# University of Oklahoma suspends fraternity students.



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It nice to see the no tolerance for racism stand that the University has taken. Those students were chanting disgusting stuff at a school event and deserved what they got.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Haven't heard about that yet but I like it so far.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

In this day and age of cell phone cameras how stupid do you have to be?!


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

The whole state is embarrassed by this act of stupidity.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I have mixed reactions.

Living here in Oklahoma, I'm disappointed that a group of college men would act like this, even if they had the foolish notion that it would somehow be kept out of the public eye.

But I am somewhat reassured by the swift and appropriate reaction by the University of Oklahoma president.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I saw that on the morning news and it was hard to believe. The old joke about setting your watch back 50 years when you go to Oklahoma actually came true. What a bunch of knuckleheads. A college education is a waste of money when one's mind is that narrow, isn't it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Well, so much for the question of whether racism still exists in this country.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Well, so much for the question of whether racism still exists in this country.


Why do you persist in such statements? As far as I know only you have made them in order to trot out the troll.
Frankly racism is a common human denominator. As the speed at which rallies touting "hands up-don't shoot" spread race based lies without the smallest critical examination or even wait shows.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well, so much for the question of whether racism still exists in this country.


Of course racism exists and it probably always will as long as this planet is inhabited by human beings. The question isn't whether or not it exists, but rather to what degree. 

As long as it isn't institutionalized within a society, or allowed to become the majority, we can continue to make progress towards our ideals. It's a cancer and we have to do our best to keep it from spreading. [Hint-casting stones at the whole country isn't productive towards this effort.]

I don't think anybody else is ready to write off the whole state of Oklahoma as racist over the stupidity of a small group of frat boys. An isolated incident. But here you are, ready to write off the whole nation as racists!


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

And, if you look at the University's reaction, from the top (including the football coach) on down, it's an undeniable rejection of the fraternity members' actions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There have quite a few posters say that racism does not exist or is not a problem from the reading I have done in the old threads.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

Also, do remember hazing is very much alive and well, another subject but odious still.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

okiemom said:


> Also, do remember hazing is very much alive and well, another subject but odious still.


And the same fraternity is in trouble for that, too, nationwide.

It has banned pledging.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/uswo...cle_56d9b2a0-bb80-50de-83ab-b06211b59bb0.html


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

In some circles, Sigma Alpha Epsilon is also dubbed "Sexual Assault Expected". 

As for the way this story has exploded, I think there's a lot more to it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

OK I have seen it now.


Pretty sickening but I am glad about the swift reaction. People need to learn that there are consequences to their actions and that don't cut it no more.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, so much for the question of whether racism still exists in this country.


Obama, Holder and Shabazz of the new black panthers are perfect examples that racism is still with us! Remember the voter intimidation that Holder wouldn't prosecute? You know, the guy yelling white cracker babies should be killed? You remember that don't you? I got thousands of examples just like those, want to continue?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

It's only whites who are racists!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/05/f...to-desert-for-the-day-of-judgment-for-whites/


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

OU owns the fraternity house, from the sound of things the fraternity was shown the door over this. OU President Boren has said they will not return under his watch, and if he could expel the guilty parties he would.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Well, so much for the question of whether racism still exists in this country.


I agree. In my experience, taken as a whole, black folks are among the most racist of Americans.

That doesn't excuse the behavior of a bunch of white, stupid college kids, however.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.

Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.

You can't have it both ways. You can't love freedom and expect to be able to express your views then demand that someone who holds a belief different from your own should be punished for expressing it.

For everyone here who supports the punishment for these people because of their speech what other speech would you like to see banned?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so will to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


While the language in the song was offensive to many, the real point is that the lyrics described something that was against both SAE and university policy. There are standards of admission for joining registered social groups on campus, and that SAE chapter has agreed to those standards. Central to those standards is a set of non-discrimination rules. But after agreeing to those standards they sung a song saying that no black person would ever become a member of SAE. That shows that the OU chapter of SAE never had any intention of complying with the standard. That's what makes it serious enough to shut them down.

So it's not the speech that's being banned, it's their brazen celebration that they refuse to follow university and SAE rules.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.


Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from negative consequences stemming from one's speech.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with private citizens punishing speech they don't like through actions such as speaking out themselves or engaging in economic boycotts. I have no problem with private businesses punishing employees for speech they find distasteful or detrimental to their business. I have no problem with fraternities having charters revoked and being disbanded for actions such as are being discussed. Public universities which are state run institutions are more problematic to me. Their regulation and punishment of private speech is wrong, just as it would be for any other government entity.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


 
They were representing their fraternity when they practiced their free speech. No different then practicing your free speech when representing your employer, it can have consequences.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> While the language in the song was offensive to many, the real point is that the lyrics described something that was against both SAE and university policy. There are standards of admission for joining registered social groups on campus, and that SAE chapter has agreed to those standards. Central to those standards is a set of non-discrimination rules. But after agreeing to those standards they sung a song saying that no black person would ever become a member of SAE. That shows that the OU chapter of SAE never had any intention of complying with the standard. That's what makes it serious enough to shut them down.
> 
> So it's not the speech that's being banned, it's their brazen celebration that they refuse to follow university and SAE rules.


I think Nevada got this one right. The "free speech" was about excluding blacks from the fraternity, not just expressing an individual's opinion.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> While the language in the song was offensive to many, the real point is that the lyrics described something that was against both SAE and university policy. There are standards of admission for joining registered social groups on campus, and that SAE chapter has agreed to those standards. Central to those standards is a set of non-discrimination rules. But after agreeing to those standards they sung a song saying that no black person would ever become a member of SAE. That shows that the OU chapter of SAE never had any intention of complying with the standard. That's what makes it serious enough to shut them down.
> 
> So _*it's not the speech that's being banned, it's their brazen celebration that they refuse to follow university and SAE rules.*_


While not following school/frat rules may well be an absolutely legitimate (and appropriate) reason to shut them down, I'd wager that was not first/foremost in their minds when they did so...I'm thinking damage control, especially in light of recent events.

Of course, I could be totally wrong...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> While not following school/frat rules may well be an absolutely legitimate (and appropriate) reason to shut them down, I'd wager that was not first/foremost in their minds when they did so...I'm thinking damage control, especially in light of recent events.
> 
> Of course, I could be totally wrong...


I think that it was also sending a message to other fraternities. While only a small number of people took part in singing the song, I suspect that the idea of the lyrics is much more widespread.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> While the language in the song was offensive to many, the real point is that the lyrics described something that was against both SAE and university policy. There are standards of admission for joining registered social groups on campus, and that SAE chapter has agreed to those standards. Central to those standards is a set of non-discrimination rules. But after agreeing to those standards they sung a song saying that no black person would ever become a member of SAE. That shows that the OU chapter of SAE never had any intention of complying with the standard. That's what makes it serious enough to shut them down.
> 
> So it's not the speech that's being banned, it's their brazen celebration that they refuse to follow university and SAE rules.


The reaction people are having is NOT because they flaunting any rule. They are reacting to the words which were spoken. 

Now let me see if I understand what you are saying; the speech isn't banned its just that people are forbidden to use it.

I have no problem with a PRIVATE entity, e.g. a fraternity, forbidding you from doing or saying what ever they wish to continue your employment there. But when you are talking about a government agency, e.g. a state funded university, it is a completely different matter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I have no problem with a PRIVATE entity, e.g. a fraternity, forbidding you from doing or saying what ever they wish to continue your employment there. But when you are talking about a government agency, e.g. a state funded university, it is a completely different matter.


That's a valid point. In fact the university president admits that expelling anyone over this may not be possible for that reason.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...



I've been holding back to see what reactions would be. At the core of the whole thing are some idiotic and immature frat boys who used their status as a group to engage in group stupidity and have what they thought was a good time. Their "song" could have just as easily been against *********, Jews, Poles, Irish, Vietnamese or whichever group was the "out" group du jour. The purpose of such rants are to build exclusiveness and group identity, and the object of derision is simply a tool. Hitler understood that well.

Kids - especially boys - go through phases where their critical thinking skills rival those of earthworms. Unfortunately, rather than writhing through the soil and manure during those times, boys walk and talk and try to look and be cool. :walk:Apparently, that is not a flaw, but a feature of the process of growing up. It is easier to learn to not make mistakes by making a few.

In my mind, the purpose of schools and education is to educate. I don't think that happened here. What I do see that happened was that a fear of reaction from the black community and bad publicity (lynch rule by the masses) led to an immediate knee-jerk response against the entire frat and its members. That is horribly wrong, just as much as if a group of boys from a black neighborhood went on a rampage and the police shot every boy in that neighborhood, innocent or not.

The pursuit of legal action against the individuals is also misguided, a perversion of justice, at best resulting in a show trial.

So what would be an appropriate response? I agree that breaking up the group to destroy the power and structure of hate is important. I would then state that each individual from the frat that wanted to remain in school would have to dorm with two black students in dorm rooms for a full year, be unable to participate in any group or sport for that time, and perform community service.

Top down enforcement of rules and standards can be costly and ineffectual. Allowing the community at large to modify behavior on a one-on-one basis is inexpensive, personal, and can teach lessons. By immediately labeling all the boys with one broad stroke the school - which supposedly has all the intelligence of scholars and the life experience of numerous adults - stooped to the level of a group of idiotic frat boys by the use of group name calling.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from negative consequences stemming from one's speech.


True and you know I'm a big fan of letting people suffer from the consequences of their actions but look at the reaction of people to these actions. They are acting like these people were chanting this while they were lynching someone one. 

Also I have a major problem when a government agency is the one doling out "negative consequences" for speech. If you don't like what someone says you have the right to not listen, offer counter points and even try to get others to have nothing to do with the speaker. But you don't have the right to use a government agency to punish them to make them shut up. Once you give the government the power to silence one group you have given it the power to silence all groups.

_First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. _Martin NiemÃ¶ller


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Allen W said:


> They were representing their fraternity when they practiced their free speech. No different then practicing your free speech when representing your employer, it can have consequences.


Again my point is more the public's reaction to it and the government's reaction via the state run school.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I think Nevada got this one right. The "free speech" was about excluding blacks from the fraternity, not just expressing an individual's opinion.


Ok, is that fraternity a government agency? If not what gives you the power to demand a say so in who they allow or don't allow into their PRIVATE group? Should I have the power to demand you allow someone into your PRIVATE house against your wishes?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's a valid point. In fact the university president admits that expelling anyone over this may not be possible for that reason.


Well that's something. But it brings me back to my main point. Watch and see how many people start demanding they are expelled because of what was said. They won't think about how giving the government the power to limit these guy's free speech will give it the power to limit theirs.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The national office of the SAE fraternity pulled the plug on the house, first.

That's the national private organization that the OU chapter is under.

