billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 13, 2015 10:23:18 GMT -5
People voluntarily enter into a relationship with government when they file paperwork to create a corporation. They gain benefits and incur responsibilities. Does an individual do the same by applying for and accepting admittance into a state university? They certainly gain benefit. Do they incur responsibilities and, if so, exactly what are they?
|
|
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 10:28:53 GMT -5
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. In this case they would be pushing it forward because the courts very clearly decided that discrimination laws trumped morals clauses and it stands to reason that First Amendment rights (enshrined in the constitution) would also trump morals clauses. If the case goes to the courts and they don't overturn the expulsion, they'll effectively be ruling "you may refuse service under this first set of moral objections, but not this second set". I have very little faith in the courts, but I don't think they're so blind to hypocrisy that they'd make such a ruling.
|
|
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 10:35:35 GMT -5
People voluntarily enter into a relationship with government when they file paperwork to create a corporation. They gain benefits and incur responsibilities. Does an individual do the same by applying for and accepting admittance into a state university? They certainly gain benefit. Do they incur responsibilities and, if so, exactly what are they? Paying them a boatload of money and meeting their degree requirements come to mind. The author of the article in the OP makes a good point: of all the places on Earth, western universities are supposed to be the venue for free exchange of ideas. That's one of the reasons tenure was established. In theory these institutions are not supposed to punish/gag faculty or students under anything but the most extreme circumstances. "Drunken bus video of frat boys singing" doesn't qualify as an extreme circumstance or anything close to it. I don't think the courts will ignore that fact, and they've already shown how little they care about an institution's right to refuse service on moral grounds.
|
|
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 12:21:16 GMT -5
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. In this case they would be pushing it forward because the courts very clearly decided that discrimination laws trumped morals clauses and it stands to reason that First Amendment rights (enshrined in the constitution) would also trump morals clauses. If the case goes to the courts and they don't overturn the expulsion, they'll effectively be ruling "you may refuse service under this first set of moral objections, but not this second set". I have very little faith in the courts, but I don't think they're so blind to hypocrisy that they'd make such a ruling. Again - there is a huge difference between these cases. In the second case there ARE NO SERVICES BEING OFFERED. Big (big big big big) difference!
|
|
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 12:39:20 GMT -5
In this case they would be pushing it forward because the courts very clearly decided that discrimination laws trumped morals clauses and it stands to reason that First Amendment rights (enshrined in the constitution) would also trump morals clauses. If the case goes to the courts and they don't overturn the expulsion, they'll effectively be ruling "you may refuse service under this first set of moral objections, but not this second set". I have very little faith in the courts, but I don't think they're so blind to hypocrisy that they'd make such a ruling. Again - there is a huge difference between these cases. In the second case there ARE NO SERVICES BEING OFFERED. Big (big big big big) difference! The university is offering education, training and degrees in exchange for money. If you want to call that relationship "smurfices" instead of "services" because an educational service can't be a service in your view, you're quite welcome. It still doesn't justify a double standard. I predict the court will order the university to reinstate their educational smurfices to these frat boys if they decide to run with it.
|
|
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 12:42:10 GMT -5
Again - there is a huge difference between these cases. In the second case there ARE NO SERVICES BEING OFFERED. Big (big big big big) difference! The university is offering education, training and degrees in exchange for money. If you want to call that relationship "smurfices" instead of "services" because an educational service can't be a service in your view, you're quite welcome. It still doesn't justify a double standard. I predict the court will order the university to reinstate their educational smurfices to these frat boys if they decide to run with it. Well 1) the person who perpetrated the actions that caused the expulsion to occur was not offering services to the public (yet once again - sigh - there's the difference), and 2) it will never see the inside of a courtroom.
