Well hello there SAE

[Trim]

If the narrative ends up being that U of Alabama stood up for what's right (morally, even if in violation of the 1st amendment) and accordingly rid its campus and state of this racist outsider, it'll have been well worth whatever expense/hassle it costs to deal with 1st amendment grievances.

[DQ12]

If the narrative ends up being that U of Alabama stood up for what's right (morally, even if in violation of the 1st amendment) and accordingly rid its campus and state of this racist outsider, it'll have been well worth whatever expense/hassle it costs to deal with 1st amendment grievances.

Well...sure.  If the narrative is "I'm glad the state actor violated her civil liberties," it's worth it for the state.   But I think if you avoid looking at this situation in a vacuum, it's easy to recognize the possible bad precedent situations like these this set. 

To reiterate, I think this girl is trash, and I think she should face consequences for her speech -- i just don't think those consequences should come in the form of expulsion from a state university.  That's exactly what the first amendment prohibits.

Allowing state actors to pick and choose when the first amendment applies renders it practically meaningless.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't really see any precedent as being set by an expulsion. She still has the legal right to appeal in court and I'm sure she could get readmitted if she really wanted to.

[8manpick]

The first amendment is worth defending no matter the terrible things said by bad people.  She should be ostracized by society, not punished by the state.

[Trim]

If the narrative ends up being that U of Alabama stood up for what's right (morally, even if in violation of the 1st amendment) and accordingly rid its campus and state of this racist outsider, it'll have been well worth whatever expense/hassle it costs to deal with 1st amendment grievances.

Well...sure.  If the narrative is "I'm glad the state actor violated her civil liberties," it's worth it for the state.   But I think if you avoid looking at this situation in a vacuum, it's easy to recognize the possible bad precedent situations like these this set. 

To reiterate, I think this girl is trash, and I think she should face consequences for her speech -- i just don't think those consequences should come in the form of expulsion from a state university.  That's exactly what the first amendment prohibits.

Allowing state actors to pick and choose when the first amendment applies renders it practically meaningless.

I don't think we disagree that much.  The public practicalities of it though are that you've got a trash girl vs. a university/state/region that probably is fine with or maybe even tacitly encourages that trash until it becomes too bad of a look to the outside world, and then the free speech issue as this offshoot of how the primary battle gets dealt with. 

From Alabama's perspective, potentially looking bad on the free speech issue and it even possibly costing some money is totally a hit worth taking to win on the racism issue.  Alabama doesn't have a greater incentive here to worry about what their action here does for first amendment matters in America later.  Their incentive is to get people to think the University of Alabama doesn't tolerate racism whatsoever.

[Trim]

The first amendment is worth defending no matter the terrible things said by bad people.  She should be ostracized by society, not punished by the state.

And that's why it's fine for the girl or the ACLU or whoever to fight Alabama about the expulsion.  Whatever consequence Alabama suffers will have been worth it to them for them to come out of it all as the side that was against a terrible thing said by a bad person.

[8manpick]

The first amendment is worth defending no matter the terrible things said by bad people.  She should be ostracized by society, not punished by the state.

And that's why it's fine for the girl or the ACLU or whoever to fight Alabama about the expulsion.  Whatever consequence Alabama suffers will have been worth it to them for them to come out of it all as the side that was against a terrible thing said by a bad person.

In reality you are probably not wrong, but I think it is overall bad for society if the State knowingly violates its own laws, given that its citizens will eventually take up the tab and pay for her case and settlement.

[DQ12]

Right.  I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the practical advantages for Alabama by just expelling her.  I'm saying that it's concerning that Alabama (correctly) views expelling her as more politically convenient than dealing with this situation in a way that doesn't violate the First Amendment. 

I don't expect this girl to raise hell about it, but by doing nothing, she's perpetuating this problem (though dealing with her own problem in probably the most efficient way).  But I think if she/ACLU did raise hell about it, it would help get the First Amendment enter the broader conversation on the topic and educate people so that the next time this happens, the convenience calculus may be changed.

[ChiComCat]

I don't expect this girl to raise hell about it, but by doing nothing, she's perpetuating this problem (though dealing with her own problem in probably the most efficient way).  But I think if she/ACLU did raise hell about it, it would help get the First Amendment enter the broader conversation on the topic and educate people so that the next time this happens, the convenience calculus may be changed.

This was my thought.  Alabama can be on the right side of racism, wrong side of 1st amendment but factored in that the girl is very unlikely to have them punished for it.

[Trim]

Yep.  U of Alabama did what's best for its own interests, as they should be expected to.  If it was crystal clear to the public that they didn't have the option they did because such action would be illegal, they wouldn't have expelled her and wouldn't have had to calculate the negative PR of not expelling her because they could point to a bright-line law and say their hands are tied.

As things stand, the laws are ambiguous, or at least perceived to be that way, so they made the selfish/right call to expel her and fall on that side of the history of racism in the south.

As I think we've discussed, I loathed con law.  It's well past time for the U.S. Constitution 2.0.

[Gooch]

The 1st Amendment definitely needs a #Trim316 clause to pave the way for the repercussions that should come from the protected speech.

