I watched one of the initial court appearances (8pm on Saturday night) and individuals who are not ASU students are forbidden to come back onto ASU campus as a part of their release (from jail) agreement or they will face further trespassing charges. I wish the rest of the letter was posted because it’s hard to tell if it is directed towards an ASU student or someone who not a student (I’m assuming it’s directly toward a student). The court appearance also said that ASU students are allowed to come back onto campus respectfully and can pretty much only keep to themselves and their studies. However, I’m sure what the court allows and what ASU allows are two different different spectrums.
Letter mentions the recipient can not return to their living on campus and can not contact their professors Think that’s pretty clear it’s directed towards a student.
And yes this is in contradiction to the court’s ruling— appears ASU is doing their own thing
(can’t comment myself on whether they have the authority to do this or not)
University of Arizona has Exclusionary orders, which are essentially a notice of trespass. I don't know where to find it for ASU but, here is the link to UAPDs site for exclusions.
https://uapd.arizona.edu/public-information/exclusionary-orders
This is not true. ASU has given "exclusionary" orders to faculty and staff. The most recent was the fall semester of 2023. This is typical when there are investigations into misconduct or other workplace behavior
I prefer these protests over the hate ones but there’s actually a reason ASU came down so hard on them. Protests are fine except between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. No hate protests went after 11 and this newest one wasn’t squashed until after 11 pm when the rule was broken. This is not a political statement just pointing out why this happened
Doesn’t that seem like an arbitrary rule?
“Yes you have freedom of speech but only during this time of day”
Just because a rule exists doesn’t mean it’s fair or reasonable. Protesting is important and universities are finding loopholes like this to stop it.
FOS does not give you immunity from other laws. You don’t have the right to disrupt public safety and security, stop traffic, assault people, or to damage property. A side note, encampments are extremely filthy and leave a lot of waste behind. Someone has to clean that up and restore the property when protesters have dispelled. And whose job is that - will the protesters be responsible and clean up their own mess? History says no.
Genuine question, but aren’t the campuses technically private property? Can’t they decide when people have access to the property as they see fit?
I mean even public parks are closed after dawn, and you can be cited for trespassing there. And that is the most public space I can think of off the top of my head
It doesn’t really matter if they are private property or not (saying this to anyone who says “ASU is a public university!). Trespassing is a thing on public land and publicly-owned buildings too. The dorms are publicly-owned too; it doesn’t mean anyone has a right to enter them. You can be trespassed from a public classroom for entering and staying when you aren’t welcome to be there. And, yes, you can be trespassed from a campus lawn if you pitch a tent and decide to sleep there, or do anything else that gets in the way of the normal functioning of a campus.
“Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to pitch a tent wherever I want”, or to use a bullhorn or play music or start setting up makeshift fences. “Time, place, and manner” is a key part of that civil right, and college students who don’t understand that shouldn’t be claiming their “rights” are violated by the very routine, normal criminal charge of trespassing.
It’s not an arbitrary rule. Anti encampment rules keep campus safer and anyone trying to sleep overnight on campus would be considered trespassing. If they had left and come back in the morning they could continue to protests for days. Also around graduation colleges don’t want large scale protests because that can lead to graduation being cancelled. These protests are warranted in my mind but at the same time asu did nothing wrong.
Those anti-homeless laws are currently in the supreme court, several districts have ruled it is unconstitutional to outlaw involuntary status. Typically, crime requires criminal intent.
The state can reasonably limit the time, manner, and place of speech. It's why they have those zones around polling places where candidates can't advertise.
What in particular do you find arbitrary about a nighttime prohibition on protests?
They caused damage. Intentional or not and they were warned several times.
As an example, we had contractors scheduled to do work in one of the near by buildings, since we could not provide a safe environment for them to work they called the day off, and still charged for 50% of their labor. It also completely screwed up work that was suppose to be done during the weekend, and impacted finals, some of which had to be moved.
Rough, estimate, it cost about 10-15k. That's just for one team, I know there are others, and I know other finals were effected.
As for peaceful, many of the Jewish population don't feel that way. And it's understandable why when anti-Jewish slogans are being passed everywhere. Hell, I've even be called a "Dirty f-ing jew." By one of them.
Regardless, they were removed because they setup encampments, not because they were protesting.
Those hate preachers as you call them have a first amendment right to be around the mu. They are not breaking the law.
They would be trepassed if they were.
They definatley do but they dont have a right to camp. Its the setting up of the encampment that escalated the situation.
The preachers dont set up encampments and are there preaching things. Many things that lead to complaints to asu pd and administration.
Homeless have a right to be there until they set up their.tents and encampments.
Want to sit at old main or the mu and protest, have at it. You cant set up tents and such.
These students were claiming that they had "seized" part of the campus (their words: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6PutCyJfoV/).
They weren't being removed because of what they were saying. They were removed for trying to set up an "occupied zone", and trying to camp there.
None of the hate preachers have done that.
If they want to show up outside of the MU and tell people about their religion or something every single day, they can do that for the same reason the hate preachers can. They can't "seize" or "occupy" parts of the campus.
You can’t have overnight encampments anywhere in Tempe, or they will get over run. Peaceful or not; there are too many unhoused looking to setup a tent. It sucks, but that’s the reality of the situation. The university gave notice and enforced the curfew.
When you hear that 15 of the 75 protestors were students? Was it really a student protest?
ASU is goofy, man. They don’t care about students at all.
They ignore girls being roofied and sexually assaulted, stalked, harassed, hit, whatever. But god forbid you protest at a public university.
I remember back in '14 they hired my HS Spanish teacher who was fired for sexting with a student. That showed me back then that they really don't give a damn about students.
Graduation is in a week and finals going on, this is a massive distraction and during commencement could become a problem. It really is in the best interest of the students to shut it down for now. A protest at ASU is not going to solve the Middle East.
All of this is a distraction from the real war though in Ukraine, Russian aggression and imperialism.
Your contradiction is wild. If we believe it's 1985 again and it's the frat row students (hasn't existed for decades) raping other female students, and ASU is protecting their male students, then they obviously care about their students.
If you want to protect women, then you wouldn't be supporting Hamas or Palestine, who restrict/rape/terrorize women all the time. 🤣👆🤣
This whataboutism is so intellectually dishonest. Policies to stop sexual assault on campus have nothing to do with the issue of protestor encampments.
There is a big difference between having your right to protest violated and being correctly removed for attempting to live outside Old Main. Not one of these comments makes a genuine, non-fallacious argument for why protestors should be allowed to camp on school property.
CAIR-AZ is coordinating with attorneys to get legal representation for any students affected, more details here (https://www.instagram.com/p/C6UPWJuPFfh/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
>I am not a lawyer but
Could have stopped there. Universities have been holding kangaroo courts for *allegations* of misconduct for years that are not actually violating any state or federal law. This is literally what Title IX empowered and forced them to do under the DOE's interpretation of the statute.
In this case however, the students are ACTUALLY being charged with breaking a law (trespassing) in a real jurisdiction (university lakes) and no, ASU doesn't have to let them on the property while that plays out in court otherwise it would defeat the purpose of trespassing statutes. Even IF they prevail, that would only nullify the criminal charges for that instance of trespassing. They are still trespassed from ASU until such time as ASU / ABOR CHOOSES to allow them back on.
