[One Degree]

These are not laws. There is no law against her blackface. These are administrative regulations imposed upon employees of public and private institutions. These people are free to say whatever they would like they are not free to say it in a way that brings discredit on their employer.

These polices are not legal unless they are backed by legal precedents. They would not be allowed to discipline her for this, if hate laws limiting free speech, were not on the books.

We see this in the news frequently. Another waiter who writes some derogative comment about a customer on the receipt. Is that free speech? Sure. Is it grounds for firing? You bet.

Same as above. Not legal without legal precedent. Edit: The employee could still be fired for damaging the business without placing a limit on free speech. He would not be fired for what he wrote, but for incompetency. He is not doing his job if he runs customers off.

I would oppose any law making any speech (short of the fire in a theater kind) illegal. But I absolutely support the employers right to police his ranks. And if you think about it, this is exactly the social pressure of which you are speaking. Private citizens imposing on other private citizens sanction for bad behavior. How much more American could you get?

The social pressure should have come from those attending her party. Apparently, no one at the party was upset enough to say anything. This is understandable for the students, but not the other adults. If the social pressure was not there, then this particular group does not accept there was a problem and outsiders should not have any thing to say about it. This just causes a group discussion which always results in discord instead of understanding.
I see this as another example of individuals avoiding personal responsibility and wanting laws to make up for their cowardice.

[Drlee]

These polices are not legal unless they are backed by legal precedents. They would not be allowed to discipline her for this, if hate laws limiting free speech, were not on the books.

This is not true on both counts. She was not subject to discipline for hate speech. She violated an employers regulations.

Edit: The employee could still be fired for damaging the business without placing a limit on free speech. He would not be fired for what he wrote, but for incompetency. He is not doing his job if he runs customers

That is precisely why this rule exists.

[One Degree]

She violated an employers regulations.

What regulation? One not based upon hate speech laws?

[Pants-of-dog]

https://provost.uoregon.edu/sites/provo ... _final.pdf

That is a link to the actual report.

[One Degree]

That is a link to the actual report.

Okay, I read the full report. Their policy is based upon law as they stated. Their reasons are clearly what other posters have mentioned as a capitalist need to satisfy the consumer/students. They totally disregard her intent and judge her solely upon the feelings of students who the vast majority were not even present.
I fail to see what point you were trying to make.

Edit: Thank you for the link. It was very appreciated.

[Drlee]

Their policy is based upon law as they stated

Nonsense.

What law?

[One Degree]

Nonsense.

What law?

I have slept since I read it. They justify their regulations by making reference to current laws. I assume they were referring to anti discrimination/hate laws based upon the context. You can not enforce a regulation that is not backed by law.

Edit: I predict she will be forced to resign based upon their findings. This is where we are headed. Loss of employment because of our actions in our own homes.

[Pants-of-dog]

@One Degree

I strongly suggest reading the report, as it addresses all of the criticisms you are making. For example, they discuss her intent.

[One Degree]

@One Degree

I strongly suggest reading the report, as it addresses all of the criticisms you are making. For example, they discuss her intent.

I read the report. I told you I read the report. I made comments showing I read the report. I read the part about her intent. Are you referring to her invitations? Please be more specific and I will re read the appropriate parts if necessary. The report started out giving a fairly unbiased account of peoples recollections of what happened. It then ignored all the positives and used the negatives to reinforce a position they felt would not upset their customers. It was basically a farce in my opinion. I prefer to ignore all the superfluous and get to the nitty gritty. She will probably lose her job because of something she did in her own home that was not meant to hurt or upset anyone. The witnesses all agree she was oblivious to any upset she was causing.

[Pants-of-dog]

I read the report. I told you I read the report. I made comments showing I read the report. I read the part about her intent. Are you referring to her invitations? Please be more specific and I will re read the appropriate parts if necessary.

Sorry, I thought you said that they disregarded her intent.

The report started out giving a fairly unbiased account of peoples recollections of what happened. It then ignored all the positives and used the negatives to reinforce a position they felt would not upset their customers.

Who are "they" and who are "their customers"?

[One Degree]

Who are "they" and who are "their customers"?

Administration (they) coddling students (their customers), who are expressing outrage at an event they did not attend. Something is seriously wrong when people can express outrage at something this inconsequential and bring about harmful repercussions on a person who meant no harm.

[Pants-of-dog]

The administration did not write the report.

[One Degree]

This matter was referred to Barran Liebman LLP by the University of Oregon’s Office of the
General Counsel and the Office of Affirmation Action and Equal Opportunity (“OAAEO”)

@Pants-of-dog
Are you really going to argue this is not the administration because they hired someone?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog
Are you really going to argue this is not the administration because they hired someone?

You seem to think this is some sort of press release crafted by the administration to support some sort of nefarious agenda against the professor.

It is not. It is a report commissioned by the administration. They asked their lawyers what they should do. The lawyers looked at the existsing laws and told the administration what was in their best interests according to said law.

[One Degree]

You seem to think this is some sort of press release crafted by the administration to support some sort of nefarious agenda against the professor.

Yes I do.

It is not. It is a report commissioned by the administration. They asked their lawyers what they should do. The lawyers looked at the existsing laws and told the administration what was in their best interests according to said law.

I thought you said the administration was not behind it? Their best interests lies in appeasing students. That was my point. What other interests are involved? Do you think she would sue them if they did nothing to her? They have opened them selves up to a lawsuit by her. The lawyers are simply to make sure they can fire her without liability. There is no liability if they did nothing, just unhappy students.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes I do.

Then let me clarify something: people hire lawyers to interpret laws for them, and so that the lawyers can then counsel them on what is best for the person or people according to said laws.

I thought you said the administration was not behind it? Their best interests lies in appeasing students. That was my point. What other interests are involved? Do you think she would sue them if they did nothing to her? They have opened them selves up to a lawsuit by her. The lawyers are simply to make sure they can fire her without liability. There is no liability if they did nothing, just unhappy students.

I did not say the administration was "not behind it", nor do I know what you mean by that.

Please note that they have done nothing to her, so why would she sue them?

[One Degree]

Please note that they have done nothing to her, so why would she sue them?

Why don't we wait a few days and then resume the discussion. My guess is they will do something based upon the wording of the report. I predict they will fire her.

[Pants-of-dog]

They probably would have fired her by now if they were planning on it.