EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 12, 2015 22:33:15 GMT -5
Thinking about it- schools usually have a code of conduct- and violations are dealt with in house. Sure it can be subjective and lopsided in some cases, or even ridiculous- but when you enroll you are agreeing to it for better or worse- so maybe if someone wants to be a racist idiot they should wait until they graduate. After that let the employers find it during a background check
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Mar 12, 2015 22:48:47 GMT -5
Isn't the point of free speech is protecting speech that others don't agree with or find offensive.? Why would we need free speech laws if everyone agreed? Duh. Freedom of Speech (I believe is the 1st Amendment in the US) does not include Freedom of HATE Speech.
As EVT1 stated, most (if not all) Universities have a Code of Conduct and Ethics rules the student body must agree to and uphold.
It's not a Federal Gov't institution, but they have their own in-house University government.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 22:49:39 GMT -5
I have no problem with hateful speech, and I also have no problems with the consequences that come with it.
Didn't we go down this road already with the 'bong hits for Jesus' deal when it comes to schools?
You open your trap and spew garbage, that is your right, and it is the right of a school to kick you out, it has nothing to do with government. Hell- what if I have a government job and post a nice rant about my stupid pig-fucker boss? Is my job protected there? Of course not.
Or more recently how about the firing of police officers over racist remarks, emails, etc. No protection. Seems fair to me- you can say what you want, the government cannot jail you, duct tape your mouth shut, prosecute you, etc.- but they sure as shit do not have to employ you, or in the college deal- allow you to attend classes, allow you to have a fraternity, etc. The reason the students can (and probably will) successfully petition the courts to force the college to readmit them despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them is the same reason a lesbian couple can successfully petition the courts to force an Oregon bakery to bake them a cake despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them. The provider of public services--which in this case is the college--plays second fiddle in our brave new world, remember?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 22:50:55 GMT -5
Isn't the point of free speech is protecting speech that others don't agree with or find offensive.? Why would we need free speech laws if everyone agreed? Duh. Freedom of Speech (I believe is the 1st Amendment in the US) does not include Freedom of HATE Speech.
As EVT1 stated, most (if not all) Universities have a Code of Conduct and Ethics rules the student body must agree to and uphold.
It's not a Federal Gov't institution, but they have their own in-house University government.A song with racial epithets isn't hate speech by any reasonable definition. At least... I hope the US isn't that far gone yet.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 12, 2015 22:58:22 GMT -5
Freedom of Speech (I believe is the 1st Amendment in the US) does not include Freedom of HATE Speech.
As EVT1 stated, most (if not all) Universities have a Code of Conduct and Ethics rules the student body must agree to and uphold.
It's not a Federal Gov't institution, but they have their own in-house University government. A song with racial epithets isn't hate speech by any reasonable definition. At least... I hope the US isn't that far gone yet. You do realize some of the lyrics sung involved hanging n*****s. Yes? That could be construed as a threat of violence.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Mar 12, 2015 23:00:11 GMT -5
No, but the University isn't owned by or run by the Government.
They (the Univeristy) have the right to expel a student based on their Ethics Standards or Moral Code.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 12, 2015 23:01:19 GMT -5
Here is the song lyrics they sung.
(Sung to the tune of: “If You Are Happy and You Know It)
”There will never be a N***** in SAE There will never be a N***** in SAE You can hang them from a tree, but he can never sign with me There will never be a N***** in SAE
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 23:04:56 GMT -5
A song with racial epithets isn't hate speech by any reasonable definition. At least... I hope the US isn't that far gone yet. You do realize some of the lyrics sung involved hanging n*****s. Yes? That could be construed as a threat of violence. I didn't. It's not in the article or the video it links to. What's shown in the video, at least, isn't hate speech. It's frat boys being dumb.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 23:08:57 GMT -5
No, but the University isn't owned by or run by the Government.
They (the Univeristy) have the right to expel a student based on their Ethics Standards or Moral Code. If it was that easy, I could put "strictly adheres to the Ten Commandments" in the ethical standards for my college/business and expel anyone who worked on the Sabbath. Something tells me the courts would have a problem with that. They've consistently overridden service providers' rights to enshrine "unconstitutional" requirements in their standards of conduct. This case will almost surely follow suit and the students will be readmitted.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 12, 2015 23:09:30 GMT -5
The reason the students can (and probably will) successfully petition the courts to force the college to readmit them despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them is the same reason a lesbian couple can successfully petition the courts to force an Oregon bakery to bake them a cake despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them. The provider of public services--which in this case is the college--plays second fiddle in our brave new world, remember? That's really reaching isn't it? The college is discriminating against racists- or just assholes that though it was funny?
