d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net
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.
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.
It wasn’t anonymous if she was linked to it, which she must have been to be expelled, right?
Political speech isn't the only kind of speech that is protected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say it was "wrong," I said she acknowledged it may be considered contrary to standards of expected behavior
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.
www.startribune.com
