Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (100579)	2/15/2005 12:59:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

<<Furthermore, FIRE pointed out that Le Moyne’s acceptance letter to McConnell stated that his academic performance, not his personal beliefs, would be the determining factor as to whether he was allowed to continue with the master’s program.>> Does this not strange to you? "Dear Karen, we are pleased to accept you into our graduate program. Please be assured that your continuation in this program will be determined by your academic performance, not your personal beliefs. Yours truly..." Surely that's not their standard form letter. Doesn't that suggest some pre-existing condition relevant to this individual?

To: LindyBill who wrote (100579)	2/15/2005 5:14:11 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793755

In New York it is illegal to use corporal discipline. To have a student say that he is in support of an illegal practice, and to do nothing about it, would probably bring liability on the school, when the school knew or had reason to know that the student supported the illegal conduct. It's too bad the school waited so long. What if this student had suggested that getting the kids loaded was something he supported (also illegal), or that he was in favor of sexually touching the kids? Now you may think that corporal punishment should be legal, but while it is illegal, it would be a problem for any college to support a student, who will be working in the schools, who is in favor of an illegal action (imo). This decision has a lot to do with the incurring of liability for illegal conduct, imo, and very little to do with free speech. The result may chill the free speech of students to speak out in support of illegal conduct, but I doubt the reason for the decision was to suppress the speech. And if he hit some kid in school, and the parents sued, and you found out the college knew about his opinions, how would you come down on that?