K-State student athletes are taking a stand against racism

[short ornery norwegian]

So, here is what the KSU administration could do...

bring in McNeil and tell him: "you have every right to express your opinions. We do not have legal grounds to expel you from school. but we do not believe you are the type of person we want attending our school. We are encouraging you to pursue your education elsewhere. If you choose to return to KSU, that is your choice. But make no mistake, you are not wanted here."

and then, sit back and wait for nature to take its course.
Meaning that sooner or later, someone - possibly a student of color - is going to "convince" the guy to leave campus.

 

[STPGopher]

If Eric Kaler can get up in front of a microphone and insinuate Gopher football players gang raped a woman without evidence or benefit of a conviction and keep his job, face no repercussions, I don’t see how it’s justifiable to pillory someone or expel over a tasteless joke. The U’s official actions vs those men were truly toxic and terror-inducing. STPs suggestion this stupid misstep by a dumb kid creates a hostile atmosphere and students should fear for their lives or livelihoods is ridiculous in comparison.

What I said" While I appreciate your points, I am looking at the impact. I am asking this question, because I don't know the answer. Is the administration able to ask the student to cease and desist? I am trying to sort out where the line is between freedom of speech and offending others. I would think at some point their could be counter charges of the administration failing to provide a safe and stable learning environment. "

For clarity since many here try to twist things, I asked first if the school can ask the student to cease and desist? The second question is where is the line between free speech and offending others. To the second question, there really isn't one. This leads to the thought. Could a University eventually have to deal with counter charges? No, not initially because it is one bad joke that we know of. However the question does still remain. Is a pattern of "tolerated" hate speech enough to change the situation? Is that enough to create problems for the University in question?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I would think however that The University would want to address such issues. Per another post in this thread, It appears that KSU's President felt it was best to get ahead of this by addressing the issue. Even if not satisfactory, the response implies that the University does not condone such rhetoric.

https://knightfoundation.org/articles/universities-must-condemn-hate-speech-without-censorship/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/23/first-amendment-response-first-response-racism-campus

 

[Pompous Elitist]

What I said" While I appreciate your points, I am looking at the impact. I am asking this question, because I don't know the answer. Is the administration able to ask the student to cease and desist? I am trying to sort out where the line is between freedom of speech and offending others. I would think at some point their could be counter charges of the administration failing to provide a safe and stable learning environment. "

For clarity since many here try to twist things, I asked first if the school can ask the student to cease and desist? The second question is where is the line between free speech and offending others. To the second question, there really isn't one. This leads to the thought. Could a University eventually have to deal with counter charges? No, not initially because it is one bad joke that we know of. However the question does still remain. Is a pattern of "tolerated" hate speech enough to change the situation? Is that enough to create problems for the University in question?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I would think however that The University would want to address such issues. Per another post in this thread, It appears that KSU's President felt it was best to get ahead of this by addressing the issue. Even if not satisfactory, the response implies that the University does not condone such rhetoric.

https://knightfoundation.org/articles/universities-must-condemn-hate-speech-without-censorship/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/23/first-amendment-response-first-response-racism-campus

Look, I’m not a fan of disrespectful humor or this guy we’re discussing but I‘d suggest a better strategy consistent with our wide open culture is to embrace diversity of thought, build a thicker skin and coping mechanisms, and for the anxiety prone counseling services and psychological services are available.

 

[STPGopher]

Look, I’m not a fan of disrespectful humor or this guy we’re discussing but I‘d suggest a better strategy consistent with our wide open culture is to embrace diversity of thought, build a thicker skin and coping mechanisms, and for the anxiety prone counseling services and psychological services are available.

I haven't even discussed strategy. The KSU president pretty much answered the questions I was thinking. In summation. He felt there was nothing he could do, but didn't condone the behavior either.

I haven't really followed this particular situation, but i read just enough to think, is this something the school should address? Going out to left field. With social media, It seems like coaches, and administrators are forced to rapidly respond, before the situation dictates the terms.

 

[MennoSota]

So, here is what the KSU administration could do...

bring in McNeil and tell him: "you have every right to express your opinions. We do not have legal grounds to expel you from school. but we do not believe you are the type of person we want attending our school. We are encouraging you to pursue your education elsewhere. If you choose to return to KSU, that is your choice. But make no mistake, you are not wanted here."

and then, sit back and wait for nature to take its course.
Meaning that sooner or later, someone - possibly a student of color - is going to "convince" the guy to leave campus.

Kinda sounds like what the KKK would do.
Use bully and scare tactics to get a person to leave. Shall KSU light up a cross while they are at it?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I haven't even discussed strategy. The KSU president pretty much answered the questions I was thinking. In summation. He felt there was nothing he could do, but didn't condone the behavior either.

