So you admit there aren't any liberal universities that have enacted the same type of policy on college Republicans?

5/25/2009 9:10:33 AM

^^

Quote :

"And, yes, while private and public institutions operate under somewhat different rules, if you will, I believe the following holds true for both: 1. Individuals have a right to associate to further political and social views. 2. I also believe in and work to support academic freedom for all. And academic freedom can only be fully realized when individuals have the rights to free expression, opinion, and association."

I, too, have the personal private view that education with complete academic freedom is the best type of education, but I don't force that personal private view on other private entities. Just because I see and desire the benefits from such a policy, doesn't mean that it is universally right or that other private entities should be compelled to adopt it.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no impedance of anyone's right to free expression, opinion, or association with regard to Liberty University's policies. Do you think all private entities should recognize everyone's public rights? Should, for instance, TWW be prohibited from censoring posts? No. Their right to be a private entity and to disallow certain speech on their web site is not trumped by my public right to free speech. Do you understand?

Freedom of expression doesn't mean that employers, churches, businesses, families, or any other private entity has to allow anyone's speech on their property or under their name. Freedom of association doesn't mean that employers, churches, businesses, families, or any other private entity has to allow anyone to associate on their property or under their name.

You need to have a lot more respect for the "somewhat different rules" that private and public institutions operate under, AND WHY THIS IS SO.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 9:11:09 AM

^^ Just a couple of quick ones:

College Republicans banned from campus

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus

Dartmouth Grinches Steal Christmas

Quote :

"Students at Dartmouth College are questioning if their school’s support for 'diversity' and academic freedom are genuine after it blocked a student group from sending Christmas gifts through the mail, stating that the act could be deemed 'offensive.' The Dartmouth administration banned the campus chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ from distributing copies of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity—just days after the 100th anniversary of the author’s birth—to the college’s freshmen class prior to the holiday break. The group sent over 1,000 copies of the book to freshmen last Christmas, but was stopped when they tried to do so this month. Only after the books were bought, wrapped, and ready to mail did the school bar sending the Christmas presents through the mail system that is supposed to be open to all student groups and is even used by outside advertisers."

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/january_1999_2.html

^ The students at issue might start with some form of breach of contract.

Quote :

"To prevail in the battle for free speech and expression, the victims of selective (and selectively enforced) speech codes and double standards at private colleges and universities need to understand several relevant legal doctrines, and the moral bases that underlie them. These include basic contract law, which requires people, businesses, and institutions (such as universities) to live up to the promises they make. Morally, of course, the underlying principle is that decent individuals and associations keep their promises, especially when they receive something in return for those promises. Legally, doctrines such as contractual obligations may vary from state to state, but many common principles exist to provide some general guidance for students. For those who treasure liberty, the law can still provide a powerful refuge (although publicity may sometimes be as powerful, because university officials are hard pressed to admit and justify in public what they believe and do in private). The strength of that legal refuge depends on many factors: the laws of the individual state in which the university is located; the promises made or implied by university brochures, catalogues, handbooks, and disciplinary rules; and the precise governance and funding of the institution. To some extent, however, and in most states, private universities are obliged in some manner to adhere at least broadly to promises they make to incoming students about what kinds of institutions they are. There is a limit, in other words, to “bait-and-switch” techniques that promise academic freedom and legal equality but deliver authoritarian and selective censorship. A car dealer may not promise a six-cylinder engine but deliver only four cylinders. Unfortunately, the equivalent of such crude bait-and-switch false advertising and failure to deliver on real promises is all too common in American higher education."

Quote :

"In most states, court decisions have established that school policies, student handbooks, and other documents represent a contract between the college or university and the student. In other words, universities must deliver the rights they promise. Most campuses explicitly promise a high level of free speech and academic freedom, and some (including some of the most repressive in actual practice) do so in ringing language that would lead one to believe that they will protect their students’ rights well beyond even constitutional requirements."

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech.pdf

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 9:33:03 AM

^
Well, if Liberty University, in a legal contract, explicitly promised that there wouldn't be any restrictions on academic freedom or expression, then yes, that would be a breach of contract. (A completely separate issue....) But that doesn't invalidate anything I said. I can neither confirm nor deny that Liberty University has such a contract with its students, because I don't know that information. If they do, then the students have a shot. If they don't, then the university is in the clear. Either way, private is still private.... and assuming that Liberty University didn't commit fraud, then I'm correct about them having not done anything wrong, and your assertion to the contrary is incorrect.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 9:43:13 AM

^ Do you know of a college that doesn't woo potential students with promises of "diversity," "academic freedom," and so on in literature? The student handbook, for example, is a legal contract that varies in strength from state to state.

Quote :

"If a university has stated a policy in writing, a court will require the university to adhere to that policy, at least in broad terms. (p. 61)"

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech.pdf

Oddly, the university's student handbook, "The Liberty Way," is unavailable at the moment.

