Obligatory link to videoabout the U of GA “peter meter” study on homophobia.
Just as a naive lay reading of that, didn’t they rule out parking specifically because the grant of authority was limited to operation?
The grant of authority to the universities in regards to student safety and discipline seems to cover things like discrimination, at least there is no argument that they should cover other kinds of discrimination. Surely the point of granting these authorities is that rules will be made that go further than existing protections, but are limited to a specific domain. I don’t see how sexual discrimination falls outside the domain of safety and discipline.
As an example, I’m sure the universities rules on plagiarism go much further than fraud laws do.
Discrimination against a minority for something as silly as sexual orientation is apalling and evil. The law is wrong on this, and so is anyone seeking to uphold it. It should rightly be ignored and any defenders marginalized. Cuccinelli should ignore this law, but he doesn’t under the guise of upholding the law. That, to me, is idiotic. Such a law does not deserve to be followed.
Wouldn’t it be better to, say, change the law? Why is ignore the law if it’s “wrong” the solution?
No – this means that they may not add this as a protected class for purposes of student discipline. I know why you keep saying, “The University must discriminate,” I think – it’s because you are, despite the discussion several posts ago, picturing this as related to employment decisions. My point, in contrast, is that because the AG’s letter specifically said “student safety and discipline” and specifically didn’t talk about the universities’ hiring practices, that the focus of it was student discipline.
So it’s meaningless to say, “The University must discriminate,” because we’re not talking about the University stopping itself from discriminatory action. We’re talking about what code of conduct and penalties the University may impose on students, and for what offenses.
The University can’t add criteria to the list, because they’re creating a “crime” (I put crime in quotes because it’s obviously not a real crime, but the student-discipline equivalent of one) that the General Assembly says they can’t.
The University is free to decide that they won’t discriminate in hiring. They can’t punish a student for conduct that includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.
I join you in that feeling.
But I also feel that if you hear this story, and say to yourself, “This situation is wrong, and the legislature should act to change it,” then not only are you enlightened when it comes to gender expression, sexual identity, and sexual orientation issues, but you understand how our system of representative democracy should work.
If you hear this story, and say to yourself, “This situation is wrong, and the Attorney General is the one who must change what he’s doing,” then you get full enlightenment mark for gender expression, sexual identity, and sexual orientation issues, but your understanding of our system of representative democracy is greatly flawed.
And this is precisely the lefty attitude that I was hoping to illustrate.
How about “The law, judging from the actions of prior recent AGs, does not require the AG to enforce this aspect, therefore AG “the Cooch” is narrowing the interpretation of the law out of animus toward GLBT people.”
And it only took four pages and about twenty lefties before the attitude finally popped up. Not bad.
I think that’s probably true. Although I’ve met Mr. Cuccinelli, I don’t know him in any meaningful sense; still I suspect that he’s not much for campfire kumbahyahs with the gays. So, yes, he’s probably motivated in part, at least, by animus.
But that’s not really relevant. Because his actions have highlighted what the real problem is, and its one that the General Assembly needs to fix – not just for universities, but for the state.
So it’s completely irrelevant what his motivation is. The question is where should the outrage and demands for change be directed. Let’s say Cuccinelli backs off, and says, “OK, guys, calm down, I was just kidding.”
Great. Universities continue their inclusive, diversified, huggy-muggy student codes of conduct. Meanwhile, every single locality in Virginia remains forbidden from protecting gay discrimination in any meaningful way.
Seriously? That’s the approach that makes the best sense to you?
How about, “Cuccinelli’s a snake on this issue, but the way to defang him is through the GA, which will incidentally solve a much more serious and pervasive problem around the Commonwealth than whether Joey called Stevie a fag outside McBride before 8 AM calculus Tuesday.”
Post #4:
I am not sure you have answered this above but it has been asked how it is the universities can have all sorts of rules of conduct that are not “crimes” as defined by the GA and those are still ok. Cooch himself conceded that the universities are granted this broad power particularly to maintain discipline. So, if this went to court, in your opinion would the AG have a leg to stand on here?
Further, I am curious for someone trained in the law to tell me how removing sexual orientation would actually play out at these universities.
Suppose:
- Joey called Stevie a fag outside McBride before 8 AM calculus Tuesday. Stevie hit Joey in retaliation.
Now, do we need to determine if Stevie is, in fact, a homosexual to determine who gets disciplined? If Stevie is a fag then it is only fair comment and Joey gets off the hook but if Stevie is straight then that constitutes “fighting words” and both students may be punished?
- A professor hates homos. The professor flunks someone he suspects of being gay despite the quality of the student’s work. The student protests.
Do we again need a determination of fact to decide whether the professor gets rebuked? If the student is gay then the professor is off the hook. If the student turns out to be straight then the professor can be cited for unprofessional conduct?