I haven't really followed this particular situation, but i read just enough to think, is this something the school should address? Going out to left field. With social media, It seems like coaches, and administrators are forced to rapidly respond, before the situation dictates the terms.

Sometimes time heals wounds that flip reactionary policies cannot. I’m not for enabling the thought police on this issue or any other.

 

[MplsGopher]

The state university would probably be unable to expel the student without violating the First Amendment. According to Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, “A student at a public university making an extremely offensive statement on social media is almost quintessentially the kind of thing that should be protected against sanctioning by public authorities. And sanctioning would include expulsion from a public university.”

Thanks for sharing this one person's opinion.

Granted, this person has more credibility on this topic in their fingernail clippings, than I will have in my entire life.


That said, he's just giving his opinion on what he thinks should be the legal truth. That doesn't make it so.

I've given a rock solid legal argument, 1) showing how landlords are allowed to violate their tenant's 1A "rights", and 2) how the four cited cases don't apply.


K-State would've won a lawsuit. They simply didn't have the balls to do so. That's the long and the short of it -- short like the student's tiny dick.

 

[MplsGopher]

A public university can not create policies that limit speech unless the limitations set are in line with limitations set forth by congress. Even then, if no previous precedent has been set they’d be very challengable.

If a university could set a policy that makes it against policy to say something insensitive about controversial current event topics and then expel students for violating that policy, could another university set a policy that make it a violation to say insensitive things about same sex relations? Could another make a policy making insensitive things about religion violations? Could another university make a policy saying insensitive political speech is banned?

The slippery slope argument isn’t necessarily a great logical argument but it is exactly why the court’s case law precedents would not allow Kansas State to expel that student.
The ACLU agrees with me https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

Again, this was not even close to just presenting an idea.

I would not be challenging the student's right to say something like "I don't agree with BLM", etc. That is a valid expression of ideas.

What he posted was just an attempt to inflict pain and express hatred.

 

[MplsGopher]

Not sure, but to say that his statement proves it was a stretch.

So you have no idea how a thing would be proven, but you're certain that an authoritative figure stating that it was, does not prove it.

In other words, you're just going to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[MplsGopher]

I'm sorry that you can't see how the tweet was intended to be humorous. I think that a large majority of people (whether they think it was a horrible joke or not) can see that it was an attempt at a joke. I fully expect you to ramble about how it wasn't an attempt at humor but I don't know if you realize that you are easily in the minority.

Easily 75%+ (perhaps far closer to 100%) agree with me. No humor in the single line of text, in the slightest. No emoji's or any other signaling of any kind of emotion or humor.

 

[MplsGopher]

Where is the hate in the tweet?

"Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free for an entire month!"

Be honest, grammatically there is no hate there.

You are applying your opinion and your ideological glasses to the tweet. Others, apparently, are also piling on with their prejudice ideology and thus claiming that this tweet is hate speech. Do we give the man an opportunity to explain his 160 or less characters comment, or do we go get a noose, throw it around a tree and hang the bastard? (Yes, I purposely use this harsh imagery, because this is what you and your colleagues are symbolically doing to this young man. It's shameful that such a harsh reaction and mob mentality would rule in a reaction to a less than 160 character comment.)

As others have said, the comment is insensitive to the emotions surrounding George Floyds death. It is not a wise and thoughtful tweet. But, it hardly hate speech.

So anyone is allowed to say anything they want, so long as they use sarcastic, false congratulatory wording?

If your wife was dying of cancer, and someone said "Congrats on getting your wife's life insurance!", you'd just say "good joke! you got me! ho ho!". Bullshit

 

[MplsGopher]

Look, I’m not a fan of disrespectful humor or this guy we’re discussing but I‘d suggest a better strategy consistent with our wide open culture is to embrace diversity of thought, build a thicker skin and coping mechanisms, and for the anxiety prone counseling services and psychological services are available.

I'd suggest this student get ready to be tormented and harassed all semester long.

Why can't he grow a thicker skin??

 

[Some guy]

Again, this was not even close to just presenting an idea.

I would not be challenging the student's right to say something like "I don't agree with BLM", etc. That is a valid expression of ideas.

What he posted was just an attempt to inflict pain and express hatred.

I think you have a very loose definition of hatred.
This tweet was directed at no one (who is alive)

I don’t know Kansas States official policy on hate speech but the case that would be most applicable in my opinion was RAV vs city of St. Paul.
Which says symbols of hate speech can’t be used to punish but could be prosecuted under harassment policies.

Isn’t totally applicable because that is a case against a city ordinance but I would think you’d have to prove to whatever body would hold the expulsion hearing that the guy doing to tweet violated a harassment policy of some sort. It not being directed at anyone very much hurts the ability to expel him for it IMO.

