Campus Free Speech

Law Students Wrote This Unconstitutional, Ungrammatical Speech Code: 'Do Not Comment Despairingly on Others'

University of Missouri School of Law students told to self-censor on social media.



According to a new social media policy, students enrolled in the University of Missouri School of Law must communicate in a "respectful and friendly manner," be "transparent"—but not too transparent—and avoid commenting "despairingly on others."

This last requirement makes no sense in context; presumably the authors of the policy intended to forbid disparaging comments, not despairing comments. Either way, the policy is nonsense—a university may not prevent students from posting unkind remarks on social media.

And who wrote this censorious, ungrammatical, brazenly unconstitutional speech code? You guessed it: the law students. Specifically, the officers of MU's Student Bar Association, which comprises "every member of the law school's student body," according to its website.

Above the Law's Elie Mystal exposed the new social media policy in a recent article:

It is easily the worst social media policy I have ever seen. It is probably the worst social media policy you have seen. It is so bad that a University of Missouri student could get in trouble for going on Facebook and talking about how bad the policy is. 

I'm afraid to actually quote directly from the policy, lest somebody send it to Kim Jong-un to give him new ideas on how to crush the freedom of his people. But the policy is so disgustingly anti-intellectual and anti-expression that it's worth the risk.

This isn't hyperbole; the policy really is that bad:

Before you post content to any social-media outlet affiliated, or reasonably possible to be associated with; yourself, the School of Law, the student organizations here at the school, the Missouri Bar Association, the American Bar Association, or any other legal association, and the University of Missouri, please take a moment to review our official guidelines.

If you are a member of the University of Missouri School of Law—Student Bar Association (i.e. a person enrolled in classes at the University of Missouri School of Law), then these rules apply to you.

These rules—rules that all law students are supposedly obligated to follow—are farcically censorious. They instruct students to re-read their comments before they post them to screen for any content that could be construed as "negative or inappropriate." Disagreements should only be addressed in a "professional and respectful manner." Transparency is required, but students must also be careful not to be so transparent that they violate anyone's privacy. The rules not only restrict speech—they also compel it; "Engage in conversation," the policy blithely commands.

Such a policy is unenforceable on sheer practicality grounds (not to mention First Amendment grounds), and yet the officers of SBA not only expect students to obey—they expect students to inform on other students who violate the policy:

It is the duty of each member of the SBA to report instances of possible non-compliance with this policy to the Vice-President of the SBA-all reports will be kept anonymous and in confidence.

Keep in mind that the SBA wrongly believes its power to regulate speech includes students posting on "any social-media affiliated outlet, or reasonably possible to be associated with; yourself." To the extent this declaration makes any sense, I understand it to include personal Facebook pages.

Since I am not a Missouri law student, I presume no one is attempting to deny my right to make despairing—er, disparaging—remarks about the policy.  To that end, I tweeted at the SBA for clarification on its social media policy; this post will be updated if I receive a response.

NEXT: Watch Matt Welch Talk About Ben Carson's Weird Day on MSNBC at 6:30 p.m. ET

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Some people are disparate for validation.

    1. I validate yuo, Hugh.

      1. *I validate YooHoo.

        1. Do do that voo doo that you do so well…

            1. Nu do. You too do.

    2. I disparage for the future of the Republic.

      1. I’m disparred over a missive understanding.

  2. How are you students. All social media belong to Student Bar. You have no chance to graduate make your time.

    1. They have set us up the subpoena.

      1. Negative or inappropriate speech should indeed by censored?including through the sub- and super-penal process leading from the deftly lodged criminal complaint through arrest and prosecution?especially when such speech takes the form of inappropriately deadpan “parody” or “satire” and is directed again any well-connected faculty members at institutions like New York University. This has been amply demonstrated by prosecutors in New York, as well as even by members of the “First Amendment” community itself, so the positions taken in the above article are in fact deeply misguided. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

    2. All your words are belong to us.

    3. We get stupid signal.


      PDF viewer turn on.

  3. People from college have skillz. Don’t question the skillz.

    1. No, plumber, electrician have skillz. People college have learns. Skillz can only fix thingz. Learns can make people stop do and say mean thingz. And make coffee.

  4. OT: not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but it’s so derptastic I had to:

    One of our fav ‘wonky dudes’ derpcognitates and progtificates on why the Dems are just sucking so bad, and guess what? IT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK YOU THINK IT IS!

