Did they find out who the vandals were, in Virginia?
“Would those who support expelling these Oklahoma students also support expelling all those in that Virginia
crowd?”
I certainly would along with hoping the vandals were criminally charged for destruction of property and whatever other charges would be applicable.
Do they know who did it?
Uhm, held to a higher standard doesn’t have anything to do with hostile educational environment. It’s also a little ironic when we are talking about a bus full of plastered frat guys and sorority girls.
I can’t imagine that Boren made any decisions that weren’t first endorsed by legal counsel. He may have been governor and a senator, but those kind of decisions can’t possibly be made by one person, even if he is the president of the university. Or can they?
In the end it’s probably his call and a case can be made either way. But he is getting credit for swift action.
I was responding to CF and her question in # 317, and I do think there are higher standards for an activity sponsored by a school organization vs a get together in someone’s apartment. They were acting a bit more showy, or shall we say acting a bit flossy, marie?
“…but those kind of decisions can’t possibly be made by one person, even if he is the president of the university. Or can they?”
Boren has his close advisors, but, yes, I think he can make those kinds of decisions by himself if he so chooses.
Surely legal reviewed the statement he gave and letter he sent out beforehand. It would be foolish to handle it otherwise.
He probably decided what outcome he wanted, and directed his people to make it happen. But surely, he would have sought their input on the letter and statement of rationale for his actions.
Though Boren has to balance things carefully among the various stakeholder groups at OU, he is widely esteemed at OU and it is very much his university and his town. If he wants something to happen, chances are it will happen. There are streets and buildings named after Boren, and he already has his statue in a niche on the administration building. He’s in a much different position than former Dartmouth President Kim was, for example, when it comes to handling situations with frats. Though he couldn’t just do what he wanted with the frats, due to strong frat alumni support, the circumstances of the chanting incident gave him the freedom to act decisively in this particular case.
jym626, He had a choice, lose in court or lose in the court of public opinion. He chose the latter.
I believe Boren wanted to be seen as doing something publicly and let the lawyers sort it out later in private.
Here is what the ACLU says about hate speech on public college campuseshttps://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus
There are often folks writing the statements. He may review, tweak, and have it reviewed by legal before presenting it.
"
@Pizzagirl If you’re having to ask why white people don’t get a free pass to say the “n” word, I think the real question you need to be asking yourself is why do you care? Does not being able to say the “n” word make your life any fulfilling? After answering that, then it can be explained why some races can and cannot say it"
I absolutely never have and would never use the n word. I have no need to, I don’t think or talk that way, and it would not be permitted in my home. It’s still a reasonable question why. If the SAE boys had sung a Kanye West song out loud, does that fall under “white” or “black” rules? .
dadoftwingirls,
Boren is not new at this - he’s been a public figure. Surely he has advisors and surely he used them.
Didn’t the house mother get outed for saying/singing the N word, which she claimed as singing a rap song? She doesn’t strike me as the rapper type… JMO. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/oklahoma-fraternity-house-mom/
I honestly think that swift action by both SAE National and Boren, including the expulsion of two students, was the safest course of action–even if the expulsion might be over turned later.
Some of the students involved have received death threats, there has already been vandalism; and although, the majority of the University is currently protesting peacefully, no one wants this incident to continue to escalate. OU needs this to quite down in the media so they can resume classes. A swift, strong and loud message has been sent–racist remarks are not welcome at OU.
And with admissions and acceptances looming, they want to have a good image.
Well…the name of the second student is now out there officially as well. Interestingly, he is also from Dallas, Texas , His parents have issued an apology. Parker Rice, the first student has as well. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/10/392104932/university-of-oklahoma-expels-2-students-seen-as-leading-racist-chant
There is an interesting article about the student newspaper. It says it got the first video in an anonymous email. http://newsok.com/second-expelled-university-of-oklahoma-student-identified/article/5400201
I think Boren did what he thinks is best for OU. He ran it by counsel and they framed his decision to give it the best legal justification they could. I don’t think counsel made the decision.
@theatlantic “@Hunt I understand that you do not support their statememts, and are mainly speaking from a perspective of legality or “pure free speech”. Even so, you come across as almost feeling sympathetic towards these kids, which is something I don’t get.”
I think your first idea is the right one. I do not think Hunt is sympathetic to these kids at all. He is not any sort of race hating apologist. He is the furthest thing from it. He is a Yale educated attorney who understands the importance of protecting free speech, and that free speech really means speech you do not like. If you take someone else’s free speech rights away, next time it may be your free speech taken away. He is defending free speech to defend all of our right to free speech, not because he is sympathetic. Free speech protects your right to pray in public even if others around you believe in a different God or no God, it protects your right to complain openly about President Obama, or President Bush, and to speak your mind openly about anything without fear of reprisal. That is what he is protecting. Once speech is limited, then whoever decides what is allowed and not allowed has tremendous power.
I am the first one to challenge Hunt on his position if I do not agree, but I do it in a reasoned way, and I do not think for one minute that his position is out of sympathy for the young men involved. If you read Hunt’s posts over time, you will see that. When a Yale police officer pulled a gun on an African American student who was leaving the library recently, Hunt was the first one rip into posters who were defending the officer’s actions.
Try to challenge other people’s ideas thoughtfully, and avoid attacking a person directly. As you get older you will see that when people move from challenging ideas with evidence and reason to attacking the person (ad hominem) it is usually because they are losing the debate on the facts.
@theatlantic “As far as the students that were making these racist chants, I really couldn’t care less what happens to them.”
I understand this is how you feel, and many of us share that feeling with you, but it is short-sited from a legal perspective. Even if expelling these students is the right thing to do, how it is done matters, and it is important that their rights are protected. If the Oklahoma University President can expel these students without cause or due process, then he can expel any student without cause or due process. That is not a good thing.
@Nrdsb4, I strongly object to your characterization of my position in your post 173. Someone asked for evidence that people in this thread had called for legal action against the members of the frat, and you cited one of my posts as evidence that I was calling for legal action against the students.
I did not in that post or elsewhere call for legal action against the students. In my very first post on this thread I said the individual students should look in the mirror. That is hardly a rabid call for legal action.
I do not and never did support expelling the students. My sole issue has been that I think the university had a right to de-recognize the fraternity. Being a recognized organization on a campus doesn’t imply the university agrees with the tenets of the organization, but it does imply that the organization is within the bounds of the university society. The frats use the umbrella of university recognition for their recruiting, campus housing, and existence. I think the universities have a right to withdraw their names as sponsors if they choose.
I have also not said the frat members couldn’t continue to associate as a self-identified group. That’s their right. I just don’t think they should be able to force the university to sponsor them.
I cited the chant as circumstantial evidence of the frat’s racial discrimination in housing, since there hasn’t been a black frat member for 14 years, and the members are apparently happy to chant that there never will be. Apartment owners have been found at fault on less evidence than that. The lynching part is just icing on the cake, so to speak, as further evidence the frat is more concerned about hating blacks and less concerned with the fact that lynching is even more illegal than discrimination.
I do not buy into the argument the students created a hostile environment. The environment on the bus didn’t look very hostile to me.
I would very much appreciate your not mischaracterizing my posts. Like the university, I do not want to be allied with positions I do not hold.