Calif. Student Suspended for Taping Prof's Anti-Trump 'Act of Terrorism' Rant

xxjefferson51
By:  @xxjefferson51, 7 months ago
Comments: 42 ..

Tags

In an Orwellian twist, a student at Orange Coast College (OCC) who filmed his professor's anti-Trump rant was suspended from his school, required to meet with the dean of students to "request...reentry," and forced to write an apology and a three-page essay explaining why he recorded the rant, the negative impacts of his recording, and how he will "prevent this from happening in the future." The student has appealed the decision.

"This is an attack by leftists in academia to protect the expressive rights of their radical instructors at the expense of the expressive rights of conservative students on campus," declared Bill Becker, founder, president, and general counsel of Freedom X, who is representing the student. Becker announced that his organization will file a notice of appeal on Wednesday, arguing that the student's "constitutional and legal rights have been violated."

Caleb O'Neil, the previously anonymous student, was notified of his suspension last Thursday, February 9. On December 9, 2016, O'Neil published a YouTube video of Olga Pere Stable-Cox, his psychology professor.

In that video, Stable-Cox called then President-elect Donald Trump a "white supremacist," denounced Mike Pence as "one of the most anti-gay humans in this country," and called their electoral victory "an act of terrorism." She added that "we are way beyond Republicans and Democrats, we are really back to being in a civil war."

SPONSORED



Given the harsh nature of these remarks, and the fact that O'Neil had reportedly worn Trump campaign t-shirts to class, the student was "in fear of retaliation by his instructor after she launched into a half-hour rant in which she labeled Trump a 'white supremacist' and told the class she would no longer tolerate any person who voted for Trump," Freedom X reported.

According to the law firm, "O'Neil videotaped the rant over concerns that his grade might be lowered for the class because of his outward show of support for Trump. He intended to use the video to present the administration as evidence of his concerns."

Michigan Students JAILED for Handing Out Constitutions Fight Back
The email which notified O'Neil of his suspension charged the student with violating the Student Code of Conduct against tape recording and unauthorized use of electronic devices in the classroom, Campus Reform reported.

Unauthorized recording is a serious violation of the Student Code of Conduct. This is clearly stated in the instructor's course syllabus in addition to the student code of conduct. When we spoke, you stated that you felt badly about the things that had happened to individuals as a result of this incident. It is my hope that this experience will lead you to truly think through your actions and the consequences of those actions when making decisions in the future.
In the email, Interim Dean of Students Victoria Lugo cited two specific policies in the Student Code of Conduct which O'Neil allegedly violated: "Unauthorized Tape Recording" and "Unauthorized Use of Electronic Devices." The first section forbids taking a tape recording of "any person on District Property or at any District function without that person's knowledge or consent." The second forbids use of electronic devices "on District property or at any District function, including but not limited to classes, lectures, labs and field trips."

The email did not point to the part of the instructor's course syllabus forbidding such recordings. Lugo did, however, lay out a 5-step punishment for O'Neil, including: suspension for one full semester, a required meeting with the dean of students who will "consider your request for reentry," disciplinary probation for one semester after returning from suspension, submission of a written apology by February 28, and a three-page essay explaining why O'Neil videotaped the professor, why he decided to share the video, his "thoughts and analysis on the impact of the video going 'viral' and the ensuing damage to Orange Coast College students, faculty and staff," other choices he "could have made," and how he will prevent this from happening in the future.

SPONSORED


Freedom X, the firm filing the notice of appeal, argued that "the sanctions imposed on O'Neil are excessive, that the college retaliated against O'Neil in violation of his constitutional and legal rights by unlawfully discriminating against him on the basis of his conservative political views and that the college violated O'Neil's due process rights by conducting a partisan probe into the incident."

Joshua Recalde-Martinez, president emeritus of OCC College Republicans, told Campus Reform that the school's use of the Student Code of Conduct to judge O'Neil was overboard. "Even I myself could pretty easily violate the electronic device recording statute. Anyone who uses their phone in class is automatically violating that portion of the student code of conduct," Recalde-Martinez argued.

VIDEO: UC Berkeley Students Violently Stop White People from Crossing Bridge
Recalde-Martinez and the Republican club's lawyers further insisted that "there is simply no clause in the [student conduct code] beyond using a tape recording device."

OCC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Perhaps ironically, there was a free speech protest following the original release of Caleb O'Neil's video on YouTube, but it was a protest in favor of the professor. Students chanted, "We support free speech, let teachers teach!"