    We ain’t dun and lurnt nuthin!

    The root cause of the rot is something progressives generally know deep down but are reluctant to admit. The Blue Team in American politics, the one whose leader sits in the White House and used to be a community organizer, has gotten routinely out-organized by conservatives, who inhabit denser, more meaningful social networks and exhibit concurrent greater political awareness and commitment.

    No, it’s not our stupid batshit fucking crazy ideas that are wrong, we just once again have failed to communicate them well enough!

    We should just name this guy Sadbeard or something like that.

    1. Well organization certainly has something to do with it. It’s not like Republicans are offering much in the way of ideas either.

      The pendelum of the electorate has always swung away from whichever party is in control back to the other and so on and so forth.

      Yet I’m sure in 4 years their will be claims of a permanent Republican majority again just like Rove claimed in the mid ’00s and the similar claims by the Democrats early in Obama’s presidency.

      1. I think that the pendulum is broken or soon to break. I don’t see the status quo going on like this for long. Sure, anyone predicting a ‘permanent majority’ is a damn fool, but the division of ideas now are just becoming too great for pendulum to keep swinging. The Dems are now the communist party, the Republicans are a bunch of wishy washy shitheads that are hated by most of their own constituents, and then there are we radical libertarians. This is not your grandma’s political environment.

        1. This is not your grandma’s political environment.

          Actually, throw in the remnants of royalists defeated in civil war, and it may well be, at least about three-four years of it…

        2. I’ve said for years the democrats are just communists and the republicans are just democrats with bibles.

      2. The pendelum of the electorate has always swung away from whichever party is in control back to the other and so on and so forth.

        Sometimes. I guess it depends on how long a given ‘upswing’ is.

        Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years until 1994.

        1. That’s true, the pattern applies more to the Presidency and to a lesser extent the Senate and balance of governerships.

          1. I feel that the presidential race has become more of a popularity/sports team spectacle these days and that congressional and gubernatorial contests are more a meter of the mood of the country. That being said, Democrats are in deep shit for a while. And I just really cannot see how their idea of swinging even further left is going to work out well for them. It’s pretty obvious, to me, that is their problem, not the solution.

    2. The Blue Team in American politics, the one whose leader sits in the White House and used to be a community organizer, has gotten routinely out-organized by conservatives, who inhabit denser, more meaningful social networks and exhibit concurrent greater political awareness and commitment.


      I mean, I’m not on Team Blue or Team Red, but a lot of my friends [because I live in Oregon] are on Team Blue.

      And they’re all far more hyper-political and Team Blue-y than any of the Conservatives I know or see online are the equivalent.

      (Now, I might grant them about “meaningful”, since “Yet More OccupyDemocrats or Bernie2016! or ThinkProgress posts” is not a very meaningful social network, but … )

      1. It is all about location. I listen to a podcast about virology done by mostly northeastern professors. They cannot fathom that anyone with any sort of intellect would even entertain the thought of voting anything other than progressive. Usually they keep politics out of it, but when it leaks in, the derp is palpable.

        In the latest podcast they had occasion to speak with a professor in Florida. They asked if Bush was still governor (with the implication that such a thought was so horrible that it counterbalanced any notion of visiting the beaches and nice weather). One related that his relatives refused to visit Florida because of Bush. Two of them had no clue that he was two governors ago. We are coming up on 9 years since he was Governor. If you don’t know that Jeb Bush is no longer the Governor of Florida during this active presidential campaign season that features Jeb as the major establishment candidate on team red, you have no business offering up your political opinions, as you are an uninformed twit. Yet these northeastern team blue elites are convinced that the rest of the country is populated by idiotic, racist rubes.

        In their world a “raging conservative” is someone who might consider voting for a centrist Democrat.

        1. Sounds exactly like some lefties I know. A weird combination of opinionated and ignorant.

          1. And eager to inject what they think are cunning political barbs at every opportunity, no matter what the actual topic. All their friends laugh so they must be super clever.

    3. I read the 538 article and sadbeard doesn’t understand it’s point. This guy is an idiot.

  5. To the President of the University of Missouri SBA:

    Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

    1. And their illegitimate offspring smell of hamsterberries!

    2. Is there someone *else* we could talk to?

      1. Go away or I will taunt you a second time.

  6. It would be so nice if people were polite and debated things in a civilized manner.

  7. If we took the anonymous feature of the internet away and people could be exposed for what we posted, we wouldn’t be posting like this.

