REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

USA: Police State?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 5, 2007 17:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10959
PAGE 6 of 6

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I thought you said he was talking about illegal immigrants, which is different from saying all spics should go back to Meheeko. One calls for enforcement of the law, the other is a diatribe against a 'race' of people.

***************************************************************
PS discrimination, harassment, slander etc are pretty well legally defined.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:11 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I thought you said he was talking about illegal immigrants, which is different from saying all spics should go back to Meheeko.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



I did. But the "preacher" never said that all women were prostitutes just one of a certain type. Or are you saying the neighbourhood guy gets a soapbox because you agree with what he says and the preacher doesnt because you don't?

Looking for the difference here...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You really don't understand ?????

I post-added something (above) which mentions some of the legally well-established concepts of discrimination, harassment, slander, hate-speech, etc. This is not new legal ground, it's been well covered. If you're doing one of those, you're not covered under free-speech protections.

And the university is under an obligation to maintain a 'non-hostile' environment for all students, which are covered under Federal discrimination laws.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:18 PM

FLETCH2


No I read it. And as I said the cases are the same. Preacher doesnt point to a girl and call her a prostitute, he expressess his opinion of a certain class of women. Latino guy expressess an opinion of a certain type of immigrant. They are both expressing an opinion of a subgroup yet Latino guy gets his Rue issues soapbox and it seems old fire and brimstone doesn't. I wonder why?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Because one person is not doing something specificaly illegal while the other is. Federal dsirimination laws are based on "Ethnic/National Origin, Color, Race, Religion & Sex Discrimination" - not legal status. Someone criticizing people for being in the country illegally isn't discriminating.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:26 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Because one person is not doing something specificaly illegal while the other is. Federal dsirimination laws are based on "Ethnic/National Origin, Color, Race, Religion & Sex Discrimination" - not legal status.




But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person. Much like you do every time you post sweeping generalisations much as we all do, it's an opinion, just not a very nice one, shouldn't free speech rules protect it? Isn't the point of free speech to allow people to say things we disagree with?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person."
He's expressing an opinion about a certain female type of person. He's targeting one sex only. If he were to include the same diatribe about men it would be more of a grey shade of grey, and not so black and white.

***************************************************************
So to speak ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:33 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person."
He's expressing an opinion about a certain female type of person. He's targeting one sex only. If he were to have the same diatribe about men it would be more of a grey shade of grey, and not so black and white.


Oh he says nasty things about "immoral" men too. Just that their isn't usually a "men's society" on campus to complain.

So, soapbox or not?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That would be an interesting test case. My feeling is if he was standing in a place where he didn't impede, wasn't targeting individuals, was making broad brush comments about the morals of kids nowadays - he could stand there and talk till the cows came home. If he was calling women whores and men faggots he'd still be discriminating against protected classes.

***************************************************************
You're all doomed I tell you, DOOMED !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OTOH if he was ranting about our "hypersexualized" society... soapbox. Because then it would be based on behavior, not gender or orientation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:55 PM

FLETCH2


Ah well you're more advanced than I am. I would ban his ass. There are two groups of people I disagree with, ones where the disagreement is purely interlectual and ones where there is some deep down loathing of the basic idea. I find that to appear "right on" trendy and with it I can tolerate free speech by people I seriously disagree with but on some hot button issues, well I'm just not advanced enough. I'm afraid an idiot calling women prostitutes because they exercise the freedom to dress as they like is one of those issues.

So there you go. I can't say yes to free speech in all cases. I can tolerate intelligent differences of opinion but I am completely intollerant of some issues where I think the act of expressing your opinion actually harms others.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I'm afraid an idiot calling women prostitutes because they exercise the freedom to dress as they like is one of those issues." And he was rightly dissuaded.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 3:08 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."


Wow, a lot of material today. Much of it moving toward some resolution. I didn't see this comment made, so I will risk it. I would say the above example doesn't fit well. "protects public property ... from uninvited guests." The event that Mr. Meyers went to was open to the public, as a consequence he was an invited guest.

The questions are (in my mind's eye), was Mr. Meyers asked to leave by the organizers of the event? It is not clear to me he was. Did the organizers ask the police to remove him? I believe they unwisely did; and under that auspice it was within legal bounds for the police to ask Mr. Meyers to leave; it is not clear that they did so prior to laying hands on him... a mistake on the police's part. I'm still not convinced if they were not asked by the event organizer, the police had the right to initiate the removal.

