ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th March 2015, 12:58 PM   #121
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, the University is not handling it well.

They expelled two students for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. They will likely get sued by those students, and will likely loose, because this isn't within the University's legal authority to do.
I don't know that I agree with that assessment. OU has a Student Responsibilities Code and #1 under Prohibited Conduct:

Quote:
Prohibited Conduct

These definitions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. This includes physically abusing a person or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.
http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studen...tudentCode.pdf

Expulsion is one of the options for dealing with a violation of the SRC. Where they went afoul I think is that there's a process and it's not quick. It involves notices and hearings and possible appeals and - yeah, the school didn't get it done in two days.

http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studen...Procedures.pdf
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:04 PM   #122
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,471
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
You act as if this is a matter of opinion. It is not. The national organization is unlikely to be responsible for the practices of the local chapter, especially if the local chapter is not adhearing to the national policies. And even if the national organizations policies are overtly racist, they have not necessarily broken any law nor are they necessarily exposed to any official sanction.
Their agreement with the university requires that they are equal opportunity, or else the university can't have an agreement with them.

Sorry, they can't pull the "we are private and can discriminate as we please" and have any association with the university.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:06 PM   #123
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I don't know that I agree with that assessment. OU has a Student Responsibilities Code and #1 under Prohibited Conduct:
If they don't have the legal authority to infringe upon the students' free speech rights, then the student code can't grant them that authority. And I don't think they do.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:07 PM   #124
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,471
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
Let me know once you have picked a position. I can't keep up with the goalposts when they move that fast.
Their is no changing of the goalposts. You are the one insisting that they can legally discriminate. My position all along is that they can't, and the reason why they can't is because being part of the university, they are bound by the regulations of the university.

In order for them to be a private organization and legally allowed discriminate, they must severe all ties to the university. Of course, that would kill their organization.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:23 PM   #125
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If they don't have the legal authority to infringe upon the students' free speech rights, then the student code can't grant them that authority. And I don't think they do.
I think the problem was being on the wrong side of "creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating." Not sure any of that is protected speech. The students are free to sue on a First Amendment basis to find out but they'd be better off making the due process argument - the school has a procedure for addressing conduct violations and they didn't follow it. They skipped right over that part and went to the punishment phase.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:26 PM   #126
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,924
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
Because during the tournament it is a public conveyance. It is a for profit enterprise, and exists under the same general rules as any business engaging the general public.
I'm talking about playing in the Masters not watching it.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:30 PM   #127
TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Fine; but I don't believe it is a legitimate concern in this particular case.
I agree. I just wanted to make the distinction I made, because I too have seen them conflated more than once. As for the OP, I don't think there's anything to defend or argue about here. It was the right decision, ethically and legally, IMO.
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
TeapotCavalry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:32 PM   #128
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
I think the problem was being on the wrong side of "creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating." Not sure any of that is protected speech.
There are very few forms of speech which are not protected. Slander and libel are not protected. Threats of violence are not protected. Incitement to imminent criminal activity are not protected.

But this speech is none of those. It is merely offensive. But the first amendment protects offensive speech, no matter how offensive. The student code cannot remove that protection at a state institution.

Quote:
The students are free to sue on a First Amendment basis to find out but they'd be better off making the due process argument - the school has a procedure for addressing conduct violations and they didn't follow it. They skipped right over that part and went to the punishment phase.
If they sue, they're likely to make both arguments.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 01:49 PM   #129
TeapotCavalry
Master Poster
 
TeapotCavalry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Estonia
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
At some point, though, it's a distinction without a difference. If I'm "not really" racist but I frequently say racist things in order to shock people, then people are going to consider me racist and they'll be right to do so. My friends and family may know better but why should anyone outside that club care what they think, or even believe them?
Reminded me of this (NSFW, trigger warning etc.)
__________________
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.
TeapotCavalry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 02:03 PM   #130
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by CynicalSkeptic View Post
True, but he is now homeless due to the actions of both the national organization and the school.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/g...1-f0feafdd1394
The one thing that bothers me about the national organization's and university's response to this is the collective punishment. All of the members of that fraternity are now homeless, regardless of whether they participated in that chant or not. In the video, the only identifiable person is the moron that was leading the chant. Obviously, a lot of other people on the bus were joining in, but were all of them? It seems likely that the person who leaded the How many were sitting there disgusted at what was going on? It seems likely that the person who leaked the video may have been in that group. How many members of the fraternity were even on the bus?

