@Nrdsb4 seems like creating a martyr out of these racists by arresting them would only increase support for them and similar people. I agree that without a history of racist behavior on the OU campus it’s hard to feel threatened rather than just unwelcome.
OK, let’s step back form criminal penalties then. What about civil penalites in the 4 cases i.e., just fines? In the event your answer is no there as well, why then should public institutions like UoO be allowed to levy what amounts to a civil penalty, i.e., expulsion? Note that I am not asking about what private institutions or businesses can do as UoO is not a private entity. It’s a public entity. So it has to follow a different set of rules.
I guess ultimately this is what I am getting at: there are many behaviors that are immoral, but which should never, ever be subject to punishment by public entitites for two simple reasons.
-
It’s a slippery slope. In this particular case everyone is in agreement, that racism is immoral. But there are other cases where reasonable people will disagree on what is immoral e.g., extra-marital sex (remember Clinton?)
-
The notion of a thought police is just plain against American values. That works in totalitarian states but not here. It may abhor me that my neighbour hates homosexuals (for example, and I don’t know if he does), but I still need to support his right to engage in such hatred.
The price we pay for living in a civil society where we are free to have our own opinions is that we must be tolerant of other people’s opinions as well, even if such ideas make us uncomfortable, or even if we firmly believe that such ideas are repugnant. The way to counter ideas is not censorship, it is being vocal about the drawbacks of such ideas. I would expect an University official of all people to cherish this grounding principle of Western democracies, but sadly Boren came up short. That he is a Democrat saddens me further.
@Nrdsb4 your comments in post 920 fall into the camp of opinions making excuses for these individuals. I find it appalling to say the least. I wouldnt want my kids within 100 miles of these people. They help to create and perpetuate a hostile environment which is repugnant on so many levels to so many people. What I find pathetically sad is we are still having this conversation 50 years after Selma .
Florida26, What do you think is more harmful to a civil, democratic society? People allowed to have and express all thoughts including repugnant thoughts, or a thought police that screens all thoughts and shuts down those that the majority public considers repugnant?
@florida26, what EXCUSES have I made for these individuals? NONE. Saying I believe they are merely racists rather than violent is not making excuses. Not every violent person is racist and not every racist is violent. I don’t care for racists, but neither am I so naive as to believe I could ever get my kids 100 miles from racists either. And I am from California by the way, still visit family and know that your assertion that there are no race problems in California is pure and total bunk.
The Selma march was about fighting racism. But it was racism that was officially practiced and sanctioned by the state government. It was the state governments that denied voting rights to African Americans.
The Selma march participants were beaten by officials of the local and state government who ignored the marchers’ rights to free speech. Protesters who argued for their rights were expressing what was an unpopular, minority opinion at the time. It was their free speech that changed society.
To me, it’s very important to remember that OU is part of the state government. I do not think people in this thread have focused enough on this. We should be very hesitant to allow the government to determine what we can and can’t say. The law is very clear that under the 1st Amendment free speech has to trump in this particular case. I completely agree.
The best answer to bad speech is more speech. Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.
- In private, without anyone from that race present
- In public, without anyone from that race present
- In private, but in the presence of someone from that race
- In public, in the presence of someone from that race
No
No
No
No
However, if someone posted or said something which pointed to the intent to harm the person/persons physically - then they could be subject to investigation - just like someone who posts something on social media threatening to bring a gun, or a bomb to school might be investigated.
For instance, if it became known that a specific person or group of persons intended to bring harm to the marchers in Selma last weekend - then investigation into the person or group is warranted, imo.
Emily, Let’s say they were investigated and cleared by the police of any history of causing harm, or any intent or plan to do so. Would you then suggest 1) letting them be, including the right to chant whatever, or 2) taking measures to stop them from chanting?
@rondoinbflat we dont have thought police Prior restraints on speech is not usually enforced. There are consequences to actions however. As a classic example is you dont get to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. You dont get to make plans to blow up buildings and then argue I didnt really mean to do it. I seem to remember a few cases where judges have been reprimanded for making demeaning comments to women and minorities and these were elected officials. You dont get to harass your ex and claim it is free spech As many posters have told you there are limits on free speech in order to have a functioning society. I am not so sure why that is so hard for you to understand fifty years after Selma
Thank you for your input, Florida26. However that didn’t answer the question I asked: On the balance what do you think is more harmful in a hypothetical setting, a thought police, or lack thereof resulting in people’s ability to harbor and express repugnant thoughts. I respectfully ask that question again to you.
