NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=820
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GeorgiaTechComplaint.pdf

Several administrators at Georgia Tech are the targets of a lawsuit that claims that "conservative" students are being discriminated against on campus. Keep in mind that Ruth Malhotra has been trying to get something like this going since she was a freshman and got upset that she didn't make an A in one of her classes. She claimed that her professor had discriminated against her, based upon an incident in which she repeatedly interrupted a review session to try and start a debate with the professor, who eventually got fed up and made a rude comment in return.

The complaints in the lawsuit? 1) Georgia Tech dares to have rules against intolerance:

The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person
because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.
B. Direct verbal or physical assaults upon an individual
because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.
C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying
derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property.
…
F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the
use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an
individual because of their characteristics or beliefs. (Emphasis
added.)

Ok, so basically, you can't freaking harrass someone because of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, etc. And these people are seriously going to say that is an unfair abridgement of speech?

2) The institution of a "Safe Space" program on campus, which is an entirely voluntary program that faculty or staff can participate in. Apparently, having such a program somehow infringes on the "conservative" students' right to be opposed to homosexuality. Of course, I don't see how, since no one is asking them to participate! Special complaints were reserved for a portion of the program that lists the officially stated beliefs of several religions and denominations on the issue.

The program in question can be found here: http://www.safespace.gatech.edu/mission.html

3) The funding policies of the institution bar student organizations engaging in political or religious speech from being funded by the institute. The College Republicans claim that they can't get funding - well, they are obviously political. They also claim that various LGBT groups are political, but fail to mention that said groups have also been denied funding for certain activities - such as rallies to promote legal recognition of same-sex unions.

*sigh* Do some people seriously need to feel that they are persecuted? Because, from my end, I don't actually see any persecution here.

Martyrs will be around as long as there are conflics around. Which means, as long as there are humans around.

Martyrs will be around as long as there are conflics around. Which means, as long as there are humans around.
Or warlike aliens.

Martyrs will be around as long as there are conflics around. Which means, as long as there are humans around.

I have no problem with actual martyrs. I can respect someone who believes something strongly enough to undergo harm or even die for it.

It is those who seem to need to be martyrs so badly that they just make up a persecution that I don't understand.

Ridiculous rules against intolerance stop me from making examples... err martyrs of Christians and other groups. If it was good enough for Jesus and St. Stephen then it's good enough for anyone!

;)

But we are martyrs - they won't let us force our views and beliefs upon others! Persecution!

It's the same tactic as the Liberal Media Myth (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2).

We should go back to the good old days, when if someone started talking garbage, we'd smack them one!

Conservatives...:rolleyes:

Conservatives...:rolleyes:

Note that, throughout my post, "conservative" is in quotes, as I don't really see these students as "conservatives" - more as whiners.

Note that, throughout my post, "conservative" is in quotes, as I don't really see these students as "conservatives" - more as whiners.
Yeah. 40 years ago it would be the same thing about discriminating against black people. I wonder if these cons ever considered that.

Yeah. 40 years ago it would be the same thing about discriminating against black people. I wonder if these cons ever considered that.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think anyone would ever have suggested that black people were not discriminated against 40 years ago - just that the discrimination was warranted.

On the other hand, I see no actual discrimination here. I see a bunch of people who want so badly to be persecuted, that they make up discrimination where there is none, just so they can complain about it. Like I said, Ruth Malhotra once claimed that a professor discriminated against her because he wouldn't debate her about her political views in the middle of a review session and because he didn't give her an A in the class (note that she has never made the essays that were supposedly misgraded public so that we can see if they were as good as she claims). *Any* student that repeatedly interrupted the session most likely would have been treated the same. The College Republicans complain that their political speech isn't funded by the institution, but fail to recognize that other student groups, even those who are not inherently political, cannot get their political speech funded either. It isn't discrimination if everyone is treated equally.

Of necessity and by definition, the martyr complex ends when the person suffering from it dies.

Of necessity and by definition, the martyr complex ends when the person suffering from it dies.

That can be arranged
>.> <.<

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think anyone would ever have suggested that black people were not discriminated against 40 years ago - just that the discrimination was warranted.

