Monthly Archives: April 2015

UMD campus outraged over offensive email
The University of Maryland #39;s president says a student #39;s racist and sexist email to fraternity brothers was "hateful and reprehensible," but it #39;s protected by the First Amendment and doesn #39;t...

By: ABC7 WJLA

More here:
UMD campus outraged over offensive email - Video

By Bruce Barry April 2 at 10:45 AM

A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days over Indianas new religious objection law. Some business owners say they need to safeguard First Amendment rights to religious expression, while opponents vilify it as a pretext for discrimination. Rather fewer people pay attention to the rights of business employees to express their beliefs. What happened recently to Shanna Tippen of Pine Bluff, Ark. reminds us that most American workers dont have a right to express themselves without being fired.

Tippen, a minimum wage motel employee at a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, agreed to be interviewed for a Washington Post story in mid-February about Arkansas newly enacted 25-cent minimum wage hike and its effect on the working poor. Tippen shared some details of her challenging household economics with The Posts Chico Harland, and also mentioned that she was one of the many who signed petitions to get the minimum wage hike on the Arkansas ballot last year.

This week brought a dispiriting follow-up story: Tippen called Harlan to share the news that she was fired by the owner of the motel for talking to The Post. Realizing that journalists often run the risk of unintentionally influencing events in a story they cover, Harlan lamented that writing about Tippens plight may have made her situation worse.

[After a story is published, a minimum wage worker loses her job]

Harlan heard a different story from the Days Inns general manager Herry Patel, who claims that Tippen wasnt fired, but instead walked out after a disagreement. However, Patel had also called Tippen stupid for talking to The Post, had told Harlan that he thought the wage hike was bad for Arkansas because everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff, and subsequently threatened Harlan with a lawsuit if the story ran. Even if the general managers story is as he claims it is, the more important point about American law is that he could have fired Tippen for talking to The Post, with no legal repercussions.

Many people assume that First Amendment rights to free expression should insulate them from punishment by their employer for speech off the job that has little or nothing to do with work. In one national survey, 96 percent said firing a worker for expressing political views with which the employer disagrees with is unacceptable. Unfortunately, many workers mistakenly assume that unacceptable equals protection: in that same survey, 80 percent said (incorrectly) that its illegal to fire someone for expressing contrary political views.

The employment-at-will system that dominates labor law in the U.S. lets an employer fire a worker for just about any reason (or no reason) without legal liability. There are several exceptions, most notably bans on discrimination, as well as employment contracts that limit causes for termination. There is also a public policy exceptionwhich suggests that workers should not be subject to a punitive action by an employer that would be an affront to public interest. For example, workers should not be fired for refusing to commit perjury at their employers request or for taking time off for jury duty. It would violate the public interest if employees could be fired for doing these things.

Arkansas is an employment-at-will state, along with every other state except (oddly) Montana. Shanna Tippen, like most American workers is employed at-will, which means that she can be fired for expressing an opinion to a reporter or to a friend or a stranger or a brick wall for that matter. She would have some protectionand possibly a wrongful termination claimif she had a public sector job. In the private sector, however, First Amendment rights for individual workers to keep their jobs dont exist.

The most plausible reason that most Americans disapprove of firing people for their political views and indeed believe that it is illegal is that they think that free expression is in the public interest. Healthy democracy should allow people to engage in politics and say what they like without fearing that they will lose their jobs for saying something that their employer doesnt like. There are a few states where political activity does get some protection from an employers wrath, even in the private sector. California, for instance, bars employers from restricting or controlling workers political activity off the job. A few states have broad-based lifestyle discrimination statutes preventing employers for penalizing workers for anything they do off the job that is legal, as long as it doesnt create a conflict of interest or hamper the employees ability to do the job. Unfortunately, Tippen doesnt live in one of those states, so if she was fired for talking to a reporter about her life on the minimum wage and her views on the law, she has no recourse.

See more here:
Monkey Cage: Businesses First Amendment rights dont extend to their employees

TIME U.S. Education University of Maryland Wont Expel Student Who Sent Racist, Sexist Email John GreimLightRocket via Getty Images McKeldin Library and fountain, University of Maryland. Concluded that email was protected by First Amendment, in contrast to other schools dealing with similar incidents

The University of Marylands president has decided not to expel a student for sending an email to his fraternity brothers filled with racist and misogynistic content.

The university learned of the explicit email, sent by a Kappa Sigma fraternity member, in March as it went viral online. The school launched an investigation through the universitys Office of Civil Rights and Sexual Misconduct and the campus and local police, but concluded Wednesday that this private email, while hateful and reprehensible, did not violate University policies and is protected by the First Amendment.