All the university did was tell the students that they could not use the now disbanded fraternity house.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Well, now the university president has begun expelling, beginning with two of the leaders of the chant.

http://newsok.com/ou-president-bore...acist-fraternity-bus-incident/article/5400062

OU has a law school, and these students and their families probably have the means, so let the lawyering begin.

We'll see how many in the SAE house decide to stand behind their free-speech rights to be racist.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> So what would be an appropriate response? I agree that breaking up the group to destroy the power and structure of hate is important. I would then state that each individual from the frat that wanted to remain in school would have to dorm with two black students in dorm rooms for a full year, be unable to participate in any group or sport for that time, and perform community service.


You were doing alright till this point  Read what you wrote and think hard about it. Now how is what you suggest much different than the "reeducation" that tyrannical governments have used? *You will *conform to the government approved public think or the GOVERNMENT will punish you and "educate" you to show the error of your thinking.

As I have posted if you don't like what someone is saying you have the right to not listen, not have any dealings with them, walk away, offer counter points and even try to get others to the same. But you do not have the right to use the government, through any agency, punish them.

Also you are suggesting that the government have the power to break up a group of private individuals based on what that group stands for. Do you really think that's a good idea?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Well, now the university president has begun expelling, beginning with two of the leaders of the chant.


That's a bold move. I didn't expect that.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's a bold move. I didn't expect that.


Perhaps not. If the chant included a threat to lynch other members of the student body that could very well be grounds for expulsion. I would bet the terms of the expulsion are more related to the threatening nature of what was said than the racial bigotry exhibited.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from negative consequences stemming from one's speech.


Only against government negative consequences. It's a defective thought to say that consequences are not suppressive of free speech. It's the very purpose of consequences.
But that does not mean that this repugnant society must therefore be given government support either. The University has a perfect right to remove its support, even while it has no right to reach outside of its sphere to attack it.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

watcher said:


> You were doing alright till this point  Read what you wrote and think hard about it. Now how is what you suggest much different than the "reeducation" that tyrannical governments have used? *You will *conform to the government approved public think or the GOVERNMENT will punish you and "educate" you to show the error of your thinking.
> 
> As I have posted if you don't like what someone is saying you have the right to not listen, not have any dealings with them, walk away, offer counter points and even try to get others to the same. But you do not have the right to use the government, through any agency, punish them.
> 
> Also you are suggesting that the government have the power to break up a group of private individuals based on what that group stands for. Do you really think that's a good idea?


I do understand what you are saying; that the government is involved in social engineering and education can equal indoctrination. That is dangerous, and from an ethical point of view I agree with you. As for indoctrination, there are far more egregious examples than combating racist groups. 

Where we differ is that I am more pragmatic, and recognize the failings of governments are not limited to indoctrination. I submit that demanding a student who has shown an anti-social streak such as racism to work on that growing edge is no more "Punishment" than forcing an uneducated math student to learn algebra by exposing him to an environment filled with quadratic equations. In point of fact, if a truly racist frat boy went through the year of living with blacks, he might continue to be racist - but at least he would then not be as able to easily stereotype through ignorance. 

It is inherent in government to break up power structures, both private and public, in the public interest or "welfare" as defined in the Constitution. It is not new, Regan used it to break up the air traffic control union, the Fenian movement was suppressed, there was a war between the states, movement of the native Americans along the Trail of Tears, etc. Whether it is good or bad, it is what our government does and has done since inception. Bringing it up as a debate point in this instance has little meaning.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Well, now the university president has begun expelling, beginning with two of the leaders of the chant.
> 
> http://newsok.com/ou-president-bore...acist-fraternity-bus-incident/article/5400062
> 
> ...


Bad move.

Perfectly within the rights of the university to kick them out of the frat house after the frat was disbanded. However, expelling kids for being stupid is an unneeded nuclear option.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Bad move.
> 
> Perfectly within the rights of the university to kick them out of the frat house after the frat was disbanded. However, expelling kids for being stupid is an unneeded nuclear option.


That's what lawyers are for.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Oggie said:


> That's what lawyers are for.


Nah, lawyers are for CAT houses, not FRAT houses. I understand your confusion though...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Harry Chickpea said:


> I would then state that each individual from the frat that wanted to remain in school would have to dorm with two black students in dorm rooms for a full year


This just struck me as an extremely odd idea. I get that you don't mean for living with black students to be a punishment, but as a learning experience or something. But still, it's strange. And you have to find black students that want to live with a racist. I'm sure they can find some, but the whole idea is just weird to me.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> This just struck me as an extremely odd idea. I get that you don't mean for living with black students to be a punishment, but as a learning experience or something. But still, it's strange. And you have to find black students that want to live with a racist. I'm sure they can find some, but the whole idea is just weird to me.


But sweetly naive- that they will learn something by forced daily contact and that there are black students willing to do that Labor of Hercules.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> This just struck me as an extremely odd idea. I get that you don't mean for living with black students to be a punishment, but as a learning experience or something. But still, it's strange. And you have to find black students that want to live with a racist. I'm sure they can find some, but the whole idea is just weird to me.


I'm sure that there would be many who would enjoy stepping up. You find it odd, but it wouldn't even be worthy of note in a more cosmopolitan area.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Question. Is it racist for a white person to use the n-word while singing along with a popular black artist?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> I do understand what you are saying; that the government is involved in social engineering and education can equal indoctrination. That is dangerous, and from an ethical point of view I agree with you. As for indoctrination, there are far more egregious examples than combating racist groups.
> 
> Where we differ is that I am more pragmatic, and recognize the failings of governments are not limited to indoctrination. I submit that demanding a student who has shown an anti-social streak such as racism to work on that growing edge is no more "Punishment" than forcing an uneducated math student to learn algebra by exposing him to an environment filled with quadratic equations. In point of fact, if a truly racist frat boy went through the year of living with blacks, he might continue to be racist - but at least he would then not be as able to easily stereotype through ignorance.
> 
> It is inherent in government to break up power structures, both private and public, in the public interest or "welfare" as defined in the Constitution. It is not new, Regan used it to break up the air traffic control union, the Fenian movement was suppressed, there was a war between the states, movement of the native Americans along the Trail of Tears, etc. Whether it is good or bad, it is what our government does and has done since inception. Bringing it up as a debate point in this instance has little meaning.


I lived through forced integration, because folks from the inner city complained that their kids weren't getting the same education that kids in the suburbs were getting. Never been hit in the head with a steel pipe before that! Never had so many missed days because of school shutdowns due to "angry students", never saw so many fights either. This was in Jr. high! When this horrible policy was stopped, no more fights and schools went back to normal. It took years though, to fix this snafu! It was to be expected.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Question. Is it racist for a white person to use the n-word while singing along with a popular black artist?


Now a days....yes.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Harry Chickpea said:


> I'm sure that there would be many who would enjoy stepping up. You find it odd, but it wouldn't even be worthy of note in a more cosmopolitan area.


Still sounds like a bad sitcom to me...kind of reminds me of Seinfeld when they made the pilot episode and a man got sentenced to being Jerry's butler.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


I'm curious Watcher. Where did you get the idea that anyone was bashing the right to freedom of speech? All I saw posted was people expressing disgust over what was said. And the ramifications thereafter because of this exercised right.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's a valid point. In fact the university president admits that expelling anyone over this may not be possible for that reason.


It's still punishment though. They are being punished for what they said. What's wrong with letting knuckleheads be knuckleheads? They sure weren't enhancing the appearance of their fraternity and it was likely meant to draw attention to themselves. Fraternities have a long history of purposefully doing outrageous things.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

They deserve the consequences and as for expulsion I think the University can make it stick based on the threats in the song...sorry but I have no tolerance for hate at this level...its dangerous and must not be aloud to stand on some flimsy free speech claim...The racism of the song is bad enough but the threats within it are so over the top.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Leave free speech alone. What's the difference between punishing some idiot for using the N word and Islamists killing someone for insulting Muhammad? Both are meant to punish someone for speech some don't like. The only difference is the punisher's view of who is being insulted. Let everyone speak and I am able to decide who I consider idiots.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's a bold move. I didn't expect that.


Sends a clear message. A government operated university is no place for free speech nor any type of thinking which the government opposes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> I do understand what you are saying; that the government is involved in social engineering and education can equal indoctrination. That is dangerous, and from an ethical point of view I agree with you. As for indoctrination, there are far more egregious examples than combating racist groups.
> 
> Where we differ is that I am more pragmatic, and recognize the failings of governments are not limited to indoctrination. I submit that demanding a student who has shown an anti-social streak such as racism to work on that growing edge is no more "Punishment" than forcing an uneducated math student to learn algebra by exposing him to an environment filled with quadratic equations. In point of fact, if a truly racist frat boy went through the year of living with blacks, he might continue to be racist - but at least he would then not be as able to easily stereotype through ignorance.
> 
> It is inherent in government to break up power structures, both private and public, in the public interest or "welfare" as defined in the Constitution. It is not new, Regan used it to break up the air traffic control union, the Fenian movement was suppressed, there was a war between the states, movement of the native Americans along the Trail of Tears, etc. Whether it is good or bad, it is what our government does and has done since inception. Bringing it up as a debate point in this instance has little meaning.


Reading what you just wrote I can only say it seems you are still in full support of government "reeducation". If you hold a thought or belief which the government disapproves you are saying it should use its power to "show you the error of your ways." Switch things around. Say these guys had been chanting about buying handguns and carrying them for self defense. Allowing students to carry is something the government doesn't support (for the most part). Would you suggest the government break up their group and force them to live with anti-gun roommates?

The fact that the government doesn't think you should be a racist should in no way give it the power to even attempt to change your mind by forcing you to do something you do not want to and goes against how you believe.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Aintlifegrand said:


> They deserve the consequences and as for expulsion I think the University can make it stick based on the threats in the song...sorry but I have no tolerance for hate at this level...its dangerous and must not be aloud to stand on some flimsy free speech claim...The racism of the song is bad enough but the threats within it are so over the top.


Interesting question. If someone is singing a song which talks about abusing women will they be expelled? What if they are sing a song about shooting that <insert the infamous N-word here>? If so I think anyone who a gansta rap fan better give up his hope for that sheepskin. 

To try to say that singing a song rises to the level of a real threat is a stretch in my book unless the song specifically mentions a person by name and then its still questionable.

I'd say that out there somewhere there's a lawyer who would be willing to try to make a few million dollars in a law suit (and would have a very good chance of getting it) if any of these guys want to fight this.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Interesting question. If someone is singing a song which talks about abusing women will they be expelled? What if they are sing a song about shooting that <insert the infamous N-word here>? If so I think anyone who a gansta rap fan better give up his hope for that sheepskin.
> 
> To try to say that singing a song rises to the level of a real threat is a stretch in my book unless the song specifically mentions a person by name and then its still questionable.
> 
> I'd say that out there somewhere there's a lawyer who would be willing to try to make a few million dollars in a law suit (and would have a very good chance of getting it) if any of these guys want to fight this.