On the other hand, I see no actual discrimination here. I see a bunch of people who want so badly to be persecuted, that they make up discrimination where there is none, just so they can complain about it. Like I said, Ruth Malhotra once claimed that a professor discriminated against her because he wouldn't debate her about her political views in the middle of a review session and because he didn't give her an A in the class (note that she has never made the essays that were supposedly misgraded public so that we can see if they were as good as she claims). *Any* student that repeatedly interrupted the session most likely would have been treated the same. The College Republicans complain that their political speech isn't funded by the institution, but fail to recognize that other student groups, even those who are not inherently political, cannot get their political speech funded either. It isn't discrimination if everyone is treated equally.
What I was suggesting was that 40 years ago these conservatives would be protesting over not being able to talk hatefully towards blacks. With hindsight, we can see that that is disgusting. With hindsight, we'll think the same of these people.

What I was suggesting was that 40 years ago these conservatives would be protesting over not being able to talk hatefully towards blacks. With hindsight, we can see that that is disgusting. With hindsight, we'll think the same of these people.

Ok, I understand now. Of course, to a point, these very "conservatives" are complaining that they can't do so.

One of their main complaints was the shutdown of their "diversity bake sale." The premise of this sale was that it was supposed to match their view of affirmative action. IIRC, cookies were sold to white people for $1, black people for $0.50 and hispanics for $0.75, or something along those lines. Not only did this reflect an inaccurate view of affirmative action (the correct metaphor would have been to sell the cookies at the same price, but if two people wanted one, give it to the minority), but there were many who thought it was insulting to the minorities on campus. So it was shut down.

Ok, I understand now. Of course, to a point, these very "conservatives" are complaining that they can't do so.

One of their main complaints was the shutdown of their "diversity bake sale." The premise of this sale was that it was supposed to match their view of affirmative action. IIRC, cookies were sold to white people for $1, black people for $0.50 and hispanics for $0.75, or something along those lines. Not only did this reflect an inaccurate view of affirmative action (the correct metaphor would have been to sell the cookies at the same price, but if two people wanted one, give it to the minority), but there were many who thought it was insulting to the minorities on campus. So it was shut down.
That's stupid. I'm all for minority rights, but I think that affirmative action is stupid. Give me a break. It isn't fair that just because my ancestors (wait...actually they didn't; I'm half Jewish and half Italian) kept slaves that I have to pay the price.

That's stupid. I'm all for minority rights, but I think that affirmative action is stupid. Give me a break. It isn't fair that just because my ancestors (wait...actually they didn't; I'm half Jewish and half Italian) kept slaves that I have to pay the price.

How are you half Jewish? It's a religion, and aren't you Jewish if your mom is?

That's stupid. I'm all for minority rights, but I think that affirmative action is stupid. Give me a break. It isn't fair that just because my ancestors (wait...actually they didn't; I'm half Jewish and half Italian) kept slaves that I have to pay the price.

I'm guessing that you don't understand what affirmative action does either, considering that you would really miss out on anything at all. Affirmative action policies do several things - one is to encourage minorities that have been shut out of certain schools/jobs/etc. to apply for them - to try and enter those areas. That doesn't affect you if you aren't a minority. The other is to look at essentially equal applications and say, "These are the same, except for the fact that one of the applicants has minority status. In order to increase diversity, we'll take the minority."

No one is asking you to pay any price here.

I'm guessing that you don't understand what affirmative action does either, considering that you would really miss out on anything at all. Affirmative action policies do several things - one is to encourage minorities that have been shut out of certain schools/jobs/etc. to apply for them - to try and enter those areas. That doesn't affect you if you aren't a minority. The other is to look at essentially equal applications and say, "These are the same, except for the fact that one of the applicants has minority status. In order to increase diversity, we'll take the minority."

No one is asking you to pay any price here.
You obvously haven't been affected by affirmative action. A member of my family has been. It isn't good.

Oh, and your considered Half Jewish if your mother is Jewish, your father is not, and you're not a practicing Jew.

You obvously haven't been affected by affirmative action. A member of my family has been. It isn't good.

