Free Speech at interview for graduate school applicants

[Golden girl]

1 hour ago, unræd said:

Except that it isn't the mission of public universities to "educate all students… regardless of how ignorant an applicant is," and no one is "entitled to an education at a public university" in the United States. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez established that there is no fundamental right to even a primary education, much less a college one, under the US constitution. Many state constitutions guarantee education to children (usually through the twelfth grade) as a right, and the Supreme Court has recognized since Meyer that students have a right to that (again, primary and secondary, not college) education unimpeded by certain state actions. State institutions of higher education are still bound by the fourteenth amendment, in that if a state is going to offer public college education it must do so equally among those students it educates (this is why, for example the use of affirmative action in college admissions is a matter of constitutional law).  But that jurisprudence has never held that public universities must accept all applicants, which is the only schema under which a process that admits some applicants but not others on the basis of merit (i.e. by rejecting "ignorant" applicants, to use your language) would be a constitutional issue. That there isn't any sort of "right" to postsecondary (i.e. university education) can be most clearly seen in the fact that students at state schools, even land-grant ones, still need to pay tuition.

Again: no one is entitled to an education at a public university, which means that in admitting students those universities are free to use academic merit and the fit of a prospective student's proposed research within the department--which is what a writing sample or interview is intended to measure--as a discrimen in admissions. It is true that they may not consider status as certain protected classes in their decisions (they can't, for example, categorically deny admission to an applicant solely because she's a woman), but that's an equal protection issue, not a first amendment one.

If students, especially university students, are not entitled to an education then why are they receiving federal and/or state funding for it? If students are not entitled to an education then taxpayers are not obligated to fund it so students should secure their own funding if they want to get an education. But if the taxpayers are funding it then the schools should not be conducting interviews to determine "good fit" since it violates the first amendment rights of applicants and violates the federal and/or state funding criteria as well.

[sjoh197]

6 minutes ago, Golden girl said:

If students, especially university students, are not entitled to an education then why are they receiving federal and/or state funding for it? If students are not entitled to an education then taxpayers are not obligated to fund it so students should secure their own funding if they want to get an education. But if the taxpayers are funding it then the schools should not be conducting interviews to determine "good fit" since it violates the first amendment rights of applicants and violates the federal and/or state funding criteria as well.

Federally, you are only legally protected from being discriminated by race, gender, disabilities, and as of recently... sexual orientation. You are not protected from being discriminated against because the department thinks you are stupid or rude. 

If you can prove that the interview provides a way to discriminate against you race, gender, pregnancy, or disabilities... when all of those things are addressed in the application already, then you will have a case. 

 

Also I still absolutely fail to see how this is infringing on 1st amendment rights. They are not legally  abridging the freedom of speech  in any way. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by sjoh197

[iamswwg]

46 minutes ago, knp said:

To go along with unraed's lucid explanation, I've annotated a bit of your post to answer your questions directly.  You say that the program has limited resources and is looking for qualified applicants but wouldn't it go against the mission of the university which is to educate all students? No. No American university has the education of all students as their mission. Isn't the goal of the public university to educate the public regardless of how ignorant an applicant is? No. That is not their goal. If an applicant demonstrates what you believe is ignorance about the moon or anything else for that matter, then is the applicant no longer entitled to an education at a public university funded by tax dollars? Yes, you've got it exactly right! Well done. Nobody in this country is entitled to any form of higher education. See unraed's comments for the legal precedent.

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. 

[sjoh197]

8 minutes ago, iamswwg said:

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. 

That's like saying... not everyone is entitled to an NSF grant... so we should stop funding the NSF and people should fund their own research with their own money. 

[Golden girl]

15 minutes ago, sjoh197 said:

Federally, you are only legally protected from being discriminated by race, gender, disabilities, and as of recently... sexual orientation. You are not protected from being discriminated against because the department thinks you are stupid or rude. 

If you can prove that the interview provides a way to discriminate against you race, gender, pregnancy, or disabilities... when all of those things are addressed in the application already, then you will have a case. 

 

Also I still absolutely fail to see how this is infringing on 1st amendment rights. They are not legally  abridging the freedom of speech  in any way. 

