Free Speech at interview for graduate school applicants

[RCtheSS]

6 minutes ago, Golden girl said:

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.

Maybe I missed this, but I have to ask: what exactly did you say in the interview that you feel led to the school's decision not to offer you acceptance? Do you know with absolute certainty that the school denied you based on that comment?

I don't understand why you believe that a university, public or private, doesn't have the right to deny an applicant based on an interview. Everyone else in this topic has clearly broken down the legal precedence, or lack thereof, for such an argument.

[iamswwg]

22 minutes ago, Sketchitar said:

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.

Thank you, Sketchitar.

I have been doing some research on this topic but most of the cases have been about grade school. In Tinker vs De Moines Independent School District, the US supreme court stated that  "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".  In other cases, courts agreed that public schools can limit some or certain forms of free speech since grade school students are minors. However, that may not be the case with universities because they are dealing with adults.  In the case of "Doe vs University of Michigan" courts have ruled against speech codes at public university.

I am trying to find more cases regarding free speech on public universities and will post as I find them. If anyone else knows of any relevant cases, please post them as well.

And we shouldn't judge posters who say their rights were violated because it is possible that it happened but if we silent people then there would be no one to fight against it and would defeat the purpose of this thread.

Thank you.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by iamswwg

[Solio]

First off, for future reference for everyone:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Source

 

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

1) Public schools are not government agencies.  They are funded by federal, state, and income taxes, but they are in no way equivalent to actual government agencies (FBI, Post Office, Social Security Administration, etc.) Parks and conservation sites are funded by taxes.  Like public universities, they are not government agencies.  They have to follow constitution law, there are committees/ agencies that oversee them to make sure they are in compliance with the law, for your particular case I would look into the Office for Civil Rights, but the schools/ parks etc. are not government agencies.  

2) Even if they were government agencies (which they are not), they have no obligation to allow you or anyone else to become a student there.  The schools have the right to choose who they want to accept and who they want to reject.  If they did not have this right, then having any sort of admissions system would be illegal.  They would have to allow access to everyone until they reached capacity.  

3) Rejecting someone from a program is not the equivalent of expelling someone from school for a number of reasons.  First, you would first have to prove that the reason you were rejected was because of what you said in your interview.  Second, you would need to prove that this was a violation of your rights protected by Title IX.  Third, even if you could prove that your rights under Title IX were violated, that is still not equivalent to a free speech violation.  

3)Applicants do have the same rights and protections as students.  Those rights do not include being allowed admission to a school.  There is no legal precedent for that.  Anywhere.  (If you can find a case, please tell me as I would love to read about it).  

4) Interviews are part of the admission process.  If they can choose to reject you because of your SOP, your GRE, your GPA, your LOR, or any other acronym for that matter, they can reject you because of how you performed in an interview.  That is not violating your right to free speech.  

 

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

While you may see this as a punishment, there is absolutely no legal precedent to back you up.  Universities have the right to choose who they do and don't accept.  Some schools have appeals processes for people denied admission.  That might be a option to look in to.  As you weren't charged with a crime, or facing legal repercussions for being denied admissions, the school has no obligation to provide you with "due process to defend yourself".  This is reserved for issues in a court of law.  If you go to a lawyer and sue the school, you will be given due process to present your case.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

I'll admit this confuses me.  I am not sure what led you to this conclusion, and I would appreciate if you could point out exactly what it is in my writing that led you to believe that I might not think students have rights.  Not agreeing with your particular viewpoint is not the equivalent of saying that students don't have rights.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

I agree, there is of course the possibility that other applicants had their rights violated.  However, that in no way means that yours were.  

I also believe violation of rights to be unethical and illegal and I agree that they should be stopped.  If you can legally prove your rejection from this university was based on a violation of your rights, it would do applicants everywhere a great service.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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

It is debatable whether or not they prove competency.  I agree with you on that.  But whether or not it proves competency is not the point.  The point is that this is the system in place.  If you feel this system is unfair or discriminatory, get in contact with your local congressperson and your state senator.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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. 

Schools use transcripts, GRE scores, Letters of Recommendation, interviews, SOPs for this exact reason.  To get a balanced overall view of a candidate, recognizing that no two people are the same and that everyone has different life circumstances.  

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 

I'm sorry that you find this hurtful,  but I stand by everything I said.  I politely and respectfully disagree with your point of view and while I tried very hard not to be offensive, I won't censor myself nor do I expect others to censor themselves. . For example, I find that you saying that my suggestion to strengthen your application is equivalent to blaming the victim of sexual abuse, violent crime, racism etc, to be rather inflammatory.  However, you have the right to say it and if I don't like it, I don't have to read it.  

