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 13th March 2015, 08:54 PM   #241
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
So far, we've got multiple lawyers arguing why the expulsions aren't constitutional, and we've got multiple Supreme Court cases upholding the free speech rights of students against Universities.

The argument for the expulsions being legal? No professional lawyer seems to want to put their name and reputation behind that. Nobody can seem to find any case law to support it. All we've got are silly legal theories like their membership in a fraternity or the existence of a speech code making it acceptable.

It's not.
__________________
"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 13th March 2015, 10:01 PM   #242
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Racist OU chapter banned by national organization

Just to be clear, are you saying that students cannot freely agree to refrain from performing verbal harassment during school-related functions, by signing up to the conditions set forth in a student code of conduct, because there is invariably an inalienable right to engage in that sort of conduct?

Do you also argue that they must be allowed to carry rifles to class, on 2nd Amendment grounds?
__________________
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 13th March 2015, 10:27 PM   #243
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Just to be clear, are you saying that students cannot freely agree to refrain from performing verbal harassment [emphasis added]
My objection to the claim of verbal harassment is that I don't think that what they did counted as harassment, since there were no minorities present and they expected that what they said would stay private. To claim that it's harassment you'd have to argue that what they were doing wasn't private, because of the ubiquity of cell phones which can record means nothing that happens amongst a group of people is truly private, or that school-related functions by definition take place in public, or something.

ETA: Additionally, and orthogonally to the above paragraph:

If one student is verbally harassing another, I support the university disciplining the student, regardless of whether or not there's a code-of-conduct clause prohibiting it which the harasser signed. But for matters concerning speech, I think that a government run university should only discipline the student if it's the type of thing where the offender having signed some agreement or not doesn't matter. If the code of conduct which students have to sign contains clauses about speech which isn't covered by the above "doesn't matter if they signed or not" behaviour, then the university shouldn't have put those clauses in there in the first place, and they shouldn't be considered valid.

ETA #2: Regarding the 2nd amendment analogy: gun rights/control arguments aren't really my thing. I personally wouldn't care that much if the courts decided that public universities could unilaterally ban students from taking rifles onto campus. However, if courts ruled that public universities couldn't unilaterally ban rifles from being taken onto campus (on 2nd amendment grounds), then I'd be against a public university being able to get around that by adding a "no rifles" clause to their student code of conduct.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!

Last edited by Matthew Cline; 13th March 2015 at 11:02 PM.
Matthew Cline 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 14th March 2015, 12:45 AM   #244
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So far, we've got multiple lawyers arguing why the expulsions aren't constitutional, and we've got multiple Supreme Court cases upholding the free speech rights of students against Universities.

The argument for the expulsions being legal? No professional lawyer seems to want to put their name and reputation behind that. Nobody can seem to find any case law to support it. All we've got are silly legal theories like their membership in a fraternity or the existence of a speech code making it acceptable.

It's not.
Besides which, FREEDOM OF SPEECH and related only applies to the government being able to punish or otherwise prevent you from saying (printing/publishing/miming,etc.) something prior to your actually saying (etc. ) it - they can't. That does not apply after you have said it and the prior restraint thing also does not affect a company, NGO, etc, from firing you for saying (etc.) it nor the government from punishing you if what you said/say violates any law or is in any way actionable.
fuelair 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 14th March 2015, 01:58 AM   #245
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Besides which, FREEDOM OF SPEECH and related only applies to the government being able to punish or otherwise prevent you from saying (printing/publishing/miming,etc.) something prior to your actually saying (etc. ) it - they can't. That does not apply after you have said it and the prior restraint thing also does not affect a company, NGO, etc, from firing you for saying (etc.) it nor the government from punishing you if what you said/say violates any law or is in any way actionable.
Meed 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 14th March 2015, 05:01 AM   #246
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Just to be clear, are you saying that students cannot freely agree to refrain from performing verbal harassment during school-related functions, by signing up to the conditions set forth in a student code of conduct, because there is invariably an inalienable right to engage in that sort of conduct?
If that's the only way to attend the university, then students aren't really freely agreeing to it. And there are indeed limits to how much a contract can constrain your actions, regardless of the text of the contract.

