2
   

Big Girls should take the stairs NOT the elevator

 
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:35 pm
Why must education be disrupted for a school to take action? Sorry, if I missed the point.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:35 pm
SCoates wrote:
What if a black person had done it? Or what if the original sign had been placed by a woman?

Just curious for reaction, I'm not saying that would justify anything.



Jeez, there are enough devil's advocates on this thread to populate Dante's Inferno...

What if an alien had posted it?

How about this (now it's my turn): Can you tell the difference between two people of the same group who tease each other with certain words and jokes, and an outsider using the same language?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:45 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Can you tell the difference between two people of the same group who tease each other with certain words and jokes, and an outsider using the same language?


Very good point. Perspective? Yeah, I think it is a big part of the issue at discussion here. A real big part.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 05:51 pm
nimh wrote:
Piffka wrote:
I haven't read all the links, but I'll bet they did that first. Possibly the signs were put up more than once. Then they looked around to find the perpetrator. He was probably a trouble-maker from before.

Thats a looooooot of assumptions already going on right there.

He posted some stupid prank - so, he must have done lots of stuff before as well, just must have - and so, it was only right to put him in a program meant for sexual harassers?

<shakes head>


Yes... I've made assumptions... and you're playing with the truth when you read Fox News. "A program meant for sexual harassers?" I'm surprised you think that just because his people say that means it is true. In this country, what you read happens to be what his people are saying. You don't have a clue about what happened and in fact we've all been taken in. The dude has been back in university housing for a month.

Justice has been served?

http://www.theunionleader.com/search.html?body=Timothy%20Garneau
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:06 pm
Piffka wrote:
Yes... I've made assumptions... and you're playing with the truth when you read Fox News. "A program meant for sexual harassers?" I'm surprised you think that just because his people say that means it is true.

He says thats what happened and noone has denied it, not in the link you provide either.

<shrugs> I think picking up on that is different from just assuming all kinds of things about his prior behaviour based on ... eh, well nothing whatsoever really, nothing anyone actually said, just because.

Piffka wrote:
You don't have a clue about what happened and in fact we've all been taken in. The dude has been back in university housing for a month.

How have we "been taken in"? He's "back" - that means he was kicked out, right? What exactly are you asserting we were "taken in" about concerning the story? Which part did the original report make up, "in fact", according to you?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:14 pm
I'm posting your link Piffka because that site goes archive quickly. It would appear I'm not the only one who saw it as a freedom of speech question. :wink:

Quote:
Timothy Garneau, 20, moved in to a new dormitory Friday, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-profit group that aims to protect free speech at colleges.

"We are relieved that UNH has discovered its obligation to the Bill of Rights and that (Garneau) is back indoors," said David French, president of FIRE. "But the university should never have put a student on trial and evicted him for posting a flier."

Garneau was kicked out of Stoke Hall on Oct. 24 after UNH found him responsible for harassment, disorderly conduct, violating affirmative action policies and lying for posting the fliers. He had been living out of his Ford Contour for the past few weeks.

The Berlin native said he posted the fliers in Stoke on Sept. 3 to draw attention to the long waits for an elevator which Garneau said were caused by some students taking the lift just one or two floors. Garneau lived on the sixth floor of Stoke.

Garneau's fliers read, "9 out of 10 freshman girls gain 10 -15 pounds. But there is something you can do about it. If u live below the 6th floor takes the stairs Not only will u feel better about yourself but you will also be saving us time and wont be sore on the eyes."(sic)

Garneau initially denied making the fliers but soon owned up to them. UNH had banned Garneau from campus housing but appeared to change its decision after FIRE publicized the incident.

UNH officials have declined to comment on Garneau's case because of federal privacy laws which prohibit the release of certain student records.


Too bad this one already went archive, eh, Craven? Razz

Quote:
PUBLISHED: 11-03-04


Silencing students:
UNH tilts a lance at the First Amendment
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:15 pm
The University states that it cannot comment. That means they can't deny it.

And we've all been taken in because the outcome was known before this was placed on Fox News as though it was breathless, must-be-read and commented-on news.

What part of this story do you think is outrageous... I guess I'd like to know where you stand. It wasn't free speech, despite what his FREE lawyers said. It wasn't sexual harassment, as that is clearly stated in the University rules. This is just much ado about nothing which seems to try and show that universities are elitist and unfair to poor wittle students who only mean to help the fat girls get skinny so that boys will be attracted again.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:20 pm
Hmmm - that is an interesting point - that the university is silenced.

