Univ. of Tennessee COP - free speech overreach case

[confettiflyer]

Students Punished for ‘Vulgar’ Social Media Posts Are Fighting Back (Published 2021)

A lawsuit against the University of Tennessee questions when schools can discipline students because of their online speech.

www.nytimes.com

So who are the administrative prudes/jerks involved here? I want names, lol.

To Kimberly Diei, a pharmacy graduate student at the University of Tennessee, her posts on Twitter and Instagram were well within the bounds of propriety. She was just having fun. “Sex positive,” she called them.

Posting under a pseudonym, kimmykasi, she exposed her cleavage in a tight dress and stuck out her tongue. In homage to the rapper Cardi B, one of her idols, she made up some raunchy rap lyrics. By this week, she had gained more than 19,500 Instagram followers and 2,000 on Twitter.

But to the university, her social media messages were more than just a bit racy. After an anonymous source reported them for a second time, a disciplinary panel declared Ms. Diei’s posts “vulgar,” “crude” and not in keeping with the mores of her chosen profession. In September, it ordered her expelled.

“I was sick to my stomach,” Ms. Diei, 27, recalled.

She was given two days to appeal, and she scrambled to find a lawyer. With the threat of a lawsuit looming, the dean of the college reversed the decision to expel her. But the experience was so jarring, Ms. Diei says, that on Wednesday she filed a federal lawsuit with the help of a pro bono lawyer, arguing that the public university had violated her constitutional right of free expression “for no legitimate pedagogical reason.”

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[confettiflyer]

Here is the full 31 page complaint filed in federal court:

Diei v. UTHSC - Complaint - FIRE

d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net

 

[confettiflyer]

So from the complaint, we know that Christa George (associate professor of clinical pharmacy and translational science) is head of the committee of 9 faculty and 3 students that chose to initiate expulsion proceedings for speech that occurred off campus.

Anyone know the other 8 faculty members and the students on the committee?

These names need to be made public, I hope it comes out in open court, but it’s a public university and these disciplinary proceedings reek of opaqueness from that of a third world dictatorship.

SDN...you all know me well, I’m like a dog that won’t let go when it comes to these cases. I look forward to y’all joining me in this thread.

 

[VA77]

A little odd that the committee was able to proceed with expulsion without the Dean or President approval in the first place. Sounds like the committee overstepped or the University needs to revise some policies.

 

[KidPharmD]

A little odd that the committee was able to proceed with expulsion without the Dean or President approval in the first place. Sounds like the committee overstepped or the University needs to revise some policies.

If you read the actual lawsuit. You can find it linked on the press release from the non-profit sponsoring the student here: LAWSUIT: The University of Tennessee tried to expel a grad student for a tweet about Cardi B and other social media posts. Now she’s fighting back.

The dean was aware and originally consented to the expulsion.

 

[Pronounce Doxazosin]

I’m not gonna read the entire case/article but was there a warning issued before leading to the expulsion? If there was a warning and she still continued, then I can’t really feel too sorry for her.

call me a buzzkill, but I believe professionalism is important in this field of practice

 

[owlegrad]

Yeah, I must be getting old because I don't think the school is out of line for wanting to have standards for its students. We are supposed to be professionals after all. If anything shouldn't we be celebrating that the school has any standards at all?

 

[KidPharmD]

Yeah, I must be getting old because I don't think the school is out of line for wanting to have standards for its students. We are supposed to be professionals after all. If anything shouldn't we be celebrating that the school has any standards at all?

Two things here: UT receives federal funds and thus is bound to protect the same constitutional rights as the federal government. This has been shown in previous cases against other schools. That includes her 1st and 14th (due process) rights.

The school never provided her with the rule she broke or the document which contained that rule. The UT student handbook is available online and does not limit students' social media posts in any way. The link to the college's document has been broken for years.

Why does professionalism include what she does with an anonymous social media account? Why does professionalism preclude swearing, sexual language, or clothing with some cleavage?

 

[owlegrad]

Why does professionalism include what she does with an anonymous social media account? Why does professionalism preclude swearing, sexual language, or clothing with some cleavage?

It wasn’t anonymous if she was linked to it, which she must have been to be expelled, right?

