Can a state university declare a background photo of the president "cyberbullying"?

Stockton University in New Jersey is moving forward with disciplinary action against a student who used a photo of President Trump as his background for a zoom meeting.

My observation is that it seems the term “tolerance” has been turned on its head. Tolerance means allowing a wide variety of opinions, including those that you find personally offensive. The new definition that the left has been imposing is labeling anyone with a different viewpoint as intolerant and therefore deserving of punishment.

Should a state university be able to declare a background photo of the President of the United States “cyberbullying” and threaten the student with fines, suspension, and other penalties?

Or is the university guilty of violating the First Amendment rights of the student?

Personally I don’t consider it a first amendment issue. Oh, yes, it’s a state university, so on that accord it’s TECHNICALLY arguable to be a 1A issue. But it’s not really the government making that ban.

But certainly it’s a great example of the duplicity of universities in this country. You can bet that no background of a Dem politician would have generated this response.

If it’s a state university I would imagine it would be an issue.

Not surprisingly, there is a part the Breitbart is leaving out.

The action was taken based on what the university deemed to be threatening comments Facebook.

Another unidentified Facebook user commented on the post, “Bob Dailyda that’s what we do. (Quiet) but …we aim with precision. Boom done. No drama.”

The complaint against Dailyda acknowledges he did not make or respond to that comment but states “the reporting parties did mention the words sounded threatening and they were concerned that Mr. Dailyda may have similar views and thoughts of violence.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pressofatlanticcity.com/education/stockton-students-background-image-during-zoom-meeting-prompts-formal-complaint/article_cd2b97a8-0fba-5d23-9483-cacc909adbdc.amp.html

Regardless, the university isn’t doing itself any favors by taking action against the student. It’s pretty weak and will probably be dropped.

If they’re using the photo to distract from class discussion and learning, then yes, it should be suppressed.

Good for the student. I hope he’s reimbursed well in court.

The university is owned by the State of New Jersey. The state can’t violate the first amendment.

Another angle is discrimination based on national origin. If Chinese students can put President Xi in the background, but American students can’t do the same for President Trump, then school is discriminating against people from the US.

The school might have a case if they ban all photos or all portraits as too distracting and provide some evidence of the need for a the restrictions.

Singling out a photo of President Trump for punishment is unlikely to survive the smell test.

Again. The punishment is not because of the photo. It’s because of comments made on Facebook after the class that the university deemed to be threatening. It’s a silly case that I believe the University will lose.

Another unidentified Facebook user commented on the post, “Bob Dailyda that’s what we do. (Quiet) but …we aim with precision. Boom done. No drama.”

The complaint against Dailyda acknowledges he did not make or respond to that comment but states “the reporting parties did mention the words sounded threatening and they were concerned that Mr. Dailyda may have similar views and thoughts of violence.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pressofatlanticcity.com/education/stockton-students-background-image-during-zoom-meeting-prompts-formal-complaint/article_cd2b97a8-0fba-5d23-9483-cacc909adbdc.amp.html

If a background photo distracts other students from discussion and learning, perhaps they should not be in college.

1 Like

Another thing that the Breitbart article didn’t mention is that the University has a code of conduct that students agree to. And that he had violated that code but would not say what parts.
It sounds like it’s their sandbox and therefore their rules.

He said more than that. Here’s his Facebook post after the class in which he used the background.

I love this country. We are a diverse, yet assimilated population from all backgrounds. I believe all must have the same opportunities and I commit to make that a priority. Beyond that, I am done with the leftist agenda of BLM and the white self haters. I have seen it in action in my doctoral classes at Stockton and the general media. I’m not backing down. If we can’t get past this, ok, I’m ready to fight to the death for our county and against those that want to take it down. I believe there are also many like me.

Anytime you say that you open yourself to a whole lot of potential problems.

It is state-owned university. It can’t create rules that violate the constitution.

From your link

Then on July 10, the doctoral student met with members of the university’s “Care and Community Standards” office to explain his political views

And there we have it. Wrongspeak.

2 Likes

Hyperbole is protected speech.

On the other hand, Antifa is more than happy to use physical violence to shut up political opponents. Has the school suspended any Antifa supporters?

1 Like

I didn’t say that they did. But they can say what is acceptable or not. And apparently various things that he did are now under investigation.

Well, isn’t that convenient.

Doesn’t every American soldier sign up to do that?

Why is that?

That’s really a pointless question until you can provide evidence that any Antifa supporters at the University made any public comments that could be deemed threatening.