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

[Solio]

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

If students, especially university students, are not entitled to an education then why are they receiving federal and/or state funding for it? If students are not entitled to an education then taxpayers are not obligated to fund it so students should secure their own funding if they want to get an education. But if the taxpayers are funding it then the schools should not be conducting interviews to determine "good fit" since it violates the first amendment rights of applicants and violates the federal and/or state funding criteria as well.

I believe this particular interpretation of public higher education is incorrect for several reasons.  

1) The mission of universities is not to educate "all" students.  In the mission statements from top universities around the country, there is literally no mention of educating "all" students.  Further, the "goal" of public universities, as stated on their websites, is to conduct cutting edge research and develop knowledge for the benefit of the larger society.  

University of California Mission Statement

University of Virginia Mission Statment

University of Delaware Mission Statement

University of Iowa Mission Statement

2) When schools make their decisions it isn't always the case that they are rejecting people because of their views.  Usually they have more applicants than they do spaces.  Since their mission and goal is to conduct the highest quality research, they have to choose which of the applicants are best suited for that.  For example, if you were the coach of a basketball team and you have 12 spots available but 20 people trying out, 8 of those people won't be picked.  Assuming they didn't make the team because of athletic ability, there is no problem with that.  If they weren't picked because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. there would be a problem.  For schools this is covered by the 1st Amendment and Title IX.  

3) There is literally nothing in the constitution that states that anyone is entitled to an education.  Nothing.  Over the years, all of the states have passed laws that state that people are entitled to an education up until the high school level.  University and graduate school is not included in that.  Anywhere.  No one in the US is "entitled" to an education beyond 12th grade.  

4) Just because *you* (general you) do not get into university does not mean that taxpayers should not have to pay for it.  There are literally thousands of things that our taxes pay for that we will never individually use, but that (theoretically) help society as a whole.  Think: military, infrastructure, Medicare, EPA, CDC, etc.  There is no opting in or out depending on how you feel about a particular program or use of money.  If you feel strongly enough about it, get in contact with your Congressperson.

5) Having an interview does not violate federal or state funding criteria unless the criteria specifically states that interview are not allowed.  Which they don't.  

Edited April 10, 2016 by Solio

[sjoh197]

1 minute ago, Golden girl said:

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

Maybe its just my field... but at no point during my interview was I asked to express my feelings... or opinions on matters that weren't research related (which weren't really opinions). They were only trying to judge my capability to excel in their program and whether my research interests truly aligned with theirs... which is the same thing they are judging when they look at my gpa and gre score and past research etc. So nothing changed. I understand that the applicaiton process allows a university to judge people... but that is the point of an application process, otherwise we wouldn't have the process at all.

It really comes down to what they are judging you based on... and unless you can prove that the interview process allows them to judge you based on something irrelevant to their "goal of finding the most competent students" I don't think that there is a case. 

[iamswwg]

22 minutes ago, Solio said:

I believe this particular interpretation of public higher education is incorrect for several reasons.  

1) The mission of universities is not to educate "all" students.  In the mission statements from top universities around the country, there is literally no mention of educating "all" students.  Further, the "goal" of public universities, as stated on their websites, is to conduct cutting edge research and develop knowledge for the benefit of the larger society.  

University of California Mission Statement

University of Virginia Mission Statment

University of Delaware Mission Statement

University of Iowa Mission Statement

2) When schools make their decisions it isn't always the case that they are rejecting people because of their views.  Usually they have more applicants than they do spaces.  Since their mission and goal is to conduct the highest quality research, they have to choose which of the applicants are best suited for that.  For example, if you were the coach of a basketball team and you have 12 spots available but 20 people trying out, 8 of those people won't be picked.  Assuming they didn't make the team because of athletic ability, there is no problem with that.  If they weren't picked because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. there would be a problem.  For schools this is covered by the 14th Amendment.  

3) There is literally nothing in the constitution that states that anyone is entitled to an education.  Nothing.  Over the years, all of the states have passed laws that state that people are entitled to an education up until the high school level.  University and graduate school is not included in that.  Anywhere.  No one in the US is "entitled" to an education beyond 12th grade.  

4) Just because *you* (general you) do not get into university does not mean that taxpayers should not have to pay for it.  There are literally thousands of things that our taxes pay for that we will never individually use, but that (theoretically) help society as a whole.  Think: military, infrastructure, Medicare, EPA, CDC, etc.  There is no opting in or out depending on how you feel about a particular program or use of money.  If you feel strongly enough about it, get in contact with your Congressperson.

