Student sued for criticising race-segregated computer lab

[Metaphor]

From here

A university student accused of racial discrimination over a Facebook post has amassed a hefty legal bill, which could blow out to $200,000 if the case goes to trial.

Alex Wood is being sued under the Racial Discrimination Act over a 2013 post he wrote after being asked to leave a Queensland University of Technology computer lab reserved for the use of indigenous students.

"Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT is stopping segregation with segregation," he posted on a Facebook page called QUT Stalker Space.

The post attracted comments critical of both the incident and the existence of the indigenous-only space.

"I wonder where the white supremacist lab is," wrote another student, Jackson Powell, who is also being sued.

The third student involved in the lawsuit, Calum Thwaites, has emphatically denied being responsible for a post that included a reference to "ITT N---s" and has produced a volume of evidence supporting his denial.

The trio are being sued, alongside the university and two staff, by the administration officer who asked Mr Wood to leave the room, Cindy Prior.

An indigenous woman, Ms Prior went on sick leave following the incident and reports she felt unsafe leaving her home because she was afraid somebody would say something offensive to her.

She also says she was unable to return to work in a role that required her to have face-to-face contact with white people.

Ms Prior is seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Lawyers for the students have sought to have the case dismissed in the Federal Court, citing a lack of legal basis to contend their clients had breached the act and labelling the lawsuit an abuse of process.

Judge Michael Jarrett has reserved his decision.

It is understood the trio's lawyers have spent several hundred hours defending the action.

A legal source told AAP the costs of defending the proceeding would have already run into tens of thousands of dollars for Mr Wood and could rise to around $200,000 if the case went to trial.

The cumulative bill for the students to defend the case at trial could be more than $500,000.

The trio have also hit out at QUT, claiming they were kept in the dark about Ms Prior's complaint to the Human Rights Commission and, therefore, deprived of having the matter thrown out earlier.

Under the Racial Discrimination Act, complainants must go through a conciliation process before a Federal Court action can be launched and the Human Rights Commission says more than half of all section 18C cases have been resolved at that level.

But the students were not made aware of the complaint until days before a final conference with the commission, despite the matter having been underway for 12 months, and Mr Wood claims a QUT lawyer told him he did not need to attend.

QUT's law firm, Minter Ellison, admits one of its solicitors told Mr Wood his presence was not required but denies she discouraged him from attending.

And on the other side of the coin, there is a question of whether the existence of Indigenous-only computing facilities actually violate the Racial Discrimination Act. Mary Kelly is QUT's director of equity and is one of the people being sued by Prior:

An “annihilation’’ of Aborigines roughly 200 years ago helped to justify an indigenous-only computer lab today, according to a top university executive in a Federal Court racial vilification row embroiling three students.

The Queensland University of Technology’s director of equity, Mary Kelly, has slammed as “nonsense’’ any suggestion that QUT entrenched racial segregation by barring non-indigenous students from its Oodgeroo Unit.

Ms Kelly’s newly sworn affi**davit is a key piece of evidence in a case in which the Racial Discrim*in*ation Act’s section 18C is being invoked by the Oodgeroo Unit’s Cindy Prior, who is seeking $250,0000 in damages from students over their Facebook posts.

After turning students away from the computer lab because they were not indigenous, Ms Prior alleges she has been hurt, humiliated, severely injured and unable to work for more than three years as a result of the Facebook posts.

The students deny racial hatred* and say they were exercising their right to free speech. The university rejects claims that the Oodgeroo Unit, a “culturally safe space’’, encourages racial division.

“These facilities are provided on a limited basis to those who have a particular need for the *support,’’ said Ms Kelly in the affidavit inspected by The Weekend Australian.

“I would not expect to see a male or non-breastfeeding woman in the private room set aside for breastfeeding, unless by invitation, and nor would I expect to see non-religious students in the prayer room.

“For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is a particular and specific historical dimension arising from the colonisation of Australia without a treaty, resulting in the differential and negative treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders since that time.

“Aspects of the differential and negative treatment include the dispossession of indigenous people from their land, policies or practices of annihilation and assimil*ation, the forced relocation of groups, the forced removal of children from their families and the use of indigenous labour without payment or proper payment.

“Thus, having a culturally safe space for indigenous students … is considered to be an important eleme*nt.”

Ms Kelly did not believe she had said to Ms Prior that it was “very clear they were not racist’’, in reference to the students and their Facebook posts, because “this does not reflect the view I felt at the time, nor my views now’’.

