This IS 2010, isn't it?!?!?

[Madison]

Don't joke about Alzheimer's.

Anyone have 1?

[Fade2White12]

Of course they can. It's a private university. They can expel students for any conduct that they consider 'unbecoming' of the university.

I probably should have been more descriptive when I said "can't." However, It doesn't exactly work like that. What I compare that "unbecoming" phrase with is employment-at-will situations. While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals. You are right though - "freedom of speech" would likely not keep them from being expelled initially. It would, however, most likely be very effective in their appeal, as well subsequent legal action if they so chose (as it would finally become a constitutional issue). So yes, they can do so, but likely they wouldn't attempt it, nor would it be without consequences.

Don't joke about Alzheimer's.

Anyone have 1?

Two old couples were walking down the beach. One of the elderly men turned towards the other and said, "We saw the most wonderful movie the other night. It was called... uh.. umm... What is the name of that pretty red flower with the thorns all over it?" The other man turned towards him and said, "Rose?" "Oh ya. Hey Rose, what was the name of that movie we saw last night?"

[knapplc]

While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals.

Actually, that is the case under discrimination law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) doesn't prevent employers from terminating people At Will. In fact, in most every state in America you can be terminated for no reason at all under TVII, with the two exceptions being (I believe) Arizona and Montana. But don't quote me on the AZ & MT stuff - I don't work there, so I'm no expert.

TVII only protects from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, pregnancy and retaliation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 covers folks over 40, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (along with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) covers disability, perceived disability and record of disability.

[Madison]

Of course they can. It's a private university. They can expel students for any conduct that they consider 'unbecoming' of the university.

I probably should have been more descriptive when I said "can't." However, It doesn't exactly work like that. What I compare that "unbecoming" phrase with is employment-at-will situations. While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals. You are right though - "freedom of speech" would likely not keep them from being expelled initially. It would, however, most likely be very effective in their appeal, as well subsequent legal action if they so chose (as it would finally become a constitutional issue). So yes, they can do so, but likely they wouldn't attempt it, nor would it be without consequences.

Don't joke about Alzheimer's.

Anyone have 1?

Two old couples were walking down the beach. One of the elderly men turned towards the other and said, "We saw the most wonderful movie the other night. It was called... uh.. umm... What is the name of that pretty red flower with the thorns all over it?" The other man turned towards him and said, "Rose?" "Oh ya. Hey Rose, what was the name of that movie we saw last night?"

I meant 1 post as the over/under for someone telling me how wrong it is to joke about Alzheimer's.

But that is a good one.

[Fade2White12]

I wouldn't call the joke egregious, just as I wouldn't consider the fallout severe. Within the context, it makes the intent even worse IMO. An editor losing his job sounds about right to me if the concept was to publish a cliffhanger bigot joke to the student body of university with the intent of following it up in the next publication. That's pretty bad judgment even for a paper that is trying to push the edge.

I must not have set the stage adequately enough if that's the context you extracted from my description. That cartoon was from a series of cartoons where each week the "tool" told a prejudice joke or made a bigoted observation where the human character would either outright chastise, say the joke was not funny, or simply not understand. The students were not advocating violence against homosexuals - they were using satire (or at least, what they thought was satire) as a way to actually denounce violence against the group, and as a whole try to, albeit in a weird way, combat prejudice.

Again, it was misguided, poorly thought out, crude, w/e you want to say - but in light of their actual intent, I think they deserve some forgiveness.

Actually, that is the case under discrimination law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) doesn't prevent employers from terminating people At Will. In fact, in most every state in America you can be terminated for no reason at all under TVII, with the two exceptions being (I believe) Arizona and Montana. But don't quote me on the AZ & MT stuff - I don't work there, so I'm no expert.

TVII only protects from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, pregnancy and retaliation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 covers folks over 40, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (along with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) covers disability, perceived disability and record of disability.

Are you trying to make my point, or counter it? I don't really have time to reply, as I have to get outta here for the night, but state at-will-employment laws do not trump federal statutes. Not only does TVII outline hiring/firing procedures, but so does the ADA, ADEA, and NLRA, as well as others. I was making the point that "unbecoming" language is synonymous with at-will-employment, because just like at-will-employment there are exceptions to the overarching anything-goes sort of language private universities cite.

[knapplc]

Are you trying to make my point, or counter it? I don't really have time to reply, as I have to get outta here for the night, but state at-will-employment laws do not trump federal statutes. Not only does TVII outline hiring/firing procedures, but so does the ADA, ADEA, and NLRA, as well as others. I was making the point that "unbecoming" language is synonymous with at-will-employment, because just like at-will-employment there are exceptions to the overarching anything-goes sort of language private universities cite.

I guess I'm going to need examples of what you're talking about with the bolded line. Without some form of CBA, state/local statute or contract, you can be fired without reason or excuse under TVII, the ADEA or the ADA, again excepting protected bases. The NLRA affects employees' rights to form unions, and is a different animal than TVII, the ADEA or the ADA which protects all employees regardless of union representation (providing employers meet numerosity requirements).

[Fade2White12]

[quote="knapplc"I guess I'm going to need examples of what you're talking about with the bolded line. Without some form of CBA, state/local statute or contract, you can be fired without reason or excuse under TVII, the ADEA or the ADA, again excepting protected bases. [/quote]

I don't really understand why you are fighting the hypo. You're taking this discussion in an unrelated direction, and you're just saying the same thing I originally did. The entire point of my use of at-will-employment was as an analogy. At-will-employment, by its very definition, almost implies freedom without restriction - and a variety of employers, managers, supervisors, etc., make that mistake. There are most definitely exceptions to at-will-employment, in every single state. All states are bound by federal statutes, and almost all other states have additional exceptions. The same holds true to that "unbecoming" phrase used earlier. Simply including such a phrase doesn't absolve the University from any liability.

[knapplc]

I don't really understand why you are fighting the hypo. You're taking this discussion in an unrelated direction, and you're just saying the same thing I originally did. The entire point of my use of at-will-employment was as an analogy. At-will-employment, by its very definition, almost implies freedom without restriction - and a variety of employers, managers, supervisors, etc., make that mistake. There are most definitely exceptions to at-will-employment, in every single state. All states are bound by federal statutes, and almost all other states have additional exceptions. The same holds true to that "unbecoming" phrase used earlier. Simply including such a phrase doesn't absolve the University from any liability.

Because I work in discrimination law with the ADA, TVII and ADEA on a daily basis, and you seem to be saying that a termination based on this cartoon would in some way violate one or more of those laws, and that's just not correct. Your post that started this tangent:

While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals.

TVII, the ADA and the ADEA are not applicable in this conversation because the terminated party wouldn't be fired for age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, pregnancy, marital status and/or retaliation.

[Fade2White12]

No. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying the same laws would be applicable whatsoever. You're reaching.

While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals.

[knapplc]

No. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying the same laws would be applicable whatsoever. You're reaching.

While it may seem as if an employer or employee may terminate their relationship for any reason, it's simply not the case. An employer is still held to most of the same dismissal standards outlined be the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Notre Dame, for instance, is still held to certain practices in regards to both admissions and dismissals.

The only practices being held to in TVII, the ADEA and/or the ADA cover discrimination issues which do not apply here. Maybe you're thinking of different laws and gave these as examples by mistake. Dunno.