RE: RE: Auburn follow-up

BTW, I'm just playing a little bit of devil's advocate here... I really
hope the courts rule in favor of Auburn (if it ever even gets that far)
and that this event heightens public awareness of racism. They'll
probably settle anyway.

Kendall wrote:
>   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.

Agreed.  And legality is what I'm addressing, not morality or politics.
The legality of it is what's "slippery" to _me_.

>         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.

Exactly.  If we're talking about defamation, then we need to know
exactly what the school said about the students, and whether it is true
or not.  

>   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. 

A matter of opinion on "reasonableness" (is that a word?). That's what
lawyers and judges are for. If I were a lawyer for the students, I'd
want the definition to be very narrow. From http://www.dictionary.com:
"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
ability and that a particular race is superior to others." or
"Discrimination or prejudice based on race." That's the only defense I'd
be able to imagine... i.e. that their party was _not_ depicting one of
those specific definitions. If they can show that to be true, then they
can't be defined as racist and hence the defamation charges could be
upheld. 

>   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.

Depends on how you define "stupidity".  I'm sure there are plenty of
low-IQ students who know better than to participate in such an activity.
In this case, if the frat boys didn't understand that their actions were
offensive, then they are simply stupid.

> 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."
> 

Aha... and that's what gives Auburn the right to expel the idiots. Thank
you for finding that. If they find it not to be strictly racist, then at
least it was harassment.

>  "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.

Well, I certainly can't argue against that.

-Jack