Freedom X will give a press conference with O'Neil to present and discuss the appeal later Wednesday afternoon. There has been no word yet on whether the students protesting for Professor Stable-Cox support O'Neil's suspension. Perhaps they will speak up after the press conference. https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/15/calif-student-suspended-for-taping-profs-anti-trump-act-of-terrorism-rant/
Flagging unavailable
jrDiscussion
 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA    7 months ago

Screen-Shot-2017-02-15-at-2.27.19-PM.siz

YouTube screenshot of remarks by a Psychology professor calling Trump's election
 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Redding Shasta Jefferson USA   7 months ago

I guess the special snowflakes didn't want their hate exposed.

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

You are correct.  So now they expel students who publicize recorded class notes when so called instructors go on rants.  

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Redding Shasta Jefferson USA   7 months ago

Reminds me of Liberty University where only the ''party line'' is tolerated.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

Except that OCC is a public college while LU is a private religious school.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

Indeed your correct Cerenkov, but Liberty University was pointed out to be, in another article,  a school that did not allow contrary views or clubs.

This of course was after a person posted an article on a Jesuit School (private religious school) stopped a group of conservatives from forming a chartered club on the Jesuit campus.

The Jesuit schools did allow both an anti abortion club and a republican club. It should be added that the club trying for charter at the school was not throw off school property, they are still there but without a charter. The same cannot be said of Liberty University, who indeed threw the democratic club off campus.

If that person is going to piss and moan about freedoms, he only has to look at the evangelical school, Liberty University to see that they do not allow freedoms, when the Jesuit school did.

 

 

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

Going to a private religious school like LU is a choice. Their philosophy is no secret. If you don't buy into it, you'd be better off in a public school or a more secular private school.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

What it does prove is that the evangelical university has no tolerance for an opposing opinion.

So when our resident complainers start with their nonsense it's best for them to look in a mirror.

 

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

"What it does prove is that the evangelical university has no tolerance for an opposing opinion."

Naturally.

"So when our resident complainers start with their nonsense it's best for them to look in a mirror."

Unless these members run religious colleges, your analogy does not apply.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

''Unless these members run religious colleges, your analogy does not apply.''

Oh indeed it applies. Since these members are the ones supporting Liberty U and are complaining about other religious schools not allowing opposing groups on campus, which of course was a lie. They have presented themselves as supporters of University that prohibits opposing view points.

If they weren't whining about the Jesuit School, than nothing would have been said. But, since they choose to point fingers without actually knowing what they were talking about, it's important to point out that particular bias to the members of NT.

Here come da judge.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

Nope. Comparing a private religious institution to a secular public college is disingenuous at best.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

Nice try, but the fact remains that Liberty U does not allow opposing view points. But, it's expected from those that cry about how they and their religion is being suppressed.

Classic BS on their part.

 

 

 
Lucy
link   Lucy  replied to  Redding Shasta Jefferson USA   7 months ago

Yikes, don't get me wrong...  but not one professor that I heard of had done anything like this during any class to any president before Pres. Trump's election--pick any presidents you like of the modern era--there are plenty.

Why is it right to do it to Pres. Trump?  Because he was in business prior to running for the presidency? 

I'm shocked, aghast and completely flabbergasted that professors think this is alright.

As for the student, he needs to address the issue of this professor with the school's Dean.  If nothing is done, then he can certainly pursue a legal lawsuit against the school for harassment and intimidation.  You don't go to college to be harassed and intimidated.  You go to college to hopefully exchange ideas and expand your mind to other points of view--even if you fundamentally disagree with them.

The recording, in light of the above, is a very minor issue, IMO, and one that was necessary in order for that student to subtantiate his claims.

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Redding Shasta Jefferson USA   7 months ago

In that video, Stable-Cox called then President-elect Donald Trump a "white supremacist," denounced Mike Pence as "one of the most anti-gay humans in this country," 

Say the word and I'll make this very case with videos and documents corroborating the allegations …

Say the word!

 

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

In that video, Stable-Cox called then President-elect Donald Trump a "white supremacist," denounced Mike Pence as "one of the most anti-gay humans in this country," 

Say the word and I'll make this very case with videos and documents corroborating the allegations …

Say the word!

You cannot establish either one as matter of fact. All you will establish is your opinion based on your definition of "white supremacist" and "anti-gay". 

