I think you’re confusing employment hiring practices with student code of conduct rules.
The AG’s letter specifically refers to “student safety and discipline” and it’s there that I believe he’s saying that universities may not add their own criteria on top of state-mandated ones.
Your link goes to the hiring practices of the University, which is, so far as I can discern, not an area under discussion.
No, for the same reason I said in the post immediately preceding this one.
My take from the beginning is that this directive refers to matters of “student safety and discipline” as he says in his letter, and not to employment practices.
I deleted a plethora of unkind comments about “your take”, and will instead simply ask “Why?”
Because he says, “…student safety and discipline…” when discussing his letter, and refers to employment practices in localities as “analogous” examples rather than instances of the precise same issue being applied.
And because it makes visceral sense to say, “Universities can’t discipline a student for acting like a homophobe, but they cannot themselves act like homophobes in hiring.”
I also think the gov and the AG might be playing a little good cop/bad cop…the AG throws out the red meat that their most rabid constituents want to hear, then the gov gets to swoop in and sound all reasonable. He needs that, due to the many questions about his past extreme right wing views.
I find it best to provide an entire quote when making these kinds of statements. The ONLY time he mentions “student safety and discipline” is not (as one would suppose if they thought that referred to the University’s policy of anti-discrimination) is here: “Examples are numerous - particularly in the area of student safety and discipline - where universities operate within a wide range of implied authority.” Each and every time he refers to the University’s policy of anti discrimination in the letter, it is the entire policy and not limited to “student safety and discipline”.
And that clearly dealt with the party instituting the policy and not the policy itself. Cuccinelli used analogous to describe the relationship of a locality and a university (universities are not defined as localities) and not, as you assert, to the policy itself.
In short, I find “your take” to be uncompletely without support in the clear language and intent of the letter (are you SURE you’re a textualist?). And what is even sadder, I think you know it too.
Resisting a personal potshot at me in every post is harder for you than kicking a heroin habit is for the typical junkie, isn’t it?
First of all, I doubt the governor needs that - he won election rather handily. The many questions about his past right wing views seemed to trouble the Washington Post editorial board and few others. You might be one of the few.
Secondly, since Virginia attorneys general from both parties generally are considered frontrunners for their party’s gubernatorial nomination in just the next election, it doesn’t suit the AG to be the governor’s bad cop. The governor can’t be reelected and the AG is generally after his job.
Just my observations, for what they are worth.
Bricker, playing devil’s advocate and asking questions is fine, but stirring people up is not encouraged. Please make sure you stay on the right side of the line here.
If this is to continue, take it to another forum.
Over-reliance on personal attacks aside, he’s right. The “student and safety discipline” lines says more or less the opposite of what you claim in your post. It isn’t an area where the Governor thinks the law trumps University Policies, its an area where he thinks the University is free to make its own policies.
I don’t see that at all:
He acknowledges that in the area of student safety and and discipline, the very area under discussion, the powers of the university are broad, but not without limits, and then goes on to delineate what those limits are.
I suppose it could have been clearer if he said, “By the way, just everyone knows, I am talking about student rules,” at the beginning, and put a header and footer on each page that said, “Page 3 – Student Discipline – Page 3.”
But even so, I don’t think the letter lacks much clarity.
What formal policies of discrimination against gay students in the areas of “safety and discipline” do you believe universities would have to put in place in order to be compliant with Cooch’s interpretation of the law? Are universities now prohibited from protecting gay students against harrassment? Should it be mandated that instructors penalize the grades of students who are gay? What specifically will universities have to do to gay kids to avoid “doing an end run around the law?”
None. They simply cannot include sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or similar terms in their student conduct non-discrimination rules.
BY the way, as the letter makes clear, in 1993, the AG’s office told Arlington County it couldn’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation to any greater extent than it was prohibited by state law. In 2002, a different AG said the same thing in two separate opinions. Also 1985 and 1982.
I mention this because you seem to believe that this is the first time a Virginia AG has suggested such a thing, or that the opinion is solely his.
What does that even mean? Can they practice non-discrimination or can’t they? Are you saying all that matters is what’s written down on paper? That as long as they don’t write it down, they can continue practicing all the non-discrimination they want? Isn’t that doing and end run around the law?
Have they said it to universities before? Because the fact they have said it to municipalities in Virginia, and not to universities, may cut the other way, suggesting that universities have traditionally been seen as having more leeway here.
If they can’t prohibit discrimination, then how much do they have to allow to be compliant?
No, I’m saying that they cannot discipline a student for discriminatory acts when the basis of the discrimination is sexual orientation.
:rolleyes:
77%
So far as I can tell, they’ve never said it to universities. But it’s not like the universities can offer up a laches defense here. So how is that relevant?
It is relevant because universities and municipalities are not identical things. If Virginia has traditionally not treated universities in this manner, and has allowed them to exercise greater discretion than maybe a strict interpretation of the law would indicate, and certainly greater discretion than municipalities have been allowed, then there are two possible problems for a homophobic AG.
First, the state may have created an exemption. Unlikely, but possible.
Second, and more likely IMHO, the fact that discretion has been granted in the past (including, so it seems, to grant protected status to veterans), but is being refused now is a pretty strong indicator that the state is acting out of animus towards homosexuals. Which leaves it open to federal challenge. Selective enforcement causes problems