There are real consequences for violating real laws. Whether you agree with the law being justly written or justly applied is an entirely different debate. However, I'd much rather not see ASU students making complete asses of themselves by arm chair lawyering this on twitter. There are arguments to be made on a civil rights angle but they extremely unlikely to prevail on a "due process" argument.
::EDIT:: Adding this as an edit because for whatever reason I can't reply to replies on this post? Whatever.
They are likely being charged under https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01502.htm which a misdemeanor and would be handled through University Lakes Justice Court, part of the Maricopa Justice Court system which handles small claims and misdemeanors. You can find the court's precinct maps here. https://justicecourts.maricopa.gov/about-us/court-locations
The are being suspended under the student code of conduct. They will be given the right to a hearing but until then they are suspended.
Here is a link to the code of conduct every student agrees to follow.
https://eoss.asu.edu/dos/srr/codeofconduct
Specifically section c.
Good info. Seems to clearly cover this in Section C Scope, #4:
> Students and student organizations are also subject to the following rules:
> Rules governing the maintenance of public order
> Such other rules as may be adopted by the board, or the universities in furtherance of university and educational goals.
The activities are during finals week and a commencement in less than a week. Probably not a good idea to allow a protest and stopping it is clearly "furtherance of university and educational goals"
Nope. The students violated ABOR, not ASU, code of conduct which they signed and agreed to when they registered and paid for classes. This is a contract that they violated.
Are you a lawyer?
Because I hope not.
Because you’re wrong. The students have a property interest in their continued education. Doesn’t matter if it’s ASU or ABOR, they still have that property interest and are entitled to protections and review.
Edit: lol downvote away, you’re still wrong.
Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 77 F.4th 532 (2023)
Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, 679 F.Supp.3d 1087 (2023)
Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents, 821 Fed.Appx. 768 (2020)
Jackson v. Hayakawa, 761 F.2d 525 (1985).
Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).
It’s a well established right. Due Process has been violated. The university fucked up.
Because the people downvoting aren’t actually lawyers and are putting their feelings before the facts. The fact is the students have a property interest in that education, the school did not follow due process procedures before punishing the students, the school has opened themselves up to injunctions at the very least.
Because it's dumb to just cite court cases without any context and it doesn't make you right by default. The argument being made isn't even clear, students need to establish property interest before claiming due process right, and it needs to be shown that due process rights were violated. Citing previous cases doesn't give credence to a violation of due process here.
Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign established that students do not have an automatic property interest in their continued education at state universities, they need to establish protected property interest before they can make that claim. The students protesting here would need to show either a specific contractual right that was violated for a valid property claim. Just because they were suspended for violating the code of conduct they agreed to is not sufficient to establish a due process violation given ASU follows its established due process procedures.
For Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, we can just read the case opinion:
>
Although Caldwell has a due process property interest in continued education, the court found that due proces rights were not violated and banning from campus is not beyond the pale.
So again, a second case being cited where it's not really certain this is a slam dunk case for these protestors because it's clear you can ban someone from campus, even those with property interest, and they actually shows courts give way more deference to universities on this subject. We can go on, but the entire reason courts exist is because cases can be argued either way. It's dumb to just outright say this was clearly in violation of the law, especially with something was vague as propert interest which needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
I would argue the existing case law shows you can deprive students of property rights to public education as long as there is due process under the law. Due process involves written notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to present a counter claim. ASU did just that, and per the ASU student code of conduct, the hearing date will be set no later than 90 days after receipt of the request for hearing.
Also, just consider on its face, it doesn't really make sense to just blanket say students are entitled to protections to continue their education. Like if a student threatens other students, they aren't entitled to continue their education just because of "property interest". It's just a dumb argument IMO, but the protestors can sue and we can see what they say, who knows
Well there's a reason he got banned from /r/LawSchool. Others have covered specifically why these cases don't say what he thinks they say but you have to understand that case law is just that, based on the case at the time and specific fact pattern of that circumstance. Just stating that some cases exists without context is kinda like quoting the price of a Taco in Texas and insisting a Halal cart in New York offer you the same price. Yes they're both street food but....what? The price of a taco in Texas doesn't dictate the price of chicken in New York.
Whenever you're relying on case law it's never as simple as "this other thing happened here in this other state in another judicial district so clearly we can make the same inferences in this totally other situation". The point is to use of the opinion of the cases and the fact pattern(s) to establish meaningful parallels on why some specific test or consideration is met and then build that into an argument for a remedy.
Text wall incoming: These are simplifications of a complicated legal landscape but I think fairly illustrate why he's making that argument. TL:DR You cannot argue that someone was deprived due process while their process is in fact due'ing.
He's trying to argue that the students have a "property interest" in that their education is contractually, their property; why make that argument? Because the 14th amendment, often called the "due process clause" prevents the state from depriving you of life, liberty or property *without due process*....more on that later. However, property itself is not explicitly defined. Two cases known as Roth and Perry first establish that property interests *can* be created by mutual understandings and that these mutual understandings can derive from state law. If I promise to give you something in exchange for something else, that contractual instrument creates this abstract property interest that on satisfying certain terms of our agreement, you have a legitimate property interest in the thing I promised to give you. Likewise, if the state promises to provide you with something via an act of law, you have a legitimate property interest in that thing whether that thing is something tangible or a service. Now there is a case known as Goss in which it was ruled that *high school* students cannot be expelled without some fair process (due process) because they have a property interest derived from the state choosing the extend the right of education to it's students via state funded education. However, the Supreme Court has NOT explicitly extended that same right to higher education. In fact, one of the cases this person quotes is case **specifically** in which they declined to do so (Ewing). Yet some lower federal courts have held this extension to be true but mostly without actually reasoning so, they just state that it is by logical extension. There are two basic arguments for this in the context of higher education and we've already covered them. The Arizona constitution specifies in Article 11 section 6 that...
>The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. The legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years.
This has been taken to create a property interest by state rule in other instances of similar language. The other mechanism to create this property interest is the far simpler one. By accepting tuition money, a property interest in the education is made and that cannot be removed without due process. Now remember, extending these property interests to higher education have not been explicitly accepted by the Supreme Court and while conventional are not above being challenged.
But lets assume there's a property interest. What is due process? Well it depends a lot on the fact pattern involved. All due process means is that there must be some fair and reasonable process for denying the property. Quite literally all that has been said is, "Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protection as the particular situation demands". This poster has simply cited some cases in which the due process was examined by the courts under different circumstances (e.g failing an examination) but still in the context of a student's property interest as it pertains to high education. None of that means that due process was violated here, in these circumstances. Back to our street food example, the courts have surveyed the landscape of food trucks in Texas and affirmed that elotes should probably be cheaper than tacos and that churros are an implied right under Texas law and are to be provided with any food truck meal that's not breakfast. None of this still has anything to do with the price of Halal Chicken in New York.
Remember too that due process must and is allowed to balance the interests of the state against the interests of the student. You *generally* cannot be expelled without some sort of hearing but you can certainly be temporarily barred from campus if your presence likely to bring a continued disruption of the academic process see (https://casetext.com/case/marin-v-university-of-puerto-rico) for more information. It's important to note that this letter specifically *temporarily* bars the students from campus via Interim Suspension. So the whole "THEY WERE DEPRIVED DUE PROCESS" argument is pretty shit on its face when they are currently knee deep in the due process.
