We have been discussing the expanding monitoring and sanctioning of teachers for their political commentary on social media. We have also discussed such actions taken against college, high school and grade school students. The Supreme Court is due to consider the issue in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case involving high school students punished for off-campus activities. Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students. For the “Ducks” of Oregon, it could be difficult to judge what language could be deemed disruptive to anyone on campus under the rule.
Here is the policy:
Student behavior which occurs off-campus in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution regardless of where the conduct occurs and a) which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members, b) which involves academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications, or c) which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person.
Note this covers any off-campus conduct that causes a substantial disruption to any member of university community. The board insists that such broad “language has been consistently upheld in court.” It is not clear what it is referencing since cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) refer to disruptions on campus or in schools. Oregon is laying the groundwork for saying that you speech off campus can be sanctioned if it is claimed to disruptive anyone on campus.
In fairness to Oregon, the earlier deleted language was worse:
“Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives. The University may also apply the Student Conduct Code to conduct that would have violated the Student Conduct Code if it occurred on University Premises and a) involved violence; or b) involved academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications.”
There is a change from “significant adverse impact” to “substantial disruption.” It also allowed for adverse action if the conduct impacted “mission and educational objectives.”
However, the new change allows for sweeping and ill-defined authority. It is a convoluted structure but under the new rule you can be punished for off-campus conduct if it is a substantial disruption to any member of the university that involves “academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications”
That would seem to encompass references to school “identifications” in the form of other students or associations. That ambiguity can be a chilling element in such a speech limitation. Indeed, if a student identifies herself as an Oregon student, is that sufficient “identification”? What does “involved” with an identification mean?
The new rule is ironic given the special recognition given by Oregon a few years ago to University of California (Santa Barbara) Professor Mireille Miller-Young who criminally assaulted pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. At Oregon, she was honored as a featured speaker at the University of Oregon’s Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Part of its “black feminist speaker series,” Miller-Young was asked to discuss “her work on black feminism, labor and sex work.” The College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of English promised that the series would show “the radical potential of black feminism in the work that we do on campus and in our everyday lives.” Would actually assaulting people with opposing views constitute “substantial disruption” at Oregon?
I actually would still defend the right to Miller-Young to appear on campuses though I object her past conduct. It would be interesting to discuss her intolerance for opposing views though such events rarely allow or involve such debates. The concern is whether Oregon will combine an ambiguous speech code with biased enforcement.
There is continued and rising concern over the extension of school authority over the conduct and comments of students and faculty outside of school. I have defended on this blog the free speech of individuals on the far left and the far right. However, I am concerned about the disparate treatment of individuals based on the content of their speech. It seems universities are taking far more aggressive steps against those on the right who challenge core issues or groups in current debates ranging from racial justice to police abuse to gender identification. The use of poorly or vaguely crafted language can only fuel such biased enforcement and increase the chilling effect on speech.
Here’s a thought…don’t use social media. It is not a necessity. For those of you who say it is a necessity in this day and age, you are incorrect. What school will not take you if you don’t have social media? What employer will not hire you? What bank will not give you a loan? Loved one a kiss? Neighbor a wave?
Well, some ppl got their job via social media.
It’s good for attention and your life can change trough that attention.
I find it slightly peculiar that Turley routinely begins his posts by claiming, “we have been discussing…” as if he is addressing his law classroom. Perhaps, it is by force of habit, but “we” have not had any “discussion” at all with Turley. I wish we could have a genuine discussion; but the truth is that he lectures us without taking any questions.
Are there any persons here who are or were his law students? Does the professor entertain questions in his classroom? Does he ever permit discussion of current events? Has he ever been asked to defend his employment with Fox News?
It is very curious that Turley finds time to analyze and opine about matters which are not of particular concern of persons here, i.e., Turkish politics, yet avoids addressing issues that directly affects Americans, e.g., the purging of truth-tellers in the Republican Party, the merits of the defense of Capitol rioters blaming Trump/Fox for their actions, the passing of more restrictive election laws by Republican state Legislatures, the merits of the Arizona audit, and, of course, Trump’s continuing to push the Big Lie despite its potential to instigate another assault on our government.