As for what constitutes professionalism my college included “speeding in the parking lot” as unprofessional behavior. So I think it means whatever the school wants it to mean.

 

[VA77]

Funny how the Dean dismissed her then 3 weeks later said my bad. I don't approve of her actions in her personal life but as long as they are legal then I don't have a problem.

 

[KidPharmD]

Acting like a harlot is political speech amirite

Political speech isn't the only kind of speech that is protected.

 

[KidPharmD]

It wasn’t anonymous if she was linked to it, which she must have been to be expelled, right?

As for what constitutes professionalism my college included “speeding in the parking lot” as unprofessional behavior. So I think it means whatever the school wants it to mean.

Her name wasn't on the accounts and she never identified as a student of the college of pharmacy. She was reported by an anonymous source so we can't be sure how she was connected to the account. Likely since she posted photos then someone recognized her, but before the lawsuit you couldn't google her name and find those accounts.

Speeding in the parking lot occurs on the grounds of the university. Does your university consider traffic violations outside the university grounds as "unprofessional?" Even if they do, you don't have a constitutional right to violate traffic laws. The question here is does the college have a right to restrict the free speech of a student unconnected to their attendance to the college.

Tennessee even has the "Campus Free Speech Protection Act" https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/110/pub/pc0336.pdf
Although that act was designed to protect conservative protests and speakers on college campuses, it does more than that.

I think people are turned off because of the kind of speech this was. Would this be okay if the college decided that it was unprofessional for her to support a certain political cause on social media? What about if they decided that it was unprofessional to criticize the college on social media? Just because you might be "offended" doesn't mean that her speech isn't protected.

 

[Sine Cura]

Like I said this is prob overreach

Which by the way if this was USC or some private college degree mill there would be no legit grounds for a 1st amendment lawsuit.

JFL if anyone hires her in nukular pharmacy

 

[StockPharmD2020]

Lame

 

[confettiflyer]

Were we supposed to feel sympathy for some thot?

I'm sure you could find some cases of teachers getting the axe for doing porn or some only fans ****

Yeah that’s the problem, why should a university expel someone for their off-campus kink?

I mean, if you’re a gamer into first person shooters, stream on Twitch, and listen to Marilyn Manson or goth rock, technically you’d be violating these “regulations” from the university.

 

[StockPharmD2020]

Unless she deleted photos her Instagram isn't bad.... at all.

 

[Sine Cura]

Is doing porn or OnlyFans protected speech? Prob not

Those with such pasts shouldn't get into the state-mandated baby sitting profession.

 

[confettiflyer]

True story a long time ago: A friend posted a pro-police post on Facebook (something that police officers should have the ability to shoot dangerous rioters on site when lives are in danger) and they were called in threatened with discipline by their school of pharmacy.

I personally don’t agree with what he said, but anyway...

Harlot or not, this is an issue where a public university (or any university that takes public money) shouldn’t be the PC/morality police, *even* of private employers can hire/fire as they see fit (subject to state law).

 

[owlegrad]

Her name wasn't on the accounts and she never identified as a student of the college of pharmacy. She was reported by an anonymous source so we can't be sure how she was connected to the account. Likely since she posted photos then someone recognized her, but before the lawsuit you couldn't google her name and find those accounts.

Speeding in the parking lot occurs on the grounds of the university. Does your university consider traffic violations outside the university grounds as "unprofessional?" Even if they do, you don't have a constitutional right to violate traffic laws. The question here is does the college have a right to restrict the free speech of a student unconnected to their attendance to the college.

Tennessee even has the "Campus Free Speech Protection Act" https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/110/pub/pc0336.pdf
Although that act was designed to protect conservative protests and speakers on college campuses, it does more than that.

I think people are turned off because of the kind of speech this was. Would this be okay if the college decided that it was unprofessional for her to support a certain political cause on social media? What about if they decided that it was unprofessional to criticize the college on social media? Just because you might be "offended" doesn't mean that her speech isn't protected.

I mean if we are going to go down the slippery slope route why don’t we go down the opposite side and ask if it would be permissible for her to be a porn star on the side? Or an escort? Probably not.

I still don’t believe it was anonymous. If it was, she could have just claimed it wasn’t her. But I am not sure if anonymity actually changes my position or not. I think I am a little more sympathetic to her if it was anonymous. But if she can be positively identified in the image, that’s not anonymous.