    Imagine, getting fired for positing something on REASON.COM that the boss or the company doesn’t like.

    1. You’d like that, wouldn’t you Alice?

      1. Ugh, I read that in Hopkins-as-Lecter voice and got creeped out.

        1. I read it in a short order cook named Mel’s voice.

          1. Stickin’ together’s what good waffles do.

          2. Kiss my grits!

        2. Because you imagined Aresen as a superintelligent psychologist cannibal serial killer, or because you imagined someone actually talking to Alice?

        3. You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste.

      2. Alice has wet dreams about it.

      3. It’s a new Alice…who knows who this version is (Media Matters troll is my guess).

      4. It’s a new Alice…who knows who this version is (Media Matters troll is my guess).

      5. It’s a new Alice…who knows who this version is (Media Matters troll is my guess).

      6. It’s a new Alice…who knows who this version is (Media Matters troll is my guess).

        1. I’m getting out the 12 gauge and going skwerl hunting in the morning.

    2. WTF….?

      It’s not like you have to identify yourself when you speak. Why should you have to do so to communicate electronically?

    3. Alice Bowie|11.5.15 @ 6:16PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

      If we took the anonymous feature of the internet away and people could be exposed for what we posted, we wouldn’t be posting like this.

      Imagine, getting fired for positing something on REASON.COM that the boss or the company doesn’t like.

      For some reason this seems like an attempt to get a Michael Hihn-level “See! CYER BULLIES!” situation going.

    4. Imagine Reason getting hit with a Federal subpoena so the government could discover the identity of someone who posted something they didn’t like.

      1. That could never happen.

  8. And who wrote this censorious, ungrammatical, brazenly unconstitutional speech code? You guessed it: the law students.

    The Leaders of Tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen! A big hand for them!

    1. They’re all shoo-ins for the Congress.

      1. Not to mention judicial appointments and appointments to “Public Safety Boards.”

    2. I know too many lawyers – and what they say about other lawyers – to think the species as a whole is very competent or good at things as simple as “knowing what a keyboard does” or “how to use two words”.

  9. Comment despairingly, mortals! Or… die!

  10. On the one hand, this is why they are law STUDENTS. On the other hand, I hope someone (FAIR?) takes them to school, and that they learn the right lesson! 😉

    1. FIRE, not FAIR.

    2. Well thanks bejeebus, you wouldn’t want any of these dimwits designing a bridge you have to drive across, now would you?

  11. Popehat has surpassed Iowahawk as Twitter’s #1 national treasure.

    Popehat ?@Popehat 25m25 minutes ago
    Dear @MULawSBA not to speak disparagingly, but I think despairingly of any of you demi-literate nosepickers ever representing a client.
    5 retweets 9 likes

    1. Yes, Ken does have a way of pointing out the flaws.

    2. On the other hand, if people who wrote this get into EULA business, it could destroy the entire concept.

      (one of my favorite moments in Good Omens was a demon purchasing computer, reading the EULA and sending it down to Soul Purchase Contracts Department in Hell with a sticky note that said “learn something, guys”)

    3. That really does win the Internets.

    4. demi-literate

      Poe’s Law strikes again. I’m assuming that was supposed to be semi-literate.

      1. demi- means half, so it works on a whimsically intentional level.

        1. *Dana Carvey’s Carson impression voice*

          I did not know that. That is some weird, wild stuff…

          1. That’s one way you can tell an AD&D player – eventually we wanted to know what the hell “demi-human” meant.

      2. Also, the law you’re referring to is joez law.

      3. No, I think it’s on purpose, to drive the alliteration.

        Demi is a prefix meaning “half”, loaned from French; for example, demi frere which means “half brother” or demi soeur which means “half sister”. Demi-glace is made by simmering and reducing by half a mixture of half brown stock and half espagnole sauce.

    5. We should all write social media posts despairing these dolts.

      Like, Get bent @MULawSBA.

  12. Only a [racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist slur] would have a problem with this policy.

  13. Sounds like U of Missouri Law School owes these miracle babies a full tuition refund. In addition to not being able to spell or use proper grammar, they also clearly have no idea what the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” mean. Obviously their University has completely failed them, along with their various K-12 schools.

    What a bunch of fucking dipshits. I can say that because, clearly, I’m not a student of the U of Missouri Law school.

    1. Well, they probably know what “Congress shall make no law” means.

      They just haven’t yet figured out that as part of a public school they also have to abide by it.