In any event, my assertion that Liberty University did something wrong is not limited by the parameters of the law. A thing can be done that is wrong but that is not illegal.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 9:52:44 AM

^
What does my knowledge of various college policies have to do with anything?
If a college has a contract, then they must abide by it....

Why do you seem to think this has anything to do with free speech and association? Let me guess: Perhaps you think that all colleges and universities, public and private, should be required by law to make such contracts, thereby completely destroying the concept of a private school. This, of course, would be unspeakably wrong.

If you don't think that, then what's your point? Private colleges that want to maintain their right to disallow speech and assembly on their property will choose to not have such a contract, and private colleges that want to waive their right to disallow speech and assembly on their property, and instead ensure by legal contract that students be allowed to speak and assemble as they wish, will choose to have such a contract.

What is your point?

Quote :

"In any event, my assertion that Liberty University did something wrong is not limited by the parameters of the law. A thing can be done that is wrong but that is not illegal."

That's not "wrong" -- that's "wrong in my opinion". Semantics, sure, but to be clear, when you only say "wrong", people tend to interpret that as meaning "universally wrong" or "legally wrong", and not merely "wrong with regards to my personal private morality". You see, I agree that the policies are dumb and I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong -- that simply means that I'll very likely choose to not apply to that college. People have an inalienable right to be close-minded bigots... perhaps you disagree. Of course, you seem to be a proponent of the first amendment, so I'm sure you extend the right to freedom of expression to everyone, and not just those you "morally" agree with.....

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 10:08:55 AM

^
1. The policy in question may or may not be illegal.

2. In any event, it is wrong.

3. And I mention "contracts" because they are extremely important on private college campuses:

Summary of Free Speech Rights on Private Campuses

Quote :

"Because private colleges have such broad freedom to determine their own policies, and because state laws vary so widely, it is safest to speak only of having 'potential' rights on a private campus. However, the following generalizations can be made with a certain degree of confidence, unless you have given informed consent to (you have knowingly agreed to) the terms of a voluntary association (generally a group, club, or organization) of which you have chosen to be part (in which case you have waived the rights that you knowingly agreed to waive): 1) You have the right to rational disciplinary proceedings that are not arbitrary and, to a lesser extent, to rational, nonarbitrary results. 2) You have the right to receive treatment equal to that received by those who have engaged in similar behavior. 3) You have the right to honesty and 'good faith' (generally defined as conformity with the basic, human standards of honesty and decency) from university officials. 4) You have the right to enjoy, at least in substantial degree, all of the rights promised you by university catalogues, handbooks, websites, and disciplinary codes. (p. 63)"

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech.pdf

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 10:12:18 AM

^

Quote :

"1. The policy in question may or may not be illegal. 2. In any event, it is wrong to hooksaw."

5/25/2009 10:13:27 AM

^ So, a thing can only be wrong if it is illegal?

5/25/2009 10:20:18 AM

^
When did I say that? Do you really have this much trouble with logic?
You basically said: It is wrong, but not illegal.
I basically said: It is not wrong, nor illegal. (assuming no breach of contract)
You said: So, a thing can only be wrong if it is illegal?
**carlface** I say: Wrong and illegal are not logically related. A thing can be either, both, or neither.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 10:26:35 AM

^ But you implied that it is only wrong to me. Again, are there no wrongs outside the law?

And these quick findings by me could provide a basis for the students at issue to bring suit:

From Liberty University's "Philosophy of Education" listed on its Web site:

Quote :

"Education as the process of teaching and learning involves the whole person, developing the knowledge, values, and skills that enable the individual to change freely."

From Liberty's "Aims":

Quote :

"Promote an understanding of the Western tradition and the diverse elements of American cultural history, especially the importance of the individual in maintaining democratic and free market processes."

Quote :

"Cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others and a commitment to the betterment of humanity."

https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6899

You might also want to explore the American Association of University Professors' policy statements on "Student Academic Freedom":

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/legal/topics/PolDivDiscrim.htm

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 10:30:23 AM

Quote :

"But you implied that it is only wrong to me."

Why would my saying that you think it to be wrong imply that you're the only one that thinks it to be wrong? What? It's wrong to you, it's wrong to nastoute (I think,) and most certainly it's wrong to many others... Are you actually suggesting that I was implying that you are the only one to think that it's wrong? What?

Quote :

"Again, are there no wrongs outside the law?"

Did you not see where I clearly posted: "Wrong and illegal are not logically related. A thing can be either, both, or neither"?

And why do you keep posting stuff about breach of contract? Do you only think that Liberty University is wrong because they are guilty of breach of contract? Or, if it turns out that they're not guilty of breach of contract, would you still consider their policies to be wrong? Because it seems like you feel that they are wrong regardless of the issue of breach of contract....

