The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[Rage Against the McKee]

Hunt was ordered to go through a "professional enhancement prescription," which required "mentorship by a faculty member who would 'assign readings and supervise a reflective writing assignment on patient autonomy and tolerance," producing a "reflective writing assignment on the public expression of political beliefs by physicians," writing "an apology letter, which Hunt could present to anyone of his choice, or no one at all," going through "ongoing meetings with [a faculty member] over a one-year period," and "rewriting the Facebook post in a passionate, yet professionally appropriate way."

Oh, the horror.

[DQ12]

It's like if a K-State admin read the Pit and didn't like something Greg (or another student) said and made him issue an apology in the pit and rewrite it (twice).  It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but it's bullshit for a university to come in and censor/compel speech.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I view it more like the university trying to tell the kid that he is going to be basically unemployable if he can't figure out what is and is not appropriate to say on social media.

[8manpick]

I view it as an infringement on that student’s first amendment rights by a government entity. It doesn’t matter how minor the punishment is, it is illegal.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The court just ruled that it was legal.

[8manpick]

The court just ruled that it was legal.

Incorrectly, IMO. The courts have ruled that a lot of things that should be illegal under the constitution are legal though.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

[catastrophe]

IMO it would have been a better case if the student said "no, I'm not going to change it, what are you going to do about it"?  Cause what is unclear from that summary is what the student was actually threatened with as punishment.  If you take away stuff like suspension, expulsion, or withholding grades, then yeah it does just look like faculty trying to teach a real-world lesson.

Still, it would be a terrible precedent to set, and will be interesting to see what happens at the next level.

[DQ12]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.

The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.

[8manpick]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.

The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.

Bullshit.  The school violated his fundamental right to free speech.  It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term.  This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.

[Kat Kid]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

There is a difference, in that if you say "I disagree with those who favor abortion," potential employers won't view you as a psychotic nut job, and if you say "eff abortion proponents," nobody in their right mind would hire you to be a doctor.

[Kat Kid]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.

The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.

Bullshit.  The school violated his fundamental right to free speech.  It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term.  This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.

I think the school would be better off if it had said "not our business" and I agree with you in principle.  That said, a court did rule in their favor so you and dlew just asserting that this is an obvious 1st amendment violation seems to be pretty severely undermined by this fact.  Don't agree with a court's interpretation/ruling?  Welcome to the club! But I think you should at least deal with the decision without dismissing it out of hand.

[Spracne]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

The school did the kid a favor. It was more of a reward than a punishment.

The guy getting punished is the poor faculty member who got assigned to "mentor" some kid who thinks people who want less government in their life are worse than Nazis.

Bullshit.  The school violated his fundamental right to free speech.  It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it is harmful or beneficial to the kid in the long term.  This favor / punishment value judgement is not one they are free to decide on.

I think the school would be better off if it had said "not our business" and I agree with you in principle.  That said, a court did rule in their favor so you and dlew just asserting that this is an obvious 1st amendment violation seems to be pretty severely undermined by this fact.  Don't agree with a court's interpretation/ruling?  Welcome to the club! But I think you should at least deal with the decision without dismissing it out of hand.

Haven't researched it but based on what's been reported in this thread the judge hasn't ruled on the merits of the claim.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

The school really should have tried to convince the kid that dropping out is in his best interest. They might have done that, but if they did, they didn't try hard enough.

[Kat Kid]

Spracne--

I guess.  Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference?  I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.

[DQ12]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.

I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip.  This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.

[DQ12]

Spracne--

I guess.  Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference?  I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.

The immunity stuff is weird and the rationale seems dumb (at least as applied in this case).

[Kat Kid]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.

I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip.  This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.

I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[8manpick]

Spracne--

I guess.  Practically speaking the court said the University can continue to do this and didn't strike down the policy, so what is the practical difference?  I do take your point that dlew/8man couldn't really draw much more out of the court case, but it would be worth at least defining what their own interpretation is and how maximal it is vs. just nitpicking the actions of the university.

I mean, my interpretation is 100% maximal.  If he got to a point where his speech threatens violent action, the police should get involved, but nothing until then.

In the case of lower schools vs (adult) universities, if I understand correctly, the schools have latitude to violate virtually all rights under the umbrella of acting in lieu of parents.  In loco parentis is what our creepy 7th grade civics teacher taught us.  I don't know any of the legal nuance, but I think that those schools should have the same (zero) ability to intervene in activities that don't occur at school events or on school property.

[Rage Against the McKee]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

[Spracne]

I'm with dlew on this. Based on everything I know about free speech jurisprudence, this is a valid claim. And we shouldn't act like a single district court judge always gets it right. If this goes to SCOTUS, I'm pretty sure the plaintiff prevails. Free speech is one thing that unites conservative and liberal justices alike, and these are particularly good facts given the current (future) makeup of the Court. The only potential problem I see is establishing injury, though that standing requirement is quite relaxed in cases involving pure speech.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.

I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip.  This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.

I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.  "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO.  If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.

I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.

If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that.  It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.

[8manpick]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.