^^ indeed Mattc, too many people are concentrating on irrelevant points, ie all this "boo hoo I've been treated like a child". Those of you who feel that way just need to get over that b/c there is no getting over that. There are bigger topics here that actually have precidnce and most of you are missing them. All this bashing of administration is irrelivant and pointless b/c just as said, no one is arguing guilt here, the retards already confessed when they orriginally talked with the technician and had that crap printed, but instead the arguement is the method of aquisition and the lack of substantiating evidence required to even begin the process.



[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 6:31 PM. Reason : q]

11/4/2005 6:30:35 PM

Quote :

"the method of aquisition"

i agree how the fuck would they even be able to see facebook pictures

Quote :

"substantiating evidence"

yeah what if i was like holding a beer for a play or something

11/4/2005 7:55:14 PM

HAAAAAAY PAUL

11/4/2005 9:51:20 PM

Quote :

"Noen: If it comes down to a person's statement of innocence, versus a digital online photo, and they find the student guilty, you DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I would be suing the school."

And you'd be wasting your $85 for the filing fee, b/c it would get hit with an MSJ before the ink dried on the summons...

Quote :

"Noen: This is a PUBLIC institution. It is governed by public law, not some damn arbitrational system. If a student feels a ruling unfair or wrong, you better believe they can take it to the next level."

Everything is governed by public law, hence it being "public law." There's a reason you have to sign a contract before attending NCSU.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 9:57 PM. Reason :  ]

11/4/2005 9:53:58 PM

i don't remember signing anything

i'm sure i signed something, though

but i really don't remember it

11/4/2005 10:03:05 PM

i'm sure us attending is "contract enough" to say that we agree to whatever they want us to agree to. if we don't agree we can go somewhere else, or something liek that

11/5/2005 12:33:25 AM

^^
There's something saying you agree to be bound by the Code of Student Conduct, don't remember if it's during orientation or when you accept admission to the University (that was awhile ago for me )

11/5/2005 1:23:40 AM

CHECK OUT MY STATUS TITLE

11/5/2005 1:51:21 AM

Quote :

"unfortunately the administration has their heads up their asses and will not let it go with a simple "dont do it again." they are seen as the all powerful ruling force on this campus and it's gonna stay that way. these events are gonna only amplify that because their egotistical, power-hungry, pathetic souls won't allow for these events to just go away."

Either find me a source on this, or I'm calling you out for ignorance on this one.

11/5/2005 7:37:14 PM

Can everyone give me a listing of all the 100% factual / known / corroborated / etc information that's been found out so far? Names, places, timelines of events, etc

I've got a column running Tuesday and I'm fact-checking in as many places as possible...

[Edited on November 6, 2005 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ---]

11/6/2005 11:08:44 PM

How bout if you're underage, leave the alcohol alone and you won't have to worry about it...and stop whining bc every one of them know the alcohol laws

11/6/2005 11:13:38 PM

follow the money, TGD.

11/6/2005 11:14:59 PM

Quote :

"And you'd be wasting your $85 for the filing fee, b/c it would get hit with an MSJ before the ink dried on the summons... Everything is governed by public law, hence it being "public law." There's a reason you have to sign a contract before attending NCSU. "

The hell it would. The policy on the collection, use and authenticity of evidence is NON-EXISTANT. For this to be a PUBLICLY FUNDED institution, there is no fucking way the current code of conduct procedures would stand up in court. There is absolutely NO check or balance against abuse of power in the finding of guilt or sentencing of students. For the amount of money at stake in this case if these students are forced to return home, I would fight this fucking tooth and nail.

With a half-competent lawyer, a MSJ wouldn't work for a heartbeat. No where in the policies we as students agreed to upon entering this university, does it state the procedures for the collection, use, and authenticity of evidence. Nor does it provide any policy to allow student's the right to question the methods, or accuracy of said evidence. And the policy, as it is written today contradict's itself 100%.

Quote :

"2.1.4 To be presumed innocent unless proven guilty"

But then

Quote :

"4.1.3 .. Respondents may not decline to answer questions."