While I agree that the school expulsion oversteps I'm guessing a lawsuit is unlikely. It would likely be a case of win the battle, lose the war. Remember first that judges and juries set awards and penalties. Asking for millions in damages is no guarantee it will be granted even in victory. It would be hard to make any of these young men look sympathetic and victimized to most juries. Then there is the continued publicity of such a trial. It is likely that if these young men keep their heads down they will soon be forgotten. A trial only exposes them more and makes them even more public figures. Any testimony by them as to the harm done to them would lead to questions by the other side about the origins and justifications of their actions. If this video exists, what else might exist and might be brought forward? I'm not saying they would be wrong to sue and might not have a winnable case but that it might not be a case that they, as individuals, wish to fight.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Why do you persist in such statements? As far as I know only you have made them in order to trot out the troll.
> Frankly racism is a common human denominator. As the speed at which rallies touting "hands up-don't shoot" spread race based lies without the smallest critical examination or even wait shows.


IMHO, the frat thing was horrific, cannot believe this would exist on that large of a scale...BUT OTOH, the 'hands up' was worse. WORSE! 
Caused riots, irrepairable destruction, DEATHS! Several folks died, including 2 innocent police officers. FAR, far worse racism. Not to mention the TOTAL ignorance of those who participated. FAR, far more participated.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I saw that on the morning news and it was hard to believe. The old joke about setting your watch back 50 years when you go to Oklahoma actually came true. What a bunch of knuckleheads. A college education is a waste of money when one's mind is that narrow, isn't it?


And what does that say of folks who think the WHOLE entire state is like that?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


In this case, its not the speech, really, it is the fact that this hateful attitude was being exaulted by this group, pretty much as a whole. And in a college setting, which I'm thinking has some standards to uphold-as evidenced by the rest of the college.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's a bold move. I didn't expect that.


Well, I DID expect that. And I wondered if it could be contested...At 1st it was said-not sure if it was correct, but I heard it was said, that the dean or pres, said they would hope that student (the one leading the song) would just quietly withdraw from OU.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Question. Is it racist for a white person to use the n-word while singing along with a popular black artist?


Maybe not, unless the lyrics include promotion of lynching...


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I would have been interested in seeing what would have happened if the national fraternity organization and the university had done nothing and let the pieces fall where they may. Would the students involved have been shunned by other students or refused admission to other social or academic groups? Would they have been taken out behind the bleachers and "taught a lesson"? Would this have followed them around for the rest of their lives? I"m not advocating any of these consequences but it would have been interesting to see.

I"m also curious as to what the defense against tasteless or insulting free speech is. If someone calls a black person the n-word are they supposed to just stand there and take it because the person is exercising their free speech rights?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> While I agree that the school expulsion oversteps I'm guessing a lawsuit is unlikely. It would likely be a case of win the battle, lose the war. Remember first that judges and juries set awards and penalties. Asking for millions in damages is no guarantee it will be granted even in victory. It would be hard to make any of these young men look sympathetic and victimized to most juries. Then there is the continued publicity of such a trial. It is likely that if these young men keep their heads down they will soon be forgotten. A trial only exposes them more and makes them even more public figures. Any testimony by them as to the harm done to them would lead to questions by the other side about the origins and justifications of their actions. If this video exists, what else might exist and might be brought forward? I'm not saying they would be wrong to sue and might not have a winnable case but that it might not be a case that they, as individuals, wish to fight.


This would be one of the times you'd want to not have a jury. You'd want a judge to decide the case based on nothing but the absolute letter of the law. 

Your other reasons are why we will continue to lose more and more rights. No one wants to stand up for someone who is saying something "wrong" therefore the government will continue to punish those who say the "wrong" things. And it will continue to make more and more things "wrong". Honestly I can see in the not to distant future, if its no already here, where if these guys were singing about smoking they would be treated the same way. 

In a free nation you'd have the full right to be what you wish and to express the ideas of your beliefs without fear of the government punishing you. It wouldn't matter if what you believe is politically correct or not.

One other thing. Which would you (general you) say is the more dangerous. Someone who is a racist, freely admits it and is quite overt or someone who is a racist but doesn't say so and uses more hidden ways to get the same results?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> In this case, its not the speech, really, it is the fact that this hateful attitude was being exaulted by this group, pretty much as a whole. And in a college setting, which I'm thinking has some standards to uphold-as evidenced by the rest of the college.


Hum. . .so now you are saying that government should not only set limits on speech but attitudes as well? 

My point is this. If the individuals or groups of individuals decide they think what these guys said or thought is wrong that individual or group has the full right to not include them in their lives. They have the right to spread the word about how they think. But they do not have the right to have the GOVERNMENT come in and enforce their beliefs on these guys. 

Look where we are today. Today you can be criminally punished for what the government thinks you were thinking. If the government thinks you hit someone because you didn't like their color it can take EXTRA years of your life from you. And people cheer about the government having this power because they see it as. . .IDK, helping the nation over come its racist roots or something. How long will it be before it can do the same for what you say or write? 

I've fought racism probably for more years than many people on the board have been alive. I grew up in a racist house in a racist area, I didn't even know there was a 'nice' word for a black until I went to school and even there the 'nice' word wasn't used much. And I STILL think that using the power of government to force people to change is wrong, wrong, WRONG! The government should apply evenly to all people. No matter their color, shape or what they believe. As a free private citizen you should have just a much right to be a racist and try to convince others to be racist as I do to believe King's dream and try to convince others to follow it. To do otherwise is setting us up to where others get to tell you how to think and live. At that point you are no longer a free citizen but a controlled subject. Which do you (general you) really want to be?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe not, unless the lyrics include promotion of lynching...


How about promoting the abuse of women, killing police officers and other acts of violence? Google the lyrics of some rap songs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> I"m also curious as to what the defense against tasteless or insulting free speech is. If someone calls a black person the n-word are they supposed to just stand there and take it because the person is exercising their free speech rights?


Depends on what you mean by "just stand there and take it". Some questions:

How did you teach your kids to deal with name calling? 

Are you suggesting that because someone calls you a bad word you should have the right to physically assault them? 

Should the government have the power to arrest name callers and what names should it be criminal to use?


The basic answer to your question is, yes they should just take it. One of the best things to do when an idiot is talking is to shut up and let him show the world he's an idiot.

Also. . . ITS A FREAKING WORD! One of the things I tell the young (and not young) people I deal with is; if you let what others say affect you, you have just given them control over you. They can use words to manipulate you. If they know calling you a doodyhead will cause you to run away crying when they want to swing and you are on it they will call you a doodyhead so you will leave. Only when you have learned that words are just words and let your actions show others what you are will you ever be able to live your life. Repeat to yourself "Life isn't fair and there are some bad people." After you get that down add "And I can't change that only live my life."


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> And what does that say of folks who think the WHOLE entire state is like that?



We like to point out that one of the leaders of the chant is from Texas.

Some folks here in Oklahoma are using that as ammunition in the battle for stronger border security.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .so now you are saying that government should not only set limits on speech but attitudes as well?
> 
> My point is this. If the individuals or groups of individuals decide they think what these guys said or thought is wrong that individual or group has the full right to not include them in their lives. They have the right to spread the word about how they think. But they do not have the right to have the GOVERNMENT come in and enforce their beliefs on these guys.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not advocating the gov't to punish for thought, speech, hate. But in this case, the frats are there b/c the U allows them to be there. So, if the U thinks policy was broken, they have the right to send the frats packing. Its the expulsion from the U of certain leaders of this group of 'singers' that I'm questioning...that may be overstepping...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> How about promoting the abuse of women, killing police officers and other acts of violence? Google the lyrics of some rap songs.


Exactly. I really believe this should be 'policed' by the music industry. Used to be certain words were not allowed on recordings...that's out the window but if there's $$ to be made w/it, it will fly.
If Rappers belonged to a fraternity on a U that had certain rules about inciting guys to rape women & kill cops and if they sang their song in a busload of frats guys then I'd expect the U to toss out that fraternity.

BTW. I really don't think it was the 'n' word that got this fraternity ousted, it was the lynching line.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Here's a fairly lengthy update from a local news source for those who might be interested:
http://newsok.com/ou-students-learn-a-devastating-lesson/article/5400305


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> This would be one of the times you'd want to not have a jury. You'd want a judge to decide the case based on nothing but the absolute letter of the law.


But you probably wouldn't have that option, as the defense would almost certainly request and get a jury trial.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

It should probably be pointed out that the actual expulsion process has just begun.

The students will be notified of the intent to expel. They'll have an appeal available at the university.

That's before the matter would even go before a state civil court.

Of course, all of that would be rendered moot if the students withdraw from the university on their own.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> I have no problem with a PRIVATE entity, e.g. a fraternity, forbidding you from doing or saying what ever they wish to continue your employment there. But when you are talking about a government agency, e.g. a state funded university, it is a completely different matter.


I think government entities would be MORE inclined to take swift action against hate speech, since government universities (we'll use your example) is not able to discriminate at all against anyone. Government funded universities, groups, offices, etc are very much held to the EO rules and regulations, and to have a member/employee/etc blatantly using hate speech is not allowed. 

IMO, students at a gov't funded university spouting off hate speech would be just like me (a gov't employee) spouting off hate speech at my job. 

A few years ago we had a "customer" in our gov't office spouting off the "n" word left and right, and using very ugly language. We kicked him out and the state office sent him a letter telling him he was NOT allowed back in our office for any reason, and he could do all of his correspondence through the state office. He's not allowed to spew filth in a government office that does not discriminate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Funny but I see Universities discriminating against whites all the time by their 'quota' system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Here's a fairly lengthy update from a local news source for those who might be interested:
> http://newsok.com/ou-students-learn-a-devastating-lesson/article/5400305


The sad thing is that most of the people who were participating are still there, and their attitudes haven't changed. SAE may be gone, but all but two are still students. Closing SAE won't change anything.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Nevada said:


> The sad thing is that most of the people who were participating are still there, and their attitudes haven't changed. SAE may be gone, but all but two are still students. Closing SAE won't change anything.



There will always be racists.

The reaction by the almost the whole university community to this incident pretty much shows folks that this sort of racism won't be tolerated.

And, chances are, there will be talk about how the community and individuals within it work to remove unjustified bias. That give-and-take working out of how folks live and work together is pretty much never really completely resolved.

But the manner in which the university will react to the type of behavior that was shown in the video is established.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The sad thing is that most of the people who were participating are still there, and their attitudes haven't changed. SAE may be gone, but all but two are still students. Closing SAE won't change anything.


And you know all that how? If closing it does nothing then why force it closed?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> And you know all that how? If closing it does nothing then why force it closed?


