The whole thing becomes rather different as soon as you enter a contract with your visitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This is akin to an iPod with pirated music being worth 1 billion Dollars of punitive damages. Equally absurd arithmetic.
Printable View
The whole thing becomes rather different as soon as you enter a contract with your visitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
This is akin to an iPod with pirated music being worth 1 billion Dollars of punitive damages. Equally absurd arithmetic.
Indeed. However if true the "punishment" doesn't seem to fit the "crime". But then I hardly take the source seriously, see this below the article on the same link:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Talk about reading too much into something :bulb: - if this guy can read insult from a gift, then I wonder what else has been misrepresented above.Quote:
* The Special Relationship is safe - held together with hotdogs, chummy manhandling and colour-blocking wives. And gifts, of course. This week the Camerons gave the Obamas a customised ping-pong table. As if the White House doesn't already have 20 ping pong tables; the 40,00sqft Presidential jet probably has at least three - one per deck. Official souvenirs are rarely about utility or suitability, but the Obamas' reciprocal offering of a barbecue is revealing nonetheless.
Barack Obama may have attempted to "natter" like a Brit this week but he clearly has no idea about the British weather. If he had, he would have realised that his $2000 custom-made Braten 1000 Series grill (with essential American and British "friendship flags" engraved on the utility shelf) is destined to sit dusty and unloved behind a row of wellies in the garage only to be dragged out in a panic for an annual spin one unseasonally warm evening in April.
Still, there was thought there. The present is a nod to the barbecue the Camerons hosted for the Obamas' state visit last May. Isn't that rather like inviting someone over for tea and scones and them enclosing their own – implied superior – recipe for scones with the thank you card? This, booms the Braten's 67ins grill, cast-iron wheels and "top-loading firebox", is how you barbecue. Forget that puny little tabletop number from Homebase you flipped burgers on last summer, this barbecue is bigger, better and made in America. As I said, the Special Relationship is safe.
So, that's why the 59 people heckling and shouting slogans got expelled, while the poem-reader got offohwaitasecondhere... :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Welcome to the real world, where the main/most blatant transgressors get punished while the rest are not? I'm not sure what you find unreasonable about going after the main culprit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
You mean the part of the contract which specifically lays out what kind of behavior is expected of guests, i.e. the type every student going to a university agrees to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Well, first of all, why do you ID poemboy as the main culprit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And more to the point, why are you so quick to jump on the argument that the speaker was being shouted down? Cambridge didn't provide him with a microphone?
The actual issue at bar here seems to be that a speaker came to give a speech no one wanted to hear. Well boohoo, the life of a bureaucrat is sooo rough. Doesn't matter that he may have even been right, or that his hostile audience were a bunch of whiny junior-comrades, or that some other bureaucrat saw fit to invite him. He still didn't have anything to say that anyone wanted to hear, which is why the only people in attendance were protestors. And in the context of a protest, there's nothing wrong with what they did, and they in no way prevented the government agent from stepping up to the mic and delivering his speech to no one.
You think Cambridge just randomly went after the guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Depending on how large the room was, it might very well have been impossible to give a talk while someone was reciting a poem. And quite frankly, the politician was doing Cambridge a favor by appearing there; he's under no obligation to stand there and take abuse. It's up to Cambridge to provide a proper environment.
No one? Was everyone in the audience heckling the guy? And if it no one wanted to hear it, it's not the students' job to prevent the guy from talking. It's incredibly disrespectful to not allow an invited speaker to speak, and reflects incredibly poorly on the entire college. Why do you expect a private entity to take this damage without punishing the transgressor? Pray tell what would happen to an employee of a private firm if he was to act obnoxiously in front of a key client.
the private entity initially sought a punishment of one term.
re. the target, see the so-called spartacus letter signed by a number of the other participants as well as some teachers.
I like it how Loki constantly avoids the issue of the completely over-the-top punishment. See the 1-billion-dollar-iPod.
And I'm not sure, Loki, that a PhD-to-be can be labelled a "guest". That's where your "it's my home, I can do what I want to" falls flat on its face. Don't those guys pay for being there? Either by having to work or directly through fees?