“At no time during the meeting did I disparage Ms Prior’s fears (of the return of an organised group of white students who could be viol*ent),’’ she said. “Rather, I was attempting to convey my genuinely held belief that there was no evidence of an organised white supremac*ist group on campus.

“I was trying to comfort Ms Prior in this regard.”

Ms Kelly’s affidavit confirms it is “well within the rights of the (Oodgeroo) Unit to ensure the faciliti*es are only used by indigenous students”, but adds that “it is nonsense” to suggest this is a race-based form of segregation.

“Indigenous students are not required to utilise only the Oodgeroo Unit facilities and nor is the unit intended to provide a complete university experience. In my view, the unit does not create ‘segregation’ on the basis of race any more than chaplaincy services separate faith-based students from non-religious students.”

The affidavits filed by Ms Kelly and the unit’s director, professor Anita Lee Hong, show how QUT called on a wide range of professional resources and expert help to try to resolve the concerns of Ms Prior that a “Ku Klux Klan-style’’ bloc of white students was ranged against her.

They also disclose that Ms Prior, an administration officer, had been moved from a previous role in the university because of her complaints of bullying.

The students, who are being accused under section 18C, told the Federal Circuit Court they replied* with innocuous Facebook posts after being abruptly turned away by Ms Prior from a comput*er lab they did not know was off-limits to whites.

Judge Michael Jarrett, who has been hearing the matter, intends to rule on the students’ arguments that they have no case to answer, not constitutionality questions about the legitimacy of 18C as a barrier to free speech.

A compulsory mediation is set down for next week.

 

[JonA]

From here

... she felt unsafe leaving her home because she was afraid somebody would say something offensive to her.

:laughing-smiley-014

Trigger warning! Trigger warning! REALITY EXISTS!

She also says she was unable to return to work in a role that required her to have face-to-face contact with white people.

:laughing-smiley-014

Danger! Danger! Light skin ahead! Danger!

And on the other side of the coin, there is a question of whether the existence of Indigenous-only computing facilities actually violate the Racial Discrimination Act. Mary Kelly is QUT's director of equity and is one of the people being sued by Prior:

An “annihilation’’ of Aborigines roughly 200 years ago helped to justify an indigenous-only computer lab today, according to a top university executive in a Federal Court racial vilification row embroiling three students.

The Queensland University of Technology’s director of equity, Mary Kelly, has slammed as “nonsense’’ any suggestion that QUT entrenched racial segregation by barring non-indigenous students from its Oodgeroo Unit.

Ms Kelly’s newly sworn affi**davit is a key piece of evidence in a case in which the Racial Discrim*in*ation Act’s section 18C is being invoked by the Oodgeroo Unit’s Cindy Prior, who is seeking $250,0000 in damages from students over their Facebook posts.

After turning students away from the computer lab because they were not indigenous, Ms Prior alleges she has been hurt, humiliated, severely injured and unable to work for more than three years as a result of the Facebook posts.

The students deny racial hatred* and say they were exercising their right to free speech. The university rejects claims that the Oodgeroo Unit, a “culturally safe space’’, encourages racial division.
...

“Thus, having a culturally safe space for indigenous students … is considered to be an important eleme*nt.”

Safe spaces and reality trigger warnings. Your country's Left truly is pathetic.

 

[Trausti]

Next they can have aboriginal-only water fountains, or pool days, or even schools. You might call the policy, "separate but equal." Ah, progress.

 

[fast]

So, those kicked out didn't initiate any legal proceedings; instead, those kicked out are being sued; furthermore, what they're being sued for is for what they said online, but what they said online was extremely mild and not sue-worthy, yet there ya have it--along with six digit attorney fees.

And the responsible ones say we shouldn't take the law into our own hands.

 

[JonA]

Next they can have aboriginal-only water fountains, or pool days, or even schools. You might call the policy, "separate but equal." Ah, progress.

As long as the Aborigines aren't restricted to using just those water fountains it won't be discrimination, though.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's really their own fault. Being born white is a choice that one makes and the only reason anybody would make that choice is because they're a rapist. It's not out of line to not want people trying to rape you in your computer lab.

 

[laughing dog]

What basis does the Racial Discrimination Act give Ms. Prior the grounds to sue the students or the university administration?

 

[fast]

Well, it's really their own fault. Being born white is a choice that one makes and the only reason anybody would make that choice is because they're a rapist. It's not out of line to not want people trying to rape you in your computer lab.

