Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Discrimination: Discrimination, including harassment, is defined as conduct directed at a specific individual or group of identifiable individuals that subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects their employment or education, or access to institutional benefits, on account of race, color, religion, political beliefs, national origin, sex (see Sexual Assault, Discrimination and Harassment policy http://www.ou.edu/content/eoo/policies/misc.html), sexual orientation, genetic information, age (40 or older), disability, veteran status."
"Harassment: Harassment as a form of discrimination is defined as verbal or physical conduct that is directed at an individual or a group because of race, color, sex (see Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination and Harassment policy http://www.ou.edu/content/eoo/policies/misc.html), sexual orientation, genetic information, religion, political beliefs, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or veteran status when such conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive and objectively offensive so as to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s or group’s academic or work performance or of creating a hostile academic or work environment viewed by examining a totality of the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the purported recipient of the harassing conduct."
Members of the University community enjoy significant free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This policy is intended to protect members of the University community from discrimination not to regulate protected speech. No provision of this policy shall be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary of an individual or faculty member or the educational, political, artistic or literary expression of students in classrooms and public forums. However, freedom of speech and academic freedom are not limitless and do not protect speech or expressive conduct that violates federal or state anti-discrimination laws."
"Boren said he was meeting with university attorneys to see what actions might be taken against the SAE members involved, including possible expulsion. He said the actions violated the student code, which prohibits discrimination."
The fact that Brandenburg doesn't deal with schools is not as consequential as you're making it seem as it offers a critical analysis for how the Court goes about addressing First Amendment issues, of which this present case is one.
If all you are doing is calling for an investigation into matter before passing any judgment, I'm having a difficult time understanding why you responded to my post to begin with, calling my analysis "simplistic." Indeed, my point has been that, to the extent that the University's planned/proposed actions address the speech at hand here, whether the speech is hate-filled or makes students feel uncomfortable, there are serious constitutional concerns with those actions. If an investigation uncovers that the fraternity in question was actually practicing exclusionary practices, then the school is free to act on those practices up to and including expelling the students in question, but that is separate from the students' speech; in such a case, the school would be punishing actions of actually excluding, not the words uttered on the bus. I have never objected to that and have always dealt with the a very specific point, which is the action that the school may take on account of the students' words. Period. There is nothing simplistic about that as that's what the topic of this thread addresses (the OP asks if we have "really gotten to the point where a public school can expel students for a non-threatening albeit racist song?").
This is a thread about the constitutional authority/right to punish for speech alone, not for conduct that falls outside of speech.
I do think your analysis is simplistic. As evidenced by your last sentence.
This is a thread about a real event. Real people, real actions. It's complicated. It's not cut and dried. It's not just about some kids singing an offensive song. It's about some kids feeling very comfortable with racist ideas and racist actions. It's about why those kids feel so comfortable with that mindset, and how that mindset spills over into their behavior.
The university has always said it was investigating. I suspect they are investigating to determine if discrimination has been practiced by this fraternity. Evidently, it has had black members in the past. Two. The last one who graduated in 2005. So for ten years no black students. That's not shocking, though. Black students are a small percentage of the student body, and fraternity row is a pretty white place. However, how many pledges to the fraternity have been black? Were black pledges treated differently than white pledges? Where did this song originate? The black SAE who graduated in 2005 says the song was not around when he was a student. And yet, from the video, it's clear the fraternity members knew the song by heart (and with some enthusiasm). So what's happened since 2005? What's happened to change the mindset of the fraternity, and what's happened in terms of actions by the fraternity?
The school is impacted by racism. While an individual's racism is just one person and that one person's ability to act, when racism becomes systematic, it's impact becomes much broader. That's why the university is responding so vehemently in this case. Because it's not a case of an individual's racism. It's racism, and possibly discrimination, on a systemic level. That's why the university wants to identify these students, and that's why the university is investigating.
The school is impacted. Certainly, this has disrupted the school. The protests, the media attention, the closing of a frat house, these all disrupt the school. And the school has been impacted by at least one potential athlete publicly announcing he won't sign with the school because of this and because he feels like the coaching staff weren't forthcoming about this incident. That's not something OU wants.
And since the school can show that it's been impacted by this incident, it's not just about students singing a song. It's about the ripples that came from the students singing that song. It's about what was going on behind the scenes that encouraged those students to sing that song. This isn't simple. It's complicated and messy and real.
"Boren said he was meeting with university attorneys to see what actions might be taken against the SAE members involved, including possible expulsion. He said the actions violated the student code, which prohibits discrimination."
OU's president can "say" whatever he wants. But he cannot violate students' Constitutional First Amendment rights to free speech. Just like Samir Shabazz's Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech wasn't violated when he made his public "kill crackers, and kill their babies" statement. Both (students and Shabazz) have the Constitutional right to say whatever they want. Note the emphasis on say.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-10-2015 at 10:53 AM..
The announcement was made on Twitter and a Statement released.
And let the legal battle begin! Expect FIRE to pay for the students' legal defense fund. This won't be a cheap battle, but the law is ultimately on the students' side in my view. Hopefully, this goes all the way up to the Supreme Court so that the national standard is clarified/strengthened.
The announcement was made on Twitter and a Statement released.
That will go to court. A public university can't stomp on Constitutional rights. UC Berkeley would have evolved VERY differently if it could limit its students' rights to free speech.
2 of the students have been expelled by the OU President
The announcement was made on Twitter and a Statement released.
from your link - get a load of this part:
Quote:
A little bit after the conference began, African American studies senior Marquis Ard approached the stage to the left of where Boren stood and raised his fist into the air, which resulted in photographers swarming him to take photos. He did this out of his “unapologetic” love for his blackness, and university is not handling the situation with the correct mindset, he said.
“There were some parts where it just seemed like empty rhetoric,” he said.
Ard also wants to see “structural” change with how OU is handling the incident, he said.
“They need to give students of color… reparations… resources for us to thrive in this university,” he said. “(Black bodies) are not thriving now.”
"Hostile learning environment?" Did this happen in the classroom?
That's their only legal defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
