Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

as an unlicensed lawyer i wont bother my arse but nice tude

http://studentactivism.net/2013/02/04/expelled-student-activist-wins-50k-court-judgment-against-university-president/

a similar case but on the righteous side

As an administrator at a public university, I've seen similar speech vs conduct argument come up before (and faculty/staff aren't protected like students are). It's a legal muddle. My instinct tells me that these guys shouldn't have been expelled for speech b/c they uttered no fighting words but the use of the "hostile working environment" defense probably alludes to their student code of conduct, the bible for these institutions and mine.

Okay "nonsense" is a little strong. Sue me, lawyers.

(I find what is protected and unprotected speech a bit strange). Maybe the U wouldn't have a good legal defense in this case. Maybe it was still a good idea to do what they did, considering all factors. Might be a trade-off.

It feels really weird to me that you can sing happy songs about lynching black people, and not be expelled. Like, clearly that creates a 'hostile' environment? Also, allegedly, SAE Cornell killed a black student during a hazing ritual in 2011.

Basically, expell all frat-members.

First Amendment, man, and a generation's worth of rulings.

Also, allegedly, SAE Cornell killed a black student during a hazing ritual in 2011.

well I think this violates many amendments and laws

Like I said, my instinct tends to embrace an absolutist embrace of the First Amendment: it'd make no sense to write an amendment protecting citizens from governments' infringement of speech if governments infringed on disgusting speech. But courts have carved exceptions, and many universities' "hate speech" codes haven't been challenged. But using a student code of conduct to punish students is another question.

(I'm well aware btw that until the 1920s SCOTUS did not recognize that the Bill of Rights applied to the states)

Well, it's not that they should be criminally prosecuted, but the idea that because the university is public, it should allow students to sing about lynching other students? That seems weird to me. That does not seem to be protecting students?

How do they reconcile that song with their ridiculous "True Gentleman" creed?

Like, it feels like there must be some kind of Title IX-like loophole that would allow universities to expell students who sing about killing other students, regardless of first amendment.

there is

again, it has to do with creating a hostile learning environment

I don't know enough about US law, or care enough about these racist assholes, to have a firm opinion but surely there are disciplinary options in between "allowing students to sing about lynching other students" and expulsion.

Flogging

There we go. The sensible compromise.

look at all these ilxor creepy liberals trying to suppress these students' free speech >:|

if we'd done better job they might still be enrolled lol

wow, three different buffoons on the morning joe show blamed it on all the rap music. best dumb tv pundit stuff in a while, think I'll even watch the daily show & see if it gets covered.

Often people blame 'the culture' without considering that 'the culture' they are talking about might just be something they themselves are making up on the news.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-calling-academic-freedom-stanley-fish

At this point in his career, Fish is as much a legal theorist as he is an English professor (he’s been teaching in law schools since the mid-1980s), and it’s his contention in his latest book that “[ a ]cademic freedom is rhetorically strong but legally weak. Indeed, it is not at all clear that academic freedom has any substantial presence in the law.” But Versions of Academic Freedom is not, as one might expect, an attempt to strengthen the legal standing of the concept; Fish’s project is less about finding a new way to defend academic freedom than it is about defining and debunking what most working professors seem to think “academic freedom” means. On what grounds do claims for academic freedom rest? Why is it a good thing and what would academic life look like without it?

In search of an answer, Fish identifies five schools of academic freedom, “plotted on a continuum that goes from right to left.” (It’s worth pointing out that this ideological framing is Fish’s; I would argue that there are left and right versions of all of the positions he describes.) At the conservative end of the spectrum, we have the “It’s just a job” school (Fish’s own position), which holds that, “[ r ]ather than being a vocation or holy calling, higher education is a service that offers knowledge and skills to students who wish to receive them.” Thus, “academics are not free in any special sense to do anything but their jobs.” Second is the “For the common good” school—the mainstream position in the American academy today—which insists that academic freedom has special value to a democratic society; Fish traces it back to a founding document, the American Association of University Professors’ 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure (drafted by Arthur O. Lovejoy and John Dewey, among others). Third is the “Academic exceptionalism or uncommon beings” school, which essentially treats academics as an elite class with special privileges. Fourth is the “Academic freedom as critique” school, which finds the real value of the academy in the “ruthless criticism of everything that exists”; fifth, and most radical, is the “Academic freedom as revolution” school, which travels further down the same road by advocating not only the critique but the abolition of existing social structures.

http://features.columbiaspectator.com/eye/2015/03/12/left-and-lefter/

“Left and Lefter: What does it mean to be a liberal activist at Columbia?”