  14. more like lexically lackadaisical than grammatically grotesque, i mean, ammirite?!

  15. To think that your bar application could be held up by these mendacious cocksuckers at the SBA.

    /with disparaging intent

  16. I wepe for this country.

  17. I knew a girl from Missouri

    she had despair of titties you wouldn’t believe

    1. “I wanna build two little caskets and give her tits a tasteful, dignified funeral.”

    2. Show me.

      1. She’s the one in the middle

        1. I see something like that and think “tennis ball through a garden hose”….

  18. Which constitution are the students studying?

    The communist or the US Constitution?

    1. It occurs to me that you bear a family resemblance to Alice Bowie.

    2. The Communist Constitution.

      You know, the one that Communistland used.

      That one.

      1. Jesus, it’s People’s Republic of Communistia. Can’t you get the facts right?

  19. When I attended university, already over run by half-witted numb skulls, the most insufferable among them ran for student bodies. Lord me observing the ‘scandals’ were things of immeasurable stupidity.

    I dedicate this SCTV classic to these law students:

    1. I’m thinking about another degree in another field, but I cannot do it in classrooms. When I finished my last degree, in 1997, none of this type bullshit even existed, or at least I never saw any of it. I didn’t go to Berkeley so maybe that’s why.

      And it’s sort of a shame because I have some really good universities near me and I have the money to do it, but there is no fucking way I can sit in a classroom with these fucking retards. I have a lot of self constraint, but not that much. It’s online or nothing for me.

    2. One of those was our very own buttface, I’m sure of it.

  20. WTF?

    “Drug abuse” is the #1 political issue in New Hampshire?

    Is this very effective push-polling and/or are they about to mount a “surge” in the WoDs?

    1. Apparently out in the rural hinterlands they’re all smoking meth and poping oxycodone, while in the cities we’ve seen a decline in drug use & crime to early 1960s levels.

      there is some actual truth to the above statement

      1. Yes. Meth and the heroins in the rurals an issue. The “solutions,” of course, are lacking.

        1. That sentence was a disaster.

          1. Clearly, the meths and the heroins figured highly in its craftings.

            1. You prefer Meh and Hern? Could be a Law Orifice.

      2. Don’t forget about the DEA cracking down on doctors prescribing pain meds, so the people who were getting by on drugs like Oxy are either going through withdrawal or switching over to heroin.

        1. It’s for the children.

          1. It’s for the children of pushers.

        2. This ^^^, the Medical establishment went after a couple docs here in MT that “overprescibed”. With the help of WOD government. I’ve not been in that position but have had some serious injuries when I needed oxy. It was not a big deal, it helped, no buzz involved to me. some people have debilitating conditions and these fucking assholes want to limit their pain meds. These people are not criminals.

          If people can’t see bigovereach here….fuck our people are fucking sheep. Won’t end well. I’m 60, want to hang around for a couple decades. Doesn’t make one positive in the future.

  21. You know, I have to hand it to the Seattle Times, they sometimes surprise me with their sense of humour:

    Protesters rail against ‘corporate greed’ with Seattle march

    About 50 people protesting “corporate greed” marched from Westlake Park to South Lake Union.

    Some of the protesters are waving signs that read “Eat the rich” while others decry the so-called “one-percenters.” About half are wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

    inset: 3 protesters gather at Westlake Park on Guy Fawkes day, Thursday November 5, 2015. All three masks were purchased from Amazon for $6 each using the Amazon Prime account of gold mask’s mom. (Alan Berner / The Seattle Times)…..tle-march/

    1. OK, my hat’s off to whoever wrote that caption. That’s a high-quality piss-take.

    2. Disliking “corporate greed” has an obvious connection to wanting to destroy Parliament and restore a Catholic monarchy.

      I mean, obviously.

      1. Yeah, the Guy Fawkes mask has become self parody.

        Even if they took the original idea of “Guy Fawkes day”, that was a day when the people of London celebrated the hanging and quartering of Fawkes for trying (and failing) to destroy the House of Lords and kill King James.

        It just doesn’t make any sense.

        1. Well, if you follow it through, Alan Moore picks a historical villain for his protagonist because he’s a weird, talented and smart writer who likes to pose hard questions to his audience sometimes.