Quote:
Do you also argue that they must be allowed to carry rifles to class, on 2nd Amendment grounds?
No. It's well established that the right to carry can be prohibited in certain locations. The University can restrain speech to some degree in certain locations as well, but this isn't one of those cases.
__________________
"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 14th March 2015, 05:03 AM   #247
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Besides which, FREEDOM OF SPEECH and related only applies to the government being able to punish or otherwise prevent you from saying (printing/publishing/miming,etc.) something prior to your actually saying (etc. ) it - they can't. That does not apply after you have said it and the prior restraint thing also does not affect a company, NGO, etc, from firing you for saying (etc.) it nor the government from punishing you if what you said/say violates any law or is in any way actionable.
No, this is incredibly wrong.

Prior restraint on speech has an even higher burden than post restraint, but both fall under freedom of speech. I cannot imagine what made you think otherwise, or how you can even conceptualize freedom of speech existing if it can always be punished afterwards.
__________________
"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 14th March 2015, 08:26 AM   #248
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Racist OU chapter banned by national organization

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If that's the only way to attend the university, then students aren't really freely agreeing to it. And there are indeed limits to how much a contract can constrain your actions, regardless of the text of the contract.
And it's clearly unreasonable for the courts to allow students to sign themselves up to a policy which holds them to a standard of conduct as stringent as the non-discrimination policy in place at OU?

The judiciary must step in to overrule that agreement, because these kids shouldn't have to learn to restrain themselves from acting out against minorities until they graduate and get jobs.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th March 2015 at 08:32 AM. Reason: words and URLs added
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 14th March 2015, 08:57 AM   #249
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
And it's clearly unreasonable for the courts to allow students to sign themselves up to a policy which holds them to a standard of conduct as stringent as the non-discrimination policy in place at OU?

The judiciary must step in to overrule that agreement, because these kids shouldn't have to learn to restrain themselves from acting out against minorities until they graduate and get jobs.
Again, it's not really an agreement. Students have no say in the matter, as they would in a true agreement. Furthermore, you keep trying to represent what happened as something other than speech (with the use of "discrimination" and "acting out against"), but this is all about speech, and punishing the content of speech.

And yes, the judiciary should step in to overrule the punishment of students by the state based upon the content of their speech. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
__________________
"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 14th March 2015, 09:01 AM   #250
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, it's not really an agreement. Students have no say in the matter, as they would in a true agreement. Furthermore, you keep trying to represent what happened as something other than speech (with the use of "discrimination" and "acting out against"), but this is all about speech, and punishing the content of speech.
The speech in question was substantively an admission that OU SAE has a racially discriminatory admissions policy. How is that not obvious?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And yes, the judiciary should step in to overrule the punishment of students by the state based upon the content of their speech. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
I think that I grasp what you are saying, but I don't find your arguments compelling. OU should be allowed to prevent racial discrimination on campus, in my view, and to disassociate from any campus organizations which promote and practice it.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 14th March 2015 at 09:02 AM.
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 14th March 2015, 10:37 AM   #251
Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
 
Rare Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,612
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The speech in question was substantively an admission that OU SAE has a racially discriminatory admissions policy. How is that not obvious?



I think that I grasp what you are saying, but I don't find your arguments compelling. OU should be allowed to prevent racial discrimination on campus, in my view, and to disassociate from any campus organizations which promote and practice it.
I agree with that.


It seems to me this is at play here:

"[F]ederal laws, including Title IX and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, require universities to ensure that no student or group of students is subject to harassment or discrimination that would impede their ability to get an equal education. President Boren’s statement on the expulsion echoed this idea, saying the racist chant “created a hostile educational environment for others.”

