It’s telling and sad that Boren made a public relations based decision over expelling these students. This is the same university that chose not to expel Joe Mixon, a football player who beat a woman, breaking bones in her face. So an actual crime does not merit expulsion at UO but singing a silly song does. Figure that one out.
Wouldn’t marching through campus singing this song constitute fighting words?
As someone with no formal education with respect to constitutional law, I have found the debate here very educational as well as thought provoking. Have to also say I am impressed that this thread has remained remarkably civil.
Probably not. It is usually applied to an insult directed to an individual, one likely to lead to an immediate breach of the peace. Specific facts matter, so maybe it would be a better argument if they went and gave the chant at a Black Pride rally.
But consider the Westboro Baptist Church. So far, they’ve been protected, even though their speech is very provocative.
Here is what wikipedia tells us about “fighting words:” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Even though I think Boren made the right decision under the circumstances, I do value the alternate opinions, and the ardent free speech advocates. Having people with those opinions is useful to society. Hunt seems like a true free speech advocate, not someone trying to find some loophole to get the kids off the hook.
Although he probably does not realize the internal anguish to other students on campus for knowing that such an environment where such a chant is acceptable, is so physically close to them.
As a parent, if the students were not expelled, and just got a slap on the wrist, such as having to move out of their frat, I would never consider being in favor of my kids attending OU. Boren’s swift action, would allow me to mentally accept that the university takes this seriously, and that there would be a higher chance of my kids being safe.
Even if they did this daily in one part of campus, making that area inaccessible to others? Is a college campus the same as a public park? Or is it owned by the college (even if a public college)? If not publicly owned, then the campus could limit the protesters.
Could they stand under my window and chant this song in the name of free speech? NYC and Washington DC limit the areas where protesters may go. The Occupy folks were allowed in the park, but there were various requirements on them.
What if they targetted an area where black students tend to congregate? Wouldn’t that constitute specific “fighting words” or specific targetting?
Very interesting discussion. Thanks to all for keeping it civil.
“If Nazis can march through an area heavily populated by Holocaust victims…”
They could not do so, however, without a permit to march.
Have not a clue what is meant here, as to some debunked false dichotomy.
What someone has to say may not be political at all and may be furthest from it. Most statements are simply personal opinion and belief anyway. And since no one has control over how another interprets something, then it really does not matter what the recipient thinks. This is akin to people being offended - they choose to be offended dependent, it seems, on the time of day. No one can control that.
You seriously miss the entire foundation of “Why the US Constitution?” The individual, for the first time in history, was deemed separate from government and separate from the political structure. The Individual was not deemed a subject of the political state, but an independent, thinking being who could choose to partake in the governmental structure or not.
Thus, the document codifies the person, by default, is not politic, but can choose to be if he wants. And, more importantly, an individual’s ideas and opinions are to be free of political re government consequence and retribution. Social retribution, as stated in an earlier post, is a completely different aspect of discourse, as that is civil discourse, not political discourse.
In general, life would suck, be way less free, and magnitudes less interesting if people are held responsible for the interpretation and the reaction others. But worse, to be able to be held responsible like that, then we would all have to be stereotypers and assume what others believe and think. I’ll pass on the stereotyping.
“As a parent, if the students were not expelled, and just got a slap on the wrist, such as having to move out of their frat, I would never consider being in favor of my kids attending OU. Boren’s swift action, would allow me to mentally accept that the university takes this seriously, and that there would be a higher chance of my kids being safe.”
And that is precisely (I believe) why Boren expelled the students; as was mentioned earlier, a PR move (of sorts).
mom2and,
I believe time, place and manner (like maximum decibels, etc) can be regulated, but not content. And the regulations must be evenly applied to everyone.
I think this does pose the question: If it becomes public knowledge, is it still private speech.
Though legally the answer may (as of now) be yes, in the age of cell phones and video tapes (see Sterling and Romney) comments that were originally made in private can become very public and very impactful.
