Cicero, Amen and amen.

Stephanie, Student at University of Richmond, at 4:00 am EDT on September 11, 2007

What a surprise!

Gee, there are actually students who don’t like a teacher, and say so. All of the comments reported describe what the students would do in preference to attending this TA’s class. So? Where’s the meanness or the harm to the TA? Not every student will love you, or even like you. In my experieence as both a student and a teacher, the real question is —did the people attend class and do the required work ? Particulary for an Intro/core course, there is no real “bond/mentoring/advising” relationship built. I do credit the TA with (based on the reporting) not making a stink about the webgroup herself. But is her college going to retaliate when her first professional journal article is rejected, and they say ” Sorry, we have other pieces we’s reather print?

Richard, East Coast University, at 8:55 am EST on February 14, 2006

Sometimes Litigation Is the Way To Go

I agree with Larry ... and more.

The “Clearly Rachel doesn’t know what she’s doing, ever” Group should sue Syracuse University to force it to make its academic policy explicit in circumstances like this. In addition, Rachel Collins should sue the Group for whatever (you tell me Larry) to force differentiation between “freedom of speech” in an academic setting and slander.

On the “positive” side, the three young women who characterized their own behavior as despicable took the very, very first step in the direction of reparation. They should NOT be congratulated; neither should their acts be forgiven. Admitting their mistake is but the first step in returning to moral decency.

On the negative side, the article states “three of the charged students have said, in retrospect, that they didn’t intend to hurt Collins’s feelings.” After going to the Facebook.com site and reading their comments I can only say that statement is such a disingenuous, disgusting, and outrageous lie, I doubt that I would be inclined to believe anything these young women said ... for a very long time. They intended to hurt her feelings ... and more.

As I recall, Judge Guido Calabresi (2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals) once said about a comparable incident – when he was Dean of the Yale University Law School — “It was tasteless, even disgusting, but that’s beside the point. Free expression is more important than civility in a university.”

I won’t argue with that.

RWH, at 10:00 am EST on February 14, 2006

Why is this Controversial?

Truly ironic; if the professors defending the comments had made any of those comments to each other in a staff meeting, THEY would have been fired. If those comments were made face to face in a local bar, they could have resulted in a fist fight. If the teacher had made similar comments, on a public website, about those very students, SHE would have been fired. If the students had made similar comments about OTHER STUDENTS IN THE CLASS, they would have been kicked out (statements about expectations of respect towards other students are standard in class itineraries handed out at the beginning of the semester). What is remotely controversial about treating 18 year old adults as adults (i.e. punishing them for behaving inappropriately)? I challenge anyone to go into his boss’s office tomorrow, use the insults listed on the website, and still have a job at the end of the day. Being on probation is an onerous burden? Come on.

Steve

Steve, at 10:20 am EST on February 14, 2006

When Danish newspapers published cartoons that were offensive to Muslims, many U.S. newspapers exercised taste and restraint and did not republish the cartoons, even when talking about them. I wish IHE had exercised the same restraint with this story, rather than attaching a PDF that has not only the offensive remarks but also a picture of the TA in question, a teacher who is herself a graduate student and whose privacy has been violated not only by these students but also by some (but fortunately not all) of the newsmedia covering the story. The free speech issues can be debated without inflicting further injury on the teacher.

Rebecca Moore Howard, Associate Professor at Syracuse University, at 10:20 am EST on February 14, 2006

Absurd Line

Mr. Kors:

I find your comments both silly and irrelevant. Silly, because the ‘rational’ line between taking about yeast infections and talking about midget porn or sex with animals simply doesn’t exist. All three are crude and most importantly, gratuitously insulting. Irrelevant, because your personal line carries no more weight than any one else’s. Professor Jones may think yeast infection talk is perfectly fine, but monkey sex isn’t. Professor Smith approves of all three. Janitor Thomas likes the yeast infection talk but hates the midget porn comment. Plumber Johnson hates all three. So what? The line is obviously the crudeness (and valuelessness) of the insult-not the use of the word ‘yeast’ or the use of the word ‘monkey’ or any other arbitrary standard that professor Random may like or dislike.

