RE: Auburn follow-up

>>>>> "jack" == Jack Bornstein <[email protected]> writes:

  jack> I'm new to this group, and this topic is pretty slippery, so
  jack> don't tear me to shreds (please):

Hmm, I fail to see any slipperiness; well, unless you count it as
complex how to cause these idiots to suffer the maximum amount of
social ridicule, shame, and embarassment.

  >> The truth is (or ought to be) an absolute defense against claims
  >> of defamation, I suspect.

  jack> I'm not sure about the legal definition of defamation as
  jack> opposed to libel or slander, but it sounds like a valid case
  jack> to me.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "valid case", but defamation is the (1)
act of harming the reputation of another by (2) making a false
statement (3) to a third person.

The school did (1) and (3) but not (2).

Speaking morally and politically, the school did a *good* by harming
the reputation of these people. And legally if what they said of them
is true, then it isn't defamation.

        I've had only a couple of business law classes, but
  jack> I'm certain that even a preponderance of evidence towards the
  jack> truth is a good defense against libel or slander.

  jack> Now it'll be up to the lawyers to convince the courts whether
  jack> or not the students actually are racist and whether their
  jack> racist actions are protected under the 1st amendment.  

Well, it depends. If the University said these actions were racist,
that's one thing. If it said that the students in question are
themselves racist, that's something else.

I fail to see how the First Amendment is even applicable here. If so,
it's only as a general challenge to a University speech code. If my
memory serves, speech codes have been found to be broadly
constitutional.

        And
  jack> then, whether the school can dole out punishment for these
  jack> actions.  If I was a lawyer on this case I'd make sure the
  jack> term "racist" was strictly defined.

Strictly in what sense? Do you mean specifically or narrowly?

It's pretty hard to imagine, under any reasonable definition of
racism, that having a blackface lynch party *isn't* racist. 

And the University can expel the students for their racist actions
indirectly. In other words, the students racist speech could be
constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean they are
constitutionally protected from acting so as to substantially
increases or create a hostile atmosphere to other people, namely,
African American students, faculty, and staff.

That their actions have that effect is a *no brainer* to show.

  jack> My opinion (not that you asked): The frat boys have a
  jack> constitutional right to be racist. The school has a right to
  jack> dole out punishment to those who violate school policies.
  jack> What I don't see anywhere is what the school's official policy
  jack> is in regards to the frat boys' actions.  If nothing else,
  jack> they should be expelled for sheer stupidity.

No, they should be expelled for the right reason. If Auburn expelled
all its stupid students, it, like every other university, would have a
hard time having any classes make.

Auburn's policies include provisions against harassment and
discrimination. Students should clearly be expelled for harassment and
discrimination. (If I were provost, I'd push for expulsion of every
student who attended party and failed to report it.

  Auburn University will not tolerate discrimination against or
  harassment of its students. Any form of discrimination or harassment
  related to a student's race, color, sex, religion, national origin,
  age, or physical or mental handicap or disability is a violation of
  this policy and will be treated as a disciplinary matter." The
  policy includes a broad definition of harassment, including but not
  limited to "slurs, jokes or other graphic or physical conduct
  related to a student's race, color, sex, religion, national origin,
  age, or physical or mental disability."

The national fraternity makes a good point:

  Wright added that, in addition to the 13 members who were directly
  involved, others stood by and made no attempt to bring a halt to the
  activities. "A culture that allows this type of thing to occur
  cannot be permitted to continue," he said.

A point that applies equally well to all White people.

Kendall Clark
--
"I have always been myself even when I was ill. Only now I seem
myself.  That's the important thing. I have remembered how to seem."
 		--The Madness of King George