Oklahoma fraternity being persecuted by PC Police

[laughing dog]

Dude, this thread has been all over the map. If you actually read most of what I wrote you would fully understand that I do NO approve of what the SAE's at U of OK did. You are just looking for a fight, so please fuck off. I see you never corrected your statement about rap lyrics.

i made no comment about rap lyrics because 1) I know nothing about rap, and 2) rap lyrics have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual topic of the thread. So there is nothing for me to correct about rap - something anyone with minimal reading comprehension would know.

Your views about SAE are immaterial to your mewling derails.

 

[credoconsolans]

They are not at their homes. They signed up to attend a college.

That college has a list of rules, regulations and standards that students agree to abide by when attending said college.

If a student violates said rules/regulations/standards, the college is well within their rights to expel them.

They are within their legal rights.

Whether punishing people just for saying things is a right they should have is another matter.

I don't think they should have that legal right.

Write your Congressperson.

In the meantime,these guys will just have to suck it up and realize they broke their agreement with the university and now face the consequences.

Some think their right to expel is a more important right than the freedom of speech.

More like their right to project a particular image and attract people to their money-making venture is more important.

Businesses are like that.

Welcome to corporate America.

 

[NobleSavage]

Me either.

Nor can I figure out what this has to do with this particular topic. Why is it relevant what black fraternities allegedly did and were allowed to do to prospective members at a university you attended at some point in time?

The issue is not how fraternities treat pledges.

The op was pure snark. We have 11 pages of derail. I was just curious why black frats get away with branding pledges. Tell you what, since it bothers you so much in THIS thread I'll make a new one.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, this thread has been all over the map. If you actually read most of what I wrote you would fully understand that I do NO approve of what the SAE's at U of OK did. You are just looking for a fight, so please fuck off. I see you never corrected your statement about rap lyrics.

i made no comment about rap lyrics because 1) I know nothing about rap, and 2) rap lyrics have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual topic of the thread. So there is nothing for me to correct about rap - something anyone with minimal reading comprehension would know.

I looked back. You have my apology on ONE point - it was Artemus that made the statements about rap.

Your views about SAE are immaterial to your mewling derails.

Yeah, I'd get a lot more rep points if I derailed into popular directions.

 

[untermensche]

Is kicking people out the same as not letting them in?

You tell me. This is your ideal world. Will I be able to kick someone out of my shop because they are engaging in vile, demeaning, offensive, abusive speech while inside my shop?

You are not talking about speech.

You are talking about a person with a psychiatric disorder.

For that kind of person medical help is needed.

And you are allowed to call the police to help get them some.

If your business is so fragile that one disturbed person can ruin it then maybe a different business is needed.

 

[RavenSky]

You tell me. This is your ideal world. Will I be able to kick someone out of my shop because they are engaging in vile, demeaning, offensive, abusive speech while inside my shop?

You are not talking about speech.

You are talking about a person with a psychiatric disorder.

For that kind of person medical help is needed.

And you are allowed to call the police to help get them some.

I was extraordinarily clear that my hypothetical does NOT involve a mentally ill person. That you refuse to actually answer my question tells me that you don't actually believe what you've said in this thread.

Either that, or you think all of the frat brothers on the bus are mentally ill too

If your business is so fragile that one disturbed person can ruin it then maybe a different business is needed.

1. blaming the victim, how lovely
2. the hypothetical person is no "disturbed" - just disturbing the other patrons
3. why should I, as the shopkeeper, suffer even a penny of financial loss so that someone else can use my shop against my will to spread hate-speech?

 

[untermensche]

You are not talking about speech.

You are talking about a person with a psychiatric disorder.

For that kind of person medical help is needed.

And you are allowed to call the police to help get them some.

I was extraordinarily clear that my hypothetical does NOT involve a mentally ill person. That you refuse to actually answer my question tells me that you don't actually believe what you've said in this thread.

There is nothing clear about your little scenario.

It involves something that doesn't happen.

Worthless scenarios don't help explain anything.

Either that, or you think all of the frat brothers on the bus are mentally ill too

What people were they directly disturbing? Your scenario involves direct confrontation and what could possibly be construed as assault.

 

[RavenSky]

I was extraordinarily clear that my hypothetical does NOT involve a mentally ill person. That you refuse to actually answer my question tells me that you don't actually believe what you've said in this thread.

There is nothing clear about your little scenario.

It involves something that doesn't happen.

Worthless scenarios don't help explain anything.

Either that, or you think all of the frat brothers on the bus are mentally ill too

What people were they directly disturbing? Your scenario involves direct confrontation and what could possibly be construed as assault.

You are still dancing and avoiding. There is nothing implausible about my hypothetical, but the fact that you cannot address it without insisting that the hate-speech person is either mentally ill or non-existent tells us all everything we need to know.

