Alabama Student Expelled For Online Racist Comments

[Amerikuracana]

Maintaining a consistent disciplinary code (which I believe was the language used in a previous SC case), maintaining an inclusive learning environment, etc. There are a lot of ways to term it. And the nexus, which I think is a concept that is going to continue gaining steam in all of constitutional jurisprudence, that Alan described on the last page seems fairly strong.

That applies to things that happen in school. Schools have this leeway because of the compelling interest of maintaining order conducive to a learning environment.

No, restricting speech that is otherwise fully protected off school grounds, not while the student is on school time, will not receive this treatment.


Also, "maintaining a consultant disciplinary code." Um, what does that mean? Consistent with what? Does that mean "enforcement of a disciplinary code conducive with creating a learning environment?" Because that might mean something.. Your compelling interest would need to be mich better explained.

 

[Trotsky]

That applies to things that happen in school. Schools have this leeway because of the compelling interest of maintaining order conducive to a learning environment.

No, restricting speech that is otherwise fully protected off school grounds, not while the student is on school time, will not receive this treatment.


Also, "maintaining a consultant disciplinary code." Um, what does that mean? Consistent with what? Does that mean "enforcement of a disciplinary code conducive with creating a learning environment?" Because that might mean something.. Your compelling interest would need to be mich better explained.

See Alan's previous post. I was mistaken in thinking this was subject to strict scrutiny as other 1A and 2A cases.

 

[lifelessheap]

To reiterate, I'm more concerned about the potential disruption she poses to my class. If she wants to say ni**er on her personal time and with friends, go right ahead (although that just makes her a scumbag). But the world now knows and she is basically walking around with a Scarlett Letter that will follow her everywhere she goes. As an analog, if a guy on campus is outed as a convicted sex offender, he is going to be targeted and spend more time addressing the antagonism of his peers than actually learning. It's actually in their best interest to move to a school where they can start fresh.

Professors should discipline disruptive students. Pretty fucking simple. You have no control over your students. Future is bleak with weak pussy teachers.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I wish it were strict scrutiny analysis but what I was alluding to is that in school speech the test is weaker and different. The school does not need to show a compelling government interest which is narrowly tailored. They just need to show nexus and substantial disruption. E.g. wearing a Confederate flag t shirt is obviously constitutional in public. But at school the Courts have found that it is a substantial disruption to school activities.

This restricts speech ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. Schools have a right to designate time and place limitations on speech to maintain order.

This case involves the limitation of speech unrelated to school activities. It would mean that a school has dominion over people's free time and can infringe on their enumerated rights simply because of enrollment status.

 

[Amerikuracana]

See Alan's previous post. I was mistaken in thinking this was subject to strict scrutiny as other 1A and 2A cases.

It would be. This isn't speech on school grounds.

 

[Amerikuracana]

This girl would win her case if she files it.
However the part about strict scrutiny is not actually true on a couple fronts. First, there are many standards of review for fundamental rights. We consider commercial speech part of our free speech rights but we do not employ strict scrutiny to review rather the Central hudson tes. it. We also tests that are completely different not necessarily harder or easier in other contexts such as cruel and unusal punishment review. As to strict scrutiny always being fatal that is what most people would think but here is Adam Winkler on the issue.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897360

Abstract
A popular myth in American constitutional law is that the strict scrutiny standard of review applied to enforce rights such as free speech and equal protection is, in the famous words of Gerald Gunther, 'strict' in theory and fatal in fact. In recent years, however, this traditional understanding of strict scrutiny's inevitable deadliness has been challenged in high-profile cases such as Adarand Constructors v. Pena, where the Supreme Court expressed the wish to dispel the notion that strict scrutiny is 'strict' in theory, but fatal in fact, and Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Court turned wish into action and upheld an affirmative action policy under strict scrutiny. According to the Court in Grutter, when applying strict scrutiny, [c]ontext matters.

