that accepts absolutely massive Type II error (failure to deal in any way shape or form with rape) or I can fix that problem, and accept a relatively small quantity of Type I error (occasionally punishing an innocent person). I will take the Type I error. If you wont, then you might as well close virtually all courts, let alone university disciplinary tribunals.

what about a system where the university refers rape complaints to outside police? this is, in fact, the system used by the Naval Academy. Any rape allegations where the purpoted victim or perpetrator is a midshipman is investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which does not operate under the command of the Academy administration.

[Alyrium Denryle]

what about a system where the university refers rape complaints to outside police? this is, in fact, the system used by the Naval Academy. Any rape allegations where the purpoted victim or perpetrator is a midshipman is investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which does not operate under the command of the Academy administration.

That would be lovely. But ultimately, it only defers the problem. Rape investigation by law enforcement is very very poor. Of reported rapes, only a quarter lead to any sort of arrest, and of that, slightly less than half are ever prosecuted. Overall, the chance that a reported rape will result in a conviction is about 6%

Which is still better than what universities have going on, I will grant...

[amigocabal]

what about a system where the university refers rape complaints to outside police? this is, in fact, the system used by the Naval Academy. Any rape allegations where the purpoted victim or perpetrator is a midshipman is investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which does not operate under the command of the Academy administration.

That would be lovely. But ultimately, it only defers the problem. Rape investigation by law enforcement is very very poor. Of reported rapes, only a quarter lead to any sort of arrest, and of that, slightly less than half are ever prosecuted. Overall, the chance that a reported rape will result in a conviction is about 6%

Which is still better than what universities have going on, I will grant...

So the big question is- why is law enforcement unable to solve rape cases even with a video of the act with the victim clearly screaming "no!"?

[Tiriol]

There has been a thread in this very forum with dozens of pages about this very problem (a male student accused of sexual misconduct thrown out of university without due process). I'm glad to see you still think that it's all OK since it's less prevalent than a bunch of medieval-minded idiots trying to handwave away rape cases. I must say that I would never want to study anything under your administration if your idea of justice is "as long as the other cases are more prevalent, it's all fine and individual losses and misery don't matter".

Propose a system with no error. Come on. Try.

A few students get railroaded because a university flagrantly violates its own rules? First of all, that is not a systemic problem with a lack of due process for university students as was claimed in this thread. That is a periodic fuckup (if we are being generous), or bureaucratic ass-covering gone bad. That happens, but it is not a systemic problem. Compare that to the number of rapes on college campuses that universities systematically shove under the rug.

Any system that aims to stop universities from pointedly not investigating rape is by definition going to occasionally convict an innocent person. That is inevitable. No way around it. Whenever the number of investigations rises above 0 that is going to happen. I can support a system that accepts absolutely massive Type II error (failure to deal in any way shape or form with rape) or I can fix that problem, and accept a relatively small quantity of Type I error (occasionally punishing an innocent person). I will take the Type I error. If you wont, then you might as well close virtually all courts, let alone university disciplinary tribunals.

It is worth noting that the student in the article in that massive thread did in fact get due process. There was an investigation, hearings, documentation. It was... done in bad faith. He got railroaded, shafted etc. You will get no argument from be there, provided the facts of the article are correct. The university SHOULD lose its lawsuit. But it [procedural due process] occurred. He did not wake up in the morning with a letter from the university saying "by the way, you are expelled, have a nice day".

In the case of the Racist Scumbags, if they did not get so much as a hearing before expulsion, yes. The university violated their rights and should be sued. I am merely doubtful that the university consulted its lawyers and came to the conclusion that they should do that.

You have a very perverted sense of due process if you think what happened to the male student in that thread was anything like it. A little hint: kangaroo court is not due process, no matter how hard you wish it was.

No system is perfect, yes - but what you are proposing is, in essence, "this is the best we have, sorry chumps, no reason to make it better". If someone has been molested, sexually assaulted or raped it's definetely police and court of law that should be involved and university's own disciplinary actions should come afterwards if guilt can be established. If the university receives a complaint about criminal activity, it should not be their job to prosecute it. Sure, investigate to make sure the complaint has merit, but it's law enforcement's job to take it from there.

And I really hope that one day you have to explain to one of those innocents why they can no longer study due to allegations of rape. I mean, the system is perfect, but it works, so they should just roll with it, right?