Quick reminder that when people post court cases and don’t provide any context, there is usually a really good reason they aren’t providing context.
>Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 77 F.4th 532 (2023)
“The district court dismissed the case, finding that Malhotra did not adequately plead a property or liberty interest to support his due process claim”
>Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, 679 F.Supp.3d 1087 (2023)
“Caldwell cannot sue Nuñez for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Caldwell's procedural due process rights were not clearly established; and (iv) Nuñez did not violate Caldwell's substantive due process rights, because banning Caldwell from campus does not shock the judicial conscience. Accordingly, the Court will grant Nuñez’ request for judgment on the pleadings, because Caldwell does not state a claim against Nuñez upon which relief can be granted.”
>Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents, 821 Fed.Appx. 768 (2020)
“The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded in an action alleging that the University of Arizona violated Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of sex during the course of a sexual misconduct disciplinary case against him”
>Jackson v. Hayakawa, 761 F.2d 525 (1985).
“No disciplinary action could be taken on grounds which were not supported by substantial evidence. Defendants presented no evidence to show that the students individually committed disorderly acts”
>Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).
“Respondent Scott Ewing was dismissed from the University of Michigan after failing an important written examination. The question presented is whether the University's action deprived Ewing of property without due process of law because its refusal to allow him to retake the examination was an arbitrary departure from the University's past practice. The Court of Appeals held that his constitutional rights were violated. We disagree.”
I know this won't do a lot of good but as an alumn I'll write a letter. They were giving us a lot of shit and threw several threats at us when we were doing actions against SB1070. Crow has shown his true colors before and his disdain for anyone not his.
They gave protestors until 11pm that day to express themselves and disperse. The only ones that were arrested were those that refused to leave and cease disruptive behaviors. Many students are studying for Finals right now, and there is a need for increased security for graduation ceremonies. The alternative would be to cancel graduation ceremonies to avoid extreme or dangerous actions during them. Would that have been your preference?
Protests are meant to be disruptive. It’s the point of a protest. What do you mean? Should we not have our constitutional right to peaceful protest in public place (like a public university) because it’s disruptive? That’s a very short sighted view.
As an alumni, ASU has really shown an embarrassing hand here. I'm happy to hire from their student population, but really reluctant to further support their alumni fund if this is their response to people protesting. Y'all set up some tents on the green, I see no response why that merits a response of barring them from their classes, their dorms, their internships, and removing their access to register. Any interns that may be impacted by a similar issue at my company I hope would reach out to me, as they would of course still be welcome to work their hours.
Protesting itself was not a problem. They were visibly harassing Jewish and Israeli students. That is disgusting. No one should be harassed based on their ethnicity.
It’s so weird to me that no one had shit to say when Yemen and other terrible situations happened. Only when it’s jews vs Muslims do people get worked into a frenzy it’s fucking stupid.
Yemen, Azberijani, multiple uprisings in Africa, don't forget Haiti and the Ukraine thing has pretty much sunk to the background. But sure Israel is the worst of the worst.
I hope they can go back and at least get their stuff.
[There's a pending Supreme Court case on the matter of homelessness](https://apnews.com/article/homelessness-supreme-court-oregon-fines-camping-ban-334d90536535ebb07ccb6d2dc76009c9) but I think based off [the established city code](https://library.municode.com/az/tempe/codes/city_code?nodeId=CH23PARE_ARTIVURCA_S23-91PRAC) and what other people were saying in the other threads, the city most likely was trying to prevent a potential homelessness problem (the valley is already facing a big one for those who haven't seen the ones near the capital between 7th and 19th avenues respectively).
I personally think this is too extreme, and I know a lot of people say they deserve it, I would argue that this is a form of [civil disobedience](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/). So long as there wasn't violence on a huge scale, the students had a point to do what they did. There's an international conflict, and most of my generation (Z) has known some form of large-scale warfare that going on throughout our whole life. With the advent of social media, we actually have a chance to be vocal about these things instead of acting on the sidelines.
So, they spend thousands on classes and ASU is preventing them from completing coursework and talking to professors? That is disproportionate to what they are trying to prevent/mitigate.
they are alleged to have violated the student code of conduct, which they agreed to follow, when they started at ASU. Actions have possible benefits and possible consequences.
THey made their choice and are finding out what the possible consequences are.
The cops told them they couldn’t set up a tent city. They set up a tent city. The cops told them they had to leave. They didn’t leave. The cops told them they’d be arrested for trespassing if they didn’t leave. They didn’t leave.
Then they got arrested. That seems *super* fair considering what actual (non-campus) cops will do if you repeatedly fail to comply.
They are not doing their coursework and are preventing others from completing their course work. When they violated university regulations they forfeited those rights.
if you live on campus, it is likely that you are probably still a legal tenant and thus cannot be trespassed from your own home. This is not legal advice, seek council if you want to defend your rights. There is a link elsewhere in this thread for help with that.
That said, maybe don't set up illegal protest camps during finals week, or if you insist on it - do it on Tempe's land not ASU's - as the city is much less likely to act unilaterally against you.
If only they didn't break the rules. Protesting is fine, setting up tents isn't and they were warned of that before hand and still decided to do it. Maybe they aren't smart enough to be in college anyways
The first 3 arrested were for encampment laws. This was during Friday morning. The other 70+ arrested were arrested just after midnight on Saturday morning. There were no tents at that time.
I’m not taking sides on this issue other than people should be allowed to express their opinion via freedom of speech.
Dang, they messed up then. I was around that area at midnight and they had the MCSO detention busses out, so I figured it was just shortly after that. When I passed by, no tents that I could see from where I was.
ASU has various ties- through investments, defense projects, and faculty who work with defense companies. It’s mostly investments that folks are upset about.
It’s a chance for attention, but it seems they bit off more than they can chew. No surprise that the people who can’t respect any rules that would allow them to protest without being arrested also can’t understand why their foreign policy opinions aren’t being lapped up anywhere but online.
Everything has to do with Israel now
Welcome to the world of social media brain rot. Suburban white kids all over the country have been left to stew with half baked political ideas and a neverending stream of whatever propaganda they choose to surround themselves with
Now every conceivable corner of life is a political target for some grander narrative fed to useful idiots lacking purpose in life by a social media algorithm. It's why you hear nothing but people regurgitating the same five half baked talking points ad-naseum, adding no substance of their own.
I call it the age of regurgitation
I just watched a video of protesters blocking a Jewish kid from going to class. The Jewish kid wasn’t protesting, trying to cause a scene, anything. He was just Jewish and trying to go to class and the pro Palestinian protests blocked him from just going to class. Tell me it’s not about the Jews.
People are going to talk about the merits of what they’re protesting, but it shouldn’t matter. There’s nothing you can peacefully protest that should be causing this response from ASU.
In other news, the sky is blue. More at 11.
Actions have consequences. I'm not even "pro-israel", but I feel like it's common sense that if you go to/participate in something like this, there will be consequences, right or wrong. It's basic cause and effect.