|
|
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 15:40:01 GMT -5
The university is offering education, training and degrees in exchange for money. If you want to call that relationship "smurfices" instead of "services" because an educational service can't be a service in your view, you're quite welcome. It still doesn't justify a double standard. I predict the court will order the university to reinstate their educational smurfices to these frat boys if they decide to run with it. Well 1) the person who perpetrated the actions that caused the expulsion to occur was not offering services to the public (yet once again - sigh - there's the difference), and 2) it will never see the inside of a courtroom. The expulsion in the bakery case occurred because the business owners (the provider of services) were compelled to deny services as they pertained to an event the owners considered morally repugnant. The expulsion in this case occurred because the university administration (the provider of services) was compelled to deny services as they pertained to students whose continued presence would reflect negatively on the university. There are differences between the two cases, obviously. That fact doesn't justify picking out arbitrary differences and claiming "apples and oranges" without justifying the lack of comparability.
|
|
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 16:03:06 GMT -5
Well 1) the person who perpetrated the actions that caused the expulsion to occur was not offering services to the public (yet once again - sigh - there's the difference), and 2) it will never see the inside of a courtroom. The expulsion in the bakery case occurred because the business owners (the provider of services) were compelled to deny services as they pertained to an event the owners considered morally repugnant. The expulsion in this case occurred because the university administration (the provider of services) was compelled to deny services as they pertained to students whose continued presence would reflect negatively on the university. There are differences between the two cases, obviously. That fact doesn't justify picking out arbitrary differences and claiming "apples and oranges" without justifying the lack of comparability. Ah - but it does! At least in my world. Again - the courts look at circumstances, not just "comparative logic." But clearly you don't seem to want to look at that fact or acknowledge it. So - YMMV.
|
|
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 16:10:17 GMT -5
MMDV
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:35:11 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. A cake about love and commitment and a song about hate and hanging ni***rs from a tree cannot be compared as equals.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:38:18 GMT -5
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. In this case they would be pushing it forward because the courts very clearly decided that discrimination laws trumped morals clauses and it stands to reason that First Amendment rights (enshrined in the constitution) would also trump morals clauses. If the case goes to the courts and they don't overturn the expulsion, they'll effectively be ruling "you may refuse service under this first set of moral objections, but not this second set". I have very little faith in the courts, but I don't think they're so blind to hypocrisy that they'd make such a ruling. Have you already forgotten "Hobby Lobby", and their (paraphrased) "this is a narrow ruling that only applies in this case" idea?
|
|
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 19:17:30 GMT -5
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. A cake about love and commitment and a song about hate and hanging ni***rs from a tree cannot be compared as equals. Because one gives you the warm fuzzies and the other turns your stomach? If that's the basis on which the courts rule, beam me up, Scotty.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 13, 2015 22:37:33 GMT -5
A cake about love and commitment and a song about hate and hanging ni***rs from a tree cannot be compared as equals. That's a damn good point- since we are being logical and all
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 22:40:46 GMT -5
A cake about love and commitment and a song about hate and hanging ni***rs from a tree cannot be compared as equals. Because one gives you the warm fuzzies and the other turns your stomach?If that's the basis on which the courts rule, beam me up, Scotty. Actually... no. Because one is about life, and living it... and the other is about death, and providing it. If you want to go with "turns my stomach" instead of "fair and reasonable and protecting of rights", I'd have to argue on the side of the bakery. Fortunately, "Right and Wrong" isn't based on what turns my stomach. It's based on right and wrong. Hate speech and discrimination based on hate is wrong.
|
|
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 14, 2015 0:53:24 GMT -5
Because one gives you the warm fuzzies and the other turns your stomach?If that's the basis on which the courts rule, beam me up, Scotty. Actually... no. Because one is about life, and living it... and the other is about death, and providing it. If you want to go with "turns my stomach" instead of "fair and reasonable and protecting of rights", I'd have to argue on the side of the bakery. Fortunately, "Right and Wrong" isn't based on what turns my stomach. It's based on right and wrong. Hate speech and discrimination based on hate is wrong. I'm not going to expound on why both acts are wrong. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the service provider's right to deny services versus an individual right to be served, the two situations are eminently comparable, and none of the "circumstances" thus far mentioned in this thread, including your personal assessment of right and wrong, will weigh on the minds of the court if they have any appreciation of logical consistency.
|
|
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 14, 2015 8:14:10 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 14, 2015 9:04:20 GMT -5
I've just skimmed through the first couple pages so I don't if anyone really brought this up. Public universities have support from state governments but the amount varies. I believe California and Texas highly support their public universities while in other states the support and over sight is much less.
