University of Oklahoma Fraternity suspended

Parents Forum
901

It does seem that lots of people are arguing different things, perhaps not realizing it. For example, you, or someone else, may have some of the same and some different answers to all of these questions:

Do you think that…

…the chanting on the bus was racist? (pretty sure almost everyone answers yes)
…it indicated hard-core racism or something milder?
…it presented a threat of harm to others?
…(if yes to the previous) the threat was large and/or immediate?
…it falls under first amendment protection?
…it should fall under first amendment protection?
…the decision to expel the two students is legal?
…the decision to expel the two students is desirable?

Except for the apparent consensus on the first question, it looks like the opinions in this thread are all over the place on all of the other questions. Note that the last two pairs of questions differ in what you think is the case, versus what you think should be the case (which may be the same, or may be different).

902

@Pizzagirl that was meant to be humor!!! And maybe a bit of sarcasm This whole post was starting to irritate me. There seemed to be way too many excuses for the abhorrent racist conduct Sure California has racist behavior but studies analyzing racist tweets have shown that racism is much more prevalent in other parts of the country than California. Over the last twenty years I have seen very little racism in California. It is a much more open society than some parts of the country. I was also getting tired of your excuses for these individuals. I am sure you will deny it but that is the way it came across. And yes I paid my bar dues this year(that was meant to be humor also) And yes i still work on cases.

903

A germane article on Oklahoma’s history which explains the outrage and one possible reason why Boren responded the way he did and is receiving support for doing so:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/12/the-real-lynchings-in-sae-s-oklahoma-backyard.html

Also, singling out a specific group, especially a minority group which has been targeted for bigotry and violence by the majority in a given population by singing about or otherwise making threatening statements about perpetuating such bigotry and violence(i.e. lynching) is likely to foster fear among those in the targeted group.

It’s an experience few who haven’t studied groups and societies which were affected or moreso, those who lived it firsthand or thorough family histories can fully understand.

Historical context which some here seem to downplay or ignore does matter in situations like these.

904

Do you think that…

…the chanting on the bus was racist? Yes
…it indicated hard-core racism or something milder? No idea, don’t know the kids
…it presented a threat of harm to others? Yes
…(if yes to the previous) the threat was large and/or immediate? Absolutely not
…it falls under first amendment protection? Yes
…it should fall under first amendment protection? Yes
…the decision to expel the two students is legal? No
…the decision to expel the two students is desirable? Absolutely not

905

This comment is bound to draw the ire of some of you, but I have changed my mind on whether SAE should have been sanctioned. I no longer think they should have, and here is why.

You cannot punish all members of a group for the actions of a small group of its members.

As someone mentioned earlier, we don’t know if there were members of SAE who were not on the bus. We don’t know if everyone on the bus participated.

Here is an example of why I think it was unfair. Let’s say you are a member of group. It might be the State Bar, or the Better Business Bureau. You are at a national convention, and board a bus to tour some of the sights of the city you are in. Someone on the bus starts singing a racist song. You immediately protest. Actually, maybe you are napping from a late night of networking and never even hear the song.

Someone tapes the event and distributes it to CNN. The next thing you know, the State Bar has revoked your license based on a “conduct unbecoming” clause (work with me here. There may be no such thing, but I think you get the idea). Or, the BBB has placed a poor grade on your business because you aren’t upholding the charter of the organization.

Or maybe your kid is in the National Honor Society in HS and the same thing happens on a school sponsored bus trip. Your kid gets kicked out of NHS and now his college career is in jeopardy through no fault of his or her own.

Hopefully nobody here thinks I condone the actions of those singing, or excuse them in any way. I find it abhorrent and disgusting, but still would have allowed it to go unpunished, and would not have punished the other members of the group who were not caught in the act.

906

TV4caster, You don’t believe in collective punishment? Crowds love them though.

907

Having read all 903 comments in this thread, I have some reservations regarding the “freedom of speech trumps all” statements.

I come at this as someone who has tried to be open minded about the value of greek life. One of my two sons went that route, and it was a great experience for him. He pledged halfway through his sophomore year at a large state flagship, at a time when he already had many friends from many diverse backgrounds on campus. So he was pretty clear eyed about the good, the bad and the ugly of Greek life when he joined.

Part of the reason we all send our kids to a residential college is to expand their horizons. We want them to meet and hopefully become friends with people who are not just like the people they grew up with. We want them to be exposed to different ideas, different perspectives, different beliefs.

It seems to me that social fraternities and sororities, simply as a result of their methods of choosing who can belong and who is not welcome to be a member are exclusive as starting point. And that starting point can be a problem.