It seems that at least a few innocent people have had their lives turned upside down because others in the fraternity behaved like idiots.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 02:38 PM   #131
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
I'm talking about playing in the Masters not watching it.
The tournament itself is also a business. While Augusta National may limit the number of professionals and amateurs that are allowed to enter the event and set the entry criteria, those criteria may not be based on a prohibited practice targeting a protected class.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 02:41 PM   #132
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Their is no changing of the goalposts. You are the one insisting that they can legally discriminate. My position all along is that they can't, and the reason why they can't is because being part of the university, they are bound by the regulations of the university.

In order for them to be a private organization and legally allowed discriminate, they must severe all ties to the university. Of course, that would kill their organization.
The only position of yours ( to the extent is possible to even identify your position) that I have countered is the notion that the national organization will lose "many, many millions" of dollars to law suits. It is not possible for this to happen, for the reasons I have described.

And please provide a cite for your contention that they are a part of the university (an instrument of the state government).
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 03:14 PM   #133
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,362
Saw the video...

Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:24 PM   #134
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,750
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are exceptions to 1st amendment free speech. "hostile environment" isn't one of them.
You keep asserting that expulsion violates a first amendment right.

No one has any absolute right to an education at a university. Taking away things that are privileges, not rights is not a first amendment violation necessarily.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:39 PM   #135
Senor_Pointy
Fruity
 
Senor_Pointy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sideways
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
You keep asserting that expulsion violates a first amendment right.

No one has any absolute right to an education at a university. Taking away things that are privileges, not rights is not a first amendment violation necessarily.
You're right, and if OU were a private university they'd be well within their rights to expel these idiots. But it's not, it's a public university funded by taxpayer dollars and operated by the government, so it doesn't get to punish students for protected speech.
Senor_Pointy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 04:50 PM   #136
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
You're right, and if OU were a private university they'd be well within their rights to expel these idiots. But it's not, it's a public university funded by taxpayer dollars and operated by the government, so it doesn't get to punish students for protected speech.
It probably can, actually.* A public university may certainly expel a student for conduct, and speech can be conduct. No public school would allow a student to use racist speech at school or at school functions, and expulsion is certainly within the range of acceptable sanctions.

We all know that first amendment protections (and discussions about free speech in the US begin and end with the first amendment) are not absolute. The government imposes limits on speech for all of its employees, for example. Schools routinely do the same with students, it has been tested in court, and it often survives the challenge.


*Actually, this speech is probably not protected.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!

Last edited by sarge; 10th March 2015 at 04:51 PM.
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 06:33 PM   #137
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,069
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
The one thing that bothers me about the national organization's and university's response to this is the collective punishment. All of the members of that fraternity are now homeless, regardless of whether they participated in that chant or not. In the video, the only identifiable person is the moron that was leading the chant. Obviously, a lot of other people on the bus were joining in, but were all of them? It seems likely that the person who leaded the How many were sitting there disgusted at what was going on? It seems likely that the person who leaked the video may have been in that group. How many members of the fraternity were even on the bus?

It seems that at least a few innocent people have had their lives turned upside down because others in the fraternity behaved like idiots.
The bus is described as having been chartered for a fraternity event; so it stands to reason that the only people on the bus were fraternity members and their guests. There are a few things that can speculatively be inferred from that, but nothing can be proven certainly.

On the other hand, we know there was at least one fraternity member on the bus who was disgusted. We know, because he leaked the video. There doesn't appear to be any evidence whatsoever of any disgust on the part of anyone else present. And who is to blame for that?

It may just be pure coincidence that the night the video was first leaked, but before any action had been taken against them, somebody put up a Confederate flag inside one of the frat house windows, although that doesn't seem very likely to me to be something a pledge would be allowed to do on his own initiative.

Likewise, it may also be purely coincidence that almost a month before any of this happened, somebody alleging to be a member of the same fraternity, but a chapter at a university in a different state, had claimed that one of the requirements of SAE pledges there was to sing something that appears to be another verse from the same song that the SAE members on the bus were singing.

