| Blog and Media Roundup - Monday, July 29, 2013; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 29 2013, 04:35 AM (335 Views) | |
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:35 AM Post #1 |
|
http://dukecheck.com/?p=14931 ✓ Response to crime wave Posted on July 28, 2013 by DukeCheck We examine in greater detail the Allen Building response to the latest in a series of very serious violent crimes on campus: two armed robberies in the Gardens. As Loyal Readers know, there have also been a series of night-time intrusions into rooms on Central Campus — while students were sleeping. Luckily, no one has been hurt. But the clock ticks on that, as the thugs brandish guns and knives, day and night. As we wrote the other day, the Administration’s belated response seems to center on a press release, carefully drafted to mollify stakeholders. We know of only two new steps — along with some vague assurances that “we are evaluating” other steps and we will conduct “a comprehensive study” of others. The concrete steps are: 1) Locks on the doors of dorm rooms on Central Campus will be adjusted so that they automatically lock when the door is shut. Several of the night-time intrusions have come after students did not lock their doors, and Duke Police often seemed to blame the victim. 2) Bushes and shrubs near walkways on Central Campus will be cut back, to make it more difficult for a criminal to hide, lurking for a victim. The wishy-washy include the following: 1) ” We are evaluating additional fencing on Central Campus and potential road closings during late evening hours to better control access.” Evaluating.. potential. That’s flaccid. 2) “On East Campus, Facilities is conducting a comprehensive lighting study to upgrade to LED bulbs, which provide more visible lighting and a safer environment at night. ” Notice, please, that we were not told that LED bulbs would be installed; rather that they are part of a comprehensive lighting study. Once again, we are told that patrols are being increased. At least this time, our Administration concedes some of these are being handled by unarmed security guards — which is to say people with minimal training hired by the hour from an outside security firm. They are not campus cops, fully trained and sworn officers who are armed. Without telling us how much is being spent, Allen Building tells us there is some overtime involved for campus cops. The list of places where there is increase “police and security presence” includes the Gardens, East Campus and the Al Buehler Trail (for running through the golf course and forest). This leaves out several locations that have seen dangerous crimes in the past, which were promised additional patrol: the pff=campus area between the 9th Streeet nightlife and East Campus; the Trinity Heights and Trinity Park neighborhoods near East Campus where many Duke people live; and areas near Duke Hospital like Erwin Road and the Medical Center. The press release was issued in the name of John Dailey, the police chief, and Kyle Cavanaugh, vice president for administration. All fall under Executive Vice President Tallman Trask, but he only steps out when the news is good, letting the light shine upon Cavanaugh at other times. DukeCheck has written Cavanaugh, asking for a comprehensive briefing about the strength of the Duke Police force. Always skimpy, it suffered mightily during the fiscal meltdown of 2008-09, and many experienced officers accepted buy-out offers for retirement. We have never been able to confirm their replacement and the depth of the department’s training. We expect Cavanaugh will Schoenfeld us. That is, treat us rudely and not even acknowledge much less answer our inquiry. |
 |
 
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:36 AM Post #2 |
|
http://dukecheck.com/?p=14949 ✓ New charges Posted on July 28, 2013 by DukeCheck P J Hairston was charged Sunday afternoon with speeding and reckless driving, and UNC Coach Roy Williams immediately suspended his top scoring player. UNC made the announcement very late Sunday night. USA Today reported that Hairston was pulled over by the State Highway Patrol for going 93 mph in a 65 mph zone on southbound I-85 outside of Salisbury on Sunday afternoon. He was driving at 2008 Accura TL. He was not arrested, but given a summons to appear in court August 30 in Rowan County. Under state law, the trooper had discretion on whether to arrest him or not. When Hairston was stopped at a routine traffic checkpoint on June 5th in Durham, he was driving an expensive SUV rented from Hertz by a Durham thug best known by his nickname, Fats. Their continuing relationship has caused great concern in Chapel Hill, undoubtedly more concern than his driving. Another question popped off the page with the announcement of the new charges: on June 5th, Durham police arrested Hairston for misdemeanor possession of pot, and that charge was dismissed ten days ago. While details have not been released, we assume this was under a pre-trial intervention program; many of these establish a probation period for good behavior, and a later hearing for final disposition of the charges. From the basketball prospective, it seems likely UNC will at least begin its season without Hairston. If he wins reinstatement, it will give rise to the kind of uneasy transition to another style of play that Duke experienced after Ryan Kelly returned from an injury. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:38 AM Post #3 |
|