“Emily, Let’s say they were investigated and cleared by the police of any history of causing harm, or any intent or plan to do so. Would you then suggest 1) letting them be, including the right to chant whatever, or 2) taking measures to stop them from chanting?”
Yes, let them chant to their hearts content in that case - but knowing that there are other consequences they may face which don’t include being charged criminally. For instance, if their employers learned of it - they could be fired from their jobs and called out for being racist lowlifes - or being kicked out of an organization for their views.
Exactly.
Emily, Thank you. Now, if their employer is a public entity, do you think the employer would be within its legal rights to fire these individuals? The case law is clear, the public employer may not.
Of course, other people may call them out for being racist lowlifes and they may be kicked out of private organizations for their views. All of which is perfectly legal and to be expected as well.
@nrdsb4 You obviously didnt read my post at 902. You may want to do that. The original post you are referring to was an attempt at sarcasm. To help you out California has a lot less racism than many other parts of the country. There have interesting twitter research in that regard. I think you should try and get your kids away from those types of individuals rather than making an excuse that it cant be done
Emily, Thank you. Now, if their employer is a public entity, do you think the employer would be within its legal rights to fire these individuals? The case law is clear, the public employer may not.
I would still think it depends on where the offending behavior took place. For instance, if the employee was spewing his racist diatribe in the workplace lunchroom, for example - I think the employer has a good case even if it’s a public entity.
For those who think that the non-singers bringing the lawsuit is a loser in the public opinion sense, what makes you think so?
These men have already been slandered as bigots by Boren, have lost their living quarters and fraternity, have lost their reputations and are being subjected to hostile and possibly violent backlash activities. It’s hard to see how a lawsuit could make things much worse for them.
@RondoInBFlat There is no such thing as thought police except in Tom Cruise movies so your question is impossible to answer
@florida26, a lot of racists are closet racists, as you well know, with no cameras in sight to reveal them. I’d rather they be upfront and not censored so I know who I am dealing with. My children are 21 and 24 and I am not so naive as to believe I can shield them from despicable points of view. And quite frankly, one of the great things about college is the exposure to all points of view, even odious ones such as racism, because it helps them learn to formulate their reactions to them. I don’t want them to live in a bubble. If you want to believe you can stay away from all racists at all times, you are incredibly naive. But have at it.
I hope you realize that whenever someone has to tell someone his skin color in an intellectual argument, you are not longer being intellectual.
And worse, you are reinforcing exactly what you do not want people to do - view you as a color, not by the integrity of your ideas or your character.
It is one thing to talk about how you interpret what others say, but your reactions do not put more weight behind an intellectually weak argument. In fact, it makes people think that you need to use other factors other than intellect to support your augments. Ultimately, it puts you in a weaker position.
And the fundamental weakness in your argument for wanting punishment of this concept of hate speech is that this hate speech thing is only your interpretation and reaction, not a fact of what was actually intended as hate. Hate is an intent; it is not a word or a sentence or an interpretation. Therefore, you are missing the entire reason for your wanting punishment by miles.
Pretty stupid to punish for words, especially if the person really means it. They will just hate you more. Another example of symbolism over substance again.
And a perfect example of counter-productive is punishing the one’s who did not mean it, for they might now hate you for punishing them for their stupidity. Imagine if we decide what stupid stuff you say was hateful to us and we think we should punish you for your stupidity?
I am not saying the frat boys were right; I am saying you have not a clue and to punish for words is rather intellectually vacuous, in addition to being, in my view, against the First Amendment.
The slippery slope mentioned by this poster in Post #922 is evidenced around the world, and unfortunately you, @TheAtlantic, do not get it.
Mission creep is a real. And when public schools start thinking they can punish for words, then it could easily creep to other extensions of society, and get to the top, i.e., government. Acceptance of idiocy leads to more implementation of idiocy and soon the problem is societal and whatever government deems as hate becomes punishment material.
The end result is easily examples such as these:
Overall, your idea that you can determine what is hate speech is no different than these governments above. They view basic dissent as offending and hate against the government. Support this hate speech concept and, in time, your speech is next because we may determine that something you say is hate and have you punished.
I imagine there probably is case law which supports that.