But that's an awful lot of coincidences, and there's plenty to suggest that racism is some kind of endemic problem among student leadership at this fraternity.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 10th March 2015 at 06:35 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 06:39 PM   #138
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,850
Did the SAE chapter at OU have any members who were not WASP?
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 06:57 PM   #139
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
In the video, the only identifiable person is the moron that was leading the chant.
Two students were identifiable from the video footage that came out, both have been named.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...ae-video.html/
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 06:58 PM   #140
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Did the SAE chapter at OU have any members who were not WASP?
Not for many years.

http://newsok.com/kfor-last-black-me...rticle/5400040
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:00 PM   #141
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It may just be pure coincidence that the night the video was first leaked, but before any action had been taken against them, somebody put up a Confederate flag inside one of the frat house windows, although that doesn't seem very likely to me to be something a pledge would be allowed to do on his own initiative.
That particular SAE frat house is about an hour north of where I live, whereas the frat house that made the news with off key racist singing is about an hour south of here.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:01 PM   #142
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by Senor_Pointy View Post
You're right, and if OU were a private university they'd be well within their rights to expel these idiots. But it's not, it's a public university funded by taxpayer dollars and operated by the government, so it doesn't get to punish students for protected speech.
Such a bizarre system, where only private universities are afforded the privilege of enforcing their stated conduct policies preventing harassment.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2015, 07:39 PM   #143
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,848
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Two students were identifiable from the video footage that came out, both have been named.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2...ae-video.html/
It's a relief that so far none of the participants are racists.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 01:54 AM   #144
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,450
Have to correct what I posted earlier in this thread:
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Freedom of speech means that the government can't arrest you or impose another legal sanction for unpopular speech. A national fraternity and a university are other matters.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from all social or civil consequences. It just means that it isn't a criminal matter (with a few well known exceptions such as making threats, etc.).
Apparently the fact that the university is a public university makes it a problem if they punish the students:

Expelled Oklahoma students ‘have an excellent chance of succeeding’ if they sue

Quote:
But the expulsions immediately struck consitutional law experts like UCLA professor Eugene Volokh, of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, as strange. Did the University of Oklahoma, a public institution, just punish speech that, while clearly abhorrent, was protected under the First Amendment? Was this a violation of the Constitution?

Private institutions — like Sigma Alpha Epsilon — can freely punish speech that breaches its code or standards. But a public institution like the University of Oklahoma, which takes public money, operates an arm of the government under the law. “So, in effect, it’s not a university punishing a student for a racist video or social media post, it is the state itself acting against an individual — a person, importantly, with all the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment,” wrote the University of West Alabama’s Will Nevin in AL.com.

In theory, the University of Oklahoma, which cannot discriminate “on the basis of race” in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, could make the argument that this speech violated its code of conduct, thereby endowing it with the authority to expel the students. And indeed, the University of Alabama lists “abusive conduct” under its “prohibited conduct” in its 2015 Student Rights and Responsibilities Code.

It defines this abuse as “unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating.” It adds: “Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.”

But does this code pass mustard under the First Amendment? That’s where things get murky. “These situations are very, very challenging for universities,” Kevin Reed, vice chancellor of legal affairs for UCLA, told the LA Times.

“Yes, the students could bring a suit based on the First Amendment challenging their expulsion,” constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the law school at the University of California-Irvine told the Washington Post late Tuesday evening. “Based on what we know from the media, I think they would have an excellent chance of succeeding.”
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 02:17 AM   #145
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,450
Anyway, although the ship appears to have sailed already, Jamelle Bouie wrote this column yesterdayish:

Don’t Expel Members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon for Racism

Quote:
Educate them. Show them what their words mean.

. . .

As far as the University of Oklahoma is concerned, I should say I’m not thrilled with the punishment. Disbanding the fraternity might be justified, but expelling students for hate speech is an extreme response that runs afoul of free-speech norms, if not the First Amendment.

Education would be better. The University of Oklahoma is two hours away from Tulsa, which in 1921 was the site of one of the worst anti-black race riots in American history. More than a thousand whites stormed the black district of Tulsa and razed it to the ground, killing hundreds and leaving thousands homeless and destitute. Black Tulsa never recovered, but memories of the attack live on among descendants of the victims.

Don’t expel the boys. Bring them to Tulsa. Have them see the memorials and talk to the children of survivors. Give them a chance to see what their words actually mean, and whether they want to be the kinds of people who sing about lynching for fun.
Instead of expelling them, assign them some special remedial education such as the above suggestion. They may choose instead to expel themselves, but that would be their own choice.

