harassment for free speech?

[RichD]

I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.

If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.

The Congress is a legislative body. Their purview is limited to their constitutional duty. There's no rationale to haul anyone in for
confessional sessions, to demand that the schools suppress
unpopular views. What law have they violated?

What if the university bureaucrats simply refused to comply, for
these reasons?

--
Rich

[Rick]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:7538ea01-4c11-4fd5...@googlegroups.com...

Any school that receives federal funding is fair game to be called in to
testify about their policies. In this case, the schools were asked why
speech calling for violence against Jews did not fall under their
anti-bullying policies. All three presidents spectacularly fumbled their
responses and one has now resigned.

--

[John Levine]

According to RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com>:

>I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
>
>If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
>spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
>have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
>threats are made.

The three schools in question are all private, so the First Amendment
does not apply. Many people have pointed out that if the events were
at Bunker Hill Community College, a short subway ride from Harvard or
MIT, the 1st would indeed apply since it's a state school.

In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
While their answers were correct, sheesh, for a bunch of people
with fancy graduate degrees they sure did a terrible job of telling
their stories.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[Rick]

"John Levine" wrote in message news:uld7gv$2dck$4...@gal.iecc.com...

Even some private schools receive federal grants and other funding, which is
why they all agreed to testify.

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/elite-universities-collected-45-billion-in-taxpayer-funds-since-2018-watchdog-says-ivy-league-dartmouth-harvard-stanford-northwestern-academia

And the issue wasn't simply whether free speech rules apply, but whether the
schools were administering their anti-bullying polices consistently.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 12 Dec 2023 22:09:20 -0800 (PST), RichD

<r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.

I was asking myself that too, but the news reminded me about what I had
forgotten, that in return for federal money, colleges are bound to ...
and I don't know the terminology here, but it includes what the
committee is investigating.

>
>If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
>spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
>have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
>threats are made.
>
>The Congress is a legislative body. Their purview is limited to their constitutional duty.

All of this is covered by the need to do investigation in order to write
the proper laws. Your point is raised occasionally wrt many topics,
since 19early, especially when somone's own ox is being gored, but I
don't think it ever succeeds

In this case I suppose they would say they are trying to decide if the
strings they put on colleges are correct or if the sanctions possible
are correct, and if any should be amended.

> There's no rationale to haul anyone in for
>confessional sessions, to demand that the schools suppress
>unpopular views. What law have they violated?
>
>What if the university bureaucrats simply refused to comply, for
>these reasons?

Some or all of their own boards of directors, faculty, students, donors
would not like that. Plus contempt of Congress.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:25:48 -0800 (PST), "John

Levine" <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>According to RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com>:
>>I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>>the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
>>
>>If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
>>spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
>>have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
>>threats are made.
>
>The three schools in question are all private, so the First Amendment
>does not apply. Many people have pointed out that if the events were
>at Bunker Hill Community College, a short subway ride from Harvard or
>MIT, the 1st would indeed apply since it's a state school.
>
>In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
>setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
>While their answers were correct,

I don't think their answers were correct. They spoke as if they were
the defense attorneys for people calling for genocide, and did not utter
a syllable of their school's or their own personal condemnation of such
things.

They applied the same standard a US judge would apply but the standards
of a university can be stricter. In fact from what I hear, they had
been stricter in the fairly recent past when other groups were attacked
verbally, but now when it's Jews who feel in actual danger, they chose
this time to emphasize free speech. Can you say double standard?

The congressional testimony fallowed months of complaints by Jews and
and inaction by the colleges.

Especially McGill, who is a lawyer and on the law faculty, didn't
remember what her role was now and answered like a lawyer and not like a
representative of her school.

> sheesh, for a bunch of people
>with fancy graduate degrees they sure did a terrible job of telling
>their stories.

True.

[Rick]

"micky" wrote in message news:420pnitq8nsmrivun...@4ax.com...

It's not just that McGill is a lawyer, but that all three were probably
over-prepared by lawyers. When going before Congress and, effectively, the
American public, they would have been a lot better served if they'd been
prepared by PR people. I think when you are questioned by politicians in a
public forum, you have to effectively think and speak like a politician.

--

[Mikey]

On 2023-12-13, RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.

Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment. These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech
and all activities on their private property.

[Rick]

"Mikey" wrote in message news:kucmak...@mid.individual.net...

Absolutely true - but because they receive some federal funding, Congress
does have a legitimate right to question them about their practices.

--

[RichD]

On December 18, Mikey wrote:
>> I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
>
> Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
> harassment.

Hauling them into a Congressional hearing for questioning
without cause is harassment.

> These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech
> and all activities on their private property.

Right, and that's the point. No cause.

Though as mentioned elsewhere, they sold their birthright long
ago for tax loot - MIT gets $400 million per terrestrial orbit - so
have to grovel.

"Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains
set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
- Sam Adams

--
Rich

[RichD]

On December 15, micky wrote:
>>> I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>>> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
>>> If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
>>> spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
>>> have to permit this, what else can they do?
>

>> In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
>> setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
>

> They applied the same standard a US judge would apply but the standards
> of a university can be stricter. In fact from what I hear, they had
> been stricter in the fairly recent past when other groups were attacked
> verbally, but now when it's Jews who feel in actual danger, they chose
> this time to emphasize free speech. Can you say double standard?

