Golden girl

The ad hominem attack is uncalled for, please refrain from doing so again.
Political speech is protected and students cannot be penalized for it especially if they are at public universities. So if a medical school student expresses his disdain for aca then that is his right and there is nothing a public university can do about it nor can they expell a student who believes that Reagan was the best president or expressing their opinions that someone is queer. 
The neo-Nazi expressing his disdain for Jews may not be protected by free speech in the first place so we would need to consult a lawyer about that.
A student shouldn't be disrupting class for 20 minutes and you would presumably be allowed to ask him to quiet down so that you can continue your lesson. I would question the competency of any professor if their only method of controlling the class would be to call the cops or downgrade students cor their behavior. However, if a student writes a legitimate paper about Bernie's policies then downgrading him for it simply because you disagree with Bernie's policies then you would be violating the students free speech. I hope you are not doing that because if you are then you have no business grading anyone's paper.

They are asking applicants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions etc and are then accepting/accepting students based on that. So if an interviewer disagrees with or was offended by what an applicant said and rejected the applicant because of it then it is a free speech violation. Maybe this is too basic for highly educated people to understand lol

They are asking applicants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions etc and are then accepting/accepting students based on that. So if an interviewer disagrees with or was offended by what an applicant said and rejected the applicant because of it then it is a free speech violation. Maybe this is too basic for highly educated people to understand lol

They are asking applicants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions etc and are then accepting/accepting students based on that. So if an interviewer disagrees with or was offended by what an applicant said and rejected the applicant because of it then it is a free speech violation. Maybe this is too basic for highly educated people to understand lol

The ad hominem attack is uncalled for, please refrain from doing so again.
Political speech is protected and students cannot be penalized for it especially if they are at public universities. So if a medical school student expresses his disdain for aca then that is his right and there is nothing a public university can do about it nor can they expell a student who believes that Reagan was the best president or expressing their opinions that someone is queer. 
The neo-Nazi expressing his disdain for Jews may not be protected by free speech in the first place so we would need to consult a lawyer about that.
A student shouldn't be disrupting class for 20 minutes and you would presumably be allowed to ask him to quiet down so that you can continue your lesson. I would question the competency of any professor if their only method of controlling the class would be to call the cops or downgrade students cor their behavior. However, if a student writes a legitimate paper about Bernie's policies then downgrading him for it simply because you disagree with Bernie's policies then you would be violating the students free speech. I hope you are not doing that because if you are then you have no business grading anyone's paper.

They are asking applicants to express their thoughts, feelings, opinions etc and are then accepting/accepting students based on that. So if an interviewer disagrees with or was offended by what an applicant said and rejected the applicant because of it then it is a free speech violation. Maybe this is too basic for highly educated people to understand lol

Being denied a privilege is a punishment in some cultures or families. For example, your parents may deny you the privilege of watching tv or using the computer if they are disciplining you for breaking their rules. That would fall into the category of a punishment at least for most individuals. Another example would be the DMV suspending the license of someone who received numerous parking tickets but never paid them. Driving is a privilege so if the DMV denies you that privilege then most people would consider that to be a punishment. Now, if the DMV would suspend your license for something you said (rather than for legitimate reasons like drunk driving)  then that would be a violation of your first amendments rights and they would be overstepping their boundaries as well and could be rightfully sued for it. The same with a public university, if they reject an applicant for saying something they didn't like or agree with (rather than for legitimate reasons like low gre/gpa scores--although it's debatable if it's a legitimate reason or not), then they are violating the applicants first amendment rights and could be sued for it. Unless the school is above the law and can do whatever they want without regards to anyone else but I can't imagine that to be the case.
Whether or not I want to attend a school that violated my rights is irrelevant. The question is, are the public universities allowed to violate the rights of applicants? Is there anyone overseeing them to ensure that they are following the letter of the law? And if some applicants are saying that their rights have been violated then how pervasive is it and is anyone doing something to stop it?

Being denied a privilege is a punishment in some cultures or families. For example, your parents may deny you the privilege of watching tv or using the computer if they are disciplining you for breaking their rules. That would fall into the category of a punishment at least for most individuals. Another example would be the DMV suspending the license of someone who received numerous parking tickets but never paid them. Driving is a privilege so if the DMV denies you that privilege then most people would consider that to be a punishment. Now, if the DMV would suspend your license for something you said (rather than for legitimate reasons like drunk driving)  then that would be a violation of your first amendments rights and they would be overstepping their boundaries as well and could be rightfully sued for it. The same with a public university, if they reject an applicant for saying something they didn't like or agree with (rather than for legitimate reasons like low gre/gpa scores--although it's debatable if it's a legitimate reason or not), then they are violating the applicants first amendment rights and could be sued for it. Unless the school is above the law and can do whatever they want without regards to anyone else but I can't imagine that to be the case.
Whether or not I want to attend a school that violated my rights is irrelevant. The question is, are the public universities allowed to violate the rights of applicants? Is there anyone overseeing them to ensure that they are following the letter of the law? And if some applicants are saying that their rights have been violated then how pervasive is it and is anyone doing something to stop it?