5) Having an interview does not violate federal or state funding criteria unless the criteria specifically states that interview are not allowed.  Which they don't.  

I think there are two separate issues at hand here. First, you keep talking about research so I will assume that you are talking about Ph.D. programs. When I started the thread, I was more thinking of terminal masters degrees since that is  where this topic came up in the  first place. 

So lets break it apart and talk about each issue  separately. For the Ph.D., professors typically secure external funding to do research and are usually funding students who work in the lab and do research on the behalf of the professor.That would put it in the category of a job since the student is being paid to do work so it would be understandable if the professor conducts interviews to ensure "good fit" as this is similar to employment.

In terms of a terminal masters degree where the program can accept 500-1000 applicants who do not work for or get paid by any particular professor  but are taking regular classes, then having interviews to determine "good fit" is ridiculous. How do you determine if someone is a "good fit" if you are accepting at least 500+ students? Surely, the applicant will find someone in the program who they can relate to and be friends with so as long as they are capable of doing the work (which certainly cannot be determined by an interview) then everything else is irrelevant. So why would a program that just offers regular classes, that is open to all students, interview applicants if they are not monitoring the thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc of people and accepting applicants based on what they said in the interview? And if the acceptance/rejection is based on what the applicant said in the interview, then how does not violate the free speech/first amendment rights of said applicant and why should that be allowed especially if it is a public university and students are still entitled to free speech?

Edited April 10, 2016 by iamswwg

[sjoh197]

1 minute ago, iamswwg said:

I think there are two separate issues at hand here. First, you keep talking about research so I will assume that you are talking about Ph.D. programs. When I started the thread, I was more thinking of terminal masters degrees since that is  where this topic came up in the  first place. 

So lets break it apart and talk about each issue  separately. For the Ph.D., professors typically secure external funding to do research and are usually funding students who work in the lab and do research on the behalf of the professor.That would put it in the category of a job since the student is being paid to do work so it would be understandable if the professor conducts interviews to ensure "good fit" as this is similar to employment.

In terms of a terminal masters degree where the program can accept 500-1000 applicants who do not work for or get paid by any particular professor  but are taking regular classes, then having interviews to determine "good fit" is ridiculous. How do you determine if someone is a "good fit" if you are accepting at least 500+ students? Surely, the applicant will find someone in the program who they can relate to and be friends with so as long as they are capable of doing the work (which certainly cannot be determined by an interview) then everything else is irrelevant. So why would a program that just offers regular classes that is open to all students interview applicants if they are not monitoring the thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc of people and accepting applicants based on what they said in the interview? And if the acceptance/rejection is based on what the applicant said in the interview, then how does not violate the free speech/first amendment rights of said applicant and why should that be allowed especially if it is a public university and students are still entitled to free speech?

Do people in your masters programs not do research? Because we still have to write a thesis under someone which requires a research fit of some sort. And often grant funding of someone's project for you to work on.

[iamswwg]

2 minutes ago, sjoh197 said:

Do people in your masters programs not do research? Because we still have to write a thesis under someone which requires a research fit of some sort. And often grant funding of someone's project for you to work on.

For the particular program I have in mind, students are required to take a basic research class (maybe two research classes) but they are not doing it for any professor nor are they getting funded for it. 

[Solio]

3 minutes ago, iamswwg said:

In terms of a terminal masters degree where the program can accept 500-1000 applicants who do not work for or get paid by any particular professor  but are taking regular classes, then having interviews to determine "good fit" is ridiculous. How do you determine if someone is a "good fit" if you are accepting at least 500+ students? Surely, the applicant will find someone in the program who they can relate to and be friends with so as long as they are capable of doing the work (which certainly cannot be determined by an interview) then everything else is irrelevant. So why would a program that just offers regular classes that is open to all students interview applicants if they are not monitoring the thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc of people and accepting applicants based on what they said in the interview? And if the acceptance/rejection is based on what the applicant said in the interview, then how does not violate the free speech/first amendment rights of said applicant and why should that be allowed especially if it is a public university and students are still entitled to free speech?

First I would say that I don't think you are correctly interpreting the First Amendment.  

"Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments."Source:Freedom of Speech

If, after a graduate school interview you were then arrested for what you said, this would be a violation of your right to freedom of speech.  Not being accepted to the program is not punishment by the government for what you said, it is merely indicative of the fact that more people are applying for graduate school than there are places to put them.  

Second, there are a whole host of laws determining which kinds of questions are illegal to ask in interviews.  For example, I can't ask you about your religion, political affiliation, age, sexual orientation or identification, relationship status, etc because those would all be violations of a number of different Amendments.  If the university in question is asking these kinds of questions, then yes, this would be a clear violation of your First Amendment rights.  If the university is asking you questions about your research/ academic background, intended field of study, or plans for your career after graduate school, that is not a violation.  These are all completely legitimate questions to ask prospective students.  They are not "monitoring your thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc." They are trying to determine who is capable of doing the work.  

"Surely, the applicant will find someone in the program who they can relate to and be friends with so as long as they are capable of doing the work (which certainly cannot be determined by an interview) then everything else is irrelevant."

1) Grad school is not about making friends (though it is definitely an added plus!).  

2) Schools need to determine who is capable of doing the work.  The interview is one part of the application process used to determine who is capable of doing the work.

3) You say that this cannot be determined by an interview, source please? I don't think an interview is 100% accurate or a definite measure of a student's potential, but then again neither is the GRE, letters of recommendation, university GPA or any other part of the application.  The admissions process is not an exact science.  Departments try to do the best they can with the information that they have.  Do they make mistakes?  Sure. But just because they make mistakes does not mean that your right to freedom of speech has been violated.  

4) I love debates like this so thanks for bringing this topic up  

[Golden girl]

1 hour ago, sjoh197 said:

Maybe its just my field... but at no point during my interview was I asked to express my feelings... or opinions on matters that weren't research related (which weren't really opinions). They were only trying to judge my capability to excel in their program and whether my research interests truly aligned with theirs... which is the same thing they are judging when they look at my gpa and gre score and past research etc. So nothing changed. I understand that the applicaiton process allows a university to judge people... but that is the point of an application process, otherwise we wouldn't have the process at all.

It really comes down to what they are judging you based on... and unless you can prove that the interview process allows them to judge you based on something irrelevant to their "goal of finding the most competent students" I don't think that there is a case. 

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. 

[Solio]

8 minutes ago, Golden girl said:

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. 

I'm sorry to hear this happened to you. This might be a good first resource.  

What You Can Ask and What You Can’t – Legal/Illegal Interview Questions

It should be noted that this is for employment, not school admissions.  I'm not sure that the same statutes apply.  Also, laws and protections do vary by state so you will probably need to do some research on whatever state the university is in.  

I would suggest talking to a lawyer who specializes in either education law or possibly employment law to see how strong your legal claim is.  Honestly I think you will be fighting an uphill (expensive) battle, but I wish you the best of luck!

 

[Golden girl]

@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. 

[Cheshire_Cat]

Being denied a privilege is not the same as being punished. The first amendment speaks to punishing someone for their speech. So i don’t think it applies here.

That being said,  there are schools or programs that are biased.  Research has shown that. If you are in a program where your religious background may change something, then I suppose it is fair game.  Anything in your SOP is probably fair game as well.   Interviews are generally done to see how well you can express yourself and communicate in person, so getting flustered probably didn't help matters.  But the truth is, if a school really is so biased and antagonistic towards whatever you said that they were petty enough to deny your application for it, do you really want to learn from these people?  Is it really a program you want to be a part of?

[ExponentialDecay]

16 hours ago, Golden girl said:

If students, especially university students, are not entitled to an education then why are they receiving federal and/or state funding for it? If students are not entitled to an education then taxpayers are not obligated to fund it so students should secure their own funding if they want to get an education. But if the taxpayers are funding it then the schools should not be conducting interviews to determine "good fit" since it violates the first amendment rights of applicants and violates the federal and/or state funding criteria as well.

