OT: Two OU Students in SAE Fraternity Expelled
Just saw in the Chicago Trib that (LINK) two fraternity students were expelled for their role in the racist chant at OU. Those of you who are interested have already been following the story. University of Oklahoma president Boren indicated that this was not the end of sanctions.
I still am waiting to see what happens with the Michigan Sammie episode at Treetops in January. I know the amount of estimated damages has quadrupled, and is yet to reach a final determination. I also am curious what the University will do regarding individual students.
Both the racist chants at OU and the property destruction by UofM fraternity students, have caused me to reflect on my time in a fraternity at Michigan. Especially being a house with roots in the south (albeit founded after the Civil War.) Did my fraternity have racist chants or wanton destruction of property?
As for racism, I know that we had guys in the house who were Jewish, Asian, and Indian. I don't remember any African-American men, but there were no stipulations against them. We didn't have any race specific fraternity songs or chants. As far as property destruction goes, most damage was internal (trashed house after parties.) I had other problems with the fraternity rituals, but none regarding race. I'm curious about the experience of others who were in fraternities, whether at Michigan or elsewhere. Was there anything which upon reflection, you regret, in terms of going along with something that was just wrong?
I agree with the President kicking the frat off of campus, but expelling someone over a grainy video of them singing a song doesn't seem legal. I'm sure the President knows that he can't actually expel the students for this, but there's no way they'll want to come back to school anyways even after a legal fight.
The students could likely win a challenge to their expulsions if the expulsions were based solely on what they said. Whether they could be expelled if OU could show that they didn't allow would-be members of the fraternity to join because they were African American (this being an action rather than speech) is another story. I believe a school could make a rule against segregation in fraternities and then expel someone for violating that rule. At least one federal court has allowed a school to demand that fraternities could not be male-only.
But this is not legal advice. I am a lemur chained to a computer.
what is segregation in fraternities? Does that mean certain members would have to sit or eat in a different section of the frat house?
I was thinking of segregation in terms of admissions, i.e., only allowing in people from a certain group or groups. But I suppose - depending on a given school's rules - that it could include other behavior. You could imagine a fraternity running afoul of an anti-discrimination rule if non-whites were explicitly excluded from leadership positions, for example.
What are grounds for expulsion? I mean, this just seems completely unacceptable to me. It is beyond comprehension to me that someone could sing this, or believe this. If this doesn't warrant expulsion, what does? It isn't criminal: people have the right to say or sing what they want. But it would seem to me that the bar is lower, so to speak, for a University. I would think they can choose to expel whoever they want for any number of reasons.
Free Speech in a private setting. And given the audience it isn't hate speech.
The frat being assiciated with the university is a privilege so they obviously have no valid defense.
I've not seen a definition of hate speech that includes the audience as a criterion.
EDIT: and actually, you're saying the intended audience is part of the criteria. Obviously, the video has a national audience now.
Now you're just trolling.
In what way? How is this not hate speech?
It certainly is hate speech, but that question is entirely irrelevant to the expulsion's legality. In the United States, there is no recognized legal category called "hate speech" (though of course the category is the subject of many academic and journalistic debates). There are exceptions to the First Amendment, but there is no "hate speech" exception. Racist speech is constitutionally protected in the United States (This is not the case in Europe or Canada). A public university in the United States may not expel students solely for their speech. For those who are interested in the relevant legal issues, this article is by a constitutional law professor at UCLA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a…
Erik has it exactly right. The university may create an anti-discrimination rule regarding fraternity admission and then punish students for violating the rule, but it may not punish them for their speech, not even implicitly. This means that the punishment for violating the anti-discrimination rule must be in line with other punishments of similar infractions. If it isn't, that would be viewed by the courts as an attempt to penalize the students for their speech, which is illegal.
Considering the statement released by the Oklahoma University president, I don't think there is much doubt that these students were expelled for their speech. If they sue, they will very likely win.
I never once mentioned or challenged his position on the expulsion. I think it would be sticky for OU and irrespective of the students, the ACLU may take a hard look at it.
