I guess I'd get kicked out of the school's SGA...

[mjr]

But I don't know what this young woman is going to do.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/al...sity-workshop/

University of Houston student, on Student Gov't Association, makes a post regarding BLM and "all lives matter", and faces re-education in a "diversity workshop".

[s_stabeler]

the rights and wrongs of punishing her for the post are debateable, but they do have the right to remove her. ( the method, on the other hand, strikes me as unfair, since it is intentionally bypassing the normal procedure for removing her from her position to make it easier.)

[Dreamstalker]

Sethi hadn’t recognized the severity of her offense in declaring that all people’s lives matter.

....WTF? I get it in context with the article, but...

[Canarr]

....WTF? I get it in context with the article, but...

That sentence is almost as stupid as Sethi's FB post, yes. Whoever said that should've focused on the "Forget #blacklivesmatter" part - that'd be understandable even out of context.

On the subject of Sethi's treatment, I'm with s_stabeler: I can understand wanting to get rid of her after that post, but they should've done it the right way, by following the protocol for such an occasion, not come up with a list of punishments that they're secretly hoping she won't complete, so they can kick her out.

[s_stabeler]

especially since this sounds like it might be a end-run around the restrictions due to not actually having enough support amongst the SGA to remove her. at that school, the vice-president can only be removed via impeachment- which requires the approval of the student body president, president of the student senate and 3/4 of the student senators THEN the student supreme court would try her.

Basically, they are trying to throw out the rulebook on how to remove the Student Vice President- not to mention the list of punishments seems a little bit extreme. The suspension itself means she loses $1400, the workshop is $20 to attend and I wouldn't be surprised if the cultural events require some form of payment. ( for that matter, I dislike the fact that by the wording of the punishment, she could be chucked out if there weren't three "UH Cultural Events" during one of the months in question.That and what if the events require doing something she finds objectionable? ( I'm thinking forcing a vegetarian to eat meat here)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

But I don't know what this young woman is going to do.

Pull damages out of the school. Student organizations are ultimately sanctioned by the school or not. If they are sanctioned by the school, the actions of student organizations are sactioned by the school. So she'd have to directly threaten the school itself if the school will not step in on their own.

What the senate did was actually create a mechanism for ex post facto legal action. I specifically don't know enough about the school's student government bylaws, but on the face it does look like a possible abuse of the system and certainly one where if this student feels personally damaged by the process, she is probably within her rights to explore legal action.

[s_stabeler]

actually, in the sense Ex Post Facto legislation is banned, this isn't actually ex post facto legislation, which is where something is made illegal after the fact. It's not in dispute that, following the legitimate procedure, the student government would be able to remove the Student Vice president. What this is is the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder. The legality of that depends on the Student Constitution, and how closely it models the US constitution. That part is, however, an internal matter for the SGA.

In the real world, which is what can actually be enforced in the courts, there may or may not be the ability to sue over this- if the SGA is bound by the 1st amendment- and it may be, considering it appears to be endorsed by the school, who definitely are bound by the 1st Amendment, she can sue in court. If not, then any remedies would need to be done via the SGA, I'm fairly sure.

overall, though, she was treated pretty shittily.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think my point is, she's probably not without recourse. It's just you'd probably recommend a lawyer go through it with her because there's probably a bunch of really specific to the circumstance arguments to be made (and I have no desire to figure it out.)

Regarding ex post facto, I would respectfully disagree with you. At the time of her "offense" she had a very specific set of prescribed by the SGA procedures with which to deal with. The actions of the student government seek to change those procedures that would have been place when the offense occurred. So in the strictest sense, I do believe this qualifies as ex post facto as it is a change meant to retroactively change how she is judged. I am not saying however that the school is prohibited from doing so. The US constitution specifically forbids US legislation from doing this, but that's only a matter of US law. Ex post facto as a concept usually is used to mean "create a crime retroactively" so I get your point, but I think as an actual legal point its most stictly applied as what the phrase means which literally means "after the fact."

That said, your bill of attainder argument has a lot of merit. I can absolutely see that.

[Gravekeeper]

What she said was stupid.

How the council is responding is stupid.

faces re-education in a "diversity workshop".

How you are responding is also stupid.

[mjr]

How you are responding is also stupid.

In what way? I'd refuse to do most of what the SGA wanted me to do, so yes, I'd get kicked out of the SGA.

And just because I say something you don't like (which is the case here, don't deny it), doesn't mean it's "stupid".

If you're educated in the "correct" way to think about something, through a "diversity" course, how is that not a form of re-education?

But hey, if you wanna live in an Orwellian society, you go ahead and be proud to be Parsons or O'Brien.

I choose otherwise.