I guess this is kind of muddled, but does social media require us to change this policy. And would Oklahoma have legal standing if their decision was viewed under this lense?
I also think there is a difference between inviting a controversial speaker to a campus - or a professor whose teaching one may consider controversial - for example Ward Churchill - then students chanting vial things - whether in public or private - and not because of anything to do with free speech - but as a learning experience controversial speakers/professors bring to a student body. I don’t think there is anything to learn from this incident other then students at OU have a bunch of bigots as classmates.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Personal_Is_Political
awcntdb, I actually know the history of human rights quite well, both individual and communitarian rights, and John Locke is a nice place to start on the individual’s relationship to the (modern) state. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/. Many would give him credit for the ideas and ideals of the US constitution, theory before practice.
On the other hand, awcntdb, you might enjoy reading some second wave feminism, radical democracy, and post-structuralism. Many scholars deny the narrow definition of politics that you find so helpful.
OK, so they could stop the students from singing this every day in the same location, but not expel them for the content.
What if the speech is creating a hostile work environment for employees of the university? How does that connect to free speech?
Looks like the push back has started. Several statutes at OU have been duct taped with the word “Unheard” on some of the tape. Unheard is the campus group advocating for minorities on campus. It posted the first SAE video on youtube.
Additionally, while I haven’t checked the underlying documents, some are saying that Boren doesn’t have the right to expel a student without a hearing, i.e., that there was no “due process” here.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/10/ou-could-be-making-a-huge-mistake-with-its-expulsions/
“I can’t seem to wrap my head around the idea that violating Constitutional rights is ever the right call for any university.”
There are important considerations on the other side here. The president has a responsibility to the trustees, to the students (of all colors), to the alumni, etc. etc. It’s obvious to me that if this were a private school, it would be best for the stakeholders if the identified students were expelled. There’s no other equally effective way to demonstrate how deeply this incident violates what the university is about.
So this is a public school, and there are First Amendment limitations on what it can do. That’s crucial, but it doesn’t make the other considerations go away. In the real world, decision makers weigh the pros and cons. I expect judges to fall on their swords to defend constitutional principles; I can live with the fact that university presidents may not.
I think it also matters that the consequence here is one that can be undone. An expulsion can be erased from a student’s record, and he can be re-enrolled. That stands in contrast to, say, someone who is unconstitutionally beaten by the police while in custody. You can pay him money for his injuries, but you can’t reverse the beating.
So you expect the Constitution to be violated for the sake of public relations?
I expect every government official, whether a judge or a university president, to know and respect the Constitution of the United States. After all, Boren has at least twice pledged to preserve, protect and defend it. One would hope that he has at the very least read it.
It is perfectly AOK to do something that is a legal stretch, which is what I think of Boren’s hostile environment position.
Here’s what it actually means to have a legally protected “right.” It does not mean that other people are required not to trample on that right. What it means is that if your “right” is violated, then you have a good claim. If you pursue that claim in court, then you can get relief – like a payment of money damages. That is all that a “right” means. Nothing more, nothing less. If there is no remedy, then there is no right. If the remedy is narrow or weak, that means the right is also narrow or weak.
Claims and cases do not self-enforce. Someone has to do something to enforce them. I think Boren’s calculus was pretty easy. Like him, I would not be losing any sleep over the claims that might comes from the two expelled students.
As a matter of policy (not Con Law), you can argue Boren was off the mark. The frosh student leading the song obviously didn’t write the chant. He was taught the chant by other SAE-ers, who in turn learned it themselves from others. Punishing the frat organization seems like the better tack.
“So you expect the Constitution to be violated for the sake of public relations?”
The Constitution is violated every day by every kind of public official for far weaker reasons than this. Not expecting it doesn’t keep it from happening.
I also don’t think that the sense of safety and belonging of black students at OU is rightly dismissed as “public relations.”