|
|
|
|
|
|
by surge
2563 days ago
|
|
|
I saw it happen first hand once at Guilford College, another small liberal arts college. There was an incident between a group of drunken football students and some kids that were Arabic. The school didn't do its part to encourage rational and cool heads until all the facts were in and there were mobs looking for football players, even those not involved. It wasn't safe for them so had to leave campus. Once the facts were in the football players had medical evidence of being assaulted and punched with a hand wrapped with a belt which conflicted with the students story of just being jumped (if you have time to take off your belt and wrap it around your hand, you have time to escape or deescalate). Other eye witness statements lined up that both parties were drinking (the other students had been on their way to the club). In the end it seemed like the both parties were at fault but the ones claiming victim status were the original antagonizers and lost the fight so cried foul. In either case, there were calls to disband the football team and athletic program as a result of the actions of a few students. No where was the college saying wait for all the evidence to be presented, rather than going on the word of one side before reacting. They allowed the students to take over effectively and no students who encouraged the mob were ever disciplined afterwards for libel. It's a common practice at these schools to assume guilt because of race (they're white), which is just as unjust as the crimes in the past. The hard standard is to not involve mass mob or protest until evidence is provided. If schools are supposed to be institutions of higher learning and thought, they should be encouraging students to be impartial and consider all evidence and act on that and not hearsay. Free speech standards in the US requires you have evidence to back up what you're saying if you're going to speak negatively of someone, even more so if you're going to take action against them, colleges should be encouraging that standard and rational thought over emotional reaction. |
|
|
You're free to speak negatively of people, you just can't damage someone's reputation by spreading false facts. I'm allowed to call my neighbor a poopyhead or the like, but I can't tell people that he sexually molests children.
Debate is fine, lively discussion is fine, talking negatively about people is fine. What crosses the line is when you go after someone's livelihood or ability to live in peace. That's really what this case is about - Oberlin college administrators got into a disagreement with a local bakery, so they tried to use their clout and influence to run them out of business. Juries really do not approve of that sort of behavior.