More speech restrictions on campus

[Mark Tushnet]

I have two questions.  One goes to the claim of retaliation, which is
described in the post as follows:  "Because his accusers felt he was
retaliating for their initial complaint. . . ."  What's the source of
that description of the reason for the investigation?  The student?
Some administrator?

Second, I assume that Eugene's reference to "punish[ing] the student"
means, in this context (where no proceeding has -- as reported -- as yet
been instituted, much less completed to the point of punishing the
student), that something like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim ought to be granted.  (Or, if you like, "punishment" consists of
opening an investigation.)  But, if the university has a rule against
"distracting others in class," *and* a rule against sexual harassment,
is there a problem with investigating the facts to determine whether
distraction occurred?

I have to say that my reaction to the account is Dean Morgan's:
Everybody -- but particularly the male student -- ought to take a deep
breath, and realize that there's nothing to be gained by standing on
what one might claim to be one's rights (against "sexual harassment,"
against "retaliation," to "privacy," whatever).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20021017/01d36bf6/tushnet.vcf