"Let me provide a compromise. I contend they have a right to remove him, I have citations to prove they can do that under basic property law. If you will ceed that they have that right just the same as any property owner. I am willing to ceed that the action taken to remove him was inappropriate as he was not a threat."

Dang, you and I are actually pretty close to the same position, I'm just not convinced the police had a right to remove Mr. Meyers with out being asked to do so by the organizers.

Edit: Actually, I'm willing to say it -is- like private property in this sense. I have 4 people into my living room. A, B, C, and D; ostensibly to listen to A give speech, with a Q & A. D happens to be a police officer who noticed my open door, the loud voices, and wanders in. Person C starts ranting about A, and while asking questions doesn't give A a chance to answer. If I ask C to leave, and they refuse, I might ask D to remove C. On the other hand, if I sit there quietly, and D simply decides to haul C off simply because ... C is rude, stupid and obnoxious, I will be -very- unhappy with D.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 3:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And I'm still of the opinion that public institutions are within their right to make policies, but not within their right to remove anyone at any time unless that person is violating a policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 3:46 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
And I'm still of the opinion that public institutions are within their right to make policies, but not within their right to remove anyone at any time unless that person is violating a policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



But seeing that the policy is made by them and can be changed by them without penalty it is an arbitary authority. It differs only from "doing what you like" in that it documents a set of volentary limitations. It's like if I have a policy not to eat chicken, if you later catch me in KFC I may have broken policy but that has no consequence since it was a self imposed limitation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


They can't set policies that are illegal, and public policies are always up for public debate.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:14 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
They can't set policies that are illegal, and public policies are always up for public debate.




Well they are not public enough to be up on the net. Like I said there are no standards. At least one university recently drafted a set when they realised they didnt have any.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"there are no standards"

None that I can find on the net. And I have seen reference to the university policy on protests in news stories. So there is a policy, just not where we've looked.

I knew it had to be out there.

***************************************************************
Regulations of the University of Florida
6C1-4.016 Student Conduct Code; Violations, Penalties and Procedures for Adjudication.

(1) Philosophy. The University of Florida is an institution which encourages the intellectual and personal growth of its students as scholars and citizens. As an educational institution, the University recognizes that the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, and the development of individuals require the free exchange of ideas, self-expression, and the challenging of beliefs and customs. In order to maintain an environment where these goals can be achieved safely and equitably, the University promotes civility, respect, and integrity among all members of the community. As stated in the Standard of Ethical Conduct, students are expected to exhibit high standards of behavior and concern for others. The University strives to protect and guide the educational community by establishing a Student Conduct Code and student judicial system, which promotes individual and social responsibility. Choosing to join the University of Florida community obligates each member to a code of civilized behavior. Individuals and student organizations are expected to observe the policies, rules, and regulations of the University of Florida and the State of Florida. University policies have been designed to protect individuals and the campus community and create an environment conducive to achieving the academic mission of the institution. The purpose of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the specific authority and responsibility of the University in maintaining social discipline, to establish guidelines which facilitate a just and civil campus community, and to outline the educational process for determining student and student organization responsibility for alleged violations of University regulations. This judicial process will follow established procedures for insuring fundamental fairness and an educational experience that facilitates the development of the individual and of the organization.

