What’s the sort of thing you really thought you 'd see in response? And on what experiential basis?
Come on, dude, that’s a Pit approach, not a GD one.
What’s the problem here, that the University is not discriminating against homosexuals, or that it’s making a statement that says that it doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals?
If it’s the former, then what discriminations, precisely, would they need to put into place to be in compliance with state law?
If, on the other hand, it’s the latter, then you run into the problem that a university’s entire purpose is to make statements. Is it legal for a physics professor at a Virginia university to make a statement, in his official capacity as a faculty member of the school, that the orbits of the planets are ellipses with the Sun at one focus? What state law gives him the authority to make that statement?
The problem is “The Left’s” continued obstinate refusal to put its well-known hypocrisy on display here. :rolleyes:
Bricker: Do you believe the University of Virginia is specifically empowered by the anti-discrimination law to punish a student for spreading hate speech on campus? As a followup, do you believe that it is appropriate for a university to be able to punish hate speech occurring on its campus?
I’m no expert here, but I am doubtful that someone could be punished for offensive, racist speech in a public accommodation. I would tend to think that most universities would tend to punish hate speech among its student body with expulsion or something similar. If the VAAG contends that the anti-discrimination law cannot be extended beyond the specific words and intent approved by the legislature, then it stands to reason that educational facilities would probably have to conform to the same or similar standards as provided to public accommodations.
If that is true, then it would seem to me that the university could not punish hate speech of whatever kind, but only actual discrimination.
If, on the other hand, educational facilities may construe discrimination more liberally, such as to include hate speech, then it may be reasonable to think that universities may not be so strictly limited by the non-discrimination law.
Perfectly legal; perfectly reprehenisible that the law hasn’t been changed yet. I don’t know that much about the current AG, but unless he’s really an asshole, he ought not want to be like that.
Even if the state attorney general is within his legal rights to do what he is doing, one can still object to it. After all, if the State Police set up a speed trap and pulled over everybody who was technically violating the speed limit, no matter by how small an amount, and administered the maximum penalty, it would be within their legal right to do so but I still imagine that there would be lots of complaints about it. Likewise with the enforcement of laws against some common sexual practices that are still on the books in some states against (if these still exist).
So, I don’t really see where “I am just interpreting the law” is necessarily an excuse when you have some choice in what you choose to crack down on and what you don’t. The law always has some flexibility that allows some discretion in its interpretation and enforcement. And, there is a difference between asking, “Does X have a legal right to do this?” and “Do I think he is a total jackass for doing this?” The answer to both questions can be YES without there being a contradiction.
I think that if any university is cracked down on and forced to change its policy it should immediately refuse to deliver any information not specifically mandated, in detail, by the state, out of official and formal fear of falling afoul of the law, until the laws are changed.
What does it even mean not to be able to legally announce a policy of non-discrimination? They will be forced to de facto not discriminate?
Practically, it means that if there is such discrimination, the person being discriminated against doesn’t have any recourse under university policy.
Does it? If the position of the power structure of the university is that people ought not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, someone who experiences such discrimination from rogue actors can obtain relief in any number of ways. I’m no expert on Virginia employment law, but I reckon that a university president does not need a written anti-discrimination policy to discipline someone for being an asshole to a student, for example. What are the examples you have in mind of discrimination that cannot be remedied by the powers that be without a written policy?
I don’t mean this as a defense of the AG, of course. And the point is rather tangential to Bricker’s attempted attack on perceived leftists. But I think it is an interesting question to consider the real world impact of not permitting an official non-discrimination policy for an institution that wants to have one.
Interestingly, the University of Virginia non-discrimination policy lists “Veteran Status” as a protected class as well as sexual orientation. The General Assembly Statute in the Governors letter doesn’t list veteran status as a protected class.
One wonders why the Govenor, in his even-handed pursuit to ensure the letter of the law is in all cases followed, didn’t decide to go after University policies protecting veterans.
The only way to be sure that the universities don’t follow a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals is to make sure that they DO discriminate against homosexuals. I’m guessing Cuccinelli will force the State universities to have “Casual Gay Bashing Fridays” or maybe force any potential hires to have sex with a prostitute of the opposite sex during the job interviews. Only way to be sure.
Or maybe he will force UVA to hire William Eskridge back, so that they can deny him tenure for being gay. Again.
That may be the first time I’ve ever been linked to ATL from the SDMB. It’s like when your friends from college meet your friends from high school.
Political suicide ring a bell?
I don’t understand why, all of a sudden, this thing would become an issue now, except for political reasons of some sort.
Sounds more like personal reasons to me.
Here’s UVa’s official nondiscrimination complaint procedures:
http://www.virginia.edu/eop/complaint.html
So, if we’re both tenured staff at UVa, for instance, and I harass you for being gay, you don’t have recourse to those procedures. The powers that be, like you said, might still be able to punish me without resort to the official procedures, but, you know, I have tenure and things, so I’m assuming I can’t just be fired at the whim of the administration, and if the powers that be terminate me for my harassment, don’t I have a case for an wrongful termination?
I don’t see why. The assumption seems to be that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, if not specifically prohibited, is therefore protected. But I don’t see why that should be the case. It could still qualify as harassment, or simply as unprofessional conduct providing good cause for termination.
At some point these things bleed into First Amendment issues, but at that point the university policy on the matter would be a non-issue anyway.
But, it does not “make more logical sense” where, as here, the point of the editorial in question is not, “The governor is acting illegally,” but the equally legitimate editorial message, “We don’t approve of what the governor is doing.”
I wonder, if you searched Virginia law, what other loopholes one could exercise. Surely there’s some form from the Civil Rights era where the jots and tittles aren’t all in the proper place and they can use it to take the votes from or ideally re-enslave those pesky Negroes.
So, I dunno. Is this relevant?