1921

Yeah, while yelling racist things may be reprehensible, it’s protected by our constitution. As long as you aren’t actually threatening someone with violence, you’re allowed to be a bigot.

Some folks are under the mistaken impression that you have a right to not have folks yell at you or make you feel uncomfortable. But you most definitely do NOT have that right. People are absolutely allowed to say mean things to you and make you feel bad.

1922

I’m pretty sure any public university with a code of conduct that allows it. Just because something is constitutional doesn’t mean you get to do it on campus without consequence. Standards of criminal law aren’t used to punish student infractions, as far as I know. I mean, imagine somebody located the answer sheet to a test and used it to cheat. They didn’t steal the answer sheet. They didn’t use it to cause paper cuts on others. They just cheated. Most schools allow someone to be expelled for that, even though the action of cheating is not unconstitutional. Copy someone else’s work - even a non-copyrighted document - and claim it’s your own? No crime, not against the Constitution. You can get booted for that as well.

1923

Micro-aggressions man, micro-aggressions.

There was a lot more going on at Missouri than just the recent stuff. The deans had voted no confidence in the Chancellor and wanted him replaced. Wolfe has only been there 3 years but it seems obvious to me he had failed somewhere before these events broke.

1924

Both figures are based around the idea of missing cases. They assume that individuals are either too ashamed to report assault, or don’t understand that they’ve been assaulted. The latter plays a more important role in their results.

For example, a survey might ask “has someone touched you without your consent?” That’s an open ended question, and it could include everything from genuine assault to a girl putting her arm around you at a bar. The survey considers both sexual assault though. It’s these questions which produce the truly staggering 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 figures.

I’m not sure where the 1 in 5 came from, and what the thinking was on it. I assume it was an attempt to square the activist data with the declining FBI figures, but that’s a guess.

People always yelled at me when I asked questions about the data.

1925

I don’t think it’s quite that cut and dried. Restrictions on incitement and “fighting words” still have some purchase, constitutionally speaking.

1926

In no way does a code of conduct trump the Constitution. The government doesn’t get to quell speech, without showing overwhelming evidence of public harm, even if you signed a code of conduct. This has nothing to do with criminal or civil law. The government cannot punish you for speech. Maybe an attorney can chime in and tell me that I’m wrong in this instance.

Cheating is not protected by the Constitution and seems to have very little do with speech in the example you’ve provided.

1927

Fighting words are very, very narrowly defined as speech uttered that would reasonably result in a perception of a threat of bodily harm, right then. It doesn’t seem to apply here.

Ken White’s take: https://popehat.com/2015/11/10/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword-part-ii/

1928

Okay, John. I’d be the first to say IANAL, but you even brought up the notion: not all speech is protected. Writing is speech, but the content of that writing (the test you are cheating on) will not be bulletproof. If someone is threatening another or even just creating a hostile environment, that’s also fair game (think about sexual harassment).

1929

Opinion, which I’m pretty sure a racial epithet shouted from a car meets the definition of, is classic protected speech. I’m not arguing those words should be free of private consequences, but rather that the government has a massive burden of proof of harm in order to punish. I don’t see this meeting the definition of fighting words or rising to the level of harm that would allow the government to censor it, no matter how repulsive.

IFAIK,The Supreme Court has recently ruled that even direct threats, when not credible, don’t constitute grounds for censorship. A hostile environment is not grounds for government censorship, though it could cost you your job. The Court has said that you accept limitations on your speech when entering the workplace. Not the case when attending a public university.

Cheating seems like a strawman you’ve invented that I’m having a tough time connecting to the case at hand. I don’t think that fraudulent answers to a university exam constitute protected speech.

1930

Again, IANAL - I’m assuming you are?

Cheating seems like a strawman you’ve invented that I’m having a tough time connecting to the case at hand. I don’t think that fraudulent answers to a university exam constitute protected speech.

The cheating is about reasons that a school can expel you without consulting the Constitution. I think you’re trying to draw connections that aren’t there. The fact that it’s speech is just an added bonus.

1931

The courts have also strongly sided with the rights of public elementary/middle/high schools to trump free speech in their duty to educate minors in an orderly fashion. I think that’s what confuses a lot of people on this topic. Up until 18 students at school have basically no free speech rights. Once they hit 18 and a non-private university, suddenly they have free speech rights again.

1932

The cheating is about reasons that a school can expel you without consulting the Constitution. I think you’re trying to draw connections that aren’t there. The fact that it’s speech is just an added bonus.

But cheating on a test doesn’t have anything to do with speech, protected or otherwise.

Ignoring the fact that filling in answers on a test isn’t generally going to be considered protected speech, as you aren’t generally expressing yourself in such a situation, the reality is that in the situation you’re describing you aren’t being expelled for the answers you are giving. You are being expelled for the fraudulent manner in which you acquired those answers. And such a thing is in no way protected by the constitution.

1933

You could still be expelled if you decide to express your free speech by constantly talking through all your classes or whatever though.

1934

Again, my bringing it up wasn’t to do it as a parallel example of free speech. That’s going down a different rabbit hole. Let’s say (in a less perfect example, because it isn’t likely to wind up resulting in expulsion) that it’s using substances prohibited by the NCAA to get a competitive advantage, and you lose your scholarship when you lose your eligibility. Now people are free to ingest pretty much whatever you find at a local GNC store, but there are numerous items that are legally for sale there which would result in that loss of eligibility.

1935

But nothing in that scenario involves anything that is constitutionally protected.

1936

The essence of freedom of speech is that the content of speech is protected. The mode of expression may or may not be protected, e.g. graffiti is illegal, but not because of what it says.

A test-taker who copies a classmate’s work or consults prohibited materials can be punished. A test-taker who chooses to express an unpopular opinion in an essay generally cannot be punished.

Likewise, someone who talks loudly in a library can be punished. But if anyone is allowed to talk in the library, then so must everyone who wants to express an unpopular opinion.

All this applies only to the administration of state-run schools. Private schools can do what they want. And professors generally have wide latitude in assigning grades (which are not really considered punishment), so someone who turns in a random screed for a term paper has little recourse if they fail the class.

1937

sigh

I give up. I mean, it’s okay - I’m fine being wrong. I just wish I was better at explaining myself so I could be deemed wrong for the right reasons, but honestly today has been pretty shite for me and I just don’t have it in me. So go on with your regularly scheduled programming - I’ll try again tomorrow.

1938

Dude, it’s Timex. He’s a good guy but he takes a veering approach to things. Relax, I got what you meant.

1939

I didn’t mean to be hard on you, sorry Dan.

1940

Student Code of Conduct. I am not sure what part of the constitution you think gives you the right to go to college, but freedom of speech certainly doesn’t mean anything more than you aren’t going to be arrested for it. I didn’t say the federal government should arrest a racist who runs at the mouth; I said expelling maybe reasonable.