The university wanted to make a statement of strong disapproval. They did that by closing SAE and expelling two members. But I doubt it will change any attitudes.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Obama, Holder and Shabazz of the new black panthers are perfect examples that racism is still with us! Remember the voter intimidation that Holder wouldn't prosecute? You know, the guy yelling white cracker babies should be killed? You remember that don't you? I got thousands of examples just like those, want to continue?





watcher said:


> I have no idea what is being talked about but I find it very very disturbing that people are so willing to react this way to speech because they don't like it. To me its another sign of how we are losing freedoms daily in this nation.
> 
> Its easy to allow someone who agrees with you to keep talking it takes a lot more love of freedom to let someone stand up and say things you think is vile, hateful, disgusting or whatever.
> 
> ...


 Got to agree.

What if I was to just say I'm proud of being White. Some would take that as being Racist :shrug:

big rockpile


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> I think government entities would be MORE inclined to take swift action against hate speech, since government universities (we'll use your example) is not able to discriminate at all against anyone. Government funded universities, groups, offices, etc are very much held to the EO rules and regulations, and to have a member/employee/etc blatantly using hate speech is not allowed.
> 
> IMO, students at a gov't funded university spouting off hate speech would be just like me (a gov't employee) spouting off hate speech at my job.


What is hate speech? What raises speech to the point of showing that some one "hates" someone else? If I call you fat is that hate speech? What if I express the fact that I can't stand fat people does it become hate speech? What if I say that outfit you are wearing is the most hideous set of clothing I've ever seen. Is that hate speech? 




MDKatie said:


> A few years ago we had a "customer" in our gov't office spouting off the "n" word left and right, and using very ugly language. We kicked him out and the state office sent him a letter telling him he was NOT allowed back in our office for any reason, and he could do all of his correspondence through the state office.


Do we say that only these words are "ugly" and can't be used? I can insult someone all day long and never raise my voice and never use a word which you couldn't use in a church sermon. 




MDKatie said:


> He's not allowed to spew filth in a government office that does not discriminate.


That's funny. You tell someone they can not use your office because you don't like the way he talks but claim not to discriminate. You clearly discriminated against him, it was just politically correct discrimination. If you truly didn't discriminate you would allow people to talk any way they wished w/o any interference. See the catch, as with all rights free speech is not absolute but once you start limiting it you start interfering with people's rights. At that point unless you have a very strong desire for freedom you will keep interfering more and more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oggie said:


> There will always be racists.
> 
> The reaction by the almost the whole university community to this incident pretty much shows folks that this sort of racism won't be tolerated.
> 
> ...


I disagree somewhat. What this will do is show that you have to cover your racism which makes it more difficult for people to see. Which is the more dangerous the tiger you can see or the one hiding in the grass?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> And you know all that how? If closing it does nothing then why force it closed?


Public relations.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> This would be one of the times you'd want to not have a jury. You'd want a judge to decide the case based on nothing but the absolute letter of the law.
> 
> Your other reasons are why we will continue to lose more and more rights. No one wants to stand up for someone who is saying something "wrong" therefore the government will continue to punish those who say the "wrong" things. And it will continue to make more and more things "wrong". Honestly I can see in the not to distant future, if its no already here, where if these guys were singing about smoking they would be treated the same way.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on the principle but I was just pointing out the practical. I have much more respect for those who speak out and suffer the consequences of their beliefs than those who hide behind them or attempt to play the victim and garner sympathy. Philosophically I'd tell the kid to fight tooth and nail, practically I'd tell him to quietly enroll elesewhere, finish his education and think about what led him to use the words he did.

I've known both types of racists. I'd much rather deal with the ones open about it. If nothing else I can trust their honesty whether I choose to interact with them or not.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Oggie said:


> There will always be racists.
> 
> The reaction by the almost the whole university community to this incident pretty much shows folks that this sort of racism won't be tolerated.
> 
> ...


Post of the week award.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> That's funny. You tell someone they can not use your office because you don't like the way he talks but claim not to discriminate. You clearly discriminated against him, it was just politically correct discrimination. If you truly didn't discriminate you would allow people to talk any way they wished w/o any interference. See the catch, as with all rights free speech is not absolute but once you start limiting it you start interfering with people's rights. At that point unless you have a very strong desire for freedom you will keep interfering more and more.


How do you have a discussion with someone who can't see the difference between calling people the "n" word or saying they should be hanged from a tree, and saying someone has on an ugly outfit? Seriously, what is the point in continuing this discussion?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> How do you have a discussion with someone who can't see the difference between calling people the "n" word or saying they should be hanged from a tree, and saying someone has on an ugly outfit? Seriously, what is the point in continuing this discussion?


The person being called fat or having their fashion sense questioned may be just as offended, hurt or emotionally damaged as the person called the n word or threatened. Removing someone for disruptive behavior is appropriate. Removing them because they use a word you disapprove of isn't in a government facility. Employment rules are agreed upon by the employer and employee. This is what gives government agencies control over the speech and actions of those working there. A private citizen seeking the services of those employees isn't and shouldn't be bound by the same strictures.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The person being called fat or having their fashion sense questioned may be just as offended, hurt or emotionally damaged as the person called the n word or threatened. Removing someone for disruptive behavior is appropriate. Removing them because they use a word you disapprove of isn't in a government facility. Employment rules are agreed upon by the employer and employee. This is what gives government agencies control over the speech and actions of those working there. A private citizen seeking the services of those employees isn't and shouldn't be bound by the same strictures.


When someone is yelling, cursing, and using the "n" word, it is disruptive behavior. It's not like the dude came in and calmly said the "n" word once. 

The word being used is against the policy of the gov't's equal opportunity policy. The gov't office's policy is equal treatment and inclusion for EVERY one, and if someone is in that office spouting hate speech that is offensive to MANY people, then they can be asked to leave. 

Why do people think they have the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want? You cannot act like an animal and then be surprised when you're asked to leave.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> When someone is yelling, cursing, and using the "n" word, it is disruptive behavior. It's not like the dude came in and calmly said the "n" word once.
> 
> The word being used is against the policy of the gov't's equal opportunity policy. The gov't office's policy is equal treatment and inclusion for EVERY one, and if someone is in that office spouting hate speech that is offensive to MANY people, then they can be asked to leave.
> 
> Why do people think they have the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want? You cannot act like an animal and then be surprised when you're asked to leave.


The question is whether it's the words or the actions. If I stood in the middle of a government office and shouted "unicorn" at the top of my lungs should I be removed and asked never to return? What is it about unicorns you find so offensive. If I walk up to the service window and quietly curse and use the n word while making my request but no other patron can hear me who have I disrupted? The government should have no power to regulate the speech of private citizens going about the course of their daily activities. The government should not get to dictate which language is hateful and be banned. You're right that just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should say something but it is the individual's decision, not the government's, to make.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The question is whether it's the words or the actions. If I stood in the middle of a government office and shouted "unicorn" at the top of my lungs should I be removed and asked never to return? What is it about unicorns you find so offensive. If I walk up to the service window and quietly curse and use the n word while making my request but no other patron can hear me who have I disrupted? The government should have no power to regulate the speech of private citizens going about the course of their daily activities. The government should not get to dictate which language is hateful and be banned. You're right that just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should say something but it is the individual's decision, not the government's, to make.


We are not talking about unicorns. And if you're quietly cursing and "no other patron can hear" you, how is that disruptive and how would anyone know what you are saying?

And how in the world was my example of a loud, cussing patron equivalent to "a private citizen going about their daily activities."?????


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> How do you have a discussion with someone who can't see the difference between calling people the "n" word or saying they should be hanged from a tree, and saying someone has on an ugly outfit? Seriously, what is the point in continuing this discussion?



I think everyone can see the difference, and that IS the point of the discussion.
There ARE those who either work for the gov't or support gov't policies that have the opinion that they can put more restrictions on free speech than is allowed by law.
There ARE restrictions, and they vary depending upon the situation, but knowing the difference in the situations is important to know and remember. 

This one in OK and your case are two such examples worth examining....



MDKatie said:


> When someone is yelling, cursing, and using the "n" word, it is disruptive behavior. It's not like the dude came in and calmly said the "n" word once.
> 
> The word being used is against the policy of the gov't's equal opportunity policy. The gov't office's policy is equal treatment and inclusion for EVERY one, and if someone is in that office spouting hate speech that is offensive to MANY people, then they can be asked to leave.


You made two important distinctions.

1) What one may view as a "disruption" another may view as an "inconvenience". Whether that disruption rises to the level of allowable legal action is why we have judges. Some cases are very clear, others are questionable.

2) The second point is the most important and the one most misunderstood.
The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights as key, is a list of limits on the GOVERNMENT, not individuals.


This is where the conflicts and problems arise, due to either not understanding that key fact, or not accepting it as fact.


The man who came in your office is not under the same restraints as you are, because it is you who are employed by the gov't and it is you who must follow those restrictions when you are acting as an agent of the gov't.

Those EEOC rules don't apply to him. Now, the rules of common sense and decency which we all were taught as children SHOULD apply to him, but as we all know, some people just ignore them anyway.

He can find himself asked to a private office where a supervisor explains how inconvenient life can be for him if he continues to be rude. Being an office under the EEOC, he may find his case assigned to the dyslexic, one fingered typist.....:happy2: (as required by law, ya know) in which case he may find patience and understanding as a virtuous goal......:happy2::happy2::happy2:

But unless his "disruption" rises to the level of a threat of safety, he does have the right to say what he wants.

Same in OK. Those boys might have got away with that at private outing not sponsored by their frat. But the frat house is owned by the University, a gov't office. Chances are they were on a fraternity function and all members had signed agreements to abide by certain rules and restrictions in order to receive certain gov't perks. You follow the rules or risk getting kicked out, it's that simple.






MDKatie said:


> Why do people think they have the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want? You cannot act like an animal and then be surprised when you're asked to leave.


Why?
1st amendment.

*But unless his "disruption" rises to the level of a threat of safety, he does have the right to say what he wants.*


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> We are not talking about unicorns. And if you're quietly cursing and "no other patron can hear" you, how is that disruptive and how would anyone know what you are saying?
> 
> And how in the world was my example of a loud, cussing patron equivalent to "a private citizen going about their daily activities."?????


We are talking about words and language and who gets to control their use. Why should requiring someone to leave a government office be dependent on which words they use? Isn't standing in the middle of the floor screaming unicorn over and over equally as disruptive as anything else being said? Why should it be treated differently? If the words are the problem what difference does it make whether they are whispered or shouted. Aren't they equally hateful and worthy of banishment? Going into government offices and making a spectacle of oneself is a normal day to day activity for many.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> 1st amendment.
> 
> *But unless his "disruption" rises to the level of a threat of safety, he does have the right to say what he wants.*


OK, and who makes that decision whether or not he's a threat to the safety of others? 

More info: office staffed by 3 women, the man has been "disagreeable" (very nice way of stating he has been a menace) before, has been asked not to use that language before, comes in and is yelling and upset, using bad language and cursing. 