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/berkeley-bans-intifada

actually, a hashtag, 'dintifada'

Following up on Daniel Mael’s claim that Sumayyah Din promoted “the murder of innocent men, women and children as part of her campaign platform,” I asked Din if she had any plans to inflict violence on campus.

Haha, no. I can confidently say I have no plans to inflict any violence towards any groups on campus. I would never want to carry or condone any message of violence or hatred. In fact, my campaign is themed with a central dogma of love, solidarity, and unity.

haha, no. lol college

There seems to be a big back and forth in the UC system between the Israeli divestment crowd and the jews.. and since these kids are in lol college it gets really stupid

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-allegations-of-anti-israel-sentiments-rock-uc-campuses--20150307-story.html

http://www.timesofisrael.com/brandeis-whistleblower-stirs-up-new-hornets-nest/

Daniel Mael is likely the most divisive and hated pro-Israel voice at Brandeis University. Exposing inner-sanctum scandals, to many of the campus far-left — and much of the Brandeis administration — he’s that annoying fly that keeps on buzzing after being shooed away.

Characterized as a bully by those who differ from his staunch alliance with pro-Israel, pro-Judeo-Christian values, he’s been repeatedly called to the dean’s rug after well-publicized run-ins with Brandeis JStreet U leadership, among other incidents.

But now, following his most recent intrigue which took the 22 year old straight into the United States’ racial crisis inferno, he’s been advised by local police not to walk alone. Even his grandmother has been threatened.

What is it with Mael, a handsome, black kippah-wearing, well-spoken business major, that puts people on edge?

mondoweiss is full of such psychos. "what do you mean dintifada has associations with intifada? it's just an imaginary rhyming word we use to describe our political campaigns. you guys are crazy."

what % of jew-baiting takes the form of gaslighting

"Mael prefers to think of his support for the Jewish state under the rubric of respecting and fighting for Judeo-Christian values."

As a Jew I am truly baffled by what "Judeo-Christian values" is supposed to mean.

it's one of those super in vogue cultural terms that mean whatever you want it to mean when you use it

does it mean enlightenment values? does it mean progressive humanistic values? does it mean judeo-christian social morality? i assume probably not the latter.

my best guess for this guy is what it means is enlightenment values like free speech, free religion, suffrage, etc

thank you for sharing your views on free speech they are appreciated

Agree "J-C values" can mean all sorts of different things, deployed for different purposes in different contexts. Certainly related to enlightenment values, but I think conceptually distinct.

One thing the usage likely entails is a certain lineage of the philosophical idea of moral-ethical universality among human beings. E.g. salvation may not be universal, but not only are certain moral norms universal (e.g. against murder etc.) but they extend to all human beings, all human beings are to be treated as human beings, whether they're within the tribe or not, just by virtue of being human. I.e. you have ethical obligations/ prohibitions with respect to another human being even if they're heathen, barbarian, etc.-- forebear of the idea of universal human rights, etc.

(Of course philosophical idea and historical actuality very different things!)

i think one of the ironies might be that he'd probably include israel's acceptance of homosexuality as an example of these J-C values, even tho u kno

Ha yes. But it's sorta valid if you look at it genealogically. J-C values back in the day involve an identity or concordance of scriptural revelation, natural law, and Reason. The secularization of J-C values (i.e. the Enlightenment) dispenses with the first and focuses on the third (with an added valence of liberation). Some twists and turns since then, but you could argue that acceptance of homosexuality is in its way an heir to this tradition. Ain't history grand.

back in the day could you even speak of "J-C values" was that a thing that made sense to speak of.

and in what sense is the enlightenment a "secularization" of them instead of just you know a new thing and is "liberation" a value even wtf is this doing on this thread.

Good questions but they're precisely the complications and ongoing arguments of intellectual history. Especially when it comes to the study of "new things" especially self-consciously self-identified "new things" like the Enlightenment.

Doing fuck all in this thread other than late night off topic yadda.

PS they really are good questions but I'm not sure if you'd like me to try to reply or just shut up; anyway I'm sleepy

normally, people who speak about j-c values mean that they hate muslims.

J-C values seems to boil down to how one uses idolatry of christ's sacrifice for personal/political gain.

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189543/trigger-warnings-on-campus

Ime "Judeo-Christian" values is something Christians say when they mean "Eh we p much share a moral standard based on believing in the same God, and we have to include them because their existence enabled our true faith."

"I mean they got the Jesus part wrong but as long as they don't allow women to speak in front of men, we're good."

my pt tho is that's obv not what this dude means bc the term has a bunch of different meanings depending on the context

For instance in this case an "everyone who's not us" dog whistle.

So in your eyes what defending Israel from a judeo-christian pov means is just "a dog whistle" for everyone that isn't him. Pretty shallow comprehension imho.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised that your interpretation of anything boils down to "secret racism"