UNC's Hairston suspended after speeding, wreckless driving charges Sunday Published: July 28, 2013 Updated 6 hours ago By Joe Giglio — jgiglio@newsobserver.com Another round of legal trouble for North Carolina basketball star P.J. Hairston – an accusation of driving more than 90 mph – has led to an indefinite suspension. Hairston was charged with speeding and reckless driving in Rowan County on Sunday afternoon, according to 1st Sgt. Jeff Gordon of the State Highway Patrol. UNC announced Sunday night that coach Roy Williams has suspended the junior guard indefinitely. Hairston, 20, has had two other run-ins with police since May. On Sunday, Hairston was pulled over on Interstate 85 outside of Salisbury for driving 93 mph in a 65 zone, Gordon said in an interview Sunday night. Hairston was also cited for careless and reckless driving and has a court date in Rowan County on Aug. 30 for the new charges. Hairston, UNC’s leading scorer last season, was charged with speeding on May 13 and is due in Durham County court on Friday. Hairston had all charges from a June 5 arrest in Durham dismissed on July 19. He had been charged with marijuana possession and driving without a license. Hairston was in a different vehicle in each of the three traffic stops. According to the highway patrol, Hairston was driving a gray 2008 Acura TL on Sunday. The previous two vehicles, both rentals, are connected to Haydn “Fats” Thomas, a convicted felon facing drug and gun charges in Durham unrelated to Hairston’s legal issues. There was no further information available about the car Hairston was driving on Sunday Giglio: 919-829-8938 Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/28/3065785/uncs-hairston-suspended-after.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:46 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/B2/20090402/OPINION04/904020320/The-Duke-lacrosse-scandal-Felner-affair?nclick_check=1 The Duke lacrosse scandal and the Felner affair Apr. 1, 2009 | Written by By Edward C. Halperin Special to The Courier-Journal I arrived as dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Louisville in 2006 from Duke University. I left Duke while the university was being rocked by charges and countercharges related to allegations of underage drinking, rape and assault directed against the Duke lacrosse team. It was a highly charged atmosphere: White defendants were accused of crimes against an African-American woman. The national press descended upon the university, the lacrosse coach was fired and the remainder of the season canceled. Ultimately, the charges against the young men were dropped when the district attorney was found guilty of malfeasance. The district attorney lost his job, spent a brief time in jail and was disbarred. The young men were exonerated, but their lives and those of their families changed forever. In view of the controversy swirling around former Dean Robert Felner and Thomas Schroeder, their recent indictments on mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy and income tax evasion, and the collateral accusations made regarding oversight procedures at the University of Louisville, I would like to offer some lessons I learned during the Duke lacrosse episode that might be of use to others: Don't rush to judgment. The Constitution of the United States guarantees every citizen a trial by jury before their peers. Felner and Schroeder are entitled to their day in court. Their trial should take place in the dispassionate atmosphere of the courts, not in the press, in hallway conversations or on television. I believe that, in particular, The Courier-Journal's editorial page went beyond the pale when it described how "the indictments returned … reveal a scandal of substantial depth and magnitude." Regarding the specifics of the court case, no one has been convicted of anything. All citizens are innocent until proven guilty. We have no idea whether, in reference to the grant money in question, there is a "scandal of substantial depth and magnitude" until all the facts are made available and the matter has been addressed in the courts. Many people at Duke made fools of themselves by coming to premature conclusions about the guilt of the lacrosse players. We should not repeat that mistake. Remember the virtue of silence. At Duke, many people, based on the rumor mill or press reports, suddenly became experts on underage drinking, intercollegiate lacrosse, forensic evidence related to allegations of rape and the oversight of university athletics. When all the facts ultimately came out in the Duke lacrosse episode, many of these "armchair experts" were revealed to be what they were -- amateurs offering opinions well outside their field of expertise. Many of my faculty colleagues at Duke were sure that everyone needed to hear their opinion on the lacrosse episode delivered on the floor of the faculty senate and in the media. They would have been better off spending more time listening and less time talking. The United States attorney has tendered his charges, and Messrs. Felner and Schroeder are assembling their legal defense teams. What I learned from the Duke lacrosse episode is that an appropriate role for members of the community, at this point, is to reinforce our commitment to constitutional protections for a right to trial by jury, support the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and defend the principle that scholars do not form opinions until they have seen all of the evidence. Edward C. Halperin is dean of the University of Louisville School of Medicine. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:51 AM Post #5 |
|