Now, do the employees have to deal with that harassment? Why? Just because they're government employees? It'd be nice to say "it's a government office, they have to deal with it", but that is NOT the case. These government employees are HUMAN PEOPLE and it is not fair to expect human people to have to deal with a disrespectful, yelling, cursing "customer" who doesn't have the common decency to use manners in his "every day dealings." 

Who makes the decision on if there's a threat of safety or not? Don't you think the women who are having to deal with him are capable (and responsible) for making that decision? I sure would. 

Again, I ask, why is it ok to force captive employees of any sort of business (government or private) to deal with that type of behavior? How is it any different from a judge throwing someone out of the courtroom? After all, that's a government building, and the judge doesn't even have to be threatened to do that...it just has to be disrupting behavior. 

And to answer the unicorn question (as silly as it is), yes, I do think it would be disruptive to shout any word or anything in a government building. But no, I do not think "unicorn" and words like the "n" word to be equal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> How do you have a discussion with someone who can't see the difference between calling people the "n" word or saying they should be hanged from a tree, and saying someone has on an ugly outfit? Seriously, what is the point in continuing this discussion?


Here's the points.

One, they are just WORDS! Sure words mean things but I'd think anyone over the age of 8 y.o. would realize that calling someone names only hurts them if they let it hurt. Would you get up set if I called you a stinky doodyhead? Why not? Could it be because 1) you realize I'm just doing it to get you upset and you aren't going to give me that power and 2) you know you neither stink nor have doody on your head? I know many blacks who the infamous _N word _doesn't bother at all even when spoken in hate. That's because they know who they are.

Two, its just as wrong to use the power of the government to tell someone they can't be a racist and try to convince others to be racist as it is to tell them they can't be a <insert any religion here> and try to convert people to <insert religion here>. The government should not have the power to forbid a belief system just because a majority of people in the nation doesn't like that belief system.

Three, forcing racism into the background only makes it harder to stamp out. As I have pointed out its better to have things in the open where you can see and avoid it than hidden in the shadows. I would much rather a business have a sign in the window saying "Whites only" than one which uses underhand tactics to avoid selling to non-whites. Why? Because the I can avoid supporting it and suggest to others to not shop there either.

Four (or 3a), trying to use government to stop racism actually helps to breed it. For the government can try to stop racism is must start by separating us by race. Then it must decide at what point this race or that race is being treated "wrong" based on how many of this or that race is involved. This leads, rightly or wrongly, to races viewing themselves as disadvantaged which leads to anger against the race(s) who are the advantaged ones. It also leads to these race(s) BELIEVING they are lesser because after all the government is telling them the only way they will ever be equal is if they are "helped" by the government.

Five, nothing good has ever came from government controlled thought policing. You think its "wrong" to use that _N word_ because of what the user of that word is thinking and seem to believe the government should have the power to stop people from saying it. What happens when a lot of people think another word used with other thoughts is wrong and want the government to stop its use and that type of thinking? At what point do we stop allowing the government to tell us what is the correct way to talk and think?

Finally and most importantly. You can not have freedom and expect the government to stop people from saying things you don't like or living lives the way you think is "wrong". As I have pointed out I have fought against racism for many, many, many years. I think the belief that a person is better or worse, smarter or dumber or whatever based on the color of their skin is one of the most stupid beliefs out there. Right up with thinking there's a mothership hiding behind a comet and if you dress up correctly you will be able to hitch a ride to a perfect world. But if you believe either of those I love freedom too much to try to use force you to stop or change. The ONLY thing government should do here is to make sure NO ONE is using force to make others change. It should not support any belief over another, now nor ever.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I've had people use language to threaten me but I've never been threatened by language.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> When someone is yelling, cursing, and using the "n" word, it is disruptive behavior. It's not like the dude came in and calmly said the "n" word once.


Will you admit that he would have been asked to leave if he had came in yelling "You are all great employees. I love you all." and refused to stop? It wasn't the words he was using but how he was speaking.




MDKatie said:


> The word being used is against the policy of the gov't's equal opportunity policy. The gov't office's policy is equal treatment and inclusion for EVERY one, and if someone is in that office spouting hate speech that is offensive to MANY people, then they can be asked to leave.


I have to ask. What if most of the people there were overweight and he was talking about fat people. Would that have not been just as offensive? Would you not then have to label "tubby" "fatty" and "tub of lard" as hate speech words?




MDKatie said:


> Why do people think they have the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want? You cannot act like an animal and then be surprised when you're asked to leave.


You as an individual have the right to ask anyone to leave your private area. As a public servant you have the ability to demand order in the office. 

Let me ask you this. Say the guy was calm and talking rationally. Telling about how studies have shown the inferiority of people of African decent. How the data shows that in areas where blacks are a majority there is more crime, higher rates of poverty, lower levels of education and such. How the studies clearly show that the black man is not the equal of the White and should be treated as such. (After years of dealing with them, I know how the "smart" ones in this group talk.) Would he have been asked to leave and told to never come back? After all he would not be acting "like an animal", correct? There's not a single word there which couldn't be used an a court room, in a legislative session or even in the nationally televised a state of the union speech by a President. 

Now let me shock you. I'd have no problem with someone doing that being asked to stop discussing it or leave. I'd also have no problem with someone talking about how to become a Christian or Buddhist or Jew being asked to stop or leave. Because we are talking about people involved with and interacting with the government. That means ALL belief systems should be left in the parking lot, not just the ones most people don't like.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I've had people use language to threaten me but I've never been threatened by language.


You sure took the long way around to say "sticks and stones...."

Everyone has kind of gotten off on a tangent about the higher concepts, but as a practical matter, I agree with the university banning the fraternity and expelling the frat boys they can ID. Even if it doesn't ultimately stand up in court they have sent the message loud and clear that they won't tolerate racism/discrimination. Shows their minority students, we've got your back, and to prospective students, you are welcome here. Like Oggie said, "That's what lawyers are for". They did what they had to do for their image. 

I have to wonder whether the concept of "free speech" totally applies, because of the content of their nasty little song. They were bragging about excluding people from their fraternity based on their race, ie race discrimination, and that is covered under civil rights laws, is it not?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

1. Ok, they're just words. Emotional abuse is totally made up!

2. Who said the gov't is telling people they can't be racist? In the case of the office situation, we never told him he had to change his belief system or stop saying the "n" word. We just said he can't say it in our office (and act the way he did). 

3. Yeah, that totally worked for black people before the civil rights movement. Society has evolved a good deal since then, but there need to be laws put in place because we have all seen there are still people out there who think it's ok to discriminate based on things like skin color.

4. I don't necessarily agree. I don't lump all minorities together under the assumption they think they're a lesser race. Have you ever heard anyone actually say that? Again, using the US before the civil rights movement as an example, I don't think we (as a society) would have woken up one day and said, "You know, this isn't fair or right, so we'll just quit." 

5. I don't think I've ever said I believe the gov't should tell us how to talk or think. I never said the government should stop people from using hate speech, did I? I simply said, if you're going to say it, don't expect people to stay around and listen, and don't expect to not be asked to leave. 

I completely agree with your final point. It would be a moot point if EVERYONE would mind their manners and be nice to everyone. Unfortunately, there are laws in place because people are not all nice to everyone. People break the law. You'd think it'd be common sense to not steal or murder, but people don't have common sense so things like that have to have laws against them. I don't see the government trying to support any belief system over another. Some religious sects think they should....but that's a topic for another thread. :happy2: 

I guess I'm not naÃ¯ve enough to think that all citizens will treat others fairly completely on their own. There are bad apples out there who "ruin" it for everyone.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Just try explaining your civil rights to a judge in Federal court in quietly expressed derogatory or obscene language and see how much tolerance is required of government officials. 

There is a point where the words are meant as a threat and are taken as such, no matter how quietly said. 

There seems to be an idea floating around that government employees are not human beings and are therefore somehow required to allow themselves to be abused at the abuser's will. To the countrary, the government establishes where the tolerance is. There are people so abusive that they are barred from coming into a government office at all and must conduct business strictly by mail.

Seperately the right of free speech meets the right of free association here. No one has a right to attend the University of his choice. As long as the civil rights of a recognized class is not being violated, the university can and routinely does use its own standards for admission and attendance. 
In other words, free speech is not a protected class, and while no one can stop a person's mouth within reason, there is no obligation anyone, including government, be forced to listen to it.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> Will you admit that he would have been asked to leave if he had came in yelling "You are all great employees. I love you all." and refused to stop? It wasn't the words he was using but how he was speaking.


 I feel like we're going around in circles, really. I already answered this question above.



> Now let me shock you. I'd have no problem with someone doing that being asked to stop discussing it or leave. I'd also have no problem with someone talking about how to become a Christian or Buddhist or Jew being asked to stop or leave. *Because we are talking about people involved with and interacting with the government.* *That means ALL belief systems should be left in the parking lot, not just the ones most people don't like*.


 
It took this many posts for you to say you agree? :bored:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There is one thing I forgot about this case- this was not a "public" free speech issue where people were forced into contact with the racist speech but was private . That really raises a question as to the University's actions of reacting to private speech.
I was distracted by the arguments that seemed to mandate listening which does not apply here.
But I wonder if the University's rights to avoid damage to its image and therefore take action to repair it once it once the incident becomes public leads to the same result- expulsion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> There is one thing I forgot about this case- this was not a "public" free speech issue where people were forced into contact with the racist speech but was private . That really raises a question as to the University's actions of reacting to private speech.


Really? They were singing about hanging people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> OK, and who makes that decision whether or not he's a threat to the safety of others?
> 
> More info: office staffed by 3 women, the man has been "disagreeable" (very nice way of stating he has been a menace) before, has been asked not to use that language before, comes in and is yelling and upset, using bad language and cursing.
> 
> ...



The answer I gave about "who" decides is the same.
Ultimately, after an arrest and a trial, a judge will decide if the words were a threat or not.
Many times I've been threatened with arrest for using words people didn't like, but mainly the tone of my voice or expression on my face.
To date, the cuffs have never gone on and usually when I say, "Go ahead and call them" they realize that it is THEY who are the ones in the act of making a threat, an empty one at that.




where I want to said:


> Just try explaining your civil rights to a judge in Federal court in quietly expressed derogatory or obscene language and see how much tolerance is required of government officials.
> 
> There seems to be an idea floating around that government employees are not human beings and are therefore somehow required to allow themselves to be abused at the abuser's will. To the countrary, the government establishes where the tolerance is. There are people so abusive that they are barred from coming into a government office at all and must conduct business strictly by mail.
> 
> In other words, free speech is not a protected class, and while no one can stop a person's mouth within reason, there is no obligation anyone, including government, be forced to listen to it.



This is where there seems to be confusion.
In my defense of someone ranting in a gov't office let me be as clear as possible.

I don't defend it because it is good, right or proper because it isn't.
I defend it because it's legal.
People should NOT do it, it usually won't get you the results you want. Note that I said *usually*.