 

[Sine Cura]

I mean are we really going to make an argument that doing porn is somehow "protected speech."

It is arguably an overreach because these administrator types are clownish and can't even get their bureaucratic ducks in a row, but jfl taking on a lawsuit for some narcy attention ***** (which by the way if you spam selfies with ugly-ass filters constantly on Instagram you are). Lrn2curate your image online (or rather not have any)

 

[KidPharmD]

I mean if we are going to go down the slippery slope route why don’t we go down the opposite side and ask if it would be permissible for her to be a porn star on the side? Or an escort? Probably not.

I still don’t believe it was anonymous. If it was, she could have just claimed it wasn’t her. But I am not sure if anonymity actually changes my position or not. I think I am a little more sympathetic to her if it was anonymous. But if she can be positively identified in the image, that’s not anonymous.

Here is the thing. You are trying to describe a slope that I am not sure is really there. In most places an "escort" isn't legal activity.

Otherwise, the question is simply- Is what she did "protected speech?" If so, then the University, as a public institution, doesn't have the authority to limit it except as allowed by exceptions in the law (for pedogeological purposes for example). The University shouldn't be in the business of being a moral police for its students. Let the profession sort out the appropriateness of things like this. While this may all be protected speech, it doesn't make her a protected class. A business can certainly decide they don't want to hire her. Or like some places, the business can decide that individuals social media aren't their concern unless trying to represent themselves as speaking for the institution.

I shouldn't have engaged with the anonymous part, because it doesn't matter. She could have posted the same things along with her name and her picture in her white coat and it wouldn't give UT the right to violate her first amendment rights. If there are students and faculty that have a problem with this they are welcome to try to move to one of the several private colleges of pharmacy in Tennessee.

 

[confettiflyer]

If a Black woman rapping and showing some cleavage somehow biases you, for reference, here is the case involving a high school student dropping multiple F bombs on social media directed at her school, which SCOTUS granted certiorari.

A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown (Published 2020)

A Pennsylvania school district has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether students may be disciplined for what they say on social media.

www.nytimes.com

 

[lord999]

Yeah that’s the problem, why should a university expel someone for their off-campus kink?

I mean, if you’re a gamer into first person shooters, stream on Twitch, and listen to Marilyn Manson or goth rock, technically you’d be violating these “regulations” from the university.

Here is the thing. You are trying to describe a slope that I am not sure is really there. In most places an "escort" isn't legal activity.

Otherwise, the question is simply- Is what she did "protected speech?" If so, then the University, as a public institution, doesn't have the authority to limit it except as allowed by exceptions in the law (for pedogeological purposes for example). The University shouldn't be in the business of being a moral police for its students. Let the profession sort out the appropriateness of things like this. While this may all be protected speech, it doesn't make her a protected class. A business can certainly decide they don't want to hire her. Or like some places, the business can decide that individuals social media aren't their concern unless trying to represent themselves as speaking for the institution.

I shouldn't have engaged with the anonymous part, because it doesn't matter. She could have posted the same things along with her name and her picture in her white coat and it wouldn't give UT the right to violate her first amendment rights. If there are students and faculty that have a problem with this they are welcome to try to move to one of the several private colleges of pharmacy in Tennessee.

"Gross Immorality" Provision in Pharmacy Practice Act

Pharmacy Times offers the latest news and insights for the pharmacy professional and solutions that impact the everyday practice of pharmacy.

www.pharmacytimes.com

Miller v. California - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of speech in schools in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Today, that Pharmacy Times referenced case would be prosecuted as sexual assault, but this is from the old days.

Moral turpitude (used for unspecified poor conduct), unprofessional conduct (that is usually what is used in cases of legal employment in the adult entertainment industry if made public), and gross immorality, unfortunately.

And yes, if you have certain interests, you do keep them to yourself. We were explicitly told this at length in pharmacy school, it was not considered an understood matter. If you cannot publicly discuss your behavior and it is reasonably against the local norms, you should not be doing it. And yes, it may. This is why you keep your private activities private. It is one of the costs of having a license. I do not like it given modern ethics, but it is an unwritten code that is selectively enforced. But First Amendment is not protected speech on those norms, if it is not part of the community standard, there are consequences for it.