1 hour ago, Golden girl said:

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.

It sucks to feel singled out, but that doesn't mean your rights were violated.  I'm sorry, but it doesn't.  If the interviewer had listened to your answer and then beaten you with a stick because of what you had said, that would be a violation of your rights.  Fines, probation, jail time, etc, would all be violations of your rights.  But not being accepted to a public university is not a violation of your rights, unless you are part of a legally protected group and you can prove discrimination.  

You're right, it could have been discriminatory, and I encourage you to consult legal counsel.  I hope that will clarify the legality of your experience and what your next course of action should be.  

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Solio
grammar error

[Sketchitar]

@iamswwg If a violation of rights happened, then that's wrong. But what has been explained here is that someone thinks the admissions process is unfair. Golden Girl hasn't said they were denied entry because they were (insert race/religion/gender/orientation/anything else). All they say is that someone else on the thread is "victim blaming" but they don't actually explain how they could be a victim or what rights of their were violated. This thread has well established that getting into higher education is not a right--it is a privilege that you have to earn. Viewing higher education as a right is elitist, especially considering the appalling rates of literacy in areas like the Appalachian or your average prison.

If you didn't get in because you had your African American hair natural for the interview, then you're a victim.

If you didn't get in because you're pregnant, your rights have been violated.

If you didn't get in because your same sex partner dropped you off at the interview, then there is a serious problem at that institution.

If you didn't get in because you fumbled an interview or had a low GRE or not stellar letter of recommendation, then you take what you learn from that rejection and use it to strengthen your future applications. 

It's wrong, elitist, and entirely entitled to throw around the term "victim" like ti doesn't mean anything. There are victims of oppression in higher education and if Golden Girl is one then they have a case against the admissions process at that school. But otherwise no. If you did poorly in an interview you are not a victim. You were caught off guard. You had a bad day. The dog ate your notes, you got gum on your shoe, and you missed the bus so you were late. None of that makes you a victim. Being  discriminated against, oppressed, attacked, or otherwise victimized makes you a victim.

[iamswwg]

17 minutes ago, Sketchitar said:

@iamswwg If a violation of rights happened, then that's wrong. But what has been explained here is that someone thinks the admissions process is unfair. Golden Girl hasn't said they were denied entry because they were (insert race/religion/gender/orientation/anything else). All they say is that someone else on the thread is "victim blaming" but they don't actually explain how they could be a victim or what rights of their were violated. This thread has well established that getting into higher education is not a right--it is a privilege that you have to earn. Viewing higher education as a right is elitist, especially considering the appalling rates of literacy in areas like the Appalachian or your average prison.

If you didn't get in because you had your African American hair natural for the interview, then you're a victim.

If you didn't get in because you're pregnant, your rights have been violated.

If you didn't get in because your same sex partner dropped you off at the interview, then there is a serious problem at that institution.

If you didn't get in because you fumbled an interview or had a low GRE or not stellar letter of recommendation, then you take what you learn from that rejection and use it to strengthen your future applications. 

It's wrong, elitist, and entirely entitled to throw around the term "victim" like ti doesn't mean anything. There are victims of oppression in higher education and if Golden Girl is one then they have a case against the admissions process at that school. But otherwise no. If you did poorly in an interview you are not a victim. You were caught off guard. You had a bad day. The dog ate your notes, you got gum on your shoe, and you missed the bus so you were late. None of that makes you a victim. Being  discriminated against, oppressed, attacked, or otherwise victimized makes you a victim.

We don't really know what happened in Golden Girl's situation so how can we possibly judge it and decide if rights have been violated? It is possible that Golden Girl wrote about religion or politics or being undocumented and it made her feel uncomfortable talking about it in a group scenario since it was private and personal. I can understand how someone would become flustered if they are singled out in a group and asked about it but that doesn't seem like a legitimate reason to reject someone. Especially since these are protected categories that are apparently illegal to ask at job interviews so it would only be logical that it would be illegal to ask at school interviews as well. Unfortunately, it seems as though there are no laws regarding school interviews so not sure what to say. Except that the US courts have made it clear that students do not lose their rights to free speech so I would presume that the schools cannot just ask any question they feel like asking.  I will consult with some lawyers and see if I can get any more insight about this topic. 

@Golden girl it would be best if you consult with a lawyer instead of saying anything further on this thread. Perhaps you can update us about it if you feel comfortable.