Not sure if this is the correct Oklahoma University, but if their financial support has dropped to 17% of their budget from the state I would guess it would be similar for the rest of Oklahoma's public universities.
Boren points out in the 1970s state funding made up about half of OU's budget. It is now down to 17 percent, resulting in what he calls a privatization of public higher education.
He is says he is also concerned colleges and universities have to make tough decisions about whether to keep quality programs or start offering narrow opportunities for students.
kgou.org/post/osu-economist-ou-president-question-governors-tax-cut
Given this level of financial support, I don't see what the university chooses to do or not do as a government(state) action.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 14, 2015 10:40:23 GMT -5
... Given this level of financial support, I don't see what the university chooses to do or not do as a government(state) action. I attempted without success to find what percentage of user fees support National Parks and Monuments to see if they were still run by government action. I haven't been following it closely enough but wasn't that Ferguson judge using less than 17% general tax revenues to keep his courtroom in the black?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 15:49:21 GMT -5
People voluntarily enter into a relationship with government when they file paperwork to create a corporation. They gain benefits and incur responsibilities. Does an individual do the same by applying for and accepting admittance into a state university? They certainly gain benefit. Do they incur responsibilities and, if so, exactly what are they? Do they lose constitutional rights? Because that seems to me to be what happened.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 14, 2015 16:10:01 GMT -5
Well 1) the person who perpetrated the actions that caused the expulsion to occur was not offering services to the public (yet once again - sigh - there's the difference), and 2) it will never see the inside of a courtroom. The expulsion in the bakery case occurred because the business owners (the provider of services) were compelled to deny services as they pertained to an event the owners considered morally repugnant. The expulsion in this case occurred because the university administration (the provider of services) was compelled to deny services as they pertained to students whose continued presence would reflect negatively on the university. There are differences between the two cases, obviously. That fact doesn't justify picking out arbitrary differences and claiming "apples and oranges" without justifying the lack of comparability. The two situations are not all that comparable. The bakery case was a clear violation of discrimination law. The free speech case is more a grey area.
First, is the university truly public? Yes, it is open to anyone to apply, but they have to be admitted, or approved for admission if you prefer that terminology. Is there any type of behavior required as a condition of that admission, and can the "right" to attend be revoked for violation? Does the fact that the racist chants or songs occurred on a school-sponsored trip have a bearing on the matter? It is doubtful that the students would have been expelled if they had done the same thing on a public street corner, or in a public park. But if they can be legitimately said to be representing the University while on a school-sponsored trip the University should absolutely be allowed to discipline them for acts performed on said trip. Agree, or not?