It is like that with cases that blow up in the media for child welfare agencies and such.

When one knows anything about them, one is desperate to yell the other side from the treetops - but of course confidentiality forbids it.

It is life, of course - but very frustrating nonetheless - I would LOVE to hear from the university.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:23 pm
Afraid I'm not familiar with the "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-profit group that aims to protect free speech at colleges."

They couldn't be, I'm sure, a group with an ax to grind re the PC boogey man now, could they?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:26 pm
Piffka wrote:
The University states that it cannot comment. That means they can't deny it.
What? You imagine that the boy has priors, and since no one has said otherwise he's presumed guilty?

Piffka wrote:
And we've all been taken in because the outcome was known before this was placed on Fox News as though it was breathless, must-be-read and commented-on news.
Which relevant piece from Fox's coverage have you proven false?

Piffka wrote:
What part of this story do you think is outrageous... I guess I'd like to know where you stand. It wasn't free speech, despite what his FREE lawyers said. It wasn't sexual harassment, as that is clearly stated in the University rules. This is just much ado about nothing which seems to try and show that universities are elitist and unfair to poor wittle students who only mean to help the fat girls get skinny so that boys will be attracted again.
LOL, it's okay to kick the boy out in the cold to live in his car for making a fat joke in your opinion then? Or is he guilty of something more in your eyes... and if so; what? If not for his "FREE" freedom of speech lawyer, where do you think he'd be now? <not understanding>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:27 pm
Piffka wrote:
And we've all been taken in because the outcome was known before this was placed on Fox News as though it was breathless, must-be-read and commented-on news.

What are you talking about? Joa may have posted this story here on A2K just this week, but the Fox story she linked in was dated Monday, November 01, 2004. <shrugs>
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:36 pm
SCoates wrote:
Why must education be disrupted for a school to take action? Sorry, if I missed the point.

In this instance, I think the point is the overstepping of bounds on the part of the administration - in Tinker, it was held the administrators acted contrary to their authority in that they failed to evidence disruption. In the UNH issue at discussion, I believe the administrator's actions were contrary to their authority more under provisions of the 14th Ammendement, the "Equal Protection Clause", though argument can be made relative the 1st Ammendment as well. The question goes both to what was done, and to why and how it was done, IMO.

In practical consideration, all this is moot in face of the administration's decision to "back down". I'm sure their own legal department provided plenty of law and precedent demonstrating the likely futility of pressing the matter. I'd be very unsurprised to learn that somewhere very shortly after the issue was brought to the legal department, someone high up in that depart said something along the lines of "Oh, my gawd .... just who's bright idea was THAT?!?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:39 pm
Heh, heh... I actually wouldn't mind seeing some people fired over this. They were more outrageous than the poster. Unless Dlowan's theory proves true.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 06:46 pm
I wouldn't count on heads rollin' here, SCoates - tenured heads are pretty damned secure. That's got some to do with the overall problem too - accountability and consequences are not much endorsed by the "I deserve this job because I've put in my time" types.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 07:14 pm
nimh wrote:
Piffka wrote:
And we've all been taken in because the outcome was known before this was placed on Fox News as though it was breathless, must-be-read and commented-on news.

What are you talking about? Joa may have posted this story here on A2K just this week, but the Fox story she linked in was dated Monday, November 01, 2004. <shrugs>


Guess what? I don't read Fox News. And now I am reminded why. I assume that if it were posted here, it would be news.

But no... I have to dig around to read the truth and find out the whole thing is moot, something I didn't see anybody else bothering to do. <shrug> This kid has great PR. How does it feel to be suckered by Fox News? This is a clever little attack on universities and how elitist they are and how those nasty tenured educators aren't living in the real world. Where have I heard this before? Hmmm... there was a political party that enjoys saying that... gee, which one was it?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 07:46 pm
Piffka, what did you dig up? Did you read what Nimh wrote before quoting him?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2004 10:45 pm
Lumbering in here, probably the only poster on the thread so far who lived pre-pc, if only by about three years.

Hmm, was this wordage all alone on a wall anext the elevator, or one among many pieces of paper on a board? Was it a giant sign?

I mentioned a long time ago that the sign was rude, but there were other ways of taking care of Thin Pride besides going to Sexual Harassment legalities. [For example, signage retorts.] Or a sign vacuum in the lobby.

I am, as I gather we all are, against real harassment.

At the same time, I wouldn't want to come home, to my domicile, to taunts on my fatness or clumsiness or semiblindness - but as much as that might hurt, it is more of an arrow to the stupidity of the person(s) who put up the sign. But if it kept happening, and happening, and happening, I could start to think about harassment.