“Trump’s continuing to push the Big Lie”
What is the Big Lie?
—
IN “THE BIG LIE,” D’SOUZA REVEALS
Why Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler admired the Democratic Party (and why the fascists and National Socialists identified with the progressive Left)
How Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger inspired Nazi racial theorists
How leftist philosophers have intentionally (if covertly) promoted and justified Nazi tactics and the fascist ideal of theall-powerful centralized state
Why the anti-free-speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious-liberty, pro-violence, pro-abortion Democratic Party is a national socialist (Nazi) party in everything but name
More than a book of arresting analysis, D’Souza shows how to begin the work of denazifying the American Left
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/the-big-lie/
His 2012 movie–2016: Obama’s America–was spot-on. Obama began the work (and continues it now) to fundamentally transform America. He did promise that in his campaign speeches. Not sure why all this that is happening should be of any surprise to those who stand like deer in the headlights.
Jeff Silberman comes to this forum everyday but he still hasn’t figured out that he doesn’t get to pick the subjects. He never picks the subject and yet he keeps coming back day after day. One must suppose that he returns to enforce his Victimhood Derangement Syndrome. This VDS and TDS in one person? Could it be possible that there are other phobias present?
You know what subjects concern the people who routinely access Turley’s blog? My guess is that most are not one trick ponies like yourself. Most don’t care that Turley is Fox contributer. And I would guess that almost no one is as obsessed as you are about that fact. Again, it is HIS BLOG! He gets to choose the subject matter. If you want to devote time to the supposed Big Lie, voter verification and the Arizona audit then START YOUR OWN BLOG!! I am sure there are many far Left lunatics that will allow you on a daily basis to massage your ego.
If you use social media, do not make it public. Do not succumb to the temptation to have an enormous number of “friends” online, people that you don’t know very well, or who might strike out at you over politics.
As for Miller-Young, her area of study is black porn. According to her university bio, her upcoming book is entitled Hoe Theory. I don’t take these people seriously. She’s part of the fluff departments, when universities stopped being serious about academics.
I think it is an error to take an enemy lightly.
Wonder if she’s studying Kamala Harris in “Hoe Theory.”
Kamala is a political ‘hoe.’
“It’s the [dominion of freedom], stupid.”
– James Carville
_____________
“Give me liberty or give me death!”
– Patrick Henry
_____________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
________________________________
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VERSUS
________
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
In Marxist philosophy, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state of affairs in which the proletariat holds political power.[1][2] The dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production, compels the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and instituting elected delegates into representative workers’ councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership. During this phase, the administrative organizational structure of the party is to be largely determined by the need for it to govern firmly and wield state power to prevent counterrevolution and to facilitate the transition to a lasting communist society.
– Wiki
_____
Communist Manifesto
– Central Planning – Compulsory Inefficient, Bankrupt Solar/Wind Power, Carbon Reduction Goals, Electric Vehicles – Carbon Pipeline Closures – Deleterious Deficits, Unsustainable Debt, Quantitative Erasing, Currency Printing
– Control of the Means of Production – Irrefutably Unconstitutional Regulation.
– Redistribution of Wealth – Compulsory “From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need.”
– Social Engineering – Affirmative Action, Quotas, Rent Control, Social Services, Forced Busing, Minimum Wage, Welfare, Food Stamps, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, WIC, SNAP, TANF,
HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Quackery
If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then you’re ok.
None of these would be tyrants currently have anything resembling actual authority over anyone. They exploit the young and naive because they can, and if that ain’t bullying, I don’t know what is. The solution is easy: tell them to go to h*ll and stop acquiescing. Better yet, don’t send your kids to their schools.
Ve vill tell you vhat you can say, vow you can say it, ven you can say it and ver you can say it. You voudn’t vant to lose your path to an education vould you little comrade. Be avare ve are vatching you. Try getting that one through spell check.
