well aren't you cute no, son, I have a problem with all of what he said/did/messaged/"languaged"/etc.
It was an analogy. What I am saying is that there are consequences to all our actions, good or bad. Just look at this board, some posters have developed a reputation of being <name posters perceived characteristic> because of how they post, the language being used, how often, etc. If a poster called somebody the N word here, you think Clutch won't ban him/ her?
I believe that was pulled out from their twitter account and inserted to get the reaction you just had. It's one of those embellishments that the media does so often nowadays.
Has SAE made a statement on this? UT is arguably the most liberal school in the South. Any fraternity that we have, more than 80% white, uses ****** on a daily basis. Basic things like banning blacks / indians is a pretty normal thing, though each has a different niche. Would be nice to see this incident spark something across all southern campuses.
As Remii noted this decision might have more to do with protecting the OU brand especially in light of a major recruit decommitting from the school from it. My own read on it is that while it is punitive on the students this is more of a statement about the University than it is about understanding why such attitudes still persist in this day and age. The message from this that I get is less "racism is wrong" but more "don't video and post on social media you being racist." Even though this isn't a criminal case I would like to believe in the principal of due process that applies to all students. I mean would it matter if it was a poor kid who made these statements? Further I think having to openly state why they made those statements and in a public forum have to also hear directly from people who are offended by such statements will do far more to address the persistence of racism than just kicking them out so they are out of sight and out of mind from the University. As you note in 2015 such speech is unacceptable and incendiary yet it still persists. It largely persists in the shadows and too a much greater extent in the hearts of many people. To me that is far more damaging than open declarations of such views because it continues to foster mistrust when you really don't know what someone thinks about you and they are only hiding such feelings out of fear of retribution. A deeper point though is does the concept of free speech just protect that what is acceptable and mild or does it also protect that which is unacceptable and incendiary? I think this is one where for a University environment that is supposed to teach young people to confront all sorts of views needs to be thought out very carefully.
Does the first amendment protect the students from being expelled by OU? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/ No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech University of Oklahoma president David Boren said, “If I’m allowed to, these students will face suspension or expulsion.” [UPDATE: The president has indeed expelled two of the students.] But he is not, I think, allowed to do that. 1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.) UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.” 2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.” 3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either. 4. [UPDATE: Given the president's letter, it's clear that the students are being expelled solely for their speech, and not for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs.] Some people have suggested that the speech may be evidence of discriminatory decisionmaking by the fraternity in admitting members. A university may demand that groups to which it provides various benefits not discriminate in admissions. See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010). Indeed, nondiscrimination rules are applicable to groups generally, even apart from any benefits they get; much depends on whether the groups are seen as small and selective enough to be covered by a right to “intimate association,” and on whether apply antidiscrimination law to the groups would interfere with the groups’ expression of their ideas, and thus burden their right to “expressive associations.” See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1983); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000). The university might thus be able to discipline students who (a) are involved in a fraternity’s admissions decisions, and (b) can be shown to have denied membership to people based on race, or intentionally tried to communicate to potential members that they would deny them membership that way. I don’t think that a discussion saying that discrimination ought to take place, or even that at some unspecified time it will take place, would suffice to constitute a violation of the antidiscrimination rules, though it might be used as evidence in a future case where discrimination against a particular applicant might be alleged. But even if the group is found to have discriminated against black applicants, and some particular members were found to have participated in that decision, the penalty for that has to be based on the penalties that are actually meted out to people who violate this rule. If discrimination by a group generally leads to a fine against the group, or a reprimand of the participants, or even derecognition of the group, the university can’t then expel students who engage in the same action but who also engage in constitutionally protected speech — that sort of disparate treatment shows that the school is really punishing people for their speech, not for their conduct. This is a familiar principle from antidiscrimination law: if a black student is expelled based on conduct for which white students are generally just mildly reprimanded, the law recognizes that the expulsion was based on the student’s race, not just the student’s punishable conduct. The conduct in that situation is being used in large part as a pretext for race discrimination. Likewise, if SAE members are expelled based on conduct for which people who didn’t engage in SAE’s speech would generally just be mildly reprimanded, the expulsion would be based on the speech, not the members’ punishable conduct, which would just be pretext for punishing students for the ideas they were expressing to each other. 5. Of course, this just applies to the university. It certainly makes sense that the national fraternity may suspend the student chapter, and that other fraternity or sorority organizations refuse to deal with the chapter (or even its students). Fraternities, at least in principle, aim to promote certain principles of morality and behavior, such as the national SAE’s True Gentleman creed: The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe. SAE may quite rightly insist that people who so sharply depart from such principles no longer use SAE’s name. (I don’t think a university may suspend a fraternity just based on its speech, but that question is likely rendered moot by national SAE’s actions here.) Likewise, I imagine that the fraternity members’ speech will more generally affect their social lives and their professional lives, as some people choose not to do business with them in the future. (In some states, even private employers are limited in their ability to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on their speech, but that’s true only in some states and generally only as to employment; and, rightly or wrongly, such discrimination often happens without the applicant’s even knowing that it’s happening.) How long this sort of misbehavior should dog a person is an interesting ethical question, but in any event it’s pretty clear that the offending students are going to pay a substantial social and likely economic price for their actions.
