Racism at OU

[Lurker66]

Let's use the firearm analogy. I like it. Now, the right to free speech isn't exactly like the right to bear arms, because you can't exercise it without firing it. That being said, you're saying that there are acceptable places to fire the weapon of free speech. I'm saying there are times and places that it is acceptable to fire a gun. One prolly shouldn't fire a gun while drunk on a bus unless your defending your self against a Govt or dangerous crime. Ya might get in trouble. The courts have historically said that one approved firing range is a public university. You disagree with their opinion that public universities are acceptable "firing ranges" for free speech?

I'll play.

Free speech is the Arms or gun. Yes universities are a place that traditionally one can exercize free speech (bear arms). So you can bear arms at College but one must still exercize restraint. There is no right to shoot all willy nilly at blacks without consequences.

 

[RidgeHunter]

What about the other one? Heck, maybe even the other two. Even OU is saying that they've expelled students over the matter. Someone either got expelled, or some people at OU and the media are lying.

FWIW, I agree that there's no way they would have stayed. Still, I think that decision should be entirely voluntary. Expulsion doesn't leave a choice. You know something else I've been thinking though? As far as public censure is concerned, it's only fleeting. Those kids could come back to OU next year and know one would even remember who they were.

It was a bluff.

Let somebody call Boren's/OU's bluff. I don't care. I'd respect them more if they did. I bet lunch they won't though, and so does Boren and the attorneys advising him.

Let them take it to court and see if the little part about "you can hang them from a tree" could be taken in different context than just a plain and simple "I hate ******s".

there will never be a ****** in SAE

seems reasonable to assume SAE is the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma

you can hang him from a tree
but he'll never sign with me

That's a fine Title VI line there, which is what Boren is citing for his expulsions. The same federal funds conundrum comes into play with the CRA there. You can hang a ****** from a tree before he signs with me, chanted in unison by members of a fraternity at a public university that receives federal funds. Fine line in how that's interpreted. Depending on how the non-existent reasonable person interprets that, the university is legally obligated to take steps against, well, probably things like unified groups of students chanting about lynching minorities.

 

[soonerwings]

I'll play.

Free speech is the Arms or gun. Yes universities are a place that traditionally one can exercize free speech (bear arms). So you can bear arms at College but one must still exercize restraint. There is no right to shoot all willy nilly at blacks without consequences.

But that's the thing. They ARE a place you can say anything you want, no matter how hateful or venomous, and not be punished by the GOVERNMENT. Now society at large? Absolutely. Insult/ostracize/ridicule away. The punishment that these kids (they're 19-20 ish and are therefore kids whether you want to admit it or not) will get will correct the problem. That's how free speech is supposed to work. One person says something stupid, and then gets called out on it by fellow citizens without the government stepping in, saying "that's not cool," and levying a punishment.

 

[Lurker66]

Exactly.

RidgeHunter: my little session as devil's advocate was addressing the claims of "abuse of free speech" which I have heard many claim, including Boren.

I just don't see how free speech can be abused. Hateful, lewd, inappropriate... absolutely. But by very nature of it being free, at least in my mind, negates there being possibility of abuse.

If there's a table with various items on it and a sign that says "free", it may not be ethical or "cool" that I take it all fir myself, however, the sign said "free".

Freedom of speech doesn't mean there isn't consequences. Imagine taking all that free stuff on the table only to find out that it wasn't the owner who put a "free" sign out. That means you actually stole the free stuff and now must face the consequences.

That's what these fellas did. They wasn't exercising a right. They were chanting what somebody told them....they were told wrong. They admit it. No crimes, no charges. Just move on down the road.

 

[donner]

here is a question i was discussing some professors the other day. Does Boren have an obligation to protect the university more than he does the student's 1A rights? Does his role as president mean that he needs to look out for how this incident will impact both the educational environment on campus, as well as the 'business' of competing for future students and donations?

By removing the students, it seems like he has taken very clear steps to position OU on the side of this that is daring the removed students to sue. If they don't then he has won and taken clear steps to show where the university stands. If they do sue then the university is still on the 'right' side of the issue and only gives in if ordered by the court. Going to court also opens the chance of 'winning' based on title VI.