(2) Violations. A student or student organization shall not engage in the following prohibited conduct. A student who, or student organization which engages in the following prohibited conduct violates the Student Conduct Code and is subject to sanctions as provided in subsection (3) below:
(a) CAUSING PHYSICAL OR OTHER HARM TO ANY PERSON.
1. Conduct causing physical injury or endangering another?s health or safety, which includes, but is not limited to, acts of physical violence, assault, and relationship or domestic violence.
2. Actions causing physical injury or endangering one?s own health or safety. (b) SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
1. Sexual Assault. Any sexual act or attempt to engage in any sexual act with another person without the consent of the other person or, in circumstances in which the person is unable, due to age, disability, or chemical or other impairment, to give consent.
2. Sexual Misconduct. Any intentional intimate touching of another without the consent of the other person or, in circumstances in which the person is unable, due to age, disability, or chemical or other impairment, to give consent.
(c) HARASSMENT.
1. Harassment or Threats. Verbal or written abuse, threats, harassment, coercion or any other conduct that places another individual in reasonable fear of his or her safety through words or actions directed at that person, or substantially interferes with the working, educational or living environment of the individual, including stalking and racial harassment.
2. Sexual Harassment. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for favors, and/or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
a. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual?s employment or status in a university activity, or
b. Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment or decisions affecting such individual?s employment or status in a University activity, or
c. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual?s work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment or academic environment.
(d) INDECENT OR OBSCENE BEHAVIOR.
Conduct or behavior that the student knows or should know is reasonably likely to be offensive to others. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, exposure of one?s own sexual organs, urination in public, voyeurism, including but not limited to video voyeurism.
(e) HAZING.
Any action or situation that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for purposes including, but not limited to, initiation or admission into or affiliation with any student group or organization. In such an instance, hazing occurs if an individual or group:
1. Causes or attempts to cause physical injury or other harm to a student including, but not limited to, emotional distress, or engages in any conduct which presents a threat to the student?s health or safety;
2. Engages in an action or activity which has a tendency to or which is intended to demean, disgrace, humiliate, or degrade a student;
3. Interferes with or attempts to interfere with a student?s academic schedule or performance; or
4. Causes, induces, or requires a student to violate the law or to violate a provision of this regulation.
In response to allegations of hazing under this regulation it is not a defense that:
1. The victim gave consent to the conduct.
2. The conduct was not part of an official organizational event or sanctioned or approved by the organization.
3. The conduct was not required as a condition of membership in the organization.
(f) FIREARMS OR OTHER WEAPONS VIOLATIONS.
Possession, use, sale or distribution of any firearm, ammunition, weapon or similar device not explicitly permitted by Regulation 6C1-2.001(3). Prohibited devices include, but are not limited to, stun guns, pellet guns, paintball guns, slingshots, archery equipment, knives, or any dangerous chemical or biological agent.
(g) FIRE SAFETY VIOLATIONS.
1. Causing a Fire or Explosion. Conduct that causes or attempts to cause a fire or explosion, or falsely reporting a fire, explosion or an explosive device.
2. Tampering with Fire Safety Equipment. Tampering with fire safety equipment, or failure to evacuate during a fire alarm on University property, at a University location or at any University activity.
3. Fireworks. Possession and/or use of fireworks, (including sparklers), or explosives of any kind on University property, at a University location or at any University activity.
(h) DRUG VIOLATIONS.
Use, possession, manufacturing, distribution, or sale of marijuana, heroin, narcotics, or any other controlled substance which is prohibited by law. Prohibited conduct includes the use of a prescription drug if the prescription was not issued to the student, and the distribution or sale a prescription drug to a person to whom the prescription was not originally issued.
(i) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATIONS.
1. Under-Age Possession or Consumption. Possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a student who has not passed his or her twenty-first birthday.
2. Public Intoxication. Appearing at a University activity or on University property in a state of intoxication.
3. Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Other Substance. Operation of a motor vehicle while impaired or with a blood alcohol or breath alcohol level of .08 or above.
4. Distribution or Sale of Alcoholic Beverage. Distribution or sale of an alcoholic beverage by student or student organization to any person who has not passed his or her twenty-first birthday.
5. Any other violation of the Alcoholic Beverages Regulation, Regulation 6C1-2.019.
(j) CONDUCT DISRUPTIVE TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY.
Conduct that is disruptive to the University?s educational objectives, to its operations, or to its officials, staff, and faculty in the performance of their work, or to any other aspect of its mission. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to:
1. Disruption of a class, University activity, or any other normal activity held on University property or at a University location.
2. Classroom behavior that interferes with either (a) the instructor?s ability to conduct the class or (b) the ability of other students to benefit from the instructional program.
3. Violation of the Campus Demonstration Regulation, Regulation 6C1-2.002.
4. Conduct which is disorderly or a breach of the peace.
(k) MISUSE OR UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OR USE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
1. Theft. Taking or unauthorized use or possession of public or private property or unauthorized use or acquisition of services.