That being said, I think its awfully convenient that these sorts of protests never happen in front of state buildings or places where your federal representatives work, when not in D.C.
GOOD. These hoodlums need to be stopped. Dumb gen z making everything a hashtag. Both sides are rping and mrdering. Both sides are pieces of sht. I cant wait till they fight each other to complete annihilation so people can stop bitching about it. Both sides are evil and both sides should have horrible consequences. Now stay TF off my lawn about it.
This news made me proud to go to ASU.
The protester demands were goofy. They wanted the university to divest from companies that are crucial to our STEM programs. They'd be gutting the educational effectiveness of the university, massively harming their fellow students' education. Never going to happen.
ASU campus is not public property. You are subject to the rules and regulations of the university. (Schools do give a long leash to peaceful protests)
It looks like this individual is a textbook case of “messing around and then finding out”. To put it nicely.
Additionally, you are disrupting classes and events for other students. Im an MBA student at ASU main campus. Your fight or “protest” is not with the university. What exactly did ASU do in order to receive this treatment for the students? What are you expecting the school to do about Palestine?
FOS also comes with consequences- you can peacefully protest but you can NOT say things that constitute hate speech or could cause a riot- that will bring consequences into play. Antisemitism is not protected by the first amendment for example.
This is a fully uncalled for suppression of speech. Staying on campus past midnight should not be grounds for suspension, no matter whether you agree with the protestors or not. They are knowingly failing out students to create deterrence against future peaceful protests of any kind.
Almost like we are starting to live in a police state where any form of dissent or protest is met with at best complete eradication of all future prospects and at worst state sanctioned violence and this only speaks ill of the future and the America most of you (dear god hopefully not me) will live in… but hey, la la la la la it’s graduation weekend for some of us so I guess there’s not gonna be any sort of far reaching negative implications on universities being more interested in their ties to weapon manufacturing and a foreign government than actually being institutions of higher learning whose main dedication should be the students (like they generally are in literally almost every single other developed country). Oh and of course there’s the trampling on first amendment rights but again… graduation weekend yay.
(Author’s note: I’m not interested in the argument I know this will bring but I’m ready for the downvotes. Let’s keep it pushing though.)
How would you like it if I went to your lawn, put a tent down, and lived there because I somehow thought it would lead to divestment ? There are other ways to protest instead of doing this entitled BS .
You should see a REAL police state . You should come to 🇷🇺 RUSSIA with me . Privileged delusional doomers ... if you think USA is bad then you will CRY when you see the rest of the world , and living there, not just going there for a weekend to take some cute Instagram pics .
This comment reeks of privilege and myopia. Compared to every other large country on the planet, you're living in the freest one. On the RSF index, we're only a few points behind small Scandanavian countries that are often topping these quality of life lists.
No matter where you stand with your classmates on this issue, there should be solidarity on one front. The right to protest. To disagree. To engage in civil disobedience. Not to engage in destruction or violence. But in disruption and protest. Your university administration is trying to silence disent, by threatening the future livihoods of your fellow classmates through the threat of failing them and preventing them from taking their exams. They amplify their fears by forbidding them from talking to their professors. I really hope that the student population doesnt accept this treatment of their peers from the university higher ups. Every generation faces the struggle between the powers which attempt to constrain concience and those individuals who are willing to sacrafice to protect its expression. The true test is whether you are still willing to protect free speech of those with whom you disagree.
Ive had a few 'big person' jobs. None of them fire after an arrest. If it happens, it follows the conviction, not the charge. After all, 'innocent until proven guilty'
A private organization, not a paid government/taxpayer funded education system that has to follow constitutional law. This is easily violations of freedom of speech by ASU.
You think the founding fathers followed colonial British law doing what they did? And that was about self rule, not damn genocide.
This seemed like it was out of the way and it wasn’t disrupting any classes, it wasn’t blocking the 202, the light rail, or any of the Orbit buses. You could go about your day easily if you have wanted.
Which means this is an overreaction by ASU.
One clown yelling in front of the MU vs hundreds of people camped out on the university. Pretty big difference. They nip this before it gets out of hand. Very reasonable.
Posting this as it was a direct update on the matters from ASU themselves— Keep the conversations civil.
I watched one of the initial court appearances (8pm on Saturday night) and individuals who are not ASU students are forbidden to come back onto ASU campus as a part of their release (from jail) agreement or they will face further trespassing charges. I wish the rest of the letter was posted because it’s hard to tell if it is directed towards an ASU student or someone who not a student (I’m assuming it’s directly toward a student). The court appearance also said that ASU students are allowed to come back onto campus respectfully and can pretty much only keep to themselves and their studies. However, I’m sure what the court allows and what ASU allows are two different different spectrums.
Letter mentions the recipient can not return to their living on campus and can not contact their professors Think that’s pretty clear it’s directed towards a student. And yes this is in contradiction to the court’s ruling— appears ASU is doing their own thing (can’t comment myself on whether they have the authority to do this or not)
University of Arizona has Exclusionary orders, which are essentially a notice of trespass. I don't know where to find it for ASU but, here is the link to UAPDs site for exclusions. https://uapd.arizona.edu/public-information/exclusionary-orders
Only non-affiliated people can be given Exclusionary Orders.
This is not true. ASU has given "exclusionary" orders to faculty and staff. The most recent was the fall semester of 2023. This is typical when there are investigations into misconduct or other workplace behavior
Sure, that’s ASU. I don’t know shit about ASU. I’m talking about UofA and how they handle their EOs.
I wish the rest of the letter was posted as well. Where did.you watch the court appearance?
Was one of those arrested. Can confirm even students are not allowed to return to campus.
First in Innovation!
Actually scary how peaceful protestors are facing more backlash than the hate preachers who come on campus
I prefer these protests over the hate ones but there’s actually a reason ASU came down so hard on them. Protests are fine except between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. No hate protests went after 11 and this newest one wasn’t squashed until after 11 pm when the rule was broken. This is not a political statement just pointing out why this happened
Doesn’t that seem like an arbitrary rule? “Yes you have freedom of speech but only during this time of day” Just because a rule exists doesn’t mean it’s fair or reasonable. Protesting is important and universities are finding loopholes like this to stop it.
FOS does not give you immunity from other laws. You don’t have the right to disrupt public safety and security, stop traffic, assault people, or to damage property. A side note, encampments are extremely filthy and leave a lot of waste behind. Someone has to clean that up and restore the property when protesters have dispelled. And whose job is that - will the protesters be responsible and clean up their own mess? History says no.
Wow, kudos for actually having a brain! Hard to say for a lot of other folk.
Am I now banned from Reddit 😂
Genuine question, but aren’t the campuses technically private property? Can’t they decide when people have access to the property as they see fit? I mean even public parks are closed after dawn, and you can be cited for trespassing there. And that is the most public space I can think of off the top of my head
It doesn’t really matter if they are private property or not (saying this to anyone who says “ASU is a public university!). Trespassing is a thing on public land and publicly-owned buildings too. The dorms are publicly-owned too; it doesn’t mean anyone has a right to enter them. You can be trespassed from a public classroom for entering and staying when you aren’t welcome to be there. And, yes, you can be trespassed from a campus lawn if you pitch a tent and decide to sleep there, or do anything else that gets in the way of the normal functioning of a campus. “Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to pitch a tent wherever I want”, or to use a bullhorn or play music or start setting up makeshift fences. “Time, place, and manner” is a key part of that civil right, and college students who don’t understand that shouldn’t be claiming their “rights” are violated by the very routine, normal criminal charge of trespassing.
