So don’t limit speech at all, because if we limit some hateful speech, we’ll end up limiting all speech?
Why do hate speech and bullying get protected by reductio ad absurdum at every turn? Can I call my kid a disgusting piece of crud in public and not be charged with child abuse?
It’s like saying we should abolish presidential elections because of the Bush/Gore debacle and hanging chads. Which sadly is why we abolished the death penalty in many states, because there were previous egregious cases of it being misapplied or applied for political or racist reasons.
Libertarians always bother me, because they want me to give up my rights in order that they can have all of their rights. Somewhere there is a balance between not paying taxes and paying taxes to support causes I do not support (like military aid to any country). But instead, some jokers want to not pay taxes at all, and that is ridiculous, so no real progress is made on reducing our military aid to foreign countries, reducing corporate welfare, and reducing religious tax exemptions.
The wiki definition of ‘hate speech’ is not law. It’s just someone’s opinion. Remember that at UC Irvine some in student government thought flying the American flag was hate speech. Men at Columbia might think that woman going around with the mattress was hate speech. Was a false Rolling Stone article that villified a fraternity at UVa hate speech? It might be libel, but that’s different. One of the finest court cases that spoke to what this country was all about was long ago when the Nazis wanted permission from the Skokie, Illinois city council to march in Skokie (which is a predominately Jewish community). They eventually got their permit because governments cannot decide whose speech to allow and whose to disallow. All have freedom of speech, no matter how vile. Recently, people marched in NYC chanting “Death to cops”. They weren’t arrested. It’s vile but it’s free. Some people just don’t get the concept of freedom of speech.
If the only penalty for these guys, is that they don’t get to live in the fraternity, that would be pretty lame, and would be barely a slap in the wrist.
Expulsion would be the appropriate response, they would still have the right to free speech, just not as a Sooner.
In this case, I wouldn’t call it no true Scotsman fallacy as much as an aspiration. Boren is adjuring his students to hold themselves to higher standards.
How “private” was this speech? Obviously, the person who took the video and posted it on Youtube found it offensive.
SAE has African American brothers on other campuses, right?
Boren is within his rights to eject a fraternity whose members proudly (and disgustingly) sing that they will violate the non-discrimination policy they agreed to. They have the right to say loudly, “We won’t admit black students to our fraternity,” and Boren has the right to say, “Then you cannot be a fraternity here. Goodbye!”
^Yes, they have every right to sing this song and they can continue to sing it but that does not protect them from the consequences of their speech.
The Court has even placed limitations on “Tinker” in that schools can restrict certain speech.
"In Healy v. James (1972), the Court ruled that Central Connecticut State College’s refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional, reaffirming Tinker.[134]
However, since 1969 the Court has also placed several limitations on Tinker interpretations. In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986),[135] the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988),[136] the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship.[137] In Morse v. Frederick (2007),[138] the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote “illegal drug use.”[139]"
I’m starting to think that you don’t fully understand what a “protected class” is. Can you tell me what you mean by that? Do you know that the U.S. doesn’t really have hate speech laws?
Agreed. I think my favorite quote on this topic is from Louis Brandeis, on the danger of speech as incitement:
In theory, there may be some compelling reason to curtail speech – if there was some kind of clear and imminent danger to society. But I would need something more than a bunch of idiots on a charter bus in Oklahoma to give up on the First Amendment. I think that there are other tools besides legal/governmental penalties that will work in dealing with this. In fact, the fact that the universal reaction to these guys has been condemnation and humiliation is a good sign. I think the fact that the national chapter of SAE didn’t even try to make excuses for them is a great sign.
That is minor you are talking to, so could be child abuse, not hate speech, per se.
But, your example does prove the illogical nature of the hate speech concept - the real answer is, “Yes ,you can call your child a piece of curd and not be charged with abuse.” In fact, there are areas of the country where the public would support you if the child were visibly misbehaving. The whole thing is arbitrary depending on whom one is around, just like hate speech.