You give up the right to avoid self-incrimination? That's not innocent until proven guilty. 5th amendment people.


But the BIGGIE IS

Quote :

"4.1.5 The decision to hold a respondent accountable for alleged acts will be based on whether the respondent, in the opinion of the person conducting the Conference, more likely than not engaged in the alleged misconduct."

This completely contradicts one of the main rights of the respondent. According to this, it's not innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's not even innocent until anything. It's your fate rests in the OPINION OF THE CONDUCTOR. OPINION != PROVEN.

This alone should be enough to overturn damn near any decision with questionable evidence.

Quote :

"Can everyone give me a listing of all the 100% factual / known / corroborated / etc information that's been found out so far? Names, places, timelines of events, etc I've got a column running Tuesday and I'm fact-checking in as many places as possible..."

Just talk to any student being charged. They have the right, as a respondent, to the COMPLETE case file the university has. According to the policies, they do NOT have to keep such information private or in confidence. But I will damn well bet not one of them even knows they have the right to such things.

BTW they can also bring in a lawyer as both a witness to all proceedings, as well as a witness, and to defend and respond to questions, evidence and witnesses presented by the university.

I could care less if they drank or not, but I'll be damned if this isn't overstepping the bounds of personal privacy.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 5:46 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2005 5:45:40 AM

Also the student has the right to appeal to the dean, chancellor, board of trustees, and then to the UNC Board of Governors.

But the thing that's really stupid about this, is what it's going to do to the alumni money down the road.

Shit, the school has basically driven away all the alumni for the past 5-7 years as it is. This isn't going to help pay those salaries in the future. In another 15-20 years, when we are the big baller alumni donor age, this school is going to be in shit-sticks.

By god we PAY to keep this place open, why in the hell are we the ones at THEIR mercy?

11/7/2005 5:56:30 AM

I see that Noen has posted a lot. I assume someone questioned a post of his and now he is in "overwhelm with BS mode". See any tech talk thread he has ever posted in where he has been questioned for more examples.

11/7/2005 6:19:14 AM

partially, but not really

11/7/2005 6:41:12 AM

Quote :

"Noen: There is absolutely NO check or balance against abuse of power in the finding of guilt or sentencing of students."

Sure there is, it's called the student's signature waiving their rights when they agree to be bound by University policy and the Code of Student Conduct.

This is no different than any other contract, for example signing an agreement to an arbitration in lieu of a jury trial. We're still a democracy; you have rights, including the right to waive rights.

Quote :

"Noen: With a half-competent lawyer, a MSJ wouldn't work for a heartbeat."

I'm not even a lawyer, and I've crafted successful MSJs on cases less clear-cut than this. If University counsel couldn't get this case thrown immediately, they don't deserve their salaries.

Beyond that, what would you put in your complaint? What's your contention for damages? No one has a right to attend this university, and any demand on the monetary front would promptly get hit with a contributory negligence counterclaim.

Quote :

"Noen: According to this, it's not innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's not even innocent until anything. It's your fate rests in the OPINION OF THE CONDUCTOR. OPINION != PROVEN. This alone should be enough to overturn damn near any decision with questionable evidence."

I'm guessing you're probably not familiar with the different standards of evidence, in use everyday out there in the real world?

And a conviction by a judge or a jury are both nothing more than their respective opinions. But of course you knew that already.

Quote :

"Noen: Just talk to any student being charged. They have the right, as a respondent, to the COMPLETE case file the university has."

Already working on that, but I've also got a 2:00pm deadline


[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 7:09 AM. Reason : ---]

11/7/2005 7:07:09 AM

Quote :

"Can everyone give me a listing of all the 100% factual / known / corroborated / etc information that's been found out so far? Names, places, timelines of events, etc I've got a column running Tuesday and I'm fact-checking in as many places as possible..."

Source: The Wolf Web.

(Very Credible)

11/7/2005 7:09:39 AM

Quote :

"This is no different than any other contract, for example signing an agreement to an arbitration in lieu of a jury trial."

Except most of the time things like this in contracts don't hold up in court. If there are legitimate grievances all these arbitration and jurisidiction clauses go out the window.