 

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  1ofmany   7 months ago

Say the word and I'll make this very case with videos and documents corroborating the allegations …

Say the word!

You cannot establish either one as matter of fact. All you will establish is your opinion based on your definition of "white supremacist" and "anti-gay". 

When facts are in dispute, one of the ways the dispute is settled, is to litigate before a jury, a judicial panel, arbitrator, etc. .

Key in such proceedings are opening statements followed by the presentation of evidence. If an allegation "X" is corroborated by such evidentiary material as video, "opinion" and fact may well coincide.

In my career, I was quite successful in "making my case" because I was relentless and meticulous in compiling "paper trails". By definition, a "paper" trail is comprised of …

"documents from which a person's actions may be traced or opinions learned"

Video, speech transcripts, witness accounts, etc. … these help decide when an opinion is also a fact (more-or-less).

I stand by my "say the word" comment. Whether or not anyone cares to conclude anything definitive from documentation, while often a matter of pre-disposition, nevertheless, our judicial system is based on a protocol; depending on the type of dispute, such phenomena as "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of evidence" are standards for what the record shows when all s said and done.

Trumps words, the words, actions and histories of many of his followers, and, at least two members of his White House staff make my "opinion" quite believable.

Say the word.

But if you do, say it tomorrow … I'm off to bed.

Good night, my friend.

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

 Video, speech transcripts, witness accounts, etc. … these help decide when an opinion is also a fact (more-or-less).

A fact is a fact, no more or less, more or less is a judgment, in other words a decision. There is no decision to be made over it. Thank you for telling me right up front that you intend to offer opinions as fact.

In my learned opinion, you've lost before you have ever begun.

See you tomorrow my friend.

 

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

When facts are in dispute, one of the ways the dispute is settled, is to litigate before a jury, a judicial panel, arbitrator, etc. .

Key in such proceedings are opening statements followed by the presentation of evidence. If an allegation "X" is corroborated by such evidentiary material as video, "opinion" and fact may well coincide.

That's if you have a factual dispute where evidence can prove whether something is true or false. It's your opinion that Trump is a white supremacist and Pence is anti-gay but you can't prove it. For instance, you may be able to prove with evidence that someone was born in Chicago. You can't, however, prove that Chicago is the best city in the country because that's just your opinion. It will still be an opinion even if you get 10,000 written statements from people who agree with you. 

Before you waste your time, I'll note that I won't accept as logical an argument that goes "all white supremacists make racially insensitive statements about black people, therefore, all people who make racially insensitive statements about black people are white supremacists." Nor will I accept a similar argument that "all anti-gay people oppose same sex marriage, therefore, all people who oppose same sex marriage are anti-gay. Both of these arguments are based on flawed reasoning and both are based entirely on opinion rather then fact.

I stand by my "say the word" comment . . .

Say the word.

Word

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

WORD!


Of course I would like to see that definitively proven with nothing but personal opinions as proof.

It would be a nice trick....

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 months ago

WORD!


 

Of course I would like to see that definitively proven with nothing but personal opinions as proof.

It would be a nice trick....

No trick at all … I will, tomorrow, post videos and other data to present my case.

I will show xenophobia, ethnocentrism, religious intolerance, misogyny, bigotry, anti-semitic supporters … see you tomorrow.

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

Excellent!

 I will show xenophobia, ethnocentrism, religious intolerance, misogyny, bigotry, anti-semitic supporters

You will show what in you opinion are these things. I asked for definitive proof.

 … see you tomorrow.

Looking forward to it, hopefully we can keep the hyperbole to a minimum....

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 months ago

TO NWM and 1ofmany (and any other interested members)

Let's not play with words? In the real world, in the absence of eyewitness or other accounts such as video or documents of clear attribution, fact is established by the protocol I delineated for both of you.

To use a colloquialism ... "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... It's a duck.

If you have already decided that nothing anyone can present, no matter how specifically illustrative it may be, if demonstrable facts are to you, anything but opinion, then you seem to be not truly interested in considering anything but YOUR opinion.

I'm willing to post what the record shows, and, in Trump's own video recorded words, the words of his followers, documented statements,  and, by virtue of who now runs his presidency.

That's how we make our case in America.

What say you? Are you rejecting my case before I make it, or, are you willing to discuss point-by-point as to what the record shows?

From facts, we make judgements ... we form conclusions ... our judicial system, and, much of our lives are based on that reality.