Liking spaghetti is a choice, but it's not obvious.

 

[Metaphor]

What basis does the Racial Discrimination Act give Ms. Prior the grounds to sue the students or the university administration?

The action is being taken under the (controversial) Section 18c

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The 'act' of the student was the Facebook post.

It's less clear what the 'act' of one of the other people being sued is (the director of equity) because Kelly's action (private emails) would surely fail to qualify as being 'in public'.

The student's act appears like it should definitely fail (b) above, since the complaint was about segregation, not the race of the person enforcing the segregation.

I can't speak to whether it would satisfy (a) above because some people might be "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" very easily, but on the other hand, is it reasonable to cater to the lowest level of being thin-skinned?

Section 18c has been debated for repeal but the repeal failed. Then a watered down version (which would have struck out 'offended' and 'insulted' but left in 'humiliated' and 'intimidated') also failed.

 

[Arctish]

So, those kicked out didn't initiate any legal proceedings; instead, those kicked out are being sued; furthermore, what they're being sued for is for what they said online, but what they said online was extremely mild and not sue-worthy, yet there ya have it--along with six digit attorney fees.

And the responsible ones say we shouldn't take the law into our own hands.

Right. Which is why some folks are focusing their mockery on a woman who feels unsafe, not on the administration officer who filed the lawsuit, the law that allows a school to punish a student for a Facebook post, or the lack of legal protections for speech in Australia. Because, you know, priorities.

 

[fast]

So, those kicked out didn't initiate any legal proceedings; instead, those kicked out are being sued; furthermore, what they're being sued for is for what they said online, but what they said online was extremely mild and not sue-worthy, yet there ya have it--along with six digit attorney fees.

And the responsible ones say we shouldn't take the law into our own hands.

Right. Which is why some folks are focusing their mockery on a woman who feels unsafe, not on the administration officer who filed the lawsuit, the law that allows a school to punish a student for a Facebook post, or the lack of legal protections for speech in Australia. Because, you know, priorities.

That feeling was just so ridiculously stupid that I made the assumption it was all about money.

 

[Metaphor]

Right. Which is why some folks are focusing their mockery on a woman who feels unsafe, not on the administration officer who filed the lawsuit, the law that allows a school to punish a student for a Facebook post, or the lack of legal protections for speech in Australia. Because, you know, priorities.

The woman who 'feels unsafe' is the person who filed the lawsuit.

 

[Toni]

Right. Which is why some folks are focusing their mockery on a woman who feels unsafe, not on the administration officer who filed the lawsuit, the law that allows a school to punish a student for a Facebook post, or the lack of legal protections for speech in Australia. Because, you know, priorities.

The woman who 'feels unsafe' is the person who filed the lawsuit.

And she is an administration officer.

From your link.

The trio are being sued, alongside the university and two staff, by the administration officer who asked Mr Wood to leave the room, Cindy Prior.

An indigenous woman, Ms Prior went on sick leave following the incident and reports she felt unsafe leaving her home because she was afraid somebody would say something offensive to her.

She also says she was unable to return to work in a role that required her to have face-to-face contact with white people.

This is really just a side question to you, Metaphor, but I have noticed that all of the threads you start about various injustices are about women or women somehow being favored over men, even when it seems to me that the women aren't being 'favored' but patronized and stereotyped (see the car park thread.)

What's up with that?

 

[Arctish]

Right. Which is why some folks are focusing their mockery on a woman who feels unsafe, not on the administration officer who filed the lawsuit, the law that allows a school to punish a student for a Facebook post, or the lack of legal protections for speech in Australia. Because, you know, priorities.

The woman who 'feels unsafe' is the person who filed the lawsuit.

Ah, you're right. I missed that on the first read-through. But reading it again and doing a little research has led to a clearer picture.

The University has space set aside for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Three students attempted to use one of the set-aside labs. Ms Prior asked them if they were "indigenous". She told them they were in a computer lab set aside for aboriginal students and that there were other computer labs they could use.

One of the students then complained on a university Facebook page. He wrote: “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.” That led to a fair amount of feedback and discussion, some of which employed racially charged terms and was clearly offensive.

Ms. Prior went on sick leave following the incident and reported she felt unsafe leaving her home. She fears encountering whites who may say offensive things to her. She is suing the white student who started the chain of Facebook posts, 2 other students who participated, and 2 University staff she accuses of contributing to the harm she allegedly experienced.