This Article offers a systematic empirical study of strict scrutiny in the federal courts. Reporting the results of a census of every strict scrutiny decision published by the district, circuit, and Supreme courts between 1990 and 2003, this study shows that strict scrutiny is far from the inevitably deadly test imagined by the Gunther myth and more closely resembles the context-sensitive tool described by O'Connor. Overall, 30% of all applications of strict scrutiny - nearly one in three - result in the challenged law being upheld. Rather than fatal in fact, strict scrutiny is survivable in fact, and is so across constitutional doctrine: 27% of suspect classifications, 22% of free speech restrictions, 24% of fundamental rights infringements, 33% of freedom of association burdens, and 59% of religious liberty burdens adjudicated under strict scrutiny survive.

Employing logistic regression, this Article shows that this high survival rate for a supposedly fatal standard of review is context-sensitive. Although political ideology and regional variation are found to have no significant impact on voting in strict scrutiny cases, courts are strongly influenced by the identity of the governmental actor. Most prominently, laws adopted by the federal government are far more likely to survive (50%) than those adopted by state (29%) or local (17%) governments. Surprisingly, however, strict scrutiny has become more fatal in the years since Adarand declared the standard to be survivable (from 40% in the early 1990s to 20% in the early 2000s).

Yes, strict scrutiny has failed in a few cases, highlighted by white affirmative action cases. That's why I say "would likely."

 

[Trotsky]

Goddammit, I forgot it was off school grounds.

Fuck it, I'm at work and clearly cannot focus well-enough to contribute meaningfully to this discussion.

 

[Lord Coke]

This restricts speech ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. Schools have a right to designate time and place limitations on speech to maintain order.

This case involves the limitation of speech unrelated to school activities. It would mean that a school has dominion over people's free time and can infringe on their enumerated rights simply because of enrollment status.

That is literally the big issue in school speech cases right now. To what extent can schools regulate speech made off campus. There are a few situations where the school likely will. E.g. one case involves a kid that told his friends via myspace that he wanted to shoot up the school. Even assuming it was a joke the Ninth Circuit said that these messages obviously would disrupt the school.

Here, this did not target any students and did not really involve the school so even using that reasoning her speech should be protected.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

looks like the GOP found its next candidate for senate in Alabama.

 

[uptheirons!]

That seems so weird to me that people allow a word to have so much influence over their emotions.

You're an idiot.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

Professors should discipline disruptive students. Pretty fucking simple. You have no control over your students. Future is bleak with weak pussy teachers.

The job of a professor is not to discipline (it never has been), it is to educate and conduct research.

This isn't high school where I can send an unruly kid to the principal's office - if a kid starts acting out in class, I don't have many means of recourse beyond calling security. I suppose I could try and forcibly remove them from class, but the blow back associated with laying a hand on a student isn't worth it to me.

It doesn't make a professor a pussy for not confronting antagonistic students - we aren't given sufficient latitude or resources to effectively do so. If this was a place like India/China where I can smack a kid upside the head for being rude, then sure, I'm all for that. Unfortunately, I have to work within the system that I have, which figuratively ties my hands when it comes to student discipline.

 

[Amerikuracana]

That is literally the big issue in school speech cases right now. To what extent can schools regulate speech made off campus. There are a few situations where the school likely will. E.g. one case involves a kid that told his friends via myspace that he wanted to shoot up the school. Even assuming it was a joke the Ninth Circuit said that these messages obviously would disrupt the school.

Here, this did not target any students and did not really involve the school so even using that reasoning her speech should be protected.

Well there is a case of a compelling interest OUTSIDE of "we want to control free speech." Of course that threat would directly disrupt the school, and the compelling interest There is "saving students and children from imminent massacre." That would be compelling enough to supersede an enumerated right. I'm still waiting to hear the compelling interest in stopping this girl from saying stupid things.

 

[lifelessheap]

The job of a professor is not to discipline (it never has been), it is to educate and conduct research.