Oh, and your considered Half Jewish if your mother is Jewish, your father is not, and you're not a practicing Jew.

...But then, what's the other half with italian? unless there's like, a country called Jewand, with a Jewish nationality.

...But then, what's the other half with italian? unless there's like, a country called Jewand, with a Jewish nationality.
Fine, fine. I'm half Hebrew. Happy? :p

You obvously haven't been affected by affirmative action. A member of my family has been. It isn't good.

My mother was, once upon a time when it was more of a quota system. And it wasn't good. That's why such systems aren't allowed now.

Don't make silly assumptions.

My mother was, once upon a time when it was more of a quota system. And it wasn't good. That's why such systems aren't allowed now.

Don't make silly assumptions.
Ok, fine, but your "equal" assumption isn't right. My family member got a better score than the other guy, but not by much. Do you think that's fair?

Fine, fine. I'm half Hebrew. Happy? :p

*shrug* Yeah, sorta.

...But then, what's the other half with italian? unless there's like, a country called Jewand, with a Jewish nationality.

I think they call it Israel these days.

I think they call it Israel these days.

And if you're from there, your nationality is Israeli....and your religion is probably Judaism.

And if you're from there, your nationality is Israeli....and your religion is probably Judaism.

Ethnicity, no? Like how a person can be Han Chinese but not from China. I think you're the one who mentioned nationality.

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=820
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GeorgiaTechComplaint.pdf

Several administrators at Georgia Tech are the targets of a lawsuit that claims that "conservative" students are being discriminated against on campus. Keep in mind that Ruth Malhotra has been trying to get something like this going since she was a freshman and got upset that she didn't make an A in one of her classes. She claimed that her professor had discriminated against her, based upon an incident in which she repeatedly interrupted a review session to try and start a debate with the professor, who eventually got fed up and made a rude comment in return.

The complaints in the lawsuit? 1) Georgia Tech dares to have rules against intolerance:



Ok, so basically, you can't freaking harrass someone because of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, etc. And these people are seriously going to say that is an unfair abridgement of speech?

2) The institution of a "Safe Space" program on campus, which is an entirely voluntary program that faculty or staff can participate in. Apparently, having such a program somehow infringes on the "conservative" students' right to be opposed to homosexuality. Of course, I don't see how, since no one is asking them to participate! Special complaints were reserved for a portion of the program that lists the officially stated beliefs of several religions and denominations on the issue.

The program in question can be found here: http://www.safespace.gatech.edu/mission.html

3) The funding policies of the institution bar student organizations engaging in political or religious speech from being funded by the institute. The College Republicans claim that they can't get funding - well, they are obviously political. They also claim that various LGBT groups are political, but fail to mention that said groups have also been denied funding for certain activities - such as rallies to promote legal recognition of same-sex unions.

*sigh* Do some people seriously need to feel that they are persecuted? Because, from my end, I don't actually see any persecution here.
why are they being mean to conservatives? I think is has something do with liberal college campuses.

Ok, fine, but your "equal" assumption isn't right. My family member got a better score than the other guy, but not by much. Do you think that's fair?

Was whatever test on which he received the score the standard for getting whatever it was? If so, no, that wasn't fair - and it means that the company/school/whatever in question wasn't really practicing the legal version of affirmative action, but was instead discriminating.

Note: There are a few exceptions - some law schools, IIRC, have been allowed to use ethnicity as an actual basis for comparison of applicants - among many other criterion, but such exceptions are rare.

why are they being mean to conservatives? I think is has something do with liberal college campuses.
Yes, because it's right for conservatives to preach about how all homosexuals should go to hell.

Yes, because it's right for conservatives to preach about how all homosexuals should go to hell.
yay for stopping free speech!

yay for stopping free speech!

Yay for lack of reading comprehension!

why are they being mean to conservatives? I think is has something do with liberal college campuses.

Are you being sarcastic?

Is saying, "You can't harrass people because of their ethnicity/gender/nationality/sexual orientation/etc.?" being mean to conservatives?

Is saying, "If you want to be supportive of the LGBT community, here's some training. If not, don't participate," being mean to conservatives?