High salary for UNC fundraiser job sends wrong message Published: July 28, 2013 Updated 7 hours ago Matt Kupec was UNC-Chapel Hill’s chief fundraiser until he resigned last year after reports that he had taken trips at the university’s expense with Tami Hansbrough, mother of a star basketball player and another fundraiser. Kupec, a former UNC quarterback with a long career at the university, made $350,000 a year and enjoyed the perks of traveling the country raising money for one of the nation’s most prominent public universities with roughly 300,000 living alumni. Yes, Kupec led some big funding drives, including “Carolina First” which brought in over $2 billion. Now the university wants to hire a replacement who can do likewise. And trustees, who endorsed the idea last week, think that the university needs to up the ante in the job to include not only a salary approaching $400,000 but a bonus of nearly $100,000. Attaching a bonus to the job, a bonus almost certain to be collected given the university’s track record on fundraising, is most emphatically a bad message to send to alumni, faculty and staff. This is a job for someone with a spirit of public service. It is almost certainly a job that should go to an alum who knows the university, the state and for that matter, already has a multitude of connections. Considering the number of alums the university has in the state, and native alums who are outside of the state, attracting any number of good candidates should be easy. And it should not take a big bonus to lure that person to the job. It’s a great job without the bonus, period. And it pays handsomely by almost any definition (although escalating administrative salaries might change that definition for some). Putting a bonus in the package is not necessary. Bonuses go to top sales people or to executives who deliver financial goals for their companies. Sometimes they even go to average employees who do exceptional work. But this is a public university. And it’s not a hard sell. It’s not as if the university needs to hire Indiana Jones to find treasure or Willie Sutton to steal it. Given the status of the school, it’s also not as if the chief fundraiser is standing out all day trying to make a quota of selling Hondas to beat the Toyota dealer across the street. If UNC-Chapel Hill doesn’t have enough virtues to convince potential donors (many thousands of them members of the alumni corps, by the way) to open their checkbooks, then there are problems on campus no one knows about. Because the task of making the case for giving money to the university is not breaking rocks in a hot sun. Yes, it requires a good mind for names, personality skills, knowledge of the institution, familiarity with social media and the various platforms used to put the university’s good name and its virtues in front of the people who might generously support it. And yes, those skills are worth some money in what UNC officials claim is a competitive marketplace, though somehow such jobs do not go vacant for long. But a bonus? No, something about that cheapens the position, as if candidates for the job are bargaining for it and the university is playing along by sweetening the pot. That is wasteful and in bad taste. This is a good job, an excellent job, and the line is doubtless long with those who would be honored to have it. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/28/3063077/earth-to-chapel-hill.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 04:55 AM Post #6 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578633991435126784.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories Updated July 29, 2013, 2:42 a.m. ET India Gang-Rape Case Takes a New Twist One Defendant Now Says He Was Present at the Scene, Though Not Involved, Upsetting the Defense's Strategy By PREETIKA RANA NEW DELHI—The case against the four men accused of gang-raping and murdering a young woman on an evening bus here is taking a new twist: One of the defendants has reversed his testimony and is now saying he was present for the alleged attack. The December assault on the young woman, who was returning home from a movie with a friend, has transfixed India and the world with its brutality while throwing new light on violence against women here. The 23-year-old victim was raped with a metal rod, according to police, and thrown naked from the bus, along with her friend, who survived. Her death inspired widespread protests demanding better policing and more forceful laws to punish harassment, rape and other crimes. One defendant in the case, 22-year-old day laborer Mukesh Singh, has changed his story in recent days to say that he was the bus's driver, according to a transcript of his closing statement reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Previously, he claimed not to be there. He also identified his co-defendants, as well as the young woman victim, a physiotherapy student, as his passengers that night. Mr. Singh's testimony undermines a defense strategy that until now rested on the claim that none of the accused was present. "His statement has messed up everything," said A.P. Singh, a lawyer who represents two other accused. The four adult defendants face charges including gang rape, murder and kidnapping. If found guilty, they are likely to face the death sentence. A fifth defendant, who was 17 years old at the time, is being tried in juvenile court. A sixth defendant, Mr. Singh's brother, died in jail. All the defendants, including Mr. Singh and the juvenile, have pleaded not guilty. One key to Mr. Singh's new testimony is that the bus has a separate compartment for the driver, so he says he couldn't see or hear what was going on in the back of the bus. "I had not heard any cries since the driver's cabin was closed at that time," Mr. Singh said, according to the transcript. The young woman's male friend, a 29-year-old software engineer who had accompanied the victim to a movie that evening, has provided testimony implicating each of the four surviving defendants, as well as the juvenile, according to interviews with defense lawyers and with the young man himself. In a Journal interview earlier this year, the