Quote :

"You might also want to explore the American Association of University Professors' policy statements of "Student Academic Freedom""

Why? Are they of the opinion that all colleges and universities, public and private, should be required by law to make contracts that guarantee "Student Academic Freedom"?

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 10:47:11 AM

^ 1. I think Liberty University is wrong.

2. I base this on philosophy statements, legal opinions, and laws related to academic freedom.

3. The only legal avenue that I see for the students in question is one based on breach of contract.

Quote :

"3. Other Sources: First Amendment protection is not the only basis of student academic freedom. Students may also be entitled to contractual rights, since many student handbooks include academic freedom provisions.5 In addition, some states have enacted state statutory protections that apply to students."

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/legal/topics/PolDivDiscrim.htm

5/25/2009 10:54:51 AM

Quote :

"1. I think Liberty University is wrong."

Wrong for what? For breach of contract?... or for maintaining its right to disallow speech and assembly on its private property or under its name?

Quote :

"2. I base this on philosophy statements, legal opinions, and laws related to academic freedom."

Again, separate this for the two possibilities:
"You're saying it's wrong because" possibility 1: Liberty University is guilty of breach of contract. Students can speak and assemble freely on their property and under their name, because Liberty University contractually ensures that they can.
"You're saying it's wrong because" possibility 2: Liberty University is not guilty of breach of contract. But that doesn't matter because it's still wrong to disallow students from speaking and assembling on their property and under their name.

Which are you saying? (Or neither?)

Quote :

"3. The only legal avenue that I see for the students in question is one based on breach of contract."

Sure, but "legal" and "right", as we agree, are different. Assuming the breach of contract "legal avenue" is unavailable because no breach of contract occurred, do you still think students are being wronged?

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 11:06:33 AM

^ 1. I indicated my position that Liberty University is wrong was not limited to the parameters of the law--I did not, however, indicate that this wrong excluded the law.

2.

Quote :

"I base this on philosophy statements, legal opinions, and laws related to academic freedom."

Primarily those philosophy statements by or listed in AAUP, FIRE, other organizations, and best practices. I do hold a teaching certificate and have teaching experience, so I have some knowledge of this.

3. I already posted three examples from Liberty University's Web site that I see as clear examples of breach of contract (this, of course, will have to be determined in a court of law):

Quote :

"Education as the process of teaching and learning involves the whole person, developing the knowledge, values, and skills that enable the individual to change freely."

Quote :

"Promote an understanding of the Western tradition and the diverse elements of American cultural history, especially the importance of the individual in maintaining democratic and free market processes."

Quote :

"Cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others and a commitment to the betterment of humanity."

https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6899

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : READ AGAIN!]

5/25/2009 11:16:51 AM

^
Do you have a fucking problem answering my questions the way I asked them?
Here's my post again. This time, actually answer the questions.

Quote :

"1. I think Liberty University is wrong."

Wrong for what? For breach of contract?... or for maintaining its right to disallow speech and assembly on its private property or under its name? Either, neither, or both? Answer me.

Quote :

"2. I base this on philosophy statements, legal opinions, and laws related to academic freedom."

Again, separate this for the two possibilities:
"You're saying it's wrong because" possibility 1: Liberty University is guilty of breach of contract. Students can speak and assemble freely on their property and under their name, because Liberty University contractually ensures that they can.
"You're saying it's wrong because" possibility 2: Liberty University is not guilty of breach of contract. But that doesn't matter because it's still wrong to disallow students from speaking and assembling on their property and under their name.

Which are you saying? (Or neither?) Either or neither? Answer me.

Quote :

"3. The only legal avenue that I see for the students in question is one based on breach of contract."

Sure, but "legal" and "right", as we agree, are different. Assuming the breach of contract "legal avenue" is unavailable because no breach of contract occurred, do you still think students are being wronged? It's fine if you think there is a breach, but my question assumes not. Answer me.

5/25/2009 11:25:41 AM

^ I have answered your questions--apparently, just not in the way you would like. Please read my answers again.

5/25/2009 11:40:26 AM

Classic hooksaw. Avoid answering, but claim you did, and claim you didn't understand.

5/25/2009 11:51:18 AM

^^lol.... You're one of those types.... Don't worry... as long as others merely browse this thread and see that you posted lots of words and got the last word in, you won't appear stupid or dodgy. (don't forget to respond again so that you still have the last word... otherwise, the illusion won't work )

^
Exactly. The questions I asked are multiple choice, and of course he's free to elaborate -- but he won't even answer. Classic.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 11:52:03 AM

Quote :

"I am entitled to my own views, can disallow behavior or people from my private property, and can disallow affiliation with my private name."

If I open my own private university can i ban black people, gays, and women.

Quote :

"Dartmouth Grinches Steal Christmas "

Everyone thinks this is stupid also.

