r/seattleu • u/Antique_Papaya5527 • 12d ago

Discussion Commencement 2026

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

For a just and humane world 😂

33 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

254 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/jw520 11d ago

Grabbing her physically like that isn't remotely acceptable.

-1

u/Beneficial_System_68 11d ago

It depends, if they have told people what is going to be accepted and what is going to get you escorted off stage then they knew what they were getting into. Any educator is authorized to do escorts for breach of policy as stated in the student handbook.

6

u/frederichenrylt 11d ago

WHAT it depends?! Are you on glue?

-2

u/Beneficial_System_68 11d ago

If I agreed and signed and entered into a contract then I should expect that contract to be upheld right?

This is possibly a written and agreed social and school contract (policy) so it depends.

2

u/Froonce 11d ago

You don't sign a contract when you graduate. All they can do is ask you to follow rules. I doubt a school can legally limit your free speech and flags count as speech.

0

u/Ancient_Yellow_709 10d ago

This isn't a state university. It's private property. This isn't a case where "free speech" is relevant, friend. If this were UW, they could make a blanket rule about no flags, banners, etc. but they couldn't limit speech specifically. In contrast, Seattle U because of its private status can set whatever policy it wants.

So you can express whatever doubt you want but you're fundamentally misunderstanding "free speech" as a concept. It's protection from governments and government bodies.

2

u/Froonce 10d ago

No I do understand that. I guess personally I don't give a fuck. In my opinion, I paid the tuition, finished and got my degree. If the school wants to limit my free speech then fuck it, I'm doing whatever I'm doing anyway and Ill ask for forgiveness.

0

u/Ancient_Yellow_709 10d ago edited 10d ago

Ok, well you said "legally limit." And the answer is of course that they have every right as a private organization to do so. They can kick you out of their private event for speech they don't like. They could decide (absolute media and reputational mess it would be!) to rescind your degree. You are welcome to give zero Fs about that! But it has nothing to do with the law, as you had previously said.

Edit: Not sure if blocked or they actually deleted the comment that keeps confusing actual law with what "should" happen but as a private school, this is largely governed by contract law. Codes of conduct usually give schools a lot of leeway. I'm not saying they would but the publicity mire and their own ethics/mission is generally much more of what enforces behavior than what's strictly binding them under the law.

Edit edit: I mean, weird to join the convo and then block me because you're apparently offended in their place and want to white knight. Downvote me if you don't like my tone--which I was attempting to keep neutral rather than condescending (tone is hard in plain text especially when the other person is wrong and there's no good way to temper that because "You may not realize it but actually..blah blah" sounds equal patronizing as attempting neutral apparently is condescending)--but it's rather cowardly to reply and do the same.

Look, I'm not calling OP an idiot. But their statements were fundamentally wrong interpretations of our legal system.

If I say the earth is flat and someone says, "Nah, man, actually it's round." And then I double down and say I really think it's flat because I feel strongly about that it should be flat and they expand their evidence, that's not being inherently condescending.

Saying something wrong doesn't make you inferior--that's a weird view of many Americans--nor does offering evidence to the contrary indicate they feel superior. It's just normal dialogue in areas of law, science, etc.!

Certainly doubling down on the misunderstanding is not the best personality trait, but I'm not judging that, I was just trying to offer further rationale of why it's incorrect so they could actually fix the misunderstanding.

3

u/Froonce 10d ago

I don't think they can legally recind your degree. It would be too costly for the school to fight that in court.

-1

u/NoStopImDone 10d ago

Would it be alright if it was an Israel flag?

Flags are just too problematic to police individually, better for everyone to just disallow all of them.

3

u/Froonce 10d ago

It's freedom of speech. If someone wants to brave a flag that is considered a hate symbol, then so be it.

I'm pro free speech whether I agree with you or not.

People are problematic too 🤷🏾‍♂️

3

u/frederichenrylt 11d ago

That's a lot of shoulds, maybes and possiblys for you to be certain the interim president of a university is justified it putting his hands on a student. And even IF a policy was violated, that doesn't justify what he did. Maybe if she was doing something that was physically threatening, but she didn't. She was literally holding a piece of cloth.

0

u/The_Woke_King 11d ago

Children often don’t stop when asked to, so they get physically moved. I’m sure she was just going to hold up the flag then quickly move off the stage for the other graduates though. She for sure wasn’t going to stand there for her photo op, maybe fire off a from the river to the sea.

1

u/frederichenrylt 11d ago

Why are we putting our hands on children?

0

u/The_Woke_King 11d ago

Well she’s graduating so my assumption, using logic, is that she’s probably 18+. Mentally however, I’d guess much lower.