You know what else the taxpayers are funding? The military (nearly 50% of every tax dollar, btw). The interest on federal debt. Courthouses and the salaries of everyone that works in them. The infamous parks and rec. Road maintenance. Green energy subsidies. Farming subsidies, for that matter. Development aid to poorer countries. Politicians' airfare to international congresses. Etc etc etc. Which of those have anything to do with first amendment rights? Is good asphalt a right? Are solar panels a right? Is taking photos with African orphans to pad your Facebook page a right? The government doesn't just spend money on rights. If it did, it would be a lot smaller, and the smooth trajectory of your civilian life which you now take for granted would be a lot less smooth. The government also doesn't spend money on things you think it should spend money on. What you pay in taxes is money you give away to be spent at the discretion of the wider community, and sometimes it is spent in ways you don't agree with. Too bad, so sad.

OP, your line of argument is so incredibly stupid, and judging by how passive aggressive and rude you're being to the other commenters, I no longer believe that you're arguing for the sake of argument, playing devil's advocate, or even trolling. I think that your failure at getting accepted into whatever grad school inspired this rant is due to the fact that you spend too little time studying and too much time ranting on internet forums, rather than to some imagined miscarriage of justice.

[bhr]

This is so far from how the first amendment works I'm not even sure where to begin. Discrimination isn't even illegal (unless it's against specific, protected classes). A program is perfectly able to decide to admit students based on their personal beliefs (again, as long as we aren't touching protected class issues) including politics (which makes sense. An environmental science program may not want to admit a student who doesn't believe in global warming).

[Golden girl]

8 hours ago, Cheshire_Cat said:

Being denied a privilege is not the same as being punished. The first amendment speaks to punishing someone for their speech. So i don’t think it applies here.

That being said,  there are schools or programs that are biased.  Research has shown that. If you are in a program where your religious background may change something, then I suppose it is fair game.  Anything in your SOP is probably fair game as well.   Interviews are generally done to see how well you can express yourself and communicate in person, so getting flustered probably didn't help matters.  But the truth is, if a school really is so biased and antagonistic towards whatever you said that they were petty enough to deny your application for it, do you really want to learn from these people?  Is it really a program you want to be a part of?

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?

[bhr]

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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?

You have to be a sockpuppet/fake account/troll. No one considering grad school could be this dumb. Again, THIS IS NOT HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. IT HAS NEVER BEEN HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. If they choose to not admit you because you said something related to your membership in a protected class, than you would have a case, but that has NOT ONE FUCKING THING to do with the first amendment.

 

The first amendment protects you from being silenced by the government (or government agencies). While public schools have generally been held to the standard of allowing all speech on campus, that doesn't mean that they have to be accepting of all speech. A college can definitely choose to expel, for example, a medical student who goes off on a 20 minute rant about the ACA during an interview, or a math student who calls Euclid a queer, or even a political science student who claims Reagan was America's greatest president.

 

Let's give you a different scenario: Assume that a student admitted to the University of College was a Neo Nazi. Now, the school didn't know this from their application for admission, and didn't conduct interview. The student comes to campus the first day and starts screaming "Jews are ruining the University of College," and "Hitler was right". Now, it seems to me that the school would have a vested interest in removing that student from class/the dorm. They aren't saying that the student doesn't have the right to say those things, or that the student can't say them on campus, but they can definitely say that that behavior is incompatible with the standards of the university.

Now here's an incredibly easy one: I'm a TA, and therefor an employee of my university. If I have a student stand up in class and go on a 20 minute pro-Bernie Sanders speech would I have the right to remove him from class, or call the police to do so? Would I have a right to mark him down for interrupting class? Would I be forced to allow him back into class?

[Solio]

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

Golden Girl, from personal experience, I know that not getting into a school that you wanted to go to can be very depressing/ anger making.  There is of course the possibility that you do have a legal claim.  However you will need to speak with an attorney to determine if that is really the case.  That being said, I think you are really grasping at straws here.  

"Being denied a privilege is a punishment in some cultures or families"  This is true, in some cultures or families.  But even in those cultures and families (not to mention a courtroom in the US) it's not a violation of your right to free speech.  At all.  If it were, there would be millions of lawsuits from people saying that because of their finances they are being denied the privilege of driving Benz's, living in mansions, wearing designer clothes, etc. Or others saying they were denied a place on the Lakers because they were 5'0" or a spot on the Olympic Swim Team because they'd never gone swimming.  Are these people being denied something?  Yes.  Is this a violation of their rights? No.  Were you (and thousands upon thousands of others) denied admission to public grad schools?  Yes.  Does this mean that your rights were violated?  Almost certainly not.  Again, please consult a qualified attorney to determine whether or not you have a case.  At the end of the day, we don't always get what we want.  That doesn't mean that someone is at fault.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

the same with a public university, if they reject an applicant for saying something they didn't like or agree with 