"Ms. Prez, how would Harvard handle a case of Euro-American students
calling for the roundup of Afro-Americans, and shipping them back to Africa,
in the name of justice, to right a historical wrong?"
"We would absolutely forbid that. We consider feelings first, much higher
than facts or opinions, thus we cannot allow anyone to be offended.
Persons of color, above all. The college experience should be a time of
security and self-esteem, not disruption."

"In Huckleberry Finn, widely considered a classic of literature, 'nigger'
appears on every page... nigger nigger nigger, much like today's rap
music. Does the English Dept. include that on its recommended reading list?"
"Of course we deplore that. In case it's studied, we present it in historical
racist context, as further proof that Columbus' landing in Cuba was the
worst disaster that that ever hit Mother Earth. For students suffering
acute ethnosensitivity, we offer printed editions where 'Afro-American'
replaces that obscenity everywhere."

"And what if a mob were calling for genocide of jews?"
"At Harvard, we do not suppress free expression of ideas, especially
if those ideas represent strong sincere feelings. Any censorship
would stunt the intellectual and emotional growth of the children."

--
Rich

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:18:55 -0800 (PST),

I've noticed in Usenet that even when people are agreeing with the
poster they are responding to, they often sound like they are
disagreeing.

Here is a partial example. Partial only because of the first 2
agreeable words, but the third word is 'but'. A more logical word here
would be 'and', but I think people on Usenet are in the mood to argue.

Changing and to but, just a one word change, seems like the most common
way people appear to show disagreement even when they are agreeing.

Perhaps it's the combative nature of Usenet, or the times.

I wonder if courtrooms show the same thing.

[Rick]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:86adcb7e-1ed2-44b9...@googlegroups.com...

It's also kind of funny when educational officials advocate complete free
expression of ideas and feelings - even if they involve the most radical
political views and revolutionary thoughts - but not if they involves thing
likes fat-shaming or improper use of pronouns.

--

[Rick]

"micky" wrote in message news:kg44oihbrpteskakc...@4ax.com...

I disagree that in this case a more logical word would be "and". In this
case, the "Absolutely true" indicates I agree with the point that these are
private schools and can regulate speech as they wish on private property.
The "but" is a signal that I am adding an additional point - namely that the
schools receive some federal funding - which gives Congress the right to
question them about it. Had I used "and" in place of "but" it would have
implied that the second part of the post was just a continuation of the
first and in this case it wasn't.

--

[Rick]

"Rick" wrote in message news:ulv3vr$kcu0$1...@dont-email.me...

I should have added that my response above probably supports the notion that
Usenet is inherently combative.

--

[RichD]

On December 15,  micky wrote:

> I don't think their answers were correct. They spoke as if they were
> the defense attorneys for people calling for genocide,

> The congressional testimony fallowed months of complaints by Jews and
> and inaction by the colleges.

Sam Goldman faces a mob at Harvard calling for jewish blood.  He feels
threatened, he recalls similar nazi mobs in Germany (jews are haunted by that),
he's thin skinned about death threats.  He pulls a bat and cracks a few skulls.

This being Massachusetts, not Texas, he's arrested.  He naturally claims self
defense.  How does that go?   Maybe he wins, maybe not, depending on the
jury?  Does the judge matter?

--
Rich

[Barry Gold]

On 12/19/2023 9:55 PM, RichD wrote:
> On December 18, Mikey wrote:
>>> I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass
>>> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
>> Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
>> harassment.
> Hauling them into a Congressional hearing for questioning
> without cause is harassment.

It is not "without cause". These universities (which receive significant
amounts of federal funds) forbid the use of words like "n----r" or the
use of the wrong pronoun when dealing with a trans student, but
apparently have no problem with "k-ke" or with groups of students
calling for mass murder of Jews.

Even if they weren't accepting federal money, Congress would have the
right to summon them and ask them questions. They could refuse to
answer, of course. "Mr. Senator, I respectfully refuse to answer on the
grounds that it might incriminate me." Or just "Fifth Amendment, Mr.
Senator" (Or Ms. Senator)

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 10:10:44 -0800 (PST), Barry Gold wrote:
> It is not "without cause". These universities (which receive significant
> amounts of federal funds) forbid the use of words like "n----r" or the
> use of the wrong pronoun when dealing with a trans student, but
> apparently have no problem with "k-ke" or with groups of students
> calling for mass murder of Jews.
>
> Even if they weren't accepting federal money, Congress would have the
> right to summon them and ask them questions. They could refuse to
> answer, of course. "Mr. Senator, I respectfully refuse to answer on the
> grounds that it might incriminate me." Or just "Fifth Amendment, Mr.
> Senator" (Or Ms. Senator)

What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
have been indicted for? As far as I'm aware, poor judgment is not a
crime -- if it were, the jails would be bulging.