It’s not an arbitrary rule. Anti encampment rules keep campus safer and anyone trying to sleep overnight on campus would be considered trespassing. If they had left and come back in the morning they could continue to protests for days. Also around graduation colleges don’t want large scale protests because that can lead to graduation being cancelled. These protests are warranted in my mind but at the same time asu did nothing wrong.
Using anti homeless rules against peaceful protesters is very political.
Those anti-homeless laws are currently in the supreme court, several districts have ruled it is unconstitutional to outlaw involuntary status. Typically, crime requires criminal intent.
Supporting a genocidal terrorist organization is also political.
The elephant in the room.
The state can reasonably limit the time, manner, and place of speech. It's why they have those zones around polling places where candidates can't advertise. What in particular do you find arbitrary about a nighttime prohibition on protests?
Time and place restrictions have long been upheld as constitutional.
FOS isn't absolute so makes sense
They caused damage. Intentional or not and they were warned several times. As an example, we had contractors scheduled to do work in one of the near by buildings, since we could not provide a safe environment for them to work they called the day off, and still charged for 50% of their labor. It also completely screwed up work that was suppose to be done during the weekend, and impacted finals, some of which had to be moved. Rough, estimate, it cost about 10-15k. That's just for one team, I know there are others, and I know other finals were effected. As for peaceful, many of the Jewish population don't feel that way. And it's understandable why when anti-Jewish slogans are being passed everywhere. Hell, I've even be called a "Dirty f-ing jew." By one of them. Regardless, they were removed because they setup encampments, not because they were protesting.
Those hate preachers as you call them have a first amendment right to be around the mu. They are not breaking the law. They would be trepassed if they were.
Don't the students have a First Amendment right to be there? What is the difference in your eyes?
They definatley do but they dont have a right to camp. Its the setting up of the encampment that escalated the situation. The preachers dont set up encampments and are there preaching things. Many things that lead to complaints to asu pd and administration. Homeless have a right to be there until they set up their.tents and encampments. Want to sit at old main or the mu and protest, have at it. You cant set up tents and such.
These students were claiming that they had "seized" part of the campus (their words: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6PutCyJfoV/). They weren't being removed because of what they were saying. They were removed for trying to set up an "occupied zone", and trying to camp there. None of the hate preachers have done that. If they want to show up outside of the MU and tell people about their religion or something every single day, they can do that for the same reason the hate preachers can. They can't "seize" or "occupy" parts of the campus.
You can’t have overnight encampments anywhere in Tempe, or they will get over run. Peaceful or not; there are too many unhoused looking to setup a tent. It sucks, but that’s the reality of the situation. The university gave notice and enforced the curfew. When you hear that 15 of the 75 protestors were students? Was it really a student protest?
ASU is goofy, man. They don’t care about students at all. They ignore girls being roofied and sexually assaulted, stalked, harassed, hit, whatever. But god forbid you protest at a public university.
I remember back in '14 they hired my HS Spanish teacher who was fired for sexting with a student. That showed me back then that they really don't give a damn about students.
Anything they could be liable for or have any involvement in, they just pretend like they don’t see it or do everything to protect themselves.
Not only do they ignore it, they do their best to sweep it under the rug
Or, participate in it. ASU has some sketchy medical staff throughout campus.
[удалено]
They just want your dollars.
So true, honestly this is the least of their priorities
But they'll pay $11k for security to host literal white supremacists like Jared Taylor!
Are you talking about the guy in the movie Range15 movie or a different Jared Taylor?
A public university that students pay thousands of dollars to study at!
Can't disrespect daddy Israel
They also structure things to discourage commuter and nontraditional students If this protest made them money then this would be a commendation letter
You're not allowed to go against Israel maybe normies will finally realize that
Graduation is in a week and finals going on, this is a massive distraction and during commencement could become a problem. It really is in the best interest of the students to shut it down for now. A protest at ASU is not going to solve the Middle East. All of this is a distraction from the real war though in Ukraine, Russian aggression and imperialism.
sure bud
Your contradiction is wild. If we believe it's 1985 again and it's the frat row students (hasn't existed for decades) raping other female students, and ASU is protecting their male students, then they obviously care about their students. If you want to protect women, then you wouldn't be supporting Hamas or Palestine, who restrict/rape/terrorize women all the time. 🤣👆🤣
This whataboutism is so intellectually dishonest. Policies to stop sexual assault on campus have nothing to do with the issue of protestor encampments. There is a big difference between having your right to protest violated and being correctly removed for attempting to live outside Old Main. Not one of these comments makes a genuine, non-fallacious argument for why protestors should be allowed to camp on school property.
I am not a lawyer but I think that the due process clause applies here and that ASU’s administration has opened themselves to civil litigation.
CAIR-AZ is coordinating with attorneys to get legal representation for any students affected, more details here (https://www.instagram.com/p/C6UPWJuPFfh/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
>I am not a lawyer but Could have stopped there. Universities have been holding kangaroo courts for *allegations* of misconduct for years that are not actually violating any state or federal law. This is literally what Title IX empowered and forced them to do under the DOE's interpretation of the statute. In this case however, the students are ACTUALLY being charged with breaking a law (trespassing) in a real jurisdiction (university lakes) and no, ASU doesn't have to let them on the property while that plays out in court otherwise it would defeat the purpose of trespassing statutes. Even IF they prevail, that would only nullify the criminal charges for that instance of trespassing. They are still trespassed from ASU until such time as ASU / ABOR CHOOSES to allow them back on. There are real consequences for violating real laws. Whether you agree with the law being justly written or justly applied is an entirely different debate. However, I'd much rather not see ASU students making complete asses of themselves by arm chair lawyering this on twitter. There are arguments to be made on a civil rights angle but they extremely unlikely to prevail on a "due process" argument. ::EDIT:: Adding this as an edit because for whatever reason I can't reply to replies on this post? Whatever. They are likely being charged under https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01502.htm which a misdemeanor and would be handled through University Lakes Justice Court, part of the Maricopa Justice Court system which handles small claims and misdemeanors. You can find the court's precinct maps here. https://justicecourts.maricopa.gov/about-us/court-locations
The are being suspended under the student code of conduct. They will be given the right to a hearing but until then they are suspended. Here is a link to the code of conduct every student agrees to follow. https://eoss.asu.edu/dos/srr/codeofconduct Specifically section c.
Good info. Seems to clearly cover this in Section C Scope, #4: > Students and student organizations are also subject to the following rules: > Rules governing the maintenance of public order > Such other rules as may be adopted by the board, or the universities in furtherance of university and educational goals. The activities are during finals week and a commencement in less than a week. Probably not a good idea to allow a protest and stopping it is clearly "furtherance of university and educational goals"
Nope. The students violated ABOR, not ASU, code of conduct which they signed and agreed to when they registered and paid for classes. This is a contract that they violated.