I repeat: if its a free speech issue, use those comments towards your colleagues, superiors, and the college deans in your next staff meeting. If its a free speech issue, the next time a student calls you a ‘mother fucking racist pig,’ call HIM a ‘mother fucking racist pig’ right back. First Amendment absolutists should do something radical-like read the first amendment. Government restrictions on speech are not synonymous with professional limitations on speech, nor practical limitations on acceptable speech. Learn about the ‘fighting words’ doctrine. Learn why it is the case that if you used that kind of language towards your boss, you would be (legally, constitutionally) fired.

Steve

Steve, at 11:25 am EST on February 14, 2006

Boundaries

This episode illustrates the interesting gap in notions of public & private that operates intergenerationally and probably along other lines. Facebook is an amazing portrait of what kids will permit to be published regarding them and their views. I guess blogs are as well. But the line between what should be said or seen among friends vs. what’s okay for the world to know about you is blurred with those living an online lives.

Awful things are often said about teachers. Way back in undergrad (okayin the “60’s” — such a boomer I am), I did a folklore paper on graffitti around the restrooms in UT’s academic buildings. There was a LOT of anonymous commentary on profs there! Rarely was it complimentary. It certainly shaped my bathroom choices as a faculty member — don’t go where you might have to read about yourself!! Moreover, there’s a grapevine about faculty that we can sometimes tap into via a trusting student — ie, I know who a lot of students hate at TCU and why, Facebook aside.

Finally, as a dept. head, I got the written comments on students’ evaluations of my dept. members, although the policy on disclosing those emerged through a protracted war among faculty.

Having said that, my experience before this new publicly-disclosing generation was that most defamation was either anonymous or private. Not today — if you get on Facebook for your university, a lot of what’s there — most, I guess — is utterly unsurprising, but some of it?? As the campus saying goes: Too Much Information.

I don’t have a clear notion of whether or where the boundaries of propriety ought be drawn at Syracuse or elsewhere, but I do think there’s a bit of sea change on the distinctions between what’s public or private. These kids are Out There — like life is one big Jerry Springer, reality tv show. We’re just going to know more than we might wish. I do, at least.

Mike Sacken, prof of educ at tcu, at 11:41 am EST on February 14, 2006

Grownups have the Internet, too

The fundamental issue, before you get in to debates about free speech vs. harassment, is just how stupid you have to be to form or join a roup like this. Where I teach, there are a few groups like this, though our students are not quite as graphic in their expression. One involves a grad instructor, the other an emeritus colleague. I know some of the students in the “Dr. X sucks” group, who are majors in my field, and I can’t help thinking much less of them for their membership, both in terms of the lack of respect it demonstrates, but more in terms of a failure to understand that this group will be public knowledge. In general Facebook and related technologies seem to be in an intermediate phase where users have not quite figured out public/private issues. I imagine as episodes like this happen, students will wise up and, groups like this, not to mention photos of students holding big fat spliffs, will gradually disappear from Facebook.

ACC Prof, at 1:00 pm EST on February 14, 2006

I’d rather...

I’d rather be forced to lick the inside of a toilet-bowl after a pledge-week frat party while being puked on by three fat Tri-Delts in smelly pleather than have students like this in my classroom!

Of course, if I were to post such “free expressions” on the facebook, complete with names and pictures of my clique-tarded students, I’d fully expect to be fired by the university, sued by the parents, and possibly jumped and beaten by their beer-drenched jock boyfriends. Fortunately for these girls, though, they aren’t held to the same adult standards as their only slightly older TAs. And why should they be? They pay money, right? They have rights, right? They’re free to be stupid, cruel, and insensitive, right, right? Idiots.

Save your righteous outrage and legal tongue-wrangling for someone who’s actually been treated unjustly. If college isn’t the time to learn the consequences of outrageously offensive public behavior, then it’s just an extension of middle school (where these girls apparently still think they reside).