This isn't high school where I can send an unruly kid to the principal's office - if a kid starts acting out in class, I don't have many means of recourse beyond calling security. I suppose I could try and forcibly remove them from class, but the blow back associated with laying a hand on a student isn't worth it to me.

It doesn't make a professor a pussy for not confronting antagonistic students - we aren't given sufficient latitude or resources to effectively do so. If this was a place like India/China where I can smack a kid upside the head for being rude, then sure, I'm all for that. Unfortunately, I have to work within the system that I have, which figuratively ties my hands when it comes to student discipline.

LOL. You can tell them to behave or leave class and wreck their grades. You have the power. Once again, you are weak.

 

[Brampton_Boy]

LOL. You can tell them to behave or leave class and wreck their grades. You have the power. Once again, you are weak.

Now I'm starting to think you haven't attended university/college.

I absolutely cannot "wreck a student's grades" for being disruptive. Only their performance on tests/assignments has any baring on their academic performance. Call me weak if you want, but I pride myself on being an educator, not a censor or disciplinarian. If I wanted a job dealing with unruly students, I would have been a bouncer a pub.

 

[Lord Coke]

Now I'm starting to think you haven't attended university/college.

I absolutely cannot "wreck a student's grades" for being disruptive. Only their performance on tests/assignments has any baring on their academic performance. Call me weak if you want, but I pride myself on being an educator, not a censor or disciplinarian. If I wanted a job dealing with unruly students, I would have been a bouncer a pub.

When I was at junior college i was targeted by a professor for my conservative ideology. I specifically asked the professor whether we could honestly write our political beliefs for the major paper which accounted for the bulk of our grade. She said absolutely in front of the whole class.

She gave me a D. I looked at several of my peers papers and they were very poorly written. There papers all got As or in one case a B. The B was 4 pages for a 15 page paper. With their consent, I submitted my paper and their papers to the Dean. He agreed that I had been targeted and my grade was changed.

Conservative in California are constantly being targeted based on our ideology. Its not right and it has no place in our colleges.

In my case I was able to take it to the Dean a more subtle liberal would have taken a A paper done to a B and how do you appeal that. So you get a B for a class and now you go to a lesser law school and it all falls a part from there.

 

[spamking]

Yeah words and physical contact are the same thing.

It's amazing how many people can't seem to distinguish between the two.

 

[spamking]

Her actions were made incredibly public and her presence alone is a disruption on campus.

Only if folks decide to let it become a disruption.

 

[spamking]

Do you think a school should have no leeway to discipline a student if their words are creating an environment not conducive for realizing the university's mission?

That's my problem with the "free speech at all costs" argument. When you start adversely affecting the environment, your ass needs to get gone. And as much as we can talk about slippery slopes, you're risking undermining the authority of the university to correct those students who are being a hindrance to the educational purpose.

If she didn't want to be subject to discipline, she shouldn't have broadcasted it to everyone. Life lessons abound.

Ever attended any college sporting events? If so, have you heard any words that might create an environment not conducive for realizing the university's mission while in attendance?

Or any other actions that one might assume fall under the protection of the 1st amendment?

Chances are students of said university have stated various things that meet both criteria and haven't faced the scorn that this stupid girl is experiencing today.

 

[7437]

LOL. You can tell them to behave or leave class and wreck their grades. You have the power. Once again, you are weak.

she did get told to leave class. all of them, forever.

 

[Falsedawn]

Ever attended any college sporting events? If so, have you heard any words that might create an environment not conducive for realizing the university's mission while in attendance?

Or any other actions that one might assume fall under the protection of the 1st amendment?

Chances are students of said university have stated various things that meet both criteria and haven't faced the scorn that this stupid girl is experiencing today.

Get on the scoreboard and start screaming racial slurs and you just might need to be disciplined for it.

That's the equivalent of the scenario you just posed.