First, you are assuming that they are rejecting you for saying something they didn't like or agree with.  To present any sort of believable legal case, you would have to prove that this was the actual reason that they didn't accept you.  You said you didn't feel you had done well in that interview, because they asked you about your essay.  The bottom line is that you didn't do well in that interview (according to what you yourself said).  Did they violate your rights with the questions they asked you?  The first Amendment, the 14th Amendment and Title IX protect certain groups of people under certain circumstances from being discriminated against.  People who get flustered in an interview are not protected by any of those laws.  Unless you get several people from that group to come forward on your behalf, it really just looks like (no matter what the reality is) sour grapes.  Also, they asked you questions about your personal statement, if they had a problem with what you said in your personal statement, they wouldn't invite you to an interview in the first place.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

If schools don't use GRE scores, college transcripts, etc, what would they use?  What, in your eyes, would be a "legitimate reason" to accept or deny someone?  A lottery system?  Because that would be give everyone the exact same chance of getting in.  Everyone gets one slip and then they choose, Hunger Games style.  Is this more legitimate? 

As we established earlier, public universities and grad schools are not required by law to accept everyone.  Not now and not at any point in American history.  As hundreds of thousands of students have experience (myself included), we don't always get in to a school we'd like to go to.  It sucks.  But again, that does not mean your rights were violated.  

Can we agree that schools have finite financial resources?  Can we also agree that in order to provide even a semblance of a quality education, schools need to spend a significant amount of that money?  Can we agree that they don't have enough money to education everyone who wants to be educated there?  Can we agree that they have to put some system in place to decide who gets accepted into the school?  What would you propose changing it with?  

The system is by no means perfect, but again, this doesn't mean your right to freedom of speech was violated.  Were you arrested after the interview?  Were you taken before a court of law and issued a fine/ jail time for what you said in the interview?  Did you experience legal (jail, probation, fines) repercussions for what you said in the interview?  If the answer to these questions is no, then your right to freedom of speech was not violated.  

 

2 hours ago, Golden girl said:

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?

Obviously, public universities are not allowed to violate the rights of applicants.  I'm sorry you didn't get in to this particular school, but based on the facts you have stated, it does not look like your rights were violated.  You were not arrested, fined, jailed, put on probation, or subject to other legal repercussions for what you said in the interview. 

Council of Graduate Schools could be a good resource for you to check out to find out what your legal options are.

Honestly though, I would step back from the situation, acknowledge that you're feeling hurt and angry and let yourself come to terms with those emotions.  Once you've done that, spend some time going over your application and looking for things that you do have control over.  Maybe retake the GRE, take a few classes at a local community college or online, get some more work/ volunteer experience in your related field.  Rewrite your SOP.  These are all things that you have direct control over and would almost certainly be better places to put your time and energy.

Again, I wish you the best in whatever you decide to do.

[Golden girl]

41 minutes ago, bhr said:

You have to be a sockpuppet/fake account/troll. No one considering grad school could be this dumb. Again, THIS IS NOT HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. IT HAS NEVER BEEN HOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT WORKS. If they choose to not admit you because you said something related to your membership in a protected class, than you would have a case, but that has NOT ONE FUCKING THING to do with the first amendment.

 

The first amendment protects you from being silenced by the government (or government agencies). While public schools have generally been held to the standard of allowing all speech on campus, that doesn't mean that they have to be accepting of all speech. A college can definitely choose to expel, for example, a medical student who goes off on a 20 minute rant about the ACA during an interview, or a math student who calls Euclid a queer, or even a political science student who claims Reagan was America's greatest president.

 

Let's give you a different scenario: Assume that a student admitted to the University of College was a Neo Nazi. Now, the school didn't know this from their application for admission, and didn't conduct interview. The student comes to campus the first day and starts screaming "Jews are ruining the University of College," and "Hitler was right". Now, it seems to me that the school would have a vested interest in removing that student from class/the dorm. They aren't saying that the student doesn't have the right to say those things, or that the student can't say them on campus, but they can definitely say that that behavior is incompatible with the standards of the university.