@Solio Thank you. I was thinking about other questions that were asked at the interviews and one of them was "what is your social identity?". I wonder if that is a problematic/illegal question since it is asking applicants to reveal personal information about themselves such as ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc which is illegal to ask at least at job interviews. I wonder what other questions schools are asking that could potentially be illegal. It's just sad that applicants rights are being violated and nobody is doing anything about it. 

In my case, I was asked about religion at one of my interviews. At another interview, I attempted to talk about the work I was doing but was redirected to talk about something personal I wrote in my personal statement. That made me uncomfortable because it was a group interview and I didn't expect to talk about personal things so it threw me off and I was flustered for the rest of the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get accepted. Neither of the interviews were conducted fairly but there was no one to monitor the interviewers so they can basically ask any question they want and score you negatively based on the answers.  
In one case, I asked the program for feedback in why I wasn't accepted and how to strengthen my application for the future and was basically informed that I wasn't a "good fit" since the interviewer didn't like what I said at the interview. When I asked what it was that I said that the interviewer didn't like, they had no answer. Basically, my portfolio is good enough and I qualify for the program but just have to say things that the interviewer wants to hear so that leaves me nowhere since I didn't say anything that was offensive or not pc so I have no idea how to improve or strengthen my application. This was for a masters program with a small cohort but they had ten available seats when the year started so they had no reason to reject me especially not on the basis that they were full. There is no doubt that my rights were violated and I would like to know who I can get in touch with to help me fight it. 

Ok, so I think everyone knows and agrees that there are discrimination laws that schools have to follow so that is not relevant to this conversation. And professors/employees are in a different category than students so it's not relevant either. 
So let's talk about the applicant that comes to the interview and states that the moon is composed of cheese. We both agree that he has the right to say it but you say that he won't be accepted to your program because he is also denying all scientific evidence that the moon is not cheese and will continue to deny it in the future as well. Are you violating his freedom of speech by not accepting him to the program? It's tricky and depends on what you think university is all about. If it's about the exchange of ideas and challenging each other to think differently, then what gives you the authority to deny his point of view that the moon is made of cheese? Maybe he has scientific evidence to back up his claim? Or he may do research for a while and realize he was wrong and change his mind about it because he wasn't able to prove it. But if you shut him down and reject him then you are saying it's your way or the highway and you are not open to different ideas or opinions which means that you may not only be violating his freedom of speech but you may also be violating school policy as well (exchanging ideas and challenging each other to think differently). 
Now my question is, let's say that the applicant really believes that the moon is made up of cheese and he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise but doesn't say anything at the interview since he really wants to get into the program. He says everything you want to hear and comes across as the perfect candidate so you accept him. All goes well at first but after a few months he reveals that he believes that the moon is composed of cheese and that he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise. What do you do at that point? And was the interview really effective if applicants censor themselves just to be accepted at programs? And wouldn't that demonstrate that there is a major free speech problem when it comes to graduate school admissions?

What do you think a public university is? 
In my state, the mayor or governor appoints people to the board of trustees of the city/state universities and they are the ones who have authority to approve or deny policies, rules, regulations, etc. so  they are essentially entrusted to run the university on behalf of the city/state govt which makes the public university a govt run university. Additionally, all administrators, staff, faculty, etc employed by the university are paid by the state which means that they are state employees and are therefore bound by law to uphold the constitutional rights of students and applicants.
In terms of free speech rights of applicants at an interview, suppose an applicant is a republican and says something that would make the interviewer angry because s/he is a democrat, does that mean that the applicant is no longer a "good fit" for the program? Or if the applicant says something about his religious beliefs and the interviewer is an atheist and scores the applicant negatively resulting in the applicant being rejected as a result, then is the interviewer violating the free speech of the applicant? And does the faculty and/or staff at public universities have the right to do this without penalty?

