In January 2014, I received an email from Biddle, explaining his reasoning. “The fact that she was a P.R. chief made it delicious,” he wrote. “It’s satisfying to be able to say, ‘O.K., let’s make a racist tweet by a senior IAC employee count this time.’ And it did. I’d do it again.” Biddle said he was surprised to see how quickly her life was upended, however. “I never wake up and hope I [get someone fired] that day — and certainly never hope to ruin anyone’s life.” Still, he ended his email by saying that he had a feeling she’d be “fine eventually, if not already.”

He added: “Everyone’s attention span is so short. They’ll be mad about something new today.”

 daedalus wrote:
Internet outrage is the best way to feel like you're feeling like you're making the world a better place.

TULSA, Okla., February 12, 2015—In a triple blow to free speech, due process, and freedom of the press, the University of Tulsa (TU) arbitrarily banned a student from campus until 2016 for Facebook posts that someone else admitted to writing and then attempted to intimidate student journalists who were trying to cover the story.

“The University of Tulsa’s speech police are putting in some serious overtime on this case,” said Peter Bonilla, Director of the Individual Rights Defense Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). “Punishing someone for the speech of a friend or relative might be par for the course in a dictatorship, but it has no place on our nation’s college campuses. Worse, TU wants to hide how it’s ignoring its own rules from the oversight of campus courts or the student press.”

TU suspended student George “Trey” Barnett last October for three Facebook posts published by his husband that criticized another student and two TU faculty members. None of the Facebook posts came from Barnett’s account; the statements were posted by his husband, who either tagged Barnett or posted them directly to Barnett’s Facebook page. Barnett’s husband later submitted a sworn affidavit attesting to his sole authorship of the posts. Nevertheless, shortly after TU professor Susan Barrett filed a complaint against Barnett arguing that Barnett could not “avoid responsibility” because someone else was responsible for the posts, TU Senior Vice Provost Winona Tanaka imposed eight restrictive interim measures against Barnett. The sanctions included suspending his participation in certain courses and activities and even barring him from speaking about certain individuals.

Without affording him the hearing he was entitled to under TU’s University Student Conduct Policies & Procedures, and despite his husband’s affidavit, Tanaka found Barnett responsible for “harassment.” Tanaka also found Barnett guilty of retaliation and violating confidentiality requirements for speaking about the disciplinary charges with his husband—who was also his exculpatory witness.

Less than two months before Barnett was set to graduate, Tanaka not only suspended him until at least 2016 but also permanently banned him from receiving a degree in his major even upon his re-enrollment. Barnett was forced to wait two months for TU to respond to his appeal, which the university summarily denied on January 9 without explanation—leaving Barnett unable to earn his theater degree as planned.

FIRE wrote to TU in October, explaining that holding Barnett responsible for a third party’s actions violated basic principles of fairness and due process, that the misapplication of TU’s harassment policies violated its promises of freedom of expression to its students, and that it is unconscionable to punish a student for discussing charges against him with a third party. TU did not respond to FIRE’s letter.

TU has also threatened the expressive rights of the staff of its independent student newspaper, The Collegian, which this week reported on Barnett’s suspension and criticized his treatment. The Collegian reports that after contacting TU administrators for comment, student reporters were told by TU’s director of marketing and communications that if “anything that the university deems to be confidential” is “published or shared, (that) could violate university policies.” The university refused to explain what might constitute “confidential” information and, come press time, the journalists were unsure what action the university might take against them.

“TU students are right to be concerned about their free speech and due process rights, given the university’s sheer vindictiveness in banishing Barnett and its treatment of their student newspaper,” said Bonilla. “We’ve warned TU about its dangerously overbroad harassment policy before, yet it continues to fly in the face of its promise that students retain ‘the rights and privileges granted to all citizens in the Bill of Rights.’ The university needs to be held accountable for breaking that promise.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

 daedalus wrote:
Makes you wonder what was actually said, huh?

The University of Tulsa has suspended a student over offensive Facebook posts that were written by his husband.

George “Trey” Barnett was banned from campus last semester until 2016 over the posts, which criticize two faculty members and insult a fellow student. If he returns to campus after his suspension, according to the university’s final decision in the case, he will not be permitted to complete his theater degree, nor will he be allowed to transfer theater credits from another university to Tulsa. He was 16 credit hours short when he was suspended.

None of the Facebook posts came from Barnett’s account, according to a faculty member’s formal complaint against him. Instead, they were posted by the account used by Christopher Mangum, then Barnett's fiancé, who tagged Barnett in the statements. The posts referred to the professors as unprofessional, immoral and unqualified, and to the student as “morbidly obese.” Mangum, who is not a student, later submitted two sworn affidavits to the university saying he was solely responsible for the posts.

The university disagreed, saying Barnett was using "the 'Chris did it' defense to avoid consequences." In its decision, the university said that after Barnett was told to remove the posts from his Facebook page, he was then responsible for them. The first of the statements -- posted in April -- stayed on his page for five months, but all three were deleted by October.

“Mr. Barnett became responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent further attacks against the University of Tulsa faculty and students on his Facebook page,” the decision reads, adding that the three people targeted by the posts “expressed great distress, intimidation and dread at the mere thought of working alongside” him.

In a statement Thursday, Peter Bonilla, director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the university’s decision was concerning. FIRE has long criticized the free speech policies at the University of Tulsa, which, as a private institution, is not covered by the First Amendment.
“Punishing someone for the speech of a friend or relative might be par for the course in a dictatorship, but it has no place on our nation’s college campuses,” Bonilla said.

In an appeal to the university’s decision, Barnett said the university did not follow its own policies in suspending him, as the Student Code of Student Conduct “does not prohibit” his actions. The code does not mention whether a student can be punished for statements made by someone else. Barnett was also not given a hearing.

In a statement Tuesday, Steadman Upham, Tulsa’s president, defended the university’s decision.

“The case in question was not a student conduct case, but investigation of a complaint involving harassment,” Upham said. “Under the harassment policy all proceedings are bound by confidentiality, and a hearing is not part of the process. University officials are bound by strict confidentiality in such matters. The university will continue to hold to this standard now and in the future.”

The university’s harassment policy states that if a harassment complaint is filed, “investigations and, if appropriate, hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the appropriate governing document.” The appropriate governing document for students accused of harassment, according to the same policy, is the Student Code of Conduct. And the code of conduct states that students have a right to a hearing. The university did not respond to a request to clarify the policy.

Last month, Tulsa denied Barnett’s appeal, saying that his arguments “are without merit” and that no further appeal would be possible. Bradley Shear, a lawyer who focuses on social media law and public policy, said the punishment sends a troubling message.

“To hold a student accountable for someone else’s actions is not really the best type of policy, and you have to wonder what else this would lead to,” Shear said. “How fast is fast enough when removing the comments? Can you be held responsible if you’re tagged in a Twitter post, as well? Where are you going to draw the line?”

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like a good call. This is his spouse's posts.

 daedalus wrote:

Oooh. "Private Institution." Yup. Nevermind.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like a good call. This is his spouse's posts.
EDIT: To be clear, its not just "someone else's posts" Its his spouse, and we don't know what the spouse actually posted.

 whembly wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Oooh. "Private Institution." Yup. Nevermind.

Ooooooooh!

O.o

Memorandum Decision of Senior Vice Provost Winona Tanaka

Is it immature of me to giggle that his husband’s name is Magnum?