2. Destroying, damaging or littering of any property. Conduct that destroys, damages, or litters any property of the University or any property of an individual or group.
3. Misuse of identification card. Misuse of the identification number or card issued to a student through alteration, forgery or duplication, or through use of an identification card that has not been issued to the user. It is also a violation to grant or authorize use by a third party of one?s own identification number or card for any purpose except to obtain student block seating in accordance with University Athletic Association procedures for student block seating.
4. Unauthorized Sale of Student Tickets. Unauthorized sale or purchase of student tickets on University property to any University of Florida function or event.
(l) MISUSE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF UNIVERSITY COMPUTER RESOURCES.
1. Any action without authorization from the University that does, or causes a person to, access, use, modify, destroy, disclose or take data, programs or supporting documentation residing in or relating in any way to a University computer, computer system or computer network or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such system.
2. Any other violation of the Policies on Information Technology, Regulation 6C1-1.0102.
(m) UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY TO UNIVERSITY FACILITIES.
Unauthorized access or entry to University buildings, structure or facilities. Unauthorized possession, duplication or use of keys or access cards for any University property.
(n) FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION.
Furnishing false or misleading information to the University or to any University official. This includes, but is not limited to, forging documents or other data, or omitting facts which are material to the purpose for which the information is submitted.
(o) UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL RECORDING.
1. Unauthorized recording of personal conversations, meetings, or activities.
2. Unauthorized recording of a class, or of organizational or University meetings. To obtain the required authorization, the student or student organization must obtain express authority from the University official, faculty member, student organization, member of University personnel, or other University representative in charge of the class, meeting, or activity. A student or student organization accused of violating this section has the burden of showing such express authority. The foregoing shall not apply to any recording authorized by the Florida Sunshine Law or any other law.
(p) VIOLATION OF UNIVERSITY POLICY.
Violation of any regulation or policy of the University of Florida, the Florida Board of Governors, or the State of Florida. Applicable policies include, but are not limited to, the University of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Education Rules and Regulations, available in the Department of Housing and Residence Education, and the Gator Fan?s Code of Conduct, available at the University Athletic Association.
(q) VIOLATION OF LAW.
Violation of any municipal or county ordinance, law of the State of Florida, or law of the United States.
(r) OBSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY JUDICIAL PROCESS.
Interference with or obstruction of the student conduct process, including failure to appear at a hearing, failure to testify at a hearing, violating and/or failure to complete judicial sanctions.
(s) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE.
Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official.
(t) COMPLICITY IN VIOLATING THE CONDUCT CODE.
Attempting, aiding, abetting, conspiring, hiring or being an accessory to any act prohibited by this code.
(3) Sanctions
A student adjudicated responsible for violations under subsection (2, 3) of the Student Conduct Code, shall be subject to sanctions commensurate with the offense with consideration given to any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Sanctions include one or more of the following penalties, unless otherwise expressly provided:
(a) Reprimand ? The student is given formal written notice and official recognition that the behavior has violated the Student Conduct Code.
(b) Conduct Probation ? The student is deemed not in good standing and cannot represent the University on any athletic team other than intramurals, hold an office in any student organization registered with the University, or represent the University in any extracurricular activity or official function or participate in any study abroad program. The duration of any probation period or any conditions or sanctions imposed for the violation shall be in proportion to the seriousness of the violation.
(c) Loss of University Privileges ? Denial of specific University privileges including, but not limited to, attendance at athletic functions, unrestricted library use, parking privileges, university computer usage, and residence hall visitation for a designated period of time.
(d) Suspension ? The student is required to leave the University for a given or indefinite period of time, the termination of which shall depend upon specified acts of the student's own volition related to mitigation of the offense committed. The student must comply with all sanctions prior to re-admission.
(e) Expulsion ? The student is permanently deprived of his or her opportunity to continue at the University in any status.
(f) Restitution ? The student is required to pay for loss of or damages to University property, provided that such payment shall be limited to the actual cost of repair or replacement of such property.
(g) Reduced or Failing Grade ? The student is given a reduced or failing grade for the class in which the offense occurred for violations of the Student Honor Code, but only by the faculty member involved and upon recommendation thereof, except as otherwise provided in subsection 6C1-4.017(4), F.A.C.
(h) Community/University Service ? A student is required to complete a specified number of hours of service to the campus or general community.
(i) Education Requirements ? A student is required to complete a specified educational sanction related to the violation committed. Such educational requirements include completion of a seminar, report, alcohol or drug assessment, or counseling.
(j) Residence Hall Transfer or Removal ? A student is required to transfer residence halls or leave the residence halls for a specified or indefinite period of time.
(k) No Contact Order ? A directive to refrain from any intentional contact, direct or indirect, with one or more designated persons or group(s) through any means, including personal contact, e-mail, telephone, or third parties.