This information comes from here, here, here, and here.

I think Australia needs to do a better job of protecting free speech. I also think we all need to come to grips with the dark side of social media. Facebook, Twitter, and similar shared sites make it extremely easy to rile up a mob or trash a person's reputation overnight.

I think it's a mistake to belittle the distress people feel when they become targets on social media. It can be genuinely life-changing. That doesn't mean I think the students should be punished in some way. But if Ms. Prior was upholding University policy (as she should), and the University can set aside space for indigenous students (as apparently it can), then personal attacks on Ms. Prior are out of line, and the racist ones should be censured.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... I also think we all need to come to grips with the dark side of social media. Facebook, Twitter, and similar shared sites make it extremely easy to rile up a mob or trash a person's reputation overnight.

I think it's a mistake to belittle the distress people feel when they become targets on social media. It can be genuinely life-changing. ...

There's a new show in the syfy channel called "The Internet Ruined My Life" which is exactly about this topic.

http://www.syfy.com/theinternetruinedmylife/about
The Internet Ruined My Life exposes the unexpected perils of living in a social media obsessed world. Each half-hour explores what happens to a person when a single tweet, post, or status update backfires and spirals out of control. Told through first person accounts, this series takes stories ripped-from-the-headlines and reveals how people just like you and me inadvertently ruin their lives in one key stroke.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Next they can have aboriginal-only water fountains, or pool days, or even schools. You might call the policy, "separate but equal." Ah, progress.

As long as the Aborigines aren't restricted to using just those water fountains it won't be discrimination, though.

Yes, it is--it's discrimination against non-aboriginals.

- - - Updated - - -

The action is being taken under the (controversial) Section 18c

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The 'act' of the student was the Facebook post.

It's less clear what the 'act' of one of the other people being sued is (the director of equity) because Kelly's action (private emails) would surely fail to qualify as being 'in public'.

The student's act appears like it should definitely fail (b) above, since the complaint was about segregation, not the race of the person enforcing the segregation.

I can't speak to whether it would satisfy (a) above because some people might be "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" very easily, but on the other hand, is it reasonable to cater to the lowest level of being thin-skinned?

Section 18c has been debated for repeal but the repeal failed. Then a watered down version (which would have struck out 'offended' and 'insulted' but left in 'humiliated' and 'intimidated') also failed.

Yeah, it certainly sounds like he's being sued for mentioning an unreasonable situation.

 

[JonA]

Do we have all the FB posts to read?

 

[Derec]

Yes, it is--it's discrimination against non-aboriginals.

Kind of like our SJWs maintain that "blacks can't be racist" I am sure Aussie SJWs think "discrimination against non-aboriginals" is likewise impossible.

I hope they win and get legal fees awarded to them. I also hope this case results in this stupid law being changed and for the university to integrate all computer labs.

 

[laughing dog]

The action is being taken under the (controversial) Section 18c

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

The 'act' of the student was the Facebook post.

It's less clear what the 'act' of one of the other people being sued is (the director of equity) because Kelly's action (private emails) would surely fail to qualify as being 'in public'.

The student's act appears like it should definitely fail (b) above, since the complaint was about segregation, not the race of the person enforcing the segregation.

I can't speak to whether it would satisfy (a) above because some people might be "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated" very easily, but on the other hand, is it reasonable to cater to the lowest level of being thin-skinned?

Section 18c has been debated for repeal but the repeal failed. Then a watered down version (which would have struck out 'offended' and 'insulted' but left in 'humiliated' and 'intimidated') also failed.

Seems to me that " the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" makes it seem unlikely that the plaintiff will prevail. I would hope the judge uses his authority to order that the plaintiff cover the costs of the defendant if the judge has that authority.

 

[Metaphor]

And she is an administration officer.

I know that. Arctish wrote a sentence that implied they were different people and I corrected the mistake.

This is really just a side question to you, Metaphor, but I have noticed that all of the threads you start about various injustices are about women or women somehow being favored over men, even when it seems to me that the women aren't being 'favored' but patronized and stereotyped (see the car park thread.)

What's up with that?

This thread is not about women. You would not need to know the gender of any of the players in the student computer lab story to understand it. Indeed, most of my recent threads have been about 'cultural appropriation', not 'women'.

But I'll tell you what: next time I see a story where the State or a private business has discriminated 'in favour' of males, I will make an especial effort to post it. If you see one, you should post it, also.