But the simple fact is, if that man paid one penny of taxes towards that building or any of the employees' salary then he indeed DOES have a right to be in that building and speak to whomever he wishes.
If you bar him from the building, better get a check for the refund of his money ready. That's the rules. If you don't like it, don't work for the gov't.
And the first amendment does indeed say explicitly that the gov't IS FORCED TO LISTEN TO OUR CONCERNS.

Think of it the other way.
Does the gov't expect you to listen to it, even when you consider what it is saying and doing to be an abuse to you?

I can post the 1st amendment in its entirety if necessary but I'd like to think most of us know it by heart.......


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

It's ironic that in this time of mental health awareness, spousal abuse awareness and online bullying issues that someone can say "they're just words". We didn't make up words simply to play Scrabble. They are how we communicate our thoughts, feelings and desires and each word has meaning for a reason. The N-word has a horrible discriminatory and hate filled history and those who use it do so for a reason. Words affect everyone differently, specially when they spread and get into a group situation. Talk to the parents of a kid who committed suicide due to online bullying and then tell them "it's just words". Words can cause deep and lasting hurt.

In a perfect world, person 1 would call person 2 an N-word 1000 times and person 2 would just smile and walk away 1000 times, feeling secure with themselves that they are not an N-word and that person 1 was an idiot. Then person 1 would realize that person 2 was not affected by what they said, realize the error of their ways, apologize and they would go on their way. However, human nature being what it is, after the first ten or fifty or 100 times it would get pretty irritating and I"m sure person 2 would take person 1 to task for it, whether it be a verbal objection or if it gets physical.

I agree that the government shouldn't be telling people what they can't say due to the slippery slope scenario. If they tell us today what not to say, what will it be tomorrow. However, as has already been pointed out, they are not immune from the consequences of what they say. Nobody should have to just sit there and take it.

It seems to me that many people fight for their freedom of speech but when they get it they have no idea how to handle it. With freedom comes responsibility. If you have the right to have a gun you don't just go around firing it indiscriminately at whatever you want. It has to be handled in a responsible manner or else there are consequences. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Both have great power and require equal responsibility.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Ok, then go ahead and rant away to a cop or judge using threatening posture, bad language, and raised voice and see if they're going to stand calmly by and deal with it.  

My job isn't to let people treat me like trash, even if a small portion of their tax dollars funds my salary. Thank goodness we hardly ever have any issues remotely close to that. 

But I would like to see it written in the 1st Amendment that a gov't employee HAS TO listen to someone being verbally abusive.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't defend it because it is good, right or proper because it isn't.
> I defend it because it's legal.
> People should NOT do it, it usually won't get you the results you want. Note that I said *usually*.
> 
> ...


The right to petition for redress of grievances, which I think you mean, is not the right to do anything you want. It means there are legal means in every branch and subdivision to appeal. But the public's methods of petition are defined by these methods just as the government's. Even a lobbyist can't demand a hearing with any Congressman he wants and they are professional petitioners.
So,no -paying taxes does not convey rights of personal attention or even access. Just try showing up at the White House, Pentagon or IRS Headquarters. The best you'll get is to picket at legally allowed distances. Maybe you feel it should but it has never done so. And considering foreigners pay taxes, it is not a reasonable idea.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Really? They were singing about hanging people.


Privately- at least that was their intent. The air waves are full of songs threatening unspeakable violence against women, other races, police, etc. And the courts have always sided more with freedom of expression than freedom from being offended. Right up to the point where the words constitute a personal, direct threat a reasonable person would understand is likely to be acted upon.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I think they were on U property, the bus. At a U function. No?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Privately- at least that was their intent. The air waves are full of songs threatening unspeakable violence against women, other races, police, etc. And the courts have always sided more with freedom of expression than freedom from being offended. Right up to the point where the words constitute a personal, direct threat a reasonable person would understand is likely to be acted upon.


Let's be clear about what's going on here. Nobody has suggested that these people be charged with a crime. What's happening is that the university is saying that SAE and some of its members are no longer welcome there. But as far as freedom of expression goes, nobody involved is in danger of being sent to prison. In fact the First Amendment guarantees that.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Let's be clear about what's going on here. Nobody has suggested that these people be charged with a crime. What's happening is that the university is saying that SAE and some of its members are no longer welcome there. But as far as freedom of expression goes, nobody involved is in danger of being sent to prison. In fact the First Amendment guarantees that.


I think everyone knows that. And that has not been the discussion- at least here.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I have two black women friends and both are just as likely to use the N word as not to..first time I heard one say it, I just dropped my jaw on the floor..like really? Really, you say that?

So, I was told that is it is perfectly OK for them to use the word, but not any other race, color, creed, nationality, etc.

Ok..still I don't understand it, but use it they do to describe some sorry piece of trash that they think should be locked up or otherwise is showing his/her sorry state of affairs and that covers not working, not taking care of their kids, cheating, running around after hours with folks they shouldn't be..pretty much anything in the grand scheme of things that threatens job, family, children, etc.

So..explain that cause I still don't get it. But I have heard many blacks use the word in discussions, songs, etc.

On the other hand, whenever anyone starts talking about hanging someone, I wonder just where their mind went. 

Personally I think that these kids can expect to be blacklisted forever (cause the internet keeps your name out there forever) and even an apology won't be enough to erase what has been done. As I told my son, you just don't do this stuff and not expect to be ostracized for it.

Keep your mouth shut unless you can deal with the consequences and there will be consequences.

Figure the kids get exactly what they deserve, regardless of free speech, etc. No one says they can't sing, say or chant whatever they want. Just expect to deal with the aftermath and if they can't.._should have kept their mouth shut._


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> 1. Ok, they're just words. Emotional abuse is totally made up!


Once someone grows up enough to realize that words are only words they can not be be emotionally abused. You can call me all the names you want and it will not effect me. 




MDKatie said:


> 2. Who said the gov't is telling people they can't be racist? In the case of the office situation, we never told him he had to change his belief system or stop saying the "n" word. We just said he can't say it in our office (and act the way he did).


Look around. Try putting a "Whites only" sign in your store window and see how long it before you are standing before a government agent.




MDKatie said:


> 3. Yeah, that totally worked for black people before the civil rights movement. Society has evolved a good deal since then, but there need to be laws put in place because we have all seen there are still people out there who think it's ok to discriminate based on things like skin color.


And after reading that statement all you need to do is look in the mirror to see someone who says the government should tell people they can't be racist. What right do you have to tell someone what to believe?




MDKatie said:


> 4. I don't necessarily agree. I don't lump all minorities together under the assumption they think they're a lesser race. Have you ever heard anyone actually say that? Again, using the US before the civil rights movement as an example, I don't think we (as a society) would have woken up one day and said, "You know, this isn't fair or right, so we'll just quit."


Do you think that <insert minority here> should be given "preferential treatment" in order to "level the playing field"?




MDKatie said:


> 5. I don't think I've ever said I believe the gov't should tell us how to talk or think. I never said the government should stop people from using hate speech, did I? I simply said, if you're going to say it, don't expect people to stay around and listen, and don't expect to not be asked to leave.


Didn't you say above; "_but there need to be laws put in place"? _What are these laws you want doing if they are not telling people to stop thinking racistly (if that's a word).




MDKatie said:


> I completely agree with your final point. It would be a moot point if EVERYONE would mind their manners and be nice to everyone. Unfortunately, there are laws in place because people are not all nice to everyone. People break the law. You'd think it'd be common sense to not steal or murder, but people don't have common sense so things like that have to have laws against them.


There's a major difference between actions, especially actions which cause physical or monetary harm, and thoughts and words. 




MDKatie said:


> I don't see the government trying to support any belief system over another. Some religious sects think they should....but that's a topic for another thread. :happy2:


Really? You don't see the government supporting the equality belief system over the racist one? Didn't you even show you support for that by saying there should be laws against racism?




MDKatie said:


> I guess I'm not naÃ¯ve enough to think that all citizens will treat others fairly completely on their own. There are bad apples out there who "ruin" it for everyone.


And if you think government control can make things fair then you might be more naive than you realize.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Really? They were singing about hanging people.


Do I need to post lyrics of songs which are about killing people and ask you how many of the singers have been arrested? Unless there was a credible threat where the song mentioned an individual or sung "at" an individual or group in attendance and the singers had the ability to attempt to carry out the threat I don't see how you can even start to raise a group of people singing to being a threatening situation. 

Heck if they were singing and not talking they could call them misunderstood artist and the federal government should come charging in to defend their art.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Do I need to post lyrics of songs which are about killing people and ask you how many of the singers have been arrested?


I haven't seen anybody suggesting arresting the students.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> It's ironic that in this time of mental health awareness, spousal abuse awareness and online bullying issues that someone can say "they're just words". We didn't make up words simply to play Scrabble. They are how we communicate our thoughts, feelings and desires and each word has meaning for a reason. The N-word has a horrible discriminatory and hate filled history and those who use it do so for a reason. Words affect everyone differently, specially when they spread and get into a group situation. Talk to the parents of a kid who committed suicide due to online bullying and then tell them "it's just words". Words can cause deep and lasting hurt.


Words are not blows where if they land hurt you no matter what you do. Words ONLY hurt if you allow them to. When some calls you a name and you react you have just given the control over you. They didn't take it, you gave it to them. An the more you react to words, and specifically to the person saying it, the more control you give to them. Bullies only bully people who react to it. I tell people all the time; why do you care what an idiot thinks about you? If someone calls you a stinky doodyhead why does it bother you? If you do stink and have doody on your head then take corrective actions. If you don't then those around you will know it. All running away crying is going to do is let people know you are easily controlled by nothing but a few words and will make more people try it.

Its amazing the difference it makes when someone gets this and puts it into practice.




Truckinguy said:


> I agree that the government shouldn't be telling people what they can't say due to the slippery slope scenario. If they tell us today what not to say, what will it be tomorrow. However, as has already been pointed out, they are not immune from the consequences of what they say. Nobody should have to just sit there and take it.


Consequences for speech are fine, as long as its the government doling them out. THAT'S there the slope gets very slippery.




Truckinguy said:


> It seems to me that many people fight for their freedom of speech but when they get it they have no idea how to handle it. With freedom comes responsibility. If you have the right to have a gun you don't just go around firing it indiscriminately at whatever you want. It has to be handled in a responsible manner or else there are consequences. They say the pen is mightier than the sword. Both have great power and require equal responsibility.


Its true that no right is absolute but the limits on them must be kept as small as possible. And unfortunately this is going to result in some people being upset. You don't limit someone's right just because someone else doesn't like how they use it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I haven't seen anybody suggesting arresting the students.


If the reason they are being expelled is because they were threatening people, specifically minorities based on the lynching part, then why would they not face arrest? The last I knew threatening someone was a crime and threatening a minority because they are a minority was an even bigger crime.

