NAACP wants students expelled

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
NAACP wants students expelled
177
Wed, 11-12-2008 - 5:19pm

Is this something you agree with or disagree with?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-01-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 3:21pm
Please post something to support your assertion about what you think re: free speech laws.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 3:28pm
Disgusting as it was, Jackson apparently did not intend for the public to hear his thoughts about Obama's ...ahem...

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-01-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 3:33pm

and the lack of reaction from the NAACP towards Jesse Jackson and what he said outloud on TELEVISION to millions of viewers?? (That he thinks Obama, whom he referred to as a n#%$, should have his genitals cut off).

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 4:39pm

No one discriminated or harrassed another student.


Actually, anything that creates an environment of hate or intolerance can be considered harrassment.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 4:53pm

I completely disagree with your article's author, I'm afraid.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2006
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 5:20pm

Hey, y'all, I usually lurk, but as the wife, sister, and niece of NC State Alumni, and one who has often traversed the Free Expression Tunnel and enjoyed laughing, nodding and occasionally cussing with all the fluency of an Army brat at what I find there, this is a subject close to my heart.

Pepperz5, you said:

"there are laws which override any "rules" or "policies" which some school/college might choose to have or choose not to have."

Absolutely. Paramount among them:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Now, while this only applies to the US Congress (and thus invalidates any Federal "hate speech" laws passed thereby), we have:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Which brings us to the NC State Constitution:

"Freedom of speech... shall never be restrained..." (Article I Section 14) and immediately following that:

"The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right." (Article I Section 15)

Note that Section 14 includes a secondary clause stating "...but every person shall be held responsible for their abuse." This might seem to support a call for expulsion, but Section 15 invalidates that, particularly now given Governor-elect Perdue's strong popular mandate to make higher education available to every citizen of the State, free of charge if economically necessary. We have moved into a historical moment in which we realize that Section 15 must apply to higher education for all citizens of the State, just as it came over the course of the twentieth century to apply to secondary education for all citizens of the State. Regardless of the policy of any individual University, merely being offensive (even highly, disgustingly offensive) is not justification for the violation of Sections 14 and 15 of the State Constitution, particularly since we are talking about a publicly-funded land-grant University founded for the purpose of furthering the obligations laid out in Section 15. It is also worthy to note that North Carolina does not have a hate speech law (although SB 1988 comes close in its criminalization of particularly egregious demonstrative expressions) that I can find on the books, although even if there was one, it would be unconstitutional.

Now, to the purported death threat: this brings us into Thomas Beckett territory. It has already been mentioned that the Secret Service found no credible threat to President-elect Obama, and furthermore that the Supremes have never seen fit (in any of their ideological iterations over the decades) to uphold an abridgement of speech based upon the doctrine of 'fighting words.' (I believe that those who originally contributed those bits of information provided citations in their posts). The reason for this is context--please note that I am not saying that this speech is any less morally and ethically reprehensible for not being a credible threat--but, these same words that were painted in an area designated for graffiti would be a credible threat if one of these students had screamed them through a megaphone to a mob of drunken Klansmen at the gates of the White House on Inauguration Day. The difference--the only difference--is context. Some spray paint on a concrete wall a state and a half away from the object of the purported "threat" is hardly credible.

Bottom line--in a truly free society of the sort created and preserved by the US and NC State Constitutions, the only valid justification for restriction of speech is the actual, material restriction by that speech of the individual liberty of another citizen. It is entirely possible (and, indeed, desirable) for functional, responsible adults to continue about their daily lives, doing their jobs, attaining an education, exercising their liberties, etc. while being offended--in fact, several hundred functional, responsible, adult members of the NC State student body were able to exercise yet another freedom--that of assembly and peaceful protest--while and because of being offended by the speech in question.

So, no, the students in question should not be expelled, or even punished by the administration of the University. On the other hand, I fully support any effort on behalf of their fellow students to render them social pariahs. And I think their names should be released.

Edited to add 'adult' before 'members of the NC State...'




Edited 11/13/2008 5:25 pm ET by titania_tantze
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 5:31pm
The NAACP is a series of chapters, and the national... look to the local branches, good people trying to make a difference.

Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)



Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 5:53pm

No, I don't think a statement painted on a wall is considered harassing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 5:55pm

We were discussing the so called *art* displayed at the home of the people that had a Sarah Palin doll in a noose.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-01-2008
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 6:27pm

Pepperz5, you said:


"there are laws which override any "rules" or "policies" which some school/college might choose to have or choose not to have."


titania_tantze, yes I did say that.

 

Pages