“I think we all have a right to express our opinions. It’s just that some are borne out of ignorance.”
Are you calling me ignorant?
Oh no…lawyers disagree. 
DStark, That’s where majority opinions come in.
Plenty of the debating partners here have fine legal educations, and have been kind enough to share their expertise with the rest of us. I’m not willing to have someone pat me on the head and say these legal issues are too hard for people like me to understand.
Moreover, my interest is not in whether the university had the right to expel the students in the present case (I would say they didn’t) but whether they would have the right to expel the students if the speech had been public.
That of course is your privilege, Cardinal Fang.
I have read the opinions of three Constitutional scholars: Eugene Volokh of UCLA, Geoffrey Stone of U of Chicago and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine. All come down the same way: The expulsion of the students was a violation of their Constitutional rights.
PS. I am also a lawyer although Constitutional law was not my speciality. I did get the highest grade in the class though. 
@Cardinal Fang Havent you noticed that virtually nothing that is done against blacks or hispanics is racist on CC. It is just silly little boys. Yet with some races on CC everything is racist. It is called the double standard
Thanks, ucbalumnus. I didn’t know what the percentage was, and stand corrected: it’s lower than I presumed, although higher than at many colleges. I can’t remember what UCB’s figure is, but I seem to recall that the UCs I visited mostly ran around 10% for Greek participation.
Absolutely not. I don’t even know you.
So, one dissenter out of many. I think the majority opinion holds.
I think that the Sigma guys hiring Timothy McVeigh’s lawyer will only further motivate people whom support Boren’s actions. Of course even scoundrels are entitled to legal counsel, that’s what separates the U.S. from totalitarian and authoritarian states. But I don’t imagine that seeing Attorney Jones standing before a microphone to defend the fraternity boys would increase any Oklahomans’ sympathy for them. Justice is supposed to be impartial but often it isn’t. And once again we are talking about the court of public opinion. Do these frat fellows really want their names to appear on a google search with Timothy McVeigh? It’s not like Jones was able to get McVeigh acquitted?
I think it is a sad day if Americans are threatening other Americans with how the court of public opinion would punish them even if the actual legal court rules that they were the ones whose rights were trampled upon.
Sad day, indeed. I would expect this in a totalitarian state but not in a modern democracy.
TatinG, are you a practicing lawyer?
If I google those three lawyers, am I going ti find they all have the same political leanings?
"Well, here you go.
"In a break with most legal experts, Daria Roithmayr, a law professor at the University of Southern California who has written about the interplay of law and racism, said that a plausible argument could be made that the students’ action caused a “material disruption” in the university’s educational mission and was not protected by the First Amendment."
Well, then, there you go.
Thomas Jefferson expected it, which is why he warned against “the tyranny of the majority”
The SAE lawsuit looks weak. The lawyer is not representing the two kids who were expelled, who most of us agree would have a case. He was retained by alumni of the fraternity, who are upset that the president of their university called this year’s SAE members “bigots.” The First Amendment doesn’t protect people who sing racist songs from being called bigots.
I don’t know about Stone, but Volokh is a libertarian and Chemerinski is fairly left of center.
I just don’t see how Prof. Roithmyr’s standard of a ‘material disruption’ protects anyone’s First Amendment rights on campus. Any sort of protest with large numbers of people would be a ‘material disruption’ given the numbers, noise, and physical space taken. But a private bus off campus is hardly a material disruption. In any case, I don’t think her standard has been accepted by the courts.
Stone is regarded as liberal.
So is Chemerinsky.
Also, the political leanings of lawyers have no bearing on whether their argument will stand in court. So far, it seems that there is only one legal expert who is dissenting from the majority opinion that racist speech is nevertheless protected under the First Ammendment. Only one.
That should put to bed any conspiracy theories about one political leaning fudging the ballots.