It seems to me that like attracts like. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but when forming an exclusive club, especially an exclusive club full of people whose brains are not yet fully formed, that “like attracts like” tendency can lead to stupidity. A slippery slope of group think. So when the pledges, already sleep deprived, having spent a few weeks doing stupid activities, are taught a racist little ditty by their Bigs, there isn’t a soul there stepping up to act as the dispassionate voice of reason and rational thought. So the racist ditty is just a silly little thing that gets sung. It has no meaning as a racist, horrible song. It just gets belted out, on a bus, with gusto, thoughtlessly. The words, the meaning are lost. That is a problem. That is a slippery slope going backwards.

And for me, the fact that not a soul on that bus stepped up to even suggest that belting out a racist ditty might not be the smartest thing in the world, is what bothers me. These guys, living in a bubble of fraternity and brotherhood, were so insulated from rational thought that a racist ditty became the norm. That song had clearly been sung before. All the boys appeared to be familiar with it. It wasn’t as though one kid just stood up and sang it alone.

I think the university’s official response was designed to slap some sense into its fraternities and sororities. Not as a freedom of speech issue, but as a “Examine yourselves. Do not let your bubble of brotherhood or sisterhood allow you to lose your rational, thinking, adult brain.”

(Whether the two boys should be expelled… I don’t think it was the best answer. They might have been better served by being put on double secret probation and required to do a hundred hours of community service in a non-lilly white community.)

908

Wasn’t the video only 10 seconds long? How do we know that what you say above is true? It certainly could be, but do we know this for a “fact” as you say?

909

Right. You’re a member of the State Bar in a very small state with only about 100 lawyers in it. None of them are black. Everybody in your state bar has been living together for at least three months, most for longer. Your state bar teaches state bar songs to you; you are known as the state that has a bar association that sings. One of the songs you’ve been taught is a song about lynching black people, and about how no black people will be members of your state bar. For three years or more, members of your bar association have been teaching this racist song to other members of your state bar.

You’re sitting on a bus on the way to some tour, singing your state bar songs, and someone starts singing this song. Others join in. Everybody knows the words. Nobody protests. Nobody says, “Hey! Cut that out!” You don’t, and nobody else does either.

Unbeknownst to you, someone is recording the entire chorus on their cell phone. You and your state bar friends begin to sing the song again. Another person takes out their cell phone. This time someone notices. Do they stop the singing? No they do not. They try to stop the person from recording.

You do not immediately protest. Nobody protests.

Later, the video comes out. You pretend that you are shocked, shocked that people in your state bar have been singing this racist song for three years. Actually, you’re upset that now everyone knows you’re racists.

910

By “whether SAE should have been sanctioned”, do you mean the termination of the local ΣAE chapter by the ΣAE national, or OU’s eviction of the members of the former ΣAE chapter from the presumably OU-owned fraternity house?

911

“And for me, the fact that not a soul on that bus stepped up to even suggest that belting out a racist ditty might not be the smartest thing in the world, is what bothers me.”

Nrdsb4: “Wasn’t the video only 10 seconds long? How do we know that what you say above is true? It certainly could be, but do we know this for a “fact” as you say?”

We don’t know it as a fact, but as a reasonable, thinking person, the fact that nobody who was on that bus has said, “I was there! I tried to say something!” leads me to believe that nobody said anything.

I also believe that every person who lived in that fraternity house was familiar with that song. And that the atmosphere within that fraternity house did not allow anyone who might have had reservations about singing it from standing up at a meeting and saying something like, “Maybe this isn’t the song we ought to be singing in 2015.” Do I have evidence that that didn’t happen? No, but my instincts tell me that if anyone in that chapter had been shocked by that video, we would have heard about it by now.

912

Agree with CF, assuming what we have heard is true. That is, the song was taught to the frat members as part of the fraternity songs. This was not portrayed by anyone so far as isolated to only those on the bus or not an actual SAE song. If your scenario that only a few members knew the song is true, TV4, then perhaps SAE would have an argument for reinstatement.

913

“And for me, the fact that not a soul on that bus stepped up to even suggest that belting out a racist ditty might not be the smartest thing in the world, is what bothers me”

The girl who took the tape and forwarded it clearly felt that it was wrong.

And you simply cannot tell from the video if someone spoke up afterwards and said cut it out.

This is not about Greek life - the story doesn’t change if it were just a bunch of white friends holding a private party who sang a similar chant. The private vs public nature is a VERY important piece if the equation for me. I can be disgusted with speech but I see a very clear distinction between its expression privately vs publicly. I would feel very differently about the matter if it had been chanted on the public quad.

