Student Kicked Out of College After Watching 'Glee': Fair or Foul?

Provided this is a free nation (it being America does not mean America is still a "free and equal state" if ever it was). I cannot attend any school I wish merely based upon which values they hold. Also, there is a necessary separation of church and state in America provided by the 1st Amendment. Unless a college or university is completely private and not beholden in any way to government (something that can be altered based upon compact and statute), the school is NOT allowed to perform actions that discriminate against a person. What a student chooses to do in their own time is their own business, however, requesting students follow a contractually agreed upon set of standards is legal, provided the college or university does not take any federal, state or local funding. If they do they are in fact public and are prohibited from discrimination based upon a variety of standards.



The fine line between regulation and personal opinion is thin and shrinking daily, but when I claimed it was dependent upon law, I was speaking from fact. It depends upon the laws of the land and whether the college is private or otherwise. Harvard, regardless of what they claim, is not a private school. It is a mostly private institution, but Harvard does take from the public trust. This requires them to abide by certain laws. The same holds true for small private liberal arts colleges of a very rigorous conservative evangelical bent. If they take Federal monies of any kind (such as financial aid), then they must abide by certain social norms and standards. Those are set through law and community. As such, if you discriminate against someone based upon what they watch in a coffee shop (as I said, pornography or committing a crime is different than watching a TV show off campus that is rated age appropriate for a 13 year old Middle Schooler), you risk yourself being liable for certain suits.



Discrimination is a very dangerous offense, and one that is prohibited in local principalities, state, and the federal circuit.

You miss my point.

The term 'private' in most cases when describing colleges and universities is meaningless in the United States. They are all "more or less" public institutions to some extent.

If they utilize/accept Federal financial aid dollars, or any other federal funding, they are required to fulfill certain obligations. There are laws that govern what actions are permissible for institutions of higher learning to take. The court's rulings also falls into this area.

For example, it is not permissible for a university or college (whether public or private) to deny admission of a student based upon any of the protected rights or liberties. You cannot reject a Muslim for attending. You can require said student attend Christian seminary classes as necessary to graduate. Require them to read certain material. You can prevent them from using the school network for things such as "porn".

If a student is attending the university, codes of ethics/conduct can exist pertaining to illegal activities--prostitution/soli... a prostitute, drugs, drunken disorderly behavior, or any other action that is prohibited by law. I believe there may even be some restrictions on where a student may live, etc. But, it is not permitted for universities (generally) to regulate what a student does on their own time. For example, what someone does in a coffee shop.

Given the shear obliqueness of the action--watching Glee in a coffee shop--I find it very doubtful a court would uphold the college's right to toss the student. It just doesn't fall under reasonable cause of action. Was the student reasonably warned, etc. for such actions, or was the student simply expelled?

Expelling a student for such an action would leave a permanent stain on a student's record. In other words, they would receive damage by the action. Unlawful damages result in liability and possibly the remedies of the court through a civil tort. The court could issue damages for libel or for other actions resulting from the expulsion--including fees, etc.--for the supposedly malicious action by the student.

It would be up to a court to decide whether "Glee" in it of itself is malicious. I find it hard to believe. Moreover, given the information we are presented with, limited knowledge can be obtained as to the standards. Specific standards are necessary in order to prevent liability.

A university/college cannot expel a student (at least not in this day and age) for not being a Christian. They will just ask you to find another school to attend and do things like return your checks, halt you from registering, etc. They cannot, however, expel you without a clearly cited reason that appears clear and reasonable to the court. Proper notice must be given, along with adequate warning.

If none was given, no reasonable intent or ruling as to what is determined "profane" would likely exist and therefore, the court would side with the plaintiff due to the damages caused by the university/college. It is on the rule makers side to be sure everything is clear, not the student's. If they have to psychically figure things out or ask regarding every DVD/film/tv show they are to watch, it would seem likely the "policies" are flawed.

I made note that this civil suit could cost said college a great deal of money.

For this reason, I cannot think of a college which is this blatant in its stupidity.