I hope nobody was recording me all the times I threatened to murder my children.
I thought Boren’s labelling the two freshmen “leaders” was absurd for the same reason.
This pretty much encapsulates the very reason for the US Constitution.
We are in real trouble if people actually believe that they must temper their words and ideas based on politics, on what others might think, or on what the effect might be in terms of offending someone. Sure, if you are running for office and need to pander of votes, but as a free citizen, the Constitution was written expressly to permit not worrying about the political effect of language.
Thank God for that document - imagine what it would be like otherwise - actually I know, having spent time in the Soviet Union. It was one weird world where everyone said the same things and literally all conversations with Soviets seemed the same, as everyone tempered their speech because they never knew who was listening.
Not necessarily. Perhaps he was weighing the public opinion aspects of the decision more than the legal aspects, if the lawyers thought it would likely be a difficult case to win. Also, politicians do test the sometimes-fuzzy boundaries of what is legal (constitutional) and what is not; sometimes they get away with it because no one brings a case to court about it, and sometimes a case does go to court, not always with predictable results (and may end with a non-unanimous decision in the Supreme Court).
One of the students, Parker Rice, was a freshman. The other, Levi Pettit, is a sophomore.
Parker Rice’s apology says this:
I think the kid’s telling the truth and he was taught the lyrics by others who were the leaders.
One other really weird thing. Levi ettit’s parents apologized, but as far as I know, he hasn’t. Either this is the ultimate case of parental helicoptering, or Levi plans to fight this.
“I thought Boren’s labelling the two freshmen “leaders” was absurd for the same reason.”
Parker Rice was the kid who was standing up in the bus and leading the song, so.
And I don’t think, in this day and age, their ages are an excuse anyway. I don’t believe a kid that age doesn’t understand what he is saying and what those words mean.
I can’t seem to wrap my head around the idea that violating Constitutional rights is ever the right call for any university.
Re: http://chronicle.com/article/Racism-in-Oklahoma-Frat-Video/228355/#sthash.Sf0vR145.dpuf
Considering that fraternities (and sororities, perhaps even more so) have a strong tendency to be highly racially segregated at many campuses, it may not be that surprising that stuff like this incident occurred in a fraternity. This does not mean that fraternities are inherently racist, but it does mean that they can be places where racists can gather and reinforce their racism (rather than see it weakened by social interaction with more diverse groups of students in dorms, etc.).
But is this unique to residential college campuses? What percentage of post-traditional-college-age people have frequent social interaction with racially and ethnically diverse groups of people, versus people of predominantly their own race or ethnicity?
I have to say that the fact that the kid was a freshman would suggest he was not a “leader”. He was the person shown on the video, which may or may not be an accurate portrayal of how this happened… There should have been a hearing and some consideration of the appropriate level of punishment. I had figured he was an upperclassman, leading the younger students.
I can’t seem to wrap my head around that state legislatures do it all the time - people actually in charge of making law. But they do and don’t seem to care when they do it, either.
The goal was to do something to look like he was doing something and make the PR mess go away. President Boren is a politician. A good one.
People do actually temper their words based on what others may think. Many people will casually use curse words and such with their friends but refrain for using them at work or in polite company, for example.
Constitutional protections for freedom of speech are to protect you against governmental action against the political content of your speech, not against opinions that others may form of you based on the political content of your speech.
So? I expect better from universities. According to you, I shouldn’t?
Surely the honorable older members of the fraternity won’t let these two junior members take the weight of the punishment for all of them. Right?
Well, I expect more from actual lawmakers who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, than an entity which is only interpreting these laws.
Experts on Constitutional law come from universities and colleges. You cannot get better interpreters than that without actually going to the courts.
However, even courts and justices do not necessarily agree with each other. Sometimes, court decisions get reversed on appeal to a higher court. Sometimes, cases get to the Supreme Court and get decided on a non-unanimous vote.
Certainly, even noted jurists and professors disagree all the time. But this really isn’t a difficult case, especially in view of the precedent. Volokh may be a free speech hawk, but he didn’t have to go out on a limb in this particular case. Maybe I’m a hawk, too, but in my estimation the “hostile environment” argument in this case borders on the frivolous (a legal term meaning an obviously flimsy case, so flimsy you might want to impose court costs on the person raising it).
Have there been any published articles citing legal support for Boren’s actions? The ones I’ve seen go the other way.
Although Boren’s case would probably be quite weak in court, he presumably took that action because (a) he might get away with it anyway, if the expelled students do not sue, and (b) he probably thought that the PR costs that OU would suffer by not doing so were greater than the costs of fighting and probably eventually losing a court case.