[Gravekeeper]

And just because I say something you don't like (which is the case here, don't deny it), doesn't mean it's "stupid".

Comparing a diversity seminar to re-education is stupid regardless of how many scare quotes you put around words. Referring to it was Orwellian is just ridiculous.

Orwell would smack you upside the head. But he'd have to get in line behind the Vietnamese and Chinese who actually know what "re-education" is and would laugh bitterly at your scaremongering of a college seminar. The ones that are still alive anyway.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think you're confusing "like" with "degree". Yea, ultimately systemic reeducation of the public isn't something that exists in the US at least.

But ultimately if a student can't say some stupid (non academic) shit and find themselves constantly forced to reattend non-acadmemic classes until they talk the way we want them to, the discussion we're having is one of degrees, not of dissimilarity.

[TheHuckster]

The whole "BlackLivesMatter" versus "AllLivesMatter" debate is petty and ridiculous in most cases, IMO. Clearly, most people who preach BlackLivesMatter are not saying "Only" BlackLivesMatter. Likewise, most people who preach "AllLivesMatter" are not saying black lives don't matter.

I would say a root cause for a lot of the disparate sentiment between these hashtags can be found in social media and other internet comments, where trolls obsessed with Poe's Law will say anything that will get a reaction (along with a some who actually think they way they do, but I believe a good portion of those are really just idiot trolls who just want to rile people up). So, when a black person gets assaulted or killed by the police you'll get the more extreme BLM reactions that the AllLivesMatter group will unfairly lump into the tamer and more sane BLM movement, and then you'll have the extreme folks on the ALM group who repeatedly make excuses for police officers' oppression, which BlackLivesMatter take offense to, and justifiably so.

I have seen people wearing the BLM badge slamming people simply for condemning the murder of police officers, as if by doing so you're somehow completely ignoring the real issue of police brutality, even though that person very well may have condemned brutality prior to that post. I've seen people wearing the ALM badge slamming people for defending victims who clearly were brutalized by police. Certain venues and forums attract more of these people than others. Some of the worst I've seen are on certain news sites (e.g. USA Today, Fox News, CNN, etc.), YouTube, and certain popular Facebook posts.

This results in what we have today, where the vast majority of people on either side actually have very similar views and goals, which is to end police racism and oppression (admittedly the BLM group puts some emphasis on racism in police, whereas ALM puts emphasis on violence stemming from police brutality in general), but are so hung up on what to call the movement all because extremists on one side are calling for the death of all cops and extremists on the other side are excusing any case of police brutality, and therefore if you're with one group, you must side with the extreme of that group.

I'd say the person in the OP belongs to the moderate viewpoint of ALM, and all because of the poor wording of her Facebook post, and the polarity of the discussion where if you ever utter the words "All Lives Matter" even in the context of the unjustified shooting of police officers, you must be an idiot, she is being dragged through the mud.

If someone says "AllLivesMatter" and it's clear their intentions are that they recognize police brutality or racism as an issue, then it's counterproductive to debate semantics, unless you truly believe ALM is chock full of racists, which I don't think is the case.

[Gravekeeper]

But ultimately if a student can't say some stupid (non academic) shit and find themselves constantly forced to reattend non-acadmemic classes until they talk the way we want them to, the discussion we're having is one of degrees, not of dissimilarity.

Both of you should perhaps look into the history of what "re-education" actually entails. Telling someone they need to attend a seminar on how not to say stupid racially insensitive shit if they want to keep their job as a public representative is not even remotely similar.

If she had just been a student she'd get blow back from her peers and that'd be that. But she's an elected representative. One who is not only suppose to represent the entire student body regardless of colour but who is also paid out of said body's student fees. The students have every right to sanction her and she has every right to resign if she doesn't like it.

The whole "BlackLivesMatter" versus "AllLivesMatter" debate is petty and ridiculous in most cases, IMO. Clearly, most people who preach BlackLivesMatter are not saying "Only" BlackLivesMatter. Likewise, most people who preach "AllLivesMatter" are not saying black lives don't matter.

To be bluntly honest anyone saying "All Lives Matter" at this point in the game is either a racist or an idiot. If you don't know wtf is going on with BLM after all this time but still insist on having an opinion on it like "All Lives Matter", you're an idiot. If you do know whats going on with it but still spew "All Lives Matter" you're probably a racist.

ALM is a direct counter response to BLM. No one was preaching All Lives Matter prior to the BLM movement. Its a direct response that erases "black" from the equation and as such as become practically an automatic response to hearing BLM amongst certain circles. It was almost a pathological response at the RNC.

Its too late in the game to give people the benefit of the doubt with ALM.

[mjr]

dictionary.com, reeducate, definition #3:

3. to rehabilitate or reform through education, training, political indoctrination, etc.