“As a parent I am of two minds about this. 1. I want schools to be little more forgiving of students who don’t hurt someone else and willing to make things go away and not be in national news, 2. Take some action against students like expelling to show they are strict so other kids don’t pull similar stunts”
Fwiw, my D’s school had a student who got drunk and vandalized various historical campus buildings and statues (by throwing paint on them). I believe, though I am not certain, that she was suspended for s year and made to pay back the cost for the statue (which was on loan). I don’t believe they pursued anything through the court system. However, this young woman was also an extremely troubled individual on other dimensions so they must have felt clemency was warranted.
If this were “just” a vandalism case, it might not have made the news. Because it was a vandalism case involving racial slurs and the Teump name, of course it made the news. There’s nothing NU can do about that when it’s involving felony charges.
I will comment that here in the greater Chicago area, I hadn’t heard anything about it on the news and didn’t know about it til CaliCash posted. I did see a screen crawl on one of the morning news shows. Then again, we’ve had other big news stories dominating here
texaspg
I am sure your DD would never do such a thing, nor would she like to be at a college that looks the other way when supposedly smart fellow students purposefully vandalize school property, and then expect to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
“The greater embarrassment would be for them to look the other way and send a signal that a) vandalism and b) racial slurs are acceptable.”
I could not agree more!! That would make NW look like it was a babysitting service rather than a world class U.
Kids, no matter where they go to college, should know that there will always be consequences to any behavior that is known to be wrong or illegal.
Against persons or property- it matters not.
Getting drunk and vomiting all over the President’s rug is forgiveable. Heck, so is spray painting your frat/logo on the competitor’s building. But damaging a non-denominational house of worship – off limits, IMO, bcos it clearly shows intent and to me, forethought.
I agree the political aspect of it made national news but was it within NW’s decisionmaking power not to file a legal case so it didn’t get so much attention?
I don’t see why you want them to be soft. on the scale of bad things, this is a pretty bad one. You don’t destroy other people’s property. You don’t contribute to the creating of a hostile environment. Good grief, we argue all the time re silly microaggression offenses like sombreros at a party - but you’re willing to overlook actual vandalism and racial slurs? Geez, at least the SAEs at Oklahoma sang their song in private and didn’t paint it on a building for all to see.
If there was a murder on campus, which is also a felony, would you expect NW to try to keep it quiet??
A Felony is a Felony!!
And NO ONE vandalizes a CHURCH unintentionally or by accident.
My bottom line is these kids no longer DESERVE to be at NW.
If a college student commits multiple felonies by vandalizing a church , just like these kids did, and the church is NOT on college property, should the college step in and try to cover up the felony ?
And this would not have been a question for the administration of some private K-12 or parochial schools I knew of…including the one I attended. Any misconduct involving students at most private/parochial schools would have been considered within the jurisdiction of school authorities even if those incidents took place off-campus and on weekends…including determining and enforcing punishments.
For instance, my Catholic elementary school held a school-wide assembly to shame and announce penalties for 2 6th grade girls who were caught fighting in a public park on a weekend by a neighbor who notified the school authorities.
Didn’t matter the misconduct took place off-campus outside of school hours…both were shamed and punished with a week’s suspension and afterwards, more in-school suspension and possibly other punishments. This was not only covered by the guidelines…the penalty wasn’t the harshest which could have been given out.
Especially considering I knew of at least one case of an older boy getting expelled from another Catholic school merely for far less: being “too rambunctious*” as a 5 year old first grader.
According to the boy's parents, neighbors, and my own parents...it really amounted to him being too fidgety in his chair in the eyes of the teacher and principal.
@Pizzagirl "NU has no obligation to keep on campus someone who vandalized their property, much2learn. I don’t get your free speech argument. It’s not free speech for me to paint something on your wall.
I understand how you feel because it was your U this time, but really it could have happened anywhere. I agree that they have no obligation to keep them on campus. However, I believe they will want to be consistent, if they are going to expel students for vandalism.
Honestly if I were the administrator deciding their fate, I could see this two very different ways depending on the evidence and what the students have to say for themselves. If they are unrepentant haters who are proud of what they did and active in hate groups, I would take a much different view than if they are scared freshmen who were drunk and took a dumb bet. In the former case, I would definitely expel them. In the latter case, I really like Hanna’s community service idea.