If there was no threat, to a minority or otherwise, then why are they being expelled? Is it because they are not following the politically correct thought patterned set by the government agency, aka the university?


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if repeating others.

Racism is just one form of tribalism. Humans are animals, and for survival will join groups for protection, and will do horrific things to gain support and respect from the group.

Gangs, tribes, race, religion, political party, etc. Easy to manipulate people and shame them into following what the group wants.

That is how we get into wars. Shame people into being unpatriotic and anti-American. We also tend to dislike those in a different religion. 


Jesus tried to resist our animal natures by calling for us to love our enemies, and be peacemakers. Instead, we like to hate and fight those who are different and not part of our group.





> Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."





> [SIZE=+1]--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials[/SIZE]


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> If the reason they are being expelled is because they were threatening people, specifically minorities based on the lynching part, then why would they not face arrest? The last I knew threatening someone was a crime and threatening a minority because they are a minority was an even bigger crime.


It wasn't threatening.



> If there was no threat, to a minority or otherwise, then why are they being expelled? Is it because they are not following the politically correct thought patterned set by the government agency, aka the university?


Yes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> If the reason they are being expelled is because they were threatening people, specifically minorities based on the lynching part, then why would they not face arrest? The last I knew threatening someone was a crime and threatening a minority because they are a minority was an even bigger crime.
> 
> If there was no threat, to a minority or otherwise, then why are they being expelled? Is it because they are not following the politically correct thought patterned set by the government agency, aka the university?


Is the difference b/c the song did not cite a specific person?
Is that the reason the black panthers can get away w/calling for killing all cracker babies?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Words are not blows where if they land hurt you no matter what you do. Words ONLY hurt if you allow them to. When some calls you a name and you react you have just given the control over you. They didn't take it, you gave it to them. An the more you react to words, and specifically to the person saying it, the more control you give to them. Bullies only bully people who react to it. I tell people all the time; why do you care what an idiot thinks about you? If someone calls you a stinky doodyhead why does it bother you? If you do stink and have doody on your head then take corrective actions. If you don't then those around you will know it. All running away crying is going to do is let people know you are easily controlled by nothing but a few words and will make more people try it.
> 
> Its amazing the difference it makes when someone gets this and puts it into practice.


In theory you're correct, we should all shrug off any verbal nastiness that comes our way. In reality, however, many people don't have the emotional armor to just let everything slide off their back. Bullies can also be stopped by standing up to them. Words can be, in fact, as damaging as physical blows and can have horrible effects if they spread, specially in this day of the internet and social media. A person's life can be devastated just by the spread of toxic words and people piling on. 

It's been shown that a man can abuse his wife and never lay a hand on her. She can be verbally and emotionally abused and it's as much abuse as if he beat her on a regular basis.

We, as human beings, have been gifted with compassion and discretion. Well, most of us have. I might have the legal right to call an overweight person derogatory names but my sense of decency wouldn't allow it.

I think this shows just how much work we have to do in the fight against mental illness and bullying. There just doesn't seem to be the understanding that what we say can have devastating and lasting effects on people.

Why didn't these students use the word "blacks" in their song instead of the n-word? If they used the word 'blacks" it would be the same as saying they didn't want tall people, fat people or women in their frat. Once they used the n-word it completely changed the context of the song and referenced the discrimination and cruelty of the past. Words have meanings for a reason.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

In truth, that must be part of the basis for deciding a credible threat. If a man tells a woman he's going to punch her lights out, she has a long history public record to know that could kill her. Where if a man says it to another man, the result is much more open to question.
But in the issue of free speech, can a song sung on a bus privately by a bunch of drunk college students be a credible threat? I doubt it, no matter how ugly. 
But I don't think the University has to rely on that test for free speech for legal protection. They have lots of other rules that allows them the legal means to expell these students.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> Once someone grows up enough to realize that words are only words they can not be be emotionally abused. You can call me all the names you want and it will not effect me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:bdh:


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Was the chant racist? I don't think so. Bigoted, yes. Racist, no.

What would the university president have done if members of a fraternity had sung a rap song with racist or misogynist lyrics? Or what if they had a rap artist at a fraternity party that sang such a song?

Suspension was wrong and the students will likely have a nice payday for being stupid. But college kids are often stupid!

A government university must allow free speech, even when hurtful.

Now if the university can prove that the fraternity did not allow blacks to become members, that's a different story completely.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

As noted before, it was only a matter of time before the lawyer dance began.

Not by the students who were expelled, but by the fraternity's alumni.

Deep pockets all around.



> Alumni of an ousted fraternity at the University of Oklahoma have hired prominent Oklahoma attorney Stephen Jones.
> 
> Jones confirmed Friday he was hired to advise alumni on the board overseeing OU's Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter of their legal rights. He said the alumni are upset with President David Boren who kicked the fraternity off campus after videos surfaced of fraternity members singing a racist song aboard a bus last Saturday night.
> 
> ...


From: http://newsok.com/ousted-university...minent-attorney-stephen-jones/article/5401059


And here's a true victim in this whole fiasco: 





> *The 'Other' Parker Rice: How The OU Scandal Trapped A Student With The Same Name*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From: http://keranews.org/post/other-parker-rice-how-ou-scandal-trapped-student-same-name


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> In theory you're correct, we should all shrug off any verbal nastiness that comes our way. In reality, however, many people don't have the emotional armor to just let everything slide off their back. Bullies can also be stopped by standing up to them. Words can be, in fact, as damaging as physical blows and can have horrible effects if they spread, specially in this day of the internet and social media. A person's life can be devastated just by the spread of toxic words and people piling on.


So we should limit the rights of the majority because of it might have an effect on a minority? Should we ban anything just because its possible that someone saying something might cause someone some kind of emotional pain?




Truckinguy said:


> It's been shown that a man can abuse his wife and never lay a hand on her. She can be verbally and emotionally abused and it's as much abuse as if he beat her on a regular basis.


Yep and no number of laws, rules or regulations will change it nor him. But you CAN change it by changing her. If she really wants it to quit all that is necessary is for her to change the way she thinks about words. I say really wants it to quit because I've seen too many people (men as well as women) go from one abusive relation to another making it clear they have some reason to seek out that kind of abuse.

As said its amazing what happens when the little light bulb goes off in a person's head about this.




Truckinguy said:


> We, as human beings, have been gifted with compassion and discretion. Well, most of us have. I might have the legal right to call an overweight person derogatory names but my sense of decency wouldn't allow it.


One of my points is just because you would not do it because you think it would cause the other person to feel 'bad' you think no one should be allowed to do it. You may not like it but people don't have any right to not be made to feel bad.




Truckinguy said:


> I think this shows just how much work we have to do in the fight against mental illness and bullying. There just doesn't seem to be the understanding that what we say can have devastating and lasting effects on people.
> 
> From my experience the reason we are having such an uptick in the bullying problem isn't the fact there are more or worse bullies. Its because we have more and more weak people who can only feel good if they have the approval of others. As I have said words can only hurt if the person hearing allows it and someone who is strong enough to know that the only person they need to be approved by is themselves isn't going to allow it.


If someone calls you fat and you ARE fat then why does it hurt? In almost every case, outside the few medical cases, it hurts because you are trying to refuse to accept the fact you are fat and the reason you are fat is because you do the things which make you fat. IOW, the reason it hurts isn't the fact the said it but the fact you are trying to avoid reality. And it probably isn't going to hurt any less if they run around and around you calling you "extremely overweight" rather than "fatty".

You have basically two choices to stop the hurt. You can accept the fact you are fat and are happy being fat thereby make anything that points that out meaningless. You can accept the fact the reason you are fat is because you are doing the things to be fat and change those choices, start losing weight and know that in a while they will not be able to call you fat. 

Screaming, crying, running away to hide or such isn't going to stop it, AAMOF it will only make it worse. Making a rule that calling someone fat isn't going to stop it either because its human nature. From the beginning of time there have been those who 'need' the power they can get by 'bullying' others. IMO, these rules will also only make it worse because it raises anyone who does it will show to weak people how 'brave' and 'strong' he is. After all not only can he control others with his mere words but he does it in defiance of those in authority. Do a little research on gang membership and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Now if someone calls you fat and you are not why would that hurt? Everyone around can see you aren't so the name caller just looks like an idiot.




Truckinguy said:


> Why didn't these students use the word "blacks" in their song instead of the n-word? If they used the word 'blacks" it would be the same as saying they didn't want tall people, fat people or women in their frat. Once they used the n-word it completely changed the context of the song and referenced the discrimination and cruelty of the past. Words have meanings for a reason.


Because they knew it would have an effect on some which gives them power over those people. If I can make you mad, sad, happy or whatever I have some control over you. The madder or sadder or more happy I can make you the more control I have. I can use words to manipulate you and your actions. People have known this throughout history. Do you think great leaders (good and bad) have rallied people to their cause by laws, regulations and rules or by threats? They do it by manipulating the weak people who need the approval of others to feel good about themselves.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> Ok, then go ahead and rant away to a cop or judge using threatening posture, bad language, and raised voice and see if they're going to stand calmly by and deal with it.
> 
> My job isn't to let people treat me like trash, even if a small portion of their tax dollars funds my salary. Thank goodness we hardly ever have any issues remotely close to that.
> 
> But I would like to see it written in the 1st Amendment that a gov't employee HAS TO listen to someone being verbally abusive.




Well, that I *can't* do, show you those exact words in the 1st amendment.
Likewise, I am also unable to give you a precise definition of verbal abuse.
Chances are, mine and yours would not be the same.




where I want to said:


> The right to petition for redress of grievances, which I think you mean, is not the right to do anything you want. It means there are legal means in every branch and subdivision to appeal. But the public's methods of petition are defined by these methods just as the government's. Even a lobbyist can't demand a hearing with any Congressman he wants and they are professional petitioners.
> So,no -paying taxes does not convey rights of personal attention or even access. Just try showing up at the White House, Pentagon or IRS Headquarters. The best you'll get is to picket at legally allowed distances. Maybe you feel it should but it has never done so. And considering foreigners pay taxes, it is not a reasonable idea.



I haven't tried the White House yet, but the IRS may be on my agenda soon.:happy2:
I have demanded and received meetings with my congressmen throughout the years and talked with them personally about my grievances, as is my right. I would encourage others to do the same, rather than accept the idea that they can't.



where I want to said:


> There is one thing I forgot about this case- this was not a "public" free speech issue where people were forced into contact with the racist speech but was private . That really raises a question as to the University's actions of reacting to private speech.
> I was distracted by the arguments that seemed to mandate listening which does not apply here.
> But I wonder if the University's rights to avoid damage to its image and therefore take action to repair it once it once the incident becomes public leads to the same result- expulsion.