- A student applies to the university. The admissions board assumes since the student cited being a part of the GLBT organization in high school that they must be gay and don’t want them. This despite the student’s excellent credentials otherwise which far exceed the admission requirements. The Admissions Board accepts a different student of lower caliber but who they deem to be straight.
Again, do we need to have a finding of fact to see if the student is actually homosexual? Maybe they were just a friend to the GLBT community and supported their cause and joined their club. If the student is straight then the Admissions Board acted inappropriately but if they are gay then the Admissions Board is in the clear?
Hopefully you can see the problems here and I really am interested in a legal analysis (with the caveats this is a message board, for fun and I am not your client, etc, etc.) of how that all plays out and how the university is wrong, from a legal standpoint, to say “we do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” as a matter of smooth operation of the university for which they are granted express authority to do.
Is it your contention that this attitude is more prevalent on the left than on the right?
IF the letter, as the Governor, the Board of visitors, and dare I say most of the people, deals not just with student discipline but also hiring, tenure, and others, would you take the same position?
YOU, and pretty much only you, are speaking only about students’ discipline.
I’m again having trouble seeing how this plays out in reality. I don’t think the Universities are disciplining students for hating homosexuals, discriminating by not having any homosexual friends, or thinking homosexuals are second class citizens. I think the Universities are disciplining students for ACTIONS they take, like harassment, assault, or creating a hostile environment for learning. And the University can punish those actions, even if there is no anti-discrimination policy against gays. Unless you are saying that now that gay bashing in any form cannot be punished, I’m seeing no real point.
I’m so very glad we agree. If it ends up that Cuccinelli wasn’t just talking about student discipline, you’ll join me in decrying his attempts to get rid of the anti-discrimination policies against homosexuals! Great.
Yes.
The two actions:
Call for TPTB to ignore, indeed to continue to ignore, an ugly law, and
Call for VA’s elected representatives to overturn that law
are not mutually exclusive. In point of fact, they would quite nicely cascade.
The AG making this assertion of power, clearly for reasons of animus and in effect overturning usual practice, should indeed result in a public outcry for immediate retraction. The public can and rightly should demand that, if the AG’s interpretation is legally sound, it should be ignored because it is an ugly reversal of the university’s (universities’ ?) standing practice.
In the cold light of day, a serious defect of the law has been revealed by these events. This defect can be mitigated but not truly corrected by simply ignoring the letter of the law. So that same public outcry now becomes the impetus for change through the GA, as it should.
That’s how this old hippie liberal sees it.
Nothing in this thread is outside of the bounds of my description, although some posters concentrate on only one or the other of the two elements. Nothing here looks like a “gotcha” moment for libs. Sorry, Bricker.
By “this” going to court, we mean “the university says, our student disciplinary codes will continue to contain language protecting gender expression,” for example?
The university would lose.
Both students can still be punished.
But let’s contrast this with a similar fight between Ed and Ralph, after Ed called Ralph an asshole and Ralph hit him. in both cases, both students may be punished.
What the university may not do is punish Ed with a lighter penalty – they may not enhance Joey’s penalty for using a sexual orientation slur.
The professor can be punished for unprofessional conduct no matter what the student’s orientation. The professor may not be punished more severely because his actions was based on animus against gays than another professor who hates Steelers fans (or accused rapists) and flunks someone who wears a Ben Roethlisberger jersey to class.
The university’s admissions policies are not part of the AG’s guidance.
This is not a “gotcha” moment. There is nothing hypocritical about the leftist approach to this. Leftists tend to be fairly upfront about their belief that the law is an instrument of social change, and that this social change may be wielded through enforcement, interpretation, or legislation itself. (“The Living Constitution,” writ large.)
I’m saying it’s foolish.
I’m saying it’s counterproductive in a case where I agree the underlying law should be changed.
And if I didn’t want the underlying law changed, I’d probably shut up about it, content to let the counterproductive efforts continue, but still feel that it was wrong. The place to change the law is the legislature. Carping at the enforcers of the law is like the November turkey who hands the farmer an axe and then complains bitterly when it’s swinging towards his neck.
Note: what I said above is correct, AND the AG’s guidance refers to student discipline, not faculty discipline.
We agree. Nobody, in point of fact, disagrees. The law should be changed. The Democrats in the legislature have tried, as you pointed out, over and over to change the law, but the Republicans continue to defeat the legislation. It’s not like you pretend that no one is trying to change the law.
You pretend like there is a finite amount of blame to go around. The legislature surely deserves a great deal of it, but Cuchinelli deserves some to for his actions. The legislature had previously granted the universities the power to make rules and regulations regarding hiring and student discipline, and now he wants to take that power away (or, like you, force the Universities and not the legislature to change the law) because of his obvious dislike for homosexuals. He used his discretion as AG to create a problem where the wasn’t one before. It’s not like only one group needs to be blamed.