To add another thought to above. I don't know these students and don't know what was really going through their mind when they said / sang that. Having grown up though around people like that I suspect that they might not be truly racist in terms of that they would actually hang a black man that tried to join SAE. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they actually have a few black friends. What I think is more likely that they grew up in a culture with a passive racism where while not on the surface racial jokes and comments were made and frequently judgements were made on people based on how they looked and race. To these students probably had an unexamined racism so to them singing that song might not have actually meant much to them because it was just a house song that they didn't think about the lyrics. It was tradition and not something that expressed their deepest thoughts. If that is the case just expelling them doesn't force them to confront that. While they are punished they just go back to their families in the same community where they will continue with the same culture of passive racism. They won't confront why such attitudes are wrong but instead will hear that their mistake was getting caught.
they should certainly shut down the frat, but for a state school to suspend the students would probably be a 1st Amendment violation
Would a teacher fired by a public school for saying something despicable also be protected by the same 1st amendment?
Racism could be easily dealt with if kids learned the history of their ancestors and the despicable actions and crimes against other human beings they committed... And that's hard to do because in this country (and many others) history has been white washed and covered up. There's a very thin line between racism and ignorance.
Again, I ask this question... What's more important to OU ---> the football program or for kids to have their 1st amendment rights to sing songs about hanging people from trees...? Freedom of speech can come with consequences of possibly piss'n other people off... Like 5 star black football recruits which would hurt OU's football program which would effect them financially. You guys aren't looking at the big picture on why those kids were kicked out. Also Oklahoma covered up the holocaust that happened there with 'Black Wall Street' for years. So they are not in a position to let stuff like this slide.
There's no need to use an analogy that doesn't properly compare. Same thing with the bbs. But if you must, then it wouldn't be a poster writing offensive things on the board (which many do anyways), but the analogy would be a video posted of a bbs member being offensive on a party bus. And ultimately, the hypothetical Clutch decision has no bearing on the original discussion about this frat. The better point you made is just the learning process of reaction and consequence. And I'm not arguing against OU's right to do what they want. And I too see it as justified. I'm just making a nuanced point that I hope these kids learn from this, and learn beyond the "don't video your private life" lesson. Being suspended and then forced to take certain classes as conditions to stay could have been an alternate punishment that would have made them confront their stupidity and bigotry in a university setting. Now they learn the lesson of public backlash, they retreat to their sanctuaries, and they potentially harbor this resentment for a long time. Do you abandon the kids who will have future economic impact on society due to their wealth and privilege bc they're racist stupid douchebags? Or do you punish them and try to show them the righteous path? Either way is justified. Ideally, a university should be a setting where you can accomplish the latter.
That actually goes on everywhere in this country... Just like people don't know that there were also Black Native Americans in this country before white folks showed up.
Yeah, I learned this sophomore year in college and was floored. I had no idea. The amount of white washing that was happened to history is amazing and it continues to happen.
His life is over??????? Racism like his is why there are dead black kids in the street from Cops and Rogue Vigilantes . . . . .. . . but hey!! Let's not ruin MR AFLUENZA'S Latte life Rocket River