Actually the university's actions ARE related to the point about how, where and to whom the 1st amendment is applied.
See below.



where I want to said:


> Privately- at least that was their intent. The air waves are full of songs threatening unspeakable violence against women, other races, police, etc. And the courts have always sided more with freedom of expression than freedom from being offended. Right up to the point where the words constitute a personal, direct threat a reasonable person would understand is likely to be acted upon.


http://www.blackchronicle.com/lead156.html

This link gives more details on the fraternity's bus trip.
It was technically a private function, SAE's founder's day celebration, so they were definitely representing the fraternity at the time.
The transportation was by chartered school buses, I haven't confirmed whether they were OU's buses or not.
But at this point, I think it's safe to assume that SAE was under that obligation that I discussed about being an agent of the gov't, thereby restrictions apply, that do not apply if it were an event that the school was not involved, in any way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So we should limit the rights of the majority because of it might have an effect on a minority? Should we ban anything just because its possible that someone saying something might cause someone some kind of emotional pain?


This isn't about rights. You have the right to say whatever you want, but don't expect everyone to like what you say. If you say something that offends someone then you might find yourself unwelcome at some places, but your First Amendment rights are still intact.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This isn't about rights. You have the right to say whatever you want, but don't expect everyone to like what you say. If you say something that offends someone then you might find yourself unwelcome at some places, but your First Amendment rights are still intact.


The problem comes in when it's the government telling you to leave because of what you are saying. I have no problem with a private business telling you to leave if they don't like your views. I have a MAJOR problem when an agent of the government does.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, that I *can't* do, show you those exact words in the 1st amendment.
> Likewise, I am also unable to give you a precise definition of verbal abuse.
> Chances are, mine and yours would not be the same.
> 
> ...


It is possible to visit all of the places I mentioned and even to request and get interviews up the chain of command. But that was not the issue that was being discussed. The issue was that there are limits to the behavior you can display in such places. If you rant, rave and are abusive, you will be escorted away- sometimes far, far away.
There is not absolute right to be a loud mouthed show off anywhere you want whenever you want just because it is a government office. Although most government officers do try to accommodate.

This is unlikely to be resolved as the parties will come to a negotiated agreement without admitting wrong unless one of them is unusally determined to win. 
It will not be resolved here either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

where I want to said:


> It is possible to visit all of the places I mentioned and even to request and get interviews up the chain of command. But that was not the issue that was being discussed. The issue was that there are limits to the behavior you can display in such places. If you rant, rave and are abusive, you will be escorted away- sometimes far, far away.
> There is not absolute right to be a loud mouthed show off anywhere you want whenever you want just because it is a government office. Although most government officers do try to accommodate.
> 
> This is unlikely to be resolved as the parties will come to a negotiated agreement without admitting wrong unless one of them is unusally determined to win.
> It will not be resolved here either.


I agree with you. I never said or meant to imply there were no limits at all on your speech, such as making threats, or that your mouth couldn't very easily land you in jail. I know that it can.
My only point was that if you get your housing (frat house) employment (gov't workers) or even transportation provided by the gov't (frat boys were on a school bus, I think), that you will find yourself under more restrictions on your speech than if you were doing it privately at your own expense.
That's it.

I get the feeling that some people think they are under equal standards, and that just isn't true.

The last congressman I spoke to in person was Heath Shuler. I didn't know it at the time but he lied to my face about a transportation bill. 
I DID know I wasn't at all happy with his answer, and he knew immediately as well, when I turned to my family and said, "Let's go, I'm wasting my *bleep* time!"


But that wasn't the last time I went to his office or spoke with his staff, there were several later occasions. The last time was a month or so before the ACA (Obamacare) bill was voted into law. He DID vote against it, which is all I could ask, although I informed them that it was unconstitutional and I would continue to fight it with or without their help.
I never once felt that I would be denied access depending on whether I was rude or nice. 



One other thing I forgot to mention earlier about this OU incident.....
In various posts, outrage was expressed and a few times criminal charges were brought up, and we now know attorneys are being hired.
In listening to the background story on this, I realized that one thing that hasn't hit the talking points is a criminal offense yet all the attention has been on something that wouldn't even earn them a traffic ticket.

In their apologies and explanations, the boys said it was in part, fueled by alcohol. Hey, it was a major curricular event when I was in school, too. lol
But the fact is, most of them are under 21..............:whistlin:


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> So we should limit the rights of the majority because of it might have an effect on a minority? Should we ban anything just because its possible that someone saying something might cause someone some kind of emotional pain?
> 
> *I don't think I've said in any of my posts that anything should be banned. In fact, I've stated that I"m in favor of fighting for freedom of speech. However, just because we can say anything we want doesn't mean we should. There are consequences to what we say.*
> 
> ...


It's refreshing that we can have an intelligent conversation here about many subjects without it devolving into swearing and name calling like it happens in many other discussion groups or anything that is open to the general public. In public we have the right to swear and call others names but the conversation is a lot more meaningful and constructive if we can converse intelligently as mature adults. I understand that this is a private site and I have the choice to leave anytime I want if I'm not happy with any restrictions but having limits on what we can say usually results in a more mature and productive conversation. 

To try and be clear here, I support the right to freedom of speech and I don't think the government should tell us what we can or cannot say. However, what we do with those rights can have consequences. If someone calls somebody fat and that person punches him in the nose, I say too bad for them. I think it's less likely that person will call the other guy fat again.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> Blaming the victim sure does a disservice to all those who fight every day to try and save women (and men) in abusive relationships.


So you think I'm trying to do a disservice to myself? I will admit I don't do it every day but I have helped a large number of them. To blow my own horn not that long ago I helped a woman who called a contact of mine about 2 a.m. while she was hiding from her physically abusive husband in the middle of a field with her two kids. I later spend most of a day helping her move into an apartment and running around town trying to find all the things they would need to live because they got out with nothing but the clothes on their back. The bad thing is I know good percentage of these women will either go back to their abuser or find another. <sigh> Now how much personal experience do you have dealing with abuse victims?

Let me ask you this, if your friend tells you his brand new Corvette was stolen last night you'll feel bad for him right? But what if as he tells you more you discover it was stolen when, after 4 hours, he came out of a 'biker bar' and that he left it parked with the windows down and the keys in it, would not feel his actions lead to his loss? Sure in a perfect world you could leave your car unlocked and the keys in it and not have it stolen but only a fool would think this is a perfect world.

The same thing applies to bullying. In a perfect world we'd all be tolerate of others and no one would ever need to be strong enough to resist bullying. But by not telling people how to deal with the real world you are setting them up for bad things to happen.




Truckinguy said:


> It's easy to tell them to just leave or stand up to their abusers. It would probably result in the deaths of many of the victims themselves. You don't blame a shooting victim for being shot, why would you blame an abuse victim for being abused?


In some cases yes. If someone is shot because they were committing a criminal act I'd place part of the blame on them. If someone was shot because they did something equally foolish I'd place part of the blame on them. 

I have NEVER meet an adult victim of abuse whose abuser suddenly went from a nice person to an abuser. There were always signs and in a lot of cases the abuse starts 'small' and builds. As I stated I have seen people, again men and women, who 'escape' one abusive person only to find another to connect with. Just as I have found that abusers then to have been abuse themselves. Psychology is hard to understand. 




Truckinguy said:


> Should the abuser be completely blameless. Should they have the right to abuse someone simply because they won't or can't stand up for themselves?


The abuser is an abuser and its very, very, very rare they will change. You can pass all the laws you wish and that will not change. And as long as you all your effort on stopping the bully and not giving possible victims what they need to protect themselves all you are doing is making more victims. I guess a good analogy would be gun control. The more laws you pass to make sure criminals don't have firearms the more difficult you make it for the law abiding people to protect themselves and therefore easier for the criminals to victimize. 





Truckinguy said:


> If someone calls you fat and you ARE fat then why does it hurt? In almost every case, outside the few medical cases, it hurts because you are trying to refuse to accept the fact you are fat and the reason you are fat is because you do the things which make you fat. IOW, the reason it hurts isn't the fact the said it but the fact you are trying to avoid reality. And it probably isn't going to hurt any less if they run around and around you calling you "extremely overweight" rather than "fatty".
> 
> That's a pretty general view of people who are overweight. There are any number of reasons why people have extra pounds on them, including medical reasons through no fault of their own. Being overweight is a symptom of other issues usually involving mental illness of some kind or other things like pregnancy or physical ailments that can reduce exercise. If a person is overweight, does not desire to be and can't do anything about it then they can be extremely sensitive to the subject.


I the number of people I have met with medical conditions which prevented them from losing weight I could count with my fingers. And I have dealt with them. I tell them, in effect. You have a medical condition which prevents you from losing weight then the fact is you are fat. There's not a thing you can do about it any more than I can change the fact I'm old. People who know you know why you are fat and don't care. And really would you want to be friends with someone who is so evil they would get pleasure out of hurting others?

Again it comes down to YOU. You can't change someone else. Therefore you must either change yourself or change your thinking and accept you as you are. Even if you manage to force them to not call you a name they still are thinking it. They probably still don't want to have you near them and will treat you as nasty as they can get away with and most likely will do everything they can to stab you in the back because they can't do it to your face. 




Truckinguy said:


> It's refreshing that we can have an intelligent conversation here about many subjects without it devolving into swearing and name calling like it happens in many other discussion groups or anything that is open to the general public. In public we have the right to swear and call others names but the conversation is a lot more meaningful and constructive if we can converse intelligently as mature adults.


When people use swear words its usually a sign of one of two things. 1) They are losing the argument and need to try to use 'force' to get others to shut up. 2) They have small minds and can't make their point any other way.




Truckinguy said:


> To try and be clear here, I support the right to freedom of speech and I don't think the government should tell us what we can or cannot say. However, what we do with those rights can have consequences.


I agree right up to the point its the government imposing those consequences based on what is said, as opposed to how its said.




Truckinguy said:


> If someone calls somebody fat and that person punches him in the nose, I say too bad for them. I think it's less likely that person will call the other guy fat again.


This I disagree with. Words are words they are not actions. Also You have just made my point. Someone has just used words to control the actions of another. What if after punching the guy in the nose he proceeds to give you an elbow strike to the temple and kick you teeth out as you lay on the ground helpless? He maybe the type who finds fighting fun and fighting someone he's positive he can beat even more fun. Your actions have not made it less likely he'll call another person fat but more likely. After all if calling one guy fat resulted it that much fun maybe calling another will as will. And just how does winding up in the ER and living with pain the rest of your life change things?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

What does it matter now


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Well, Watcher, I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree. I have some experience helping abused women but I also have a lot of experience with religious cults and mind control and I have seen personally the damage that words and ideals can do. I believe that words can be as damaging and devastating as a bullet. I also believe that one has to stand up for themselves and many bullies do what they do from a lack of self esteem and will usually fold like a stack of cards once stood up to.

Everyone should fight for their rights tooth and nail. Once they have those rights they should be used responsibly and with discretion. I might have the right to make nasty comments about a bikers mother but exercising that right might not be the wisest thing to do. :happy2:


----------

