Op Ed by Incoming MU Student

[Hards Alumni]

I appreciate you recognizing the discrimination conservatives will face during the hiring process.  I've always thought liberals were open-minded, tolerant, compassionate, empathetic. The liberal party is rapidly devolving into fascism, racism, intolerance, and anything other than open-mindedness.  What's sad is many intelligent liberals are getting manipulated by the fringe, radical, confused, and uneducated, youthful faction of their party.

Youth is the hallmark of folly.  With age comes wisdom.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

Frothing at the mouth again, eh?

[Disco Hippie]

Marquette really handled this well.  I have no idea what you expected the University to do to manage this.

And not using Marquette's "imagery?"  How are you going to enforce that?

It never should have been a local story, let alone a national one.   If they didn't react they way they did, it most likely wouldn't have been either so from where I sit, that this was a story at all means they didn't manage it correctly.

As for the imagery issue, I understand there's no way to enforce that and acknowledged in my original post that in and of itself could be an infringement of some kind I'm not sure, but brands frequently send cease and desist letters when their marks are used inappropriately so thought there may be an angle there but not being an attorney, I have no idea just speculating.   

My point is MU should not have immediately caved to the student mob nor should they have even hinted at rescinding admission to this student.  That's what caused this incoming student to go national.   If they had just said to this incoming student, we as an institution remain neutral and would appreciate you not mentioning us or wearing our gear in your posts, regardless of whether you're a Trump or Biden supporter, I'm guessing that would have been it.  I could wrong and this incoming student may just be an agitator and would have gone national with it anyway, but I'd bet if MU just said that it would not have escalated to anywhere near the degree it did, if at all.  Again could be way off on that, but that's what my gut says.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It never should have been a local story, let alone a national one.   If they didn't react they way they did, it most likely wouldn't have been either so from where I sit, that this was a story at all means they didn't manage it correctly.

Sorry but my understanding is that some of the stuff she posted was pretty questionable.  They have to follow that up.

My point is MU should not have immediately caved to the student mob nor should they have even hinted at rescinding admission to this student.  That's what caused this incoming student to go national.   If they had just said to this incoming student, we as an institution remain neutral and would appreciate you not mentioning us or wearing our gear in your posts, regardless of whether you're a Trump or Biden supporter, I'm guessing that would have been it.  I could wrong and this incoming student may just be an agitator and would have gone national with it anyway, but I'd bet if MU just said that it would not have escalated to anywhere near the degree it did, if at all.  Again could be way off on that, but that's what my gut says.

It really hasn't "gone national."  It is being reported in fringe circles, but will likely just wash away when the next victimization story arises somewhere.

It isn't a big deal.

[Billy Hoyle]

It never should have been a local story, let alone a national one.   If they didn't react they way they did, it most likely wouldn't have been either so from where I sit, that this was a story at all means they didn't manage it correctly.

As for the imagery issue, I understand there's no way to enforce that and acknowledged in my original post that in and of itself could be an infringement of some kind I'm not sure, but brands frequently send cease and desist letters when their marks are used inappropriately so thought there may be an angle there but not being an attorney, I have no idea just speculating.   

My point is MU should not have immediately caved to the student mob nor should they have even hinted at rescinding admission to this student. That's what caused this incoming student to go national.   If they had just said to this incoming student, we as an institution remain neutral and would appreciate you not mentioning us or wearing our gear in your posts, regardless of whether you're a Trump or Biden supporter, I'm guessing that would have been it.  I could wrong and this incoming student may just be an agitator and would have gone national with it anyway, but I'd bet if MU just said that it would not have escalated to anywhere near the degree it did, if at all.  Again could be way off on that, but that's what my gut says.

do we have proof, other than her comments, that MU even threatened to legitimately revoke her admission?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The liberal party is rapidly devolving into fascism, racism,

So true, as Americans we must come together and demand that President Biden remove the unidentified federal thugs that he has sent into cities to enforce his liberal agenda and stop supporting tiki torch bearing white nationalists as well as remove them from his staff in the West Wing!

[Pakuni]

It never should have been a local story, let alone a national one.   If they didn't react they way they did, it most likely wouldn't have been either so from where I sit, that this was a story at all means they didn't manage it correctly.

Just so we're clear, your logic goes something like:
1. Incoming student makes questionable remarks in a public forum
2. Marquette has a private conversation with that student about her remarks
3. Incoming student then makes public comments about that private conversation.
4. It's Marquette's fault any of this went public.

Makes perfect sense to me!

[Pakuni]

I appreciate you recognizing the discrimination conservatives will face during the hiring process.  I've always thought liberals were open-minded, tolerant, compassionate, empathetic. The liberal party is rapidly devolving into fascism, racism, intolerance, and anything other than open-mindedness.  What's sad is many intelligent liberals are getting manipulated by the fringe, radical, confused, and uneducated, youthful faction of their party.

Youth is the hallmark of folly.  With age comes wisdom.

When it comes to matters of racism and fascism, I defer to your expertise.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Disco Hippie,

I don't think you are aware of some of the legal obligations that MU is under. Once the second student reported an allegation of harassment based on a protected class, MU is obligated to respond. They don't have an option not to. Now, if the allegation was simply "this incoming student supports Trump therefore they're a bigot" then MU could have dismissed it outright as baseless. But if the report was an allegation that the incoming student was harassing people based on a protected class (and keep in mind that June's supreme court decision just added sexual orientation and gender identity as federally protected classes), then MU is obligated to provide some sort of remedy. I can personally attest that MU's remedy of a meeting with a university administrator to have a reflective conversation about some of the potential impacts of the student's words is considered best practice for these types of allegations. Its what we do here at TAMU and I posted an article in the other thread on this topic about how University of Arizona handles these cases in the exact same way.

I don't know the details of the meeting between the incoming student and the dean. It's possible that the meeting could have been handled better. But other than that, I don't think Marquette could have handled this situation any differently. They provided an educational remedy for an allegation of harassment based on a protected class that didn't involve punishing a student for free speech. Unfortunately, I think no matter what remedy MU went with, this student was going to use it to martyr herself and extend her 15 minutes of fame. The second that the second student submitted the complaint to MU, all roads led to exactly where we are now.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I appreciate you recognizing the discrimination conservatives will face during the hiring process.  I've always thought liberals were open-minded, tolerant, compassionate, empathetic. The liberal party is rapidly devolving into fascism, racism, intolerance, and anything other than open-mindedness.  What's sad is many intelligent liberals are getting manipulated by the fringe, radical, confused, and uneducated, youthful faction of their party.

Youth is the hallmark of folly.  With age comes wisdom.

Ners,

She will have difficulty applying for jobs with a lot of employers in a few years. It has nothing to do with her political affiliation. It has everything to do with companies wanting to hire people who can handle themselves professionally online. Hopefully, she learns from this and finds a company willing to give her a chance to show that she's grown and matured.

A case I handled at TAMU a while back comes to mind. We had a student who got into a twitter fight with a bunch of people over his political beliefs. He was far far off on the left side of the deep end and made some very unfortunate comments. It was enough that if you type in his name to google some really unflattering articles come up. The following year he came to us and claimed that he was being retaliated against by several student organizations because he had been blackballed from all of them. During the course of that allegation, he also mentioned that he was having trouble landing internships and at least one of them had told him that he wasn't hired because they found the articles. We ended up dismissing his retaliation claim because political affiliation isn't a protected class...and neither is people who say dumb things on the internet. We did connect him to a career counselor to help him work on mitigating the impacts of his past actions.

[Uncle Rico]

I bet President Trump can dunk a basketball

[Jockey]

I bet President Trump can dunk a basketball

He can recognize an elephant, so dunking a basketball is a pretty logical assumption.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I bet President Trump can dunk a basketball

Like no one has ever seen before. Except when Ners is guarding him.

[Elonsmusk]

Ners,

She will have difficulty applying for jobs with a lot of employers in a few years. It has nothing to do with her political affiliation. It has everything to do with companies wanting to hire people who can handle themselves professionally online. Hopefully, she learns from this and finds a company willing to give her a chance to show that she's grown and matured.

A case I handled at TAMU a while back comes to mind. We had a student who got into a twitter fight with a bunch of people over his political beliefs. He was far far off on the left side of the deep end and made some very unfortunate comments. It was enough that if you type in his name to google some really unflattering articles come up. The following year he came to us and claimed that he was being retaliated against by several student organizations because he had been blackballed from all of them. During the course of that allegation, he also mentioned that he was having trouble landing internships and at least one of them had told him that he wasn't hired because they found the articles. We ended up dismissing his retaliation claim because political affiliation isn't a protected class...and neither is people who say dumb things on the internet. We did connect him to a career counselor to help him work on mitigating the impacts of his past actions.

What about how people conduct themselves in the real world?  You know, as far as vandalizing private property, lighting things on fire, etc.?  What about conduct as it relates to committing crime, felonies?  Should employers take those things into consideration too?

In this case, her content was espousing her political viewpoint. It is no different than a student with a different viewpoint espousing theirs.  Remember, half the country finds the radical, socialist, violent, deterioration of the Democratic party offensive.  Should such a young "activist" on that side of the equation also have to have their admission reconsidered?

[Elonsmusk]

Like no one has ever seen before. Except when Ners is guarding him.

I agree with this analysis.  Well done, as well as the usage of "like no one has ever seen before."

As for Uncle Rico?  Per usual is on the struggle bus.  Few things more lame than somebody who thinks they are clever and funny, yet so often comes up empty.

[Hards Alumni]

What about how people conduct themselves in the real world?  You know, as far as vandalizing private property, lighting things on fire, etc.?  What about conduct as it relates to committing crime, felonies?  Should employers take those things into consideration too?

In this case, her content was espousing her political viewpoint. It is no different than a student with a different viewpoint espousing theirs.  Remember, half the country finds the radical, socialist, violent, deterioration of the Democratic party offensive.  Should such a young "activist" on that side of the equation also have to have their admission reconsidered?

Yes, of course.  Good lord.

[Uncle Rico]

I agree with this analysis.  Well done, as well as the usage of "like no one has ever seen before."

As for Uncle Rico?  Per usual is on the struggle bus.  Few things more lame than somebody who thinks they are clever and funny, yet so often comes up empty.

 Zing!

[Disco Hippie]

Disco Hippie,

I don't think you are aware of some of the legal obligations that MU is under. Once the second student reported an allegation of harassment based on a protected class, MU is obligated to respond. They don't have an option not to. Now, if the allegation was simply "this incoming student supports Trump therefore they're a bigot" then MU could have dismissed it outright as baseless. But if the report was an allegation that the incoming student was harassing people based on a protected class (and keep in mind that June's supreme court decision just added sexual orientation and gender identity as federally protected classes), then MU is obligated to provide some sort of remedy. I can personally attest that MU's remedy of a meeting with a university administrator to have a reflective conversation about some of the potential impacts of the student's words is considered best practice for these types of allegations. Its what we do here at TAMU and I posted an article in the other thread on this topic about how University of Arizona handles these cases in the exact same way.

I don't know the details of the meeting between the incoming student and the dean. It's possible that the meeting could have been handled better. But other than that, I don't think Marquette could have handled this situation any differently. They provided an educational remedy for an allegation of harassment based on a protected class that didn't involve punishing a student for free speech. Unfortunately, I think no matter what remedy MU went with, this student was going to use it to martyr herself and extend her 15 minutes of fame. The second that the second student submitted the complaint to MU, all roads led to exactly where we are now.

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation TAMU.  As I said I'm not an attorney and clearly don't understand everything institutions must go through from a legal standpoint once a claim has been made against a protective class.  I guess it's just surprising to me that incoming students are treated as students even though they technically aren't yet and some of these kids are still 17.   

What's most surprising to me is that this was generic social media post that allegedly made some  harassing statements against a protected class but not to a specific individual within that class.  My understanding is that complainant didn't even know this person and no individual contact was made between either of the two.  They just saw the post and brought it to the university's attention.  I could be wrong but that's my understanding.

That to me, is a very different situation than a harassment claim aimed at a specific individual at a campus party for example.  I get that the law may not distinguish between those two scenarios but I think it should.   Unfortunately what I think doesn't matter, It just pains me to see our mutual alma-mater dragged into these issues.  Thanks again for your perspective.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What about how people conduct themselves in the real world?  You know, as far as vandalizing private property, lighting things on fire, etc.?  What about conduct as it relates to committing crime, felonies?  Should employers take those things into consideration too?

What? Of course, has anyone here suggested otherwise? Also:

In this case, her content was espousing her political viewpoint. It is no different than a student with a different viewpoint espousing theirs.  Remember, half the country finds the radical, socialist, violent, deterioration of the Democratic party offensive.  Should such a young "activist" on that side of the equation also have to have their admission reconsidered?

Her admission wasn't being reconsidered. She had to have a meeting with a university administrator where he asked her reflective questions about the potential impacts of her words on herself and others. As an employer I would look at her reaction to this and wonder if I would ever be able to give her constructive feedback because instead of reflecting, she is playing the martyr and blaming everyone but herself.

And no, half the country does not find the democratic party offensive. Half the country might lean more to the right then the left (though what that meant yesterday is not the same as it is today), but most moderates and conservatives (and liberals for that matter) I know disagree with but are not offended by someone who has a different political viewpoint then them. But yes, there is a population of snowflakes out there who can't stand someone having a different opinion than them.

[Billy Hoyle]

What about how people conduct themselves in the real world?  You know, as far as vandalizing private property, lighting things on fire, etc.?  What about conduct as it relates to committing crime, felonies?  Should employers take those things into consideration too?

In this case, her content was espousing her political viewpoint. It is no different than a student with a different viewpoint espousing theirs.  Remember, half the country finds the radical, socialist, violent, deterioration of the Democratic party offensive. Should such a young "activist" on that side of the equation also have to have their admission reconsidered?

As much as you want it to be the rioters hate Democrats (and future President Biden) as much as they hate Republicans. The only difference is they haven’t tried to hijack the GOP and been rebuffed multiple times.

[dgies9156]

I'm guessing the truth to this situation is somewhere in the middle between the young woman and the university.

TAMU is absolutely correct about the legal niceties associated with this incident. There's certain things a university can and can't do and it has to stay within the bounds of reasonable, consistent practice.

Second, there's a lesson to be learned in all this. Social media never goes away. Twenty years from now, this woman may be applying for a job, up for a partnership or a Managing Directorship or something else special and this thing pops up. In a tight decision, this kind of stuff may matter. It shouldn't but it does.

In short, you probably want to be careful posting about politics, social views and so forth. What you believe in at 18 may not what you believe in years from now and the last thing one needs is to have someone dredge up a youthful moment. This 40 year old woman may well say, "you have got to be kidding...."

[MU82]

What about conduct as it relates to committing crime, felonies?  Should employers take those things into consideration too?

It's sweet that you are concerned about the futures of convicted felon Roger Stone and admitted criminal Michael Flynn.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation TAMU.  As I said I'm not an attorney and clearly don't understand everything institutions must go through from a legal standpoint once a claim has been made against a protective class.  I guess it's just surprising to me that incoming students are treated as students even though they technically aren't yet and some of these kids are still 17.   

What's most surprising to me is that this was generic social media post that allegedly made some  harassing statements against a protected class but not to a specific individual within that class.  My understanding is that complainant didn't even know this person and no individual contact was made between either of the two.  They just saw the post and brought it to the university's attention.  I could be wrong but that's my understanding.

That to me, is a very different situation than a harassment claim aimed at a specific individual at a campus party for example.  I get that the law may not distinguish between those two scenarios but I think it should.   Unfortunately what I think doesn't matter, It just pains me to see our mutual alma-mater dragged into these issues.  Thanks again for your perspective.

In this context, courts have ruled that a student becomes a student once they accept their offer of admission. I have always thought that was an odd and somewhat arbitrary standard but that's the standard that we have to use.

You are correct that there is a very big difference between generic hate speech posted online and harassment directed at a specific individual. Before I go any further, I need to give the caveat that I don't know MU's specific civil rights rules/policies. All universities must comply with Title VII which they do by creating their own internal rules/policies. In general, these policies are pretty uniform between universities, the specific legalese changes along with some details but in general they say the same thing. And MU as a private institution has a lot more leeway to play with the definition of free speech than my employer does as a public institution. The important thing is, a university must follow its own written policy. You color outside the lines on a case and that is the quickest way to get yourself dinged by the courts.

Back to the difference between generic and targeted harassment. Under most (all?) university civil rights policies, generic harassment would never rise to the level of a substantiated finding of harassment against the respondent (which is what is required for any sort of university sanctions or punishment). However, depending on how your policy is written, that doesn't mean a university can just dismiss an allegation outright. The complainant is owed a certain amount of due process which again depending on how the policy is written, could mean weeks or even months of investigation/adjudication.

Alternatively, most university policies allow for an informal process where the respondent is not given any sort of sanction but instead they resolve the situation through mediation, education, or some other alternative solution. That's how MU handled this specific situation and how most universities handle these situations. The most important thing is that the university is showing consistency in how they remedy these allegations. The safest thing to do when someone makes an allegation like this is to offer an informal remedy. That way the university can say that they properly addressed the allegation in a way consistent with their policy and they can avoid any free speech issues because no formal action is taken against the respondent.

Unfortunately, these informal processes don't come with a gag order. So while most respondents will take their lumps, reflect on their actions (or at least pretend to in front of the university administrator), and move on, the snowiest of the snowflakes will use it as an opportunity to become a false martyr and create a headache for the university.

I agree with you, it's annoying to see MU dragged into this. But we are in good company. Pretty much every research 1 institution has had at least one of these stories make its way into the local news-cycle since George Floyd was murdered. For what it is worth, part of my weekly team meeting is pulling stories like this out of the news and discussing them as case studies. No one on my team had heard about this situation until I brought it up. I also subscribe to half a dozen or so various listservs dedicated to Title VII, Title IX, University Law, etc that send me articles every day to read. To date, none of them have sent me any articles about this (and they do send articles from every persuasion, campus reform pops up a lot, the occasional breitbart). So while this story is very relevant and pervasive to us, I'm not certain it has that much reach. Small comforts.

[NorthernDancerColt]

It's sweet that you are concerned about the futures of convicted felon Roger Stone and admitted criminal Michael Flynn.

“admitted criminal” = bc he was critical of his former boss indiscriminately killing Moslems with raids and drone strikes, and just maybe that boss didn’t like someone under him exposing hypocrisy.

And then that same boss advises the incoming administration not to further employ Flynn because he’s “dangerous”  due to harsh anti-Islam statements ....even though HE is the one who criticized Obama for growing the Jihadist insurgency with the aforementioned raids and ever-burgeoning drone strikes against Moslems, including American citizens.

“admitted criminal”= bc the FBI overstepped its bounds and sneakily led him to believe an interview/interrogation was SOP for the FBI when a new administration takes over. They were blatantly trying to trip up the new administration, while silencing someone who could embarrass the former President. As much of an ass as Trump is, a smooth transition/ handoff is always the goal of the outgoing administration. Not this one. Comey has admitted to laughing at how easy it was to grill Flynn.

“admitted criminal”  because he DID have normal talks with Russian emissaries, but was loyal to the President-Elect given the extent to which the media would continue to beat down on his new boss if Flynn admitted discussions. (He was wrong and admitted as much).

By all accounts, Gen Flynn was always a somewhat stoic, well-reasoned General known for prudent, data-driven leadership. What changed recently to make him partisan? Maybe his experiences changed him and lit a fire under and within him. Maybe some things came to light under the employ of the previous administration. Maybe that explains the mysterious disdain Obama had for Flynn.

While I would agree with those who question Flynn’s “folk hero” status, one cannot question his valiant heroism on the battlefield itself. In Grenada, when two fellow soldiers were seen and heard struggling in deep water, Gen Flynn dove off a 40 foot cliff and saved their lives. (I know I know...cue the “easy” war comments).

I’m sorry, but “admitted criminal” holds no water when a phony dossier was created by a corrupt far-reaching deep state to frame an incoming team. Dan Bongino was a left-leaning independent when he started working security detail for Hillary Clinton. Now he posts a daily Twitter message announcing the date and referencing the corruption of his former employers. Hmmm I wonder what persuades these people to become so passionate on the other side?

If one of your kids were unfairly called to the discipline dean’s office because of a personal vendetta against her or even you, would you be quick to agree with the label of “liar” or “criminal” for your kid when he/she refuses to give the ammunition the interrogators want in order to frame you?

Look, I’m not defending the way some fools on the right treated President Obama. He endured downright nasty, racist attacks all the time. He handled everything with dignity. However, if you can’t see the tendency toward misuse of power here, I don’t know what to say.  Using the IRS to punish organizations opposed to your politics?! Using the FBI to spy on a campaign as an insurance policy?!

I wouldn’t wait in a line to get Gen. Michael Flynn’s autograph.
I wouldn’t call him a “criminal” either.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I agree with you, it's annoying to see MU dragged into this. But we are in good company. Pretty much every research 1 institution has had at least one of these stories make its way into the local news-cycle since George Floyd was murdered. For what it is worth, part of my weekly team meeting is pulling stories like this out of the news and discussing them as case studies. No one on my team had heard about this situation until I brought it up. I also subscribe to half a dozen or so various listservs dedicated to Title VII, Title IX, University Law, etc that send me articles every day to read. To date, none of them have sent me any articles about this (and they do send articles from every persuasion, campus reform pops up a lot, the occasional breitbart). So while this story is very relevant and pervasive to us, I'm not certain it has that much reach. Small comforts.

Yep.  Every school gets dragged into stuff these days.  People get excited but move on pretty quickly. 

[Anti-Dentite]

It's sweet that you are concerned about the futures of convicted felon Roger Stone and admitted criminal Michael Flynn.

Dipping your toe into Ban Lake to see how warm it is are you?