From a design point of view, stairs and elevators are put there at some expense for the residents' convenience. If there are not enough elevators, there should be more added - has anyone made official complaints? Usually this has been figured to a standard, but maybe that is not working.

Or is the sign person wildly impatient? Stairways should (to me) not be dark skulkways, but inviting and safe places, possibly with nice landings... it is a home, no? Exercise facilities should be easily in reach.

A murmur... some heavy people are very smart, just as thin people can be, and this situation was happening at a university. Attacks on others are often fear based - if only in a general spray of antagonism to others.

But "being PC" is a taunt thing to those (often) with real concerns, where people have, as a group, histories of being cut short in various ways because of their different-ness. I think some of the regulations are reasonable.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 02:17 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dude, I don't see how your reference to a SC opinion about "obscene, profane language or gestures" in front of 14 year-old high school students has any bearing on a college dorm. Did you cite the wrong case? If not, what do you see as similar enough to make that opinion relevant?


It's a pretty simple legal concept that I thought you would get without what feels like a patronizing explanation.

The case I brought your attention to is a landmark case establishing a precendent that persists to this day to the effect that a school, even if public (if it is private then there is even less of a case to make for free speech), can punish its students without infringing on free speech.

Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and the case I reference illustrates what happens when a much stronger such case is taken to court.

A school can punish their students according to their standards and as long as it is not a standard set by the government it is perfectly legal.

Furthermore the property where said expression occured is not governed by free speech.

The school has no more obligation to allow the student his act than I do in allowing someone to paint graffiti on my property.

The school has no more obligation to allow the student to live in the dorm than I do in allowing anyone to live in my home.

Their reaction may well be unjustified but a very elementary understanding of this country's laws can help one understand that it has nothing to do with free speech.

timberlandko wrote:


Teh cases you reference don't contain anything that supports the notion that the case being discussed here is an infringement of free speech.

Quote:

Perhaps it is mostly a matter of perspective.


Indeed. Informed perspective versus uinformed perspective. ;-)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 05:24 am
Piffka wrote:
nimh wrote:
What are you talking about? Joa may have posted this story here on A2K just this week, but the Fox story she linked in was dated Monday, November 01, 2004. <shrugs>

Guess what? I don't read Fox News. And now I am reminded why. I assume that if it were posted here, it would be news.

But no... I have to dig around to read the truth and find out the whole thing is moot, something I didn't see anybody else bothering to do. <shrug>

What Bill said - did you read what I wrote before you quoted me?

How was the whole thing "moot"? The story reported, back on November 1, what had happened to that kid. I dont see you bringing up any info showing that any of it did not actually happen to him. Its now a few weeks later, and they found another dorm for him, so he doesnt have to sleep in his car, great. But he was still evicted, reprimanded, sent to a program for sexual harassers and put on probation until May 2005, unless you have any information showing he wasnt that you havent bothered bringing here or linking in.

So why "moot"?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 06:22 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's a pretty simple legal concept that I thought you would get without what feels like a patronizing explanation.

I dont care much about the "free speech" issue in this context ... I think thats a bit far-fetched, a bit too much of an attempt to ideoligize what is basically merely a question of tightarsism.

But I did wade into this discussion of what the free speech issue can all be said to encompass a while ago on this board, meeting someone who also argued that it was purely a legal concept and thus only ever can be applied to state/government action, and is irrelevant in any other context. I think it was about the question of whether, when a TV station's owner orders his stations to broadcast a certain programme and prohibits their reporters to report on it from anything but a specific, partisan slant, there is a question of free speech involved. No, said the defenders of the owner (I think it was in the context of that pre-election anti-Kerry broadcast), because the legal definition only ever covers state repression, and that is not the case here.

I find this odd. We do use (and defend) questions of free speech a little bit more widely than in the purely legal sense, in day-to-day language. For example: Theo van Gogh had his throat ritually slit by a Muslim extremist who was angry about what he had said about Muslims and about the film he had made (in which Quran texts were shown scribbled on naked female bodies - blasphemy, in the perpetrator's eyes). So he was murdered for the way he publicly expressed his opinion, and now other persons who express the same kind of opinion are threatened with such murder too. Isn't that a free speech issue? I mean, isn't free speech at stake, when people are proscribed the right to freely express their opinion this way (even if it is by other people, rather than by the state)? I would think so.

Anyway, that on an aside concerning the use of terminology.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 03:14:41