Can we know from an individual's words and actions what's in his heart, not conclusively unless that individual unequivocally tells us what's there.  If you can't accept that, then we can't continue with this; but, if you acknowledge that in courtrooms and in life, what we take as proof is often based on standards of reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence, then we're good to go.

However, if you are telling me that you have already reached your verdict, that even before I have presented my case, you then have failed the voir dire portion of this "trial" … and can't be objective jurors.

In a civilized society and a reasonable forum of discussion, when facts are in dispute, we make our arguments and counter arguments and hope that objectivity leads the way.

I am willing to show you Trump's own racist statements on video, his admission to actions against women, and, documented comments he made which are demonstrably false.

As for "proof" ... I can prove that he has said racist, etc. things to receptive crowds, that by his own words, he has acted in misogynistic ways ... these things I can prove; after that, you must decide for yourselves, what that proof means with regard to Trump's character.

That's how things work in law, between civilized individuals, and in any discussion forum that's worth a damn.

I'm willing and able to make a case … and I am not wont to do so in the manner of a kangaroo court. I will lay out the facts … you decide what they imply or prove … if anything.

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

Mac -- I'm perfectly aware of the difference between facts and opinion as used in our legal system. If you think you can prove an opinion as fact then go ahead and try. I'm just telling you up front that I will demonstrate that it is nothing more than your opinion no matter how much "evidence" you submit. So go for it.

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  1ofmany   7 months ago

If you think you can prove an opinion as fact then go ahead and try. I'm just telling you up front that I will demonstrate that it is nothing more than your opinion no matter how much "evidence" you submit. So go for it.

Let's not miss characterize my objective here which is to produce a number of facts, after which, I ask those who look at those facts to make a judgment as to whether or not Donald Trump has, by virtue of his own words, behavior, and those of some of his followers, thus characterize him as a bigot/sexist and other flawed traits inappropriate for a public official … especially, the POTUS!

There's a reason our judicial system/America as an entity, has, as standards to determine innocence or guilt, or, to distinguish truth from untruth … those standards being whether or not the facts create an argument that goes beyond a reasonable doubt, or, represents a preponderance of the evidence.

If we are going to have a civil discourse and a civilized society, we cannot have either in the absence of such standards.

Demonstrable facts are truths; whether or not those truths are able to lead those who encounter them to a plausible conclusion, is often up to the discretion or objectivity of the recipient.

I will present the facts and you will decide what they indicate. 

That's all I hope to achieve.

THE ISSUE/QUESTION, Based on:

A video in which a college professor called then President-elect, Donald Trump a "white supremacist," and denounced Mike Pence as "one of the most anti-gay humans in this country" … 

DOES THE READER BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP IS ANY or ALL OF WHAT THE COLLEGE PROFESSOR IN THIS ARTICLE CONTENDED?

If we understand that issue and my objective here, I will "GO FOR IT".

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

I'm not one for setting up my friends, and I do understand what your getting at.

Problem is the terms you are claiming to prove are all opinions to start with. And when I was studying the law you can never convert an opinion into fact. You going to present evidence of speech and actions in text and video form and request, much like a lawyer charging a jury, for the reader to come to a conclusion that you wish to offer as the fact.

But all conclusions are judgments based upon the opinions of the decider. (based upon that which the decider decides is important or fact) This is why you cannot do what your claiming my friend.

The only fact you are presenting is the fact that YOU BELIEVE.

The world would be both much easier and much more difficult if such were true. I mean convert opinion into fact.

I could give examples, if it would serve any purpose, if you want.

But tell me what is the point?

We see such happening all the time on the board, from minds of lesser understanding than yours my friend. It is what drives the arguments.

To steal a line...

"I trust your guesses more than most others facts"

Is an intellectual compliment of the highest order, And it is the status I hold your intellect my friend. and on that basis I don't wish to see you make, in my humble opinion, such an error in logic...

But we are free and independent individuals, and your welcome to try.

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 months ago

The only fact you are presenting is the fact that YOU BELIEVE.

I disagree; if I say it's a fact that "So-and-So made the following statement, one that disparages a race, religion, gender, nationality or legal status of a demographic, then produce, on valid video, taped conversation or transcript … that which I stated to be factual (in my opening argument)is shown, indeed, to be factual.

Where we agree (somewhat), is that the objectivity or lack thereof of a (i.e.) juror, may cause him to deem a fact, an "opinion", and be in error in doing so.