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/qa-race.html
Rare Truth 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 14th March 2015, 01:05 PM   #252
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, this is incredibly wrong.

Prior restraint on speech has an even higher burden than post restraint, but both fall under freedom of speech. I cannot imagine what made you think otherwise, or how you can even conceptualize freedom of speech existing if it can always be punished afterwards.
I suspect you may not have caught the last 10-20 words of the post. Though you did include them.
fuelair 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 14th March 2015, 01:54 PM   #253
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Rare Truth View Post
I agree with that.


It seems to me this is at play here:

"[F]ederal laws, including Title IX and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, require universities to ensure that no student or group of students is subject to harassment or discrimination that would impede their ability to get an equal education. President Boren’s statement on the expulsion echoed this idea, saying the racist chant “created a hostile educational environment for others.”

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/qa-race.html
and the end of this post covers the one re:the university and the frat house that applies from those last words in my post.
fuelair 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 14th March 2015, 04:39 PM   #254
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
I suspect you may not have caught the last 10-20 words of the post. Though you did include them.
The last part doesn't make the first part correct.
__________________
"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 14th March 2015, 05:51 PM   #255
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The speech in question was substantively an admission that OU SAE has a racially discriminatory admissions policy. How is that not obvious?
It's not obvious because they were singing a song, not explaining their official admissions policy. These students were not expelled because they didn't admit black people into their fraternity, they were expelled because they engaged in offensive speech. The University did not claim that they were being expelled because they didn't admit black people into the fraternity, that's your own invention.

Quote:
I think that I grasp what you are saying, but I don't find your arguments compelling. OU should be allowed to prevent racial discrimination on campus, in my view, and to disassociate from any campus organizations which promote and practice it.
But we aren't talking about the disassociation of the University from the fraternity. I've never questioned such a move. We're talking about the expulsion of two individual students. And they're being expelled for speech, not racial discrimination. No charge of racial discrimination (not allowing blacks into the fraternity) has been made against these two students. It is entirely a speech offense for which they are being expelled.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 07:52 AM   #256
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's not obvious because they were singing a song, not explaining their official admissions policy. These students were not expelled because they didn't admit black people into their fraternity, they were expelled because they engaged in offensive speech. The University did not claim that they were being expelled because they didn't admit black people into the fraternity, that's your own invention.
Boren said they were expelled for creating a hostile learning environment, right?

Does OU's existing EEO policy say anything about that?

Quote:
Discrimination: Discrimination, including harassment, is defined as conduct directed at a specific individual or group of identifiable individuals that subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects their employment or education, or access to institutional benefits, on account of race, color, religion, political beliefs, national origin, sex . . . sexual orientation, genetic information, age (40 or older), disability, veteran status.

Harassment: Harassment as a form of discrimination is defined as verbal or physical conduct that is directed at an individual or a group because of race, color, sex . . . sexual orientation, genetic information, religion, political beliefs, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or veteran status when such conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive and objectively offensive so as to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s or group’s academic or work performance or of creating a hostile academic or work environment viewed by examining a totality of the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the purported recipient of the harassing conduct.
Emphasis added.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th March 2015 at 07:56 AM. Reason: added links
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 15th March 2015, 08:02 AM   #257
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...we aren't talking about the disassociation of the University from the fraternity. I've never questioned such a move.
Why not? It's the same underlying offense(s) either way. If the speech is protected, as you have argued, then surely it shouldn't make people homeless who weren't even on the bus.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 08:39 AM   #258
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Boren said they were expelled for creating a hostile learning environment, right?
Right. So why did you try to justify the expulsion on the grounds that they were discriminating against blacks? That's a completely different claim, one which is explicitly contradicted by OU's stated position. It is therefore obviously wrong.