Jack Trades, at 1:45 pm EST on February 14, 2006

Why Facebook is not “free” speech.

What I haven’t seen commented on as yet is the reason Facebook is different from MySpace, or other magnets for obnoxious behavior. Facebook requires students to use their university-assigned email addresses. This means students are also using institutional property (the IT system), owned and maintained by the institution, to transmit their Facebook messages. If I own the property, I can assert my legal right to determine its proper use. I do agree with those who would like to see such institutions more directly inform students of this property right.

Kathy Anderson, Mgr., Diversity & University Compliance at Sonoma State University, at 2:20 pm EST on February 14, 2006

the act was harrassment

The act is harassment. This is more than mean girls bitching about their teacher in the sorority house; they made their comments in a public forum and posted the TA’s picture.

As for the argument of free speech and “well, at least they are writing...,” the students not only committed lible but are guilty of many fallacies of logic and reason. This wasn’t constructive criticism or even just plain criticism. I am happy to hear the students acknowledged that, gosh, what we said was hurtful and mean.

jenna, at 2:50 pm EST on February 14, 2006

STD?

Mr. Kors: You need to review basic medical terminology before defending your still undefensible line in the sand. Yeast infections have absolutely nothing to do with STDs. If ’sexually degrading comments’ are over the line, then all three comments are over the line. If ‘mention of STDs’ are over the line, then none of the comments are.

You are, however, absolutely correct being concerned with a ‘double standard’ being applied. As I mentioned: by using the exact same language: in a professional setting, YOU would be fired, in a classroom, YOU would be fired and THE STUDENTS would be kicked out of the class, in almost any setting, if YOU said the statements to a student, YOU would be fired. Thus, you must be advocating one of two things: either the freshmen women were entirely in bounds to use that language where they did, and that type of language is equally appropriate (or at least protected) in staff meetings, in classrooms, on the street, between student and teachers, and anywhere else such a double standard currently applies, or the limitations on that type of speech are appropriate elsewhere, and thus should be appropriately applied to the three freshmen women. For the life of me, I can’t figure out which of the two you are actually advocating.

Steve

Steve, at 4:05 pm EST on February 14, 2006

Big Disconnect

For me, the alarming thing about this sort of story (which is getting more and more common) is the ethical disconnect on the part of the students. One young “lady” (the term used loosely) laments that the incident will be on her “permanent record.” Well, if one doesn’t wish to be viewed (by possible employees or admissions committees) as a foul-mouthed, insensitive, spoiled ninny then — here’s an idea — don’t be a foul-mouthed, insensitive, spoiled ninny! Why would a student think she has a “right” to be presented in the best light, when, in fact, she has revealed her true face publicly?

Under the first amemdment, they have every right to say these horribly things without GOVERNMENTAL interference. They do not, however, have any right to protection from social consequences.

If you want people to think you are the kind of person they want as part of their business or school, then BE that kind of person. Most cultures throughout the history of humanity have repeated the truism that “as a man does, so is he.”

Cicero, professor of English, at 4:05 pm EST on February 14, 2006

Sexual harassment is not a crime!

Jenna, Let see if I understand your legal analysis. The constitution protects expressions of distaste for things, unless such expressions are made in a “public forum” in which case, such expressions are harassment. I guess this means that everyone that expressed negative views about the president is “harassing” the president, and everyone that expressed negative views about the Supreme Court is harassing the justices in the majority (but not the dissent.) While your view is not supported by the courts (nor can it find support in the text or history of the constitution), it has some appeal because I think that many people on this board, in disagreeing with me, and often attacking my character, are harassing me.

Steve, It is worth noting that while I personally do not like these “girls” unlike the relationship between most bosses and employees, they probably do have a contractual right to continue at a university unless certain procedures are followed.

Rebecca, At first I wasn’t sure what to think. However, now that you have pointed me in the direction of IHE’s reproduction of the website, I disagree with you, and agree that IHE did the world a great serve by letting us make our own judgments about the website, rather than relying on what those whose goose is cooked think of it. I am sorry that you wanted to limit the amount of things I was able to learn, but your goals were thwarted by IHE.