 

[RidgeHunter]

But that's the thing. They ARE a place you can say anything you want, no matter how hateful or venomous, and not be punished by the GOVERNMENT. .

The CRA changed a lot of that simplicity, like it or not.

A university that receives public funds has a degree of legal obligation to take action to remedy a hostile racial environment, and speech alone can meet that standard. Did it in this case? I dunno. I know I wouldn't chance it.

 

[soonerwings]

It was a bluff.

Let somebody call Boren's/OU's bluff. I don't care. I'd respect them more if they did. I bet lunch they won't though, and so does Boren and the attorneys advising him.

Let them take it to court and see if the little part about "you can hang them from a tree" could be taken in different context than just a plain and simple "I hate ******s".



seems reasonable to assume SAE is the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma


That's a fine Title VI line there, which is what Boren is citing for his expulsions. The same federal funds conundrum comes into play with the CRA there. You can hang a ****** from a tree before he signs with me, chanted in unison by members of a fraternity at a public university that receives federal funds. Fine line in how that's interpreted. Depending on how the non-existent reasonable person interprets that, the university is legally obligated to take steps against, well, probably things like unified groups of students chanting about lynching minorities.

Was it a bluff? If no one was expelled (Parker isn't the only person involved) then it's a bluff. If anyone was expelled, then it wasn't a bluff, it was a punishment.

I don't think Boren/OU would be able to succeed (my opinion) in a "hostile environment" defense when the fact that they were in a sealed bus is taken into consideration. To me, anyone who says "omigawd....I'm like so SCARED to walk on the OU campus not that a video of drunken racist frat boys has hit the interwebz" is either lying or is WAY paranoid.

 

[Lurker66]

But that's the thing. They ARE a place you can say anything you want, no matter how hateful or venomous, and not be punished by the GOVERNMENT. Now society at large? Absolutely. Insult/ostracize/ridicule away. The punishment that these kids (they're 19-20 ish and are therefore kids whether you want to admit it or not) will get will correct the problem. That's how free speech is supposed to work. One person says something stupid, and then gets called out on it by fellow citizens without the government stepping in, saying "that's not cool," and levying a punishment.

So really what you are arguing is that OU is the govt and Boren is the head of that Govt? And that's your gripe. A school is the govt and the head of that school expelled 2, 19-20 little kids who didn't know better than to chant racist crap on a non school bus.

Sorry man, it's a weak argument. OU doesn't have to allow the "frat" chapter of the KKK on campus. But they are free to ride a bus to a party and chant all they want.

 

[Lurker66]

Was it a bluff? If no one was expelled (Parker isn't the only person involved) then it's a bluff. If anyone was expelled, then it wasn't a bluff, it was a punishment.

I don't think Boren/OU would be able to succeed (my opinion) in a "hostile environment" defense when the fact that they were in a sealed bus is taken into consideration. To me, anyone who says "omigawd....I'm like so SCARED to walk on the OU campus not that a video of drunken racist frat boys has hit the interwebz" is either lying or is WAY paranoid.

Wasn't a sealed bus, with a camera on board. Might as well been an open top convert able going down mainstreet.

 

[RidgeHunter]

here is a question i was discussing some professors the other day. Does Boren have an obligation to protect the university more than he does the student's 1A rights? Does his role as president mean that he needs to look out for how this incident will impact both the educational environment on campus, as well as the 'business' of competing for future students and donations?

By removing the students, it seems like he has taken very clear steps to position OU on the side of this that is daring the removed students to sue. If they don't then he has won and taken clear steps to show where the university stands. If they do sue then the university is still on the 'right' side of the issue and only gives in if ordered by the court. Going to court also opens the chance of 'winning' based on title VI.

Of course. If he didn't take swift action the entire nation would have torn him and OU a new *******.

Worst case scenario and they sue, he still wins. He covered all the bases he could. From the minute he showed up at the sunrise protest, he's been consistent.

How do politicians get in trouble after a scandal? By not be visible, vocal, present and consistent.