If the universities weren't accepting Federal money, they wouldn't
need to take the Fifth because Congress would have had no grounds to
investigate them; they would have refused through their lawyers to
answer any questions based on lack of jurisdiction. But since they
were accepting the money, the Fifth Amendment couldn't help them
because they weren't accused of a crime and, I think, couldn't be.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[Barry Gold]

On 12/27/2023 1:22 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
> protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
> proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
> have been indicted for? As far as I'm aware, poor judgment is not a
> crime -- if it were, the jails would be bulging.

*Anybody* can take the Fifth Amendment. They don't need to try to figure
out what crime they could have been indicted for. That's a job for the
lawyers. It's the same situation as when the cops show up at your door
(or stop you on the road) and start asking questions. If you're smart,
you won't answer, just "take the fifth".

*Everybody* has the right not to answer questions asked by a
representative of the government. THere are a few exceptions: when Tax
Time comes around you have to fill out your 1040 (or whatever)
truthfully. But the tax law says that what you say there can't be used
in any other proceeding.

In theory, you could write, "cocaine dealer" on Schedule C and
accurately say how much you paid for your coke and how much you sold it
for, any other expenses (e.g., mileage driven). I don't know if anybody
actually does this -- maybe they figure the info will somehow "leak" to
the DEA. But that's the legal theory anyway.

> If the universities weren't accepting Federal money, they wouldn't
> need to take the Fifth because Congress would have had no grounds to
> investigate them; they would have refused through their lawyers to
> answer any questions based on lack of jurisdiction. But since they
> were accepting the money, the Fifth Amendment couldn't help them
> because they weren't accused of a crime and, I think, couldn't be.

Congress has the power to investigate anything they think necessary or
advisable. You never know what might result in a new law, or narrowing
an existing law, or a change in the tax code or the labor law or
whatever. "Should we be spending money sending rockets to land on
meteors or comets? Let's call a couple of experts and find out. And
unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress doesn't
even have to pay them. (Maybe they get something for travel expenses, I
haven't investigated.)

[Barry Gold]

On 12/28/2023 8:25 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:13:01 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
>
>> And unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress
>> doesn't even have to pay them.
>

> Why is that not slavery ?

For the same reason that being called as a witness in a court trial
isn't slavery. And that taxation isn't slavery. (If you are a
libertarian purist, then taxation _is_ slavery, but that's a different
story.)

[RichD]

On December 27,  Barry Gold wrote:
>> What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
>> protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
>> proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
>> have been indicted for?
>

> *Anybody* can take the Fifth Amendment. They don't need to try to figure
> out what crime they could have been indicted for.

Wrong, in this case.

Think about it:
Congress subpoenas a witness.
Witness appears.
Questions.
Silence.
Committee adjourns.
Witness goes home.

Absurd.  The witness will be charged with contempt.  There may be
borderline cases, where he answers a subset of the questions.

If he faces criminal jeopardy, he might take the 5th.  In that case, he'll
have a lawyer at his side, whispering instructions.

> It's the same situation as when the cops show up at your door

> and start asking questions. If you're smart, you won't answer, just "take the fifth".

Not at all the same.  Police need probable cause to contact someone.
The detainee can rightly to refuse to speak, but if the cop has good cause
for the contact, non-cooperation will motivate him to look harder for
evidence to arrest.

A simple example would be trespassing; if you refuse to defend your
actions, you'll be quickly cuffed.  But not charged with contempt of badge.

>> If the universities weren't accepting Federal money, they wouldn't
>> need to take the Fifth because Congress would have had no grounds to
>> investigate them; they would have refused through their lawyers to
>> answer any questions based on lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction?

>> But since they were accepting the money, the Fifth Amendment couldn't help them
>> because they weren't accused of a crime
>

> Congress has the power to investigate anything they think necessary or
> advisable.

Agreed.  I don't accept this "they accept federal money" explanation; Congress
investigates lots of things, lacking such rationalization.

So, the original question:  what's the putative reason for banging
the college bureaucrats?
"Too much free expression going on, and not the type we approve of!"


--
Rich

[Barry Gold]

On 12/30/2023 4:12 PM, RichD wrote:
> On December 27,  Barry Gold wrote:
>>> What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
>>> protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
>>> proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
>>> have been indicted for?
>> *Anybody* can take the Fifth Amendment. They don't need to try to figure
>> out what crime they could have been indicted for.
> Wrong, in this case.
>
> Think about it:
> Congress subpoenas a witness.
> Witness appears.
> Questions.
> Silence.
> Committee adjourns.
> Witness goes home.
>
> Absurd.  The witness will be charged with contempt.  There may be
> borderline cases, where he answers a subset of the questions.
>
> If he faces criminal jeopardy, he might take the 5th.  In that case, he'll
> have a lawyer at his side, whispering instructions.

There was at least one case this past year. A congressional committee
subpoenaed somebody. He showed up.

A senator asked a question. The witness said, "I respectfully refuse to

answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me."

The Senator asked another question. The witness said the same thing.

After the first few, the witness just said, "Fifth Amendment."

When the Senator(s) had finished making whatever points he wanted to
make, the witness was told there were no more questions and left.