young man said the suspects posed as passengers on the bus when the two boarded for a ride home after watching "Life of Pi" at a mall. The male friend was struck with a metal rod, he said, while the men dragged his friend to the back of the bus and attacked her. Indian law prohibits the naming of rape victims. The historic trial is a test, in some ways, of new "fast-track" courts created by the Indian government this year in response to protests over the death. Parliament created new categories of crimes, such as stalking and voyeurism, and increased the punishment for rape. A verdict is expected next month. Previously, legal experts say, rape trials in India would be expected to take several years. The trial has had its share of twists and controversies. For instance, the accused Mr. Singh's 33-year-old brother, Ram Singh, also a defendant in the case, died in a Delhi prison in March. Jail authorities say he committed suicide by hanging. Family members say they believe he was murdered. The home ministry has ordered an inquiry into the death. In his latest closing testimony on July 10 and 11, Mr. Singh said his older brother, Ram, called him the night of the alleged attack to drive the bus from Munirka, a middle-class neighborhood in southern New Delhi, back to the slum where the men live. The older brother's regular job was driving the bus to pick up schoolchildren. In his testimony, Mr. Singh said his brother phoned him for help because he was too drunk himself to drive. "He was drunk heavily, so I had gone to Munirka to bring him to my house," Mr. Singh said in court, according to the transcript of his closing statement. Mr. Singh testified that he rode a bicycle to the bus and found his brother and the other five accused aboard the bus, drunk. In his testimony, he described where in the bus each of the five was allegedly sitting. Some of Mr. Singh's testimony matches the narrative in the prosecution's case. He described picking up the victim and her friend at a stop shortly after 9 p.m. He said soon after, a quarrel broke out between the young woman's male friend and some of the suspects. Mr. Singh denied hearing cries for help from the woman or other noises from passengers. "The driver's cabin was closed at that time," he said, adding that he didn't see what happened in the rear of the bus while driving. Someone "put off the lights inside the bus," Mr. Singh said, according to the transcript. "Thereafter I do not know what they have done." A senior police investigator who has examined the bus said in an interview that the bus does have a separate driver's cabin. He described the cabin as having windows and not being soundproof. Mr. Singh's testimony also matches the prosecution's contention that the couple were eventually thrown from the bus at a spot near Delhi's international airport. He said he couldn't be sure who threw them off the bus because the lights were off. Mr. Singh's change in testimony drew fury from lawyers for the other suspects. The lawyer for two other accused, A.P. Singh, speculated that the defendant Mr. Singh (who isn't related) had changed his testimony in exchange for the promise of leniency from the prosecution. "One hundred percent, he has been promised a lighter sentence," he said. "Something fishy is going on." V.K. Anand, the lawyer for defendant Mr. Singh, said he has received no promises of a lighter sentence. Mr. Singh is telling the truth, he said, and hoping the prosecution will be kind to him in exchange for being helped by his testimony. The lead prosecutor, Dayan Krishnan, declined to comment for this article. The trial has been marked by public spats between some of the defense lawyers. Mr. Anand said Mr. Singh's previous lawyer made a "blunder" by making him wrongly claim he wasn't on the bus. The previous lawyer, M.L. Sharma, countered in an interview with the Journal that Mr. Anand had "forced" Mr. Singh to testify that he was driving the bus. Mr. Anand denies these allegations. In a separate clash between defense lawyers this month, one suspect stated in court that he was being falsely implicated by the accused Mr. Singh—prompting his lawyer to rise to his feet and threaten the other suspect's lawyer with "consequences," according to a third lawyer who was present in court. The two fighting lawyers shouted profanities at one another and stopped only when the judge threatened to kick them out of court, according to the third lawyer present. The two feuding lawyers, Mr. Anand and A.P. Singh, confirmed the clash. "I haven't seen a more incompetent lawyer than A.P. Singh," Mr. Anand said in an interview. The lawyer Mr. Singh responded that Mr. Anand engaged in "rowdy behavior." According to the closing testimony from the three other adult defendants, which the Journal has reviewed, all three continue to maintain they weren't on the bus the night of the attack. One of the defendants, Akshay Kumar, said he had boarded a train for his native village in the eastern state of Bihar a day before the assault, according to his testimony. Mr. Kumar, whose day job was to clean the bus, plans to call 10 witnesses on his behalf in the coming days, his lawyer said. The other two accused, Pawan Gupta and Vinay Sharma, said they were together at a "musical party" in a public park on the night of Dec. 16. These two men, who lived in the same slum as the Singh brothers, suggested that earlier disputes with their co-defendant Mr. Singh might explain why he is wrongly implicating them. Mr. Gupta, 19 at the time of the attack and a fruit-seller, said Mr. Singh used to buy fruit from his cart on credit and that they had quarreled over the payments. On the Sunday of the attack, Mr. Gupta testified, he went to a liquor shop and started drinking early in the afternoon. He