I would not necessarily say that with the name and white coat. If it is considered an obscenity, then no, it is not protected speech. But in a private capacity, it is stupid, but the school does have grounds to censure that conduct even in a private capacity due to the issue above. Private vs. public have no difference on actual First Amendment issues.

So, the example of a Twitch gamer who likes to play Postal 2 and views Postal Dude as a hero (this is a bit further than your example but not necessarily outrageous), that would actually be a problem in certain places. There are certain kinds of games that I learned about from what was reported from background investigations as derogatory (the example Postal 2 was one of them which I laughed off, some other games, I was actually concerned and they were not violent in nature).

But, it would not be beyond TN to be racist about it. It would not surprise me that this was a drumhead court. But this could have all been avoided if she took a less controversial approach.

 

[Sine Cura]

I find it rather odd to argue that she should have license to post such things with her name and affiliation with UT since the complaint takes great care to emphasize that she "has never identified herself in her social media posts as a College of Pharmacy student nor has she indicated any affiliation with the University of Tennessee" and "prefers to maintain separation between her life ... and her online expression as [pseudonym] because it allows her to more fully express herself in the public arena." That's kind of a tacit admission that such behavior is contrary to what would be expected of someone in a health care profession and that some care was taken to "separate" her online "persona."

One example of clear institutional overreach that contravenes the 1st amendment is punishing students for reposting some butthurt white kids' tantrum (example 1, example 2) (part of the point of the reposts being that a real classmate holds such sentiments). If reposting some racist crap off-site would be considered "disruptive" to the in-school environment, punishment should fall on the utterers of the racist crap, not those pointing it out.

 

[Seriously Serious]

She should become "The Cardi B Pharmacist", start a new organization, write a book and sell "professional" certificates on her website.

 

[Mad Jack]

Two things here: UT receives federal funds and thus is bound to protect the same constitutional rights as the federal government. This has been shown in previous cases against other schools. That includes her 1st and 14th (due process) rights.

The school never provided her with the rule she broke or the document which contained that rule. The UT student handbook is available online and does not limit students' social media posts in any way. The link to the college's document has been broken for years.

Why does professionalism include what she does with an anonymous social media account? Why does professionalism preclude swearing, sexual language, or clothing with some cleavage?

They're held to the same standards as the government in some regards, but "free speech" is not something that is guaranteed by government employment. If you had, say, a DHS official running an onlyfans, they would be tossed out on professional grounds and for undermining the public's faith in the integrity of the organization. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence, only that the government cannot imprison you for or prevent your publishing of certain things. Employers and the government can fire you for many of the things they cannot imprison you for or prevent the distribution of.

 

[KidPharmD]

would not necessarily say that with the name and white coat. If it is considered an obscenity, then no, it is not protected speech. But in a private capacity, it is stupid, but the school does have grounds to censure that conduct even in a private capacity due to the issue above. Private vs. public have no difference on actual First Amendment issues.

Private vs Public doesn't really, but accepting federal education funds does. That puts them in a place where previous courts have held that universities are held to the bill of rights. This isn't an unprecedented case, it is just the first of its kind in our profession.

They're held to the same standards as the government in some regards, but "free speech" is not something that is guaranteed by government employment. If you had, say, a DHS official running an onlyfans, they would be tossed out on professional grounds and for undermining the public's faith in the integrity of the organization. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence, only that the government cannot imprison you for or prevent your publishing of certain things. Employers and the government can fire you for many of the things they cannot imprison you for or prevent the distribution of.

Government employment isn't the same as being a student. Being expelled is not directly analogous to being fired in the eyes of the court and law. You and others are also trying to pretend that there isn't a legal difference between what she posted to Twitter and having an Onlyfans.

I find it rather odd to argue that she should have license to post such things with her name and affiliation with UT since the complaint takes great care to emphasize that she "has never identified herself in her social media posts as a College of Pharmacy student nor has she indicated any affiliation with the University of Tennessee" and "prefers to maintain separation between her life ... and her online expression as [pseudonym] because it allows her to more fully express herself in the public arena." That's kind of a tacit admission that such behavior is contrary to what would be expected of someone in a health care profession and that some care was taken to "separate" her online "persona."