11/7/2005 8:39:01 AM

^
Source?

Quote :

"Maverick: Source: The Wolf Web. (Very Credible) "

yeah I know, hence "I'm fact-checking in as many places as possible"

11/7/2005 10:27:03 AM

apparantly its been hush... youd have to ask teh individual posters..

11/7/2005 10:38:33 AM

uf I'm not mistaken, noen, those rights you're referring to involved the government. You have the right not to incriminate yourself in a court of law. You have a right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It doesn't apply to the school, your job, or anything else. They can do whatever they want to you, especially if you signed a contract that says they can.

11/7/2005 11:50:37 AM

anyone read the news & observer today?


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2833298p-9283981c.html

11/7/2005 1:54:05 PM

Quote :

"Sure there is, it's called the student's signature waiving their rights when they agree to be bound by University policy and the Code of Student Conduct. "

Exactly my point. Since there are no procedures laid out in the areas I mentioned, you DONT waive your rights to them. You agree to the CSC, not waive any and all legal recourse. The policies and procedures that ARE outlined are contradictory and extremely shaky. MOST of the processes aren't explained or given any process definition at ALL. You agree to the CSC, if it's not IN WRITING IN THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT, IT SHOULDN'T BE USED.

Quote :

"Beyond that, what would you put in your complaint? What's your contention for damages? No one has a right to attend this university, and any demand on the monetary front would promptly get hit with a contributory negligence counterclaim."

My contention for damages would be the 15-20 THOUSAND DOLLARS I would be out for tuition by being expelled from the school, from a decision reached outside the bounds of the policies I, as a student, and the university agreed to follow.

And contributory negligence wouldn't apply, or damn well at least shouldn't, as the student did nothing negligent in the terms of the university bound contract. The CSC doesn't say you cannot drink, it says if you ARE CAUGHT drinking, there will be punishments. Since the "evidence" to incriminate them was obtained outside of the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, it should invalidate either the evidence itself, or the agreement. In the former, the student's were expelled without just cause, the latter, the university broke its contractual obligations. Either way, the claim for the lost tuition is very much applicable.

Quote :

"I'm guessing you're probably not familiar with the different standards of evidence, in use everyday out there in the real world?"

Thanks for trying to talk down to me from your high throne sir. I'm completely aware. My POINT is that since there is NO FUCKING DEFINITION of any "standards" for evidence within school policy, what other "standard" can be fallen back on for a judicial decision?

Quote :

"And a conviction by a judge or a jury are both nothing more than their respective opinions. But of course you knew that already."

For someone trying to say how this entire process has nothing to do with the court system, this is a pretty stupid comparison. Because with judge or jury, the defendent has the right to counsel, and has the luxury of a fully detailed LEGAL SYSTEM. In the case of a judge, said judge must have at LEAST a minimal amount of education and experience to qualify them for such a position. A JURY is selected, not mandated.

So is it opinion? Yes, but its a shit ton more impartial and informed opinion that you will be getting from ONE person at the office of student conduct.

11/8/2005 5:44:07 AM

TGD: You want a legal precident for a lawsuit?

Retaliation in the Judicial Process.

http://www.clhe.org/salpw/revealingthecatch22.shtml

In this case, the RA in question went out of her way and jurisdiction in retaliation for some unknown reason(s), causing the students to be caught for drinking and punished (and due to other factors, expelled).

There are HUNDREDS of lawsuits that mirror the same precidents and cause-effect situations that are happening here. The above link points to several recent ones.

And the more I look up on this, the more I see that the overwhelming majority of these cases are settled out of court, and the ones that do go to litigation pretty much side with the student.

11/8/2005 5:57:26 AM

^ good job finding that

11/8/2005 9:00:34 AM

^^

Quote :

"Noen: TGD: You want a legal precident for a lawsuit?"

OK so did you actually read anything on that site -- like, say, the site itself (or maybe even the actual court opinions )?

Let me know when you find something relevant, much less actual precedent in North Carolina or at least the 4th Circuit...