says he continued to drink at the music event he attended with Mr. Sharma, and passed out on a bench. "In the musical party, I took more liquor and got intoxicated," Mr. Gupta told court, according to the transcript. "I lay down on a bench and my mobile phone was lost," he said. "In the morning I came to know that I was brought [home] by my father." Mr. Sharma, 20 at the time of the incident and a gym assistant, said in a written response to questions presented by the Journal that he had fought with Mr. Singh's older brother, the deceased Ram Singh, who had been harassing his sister. In his testimony to court, Mr. Sharma detailed the tussle with Ram Singh, claiming they fought a few hours before the attack on the bus. "My friend told me that Ram Singh had teased my sister when she was going to purchase milk from the market," Mr. Sharma said, according to the transcript of his testimony. "We exchanged fist blows and blood started oozing out from my face. Even my clothes were torn," he said. Mr. Sharma claimed he later went to the musical party with his mother, sister and Mr. Gupta, according to his written answers in response to questions from the Journal. Mr. Sharma's mother testified in his defense last week, saying she accompanied him to the musical party where he was during the night of the attack, his lawyer said. —Vibhuti Agarwal, Tripti Lahiri, Saurabh Chaturvedi and Krishna Pokharel contributed to this article. Write to Preetika Rana at preetika.rana@wsj.com |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 06:17 AM Post #7 |
|
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/07/29/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-lawyers-n1650191 First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers Mike Adams 7/29/2013 12:01:00 AM - Mike Adams The New York Times and the Huffington Post have been very critical of recent legislation by the House and Senate of the State of North Carolina. But neither of those liberal news outlets - and I use the term "news outlets" loosely - have recognized their recent attempt to restore due process in one of the most oppressive judicial systems in the country. Indeed, the UNC system is among the greatest antagonists of fairness and due process in the entire nation. Since this is a bold assertion, it demands elaboration. Students in the UNC system are routinely brought up on charges of violating speech and conduct policies that are so vague that no one - not even the people who write and enforce the policies - understands exactly what kinds of speech and behavior they prohibit. When students are brought up on these vague charges, they are denied lawyers. Crucial evidence from investigations is often redacted prior to hearings. Verdicts resulting in suspension and expulsion of students are often decided and printed before the actual "hearings" begin. Often, after students are deprived of due process and expelled, they are ineligible for tuition refunds. It is the kind of "justice" one would expect in the Middle East or in Latin America. After liberals ignored these problems for years, conservatives got to work last session sponsoring bills designed to address them. One of the bills, passed by the Senate in late July, authorized a legislative study of the issue, specifically to look at a student’s right to counsel in the hearing process. The other, passed by the House in May, spells out those rights. In the interests of full disclosure, I was involved in drafting that legislation. The bill we passed in the House would allow a student to be represented during a hearing by a licensed attorney or “non-attorney advocate,” except in a case involving academic dishonesty or in front of a student honor court which is fully staffed by students. I am proud to say that the bill was sponsored by Representative John Bell who was a student of mine at UNC-Wilmington in the late 1990s. Bell took particular interest in the issue as a result of a case involving his old fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, at UNC Wilmington. In that case, SAE officers were called into a hearing and questioned about an alcohol-related incident. Because the conduct in question was technically criminal, they asked for attorneys. UNCW officials refused to allow them counsel. When the students asked a second time, those same officials suggested that they might be violating the Seahawk Respect Compact by taking a "disrespectful" tone with their interrogators. When I heard a tape recording of the entire exchange, I was appalled and decided to take action with the help of some attorney friends. For the record, UNCW later threw the fraternity off campus for refusing to cooperate with the investigation - in other words, for asserting their rights to due process. At that point, we decided to take the issue to the legislature. The bill that was filed in April said a student could seek representation from an attorney “during any formal stage of any disciplinary procedure." The measure was later amended, at the UNC system’s request, to include the exceptions for academic dishonesty cases and any incident handled by a student-staffed honor court. Predictably, The UNC system is still opposed to the measure. But Bell’s bill passed the House on May 15 by a vote of 112-1, after receiving just two minutes of floor debate. The vote was lopsided for a simple reason: everyone but the UNC administration recognized that Islamic terrorists in Gitmo have more rights to due process than college students in North Carolina. (For the record, the one representative who didn't support the measure left the session early. He didn't actually vote against it). Presently, legal representation or assistance of a student by a lawyer in most instances “is neither required nor