You have failed to support your position. This exchange is done. Thank you.

 

[untermensche]

This exchange is done. Thank you.

My position is intact.

Thanks for trying.

 

[Wiploc]

..

 

[maxparrish]

So if the person has already entered my shop before he becomes verbally abusive, I'm screwed? I have to let him stay while all of my paying customer leave and I am caused emotional pain/distress as well as financial harm?

If they are ACTING in a threatening manner then that is one thing.

If they are sitting in the corner howling at the moon they need help.

RavenSky and untermenshe's exchanges have been rather perplexing in that the answer is not elusive nor conditional. If a person enters RavenSky's shop being abusive, becomes abusive, or simply wearing a hat she does not like she can throw them out. She can throw them out for ANY reason, other than unlawful discrimination (race, gender, etc.).

It's private property, not a state owned university (as is O.U.).

What could be simpler?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But is the University state owned? Some while partially funded by the states are not technically state institutions.

So that is one piece of ambiguity.

The second is that fraternal organizations are private organizations and can close down chapters at will (although the housing aspects can get into some murky legal areas).

The University can expel a fraternity if it violates it policies and codes of conduct just like it can expel individuals. (I have taken part in full legal expulsions (subject to arrest) from all campus grounds and offerings of certain individuals for behavior.)

I am sure you have all covered this in the 13 pages of this thread I have not read.

 

[dismal]

But is the University state owned? Some while partially funded by the states are not technically state institutions.

So that is one piece of ambiguity.

The second is that fraternal organizations are private organizations and can close down chapters at will (although the housing aspects can get into some murky legal areas).

The University can expel a fraternity if it violates it policies and codes of conduct just like it can expel individuals. (I have taken part in full legal expulsions (subject to arrest) from all campus grounds and offerings of certain individuals for behavior.)

I am sure you have all covered this in the 13 pages of this thread I have not read.

Not ambiguous in the sense there have already been cases that found public universities may not punish students for speech.

Sure they can punish them for violating various codes, but if the code has the effect that it punishes the content of speech the code will likely be found unconstitutional.

ETA: the national chapter of the fraternity is not bound by this constraint. As a private organization they can revoke the charter based on whatever by-laws they have.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But is the University state owned? Some while partially funded by the states are not technically state institutions.

So that is one piece of ambiguity.

The second is that fraternal organizations are private organizations and can close down chapters at will (although the housing aspects can get into some murky legal areas).

The University can expel a fraternity if it violates it policies and codes of conduct just like it can expel individuals. (I have taken part in full legal expulsions (subject to arrest) from all campus grounds and offerings of certain individuals for behavior.)

I am sure you have all covered this in the 13 pages of this thread I have not read.

Not ambiguous in the sense there have already been cases that found public universities may not punish students for speech.

Sure they can punish them for violating various codes, but if the code has the effect that it punishes the content of speech the code will likely be found unconstitutional.

ETA: the national chapter of the fraternity is not bound by this constraint. As a private organization they can revoke the charter based on whatever by-laws they have.

So expelling the frat would be lawful, but not student members of the frat?

 

[dismal]

Not ambiguous in the sense there have already been cases that found public universities may not punish students for speech.

Sure they can punish them for violating various codes, but if the code has the effect that it punishes the content of speech the code will likely be found unconstitutional.

ETA: the national chapter of the fraternity is not bound by this constraint. As a private organization they can revoke the charter based on whatever by-laws they have.

So expelling the frat would be lawful, but not student members of the frat?

I don't think the school can punish the students or the fraternity for speech.

I would think the national chapter of the fraternity can do nothing more than de-recognize the fraternity. I can't imagine it can go after individual students. It's possible that being de-recognized would cause additional options for the school but I don't know that it does. They may just have to change their name.

I still think the smart play for any student involved with thi fraternity is to disassociate with it as quickly as possible so we may never see these lawsuits. The alumni apparently are hiring a lawyer (I guess they are worried about having a place to go after football games where they can relive their youth or something) and they may have a case against the school but I don't see how they do against the national office of the fraternity unless it violated its own bylaws.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So expelling the frat would be lawful, but not student members of the frat?

I don't think the school can punish the students or the fraternity for speech.

I would think the national chapter of the fraternity can do nothing more than de-recognize the fraternity. I can't imagine it can go after individual students. It's possible that being de-recognized would cause additional options for the school but I don't know that it does. They may just have to change their name.

I still think the smart play for any student involved with thi fraternity is to disassociate with it as quickly as possible so we may never see these lawsuits. The alumni apparently are hiring a lawyer (I guess they are worried about having a place to go after football games where they can relive their youth or something) and they may have a case against the school but I don't see how they do against the national office of the fraternity unless it violated its own bylaws.