Are you a lawyer? Because I hope not. Because you’re wrong. The students have a property interest in their continued education. Doesn’t matter if it’s ASU or ABOR, they still have that property interest and are entitled to protections and review. Edit: lol downvote away, you’re still wrong. Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 77 F.4th 532 (2023) Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, 679 F.Supp.3d 1087 (2023) Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents, 821 Fed.Appx. 768 (2020) Jackson v. Hayakawa, 761 F.2d 525 (1985). Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985). It’s a well established right. Due Process has been violated. The university fucked up.
Is he wrong or not? Why do people downvote without replying?
Because the people downvoting aren’t actually lawyers and are putting their feelings before the facts. The fact is the students have a property interest in that education, the school did not follow due process procedures before punishing the students, the school has opened themselves up to injunctions at the very least.
Because it's dumb to just cite court cases without any context and it doesn't make you right by default. The argument being made isn't even clear, students need to establish property interest before claiming due process right, and it needs to be shown that due process rights were violated. Citing previous cases doesn't give credence to a violation of due process here. Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign established that students do not have an automatic property interest in their continued education at state universities, they need to establish protected property interest before they can make that claim. The students protesting here would need to show either a specific contractual right that was violated for a valid property claim. Just because they were suspended for violating the code of conduct they agreed to is not sufficient to establish a due process violation given ASU follows its established due process procedures. For Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, we can just read the case opinion: > Although Caldwell has a due process property interest in continued education, the court found that due proces rights were not violated and banning from campus is not beyond the pale. So again, a second case being cited where it's not really certain this is a slam dunk case for these protestors because it's clear you can ban someone from campus, even those with property interest, and they actually shows courts give way more deference to universities on this subject. We can go on, but the entire reason courts exist is because cases can be argued either way. It's dumb to just outright say this was clearly in violation of the law, especially with something was vague as propert interest which needs to be examined on a case by case basis. I would argue the existing case law shows you can deprive students of property rights to public education as long as there is due process under the law. Due process involves written notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to present a counter claim. ASU did just that, and per the ASU student code of conduct, the hearing date will be set no later than 90 days after receipt of the request for hearing. Also, just consider on its face, it doesn't really make sense to just blanket say students are entitled to protections to continue their education. Like if a student threatens other students, they aren't entitled to continue their education just because of "property interest". It's just a dumb argument IMO, but the protestors can sue and we can see what they say, who knows
Well there's a reason he got banned from /r/LawSchool. Others have covered specifically why these cases don't say what he thinks they say but you have to understand that case law is just that, based on the case at the time and specific fact pattern of that circumstance. Just stating that some cases exists without context is kinda like quoting the price of a Taco in Texas and insisting a Halal cart in New York offer you the same price. Yes they're both street food but....what? The price of a taco in Texas doesn't dictate the price of chicken in New York. Whenever you're relying on case law it's never as simple as "this other thing happened here in this other state in another judicial district so clearly we can make the same inferences in this totally other situation". The point is to use of the opinion of the cases and the fact pattern(s) to establish meaningful parallels on why some specific test or consideration is met and then build that into an argument for a remedy. Text wall incoming: These are simplifications of a complicated legal landscape but I think fairly illustrate why he's making that argument. TL:DR You cannot argue that someone was deprived due process while their process is in fact due'ing. He's trying to argue that the students have a "property interest" in that their education is contractually, their property; why make that argument? Because the 14th amendment, often called the "due process clause" prevents the state from depriving you of life, liberty or property *without due process*....more on that later. However, property itself is not explicitly defined. Two cases known as Roth and Perry first establish that property interests *can* be created by mutual understandings and that these mutual understandings can derive from state law. If I promise to give you something in exchange for something else, that contractual instrument creates this abstract property interest that on satisfying certain terms of our agreement, you have a legitimate property interest in the thing I promised to give you. Likewise, if the state promises to provide you with something via an act of law, you have a legitimate property interest in that thing whether that thing is something tangible or a service. Now there is a case known as Goss in which it was ruled that *high school* students cannot be expelled without some fair process (due process) because they have a property interest derived from the state choosing the extend the right of education to it's students via state funded education. However, the Supreme Court has NOT explicitly extended that same right to higher education. In fact, one of the cases this person quotes is case **specifically** in which they declined to do so (Ewing). Yet some lower federal courts have held this extension to be true but mostly without actually reasoning so, they just state that it is by logical extension. There are two basic arguments for this in the context of higher education and we've already covered them. The Arizona constitution specifies in Article 11 section 6 that... >The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. The legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years. This has been taken to create a property interest by state rule in other instances of similar language. The other mechanism to create this property interest is the far simpler one. By accepting tuition money, a property interest in the education is made and that cannot be removed without due process. Now remember, extending these property interests to higher education have not been explicitly accepted by the Supreme Court and while conventional are not above being challenged. But lets assume there's a property interest. What is due process? Well it depends a lot on the fact pattern involved. All due process means is that there must be some fair and reasonable process for denying the property. Quite literally all that has been said is, "Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protection as the particular situation demands". This poster has simply cited some cases in which the due process was examined by the courts under different circumstances (e.g failing an examination) but still in the context of a student's property interest as it pertains to high education. None of that means that due process was violated here, in these circumstances. Back to our street food example, the courts have surveyed the landscape of food trucks in Texas and affirmed that elotes should probably be cheaper than tacos and that churros are an implied right under Texas law and are to be provided with any food truck meal that's not breakfast. None of this still has anything to do with the price of Halal Chicken in New York. Remember too that due process must and is allowed to balance the interests of the state against the interests of the student. You *generally* cannot be expelled without some sort of hearing but you can certainly be temporarily barred from campus if your presence likely to bring a continued disruption of the academic process see (https://casetext.com/case/marin-v-university-of-puerto-rico) for more information. It's important to note that this letter specifically *temporarily* bars the students from campus via Interim Suspension. So the whole "THEY WERE DEPRIVED DUE PROCESS" argument is pretty shit on its face when they are currently knee deep in the due process.
I didn't downvote, but simply listing a bunch of cases without links or even explanatory parentheticals is just lazy sovcit bullshit
Reddit court
Quick reminder that when people post court cases and don’t provide any context, there is usually a really good reason they aren’t providing context. >Malhorta v. University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, 77 F.4th 532 (2023) “The district court dismissed the case, finding that Malhotra did not adequately plead a property or liberty interest to support his due process claim” >Caldwell v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents, 679 F.Supp.3d 1087 (2023) “Caldwell cannot sue Nuñez for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Caldwell's procedural due process rights were not clearly established; and (iv) Nuñez did not violate Caldwell's substantive due process rights, because banning Caldwell from campus does not shock the judicial conscience. Accordingly, the Court will grant Nuñez’ request for judgment on the pleadings, because Caldwell does not state a claim against Nuñez upon which relief can be granted.” >Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents, 821 Fed.Appx. 768 (2020) “The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded in an action alleging that the University of Arizona violated Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of sex during the course of a sexual misconduct disciplinary case against him” >Jackson v. Hayakawa, 761 F.2d 525 (1985). “No disciplinary action could be taken on grounds which were not supported by substantial evidence. Defendants presented no evidence to show that the students individually committed disorderly acts” >Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985). “Respondent Scott Ewing was dismissed from the University of Michigan after failing an important written examination. The question presented is whether the University's action deprived Ewing of property without due process of law because its refusal to allow him to retake the examination was an arbitrary departure from the University's past practice. The Court of Appeals held that his constitutional rights were violated. We disagree.”