The other obvious reason why the two situations are not comparable is that there is no discrimination here. The behavior the students were expelled for is banned for all, not just for some while allowed for others.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 14, 2015 16:32:20 GMT -5
Is that actually true? If a black kid on campus called a white kid a cracker would they get expelled? I tend to doubt it, and in that case it would be a racial slur directed at a specific person. I'm on your side on this issue, by the way, but I'll bet there's still some double standards floating around in this area. If I recall correctly, it was only the two students who apparently were the leaders who were expelled. The average students just following along were not. So no, I very much doubt your hypothetical black kid would be expelled, particularly for a single incident. That being said, were there a hypothetical group of black kids engaging in similar behavior I would think the leaders of that would come under scrutiny. Whether the punishment would be the same I can't say, for the simple reason that it is much more difficult to prove damage to a dominant group rather than one who is not.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Mar 14, 2015 16:50:20 GMT -5
I might not like what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it. Didn't that use to be a very patriotic saying? If the university gets government funding, how can it violate the constitutional rights of its students? I thought governments were not allowed to do that. from the article below, and a year later the court reaffirmed that “the mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of decency.”www.newrepublic.com/article/121269/oklahoma-fraternity-racist-video-shouldnt-get-students-expelledIf it were a question of free speech or government can censor some speech it deems hateful, which side do you come down on? eta: Just to be clear, I am not asking if you approve of what was said. No one likes that kind of talk. I am asking if you approve of the right to say it or do you want government censoring it. It really isn't about freedom of speech, it is about being a decent human being. Everyone should be free to hate (preferably, love) all they want...but not act on it.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 14, 2015 16:50:37 GMT -5
Speech should be free unless it advocates the violent overthrow of the government or harming people. Even something like saying I wish all the ____ were dead isn't wrong to say if true and you aren't saying you or anyone should kill them. Calling people names should be protected and saying what you think of them should be protected. If you cause people to shut up or only talk to like minded people you can't correct their thinking or know what they are thinking. Actions against people shouldn't be protected so even if you object to something like blacks eating at the same lunch counter as whites you don't have a right to refuse service. We have laws protecting people from people who don't like them or think poorly of them when it comes to employment, housing and services. If I was a landlord and didn't want to rent to people with children because I think children are noisy and destructive the law would force me to, I still have a right to tell people I don't like children and only rent to them because the law forces me to. A restaurant might not offer high chairs and have a sign saying they only serve people who behave decently but they can't actually say we don't serve anyone under 6, they might not have anything a child would want to eat and no children's menu but you bring in a 4 year old and order him from the menu and he acts like an adult they need to serve him.
|
|
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 14, 2015 17:39:00 GMT -5
The expulsion in the bakery case occurred because the business owners (the provider of services) were compelled to deny services as they pertained to an event the owners considered morally repugnant. The expulsion in this case occurred because the university administration (the provider of services) was compelled to deny services as they pertained to students whose continued presence would reflect negatively on the university. There are differences between the two cases, obviously. That fact doesn't justify picking out arbitrary differences and claiming "apples and oranges" without justifying the lack of comparability. The two situations are not all that comparable. The bakery case was a clear violation of discrimination law. The free speech case is more a grey area.
First, is the university truly public? Yes, it is open to anyone to apply, but they have to be admitted, or approved for admission if you prefer that terminology. Is there any type of behavior required as a condition of that admission, and can the "right" to attend be revoked for violation? Does the fact that the racist chants or songs occurred on a school-sponsored trip have a bearing on the matter? It is doubtful that the students would have been expelled if they had done the same thing on a public street corner, or in a public park. But if they can be legitimately said to be representing the University while on a school-sponsored trip the University should absolutely be allowed to discipline them for acts performed on said trip. Agree, or not?
The other obvious reason why the two situations are not comparable is that there is no discrimination here. The behavior the students were expelled for is banned for all, not just for some while allowed for others.