One example of clear institutional overreach that contravenes the 1st amendment is punishing students for reposting some butthurt white kids' tantrum (example 1, example 2) (part of the point of the reposts being that a real classmate holds such sentiments). If reposting some racist crap off-site would be considered "disruptive" to the in-school environment, punishment should fall on the utterers of the racist crap, not those pointing it out.

Separating public life and other places on the internet isn't acknowledgement that what you are doing is wrong. I don't put my real name here or Reddit for example because I want those places to be disconnected from my real life.

Also your examples are not as relevant because the courts have not granted the same rights to high school students as they have to college students. Both were also borderline harassment (not protected speech).

 

[Mad Jack]

Private vs Public doesn't really, but accepting federal education funds does. That puts them in a place where previous courts have held that universities are held to the bill of rights. This isn't an unprecedented case, it is just the first of its kind in our profession.


Government employment isn't the same as being a student. Being expelled is not directly analogous to being fired in the eyes of the court and law. You and others are also trying to pretend that there isn't a legal difference between what she posted to Twitter and having an Onlyfans.

Separating public life and other places on the internet isn't acknowledgement that what you are doing is wrong. I don't put my real name here or Reddit for example because I want those places to be disconnected from my real life.

Also your examples are not as relevant because the courts have not granted the same rights to high school students as they have to college students. Both were also borderline harassment (not protected speech).

Pharmacy is a profession and students of a profession must uphold the standards of that profession while students. We had to sign an actual contract regarding same when signing up at my former medical school, no clue what standards are for pharmacy but I'd imagine there is some expectation of professionalism. Given this, I doubt she has a case

 

[BenJammin]

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case this term called Mahanoy Area School District v. BL (BL is the student's initials) that should guide these types of lawsuits. There was a case a few years ago out of New Mexico where a med student was punished by his school for calling Obama supporters devil worshippers on his Facebook page. 10th circuit court of appeals ruled in favor of the school. In Mahanoy this student published a photo of themselves on snapchat with the caption "**** school **** softball **** cheer **** everything". It got all the way to the 3rd circuit court of appeals and they ruled in favor of the student.

This will be interesting.

 

[KidPharmD]

Pharmacy is a profession and students of a profession must uphold the standards of that profession while students. We had to sign an actual contract regarding same when signing up at my former medical school, no clue what standards are for pharmacy but I'd imagine there is some expectation of professionalism. Given this, I doubt she has a case

The issue is that as far as anyone can tell, no one can find the standards that UT claims she agreed to. You can't agree to a document you were never provided. It should have been easy for the professional standards committee to point to the document and rule in that document that she violated (and the specific posts that violated it). However, they didn't do that in either case even after she asked them for specifics.

The second concern is if those professional standards are enforceable by the University. Just because it has been accepted and not challenged before doesn't mean that UT actually has the authority to enforce it. Illegal contracts aren't enforceable even if willingly signed. As I have said otherwise, I think it is time to question what we mean by professionalism. It wasn't long ago that the idea of women physicians posting pictures of themselves in swimsuits was viewed as potentially unprofessional (I'm sure some still think that). If you haven't seen all that you should look at #medbikini on twitter.

I hope the court rules in her favor. Choosing to be a "professional" doesn't mean that she doesn't get to have a life outside of that profession. Especially in a profession that treats the majority of its members like pharmacy does.

 

[Mad Jack]

The issue is that as far as anyone can tell, no one can find the standards that UT claims she agreed to. You can't agree to a document you were never provided. It should have been easy for the professional standards committee to point to the document and rule in that document that she violated (and the specific posts that violated it). However, they didn't do that in either case even after she asked them for specifics.

The second concern is if those professional standards are enforceable by the University. Just because it has been accepted and not challenged before doesn't mean that UT actually has the authority to enforce it. Illegal contracts aren't enforceable even if willingly signed. As I have said otherwise, I think it is time to question what we mean by professionalism. It wasn't long ago that the idea of women physicians posting pictures of themselves in swimsuits was viewed as potentially unprofessional (I'm sure some still think that). If you haven't seen all that you should look at #medbikini on twitter.

