Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

It's when one's input in that marketplace of ideas gets a line of special snowflakes demanding someone be fired that it's a problem.

Then... again, you have a significantly larger problem than colleges. That happens pretty much literally everywhere. In stores, in schools, in government positions, in the military, bloody everywhere. Good gods, that shit gets people thrown out of homes by way of intrafamily conflict. And all of that has been happening longer than either of us have been alive. Combined. It isn't even remotely some kind of phenomena related to a particular side of the political spectrum or a particular arena, either; social dislike leading to career consequences is friggin' endemic. It's largely why you be polite in the first ruddy place.

It's... also not something that's going to go away so long as we're even remotely human. Personality and idea conflicts leading to issues in cooperation means that there's obviously going to be any number of social and more-than-social pressures to keep that shit under wraps.

Seems you do have a problem with all of it, though, which is fair enough. Just a little odd you seem to be singling out college arbitration in particular as a major issue on that front, y'know? There's a hella' lot more people operating under company codes of conduct, ferex, which is usually even harsher and often has less recourse to boot, while still having the same problems re: potentially false claims.

[Strife26]

Out of Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Out of the wikipedia page for said court case, outlining the Tinker test that determines when schools can stop students from wearing black armbands.

The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

[Strife26]

It's when one's input in that marketplace of ideas gets a line of special snowflakes demanding someone be fired that it's a problem.

Then... again, you have a significantly larger problem than colleges. That happens pretty much literally everywhere. In stores, in schools, in government positions, in the military, bloody everywhere. Good gods, that shit gets people thrown out of homes by way of intrafamily conflict. And all of that has been happening longer than either of us have been alive. Combined. It isn't even remotely some kind of phenomena related to a particular side of the political spectrum or a particular arena, either; social dislike leading to career consequences is friggin' endemic. It's largely why you be polite in the first ruddy place.

It's... also not something that's going to go away so long as we're even remotely human. Personality and idea conflicts leading to issues in cooperation means that there's obviously going to be any number of social and more-than-social pressures to keep that shit under wraps.

Seems you do have a problem with all of it, though, which is fair enough. Just a little odd you seem to be singling out college arbitration in particular as a major issue on that front, y'know? There's a hella' lot more people operating under company codes of conduct, ferex, which is usually even harsher and often has less recourse to boot, while still having the same problems re: potentially false claims.

That's not completely true. My landlord can't kick me out over what I post on here without other reason, I can't be fired, I can't be arrested. All the social consequences in the world are perfectly kosher. If everyone feels like unfriending me, it's my own fault for digging the hole.

[mainiac]

Pretty much. Don't you?

That seems cynical and bad to me.

Okay, so I can mark you down as "pro-witch-hunt," then?

That would be about as silly as me marking you down as pro-rape.

Okay, so I can mark you down for "Wall Street has natural right to crash economy and ruin lives," then? I mean, are you suggesting folks should have to be proven guilty of breaking laws that don't exist, before new laws can be written, then?

I'm starting to sense a pattern here.

You can see the difference, yes?

Yes, one is a belief that you, Shadowlord, agree with.  The other is a belief you do not.

1st amendment protects freedom of speech against government censorship. Filing title IX complaints over speech would appear to fall under that, would it not?

No, not remotely.  Proving the existence of some abuses is not remotely sufficient to condemn all uses.

If you want to say that freedom of speech is complex and that you have concerns that you believe should be honestly debated that would be great.  But if you want to condemn all of title IX in this fashion you really dont get this free speech thing.

That's not completely true. My landlord can't kick me out over what I post on here without other reason, I can't be fired, I can't be arrested. All the social consequences in the world are perfectly kosher. If everyone feels like unfriending me, it's my own fault for digging the hole.

I have been fired for discussing socialism in a positive light without realizing my boss was evesdropping.  What do you think my odds would have been if I took my boss to court?

[Strife26]

Yeah, the system sucks. Welcome to cynicism, enjoy your stay.

[Frumple]

That's not completely true. My landlord can't kick me out over what I post on here without other reason, I can't be fired, I can't be arrested. All the social consequences in the world are perfectly kosher. If everyone feels like unfriending me, it's my own fault for digging the hole.

You must not live in an at-will employment state. Good for you :V

Never. Move.

Must have damn good renter's protection, too, or at least paid close attention to the contract.

Also I'm pretty sure there actually is a number of things you could post here that'd get you arrested. Just throwing that out there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think the central issue about it is that private bodies should not be allowed to set up courts. This also applies to the corporate world, with many trans-national companies pushing for their own independent arbitration system for some time now.

[Strife26]

I'm doubly at-willed employed, contract employment in Texas, actually.


But yeah, the main thrust of my original posting was what MSH said.

[Frumple]

Well sure, MSH. These school arbitration courts have no legal jurisdiction, so far as I'm aware? They can't put someone in jail, can't really fine someone (though the student's contract with the school probably does lock them into being legally culpable for any monetary reparations decided on, to some degree), so on, so forth. The extent of the power they have over a student is what that student contractually agreed to, no more, and no less.

If that's untrue, this'd be the first I've heard of it. Also very, very strange, and something I'd pretty easily agree is bullshit and should stop.

[Strife26]

They can do all sorts of destructive things to you, pocket your tuition, put a permanent red letter on your transcript, suspend you for ten years to avoid expelling, put enough information out about you to give you a permanent red letter for anyone doing due diligence to see.

[Frumple]

... well yeah. This is why you pay attention to what contracts you sign.

[mainiac]

I think the central issue about it is that private bodies should not be allowed to set up courts. This also applies to the corporate world, with many trans-national companies pushing for their own independent arbitration system for some time now.

I find your use of the word "courts" to be dangerously vague.  It seems like you have a simple solution but that's just because you hid all the complexity and ugliness in that innocuous looking word.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

[mainiac]

This is no time to be making enemies?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think the central issue about it is that private bodies should not be allowed to set up courts. This also applies to the corporate world, with many trans-national companies pushing for their own independent arbitration system for some time now.

I find your use of the word "courts" to be dangerously vague.  It seems like you have a simple solution but that's just because you hid all the complexity and ugliness in that innocuous looking word.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

Court, (n.); A system that judges the existence, culpability, and results of infractions of some or all forms of law.

"Colleges should not be allowed to set up their own courts." -MetalSlimeHunt

[Strife26]

... well yeah. This is why you pay attention to what contracts you sign.

Anyone who fully reads and understands everything in the  contracts they sign is either and idiot or a liar.

Regardless, there's a legally established principle that a contract that lacks basic fairness isn't enforceable or allowable.


There's a also a big gulf between what is, what should and what could. I've got a bad habit of wandering between them in my rhetoric.