Believe me when I tell you that Georgia Tech is far from being a "liberal college campus".

yay for stopping free speech!
They started a voluntary program that had those guidelines. Why should the conservatives complain?

The other is to look at essentially equal applications and say, "These are the same, except for the fact that one of the applicants has minority status. In order to increase diversity, we'll take the minority."

That's giving an unfair advantage because of race. If applications are equal, the student should be chosen by random selection.

Ethnicity, no? Like how a person can be Han Chinese but not from China. I think you're the one who mentioned nationality.

Ethnicity, nationality, meh! I don't think religion falls under the same category as "Italian"

The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person
because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.
B. Direct verbal or physical assaults upon an individual
because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.
C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying
derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property.
…
F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the
use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an
individual because of their characteristics or beliefs. (Emphasis
added.)
All of these acts are already crimes. What is the purpose of them being enshrined in a college code, and what is the purpose of the "because of their <whatever>" operator?

That's giving an unfair advantage because of race. If applications are equal, the student should be chosen by random selection.

...until you realize that some people still have an *unfair* advantage because of ethnicity/gender/etc. and thus had to overcome more to be able to put in an equal application.

In a truly fair world, where everyone truly had the same opportunities, the only fair way to do it would to either let all equal applications in, even if you couldn't afford it, or reject all of them, even if you wanted them in. But since we don't live in such a world, at least not yet, those who have been disadvantaged are sometimes given an ever so slight advantage when they're on the cusp.

All of these acts are already crimes. What is the purpose of them being enshrined in a college code, and what is the purpose of the "because of their <whatever>" operator?

Neither C nor F are actually illegal. And the "because of their....." has to do with the fact that this particular section of the code is defining "Intolerance". While one could be punished for these things without that, it wouldn't fall under the intolerance heading.

...until you realize that some people still have an *unfair* advantage because of ethnicity/gender/etc. and thus had to overcome more to be able to put in an equal application.

In a truly fair world, where everyone truly had the same opportunities, the only fair way to do it would to either let all equal applications in, even if you couldn't afford it, or reject all of them, even if you wanted them in. But since we don't live in such a world, at least not yet, those who have been disadvantaged are sometimes given an ever so slight advantage when they're on the cusp.
I agree with giving working class kids a special deal in order to correct the system's bias against them, but I think to treat races differently is racist.

I agree with giving working class kids a special deal in order to correct the system's bias against them, but I think to treat races differently is racist.

I agree that it should be more economically based. However, at this point in time, ethnicity and economic status are generally fairly well correlated.

One way or another, the College Republicans' "diversity bake sale" wasn't referencing the actual status of affirmative action in this country.

All of these acts are already crimes. What is the purpose of them being enshrined in a college code, and what is the purpose of the "because of their <whatever>" operator?
Actually, they arent.

I agree that it should be more economically based. However, at this point in time, ethnicity and economic status are generally fairly well correlated.
Maybe, but basing it on race leaves it open to giving middle-class minority races an unfair advantage. Also it discriminates against working class whites.

One way or another, the College Republicans' "diversity bake sale" wasn't referencing the actual status of affirmative action in this country.
Lol, Republicans caring about accuracy. What a funny statement.

Lol, Republicans caring about accuracy. What a funny statement.

Now, now. I'm sure some of them do. Somewhere. Of course, I think I'd be hard-pressed to find any partisan politics that were actually concerned at all with accuracy.

So they're sueing them for forbiding them from being Bigots correct?
Hate this nation... hate it so much.

Of necessity and by definition, the martyr complex ends when the person suffering from it dies.

That can be arranged
>.> <.<
Just take them to an Alanta diner they'll all get heart attacks from the Grease.

So they're sueing them for forbiding them from being Bigots correct?

Essentially, yes, that would seem to be the case.

Well, actually, not really. They are because they are not allowed to take their bigotry to the point of harrassment on campus. They can be bigots. They can even talk about what they believe, as long as they keep it civil. So apparently, what they are really suing over is not being able to be rude and hostile about their bigotry.

