Particularly in view of their position on the Redskin trademark controversy, I find these comments from the ACLU particularly gutless
Under the Constition we all have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, one’s rights ends where another’s begin. Here the right to say one is cool with lynching but not N membership in one’s frat ends where a minority’s right to equal treatment on a public university’s campus begins.
I am not arguing the finer points of the 1st amendment because that luxury rightly belongs to those who don’t have to worry about their right to Life itself. I am simply offering the perspective of someone whose concerns are a little lower down on the heirarchy of needs. I need my children’s right to life to be respected before I worry about their right to say any and all things offensive to others.
Professor Volokh makes additional comments. As one comment says “He is a voice crying in the wilderness”. The only one talking about the First Amendment.
If this incident merits expulsion, then so do the incidents in which pro-Palestinian students have been chanting Allahu Akbar at Jewish students, and the slope becomes even more slippery. What about a group of black students railing about “white privilege”. Should students be expelled for circulating petitions against affirmative action as some Asian students recently did at UC schools? Might that not be considered a ‘hostile environment’. Would it be ‘hostile’ to other groups for illegal aliens on campus to start waving Mexican flags at amnesty rallies? What about the hostility of wearing a Che T-shirt to someone whose parents had to escape Cuba?
The chilling effect of all this is real.
Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences.
I suggest you read the two articles by Prof. Volokh explaining the First Amendment and how it applies to public universities.
“If this incident merits expulsion, then so do the incidents in which pro-Palestinian students have been chanting Allahu Akbar at Jewish students, and the slope becomes even more slippery. What about a group of black students railing about “white privilege”. Should students be expelled for circulating petitions against affirmative action as some Asian students recently did at UC schools? Might that not be considered a ‘hostile environment’. Would it be ‘hostile’ to other groups for illegal aliens on campus to start waving Mexican flags at amnesty rallies? What about the hostility of wearing a Che T-shirt to someone whose parents had to escape Cuba?” TatinG
A death threat against a specific group imbedded in that speech changes the equation.
The words of the chant are:
“You can hang them from a tree”
Is that a “death threat?” I don’t think so. They aren’t saying they will hang anyone from a tree.
Anyone who knows anything about David Boren would agree that those frat boys committed the ultimate infraction—they made OU look bad. Boren will do what he thinks is in the best interest of OU, and let the chips fall where they may. That said, I can’t recall another university president who acted as decisively as Boren did in such circumstances.
The words of the song imply that blacks who attempt to pledge will be lynched. I’m certainly not arguing that this is actually SAE’s policy in 2015 (although it surely could have been its policy years ago). Uh, I hope you do realize that such things actually happened in the not so distant past.
Isn’t hate speech considered different from free speech when it includes a threat of violence, whether specifically directed or not?
With OU trying to attract large number of NMF from across the county, they didn’t need this. Boren was right to nip this in the bud.
I don’t think that a university president violating the First Amendment makes the university look good. It was a knee jerk reaction that also violated the expelled students due process rights.
It’s regrettable that those in the media (with the exception of FIRE, Prof. Volokh and a few others) are not using this episode as a teaching moment on the First Amendment as well as on racism.
Clearly, in reading comments to the various articles today, the American public needs a First Amendment education. So many seem to think that there’s no First Amendment violation unless the government is throwing the speaker in jail! So I guess they’d be okay with the government shutting down newspapers and TV stations as long as no one was thrown in jail.
It’s sad that American citizens have no knowledge of their Constitution.
I would agree that Boren’s actions might not look good from a free speech and due process perspective, but, from a political perspective, they did look good to many people. Believe me, his actions were carefully calculated and not knee jerk. In reddest state Oklahoma, and in the face of strong alumni support for the entrenched Greek system, Boren doesn’t act rashly.
First Amendment absolutists, what speech is not permitted, other than threats of violence? Is anything allowed except threats of violence? Suppose we had a student who persistently screamed racial epithets at groups of African American students-- could that student be booted from the university? I’m just trying to see where you think the line should be drawn.
Yes, given how ignorant most Americans are about the Bill of Rights, a person can make a political move that is directly contrary to the First Amendment and still look good.
Some interesting tidbits, including the fraternity “house mom” doing what appears to be a drunken racist rap.
http://heavy.com/news/2015/03/parker-rice-expelled-racist-ou-freshman-university-of-oklahoma/
From this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/oklahoma-racist-chant/
"It’s likely that if the university hadn’t acted, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division could have stepped in, said Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,” according to the Justice Department.
In this case, Arnwine said, the university likely found that fraternity members appear not only to have discriminated in their membership – and backed that discrimination with the threat of lynching – but they’ve also created a hostile environment.
The university, she said, “would’ve been compelled to do something to sanction and prevent this fraternity from engaging in racial discrimination.”
“A very important part of the lexicon of civil rights law is that you cannot create a hostile environment where you make it so people of different races or religions or women feel they can’t function at your institution without being subjected to unlawful discrimination,” she said."
No First Amendment mentioned at all. Is there a rule as far as what applies? First amendment vs civil rights law?
I am not a lawyer.
@TatinG, I found the link to the story about the school prohibiting a student from passing out copies of the Constitution on “Constitution Day.” I have no idea why a school would have a problem with that! But the student sued and won some concessions from the school in a settlement.
Here is the story:
http://www.thefire.org/victory-modesto-junior-college-settles-students-first-amendment-lawsuit/
“The words of the song imply that blacks who attempt to pledge will be lynched. I’m certainly not arguing that this is actually SAE’s policy in 2015 (although it surely could have been its policy years ago). Uh, I hope you do realize that such things actually happened in the not so distant past.”
Let’s just think for a moment here. In years past, if a black student went to SAE desiring to pledge, did they a) lynch him and literally hang him from a tree, or b) just ignore him and make him feel unwelcome.
to amajority of college-age students and their parents, it makes the university look good, because to many people accross the country, OK = racist backwater where they’d never send their precious brilliant child, and with the backlash caused by this, if the university did nothing, it would have been equalled with condoning it, whereas swift action makes it clear that, indeed, OU will not stand for this, no matter what. As the stewart of the university’s public mission AND brand, the president couldn’t do nothing. He had a few choices on timeframe and consequences but doing nothing wasn’t one of them.
In short, President Boren did the ONLY thing that he was expected to do. He was just more decisive about it than some might have expected (expecting equivocation), but you can be sure he consulted the university’s lawyers before he did it. I doubt anyone’s rights were violated when he asked students to vacate their fraternity house.
In addition, I’m still not convinced hate speech with threats of violence (ie., singing about lynching and using that as an us/them) is covered by the 1st amendment - so far, it seems the dispute seems to be whether the song includes threats of violence or not…