I did challenge his statement that it wasn't hate speech apparently because it was in private and because the audience was white and unthreatened or offended (my inferences). It is clearly hate speech.
I stand corrected.
You were still trolling.
Its not trolling. Its important to acknowledge it as hate speech. You were trying to make it part of your point. You were wrong. It's also important to acknowledge that hate speech is protected and OU may be on shaky ground. It was important for you to point out it wasn't hate speech, and it's perfectly legit to correct that point. This is called discourse, not trolling.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
He's not trolling. Not sure how you could argue that the song was not hate speech. Seems quite obvious that it was. Or are you being sarcastic?
and dissapointed in both the comment (that somehow this clearly racist song targetting a particular group is not "hate speech") and the up votes it's getting (assuming the upvotes = agreement here). Can somebody explain to me why they believe this textbook example of hate speech is not actually hate speech? Common sense definition of hate speech, no question about it. ABA definition of hate speech, same applies:
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
You are correct. It is hate speech. See my post above. Short version: it is hate speech but hate speech is still constitutionally protected in the United States.
Not disagreeing, whether it meets any definition of "hate speech" it was awful and is awful and they should feel awful, etc.
For philosophical discussion purposes only, in order for speech to "offend, threaten, or insult" a protected group of people, does there need to be intent on the part of the person speaking or for someone from that protected group be part of the audience? Put another way, because this occurred in a setting where (for argument's sake) all participants/attendants were not offended/threatened/insulted and/or part of a protected group, and the singers knew this, could it be argued that this can't be hate speech? Or, due to the video being taken and it being leaked, must one assume the maximum amount of exposure for one's words when determingin whether what they say could be construed as hate speech?
Doesn't really matter, I guess, since it's universaly regarded as disgusting, but interesting debate nonetheless.
Not sure of that. I get that legally, they didn't do anything "criminal," because of free speech laws. However, can't the University have different standards, and expect not just what is "legal," but what fits their speech code? People can say all kinds of heinous things (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) But it seems to me that this could be grounds for dismissal. Well, at the end of the day, I don't know, and as said in the thread, I can't imagine expelled students wanting to "sue" OU or to bring this up publicly.
One thing for sure: with camera phones and video, I would hope the current generation understands they can be held accountable for anything they say and do.
Regarding First Amendment issues, a public university is considered a government institution. It may not restrict speech in a way that would be unconstitutional if done by any other government body. This would be different if we were talking about a private university.
This of course also means that a university's speech codes must be in line with First Amendment law. Recently there has been a trend towards more restrictive speech codes and some codes that have been challenged in court have been declared unconstitutional.
They'll sue to clear their records.It's a pretty open and shut case against the University.
It is definitely hate speech but not fighting words. There is a legal distinction.
Just want to comment that people really shouldn't be negging Nacho Man. He is making an arguably correct statement that the First Amendment prohibits the University of Oklahoma -- a government entity -- from punishing students for private (reprehensible) speech. He is not defending the conduct of the racist assholes.
In this case, the law is on the side of the guys everyone wants to see kicked in the nards.
Just thirding this very important point. What they said was repugnant, but a government entity cannot - and should not be able to - act against a person based on what he said.
Voltaire gets credit for saying (though he probably wasn't the one who said it, at least not originally), "I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
That's a very important point, I think. We have a long and glorious history in this country of protecting the minority- and that protection extends even to, especially to, minorities with whom we disagree (like these SAE disgusting racists).
Hate speech is hate speech, no matter who is watching. It is on a different level than vandalism. How on earth could a group of people sing something like that at an institution of "higher education?"
I am guessing the students who got kicked out should "let sleeping dogs lie." A lawsuit could open them up to other consequences for their behavior.
Isn't part of fostering diversity of thought having all people even be comfortable in a room with everyone else? Dropping N-bombs and talking about segregation...ok. But, talking about hanging people from a tree? I think you kind of have to draw the line somewhere and it's probably in between those two things.
