UPR v. Laborde dice que no hay derecho a la huelga estudiantil

TS dice que no hay derecho a huelga estudiantil

Short version: Meh.

Long version: Después de leer el caso, siento que la mayoritaría esta bastante bien decidida a pesar del chanchullo procesal, y que las disidentes, aunque traen buenos plantamientos, son románticos y apelan más a los sentimientos que otra cosa.

La minoritaria cuestiona que se limite la palabra huelga solamente a los obreros. Pero eso es una distracción semántica, porque se puede eliminaer toda las referencias a que es o que no es huelga, y permanecen dos problemas centrales:

1. que pasa cuando un grupo de estudiantes quieren (insert term here) y paraliza la universidad, cuando hay otros estudiantes que si quieren estudiar
2. Que puede hacer la administración sobre el asunto

Eugenio cuestiona lo siguiente:

Aunque los estudiantes no tienen derehco a huelga, si pueden protestar de manera organizada y coordinada, siempre q...ue no incumpaln los deberes que asumieron como estudiantes y que están en el Reglamento de Estudiantes, y siempre que no interfieran impermisiblemente con la normalidad de las tareas universitarias y los derechos de aquellos que no piensan como ellos y que quieren asistir a clase". Id, p. 71

Eugenio: “Ese último párrafo como que empezó bien y se estrelló con la vaguedad de "no interfieran impermisiblemente con la normalidad de las tareas universitarias”

El TS cita a Tinker v. Des Moines (que estableció en Tinker standard), que dice “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would ‘materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,’ the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, 363 F.2d at 749.

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509, 89 S. Ct. 733, 738, 21 L. Ed. 2D 731 (1969)”

Que seria la normalidad en tareas universitarias? El TS no lo cita, pero Burnside v. Byers sugiere lo siguiente:

“But the liberty of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment can be abridged by state officials if their protection of legitimate state interests necessitates an invasion of free speech. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137, 1153; Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357, 376, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095, 1106. The interest of the state in maintaining an educational system is a compelling one, giving rise to a balancing of First Amendment rights with the duty of the state to further and protect the public school system. The establishment of an educational program requires the formulation of rules and regulations necessary for the maintenance of an orderly program of classroom learning. In formulating regulations, including those pertaining to the discipline of school children, school officials have a wide latitude of discretion. But the school is always bound by the requirement that the rules and regulations must be reasonable. It is not for us to consider whether such rules are wise or expedient but merely whether they are a reasonable exercise of the power and discretion of the school authorities.

Regulations which are essential in maintaining order and discipline on school property are reasonable. Thus school rules which assign students to a particular class, forbid unnecessary discussion in the classroom and prohibit the exchange of conversation between students are reasonable even though these regulations infringe on such basic rights as freedom of speech and association, because they are necessary for the orderly presentation of classroom activities. Therefore, a reasonable regulation is one which measurably contributes to the maintenance of order and decorum within the educational system.

Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1966)”

En cuanto a la vaguedad, existe Cady v. S. Suburban, que habla de cuando hay vaguedad y la regulación se va “overboard.”

“In Counts 32 and 33, Mr. Cady suggests that SSC's Student Code of Conduct imposes an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of speech and is “void for vagueness.” A rule or regulation can be facially unconstitutional if it is overbroad (that is, it forbids constitutionally protected conduct) or if it is so vague that ordinary people cannot understand what conduct is prohibited and non-arbitrary enforcement is impossible. Fuller v. Decatur Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. 61, 251 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir.2001). The complained-of regulations pass these tests. Mr. Cady objects to language in the Code of Conduct which prohibits “activity which endangers personal mental or physical health ... of any person” and the use of “abusive language toward members of the College community.” Because of a school's need to be able to impose discipline for a wide variety of unanticipated conduct that may disrupt the educational process, “school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions.” Id. at 667. Any ordinary, reasonable person could understand the SSC code, and it prohibits no protected speech.

Cady v. S. Suburban Coll., 310 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 2004) aff'd as modified, 152 F. App'x. 531 (7th Cir. 2005)”

Si la administración quiere hacerle la vida imposible a los estudiantes, armas no le faltan. La minoritaria critica la teroria de “free speech zone” por designación, y si yo quisiera apelar esto en el foro federal, me iría por allí. Sin embargo, por lo poco que leído, eso es cuesta arriba porque en lo que he encontrado, solamente se cuestiona la implementación y no la teoría como tal.


ADDENDUM: Luego de leer un poco más, you CAN beat them in their own game. Claro, para eso se necesita coger las cosas con calma, respirar profundo y escuchar el argumento de la otra parte, ponerse en sus zapatos y aceptarlo como un worthy oponent. Pero es más fácil tomar una pandereta y hacer que la prensa te coga pena.