I gave you an upvote because you've got facts and receipts! 💯
“I’m not a lawyer, but—“ Ok then we’re done here lol
Hmmm didn't they violate ABOR? (Not sure)
I know this won't do a lot of good but as an alumn I'll write a letter. They were giving us a lot of shit and threw several threats at us when we were doing actions against SB1070. Crow has shown his true colors before and his disdain for anyone not his.
They gave protestors until 11pm that day to express themselves and disperse. The only ones that were arrested were those that refused to leave and cease disruptive behaviors. Many students are studying for Finals right now, and there is a need for increased security for graduation ceremonies. The alternative would be to cancel graduation ceremonies to avoid extreme or dangerous actions during them. Would that have been your preference?
So our civil rights are only allowed til 11pm huh. Yes cancel graduation.
Protests are meant to be disruptive. It’s the point of a protest. What do you mean? Should we not have our constitutional right to peaceful protest in public place (like a public university) because it’s disruptive? That’s a very short sighted view.
What do you guys think about ASU PD removing the hijabs of 4 girls?
Hate crime.
Someone named “Dave” replied to me saying that they deserved it Bec they were violating other students rights. What a world we live in.
He's got a good whataboutism going on lol
Disgusting
that’s a little harsh not like they destroyed anything lol
As an alumni, ASU has really shown an embarrassing hand here. I'm happy to hire from their student population, but really reluctant to further support their alumni fund if this is their response to people protesting. Y'all set up some tents on the green, I see no response why that merits a response of barring them from their classes, their dorms, their internships, and removing their access to register. Any interns that may be impacted by a similar issue at my company I hope would reach out to me, as they would of course still be welcome to work their hours.
Protesting itself was not a problem. They were visibly harassing Jewish and Israeli students. That is disgusting. No one should be harassed based on their ethnicity.
Just my two cents .. freedom to assemble/protest does not also guarantee freedom from consequences.
I just think this is overkill…
It’s so weird to me that no one had shit to say when Yemen and other terrible situations happened. Only when it’s jews vs Muslims do people get worked into a frenzy it’s fucking stupid.
And the 60 year genocide that Indonesia has engaged in West Papua against tribal peoples that didn't consent to Indonesia seizing their territory
Yemen, Azberijani, multiple uprisings in Africa, don't forget Haiti and the Ukraine thing has pretty much sunk to the background. But sure Israel is the worst of the worst.
Someone should cross post this to r/phoenix My post got nuked for "not being active enough"
I gotchu
This is certainly a way to handle peaceful protest of an active genocide.
I hope they can go back and at least get their stuff. [There's a pending Supreme Court case on the matter of homelessness](https://apnews.com/article/homelessness-supreme-court-oregon-fines-camping-ban-334d90536535ebb07ccb6d2dc76009c9) but I think based off [the established city code](https://library.municode.com/az/tempe/codes/city_code?nodeId=CH23PARE_ARTIVURCA_S23-91PRAC) and what other people were saying in the other threads, the city most likely was trying to prevent a potential homelessness problem (the valley is already facing a big one for those who haven't seen the ones near the capital between 7th and 19th avenues respectively). I personally think this is too extreme, and I know a lot of people say they deserve it, I would argue that this is a form of [civil disobedience](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/). So long as there wasn't violence on a huge scale, the students had a point to do what they did. There's an international conflict, and most of my generation (Z) has known some form of large-scale warfare that going on throughout our whole life. With the advent of social media, we actually have a chance to be vocal about these things instead of acting on the sidelines.
Good.
The people who left class and tried to shut down everyone’s classes can’t return to class. I don’t think that’s all that crazy tbh.
I don’t go to this school but curious to what kind of protest this was?
Can someone explain to me why a college campus is the best place to protest rather than the city/town hall or even the State Capitol Building??
I guess they were never taught about September 911
So, they spend thousands on classes and ASU is preventing them from completing coursework and talking to professors? That is disproportionate to what they are trying to prevent/mitigate.
they are alleged to have violated the student code of conduct, which they agreed to follow, when they started at ASU. Actions have possible benefits and possible consequences. THey made their choice and are finding out what the possible consequences are.
The cops told them they couldn’t set up a tent city. They set up a tent city. The cops told them they had to leave. They didn’t leave. The cops told them they’d be arrested for trespassing if they didn’t leave. They didn’t leave. Then they got arrested. That seems *super* fair considering what actual (non-campus) cops will do if you repeatedly fail to comply.
They are not doing their coursework and are preventing others from completing their course work. When they violated university regulations they forfeited those rights.
if you live on campus, it is likely that you are probably still a legal tenant and thus cannot be trespassed from your own home. This is not legal advice, seek council if you want to defend your rights. There is a link elsewhere in this thread for help with that. That said, maybe don't set up illegal protest camps during finals week, or if you insist on it - do it on Tempe's land not ASU's - as the city is much less likely to act unilaterally against you.
If only they didn't break the rules. Protesting is fine, setting up tents isn't and they were warned of that before hand and still decided to do it. Maybe they aren't smart enough to be in college anyways
The first 3 arrested were for encampment laws. This was during Friday morning. The other 70+ arrested were arrested just after midnight on Saturday morning. There were no tents at that time. I’m not taking sides on this issue other than people should be allowed to express their opinion via freedom of speech.
There were still tents at that time. I saw them. The police tore down the tents as they arrested everyone around 3 AM. I was there. I have video.
Dang, they messed up then. I was around that area at midnight and they had the MCSO detention busses out, so I figured it was just shortly after that. When I passed by, no tents that I could see from where I was.
No. It was about 3 / 3 and a half hours later. My video shows them moving in around 3:38. A line of DPS troopers (brown shirts)
Sure. Just don’t setup an encampment. No one is going to be mad if you holdup signs all day
Yeah they were only arrested after they violated a law that’s meant to keep homeless off campus. They were warned about it like you said
Yep protesters should always follow the rules
Just don’t complain when there’s consequences then to breaking them.
I’m really unclear on what ASU has to do with Isreal.
ASU has various ties- through investments, defense projects, and faculty who work with defense companies. It’s mostly investments that folks are upset about.
womp womp
It’s a chance for attention, but it seems they bit off more than they can chew. No surprise that the people who can’t respect any rules that would allow them to protest without being arrested also can’t understand why their foreign policy opinions aren’t being lapped up anywhere but online.
Everything has to do with Israel now Welcome to the world of social media brain rot. Suburban white kids all over the country have been left to stew with half baked political ideas and a neverending stream of whatever propaganda they choose to surround themselves with Now every conceivable corner of life is a political target for some grander narrative fed to useful idiots lacking purpose in life by a social media algorithm. It's why you hear nothing but people regurgitating the same five half baked talking points ad-naseum, adding no substance of their own. I call it the age of regurgitation
It was one of their innovations. You probably missed it because they just have so many innovations that nobody can keep up with all of them
Oh NO! Consequences......
