I read the article twice but could not understand exactly what the students did, or what the university did. Language here is puzzling. What actually happened? Well I will not find out here. I am trying to discern whether the university was “disproportionate,” or not. That is another new long word I just learnt. (We are getting too fancy to communicate.)

puzzled, at 7:50 am EDT on August 16, 2006

Rules Typical In The Workplace

The rules of harassment at Georgia Tech are normal rules across the country in working environments. Most companies “protect” their workers from harassment by fellow workers with similar or indentical rules that step on the rights of other workers. Are those companies violating free speech? I’ve always thought so.And to the last commentor, the word is learned, not learnt.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 8:00 am EDT on August 16, 2006

W-H-A-T!?!

“The rules of harassment at Georgia Tech are normal rules across the country in working environments ..”

Oh, yes .. how true. College campuses are just like corporate America. And Grover Furr and Ward Churchill are really VPs of Marketing. And we know where pigs fly out of.

Thanks for the laugh.

L.L., at 8:35 am EDT on August 16, 2006

How true... having worked in both worlds, corporate America is a far more open and free environment than the Ivory Tower.

K.T., at 9:30 am EDT on August 16, 2006

Craig, I think you misunderstand the law of sexual harassment. Again, I lack the qualifications to be a pundit like you, but here goes. Rules against sexual harassment directed at students create a constitutional problem which few people want to address.

Unlike assault or other violence, sexual harassment is not a crime. To sue an entity for sexual harassment, a plaintiff must claim (under a common law contract theory or a civil rights statute) that they were, in effect, discriminated against because of their sex.

The problem is that unless someone is acting on behalf of the school or the school is showing deliberate indifference to actual violence, then there isn’t a tort being committed.

This goes even further. If a person has a dirty picture in his cubical at work, and people see it, there may be a valid claim for sexual harassment. Not against the cubical-dweller, but against the employer, directly. However, where a person’s activities enjoy some constitutional protection, such as in the home (or even in some barracks or dormitories) a public entity cannot prevent people from feeling uncomfortable because of their gender. While the Republicans heart was in the right place, they seem to care more about protecting their own silly bake sale then they do actual substantive constitutional rights of others. In fact, I think their settlement is short-sighted. But, whatever. There will be other plaintiffs. Of course, you might not like them, Craig.

KT, To say that “Private universities may generally censor students, at will” is a bit of an overstatement. Students enjoy various contractual rights vis-� -vis the University which at most schools usually parallel their First Amendment rights.

And, while we are on the subject, why didn’t the Republicans push for a change to the “no displays of swastikas” rule. After all, the swastikas is a symbol. It conveys a message. Sure, it is a very hateful message, but it was the symbol of a political party which has a platform, leadership, and all that stuff we seem to love.

Larry, at 10:40 am EDT on August 16, 2006

The two women in this case were and are repeatedly harassed and threatened on campus with violence by those who claim to be “tolerant,” including hate-filled speech about their ethnicity and their appearance. What’s more, they are prohibited from exercising the same rights as other groups. The media (excluding IHE) may spin this story all they want, but they don’t know what’s really going on there and what these ladies are facing. I urge readers to find out what is really going on at GT.

Anonymous, at 2:15 pm EDT on August 16, 2006

Its a sad day when in the 21st century we are still scratching our heads about conduct in a public institution. Of course we should protect the First Ammendment, but many of the posts here seem to be more interested in the right to b!@#ch undisturbed by other people’s rights to a safe environment. While I, too, disagree with the wording in the Georgia Tech laws, it seems to me that very EXPLICIT rules of conduct were necessary to secure a positive environment for the “others.” Its all really pathetic. We still can’t figure it out can we.

None, Sad day, at 8:55 pm EDT on August 16, 2006

Is that really Hollander?

Are you really Hollander or did you just use his name? Hmmm....Either way, I thought your comment was amusing. :)

Mindy, at 4:40 am EDT on August 17, 2006

Larry:

Perhaps you can answer a question. In my various law classes (as part of a Ph.D. program, not J.D.), we read numerous cases that academic freedom belongs to the institution and not faculty members. The extension to faculty members is at the pleasure of the institution (through policies, etc.). I mentioned this a couple days ago in a meeting with faculty and you would have thought I said armageddon was upon us. True, false, somewhere in between?

[And, it is religious institutions where I am most accustomed to no such policies. More specifically (and hypothetically), why should a private muslim university have to put up with cartoons defaming allah, a christian university have to tolerate speech advocating acceptance of homosexuality, or a private institution dedicated to diversity have to tolerate hate speech.]

K.T., at 4:30 pm EDT on August 17, 2006

Vagina monologues protesting

KT., You might not even get this as it’s been a long time since the last posting here!

For the sake of first hand historical accuracy:

The vagina monologues were protested INSIDE a public building, the GT Campus Center, in a window display immediately adjacent to the window display for the Vagina Monologues. They were as close together as you are to your computer screen, and right inside the public building.

On one panel you could read about all the nice young women in the play, and on the adjacent panel, you could read about how those nice young women were demeaning all the other nice young women in the world.

By the way, the show was great.

shawn, senior engineer, at 11:05 pm EST on December 7, 2006