encouraged,” according to written UNC system policies. The only exception is when a student who faces a university administrative hearing simultaneously faces off-campus criminal charges. When a university hears of possible criminal conduct by a student, there is an incentive to move forward without alerting the off campus authorities. By taking the matter into their own hands, they may expel a student at a hearing devoid of due process. Worse, the university may decide to hold court over a matter that the police have already investigated and decided to drop without so much as a single arrest. The latter was the case with the incident involving SAE at UNCW. But now, that is all about to change. Put simply, our little university by the sea has ticked off the wrong legislature and the wrong representative. And the good news is that the new right to counsel bill isn't the only student rights bill to recently pass the house and head toward the senate. There's another one coming down the pipe that will not be well received by administrators with dictatorial tendencies. That other bill will be the subject of a future column. In the meantime, I hope that other conservatives will decide to join me in the battle for campus due process. It sure is fun to be a community disorganizer promoting hope and change from the inside of an ideological echo chamber. Update: Since the writing of this column, the North Carolina Student Administrative Equity Act has passed the Senate. It is on its way to the desk of the state’s Republican governor. The author wishes to thank all those who made this victory possible. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jul 29 2013, 09:10 AM Post #8 |
|
Two notes: First, if the "Seahawk Compact" is part of a student handbook or other student "agreement" to being at the university, it is NOT A CONTRACT and therefore is NOT ENFORCEABLE, according to Judge James Beaty and the Fourth Circuit. Second, all these students GOT HEARINGS. That's a lot more than the accused lacrosse players got. |
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 09:17 AM Post #9 |
|
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/uw-should-resist-feds-speech-code-b9960918z1-217173641.html UW should resist feds' speech code July 26, 2013 Back in 1988, the University of Wisconsin-Madison was at the forefront in the national battle over political correctness. That year, the campus governing bodies passed speech codes for both students and faculty that prohibited anyone from making gestures or statements that "demean" students on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, culture and handicapped condition. The code, passed with support of then-Chancellor Donna Shalala, itself became a national laughingstock. The speech regulations chilled free expression on campus, leading several professors to be investigated for merely tackling controversial subjects. The student code was overturned by a federal court in 1991; the faculty Senate finally invalidated its own rule in March 1999. (The final straw was an episode in which a student complained about a professor using the word "niggardly," as she was unaware that the word is completely benign.) Yet for those who enjoy hairspray, Rubik's cubes and being afraid of Russia, the 1980s are suddenly back in vogue. In an attempt to cut down on sexual harassment on campuses around the country, the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) have jointly issued new regulations for universities that include restrictions on "sexually harassing speech." Groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the American Civil Liberties Union have blasted the new federal "blueprint," pointing out how shockingly broad the regulations are. The new regulations outlaw "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct." Thus any action that makes a student uncomfortable immediately could become grounds for a complaint. (If awkward date offers were a crime, I'd likely be serving five consecutive life sentences.) After an immediate public outcry, OCR "clarified" the plan, saying that it never meant to classify things such as jokes, rumors and gestures as "assault." But the OCR did maintain that such things should be "reportable," as they might, in totality, lead to a "hostile environment." The new federal rules require university employees to report speech for investigation and allow for punishing the offending students before an investigation is even completed. Students and faculty could be deemed guilty until proven innocent, as the thought police roam the halls looking for violations. Of course, students should be protected from sexual harassment, and assaults should be treated seriously. But we've been here before with speech codes, and the results aren't pretty. If anything, the new codes will ostensibly create more harassment violations on campus, as behavior that was legal before will be reported and stick to a student's record. UW-Madison professor Donald Downs, one of the national leaders in opposing speech codes, says the new blueprint is part of a "misguided feminist agenda." Downs says he "brandishes liberal feminist credentials," but that the new rules insult women, as the standard "implies that women are essentially victims, not responsible agents who can handle 'unwelcome' ideas that fall short of constituting harassment reasonably and objectively defined." Downs also objects to the new standard by which offenders are being found in violation of the code. In the past, defendants had to be found guilty "by clear and convincing evidence," which is a standard just below the "beyond a reasonable doubt" used in the court system. Yet many schools are now only requiring a panel to find an offender guilty by "a preponderance of the evidence," essentially meaning "more likely than not." Not only is it becoming easier to accuse someone of impropriety, it is easier to find that person guilty, as well. We all encounter unwelcome sexual material in our everyday lives. I'd like to sue someone any time I hear any news about "Carlos Danger." But the UW System has lived through this debacle before. It should resist implementing the new federal regulations, even if the feds threaten to withhold funding for non-compliance. The UW wants the citizens of Wisconsin to think it is a place where free speech and viewpoint diversity are valued. Now is the university's chance to prove it. Christian Schneider is a freelance writer from Madison, who also writes The Yankee Review blog as part of Purple Wisconsin at JSOnline.com. Email cmschneid19@gmail.com. Twitter: @Schneider_CM |