Quote :

"Noen: Exactly my point. Since there are no procedures laid out in the areas I mentioned, you DONT waive your rights to them. You agree to the CSC, not waive any and all legal recourse. The policies and procedures that ARE outlined are contradictory and extremely shaky. MOST of the processes aren't explained or given any process definition at ALL. You agree to the CSC, if it's not IN WRITING IN THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT, IT SHOULDN'T BE USED."

It's "contradictory" and "shaky" only in the deluded ravings of your fevered imagination.

I can almost picture the Board of Trustees now..."Hey guys, that scholar Noen's illustrious legal mind can't recognize a distinction between the common law principle of presumed innocence and a signed waiver of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination, so I move we get rid of the Code of Student Conduct entirely because clearly the procedures outlined are contradictory and extremely shaky"

Quote :

"Noen: My contention for damages would be the 15-20 THOUSAND DOLLARS I would be out for tuition by being expelled from the school, from a decision reached outside the bounds of the policies I, as a student, and the university agreed to follow."

And how many chances to ignore the rules should you get before being thrown out?

(since using the $15K-20K in damages would only be successful after someone's been expelled, which for drinking would be on the 3rd or 4th+ violation...)

Quote :

"Noen: And contributory negligence wouldn't apply, or damn well at least shouldn't, as the student did nothing negligent in the terms of the university bound contract. The CSC doesn't say you cannot drink, it says if you ARE CAUGHT drinking, there will be punishments. Since the "evidence" to incriminate them was obtained outside of the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, it should invalidate either the evidence itself, or the agreement. In the former, the student's were expelled without just cause, the latter, the university broke its contractual obligations. Either way, the claim for the lost tuition is very much applicable."

1) How would contributory negligence not apply? The entire doctrine is that if you contribute even 1% to the cause of your damages you can recover nothing. You don't consider breaking the rules (a prerequisite to being caught breaking the rules) as contributory?

2) When did legally waiving certain legal rights (as you do when you agree to be bound by the CSC process) require the exhaustive detail of the slightest minutiae of everything? The idea that the Code of Student Conduct has to fully outline what is and is not acceptable evidence collection procedures to enable the lawful waiver of certain legal rights is patently absurd (even for you).

Next you'll be telling me the University has no right to expel Joe Student when they found evidence that he killed someone off-campus, because "OMF the procedures for evidence collection aren't in teh CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT!!1"

Quote :

"Noen: Thanks for trying to talk down to me from your high throne sir. I'm completely aware. My POINT is that since there is NO FUCKING DEFINITION of any "standards" for evidence within school policy, what other "standard" can be fallen back on for a judicial decision?"

I'm not on a high throne at all, I'm just not going to sit here and have someone who clearly has no fucking clue wtf they're talking about try to explain to me how I'm full of shit.

It's called the "greater weight of the evidence" standard, it's perfectly valid and used in the real world, and your last post bitching about it was mind-numbingly idiotic BS.

Quote :

"Noen: For someone trying to say how this entire process has nothing to do with the court system, this is a pretty stupid comparison. Because with judge or jury, the defendent has the right to counsel, and has the luxury of a fully detailed LEGAL SYSTEM. In the case of a judge, said judge must have at LEAST a minimal amount of education and experience to qualify them for such a position. A JURY is selected, not mandated."

Judges don't even have to law degrees in some states, much less have a "a minimal amount of education and experience". NC's own requirement for a judge to be a lawyer was a relatively recent addition, and magistrates don't need any formal legal education at all (magistrates being the judges for all civil small claims cases, as well as the people issuing criminal arrest warrants based on evidence presented by law enforcement).

And even with the lawyer requirement you only get so much "education and experience to qualify them" considering relatively few lawyers ever have any education or experience in the laws they preside over once elected as a judge. How many real estate or patent attorneys do you think really know or understand criminal law when they start as a judge?

Both judges and jurors (who in this case would be equivalent to Judical Board members) learn through experience. And in this case an administrator who's been hearing student conduct cases for years is comparably experienced.

Quote :

"Noen: So is it opinion? Yes, but its a shit ton more impartial and informed opinion that you will be getting from ONE person at the office of student conduct."