(4) Organizational sanctions will range from written reprimand and official recognition thereof through revocation of registration or permission to use or meet at campus facilities, or in the case of social fraternities or sororities, continued recognition at the University. The following criteria will be used to determine if a student group or organization is to be held collectively responsible for the action or actions of individuals when the action or actions result in a violation of the Student Conduct Code by those associated with the group or organization:
(a) The action or actions resulting in the violation have received the tacit or overt consent or encouragement of the group or organization or of the group's or organization's leaders, officers or spokesperson, or
(b) The group or organization or its leaders, officers or spokesperson failed to take responsible precautions against the action or actions resulting in the conduct violations.

(5) Procedures for Adjudication.
(a) Prior to any disciplinary adjudication, the person(s) charged shall be furnished with a written notice of charges and procedures for requesting a hearing. Any notice issued under the provisions of this rule shall be sent to the student?s address in the Registrar?s records or hand delivered to the student. The notice of charges shall be issued within ten (10) business days following completion of an investigation and determination that there is sufficient evidence to warrant judicial action. Except for emergency cases, the notice shall be issued at least ten (10) business days prior to the date of the hearing unless waived in writing by the accused student. Pre-hearing conferences may be held to review charges, resolve issues, clarify rights and procedures, and permit the inspection or copying of evidence to be used at hearings. If a student chooses to utilize an advisor, it is the student?s responsibility to identify an advisor and make appropriate arrangements for them to attend the proceedings. The advisor shall assist the student in the judicial process, but shall not speak for or present the case on behalf of a student.
(b) Hearings shall preserve the fairness of the action and rights of persons involved. Students charged with less serious violations can choose an informal proceeding or a formal hearing. Less serious violations are those violations for which removal from housing, suspension, or expulsion would not be imposed. Students charged with more serious violations will choose between a formal hearing with a conduct committee or a university hearing authority.
1. Students who choose an informal proceeding shall be accorded the right to:
a. Have an advisor present;
b. Be provided, prior to the proceeding, the nature and source of the evidence which will be used by the University; and
c. Be free from compulsory self-incrimination.
2. Students who choose a formal hearing with a conduct committee or a university hearing authority shall be accorded the right to:
a. Have an advisor present;
b. Question adverse witnesses;
c. Present evidence and witnesses relevant to his or her defense;
d. Be provided prior to the hearing the nature and source of the evidence which will be used by the University; and
e. Be free from compulsory self-incrimination.
Provisions for a record of hearings shall be made, other than for informal proceedings before the Residence Directors, Residence Life Coordinators, Graduate Hall Directors, Coordinator for Residential Judicial Programs, Assistant Director of Student Judicial Affairs, or Director of Student Judicial Affairs.
(c) In cases involving potential sanctions other than removal from housing, suspension, or expulsion when the student fails to appear pursuant to the notice that was sent or delivered under paragraph (5)(a) of this rule, the reviewing authority will make a decision. If the student is found responsible, the reviewing authority will also issue sanctions based on the written material. A decision will be issued within five (5) business days. For violation(s) which may involve a sanction of removal from housing, suspension, or expulsion, when the student fails to appear pursuant to the notice that was sent or delivered under paragraph (5)(a) of this rule, the reviewing authority will issue a second notice informing the student of a date to appear for a formal hearing. Should the student fail to appear for his/her scheduled hearing as set forth in the second notice, said hearing will commence as scheduled and the reviewing authority will make a decision based on the information presented at the hearing. If the student is found responsible, the reviewing authority will also issue sanctions based on the information presented at the hearing. In such instances, a decision will be issued within five (5) business days of the hearing.
(d) A student judicial hearing is an opportunity for a student to challenge the content of the student's educational record and is closed unless the accused requests an open hearing a minimum of five (5) working days before the hearing and all student witnesses concur in writing.
(e) Findings shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Upon such findings, the person or body hearing the action shall determine which sanction or sanctions should be imposed in accordance with subsection (3) above. Written notice of findings and any sanction to be imposed or recommended shall be furnished to the student charged with a conduct code violation.
(f) The Student Conduct Committee, Student Honor Court and the Health Center Student Conduct Standards Committee make a recommendation to the Dean of Students concerning findings and sanctions to be imposed, if any. The College of Law Honor Committee makes a recommendation to the Review Board, as defined in Rule 6C1-4.0212, F.A.C., concerning findings and sanctions to be imposed, if any.
(g) If the Dean of Students determines from a review of the record, and states with particularity in a written notice to all affected persons that a finding was not based upon substantial evidence or an action did not comply with the requirements of law or applicable University Regulations, the finding may be rejected and/or the case may be re-heard. If the record supports the finding, the Dean of Students can accept, modify or reject the recommended sanction.