Now here's an incredibly easy one: I'm a TA, and therefor an employee of my university. If I have a student stand up in class and go on a 20 minute pro-Bernie Sanders speech would I have the right to remove him from class, or call the police to do so? Would I have a right to mark him down for interrupting class? Would I be forced to allow him back into class?

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.

[bhr]

3 minutes ago, Golden girl said:

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.

You don't think a political science department has a right to decide what sort of political approaches/beliefs their students have? What if they want to ensure a balance between conservative and progressive students? Or a department can't choose not to admit a student who insults professors? What if a student said "homosexuality is illegal and immoral and I hate all gay people" in an interview, and the department has multiple gay students and professors? What if the student has a swastika tattoo and is interviewing to work with a Jewish PI/Advisor? Can an instructor limit the topics of a paper to a specific area? Can they make students write about an opinion they don't share, or read a book by a faculty member they disagree with? Can they stop a student from sharing pictures of aborted fetuses during class? 

What if the student refuses to be quiet when asked? Is this protected free speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYDL2I6Vdi8

 

Is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLPMFJSKd3c

Guess what, departments can even use factors like race, religion, gender, and sexuality as an admission criteria (under some circumstances). If my department, for example, wants to make sure that 50% of all admissions this year are WoC, because they believe that that group has been underrepresented in the department/field in the past, the courts have generally held that to be legal.

I'm right, you are either a troll or an idiot.

 

[Golden girl]

15 minutes ago, Solio said:

Being denied a privilege is a punishment in some cultures or families"  This is true, in some cultures or families.  But even in those cultures and families (not to mention a courtroom in the US) it's not a violation of your right to free speech.  At all.  If it were, there would be millions of lawsuits from people saying that because of their finances they are being denied the privilege of driving Benz's, living in mansions, wearing designer clothes, etc. Or others saying they were denied a place on the Lakers because they were 5'0" or a spot on the Olympic Swim Team because they'd never gone swimming.  Are these people being denied something?  Yes.  Is this a violation of their rights? No.  Were you (and thousands upon thousands of others) denied admission to public grad schools?  Yes.  Does this mean that your rights were violated?  Almost certainly not.  Again, please consult a qualified attorney to determine whether or not you have a case.  At the end of the day, we don't always get what we want.  That doesn't mean that someone is at fault.  

If you don't have the money to drive a certain car then that has nothing to do with the government or free speech. That is comparing apples to oranges and its not comparable. In fact, it is not even relevant to this conversation at all. I am talking about free speech in regards to govt agencies which includes public universities as well. Rejecting someone from the program because of something they said would be equivalent to expelling someone from school because of something they said. If a student can't be expelled or penalized by the public universities for expressing  their opinions, then the interview should be treated in the same manner and applicants shouldn't be denied entry to school based on what they say in the interview since they should have the same rights and protections as students.

, you are assuming that they are rejecting you for saying something they didn't like or agree with.  To present any sort of believable legal case, you would have to prove that this was the actual reason that they didn't accept you.  You said you didn't feel you had done well in that interview, because they asked you about your essay.  The bottom line is that you didn't do well in that interview (according to what you yourself said).  Did they violate your rights with the questions they asked you?  The first Amendment, the 14th Amendment and Title IX protect certain groups of people under certain circumstances from being discriminated against.  People who get flustered in an interview are not protected by any of those laws.  Unless you get several people from that group to come forward on your behalf, it really just looks like (no matter what the reality is) sour grapes.  Also, they asked you questions about your personal statement, if they had a problem with what you said in your personal statement, they wouldn't invite you to an interview in the first place.  

For the particular interview in question, yes they asked me something personal that I had written in my essay. They did not ask anyone else anything personal so I felt singled out. That was not appropriate at all and could have been discriminatory so you are right in that I should consult with a lawyer about it.

Schools don't use GRE scores, college transcripts, etc, what would they use?  What, in your eyes, would be a "legitimate reason" to accept or deny someone?  A lottery system?  Because that would be give everyone the exact same chance of getting in.  Everyone gets one slip and then they choose, Hunger Games style.  Is this more legitimate? 

