Online users
???: Message   

"The school's response to FIRE after the restrictions were lifted was that officials believe they were constitutionally correct in censoring the communications." - (cue John Cleese) "Right."
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

12/01/2019, 17:36:44

Author Profile Mail author Edit

University bans participants in student groups from meeting! - WND

WND Staff
3-4 minutes

Education U.S.

'I expect there to be no other communication with your members'

WND Staff By WND Staff
Published November 30, 2019 at 6:57pm

A university that banned participants in its student groups from meeting has begun backing down.

Officials with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education are confirming Ohio University dropped "an unconstitutional directive banning members of more than a dozen student organizations from any meetings and other communication unless 'pre-approved' by an administrator."

"FIRE and these students sent OU a clear message: administrators can't muzzle student speech and get away with it," said FIRE program officer Zach Greenberg.

"We're pleased that OU has backed away from this flawed directive, and hope other universities learn that First Amendment rights can’t be sacrificed at the altar of eradicating hazing."

TRENDING: Ex-Clinton employee Ronan Farrow says Hillary changed as Weinstein scandal threatened her money

The fight developed in October when OU suspended the activities of Greek organizations and a campus sports team. The action followed several allegations of "hazing."

The university then ordered a long list of groups not to "meet in any capacity, officially or unofficially."

Also banned was "communication with and among the group via any social media platform or application."

"Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Community Standards and Student Responsibility Taylor J. Tackett later ominously clarified that he expected "there to be no other communication with your members, unless it is pre-approved by me," FIRE reported.

A letter to President Marvin Nellis from FIRE shortly thereafter warned that "OU has exceeded the lawful scope of its authority under the First Amendment."

FIRE also asked for the university to back down, which OU did shortly later.

"It is certainly appropriate to punish those who engage in hazing. It is completely inappropriate to deprive hundreds of uninvolved innocents of their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly rights without the due process of law," said Timothy M. Burke of Manley Burke, LPA, which defended OU students. "FIRE's reputation and history of successful action no doubt got Ohio University’s attention and helped restore constitutional rights."

Claims of hazing have been an issue at some universities and they need to battle misbehavior, but cannot use, "vague, wide-ranging limits on student gatherings and communication largely divorced from addressing the alleged misconduct at issue," FIRE said.

The school's response to FIRE after the restrictions were lifted was that officials believe they were constitutionally correct in censoring the communications.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message