Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the student's own mouth, which is admissible in court.
"I am deeply sorry for what I did Saturday night," Rice said in the statement. "It was wrong and reckless. I made a horrible mistake by joining into the singing and encouraging others to do the same. On Monday, I withdrew from the University and sadly, at this moment our family is not able to be in our home because of threatening calls as well as frightening talk on social media."
From the student's own mouth, which is admissible in court.
"I am deeply sorry for what I did Saturday night," Rice said in the statement. "It was wrong and reckless. I made a horrible mistake by joining into the singing and encouraging others to do the same. On Monday, I withdrew from the University and sadly, at this moment our family is not able to be in our home because of threatening calls as well as frightening talk on social media."
Well, whether they withdrew or were expelled--and I suspect both sides are claiming the action to bolster their public image--this statement pretty much means there will be no court case. You can't sue a university for expelling you if you claim you voluntarily withdrew.
Sorry, IC, but you will not get your dream of seeing the school lose in court.
"I am deeply sorry for what I did Saturday night," Rice said in the statement. "It was wrong and reckless. I made a horrible mistake by joining into the singing and encouraging others to do the same. On Monday, I withdrew from the University and sadly, at this moment our family is not able to be in our home because of threatening calls as well as frightening talk on social media."
Please provide the link each time you make this statement. Others are being kind enough to back up their claims with proof, not just typing in whatever they want.
UC Berkeley is a hotbed of sometimes very denigrating protests. Their students aren't expelled for protesting in such a manner.
Once again, pointing to other people doing something has no relevance to this issue. Please stop, you've continued to bog down this thread with this fallacy.
Well, whether they withdrew or were expelled--and I suspect both sides are claiming the action to bolster their public image--this statement pretty much means there will be no court case. You can't sue a university for expelling you if you claim you voluntarily withdrew.
Sorry, IC, but you will not get your dream of seeing the school lose in court.
so far we have only one student claiming to have withdrawn, so it's too early to promise that.
As to the latter, it can be safely said that most extreme and blatant forms of discriminatory conduct are not protected by the First Amendment, and indeed are punishable by a variety of state and federal criminal laws and subject to civil actions.
Quote:
Federal law imposes civil and criminal sanctions against persons depriving or conspiring to deprive others of rights guaranteed by the United States constitution. 42 U.S.C. secs. 1983, 1985 (civil); 18 U.S.C. secs. 241-242 (criminal).
The students clearly demonstrates a conspiracy to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Quote:
Many forms of sexually abusive and harassing conduct are also sanctionable. These would include abduction, Mich. Stat. Ann. secs. 28.201-202, rape, and other forms of criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Stat. Ann. sec. 28.788; Totten v. Totten, 172 Mich. 565, 138 N.W. 257 (1912) (civil action for rape). The dissemination of legally obscene materials is also a crime under state law. Mich. Stat. Ann. sec. 28.579. In addition, a civil remedy exists for women who are subjected to demands for sexual favors by employers as an express or implied quid pro quo for employment benefits. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 91 L. Ed. 2d 49, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986). Minorities or women who are exposed to such extreme and pervasive workplace harassment as to create a hostile or offensive working environment are also entitled to civil damages. Id. (and cases cited therein). The First Amendment presents no obstacle to the establishment of internal University sanctions as to any of these categories of conduct, over and above any remedies already supplied by state or federal law.
Quote:
While the University's power to regulate so-called pure speech is far more limited, see United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672, 88 S. Ct. 1673 (1968), certain categories can be generally described as unprotected by the First Amendment. It is clear that so-called "fighting words" are not entitled to First Amendment protection. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 86 L. Ed. 1031, 62 S. Ct. 766 (1942). These would include "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting words' those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Id. at 572. Under certain circumstances racial and ethnic epithets, slurs, and insults might fall within this description and could constitutionally be prohibited by the University. In addition, such speech may also be sufficient to state a claim for common law intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 114 Mich. App. 12, 18-19, 318 N.W.2d 558 (1982). Credible threats of violence or property damage made with the specific intent to harass or intimidate the victim because of his race, sex, religion, or national origin is punishable both criminally and civilly under state law. Mich. Stat. Ann. sec. 28.344(2). Similarly, speech which has the effect of inciting imminent lawless action and which is likely to incite such action may also be lawfully punished. [863] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430, 89 S. Ct. 1827 (1969). Civil damages are available for speech which creates a hostile or abusive working environment on the basis of race or sex. Meritor, supra. Legally obscene speech is unprotected by the First Amendment, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 22, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 93 S. Ct. 2607 (1973), as are materials involving the sexual exploitation of children. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982). Similarly, speech which is 'vulgar, ' 'offensive, ' and 'shocking ' is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all circumstances. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra. Certain kinds of libel and slander are also not protected. Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749, 86 L. Ed. 2d 593, 105 S. Ct. 2939 (1985), including possibly group libel, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 96 L. Ed. 919, 72 S. Ct. 725 (1952). Finally, the University may subject all speech and conduct to reasonable and non-discriminatory time, place, and manner restrictions which are narrowly tailored and which leave open ample alternative means of communication. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 69 L. Ed. 2d 298, 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981). If the Policy had the effect of only regulating in these areas, it is unlikely that any constitutional problem would have arisen.
How can a public university expel students for singing?
Considering some University actions over false claims of rape it becomes obvious that universities can do much of anything they please. Do the students have recourse? Yes.
There was no threat to another person that the students planned to 'hang you'.
On the other hand, if that were a free speech violation then it might be necessary to require any Muslim anywhere in the U.S. to keep a designated safe distance from any Jew, or kafir. Which would include most of us. As it is the intent of Islam to detroy Israel, all Jews and non-believers. And yeah, that includes atheists.
How can a public university expel students for singing?
They were not expelled for speech or singing, they were expelled because they created a hostile environment by humiliating and denigrating another race.
My guess is he was offered the option of withdrawing instead of being expelled.
that's something I hadn't thought of, but quite possible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