[iamswwg]

5 hours ago, bhr said:

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.

 

Why would a political science department decide what sort of political ideology is acceptable from students? Is this like a religious school where all students come from the same religion? If not, then why can't students have different opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc? If you are in a public school and you are censoring students and/or rejecting them for having a different opinion than you then yes, you are violating their free speech.

Most of the questions you ask have to do with differences of opinions/ideology and since students at public universities have a right to free speech then these kinds of things will fall under that purview (but I am not a lawyer so this is not legal advice nor do can I answer about students disrupting classes as I do not know if that falls under free speech or not). The question is, why can't you tolerate people who have different opinions/ideology than you? And if you can't tolerate it then why would you work in a public university? 

Here is one case regarding a student refusing to counsel gay people and the university disciplining her for it that I thought may interest you and perhaps answer some of your questions-- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/11/university-and-student-settle-lawsuit-over-requirement-counseling-gay-people

This is another case that may interest you as well, it basically makes it clear that public universities cannot discriminate against students who have different ideologies than administration/, faculty, staff, etc -- http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/22/eastern-michigan-university-will-stop-discriminating-against-pro-life-group/

In regards to the admissions process at your school, do you not accept the most qualified applicants? Do you divide them into categories based on race, religions, gender, political views, etc and then take 50% percent from each group? Or do you rate some people higher than others depending on their race, religion, gender, political views, etc? How exactly does that work in terms of figuring out "good fit" and "competency" if you are basing the admissions process on race, religion, gender, political views, etc and just accepting applicants based on that? 

Edited April 11, 2016 by iamswwg

[TakeruK]

1 hour ago, iamswwg said:

In regards to the admissions process at your school, do you not accept the most qualified applicants? Do you divide them into categories based on race, religions, gender, political views, etc and then take 50% percent from each group? Or do you rate some people higher than others depending on their race, religion, gender, political views, etc? How exactly does that work in terms of figuring out "good fit" and "competency" if you are basing the admissions process on race, religion, gender, political views, etc and just accepting applicants based on that? 

Schools should strive to accept the most qualified people. However, I believe that the metrics we use to measure "qualified" are not fair and thus do not work (i.e. they don't always get us the most qualified people). An analogy would be that what if you are trying to select the fastest marathon runners, but for one population of marathon runners, the timers are off by 2.5 minutes. If you just used the time as measured by the timer, you will not get the fastest runners (i.e. most qualified applicants). This is not a perfect analogy (see below).

So, this is why I think interviews or essays or other aspects of the application are also important and should be considered. Not everyone goes through life in the same way, with the same path and the goal of graduate programs (here, to clarify, I mean funded [i.e. paid like a salary] research-based PhD programs that are resource-limited and there are always more qualified candidates than positions, so the goal is to select the most qualified applicants that will make the best use of available resources in order to achieve the goals of the University and their funding agencies). In this case, I think it's really important to consider all aspects of a person when making an admission decision because using limited metrics can lead to incorrect or sub-optimal decisions. If you value a metric that does not fairly evaluate excellence in all candidates (e.g. that faulty marathon timer) then you are not going to be able to select the best candidates. An example of an existing faulty metric in my field is the Physics Subject GRE score. Many studies now show that this test score is a much better predictor of race and gender than graduate school success (see resolution adopted by our field's national society and references therein: http://aas.org/governance/council-resolutions#GRE).

Now I agree that the timer analogy is not perfect. In the analogy, we know how wrong the timer was, so we can easily make a systematic correction---identify those who have faulty timers and subtract 2.5 minutes from their time! But, in reality, it's a lot harder. We don't know how faulty our metric are and we don't even know if there is a correction possible. But, we do know that the metric is faulty, so we need to do something! One way many graduate schools are already doing in my field is examining the applicant as a whole person instead of just their scores/stats. For example, a 3.7 GPA from a student who worked part-time to support their family during undergrad is different than a 3.7 GPA from someone who did not have to do this. Note that I said "different", not "better", because this is just one "slice" of the each of these fictional candidates (maybe the second person did not have to work because they achieved something else earlier in life that granted them a full ride scholarship etc.).

What I'm getting at is I think if you consider the stats/scores weighted with the person's life experiences, then you will get closer to a fair and accurate metric than if you simply used the scores/stats without context. This is why I think contextual information, especially essays, should play a large role in a fair selection process. I do agree that knowing more information opens the way for unethical committees to discriminate, but I think that academia as a whole, should move towards this model of selection and do a better job of training committees and disciplining unethical committees instead of holding onto the status quo knowing that it's broken.