|
|
|
| Jack Wade | Jul 29 2013, 10:10 AM Post #10 |
|
Wrong. Written policies on student discipline at public universities are enforceable as a matter of constitutional due process and have been in North Carolina for 30+ years at least. Private universities are another matter entirely. They are not governmental entities and therefore do not have any due-process obligations. |
|
|
|
| Kerri P. | Jul 29 2013, 10:46 AM Post #11 |
|
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-s-p-j-hairston-suspended-after-reckless-driving-charge/12712833/ UNC's P.J. Hairston suspended after reckless driving charge Chapel Hill, N.C. — University of North Carolina head men's basketball coach Roy Williams suspended his leading scorer Sunday night after he notched a third traffic stop in three months. P.J. Hairston, 20, was cited with speeding and careless and reckless driving Sunday afternoon. First Sgt. Jeff Gordon with the North Carolina State Highway Patrol said Hairston was driving 93 mph in a 65 mph zone on southbound Interstate 85 near Salisbury. Hairston was driving a 2008 Acura TL with North Carolina vanity license plate MissRLee. That plate is registered to Randi Lee Furr from Charlotte, a woman who has posted photos of Hairston on social media and refers to him as her boyfriend. snip... |
|
|
|
| Kerri P. | Jul 29 2013, 12:18 PM Post #12 |
|
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/north-carolina-suspends-p-j-hairston-indefinitely-latest-044137517.html North Carolina suspends P.J. Hairston indefinitely after latest traffic citation The one thing embattled North Carolina guard P.J. Hairston could not afford to do is exactly what he did anyway Sunday afternoon. He got in more legal trouble. Hairston was charged with speeding and reckless driving on Sunday afternoon after police pulled him over for driving 93 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone, USA Today first reported. As a result of the latest traffic citation, North Carolina coach Roy Williams suspended the junior indefinitely late Sunday night. Another run-in with the law for Hairston calls into question whether North Carolina can risk allowing him to return to the team next season – or even whether he's sufficiently committed to returning at all. snip.... |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 08:03 PM Post #13 |
|
http://www.thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=1167 How should Roy Williams handle the P.J. Hairston situation? What will Roy Williams do with star P.J. Hairston By Luke McCann and Justin Curry lmccann@thehoopsreport.com Monday, July 29, 2013 Yesterday, more news came out regarding Tar Heel star P.J. Hairston. Hairston was pulled over once again, this time in his girlfriends Acura. You don't have to recall back very far to remember that Hairston was pulled over in a rented Yukon of Fats Thomas and Marijuana along with a gun was found outside the vehicle. Roy Williams had said publicly that the matter would be handled internally and after the incident in the Yukon he did not commit to suspending Hairston. The Tar Heel's stance was that it was during the summer and that they should not rush into judgement but rather allow all the facts to be presented before handing down a suspension. The NCAA will probably give a baseline for the suspension in regards to how much benefits was given by Fats Thomas and it will then be up to Roy Williams to add any additional game suspension that he feels necessary. The issue that Roy Williams will face now is a tough one. The Tar Heel's are still emerging from a Football and academic scandal that has dragged on for several years. Hairston's actions has pulled the basketball program into the mud now and has kept it in the national spotlight after his move recent stint of speeding and reckless driving. Essentially, Hairston has shown that whatever talk he had with Coach Williams had essentially been ignored. We are going to look at two opinions from myself (Luke McCann and Justin Curry, a new intern writer at TheHoopsReport who has grew up a Tar Heel supporter. My view is that the Roy Williams should kick P.J. Hairston off the team. Hairston has shown terrible decision making and has been associating with less than desirable individuals. Is this the type of player you want leading by example for the underclassmen? Additional, after UNC whiffed on Andrew Wiggins and Reggie Bullock left early for the draft, UNC does not have a title contender. Yes, they are returning some solid pieces with James Michael McAdoo and Marcus Paige to go along with some talented but raw incoming freshman. This isn't the type of team that Roy Williams will win a national title with. It is a team that could sneak up and win the ACC Tournament and possibly make an Elite Eight or Final Four push at best. But Tar Heel fans should realize, this isn't a team that is going to bring a banner to the Dean Dome. Williams should go ahead and cut