Just take them to an Alanta diner they'll all get heart attacks from the Grease.

I like some of the Atlanta diners, and I haven't died yet. =)

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=820
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GeorgiaTechComplaint.pdf

Several administrators at Georgia Tech are the targets of a lawsuit that claims that "conservative" students are being discriminated against on campus. Keep in mind that Ruth Malhotra has been trying to get something like this going since she was a freshman and got upset that she didn't make an A in one of her classes. She claimed that her professor had discriminated against her, based upon an incident in which she repeatedly interrupted a review session to try and start a debate with the professor, who eventually got fed up and made a rude comment in return.

The complaints in the lawsuit? 1) Georgia Tech dares to have rules against intolerance:



Ok, so basically, you can't freaking harrass someone because of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, disability, etc. And these people are seriously going to say that is an unfair abridgement of speech?

2) The institution of a "Safe Space" program on campus, which is an entirely voluntary program that faculty or staff can participate in. Apparently, having such a program somehow infringes on the "conservative" students' right to be opposed to homosexuality. Of course, I don't see how, since no one is asking them to participate! Special complaints were reserved for a portion of the program that lists the officially stated beliefs of several religions and denominations on the issue.

The program in question can be found here: http://www.safespace.gatech.edu/mission.html

3) The funding policies of the institution bar student organizations engaging in political or religious speech from being funded by the institute. The College Republicans claim that they can't get funding - well, they are obviously political. They also claim that various LGBT groups are political, but fail to mention that said groups have also been denied funding for certain activities - such as rallies to promote legal recognition of same-sex unions.

*sigh* Do some people seriously need to feel that they are persecuted? Because, from my end, I don't actually see any persecution here.

You left so much out of the story (and added so much that really isn't there) in your assumption that it really isn't worth responding. You can't possibly be that blind to your own bias...

You left so much out of the story (and added so much that really isn't there)

What parts of the story did I leave out, pray tell? And what did I add?

in your assumption that it really isn't worth responding. You can't possibly be that blind to your own bias...

I'm sure I am somewhat biased, considering I've seen the stupidity of these people up close. But I see no reason to think that this is anything more than "more of the same."

If you have something productive to add, by all means, do so.

You left so much out of the story (and added so much that really isn't there) in your assumption that it really isn't worth responding. You can't possibly be that blind to your own bias...

What an insightful response.

I like some of the Atlanta diners, and I haven't died yet. =)
Give them a few weeks of The Varsity.

Give them a few weeks of The Varsity.

Ok, that could definitely do it. That place is like the Waffle House, you can't even order a glass of water without grease. =)

We have no choice we use this to launch a Crusade! And than we sack Atlanta just like Sherman did.

We have no choice we use this to launch a Crusade! And than we sack Atlanta just like Sherman did.

Can I request a few places to be left standing? Pretty please? =)

Can I request a few places to be left standing? Pretty please? =)
Fine but only if I get 12 coookies.

Fine but only if I get 12 coookies.

Chocolate chip?

Neither C nor F are actually illegal. And the "because of their....." has to do with the fact that this particular section of the code is defining "Intolerance". While one could be punished for these things without that, it wouldn't fall under the intolerance heading.
Why should what someone is thinking affect the nature of their crime? Incidently both are crimes.

C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying
derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property.
…
Yes, it is illegal to damage peoples' property.

F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the
use of telephones, emails and computers)
This is harassment, or alternatively one of many lesser public order offenses.

The "because of <whatever>" caveat is completely unnecessary, as is the entire code.

"Does the martyr complex never end?"

Well, at least it may help to keep some professors a bit more honest, perhaps, maybe. :)

Why should what someone is thinking affect the nature of their crime? Incidently both are crimes.

It isn't about what someone is thinking, but what they are doing. No one cares what they are thinking.

Yes, it is illegal to damage peoples' property.

Not personal property.

This is harassment, or alternatively one of many lesser public order offenses.

No, harrassment was described in A and B. This is simply, "denigrating comments." If I were to say, "Bill O'Reilly is an ass," that is a denigrating comment, but it is not illegal, and it is not harrassment.