Where we completely agree is when taking a set of facts and based solely upon them, positing a "conclusion," that, even the facts ALONE cannot "prove".

I'll be specific; if Trump or anyone else, in a political forum, makes a racist comment THAT PANDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE VOTES OF RACISTS, while, IMO, such an act is reprehensible, we cannot definitively conclude that Trump, etc., "in his heart," believes his own bullshit.

So, I DEFER TO YOU AND 1OFMANY … I can lead you to water, but, I cannot make you drink that water!

The fact that I can disagree with you guys and do so on a high and respectable level … gives me hope that there are not more assholes in the world than there are buttocks.

Good debate, my friends.

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

Thankfully, we agree in the issue of conclusions.

Where we run afoul in approach to this debate is this.....

 "So-and-So made the following statement, one that disparages a race, religion, gender, nationality or legal status of a demographic, then produce, on valid video, taped conversation or transcript … that which I stated to be factual (in my opening argument)is shown, indeed, to be factual.

YES, so-and-so made the statement that IS a fact.

But what that statement represents is an opinion. And everyone will have a differing opinion. to someone with a different set of facts, understandings, or experiences, it could mean a myriad of other things. What is said is subject to the interpretation of the listener based upon their opinions.

You can make the fact that so-and-so said it but what it means is the purvue of the listener to determine. You can try and convince them it means what you believe it to mean, but at that point, your arguing opinion.

The only fact presented is that he said it.

I'm very happy that at least once in a while we can have such discussions, they are the gems that arise from the muck my friend.

Thank you.

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 months ago

The only fact presented is that he said it.

A point worth repeating.

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

Let's not miss characterize my objective here which is to produce a number of facts, after which, I ask those who look at those facts to make a judgment as to whether or not Donald Trump has, by virtue of his own words, behavior, and those of some of his followers, thus characterize him as a bigot/sexist and other flawed traits inappropriate for a public official … especially, the POTUS!

Opinions can be based on facts but opinions are not, themselves, facts. Put forward anything you like but you cannot prove, as a matter of fact, that your position rests on anything other than your belief. 

There's a reason our judicial system/America as an entity, has, as standards to determine innocence or guilt, or, to distinguish truth from untruth … those standards being whether or not the facts create an argument that goes beyond a reasonable doubt, or, represents a preponderance of the evidence.

And those standards apply to disputes over issues of fact not differences in opinion. 

If we are going to have a civil discourse and a civilized society, we cannot have either in the absence of such standards.

We can and we do. Nobody presents evidence in court to prove an opinion. 

Demonstrable facts are truths; whether or not those truths are able to lead those who encounter them to a plausible conclusion, is often up to the discretion or objectivity of the recipient.

Again, you don't prove opinions. 

I will present the facts and you will decide what they indicate. 

Which leads to an opinion, not a fact.

THE ISSUE/QUESTION, Based on:

A video in which a college professor called then President-elect, Donald Trump a "white supremacist," and denounced Mike Pence as "one of the most anti-gay humans in this country" … 

DOES THE READER BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP IS ANY or ALL OF WHAT THE COLLEGE PROFESSOR IN THIS ARTICLE CONTENDED?

If we understand that issue and my objective here, I will "GO FOR IT".

What people "believe" will be an opinion but knock yourself out. 

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA    7 months ago

This suspension was illegitimate and needs to be overturned.  The student should demand reinstatement and it's the school that needs to make an apology.  

 
jwc2blue
link   jwc2blue    7 months ago

Righties love to point out the need to obey rules, until it doesn't work for them.

HE knew it was wrong, that's why as the article says, he recorded it secretly.

 

http://www.orangecoastcollege.edu/student_life/deanofstudents/Documents/Code_of_Conduct.pdf

2.6 RECORDING AND PRESENTING WITNESSES


 

Audio/Video Recordings – No audio, video, or other recording of any investigation, interview,

 

meeting, or hearing is permitted.

 

Witness Rules and Limitations – only witnesses presenting relevant testimony or information

 

directly related to the alleged violations are permitted. Witness statements relating to the alleged

 

violations may be accepted by the College Disciplinary Officer at their sole discretion, if such

 

statements are deemed to be material and relevant to the proceeding.

 

Character witnesses are not permitted to testify or offer writings in support of any Party in any

 

Student discipline proceeding.