[Civil War Man]

Is what they said protected by the 1st amendment? Maybe.

But then, so is my ability to say that I do not give a shit and they deserve every ounce of scorn we can heap on them and more. That chant openly displayed an overwhelming toxic attitude that has been bringing us down as a species for millennia. It repeatedly uses one of the most vile words in the English language and makes light of the systemic murder of black people as a tool to keep them terrified and oppressed. Those assholes can go fuck themselves with a set of steak knives.

[TheFeniX]

For every "end run around" the Bill of Rights to nail some asshole who deserves it, there's God only knows how many times those end-runs are being used like a boot to smash those that other people think deserve it or who just don't care. Yea, if some 4th amendment violation nails some kiddie-fiddler at an airport, I might not care all that much (even though I should), but should I support up NYC's "Stop and Frisk" program because it might stop some crime when it's really being used as an excuse to hassle minorities under the guise of safety? Even if you could prove to me it's making a substantial decrease in crime?

You can't define "productive" speech. I know more than a few people who would love to throw the book at people who argue for homosexual or women's rights and people like that are actually in power in this state. People who also think Evolution Theory is an attack on them and their religion. Giving them leeway to interpret "productive speech" is in no way a good idea.

And just like how I wouldn't care if some guy was fired for being racist on his own time, that line of thinking gets other people fired for posing in a bikini.

This is why I find myself having to tolerate all kinds of speech not trying to incite violence or a panic. Otherwise it leads to incredibly dumb shit like kids being suspended or expelled for posting "my teacher is a bitch" on their personal facebook page, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that primary school students are entitled to 1st amendment rights.

[Civil War Man]

We aren't throwing these guys in jail for being racist shitheels. They are getting ostracized (and in some cases, kicked out of school), and they deserve no less. There is no reason to tolerate them. Nurturing their poisonous attitude is what's allowing the hateful bigots in places of power hold onto it. It legitimizes their hatred, and gives them free reign to poison future generations. And the saddest part is that "tolerating" them does absolutely nothing to stop them from trying to do exactly what you fear they'd try to do if we didn't. We already have bigots fighting tooth and nail to deny gay people civil rights, policemen in various parts of the country who disproportionately target black men, and people in power trying to restrict women's access to fucking birth control.

[amigocabal]

We aren't throwing these guys in jail for being racist shitheels. They are getting ostracized (and in some cases, kicked out of school), and they deserve no less. There is no reason to tolerate them. Nurturing their poisonous attitude is what's allowing the hateful bigots in places of power hold onto it. It legitimizes their hatred, and gives them free reign to poison future generations. And the saddest part is that "tolerating" them does absolutely nothing to stop them from trying to do exactly what you fear they'd try to do if we didn't. We already have bigots fighting tooth and nail to deny gay people civil rights, policemen in various parts of the country who disproportionately target black men, and people in power trying to restrict women's access to fucking birth control.

Ostracism is perfectly acceptable, and the state or Congress prohibiting us from ostracizing them implicates freedom of association.

But the state is not allowed, nor does it deserve, to kick them out of school merely for the content of their speech. Brandenburg provides the standard on which speech constitutes incitement, and its standard is of course binding on all U.S. courts.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But the state is not allowed, nor does it deserve, to kick them out of school merely for the content of their speech. Brandenburg provides the standard on which speech constitutes incitement, and its standard is of course binding on all U.S. courts.

Since I'm really not in the mood to research the dozen court cases you mentioned (without quotation, summary, or useful context of any sort whatsoever), would you mind pointing to the relevant decision that rules that disciplinary actions within a public university are legally equivalent to actions by the state government? I know that it is a state university, but clearly at some point there's a division of authority. After all, a citation from campus security isn't the same thing as an official arrest by the state police.

[amigocabal]

But the state is not allowed, nor does it deserve, to kick them out of school merely for the content of their speech. Brandenburg provides the standard on which speech constitutes incitement, and its standard is of course binding on all U.S. courts.

Since I'm really not in the mood to research the dozen court cases you mentioned (without quotation, summary, or useful context of any sort whatsoever), would you mind pointing to the relevant decision that rules that disciplinary actions within a public university are legally equivalent to actions by the state government? I know that it is a state university, but clearly at some point there's a division of authority. After all, a citation from campus security isn't the same thing as an official arrest by the state police.

See Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), and Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). see also Iota Xi v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993), Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (2012)