Michael and Jenna, I would appreciate knowing what you consider to be “harassment.” Perhaps you can provide some definitions that are applicable (and constitutionally tested) in a state or two. However, I don’t think that you have such a definition, and, like Rebecca, call any expression that you disagree with “harassment.”

Jacob, As above, these girls, at a minimum, had a contractual right to not certain treatment by their university. Most private universities do not reserve a right to discipline students for comments made about their faculty (which is no accident, but the reasons for this are beyond the scope of this debate.)

Joseph, I don’t think that you understand what “sexual harassment” is in New York State. SH is a form of employment discrimination, in which an employer makes the life of an employee miserable because of their sex. It is based on a state’s civil rights law. It is not a form of rape, nor is it an exception to the first amendment. Ending an argument with the word “period” doesn’t make it more credible or legally correct. So, as much as I would like to, I can’t, as a legal matter, sexually harass you.

Ms. Anderson, While I appreciate that you have been practicing law for 12 years, and I for only almost 11, I think that you may not completely understand the control (or lack thereof) that students have with the schools. Indeed, just having an email address from the school doesn’t give the school the right to control what is sent (or received) at that address. Strangely, I have three.edu addresses, and I have never agreed that the email I sent or receive would be limited. So, perhaps you could give us all some background on how schools (or any provider of email addresses) can restrict what people do with the address.

Larry, at 5:20 pm EST on February 14, 2006

Larry, Oh, Larry...

Larry, why don’t you drop the haughty attitude? Perhaps instead of being snide, you should take a look at how harassment (I never limited my words to “sexual harassment) and First Amendment protections are defined. But alas, I’ll have to do it for you:

The facebook group is clearly in violation of student codes of conduct (as defined by Syracuse University and countless other institutions, public and private), and NOT constitutionally protected speech for several reasons. I will outline five.

1) It violates the Syracuse University Code of Student Conduct, which can be found here:

http://students.syr.edu/judicial/docs/CODE.pdf

Specifically articles 2 & 3, but one could also argue that it violates #7 (use of university photograph w/o permission) #9 (lewd behavior) & 15 (violating the instructor’s privacy, which is in student handbook).

2) It’s clearly aligned to the fighting words doctrine, which defines “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words those which by their very utterance inflict injury...” as NOT protected by the First Amendment. While the Supreme Court has held a narrow view of “fighting words", the very defining factor of “fighting words” is the element of direct address. Significantly, these comments on the site were aimed directly AT the instructor, as evidenced by the continued form of “I’d rather..., Rachel” and the line “Rachel, I’m sorry, but you suck.”

3) The Supreme Court found in Roth v. United States that the test for obscenity was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.” I think it is fair to say that the consistent sexual lewdness within the facebook group would be classified by the average community member as such.

4) According to judgements made in 1988’s Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the “actual malice” standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress, wherein the speaker has “knowledge that the statement was false” or shows “reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.” Clearly Ms Womble’s comment meets this definition.

5) Had Syracuse University done nothing regarding this group, it would clearly be a case of a Prima facie case for sexual harassment, hostile environment.

To be considered sexual harassment in this case, one must be sure “that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment in that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condition of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” (Peiliciotti, 1988).

If you consider a) that this was an active and updated community by the time it was found, and b) the effect this must have had on the instructor after she found out, I don’t think there can be much argument here.

From the wikipedia entry on “Sexual Harassment”

“One law firm with expertise in this field concludes that, to establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, the alleged victim must prove the following five elements:

a. He or she suffered intentional discrimination because of his/her sex. b. The discrimination was pervasive and severe. c. The discrimination detrimentally affected him or her. d. The discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex.e. Management knew about the harassment, or should have known, and did nothing to stop it.”

Regarding these five elements: a) Taking into account how often the lewd comments highlight feminine sexuality or sexual organs, I’d say this is a fit b) No question.c & d) I’m trying to imagine how humiliating it would have to be to face my class the next day as a new teacher. It isn’t a pretty thought.