I think the reason it will not happen is because this was a frat video that reflects on the school. It is plainly within the power of the dean to do what he did. But on your line of reason- could the courts force the college to reinstate the frat as well?
How about Kappa Kappa Kappa? Should the college be forced to allow that sort of thing?
BTW I knew a lot of SAE folks back in my college days, went to many parties, and I can't really remember any racism- what I do remember is if you needed some weed, acid, coke- that was the house. And I can't speak for that entire frat on that one campus- but the guys I knew that were members were all white, from affluent families, partied like animals, and came from the 'cool kids' cliques in high school. I was friends with a bunch of them- and they were not racists. But that was around 25 years ago so who knows who they have in there now. Damn shame.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 23:13:25 GMT -5
The reason the students can (and probably will) successfully petition the courts to force the college to readmit them despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them is the same reason a lesbian couple can successfully petition the courts to force an Oregon bakery to bake them a cake despite the fact that it wants nothing to do with them. The provider of public services--which in this case is the college--plays second fiddle in our brave new world, remember? That's really reaching isn't it? The college is discriminating against racists- or just assholes that though it was funny?
I think the reason it will not happen is because this was a frat video that reflects on the school. It is plainly within the power of the dean to do what he did. But on your line of reason- could the courts force the college to reinstate the frat as well?
How about Kappa Kappa Kappa? Should the college be forced to allow that sort of thing?
BTW I knew a lot of SAE folks back in my college days, went to many parties, and I can't really remember any racism- what I do remember is if you needed some weed, acid, coke- that was the house. And I can't speak for that entire frat on that one campus- but the guys I knew that were members were all white, from affluent families, partied like animals, and came from the 'cool kids' cliques in high school. I was friends with a bunch of them- and they were not racists. But that was around 25 years ago so who knows who they have in there now. Damn shame. Think of it in terms of "trampling on a constitutional right" to make the comparison. Personally I think the university should be able to kick them out on their fannies if it wants to. I also think the bakery should be able to kick the lesbian couple out on their fannies if it wanted to. Alas, in both cases the courts disagree. (Or will disagree, in the former case.) Maybe the "hang 'em from a tree" lyric, which isn't even discernible, would strike a judge as hate speech and the court will uphold the expulsion on those grounds, but barring that, those kids are as good as readmitted. I don't know about their fraternity. The right to form a fraternity isn't covered by the First Amendment.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 12, 2015 23:14:03 GMT -5
No, but the University isn't owned by or run by the Government. ... Who owns them? Who runs them? Why can I Google university and there be public and private universities?
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Mar 12, 2015 23:19:43 GMT -5
If a student (or parent of a student) feels that way, there's always BYU.
You don't have to be LDS (Mormon) to attend, but you do have to follow their Moral (or "Honor") Code.
I believe that tuition is also higher for non-Mormon students. (My niece was married to an LDS). answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090107185333AAzSM3H
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 12, 2015 23:23:35 GMT -5
If a student (or parent of a student) feels that way, there's always BYU.
You don't have to be LDS (Mormon) to attend, but you do have to follow their Moral (or "Honor") Code.
I believe that tuition is also higher for non-Mormon students. (My niece was married to an LDS). answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090107185333AAzSM3H Maybe the college will fight the students' readmission on that basis, but I wouldn't hold out too much hope. Remember that there are a lot of shades of gray here. For example, a US college might take the liberty of enshrining in their CoC that no student may be publicly critical of the US military. After all, if the courts supported one college expelling students for singing a racist song during a bus ride because it conflicted with the college's core values, how much more would those courts support core values like pride and faith in the US military. It's a sticky issue. I definitely don't see the courts siding with the college on this one.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 12, 2015 23:38:01 GMT -5
Who knows- that horrid liberal group (ACLU) might just go to bat for them. I want to see the actual legal argument that can be made. It has to come down on the public/private issue or there is nothing. The 1st amendment, like the rest only apply to government action.
If this was a private college it would not be an issue- like BYU. They could probably expel folks for holding hands
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 13, 2015 0:30:26 GMT -5
Isn't the point of free speech is protecting speech that others don't agree with or find offensive.? Why would we need free speech laws if everyone agreed? Duh. precisely. if you don't believe in free speech that you find loathsome, you don't believe in free speech. and additionally, advocating free speech that you hate doesn't mean that you advocate the positions taken.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 13, 2015 7:41:03 GMT -5
No, but the University isn't owned by or run by the Government.