In fact, I would imagine they would have self-expelled themselves before long in any case. Everyone knows who they are (or could be made to know who they are). How do you show your face in class again after that? So the expulsion was probably an unnecessary step and was mainly for the university itself to save face.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 03:16 AM   #146
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
*Actually, this speech is probably not protected.
Unprotected speech is a narrow category. I gave examples. Why does this speech fall within this category? What about it disqualifies it from 1st amendment protection?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:19 AM   #147
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,552
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are very few forms of speech which are not protected. Slander and libel are not protected. Threats of violence are not protected. Incitement to imminent criminal activity are not protected.

But this speech is none of those. It is merely offensive. But the first amendment protects offensive speech, no matter how offensive. The student code cannot remove that protection at a state institution.



If they sue, they're likely to make both arguments.
The supreme court has found students don't have much in the way of free speech rights. The ties of the frat to the school might well be the legal justification that it wouldn't have in a truly private situation.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:52 AM   #148
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The supreme court has found students don't have much in the way of free speech rights.
In what case did they find this?

Quote:
The ties of the frat to the school might well be the legal justification that it wouldn't have in a truly private situation.
Nonsense. The frat ties mean that the school can take action against the frat, but it gives them no additional ability to infringe upon the constitutional rights of its students.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:53 AM   #149
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Unprotected speech is a narrow category. I gave examples. Why does this speech fall within this category? What about it disqualifies it from 1st amendment protection?
Unprotected speech at public schools is much broader than unprotected speech in other instances. I can give examples of speech that would not be protected in schools that might be protected elsewhere. A public school student would violate the dress code in many systems by wearing a T-shirt that said had slang words for "fornicate" and "all African Americans", for example. Wearing such a shirt is inarguably speech, and inarguably protected under many circumstances, and inarguably sanctionable in many public school systems, and such sanction would almost certainly survive court challenge. Many forms of speech and dress (dress is also speech) that are protected (but not necessarily welcome) in the community at large are prohibited on military installations. You would be expelled from fort Bragg if you made a racist speech here, and it would absolutely survive a court challenge - and no, the military isn't a "special case". They are as firm a part of the government as is a state school.

OU can punish conduct, and speech is conduct. If the speech happened completely outside the confines of the University, I think the school is at greater risk of losing. If it happened on campus, or at a school sponsored function the school is on solid ground so long as the suspensions are in line with published school disciplinary policy.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:56 AM   #150
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,552
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In what case did they find this?



Nonsense. The frat ties mean that the school can take action against the frat, but it gives them no additional ability to infringe upon the constitutional rights of its students.
Students vs schools on free speech issues has not gone well for the students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...t_Amendment%29

Nothing quite like this for a guide, and there could be a difference in the rights of high school students vs college students. It would be an interesting case.

I haven't seen reason to expel them for me but the case could be made and it not as one sided as many seem to think.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 04:58 AM   #151
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,450
http://qz.com/359809/my-racist-sae-f...roke-my-heart/
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:08 AM   #152
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,171
If I was the President of OU, then I would be expelling these two students as well and worry about the legal implications later.

These two were recorded making very hateful speech, therefore I expect that they were at least as hateful off-camera as well. Therefore, I sure would not want such people attending my university.

While one does have a right to free speech, that does not mean that one has a right to a college education.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:17 AM   #153
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
If I was the President of OU, then I would be expelling these two students as well and worry about the legal implications later.

That's what David Boren did. He probably figured there was a chance of lawsuits, but that's less of a potential problem than not getting them off campus. I was reminded of a similar calculation that went the other way once (not related to free speech), and that's the decision by the US Olympic Committee to let Tonya Harding compete in the Olympics after her husband was already implicated in the attack on Nancy Kerrigan. They were afraid of being sued if they kicked her out, but they should have done it anyway.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 06:18 AM   #154
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Students vs schools on free speech issues has not gone well for the students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...t_Amendment%29

Nothing quite like this for a guide, and there could be a difference in the rights of high school students vs college students. It would be an interesting case.

I haven't seen reason to expel them for me but the case could be made and it not as one sided as many seem to think.
Indeed, there are differences in the rights of high school students (who are mostly minors) and college students (who are mostly adults).

So let's look at the cases mentioned in your link:
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Plaintiffs: 15 and 13 years old at a high school. Oh, and "The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech." So, that one did go well for the students.


Bethel School District v. Fraser

Don't know the age of the plaintiff, but probably a minor, since this was high school. Ruling carved out an exception to Tinker for sexually vulgar speech. The speech in question here is not sexually vulgar, not relevant.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Another high school. This case involved the censorship of an official school student newspaper. The court ruled the school could censor the paper (though limited its ability to do so). But they also indicated that this right of censorship would NOT apply to an independent newspaper. This case was also not about disciplinary action against students for speech. It does not apply here.