Quote:
Does OU's existing EEO policy say anything about that?
They can state it all they want to, but the behavior in question is still just speech, and their policy cannot abridge the freedom of speech of those 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 15th March 2015, 08:41 AM   #259
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
The behaviour in question is publicly admitting to ongoing race-based discrimination at SAE. You keep trying to pretend, Ziggurat, that it was an isolated act of speech rather than a statement of policy passed on from upperclassmen to pledges every year.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 08:43 AM   #260
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why not? It's the same underlying offense(s) either way.
Why not? Because university sponsorship of a fraternity is not equivalent to student enrollment in that university. The university has far more leeway in its relationship with the fraternities.

Quote:
If the speech is protected, as you have argued, then surely it shouldn't make people homeless who weren't even on the bus.
Who said anything about making anyone homeless?
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 08:49 AM   #261
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
The behaviour in question is publicly admitting to ongoing race-based discrimination at SAE.
Is it? Or is it a bad joke about race-based discrimination?

See, in order to answer that question, you would need to know whether or not race-based discrimination actually occurred. And guess what? The university has never claimed that it occurred, and does not use that as part of its argument. "ongoing race-based discrimination at SAE" is not any part of OU's justification.

Quote:
You keep trying to pretend, Ziggurat, that it was an isolated act of speech rather than a statement of policy passed on from upperclassmen to pledges every year.
And you keep pretending that the university is basing this expulsion on something other than what it actually based the expulsion on. It's sort of an inverse straw man: instead of constructing a weaker argument in place of the real argument so that you can knock down this replacement, you're trying to construct a stronger argument than the real one OU used, hoping that your replacement won't get knocked down.

But it doesn't even matter how strong your replacement argument is (though it's not), because it's not relevant to the case. OU already stated why they expelled those students, it doesn't match your argument, and if it goes to court, it's OU's description which will be tested, not yours.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 08:49 AM   #262
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why not? Because university sponsorship of a fraternity is not equivalent to student enrollment in that university. The university has far more leeway in its relationship with the fraternities.
If it's protected speech, as you claim, the University does not get to punish anyone for doing it. Not the identified individuals, nor the house as a whole.


Quote:
Who said anything about making anyone homeless?
I did, after watching all the SAE’s loading up UHAULs in the rain.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 08:59 AM   #263
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Or is it a bad joke about race-based discrimination?
I'm all for charity, but come on. The upperclassmen teach the pledges to sing about how black people will never be rushed in, and you're trying to downgrade that to a bad joke?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
See, in order to answer that question, you would need to know whether or not race-based discrimination actually occurred.
Having a stated policy of never allowing blacks into the club would be enough to violate OU's EEO policy.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
OU already stated why they expelled those students, it doesn't match your argument, and if it goes to court, it's OU's description which will be tested, not yours.
OU claims that SAE created a hostile academic environment. As I noted earlier, OU's non-discrimination policy specifically forbids creating a hostile academic environment in the section about racial discrimination.

Maybe I am steelmanning the school's argument, but it shouldn't be hard for them to connect the dots, if and when aggrieved SAE members sue the school.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th March 2015 at 09:02 AM. Reason: URL
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 15th March 2015, 09:02 AM   #264
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,166
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I did, after watching all the SAE’s loading up UHAULs in the rain.
Do you imagine they drove their UHAULs to local bridges and unloaded beneath them?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
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 15th March 2015, 09:04 AM   #265
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
I imagine they drove home, which is effectively expulsion for out-of-state students.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 09:07 AM   #266
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,166
It's not homelessness.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
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 15th March 2015, 09:08 AM   #267
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It's not homelessness.

It would be if my son was caught chanting.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 09:11 AM   #268
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Having a stated policy of never allowing blacks into the club would be enough to violate OU's EEO policy.
Again, you keep claiming that this is a statement of policy, but organizations don't typically put their policies in song.


Quote:
OU claims that SAE created a hostile academic environment. As I noted earlier, OU's non-discrimination policy specifically forbids creating a hostile academic environment in the section about racial discrimination.

