Hunt, are we SURE it’s not legal to expel the students? (I’m not arguing, just asking.) For example, if there’s some kind of honor code at OU we don’t know about, could violation of that be reason for a legal expulsion?
I don’t have much problem with them being kicked out of the frat house. That probably flows from the entirely private decision of the national SAE to dissolve the chapter.
I do think it’s a bit of a fantasy to think that the University can purge itself of racism by simply expelling a couple of scapegoats. Or appearing to expel them, really–if they file an appeal, they may never actually get expelled, since obviously they have a very strong case that it’s unlawful to expel them.
who said the fraternity leadership is off the hook?
Guys – get real. Boren himself is a Rhodes Scholar, lawyer, former U.S. Senator and former Governor of OK. He knows how this stuff is done properly.
Of course he can’t expel the frat broes for free speech. Duh. He didn’t do that, obviously.
He can expel them for violations of university policies. The broes are free to challenge that. They’ll have to pay for a lawyer to do that for them, or convince someone to do it pro bono (ACLU maybe?) or on contingency. Boren has given them until Friday to appeal through the university procedures.
Even if Boren loses the case to the broes, no big deal. He wins BIG TIME for OU by acting in this manner. It is March 10. Boren has an entire freshman class at OU that he needs to enroll in the next few weeks. So long as he has a color-able argument for policy violation, it is a very easy call.
Very similar to the NBA Commissioner coming down on Donald Sterling like a ton of bricks even though the legal rationale for doing so wasn’t entirely clear.
After this, we’d all better be really careful what we say, wherever we are–somebody might be secretly filming us.
Hunt: Mitt Romney’2 47% comment should have made people already aware that at any point someone can be filming you.
This may be the justification for expelling the two students.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/oklahoma-racist-chant/index.html
A pretext is not the same thing as a justification.
But he didn’t. He expelled them for creating a hostile environment. That’s the ground OU’s attorneys are going to have to prove. They can’t now go scurrying around looking for U policies that were violated.
Again, I think that’s a stretch in the facts of this case as we know them. They could change if, JUST AS A MADE UP EXAMPLE, the video sent to Unheard and the campus paper came from an African-American student who received it from a frat member on the bus with the intent to intimidate–something along the MADE UP lines of “I heard you were thinking of trying to pledge a frat. Take this as a hint that’s a bad idea.” That would, to me, be a valid claim for a hostile environment.
But it someone on that bus who is white took the video and sent it to Unheard and the campus paper simply because (s)he was disgusted by what happened, then I think it’s pretty hard to claim there’s a causal connection between the chant-leaders behavior and a hostile environment.
@Hunt, if someone at this point is not aware that somebody might be secretly filming you…I don’t know what world they think they are living in. I feel a little guilty even when I kiss my wife in the elevator.
I agree, but even then I’d argue that you’d only have a case against the person or persons who sent the video. They would be the ones creating the hostile environment. To give another example, if I’m the president of SAE and write in my diary that I hate black people and will do all in my power to keep them out, am I creating a hostile environment if I never show it to anybody? But if my roommate takes it and shows it to a black student, who (if anybody) should be liable for creating a hostile environment?
Boren has to enroll thousands of current HS seniors in the next few eeks. Including all those top honors school scholarship students that have been his personal project (including numerous Rhodes Scholars from OU).
It would cost OU way more to not boot these guys. Ultimately, legal issues are business issues. If down the road these guys can prove their rights were trampled, they’ll get a pay day. That’s how the system works.
Boren spoke to a hostile environment on the bus. Perhaps some of those on the bus agreed to support that claim that this (and perhaps other actions by the frat and its leaders) created a hostile environment for other frat members or for their guests.
@hunt “In other words, Boren was willing to blatantly violate the Constitutional rights of the students–as the University counsel was assuredly telling him he was doing–because the PR risk of not doing something was greater for him personally. Some educator. Some role model. I guess the oath he took when a Senator to uphold the Constitution doesn’t mean anything to him now.”
I would not say for him personally, but more for OU. He did what is best for OU.
I am all for free speech rights. However, they OU has at least an argument that allowing these students to stay on campus creates a hostile environment for other students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act when peer harassment based on race is sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment for some students.
In my mind, it is not the N word, but the lynching reference that gives them a viable argument that it creates a hostile environment for students.
The N word is clearly protected speech. However, when you start singing about killing people who belong to a certain racial group, that moves from just offensive to potentially concerning to reasonable people. OU is in a difficult position. I think that they are doing the right thing. What is allowable and what is not allowable is at least somewhat unclear, and the courts can sort that out later. I think that they are right to expel them.
So it’s too much to ask a college president, who is a former governor and U.S. Senator, to consider that he has an ethical duty to follow the Constitution?
Not to pick on you Much2learn, but whenever I read those words, I suspect that what is coming next is an explanation of why these particular words are so very bad that something must be done to punish the person who said them.
As I said, legal issues are ultimately business issues. If I take an action that is later judged wrong, I bear the legal consequences of the action. In this case, Boren’s consequence would be exposing OU to some money damages and perhaps exposing himself to discipline by his board.
Boren makes those kind of decisions multiple times every day. It isn’t his job to interpret and enforce the Constitution. We maintain a court system to do that.
This is an easy one so long as there is some legal basis on which to base the decision. Which would negate wilful misconduct.
@hunt “Not to pick on you Much2learn, but whenever I read those words, I suspect that what is coming next is an explanation of why these particular words are so very bad that something must be done to punish the person who said them.”
It does make sense to me that free speech that creates a hostile environment for other students on college campus is a problem. Clearly, they can say what they said, and not go to jail. However, it is not clear to me that they have a right to continue to be enrolled at the school.
What are your thoughts about that @hunt?
I read the letter from President Boren to the two students, and it all but invited them to appeal. I think it was crafted very carefully. The students will have to meet directly with administrators and argue why they should be allowed to remain at the university. In so doing, they will have to give a full accounting of their actions and the history and context for performing the chant during a semi-official fraternity event. I suspect that the university has created enough “wiggle room” to re-admit the two students, but probably under strict, probationary conditions.
Well, I’m a purist. I think the “hostile environment” idea is a workaround to enable public entities to punish speech, so I really don’t like it. I think people can be punished for speech that is directly threatening, or that is direct harassment, etc. But the idea of a “hostile environment” is too mushy for me, especially if it’s based entirely on speech. The fact that they can’t go to jail isn’t really relevant–they shouldn’t be punished at all for speech, unless it’s one of the narrow exceptions.
And look at this case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/debate-on-a-jewish-student-at-ucla.html
Who could be expelled from that college for speech–and indeed, actions–that create a hostile environment based on religion?
I’d wonder how “private” the singing was, given that they were singing on a bus full of people, not all of them members of SAE. A bus holds 55 people. Say there were 20 SAE members and 20 sorority sisters on that bus. As soon as the singers start cheerily singing songs about lynching black people, that could be deemed to create a hostile environment to a sorority sister dating a black football player, or who has black friends, or who in any way is friendly with black people. And who was driving the bus?
Is it in any way reasonable to imagine that singing a racist song on a bus full of people is singing in private?