I did not say that schools shouldn't use gre/gpa scores score as part of their assessment to determine whether someone would qualify for their program. I said its debatable whether these scores prove competency of an applicant's there are many variables that could prove otherwise I.e. person with low gre scores could be coming from  a disadvantaged background and may not have had the resources to properly prepare for the exam. If schools won't take that into perspective then they may be rejecting a highly qualified student who doesn't do well on standardized testing but would otherwise be a great student. But that is a whole other discussion that we can start another thread to discuss it.

 established earlier, public universities and grad schools are not required by law to accept everyone.  Not now and not at any point in American history.  As hundreds of thousands of students have experience (myself included), we don't always get in to a school we'd like to go to.  It sucks.  But again, that does not mean your rights were violated.  

it's very possible that the rights of other applicants were violated. Just because it happened or it continues to happen doesn't mean that it's ethical or legal nor does it mean that it shouldn't be stopped.

rights e agree that schools have finite financial resources?  Can we also agree that in order to provide even a semblance of a quality education, schools need to spend a significant amount of that money?  Can we agree that they don't have enough money to education everyone who wants to be educated there?  Can we agree that they have to put some system in place to decide who gets accepted into the school?  What would you propose changing it with?  

Yes I can agree that the schools don't have the money to educate everyone but that doesn't give them the right to break any laws or violate the right of applicants.

The system is by no means perfect, but again, this doesn't mean your right to freedom of speech was violated.  Were you arrested after the interview?  Were you taken before a court of law and issued a fine/ jail time for what you said in the interview?  Did you experience legal (jail, probation, fines) repercussions for what you said in the interview?  If the answer to these questions is no, then your right to freedom of speech was not violated.  Seriously, public universities are not allowed to violate the rights of applicants.  I'm sorry you didn't get in to this particular school, but based on the facts you have stated, it does not look like your rights were violated.  You were not arrested, fined, jailed, put on probation, or subject to other legal repercussions for what you said in the interview. 

 

 

I wasn't taken to a court of law or arrested etc. However, I was denied entry to a public school university based on what I said at the interview (which I view as a punishment similar to a student being expelled for expressing his opinions) but wasn't given the due process to defend myself in a similar way that a student would be given. Unless you think that students don't have any rights and if that is the case then there is no need to discuss this further.

Council of Graduate Schools could be a good resource for you to check out to find out what your legal options are.

Honestly though, I would step back from the situation, acknowledge that you're feeling hurt and angry and let yourself come to terms with those emotions.  Once you've done that, spend some time going over your application and looking for things that you do have control over.  Maybe retake the GRE, take a few classes at a local community college or online, get some more work/ volunteer experience in your related field.  Rewrite your SOP.  These are all things that you have direct control over and would almost certainly be better places to put your time and energy.

I have no reason to rewrite my sop or change anything about myself. I am not and was not the problem if the school chose to violate my rights. But you seem to be victim blaming and that is extremely hurtful and offensive

 

[ExponentialDecay]

OP, srsly? 

6 minutes ago, Golden girl said:

I have no reason to rewrite my sop or change anything about myself. I am not and was not the problem if the school chose to violate my rights. But you seem to be victim blaming and that is extremely hurtful and offensive

 

 

[Sketchitar]

If the argument here is that higher education should be like grade school because of federal funding., then you are losing more right than you think you're creating. You would get in every time to a public institution, yes. But here's what you would lose:

Freedoms of speech and expression: grade school can limit what you say, the topics you write papers on, and how you dress

Freedom of assembly: Only school-approved organizations can meet on school property at designated times and in designated places

Freedom of the press: all school news papers are closely monitored, you cannot hang flyers without approval

Unlawful search and seizure: if on school property, you are subject to screening by a drug dog at any time and if they alert on your belongings, they can be searched without your consent

There are grad school interviews for very good reasons. For those getting funding, it is a job interview. For those not it's a chance for the faculty to see more of who you are. It can support a weaker application. It can tank you if you present yourself poorly. Just like a job interview, they are also for students to see if the school is a good for from their perspective. How else are you supposed to find out if a faculty member you have to work with is an ass, or that you don't like any of them enough to work with them?

 

And don't dare call your self a victim Golden Girl. There's no such thing as a free lunch and your are not entitled to anything. You want to get into a school? Beef up your application, do work in the field , learn how to interview properly. But don't for a moment call yourself a victim just because you didn't get what you wanted. You are not a victim. When you call yourself one, you detract from every person out there who suffers from hated and oppression.