They (the Univeristy) have the right to expel a student based on their Ethics Standards or Moral Code. If it was that easy, I could put "strictly adheres to the Ten Commandments" in the ethical standards for my college/business and expel anyone who worked on the Sabbath. Something tells me the courts would have a problem with that. They've consistently overridden service providers' rights to enshrine "unconstitutional" requirements in their standards of conduct. This case will almost surely follow suit and the students will be readmitted. I'm not so sure. The University does not want the reputation as a place where white fraternity boys can sing songs about lynching black people free from consequence. The university is allowed to expel students it finds unacceptable - those with poor grades, those who are caught cheating, those who commit crimes, and those who act in a way that reflects badly on the university. You're allowed to be a racist at home, you're free to say what you like on your own time, but when your actions are done within a company or a university system, your actions reflect back on your employer/school, and they have a right to decide they don't want you in their school/business. These boys aren't kicked out of the educational system - just that school. Hopefully they've learned an important life lesson, in this day and age of cell phones, that anything you spout off in public can go viral.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 13, 2015 8:01:43 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them.
The same holds true for private schools.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2015 9:45:37 GMT -5
If it was that easy, I could put "strictly adheres to the Ten Commandments" in the ethical standards for my college/business and expel anyone who worked on the Sabbath. Something tells me the courts would have a problem with that. They've consistently overridden service providers' rights to enshrine "unconstitutional" requirements in their standards of conduct. This case will almost surely follow suit and the students will be readmitted. I'm not so sure. The University does not want the reputation as a place where white fraternity boys can sing songs about lynching black people free from consequence. The university is allowed to expel students it finds unacceptable - those with poor grades, those who are caught cheating, those who commit crimes, and those who act in a way that reflects badly on the university. You're allowed to be a racist at home, you're free to say what you like on your own time, but when your actions are done within a company or a university system, your actions reflect back on your employer/school, and they have a right to decide they don't want you in their school/business. These boys aren't kicked out of the educational system - just that school. Hopefully they've learned an important life lesson, in this day and age of cell phones, that anything you spout off in public can go viral. Your position is logical. I just don't think the courts will buy it. These boys weren't representing the university in any formal capacity. They weren't being disruptive, and they weren't making a deliberate public spectacle. This is clearly a case where the students are being kicked out for expressing an opinion that (despite the university's strong sentiments) really has nothing to do with the university. I think the decision will hinge on whether the courts consider the song "hate speech". If they don't, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they'll strike down the expulsion in spite of any morals clauses in the university CoC.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 13, 2015 9:49:05 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them. The same holds true for private schools. This is exactly the point. These yahoos were expelled because they violated the school's code of conduct. Any constitutional right they have to "free speech" does not allow them to publicly (or privately in this case, it just happened to leak out into the public) flout the rules to which they agreed when they entered school.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 13, 2015 9:50:32 GMT -5
I'm not so sure. The University does not want the reputation as a place where white fraternity boys can sing songs about lynching black people free from consequence. The university is allowed to expel students it finds unacceptable - those with poor grades, those who are caught cheating, those who commit crimes, and those who act in a way that reflects badly on the university. You're allowed to be a racist at home, you're free to say what you like on your own time, but when your actions are done within a company or a university system, your actions reflect back on your employer/school, and they have a right to decide they don't want you in their school/business. These boys aren't kicked out of the educational system - just that school. Hopefully they've learned an important life lesson, in this day and age of cell phones, that anything you spout off in public can go viral. Your position is logical. I just don't think the courts will buy it. These boys weren't representing the university in any formal capacity. They weren't being disruptive, and they weren't making a deliberate public spectacle. This is clearly a case where the students are being kicked out for expressing an opinion that (despite the university's strong sentiments) really has nothing to do with the university. I think the decision will hinge on whether the courts consider the song "hate speech". If they don't, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they'll strike down the expulsion in spite of any morals clauses in the university CoC. schools are often "free speech grey zones" for a variety of public reasons. i don't think that after reviewing this case superficially, i can decide how it should go.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2015 9:53:12 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them. The same holds true for private schools. Apply the same logic to the Oregon bakery case. If store X refuses to sell couple Y a cake, it doesn't mean they're unable to buy a cake. They're only unable to buy a cake at that store. The courts took a big steaming on that logic two years ago, and most everybody here agreed with their decision, claiming that service providers have no business attaching morals clauses to provision of services. I don't see the university winning this one.