🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1549@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) writes:
> of enacting these policies. I realize that any university has not
> only the right but the responsibility to enforce rules which go beyond
> those set by society (for example, I would hope that no one would
> argue that an individual accused of attacking another student and
> causing physical harm should be allowed to stay on campus until the
> legal system decides to try him/her) but to argue that an individual
> gives up his right to voice his opinions or to be "annoying" seems

 I have received some email about the remarks above and thought that I might
be able to clear up what I meant - in particular, two individuals made a
remark that the university must be held to the concept of "due process" which
my remarks seem to discount. In fact, the courts have ruled frequently that
the university must supply due process - but that should not be confused
with what we expect of society through the judicial process. In cases
dealing with students who had been accused of rape, armed robbery, assault
and various other crimes, the courts have held that the university must
supply a hearing (not a trial - simply a hearing where the accused is
allowed to state his/her case and others are allowed to make stmts about
the situation) - there is no requirement that the accused be allowed to
call witnesses nor is there any requirement that he/she be allowed to
examine or cross-examine those who do provide information. There must
also be some form of reasonable appeal procedure available to appeal
any suspension dismissal etc. - it has been a while since my last
 "Higher Ed and the Law" course  but I can probably dig up some case
references for anyone interested (you'll have to give me some time
since I'm pretty swamped right now).