I dealt with cognitive dissonance until I was 75. I am no longer doing that. However, it is rampant in the Land of the coward and home of the slave. All the states and territories of the United States are under Lieber Code/martial law except Oregon. We assembled, formed a civilian court of record, implemented Ex Parte Milligan, which nullified Lieber Code/martial law. DOJ, USMS, FBI, USMC and STATE OF OREGON all acquiesced and defaulted to the Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly’s civilian court of record..
A Constitutional solution is to assemble as in the 1st amendment on your state. With; people that will do the work; people that will form a Lawful grand jury and bring a true bill against these evil doers. On Oregon we bring Article I Section 1. We need; people to populate a VII amendment jury of peers to bring forth a verdict that has no appeal in law in Our Article III one supreme Court claiming original jurisdiction. There may be other solutions!! However, this one works; it is we the people in assembly, forming a civilian court of record, implementing Ex Parte Milligan which nullified Lieber Code/martial law.. DOJ, FBI, USMS, USMC, STATE OF OREGON all acquiesced and defaulted. Will you help your state assemble? You have a pulpit. It only takes 45. Americans on a state in a minimum of 21 days.. Invite all non evil Americans. It only takes 45 people, no persons.. all the best of every good fortune for the good, ronvrooman38@gmail.com
An interesting historical fiction series to read is Child 44. Another interesting book I am reading now is The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. There are some parts that could be funny, But……are not!
In a world where “silence is violence” and as point (c) covers “any person”, this is totalitarian in a way that would impress Stalin, who at least wanted his show trial victims to confess to actually doing something (under threat or torture, yes, but still, to doing something).
Principled support of free speech is great but I truly wonder if this existential threat is so great and so imminent that the situation has moved beyond that… heaven help us!
“Note this covers any off-campus conduct that causes a substantial disruption to any member of university community.”
That sounds like a bad policy. One has to think of the most obvious thing; student’s complaining about a teacher. That is a first amendment right, even if there is a disruption in the school. We have libel laws, and if it is libel, it can be punished.
“substantial disruption” is vague and open to interpretation along with misuse.
UkDay on the ouyea.
And these are the institutions to which we entrust the future of our country? God save the Republic
In all these attempts to limit speech because of how someone will react, there is never a discussion that if people are held responsible for how they react to speech, there would be far less disruption because of what someone says. Let us say that someone writes comments online in which ‘derogatory’ language is used. The next day, some students on campus hold a noisy march during class time. That could be seen as disruptive. The marchers should be held responsible. The proper venue through which to respond is online, or hold the march off campus. But no, what we have is the instrument of government directed at the online commenter, and the responders supported and defended. In other word, their behavior is sanctioned, and as a result, there is more of that behavior.
(Pulling The “JOHN-SUCK-ASS-CENA-WAY-OUT.)
This is all about intimidation. Because the powers that be they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virus majority of students are still at that age where they can be intimidated by people that hold power over them. Not all of course. But once again, the vast, majority can be intimidated. So they will not post anything on social media that smacks in the way of crossing the university. And the few that do it and get caught will take the chickenshit
Piece of scum way out by pulling what I call the, “John-suck-ass-Cena” way out.
In all these attempts to limit speech because of how someone will react, there is never a discussion that if people are held responsible for how they react to speech, there would be far less disruption because of what someone says. Let us say that someone writes comments online in which ‘derogatory’ language is used. The next day, some students on campus hold a noisy march during class time. That could be seen as disruptive. The marchers should be held responsible. The proper venue through which to respond is online, or hold the march off campus. But no, what we have is the instrument of government directed at the online commenter, and the responders supported and defended. In other word, their behavior is sanctioned, and as a result, there is more of that behavior.
The Radical Left, the Intellect Elite, the Socialist Authoritarian Oregon authorities/Intellects seek to expand their powers of monitoring, control, their rule. No wonder 7 Oregon counties and expanding want to leave Oregon and join Idaho. Assume other socialist/Dem run states and Other colleges will do the same. They are ruining this country and walking over our rights.