I am no constitutional law expert

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Here's the thing.

From a legal standpoint, I may have the right to make offensive statements.

But as a human being, hopefully I have enough understanding of someone else's point of view so that I do not deliberately say something that I know - or should know - that people will find offensive.

If someone is saying "I have the right to make offensive statements," as far as I am concerned, that person is also saying "I don't give a bleep what anyone else thinks or feels."

And, if you can't make a "joke" without offending someone, you need to work on your sense of humor.
Which reminds me of an Ole and Lena joke..................

 

[Some guy]

Here's the thing.

From a legal standpoint, I may have the right to make offensive statements.

But as a human being, hopefully I have enough understanding of someone else's point of view so that I do not deliberately say something that I know - or should know - that people will find offensive.

If someone is saying "I have the right to make offensive statements," as far as I am concerned, that person is also saying "I don't give a bleep what anyone else thinks or feels."

And, if you can't make a "joke" without offending someone, you need to work on your sense of humor.
Which reminds me of an Ole and Lena joke..................

I don’t think there are many people who would disagree with what you said here. But if the K State athletes are sitting out until expulsion the question of the legality of the expulsion is the question we are asking in this thread.


on a moral level. The guy is probably a bad person off this one event
On an intelligence level. The guy is an idiot IMO.

on a legal level. I don’t think they can expel him.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

As is usually the case with the thought police the reactions are usually more venomous and threatening than the original crime. Speaking of the police we’ve heard much worse threats of harm and hate speech directed their way, often as a group rather than individuals. That’s not very nice or sensible either.

Stamp him with a scarlet letter, shun him from your employment, whatever. Personally I’d like everyone to be more respectful of each other. But, I‘m not sure this meets the level of hate speech or a terroristic threat that should make Black students worry for their safety. Please explain those reactions to me in words a child can understand.

 

[builtbadgers]

As is usually the case with the thought police the reactions are usually more venomous and threatening than the original crime. Speaking of the police we’ve heard much worse threats of harm and hate speech directed their way, often as a group rather than individuals. That’s not very nice or sensible either.

Stamp him with a scarlet letter, shun him from your employment, whatever. Personally I’d like everyone to be more respectful of each other. But, I‘m not sure this meets the level of hate speech or a terroristic threat that should make Black students worry for their safety. Please explain those reactions to me in words a child can understand.

Well said. I hear hate speech towards police, threats of death, threats of burning down the country. Not a fan of the President but celebrities have thrown threats of killing him ! What happened where we decided that hate is a good thing.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

And, if you can't make a "joke" without offending someone, you need to work on your sense of humor.
Which reminds me of an Ole and Lena joke..................

Can you imagine all the ways offense could be taken by the idiocy of Ole and Sven, the manipulative nature of Lena...

On a more serious level Ole and Lena jokes are the product of immigrants from Scandinavia that appropriated American Indian lands under the auspices of the state and federal government and thus are colonialist, racist pieces of heritage as are you and many/most of a good chunk of rural Minnesota. **** the police *** the KKK **** the USA, right? The anniversary of the Minnesota uprising is looming. Could these jokes be upsetting? You betcha. Do we give the land back, issue reparations, move back to Scandinavia or onto reservations? Serious questions to consider.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Can you imagine all the ways offense could be taken by the idiocy of Ole and Sven, the manipulative nature of Lena...

On a more serious level Ole and Lena jokes are the product of immigrants from Scandinavia that appropriated American Indian lands under the auspices of the state and federal government and thus are colonialist, racist pieces of heritage as are you and many/most of a good chunk of rural Minnesota. **** the police *** the KKK **** the USA, right? The anniversary of the Minnesota uprising is looming. Could these jokes be upsetting? You betcha. Do we give the land back, issue reparations, move back to Scandinavia or onto reservations? Serious questions to consider.

Don't want to get too far off track, but as I type this, I am about 40 miles away from "Slaughter Slough," so named because it was the site of some of the first killings in the 1862 Dakota Indian uprising that resulted in the deaths of roughly 500 white settlers and 150 Native Americans. After the Army came in and put down the uprising, 38 Dakota men were hung in a public ceremony in Mankato.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Well said. I hear hate speech towards police, threats of death, threats of burning down the country. Not a fan of the President but celebrities have thrown threats of killing him ! What happened where we decided that hate is a good thing.

It‘s in our nature. And, present throughout world history. But let’s face it, US and world history is full of embarrassing and sometimes reprehensible treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. There are no easy “solutions“ but it’s also not hard to see why history and the USA is viewed differently by some...question is what to do to get to peaceful coexistence when firebrands on both sides are more interested in fanning flames than building pragmatic bridges in an imperfect but mostly civil society. It’s upsetting.