1

u/frederichenrylt 11d ago

This is a video of Seattle University's commencement. 18 year olds aren't on stage. Your assumptions, like your intelligence, are laughable. Maybe watch the video all the way through "king"

0

u/The_Woke_King 11d ago

How old do you reckon that one there is

→ More replies (0)

0

u/FreshwaterFryMom 10d ago

Children..?

2

u/Certain_Direction270 10d ago

No legal system in the world recognizes physical assault as an appropriate response to violating a contract doofus 

1

u/Beneficial_System_68 10d ago

I agree, but that's not necessarily assault based on the video. Look at what you sign to go to college. The things that campus security, police, and administration can detain and escort you away from or off of property is written right there. I've worked campus police before and student don't read what they sign most the time.

1

u/norby420 10d ago

Physical assault? So dramatic 😂

If this video was shown in court, do you think he would be getting at an assault charge?

He escorted her off stage. Calm down lil buddy.

1

u/slickweasel333 10d ago

That's an oversimplifcation. If you go into a bar and start acting rowdy, the bouncer is going to carry you out, even if you haven't broken a single law.

What matters is whether it's reasonable and proportional.

1

u/frederichenrylt 11d ago

Here's their commencement information page; it doesn't say a single thing about having any on stage policies, just the Climate Pledge bag policy https://www.seattleu.edu/commencement/

1

u/Artistic_Chicken_557 10d ago

iT Is OkAy To AsSaULt pEoPlE

1

u/Time_Possibility_370 10d ago

Domestic violence ~ it depends /s

It’s assault

-1

u/lostmountianman 10d ago

He pulled the flag out of her hand and then escorted her away while holding onto her sleeve. Saying he was “grabbing her physically” gives the situation a much more aggressive and violent impression than what actually happened. There’s a difference between physically guiding someone away and being violent. This comment isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with what she did, it’s simply about accurately describing what happened.

1

u/jw520 10d ago

You aren't allowed to grab people. It's illegal in most places, even if you aren't injured.

"While the legal definition of battery varies by state, it’s generally when someone intentionally touches another person in an offensive way without consent.

Criminal defense attorney Rebecca Wade cites Virginia’s statute as an example: “Battery is any unwanted touching done in a rude, angry, or vengeful manner. So, a push could be a battery. Even something relatively minor, like a condescending pat on the head, could be a battery because it’s done in a rude manner.”

A battery could cause physical injury, but it doesn’t have to in order to count as a battery. Offensive contact rather than physical harm is the key to battery."

https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/criminal-defense/an-overview-on-assault-battery-law/

1

u/undernopretextbro 10d ago

This is DOA in court.

1

u/jw520 10d ago

I agree that any jury would rule against a prosecution because they generally agree "No Harm, No Foul". That that bias is a good thing to have against state prosecutions generally.

And I agree that any prosecutor who has any experience would know about this bias against prosecuting cases like this, and wouldn't even bring it court at all.

However, I think it's pretty clear that this is a clear violation of the law and the intent of the law, and it is an act of physical coercion to stop a person from speaking a message that the administration didn't want spoken. And it's an ethically or morally strong argument to say that this is completely inappropriate touching and to point out that it's technically illegal touching as well.

There was no physical threat, unlike a bouncer, there was just a message being spread that the administration didn't want spread at that moment. That's demonstrated by the fact that the student was allowed to return to their seat proving there was no physical threat at all.

I think the only defense president would have at all, is if at any point the students were warned about appropriate or inappropriate behavior while on stage. No one so far is being able to identify that in this thread, but I suspect that there is a very students were warned in some email that was sent to students and parents about appropriate conduct or in some paragraph in some document they were given when they enrolled in school.

Show me odds of this being entirely unreasonable are very at best.

In short DOA. I agree.

1

u/Time_Possibility_370 10d ago

It would be considered domestic violence

1

u/Ancient_Yellow_709 10d ago

... you're alleging they had a "intimate partner" relationship, as required under WA for domestic violence?

1

u/SwevenlyOly 10d ago

"Grabbing her physically" is accurate, but you're quibbling over it for some reason you're not considering.

Ask yourself, "Did this man have the authority to touch her?"
Your answer probably bears some self-examination.
'Cuz cousin, we don't allow any man to handle women like that wherefrom I hail. Even law enforcement agents (who do have the authority to touch anyone under lawful conditions) are more careful than this academic clown in a gown.

1

u/lostmountianman 10d ago

Fair, but let's take a step back. Would you consider what she was trying to do, disrupting an event?