          Then comes the movie, and a new audience is exposed to the surface level of what Moore was doing, because they have no idea about the background. This audience adopts the mask.
          Then, because the US culture has such a strong presence and influence, no matter how hard other cultures whine about it, mask spreads everywhere and the original meaning is lost.

      2. It’s a “V” mask at this point, not a Guy Fawkes mask. See mimetic drift.

    3. “protesters are waving signs that read “Eat the rich” while others decry the so-called “one-percenters.” About half are wearing Guy Fawkes masks.”

      Someone *(i think it might have been chris hitchens) said something once about protesters who “wear masks”

      It was before the Guy Fawkes / V-for-vendetta-mask fad I think. In reference to the earlier incarnation of bandanna-wearing-anti-G7 seattle type protestors….

      … the paraphrase of it was …

      “They don’t do it because they fear reprisals = they do it because they are aware enough of what they’re doing to know that its *shameful*. Smashing in the windows of a McDonalds somehow becomes less political, and more “pathetic” when everyone knows its Jimmy, Martha’s son from down the street. It allows them the freedom to be as juvenile as they like sans consequence. If there were anything political they actually had to say, they’d be proud to state it to a camera, but they have nothing to say; they’re just there for the cheap thrills and to swap stories afterward. Its not like we live in East Germany and the STASI are taking pictures and planning to question their families; these are half-wit college kids living in the freest country on earth who want to MAKE this country more like East Germany”

  22. OT: Moonbeam gets a bit proprietary regarding the gov’t staffs:

    “AP Exclusive: Brown had state workers research oil on ranch”
    “After a phone call from the governor and follow-up requests from his aides, senior staffers in the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency over at least two days produced a 51-page historical report and geological assessment, plus a personalized satellite-imaged geological and oil and gas drilling map for the area around Brown’s family ranchland near the town of Williams.
    California law bars elected officials from using public employees or other public resources for personal purposes, with limited exceptions for things like occasional personal calls from work phones.”…..611871.php

    Ya stay there long enough, it seems ya own the place.

  23. Specifically, the officers of UM’s Student Bar Association, which comprises “every member of the law school’s student body,” according to its website.

    See its like this – the *state* demands with menaces that you pay it dues and when you do so uses that as evidence that you are subject to its jurisdiction and the regulations that it makes.

    So, these ‘Student Bar Association’ idiots figure that since the university demands you pay for stupid shit like this you must therefore be subject to the jurisdiction of every half-arsed organization that receives the proceeds.

  24. ….I think they wrote these as general guidelines for professional social media use (for example, it’s not really censorious to punish someone for not responding in a timely manner; it’s just odd). Then they added the section about reporting violations of the policy at the end. I think they accidentally created a speech code. I don’t know if that’s more or less concerning for the state of free speech in college

    1. They are supposed to be learning to be lawyers. Accidently creating a speech code is not much better as it shows incompetence at their chosen profession.

      1. Incompetence, or a certain natural aptitude?

  25. And these folks are the future of American law.

    Jesus Squeezeus.

      1. Buddhas please shoot us

  26. I used to think, “well, one redeeming feature of the legal Left is that they believe in a robust regime of free expression – most of their ideas suck, but at least they’ll let people criticize those ideas!”

    I thought that the suppression of “heroes” like the Wobblies, commies, civil-rights activists, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses, had seared into their collective memory a narrative about the importance of First Amendment rights, and how the courts and everyone else should be ever-vigilant to preserve the blah blah.

    Then I learned about left-wing attacks on free speech and I assured myself, “well, these are *radical* leftists, the responsible leftists will keep that sort of thing in check.”

    But now…either the responsible leftists have gone radical or the radicals have multiplied and pushed aside the responsibles, but in either case I don’t really see the new generation of Brandeises, Floyd Abramses, Skokie-march-defending ACLUites, etc. having the same influence as their predecessors. Instead we have “hostile environment” litigation, “hate speech” codes, screwing dissenters (lawfully and unlawfully) with the IRS, and now I begin to realize that there have been leftists doing this stuff for years (Fairness Doctrine, etc.).

    1. It’s been going on for many decades. Undermining America has been going on since at least since the 1910s.

      1. OK, but historically, many lefties were able to envision themselves as targets of censorship.

        Maybe it was left-wing professors whose jobs were endangered because of their radicalism.

        Maybe it was union activists roughed up and beaten by the pigs or the Pinkertons.

        Maybe it was birth-control zealots getting their pamphlets confiscated.