Lynching is beyond the pale. Singing "Nigger" when you are from white privilege is just wrong. It will always be wrong. There is no context that I can think this is acceptable. I understand that some people think some pretty horrible things. But society has to censure such speech and behavior, if we are to have society at all.
I do like the idea of diverse ideas in a University community. I think the idea of diversity is a great ideal, but often doesn't happen . . . ironically, some of the most forward thinking individuals can be the most closed minded. But this whole chant is another thing altogether.
Absolutely no one is denying that what the racist assholes did was horrible, evil and had no redeeming value. Some people are saying that the First Amendment nevertheless prevents them from being punished by the government for such statements. Expulsion from a state university qualifies as punishment by the government.
First of all, the first amendment does not say that you can't be punished for what you say. It says that congress cannot pass a law that abridges freedom of speech. A university is not congress.
Secondly, the amendment pertains at the federal level of government, not the state level. States can enact laws that limit free speech, e.g. the law that prevents men from swearing in front of women and children. Universities are entities under their state, not federal, goverment. Therefore, (by your logic) expulsion from a state university qualifies as punishment by the state government and therefore has nothing to do with the first amendment of the federal constitution.
The 14th Amendment (specifically section one) guarantees constitutional protections against all levels of government. The US Constitution absolutely applies to the University of Oklahoma, just as it does to the Norman, OK city government, the Cleveland County government and the Oklahoma state government.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Would you actually categorize a song about "lynching a n****r" as "thought"? As a valid commodity in a marketplace of ideas?
Come now. He neither said nor implied any such thing.
Speech does not need to be deemed valuable to be protected by the First Amendment. The whole point of the First Amendment would be frustrated if speech had to pass some subjective evaluation of "worthiness" before being protected.
None of this is to defend the evil and awful conduct of the SAE members. It's just laying out some basic legal principles that would seem to restrain OU from expelling them.
In reference to the topic of this thread, which is about two students being expelled for singing a song about "lynching n****rs", he said:
"A university should foster diversity of thought, even if some of that thought is unpopular or even offensive."
How is that not what he said or implied?
He was responding to an earlier poster who said that the bar for free speech should be lower for a university. He was explaining why free speech rights are generally protected at an even higher level at universities, which are an important part of the marketplace of ideas.
His comment was clearly speaking about free speech issues generally, not saying that the particular statements by the SAE racists is valuable.
Of whether what this particular busload of buffoons did qualified as "thoughts." And they do. The first amendment protects the expression of even the most hateful dumb-fuckery you can imagine. The Nazis get to march through Skokie. The Klan gets to stand on Capitol building steps and scream about the subhuman nature of other races. It sucks. But there is absolutely no way to prohibit that speech and protect the "good" speech without some objective determination of good and bad speech, which is completely antithetical to the very essence of free speech.
I understand that. But, even though the goverment cannot restrict speech explicitly (which I totally agree with), institutions have the authority to remove employees/members if their views render them unqualified to do their job. For example, racist police officers can be fired not because of their views, per se, but because being racist makes them unqualified to serve and protect their communities.
Similar logic may apply here.
Yes.
Catch all of "creating a hostile learning environment."
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Every school has a "code of conduct" --- "nonacademic misconduct" invariably covers subjects such as "harassment", "physical abuse or harm", "public endangering", "intimidation", et cetera ........
They'll site these students for one of those. I'm sure the students will have a right to appeal.
I don't think these guys will even want to appeal, just because the benefits of a education at University of Oklahoma will greatly diminish being an outcast. However, I'm almost certain they could win this case if they tried.
But they can't get around the Constitution with a "Code of Conduct." If the speech is protected, that trumps any rules/laws/policies to the contrary. The only real out is if it met a CONSTITUTIONAL exception (incitement to violence, fighting words, libel, etc.), and I don't think this does.
In a fraternity at UM right now. We have black kids, white kids, arabic kids, asian kids. We have Christians, Jews, Athiests, Muslims. I honestly don't have any problems with any of the stuff we do.
but where are your Native American Buddhists?