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.
No, OP, you do not know the constitution. It says nothing regarding the right of college executive mgmt. to make independent decisions regarding everything that occurs on campus. Nor should it.
Spaten Drinker, No one will hire them now for any professional job, and to not do so is a wise business decision. The wisest thing they could do would be to leave voluntarily, and spend the rest of their lives rebuilding their image.
That's a nice fantasy on your part ... but that won't happen. I'm sure the president of the university consulted with his legal team on the appropriate response the university should take. The university did nothing illegal by expelling the two students, and the national fraternity was well within it's rights to shut down that chapter.
I am of the opinion the frat boys did indeed have the constitutional right to express themselves, but as others here have explained just because you use your constitutional right to "free speech" you are NOT shielded from other consequences of your conduct. The frat boys were not arrested nor charged with any criminal conduct ... they were expelled for violating a code of conduct of the university.
He did, that's why the letter says they created a hostile environment. The handbook is worthless as it does not trump the constitution. The only way they could win is to prove that the students were creating a hostile environment. But I'm not sure what that test is and what they would need to prove to overcome the students' free speech rights. Probably a lot. I don't think the Supreme Court has ever weighed the issue.
No, OP, you do not know the constitution. It says nothing regarding the right of college executive mgmt. to make independent decisions regarding everything that occurs on campus. Nor should it.
There is absolutely no question that under current constitutional law the first amendment applies to public universities.
Well, I see a difference between supporting lynching on the one hand (even as a joke) and calling a bunch of stupid frat guys - stupid frat guys.
Well, I see a difference between supporting liberals on the one hand (even as a joke) and calling a bunch of stupid conservatives - stupid conservatives.
Can we all agree to stop responding to IC as he has no interest in discussing the absurdity of his position? I mean, using his logic, non-disclosures are unconstitutional and so are gag-orders.
Not condoning the chant, but if a black student referred to a white person as a "cracker", are they expelled?
btw- this chant is heaven knows how many decades old - probably back to the 50s, and not just SAE. One would think time would change things - apparently not.
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.