I hope the court rules in her favor. Choosing to be a "professional" doesn't mean that she doesn't get to have a life outside of that profession. Especially in a profession that treats the majority of its members like pharmacy does.

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6801&context=lawreview

Based on how the law has treated both professionalism and free speech on campus in the past, she likely has no legal grounds to win any award. I don't think she should be expelled, I just also don't think she has a case

 

[Sine Cura]

Private vs Public doesn't really, but accepting federal education funds does. That puts them in a place where previous courts have held that universities are held to the bill of rights. This isn't an unprecedented case, it is just the first of its kind in our profession.


Government employment isn't the same as being a student. Being expelled is not directly analogous to being fired in the eyes of the court and law. You and others are also trying to pretend that there isn't a legal difference between what she posted to Twitter and having an Onlyfans.

Separating public life and other places on the internet isn't acknowledgement that what you are doing is wrong. I don't put my real name here or Reddit for example because I want those places to be disconnected from my real life.

Also your examples are not as relevant because the courts have not granted the same rights to high school students as they have to college students. Both were also borderline harassment (not protected speech).

I didn't say it was "wrong," I said she acknowledged it may be considered contrary to standards of expected behavior

Also if it is harassment to be called out and btfo on social media vis a vis racist remarks jfl a hard lesson in "own that."

 

[lord999]

Pharmacy is a profession and students of a profession must uphold the standards of that profession while students. We had to sign an actual contract regarding same when signing up at my former medical school, no clue what standards are for pharmacy but I'd imagine there is some expectation of professionalism. Given this, I doubt she has a case

Agreed, and also that is nowhere near the first case within any of our professions for this matter. The clarity of how that is communicated is school-specific. Mine was explicit, and it was actually given by the Executive Director of the Board in a lecture when we were given our initial intern licenses.

The issue is that as far as anyone can tell, no one can find the standards that UT claims she agreed to. You can't agree to a document you were never provided. It should have been easy for the professional standards committee to point to the document and rule in that document that she violated (and the specific posts that violated it). However, they didn't do that in either case even after she asked them for specifics.

The second concern is if those professional standards are enforceable by the University. Just because it has been accepted and not challenged before doesn't mean that UT actually has the authority to enforce it. Illegal contracts aren't enforceable even if willingly signed. As I have said otherwise, I think it is time to question what we mean by professionalism. It wasn't long ago that the idea of women physicians posting pictures of themselves in swimsuits was viewed as potentially unprofessional (I'm sure some still think that). If you haven't seen all that you should look at #medbikini on twitter.

I hope the court rules in her favor. Choosing to be a "professional" doesn't mean that she doesn't get to have a life outside of that profession. Especially in a profession that treats the majority of its members like pharmacy does.

Choosing to be a "professional" doesn't mean that she doesn't get to have a life outside of that profession. Especially in a profession that treats the majority of its members like pharmacy does.

And while I kind of disagree with you on what the authorities view as unprofessionalism (even including the #medbikini in the sense that the opposite in guys is still not tolerated), you have a valid point in the UT drumhead court. If UT does not not communicate those standards and violated due process, there is worthwhile as a case.

No one is saying that we cannot have lives outside the profession. However, we did agree to avoid gross immorality and unprofessional conduct, which means there are a range of otherwise legal activities that we are prohibited from engaging in. What those limits are is open to negotiation depending on community standards as what would work in California would not necessarily work in Minnesota and vice-versa (California criminalizes certain activities as non-consensual that Minnesota considers consensual which was a hell of a headache for a Professional Standards Board hearing once). But there are certainly standards, and it is at your own risk if you publicly indulge in grey area matters. "If you do not want to live under those restrictions, you can give up your license" was the way it was socialized to me as we had to live under the Morrison v. State Board of Education standard (and you still do if you live in CA) where your licensing authority does actually determine what those vague terms mean when they feel like they have been transgressed. I agree that modern standards should not be as restrictive as even 20 years ago, but having a license is by definition a voluntary restriction on certain standards of behavior for privilege in other areas.