loose of the headaches that Hairston brings. McAdoo will probably leave for the NBA after this upcoming season season and UNC will be once again facing the task of rebuilding. Coach Williams can't afford to bring Hairston back, have him pull another stunt and people question what type of program Williams is running. Most would agree that Hairston will probably leave for the NBA after this season. This upcoming season is now about cleaning up the image of UNC and the young talent on the UNC squad gaining experience. If Williams boots Hairston now, the NCAA probably doesn't come snooping around as much and the Tar Heels can move on with a program that fans and alumni can be proud of. Justin Curry's Take: PJ Hairston has really brought a burden to Tar Heel fans this off-season. With his first arrest on multiple charges being dropped, we let out a sigh of relief to know that one of our best players was cleared to play. But last night he was suspended from the team for a reckless driving citation. As a fan we need PJ on our team to be able to compete in the ACC. Roy Williams however may not see it this way. Williams has been known to deal with trouble makers promptly and after PJ’s second offense this off-season, don’t expect Roy to go light on Hairston. He probably will miss the entire first half of the season if not the whole season. The only reason Roy may keep him is because we seriously need his production. With Reggie Bullock gone, UNC needs someone that brings the consistent three ball into the rotation. PJ is walking on thin ice as of right now. Let’s just hope Coach Roy Williams has some pity on him. If not, UNC fans will be in for a long season. You have heard both sides of the argument now. Coach Williams has a big decision ahead of him that could possibly shape part of his legacy as a Head Coach at North Carolina. What do you think Roy Williams should do? |
|
|
|
| abb | Jul 29 2013, 08:03 PM Post #14 |
|
DeCock: Hairston’s bad decisions puts UNC's season at risk Published: July 29, 2013 Updated 17 minutes ago By Luke DeCock - staff columnist — ldecock@newsobserver.com So what does P.J. Hairston do for an encore? Pour sugar in Roy Williams’ gas tank? Splash his name in red paint on the Smith Center? Crash a borrowed rental car into the bell tower? Williams’ patience in Hairston has been exhausted. That much was clear from the timing of the press release announcing Hairston’s indefinite suspension, only hours after he was cited for speeding and reckless driving Sunday. There was no waiting for Monday morning, no waiting for the smoke to clear. That sucker went out at 11 p.m. on a Sunday night. Retribution was swift and immediate. If Williams had been willing to give Hairston the benefit of the doubt to this point, the latest traffic conviction clearly changes the playing field. “There are several options available in terms of discipline,” Williams said in his last statement on the matter, “but we are going to wait until the process is complete to decide on those options.” He isn’t waiting any longer. Whatever boundaries Williams might have been willing to stretch have been broken. Whatever leniency he might have conjured for his leading scorer is vanishing. Hairston is no doubt going to face far stiffer punishment than he would have before his joyride Sunday, and now the Tar Heels are really going to suffer for it. They need Hairston desperately, not only as their leading scorer after assuming a starring role midway through last season but as their best outside shooter and their best scoring threat on the wing with Reggie Bullock’s early departure to the NBA. The next option is J.P. Tokoto, used sparingly as a freshman and more an unpolished athlete than a shooter/scorer. Leslie McDonald can fill that spot, but that means moving Marcus Paige to shooting guard and playing freshman Nate Britt at the point. Who’s next? Jackson Simmons? Hardly ideal. It’s just not a position where the Tar Heels had much depth to start, which makes Hairston’s Summer of Boneheadedness all the more damaging. Given Williams’ earlier position, Hairston is going to have to sit out longer than the 5-10 games the NCAA will likely require for his rental-car borrowing. It may end up being a healthy chunk of the season. Of course, Hairston’s transgressions, taken individually, don’t amount to much. A traffic ticket here, an apparent secondary NCAA violation there, drug charges that already have been dismissed. Other than the loaded gun found outside Hairston’s borrowed rental car, for which he was never charged anyway, it’s all pretty trivial stuff. Taken collectively, it’s embarrassing for Hairston, embarrassing for Williams and embarrassing for a university that’s desperately trying to erase its new image as a school where athletics is allowed to run amok. It’s all too much: the football scandal, the academic scandal, and now a basketball player who appears to have little regard for his own safety, his teammates or his university. Normally, you might say someone needs to talk to Hairston, sit him down, read him the riot act. But that clearly already happened, and it didn’t change anything. It’s hard to reconcile these continuing bad decisions with the charming, unfiltered Hairston who was revealed to the press and to the public as his role increased last season. Hairston’s latest error of judgment has put Williams in a tough spot. He promised “serious consequences” before. After Sunday, he has few options left, and all of them will do significant damage to the Tar Heels’ chances on the court. DeCock: ldecock@newsobserver.com, @LukeDeCock, 919-829-8947 Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/29/3067386/decock-hairstons-bad-decisions.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
11:41 AM Jul 13