That means if Syracuse violated E, we would have a textbook case.

Now, you may not think that any one of these individual elements is strong enough to go to court. And that’s fair, that’s what the courts are for. But, taking into account that there is a pretty good argument for violations on FIVE different accounts, I think any reasonable person can see that what these girls published was unacceptable behavior, by any standards, and that Syracuse would have been making a serious error to not step in and use institutional authority to protect the rights of Ms Collins.

Michael, The Rational World, at 8:20 pm EST on February 14, 2006

Nothing illegal happened, Mark

Mark, First of all, Syracuse is a private university and is not directly bound by the constitution itself. Second of all, assuming that it was a public university, just because someone (or some body) decides that some behavior isn’t acceptable wouldn’t mean that the regulation itself is either facially valid, or applied in a valid manner. Third, I don’t think you understand what the “fighting words” doctrine is. If you would, you would have explained a) what it is (citing specific cases); and b) how a website (or any written material) can be a “fighting word.”

Fourth, the “test for obscenity” as you describe it, again, doesn’t “define” obscenity, but rather restricts a state definition of obscenity. You also, didn’t cite the entire definition in Roth (which provides that political, scientific, artistic, etc. speech can never be obscene).

Hustler v. Falwell, held exactly the opposite of what you claim it held. In fact, Hustler, in its parody engaged in protected speech (since it was “opinion” rather than “actual facts.”) In this case, there doesn’t seem to be too many specific allegations that certain things were “true” but rather just general insults, not meant to be taken literally, which are fair game.

Finally, you completely misunderstand the law of sexual harassment. A typical definition (in this case, the one employed by the EEOC) is “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when ... such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.” 29 C.F.R. Part 1604.11(a). This is generally the standard in New York. E.g. Rudow v. New York City Com’n on Human Rights, 123 Misc.2d 709, 474 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (N.Y. Supp. 1984). Under state law, sexual harassment actions are based on N.Y. Executive Law � 296. Likewise, in a typical Sexual harassment case, a plaintiff can prevail because a jury concludes that she “was injured because ‘her workplace was so permeated with discriminatory sexual behavior that was so severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment and created an abusive working environment for her.’” Leibovitz v. New York City Transit Authority, 252 F.3d 179 (2d. Cir. 2001)

Finally, you don’t explain why these statement are “harassment” under New York law. So, I am quite anxious to hear your analysis of how these statements are illegal.

Now, I realize that you have been practicing for 12 years, whereas I am only going on 11, but in these time of global terrorism we must be very careful with our legal terms.

Larry, at 9:05 pm EST on February 14, 2006

The crucial point, I think, is not the fact that the students published these comments on the internet, but the fact that they chose to publish them in a forum specifically aimed at students and staff at Syracuse. By publishing their remarks in Facebook they clearly intended that these remarks would be read by other Syracuse students (and possibly faculty members), people Ms Collins might deal with in the course of her employment. Had they published their comments on a random website or on a personal blog with no connection to the university community there would not be nearly as strong a chance that Ms Collins’ colleagues and other students would view the remarks. They clearly intended to belittle Ms Collins (in an unmistakably sexual way) in a forum which would be viewed by as many members of the Syracuse community as possible. This is not the same thing as a conversation in the corridor or in a dorm room. They wanted to do some damage.

June, at 4:30 am EST on February 15, 2006

Mark, First of all, sexual harassment isn’t a crime. (Though an employer can be subject to civil liability for it.) Second of all, I don’t think that criminal law has any bearing. You mentioned constitutional issues and any such restrictions don’t apply to private institutions. Third, Syracuse may have breached a contract to its students by not telling them, with specificity, what conduct was prohibited (if I ran it, I would prohibit all negative communication about any faculty or staff-member on pain of expulsion, but most schools don’t share my vision) and by now following their own disciplinary procedures.

Larry, at 4:35 am EST on February 15, 2006

Contractual Agreements for Facebook...