Op, I think this is a very thought provoking legal and ethical question and I wonder if anyone has ever addressed it or tried to challenge it in court. How does a public university use the interview to determine "good fit" if they are a govt agency and cannot violate the free speech of students/applicants? 
In my case, I applied to 5 master programs and got accepted to two of them even though my portfolio was the same for all of the schools. The three schools that rejected me were public universities that required an interview. I'm apparently not good at interviews because I was not accepted at either of them. Or its possible that the interviewers just didn't like what I said or asked (and I suspect the latter is true). The other two schools were private with one of them being an Ivy League school and very competitive since its a small cohort but neither required an interview and I was apparently a good enough candidate for both of them. Now I wonder if what I said or asked at the interviews conducted by the public universities was the reason I was rejected? And if that is the case then was my free speech violated by the public universities? If so, then would I be able to file a complaint against these schools (that would be complaining to the govt about one of their own agencies so not sure how that would work lol) or if I would even have the right to file a civil rights lawsuit against them? This could turn into a class action lawsuit since I am presumably not the only one rejected from these public universities so other applicants had their rights violated as well.
Are there any attorneys on here who could give us some insight to this? 

How could there be repercussions for free speech if there are not supposed to be laws for it? If someone is punished for something they say then that means that there is a law against free speech which is unconstitutional (I think there are a couple of exceptions like you can't yell fire in a crowded room but I can't imagine anyone doing that at the interview.) A public university is usually run by the state or city so it is by definition, government run which means that they are obligated to protect free speech and I would think this applies to graduate school applicants as well. 
In terms of fit, I can see that for a specific Ph.D. program you would need to be a "good fit" based on research interest (although some programs have rotations so it wouldn't be relevant) but if it is just for a masters program then why would there need to be the need for the faculty to determine "good fit" of applicants and how is that determined based on the interview?
And op is right that it is not the same as applying to a job so that isn't relevant to this discussion.

Why would it need to be fully funded? And aren't public universities run by the state/city govt under a board and trustees appointed by the mayor who make the rules that the university has to follow and therefore obligated to protect the free speech of applicants regardless of federal funding?

Great, then students are not entitled to receive tax dollars (aka federal and state funding) and should find their own way to pay for school if they want an education. Thank you for clarifying. 

I
I'm not sure why people keep conflating employees and students as they are two different entities and are not comparable. Having said that, it is well known that tenure was designed to ensure the academic freedom of professors. There have also been court cases that dealt with grading, discussions in classrooms, free speech of students, free speech zones on campus, etc. so there are laws about that which could still be challenged if one would choose to do so. The question here is, do applicants have the right to free speech or can public universities limit that with the interview. If these are state/city schools which are primarily funded by tax dollars and govt cannot restrict free speech then how is the interview constitutional if applicants are denied entry based on what they said in the interview? 
If one were to file a class action against the school then the school does not have the right to retaliate so what the faculty wants is irrelevant (and they shouldn't have violated the rights of students/applicants in the first place so perhaps they are not fit to work in a public university at all).

Ok, so I think everyone knows and agrees that there are discrimination laws that schools have to follow so that is not relevant to this conversation. And professors/employees are in a different category than students so it's not relevant either. 
So let's talk about the applicant that comes to the interview and states that the moon is composed of cheese. We both agree that he has the right to say it but you say that he won't be accepted to your program because he is also denying all scientific evidence that the moon is not cheese and will continue to deny it in the future as well. Are you violating his freedom of speech by not accepting him to the program? It's tricky and depends on what you think university is all about. If it's about the exchange of ideas and challenging each other to think differently, then what gives you the authority to deny his point of view that the moon is made of cheese? Maybe he has scientific evidence to back up his claim? Or he may do research for a while and realize he was wrong and change his mind about it because he wasn't able to prove it. But if you shut him down and reject him then you are saying it's your way or the highway and you are not open to different ideas or opinions which means that you may not only be violating his freedom of speech but you may also be violating school policy as well (exchanging ideas and challenging each other to think differently). 
Now my question is, let's say that the applicant really believes that the moon is made up of cheese and he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise but doesn't say anything at the interview since he really wants to get into the program. He says everything you want to hear and comes across as the perfect candidate so you accept him. All goes well at first but after a few months he reveals that he believes that the moon is composed of cheese and that he rejects all scientific evidence stating otherwise. What do you do at that point? And was the interview really effective if applicants censor themselves just to be accepted at programs? And wouldn't that demonstrate that there is a major free speech problem when it comes to graduate school admissions?

