From arabrab’s article -
"Rather than marching and shouting, what if President Boren invited the young men on that bus who sang their hateful song to sit and watch the video with the black staff members of the SAE house who fixed their meals and cleaned their rooms? Just played it over and again or even ask them to sing the song live. What if after their live performance President Boren finally allowed Walter, the man who cooked their meals for the last 15 years to ask the young men one simple question: “is this what you really think of me?” "
I think this kind of “punishment” would go far, far deeper in creating true understanding, than simply proclaiming these boys are lost and sending them away.
In case it hasnt been pointed out in previous 34 pages free speech rights are not unlimited in the school environment See JS vs Bethlehem area school district for example
I don’t think the right answer is education in lieu of punishment; I think the right answer is education and punishment.
The solution Boren came up with feels like rough justice to me, meaning I understand how it could be perceived as just but it doesn’t quite seem right to me. I completely agree with shutting down the SAE chapter permanently and kicking the guys out of the house. But the fact that OU is public makes the situation very complicated since the constitution and the code of conduct tie one’s hands a lot when it comes to future punishment.
If OU were private and the code of conduct gave me the power, this is what I’d do - Rather than expel the two leaders, I’d probably say that everyone who was on the bus who was singing should be suspended for the entire 2015-16 academic year. I’d have disciplinary hearings as required by due process to determine who should be suspended, and I’d use the video as well as testimony to get as complete a list as I could of who was on the bus and singing (colleges who have mass cheating scandals manage to gather lists of names of cheaters this way). Then I’d take the opportunity to have the type of education along the lines that were suggested in the “Teachable Moment” article that arabrab posted, for the entire campus and especially for the people on the bus.
But the fact that OU is public is a big problem for meting out this type of punishment. Legally, freedom of speech has to prevail since OU is part of the state government. I guess Boren’s solution is as good as any, but maybe there’s a better one that adheres to the law better.
Oh, and I don’t think white people can truly understand the depths of racist hatred that African Americans feel they are subjected to when a song like that is sung. IMO, the fact that it’s considered funny entertainment by supposedly “good” college kids makes it even worse.
"Let’s say a second video was released, time-stamped 10 seconds after the first ended. The frat president stands up, says - ok, buddy, sit down, you’ve had too much to drink, we don’t talk like that, apologizes to everyone, and makes a note to talk to the guy once he’s sobered up and tell him that behavior doesn’t fly.
Humor me here and play along. Does this change anything? How and why? Does the presence of a “dissenter” make it less of a hostile environment?"
In my opinion, the answer is no, because I thought that, based on the fact that they all knew this chant, that the upperclassmen must have taught it to them, so I would not find the gesture credible. If only one or two of them were chanting then I thing the President stopping and correcting them would make a difference. Now there are reports of the same chant at other SAE chapters.
I guess the question is - if one speaks in private and doesn’t intend for words to be heard, given technology today one’s words can be disseminated easily and widely. Does that render all speech public?
If the think was said in a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a bathroom or shower, then I would think that would change the situation, but not on a bus full of people.
@much2learn what the school did is perfectly legal. See post 502 Free speech rights have their limits in school settings. I can get you more cites if you want them. What those students did could be considered to be a hate crime. In some jurisdictions they could be prosecuted
No, I don’t think singing that song could be prosecuted as a hate crime in any jurisdiction, despite the common misconception that hate crime statutes are designed to punish hateful speech. The “hate” part of a hate crime refers to someone’s motivation while committing something that’s already a criminal offense; the “crime” is not the speech itself. So if someone sang that song while assaulting and beating a black person? That would certainly be evidence of racist motivation sufficient to trigger the additional penalties associated with a hate crime conviction, but the crime itself would be the assault and battery, not the singing of the song. (I have not read this thread, so I apologize if that point has already been made.)
Florida. The case you referred to included a very specific threat against specific people asking do for money for a hit man and was taken seriously by some, although not necessarily meant to be. The district also proved it disrupted education at the school. Not sure it is comparable.
PG. the only way I would agree that the scenario of someone standing up and telling them to stop has an effect would be if one of the guys on the bus said that his dad taught him this bad but funny song and that was the first time they all sang it and it was stopped quickly. Otherwise, it is more likely a song taught to all and reflective of the general frat culture.
I think the video evidence is troubling if the location of the person recording means some are getting punished and others aren’t. The lack of process as well does not seem right.
As for the teachable part, I thought that would be in addition to shutting down the frat, not instead of. But perhaps instead of the expulsions.
Not true for DC. You can get a permit to protest almost anywhere. Of course, you won’t get one to protest on the White House lawn but how many times have you seen people hanging on the trees right outside the White House protesting. I have lived here 55 years and there are not many places you can’t go unless there are Homeland Security like issues prohibiting it.
Thank you. This is how issues like this are always deflected by talking about how other groups are discriminated against too. Like diluting the issue somehow makes it better. Except for maybe Jews and gays, I don’t remember anyone else systematically killing women or other classes of people just because of their very existence.