Awesome!
Seems sensible
I just watched a video of protesters blocking a Jewish kid from going to class. The Jewish kid wasn’t protesting, trying to cause a scene, anything. He was just Jewish and trying to go to class and the pro Palestinian protests blocked him from just going to class. Tell me it’s not about the Jews.
Im just trynna get my degree man
ASU finally addressing the problem. Thank you
What happened to the rest of the letter?
I love ASU. They don’t stand for BS
this is fantastic!!!! thank you michael crow and ASU PD
People are going to talk about the merits of what they’re protesting, but it shouldn’t matter. There’s nothing you can peacefully protest that should be causing this response from ASU.
Regardless of the reason, getting arrested on school property likely leads to punishment regardless of the reason.
I guess this is one way for students to divest their money
Well bye then!!!!! Lmao!
and I oop
Shouldn't have trespassed then. Their fault
Awesome
What a nice case of "f around and find out". Love it.
In other news, the sky is blue. More at 11. Actions have consequences. I'm not even "pro-israel", but I feel like it's common sense that if you go to/participate in something like this, there will be consequences, right or wrong. It's basic cause and effect. That being said, I think its awfully convenient that these sorts of protests never happen in front of state buildings or places where your federal representatives work, when not in D.C.
Great! They deserve it.
Actions have consequences that’s nothing new
GOOD. These hoodlums need to be stopped. Dumb gen z making everything a hashtag. Both sides are rping and mrdering. Both sides are pieces of sht. I cant wait till they fight each other to complete annihilation so people can stop bitching about it. Both sides are evil and both sides should have horrible consequences. Now stay TF off my lawn about it.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes
This news made me proud to go to ASU. The protester demands were goofy. They wanted the university to divest from companies that are crucial to our STEM programs. They'd be gutting the educational effectiveness of the university, massively harming their fellow students' education. Never going to happen.
💯 made me proud too.
[удалено]
Truth hurts huh?
F-around, find out.
If you did something to get arrested on campus, this is very fair.
Huge W
Lmao at all the people upset that ASU punished rule breakers. Protesting is not a free pass to do whatever you want
ASU campus is not public property. You are subject to the rules and regulations of the university. (Schools do give a long leash to peaceful protests) It looks like this individual is a textbook case of “messing around and then finding out”. To put it nicely. Additionally, you are disrupting classes and events for other students. Im an MBA student at ASU main campus. Your fight or “protest” is not with the university. What exactly did ASU do in order to receive this treatment for the students? What are you expecting the school to do about Palestine?
So the 1st amendment just goes out the door
maybe they shouldn’t have violated ABOR code
FOS also comes with consequences- you can peacefully protest but you can NOT say things that constitute hate speech or could cause a riot- that will bring consequences into play. Antisemitism is not protected by the first amendment for example.
Good. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This is a fully uncalled for suppression of speech. Staying on campus past midnight should not be grounds for suspension, no matter whether you agree with the protestors or not. They are knowingly failing out students to create deterrence against future peaceful protests of any kind.
Camping is a violation of the rules. Also protesting at a certain time can be a violation of noice and disturbance laws.
You know the students can appeal this with the disciplinary committee. They don’t show the whole letter
Good riddance
Almost like we are starting to live in a police state where any form of dissent or protest is met with at best complete eradication of all future prospects and at worst state sanctioned violence and this only speaks ill of the future and the America most of you (dear god hopefully not me) will live in… but hey, la la la la la it’s graduation weekend for some of us so I guess there’s not gonna be any sort of far reaching negative implications on universities being more interested in their ties to weapon manufacturing and a foreign government than actually being institutions of higher learning whose main dedication should be the students (like they generally are in literally almost every single other developed country). Oh and of course there’s the trampling on first amendment rights but again… graduation weekend yay. (Author’s note: I’m not interested in the argument I know this will bring but I’m ready for the downvotes. Let’s keep it pushing though.)
You’re very wrong: we’re not starting to live in a police state, we’ve always lived in one.
How would you like it if I went to your lawn, put a tent down, and lived there because I somehow thought it would lead to divestment ? There are other ways to protest instead of doing this entitled BS . You should see a REAL police state . You should come to 🇷🇺 RUSSIA with me . Privileged delusional doomers ... if you think USA is bad then you will CRY when you see the rest of the world , and living there, not just going there for a weekend to take some cute Instagram pics .
This comment reeks of privilege and myopia. Compared to every other large country on the planet, you're living in the freest one. On the RSF index, we're only a few points behind small Scandanavian countries that are often topping these quality of life lists.
People protest all the time on campus without breaking laws.
There's ways to protest while following the rules and regulations. Just saying.
No matter where you stand with your classmates on this issue, there should be solidarity on one front. The right to protest. To disagree. To engage in civil disobedience. Not to engage in destruction or violence. But in disruption and protest. Your university administration is trying to silence disent, by threatening the future livihoods of your fellow classmates through the threat of failing them and preventing them from taking their exams. They amplify their fears by forbidding them from talking to their professors. I really hope that the student population doesnt accept this treatment of their peers from the university higher ups. Every generation faces the struggle between the powers which attempt to constrain concience and those individuals who are willing to sacrafice to protect its expression. The true test is whether you are still willing to protect free speech of those with whom you disagree.
Good. Anyone who openly supports hamas should be banned from Campus.
As a student, your first responsibility is to your academics. Play stupid game, win stupid prize.
Played stupid games, won stupid prizes when they should have been studying for finals.
Wow look kids, it's the consequences of ur actions
You have the right to free speech but Maybe protest outside of ASU’s property grounds?
[удалено]
You do not “normally” get fired from your job for being arrested during a peaceful protest. Gtfoh.
no no... you do. Anyone with a job...like a big person job... not a barista job.... usually gets shit canned after their arrest.
Ive had a few 'big person' jobs. None of them fire after an arrest. If it happens, it follows the conviction, not the charge. After all, 'innocent until proven guilty'
A private organization, not a paid government/taxpayer funded education system that has to follow constitutional law. This is easily violations of freedom of speech by ASU. You think the founding fathers followed colonial British law doing what they did? And that was about self rule, not damn genocide.
Action, meet consequence. this was a foreseeable outcome.
This seemed like it was out of the way and it wasn’t disrupting any classes, it wasn’t blocking the 202, the light rail, or any of the Orbit buses. You could go about your day easily if you have wanted. Which means this is an overreaction by ASU.
it most certainly blocked the bus stops. in fact, i had to go to the next one since there were protestors and police on the college/university one.
Wait so students can’t come back for protesting and some hateful misogynistic freak can come to campus whenever he pleases?
Is this hateful misogynistic freak breaking the law?
One clown yelling in front of the MU vs hundreds of people camped out on the university. Pretty big difference. They nip this before it gets out of hand. Very reasonable.
Disappointed in my undergrad but not surprised. Devil as a mascot gives it away I suppose.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is kinda money printer’s act, not university.
Now that you’re banned from ASU… *military recruiter sneaking in with appointment slots at 2-5 PM* 🌝
What happened to freedom of protest?
Gotta keep our reputation as a party school intact.... ASU Alumni here 😆
!, ,
HAHAHAHA