Don't want to get too far off track, but as I type this, I am about 40 miles away from "Slaughter Slough," so named because it was the site of some of the first killings in the 1862 Dakota Indian uprising that resulted in the deaths of roughly 500 white settlers and 150 Native Americans. After the Army came in and put down the uprising, 38 Dakota men were hung in a public ceremony in Mankato.

One of the minuses on Abraham Lincoln’s biography, IIRC. The men were not afforded due process and often convicted on eye witness testimony or less which of course is not ok. Then the native peoples were purged from the state, another small but ugly chapter in human history. OTOH, butchery of the settlers- men, women, children by betrayed and understandably angry Dakota is difficult history to read. As Karl Marlantes said about our repressed animal spirits “it’s in us” when pushed by circumstances

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Found a quote from former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart that sums up what I was trying to say earlier - only more concise.

"Just because someone has the right to do something does not mean that it is the right thing to do."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

“Truth“ and “rightness“ is often in the eye of the beholder. Shall we reopen the Abortion thread?

The question here is whether this is actually a)hate speech and b)protected under the US constitution. Do we want to start censoring anything perceived as remotely offensive? Tread lightly.

 

[Some guy]

“Truth“ and “rightness“ is often in the eye of the beholder. Shall we reopen the Abortion thread?

The question here is whether this is actually a)hate speech and b)protected under the US constitution. Do we want to start censoring anything perceived as remotely offensive? Tread lightly.

Even if it is “hate speech” hate speech is protected speech provided it doesn’t directly threaten someone, directly incite violence, and doesn’t violate harassment laws.
So the discussion of if it is hate speech is irrelevant

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Even if it is “hate speech” hate speech is protected speech provided it doesn’t directly threaten someone, directly incite violence, and doesn’t violate harassment laws.
So the discussion of if it is hate speech is irrelevant

The devil is in the details on the bolded, any my point stands.

 

[Some guy]

The devil is in the details on the bolded, any my point stands.

It’s really not. The Supreme Court precedents have generally been lenient towards the person who’s speech is in question.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

There appears to be some confusion out there, then.

 

[MennoSota]

So anyone is allowed to say anything they want, so long as they use sarcastic, false congratulatory wording?

If your wife was dying of cancer, and someone said "Congrats on getting your wife's life insurance!", you'd just say "good joke! you got me! ho ho!". Bullshit

It depends on how I interpret the comment and the context in which it is said. Would I call for that person to lose his job and be blacklisted for his comment? No.

Therein lies the difference. I choose grace. You choose vengeance.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I'd suggest this student get ready to be tormented and harassed all semester long.

Why can't he grow a thicker skin??

As long as it’s in the form of non-racial tasteless jokes regarding his bad habits or other shortcomings I guess they’re even?

The fact some of you are advocating harassment and in some cases physical harm or torture is troubling.

 

[Herd]

Be the death of George Floyd was terrible, tragic, awful. Hope his killer receives justice.

However the MSM trying to paint Floyd as Saint was rather sickening also. A bad criminal with 5 trips to the joint and terrible displays of human behavior, gun incident with pregnant woman was almost as bad as what one cop did to him. This kid was clearly reacting to MSM white washing of Floyd’s criminal past. (Clearly the context behind his tweet)

K State tell him he’s not welcome?? No, not in America. I Don't agree with that at all. Calm the hell down people.

 

[WriterGoph]

Be the death of George Floyd was terrible, tragic, awful. Hope his killer receives justice.

However the MSM trying to paint Floyd as Saint was rather sickening also. A bad criminal with 5 trips to the joint and terrible displays of human behavior, gun incident with pregnant woman was almost as bad as what one cop did to him. This kid was clearly reacting to MSM white washing of Floyd’s criminal past. (Clearly the context behind his tweet)

K State tell him he’s not welcome?? No, not in America. I Don't agree with that at all. Calm the hell down people.

It's pretty standard that people don't run through a person's lowlights after their death. Nothing to do with MSM. have you ever gone to a funeral and someone said "he was a nice guy, but he had two DUIs" or "yeah, but he had a nasty coke habit."

My good friend was killed when she was hit by two cars crossing the street. She also happened to be intoxicated and took a bad step into the crosswalk. Did she deserve to die cause she was drunk? Do you think when I gave the eulogy, I said "Damn her for having a .15 BAC!" Get serious, man.

That's just not how death and remembering people works in this country. But yeah SURE it's the media because that's what fits your narrative.

Or maybe it's simply that the way George Floyd died had nothing to do with his past. You don't get to kill someone and then say "Oh, he deserved it for what he did 10 years ago."