Morse v. Frederick
Again, a high school.

Now, is there a single case involving a college or university where the Supreme Court has ruled that the school can infringe upon a student's free speech rights? I don't think there is. I think that if the students in this case sue, they will win, and the case will never make it to the Supreme Court, so there still won't be such a case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 07:50 AM   #155
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,552
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Indeed, there are differences in the rights of high school students (who are mostly minors) and college students (who are mostly adults).
And admitted difference, but the arguments did not base their views entirely on the idea that as minors they had no freedom of speech anyway. As for the legal definition of vulgar and if racist speech counts or it is limited to sexual that is a point of debate as well.

The point is that legally it is not as cut and dry as you seem to think, and it will have to see what the courts say if this case is brought before them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 08:10 AM   #156
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And admitted difference, but the arguments did not base their views entirely on the idea that as minors they had no freedom of speech anyway.
Of course they didn't argue that children had no freedom of speech, since Tinker directly held that they did. But the fact that they were minors was directly relevant, and the direct relevance is that they did, indeed, have less free speech rights than adults.

For example, let's look at the actual decision in Bethel:
"Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school."

Or let's look at the decision in Morse:
"Our cases make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969) . At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser..."

So Morse directly uses the reasoning set out in Bethel that children can have their rights restricted in ways that adults cannot. Hazelwood is completely irrelevant here (it's not disciplinary, it only applies to official school newspaper censorship), so there's really only two cases you've come up with where the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary action against students for their speech was permissible. And in both of those cases, the fact that the plaintiffs were children was used directly and explicitly as a justification for restricting their speech.

Quote:
The point is that legally it is not as cut and dry as you seem to think, and it will have to see what the courts say if this case is brought before them.
I think it's very cut and dry.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 08:26 AM   #157
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,552
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of course they didn't argue that children had no freedom of speech, since Tinker directly held that they did. But the fact that they were minors was directly relevant, and the direct relevance is that they did, indeed, have less free speech rights than adults.

For example, let's look at the actual decision in Bethel:
"Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school."

Or let's look at the decision in Morse:
"Our cases make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969) . At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser..."

So Morse directly uses the reasoning set out in Bethel that children can have their rights restricted in ways that adults cannot. Hazelwood is completely irrelevant here (it's not disciplinary, it only applies to official school newspaper censorship), so there's really only two cases you've come up with where the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary action against students for their speech was permissible. And in both of those cases, the fact that the plaintiffs were children was used directly and explicitly as a justification for restricting their speech.



I think it's very cut and dry.
And maybe the court will agree with you. Or not. I am sure you must clearly agree with every single supreme court decision ever as well.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 08:33 AM   #158
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,442
Even for adults, one cannot say anything, even Constitutionally protected speech, and expect to remain employed by a given business. I can't work at McDonalds and tell the customers that the burgers suck.

OU is a public institution, and thus the rules are a bit more complicated as to what is and isn't free speech. But the courts have generally agreed that for even public universities, speech that disrupts the business of the University, learning, can legally be limited.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 08:50 AM   #159
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
On the other hand, we know there was at least one fraternity member on the bus who was disgusted. We know, because he leaked the video.
Minor quibble: I have heard the video was leaked by a guest, not by a fraternity member.

Quote:
There doesn't appear to be any evidence whatsoever of any disgust on the part of anyone else present. And who is to blame for that?
Hard to say. I see very few faces in the video. It's impossible to say how many were participating and how many were objecting. Also there is a second video that appears to be taken from a different angle, so I believe there was at least one other person recording (and subsequently releasing) video of the incident.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2015, 09:21 AM   #160
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,881
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
No.

It is unlikely that it will cost the national organization anything at all......and it is certain that it will not cost them many many millions of dollars. Many, many millions would be what, at least 2 cubed millions?

Indeed, it is far from certain that any individual would be able to bring a discrimination suit against even the local chapter. Private organizations may be as moronically racist as they please, even publically so.
One thing that pwengthold only hinted at, and I haven't seen anyone else bring up at all, is that the main function of a fraternity house is to provide housing to students. These kids may as well have been chanting "We don't rent to negroes!" It's like scattering Purina Lawyer Chow all over the front lawn.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.