Maybe I am steelmanning the school's argument, but it shouldn't be hard for them to connect the dots, if and when aggrieved SAE members sue the school.
This is sort of like saying the police can arrest and imprison a suspect, because they might be able to dig up evidence of a crime later. No. They don't get to do that. They have to justify it based on what they knew at the time they expelled those students. And I guarantee you, the university DID NOT know if those two students had any hand in preventing black applicants from joining the fraternity. Hell, they probably still don't.

The expulsion had nothing to do with discrimination. It was entirely, entirely, a content-based speech offense.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 09:20 AM   #269
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 21,166
Neither here nor there.

Getting back to the topic, I'm not sure OU's position on the fraternity chapter is anything other than a moot point; as stated in my OP (and the thread title), the national organization of SAE took the initiative and closed the chapter before the school took any action against it, making OU's revocation essentially a rubber stamp, as the chapter at that point wouldn't have actually existed as "the OU chapter of SAE" any longer. If OU's agreement was with SAE as an organization, and not the specific students that comprised the chapter in any given term, then the chapter's dissolution by the national organization might've left no legally-extant body to offer "due process" to. SAE administratively "expelled" itself, OU mopped up by revoking the charter and evicting the students from the house since they had essentially been rendered squatters by the national organization.

In fact, because of this I would go further and wonder whether they actually have standing to sue as "the OU chapter of SAE", which does not exist anymore.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
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 15th March 2015, 09:30 AM   #270
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Racist OU chapter banned by national organization

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is sort of like saying the police can arrest and imprison a suspect, because they might be able to dig up evidence of a crime later.

If you want to make an awkward analogy to criminal law, imagine the suspect singing about the crimes he has already committed in the town square, and then demanding absolution on free speech grounds.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 11:41 AM   #271
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, you keep claiming that this is a statement of policy, but organizations don't typically put their policies in song.
Nor to they typically engage in such flagrant violations of common non-discrimination policies. Seems like just the sort of thing that you'd want to pass on secretly and orally rather than writing it down and making it easy to subpoena.

Look, if you think that SAE violated some other part of OU's policies that make mention of "hostile academic environment" you are welcome to say which particular policies you have in mind. I pulled up the non-discrimination policy because the chant in question appears designed as a performance of racial discrimination, to be passed on from brother to brother in order to perpetuate their standing whites-only policy.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 11:58 AM   #272
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If you want to make an awkward analogy to criminal law, imagine the suspect singing about the crimes he has already committed in the town square, and then demanding absolution on free speech grounds.
Singing about a crime you committed is, in fact, not a crime. If police want to arrest and charge you, they still need to demonstrate that you actually, you know, committed the crime, of which the singing isn't one.

And again, the university HAS NOT alleged that the students it expelled discriminated against anyone by denying them entry into the fraternity.

So even this refinement of the analogy does not provide justification for the university's actions.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 01:36 PM   #273
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And again, the university HAS NOT alleged that the students it expelled discriminated against anyone by denying them entry into the fraternity.
"Real Sooners believe in equal opportunity."

In the context of a statement damning SAE, how can that sound like anything other than an allegation of systemic discrimination on the part of the fraternity?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th March 2015 at 01:39 PM.
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 15th March 2015, 04:45 PM   #274
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
"Real Sooners believe in equal opportunity."

In the context of a statement damning SAE, how can that sound like anything other than an allegation of systemic discrimination on the part of the fraternity?
Since when do we punish people on the basis of allegations?

And again, you keep arguing that they discriminated, but OU never claimed they did! They were not punished for discrimination. How many times do I have to repeat that before it finally sinks in? What you want them to be punished for has no bearing on what they were actually punished for.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 05:53 PM   #275
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What you want them to be punished for has no bearing on what they were actually punished for.

