Student Sues College After Being Punished for Her Anti-Gay Language

Let me be clear first I am not anti-gay myself, but this is interesting news on the topic of "free speech."

"Former New Mexico Student Says She Was Shunned For Anti-Gay View"

A student at the college, Monica Pompeo, apparently wrote a critique of movie that was required for a class called "Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts" (obviously a feminist/pro-lesbian type class) saying it contained perverse lesbian sex and expressing other anti-gay opinions. The paper was not well received by the professor, who even told the student it might be in her best interest to drop the class (probably good advice). Seems the student got so angry about this apparently being about denied first amendment rights that she's now suing the school over the issue.

According to her lawyer, the premise of the law suit is that colleges are supposed to be places that encourage free speech and debate. Looks to me like her professor was debating and the student, Monica Pompeo, just wanted to blurt out her opinion as loud and rude as she could. It's yet another example of someone defining "free speech" as saying whatever you want with no consequences for what you say.

a reply to: Petros312

Free speech is a myth.

This should get to be an interesting thread. Just yesterday there was a thread on free speech rights in colleges. People said free speech was guaranteed in the constitution. End of story.
Here's the link to that one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will be interesting to see if the same people will stick up for this young ladies rights.

a reply to: Petros312
Well it's her right to express those opinions, just like anyone else has the right to hold her accountable for it.
Now how do you hold her accountable is a different story.
first off we would have to see exactly what she wrote. the wording is everything. in case her wording was objectively offensive, then she has no ground to stand on, but if it was a level headed paper, then what they are attempting is censorship.

Freedom of Speech shouldn't cover hate speech...

I'm sure even the founding fathers had that in a contextual sense when they wrote the constitution!


Another reprobate!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Freedom of Speech shouldn't cover hate speech...

I'm sure even the founding fathers had that in a contextual sense when they wrote the constitution!


Another reprobate!

The FF would have laughed at the term, had it existed back then. "Hate speech" is just another attempt to censor speech one does not like. It is entirely subjective and way overused.

Would have to see the paper.

Will say this though, hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of students get marked unfairly every year. When you're an under graduate you don't get to have an opinion and this is even more prevalent when you're studying anything in the social or creative areas.

If your tutor is a specialist in gothic lit, don't go into bat with 1500 words claiming gothic lit isn't misogynistic. You will lose that fight every time. If your professor has a thesis on video games and how they don't cause mass shootings, don't think that a 2500 word essay and a bar graph will change the person's mind. They will be twice as hard on you. In some rare cases this is the exact opposite, but this one couldn't have been any more obvious if there was a neon sign and information video display before walking into class.

That's just life.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Freedom of Speech shouldn't cover hate speech...

I'm sure even the founding fathers had that in a contextual sense when they wrote the constitution!


Another reprobate!

Of course it should cover hate speech. Who gets to define what hate is? Criticizing the government might be considered hate speech. That's a very slippery slope..
Besides, you have no clue what she wrote.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Yes I do have a clue, its in the article...
She called lesbianism perverse...
Read the link!

I've read a few stories on this case and it doesn't seem she was "kicked out of class", but rather told that she might consider dropping it. I'm not sure she has a case at all. I'd have to know more before forming a firm opinion, though. It's certainly not a free speech case because the government isn't involved at all. Being "ostracized" and told her comments were offensive isn't a case of free speech violation.

How was she supposedly "ostracized"?
What was the actual assignment?
What is the professor's side of the story?

One of the reasons for her lawsuit is that a supervisor at the university told her the use of the word "barren" was "offensive". If she has free speech, why is she suing for something the supervisor said? Don't they have free speech as well?

I suspect she didn't like the response her paper got and she's suing to punish the professor...

So many people don't understand what free speech in the Constitution is. Free speech as outlined in the Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT only. Free speech doesn't apply to private institutions or private conversations.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "hate speech". People have a right to say what they want. You have the ability to not listen to them. That's it plain and simple.

a reply to: JIMC5499

So you agree that the teacher has every right not to grade her hate filled assignment then...

If people have the ability not to listen what about reading?

Sounds to me like the professor used HIS free speech to save her sorry as from being rediculed.

I dont see where he forced her to not do her speech.

Using Free Speech to spout hate will be countered by others using THEIR Free Speech to redicule you.

Be preparaed if you want to dish out.

originally posted by: Petros312

Looks to me like her professor was debating and the student, Monica Pompeo, just wanted to blurt out her opinion as loud and rude as she could. It's yet another example of someone defining "free speech" as saying whatever you want with no consequences for what you say.

Looks to me like you're judging the student. How was she "blurting out" anything? It was a paper. I assume people read those. And was the class "obviously a feminist/pro-lesbian type class"? I do not get that from the title. I'd assume they would be exploring plenty of sex icons thru the various eras as well. If a lesbian took a similar approach to a paper regarding Marilyn Monroe, would that have been met with the same outcry from the prof, claiming she used her body to lure men and gain acting roles? It's rather doubtful.

I don't see the issue with her paper, its her view and can express it with no issue. This concept of hate speech falls under the term blasphemy, its used to sensor people. Let her speak her mind, if she says lesbianism is perverse and people don't like it that doesn't change what the word perverse means.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: Petros312
Well it's her right to express those opinions, just like anyone else has the right to hold her accountable for it.
Now how do you hold her accountable is a different story.
first off we would have to see exactly what she wrote. the wording is everything. in case her wording was objectively offensive, then she has no ground to stand on, but if it was a level headed paper, then what they are attempting is censorship.

Agreed.

It would be an even more interesting counterpoint to use her opinion, if I was the professor, as an effective way to start discussion and debate in the classroom.

I don't agree with a great many ideas, but I agree 100% with the expression of them and the discussion of those ideas in a public forum, to use them as talking points, learning points and overall enhance any sort of learning experience.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Yes I do have a clue, its in the article...
She called lesbianism perverse...
Read the link!

Yeah I read the link.
As usual the text was cherry picked and pulled from the whole without having any context as to how it was written. Without that context you don't know what she was trying to say. Maybe the movie assigned to her was a perverse film. Again, no context.
That being said, she does have the right to her opinion and you don't have the right to not be offended.

i find it interesting why you didn't quote what the judge Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo said when she allowed the suit to go forward.

from your story.

Armijo's ruling questioned whether a "university can have a legitimate pedagogical interest in inviting students to engage in `incendiary' and provocative speech on a topic and then punishing a student because he or she did just that." "Simply because Plaintiff expressed views about homosexuality that some people may deem offensive does not derive her views of First Amendment protection," the judge wrote.

so if this is true maybe she should win. if they ask you to do that and that's what she did. just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should punish her for it, by violating her civil right to free speach.

No link to the critique and no link to the syllabus.

This article is incredibly short of context, even by Huffpost standards.