I’m not buying your argument, Hanna, but obviously it doesn’t matter to anyone but me whether I do or not. You are saying that it is okay for a government official to violate someone’s Constitutional rights for the sake of money, protecting others from being offended, and as TatinG says, public relations. That is an extremely lame trade-off in my book.
And no, the student cannot get back the life he had before expulsion. He can be re-admitted, but it is not the same.
Right, basically, anyone can do anything they want. They just might have to pay the consequences.
Boren has a duty to all of his students, as well as the taxpayers of Oklahoma, to follow the law. He is putting other peoples’ money and opportunity at stake by taking chances with violating students’ Constitutional rights.
But there’s an easy settlement that can be reached that’s in everyone’s best interest - the boys are allowed to voluntarily withdraw. It’s just that we can’t get there until the media storm blows over.
I believe Boren acted to expel the students knowing full well that he was willfully violating their due process rights. It’s also hard for me to believe that their actions meet the legal threshold for creating a hostile environment. He probably knows the expulsions could be overturned. He just asked his legal counsel to give him enough justification that his action wouldn’t be considered reckless. People and companies do knowingly violate the law all the time. People drive over the speed limit to save time, knowing that they might have to pay a fine. They still do it anyway.
Is this a “business decision” about protecting OU or is it a matter of upholding principles, and if so, what principles? Universities have two special core values that I think are relevant here and make them a little different from other parts of society. First, they should be committed to the values of non-discrimination, of educating people from all races, and creating an environment that’s as free from racial discrimination as possible. Two, they should be especially sensitive to free speech issues because they want to be tolerant towards expression of all points of view, even very abhorrent ones. That’s part of academic freedom. Which values win out from a moral (not legal) perspective?
The interesting question to me is this: if you were a Regent of OU, would you move to praise or to sanction Boren for his actions? (However, I think we all know what is likely to happen.)
Exactly. Contrast his action with Sullivan’s at UVa, who took a measured response to a (fabricated) RS story and was pilloried in the press for not being more decisive.
“Boren has a duty to all of his students, as well as the taxpayers of Oklahoma, to follow the law. He is putting other peoples’ money and opportunity at stake by taking chances with violating students’ Constitutional rights.”
I think the dollars involved would strongly go in favor of booting the frat broes. OU will never pay those guys anything close to the revenue OU could have lost from all those HS seniors out there currently deciding what college they will attend next year. OU has donors, corporate sponsors, research funders, football recruits etc. that they need to stay on good terms with.
^That would be the logical expectation for someone with the handle “northwesty.” I don’t think we can assume that everyone in America is more offended by racist speech than trampled Constitutional rights.
Safety!!! @Hannah, that’s as much of a stretch as Boren’s “hostile environment.” An organization of African-American students posted the first video on youtube. They did not call the campus police and ask for protection. They stood around campus discussing the video and allowed their conversations to be taped. They were appalled–and had every right to be. But afraid? No. There is not even a scintilla of evidence to suggest that a single African-American student on campus viewed that tape and was afraid for his or her personal safety.
I would go so far as to say that once it was posted on youtube, the idiots singing those appalling words had much more to fear.Indeed, there is an interesting column in the OU paper from the African-American president of a different fraternity, which is historically white, asking that his fellow OU students not jump to the conclusion that all Greeks at OU are racist and decrying the acts of vandalism that have been directed at members of OTHER fraternities. http://www.oudaily.com/news/phi-delta-theta-chapter-president-makes-statement-about-sae-incident/article_153e56b6-c828-11e4-8181-f7e4874dd99c.html
Belonging is a different thing. I do think universities should make an effort to be welcoming to all. But don’t think that a university has a right to expel students because they hold personal views which are anathema to the majority of students on campus. For example. I don’t think a university has the right to expel students because they publicly express views on homosexuality that make some LGBT students feel unwelcome. Conversely, I don’t think remarks made by LGBT students or “pro-choice” students about Catholics or Evangelical Protestants should get them kicked out.
Boren is a politician. He acted like one. I’m not going to wrap him up in an American flag for doing that. In the long run, I suspect. this is going to hurt OU. Boren is also trying to boost its rep as an academic institution. This isn’t going to help.
I
“Contrast his action with Sullivan’s at UVa, who took a measured response to a (fabricated) RS story and was pilloried in the press for not being more decisive.”
That was a he said she said - a bit different then being caught on tape, imo.
“And no, the student cannot get back the life he had before expulsion. He can be re-admitted, but it is not the same.”
The students cannot get back the life they had before being exposed on a tape chanting a vile racist cheer which the whole world has now seen. I have no sympathy whatsoever for their plight now - which they brought about themselves.
By the way who else thinks their apology letters are lame, deflect blame from themselves, saying they are not racist, probably written with help from a PR consultant. And one of them had their parents say they wrote the letter.
If these guys are not racist, I am not sure who is.
If it were my kid, heaven forbid, you’re darn right I’d have a PR consultant and a lawyer help him write an apology letter.
“You are saying that it is okay”
Not at all. I’m saying that there are trade-offs here, and Boren prioritized some over others in a way that’s probably serving his primary constituents well. I don’t know what his oath of office was, but his job is to serve the university, and I think he made the choice that achieved that goal, just as the president of a private university would do. I didn’t make any statement about whether that’s okay in my book.
Maybe I’ve been in Chicago too long, but I am not surprised either by racist idiots or by leadership that stretches language to its limit to achieve a goal. I’m pretty hard core about the First Amendment – I’d give the ACLU money to defend the Skokie Nazis – but this violation doesn’t do much to excite my limited supply of outrage.
“There is not even a scintilla of evidence to suggest that a single African-American student on campus viewed that tape and was afraid for his or her personal safety.”
I said SENSE of safety, and I noted that it was being discussed in dismissive term. Regardless, I’m not in their shoes, and I’m not going to tell them how they feel. A response from a black law blogger/former classmate of mine on that topic:
http://www.atlredline.com/and-now-for-the-inevitable-white-people-defense-of-sae-1690821859
Yes, but it is too obviously PR consultant talk. What help is that? Everyone does not see it as a true apology.
^^^I suspect no matter what they said, a fair amount of people would find fault with it.
Honestly, the damage is done. The names of “some” of the kids are out there, and this incident will follow them to the end. Employers will definitely see this unless these students find a job using daddy’s connections or something similar. Even if the parents want to sue and do win (which they likely could), the court of public opinion has already found these kids guilty in a senss. All suing would do is ruin the family name even further and keep this in the headlines as Boren continues to be viewed as a pillar of acceptance. Checkmate Boren.
“No matter how remorseful, no matter how sincere, they would be accused of being unremorseful and insincere.”
Maybe because they continued being a member of SAE after learning this vile and racist chant months ago.
They are remorseful now because the got caught.
I have zero sympathy for these frat boys.
They aren’t remorseful or sincere because they didn’t see a problem with the chant until the rest of America did…and having one kid deflect the blame while the other releases his letter through his parents doesn’t really help paint an image of “upstanding boys that just made a mistake”.
How do you know the AA students don’t feel threatened by such talk? In a town of over 100,000 people, 85% white and 4% black, white kids singing about lethal repercussions for seeking to join the third largest frat in the US would scare me if I were a student there.
We sang the mildly off-color “take your man around the corner” song in college, though only in same-sex company. Didn’t actually mean we planned on doing that.
Pizzagirl,
This may be a joke to you, but it is not to me and other AA parents trying to help our children choose schools where they will not be treated like crap because of the color of their skin.
Hanna, Thank you for sharing that article.