“but others could be just as right to think these guys understood the song and believed that black men have no place in SAE, even if they would not go out and lynch someone or may even have a black aquatintance or two.”
Sure. I think it’s quite possible if you scratched some of these guys, you would find them thinking that blacks have no place in SAE. In which case, that just says that SAE is full of a bunch of a-holes, the being of which is not currently illegal or grounds for expulsion.
“Yet they are in a narrow minority. Just like the USSC rules by majority, in this case if you count the votes of the legal scholars who have publicly commented on this, the case is pretty simple - the First Ammendment rights of the two kids were violated.”
Good for you. I will wait for the Court(s) to decide when (and if) it is argued. In the meantime - the students have been expelled and I haven’t heard they have hired any lawyers to defend them.
“You may be right that it was not meaningful, but others could be just as right to think these guys understood the song and believed that black men have no place in SAE, even if they would not go out and lynch someone or may even have a black aquatintance or two.”
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = no big deal and 10 = expel those guys immediately, where do you all put …
Let’s deconstruct the first one. Suppose instead of SAE, there were just 10 white guys who became friends from the dorm. They eat lunch together, dinner together, hang out together. They personally believe they don’t want to be friends with black guys, so they don’t invite any black guys to join them at the lunch table. They discuss that belief amongst themselves, but not to the outer world. How do you “prevent” that? Can you? Should you?
The news tonight has been filled with stories of lawyers being hired by SAE and/or the expelled students. I am not sure which one.
emily, you missed the early point of his column:
^ Good. So let them litigate. I have no problem whatsoever with them hiring lawyers and bringing suit.
I have learned through my many years on this earth to never predict how SCOTUS will rule or to listen to others on how SCOTUS will rule.
I think the other SAE students may have a case.
He’s assuming that everyone who was part of SAE was a bigot. I don’t purport to know, but it’s at least possible that there was/were member(s) who weren’t on the bus and didn’t participate.
As I said before, I think it’s possible, even probable, that you don’t have to get into free speech issues at all to make the decision to shurt the frat house. But I kind of doubt it’s legal to announce in advance that you won’t provide “student services” to students because they belonged to the same fraternity WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING in which you provide PROOF that each and every student to whom you have denied housing participated in such conduct…
I know some of you think that everyone in the frat “must have” been involved in singing that horrifying song, but I don’t think OU has the right to deny university housing and/or any other student services without providing some sort of due process and proving that…
I’m also upset by the people who are lumping every member of the sorority in with the frat guys. They are all getting harassed, yet we know at least one woman (and I think 2) actually taped the episode and disseminated it despite what I am sure must have been a worry about their personal safety.
Emphasis is mine.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am not buying that the courts would allow “his speech hurts our image” as justification for suspending First Amendment rights. Can you imagine all the ways that could be used to abuse student rights?
“For example, if they feel the actions of the frat boy morons hurts the image of the school, they may have grounds to act,”
Musicparent, I think you’re just making stuff up at this point.
“I’m also upset by the people who are lumping every member of the sorority in with the frat guys. They are all getting harassed, yet we know at least one woman (and I think 2) actually taped the episode and disseminated it despite what I am sure must have been a worry about their personal safety.”
I agree. I bet people hate it when the acts of several in a certain group are deemed to represent the beliefs and feelings of all of them. Maybe they should come up with a word for this.
Word=stereotype
No and no.
I don’t understand the scale, because “no big deal” and “expel immediately” don’t seem to me to be two ends of the same scale. I would have two different scales, a scale of morality, where 1 = morally admirable and 10 = morally despicable, and a scale of allowable behavior, where 1 = nothing discipline-worthy for this behavior, 3 = slap on the wrist, 7 = expulsion after hearing, and 10 = this person is dangerous, expel immediately.
So, believing that blacks have no place in your fraternity gets a 7 on the immoral scale, but, presuming that you never said anything about it in public, not even on a bus with people not in your fraternity, it would be a 1 on the punishment scale because how would you even know? And even if you did know, as in this case, the behavior was not done in public.
Singing the lynching song in public would get an 8 or 9 on the immorality scale-- not only does the person have wrong thoughts, but they’re actively harming other people by flaunting their despicable views. And it would be a 7 on the punishment scale.
Targeting specific people for verbal or physical abuse: now we’re into the high scores. 9 for immorality, and probably 9 or 10 for punishment, since the victims need to be protected now.
“Let’s deconstruct the first one. Suppose instead of SAE, there were just 10 white guys who became friends from the dorm. They eat lunch together, dinner together, hang out together. They personally believe they don’t want to be friends with black guys, so they don’t invite any black guys to join them at the lunch table. They discuss that belief amongst themselves, but not to the outer world. How do you “prevent” that? Can you? Should you?”
You can prevent that by moving to California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont or New Hampshire since that scenario probably hasn’t happened in a long time in those states
“You can prevent that by moving to California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont or New Hampshire since that scenario probably hasn’t happened in a long time in those states”
That is ridiculous. There are racists in all 50 states.
The scenario re: the friends is obviously not an issue for anyone but the friends to speak about among themselves. But if those same friends speak about how certain people should be killed for trying to join their group, that may be a different story, especially if they suggest that such a killing should become a policy in their circle. I think the police might like to be informed at that point.
@florida26, I live in CA and I can assure you that this sort of thing happens here all the time, unfortunately.
Cardinal Fang, If you were the benevolent dictator of the USA, would you expel all racists from the country? Assume that they sang the lynching song in the town square. If other countries wouldn’t take these racists, would you jail them instead?
If, now, you also had to abide by the Constitution, do you think you would be able to do that or do you think the USSC would stop you?
We are all unconsciously racist. But I think it likely that anyone in this chapter who isn’t consciously racist is a coward. If you discover that these are the values of the brothers in your values-based brotherhood, you need to get out. The chant sounded well rehearsed and included lots of voices. This wasn’t the first time.
Uh, RondolnBFlat, dictators don’t have constitutions or courts that constrain them. Which is it?