You're making an arbitrary distinction between homosexuals and racists in your "discrimination" argument. The laws that govern discriminating against the two on a moral basis are indeed different, but the principle of the First Amendment is ostensibly to prevent discrimination based on ideology, which is precisely what's happening here. Considering the First Amendment predates the anti-discrimination laws by hundreds of years, I should think the courts would take protection of free speech at least as seriously. It's been pointed out a dozen times that different laws apply in different cases. This I know. Regardless, there is ideally an underlying consistency to both sets of laws . That consistency most certainly aspires to something more than "you can't discriminate here because this group gives us the warm fuzzies, but you can discriminate here because this group doesn't", and I still have faith that the courts retain enough of their sanity to rule accordingly. They'd be out on their arses so fast it'd make their heads spin while the university scrambled to do damage control, facing the same situation they are now. They can't "legitimately said to be representing the University while on a school-sponsored trip" while on a private bus, drunk, singing songs. If they stood out in public somewhere and announced, "We are with the University of Oklahoma and black people can go suck an egg," the argument might hold up, but even then there's no legal basis to the claim that they're "representing the university". If this were a valid loophole, Joe Oregon could post "please be aware: we do not serve adulterers or sodomites in our store" in his bakery window and freely refuse business to anyone who identified as part of either group. In their "wisdom", the courts elected to deny Joe the right to establish this standard of admission to his place of business. In this regard, the only difference between Joe and the university is that the student/university contract is more formal. If racist songs on a bus are freedom of expression and thus protected free speech, the university can put as many morals clauses it wants into its contracts, it still cannot prohibit that which the courts say it mustn't prohibit. And going back to my original point: given their past rulings, I don't think the US courts will give universities license to dispose of their students based on drunken bus songs. That's my take.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 14, 2015 17:58:07 GMT -5
I am making no distinction anywhere. One IS a discrimination argument. The other is not.
If the students were off-campus, on their own time and in their capacity as private citizens unaffiliated with the University? You think so? I would seriously doubt it. Criminal behavior may certainly be a different matter, I'll grant you that.
You can be barred from a business for behavior while in that business. For an average customer, doing average customer things and not creating a disruption worthy of removal or denial of service? No. (And before you attempt to stretch logic as far as usual with this case, the business owner is not really allowed to create the problem and then bar the customer for it. If they want that kind of power they can run a private business and not a public one.)
I would tend to agree with you. That is why I said it was a grey area. You wanted justification for the opposing argument. I provided that.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Mar 14, 2015 18:05:49 GMT -5
Speech should be free unless it advocates the violent overthrow of the government or harming people. Even something like saying I wish all the ____ were dead isn't wrong to say if true and you aren't saying you or anyone should kill them. Calling people names should be protected and saying what you think of them should be protected. If you cause people to shut up or only talk to like minded people you can't correct their thinking or know what they are thinking. Actions against people shouldn't be protected so even if you object to something like blacks eating at the same lunch counter as whites you don't have a right to refuse service. We have laws protecting people from people who don't like them or think poorly of them when it comes to employment, housing and services. If I was a landlord and didn't want to rent to people with children because I think children are noisy and destructive the law would force me to, I still have a right to tell people I don't like children and only rent to them because the law forces me to. A restaurant might not offer high chairs and have a sign saying they only serve people who behave decently but they can't actually say we don't serve anyone under 6, they might not have anything a child would want to eat and no children's menu but you bring in a 4 year old and order him from the menu and he acts like an adult they need to serve him. What a beautiful family you have. It gets complicated, but you are on top of it. That is a good thing.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 14, 2015 21:02:08 GMT -5
People voluntarily enter into a relationship with government when they file paperwork to create a corporation. They gain benefits and incur responsibilities. Does an individual do the same by applying for and accepting admittance into a state university? They certainly gain benefit. Do they incur responsibilities and, if so, exactly what are they? Do they lose constitutional rights? Because that seems to me to be what happened. Who "they"?
|
|
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 14, 2015 23:10:09 GMT -5
I am making no distinction anywhere. One IS a discrimination argument. The other is not. They're both discrimination. In the UOK case, we're just not calling the act of discriminating "discrimination" because that's not the legal term used to describe it. That's still plainly what it is. A service provider selectively denying services to persons that engage in what it considers to be immoral behaviour.
If the students were off-campus, on their own time and in their capacity as private citizens unaffiliated with the University? You think so? I would seriously doubt it. Criminal behavior may certainly be a different matter, I'll grant you that.
The university wants nothing to do with them. This could have happened in a bomb shelter in China for all they care; they want to show the public they mean business.