TA Collins is not considered a “public figure” is she? So they cannot publish her photo without her knowing, correct? Any thoughts on this...

The facebook contractual agreement states that students are in violation of torts of invasion through publicity which puts someone in a false light to the public and an appropriation of one’s name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.

Facebook also “prohibits” users to upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable;

I think the key phrase is what “we deem” (meaning facebook.) I don’t think that anyone can argue that what was posted by these young students was vulgar and obscene. The problem for facebook is that if it stopped putting vulgar and obscene groups, speech and photos on the site, they would lose members.

I think we need to look more to facebook to take the blame... Facebook needs to do a better job of monitoring the content on their sites. There are tons of cases of Copyright violations and a lot of material that the average person would find vulgar or objectionable.

Ah, technology...

Jen, at 9:40 am EST on February 15, 2006

Two observations:

1) Private universities have the right to place greater restrictions on speech and expression than do state entities. Notice that the students were punished for “violating the school’s Judicial System Handbook". While free expression that is protected by the First Amendment is an immensely valuable thing, and even indispensable to society as a whole, private entities have the right to weigh factors such as emotional harm differently than public entities. Such is the nature of the beast. The students knew this, and chose their actions. It seems to me that they took a gampble and lost. If there is a debate about free expression here, it is about how Syracuse should weigh various factors in determining their rules and punishments — not in whether they had the right to do so under the First Amendment or whether the student’s freedom of speech was abridged.

2) “They didn’t intend to hurt Collins’s feelings", but they’d “rather watch my brother masturbate to midget porn” or “eat all the hair stuck in the drains of the showers” than attend her class. Puhleeze! Such unkind, harsh, crude language used in a public forum (and using their university e-mail addresses) could only be meant to hurt. To pretend otherwise is not only disingenuous, it is outright dishonest. To be frank, I’d respect them more if they admitted what they had done and taken responsibility for it — to me, that would argue for mitigating their punishment. Their attempts at spin control, in my opinion, argue for a greater rather than lesser punishment.

Heather, Librarian, at 12:30 pm EST on February 15, 2006

What a load of self-entitlement

It is important to see the trees AND the forest. First, Syracuse is an expensive, private college between NYC and Buffalo, NY (e.g., nowhere).

Second, the students cited strike me as with a gross sense of entitlement ("Daddy’s paying big bucks, so I should get the best, and if I don’t, I’m going to bitch like hell") that appears epidemic on campuses today, IMHO.

Lastly — imagine you are interviewing these people in a few years, to work for your organization. I can’t think of a single organization that would tolerate that kind of a piss-ant attitude. Great.

R.A.S., at 6:40 pm EST on February 15, 2006

Perhaps the point I was making wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean that a general website or blog is somehow a ‘lower’ form of publication than a Facebook forum and that somehow the comments would be less offensive or serious if published there. It’s got nothing to do with the quality of the publication or how seriously remarks in that publication should be taken. Rather, it’s a question of audience and the intended effect upon that audience. What I mean is that by using Facebook the students are not simply venting steam among themselves, they are making what must be a conscious attempt to ‘recruit’ other students to their group (which would be a much harder thing to achieve with a blog or general website someone would have to be looking for by itself). When I said that they wanted to do some damage, I didn’t mean that they wanted to do damage by merely criticising the TA in a public forum in the way that a pundit would criticise a politician in a public forum. They wanted to do damage by degrading and humiliating the TA in front of other students (People in her workplace), who would then carry their collective little ‘joke’ at the TA’s expense into the classroom, probably treating her with less courtesy and respect as a result and thereby creating a hostile work environment. It’s actually a form of bullying and the use of Facebook allows the students involved to organise and to ensure that they have the numbers in a way that other websites wouldn’t. This is the difference between Facebook and other websites I wanted to highlight- not a difference in quality or ’seriousness’, but a difference in what it enables its users to do. Other websites, because they don’t link users attending a particular school, don’t allow for the same targeted humiliation. Such comments made as gossip in the corridor or among the students themselves would be just as nasty, but, unless the young women involved called a meeting of the students in the class and made the same remarks, you could not argue that there was the same intent to actually organise a group within the classroom hostile to the TA. Also, given that Facebook would be used by faculty and graduate students as well as undergraduates, the students must have been aware that there was a possibility that the TA or another staff member would see their remarks (They even seem to have linked their forum to another forum which has the name of the class in its title). The direct address to the TA in the title and the comments also suggests an awareness of this possibility. Accordingly, the remarks upon the TA’s physical appearance and her body (which no one could seriously classify as a genuine critique of her teaching) are an attempt to intimidate this poor young woman and to shatter her confidence. It would have taken considerable strength of character on her part to continue with the course.Of course students should express their disatisfaction with a particular course or teacher, but mature adults, if unable to speak with the teacher herself, would approach the professor coordinating the course and, if that didn’t work, the head of the department and so on up the food chain.