The "because of <whatever>" caveat is completely unnecessary, as is the entire code.

Have you seen the entire code?

And you may be right about being specific to intolerance, but does "unnecessary" equate to "unconstitutional"? Afraid not.

The "because of <whatever>" caveat is completely unnecessary, as is the entire code.[/QUOTE]

"Does the martyr complex never end?"

Well, at least it may help to keep some professors a bit more honest, perhaps, maybe. :)

How so? By trying to force them to give grades that were unearned? By telling them that they cannot undergo voluntary training to make them sensitive to the needs of the LGBT community? By allowing students to use university funds and space to try and harrass other students and spread a message of hate?

How so? By trying to force them to give grades that were unearned? By telling them that they cannot undergo voluntary training to make them sensitive to the needs of the LGBT community? By allowing students to use university funds and space to try and harrass other students and spread a message of hate?

Well?

They started a voluntary program that had those guidelines. Why should the conservatives complain?
because its censorship

because its censorship

When the law says that I cannot stand on the sidewalk outside your house and scream obscenties and racial slurs at you through a megaphone all hours into the night, is that censorship?

If so, do you really think that we can refrain from *all* types of censorship or that all forms are necessarily bad?

Edit: On the other hand, the poster you replied to seems to be referencing the Safe Space program (a voluntary program). How is the Safe Space program censorship?

When the law says that I cannot stand on the sidewalk outside your house and scream obscenties and racial slurs at you through a megaphone all hours into the night, is that censorship?

If so, do you really think that we can refrain from *all* types of censorship or that all forms are necessarily bad?

Edit: On the other hand, the poster you replied to seems to be referencing the Safe Space program (a voluntary program). How is the Safe Space program censorship?
that would be censorship, and that would be wrong. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms, whether it be racial comments, sex on t.v. or on forums, so I do think all forms of censorship are bad. Im not really sure about that program

that would be censorship, and that would be wrong. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms, whether it be racial comments, sex on t.v. or on forums, so I do think all forms of censorship are bad. Im not really sure about that program

Would you have a problem if I physically assaulted you? If so, why would you not have a problem if I harmed you by keeping you up all night verbally? Or if I emotionally harmed you and made it impossible for you to live in your own house? It is still harm.

It isn't about what someone is thinking, but what they are doing. No one cares what they are thinking.
Yes, they do. If they didn't care what they were thinking then it wouldnt say:

The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person
because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.

it would say:

The following are acts that are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person.

Not personal property.
What do you mean? Are you saying it isnt illegal to deface personal property? If so then I don't think that is even worth a reply.

No, harrassment was described in A and B. This is simply, "denigrating comments." If I were to say, "Bill O'Reilly is an ass," that is a denigrating comment, but it is not illegal, and it is not harrassment.
Harassment is defined by law, not some silly college code. However, I agree that saying "Bill O'Reilly is an ass" is not harassment, and also should not be banned.

Have you seen the entire code?
No, only the bits you posted. That was the point of this thread, wasnt it? To comment on the parts of the code you posted? As such, my comments were only applying to the bits you posted. I don't have enough information to decide one way or another on the other bits, although I assume they're more of the same.

And you may be right about being specific to intolerance, but does "unnecessary" equate to "unconstitutional"? Afraid not.
What? When did I ever mention your constitution? My point is that the code is not needed, not that it is illegal under bits (any bit) of American law. Please don't put words into my mouth.

What do you mean? Are you saying it isnt illegal to deface personal property? If so then I don't think that is even worth a reply.

I think you'll find he's talking about defacing your own property. Like, say, using your own cardboard to make a sign.

Yes, they do. If they didn't care what they were thinking then it wouldnt say:

it would say:

That isn't a matter of caring what they are thinking. It is still a matter of caring what they are doing. If we cared what they were thinking, it would say:

Any attempt to think about wanting to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.

What do you mean? Are you saying it isnt illegal to deface personal property? If so then I don't think that is even worth a reply.

I can do whatever I want with my personal property. The rule clearly states that, on campus, a person cannot have racial slurs and such on personal property. In other words, I couldn't put a "God hates fags" sticker on my bookbag and walk around campus.