You're kidding, right?

---

Look, I think the entire scenario is horseshit like damn near everyone else. And I'm certainly no fan of Paul Cousins (and on top of it I actually think I have jackleg beat on the 'we go way back' count ).

But throwing on your "OMF I'm l33t in Tech Talk so now watch be an über-lawyer!!1" hat and shouting your asininity from the TWW rooftops does nothing but hurt the cause you're supposedly touting, because people inside and outside the administration who actually know what they're talking about look at you -- and the entire student body through you -- and conclude you're full of shit and unworthy of intelligible discussion or debate.

11/8/2005 3:50:21 PM

The following situation does not completely match this one, but it should certainly provide food for thought as the administration considers its next steps. And it CERTAINLY applies to the crucify-burn statement.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-11-07-school-website-suit_x.htm?csp

Quote :

"A New Jersey school district will pay $117,500 to a student who was punished for creating a website that included critical statements about his middle school. The settlement of the lawsuit brought nearly two years ago follows a decision by a federal judge ruling that Oceanport school administrators violated Ryan Dwyer's free speech rights. The settlement was announced Sunday by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. "While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly, I'm hopeful this will help ensure that free speech rights of students aren't trampled on again in the future," said Dwyer, who is now in 11th grade. Dwyer created the website containing criticism of Maple Place School in April 2003, on his own time from his home computer. Comments posted on the site's "guest book" section angered school officials, who suspended Dwyer for a week, benched him from playing on the baseball team for a month, and barred him from going on his class trip, among other discipline. The district's lawsuit said anti-Semitic remarks were posted on the site, which Dwyer denied writing. "The school district has never — to this day — explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father. The school district issued a prepared statement that said it solicited advice and guidance from legal advisers and law enforcement officers and acted "on its belief that it was protecting all of the children and the staff in the district." "In the settlement agreement, the Board of Education expressed its regret for the entire incident that caused a great deal of concern to the Board of Education, its present and former members, as well as the Dwyers," the statement read. Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. "Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression," Barber said. "

11/8/2005 6:51:05 PM

Quote :

"But throwing on your "OMF I'm l33t in Tech Talk so now watch be an über-lawyer!!1" hat "

Not at all. If anyone is TRYING to be a fucking lawyer here, it's you.

Quote :

"And even with the lawyer requirement you only get so much "education and experience to qualify them" considering relatively few lawyers ever have any education or experience in the laws they preside over once elected as a judge. "

It's called law school you twat. And having friends in it now, and having graduated, having passed the bar sets a pretty fucking high standard, in comparison to many other jobs out there.

Quote :

"How many real estate or patent attorneys do you think really know or understand criminal law when they start as a judge?"

It's called research. No lawyer or judge just stops reading and learning after law school. Seriously dude.

Quote :

"Judges don't even have to law degrees in some states, much less have a "a minimal amount of education and experience". NC's own requirement for a judge to be a lawyer was a relatively recent addition, and magistrates don't need any formal legal education at all (magistrates being the judges for all civil small claims cases, as well as the people issuing criminal arrest warrants based on evidence presented by law enforcement). "

They do in NC, which is the state in question. And seeing as this isn't a small claims case, this wouldn't be dealth with by a magistrate, but good job flexing that epenis a little and wasting an entire paragraph on useless and impertinent information.

Quote :

"OK so did you actually read anything on that site -- like, say, the site itself (or maybe even the actual court opinions )? Let me know when you find something relevant, much less actual precedent in North Carolina or at least the 4th Circuit..."

Yes and yes. And if you can tell me where I can search case summaries for NC without paying 20 dollars a docket, I'll be glad to search. The only ones in the 4th Circuit aren't relevent to this at all.

Quote :

"It's "contradictory" and "shaky" only in the deluded ravings of your fevered imagination. I can almost picture the Board of Trustees now..."Hey guys, that scholar Noen's illustrious legal mind can't recognize a distinction between the common law principle of presumed innocence and a signed waiver of the Constitutional right against self-incrimination, so I move we get rid of the Code of Student Conduct entirely because clearly the procedures outlined are contradictory and extremely shaky""

Way to try and be all high and mighty again. You obviously missed my entire point.