Says the fellow who is mysteriously confident that SAE members were punished for speech alone, rather than violations of existing anti-discrimination policy.
__________________
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 15th March 2015, 06:05 PM   #276
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Says the fellow who is mysteriously confident that SAE members were punished for speech alone, rather than violations of existing anti-discrimination policy.
There is no mystery abouf it. OU has never claimed those two students discriminated against anyone. Nobody has claimed that. The only mystery is where you got the idea that this was the basis for OUs actions, when they have never claimed it was.
__________________
"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 15th March 2015, 06:35 PM   #277
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Racist OU chapter banned by national organization

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The only mystery is where you got the idea that this was the basis for OUs actions, when they have never claimed it was.

Even after quoting the bit from Boren about Real Sooners believing in equal opportunity, it remains a mystery to you why I referenced OU's EEO page? Ok.

Not to mention the obvious fact that this whole case centers on the use of racially exclusionary language to describe and perpetuate fraternity policy.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th March 2015 at 06:36 PM. Reason: spelling
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 16th March 2015, 03:14 AM   #278
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Even after quoting the bit from Boren about Real Sooners believing in equal opportunity
Funny thing about that quote: it makes no reference to the expelled students. It's just a platitude, he's not actually claiming that the expelled students discriminated.

Quote:
Not to mention the obvious fact that this whole case centers on the use of racially exclusionary language to describe and perpetuate fraternity policy.
That's just it: it's just language. It's just speech. Not a single case has been presented to indicate that this is actual fraternity policy. Maybe it is, but the University doesn't care, because they never tried to find out. The offensiveness of the speech was the ONLY thing they judged those students on. Your continued fantasies to the contrary are becoming quite tiresome.
__________________
"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 16th March 2015, 06:37 AM   #279
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's just it: it's just language. It's just speech.
Had they written it down in their bylaws, it would still be just language, and equally indefensible.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not a single case has been presented to indicate that this is actual fraternity policy.
At least one busful of SAE members all learned the same racially exclusionary meme, but hey, it's not like they really mean it when they enthusiastically shout "they'll never sign with me." Right?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Maybe it is, but the University doesn't care, because they never tried to find out.
You have inside sources in the administration, telling you what investigations and interviews took place at the time? Or are you just guessing, uncharitably?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The offensiveness of the speech was the ONLY thing they judged those students on.
Saying that over and over won't make it true. You would have us believe that even after consulting his legal staff, Boren did not act on the basis of existing OU EEO policy which is quite obviously implicated in a case about race discrimination.

The truth is, the administration only hinted (publicly) at which particular policies are in play here. Apparently Levi and Parker are not going to pursue administrative or legal remedies, so we'll never see how that part plays out in any detail. The remainder of SAE may well sue, so perhaps we will find out more about the decision-making process that went into evicting them from their residence.
__________________
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 16th March 2015, 07:05 AM   #280
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You have inside sources in the administration, telling you what investigations and interviews took place at the time? Or are you just guessing, uncharitably?
I have the letter from the University to the students it expelled, where no such claim is made. And I have no reason to be particularly charitable, considering that not only was the decision to expel the students illegal, even the process of reaching that decision was a due process violation.

Quote:
Saying that over and over won't make it true.
Technically correct but irrelevant, since it was true even before I said it.

Quote:
You would have us believe that even after consulting his legal staff
I have no idea if he consulted his legal staff. Neither do you. But his calculus probably has little to do with the legality of the move: he probably just wanted to be seen as acting aggressively against this, and if the university loses a little money on a lawsuit, that's OK. And at least in the short term, that calculus is (sadly) probably correct.

Quote:
The truth is, the administration only hinted (publicly) at which particular policies are in play here.
When you can only hint at stuff, it's probably because there isn't a real connection you can actually talk about openly. In the actual expulsion letter, the ONLY thing referenced was the chant itself. It did not hint at other factors, because no other factors entered into their consideration.

Oh, and for a contrast in discipline:
http://newsok.com/ou-football-joe-mi...rticle/5361807
Punch a girl in the face hard enough to break her skull in four places and earn a criminal conviction? You can't play football for one season. But say something offensive? That'll get you expelled.
__________________
"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
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 03:22 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.