        Or advanced-minded writers and moviemakers facing censorship by hatchet-faced censors.

        Or civil-rights activists getting their heads cracked as they tried to march across that bridge in Selma.

        But nowadays, what university would fire a professor for being too leftist?

        As to unions, nowadays lots of union workers – often the most active union workers – are cops themselves.

        The government *promotes* birth control, it doesn’t send postal inspectors to keep “secrets of married life” pamphlets out of the mails.

        Writers and moviemakers can only *dream* of some censorship board banning their stuff.

        A black President gives speeches at Selma.

        The old “right-wing censorship” scenarios are receding into the past.

        Of course, left-wingers still have to worry about censorship at the hands (or scimitars) of jihadi types, but many still see this as a question of “extreme right-wingers” provoking “Muslim militants” – and what about the Christian Taliban?!?!?

        Confident in their power, lefties have less inclination to rally around the First Amendment.

        1. “Confident in their power, lefties have less inclination to rally around the First Amendment.”
          Like Tyrion Lannister, if it weren’t for the fact that our heads are likely to be on the same parapet I’d enjoy seeing the day that backfires.

  27. I am reminded of the fellow who, after one drink too many, stood up at the bar, slammed his empty glass down and shouted, “You know what? All lawyers are assholes!”

    At the other end of the bar another patron shouts back: “Hey, I resent that remark!”

    “Why,” the first fellow sneers. “Are you a lawyer?”

    “No,” the second patron shouts back. “I’m an asshole!”

    In this case, these nitwits may one day qualify as both. And that’s disconcerting.

    1. patient: “Doctor, is it possible to get pregnant from anal sex?”

      doctor: “Yes, it is. That’s how lawyers are born.”

  28. Disagreement should not be squelched. If you respond to a disagreement, do so in a professional and respectful manner.

    In a document the purpose of which is to squelch disagreement. Do they even listen to the words they are saying?

  29. Meanwhile, their roommate, the intern, was speaking with a patient: “It says on your chart that you’re fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded.”

  30. To that end, I tweeted at the SBA for clarification on its social media policy; this post will be updated if I receive a response.

    Seriously? You asked for more of this? You just a glutton for punishment or is this some kind of hazing ritual Nick and Matt are putting you through?

  31. It’s a stupid policy, but so what? In principle, universities and student organizations should be able to kick out anybody for any reason. Now, when it comes to publicly funded universities and state mandated professional organizations, there is obviously a problem. However, the fix for those problems is not to engage in discussions about the minutiae of their bad policies, it’s to attack the state funding and licensing. At least if you’re a libertarian. Because as a libertarian, you realize that people and organizations are going to make bad choices, and pretending that public discussion or government power can fix those problems is futile.

  32. “Since I am not a UM law student, I presume no one is attempting to deny my right to make despairing?er, disparaging?remarks about the policy. ”

    No but that’s what they are in training to do to all of us. ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,”

  33. The Constitution grants and restricts powers to the federal government, so how is this unconstitutional if it is not the government doing the censoring? The people are reserved the right to censor, and would say the school does too. There are other college options. Granted, it’s stupid.

  34. “despairingly on others.”

    Any comment I might make on these students would be despairing, so I’m glad I’m not at their university.

  35. If you do an update, could you provide a link to or include a list of the students that developed this policy?
    I want to make sure that if they graduate I Never have them involved in any legal proceedings I am party to.

  36. Wow. I read the other day that law schools are so desperate to fill seats they are enrolling less-qualified (i.e., low LSAT scores) in their programs. Perhaps, if this Law School is going down the same road, their efforts are bearing the fruit they have grown.

  37. This is exactly what Vox Day was talking about in “SJW’s Always Lie”. A Code of Conduct is always an indication of an SJW takeover.

  38. I wonder if any of those law students could earn extra credit by filing a lawsuit against the school, challenging the policy on constitutional grounds and seeking a declaratory judgment on its enforceability?

  39. Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,


  40. Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,


  41. but Pryor owed the campus an apology,

    Reason’s SJWs at play. Pryor didn’t owe anyone anything.

    whose only crime was a thoughtless comment about not being attracted to black women.

    So it was (assumed to be) a “thoughtless crime” rather than a “thought crime”. Which is more worser?

    “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women”
    (Don’t worry, Reason SJWs, the author has already been denounced)

  42. thanks for the information is very interesting and very useful Cara Pemesanan Ace Maxs, Obat Untuk Diabetes

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.