(6) Decisions made by the Director of Student Judicial Affairs, the Assistant Director of Student Judicial Affairs, and the Coordinator of Residential Judicial Programs can be appealed to the Dean of Students. Decisions made by the Dean of Students, in cases other than decisions resulting from an appeal to the Dean from another hearing authority, can be appealed to the Vice President for Student Affairs or her/his designee. Appeals to the Dean of Students and the Vice President for Student Affairs (hereinafter "reviewing authority") must be filed in writing and contact made with the reviewing authority within ten (10) business days from the date of the decision letter for the purpose of scheduling an appointment, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the student and the reviewing authority. The actual appointment must be scheduled within ten (10) business days of filing the appeal unless otherwise approved by the reviewing authority. If the student fails to appear for the appointment, the reviewing authority will make a decision based on the written material. Criteria for filing an appeal is limited to the following grounds: (a) the student's rights were violated in the hearing process; (b) new material evidence that could not have been discovered at the time of the hearing; (c) the evidence did not support the decision by a preponderance of the evidence; and (d) the sanction(s) imposed were not appropriate for the violation. The decision on the appeal should be made within fifteen (15) calendar days following the meeting with the student except in exceptional circumstances. The decision of the reviewing authority shall be final.

(7) Records of disciplinary actions shall be maintained in accordance with subsection 6C1-4.026(3), F.A.C.

(8) Disciplinary sanctions which may result in limits being placed on extracurricular activities and/or registration, do not take effect until any appeal requested has been completed. If no appeal is requested, the final action with respect to the above will take effect upon expiration of the appeal time.

Authority: BOG Resolution dated January 7, 2003.
History--New 9-29-75, Amended 3-9-76, 1-28-80, 3-26-80, 8-26-81, 2-11-82, 9-15-83, 3- 25-85, 5-14-85, 10-14-85, Formerly 6C1-4.16, Amended 4-24-88, 5-21-89, 5-18-92, 5-19-93, 7-11-94, 4-30-95, 5-1-96, 7-15-97, 7-27-98, 10-31-99, 6-21-00, 5-22-01, 5-20-02, 2-13-03, 6-3-03,5-30-04, 7-19-05, 12-02-05 (technical changes only), 5-1-07.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 4:56 PM

LEADB


Interesting, they do list:

"Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official." Now, was Mr. Meyers clearly given a directive?

Gives a whole new meaning to when your professor says "Don't party this weekend, study!"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

(s) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE.
Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official.

This would prolly be the P&P applied to Meyer. I also think it is overly broad. For example, campus security cannot tell a pretty coed to f*ck the whole security staff, so SOME directives are out-of-bounds. This is to be decided.

Rue- I bow to the master. Where in HELL did you find this?????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That they do. As I said before, I believe this event was staged. Meyer waited the the show was over etc etc.

My reading of the entire document is that unless the person was in violation of criminal code, the worst that could happen to them was a disciplinary hearing.

And I concur with SignyM. A lot of this is overly broad and probably able to be challenged. (ahhhhh...., the beauty of public policy up for public scrutiny ...)


It occured to me to search under "code of conduct" "university of florida".

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:14 PM

FLETCH2


Well I'm impressed, I couldnt find it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I scanned the document for "arrest" and didn't find anything. So removing Meyer might have followed P&P (I would challenge that particular line). Now the question is, did they use excessive force? My answer is still YES.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:18 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sometimes it helps to be distractable ... though not often.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL