http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/16/tennessee-bill-would-outlaw-punishment-for-offensive-speech-at-universities/
MAH SAFE SPACE
The Tennessee bill looks like the usual political weaseling that will result in a thousand kinds of unintended negative consequences. Students could be free under this law to totally disrupt classes they don't like or when they are not prepared to take a test, and claim "free speech" to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Saying that "lawful speech is lawful and universities cannot restrict it" is to ignore the legitimate circumstances under which universities can and do restrict free speech. It is not unlawful to read the answers to a test out loud while taking it, for instance. It is a violation of the school student standards of conflict, but could not be punished under this law.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 09:43:37 AM
The Tennessee bill looks like the usual political weaseling that will result in a thousand kinds of unintended negative consequences. Students could be free under this law to totally disrupt classes they don't like or when they are not prepared to take a test, and claim "free speech" to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Saying that "lawful speech is lawful and universities cannot restrict it" is to ignore the legitimate circumstances under which universities can and do restrict free speech. It is not unlawful to read the answers to a test out loud while taking it, for instance. It is a violation of the school student standards of conflict, but could not be punished under this law.
Those things could be considered disorderly conduct.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:48:11 AM
Those things could be considered disorderly conduct.
Yes, but that's a criminal charge. The school couldn't punish the students and they'd have to call the cops. Would the cops even respond if there is no threat of violence and no harm to the public?
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:48:11 AM
Those things could be considered disorderly conduct.
Yes, but that's a criminal charge. The school couldn't punish the students and they'd have to call the cops. Would the cops even respond if there is no threat of violence and no harm to the public?
The article states that:
The law itself, which is to be discussed next Tuesday by the Education, Administration and Planning subcommittee, would prohibit schools from "punishing, disciplining, or censuring students for the content of students' lawful speech by way of or through any of the faculty, employees, or organizations of the institution."It doesn't say that the school is prohibited from punishing unlawful speech that the police aren't responding to.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:06:27 AM
The article states that:
The law itself, which is to be discussed next Tuesday by the Education, Administration and Planning subcommittee, would prohibit schools from "punishing, disciplining, or censuring students for the content of students' lawful speech by way of or through any of the faculty, employees, or organizations of the institution."
It doesn't say that the school is prohibited from punishing unlawful speech that the police aren't responding to.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Disorderly conduct isn't about speech, so it doesn't create a category of "unlawful speech" that the school can then punish. If it did, then it would make this law completely useless, because "disorderly conduct" can mean just about anything and would make any speech unlawful at the university's discretion.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 10:10:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:06:27 AM
The article states that:
The law itself, which is to be discussed next Tuesday by the Education, Administration and Planning subcommittee, would prohibit schools from "punishing, disciplining, or censuring students for the content of students' lawful speech by way of or through any of the faculty, employees, or organizations of the institution."
It doesn't say that the school is prohibited from punishing unlawful speech that the police aren't responding to.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Disorderly conduct isn't about speech, so it doesn't create a category of "unlawful speech" that the school can then punish. If it did, then it would make this law completely useless, because "disorderly conduct" can mean just about anything and would make any speech unlawful at the university's discretion.
Disorderly conduct doesn't mean just about anything. If it did, people could be arrested for just about anything.
I don't know what the definition of disorderly conduct is in Tennessee, but someone disrupting a class or obstructing test administration (such as by announcing answers during the test) would meet a reasonable one. Those were your examples. The school wouldn't be punishing students for the content of their speech, but the disorderly conduct.
The legislature apparently doesn't see the irony in defending campus free speech and expression through the mechanism of undermining university governance autonomy with the State barging in and writing governance policies.
I was gonna say something but this is about Tennessee schools. In the grand scheme of things...?
Quote from: The Brain on March 17, 2016, 10:59:58 AM
I was gonna say something but this is about Tennessee schools. In the grand scheme of things...?
you'll be a monkey's uncle.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 10:54:29 AM
The legislature apparently doesn't see the irony in defending campus free speech and expression through the mechanism of undermining university governance autonomy with the State barging in and writing governance policies.
Public universities have governance autonomy? :unsure:
I mean they are a branch of the state government and subject to its oversight.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 17, 2016, 11:02:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 17, 2016, 10:59:58 AM
I was gonna say something but this is about Tennessee schools. In the grand scheme of things...?
you'll be a monkey's uncle.
^_^
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 11:05:08 AM
Public universities have governance autonomy? :unsure:
It is not uncommon for the state to delegate governance to boards of governors for the individual institutions.
In fact - a quick google search amusingly reveals that there is a bill pending the Tenn legislature *right now* to transition governance from a statewide Board of Regents, to autonomous boards of governors for each institution.
Left hand working against the right hand.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2016, 11:35:41 AM
It is not uncommon for the state to delegate governance to boards of governors for the individual institutions.
True but they are usually appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature.
Huh - the bill apparently does NOT protect administrators or instructors from being punished for there micro-aggression accusations, just the students.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:31:59 AM
Disorderly conduct doesn't mean just about anything. If it did, people could be arrested for just about anything.
That's the main objection to disorderly conduct arrests - they are arbitrary since almost any behavior at all can be called "disorderly" if the arresting officer so desires. Conviction is another matter, of course, and that's why DO arrests are not more common.
QuoteI don't know what the definition of disorderly conduct is in Tennessee, but someone disrupting a class or obstructing test administration (such as by announcing answers during the test) would meet a reasonable one. Those were your examples. The school wouldn't be punishing students for the content of their speech, but the disorderly conduct.
The requirement is that one must be "intending to upset or alarm others" and also "creates a dangerous or offensive condition without a good reason," or "making excessive noise that prevents other people from going about their business." Calling out the answers to a test wouldn't seem to meet any of the requirements except perhaps "intending to upset.. others" and in that case still doesn't create a "dangerous or offensive condition."
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2016, 11:36:43 AM
True but they are usually appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature.
I don't know about "usually." In Michigan they are elected by statewide ballot. In Virginia, they are appointed by the Governor with, as you write, approval of the legislature (though House of Delegates, not state senate, which I thought interesting).
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 12:25:51 PM
Calling out the answers to a test wouldn't seem to meet any of the requirements except perhaps "intending to upset.. others" and in that case still doesn't create a "dangerous or offensive condition."
I disagree.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:06:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:48:11 AM
Those things could be considered disorderly conduct.
Yes, but that's a criminal charge. The school couldn't punish the students and they'd have to call the cops. Would the cops even respond if there is no threat of violence and no harm to the public?
The article states that:
The law itself, which is to be discussed next Tuesday by the Education, Administration and Planning subcommittee, would prohibit schools from “punishing, disciplining, or censuring students for the content of students’ lawful speech by way of or through any of the faculty, employees, or organizations of the institution.”
It doesn't say that the school is prohibited from punishing unlawful speech that the police aren't responding to.
I think the key word in the bit you bolded is "content". It seems that the schools wouldn't be able to punish a student for the content of their speech, but they could punish them the circumstances under which it was uttered--as in, for example, trying to disrupt a class. That seems appropriate to me.