No, only the bits you posted.

Then don't say something about the "entire code".

What? When did I ever mention your constitution? My point is that the code is not needed, not that it is illegal under bits (any bit) of American law. Please don't put words into my mouth.

They are suing on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That is what we were discussing.

Like I said, you may think it is unnecessary, but that does not equate to unconstitutional - the claim of those suing.

That isn't a matter of caring what they are thinking. It is still a matter of caring what they are doing. If we cared what they were thinking, it would say:
This is rubbish - the code quite clearly states that actions alone are not enough to fall under its purview, the offender must have certain thoughts and intentions in his mind at the same time in order to be breaching it.

I can do whatever I want with my personal property. The rule clearly states that, on campus, a person cannot have racial slurs and such on personal property. In other words, I couldn't put a "God hates fags" sticker on my bookbag and walk around campus.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Although I don't support banning that (being a fairly extermist libertarian) I can understand it.

Then don't say something about the "entire code".
As I said, I was referring to the code that you posted. Is that cleared up now? Is there any need to continue with this pointless side-argument of pedanticisms?

They are suing on the basis that it is unconstitutional. That is what we were discussing.

Like I said, you may think it is unnecessary, but that does not equate to unconstitutional - the claim of those suing.
Where did I say that I was supporting these peoples' court case? Have you even been reading what I'm posting? I said that I disagreed with the existance of the code, not that I think <whoever> should be awarded damages.

This is rubbish - the code quite clearly states that actions alone are not enough to fall under its purview, the offender must have certain thoughts and intentions in his mind at the same time in order to be breaching it.

No, the offender might be thinking something entirely different. But they could still stand outside the dorm room of a black person and keep calling him the 'n' word and fall under the code. For all we know, they actually don't like him because he broke up with their friend, but their actions are denigrating him because of his ethnicity.

We can never know for sure what the thoughts or intentions of someone are. All we know is what their actions are, and that is all we can regulate.

Where did I say that I was supporting these peoples' court case? Have you even been reading what I'm posting? I said that I disagreed with the existance of the code, not that I think <whoever> should be awarded damages.

You don't have to support the award of damages in a case to support the case. If you want the code removed, then you are supporting at least a portion of their case.

Why should what someone is thinking affect the nature of their crime? Incidently both are crimes.

because otherwise we'd have a lot of people currently guilty of manslaughter given the same sentence as those convicted of premeditated murder.

On a related note...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer

The article is a bit biased, but even the direct comments of some of those fighting for these sorts of things makes it clear. They are upset that they are essentially exactly like racists, and don't like the comparisons. It's really no different from someone saying, "Well, I have no problem with equal rights for black and all that, but those women, they should be in the kitchen! And that ain't the same as racism."

On a related note...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer

The article is a bit biased, but even the direct comments of some of those fighting for these sorts of things makes it clear. They are upset that they are essentially exactly like racists, and don't like the comparisons. It's really no different from someone saying, "Well, I have no problem with equal rights for black and all that, but those women, they should be in the kitchen! And that ain't the same as racism."

No one EVER likes to have their failings highlighted to them...

I dont get what these students are about. I assume the rules where in place before they signed up atthe Georgia Institute of Technology. Thus if they valued their free speech so high they should have gone to an college which does not have any restrictions. They entered a contract and now have to uphold it.

Uh huh. Riiiight!

And where in this document does it even HINT at "political" beliefs?

"The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person
because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.
B. Direct verbal or physical assaults upon an individual
because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.
C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying
derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property.
…
F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the
use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an
individual because of their characteristics or beliefs. (Emphasis
added.) "

Uh huh. Riiiight!

And where in this document does it even HINT at "political" beliefs?

"The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered
unacceptable:
A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person
because of race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional
orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.
B. Direct verbal or physical assaults upon an individual
because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.
C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying
derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property.
…
F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the
use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an
individual because of their characteristics or beliefs. (Emphasis
added.) "

Apparently, these students' political and religious beliefs absolutely require them to break the code. Therefore, the code shouldn't be there. See?