But freedom of speech is not absolute and you still have the matter of any FOA contract. Can a person or an organization choose to be an ambassador for the school and then cause the school disrepute without the school having any recourse?

 

[Underseer]

So expelling the frat would be lawful, but not student members of the frat?

I don't think the school can punish the students or the fraternity for speech.

I would think the national chapter of the fraternity can do nothing more than de-recognize the fraternity. I can't imagine it can go after individual students. It's possible that being de-recognized would cause additional options for the school but I don't know that it does. They may just have to change their name.

I still think the smart play for any student involved with thi fraternity is to disassociate with it as quickly as possible so we may never see these lawsuits. The alumni apparently are hiring a lawyer (I guess they are worried about having a place to go after football games where they can relive their youth or something) and they may have a case against the school but I don't see how they do against the national office of the fraternity unless it violated its own bylaws.

The fraternity was well within their rights to disband the chapter and kick every member out of its organization.

The university going after individual students is a much more complex issue. On the one hand, kicking people out of the university for speech is very much not in the interest of freedom of expression that is critical to the environment of any university, but on the other hand, leaving such people in the university can cause enormous harm to the remaining students and will have an extremely negative impact on the university's ability to attract new students in the future (unless they exclusively recruit among conservative Christians and become like Bob Jones University).

 

[untermensche]

If they are ACTING in a threatening manner then that is one thing.

If they are sitting in the corner howling at the moon they need help.

RavenSky and untermenshe's exchanges have been rather perplexing in that the answer is not elusive nor conditional. If a person enters RavenSky's shop being abusive, becomes abusive, or simply wearing a hat she does not like she can throw them out. She can throw them out for ANY reason, other than unlawful discrimination (race, gender, etc.).

It's private property, not a state owned university (as is O.U.).

What could be simpler?

The question behind the exchange was whether property rights SHOULD trump the freedom of speech.

 

[maxparrish]

But is the University state owned? Some while partially funded by the states are not technically state institutions.

So that is one piece of ambiguity.

The second is that fraternal organizations are private organizations and can close down chapters at will (although the housing aspects can get into some murky legal areas).

The University can expel a fraternity if it violates it policies and codes of conduct just like it can expel individuals. (I have taken part in full legal expulsions (subject to arrest) from all campus grounds and offerings of certain individuals for behavior.)

I am sure you have all covered this in the 13 pages of this thread I have not read.

Yes, the University of Oklahoma is public property, owned by the State of Oklahoma. For example, Stanford, M.I.T., Yale, the University of Chicago are private universities, and as such are legally entitled to regulate speech as they please. However state universities and colleges are government owned.

Universities (public or private) can regulate group activity on campus - what public university's cannot do is coerce people purely because their speech is offensive or objectionable...not unless such speech interferes with the duties in the conduct of its business. Hence, someone who yells his free speech in a classroom such that the lesson/lecture is disrupted can be punished.

But you can't punish someone because they sang an offensive song on the campus quad.

It's been 50 years since the free speech movement, UC Berkeley, and Mario Savio. And there are STILL people who don't get it?

 

[dismal]

P

I don't think the school can punish the students or the fraternity for speech.

I would think the national chapter of the fraternity can do nothing more than de-recognize the fraternity. I can't imagine it can go after individual students. It's possible that being de-recognized would cause additional options for the school but I don't know that it does. They may just have to change their name.

I still think the smart play for any student involved with thi fraternity is to disassociate with it as quickly as possible so we may never see these lawsuits. The alumni apparently are hiring a lawyer (I guess they are worried about having a place to go after football games where they can relive their youth or something) and they may have a case against the school but I don't see how they do against the national office of the fraternity unless it violated its own bylaws.

But freedom of speech is not absolute and you still have the matter of any FOA contract. Can a person or an organization choose to be an ambassador for the school and then cause the school disrepute without the school having any recourse?

Freedom of speech is not absolute but none of the carefully defined exceptions appear relevant here.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes, the University of Oklahoma is public property, owned by the State of Oklahoma. For example, Stanford, M.I.T., Yale, the University of Chicago are private universities, and as such are legally entitled to regulate speech as they please. However state universities and colleges are government owned.

Universities (public or private) can regulate group activity on campus - what public university's cannot do is coerce people purely because their speech is offensive or objectionable...not unless such speech interferes with the duties in the conduct of its business. Hence, someone who yells his free speech in a classroom such that the lesson/lecture is disrupted can be punished.

But you can't punish someone because they sang an offensive song on the campus quad.

It's been 50 years since the free speech movement, UC Berkeley, and Mario Savio. And there are STILL people who don't get it?

I'd daresay that the singing of a racist song that is currently going viral across the world and quite obviously points out that it is sung by students of one particular university does indeed interfere with the attempt of the university to portray itself in a positive light and do business by attracting students.