However, you can say the same curd thing to an adult with no abuse charge, unless of course that adult is part of a protected class and decides to say you engaged in hate speech. That is the problem - there is no definition of hate speech until the supposedly offended decides it is hate speech. It is a perpetual moving target defined by people who decide when they want to be offended and when they are not. An absolute silly way to run any supposedly free, open society.
Huh? Give up your rights? What rights? Out in the public street, you have no right to tell another person to shut up because you do not like what they are saying. Neither does the government. It is as simple as that.
You have no right not to be offended; no right not to get your feelings hurt; no right not to be called any name in the book; and, no right not to see something in public you do not like. To think that you have such rights means you must think you are less than the other guy at whom the same can be directed and yet he can never bring the charge of hate speech. Sounds to me like big boy pants time.
Now I’m really sure that you don’t know what a protected class is or what U.S. law says about hate speech. Unless you’re talking about some other country, I think you might be misunderstanding the way things work.
I agree with @hunt that this is free speech under the first amendment. Free speech means speech you do not like. It is important that it have legal protection. However, that does not necessarily mean that the students can’t be expelled if the students actions create a hostile environment for other students. I am sure that University attorneys are considering that question. I think that the lynching reference in the song may well be deemed to create a hostile environment.
I am glad to see University President Boren is committed to taking the strongest action he is allowed to take, and that we have progressed far enough that someone on that bus taped this and turned it in. We need more people like that student.
“Huh? Give up your rights? What rights? Out in the public street, you have no right to tell another person to shut up because you do not like what they are saying. Neither does the government. It is as simple as that.”
In all fairness, don’t I have the “right” to tell another person to shut up because I don’t like what they are saying?
It’s just that I don’t have any power of law to have my wishes that they shut up be enforced (unless what they are saying rises to the level of harassment or a threat).
I can also apply pressure through other means - I can tell all my friends they are poopy-heads and hope that they will be shamed, I can lead a boycott of their business, etc.
Terrible and tragic that such nonsense is still going on. It does, however, remind us what true racism is, and what it’s not. The next time one thinks that he might be the victim of racism, just because of a SAT score or a rejection letter, please play the SAE chant.
I find what took place on the bus deplorable and fully support the fraternity being immediately closed.
My question is what if anything should happen to the women on the bus? Per the article in the NY Times, “A grinning young man wearing a tuxedo and standing in the aisle of the bus pumps his fist in the air as he chants, while a young woman seated nearby claps.”
Should everyone on the bus receive the same punishment (assuming everyone on the bus is an OU student) or just those members of SAE? Should every OU SAE member be punished or just the ones on the bus? Should there be a different punishment for those appearing in the video vs those who were on the bus but not in the video? Do you hold the fraternity president and other officers to a higher standard for not stopping the chant if any were on the bus?
As a parent of college freshman who is a pledge at another school in a different fraternity, I would hope if anything like this takes place he would be man enough to try and stop it, or at the very least, leave. Unfortunately, there may be good young men on the bus who found the song offensive, but were either unable, or perhaps not brave enough to stop the song; and since they were on the bus, they also could not leave.
Well…obviously one person on the bus objected. Instead of trying to stop the chant, (s)he took a short clip and sent it to Unheard, a group on campus. It seems to have been quite effective! I think it’s pretty clear that person shouldn’t be punished for being on the bus.
I appreciate hearing that their alumni are fundraising for the black chef who worked in the house and who has now lost his job – the role of chef in a Greek house is a thankless one with a lot of hard work, that’s for sure.
I struggle with what is the appropriate punishment and I think you raise interesting points.
SAE did the punishment they thought was necessary (close the chapter immediately). They are a private organization and they can withdraw membership as they see fit. I’m not so sure that a public university can “punish,” though they can (and should) surely shame them. But I have to be honest, I’m sure there are not-so-nice words used against all kinds of groups by all kinds of other groups, and I’m not sure I know exactly where to draw the line. If the feminist organization says “All men are rapists,” is that as offensive?
All the morons on this thread saying that these students should not be punished don’t really understand the concept of free speech or where it came from. Sigh…