You can be barred from a business for behavior while in that business. For an average customer, doing average customer things and not creating a disruption worthy of removal or denial of service? No. (And before you attempt to stretch logic as far as usual with this case, the business owner is not really allowed to create the problem and then bar the customer for it. If they want that kind of power they can run a private business and not a public one.) You're right to point out a distinction between discrimination based on admission criteria and discrimination based on behaviour in the store (classroom), but again I don't think the courts will uphold a university's right to dictate what students can discuss (or sing about) during a bus ride. Their behaviour wasn't public or disruptive, and a lawyer could capably argue that there was no reasonable expectation by the students that their speech would be governed by the same standards they'd be subject to in a university classroom. Doubtless this is a correct argument. I would tend to agree with you. That is why I said it was a grey area. You wanted justification for the opposing argument. I provided that. I support the opposing argument. The university ought to be able to boot these students for any reason they see fit. I just don't see the courts ruling that way. If they do, they're being grossly inconsistent in their interpretation of the law.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 22:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 0:49:49 GMT -5
I am making no distinction anywhere. One IS a discrimination argument. The other is not. They're both discrimination. In the UOK case, we're just not calling the act of discriminating "discrimination" because that's not the legal term used to describe it. That's still plainly what it is. A service provider selectively denying services to persons that engage in what it considers to be immoral behaviour.
If the students were off-campus, on their own time and in their capacity as private citizens unaffiliated with the University? You think so? I would seriously doubt it. Criminal behavior may certainly be a different matter, I'll grant you that.
The university wants nothing to do with them. This could have happened in a bomb shelter in China for all they care; they want to show the public they mean business.
You can be barred from a business for behavior while in that business. For an average customer, doing average customer things and not creating a disruption worthy of removal or denial of service? No. (And before you attempt to stretch logic as far as usual with this case, the business owner is not really allowed to create the problem and then bar the customer for it. If they want that kind of power they can run a private business and not a public one.) You're right to point out a distinction between discrimination based on admission criteria and discrimination based on behaviour in the store (classroom), but again I don't think the courts will uphold a university's right to dictate what students can discuss (or sing about) during a bus ride. Their behaviour wasn't public or disruptive, and a lawyer could capably argue that there was no reasonable expectation by the students that their speech would be governed by the same standards they'd be subject to in a university classroom. Doubtless this is a correct argument. I would tend to agree with you. That is why I said it was a grey area. You wanted justification for the opposing argument. I provided that. I support the opposing argument. The university ought to be able to boot these students for any reason they see fit. I just don't see the courts ruling that way. If they do, they're being grossly inconsistent in their interpretation of the law.You're new to the US Justice System... aren't you?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,164
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 1:06:57 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial. It would be selectively denying services to one group of persons while not denying another group for the same "offense." In this case, if (as a rule) white students were expelled while black students were not, or males while females were not. The actual term that should be used here is consequences. Actions have consequences, and those by themselves absent other factors cannot be discriminatory.
In the bakery case, there was no justifiable reason for the discriminatory behavior. Denial was based solely on the opinion of the denier, not as a result of any action by the denied. I will grant that if the couple had actually engaged in sex on the floor of the bakery the owner would have been justified in having them removed, but in the actual case they did nothing to warrant being denied.
It occurred to me on reading this that we may have a disconnect resulting from interpretation of the language used. Let me clarify. When I suggested that the students would not be disciplined for racist comments while on their own time and unaffiliated with the University, I thought it clear that I was referring to general racist comments. The University is concerned here because of the reference to what is apparently standard practice or belief at the fraternity, which IS associated with the university. I will concede that the same song would engender the same response no matter where it occurred, due to the relationship of the fraternity to the university, but that is not the context in which I made the comparison. Also of note, and precisely because of this case, other chapters of that fraternity at other universities are now under scrutiny because of this case. This is far beyond simple name-calling or moral repugnance.
|
|