914

…the chanting on the bus was racist? Yes

…it indicated hard-core racism or something milder? Not sure what you mean by hard core racism. It was racist no question. I don’t think the frat broes are white supremicists that are going to lynch people. But they are racist obviously.

…it presented a threat of harm to others? No. Private situation, no one heard it other than the white frat boys and their dates.

…(if yes to the previous) the threat was large and/or immediate? Absolutely not

…it falls under first amendment protection? Yes. The hostile environment claim is plausible but a real stretch and a very likely loser in lititgation. Also title vii does not over rule the Constitution. To fall out of first amendment protection you would need a lot more evidence of a pattern of more realistic threatening behavior. A one off incident doesn’t do it. Or even repeated incidents that are always private and so couldn’t be seen as threatening.

…it should fall under first amendment protection? Yes. In this case, the bad speech was overwhelmed by good speech. That’s exactly how it is supposed to work.

…the decision to expel the two students is legal? No

…the decision to expel the two students is desirable? It was a good decision.

The decision is only overturned if it is litigated to completion. While the legal principle is a winner, the case is a huge loser, as a practical matter, for the expelled students. My guess is that it won’t even be litigated.

Prosecuting this case would be a disaster for the students – even if you win, you lose big time. They know it and OU knows it. OU’s only risk is perhaps paying out some go-away settlement cash, and they have insurance for that. In the real world, people usually use litigation and the courts as a tool only if it makes sense. Hypothetical cases are not the same as actual cases that are actually litigated by actual parties, lawyers and courts. These guys are partying frat broes. They were not singing that song to advance a political agenda of white supremacy. They are not the kind of plaintiff that OU is going to fear.

Boren had a choice to strike a blow for first amendment rights. Or strike a blow for racial tolerance. Easy call.

915

A fraternity is quite unlike a bar association. It is, by its own telling, a values-based organization. It is a wholly voluntary group; you need not join in order to participate in something else. So at least on the chapter level, everybody sinks or swims together. If you share the credit for all the service hours the chapter works, you must share the blame for a rotten racist culture in the chapter.

916

^^ …“This is not about Greek life - the story doesn’t change if it were just a bunch of white friends holding a private party who sang a similar chant.”

This is about Greek life since the chant not only used a derogatory term to reference black Americans, but also referenced denying membership to their university sanctioned fraternity to a entire segment of the student body based solely on the color of their skin.

917

What I find really ridiculous is the posters like PG saying that these kids didn’t understand what they’re saying. If you’re over 18 and have yet to understand what the “n” word is, why you as a white person shouldn’t be saying that word, and what lynching is, then both your teachers and your parents have failed you epically.

918

Question for the forum: Should the use of racial epithets by someone outside of that race be made a criminal offense subject to fines and incarcerations? Consider 4 sub cases.

  1. In private, without anyone from that race present
  2. In public, without anyone from that race present
  3. In private, but in the presence of someone from that race
  4. In public, in the presence of someone from that race

What I am trying to get at is this - we all know that racism is morally wrong always, and is legally wrong when it impacts something material (e.g., jobs, place of residence etc). When it is just speech, how many are willing to make it legally wrong?

919

@RondoInBFlat‌

  1. In private, without anyone from that race present (No.)
  2. In public, without anyone from that race present (No.)
  3. In private, but in the presence of someone from that race (No.)
  4. In public, in the presence of someone from that race (No.)

Jailing/Finings people for having racist thoughts is going over the edge and I don’t think anyone is in favor of doing it. Nobody is trying to jail people for having certain ideas, we just believe that their words should have consequences as the public becomes aware. Honestly, this question is kind of ridiculous.

But institutions and businesses should have the ability to punish hate speech that was made publicly or became public, as they see fit.

AA Male Student

920

@TheAtlantic, there actually was one poster who favored police involvement in this incident. Makes that a person in the minority, but there are people who would be fine with seeing someone be criminally prosecuted for this kind of speech. I’m going to assume they believe this because they feel a case could be made for this being a legitimate threat. My personal opinion is to disagree, as these idiots had no intention of their words being heard by anyone outside of that bus, much less were they intending to make AA students feel threatened, and even less likely that they would actually act on those words. I do agree with PG that their intentions would look different to me if they were marching in the quad singing this song or standing outside the window of an AA student’s residence or something more overt like that. If I were to learn that these students had criminal histories of attacking AA students or systematic harassment of them, I’d also consider the song ominous rather than just racist. But with the info we have at present, I think these were just students expressing racist rhetoric in what they believed to be a private setting.