1941

A private school can write whatever Code of Conduct it wants, but a state-run school must abide by the First Amendment. And that means a lot more than “not arrested”. It also can’t expel students merely for expressing unpopular opinions, for the same reason it can’t expel students merely for practicing unpopular religions.

Here’s a case where a UVA group with unpopular opinions was not arrested or even expelled, they were merely denied funds available to every other student group:

They got their funds.

1942
  1. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the “All Lives Matter” posters, and the “Free Speech” posters that stated that “in memoriam of the true victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech.”

We must throw off the shackles of freedom and embrace the safety of totalitarianism!

http://www.amherstsoul.com/post/133122838315/amherst-uprising-what-we-stand-for

1943

Just not being arrested is not what the first amendment promises. The government doesn’t get to censor speech that it doesn’t like. Period. If you expel someone for yelling someone offensive out of a car, then you are censoring their opinion and doing it with the power of government. That is generally, with some exceptions for the public good, a violation of their right to free speech. I’m not sure why that’s confusing. If this was a private school, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Edit: What Magnet said.

1944
  1. President Martin must release a statement by Friday, November 13th, 2015 by 5:00pm that condemns the inherent racist nature of the unofficial mascot, the Lord Jeff…

My God, I’ll be glued to Twitter until 5pm to learn the fate of the cherished Lord Jeff.

1945

Wait, what? What is racist about that?

1946

Massachusetts isn’t big on personal freedom. Communal values generally trump everything else.

He’s probably viewed as a symbol of white privilege? That’s my guess.

1947

More info on Lord Jeff here. He’s an awful mascot regardless of your political views. And “Lady Jeffs” is just ridiculous.

1948

Nah, all large-headed mascots are inherently funny. I just scrolled up and chuckled again.

1949

Wow, Amherst’s mascot is called “Lord Jeff.” And to be clear, Lord Jeff is not a good mascot. In addition to looking like a colonial twerp (see above), Lord Jeff commemorates a man (Lord Jeffrey Amherst) who, according to the school’s own website, “advocated biological warfare against Indians” via smallpox blankets.

Uh… You know what else commemorates Jeffrey Amherst?
The name of the school itself. Are they gonna change that too?

1950

Dumb mascots are kind of common, really. The Stanford tree? A tree? Really?

This is nothing more than that. Was Amherst a good person? Eh, quite possibly no to modern mores. But that article far from makes the case that he is a terrible mascot. If any person should be excluded based on a single point like that then any school using Columbus, Jefferson, Washington, or hell any real historical person should probably be excluded.

Also, as you point out, the school is named after the guy. If he is so bad that he should be personna non gratta, then change the name of the school. don’t futz with the stupid mascot otherwise.

1951

Hey, they did that here in Washington with King County.

1952

If students want to change a mascot, do it. If more students want to fight for the current mascot, keep. That kind of conflict is essential to filling up water cooler conversations and editorial space in the student newspapers, well that and complaining about parking. Good times.

1953

Unpopular opinions are not what we’re talking about here… vandalism and harassment is more like it. If you looked at the incidents you would see these aren’t students talking to their peers or debating. It’s not the opinion that’s getting them in trouble but the delivery method.

1954

Yeah, but the delivery method is protected as well.

Unless you are actually making an EXPLICIT threat, insulting someone is still protected speech. The government’s agents (which includes schools that receive government funds) are very limited here.

1955

I don’t know what dream campus you’ve been hanging out at, but I assure you you are incorrect. Young white men who happen to be students harassing minorities on campus are removed. The only reason why this one hasn’t been removed is because they don’t know who he is.

1956

Stanford is in Palo Alto, that means Tall Tree. Hence the tree

1957

Generation Me.

1958

Catastrophizing.

1959

We may be talking past each other. “Harassment” has a very specific legal meaning, and is indeed a crime. IANAL, but I’m virtually positive that neither one of the obscene name-calling incidents cited at MU would meet that threshold. Maybe if pickup truck thing was directed at a random student… but given that the target was the class president, my feeling is that a defense lawyer would be able to easily argue that it was political speech.

My quick Google search was unable to come up with too many examples of anyone being expelled from a public university for a single incident of shouting a racist epithet. There is the SAE “chant” at University of Oklahoma, where the two students were expelled, but the general consensus is that if they chose to challenge that, they would almost undoubtedly win. The closest I could find is this, where a USC student is suspended after writing a racial slur on a whiteboard – but suspension is not expulsion. There are plenty of examples of students being expelled for racist remarks at private colleges.

1960

Yes, racial slurs, unless specifically used within a context that could be credibly construed as an immediate threat, are protected speech. Government run institutions can’t expel you for such things.

The bigger impact, as it should be, is that if you get a reputation as a racist tool, like the folks at SAE, you aren’t going to have a good time at school. Because other folks insulting you constantly for being a racist tool is also protected speech.