@Pizzagirl “I don’t get your free speech argument. It’s not free speech for me to paint something on your wall.”… “They could have painted “Go U Northwestern” and it’s still vandalism.”
I agree with you. My comment about free speech was in reference to the hate crime charge. I support hate crime legislation, but I see this as an abuse of that legislation, based on what I know so far.
Why I think it should not be a hate crime: If this is a hate crime, then I am imagining an AA protester at a Trump rally who is standing on public property calling the Trump supporters ignorant white trash red neck m… f…ers. He is free to do this under free speech and is on public property. Now if he takes one step onto private property and says the same thing, is it trespassing with a hate crime charge added? I don’t think so. Apparently, I may be wrong about this? I think that would be unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely support hate crime legislation. I just think it is for things that are more serious, like burning an AA church, not spraying a bad word. jmho
^Much2learn,
there are criminal penalties for vandalism, which is NOT the considered by law to be the same thing as screaming at a protester at a rally.
No “free speech” RIGHTS were involved in this case. regardless of whether they were committed by a Trump supporter or not. Because the students did not speak. They committed arson.
Surely you know the difference between free speech and intentional arson or vandalism?
Or do you actually think it would be OK for someone to spray paint the home of a someone else who they disagree with politically because they have the right to "free speech’??
@menloparkmom “there are criminal penalties for vandalism, which is NOT the considered by law to be the same thing as screaming at a protester at a rally.”
I agree.
@menloparkmom "Trump supporter or not. Because the students did not speak. They committed arson.
Surely you know the difference between free speech and intentional arson or vandalism?
Or do you actually think it would be OK for someone to spray paint the home of a someone else who they disagree with politically because they have the right to “free speech’??”
I am going to try this again.
I agree that they should be charged with vandalism.
Imho, however loathsome it may be, spray painting a racist word or an anti-gay word, on its own, should not be sufficient to turn a $300 in damage vandalism case into a hate crime.
Additionally, I do not agree with you that you have to actually say a word to have freedom of speech. It sounds like you think that disabled people who are unable to speak have no free speech rights. I do not think that is the case. I think it applies to written words, just as much as spoken words.
Finally, I am not aware of any arson being involved, could you please provide a source for that?
Totally irrelevant, but I remember one case where a group of people tried to (failed of course) argue that playing volleyball in prohibited area in the park is a freedom of speech.
It’s funny how some Americans will go so far to defend their actions as “free speech”
if Evanston residents not affiliated with the u had broken into Alice Millar after hours and spray painted slogans, should NU look the other way and just meekly ask for some turpentine? This was a criminal act, a felony in our state. Caught on tape - so no question about guilt.
Honestly, much2learn, post 73 is what you’re missing in your attempts to paint this as free speech. These students didn’t hang bedsheets out their windows or pass out flyers or hold up placards. They destroyed property.
The only way in which this is a free speech issue is this, and I think it’s what much2learn is getting at: punishment of vandalism by the government (and that includes public universities) must be " content neutral". In other words you are supposed to get the same punishment for writing “Go Blue” in an act of vandalism at a church as some sort of anti-Semitic (I’m Jewish so I’m using that as an example and I’m going to assume for a minute this isn’t a threat. ) words. And writing on a wall is of course speaking. So actually the Court has ruled is lighting a fire ( flag burning). You can punish someone for burning someone else’s flag but not their own… and burning someone else’s property should be punished in a content neutral way.
Hate Speech laws complicate this. However, there are many Constitutional scholars who believe these laws are invalid under the First Amendment. Several Hate Speech laws gave been struck down in lower courts. The US Supreme Court has yet to definitively rule. ( threatening speech is different and not protected. This is complicated too but not all racial or religious epithets are threats but many are)
An easier example which shows how vandalism can involve free speech is this. U Michigan must punish a student the same for spray painting “Michigan Sux” as they do " Go Blue". They can’t punish the former more harshly by saying its a crime so no free speech rights.
Private universities like Northwestern aren’t bound under the First Amendment and although there are good arguments about why they are contractually bound by free speech guarantees they make I don’t think it’s an issue here because I believe that students would likely be expelled for this sort of act of vandalism no matter what the words were.
The Hate Speech charge is another issue but this is unlikely a case where it will be resolved.
> 