Saturday, November 26, 2011

"UC has not punished a media adviser or other employee for protecting the free speech rights of students does not mean that university employees do not feel constrained and do not need protection,"

Read the old 2008 story on UC: Above the Law? from Inside Higher Ed
Now we are way beyond just 'feeling constrained'-- they've broken faculty members ribs, pulled 'em by the hair, knocked down their wives, made 'em 'crunchy' etc. when those professors were trying to protect students' first amendment rights. So, what do we think of what they said back in 2008 now? So much old business- warning signs, red flags- to be looked at again...

Told of the university's assertion that it has the right to opt out of the underlying free speech law, too, Goodman said via e-mail that the issue "all does come back to whether they support the protections in 66301 -- that the university should not have the authority to discipline students or engage in prior restraint of their expression when that expression would be protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution if the expression occurred off campus." He added: " If they do agree with that, then they should have not a problem with SB 1370 as it only protects university employees from punishment for student expression that is already protected by 66301.

"No provision of [Part 40] shall apply to the University of California except to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable."
In this case, Hayward and Chastain warn, the regents do not plan to let the media adviser provision apply if it should become law.

yep, read the old 2008 story on UC: Above the Law? from Inside Higher Ed


reclaim UC has this section in this interesting post:

From: Robert J. Birgeneau
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:59 PM
To: 'Claire Holmes'; Beata Fitzpatrick'; George Breslauer'; 'Phyllis Hoffman'
Cc: 'Janet Gilmore'
Subject: RE: DRAFT text for Wheeler story

Hi Claire,
I agree with the basic message. However, we need to find a new word other than "activists" to describe the protesters; that descriptor gives them too much gravitas. I prefer: intruders, occupiers, and/or protesters. Also, assuming that everything goes according to plan, I would like a quote expressing my admiration for the very professional way in which the police managed to apprehend and remove the illegal occupiers.

And this on Davis:
'Major reforms are needed because regardless of whoever is fired or resigns, it won't mean anything if we don't change policy and the way our institutions are run,' Adam Thongsavat, president of the Associated Students of the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. 'That's what's going to affect students and campus policy and bring awareness.'
The student government passed a resolution Monday night calling on the state attorney general's office to investigate campus police misconduct.
The students are demanding police go through sensitivity training, seek more student representation and review policies on student protests.
Katehi has already asked the Yolo County district attorney's office to investigate, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Raven confirmed Tuesday that the department will look into the matter.
Attorney General Kamala Harris was deeply disturbed by the videos of the incident, spokeswoman Lynda Gledhill said Tuesday.
'She's confident they will conduct a quick and thorough investigation of the matter,' Gledhill said.

(the students have appealed to the CA AG before...)
Also-- while reading that DailyMail story kept thinking about the fact that there were at least two ASIAN officers who experienced problems at UC Davis -- perhaps not just anti gay but other issues as well.
Get better George.

No comments:

Post a Comment