Posts Tagged ‘colleges and universities’

Campus sex “blueprint”: a convenient typo?

Defending the Obama administration’s new rules governing discipline at colleges and universities, ThinkProgress makes it all sound more reasonable by erroneously reporting that the crackdown is on “unwanted contact”; the actual phrase is “unwanted conduct,” with “verbal conduct,” i.e. speech, very much part of that [Will Creeley, FIRE]

In the July Commentary I have an article on the controversy over the new blueprint (“Sentence First, Verdict Afterward“). It’s behind a paywall, but you can purchase it individually, or better yet subscribe to Commentary which is full of other great articles as well.

Filed under: colleges and universities, harassment law, WO writings

The Court’s latest on affirmative action

My colleagues Roger Pilon and Ilya Shapiro (and more) analyze the Supreme Court’s unexpectedly narrow 7-1 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, and Stuart Taylor, Jr. and Richard Sander also write about the case for USA Today. More: Ilya Somin.

Filed under: colleges and universities, discrimination law, Supreme Court

Intellectual property roundup

“Make patent trolls pay in court” [Judge Randall Rader, Colleen Chien, and David Hricik, NYT]
“Let’s play”: Nintendo claims “monetization rights” to fans’ videos on YouTube [Doctorow, BoingBoing]
I only read it for the cease and desist notices: University of Kansas lawyers go after Twitter feed featuring suggestive display of university licensed apparel [Gawker]
Alleged misdeeds of Prenda Law just got even stranger [Mike Masnick, TechDirt, earlier; Nate Anderson ArsTechnica] Piling up statutory damages, experimental suit-filing, cost infliction? Copyright mills like Prenda didn’t invent any of that [Mitch Stoltz, EFF]
“Here’s the Chipotle Ramen Concept Lawsuit, in Full” [Eater]
“Help the EFF save podcasting from a patent troll” [Mark Frauenfelder]
Semi-defense of Craigslist suits against competitors [Jerry Brito]

Filed under: colleges and universities, copyright, Craigslist, intellectual property, Kansas, loser pays, patent trolls, videogames, YouTube

Schools roundup

Chilling one side of a debate? American Federation of Teachers arm-twists board members to quit groups critical of union contracts (including the Manhattan Institute, with which I used to be affiliated) [New York Post, Bloomberg, Ira Stoll]
“Third Circuit Finds Schools Aren’t Liable for Bullies” [Fed Soc Blog]
Case dismissed in Marshall University student’s suit over exceedingly undignified bottle-rocket stunt [West Virginia Record]
Free pass for harming students? Realistic policy call? Both? Courts frown on “educational malpractice” claims vs. schools, teachers [Illinois State Bar Association; Beck]
Brookings has very poor reviews for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s student loan plan [Matthew Chingos and Beth Akers; Megan McArdle]
1,200 sign Harvard petition assailing academic freedom in Jason Richwine case [Boston Globe]
College selection of commencement speakers: political spectrum’s so skewed that even moderate GOPer Bob Zoellick’s a no-go [Bainbridge]
The Common Good online forum on risk and legal fear in schools, in which I’m a participant, continues for another day or two.

Filed under: bullying, colleges and universities, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard, labor unions, Manhattan Institute, schools

“Goodbye, pretty much every work of literature ever.”

Alexandra Petri dissects the new federal campus speech and discipline code [Washington Post]:

Forget history (too much sex there, and such unenlightened attitudes towards women). Forget pretty much anything by the ancient authors, especially the “Iliad.” …

Maybe that guy who replaces all the plots of classic literature with zombies can get a job going through these great books and removing all the allusions to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature with zombies….

It is vital that campus administrators take sexual assault and sexual harassment seriously. But is diluting the label of sexual harassment really the way to go?

More: Peter Wood/Minding the Campus. Earlier here, here, etc.

Filed under: colleges and universities, hostile environment, sexual assault

After furor, feds walk back campus speech/discipline code a bit

Following a widespread outcry, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights appears to be backtracking a bit in its very ambitious “blueprint” which colleges and universities must follow in the name of combating sexual assault. In particular, it now says it does not intend to require universities to punish speech and other conduct that is not objectively offensive, or that is too trivial or transitory to create a “hostile environment” as defined by court precedent. However, it does continue to insist that such behavior is “harassment” and that schools must make it “reportable,” that is, be willing to open grievance and complaint processes to document it. This is really no more acceptable than its first position, for reasons outlined by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has been following the issue. [FIRE, more, Robby Soave]

I’ve got an article on the controversy due to appear in a forthcoming issue of Commentary. Earlier here, here, and here.

More: Rob Jenkins in Chronicle of Higher Education on “Purging My Syllabus.”

Filed under: colleges and universities, free speech, hostile environment, sexual assault

Furor continues over federal campus speech code

George Will:

When the Education Department was created in 1980 (Jimmy Carter’s payment to the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, for its first presidential endorsement), conservatives warned that it would be used for ideological aggression to break state and local schools to the federal saddle. … Most of academia’s leadership is too invertebrate and too soggy with political correctness to fight the OCR-DOJ mischief. But someone will. And it is so patently unconstitutional that it will be swiftly swatted down by the courts.

Hans Bader in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

In a guide to help colleges comply with Title IX, the Education Department has stated that “conduct of a sexual nature” includes many kinds of speech, such as “circulating or showing e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature,” “displaying or distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials,” and “telling sexual or dirty jokes.” …

The government says the narrower definition of harassment laid down by the courts [i.e., liability only for failing to act against conduct that is “severe” and objectively offensive] applies only in sexual-harassment lawsuits, not in its Title IX investigations or the standard colleges must apply to their students or faculty. Colleges must declare “any unwelcome conduct” to be a reportable offense.

William Creeley, FIRE:

Unlike the 2001 Guidance [from OCR], the “blueprint” requires the broad definition to be adopted verbatim as university policy. …

Here’s why mandating this new distinction [between “hostile environment” and sexual harassment more generally] is important — and why it harms student and faculty rights. By separating “sexual harassment” from “hostile environment” harassment, OCR has also separated “sexual harassment” from the set of evaluative factors it uses to determine whether a hostile environment has been created. These factors include whether the conduct affected a student’s education, whether the conduct was part of a pattern of behavior, the identity of and relationship between the individuals involved, the context of the conduct, and more. By reviewing these and other factors to determine whether conduct created a hostile environment—and was thus sexual harassment—schools were able to separate truly harassing conduct from merely offensive or unwanted speech.

Earlier here and here.

Filed under: colleges and universities, free speech, hostile environment

Rather die than be a girl?

Cathy Young checks out a much-told anecdote of misogyny, and finds that there isn’t much there. [Minding the Campus]

Filed under: colleges and universities

Schools roundup

More commentators weigh in on the truly horrible new federal campus speech and discipline code [Harvey Silverglate /Juliana DeVries, Minding the Campus; Wendy Kaminer, The Atlantic; Will Creeley, HuffPo; Scott Greenfield; Reason TV; my two cents] More: Greg Lukianoff, WSJ.
Feds: states must impose extensive disability-rights regime — including obligations to accept students with difficult accommodation needs — on private/religious schools participating in voucher programs [Bagenstos, Disability Law; Ramesh Ponnuru (noting that loading new regulatory burdens onto private and religious schools may not be displeasing to school choice opponents in the administration)] NYC’s famous selective/performance schools obliged to take special ed kids who can’t meet standard entrance or audition requirements [Inside Schools]
Volunteer-led school band survives shutdown attempt by Oregon teachers’ union [Katherine Mangu-Ward]
AFT: donate to groups that oppose our aims, and we’ll see that you pay [Jason Bedrick, Cato]
Chicago: “Teachers union plans to file civil rights suits to stop school closings” [Chicago Tribune]
Newly passed Minnesota “anti-bullying” law will expand state control over local schools [Pioneer Press] Court proceedings over alleged taunting and insults proliferate under New Jersey’s law [Star-Ledger via Reason]
“Graduates, your ambition is the problem” [Roger Pilon on the president’s Ohio State commencement address]

Filed under: Barack Obama, bullying, Chicago, colleges and universities, disability & schools, labor unions, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, schools

Feds unveil new, drastically restrictive, campus speech regime

FIRE, Hans Bader, Eugene Volokh and other free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about remarkable and extreme guidelines on university discipline emanating from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and Education Department Office of Civil Rights. I’ve got more details at Cato at Liberty. Earlier here, here, etc.

Filed under: colleges and universities, harassment law, hostile environment