The private entity makes all students sign a contract that spells out the mechanism for disciplinary measures. All students know who decides on punishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
How's that in any way relevant? The university is obliged to provide the speaker a satisfactory environment. If it fails, it loses its right to the speaking fee (though I doubt a current politician would get anything other than traveling expenses).Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Which says nothing about how it makes sense for the independent court to suspend him alone for seven terms when the uni wanted a single term. holding a man's degree hostage for seven terms, nice. how does that affect his career? his earnings? totally disproportionate and unnecessary punishmentQuote:
The private entity makes all students sign a contract that spells out the mechanism for disciplinary measures. All students know who decides on punishments.
What do you mean by an "independent court"? It's a part of Cambridge: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2...section20.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Too bad for him. If he wants to be a hero, he should pay the price.
Edit: the guy was studying for a Ph.D. in English. This means two things. One, he already has a BA, which makes him in theory employable. And two, he was trying to get a degree with which he'd be all but guaranteed to end up unemployed. :noob:
Wait, what? The amount of punishment is irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I guess we have to rewrite the code of law, then. How very Lewkowskian of you: I guess "Fry'em" is your new standard response for any and all crimes then, if you support such over-the-top punishments?
Loki, I think we may be all agreeing that the University can (and should) punish a unruly student. What many here are suggesting is that the punishment seems to be over the top.
The whole staff got reminded that the PA system isn't a toy, actually. Granted, we've got a serious case of cranial-colonic impaction going on, but you asked, so there you have it. The PA system is not a toy. Got any other queries of private enterprise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Plus, this is allegedly an institution of higher learning that claims to embody the ideal of free speech... that expelled someone for 7 terms for reading a poem. Not that the rest of us didn't know that Cambridge is for ass-hatted deadheads who couldn't make it into Oxford, and have a career full of pushing papers for the government ahead of them or anything, but still, you're billing yourself as an institution of higher learning, so you're supposed to hide the fact that free thought and dissent aren't welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
I addressed that in my first post here. I said it was probably too harsh, but fully within the rights of the university. Quite frankly, I'd be willing to defend the student if he was an undergrad; a doctoral student knows better (though perhaps not if they're studying English...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
For denying someone the right to speak...Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Don't overplay the denying part. Competing voices happens under free speech. Either way, he could be escorted out etc.
It's not competing voices. The guy was free to make his views known elsewhere. I'm sure Cambridge would be more than happy to schedule a time for him to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Indeed he did wrong, but don't exaggerate it.
Besides its stupid. Who's ever heard of a 2.5 year suspension before? Either expel altogether or suspend for a reasonable term (as requested). But as I said above, I don't trust the source.
Maybe it's because it's usually undergrads, not Ph.D. students who are behaving like spoiled little brats.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...driguez-chants
Is anyone going to defend these people's right to free speech? FYI, their financial loss (due to loss of scholarships) is probably going to be higher than that of an English Ph.D.
I'm guessing the racism helped.
Racism isn't illegal in the US.
Is poetry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My point is that the racist nature of the heckling of a student (which compares unfavourably to legitimate protests against a politician) probably helped when deciding to revoke the scholarships, which is also a less dramatic punishment than holding someone's degree hostage for 2.5 years after he's already invested in it. I also note that these ones weren't suspended or rusticated or whatever you want to call it, so the comparison is strange to say the least. Do you expect anyone to think losing scholarships and going to a lecture is as disproportionate a punishment as rusticating a PhD-student for 2.5 years? Okay, if anyone here thinks that then that person will hopefully drop by to say that the case of the racist pep-squad was indeed outrageous. Devil's in the details Loki
The point is that universities/colleges are free to punish as they see fit. No they weren't suspended, but the loss of a scholarship is a massive blow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Legitimate protests against politicians normally occur outside the auditorium, not inside it.
Heckling other teams is part of the sport. The only difference is the language used. Not allowing politicians to talk in a private setting is not part of the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Losing a scholarship means losing perhaps $20k-30k a year for 4 years. If they transfer, there's no guarantee that they'd get a similar scholarship. The Ph.D. student can just go elsewhere, and his funding will travel with him (assuming he has any).
Are you kidding? I doubt it's the first or last time he's been heckled in a private setting.