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 13, 2015 9:59:02 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them. The same holds true for private schools. Apply the same logic to the Oregon bakery case. If store X refuses to sell couple Y a cake, it doesn't mean they're unable to buy a cake. They're only unable to buy a cake at that store. The courts took a big steaming on that fact two years ago, and most everybody here agreed with their decision, claiming that service providers have no business attaching morals clauses to provision of services, hence I don't see the university winning this one. These two instances really do not have anything to do with each other. The 'logic' may be the 'same,' but the circumstances are entirely different. You provided the difference in circumstances right in your post: the 'provision of services.' This young man was not holding himself out as public provider of services bound by anti-discrimination business or licensing rules. He was a drunk yahoo who opened his bigoted trap and violated the school's CoC - and got caught.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 13, 2015 9:59:27 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them. The same holds true for private schools. Apply the same logic to the Oregon bakery case. If store X refuses to sell couple Y a cake, it doesn't mean they're unable to buy a cake. They're only unable to buy a cake at that store. The courts took a big steaming on that fact two years ago, and most everybody here agreed with their decision, claiming that service providers have no business attaching morals clauses to provision of services. I don't see the university winning this one. Apples to oranges comparison. There are no laws against hate language itself. There is and are non-discrimination commerce laws in several states. Additionally, there is no law which states the bakery cannot discriminate and selectively make cakes for sale out of her home.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2015 9:59:47 GMT -5
U.S. children are expelled from government run public primary, junior and senior high schools for any number of reasons, including words spoken. It does not mean they are unable to continue their education. It only means they are unable to continue their education at the school which expelled them. The same holds true for private schools. This is exactly the point. These yahoos were expelled because they violated the school's code of conduct. Any constitutional right they have to "free speech" does not allow them to publicly (or privately in this case, it just happened to leak out into the public) flout the rules to which they agreed when they entered school. A contract can only be enforced if it's lawful. The courts will basically be judging here whether the contract violates the First Amendment in this case and thus is unlawful and moot.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 13, 2015 10:02:51 GMT -5
This is exactly the point. These yahoos were expelled because they violated the school's code of conduct. Any constitutional right they have to "free speech" does not allow them to publicly (or privately in this case, it just happened to leak out into the public) flout the rules to which they agreed when they entered school. A contract can only be enforced if it's lawful. The courts will basically be judging here whether the contract violates the First Amendment in this case and thus is unlawful and moot. I SERIOUSLY doubt there will be any kind of court case about this! It is perfectly lawful for a school to devise and enforce a code of conduct. And the student accepted that code when he entered. No law suit to see here folks . . . move along . . .
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 13, 2015 10:05:30 GMT -5
Apply the same logic to the Oregon bakery case. If store X refuses to sell couple Y a cake, it doesn't mean they're unable to buy a cake. They're only unable to buy a cake at that store. The courts took a big steaming on that fact two years ago, and most everybody here agreed with their decision, claiming that service providers have no business attaching morals clauses to provision of services, hence I don't see the university winning this one. These two instances really do not have anything to do with each other. The 'logic' may be the 'same,' but the circumstances are entirely different. You provided the difference in circumstances right in your post: the 'provision of services.' This young man was not holding himself out as public provider of services bound by anti-discrimination business or licensing rules. He was a drunk yahoo who opened his bigoted trap and violated the school's CoC - and got caught. I'm looking at this from the point of applying logic consistently. From a logical standpoint, neither the fact that X is a university and Y is a business nor the fact that X has a written morals clause that must be explicitly accepted and Y has an implicit clause is relevant. It's my belief that the courts will acknowledge that. Provided this goes to court, obviously.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Mar 13, 2015 10:10:13 GMT -5
These two instances really do not have anything to do with each other. The 'logic' may be the 'same,' but the circumstances are entirely different. You provided the difference in circumstances right in your post: the 'provision of services.' This young man was not holding himself out as public provider of services bound by anti-discrimination business or licensing rules. He was a drunk yahoo who opened his bigoted trap and violated the school's CoC - and got caught. I'm looking at this from the point of applying logic consistently. From a logical standpoint, neither the fact that X is a university and Y is a business nor the fact that X has a written morals clause that must be explicitly accepted and Y has an implicit clause is relevant. It's my belief that the courts will acknowledge that. Provided this goes to court, obviously. Which it won't . . . ETA: and the courts look at "logical consistency" through the lens of individual circumstances. No court worth it's legal salt will ignore circumstances and have a purely internal logic debate with itself. That's the fastest track to getting kicked off the bench. This is also the reason why there are so many court cases - - someone is always trying to push case law forward because they think their circumstances are unique or different from previous case law. The courts will NOT ignore circumstances.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 13, 2015 10:10:53 GMT -5
A contract can only be enforced if it's lawful. The courts will basically be judging here whether the contract violates the First Amendment in this case and thus is unlawful and moot. I SERIOUSLY doubt there will be any kind of court case about this! It is perfectly lawful for a school to devise and enforce a code of conduct. And the student accepted that code when he entered. No law suit to see here folks . . . move along . . . Just what these two students need with filing a lawsuit: additional negative attention to their racist behavior. Let the light shine on them-they deserve it.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Mar 13, 2015 10:19:01 GMT -5
That's what I thought, too, Tenn. However, their actions have already proven they don't much care about what people think, they might just be stupid enough to push it. We'll see. If I were them (and I wouldn't be), I'd just try to fade off into the background and hope people have very short memories.
|
|