Personally, I don't care what people do in their off-time including participating in multilevel marking using your professional credentials (which in the past has been held as unprofessional), adult entertainment, or being drunk in public (until 6 years ago, it was disciplinable in AZ if you were caught publicly intoxicated even if it did not result in a citation which was ridiculous). That would be true even if I were on the Board or on Student Services. But if you think about the sort of martinets who go for those positions, would you put your professional career at their hands willingly? Was the behavior worth that sort of challenge? Some say yes, most find other activities to do or really make it a point to keep it private.

 

[confettiflyer]

My main issue is that a closed door committee of pharmacy faculty members in Tennessee got to decide what constitutes “professionalism” to expel a student and cause permanent financial harm without adequate due process.

Yes, there needs to be better alignment between the reality of employment (where a supervisor that’s out to get you fired...will eventually prevail) and pharmacy school training.

BUT...the general consensus on these boards is that pharmacy faculty and schools of pharmacy exist in an isolated world divorced from the realities of real-world practice. Why would we suddenly defer to them in this case and go tsk tsk to this student for showing some cleavage?

Tramp stamp/tattoo next? How about drinking a light beer? Pretty sure that’s unprofessional in Utah.

Last I checked, cleavage and singing inappropriate songs were things that happened at pharmacy department holiday parties across the country, hah.

But seriously, I don’t want SOPs/COPs playing moral police and deciding who makes a good pharmacist or not...that’s our decision to make, and I’d like to think we as practicing pharmacists know a LOT better than some stuffy prude faculty members what works in the real world.

P.S. The line should be drawn at...if the activity would get your pharmacy license suspended at the state level, then you can expel. But in that case, you can just refer the complaint to the board of pharmacy directly and they can take action against the student’s intern license. Done.

 

[confettiflyer]

Addendum: specific examples where the BOP took action against an intern license for off campus activities:

1) Intern was making counterfeit t-shirts at some warehouse in Los Angeles

2) Intern was arrested for planting a camera in a woman’s bathroom and caught by a mom and her young daughter

 

[VA77]

The tattoos and nose piercings used to be a bigger deal and I can remember my grandfather saying anyone who owned a motorcycle must be in a gang. Times change and people change and the definition of "professionalism" changes but people must change the workplace and not the otherway around.

 

[lord999]

Walter Palmer speaks: Hunter who killed lion will resume Bloomington dental practice

In his first interview since killing Cecil, the Eden Prairie big-game hunter reaffirmed that he took the lion in Zimbabwe in a legal hunt.

www.startribune.com

My main issue is that a closed door committee of pharmacy faculty members in Tennessee got to decide what constitutes “professionalism” to expel a student and cause permanent financial harm without adequate due process.

Yes, there needs to be better alignment between the reality of employment (where a supervisor that’s out to get you fired...will eventually prevail) and pharmacy school training.

BUT...the general consensus on these boards is that pharmacy faculty and schools of pharmacy exist in an isolated world divorced from the realities of real-world practice. Why would we suddenly defer to them in this case and go tsk tsk to this student for showing some cleavage?

Tramp stamp/tattoo next? How about drinking a light beer? Pretty sure that’s unprofessional in Utah.

Last I checked, cleavage and singing inappropriate songs were things that happened at pharmacy department holiday parties across the country, hah.

But seriously, I don’t want SOPs/COPs playing moral police and deciding who makes a good pharmacist or not...that’s our decision to make, and I’d like to think we as practicing pharmacists know a LOT better than some stuffy prude faculty members what works in the real world.

P.S. The line should be drawn at...if the activity would get your pharmacy license suspended at the state level, then you can expel. But in that case, you can just refer the complaint to the board of pharmacy directly and they can take action against the student’s intern license. Done.

I know you are trying to make a hyperbolic point about Utah, but actually it was that harsh. There was a student expelled in the 2001 year for public intoxication at ASHP Midyear New Orleans who was from Utah and a faculty member brought it to the Board. There is a certain religion that used to heavily represents the Boards in the area that were militant about its enforcement. That's actually why the rules changed for ASHP sponsored events involving alcohol as there were really bad feelings all around. Even though University of Utah is the arguably most liberal institution in the state, the profession is highly represented by prudes. Before we went, we were told by our Assistant Dean of Students who was on the AZ Board at the time that if were caught with public intoxication and especially me who was underage, it would be suspension territory. As the impaired pharmacist program was not offered to interns at the time, it would be a problem. The profession is not California and definitely is not liberal when it comes to public behavior.