5/25/2009 12:13:54 PM

Quote :

"If I open my own private university can i ban black people, gays, and women."

"Can"... as in legally?
You can have a single-sex school under current law, but not a these-races-only, or heterosexuals-only.
I have no problem with private single-sex schools -- do you? And I wouldn't have a problem with private (not taking any public money,) single-race or single-sexuality schools, either. Discriminating on the basis of sex, race, sexuality, etc. is considered morally wrong by very many people, and in a democracy, the majority may get it's way -- whether it's right or not. As long as there are men-only and women-only private schools, as well as gyms, sports teams, etc., I don't see why other private entities shouldn't be able to discriminate however they please, as well. (Titles II and VII of the civil rights act are 100% wrong -- They may have made sense when the overwhelming majority of private entities were racist and/or sexist, but now, or at least soon, they don't make sense.)

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 12:33:13 PM

Quote :

"College Republicans banned from campus Wednesday, November 19, 2003"

Quote :

"Dartmouth Grinches Steal Christmas January 1999"

Gee, I wonder why TSB hasn't given equal time to these? Moreover, I think the College Republicans have not been banned just yet.

http://www.uncwgop.com/

5/25/2009 1:27:31 PM

I just hope Liberty University has the good sense to ban the college Republicans when they endorse a pro-abortion and/or pro-gay platform.

I hope that they have the audacity to stand up for what they believe. There are plenty of other universities for the opposing viewpoints.

Frankly though, I'd like to see all official clubs banned anyway. School is expensive enough without us funding other peoples stupid hobbies.

5/26/2009 1:36:05 AM

I didn't answer, huh? Let's review:

Quote :

"So you admit there aren't any liberal universities that have enacted the same type of policy on college Republicans?"

Fail Boat

Quote :

"Just a couple of quick ones: College Republicans banned from campus http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus Dartmouth Grinches Steal Christmas [goes to freedom of expression] http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/january_1999_2.html"

hooksaw

And, as I indicated, there are many more examples of what I described here--do your own research:

http://www.thefire.org/

hooksaw:

Quote :

"1. I think Liberty University is wrong."

Willy Nilly:

Quote :

"Wrong for what? For breach of contract?... or for maintaining its right to disallow speech and assembly on its private property or under its name? Either, neither, or both? Answer me."

My answer is quite clear from the context of my second point: It would have to be BOTH!

hooksaw:

Quote :

"2. I base this on philosophy statements, legal opinions, and laws related to academic freedom."

Liberty University is wrong based primarily, as I indicated, on the philosophy statements of a number of professional organizations and practitioners associated with higher education. The university may also be in breach of contract--this remains to be seen.

Willy Nilly:

Quote :

"Again, separate this for the two possibilities: 'You're saying it's wrong because' possibility 1: Liberty University is guilty of breach of contract. Students can speak and assemble freely on their property and under their name, because Liberty University contractually ensures that they can. 'You're saying it's wrong because' possibility 2: Liberty University is not guilty of breach of contract. But that doesn't matter because it's still wrong to disallow students from speaking and assembling on their property and under their name. Which are you saying? (Or neither?) Either or neither? Answer me."

(1) I have answered you. And (2) lying to one's mother is wrong, most would generally agree (though there may be a situation--such as concerning something personal--in which a lie might be appropriate). This lie may or may not be illegal (fraud versus lying about stolen cookies and so on).

So, it's possibility 3: It is "wrong to disallow students from speaking and assembling on their property." And the university may or may not be guilty of breach of contract.

hooksaw:

Quote :

"3. The only legal avenue that I see for the students in question is one based on breach of contract."

Willy Nilly:

Quote :

"Sure, but 'legal' and 'right', as we agree, are different. Assuming the breach of contract 'legal avenue' is unavailable because no breach of contract occurred, do you still think students are being wronged? It's fine if you think there is a breach, but my question assumes not. Answer me."

For goodness' sake, I have answered you! Assuming there is no breach of contract, yes, the actions of Liberty University are still wrong based on my answer in point 2: It is not best practice for institutions of higher learning to deny students freedom of association--if this is in fact the case. This has been clearly established through the philosophy statements of various organizations and practitioners with policy interests in this area.

Furthermore, I concern myself more with the rights, whether constitutional or implied, of true individuals than I do with the rights of institutions--whether they are operated by one person, a board, or what have you. It should be clear that the students have more standing as "individuals" than Liberty University does--it's not like Mom and Pop own the university and their rights are being denied.

In any event, it appears that Democrats aren't "banned" after all--but I guess the effect is the same:

Quote :

"Official recognition carries with it the benefit of using the University name and funds. While this group will not be an officially recognized club, it may still meet on campus."

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8736910453.html

You see, this is why I don't usually post these lengthy rebuttals. They're too fucking time-consuming!

5/26/2009 9:27:35 AM