 

The College Disciplinary Officer shall be responsible to schedule witnesses for all meetings

 

other than the appeal hearing, subject to the Student notifying the college no less than 5 days

 

prior to the proceeding. The College Disciplinary Officer reserves the right to exclude redundant

 

testimony from witnesses, or redundancy in witnesses.

 

Also

http://www.orangecoastcollege.edu/about_occ/Technology/student-computing/Documents/COAST%20COMMUNITY%20COLLEGE%20DISTRICT%20POLICY%20030.pdf

3.40 Failure to Obtain Permits. Participating in an organized protest for which a District permit has not been obtained.

 

3.41 Fighting. Fighting with any other person on District Property or at any District function.

 

3.42 Gambling. Unauthorized gambling on District Property or at any District function.

 

3.43 Unreasonable Demands. Placing repeated unreasonable demands on District staff.

 

3.44 Unauthorized Tape Recording. Tape recording any person on District Property or at any District function without that person's knowledge or consent.

 

3.45 Unauthorized Use of District Keys. Unauthorized use, distribution, duplication or possession of any keys issued for any building, laboratory, facility, room, or other District Property.

 

3.46 Unauthorized Use of Electronic Devices. Unauthorized use of an electronic device on District property or at any District function, including but not limited to, classes, lectures, labs and field trips.

 

3.47 Unauthorized Use of Property or Services. Unauthorized use of property or services or unauthorized possession of District Property or the property of any other person or business.

 

 

 
No Fear
link   No Fear    7 months ago

This is classic left wing fascism.

 
jwc2blue
link   jwc2blue  replied to  No Fear   7 months ago

Care to explain how getting into trouble for breaking the rules is "fascism?"

 

3.44 Unauthorized Tape Recording. Tape recording any person on District Property or at any District function without that person's knowledge or consent.

 

3.45 Unauthorized Use of District Keys. Unauthorized use, distribution, duplication or possession of any keys issued for any building, laboratory, facility, room, or other District Property.

 

3.46 Unauthorized Use of Electronic Devices. Unauthorized use of an electronic device on District property or at any District function, including but not limited to, classes, lectures, labs and field trips.

I mean, I know you can't. But it will be fun to watch you squirm and deflect some more.

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  jwc2blue   7 months ago

I get it, it is not ok to break the rules that allow fascist's to indoctrinate the young they are supposed to be teaching.

But, it is ok to break the rules that prevent your marxist leaders from lining their own pockets and selling the nation to the highest bidder.....

WE get it.... the only people that have to follow the rules are the people you disagree with... (or the ones you want to control or fuck over)

 
magnoliaave
link   magnoliaave    7 months ago

In the article it states...."let teachers teach".   This was not teaching, but giving an opinion.....big difference!  Unauthorized use of electronic equipment I can deal with, however,  the reprimand does not fit the crime. 

This professor should be reprimanded for using her position to espouse her political beliefs.  Were the students given the same opportunity to counter her views? 

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA  replied to  magnoliaave   7 months ago

Exactly.  

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany    7 months ago

It looks to me like this student was clearly aware of the rules and knowingly violated them to get evidence against the teacher. The student should be disciplined and, if the recording substantiates that the teacher is trying to force her political views on the students, then she should be fired. 

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA  replied to  1ofmany   7 months ago

A lot of students record lectures for notes and to prep for a test.  Had the student recorded a teacher praying our quoting a Bible verse to make a point and went public with that the reaction would not have been the same for the student.  

 
1ofmany
link   1ofmany  replied to  Redding Shasta Jefferson USA   7 months ago

Good point. Liberals would have thought the student was justified in breaking the rules to catch the teacher. 

 
sixpick
link   sixpick    7 months ago

The student may have grown up with parents like mine.  My Father would always ask me what I learned in school today?  Maybe he thought he could learn something as well, I don't know, but it was important to him to know what I learned in school each day.  Maybe it was because he was paying for the school, the buses, the teacher's salaries, subsidizing the meals etc.

After all, it was a public school, his taxes and everyone he knew who paid taxes were the only reason it existed.

So I would say the student was telling his Father what he learned in school that day.

 
Spikegary
link   Spikegary    7 months ago

All electronic devices?  On school property?  That means no one is allowed to have a cell phone, recorder, anything like that.  How many people are breaking that rule?  Everyday?  I'd venture to guess 99+ % of them.  I think the student has a good case against the school.

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA  replied to  Spikegary   7 months ago

The rules were arbitrary and designed to protect nutty professors from students who might object.  

 

Share This

Who is online






Visitors: 30