The procedures they DO outline are contradictory. The ones they don't should fall back to common law, yet they apparently don't. I'm not advocating the remocal of the CSC, I don't know what magic hat you pulled that out of. I just want the damn thing to be revised and at least define the methods and procedures that can be used.

Quote :

"And how many chances to ignore the rules should you get before being thrown out? (since using the $15K-20K in damages would only be successful after someone's been expelled, which for drinking would be on the 3rd or 4th+ violation...)"

However many I agreed to when I entered the institution. If they want to enact a zero tolerance policy, that's fine by me. I think the system is pretty well setup in terms of punishment.

But you see in THIS case, it's not on the 3rd or 4th violation that it cost's them shit tons of money. Because of the international student policies, if they have a single mark, they are gone. So yes it matters BIG TIME.

Quote :

"1) How would contributory negligence not apply? The entire doctrine is that if you contribute even 1% to the cause of your damages you can recover nothing. You don't consider breaking the rules (a prerequisite to being caught breaking the rules) as contributory?"

From every case I can find, contributory negligence only applies to personal injury, though I definitely think it would apply here. I was not aware that NC still abided by the 100% contributory negligence statue, seeing as now 46 states have adopted.

But it's not that the student is seeking compensation for damages, merely a return of their money for services not rendered. I admittedly have no idea if the statute would cover this, but I would think using logical reasoning, it shouldn't.

Quote :

"2) When did legally waiving certain legal rights (as you do when you agree to be bound by the CSC process) require the exhaustive detail of the slightest minutiae of everything? The idea that the Code of Student Conduct has to fully outline what is and is not acceptable evidence collection procedures to enable the lawful waiver of certain legal rights is patently absurd (even for you). "

Never. I'm not asking for exhaustive detail. If they don't want to specifically outline a routine or procedure, I'd just like some kind of general reference to SOME accepted practice. If they want to approach all proceedings as common law, that would be fine by me, I just want it to say so.

Quote :

"Next you'll be telling me the University has no right to expel Joe Student when they found evidence that he killed someone off-campus, because "OMF the procedures for evidence collection aren't in teh CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT!!1""

Completely irrelevent.


Are you in law school? Are you a lawyer? What qualifications do you have to tell me or ANYONE that WE don't know what we are talking about, when you are constantly proclaiming how little education the educated law professionals have.

11/8/2005 7:11:30 PM

quote bombs are stupid. take your shit offline.

The following situation does not completely match this one, but it should certainly provide food for thought as the administration considers its next steps. And it CERTAINLY applies to the crucify-burn statement.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-11-07-school-website-suit_x.htm?csp

Quote :

"A New Jersey school district will pay $117,500 to a student who was punished for creating a website that included critical statements about his middle school. The settlement of the lawsuit brought nearly two years ago follows a decision by a federal judge ruling that Oceanport school administrators violated Ryan Dwyer's free speech rights. The settlement was announced Sunday by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. "While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly, I'm hopeful this will help ensure that free speech rights of students aren't trampled on again in the future," said Dwyer, who is now in 11th grade. Dwyer created the website containing criticism of Maple Place School in April 2003, on his own time from his home computer. Comments posted on the site's "guest book" section angered school officials, who suspended Dwyer for a week, benched him from playing on the baseball team for a month, and barred him from going on his class trip, among other discipline. The district's lawsuit said anti-Semitic remarks were posted on the site, which Dwyer denied writing. "The school district has never — to this day — explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father. The school district issued a prepared statement that said it solicited advice and guidance from legal advisers and law enforcement officers and acted "on its belief that it was protecting all of the children and the staff in the district." "In the settlement agreement, the Board of Education expressed its regret for the entire incident that caused a great deal of concern to the Board of Education, its present and former members, as well as the Dwyers," the statement read. Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. "Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression," Barber said. "

11/8/2005 7:14:25 PM

One thing I don't quite get is this. The issue, as I understamd, isn't whether or not students must abide by the CSC, even questionable parts. The question is if there is actually any proof the rules have been broken. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think any students have waived a right to object to ANY stupid shit the Administration does. And considering a digital photo evidence is as stupid as it gets.