What do you think a public university is? 
In my state, the mayor or governor appoints people to the board of trustees of the city/state universities and they are the ones who have authority to approve or deny policies, rules, regulations, etc. so  they are essentially entrusted to run the university on behalf of the city/state govt which makes the public university a govt run university. Additionally, all administrators, staff, faculty, etc employed by the university are paid by the state which means that they are state employees and are therefore bound by law to uphold the constitutional rights of students and applicants.
In terms of free speech rights of applicants at an interview, suppose an applicant is a republican and says something that would make the interviewer angry because s/he is a democrat, does that mean that the applicant is no longer a "good fit" for the program? Or if the applicant says something about his religious beliefs and the interviewer is an atheist and scores the applicant negatively resulting in the applicant being rejected as a result, then is the interviewer violating the free speech of the applicant? And does the faculty and/or staff at public universities have the right to do this without penalty?

Op, I think this is a very thought provoking legal and ethical question and I wonder if anyone has ever addressed it or tried to challenge it in court. How does a public university use the interview to determine "good fit" if they are a govt agency and cannot violate the free speech of students/applicants? 
In my case, I applied to 5 master programs and got accepted to two of them even though my portfolio was the same for all of the schools. The three schools that rejected me were public universities that required an interview. I'm apparently not good at interviews because I was not accepted at either of them. Or its possible that the interviewers just didn't like what I said or asked (and I suspect the latter is true). The other two schools were private with one of them being an Ivy League school and very competitive since its a small cohort but neither required an interview and I was apparently a good enough candidate for both of them. Now I wonder if what I said or asked at the interviews conducted by the public universities was the reason I was rejected? And if that is the case then was my free speech violated by the public universities? If so, then would I be able to file a complaint against these schools (that would be complaining to the govt about one of their own agencies so not sure how that would work lol) or if I would even have the right to file a civil rights lawsuit against them? This could turn into a class action lawsuit since I am presumably not the only one rejected from these public universities so other applicants had their rights violated as well.
Are there any attorneys on here who could give us some insight to this? 

How could there be repercussions for free speech if there are not supposed to be laws for it? If someone is punished for something they say then that means that there is a law against free speech which is unconstitutional (I think there are a couple of exceptions like you can't yell fire in a crowded room but I can't imagine anyone doing that at the interview.) A public university is usually run by the state or city so it is by definition, government run which means that they are obligated to protect free speech and I would think this applies to graduate school applicants as well. 
In terms of fit, I can see that for a specific Ph.D. program you would need to be a "good fit" based on research interest (although some programs have rotations so it wouldn't be relevant) but if it is just for a masters program then why would there need to be the need for the faculty to determine "good fit" of applicants and how is that determined based on the interview?
And op is right that it is not the same as applying to a job so that isn't relevant to this discussion.

Why would it need to be fully funded? And aren't public universities run by the state/city govt under a board and trustees appointed by the mayor who make the rules that the university has to follow and therefore obligated to protect the free speech of applicants regardless of federal funding?

It is very interesting that you mention jobs because the original poster said that for a job the company/agency would want to know more about the skills, experiences, competency, ability to do the job, etc. Companies/Agencies will also do background checks, fingerprinting, drug tests, etc depending on the nature of the company/agency. For govt jobs, applicants would take a civil exam to qualify for the job and then have to go through a background check and other things as well. But in this case, applicants are simply trying to get an education in order to be competent when they are ready to apply to real jobs so the thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc of applicants is irrelevant and shouldn't come into play at all. Public universities,  that only accept certain people (under the guise of "good fit"--what does it mean anyway if it is a public university designed to educate the public so how can someone not be a good fit) are discriminating against all applicants and are violating their first amendments rights as well.  I mean, is someone really not entitled to an public university education because the interviewer didn't like what was said in the interview? 
As to your second point, I do think there should be some kind of meet and greet but only after the admissions process is over and the school cannot rescind an acceptance anymore. Before then, there are informational sessions that students can attend but beyond that there is no reason why a public university should interview applicants because it is unconstitutional since it violates the free speech/first amendment rights of students. 

This came up on another thread and I thought it was a fascinating topic so I decided to start a new thread about it. I would love to hear your opinions. The poster said that federally funded public graduate schools/programs may be violating the free speech/first amendment rights of applicants if they require an interview as part of the admissions process. The argument was that if the school is a federally funded public university then they should not be interviewing applicants to determine whether the applicant is a "good fit" for the program since there is no way to do so without violating the free speech/first amendment rights of applicants. Essentially, the school is monitoring the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc of students to determine "good fit" which is unconstitutional. 
Do you believe that federally funded public universities are violating the first amendment rights of applicants by conducting the interview and/or asking for writing samples? Do you think that there is such a thing as "good fit" when it comes to federally funded public universities? Should the interview be eliminated altogether? Why or why not?