University of Oklahoma expulsions may be speech infringement, experts say

For slow learners!
The consequences cannot be in the form of punishment.

 

Exactly. I can't believe how willing some people are to just throw away their right to just speak their mind. One day, it will be gone, and they will be stunned when they find themselves behind bars for saying something the establishment did not like.

 

I was only addressing the claim that one gives up rights when joining the military. The claim that joining military is the same as going to school is someone else's claim.

As for the University's actions, IMHO, unless the frat was already on some sort of probation, the university's action is heavy handed. At worse, they should be put on double secret probation. The whole point as to whether or not the university is violating the student's rights comes down to whether or not the frat's actions created a hostile environment. The courts have typically held that people do not have the right to create a hostile environment be it in occupational or academic settings.

 

White Christians will find no protections when they become a minority, they will find 'righteous retribution' in the eyes of the liberals...

 

I totally agree.

But in this particular case, I think it would be hard to prove the frat was inciting violence, however, it all depends on whether the judges are constitutionalists or activists.

 

So it's ok to call them (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s but not ok to elude to them being monkeys?

Both are equally repulsive imo.

NM...I see I misread what was said.
Had thought it was "they can hang from a tree"... when it was actually "you can hang em from a tree"

Big difference.

 

Oh, for God's Sake! Do you seriously think that bus was sitting in a parking lot on campus?

Damn, it's truly hopeless.

Of course that idiot Boren violated the students' freedom of speech. He's a very foolish man. Always has been.

Those of us with IQs over single digit said from Day 1 of this silly event that it was a freedom of speech issue. And so it remains. If the students choose to sue, they will win a big one. And it will be a victory for all of America.

 

The GOP should invite the expelled members of the frat to their national convention as a show of solidarity.

 

So many armchair lawyers in this thread. Here are some very preliminary, basic starting points for accurate legal research, there are three separate classes of action here... so far:

1. The SAE National actions are likely not controversial, are almost certainly legally legitimate and warranted IMO.

2. Analysis of the removal of SAE from OU by the university needs more facts, does the university own the fraternity house property and what is in the lease or any ancillary agreements? for example, among other things. Probably legally legitimate, but more facts needed. There could be 1st Amendment issues here too, not going to research. Do your own if interested.

3. The expulsion issue will probably be litigated, maybe not, who knows until it happens? UO and the grievance industry LW are probably not going to like the results. If the expulsion issue is litigated, the legal issues -begin- here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code

"In the United States, the Supreme Court has not issued a direct ruling on whether speech codes at public universities are unconstitutional. However, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has struck down a speech code at the University of Michigan, indicating that broad speech codes seeking to prohibit hate speech probably violate the First Amendment (Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989). Subsequent challenges against such language supposedly couched in harassment policies, diversity mandates, and so forth instead of being self-identified as speech codes have generally succeeded to date."

"One particular case, the University of Pennsylvania “Water Buffalo” case, highlighted reasons for and against speech codes and is typical of such cases. In the University of Pennsylvania case, a freshman faced expulsion from that private school when he called African American sorority members who were making substantial amounts of noise and disturbing his sleep during the middle of the night, “water buffalo” (the charged student claimed not to intend discrimination, as the individual in question spoke the modern Hebrew language, and the term "water buffalo", or "behema", in modern Hebrew, is slang for a rude or an insulting person; moreover, water buffalo are native to Asia rather than Africa). Some saw the statement as racist while others simply saw it as a general insult. Questions were raised about how far was too far when interpreting and punishing statements like the one in question. The college eventually dropped the charges amid national criticism (Downs, 1993), (Kors & Silverglate, 199."

Note there is a big difference between public schools like Michigan and UO and private schools like Penn (although even private unis get lots of public money which clouds the public/private issue).

More info on UO's speech code from a free speech activist site:

http://www.thefire.org/schools/university-of-oklahoma/

versus this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Given the limited, preliminary facts so far, and no real legal research, the racist song/chant was probably protected speech, and restriction of it should be strictly scrutinized (which almost certainly means "struck down"). Again, will be interested to see how this progresses if it even does. This singular instance could end up in SCOTUS if the winds blow a certain way.

My opinion? It's disheartening how easily people today are ready to throw out our most foundational, important legal principles when their feelings are engaged. Rule of law > emotionalizing, even when it protects people you don't like who do things no one likes, it is protecting you too.

 

Looks like there's more coverage about this silly story, than there was over the beheading of a grandmother by a muslim in this same state not even a year ago. Words over murder? Leftist... : (

 

It should protect you from the consequences when the consequences are in the form of a punishment by a public (or publicly funded) institution. Of course, we may talk about creating a hostile environment and all that. But in the end, public universities ought to have much higher "threshold" to expel someone than private institutions, because they are an extension of the government, as as such are restricted by the first amendment in some ways. It wouldnt be the first time public university code of conduct was succesfully challenged in court.

And its not only about racism, public universities should not have the right to expel people even if they are black supremacists, islamists or any other type of politically incorrect extremists. Such extremists pay taxes too, and fund the public institution, too. So in a way, it is their school too, and they should not be discriminated against. Not unless they are also harassers. Public institututions must be neutral in these matters. If you want to have an university that is anti-racist, or pro-racist, go to a private school.

 

An interesting perspective on the situation. Worth a read.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mariadixonhall/2015/03/a-teachable-moment-how-ou-failed-transformation-101/