I can only shake my head.
I too have seen the press re the football recruit but it’s pathetic to me that it’s painted as “this kind of behavior is bad because awwww, the best football players will no longer come here.” This is bad behavior regardless of how impacts a stupid football team.
Reading more about free speech vs hate speech, it seems that singing this on a bus with the windows closed with no person of color on the bus, may be protected free speech. But singing the same song in the presence of an individual of color would be considered harassment and thus not protected. Once this is released as a video, is it still protected free speech? Further, does the fact that the song suggests this organization makes decisions on membership based on race move beyond free speech into discrimination, which can be prohibited by the college and thus the basis for shutting down the fraternity (although not the basis for charging individuals exercising their free speech rights)?
Agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but the sun doesn’t shine very brightly in these closed-minded groups.
“Unless you can point to more than one current members of the frat who is black, the chant is evidence of intent to break the law, and white membership is evidence they acted on their intent”
Now you’re jumping the shark. Singing the song is not imminent evidence of intent to break the law, any more than singing “Run For Your Life” by the Beatles or “hey Joe” by Jimi Hendrix is evidence of intent to commit violence against women. Or singing “Cocaine” by Eric Clapton - not evidence of intent to use illegal drugs.
“Would it be legal for the university to designate a dorm as whites only? Because that is the impact of saying that blacks can never join the frat.”
Some colleges do indeed offer black-only dorms. At my D’s college there was a recent protest pushing the college to set up black-only and Latina-only housing.
I just read an article that stated that the person who shot the video was NOT the person who sent it to Unheard. Unheard is not revealing the name of the sender.
No statement regarding the video-taker’s stance on the matter, or how it got into the hands of the sender.
The kind of behavior is terrible and it would absolutely break my heart if one of my kids was involved in such a thing, but I think there is going to be a lot of upheaval on that campus next year, so I wouldn’t let my black son be there because, frankly, he would have his own things to focus on and worry about and wouldn’t need to be distracted.
@jonri Hmmmm…chapter dissolved…breach of lease…guarantee void…vacate premises…interesting.
It’s impressive how quickly it all occurred.
I wonder what due process is at OU for all the individuals affected by this.
“Further, does the fact that the song suggests this organization makes decisions on membership based on race move beyond free speech into discrimination”
Or sometimes it’s just a stupid drunk guy who did a stupid drunk thing. When I was in a Greek system, we sang songs razzing other houses and suggesting we were particularly sexually willing with certain frats. It didn’t REALLY mean we were a bunch of sluts. Let’s not read too much into drunk stupid guy either.
Due process does not apply to SAE national. They can revoke a chapter or member at any time at their discretion.
Being an advocate for free speech is a thankless task, because other people will think that you are (cluelessly) defending terrible people–and that thus, you must secretly share their views. And, since a lot of the speech is really terrible, clever people will search for and find clever ways to punish the speech without really seeming to limit free speech. Things like labeling it hate speech, or saying that it creates a hostile environment, or that it suggests that the persons saying the speech would likely do some illegal action if only we could catch them at it, or saying that free speech rights are more limited on college campuses, etc. The Supreme Court will even go along with some of these. Any sensible person is naturally sympathetic to these impulses, because we’d all like to see terrible people get punished. But each time we chip away at free speech rights like this, we all have a little less free speech. You may be entirely free to say what you want today, because what you are saying isn’t viewed as terrible by many people. But what about tomorrow?
@Hunt I think you know that most people are content to let tomorrow be tomorrow, particularly after the red veil of anger or fear has descended.
I think that the OU community is effectively demonstrating right now that the answer to speech is more speech.
I was very impressed by the young AA man who was an SAE as an undergraduate ot OU. He is very well-spoken and thoughtful, and–dare I say it–gentlemanly. Exactly the sort of person one would think SAE would be proud to claim as a brother. He is obviously terribly wounded by this.
I did, quite specifically, say “the individuals affected”.
But that’s interesting…organizations don’t get due process at OU?
I think what was meant was that since SAE national is a private organization, it can boot out a chapter without giving it due process.
Yes, that’s what I meant - was on a mobile at the time. Thanks, Hunt.
Again I find myself on board with the Huntmeister, or at least he is on board with me. LOL. For other folks who insist on extreme punitive measures by government agents to punish speakers who proffer offensive words, well I have three additional words for you; the Patriot Act.
No, the Patriot Act was not enacted to specifically curb speech, but you know where I am going.
Exactly. Private organizations tend to want to retain rights like that. Am I correct?
I am now wondering about the individual rights of the fraternity brothers involved as respects OU. Or the girls. Particularly the ones that may be “innocent”.
Has no else thought about what happened to Donald Sterling through all of this? Its hard to believe anyone really thinks we have “protected” hate speech in this country, after what happened to him due to a private conversation between him and his girlfriend.
I think Sterling was punished by private entities, not public ones.