Oklahoma fraternity being persecuted by PC Police

[maxparrish]

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.

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

but the students protesting had no formal agreement with the school to not protest. The protesting students could argue that what they were doing was part of the free exchange of ideas. is that what the frat brothers were doing on the bus?

People in both the private and public sector willingly and legally accept restrictions on their freedom of speech. If you work for the CIA, you get into trouble if you leak top secret documents to the enemy or the press. If you work for Amalgamated Consolidated Foods and you tell everybody the secret recipe of their Goody Glory Oh My Lordy chocolate bars, you get fired and sued.

Now I don't know what the FOA specifically says at OU or what student handbook of conduct says, but the president of the university must think he has some sort of legal footing to stand on.

now the questions become, do the boys involved want to go down in history as the guys who fought for the right sing about how much better it is to lynch black people than it is to pledge them? Does SAE want any more press scrutiny on what are the fraternity's practices, policies, and procedures? Does the school want to back down and become the target of protest from other students?

 

[dismal]

Now I don't know what the FOA specifically says at OU or what student handbook of conduct says, but the president of the university must think he has some sort of legal footing to stand on.

I doubt he paused to consider it. And if he did he figured he'd look good pushing the envelope to the point he got slapped down by the courts. He's a former Democrat senator so I doubt he's historically been much of a champion of free speech.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter what he thought. The case law is pretty clear.

now the questions become, do the boys involved want to go down in history as the guys who fought for the right sing about how much better it is to lynch black people than it is to pledge them?

Right, I doubt they do.

Does SAE want any more press scrutiny on what are the fraternity's practices, policies, and procedures?

I think the national SAE has already said it will drop the chapter.

Does the school want to back down and become the target of protest from other students?

I don't think it will have to.

 

[Underseer]

I doubt he paused to consider it. And if he did he figured he'd look good pushing the envelope to the point he got slapped down by the courts. He's a former Democrat senator so I doubt he's historically been much of a champion of free speech.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter what he thought. The case law is pretty clear.

now the questions become, do the boys involved want to go down in history as the guys who fought for the right sing about how much better it is to lynch black people than it is to pledge them?

Right, I doubt they do.

Does SAE want any more press scrutiny on what are the fraternity's practices, policies, and procedures?

I think the national SAE has already said it will drop the chapter.

Does the school want to back down and become the target of protest from other students?

I don't think it will have to.

Ha ha!

You called him a "Democrat senator" instead of "Democratic senator"! It's as if you're calling him a rat! That is an incredibly funny and sophisticated joke! I'll have to keep that one in mind and use it myself! You, sir, are a comic genius!

 

[maxparrish]

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

but the students protesting had no formal agreement with the school to not protest. The protesting students could argue that what they were doing was part of the free exchange of ideas. is that what the frat brothers were doing on the bus?

Presumably they were singing a lyric that had a racial idea being conveyed, which some consider deeply offensive.

If other persons had been on a college bus during the era of the segregated south, and if those persons had been singing "We shall overcome" or "Strange Fruit" no doubt it would have also conveyed an idea that was deeply offensive to some others on the bus (perhaps most of the others). So what? The content of the message is NOT an issue (its free speech).

And content of speech in disrupting a classroom is also not an issue; you can sing with the truth of the Angels but if you are preventing others from doing their work then you can be tossed out.

Finally, the issue in classified documents is not an issue of free speech. It is a combination of a sworn "contract" to not release classified material AND the need for the government to perform those duties to "provide for the common defense", a fundamental constitutional mandate.

Now I don't know what the FOA specifically says at OU or what student handbook of conduct says, but the president of the university must think he has some sort of legal footing to stand on.

now the questions become, do the boys involved want to go down in history as the guys who fought for the right sing about how much better it is to lynch black people than it is to pledge them? Does SAE want any more press scrutiny on what are the fraternity's practices, policies, and procedures? Does the school want to back down and become the target of protest from other students?

When Boren was teaching at Oklahoma Baptist University in the 1970s I (and a couple buddies) did the "On the road" exploration of America. We ended up listening to Boren in one of his lecture classes (on law), got to have a sit down meeting with him after class, and went to a Edmund Muskie speech he hosted.

After that I moved to Oklahoma and got to know many Oklahoma political folks, and tracked him closely. He is a modestly conservative fellow and one of the few politicians I truly liked as a person. However, he is a pragmatist and a Democrat first, and a conservative second. And I am pretty sure that he knows better, so he expelled the students to avoid bad press. If any decide to sue, the attorneys will take care of it (likely settle out of court). He would rather lose in court to the students a couple of years down the road, than be consumed by months of protests and disorder from the "outraged".

The ACLU of Oklahoma issued this statement (excerpt below):

As a state-run institution of higher education, the University of Oklahoma must also respect First Amendment principles that are central to the mission of every university. Any sanction imposed on students for their speech must therefore be consistent with the First Amendment and not merely a punishment for vile and reprehensible speech; courts have consistently and rightly ruled as such. Absent information that is not at our disposal, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a court would side with the university on this matter. We are closely monitoring the situation and will appropriately respond to new details as they emerge. In the meantime, we stand in solid support of the brave and thoughtful students whose public dialogue on race and the rights of all minority students in response to the incident have embodied the spirit of the First Amendment.

http://acluok.org/2015/03/aclu-of-o...mas-announcement-of-vp-of-diversity-position/

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

If they didn't attract students, they'd have to close down.

Wealthy alumni pay quite a bit of money to universities in the form of gifts and other donations.

It behooves the school to attract the best and brightest and they're not going to do that if they're known as the drunken racist frat boy school.

 

[maxparrish]

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

If they didn't attract students, they'd have to close down.

Wealthy alumni pay quite a bit of money to universities in the form of gifts and other donations.

It behooves the school to attract the best and brightest and they're not going to do that if they're known as the drunken racist frat boy school.

Quite aside from the fact that it is nonsense that a major state university would "close down" because of a few students being offensive, it is also not germane. Those who utter offensive speech are not responsible for anyone else's choices (absent fraud). And government does not have the right to restrict someone's speech in order to prevent a reacting behavior.

If there was a 'heckler's veto' to offensive speech or association; if government refused to allow blacks to attend white schools, ride in the front of a bus or in white only train cars because whites might react badly, then desegregation efforts would have been rendered moot.

We used to teach children "stick and stones...", now it seems many have still not grown up...and like children, threaten to 'act out' if government does not shut people up.

 

[dismal]

It's mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. Unless the student speech is directly preventing the conduct of its business (interrupting classes, blocking access to buildings, etc.) it is protected by the first amendment.

As someone who was on Berkeley's campus often during the late sixties and seventies I routinely walked by 'hell fire' preachers, demonstrations, gatherings of noisy impromptu music, etc.. You could not (and still can't) ban students who participated in giving UC Berkeley a 'negative light'.

If they didn't attract students, they'd have to close down.

Wealthy alumni pay quite a bit of money to universities in the form of gifts and other donations.

It behooves the school to attract the best and brightest and they're not going to do that if they're known as the drunken racist frat boy school.

These reasons, even if true, do not trump the US Constitution.