June, at 8:50 pm EST on February 15, 2006

Jon, Yes, it is a private school. But people keep brining up the First Amendment, so I address their issues. However, even a private school has to abide by its own rules. They went to Syracuse because everyone in their class needs to go to college otherwise they will drop a notch in class rankings.

RAS, Despite my commitment to free expression, I, too, immensely dislike these girls. Not only do they set back the course of feminism 200 years, but they make men hate women.

June, I understood what you said. However, you still have not explained how someone who is not an employer (nor supervised by an employer) can sexually harass someone under New York law regardless of where they publish something. Somewhere along the line, non-lawyers became convinced that sexual harassment is some sort of crime. Anyway, I don’t want to break it to you, but TAs will always be mocked and ridiculed. (Heck, when I found out that a TA was sleeping with undergrads I mocked him.) Likewise, unless you can explain what “form of bullying” is illegal or tortuous, you are just saying “I don’t like what they said.” There is nothing wrong with mocking someone’s physical appearance. It is done all the time. If it wasn’t done, then everyone would get the same amount of dates. There is nothing wrong with eroding a woman’s confidence. It is done all the time. These girls, however, were not mature, but, quite frankly, most girls (especially those in sororities) are not.

Larry, at 6:55 am EST on February 16, 2006

Heather, Let me put it on the table: I intend to hurt your feelings. I think that not only are you are wrong, but you are wrong because you are vague. I also think that you wrongness will never be rectified because it is part of your personalty. There is nothing that I you can do about it. If I said this on Facebook, and if I was a student at Syr, would I have done something wrong? Would this be grounds to conclude that under the terms of my relationship with Syr that I could be expelled or even disciplined? You can refer to Syr’s handbook if you like. (If I didn’t succeed in hurting your feelings, can you pretend that your feelings are hurt, and answer my question.)

One other problem that comes up, is that since scholastic punishments and disciplines of students are required to be disclosed by students (to employer, the government, other schools, etc.) at some point the school might be liable under a tort theory, if it violated its own rules, did acted negligently (which might be shown by, for example, violation of the FERPA or another statute or some regulation), etc. The law on this isn’t quite settled yet, but it is something that administrator have to keep in mind.

Larry, at 2:00 pm EST on February 16, 2006

I just think that one should not be punished for using their freedom of speech rather it be positive or negative. Students have been making rude comments about teachers since the beginning of time; just because of technology doesn’t mean that the students are going to stop doing this. And just because you’re at a private school doesn’t mean that you aren’t intitled to expressing yourself. We all were born with that right, and just because some popular website for college students has been born doesn’t mean it is acceptable for one to impose onto ones bill of rights.

alexis, at 8:20 pm EST on March 2, 2006

STUPIDITY!!

This gang of 12 is showing how inmature they are, and that they really don’t have a clue as to what Facebook actually is. Facebook can be read by ANYBODY and to think that this is their private forum to rant about a TA shows just how inane this bunch is. Go back to your clicks in High Schools girls, and come back when you’re grown up.

FLASHPOINT, at 10:40 am EST on March 8, 2006