University of Oklahoma Fraternity suspended

“Do they want these former SAE’s up on the stand being questioned about how they learned this song?”

Oh good grief. The “discovery”? Where did they learn it from? They learned it because some stupid idiot passed it onto another stupid idiot because they thought it was funny.

BTW, and not that I desire to google anything with the n-word, but I certainly know the sorority songs that I learned really weren’t all that different from house to house – the “take your man around the corner” song works with any house that has a name or initials that ends in the long e sound (to rhyme with the word glee). It’s possible that it’s not an SAE song per se, but a fraternity song that could be adapted to whatever frat one chooses. But, go ahead believing it’s part of the initiation ritual to learn this song and pledge to hang black people.

PG: I get the language. My understanding is that the frat might reach out to those they want and make sure those guys know about the parties and that they have a good shot at becoming a pledge. This could be the actual brother or cousin of a member, or the high school friends or teammates of members. These are the guys the frat wants to come and rush their frat.

Will James says that he was the second black member of OU SAE, 14 years ago. He says there has not been a third black member. I’m assuming he is accurate.

"It looks like the chapter is preparing to sue the university, and Boren personally "

Again, this is not “the SAE chapter” suing the university. SAE national has no involvement in this. It is the students formerly affiliated with SAE who are considering this.

“It’s not very welcoming to talk about the teaching of Christ to a Muslim. So are churches creating a hostile environment?”

I believe people know that if they go to a church, synagogue, or a mosque or a service of any specific faith - they go with the understanding that the message preached will follow the doctrines of that specific religion. When I have to go to church (I am not Christian) I know I will hear some things which are contrary to my religion. Teaching an ethos of a religion is quite different that chanting racist words.

With freedom of speech, the judgement of the speech is entirely in the court of public opinion. Seems like hardly anyone would claim that the prevailing public opinion that the speech in question is racist is wrong. (Of course, this can be different from the public opinion about whether OU’s various actions are legal, or should or should not be, for which there is somewhat less consensus.)

“Pizza, so do you think it is possible for someone to sing a song about molesting a child but not be a pedophile? Could you dismiss that person’s song as just being a “giggly” silly boy?”

I see a distinction between words and behavior. And good grief, I’m not saying that certain things aren’t OFFENSIVE.

I agree with that. I also don’t think a public university has the right to expel students who are racist, as much as I dislike racism.

“Pizzagirl, I’m just stating a fact: on a lot of campuses, Greek life costs money that lower middle or working class students (which would include most black students) don’t have.”

How do you know the economic makeup of the black students at OU?

PG: You didn’t answer my question.

Yet both are equally protected by the Constitution. That’s the part a few are finding hard to accept.

The courts would allow it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/

I used the word “chapter” to distinguish that it was not national. The chapter existed, it has its own identity and members. They are the ones who are suing.

JHS: Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, but you did say:

which suggested to me that you didn’t think it was harmful or a big deal. I think they fully understood the implications of both using the N word and lynching, but that does’t mean they would go out and harm a black person. They just don’t want to have to associate with someone of color. To be fair, you did say the words were racist and evidence of white privilege.

What the court of public opinion seems to be missing it that it is wrong but legal. Legality is important if we are to live in a country with legal protections for our actions. Otherwise we devolve into a tribal society where the crowd rules.

In this discussion, it might be useful to know the law.
In particular, what is the standard to determine if a Title VI violation has occurred, and what defines a “hostile environment” under Title VI?
Here are some relevant excerpts -

No one is saying that just because speech is legal it isn’t offensive or concerning. Westboro has a right to say the things they like, even though they are disgusting and vile. Where the courts get involved is if / when Westboro is perceived to be an actual harrassment / threat / disruption to the public.

JHS said -
"a bunch of giggly boys saying bad words and probably not even fully understanding what the lynching reference meant.

And mom2and said - “which suggested to me that you didn’t think it was harmful or a big deal.”

See, that’s where we are at cross purposes. Suggesting that they are indeed a bunch of stupid drunk freshmen saying stupid things they don’t fully comprehend does NOT imply that therefore we think this was a silly, harmless prank.

It says that you treat this as a teachable moment – hey, even though you thought this was silly and harmless trash-talking, this makes people uncomfortable, these are real people behind your stereotype, and they don’t deserve the n-word, and if you’re a person of character, you’ll stop and think about that and refrain from talking like that in the future.

It doesn’t say that you treat them as though they were actually out with nooses that night. Unless, of course, they were. Then that’s a completely different story.

This sounds to me like the hypothetical SAE chapter that made a practice of singing the lynching song in the quad would be deemed to be creating a hostile environment. And then, should the members of that hypothetical chapter be disciplined, we’d have the legal conflict between the OCR guidelines @al2simon quotes and the cases that Eugene Volokh cites. (I looked up the Iota Xi case, and it didn’t seem to be on point. But I haven’t looked at the other cases.)

Have there even been any cases where the OCR hostile environment guidelines went against First Amendment claims? Has this even been tested in court? I’m asking about cases where both sides agree that the conduct created a hostile environment (and I think repeatedly singing the lynching song in public would do that) but the students claimed that they nevertheless had the right to do it.

Once again, the First Amendment being a part of the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution prevails over any OCR guidelines, any statutes passed by Congress and certainly any university handbooks.