And unfortunately, loco parentis applies here and has longstanding precedent. I actually want pharmacy schools to eliminate problems before I see them in rotations, that is part of the credentialing process. Which pharmacy school are you talking about? I have to actually have pronouns in my university signature because we are so PC. Those days are long past where you wouldn't get an EEO or D&I (Diversity and Inclusion). In some ways, it's a lot more buttoned down now than it used to be.

Walgreens had a "no visible tattoo" and a "no unnatural hair color" and "men must wear ties" dress code policy at least through 2008. Civil Service still has the visible tattoo though lesser than it used to be.

And yes, rules do not apply equally. I am not saying this because I benefit from the unfairness, I actually lose even today from that.

I agree with you, really I do. I'm just pointing out that what we want and what the reality is quite different. And at least in the cases I think about, the schools did refer the matter to the Board, got the license suspended, revoked, or nonissuable (interns in those days were not given their intern licenses until they had passed 1st year in some places), and then suspended or expelled them.

But you know what I miss from the old days? In these sorts of circumstances when it was ok to do so, I would have called in and quietly counseled them that this was not ok and they need to remove it. But due process overrides that informal way of dealing with it. No faculty member wants to assume that risk, so they use due process to protect themselves. There is a much more formal process for professional feedback to trainees where in the old days you would call them into the office and have a verbal counseling.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

People in academia are the worst people.

 

[Sine Cura]

Deferring to a board of a pharmacy ... that pretty much leaves DUI and other criminal offenses + anything related to the state pharmacy act or CS act the BOP wants to play "gotcha" on

 

[297point1]

Funny how the Dean dismissed her then 3 weeks later said my bad.

Funny how getting threatened with a lawsuit makes someone re-evaluate their decision-making.

 

[297point1]

I read with interest item 26 of the lawsuit: "Before the filing of this lawsuit, anyone who attempted to search for "Kimberly Diei" on Google and other search engines would have a difficult time determining that "Kimberly Diei" is "KimmyKasi" because of actions taken by Diei."

I think I understand the student's goal here in filing the lawsuit- between the legal briefs and the FIRE press release, it is abundantly clear that (a) she has no interest in toning down her online activities [her tweet...was well within the normal bounds of discussion for social media], and (b) is fearful that the University is going to go after her once again. [“I’m not going to go through this a third time, during my third year,” Diei said. “So, I wanted to send a clear message: Don’t mess with me and don’t do this again to anyone else.”]

She had already won the battle (she was reinstated), but the lawsuit virtually guarantees she is going to lose the war. Anyone who Googles her name from now on is going to find this lawsuit. I can't imagine that filing a lawsuit which gets press coverage in the New York Times (!) is going to help with her employment prospects when she graduates in 2023. Pharmacy employers tend to be conservative starched shirts in their hiring practices under normal circumstances and now have a surplus of qualified candidates to choose from, allowing them to be quite selective in who they hire. I believe that filing the lawsuit has significantly diminished her future earning potential.

Perhaps there is a third reason for filing the lawsuit to add to the list above: monetary damages (which she is seeking). I'm no tort lawyer, so I can't guess how much money she might be entitled to should she be successful with the lawsuit. For the cost/benefit calculation to work in her favor, it had better be a truckload.

 

[gwarm01]

The tattoos and nose piercings used to be a bigger deal and I can remember my grandfather saying anyone who owned a motorcycle must be in a gang. Times change and people change and the definition of "professionalism" changes but people must change the workplace and not the otherway around.

I agree. I went on a social media lockdown and deleted a lot of accounts when I was in school. While there are certain behaviors that are obviously considered an ethical violation for someone in our profession, such as shoplifting, abusing drugs, etc., there is also a massive grey area. If your standards are set by a 60 year old conservative Christian, suddenly you may be found of poor moral fiber for not being religious, or for being a homosexual, or expressing leftist political views. Perhaps a devout Baptist would consider drinking alcohol to be an act of moral turpitude. In fact, a Christian university in my home state explicitly forbade drinking alcohol by students.

You simply have to play by the rules. Your school holds all of the cards, so you do what they say until you graduate and get licensed. They have too much power to eject you from the program with nothing to show for it but six figures of student loan debt.