However, I stand by my stance that their bigoted butts need to be able to continue to go to school. They have the undeniable right to be a bigot. They are the very kind of people I warn my D exist and it is a shame that we have to teach our children to see every non minority in this light. Do you have to do this - I think not. But, if she is to live in this world, she will need to know that those that smile in your face have very different and sometimes dangerous views behind closed doors. And, if she is to walk in the hallowed halls of academia or business, she will never really know what her co-workers and bosses are saying when she is not around. That is our truth, and I am done with trying to get others to understand.
Who was citing other groups being discriminated against as an “excuse” for what happened? I missed that in this thread.
No one is arguing that the chant isn’t odious, cringe-worthy, awful. No one is saying that they would be proud if that were their son. If it were my son, he wouldn’t be able to issue a verbal apology since my hands would be around his neck.
We are talking about distinctions between public and private speech and how the use of technology blurs things so that what someone thought was private speech can become public speech. We are talking about distinctions between state actors (Oklahoma, as a public university) versus what a private university might or could do. We are talking about the distinctions between free speech, hate crimes, hostile environments, etc. We are talking about how we as a society deal with speech that many of us find abhorrent, without creating a society in which only certain thoughts and words are “allowed.” This isn’t about excusing racism, at all.
Agree, I’m deeply concerned about some of the aspects of this. I agree that the U had the right and if you stretch it an obligation to stop the fraternity, but am concerned that since this occurred in what was expected to be a private setting, the bus, in expelling the students they have violated those students civil rights. It surprised me that the one young man so quickly apologized, I think as a parent I would advise my student not to say anything until I determined the legality of the situation. I cannot condone the fraternity, but nor can I go so far as to say that what they did created a hostile environment that would require expulsion of students…since it did occur in a private setting. I think I agree with those that say the university president is hedging his bets, that the immediacy of his expulsion tactics was largely PR and “worth” the bet that it would not withstand a civil suit.
I agree with Pizza that the distinctions between free speech, hate crimes, hostile environments is a balancing act and I would find it repugnant to live in a society where only certain thoughts and words are “allowed” to be uttered. If I heard correctly on a news station this morning, it sounded like there was an advocacy group picketing at one of the young men’s home in Dallas this morning chanting “racism is taught” targeted at the parents and I find that as equally repugnant and disgusting as what happened on the bus. What rights do those parents have not to be picketed in front of their home? Less rights? I can’t accept that in this country. Ridiculous.
DonnaL, I believe you are a lawyer, correct? I appreciate when people bring their expertise to these threads because I learn something here pretty much on a daily basis.
As odious as racist rhetoric is, I believe we should all seriously question suggestions to criminally prosecute people for speech. I understand that it is sometimes appropriate in very limited situations, but that’s exactly what it should stay: very limited.
Racism isn’t mostly about the wretched moment of expressed hatred; mostly it is the system that discounts people’s lives. The system of racism allows unarmed black men to be shot by police or stand your ground types w/o consequence.
I am bothered by the inability of so many people to get this. So since the last recorded lynching with a rope was 1981, some one can claim there is no lynching, but since 1981, there have been a half dozen rope “suicides” that are disputed. There is the dragging death of James Byrd, and let us not forget Garrick Hopkins, 60, and his brother, Carl Hopkins Jr., 61, two brothers from West Virginia who were shot and killed by a white man, Rodney Bruce Black, 62, who claimed the Hopkins brothers were trespassing on his land – when in fact, they were inspecting a shed on their own property. Fear of lynching and/or being shot or beaten or raped for being (fill in) is a real concern for blacks, latinos, women, gays, and Asians.
Singing about violence on effected groups is not a joke or a drunken mistake. It is a threat.
I hate to post this as it is does not respect the dignity of the people who were murdered, like youtube beheadings, but I hope it might make real the violence inherent in the language of the frat boys.
Let me see if I can make the following point carefully. I believe in using words as precisely as possible when discussing serious topics. It seems to me that a couple of words have not been used precisely enough in this situation: they are “safe” and “unsafe.” When people say that this incident would make them believe that their child would not be “safe” at OU, what do they mean? If they mean that they don’t believe their child would be free from discrimination and bigotry, then I think that’s a sensible fear–but I don’t think that is the normal connotation of the word “safe.” So we end up in a discussion about whether those parents are really afraid of lynching, which is probably not a sensible fear at OU at the present time.
It is not a threat–at least in legal terms–if it is not communicated to the person who is threatened. Also, specific words matter. The chant in question does not threaten to lynch anyone. And I point out that the word “about” in the quote above shows that you actually understand this.
Why does it have to be a fear of the act of lynching? Why can’t it be a more generalized fear of violence? And who gets to decide if these fears are reasonable? I’m seeing a lot to of white people declare these fears unreasonable and, frankly, that seems unreasonable to me.