[wetwillie]

EMAW was considered hate speech at one time at KSU by the admin so it's kind of a slippery slope.  I think societal and public shaming work much better than changing the law.

[michigancat]

Right.  I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the practical advantages for Alabama by just expelling her.  I'm saying that it's concerning that Alabama (correctly) views expelling her as more politically convenient than dealing with this situation in a way that doesn't violate the First Amendment. 

I don't expect this girl to raise hell about it, but by doing nothing, she's perpetuating this problem (though dealing with her own problem in probably the most efficient way).  But I think if she/ACLU did raise hell about it, it would help get the First Amendment enter the broader conversation on the topic and educate people so that the next time this happens, the convenience calculus may be changed.

dlew what do you think Bama should have done instead of expelling?

[DQ12]

Right.  I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the practical advantages for Alabama by just expelling her.  I'm saying that it's concerning that Alabama (correctly) views expelling her as more politically convenient than dealing with this situation in a way that doesn't violate the First Amendment. 

I don't expect this girl to raise hell about it, but by doing nothing, she's perpetuating this problem (though dealing with her own problem in probably the most efficient way).  But I think if she/ACLU did raise hell about it, it would help get the First Amendment enter the broader conversation on the topic and educate people so that the next time this happens, the convenience calculus may be changed.

dlew what do you think Bama should have done instead of expelling?

I was wondering that same thing the other day.  But I thought the suggestion made by former ACLU director Ira Glasser was a great idea:

They suggested the university instead arrange a meeting between Barber and the university’s notable black alumni, such as New York Giants strong safety Landon Collins. Collins had expressed interest in speaking with Barber.

“It would be a more imaginative, less constitutionally dangerous and more educational initiative,” wrote Ira Glasser, former executive director of the ACLU; Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Michael Meyers, president and director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “And if it worked, it would be redemptive, and a triumph for you and the University.”

I think that's a pretty constructive (and constitutionally permissible) response.

[pissclams]

again, that's just so rough ridin' over the top
good grief

[michigancat]

Right.  I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the practical advantages for Alabama by just expelling her.  I'm saying that it's concerning that Alabama (correctly) views expelling her as more politically convenient than dealing with this situation in a way that doesn't violate the First Amendment. 

I don't expect this girl to raise hell about it, but by doing nothing, she's perpetuating this problem (though dealing with her own problem in probably the most efficient way).  But I think if she/ACLU did raise hell about it, it would help get the First Amendment enter the broader conversation on the topic and educate people so that the next time this happens, the convenience calculus may be changed.

dlew what do you think Bama should have done instead of expelling?

I was wondering that same thing the other day.  But I thought the suggestion made by former ACLU director Ira Glasser was a great idea:

They suggested the university instead arrange a meeting between Barber and the university’s notable black alumni, such as New York Giants strong safety Landon Collins. Collins had expressed interest in speaking with Barber.

“It would be a more imaginative, less constitutionally dangerous and more educational initiative,” wrote Ira Glasser, former executive director of the ACLU; Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Michael Meyers, president and director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “And if it worked, it would be redemptive, and a triumph for you and the University.”

I think that's a pretty constructive (and constitutionally permissible) response.

Not bad. I think a chat w/ an NFL player is a pretty easy consequence, but could be a part of a larger action. clams hinted at this, but maybe a university could provide some sort of...I don't know...mandatory education for her? I don't know exactly what it would be, but some combination of the history of racism and how words impact peoples' lives.

[michigancat]

I tried to get my parents to open an IRA but my mom doesn't trust banks or something so they ended up buying land instead. whatever. what're you gonna do? they're gonna do what they want.

[meow meow]

I tried to get my parents to open an IRA but my mom doesn't trust banks or something so they ended up buying land instead. whatever. what're you gonna do? they're gonna do what they want.

interesting take on racism

[michigancat]

lol wrong thread!

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't see how forcing her to go to meetings or sit through mandatory education wouldn't be considered as punishment for exercising her free speech.

[DQ12]

I don't see how forcing her to go to meetings or sit through mandatory education wouldn't be considered as punishment for exercising her free speech.

i don't think they were suggesting she be "forced" to do anything.

[michigancat]

I don't see how forcing her to go to meetings or sit through mandatory education wouldn't be considered as punishment for exercising her free speech.

this is a good point!

[michigancat]

I don't see how forcing her to go to meetings or sit through mandatory education wouldn't be considered as punishment for exercising her free speech.

i don't think they were suggesting she be "forced" to do anything.

so the ACLU was suggesting that the university just arrange a meeting and see if she shows? If she doesn't, oh well, carry on?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the school should either do nothing at all or expel her. Anything less than expulsion would still violate her first amendment rights anyway, while not going far enough to address the problem.

[DQ12]

so the ACLU was suggesting that the university just arrange a meeting and see if she shows? If she doesn't, oh well, carry on?

pretty much

I think the school should either do nothing at all or expel her. Anything less than expulsion would still violate her first amendment rights anyway, while not going far enough to address the problem.

What is "the problem"?  That a racist takes classes at the university of alabama?