The response stands in contrast to how some other universities have handled recent, high profile incidents involving fraternity members and racist and sexist speech. The University of Oklahoma quickly expelled two students in March who were shown in a viral video of a group of SAE fraternity members singing a racist chant on a chartered bus. A few days later, a fraternity chapter at Pennsylvania State University was suspended after members allegedly operated a Facebook page collecting pictures of nude, unconscious women.

But the University of Maryland has taken a slightly different approach, focusing on rehabilitation and education in dealing with a somewhat similar situation. On Wednesday, university president Wallace D. Loh sent a note to the campus community explaining the results of the investigation and the decision not to expel. Quoting Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, he urged students who were harmed by the hateful speech to think in terms of restorative justice rather than legal justice.

When any one of us is harmed by the hateful speech of another, all of us are harmed, Loh wrote. We repair the harm to our community, in part, by restoring the wrongdoer as a responsible member of society. I appeal to the better angels of our nature and ask all members of our University community to join me in forgiving him in our hearts, not for his sake, but for our own.

The student will not return to campus this semester, and will perform community service as well as participate in individualized training in diversity and cultural competence. In an apology released by the university, the student wrote: Im committed to being a better person, a person that appreciates differences.

The University of Oklahoma came under fire from civil liberties advocates after its March expulsions, who said they had violated the free speech rights of the students. Federal law prohibits schools from failing to address behavior serious enough to create a hostile environment for a member of a protected class, such as a woman or a minority student.

Go here to see the original:
University of Maryland Wont Expel Student Who Sent Racist, Sexist Email

MILLER PLACE, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) A Long Island teen claims his First Amendment rights were violated when he was punished by school administrators for a line he ad-libbed during the schools variety show.

Kyle Vetrano, the student body president of Miller Place High School, plans to sue the school district.

On March 26, during the first of two performances, Vetrano ad-libbed one line in a skit aboutthe schools new policy restricting bathroom use to one student at a time, according to attorney John Ray.

He merely said Is this what our superintendent gets paid all that money for, to write bathroom policy? Ray said, adding that the annual show traditionally pokes fun at teachers and school policies.

Vetrano was then excluded from the variety show weekend and school property, Ray said. He was also threatened by school officials that his senior year would be curtailed and ruined.

Vetrano has been vocal about the situation on Twitter.

Chanting free Kyle and free speech, dozens of students and parents rallied in support of Vetrano on Thursday afternoon, 1010 WINS Mona Rivera reported.

I was singled out, I was attacked, and I just have one question for the district:Why?' Vetrano said.

I ad-libbed and improvised a joke that had absolutely no mal-intent behind it, Vetrano added. It was completely humorous and satirical in nature, and because of that, I am being violated and embarrassed by my own school district that I have been a resident of my entire life. I feel personally bullied by the district, and I think I have a right to speak my mind. I dont think this is acceptable in the country that we live in.

Superintendent of Schools Marianne F. Higuera explained that skits must be submitted in writing and approved before the show and a person whose name is being used in a skit, either directly or implied, must give prior permission.

Read the original:
L.I. Students Bathroom Joke Prompts First Amendment Fight

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (WJZ) A racist, sexist email sent by a fraternity member on the University of Maryland campus was protected under the First Amendment, the university concluded in a recent investigation.

As Tracey Leong reports, the student who wrote the email could come back to campus and some students are uncomfortable with that.

Students gathered Thursday at a town hall on campus to discuss the letter and the universitys findings.

In a letter Wednesday, President Wallace Loh addressed the university community stating that officials had concluded an investigation into a an abhorrent email that was racist, sexist, and misogynist in condoning non-consensual sexual conduct that was sent more than a year ago, but was recently brought to the attention of campus leaders.

The email, which was written by a Kappa Sigma fraternity member, was sent to other members of the fraternity.

In the letter, Loh said:

The investigators interviewed many individuals and reviewed other information. They focused not only on the content of the message but also on the factual circumstances of time, place, manner, and effects of the message. They found no subsequent conduct by anyone that raised safety concerns.

They concluded that this private email, while hateful and reprehensible, did not violate University policies and is protected by the First Amendment. Following consultation with the Universitys General Counsel, I accepted the conclusions of this independent investigation that was carried out in accordance with due process.

However, this determination does not mitigate the fact that the email is profoundly hurtful to the entire University community. It caused anger and anguish, pain and fear, among many people. It subverts our core values of inclusivity, human dignity, safety, and mutual respect. When any one of us is harmed by the hateful speech of another, all of us are harmed.

Loh said he met with the student and his parents and the student did apologize for his behavior, saying:

Link:
UMd. Investigation Concludes Offensive Email Protected By First Amendment