11/8/2005 8:22:24 PM

they didn't all break CSC...some broke housing policies they signed on to
and the csc only comes in for those that actually were second offenses to drinking

11/8/2005 8:41:43 PM

all in all, i think it's really stupid. facebook doesn't even belong to nc state and yet they have the right to persecute people who put silly pictures up.

11/9/2005 12:57:45 AM

Yes the whole thing is very stupid and a waste of my time...Im an international student and live in Alexander and was written up for underage drinking based on a photograph because housing saw what they wanted to see. Innocent until proven guilty? Sorry what a pile of bollocks. The fact that I was written up purely based on the "evidence" of a photograph is laughable and proof to me that they had already assumed that I was guilty.

Im now having to write an alcohol reflection paper and pay $40 to go to an alcohol class

All this talk of trying to stop this kinda of thing happening again is nice but frankly I doubt it’ll do anything. It seems to me that housing and student conduct will do what ever the hell they want and we can moan and bitch about it till we are blue in the face but they set the rules and we unfortunately just have to kiss their arses. (Sorry that’s just how it seems to me!)

I LOVE living in America but im kinda looking forward to going back home where I can do what ever the hell I want and you can drink when your 18

11/9/2005 2:09:23 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/10/06/fisher_college_expels_student_over_website_entries/

11/9/2005 2:31:39 AM

^ dang.

11/9/2005 2:49:22 AM

If you want to hear a professional talk about Law and student rights, then go here tonight:

Witherspoon Student Center
6:30pm. Free for students.

If your photos on Facebook implicated you, then this is a perfect opportunity. I'm fairly certain you'll get to ask him questions.

The guy's published books about college law before. Here's some credentials:


"Attorney C.L. Lindsay III is the founder and executive director of CO-STAR. He is a nationally recognized expert and leader in the field of student rights and academic freedom. His syndicated column, "Ask CO-STAR " is distributed nationally on Knight Ridder/Tribune's College Wire Service. The column, published weekly, has become one of Knight Ridder/Tribune's most popular features.

He is also the author of The College Student's Guide to the Law: Get a Grade Changed, Keep Your Stuff Private, Throw a Police-Free Party, and More! available now from Taylor Trade Publishing.

He has appeared on national television, radio and been featured in several regional and national publications, including CBS News Radio, MSNBC Live, The Sally Jesse Raphael Show, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Christian Science Monitor."

11/9/2005 5:21:30 PM

An on campus student should take a picture (no alcohol) beside a notary, have a witness sign saying there was no alcohol, notorize it... then have someone photochop alcohol into the picture and post it. Maybe a brave soul could display the "system's" flaws at the administrations expense.

11/9/2005 10:55:03 PM

^
I'm a notary, I'm up for it

Noen: I'll take Excoriator's advice and give you the last word.

11/10/2005 7:55:45 AM

Fine by me, because it's pretty obvious we have differing interpretations.

11/10/2005 11:54:21 AM

this thread and that townhall meeting was such a waste of everyone's time

you drank underage

you got caught

end of story



[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2005 8:15:43 PM

stunning insight

11/10/2005 8:27:32 PM

it is weird how if you dont break the law you dont get in trouble for breaking the law

11/10/2005 8:30:50 PM

ALBERT FUCKING EINSTEIN IN HERE PEOPLE

11/10/2005 8:32:45 PM

actually Al was my protoge'

11/10/2005 8:36:32 PM

Quote :

"this thread and that townhall meeting was such a waste of everyone's time you drank underage you got caught end of story"

nice, another one overshoots the point. anyone wants to try again?

11/11/2005 8:07:56 PM

^ nice quote block. Espically since some of the ppl who were caught wern't drinking in the pictures.

11/11/2005 11:53:32 PM

omf underage drinking

11/11/2005 11:56:08 PM

Quote :

"bollocks"

???

11/12/2005 7:33:45 PM

Amanda Bostian is a cunt

11/14/2005 3:25:51 AM